Translated by Ilias Kyzirakos
http://www.hri.org/docs/macque/
But these Slavs did not settle in vacant areas, as has been contended; they came across an indigenous Greek population, who, due to attacks and upheavals, had gathered mainly in city centres. Slav settlers soon came into contact, with that Greek element, much superior culturally and politically, developed relations with them and were strongly influenced by them60.
Prudent and realistic policies by the Byzantine emperors also contributed decisively to the integration of Slav settlers into the Byzantine system, thereby assimilating and hellenising them. To this end, they used various means depending on the circumstances; military, whenever they had to put down a revolt or reinstate imperial authority or put under their control a rebellious Slavic group. Or frequently peaceful: administrative and ecclesiastic, demographic and economic. Sources mention military expeditions by Byzantine emperors against the Slavs in the Greek area, which started from the mid-7th c. Initially, these expeditions were carried out in Northern Greece and resulted in the gradual reestablishment of Byzantine authority.
Military operations, though, were not the only means of subjugating the new settlers. A basic policy of the Byzantine administration was a demographic measure, the forcible transfer of populations. By transferring Slavic populations to Asia Minor, the Byzantine empire achieved two things: on one hand the Slavic element in the Hellenic area was arithmetically weakened, and on the other hand assimilation was facilitated, since Slavs who were transferred to Asia Minor found themselves amidst a flourishing and numerous Greek population. But this demographic measure was even applied vice-versa, that is, Greek populations from Asia Minor were transplanted into Slavic populations ("epi tas Sklabinias") in order to reinforce the Greek element in these areas. Thus we learn, for example, that emperor Nicephorus (802-811) established in the northern Greek area populations which he transferred from all administrative districts ("ek pantos thematos") of Asia Minor61.
Furthermore a new adminstrative organization of themata (i.e. administrative districts with a general at the head) that was generally put into practice during this critical period, reinforced imperial rule and made control of Slavic groups more effective. Between 680 and 685 the "thema of Thrace" was established and in in 695 for the first time the "thema of Hellas" is mentioned. In the 9th c. reorganization was further reinforced by a division into smaller administrative units - a general tendency of the era: the "Thema of Macedonia" with Andrianople as capital (mentioned for the first time in 802); the "thema of Strymon" and the "thema of Thessaloniki" were established at that time.
We find out, therefore, that the Byzantine state followed a realistic and consistent policy in order to cope with the problem of Slav settlers, a policy that led to the control and integration of Slavic races by the empire. In this way the Byzantine state contributed decisively to their assimilation by the indigenous population and to their Hellenization.
The almost total lack of remnants of Slavic civilization (burial customs, dwellings, techniques and types of ceramics)62 testifies to this assimilation, which of course, could never have been achieved without the presence of an indigenous Greek population.
In the work of assimilation an essential role was also played by the Church, which had, by then, been reorganized and administratively reinforced in order that Slav settlers could be integrated into it. Thus, by the end of 7th c. at the VIth Synod (680/681) and at the Synod in Dome (692) five dioceses are mentioned in Macedonia: those of Thessaloniki, Philippi, Amphipolis, Edessa and Stobi. The number is significant, especially when compared to other areas of the empire, and it must be stressed that the seats of these dioceses are found at vital points in the area. Thus, the establishment of Amphipolis's diocese at the mouth if the Strymon was apparently aimed at reinforcing the Byzantine presence towards Strymonite Slavs and the reestablishment of Stobi's diocese in NW Macedonia, at supporting - in cooperation with the diocese of Edessa - the policy of Byzantium towards Slavs Drogoubites and maybe even at achieving their eventual Christianisation63.
The Christianising of Slavs in Hellenic territory took place gradually in different localities even before the official Christianising of the Slavic world outside the Byzantine Empire by Cyril and Methodius.
