Map of the western part of Bulgarian Moravia (Croquis des westlichen
Gebietes der bulgarischen Morava) by F. Zach, the principal of the
Servian war academy and Hahn's companion:
THE „BALKAN QUESTION" LIBRARY Book No. 5
Bulgarians in southwest Moravia
J. von Hahn
Illuminated by A. Teodoroff-Balan
Sofia, September 1917
Al. Paskaleff & Co. publishers, Sofia
Price 2 Francs
The pamphlet, digitized by Microsoft
Chapter I: Journey of Johann von Hahn in Moravia and in Macedonia 1 ( Two of Hahn’s Journeys — Hahn's Journey from Belgrade to Salonica — Hahn Makes Cursory Note of Bulgarians — The value of Hahn's remarks — Second Edition of Hahn's First Journey )
Chapter II: Hahn-Zach on the population of Southwest Moravia 6 ( Hahn's companion, F. Zach — From Aleksinets to Nish — Prokouple — Kourshoumlie — Pousta-reka — Leskovets — Patchinevtsi — Two excursions — Bulgarian plain from Lebana to Shilovo — Bulgarian pronunciation „ya" instead of „e” in local names — Bulgarian villages become Albanian — Albanians in the Mountains; Bulgarians in the Plains — Along Veturnitsa , toward Polyanitsa and Leskovets — The gate of the palace of Mehmed Pasha in Leskovets - still perforated by the bullets of Bulgarian revolutionists of 1841 — From Leskovets to Vranya — Vranya and its Province — Saint Prohor — The Plain of the Moravitsa — Towards the basin of the Vardar — Towards the basin of the Servian Morava — Gratchanitsa and „Stara Serbia" — Prishtina — Guilyane )
Chapter III: Population of Albanians, Bulgarians and Servians 17 ( Southwestern Moravia according to Hahn and Zach — Nationality of the Villages in this Province — Albanian, Bulgarian and Servian Settlements — The relation between the settlements according to their nationalities — Of what nationality are the „nationalityless" settlements? (In the basin of the Toplitsa; In the valley of the Yablanitsa; In the basin of the Veturnitsa; In Guiliansko; On the left bank of the Bulgarian Morava) — What results? — The Ethnographic picture of the District in 1858 — The Relations between the three Nationalities for 1858—1868 )
Chapter IV: To whom does South-west Moravia belong today? 26 ( Slavic Geographical Names — Advantage Taken of the Evidence by Bulgarians and Servians — Servian Perversion of Evidence — Double Servian Knowledge and Interpretation — Bulgarians in Moravia and in Macedonia from Ancient Times — Settlement by Albanians — Servians, Bulgarians and Albanians to 1870 — Servian Attempts since 1870 — Under Servia's hand the Bulgarians in Moravia disappear — The Population in southwest Moravia according to M. J. Militchevitch — M. J. Militchevitch is not the only one — Mutual transitions between Servian and Bulgarian — Foreign Investigators and the Servians — „Incompetent" foreign science on Servian and Bulgarian — The Spread of Servians and Albanians among Bulgarians — The Ancient Bulgarian Region Exposed to foreign Invasion — South-western Moravia under Bulgarian rule — Whose is South-western Moravia? )
A Few Introductory Words
For many years the world has been treated to a Serbo-Bulgarian dispute as to whose are the lands inhabited by the Slavic population in Macedonia; whose are the lands also in the district between the Timok and the Morava; whether the Slavic population of these lands is of Serbian or Bulgarian origin.
The dispute on these points was begun, in fact, first by the Servians. Its beginning can he placed about 1870. The Bulgarians came forward not to claim something in addition to what was their own, as the Servians did, but to defend that which, in their own circle and among their neighbors, was known for centuries to be Bulgarian and continued unchallenged to be held and cultivated as Bulgarian. The Bulgarians long before this dispute saw and felt for themselves that they were of Bulgarian origin in real Bulgaria (Misia), in Thrace and in Macedonia, extending into Misia and the provinces of the Timok, and those along the Bulgarian Morava clear to its junction with the Servian Moravia: so that the very designation of the large right (Southern) Branch of the Morava as „Bulgarian Morava" showed that in its basin lived or still lives a people with Bulgarian traits, as against the Servian traits of the population in the district of the great left (West) fork of the Morava, designated by the title „Servian Morava". These two, we may say, „ethnographic" designations have disappeared from the new maps of Servia and the Balkan peninsula, thanks to Serbian political activity.
Knowing their tribe to be thus extensive, the Bulgarians also worked as communities and as a nation, taking their stand always on the platform of this knowledge. They never imagined anyone could ever accuse them of not working of themselves by themselves and for themselves, because their neighbors also around them, without exception, called them everywhere in the above mentioned districts by the name „Bulgarians" —, never by any other national designation.
And even the Servians themselves who, even after our war with them in 1885, systematically set themselves to deny the Bulgarian nationality of the Slavic population of Macedonia — even to that in the provinces of Kustendil, Sofia and Vidin — they themselves from the beginning, and constantly, designated as „Bulgarian" the land and population along the Bulgarian Morava, in the province of Timok and regularly in the regions to the east and south of the boundaries of the principality created under their Prince Milosh Obrenovitch about 1830 (its boundaries were established during 1834).
Occupied with work of themselves, by themselves, and for themselves, the Bulgarians, even up to their own liberation in 1877, extended their thought and activity over the whole of Misia, Thrace and Macedonia without any sort of geographical-nationalistic cunning whatever, without feeling any need whatever of proofs of their own right to the Slavic population of the three named provinces. So evident and generally recognized was the truth as to the extent of the Bulgarian people. However, Servian thought and activity began about that time, ever more frequently, and more strongly, to rise against the Bulgarian understanding of its own territory and national right. Servian statesmen and scholars from the Servian principality tried long ago, at first secretly and plausibly, but later openly and daringly, to plot how to push us as far as possible toward the east of the Moravian and Timok districts and from Macedonia, to push us even behind the Isker and Struma, so that it would be easy for Servia, with the Servian tribe, to become „great" in the Balkan peninsula, to take first place among the nations from the Danube to the Black, Aegean and Adriatic seas, since it was very difficult, if not almost impossible, to seek with success that greatness through a policy looking toward the west and north, where under Turkish and Austrian authority there lived millions of her children and kindred. From then the Bulgarians understood that, in Servia and Servianism there had appeared an enemy to their national idea and cause. Thought must be taken for waging a conflict with the enemy. And the Bulgarians accepted this duty with deep sorrow, but without fear, and in confidence that they would carry it out with success, because they felt that truth and right were un their side.
The Servians on their part, feeling their enterprise and purpose really untrue and nationally wrong, sought to use all their artifice and strength, in order to prevent the truth and our right, in their own
favor. And for this reason they stopped neither before the voice of historical and ethnographical tradition, nor before the consciousness and conscience of reality. They concocted about Moravo-Timok, but chiefly about Macedonia, and also about the western parts of new Bulgaria, a history and reality of their own make, and so created a tradition and consciousness. With such artificial creations, part of one sort, part of another, — always fixed up according to the political winds in the Balkan peninsula, in Russia, or in western Europe, the Servians satiated the minds and hearts at home and abroad, blinded the sight and dulled the hearing of the world, in order finally to compel us Bulgarians to anti-nationalistic division of our own, between ourselves and them, in the treaty of 1912, and so, as the result of that, to force us also into mutual war, unfortunate for us in 1913 but fortunate two years later.
Today the Bulgarian national right, or better our historical right, triumphs in all Misia, with Moravo-Timok and Dobrudja and throughout Macedonia. This is the triumph of the Bulgarian arms, which, in our most recent history, have not been taken up against another's liberty or for robbing another of his possession. Bulgarian arms today shine through the whole world worthily and gloriously, because they are the arms of the Bulgarian nationality fighting for life in union, for freedom, for the possibility of national advancement.
Servia, with the Servian people, is today in fact prostrated on account of her hostility and treachery toward Bulgaria. The historian, after this great and terrible war, will not be able to avoid the admission that the fall of Servia occurred in 1915 by virtue of Bulgaria's participation in the war. Can it be that the Bulgarians of the principality and their new kingdom have ever thought in their hearts and laid plans to destroy, to annihilate the Servian nation and Servia? Never! On the contrary, abundant and highly rhetorical are the political and diplomatic testimonies as to how Servia as a new principality and kingdom always has schemed to attack us in order to weaken us and make us her servants. And ever since she finally accomplished her treacherous purpose at Bucharest in 1913 she has taught us revenge; because between us and her there has presented itself the ominous question: which of the two in the Balkans — Servia or Bulgaria? How comfortable and human would the question stand in the form: „Servia and Bulgaria in the Balkans", if the Servians had not with malicious intention incited dispute, quarrel and wars.
The one guilty of the ominous question is today prostrated. What wip become of her tomorrow? We do not know. But we still see that the Servian political leaders and statesmen continue, even in the dying gasps of Servia to assert her anti-Bulgarian history and policy; conitnue to want our territory and our brothers under their own merciless pro-Servian rule; continue to set the world against the Bulgarian national consciousness and right in Macedonia and how much more in Moravia-Timok. Under such depressing and saddening conditions we seem also compelled to not allow the crafty Servian propaganda against Bulgarism to be spread abroad without making an effort against it and in our behalf.
In truth, we are today the „fortunate masters" as of all Dobrudja, so also of all that which falls to us of yesterday's Servia in Morava-Timok and in Macedonia. But about that mastery there still remains to be negotiated in diplomatic meetings and councils; there remains to be made and signed binding treaties on the basis of presented, proved and executed rights and pretensions. But it is possible also that in these negotiations there shall be presented against us objections such as have succeeded in times past to bribe judgments and desires to our hurt, compromising to our historical rights. We shall be confronted perhaps from the point of view of the most sound and righteous principles proclaimed today: of nationality, of the right of every people to decide its own fate, of freedom in government and culture, these principles being applied in the case of Moravo-Timok, Macedonia and Northern Dobrudja according to rumors and assertions set in motion and formulated by our uncharitable neighbors and opponents, Servians and Roumanians, and by their sincere or accomodating friends, protectors and defenders. In view of this, a compelling obligation is put upon us to take our stand in time against the above-mentioned false and perverted reports and assertions, so that correcting, or disproving them with the strong unprejudiced testimony of history and of true reality, we may act successfully in order to form in the wide society of nations and their leaders that correct opinion, regarding the nationalities and civilization in the lands of our possessions, which must prevail in the attempts at remaking the map of Europe at the end of this war, and as the result of it.
That which must be reliably known about the Bulgarian nation, about the lands settled by it, either in absolute or relative density, about its civil and political rights over these lands, was in its most
telling data, long ago brought out and voiced abroad by choice people in scientific and political literature. But the trouble is that these data were mixed and overlaid also with such other false and adulterated substance, that it becomes necessary to be freed from it in order to be presented to truth-servers, clean, selected for more convient examination and valuation.
On their part, Servians even today work tirelessly before the Great nations in order to befog the time-honored truth regarding the nationality and location of the Bulgarian Slavs of the Balkan peninsula. The world sees their work, reads their arguments and conclusions, and judges between them and us, oftentimes believing them. To this world we must without fail, point out where it is that our opponents and enemies (if also own blood) deceive them, and what was known about us as a nation in definite territories of the peninsula long before the wicked Servian researches and conclusions, and outside the sphere of their variously gamed friends and collaborators.
To this world of earnest readers are further presented, pages in which light is thrown upon the report from 1858 of a learned traveller, a foreigner, concerning the population of south-west Moravia.