Regarding the work of Constantin-Cyril and Methodius, the two Thessalonian brothers, the whole argument of Skopje does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny. There is such an extensive bibliography64about the two Apostles of the Slavs, their work and their ethnic origin, that any repetition is uprefluous. However I must emphasize that the two brothers were-eminent representatives of the Byzantine spirit, of the Greek and Christian civilization which had been reborn after the Iconoclast period65. They had an extraordinary Greek education and were polyglots. Undoubtedly, they expressed Byzantine policy and they were fully conscious that they were Greeks66. They had undertaken other missions to the Arabs and the Khazars too apart from that to the Slavic world. Nowadays, even foreign scientists of Slavic descent consider them to be Greek.67.
As for the language, on which the Slavic alphabet was based and in which the two brothers preached Christianity, it could certainly not be a "Macedonian" dialect, that is a Slavic dialect of Macedonia. It is noteworthy that the Bulgarians maintain that the two apostles taught the new religion in Bulgarian68. Apart from the fact that at that time Slavic "daughter" languages had not yet evolved far enough to form the basis for a new written language69, the basic fact that Cyril and Methodius worked in distant Moravia should be stressed. Experienced missionaries as they were, they could not have used a dialect foreign to the Moravians, but a language comprehensible to the people of Moravia otherwise they would not have been so well received, made soon an impact or had the success that they had in their work: they taught the new religion in the Old Slavic mother language, which at that time was common among all Slavs, and for this reason their work spread very rapidly throughout the Slavic world. The first translations of the Holy Scriptures and of legal texts etc. from Greek into the Slavic language were made in this Old Slavic mother language and not in "Macedonian" or another dialect.
To sum up, we observe that during the Middle Ages Slavs settled in Macedonia, as well as in other Greek regions, but they did not alter the ethnic physiognomy of the region. The "Tactics" of Leon VI the Wise, in the beginning of the 10th c., report characteristically: "My late father and emperor Basil had persuaded the Slavic tribes to change their ancient customs, and hellenised them, and subjected them following the roman system, liberated them from their leaders, honoured them by the baptism and trained them to fight against people at war with the Romans (= the Byzantines)"70. As Paul Lemerle writes, "Byzantium christianized, civilized and assimilated these Slavs, making them Greeks. And this is one of the most impressive victories of the Greek genius"71.
It should also be noted that at the time when the Medieval Serbian State was flourishing (mid-13th - mid-14th c.) and especially at the time of Stefan Dusan (1331-1354), the Serbs expanded their domination into Macedonia and in particular into Northern Greek territory. However, no source mentions that the conquered population was Slavic: the Serbian expansion is mentioned in contemporary sources, as a conquest of Greek regions. The Serbian domination was characterized as "illegal and tyrranical" and considered to be alian domination72.
It is also remarkable that a few years later, during the first siege of Thessaloniki by the Turks (1383-1387), King Manuel Palaeologus, in his speech "Admonition to the people of Thessaloniki", urges the inhabitants to fight to death, fot this is what their historical tradition decrees: "because we are Romans (= Byzantines, Greeks) and our country is the one of Philip and Alexander". This means that he, as well as the inhabitants, were conscious of the historical continuity of Hellenism and of their Greek origin which had its roots in ancient times73
The evidence of the sources and the findings of historical research: 3. Turkish Domination
The historians of Skopje commit a grave historical error, as I have already noted, when they present the ethnic composition and the demographic situation of Macedonia as being static and unchanging. This becomes even more evident at the time of the Turkish domination, which lasted almost 500 years, during which major reclassifications and population74 movements took place. I will refer to them very briefly.
Immediately after the conquest of Macedonia, towards the end of the 14th c. A.D., Turkish groups, mainly great landowners, farmers and stock-breeders, settled in Macedonia, where they were attracted by the fertile plains75.
At the same time, however, we observe a flight of Greek inhabitants from Macedonia, in two directions. The first wave moved towards the Greek regions which were still free or under Frankish domination, towards Italy and generally to the West. Among them, were many eponymous Macedonian scholars, such as Theodoros Gazis, Andronikos Kallistos, and others, who worked towards the dissemination of Greek literature76. A second wave headed for the mountainous and secluded parts of the interior, where, far from the control of the conqueror, they would be able to survive. This second wave was larger and more important; thus it caused real uprooting of Christian populations. That is why, according to Ottoman documents, the Muslim population outnumbers the Christian in many towns during the first centuries of the Turkish domination. These Greek fugitives inhabited certain villages in Western Macedonia and Chalkidike, where large wooded areas, far from arterial roads, offered a natural refuge. This flight to the interior of the country was of enormous ethnic importance, because it prevented migration, ensured the purity of the Greek people and favoured the growth of the Greek population during the first and most difficult centuries of slavery. Certain of the villages, which were inhabited at the time, such as Siatista, Naousa and Kozani, succeeded in developing into important centres77.
However, from the end of the 16th c. a reverse movement started - a phenomenon which appeared in other regions og Greece as well, for example in Epirus78 - and which lasted throughout the 17th c. Thus, we have a migration of Greek populations from their remote havens towards several old or new centres of trade79. This migration was parallel to the development of trade, the decline of the Ottoman empire and the general development of Hellenism.
In the 17th c. the general economic and cultural prosperity brought about a second migration of Greeks, this time northwards. Many Macedonians settled in Serbia, Bulgaria and in the Danubian Principalities, as well as in Austria and Hungary, where they formed powerful and flourishing Greek communities and greatly contributed to the development of commerce and the bourgeois class. Especially in the Balkans, the Greeks formed an "inter-Balkan bourgeois class"80, which contributed not only to the economic development of these areas, but also to the dissemination of Greek culture81. Due to these movements the role of the Macedonians of the diaspora was significant: Almost one and a half million Greeks from Macedonia emigrated to the northern Balkan peninsula and to Central Europe. This number alone is sufficient to refute the assertation of Skopje that the population of Macedonia was not Greek. In their new country these emigrant Macedonians became upholders of Greek cultural heritage; simultaneously, through their own economic development, they contributed substantially to the progress of their homeland from which they had never been cut off82.
While many Greeks headed northwards in search of better living conditions, Slavs of the Balkans, mainly Bulgarians, went in the opposite direction southwards. The natural routes of this migration were the valley of Strymon and Nestos rivers and the narrow passes through the mountains. These Slavs were initially seasonal workers, craftsmen and farmers, who were attracted by the potential for economic development and the comparatively better living conditions in the Greek regions, where they finally settled83. This stream of Slavs increased in the 19th c., after the Greek War of Independence of 1821, because the Ottoman empire, in its effort to prevent Macedonia and the other still enslaved Greek regions from uniting with the free Greek State, favoured and, in some cases, incited the settlement of Slav populations, so as to alter the ethnic composition, that is, the Greek character of Macedonia. These Slavs were, as we have already mentioned, mainly Bulgarians who were gradually mixed with the small number of Serbs84. According to the Serbian historical geographer J. Cvijic85, this mixture created an "amorphous mass" which retained few traces of Serbian traditions, and generally lacked a national consciousness: J. Cvijic states this at a time of intense nationalism (1907, 1918). However, this "amorphous mass" had begun acquiring Bulgarian consciousness by the end of the Turkish domination. For this reason, when the population exchanges took place, they declared that they were Bulgarians and preferred to be united with the defeated Bulgaria and not with the then victorious and developing Yugoslavia86. It is noteworthy that according to the Treaty of Neuilly (November 14/27, 1919) 92,000 Bulgarians emigrated emigrated from Greece (Macedonia and Thrace) to Bulgaria (in addition to some thousands who left Macedonia during the period 1912-1918), while 50,000 Greeks came from Bulgaria to Greece87.
From the above, it becomes obvious that during the Turkish domination great mobility and demographic realignment took place. The demographic situation was not stable and immutable during this long period of slavery. The example of Monastir (Bitola) is characteristic; up to the mid-17th c. this town was inhabited by Bulgarians. However, during the 18th c., and especially after the destruction of Moschopolis (1769), many Greeks took refuge there. This influx of Greek populations, mainly from the area of Florina, continued until much later as the Bulgarian population gradually declined the ethnic composition of the town was radically altered. Monastir became a Greek centre, whose brilliance spread to the surrounding towns and villages, where there were Greek communitied (as in Megarovo, Tirnovo, Kroussovo and elsewhere)88.