I. Journey of Johann von Hahn in Moravia and in Macedonia
Two of Hahn’s Journeys. Many of our writers on Macedonia and the Bulgarians of the western Balkans have based their works on a composition by J. G. von Hahn published by the Royal Academy of Sciences in Vienna. (Denkschriften der k. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philos.-histor. Classe, Bd. VI, 1861) under the title „Reise von Belgrade nach Salonik". Hahn served as Austrian Consul in Yanina and in Sira, but became renowned in science through nvestigations on the Albanians and their language, through studies n the legends and folk-lore among the Greeks and Albanians, and also through two of his journeys in the interest of science. The one book has been referred to above, while the other, is equally important for us: „Reise durch die Gebiete der Drin und Wardar”. The journey here treated was made by order of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Vienna and described in its publications (Denkschriften, philos.-histor. Classe, Bd. XV, 1867, and Bd. XVI, 1869).
Hahn's Journey from Belgrade to Salonica. His first journey Hahn made during the fall of 1858 chiefly with interest in geography, but, along with this, also with politico-economic interest. He thought to investigate, along the Morava and Vardar from the Danube to the Aegean sea, the as yet unverified geographical relations of the Balkan Peninsula about which, for instance, the maps showed till a little while ago that it was cut by an unbroken chain from the Black sea on the east clear to the Adriatic on the west. But because Hahn, who long ago turned his attention to it, thought of an overland route (quicker than by sea) from England through central Europe to
Salonica for Egypt and India, he combined with his geographical purpose, the ascertaining of possibilities for a railroad which, connecting at the southern point of the Austrian railways in Bazyasht, would cut Servia and Turkey along the Morava and Vardar in order to come out at Salonica. In the interest of his task Hahn began his journey from the southern boundary of the then Servian principality, a few hours beyond the extreme Servian city of Alexinetz. He disregarded the Moravian province from the Danube to the conjunction of the Servian with the Bulgarian Morava, because in Servian territory this province was also easily accessible for study, and was already included in the educational interest of the Servians themselves. Hahn gave attention to that part of the province from the Danube to the Aegean, which extented into Turkish territory, and on account of highly unsafe conditions there, was not studied by anyone as it ought to have been.
Hahn Makes Cursory Note of Bulgarians. The traveller Hahn made observations directly along his way, and also here and there turned aside to the right and left, in order to define the existence and direction of waters and heights, the course of the first and the extent of the second, the valleys and heights between them, also to point out everything in social relation and arrangements which could be of advantage in deciding from where to lay the desired railway from the Danube to the Aegean. Besides this, Hahn manifested lively interest concerning the facts and questions which indicate the origin, manners and settlements of the Albanian tribe, which he had studied also many years earlier. From this it is evident, that Hahn was not strongly desirous to enquire into and show exhaustively what in nationality and number is the population, as in the villages and towns through which his way led him, so also in the settlements to one side and scattered over the territory studied. Still less was he concerned with languages, with peculiarities of speech. But whether he questioned more widely local people and leaders about these visited and unvisited settlements, with a view to his own direct science or to the problem of his journey, or to enriching his exposition and enlivening his style with some accidentally acquired ethnological data, he noticed, in not a few places, in the districts between the then Servian boundary and the large right branch of the Morava toward the south and west, Bulgarian population. And these his remarks about so unsought facts, give us foundation points for desired light on the distribution of this population in the basin of the Bulgarian Morava
in the second half of the 19-th century — a population of the Bulgarian tribe —, or at least how we must represent to ourselves that distribution as having looked at the time.
The value of Hahn's remarks. Some scholars after Hahn (F. Bradashka, J. Tsveeich) pointed out exactly in this respect weakness and insufficiency, and even unreliability, in his ethnological data, whether purposely or accidentally acquired. They took advantage of the considerable errors in names of settlements and of places in the text of his memoirs and in the map attached to his journal in order to advertize that Hahn, not knowing any Slavic language and depending for ethnographical data upon the second-hand information of his Albanian guides, could not be a trustworthy witness as to the distribution of Servians and Bulgarians in the traversed territory. However, here one thing is confused with another, so that a really wrong conclusion is reached. Testimony concerning the Bulgarian population is thus confused with testimony as to the difference of the Bulgarian language from the Servian, in order to show that Hahn did lot know, was deceived or made mistakes. Neither Hahn nor his travelling companion, F. Zach, in company with whom the above mentioned village map was made, were bound in regard to their problem to establish the language peculiarities and the differences in the inhabitants of the villages. Knowledge of the Slavic tongues, especially of the language of Bulgarians and Servians, would have been in truth a great help to the two travellers; but it was not absolutely essential (although Zach was a Slav, a Bohemian, and Servian teacher) in order to establish with which of the three nationalities — Albanian, Servian or Bulgarian was numbered the population of a given village. If the villages fell now to one of the three named nationalities, now to two or three of them together, that was known, in the first place, from the inhabitants themselves, from everyone who had intercourse with them and so grasped the differences in their language or had learned about these differences from others. An Albanian from these regions is not necessarily bound to know Servian or Bulgarian in order to understand and manifest a locally familiar knowledge of a certain village whether it is inhabited by Servians or by Bulgarians. He will know this from the general opinion that the village is Servian or Bulgarian; will know it from the fact that the people themselves call themselves Servians or Bulgarians as do all who have intercourse with them. And Hahn's guides, born Albanians, answering his
question as to the kind of this or that village ur directly informing him what village was inhabited by which nationality, passed on to him intermediately ethnographical data, in no way robbed of its truth and entirely worth of respect. Likewise such facts were given him by the officials, the Mohamedan servants of Turkey. And even an Albanian or Turkish governor deserves more confidence when he says that a certain village or region is considered by everyone around to be Albanian, Servian or Bulgarian, than someone who knows languages but is eager for the favor of one or another of the three mentioned nationalities, though he be a learned ethnographer or philologist.
It is true that in southern Roumania is heard the word „Sirb" for Bulgarian (there „Bulgar" means gardener) and in northeast Bulgaria there are a few villages called „Arnautu because although their inhabitants are Bulgarians they emigrated from Macedonia (toward „Arnautluka"). However, these words „Sirb" and „Arnautin" beyond doubt have their own local significance and origin, but such a thing can by no means be admitted regarding the words „Albanian" (Arnautin), „Servian", and „Bulgarian" in the district where Hahn travelled. There these words stand for a generally known significance as names of three mutually distinct nationalities. Hahn's guides, officials and servants, being Mohamedans, would not be in a different degree friendly or hostile toward the Christians, whether Servians or Bulgarians, in South-west Moravia; for them Servian or Bulgarian was a designation which rested on the general judgment in the country, and not on the judgment of only one person. And in such a condition they, through Hahn and Zack, served the cause of science in a most impartial way in order that it might gain a series of reliable ethnographical data. That Hahn and Zach did not hear and write down correctly the Slavic names of villages and localities, or that perhaps the guides themselves did not pronounce the names correctly, — that takes away nothing from the reliability of the statements as to the nationality of the population in these settlements and regions.
Second Edition of Hahn's First Journey. In 1868 Mr. Hahn published in Vienna with the approval of the Royal Academy a second edition of his „Journey from Belgrade to Salonica". The new edition varied considerably from the first in substance and in the extent of the exposition. The author stopped more, in the new edition, over the railway question, and abbreviated the geography and history of the regions traversed. He left out the whole of the
second division of the first edition (Orographical remarks) and the third (Computations of measured heights) while he shortened the fourth division („About the history of the Moravian province."). Against this he put for the second division of the second edition „Orographical remarks" about the railway from Bazyasht to Salonica and Pirea, and about another railway from the south Dalmatian boundary to Pirea. The first edition contains for us exactly those ethnographical facts which for us have value. And these facts are identically repeated in the second edition. We shall arrange them below according to the first edition, so far as they have reference to the districts to the south of the then Serbian boundary along the great Yastrebetz and to the west from the Bulgarian Morava. We shall point out these facts also from the second edition. Hahn's data regarding the Bulgarian population in Macedonia in the regions of the Vardar basin do not enter into our present purpose.
II. Hahn and Zach on the Population of Southwestern Moravia
Hahn's companion, F. Zach. From Vienna to Nish Hahn stopped a longer time in Belgrade in order to complete, on the Balkan peninsula itself, the preparations for his journey. From Belgrade there accompanied him the Major of artillery, F. Zach, the principal of the Servian war academy. He is Hahn's companion — author of the map of the western part of Bulgarian Moravia (Croquis des westlichen Gebietes der bulgarischen Morava), added to the journal (lacking in the second edition). Probably the geographical names on this map are written by Zach, a Bohemian born in Moravia, because they often differ from the orthography of Hahn, and they seem more correct according to the speech of the inhabitants. The Hahn-Zach map is brought out in the work by A. Ishirkoff, „The Western Parts of the Bulgarian Land", Sofia 1915.
From Aleksinets to Nish. Two hours south from the county seat, Aleksinets, the travellers pass through „The Constantinople Gates" (Stamboul-kapia) off the wooden barricade with which Servia is fenced off on the Turkish side, and approach Nish from where they begin their researches, observations and notes. They hear even in Aleksinets of the revolts of Bulgarian villagers in the provinces near the border (pages 10—31 of the second edition); but further on in their journey the travellers quite often have the opportunity to hear of pillagings and plunderings especially by the Albanians. Religious difference and animosity between Mohammedans and Christians play an important role in these depredations, so that by this the author is guided most often when it falls to him to point out the nationality
or the tribe of the inhabitants. More seldom he differentiates in the Christian populace, Bulgarians from Albanians or from Servians. Only Zach has taken the pains to designate on the map the tribal difference between inhabitants of the settlements.
The cities, as in general in European Turkey, always contain among their inhabitants a good share of Mohammedans: for example. Hahn notes that Nish had 1000 Mohammedan houses and 1500 Christian houses without pointing out more explicitly the nationality of the Christian inhabitants. He predicts that Nish will be the railway junction for Salonica and Constantinople.
The western half of the county of Nish is inhabited by Albanians. The governor of the county, Zeinel Pasha, with abundant warnings met the travellers and assisted them in their journey. Their visit coincided with a great revolt among the Bulgarian villagers, who thought that Hahn was come to inquire about their complaints (p. 13—35).
Prokouple (see the map at the end of this work). In his journey from Hish to Prokop (in this way Hahn regularly spells this name in the text: only on the map he puts it Prokoplje) the traveller is thinking over how, here and everywhere beyond, Albanians, Servians and Bulgarians are perfecty acquainted with the boundaries and villages of their provinces but are almost indifferent in regard to waters and mountains, not being always accustomed to comprehend the solidarity of the vast mountain ranges (page 18). In Prokouple Hahn is convinced that what they had told him at Nish is true, namely, that, the whole province of the Toplitsa (a left tributary of the Bulgarian Morava), excepting its watershed and its source, is densley inhabited by Albanians as far as the southern flanks of the mountain Yastrebets toward the north, along whose summit the Serbian boundary passed at that time (p. 19). The province to the north and south of the Toplitsa, between Prokop and the Bulgarian Morava, bears the name of Dobritch (in Hahn, Dobridsha; oh the map Dobric). The Slavs call the city Prokoplje (evidently a Servian form), while the Albanians give it the name of Uskup (p. 19). Hahn uses here the general term „Slavs" because in these regions along with Serbians live also Bulgarians.
The appellation „Prokop' according to Hahn's supposition is derived, perhaps, from an old monastery, called St. Prokop (The saint died in 290 A. D.), from which only an insignificant chapel remains.
The city numbers 500 Albano-Mohammedan families, 300 Serbo-Christian, 80 Jewish, and 20 Gipsy families.
Kourshoumlie. At the junction of the river Banska with the Toplitsa is situated the city of Kourshoumlie (Servianized from the Turkish name Kourshoumli and called Toplitsa or Beli-tsirkva until 1738), full of terrors from the Albanians. It numbers 50 Albano-Mohammedan houses, 15 Serbo-Christian and 5 Gipsy houses (p. 22).