Apart from the Greeks and the Turks who inhabited Macedonia, of course there were also Slav or Slav-speaking populations, Vlachs, that is Vlach-speaking Greeks, and Jews. These Slavic populations spoke a dialect which resulted from the mixture of Slav settlers in different areas and had many elements in common with the two Slavic languages Serbian and Bulgarian, Bulgarian being the most prevalent. It should also be noted, however, that many of these Slav-speaking inhabitants undoubtedly had Greek consciousness; they fought for the freedom of Greece and participated with the Greeks in the Macedonian struggle89.
The existence of other ethnic elements is also natural in a remote area such as Macedonia at a time when there were neither ethnic borders, not ethnic clashes. On the contrary, their common resistance against the conqueror as well as their common religion and faith united Greeks and Slavs. Thus, despite the existence of other ethnic groups the Greek population was the dominant element in Macedonia and a separate Macedonian (Slav) nationality never existed90. Such a nationality is beyond historical reality. This is confirmed by the following facts: 1) Travellers who visited Macedonia during the Turkish domination referred to the inhabitants as Greeks, Jews, Bulgarians or Serbs and never as a separate nation, Macedonian91. 2) The whole culture and artistic production of the area was purely Greek and greatly influenced SE Europe during the years of the Turkish domination. The brilliance of this civilization would not have been possible, of course, without the existence of a powerful Greek element, which upheld this intellectual tradition. The power and activities of the Church alone - which were undoubtedly great - would not have been sufficient to explain this brilliance, unless they had been supported by a powerful and large Greek population. 3) The role and the activities of the Macedonians of the diaspora are indisputable evidence of their Greek origin. The communities, which they formed in the Balkans and in Eastern Europe, were centres of Greek culture. Since that time the presence and activities of the Greeks have been preserved in the place-names of Austria and Hungary up to the present day. 4) Thehistorical folksong, a product of spontaneous popular creativity, also confirms that the Macedonian land was Greek and its inhabitants Greeks92. 5) The argument by the historians of Skopje that, for various historical reasons, the Slav "Macedonians" lost their ethnic consciousness as well as their historical memory during the Turkish domination, cannot be seriously upheld: Peoples do not lose their historical memory. Under the same circumstances, the Serbes retained both their historical memory and their ethnic consciousness, because they constituted a separate nationality with historical traditions an a historical past. For the same reasons, the Bulgarians, despite their intellectual silence in the first centuries of slavery and the total lack of Bulgarian schools, did not lose their national identity.
Moreover, the Macedonians, in their struggle for freedom, fought hard and made great sacrifices so as to be united with the free Greek State93. At no time did they want to be united with a Slav state, i.e. Serbia, which had also won its freedom after a hard struggle. The various claims which were expressed by the revolutionary Committees at the end of the 19th c., were propagated by foreign centres and did not express the will of the majority of the inhabitants of Macedonia.
In addition, during the Macedonian Struggle (1904-1908) the participation of the indigenous population was widespread; not only teachers, clergy and intellectual leaders generally, but also merchants, craftsmen and farmers contributed substantially and supported the armed fight. The struggle of the Greek armed forces would have been impossible without this participation by the people94.
To sum up, we see that although Slavic populations settled on Greek territory during the Middle Ages and the period of Turkish occupation they were not able to break the historical continuity of Hellenism. The early Slavs who settled in Greece, mainly during the 7th century, were finally assimilated by the indigenous population and most of them were hellinised. And during the period of Turkish occupation (mainly the 17th century) the Greeks remained the predominant national and cultural element despite the settlement of Serbs and mostly Bulgarians on Macedonian land. Moreover it must be emphasized that during the same period the Greeks created significant colonies in neighbouring Balkan countries. As already stated, this mixing of national elements in the Balkans was due to lack of national borders during the Turkish occupation.
However, apart from the historical dimension of the problem and indisputable historical evidence of Hellenism, in this area, it is essential in order to confront the propaganda of Skopje properly, to take into account the current national composition of both Greek Macedonia and the Republic of Skopje. Such an examination totally confirms the Greek position as to the Greek status of Macedonian, because whatever mixing of national elements existed until World War I this was reduced to a minimum by the exchange of populations.
In fact, with this exchange of populations (the withdrawal of Bulgarians and the return of Greeks from Bulgaria under the Treaty of Neuilly 1919, the withdrawal of Turks and the settlement of more than 600,000 Greeks from Asia Minor under the Treaty of Lausanne 1923) the Greek element in Macedonia was significantly strengthened while at the same time the foreign national element was decisively reduced. The great predominance of Hellenism over a greatly reduced Slavic population can be ascertained from statistics published by the League of Nations in 1926. Greeks numbered 1,341,000 (88.8%), Bulgarians 77,000 (5.1%), various other nationalities (mainly Jews) 91,000 (6.0%) and Turks 2,000 (0.1%)95. As foreign specialist researchers96 also confirm, Greece - and of course Macedonia too - has today the greatest national homogeneity in the Balkans. In constrast, in the Republic of Skopje there is no national homogeneity. More than 600,000 Albanians (who, indeed, have recently founded an "autonomous democracy" with the name "Illyrida"), 150,000 Turks and 100,000 Gypsies, as well as Greeks and Greek-Vlachs and, of course, Bulgarians and Serbs live there ,even though the regime has tried, directly or indirectly, to compel nationals particularly of Greek, Serb or Bulgarian origin to declare themselves "Macedonian" and not to refer to their real national origin if they want troublefree lives and careers for themselves and their children. Of course, a very small percentage of Serbs, Bulgarians and even Greeks appear in their censuses to make their falsification of this statistical data appear genuine.
It is therefore clear that the appropriation of the name Macedonia by Skopje, on which they have based all their propaganda and even their national existence, does not even correspond to their own false national identity since their artificially created state does not have any national homogeneity. This appropriation of the name goes against every principle of justice and conceals other expediencies which directly insult Hellenism as shows the unchanging nature of their continuous propaganda97.
NOTES
59. For slavic toponyms, see the basic work by M. Vasmer, Die Slaven in Griechenland, Berlin 1941, pp. 176-229 (about MAcedonia). For remarks and reservations made on this work, see G. Georgakas, Byz. Zeitschrift 41 (1941), pp. 351-381 and 42 (1942), pp. 76-90. Also, the very important work of D.A. Zakythinos, Οι Σλάβοι εν Ελλάδι. Συμβολαί εις τήν Ιστορίαν τού Μεσαιωνικού Ελληνισμού , (= The Slavs in Greece. Contributions to the History of the Medieval Hellenism), Athens 1945, mainly pp. 67-86. See, also, recently: Fr. Brunet, "Sur l' hellenisation des toponymes slaves en Macedoine byzantine", Travaux et Memoires 9 (1985), pp. 235-265. From a statistical search I attempted, based on M. Vasmer's register, it appears in all Greece there are 2123 Slavic macrotoponyms (i.e. toponyms that represent inhabited places) and of these, 730 are found in Macedonia; the number is indeed very small in a total of many thousands of greek toponyms.
60. S.g. Saint Demetrius' Miracles for the second half of the 7th c.: P. Lemerle, Les plus anciens recueils des Miracles de Saint Demetrius. I. Le text (Paris, 1979), p.214, ll. 11-13, II. Le Commentaire(Paris, 1981), p. 135 et sq.
61. See Maria Nystazopoulou - Pelekidou, "Les Slaves dans l' Empire Byzantin", The 17th International Byzantine Congress. Major Papers (Washington D.C., August 3-8, 1986) New York 1986, pp. 345-367, with the bibliography and the quotation of the sources; for the policy of Byzantium, see p. 355.