Pousta-reka. Hahn's survey is directed towards the basin of the Pousta-reka, which runs in a direction from Kourshoumlie toward Leskovets, then turns toward the north-east to unite with the Bulgarian Morava. The Albanian village Deadintsi and Tovurlyan make an impression on the travellers. In them he easily notices industry and prosperity which put them above the Bulgarian villages in this plain, and puts them on a level with the best Servian villages seen on the way (p. 23—52). The three villages Statovtsi (Upper, Middle and Lower), situated along the upper course of the Pousta-reka are Albanian, as is also Djitni-potok lower down.
In fact the Pousta-reka begins to take this name from the village Tsirkvitsa near which two streams, from the north and the south, unite at a point about 10 miles from the Morava. Tsirkvitsa is the first Bulgarian village through which Hahn happened to pass. Below this village in the plain follow a number of „Mixed villages", and then again the pure Albanian villages: Lopatintsa, Briyanie and Stoubla, the last of which is about 5 miles distant from the Morava. This shows that the Albanians are masters also of the larger western half of the plain of the Pousta-reka, and that here we meet an exception to the oft repeated phrase, — wherever are the mountains, there are the Albanians; wherever is plain, there appear Bulgarians (p. 26—56).
Leskovets. The city of Leskovet is situated with two unequal parts along the Veturnitsa, a left tributary to the Bulgarian Moravia. The smaller western half, leaning against a high hill, is inhabited chiefly by Mohammedans; and the larger half (eastern) by Christian Bulgarians. The number of houses shows 2400 Christian, that is Bulgarian, 500 Mohammedan, 10 Jewish and 30 Gipsy.
According to a certain tradition Leskovets once bore the name of Diboftschitsa (p. 28—58, 59). Under this appellation of Hahn one must read „Dibochitsa" a Bulgarian dialect form of „Dulbotchitsa", as found in ancient documents (in Servian this would have been „doubotchitsa"). Hahn, who was such a careful investigator of the
Albanian dialects, not a few times gives local Slav names as incorrectly communicated, incorrectly heard or incorrectly copied.
Patchinevtsi. Between Veturnitsa and the last left tributary Yablanitsa to the north, the plain along he Morava is almost at water-level. The travellers crossed Yablanitsa near the Bulgarian village Petshenevtsa, where villagers from the neighborhood rejoiced to see them and offered them fruits (p. 30—61).
Two excursions. Hahn with his company made an excursion to Kourvingrad, a little below the mouth of the Toplitsa, east of Prokop, north of the village Klisoura, 6 miles south-west of Nish. About the last governess of the city of Kourvingrad, tradition relates certain shameful relations with the monks of a neighboring monastery (across the river). No notes concerning the inhabitants of this despised city color Hahn's description.
A second excursion he undertook from Leskovitsa to the west along Yablanitsa and its tributary Medvedja. The excursion extended to the town of Lebana with a carriage and from there on horseback, through a plain with an average breath of a little more than 2 miles, fertile and densely inhabited.
Bulgarian plain from Lebana to Shilovo. This plain is throughout Bulgarian. Its inhabitants extend over the hilly vicinity also which begins 1 1/2 miles east of Lebana and reaches along the Medvedja as far as Shilovo (p. 35), to distinguish it from the Albanian Shilovo on the left tributary of the Medvedja, called Grabovnitsa. These two villages are pure Bulgarian (p. 32—65). From here on, towards the west, follow as pure Albanian villages until they reach along the river and the road to the town of Prishtina, at least as far as the village of Grashtitsa about eight miles north-east of the said town. The houses and the yards of the Albanian villages provoke in Hahn a comparison with those of the Bulgarians (p. 33—66). So also Hahn points out a difference in character between Albanians and Bulgarians when the former manifested curiosity concerning his revolver („a new gun with 6 bullets"), while the latter were curious about his „airy" mattress: The Bulgarian boys gathered in crowds to help him fill it (p. 34—67).
Bulgarian pronunciation „ya" instead of „e” in local names. On their way from the Albanian village Dyaditch the company makes inquiries about Prishtina and Guilyane. Towards Guilyane and on the tributary, Banska, of the Medvedja is situated
the Albanian village Swjarina (p. 34). If this name is written correctly (on the map it stands Svjarina), it would point toward Zvyarina and would be an evidence that the name is Bulgarian and not Servian, for the reason that the letter ya is substituted for e and pronounced Zvyarina instead of Zverina.
In the same way the village Ljotovista, designated on the map (on the left of the Morava little way below the mouth of the tributary Mazuritsa) as Bulgarian, answers to the Bulgarian pronunciation (Lyatovishta, written Letovishta). However, in Servian lists of settlements in these places, made since 1878, while this last name is given with the Servian form „Letovishte”, the first one is given in the form „Syarina"; but even this would point to Bulgarian pronunciation „Syarina", from Sera. It is important to discover on the map of these provinces, prepared by Austrian topographers, the names which accurately transmit the Bulgarian pronunciation (ya) of the ethnological ye (with an accent). The Servian maps in general obliterate this pronunciation by theit letter „e"; and the Bulgarian maps, while using the letter ye do not show exactly how it must be pronouced.
Bulgarian villages become Albanian. The company desires to traverse the valley of the Veturnitsa. So they again turn back along the Medvedja to the Bulgarian village Shumana on the Yablitsa; Hahn discovers that the hill of Leskovitsa, seen from here, consists of two hills, between which runs the stream Soushitsa. Along this in the plain lie five villages of which only one, the uppermost, called Igrishti, is Albanian, consisting of eight families. The remaining four (named in the map Slavujovce, Drvodelja, Kukulovce, Sisince) we must conclude are Bulgarian; because Hahn immediately explains how the Bulgarians still remembered that Igrishti also had been a pure Bulgarian village. Not long before, had settled there the first Albanian. After him trailed others, and when they became sufficiently strong, by their robbery and oppression, they forced the Bulgarians one by one to flee to other places for security. The last Bulgarian had emigrated just two years before; this is the way in which, in general, former Bulgarian villages have become Albanian. Hahn regrets that he has not gathered concrete facts; but asserts that he everywhere heard about this method of transformation. He thinks; however, that in the mixed villages the dislodging of Bulgarians by Albanians probably has not been so rapid as in Igrishti (p. 35—36, 69—70).
Albanians in the Mountains; Bulgarians in the Plains. The province which Hahn was traversing lies in the extent of ancient Dardania. He supposes that the appearance here of Albanians has some connection with remnants of the ancient Dardanians, who, like the Albanians themselves, are a branch of the Illirian tribe. The Albanians themselves remember in their traditions that they are emigrants from the Albanian fatherland. Experience teaches us that whenever a tribe with its language occupies the mountains and another the plains, the first has been dislodged by the second. The Albanians from their fatherland are connected with the Albanians from Dardania by the mountain ridges of the river Drenitsa, north west from Kossovo Plain and by Karadag, that is, Tzurna-Gora in the Scopia Province, south of Kossovo. The valleys, however, which surround these ridges, are inhabited by Slavs: in those that surround the Dardanian mountains from east and south along the Bulgarian Morava, live regularly Bulgarians. In the Kossovo Plain live partly Servians and partly Albanians: while in the neighboring plain of the river Sitnitsa as far as Novi-Pazar live probably only Servians.
Accordingly, Hahn supposes that the Slavs, when they settled here, took possession of the plains, pushing back the descendants of the Dardanians into the mountains. As a consequence of the wars of Turkey with Austria in the XVII and XVIII centuries (1089—1600, 1718—1738, 1789—1790), Albanians from their fatherland came into contact with Albanians from the Dardanian remnants; and when Slavs quit en masse these provinces in order to settle in other places behind the Austrian armies, numerous Albanian settlers come to their Dardanian brothers and together with them occupy the evacuated regions (p. 36—37, 72—73).
Along Veturnitsa , toward Polyanitsa and Leskovets. Southward from Tzrishte projects a hill with summit called Oumats (Hulmets). From this lull Hahn looks up the valley of the Veturnitsa in order to verity anew his notes concerning the settlements of Albanians and Slavs. The plain which begins to the east of Oumats along the Veturnitsa toward its mouth is rich with villages inhabited only by Bulgarians. Upwards, toward the south there are along the two banks only two nearer Bulgarian villages (in the map Vina, Kaludjerica): the others are Albanian. It quite probable however, that the Albanians are not the exclusive
masters of the mountains- because the road leading from Leskovets to Vranya along the Veturnitsa passes by the mountain Polyanitsa, whose name designates also a region with twelve Bulgarian villages. (At present it lies in the province of Inogoshte.) And further on, on this road, eleven miles north of Vranya on the watershed, lies the Bulgarian village Drenovets (p. 38, 73).
Hahn returns from Oumats to Leskovets. Here he notes the well-preserved palace of Mehmed Pasha where lives the governor of the town. The gate of the palace is still standing perforated by the bullets of Bulgarian revolutionists of 1841. In regard to the insurrection Spencer remarks in his „Travels in European Turkey'" (I 146), that it was crushed with great bloodshed, and that, as a result of this, the Turks kidnapped Bulgarian girls. On being examined by Hahn's company about the incident, both Bulgarians and Albanians avoided giving an answer (p. 39, 75).
From Leskovets to Vranya. Between the mouth of the Veturnitsa under Leskovets and of the Grabovnik above it, the plain, more than six miles long, is most thickly inhabited. To Hahn were mentioned about ten villages along the left bank of Morava; and he was assured that, at least to that extent, was settled also the Vlasina valley on the right bank. He does not indicate the nationality of the inhabitants of these villages, nor does he represent it on the map. From the brook Grabovnik upwards, the plain narrows into a valley, and then into a pass which Hahn has called „Mazurishki" from the tributary „Mazuritsa", so named in its southern part, on the right side of the Morava (p. 40, 76). Servian authors write „Masuritsa", which does not seem to correspond exactly to the local pronunciation. In favor of „Mazuritsa" also exist other Slavic (Polish) evidences.
The river Mazuritsa itself embraces in its hills seven (Albanian) villages scattered in a region rich in beauty and harmony. Here the Albanians have crossed the Morava as into their own eastern advance position. They extend further south in the villages of Eleshnitsa and Verbova on the right side of the Morava, and in Lepenitsa, the only Albanian village on its left side. The unbroken Albanian territory begins from here, 12 to 16 miles west of Lepenitsa. The intervening territory, however, is inhabited by Bulgarians (p. 42, 79).
Vranya and its Province. Vranya is situated on the two banks of the stream of the same name, which has a straight north-south direction and discharges itself in the Morava at a point
about two miles from the city near the village Zlatokop (on the map designated as Bulgarian). The Vranya cuts a ridge which on the left is called „Platchevitsa" (place of weeping), and on the right „Krustilovets" (place of the sign of the Cross). The names of these hills are connected with a tradition about Krali-Marko who „wept" on one, and on the other „crossed himself". Further down are pointed out the hoof-prints of his hourse, Sharko, and traces of his bathing-place in the river. Marko's residence in the pass between the hills is two miles above the Vranya, and is called Goloub. From it the city of Vranya also bears the name Goloubinye (p. 44, 82). The city numbers 1000 Christian-Bulgarian families, 600 chiefly Albanian-Turkish and 50 Gipsy (p. 45, 83).
A young Bulgarian, the richest in Vranya, went to meet the travellers as far as the village Banya (on the map designated as Bulgarian). It is situated on the river Banska. The village and the river derive their name from the famous „Bath" of Vranya, 1 1/2 miles to the east (p. 43). In the city a strong impression was made upon the travellers by the magnificent Christian cathedral which surpassed in height all Mohammedan temples. This is a witness to the high intellectual culture of the local Christian, i. e., Bulgarian element. In a recent Albanian uprising the Christian church was pillaged and burned. But after the uprising the Bulgarians soon recovered themselves and made it still more magnificent. It is noticeable that the Christians are very diligent in creating churches and monasteries (p. 46, 85).
The district of Vranya is predominantly Bulgarian. From its 360 villages, only 60 are Albanian; there is a single Wallachian, Preobratschinje and one Turkish, called Bilatch, both of them lying to the east across the Morava. In the Carpinian Mountain, south-west of Vranya, the gypsies are Christian, speak partly Wallachian, lead a nomadic life and are called by their neighbors „Linguri" (p. 48, 87).
Saint Prohor. Twelve miles from Vranya stands the monastery Saint Prohor, or „Holy Father", the most famous in all Dardania after the Gratchanitsa Monastery in the vicinity of Prishtina. Toward it Hahn’s company direct their steps. Hahn dedicates a longer description to the monastery and its territory (p. 48—50, 87—90). The monastery is situated on the left bank of Pchinye, which falls in the basin of the Aegean Sea; and the walls of its church are painted with events from the life of its patron saint. The religious part of
the work in this monastery is performed by its one monk, a colonist of twenty years before from Slavonia, while the secular work is in the hands of a body of trustees consisting of priests from the vicinity and of leading men of the city of Vranya.
On the monastery's Saint's Day early in November there gather in the monastery about six thousand persons. The Albanians also from the city hold the sacred place in great veneration. Following the example of the Christians they send here their sick and crippled for healing.
The Plain of the Moravitsa. The uppermost tributary of the Bulgarian Morava on its right is the Moravitsa which collects its waters from the heights of Rouyan on the east and of Karadag on the west and flows through a plain about three miles wide. Along the steep western slope of the valley stretches a chain of larger villages predominantly Albanian, but in most of them are found also Bulgarian houses. The Albanians are masters of the Moravitsa valley. They constitute the heart of Karadag and are an object of terror right and left. They are always the ring-leaders in the frequent Albanian uprisings (p. 50—51, 91).
The village Bilyatch, on the right side of the Morava about fifteen miles south of Vranya and twelve north of Koumanovo, at the foot of Rouyan, is inhabited by Albanians and Bulgarians (the Turkish Bilatch above). The Albanian settlements Preshovo, Nortche and Tnrnovo lie on the hill of Karadag which separates the basin of the Moravitsa from the Golema-Reka which flows toward the Vardar. The hill is two miles wide. The uppermost stream, which from here hurries toward the Moravitsa, flows past the Albanian villages: Upper and Lower Tchakarka. Tradition points out a summit above the latter village, to the south-west, where Sultan Meurad camped in his inarch to Kossovo Plain in 1389 (p. 54, 97).
Towards the basin of the Vardar. The travellers now descend into the plain of the Vardar, visit Koumanovo and Scopia (Uskub), then leave through Katchanik for the Kossovo Plain. As we are concerned only with their reports and notes about the inhabitants of Bulgarian Moravia, we shall stop with them yet only there where the land is watered by this river. Let us, however, point out that around the Katchanik pass the hills are inhabited by Albanians who already in the end of the seven(teen)th century here assisted the Austrians against the Turks (p. 68, 117). On the river Lepenets, which squeeses
through the pass in order to join with the Vardar, the Hahn-Zach map places among the sources of this river a Bulgarian village „Verbeshtitsa". Its spelling shows that Zach, to whom is due the orthography of the names in this map, has likely heard the pronunciation „Verbeshtitsa", perhaps distinct from the Servian „Vrbestitsa" (as it would be in Bohemian).
Towards the basin of the Servian Morava. In the Kossovo plain along the river Sitnitsa, tributary to Iber which empties into the Servian Morava, the map shows among the Albanian villages from the source of the river to its left tributary „Tzurnolevski", three Bulgarian villages: Svurtchina. Bahush, Bablyak and two Albano-Bulgarian: Bobovtse and Moudjitchina. From the Tsurnolevski River downward toward Prishtina and further on along the Sitnitsa, along with the Albanian, begin to be found also Servian villages.
Gratchanitsa and „Stara Serbia". The travellers' visit to the east of Bobovo Tavern Gratchinitsa, the most famous monastery in the ancient-Servian kingdom „Rashka". The name „Rashka" („Rasa") has disappeared from the memory of the inhabitants. The Servians have substituted for it the new name „Old Servia". Hahn, however, has not been able to grasp which are the boudaries which the Servians set for this province (p. 70, 120). These boundaries, however, ought not to be grasped, because they have been constantly changing and enlarging according to the caprice of Servian writers and politicians. Their geographer Tsveeitch in our day went so far as to include in his „Old Servia" northern Macedonia also!
Prishtina. Four miles and a half south-west of Gratchanitsa lies the city of Prishtina which after Bitolia is the second military centre in the Balkan Peninsula. The city is swarming with military people with all sorts of arms, but is subordinated to the Pasha of Prizren. Some old testimonies say that Prishtina was once called „Prislava" (p. 72, note, 123, note). From the mouth of the Tsurno-levski to the mouth of the Drenitsa opposite Prishtina on the west the inhabitants along the Sitnitsa are Albanian and Servian. The map does not show a single Bulgarian settlement. Which of the two nationalities, Servian or Albanian, predominates in Kossovo Plain Hahn cannot positively say (p. 80, 134).
Guilyane. Hahn once more enters the basin of the Bulgarian Morava through its western heights and makes his way mto the valley where lies the city of Guilyane. The Morava itself flows about
three miles south of the town along the northern slopes of Karadag from west to east, and extricates itself through its first pass between Guilyane and Vranya. The city produced in the travellers the impression of a modem city (p. 86, 143). On the map it is designated as Albano-Bulgarian: but the Bulgarians in it as „Osmanli". The whole extraordinarily fruitful valley is unusually densely inhabited by a well-to-do population (p. 89, 147). The district of Guilyane numbers in all three thousand eight hundred houses, of which two thousand three hundred are Albano-Mohammedan and fifteen hundred Bulgarian Christian (p. 75, 125). Major Zach who from Gratchanitsa separated himself from Hahn in order to visit Novo-Burdo to the north-east and behind the mountain Koznik points out near-by to the south of that place a Bulgarian village, Bostan (p. 89). It is curious that on the map he has designated it as Servian.
The Province of Guilyane is the last in the basin of the Bulgarian Morava investigated by Hahn. From this province he again enters the basin of the Vardar in the Uskub province, and carries out his journey to its end.
III. Albanian, Bulgarian and Servian inhabitants
Southwestern Moravia according to Hahn and Zach. We limited ourselves to follow J. von Hahn with his company in 1858 only from the boundary of the then Servian principality west of the Bulgarian Morava (the village of Soupevets, the summit of Veliki-Yastrevets, Svetlastena, Yankov Pass as far as Kapaonik) to the south of the source-hills of the river along its basin on the west side. The eastern part of this tributary of the Morava stands outside the limits of his journey.
From this part of Hahn's journey we learned, if by accidental data, about the Bulgarian population in the western part of the Bulgarian Morava as it was about sixty years ago. In his journey-notes Hahn has not named all the Bulgarian settlements, because, as we said before, he had in mind another object. But in the map, prepared by him and his companion, Major Zach, we find densely-inserted names of villages, the nationality of their inhabitants being indicated in most cases. It appears that with the letter „a" he had marked Albanians; with capital „B" or „Bu", Bulgarians; and with capital „S", Servians. Throughout his description of his journey in our limited south-west province of the Bulgarian Morava, Hahn very rarely mentions Servians. In his notes appear always Albanians and Bulgarians. To which of these two nationalities must be given predominance according to him, it is not difficult to infer because the Albanians inhabit chiefly the Highlands while the Bulgarians the Lowlands; and in these latter, the villages and the inhabitants are more numerous.
Nationality of the Villages in this Province. If the map of Hahn had shown of what nationality are the inhabitants of each village, and not only of those about which Hahn and Zach happened to inquire or know, we should have been able to enumerate how many villages of each nationality are found in our province, and to understand which nationality predominates. But even from their incomplete representation of nationalities in the villages and the number of these last, we can draw a picture of the ratio of Albanians, Bulgarians, and Servians in the south-western part of Bulgarian Moravia.
Albanian, Bulgarian and Servian Settlements. Let us number the settlements not administratively, but geographically, following the rivers with the heights between them. We should begin with the tributaries of the Bulgarian Morava and continue part by part.
I. The settlements listed along the Toplitsa on both sides of the basin.
a) From the water-shed to the Kourshoumlie: 13 Albanian villages (with Kourshoumlie 14), 16 Servian, 1 mixed Albano-Servian, and 1 undesignated.
b) From Kourshoumlie to Prokouple. 1st on the left side: 38 Albanian, 1 Servian, 5 mixed, 3 undesignated. 2nd, on the right side: 22 Albanian and 11 undesignated.
c) From Prokouple to Morava, in a quadralateral northward to the then Servian boundary. 1st, an the left bank: 9 Albanian, 8 Servian, 4 Albano-Servian (with Prokouple 5), and 15 undesignated.
II. Along the Pousta-Reka, from its water-shed to the Morava, on both sides of the basin: 17 Albanian, 1 Servian, 3 Bulgarian. 3 Albano-Bulgarian.
III. Along the Yablanitsa with Medvedja on both sides of the basin:
a) From the water-shed of the Medvedja to its junction with the Yablanitsa (above Lebane): 30 Albanian, 1 Bulgarian, 1 undesignated.
b) From the water-shed of the Yablanitsa (in the mountain Gouri-Baba) to the Morava: 3 Albanian, 8 Bulgarian, 20 undesignated.
IV. Along the Veturnitsa. On both sides of the basin: 7 Albanian, 9 Bulgarian, 16 undesignated (with Leskovets 17). These last are along the course of the river: Miroshovitsa, Boukoush, Radovets,
Pali-Koukya, Doushklenik, Nakriva, Stoikovitsa, Shahinovtsi, Turtehevets, Yaina, Slavoniovtsi (according to Kriv. Slaviertsi), Durvoudelya, Koukolovtsi, Upper and Lower Chinkovtsi, Koulina, Leskovets.
V. From the water-shed of the Bulgarian Morava (in Guilyane province) to the mouth of the Moravitsa, on both sides of the basin: 26 Albanian, 11 Servian (without Bostan, which in the map is wrongly designated as Servian), seven Albano-Servian, 15 Bulgarian (with Bostan, which on page 89 of the journey-notes is declared to be Bulgarian), 11 Albano-Bulgarian (1 obscurely designated: Radovic a. B.?), 14 undesignated.
VI. In the basin of the Moravitsa: 20 Albanian, 2 Bulgarian, 3 Albano-Bulgarian (one of these, Bilyatch, is according to the journey notes, p. 48, Turkish; cf. p. 54).
VII. Along the Morava, from the mouth of the Moravitsa downwards, on the left side of the basin and along the left bank to the mouth of the Veturnitsa: 3 Albanian, 10 Bulgarian, 28 undesignated (with Vranya 29).
The relation between the settlements according to their nationalities. This enumeration of the settlements according to the map of Hahn and Zach, with and without designated nationalities, gives to our provinces in general for 1858: 190 Albanian settlements, 44 Servian, 48 Bulgarian, 18 mixed Albano-Servian, 18 Albano-Bulgarian and 111 undesignated. To the Bulgarian settlements we must yet add those unnamed, either in the text or in the map, but indicated in both places as „12 Bulgarian villages" in the district of Polvanitsa mountain; or in all 400 settlements of three nationalities (Albanian, Servian and Bulgarian, most of them pure and a few mixed).
The pure Albanian settlements constitute a little less than half of the settlements in all our province. After them come the pure Bulgarian, with one third more than the pure Servian settlements. The mixed Albano-Servian and Albano-Bulgarian settlements almost balance each other. The proportion of the pure Albanian to the pure Bulgarian settlements is 3:1, while to the pure Servian is 4:1. In other words the Bulgarians are about one-third, and the Servians about one-fourth as many as the Albanians.
Of what nationality are the „nationalityless" settlements? Had the nationality of the settlements, not definitely
classified by Hahn (in the journey notes) nor by Zach (in the map), also been known, the proportion between Albanians, Servians and Bulgarians would be quite different.