62. The main characteristics of the material culture of the Slavs during the first period of their settlement in the Balkan Peninsula are: a) the burning of the dead, b) hand-made ceramics with certain shapes and decorations, and c) half-underground hut for dwelling. However, except for two rare exceptions (15 urns containing the ashes of the dead in Olympia and some vases in Argos), no indisputably Slavic objects have been found on Greek soil. No traces of the typically Slav dwelling have been found either -only a mention in the miracles of Saint Demetrius, see P. Lemerle, Les plus anciens recueils des Miracles de Saint Demetrius, vol. I, p. 220 ll. 26 and 29 and p. 229 1. 13. For the archeological finds in general, see Vl. Popovic, "Les temoins archeologiques des invasions avaroslaves dans l' Illyricum byzantin",Melanges d' Archeologie et d' Histoire de l' Ecole Francaise de Rome 87 (1975), pp. 445-504 and especially p. 457. For the Slavic dwelling, see Vl. Popovic, "Note sur l' habitat paleoslave", in P. Lemerle, Miracles, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 235-241. Cf. Maria Nystazopoyloy - Pelekidoy, Οι Βαλκανικοί λαοί κατά τούς Μέσους Χρόνους [= The Balkan Peoples during the Middle Ages] (Ioannina, 1986), pp. 34-36 and 81 sq. with the bibliography. For attributing to Slavs certain ceramic shells found in Argos and their chronology to 585, see: P. Aupert, "Ceramique Slave a Argos (585 ap.J.C.) "Etudes Argiennes (BCH Suppl. 6) (Paris, 1980), pp. 372-394 and P.A. Yannopoulos, "La penetration slave en Argolide", In the same, pp. 323-371. See, also, critique and reservations by F. Malingoudis, Σλάβοι στη Μεσαιωνική Ελλάδα (= Slavs in Medieval Greece), Thessaloniki 1988, pp. 16 sq.
63. See M. Pelekidou, Les Slaves dans L'Empire byzantin, op. cit., pp. 356-357.
64. See the Cyril - Methodius bibliography of only 25 years (1940-1964), which was compiled by Henriette Ozanne, Κυρίλλω καί Μεθοδίω Τόμος Εόρτιος επί τή χιλιοστή καί εκατοστή ετηρίδι [= Cyril and Methodius, Volume in Celebration of the one thousand and one hundredth Anniversary], vol. II (Thessaloniki, 1968), pp. 322-346.
65. For this first renaissance in Byzantium, see the basic work of P. Lemerle, Le Premier Humanisme Byzantin (Paris, 1971), especially chapters V-VII.
66. Contantine - Cyril appears in the Slavic texts to be conscious of belonging to Byzantine society and of his Greek descent: in his dialogue with the Mohammedans he points out that "εξ ημών προήλθον πάσαι αι επιστήμαι" [= all sciences originated from us] and of course he means the Byzantine and Greek culture. During the Khazar Mission, when the Kagan of the Khazars asked him what present he wanted from him, Constantine answered: "Δός μοι όσους Έλληνας αιχμαλώτους έχεις ενταύθα. Ούτοι αξίζουσι δι' εμέ περισσότερον οιουδήποτε δώρου" [= Give me as many Greek captives as you have here. For me they are worth more than any other present]: see "Βίος Κωνσταντίνου", ελλ. έκδ. Ιω. Αναστασίου, Επιστ. Επετ. Θεολογ. Σχολής Πανεπ. Θεσσαλονίκης 12 (1968) [= "Constantine's Life", Greek edition by I. Anastasiou, Scientific Year-book of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Thessaloniki 12 (1968)], pp. 126 and 138.
67. The nationality of the Apostles of the Slaves has been treated thoroughly with a quatation from the sources by Prof. Ant.-Aem. Tahiaos, "Η εθνικότης Κυρίλλου καί Μεθοδίου κατά τάς σλαβικάς ιστορικάς πηγάς και μαρτυρίας", Κυρίλλω καί Μεθοδίω Τόμος Εόρτιος [= "The nationality of Cyril and Methodius according to the Slavic historical sources and evidences", Cyril and Methodius, Festive Volume], vol. II, pp. 83-132. See also D.A. Zakythinos, "Κωνσταντίνος ο Φιλόσοφος καί η διαμόρφωσις τών σλαβικών γλωσσών", Πρακτικά τής Ακαδημίας Αθηνών 45, 1970 [="Constantine the Philosopher and the Formation of the Slavic languages", Proceedings of the Academy of Athens 45 (1970)], pp. 59-77. Cf. I. Karayannopoulos, "Τό ιστορικόν πλαίσιον τού έργου τών αποστόλων τών Σλάβων", Κυρίλλω καί Μεθοδίω Τόμος Εόρτιος [="The Historical Framework of the Work of the Apostles of the Slavs", Cyril and Methodius, Festive Volume], vol. I, pp. 139-151.