If we turn attention to each separate number of such settlements, as found in the series of numbers belonging to each of the basins, in regard to which we have been making our counting, we see that:
a) In the basin of the Toplitsa lie the larger part (30) of the settlements whose nationality is not designated; and that they lie almost exclusively in the section of this river from Kourshoumlie to the Morava: from Kourshoumlie to Prokouple on both sides of the Toplitsa 15 settlements. Those 29 settlements, without designated nationality, fall exactly in the region spoken of by Hahn (in his journey-notes) as having been inhabited by Albanians in the mountains and by Bulgarians in the plains, and as the center of uprisings on the part of the Bulgarian population, against the Turkish state authority, due to Mohammedan oppression and robberies (p. 10—13).
It is quite certain that Mohammedan oppression and robbery did not discriminate between the Christian population whether Bulgarian or Servian. But in spite of all this, the Turkish Governor of Nish, Zeinal-Pasha, speaks to the travellers, Hahn and Zach, about a big Bulgarian revolt, but not about a Servian, nor about a Christian revolt in general. For such an uprising it is necessary to have both a numerous, homogeneous population and a large inhabited space without breaks in its population. It is interesting that, while there is such a number of Bulgarians in this province, the map, marking out the Albanian, Servian and Albano-Servian settlements in the basin of the Toplitsa, does not show there a single Bulgarian settlement, while the Bulgarian nationality, playing such an important part in the political life of the province between the Servian boundary, the Bulgarian Morava and the basin of the Toplitsa, must inhabit a good many villages here; otherwise Hahn would not have had foundation for speaking of „Slavs'' also when he sets over against the Albanians not Servians only. For this reason it may be believed and accepted that those 29 villages whose nationality Hahn and Zach have not designated are left precisely as Bulgarian. It can not be definitely stated to what extent the Bulgarians in these villages are pure or mixed with Albanians. But even if we should admit a number of Albano-Bulgarian villages, it would not surpass one-third of the whole number (29), because it is plain that the Albanians gradually decrease as compared
with the Slavs in the direction of Prokouple and the Bulgarian Morava, and from the heights toward the valleys. No reason, however, exists for supposing any part whatever of mixed villages in the mentioned number. It seems that Hahn had special interest in showing as fully as possible, in his notes and map, the Albanian population; that it might be better pointed out how the Dardanians, from ancient times, and their kinsmen, Albanians, in later times, colored the Slavic population between the Kossovo plain and the Bulgarian Morava, to the south of Kopaonik and Veliki Yastrebets, through the province of former (ancient) Dardania.
He indicates an Albanian element among Servian inhabitants rather towards the plain of Kossovo and towards the plain of the Servian Morava, finding Albanians among Bulgarians in the valley of the Bulgarian Morava. So that leaving in this valley a row of small villages not designated as Albanian, Servian, or Albano-Servian, he allows them to be considered as inhabited by some other nationality, and that is the Bulgarian. And in truth these villages form between the Albanian, Servian, and Albano-Servian, a belt which begins from the heights of the mountains Pestishka and Pasiachu, and passing between them along the unnamed tributary of the Toplitsa, — crosses the latter toward Prokouple in order to complete the triangle between this city, Supovits, and the mouth of the Toplitsa. The belt continues in like manner beyond the Morava toward the east and the north. On this side of the Morava it embraces, as Bulgaiian, almost all of those villages, „without nationality" on both sides of the valley of the Toplitsa. To them may be added also the „nationality-less" Batsiglava just by Kourshoumlie.
b) In the valley of the Yablanitsa the travellers have particularly indicated on their map Albanian and Bulgarian villages, so that it is strange that they have left along side of them 21 vilages without a designated nationality. In this valley there are no designated Servian settlements. What then are those „without nationality"? One of them is Petchenevtsi; and concerning it Hahn admits in his journal that it is Bulgarian (p. 30). The rest lie in the valley of the river, from Petehnievtsi upward through Lebani all the way to Bulgarian Shelovo. And as to this valley Hahn testifies that it is entirely and purely Bulgarian, extending also to the south, where it embraces the city of Leskovets with a Christian population five-sixths Bulgarian (p. 28). In this region a Bulgarian revolution
took place in 1841 (p. 39). All this gives us the right to proclaim the 21 „nationless" villages along the Yablanitsa as also Bulgarian.
c) In the basin of the Veturnitsa the map has not designated the nationality of 17 settlements. However it has designated some along side of them as Albanian and others as Bulgarian. There are no Servian settlements. And here we ask ourselves: Of what sort are the nationless villages? Four of them along the Soushitsa, from the observations of Hahn in his journal have already turned out to be Bulgarian (p. 35). The rest lie further down the valley toward Leskovets and Morava, to the east of the hill Oumatz. And as to this valley, Hahn himself bears witness that „it is rich in villages inhabited only by Bulgarians" (p. 38). His testimony in regard to the thickly inhabited corner between the mouth of the Veturnitsa below Leskovets and the small tributary of the Morava, the Grabovnitsa, higher up, also suggests to us Bulgarians (p. 40). In the midst of such a Bulgarian population, it is difficult to admit that Leskovets is also not strongly Bulgarian, where revolting Bulgarians fire at the gates of the pasha's palace (p. 39 cf. p. 28). There remains no doubt that here also the 17 settlements „without nationality" on the map are Bulgarian.
d) In Guiliansko. On the watershed of the Bulgarian Morava in Guiliansko at the affluence of the Moravitsa, stand 14 settlements without tribal designation. Albanian, Servian and Albano-Servian settlements are here arranged principally in the northern and western parts of the basin, but in the southern and eastern lie the Albano-Bulgarian and the Bulgarian. This agrees with Hahn's general observation in regard to the distribution of the Slavs (Servians and Bulgarians) along side of the Albanians in the Moravian district. Among the Albanians, the Albano-Bulgarian and the Bulgarian settlements are embraced most of the „tribeless" settlements; and that compels us to think that at least ten of them must be Bulgarian.
e) On the left bank of the Bulgarian Morava. The „tribleless" settlements on the left bank of the Bulgarian Morava, from the mouth of the Moravitsa down to the mouth of the Veturnitsa, are so numerous (p. 29) that they exceed, by more than twice, the number of the Albanian and Bulgarian settlements taken together (p. 13). As the Albanian are only 3, the Bulgarian 10 and the Servian none, and as it is stated in the journal in regard to
Vranya, that five-eighths of its inhabitants are Bulgarian, against three-eighths Albanian (p. 45), it remains for us to think that of the settlements undesignated as to nationality, 28 undoubtedly are Bulgarian; for along the whole course of the Bulgarian Morava, from the Moravitsa clear to the former Servian boundary, the western part is inhabited entirely by Bulgarians: in it are embraced most of the Bulgarian settlements on the Hahn-Zach map, and also in the whole district of Vranya the Bulgarian population exceeds the Albanian, 6 : 1 (p. 48). These „tribeless" settlements are evidently left undesignated as to nationality not only for the reason that there was no special investigation for each one of them separately, but also because of the fact according to Hahn's observation in this part of the valley of the Morava, the population is regularly Bulgarian, with very few exceptions in favor of the Albanians. The map has placed a dense group of „tribeles(s)" hamlets in the Leskovets region, and that is known as Bulgarian.
What results? And thus, out of 111 settlements without designated nationality, we secure in favor of the Bulgarian nationality about 20 more (though more correctly 30!) in the basin of the Toplitsa, 21 in the basin of the Yablanitsa, 16 in the basin of the Veturnitsa and about 38 in the basin from the watershed of the Morava to the affluence of the Veturnitsa (10 plus 28) in all 95 settlements The remaining 16 settlements (or more correctly only 6) we must consider, because of the lack of clearer testimony in the number of mixed Albanian and Bulgarian settlements, but never either Servian or Albano-Servian.
With the 95 clearly Bulgarian settlements discovered by us, our nation is represented according to Hahn and Zach in 1858 as distributed in the region southwest of the Bulgarian Morava. from the boundary of the then Servian kingdom to Karadag on the south and to the plain of Kossovo on the west, as follows:
I. In the valley of the Toplitsa 20 Bulgarian and 10 Albano-Bulgarian (more correctly they also are Bulgarian) along side of 84 Albanian, 32 Servian and 11 Albano-Servian settlements.
II. In the basin of the Pousta-Reka 3 Bulgarian, 3 Albano-Bulgarian along side of 17 Albanian and 1 Servian settlement.
III. In the basin of the Yablanitsa with the Medvedja 30 Bulgarian along side of 33 Albanian settlements without any Servian.
IV. In the basin of the Veturnitsa 26 Bulgarian settlements and in addition 12 unnamed in the Polyanitchka mountain, along side of 7 Albanian, without any Servian.
V. In the basin of the upper course of the Bulgarian Morava (Guiliansko) to the mouth of the Veturnitsa, 65 Bulgarian and 19 Albano-Bulgarian along side of 49 Albanian, 11 Servian and 7 Albano-Servian settlements.
The Ethnographic picture of the District in 1858. The figures for this distribution of Bulgarians among Albanians and Servians in our district once again disclose the fact, that starting from the Kossovo end of the district and going toward the east and the south to reach to Bulgarian Morava, the Bulgarian population, from being entirely insignificant and scattered, becomes constantly more conspicuous and dense. The Servian population gradually disappears entirely, while the Albanian, pure or mixed with Bulgarians, or (to a less degree) with Servians, already loses its supremacy in the plains near the Bulgarian Morava itself. In this way the tribal character of the district is not anywhere homogeneous. This district lies under the numerical tyranny of malicious mountaineers and Mohameden Albanians, and is fed by the peaceful resources of subjugated Christian Slavs, comprising less Servians and more Bulgarians. Along side of 190 Albanian settlements are found 44 Servian and 18 Albano-Servian, but 164 Bulgarian and 32 Albano-Bulgarian. In an economic and political sense, the most notable cities of the district are Leskovets, five-sixths Bulgarian, and Vranya, which is five-eighths Bulgarian and has a Christian Bulgarian consciousness (p. 46). From a military point of view Guiliani is notable, and in its country district the population is more than one-third or two-fifths Bulgarian, with the remaining part Albanian, the city itself probably being mixed in the same ratio.
Of the remaining two cities Kourshoumlie is Albanian, and Prokouple is Albano-Serbian. There is no city entirely or preeminently Servian.
The Relations between the three Nationalities for 1858—1868. The relation between the three nationalities — the Albanian, Servian and Bulgarian — according to the new figures which we have obtained since we attempted to designate the nationality of the „tribeless" settlements, appears in the following manner: Albanians and Slavs maintain, so to speak, an equilibrium: 190 purely Albanian settlements against 200 Bulgarian and
Servian together. The mixed villages do not play any part in the case. Of the Slavic half of the same district, three-fourths are of the Bulgarian nationality (156), and one-fourth of the Servian. And if account is taken of the Bulgarians of 32 mixed Albano-Bulgarian settlements over against the Servians of 18 Albano-Servian, the triple strength of the Bulgarian nation as compared with the Servian stands out still more. The uninterrupted Albanian population begins 12 to 16 miles to the west of the Albanian village of Lepenitsa near the Bulgarian Morava in the Vranya district, while the intervening territory is inhabited uninterruptedly by Bulgarians (p. 42), continuing likewise across the river to the east. Even in the Albanian settlements, scattered in the south-east corner of the Vranya district along the western ridges of the Moravitsa there are Bulgarian homes (p. 50).
This is likewise also in 1858 the ethnographical map of that district from the Bulgarian Morava toward the west to the region which extends from the then boundary of the Servian principality from north to south to Karadag, namely, to the watershed of the Vardar in Macedonia. The map must have continued unchanged up to 1868 when record of Hahn's journey from Belgrade to Salonica appeared in the edition. The author did not introduce there any change from the first edition. And there could not have been any reason for change, not only on his part, but also on the part of the subject itself, because there is nothing known as to the relations among the three nationalities in southwest Moravia during the decade from 1858 to 1868, whether wars, enforced migrations, or anything else which would noticeably influence the number and location of the Albanians, Servians and Bulgarians.
The reports and data of Hahn's journey from Belgrade to Salonica, and of the Hahn-Zach map of the villages in southwest Moravia, could still be worked over, investigating in old sources, contemporary and later, what, differences in names, in condition and in the springing up of villages had existed up to Hahn's time, what appeared in Hahn and what took place after him, up to out own time. But our purpose was solely to establish on the basis of a foreign and unpredjudiced source, that in the district consisting of the basin of Bulgarian-Morava, in the period from 1858 to 1868 the population consisted of Albanians, — the smaller half, of Bulgarians three-fourths of the larger half, and of Servians one fourth of this half.
IV. To whom should Southwest Moravia belong today?
Slavic Geographical Names. The above ethnographical map of our province for 1858 probably was not such during the previous years and even centuries. Almost all geographical names without exception are Slavic, in spite of the fact that half of the population in these places is Albanian. That is the basic evidence, that before the Albanian inhabitants, for long centuries the population was Slavic. But whether Servian or Bulgarian, about this we possess innumerable evidence from the very settling of Slavs throughout the Balkan Peninsula clear up to Hahn's journey and still later.
Evidences as to Bulgarian and Servian.
The evidences are political, historical, ethnographical, philological and from travellers' notes, both foreign and native sources.
Some of the evidence, and that the great majority, precedes the time at which began the Servian propaganda and fight for Servianizing neighboring territories where the population, since the memory of man, has called itself and been styled by all their neighbors „Bulgarie", „Bolgarie", „Boolgarie", „Boogarie". This time can be marked off by the notable Pan-Bulgarian nationalistical political success, under Turkish dominion in the 19th century, by the proclamation of the Sultan's firman regarding the Bulgarian Exarchy in 1870.
Other of the evidences, again both foreign and native, follow from 1870 on — follow after the creation of the Bulgarian exarchy; after the decisions of a European conference in Constantinople (Dec. 1876 — Jan. 1877) for creating two autonomous Bulgarian provinces from the line Timok—Nish—Guilyane—Debr—Kostur toward the east to the
Black sea below Lozengrad; after the conclusion of the Russo-Turkish war in 1878 with the treaty of San Stefano, which created the Bulgarian principality, more rounded out toward the west and south than the two provinces of the Constantinople conference; after the creation of the Bulgarian principality between the Danube and the Balkan range in 1879 by the Berlin treaty, according to which, on the other hand, the Servian principality succeeded in extending its boundaries through the whole of Bulgarian Morava; after the Servian-Bulgarian war of 1885, which by uniting Bulgaria with eastern Roumelia, deeply wounded the conceit of Servia, so that it infuriated her to check the Bulgarians, in order to strip them of every right in Macedonia; and finally after the Balkan war of 1912—1913 in anticipation of which Servia recognized by treaty as belonging to Bulgaria the right over Southeast Macedonia along the line of Kriva Palanka—Ochrid; but after which she altered the treaty by force at Bucharest, in order to take for herself the basin of the Vardar. The evidences after these historico-political events are much less in number than those before them; but the evidences which are produced or taken advantage of by Servia and pro-Servianism are mostly brought into service in order to attain premeditated Servian ends.
The events which we have recalled, without arraying still more of them, have significance for the cultural and political demarcation of the two Slavic nations in the Balkan peninsula, the Servians and Bulgarians, in the territories of their right according to the evidence up to 1870. Every one of these events, because of its cultural and political role, especially irritated the Servian statesmen, politicians and patriots. These events and testimonies made them fear for the fate of their greater-Servian dream already born and cherished from the establishment of the Servian principality in the beginning of the 19th century.
Advantage Taken of the Evidence by Bulgarians and Servians. In their obligation to defend their own land, with its people and its rights, against Servian and Serbophil caprice, calumnies, and wiles, the Bulgarians succeeded in publishing series of writings in which they set themselves to collect as fully as possible the evidence of antiquity and the more recent past as to the extent of the Bulgarian tribe toward the west and south in the Balkan peninsula, as to its fate in state, political and industrial hardships and changes in the peninsula. The labor of these Bulgarians writings
belongs to the names, honored among us and abroad, of professors M. Drinoff, D. Matoff, B. Tsoneff, A. Ishirkoff, J. Ivanoff, S. Mladenoff, of the writers, A. Shopoff, V. Kuncheff, G. Balascheff, K. Misirkoff, G. Zanetoff, D. Misheff, C. Chilingeroff et. al.
Already earlier Servian professors and writers had set themselves to collect and bring to light identical and similar testimony as to the extent of the Servian tribe, as also of the adjacent Bulgarian tribe in the south and west parts of the Balkan peninsula. As far as these Servian efforts aimed only at the truth, and not at pleasing a misleading form of a post-Servian domination, or a conceited dream of a Servian greatness yet to come, so far their testimony yields inferences, with which agree the later inferences drawn from the testimony of the Bulgarian writings.
These two series of works — first the Servian, older and better worked out, and later the Bulgarian, more recent and unpretentious, — mutually complete, support or repeat each other.
Servian Perversion of Evidence. However, another class of Servian works of this kind dedicated itself not to historical truth and reality, but to invented dreamy demands about the Servian nationality and the Servian state which were to be at the fore and supreme in the Balkan peninsula and among the south-Slavs. In the interest of such an egoistic and exclusive purpose, these works passed over in silence evidence unconducive to their greater-Servian reckonings and projects, or, on the other hand, now concealed them, now perverted them, or displaced them with others lacking reliability and reality.
These works were accompanied also by direct investigations by Servians, professional and amateur, all directed to present the matter conducively to a Servian nationalistic idea, while unconducively to the condition and rights of the Bulgarian tribe.
Retraction in Servian Opinion.
Especially since the creation of the Bulgarian exarchy, namely from 1870 on, there have sprung up ever more frequently, and in increasing number, the Servian productions of the mentioned unreliable, distorted and overdone great-Servia type; they produced, in the Servian literature regarding the history, ethnography, and statistics of the Balkan Slavs, the comical and sad picture of denying and disproving after 1870 that which up to 1870 their literature had honestly and correctly acknowledged concerning inherited testimony
and observed fact. It is characteristic to note, for example, that the honored Servian scholar, Stoyan Novakovitch, since the times when the Servian cause began to gnaw at him more than love of the truth concerning the Bulgarian nation (and that was after Servia's unsuccessful war with Turkey in 1876, and after the decisions, terrible for the Servians, of the European conference in Constantinople), — that he gradually committed to oblivion his own assertions as to the Bulgarian nationality of the Slavs south of the boundaries of the Servian principality in Bulgarian-Moravia and Macedonia, and not only so, but began to assert that the Slavs there as far as Karadag are Servians, while from there, throughout Macedonia, they are some sort of dough without nationality out of which could be kneaded and baked either Servians or Bulgarians. Still more characteristic and lamentable is the action of the noted Servian professor, Ivan Tsveeitch concerning the investigation of the ethnographical relations in the western half of the Balkan peninsula. This scholar, finding in his every research in Macedonia and in the south Moravian basin, that he was bumping into evidence and reality incompatible with the wide sway of Servianism, but, on the contrary, favorable to the longings of the Bulgarian nation, contrived change after change in his own theory as to the nationality of the Slavic population in these parts. According to one of his changes, in Macedonia live „Macedonian Slavs" disinct from Bulgarians and from Servians; according to another these „Macedonian Slavs" are partly Servians and partly Bulgarians; according to a third, on the contrary, they are wholly Servian. And on what circumstance depends this change in Tsveeitch's theory is immediately evident from the fact that during the time of the Balkan alliance and the Balkan wars in 1912—1913, he wrote and published in many languages political-ethnographical polemics and maps, in which the boundaries between Servians and Bulgarians, and the colors of the Servian and Bulgarian populations do not meet with each other. The colors indicating the division of Servian and Bulgarian in Macedonia (all of Moravia and Old Servia are according to Tveeitch purely Servian) more for him according to the desires of the Servian patriotism and its national policy and according to the success of the latter. Just in the beginning of the Balkan war of 1912 one of Tsveeitch's polemics entitled „The Balkan War and Servia", published in Belgrade in 1912, — marked out in Macedonia territorries for Bulgarian population and for Serbian population, conforming with a previously
concluded secret treaty to promote friendly relations and alliance between Bulgaria and Servia. When the Servian armies entered the greater part of Macedonia (in the fall of 1912), and there opened up a fine outlook for the great-Servian dream, Tsveeich quickly prepared a second edition of his polemic in which he changed his opinion about the boundaries between Servians and Bulgarians. In this publication was dazzlingly evident how the political impetus guided him in his ethnographical reasonings. Toward the end of the Balkan war (spring of 1913) it was understood that the Servian diplomacy would break the Serbo-Bulgarian treaty for the division of the emancipated western didtricts of European Turkey; then Tsveeitch, as a forewarning of the war between the allies, published another polemic with a map, entitled „Die ethnographische Abgrenzung der Völker auf der Balkanhalbinsel", in Peterman's Mitteilungen for March and April 1913, — in which vanished entirely the Bulgarian population from southwestern Macedonia, Servians took its place and the „no-sort-of", Macedonian- Slavic population, neither Servian nor Bulgarian, decreased. For a scholar who respects the value of truth and of his own personality such an incongruity in data and conclusions about one and the same subject is impossible, - and that about nationality and population in the course of only half a year.
In order to force the Bulgarian population of Skopia district south of Karadag under the Servian sign (but that was before the treaty of 1912 between Bulgaria and Servia, according to which treaty said district was placed under arbitration of the Russian Tsar), Tsveeitch harnessed all his geographical reasoning and made the district together with the summit of the basin of the Vardar, a constituent part of „Old Servia", which extends mainly to the northwest of Shar, in the Basin of Servian-Morava. So the geographical principle was subordinated to the political and two „Old" Servias appeared, that of Metochia and that of Skopia.
In the polemic opened by Tsveeitch he cunningly assembled some of his basic judgments in order to make the world believe all that metamorphosis to which he is ready to subject his assertions as to the nationality of the Slavic populations in the Balkan peninsula, for the satisfaction of the political dreams and the success of the Servian state. Tsveeitch assures us that the ethnographical map of the Balkan peninsula, as no other, ages fast, — almost daily and hourly. It is changed especially after every war; and will change radically also
alter the Balkan war. And the map which Tsveeitch now draws for the distribution of Bulgarians and Servians in the peninsula, and adds to his polemic will have grown old after the Balkan war, — will have only historical value, because the national relationships will be changed! Of course they will; because according to Tsveeitch in Macedonia there are Slavs who — if after the war the Bulgarians take what was pledged to them in the Serbo-Bulgarian treaty, from Pataritsa to Struga, — will at once become, in all Macedonia south of this line, Bulgarians. If, on the other hand, the Servians succeed in „conquering" this good territory the Slavs there will become again at once Servians.
Double Servian Knowledge and Interpretation. Without citing the names of Servian authors and writings regarding the geographical, historical and ethnographical boundary of Servia toward the south and east, and of Bulgaria toward the south and west in the peninsula, it is enough to bring out the following: 1. that up to 1870 the Servian knowledge and interpretation is one thing, while from then on it is another; 2. that the first knowledge and interpretation, based on the abundance of old and modern foreign and native testimony, and upon impartially observed reality, corroborates the knowledge and interpretation also from the side of Bulgaria; 3. that the Servian historical science and literature from 1870 on has retracted its first knowledge and interpretation in order to unfurl and uphold a second interpretation, new and contradictory to the first, while the Bulgarian historical science and literature always continues to develop and to maintain its well-knowm first interpretation, and with this also to find itself in sharper conflict with the Servian attitude.
Foreign knowledge and Interpretation.