68. See my remarks on the report of the Bulgarian historians Vasilka Tapkova - Zaimova and Simeon Damjanov, "Les territoires bulgares - foyer des civilasations antiques et nouvelles", Actes du XVe Congres International des Sciences Historiques, Bucarest 1980 Bucarest 1982, vol. IV/1, pp. 109-110.
69. As the Slavist A. Vaillant observes in his Manuel du vieux-slave, I. Grammaire (Paris, 1948), pp. 11 and 13, Old Slavic was the common language of all the Slavs until the 9th-10th c. After the fragmentation and the expansion of the Slavic world, the local dialects had already begun to form in the 7th-8th c., however the Old Slavic mother - language continued to be used and comprehensible to all the Slavs. The separate Slavic languages were formed very late, only in the 11th century.
70. Patrologia Graeca, vol. 107, col. 969.
71. P. Lemerle, "La Chronique improprement dite de Monemvasie: le commentaire historique et legendaire", Revue des Etudes Byzantines 21 (1963), p. 49. Cf. M. Palakidou, Les Slaves dans l' Empire Byzantin, op. cit., pp. 359-361.
72. See Ap. Vacalopoulos, History of Macedonia, p. 11 sq., with the bibliography.
73. See B. Laourdas, Ο "Συμβουλευτικός πρός τούς Θεσσαλονικείς" τού Μανουήλ Κομνηνού [= Manuel Komnenos' speech "Admonition to the people of Thessaloniki"], Makedonika 3 (1953-55), p. 297, 21-22; Cf. also p. 291, 1.
74. See fully documented Ap. Vacalopoulos, History of Macedonia; for the movements of populations and the composition of every town, village and distrivt, see especially chapters IV, V and VII.
75. Ibid, pp. 7 and 49 sq. The descendants of these Turkish populations returned to Turkey by virtue of the exchange of the populations in 1923.
76. Ibid., p. 99 sq.
77. Ibid., p. 100 sq.
78. Cf. M. Nystazopoulou - Pelekidou, Η Ήπειρος στά χρόνια τής Τουρκοκρατίας καί η εθνική αναγέννηση [=Epirus during the Turkish domination and the national revival] (Ioannina, 1982), p. 11.
79. Cf. Ap. Vacalopoulos, op. cit., p. 139 sq.
80. N. Svoronos, Επισκόπηση τής Νεοελληνικής Ιστορίας [=A Survey of Modern Greek History] (Athens, 1976), pp. 58-59.
81. For the economic and intellectual activities of the Greeks ans especially of the Macedonians of the diaspora, See Ap. Vacalopoulos, History of Macedonia, pp. 349-394.
82. Ibid.
83. Ibid., p. 145 sq.
84. Ibid., p. 245.
85. J. Cvijic, La peninsule balkanique. Geographie humaine (Paris, 1918), p. 313. Idem, Remarques sur l'ethnographie de la Macedoine, p. 5 sq.
86. Cf. Ap. Vacalopoulos, History of Macedonia, p. 7.
87. Se St. Nestor, "Greek Macedonia and the Convention of Neuilly", Balkan Studies 3 (1962), pp. 169-184; St. Ladas, The Exchange of Minorities. Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey, New York 1932. Cf. also Sp. Loukatos, "Πολιτειογραφικά Θεσσαλονίκης, νομού καί πόλης, στά μέσα τής δεκαετίας τού 1910", Πρακτικά Συμποσίου Η Θεσσαλονίκη μετά τό 1912 [= The Demography of Thessaloniki, the prefecture and city, in the middle of the decade 1900-1910", Proceedings of the Symposium, Thessaloniki after 1912] (Thessaloniki, 1986), especially pp. 111-112 and note 22, with significant data illustrating the strength of the Greek population of that area in 1916, i.e. before the exchange of populations.