The knowledge and interpretation of the Servian and of the Bulgarian historical science, regarding the extent of the Servian and Bulgarian nationalities in Macedonia, in Moravia and in Timok, is accompanied by the knowledge and interpretation of foreign historical science, presented in the notable works of authors of other nationalities Slavic and Non-Slavic. Without giving their names, we can likewise only mention the following: 1. that these authors, not only until the creation of the Bulgarian exarchy in 1870, but even till the creation of the Bulgarian principality in 1878, testify always to the first-mentioned knowledge and interpretation; 2. that barely from 1878 on,
after Servia occupied also all that was left of Moravia, there began to appear writers, advocates of the new, second „knowledge and interpellation", as we have called it, without, however, there occurring any decrease or weakening in the group of writers of the first type; 3. and that, in spite of this, the largest weight of truth and reliability, of honest thought and confession was felt in the line of the advocates of the first knowledge and interpretation.
The lover of the subject will find a sufficiency of literature, Serbian, Bulgarian and foreign, quoted in modern works about the Balkan Slavs by S. Novakovitch, J. Tsveeitch, A. Belitch, A. Ishirkoff, J. Ivanoff, G. Zanetoff, L. Niderle, T. Florenski and N. Derzhavin.
Bulgarians in Moravia and in Macedonia from Ancient Times. According to the witness of antiquity the districts of Timok and Moravia with Belgrade and to the plain of Kossovo, as also the whole of Macedonia, were occupied during the sixth and seventh centuries by Slavs who in the ninth and tenth centuries formed, politically and culturally, a Bulgarian nationality.
These districts entered not once and not for a short time into the boundaries of the Bulgarian state, until during the 14th and 15th centuries they were subjugated by the Turks; and during the time of the Turkish dominion native and foreign reports and writings without exception confirm the Bulgarianism of the inhabitants in these provinces, designating also that, geographically and politically, they belong with Bulgaria. The city of Nish situated just where the Nishava empties into the Bulgarian Morava, is usually referred to on the way through Turkey from Belgrade to Constantinople as „the first city in Bulgarian territoty".
Even the very names of the said Moravian branches, namely „Bulgarian Morava" and „Servian Morava", inherited from antiquity, show clearly why they were so given. The basin of the left branch, inhabited by Servians, separated these from the Bulgarians, inhabiting the basin of the right branch. For this reason it must be reckoned positively, that the Slavic names of the settlements in the basin of the Bulgarian Morava, where the travellers Hahn and Zach noted in 1858 an Albanian population, were given at some time by a Bulgarian population. Characteristic traces of the Bulgarianism of these names were preserved also in the Bulgarian pronunciation of the letter (double e) like ya against which the Servian pronunciation is simply e or ye.
Settlement by Albanians. Disturbances and insurrections of the Slavic population of this region against the Turkish conqueror in the 17th and 18th centuries compelled Servians and Bulgarians, from the basin of the Morava and round about, to evacuate their settlements. In their place settled Mohamedan Albanians, their nearest neighbors and co-religionists enjoying the protection of the Turkish authority. The Albanians continue also through Turkish times to widen out from their settlements to the east, through Servians and Bulgarians, and in the manner, explained by Hahn, of Albanianizing the village of Igrishti at the source of the Soushitza, a branch of the Bulgarian Morava.
Servians, Bulgarians and Albanians to 1870. This geographical situation of Servians and Bulgarians in the upper basin of the Morava, and this movement of Albanians through their settlements, from west to east, are known and acknowledged by Servians also up to 1870 to be just as they are described in written testimonies, oral traditions among the population and in the construction of the language.
Von Hahn's journal confirms the thought of the distribution and movement by his data and notes for 1858. The picture which stands out from Hahn's and Zach's data remains the same, without any real change, up to 1868, as has already been noticed above; because on no side, — neither from the Servian Principality, neither from the Turkish government, nor from the midst of the very population of south-western Moravia did there appear in the interval from 1858 to 1808 any special influence to disturb and alter noticeably the geographical distribution of Servians and Bulgarians and the movement of Albanians. And so that to which Hahn and Zach bore testimony as to these relations in 1858, and that which those same relations have presented in their continuance up to 1868, is a reality which in its entirety has not been denied even by the Servians. From this is understood — the importance for us of the ethnographical map of south-western Moravia according to the Hahn-Zach information and data, especially since, after Hahn's journal until 1870 and later, no other work appeared with such classifications and designations of the settlements in the said region. And no such work appeared, with such a full enumeration of the villages in south-western Moravia and with such a defining of their distribution among Albanians, Servians
and Bulgarians, not even after 1870, up to the occupation of that region by the Servians in 1878.
Servian Attempts since 1870. Since 1870 there have been put in line the attempts of Servian writers and patriots to change the thought and meaning of the testimonies and actuality as to the distribution of Bulgarians and Servians within the limits of the territory occupied by the two nationalities. Instead of the name „Bulgarian Morava", they proposed „Southern Morava"; and, corresponding with that „Western Morava" instead of „Servian Morava"; it was insisted that the proposed names should become exclusive terms in Servian literature. The success of Servian diplomacy in gaining, as a consequence of the Russo-Turkish War in 1877—1878, the disricts of Bulgarian Moravia with the cities of Kourshoumlie, Prokouple, Leskovets, Vranya, Nish and Pirot, created great facilities for the patriotic Servian caprices. Having become political masters in these „new regions", the Servians described their settlements and population just as was pleasing and agreeable to themselves. What was Bulgarian in speech, manner of life and consciousness was proclaimed Servian, and the Albanian infusion into once Bulgarian homes was explained as having regularly happened at the expense of a Servian population. On the strength of these Servian testimonies, arguments were presented later on for an ethnographic and historical right of Servian mastery in all Moravia. There were also constructed theories for the extension of that mastery still further to the south, through the Karadag and Shar Mountains, over a Slavic population kindred with that in the valley of the Bulgarian Moravia.
Under Servia's hand the Bulgarians in Moravia disappear. Conditions being given for asserting that the structure of the population, established by Hahn and Zach for 1858—1868, in the basin of the Bulgarian Morava could not have suffered significant change up to December 1, 1877, when Servia, leaning upon Russian military successes, herself declared war on Turkey, it becomes very strange, that in the first Servian reports after this event, the population of the said district is clean of any sort of Bulgarians, shows very few Albanians, and barely includes a few Jews, — it is in its great majority, even exclusively and self-evidently, — Servian!
Where went the Bulgarians, up to that time three times as numerous as the Servians? The Bulgarians in Moravia disappear in one sweep, as by magic!
The district in the basin of the Bulgarian Morava entirely foil under Servian rule from the day when Servia finished before Russia her war against Turkey on January 22, 1878. Servia succeeded in retaining this enormous gain also by the Berlin Treaty of July 14, 1878. She united it to herself as immemorial Servian territory. In 1879 the Servian authorities took a census and description of the population of her new lands. Of this M. J. Militcheviteh, author of „Servian Plincipalitity" (Belgrade, 1876), took advantage in the supplement to this work, entitled „Kingdom of Servia, new Territories" (Belgrade, 1884). Here Militchevitch spoke of the population in these lands, of the peculiaritity in its speech, in its customs, of its dress, of thefts, murders, fires, of pupils and teachers, etc. But nowhere did he take pains to indicate by name the nationality of this population in cities, villages and hamlets. As he conducts his exposition, he leaves the reader himself to understand that the population is Servian everywhere where it is not explicitely indicated as of Mohamedan, or Jewish faith, or as Albanian oppressors and intruders. And such indications are so rare that one gets the impression of an unbroken Servian mass which inhabits the „new regions" with an insignificant batch of Albanian color, toward Kossovo Plain and Prizren. The Servian mass crosses the boundaries of the new regions to the south and east, of course into Turkey and Bulgaria. Of Bulgarians not even a memory! They evaporate probably in consequence of the order given February 8, 1878 by the Servian military authority in the occupied territory; because that order forbade in the future under penalty of severe punishment the population in Moravia to call itself Bulgarian, to call its language „Bulgarian" and the river „Bulgarian" Morava!
The Population in southwest Moravia according to M. J. Militchevitch. Behold the important places in „The kingdom of Servia" of Militchevitch, which define the nationality (not acknowledged by him expressely) of the population in southwest Moravia.
The basin of the Toplitza especially the upper part, after the Servian evacuation during the 17—18th century, becomes depopulated and so Albanians occupy it. Up to 1878 it was an actual Albanian state. There were there only three Servians, and of them almost nothing was known that they were Servian (p. 380). Of Bulgarians there was not one. As soon as the Servians got control of
the Toplitsa basin, the Albanians „emigrated of themselves". After the San Stephano Treaty many of them returned. But the Servian authorities again displaced them, this time by force. „This measure was carried out severely. However up to the present day it has not been illuminated from all sides. Some think that good was accomplished by it; others, on the other hand, fear lest with this forced emigration of the Albanians, harm was done to the future interests of the Servian fatherland" (p. 361—362). In the upper Toplitsa the dialect is near to that of those of the lber and Studenitsa (that is, to the Kossovo dialect). In the lower Toplitsa, on the other hand, are met peculiarities of the dialect of Nish and Leskovets. But we know from Hahn, who stirred up the storms in the provinces of Nish and Leskovets that they were Bulgarians, even according to Servian testimony, abundantly produced in the book „Moravia according to Servian evidence, historical investigations with map" by S. Chilingeroff (Sofia, 1917).
We know then, by the customary Servian practice of speaking out their dissatisfaction with every inhabitant in Bulgarian Moravia: They insult him with the word „Bugarash" whose form and meaning rests on the clearly understood principle of nationality. Under such circumstances the dialect in Nish and Leskovets provinces cannot be Servian; therefore it cannot be such also in Lower Toplitsa! Militchevitch is not clear when he wonders at „different languages" in Toplitsa province: Does he mean by this simply Servian dialects — some south-western in character, some eastern or on the other hand, speech of several nationalities such as, according to Hahn and Zach, dwelt there, three in number, or such as were able to immigrate from the surrounding districts after the „severe" displacement of the Albanians? Militchevitch says literally: „The settlers who here form the chief population of Toplitsa have brought each one his own language. And so today Toplitsa in languages and dialects strongly resembles the description of the Tower of Babel" (p. 405). Vranya, ruled by the Servians, comprises the province which extends along both banks of the Bulgarian Morava. Concerning the language of its inhabitants Militchevitch remarks: „In the villages in the eastern half of the proving are heard more often the peculiarities of the Bulgarian language, while in the western half, peculiarities of the Servian language." But according to Hahn, the province from Turkish times was sixsevenths Bulgarian against one-seventh
Albanian, and its Albanian population extended toward the west and south from Bulgarian Morava. If the eastern half of this province under Servian rule showed according to Militchevitch Bulgarian peculiarities in the speech of its population, it appears inexplicable: whence all at once spring up the Servian peculiarities of speech of its western half? With some satisfaction Militchevitch always declares how during 1880 the glorious Servian philolog Danichich had heard in Klisuri of Gurdeliteh the word „komai", which was used in the whole of the Vranya province. Meanwhile it is doubtful whether there is another characteristic word beside „komai" which so strikingly bears witness of the Bulgarian speech of all Vranya province, because it is universally known (komai, komahai) in the speech of the Bulgarian clear to the Black Sea on the east and in Thrace on the South, and because even Vouk Karadjitch is not acquainted with it in the dialects of the Servian nation. The frequent use of the double pronoun form,. „mene me'", „tebe te", „nemou mou" in the Vranya dialect is a mark characteristically Bulgarian. And in the proper names which are quoted by Militchevitch (p. 315) from the Vranya district, their peculiarities exactly agree with the known Bulgarian, but not with the Servian. Militchovitch remarks also that the villages of the ranva district which remained outside the Servian boundary in Bulgaria, „cry out to be allowed to come to Vranya to market"; and recommends to the governments, Servian and Bulgarian, to grant their petition on account of most vital interests of the population. In these „vital interests" not the least would be the play of the feeling of identical nationality among the Vranya inhabitants in Servia and in Bulgaria which according to Militchevitch also possess on the Servian side „Bulgarian peculiarities" of speech.
M. J. Militchevitch is not the only one. The manner of M. J. Militchevitch's conduct toward the Bulgarian population in the parts taken by the Servians in 1878 is characteristic also of all Servian works published after him and dealing with the population which earlier witnesses without exception designated as Bulgarian.
After the manner of the Servians as we have said, foreigners also wrote, some from pro-servianism, others from naive belief in Servian assertions. Finally, since 1878 there appeared that marvel that on one and the same population, knowing itself to be Bulgarian, known and called by Greeks, Turks, and Albanians as Bulgarian, is stubbornly imposed the designation „Servian'' within the boundaries of
the Servian State, while outside these boundaries now „Macedonian Slavs", now „Servian", but only in an extreme case „Bulgarian", and that not in the sense of nationality, but of a low state of culture! The name „Bulgarian", by which the Slavic population in Macedonia calls itself and is called by fellow inhabitants of other nationalities, has so tormented Tsveeiteh's preoccupied Servian mind, when he traversed Macedonia to study it, that it drove him so invent the learned absurdity that forsooth this name meant not a member of the Bulgarian nationality, but a „simple fellow". Can it, and ought it, to be permitted in science and literature: An approved Bulgarian population in southwest Moravia in 1858, and probably living there as such to the end of 1877, all at once, since 1873 to cease to exist or to be transformed into Servian?
Precisely from such evil license is born the unconcluded (even today) quarrel as to the nationality of the Slavic population in southern and eastern provinces of the Servian kingdom. However, it is time to put an end to the quarrel by rendering, in accordance with truth and justice, „unto Cod the things that are God's and unto Ceasar the things that are Caesar's."
Mutual transitions between Servian and Bulgarian. From the century-long contiguity of Servians and Bulgarians and from the closest relationship between the languages of the two peoples have occurred from the one nation toward the other language transitions, in which Servian and Bulgarian mutually color each other. However, the basic marks, the characteristic peculiarities of the Servian language, or of the Bulgarian, in fact determine whether the basic Servian language or dialect is colored from the Bulgarian, passes into the Bulgarian, or on the contrary the Bulgarian language and speech are colored from the Servian and pass into the Servian. Similar transitions are observed, for example, also among the languages or dialects of the Bohemians and the Poles in Silicia, of the Slovaks and Russians in the North-Carpathians etc. The prominent Servian philolog A. Belitch has written an extensive work „Dialect of Eastern and Southern Servia" (Belgrade, 1905) in which it exactly falls to him to stop on the speech-forms passing between Servians and Bulgarians. But the fortunate author in every way guards himself against recognizing in any dialect of eastern and southern Servia any sort of Bulgarian influence, but still more guards against admitting
basic Bulgarian speech showing Servian influence. But it has long been known, that Bulgarian speech-forms reach clear into Servian dialects of the Kossovo plain, and that in the whole basin of the Bulgarian Morava and of the Timok are found basic Bulgarian speech-forms, modified with some Servian forms. Scientifically it may be asked whether the Bulgarian dialects with Servian marks, or the Servian dialects with Bulgarian marks, have appeared at some later time in the life of Bulgarians and Servians, or, on the other hand, whether the dialects are a product of that ancient time when Servian and Bulgarian Slavs began to separate from each other. Belitch does not propose to himself such a question; instead of that he takes his stand directly on the ground that in the kingdom of Servia all Slavic dialects are Servian; and from this position he defines as Servian also every dialect within the western and southern limits of the Bulgarian kingdom and outside of it in Macedonia whenever the given dialect shares certain marks with the neighboring dialects of these parts. Belitch artfully makes out to be a coloring brought solely by Wallachians (Vlachs), or by Albanians, without fearing the question when and how it was possible that this could occur. This position of Belitch is contrary to the course of the whole political and cultural history of their neighbors and tribal brothers, Servians and Bulgarians, and accordingly, contrary also to philology which in such a case, grants as a postulate mutual language influences and borrowings. In eastern and southern Servia, from the time of the said work of Belitch, exist dialects not simply Servian with Bulgarian influences (the influences can be neither Wallacian nor Albanian!) but true Bulgarian with Servian influences, because their foundation peculiarities mark them as a member of the Bulgarian family, by no means of the Servian.
Foreign Investigators and the Servians. Foreigners who planned to investigate the ethnographical relations in the southern and eastern parts of Servia after her expansion to Macedonia, the Timok and Tsaribrod, naturally turned for first information to Servian literature, and there they found already mixed the color of the population which it was their task to visit and understand. Most of them, unenlightened as to the fine points in the construction of the Bulgarian language, as compared with the Servian, especially the language of the poetical productions of oral tradition, unenlightened also in certain similarities and differences in the Servian and Bulgarian
manner of living, accepted almost entirely whatever was suggested to them by the Servian books and by muddled Servian sources.
On the other hand, the Servian political authorities knew how to warn the foreign investigators of the sections already Servian, or for which the Servian nation hungered, and to surround them with such kindnesses and favors that the investigations frequently had to be carried on either with superficial insight into the interesting and suggestive corners of the actual state of affairs; or with stronger faith in the announcements and communications of the Servian authorities, or at last with still more gracious acknowledgement of the kindnesses and favors rendered.
Few, very few, are such investigators who have been able to preserve undeceived their real purpose and to keep intact their firm plan to dig down to the real truth in regard to the ethnographic boundary between Servia and Bulgaria. Let us mention also that some investigators have found it convenient to follow in this question the political boundaries between Bulgaria and Servia, accepting that these boundaries divided ethnographically also the settlements and population of the two nationalities, and that there remain only to be drawn the lines of demarcation in the adjacent lands outside of the established political boundaries, i. e., in Turkey.
„Incompetent" foreign science on Servian and Bulgarian. Foreign investigators of Serbo-Bulgarian ethnographical and cultural relations, where they have acknowledged to the Bulgarian nationality any-thing incompatible with conclusions pleasing to modern Servian diplomacy and science, have been diverted by the later, among other things, by a claim of incompetency. Incompetent for Professor A. Belitch, for instance, is the famous Slavic scholar Victor Gregorovitch (deceased) who declared in his journal „Outline of Journey through European Turkey" Kazan 1847, that in Macedonia he met always Bulgarians. Incompetent, also, is U. L. Kondakoff, Russian Academician, but only when he gives to the Bulgarians in Macedonia first place over the Servians in his work „Macedonia, Archeological Journey", 1909. Incompetent according to Tsveeitch are Ami Boue, Johann von Hahn, Mckenzie and Irbye and others like them who define the extent of the Bulgarian population in Bulgaria and in Moravia, — incompetent solely because they themselves were not acquainted with a single Slavic language. Ethnographical maps by the same Boue, by Ledjana, Kipert and others, lack value, declare
Tsveeitch and Belitch, because they were not linguistic maps. But on the other hand, Belitch and Tsveeitch refer not infrequently for their own anti-Bulgarian arguments to the assertion of foreign authors altogether ignorant of ethnography and philology, wholly lacking the impartiality requisite to science. Knowing themselves the Bulgarian and Servian languages, the one scientifically, the other more as amateurs, Belith and Tsveeitch have brought forward, as to the extent of the Servian and Bulgarian tribes in the Balkan peninsula, data and conclusions which oppose the researches of the most recognized Slavic ethnographers and philologists.
The Spread of Servians and Albanians among Bulgarians. The district in the basin of the Bulgarian Morava is represented by Hahn and Zach as Albano-Bulgarian with a scattering of Servian population towards the then boundary of the Servian principality to the north, and toward Kossovo Plain to the west. The spread of the Servian settlements eastward from these two directions was the result of the proximity here of ancient Servian lands in the basin of the Servian Morava. Where two nationalities are contiguous, and especially such as are kindred Slavs, as are the Servian and the Bulgarian, there naturally appears a belt colored by the population of both. This could appear the more readily among the Servians and the Bulgarians because of common elements in their historical destinies, belonging, as they do, to one and the same fate, fed for long ages with one and the same literature, and having endured one and the same Turkic-Mohammedan yoke. And the spread of the Albanians among the Servians and Bulgarians is the progress of a neighboring movement, protected by the condescension or weackness of the Turkish-Mohammedan power toward the preying and warlike descendants of the ancient Illirians.
The Ancient Bulgarian Region Exposed to foreign Invasion: In this region in the basin of the Bulgarian Morava, the Albanians inhabit settlements which in their names are almost exclusively Slavic and in then origin Bulgarian. The ancient Bulgarian population has been pushed out of them until the region has become changed from Bulgarian to Albano-Bulgarian. Such it was in 1858, such it continued until 1868, and doubtless until its subjugation under the Servian sovereignty in 1878. If any change has occurred since then in the ethnical composition of the population, it
has been perhaps: 1. In the immigration of a Servian element, in the oppression and Servianizing of Albanian and Bulgarian elements; 2. in the appearing of new settlements and the disappearance of old. The real outcome of this Servian period in the ethnic life of the region can not be known from Servian sources. And it can not be known with entire reliability from foreign sources, which are few and rest on data compromised by the kindness shown the authors by the Servians. It remains for a new research to be made, free from Servian influence, carried out on the spot, such as doubtless was the research of Hahn and Zach.
South-western Moravia under Bulgarian rule. Today the region in the basin of the Bulgarian Morava is completely occupied by Bulgarian military and civil authorities. To request, under this administration, an investigation as to the nationality of the population of all the settlements would, perhaps, be inconvenient; because there would be aroused a suspicion of influence on the part of this Bulgarian administration such as in reality was exercised there by the Servian administration. However, the ground on which the question as to the ethnographical relations in the said region is to be decided, is incontrovertibly given in that which Hahn and Zach noted in 1858, which doubtless lasted after them up to 1878, and in that before them which the Servians themselves have known and admitted in line with the Bulgarians and all other authors of testimonies and data in regard to the same land and population, going back clear to the settling of the Balkan Peninsula by the Slavs.
Whose is South-western Moravia? The ground for deciding the question: To whom by right belongs the region in the basin of the „Southern" or Bulgarian Morava, (to the Servians, Albanians or Bulgarians) is fundamentally Bulgarian. The region was Bulgarian up to the centuries during which Bulgarian emigration was imposed in order to be followed by an Albanian immigration. This the names of the settlements prove. The immigration of strangers into places vacated by Bulgarians, taking place from the west and north toward the south and east, brought here in later centuries something of a Servian population. The Bulgarian soil is variagated more than half by Albanians and one quarter by Servians. Thus the majority of the population becomes Albanian. But this Albanian majority neither represents the cultural power of the district, nor is it capable of binding it politically with the original land of the nationality —
Albania. Likewise, the Servian minority is not able today to undertake and accomplish such a task.
The Bulgarian population to the south-west along the Bulgarian Morava, as numerous as Hahn and Zaeh found it and as it always remained after them under the Servian administration, does not yield culturally to the local Servian population, and in addition to that surpasses it numerically. It is bound up, further, toward the east and south, with its kindred Bulgarian population unbroken by Albanians or by Servians — east beyond the Morava and south beyond the Karadag (Cherna-gora) in Skopia province. This is proved also by the „South Moravian" speech or dialect, distinguished under this name by the Servian philologists themselves, but in its essence an undoubted branch of the Bulgarian language. But the settlements to the east and south beyond south-west Moravia also form real Bulgarian territory recognized as belonging to the Bulgarian state by a European conference in Constantinople, by a Russo-Turkish treaty at San Stefano, and by so many public and secret statements of European statesmen, diplomats and special envoys during recent years (1912—1916).
Bearing such ethnographical relation to Bulgaria, and so judged as a political unit with our country, the territory of the basin of the Bulgarian Morava, now under Bulgarian military and exarchical authority, belongs and must remain within the boundaries of the Kingdom of Bulgaria.
That which Hahn and Zach established regarding the Bulgarianism of this territory in 1858 is for us one more argument, among the many others, of which we are in duty bound to make use in the interest of the triumph of Bulgarian national unification.
[Back to Index]