88. See Ap. Vacalopoulos, History of Macedonia, pp. 444-453; cf. also p.642.
89. See the list of the Slav-speaking Macedonians, who participated in the Macedonian Struggle: M. Papacontantinou, Macedonia after the Macedonian Struggle, op. cit., p. 71 sq.
90. It is noteworthy that, when contemporary historians attempt to rewrite the History of the "Macedonians" as a separate nationality, they feel contrained to refer to events from Bulgarian or Serbian History that are only geographically retaled to Macedonia: see, for example, M. de Vos, Histoire de la Yougoslavie, p. 67.
91. See above, note 34.
92. Cf., for example, Ap. Vacalopoulos, History of Macedonia, pp. 103, 257, 296, 474, 596 et al., with the bibliography.
93. Cf. Ev. Kofos, Η Επανάστασις τής Μακεδονίας κατά τό 1878 [= The Revolution of Macedonia in 1878] (Thessaloniki, 1969). St. Papadopoulos, Οι Επαναστάσεις τού 1854 καί 1878 στή Μακεδονία[= The Revolutions of 1854 and 1878 in Macedonia], publications of the Society for Macedonian Studies, No 22 (Thessaloniki, 1970).
94. See the bibliography mentioned above note 4. See also Ο Μακεδονικός Αγώνας. Συμπόσιο, 28 Οκτ.-2 Νοεμ. 1984 [= The Macedonian Struggle. Symposium]. Publications of the Institute for Balkan Studies, No 211- Museum of Macedonian Struggle. (Thessaloniki 1987). K. Vacalopoulos, Ο Μακεδονικός Αγώνας, 1904-1908. Η ένοπλη φάση [= The Macedonian Struggle, 1904-1908. The armed Phase], (Thessaloniki 1987). See also M. Papakonstantinou, Η Μακεδονία μετά τόν Μακεδονικό Αγώνα [= Macedonia after the Macedonian Struggle], (Athens 1992), pp. 91-93, where a rich bibliography. K. Vacalopoulos, Ιστορία τού Βόρειου Ελληνισμού. Μακεδονία (= History of the Northern Hellenism. Macedonia), Thessaloniki 1991.
95. The League of Nations also provides figures from tan earlier Turkish cencus, dating from before the Turks departure. This cencus raises the percentage of Greeks to 42.6%, of Muslims (Turks mainly and Albanians) to 39.4% and of Slavs (Serbs and Bulfarians) to 9.9%; see League of Nations: Greek Refugee Settlement, Annex, Geneva 1926. It must be noted that this cencus does not only refer to the Greek Macedonia of today, but also to Southern Yugoslavia, since it contains the vilayet of Monastir, and to districts of today's Bulgaria, viz. to more northern areas, where the Slavic element was proportionately higher.
96. See A. Blanc, Geographie des Balkans, "Que sais - je?" No 154 (Paris, 1965), pp. 44 and 48.
97. From recent declarations and comments made by officials in Skopje which contain clear expansionist aims and messages of "enslaved brothers" I confine myself to noting only the case of the extreme nationalist party, VMRO (Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation) which very characteristically bears the same name as the known Bulgarian organisation of the end of the 19th century. In the Manifesto of this party, which came first party in the Parliamentary elections of November, 1990, it is stated that its aim is "the intellectual, political and economic union of the divided Macedonian Peopleand state within the framework of the future union of the Balkans and a United Europe", and that "elements of the Macedonian nation which live under occupational rule in Greece, Bulgaria and Albania do not form an ethnic minority but just occupied and enslaved parts of the Macedonian Nation". I also note that the appropriation of Greek history continues since they even use on their flag the emblem of the ancient Macedonian kings, the sun of Vergina...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Commentators have the exclusive responsibility of their writings, the material that they mention, as well as and the opinions that they express.