If, for example, one wishes to decide whether a given Macedonian Slav
is a Serb or a Bulgar--many thousands have been called and have, quite
happily, called themselves both--we must use a more scientific method.
Some investigators, such as Vateff, have made measurements that are
not without value; others, such as Djeri['c] and Shishmanoff, have
published good monographs on the Serbian and Bulgarian name. We have
had some learned dissertations on the language of Macedonia, as to
whether the Slav dialects approach more nearly the Serbian or the
Bulgarian literary language. But this question remains unanswered,
owing to the imperfect manner in which the grammatical and syntaxical
peculiarities of the Macedonian dialects have, as yet, been examined.
Some people have argued that as the Bulgarian peculiarity of the
postponed article is also found in Macedonia it follows that the
province really is Bulgarian. But as the postponed article is found in
a wide zone, which extends from the Albanian shores to those of the
Black Sea, this argument loses in strength, for how can Roumania be
called Bulgarian? Very possibly before the Slavs arrived that zone was
inhabited by another people who left this characteristic behind them,
though they left no documents. It is a logical hypothesis. And
Barbulescu, the Professor of Slav Philology in the University of
Jassy, said in 1912 that "the Serbs have just as many reasons for
asserting that the Macedonian is a Serbian language as the Bulgars
have to deny it." As it was in the Middle Ages, so it is now; the
mediaeval language used to oscillate between the two, and it is
sometimes impossible to tell whether an old Macedonian Slav document
is Bulgarian or Serbian.... When we come to the ethnologists we find
they have only written books which deal with certain parts of
Macedonia. They have confessed that, generally speaking, it is
impossible to say whether a man is a Serb, a Bulgar or a
Serbo-Bulgar. These Macedonians were for centuries at such a distance
from the other Slavs and were so thoroughly neglected that they lost
their national consciousness, an attribute which many thousands of
them, in the days of the vast, loose empires of Du[vs]an and Simeon,
never possessed. Sir Charles Eliot, in his excellent book _Turkey in
Europe_ (London, 1900), says that it is not easy to distinguish Serb
and Bulgar beyond the boundaries of their respective countries. He
divides the Macedonian Slavs into pure Slavs, Slavized Bulgars and
pure Slavs influenced by Slavized Bulgars: "all three categories," he
says, "have been subjected to a strong and often continuous Greek
influence, to say nothing of the Turks and the inconspicuous Vlachs,"
so that in his opinion it is rash to make sharp divisions among a
people who have thus acted and reacted on one another. A large
proportion of the Macedonians[53] have no knowledge of the race to
which their ancestors belonged; and one is brought to the conclusion
that it is much wiser not to use for Macedonia the two words, Serb and
Bulgar, but to say that these Slavs became either Exarchists (in which
case they were commonly called Bulgars) or Patriarchists (who were
called Serbs). Basil Kanchov, a Macedonian, who is the most accurate
in giving the numbers of the Slav population of the old provinces of
Turkey, divides them not into races but religions. It is, of course, a
mistake to think that on the institution of the Exarchate it merely
received the allegiance of those Macedonians whose origin was more or
less Bulgarian. Thousands of Slavs who were, or believed themselves to
be, of Serbian blood passed over to the schism with the sole object of
obtaining for their Church a Slav liturgy. There was little reason for
them to hesitate, since at that time the names of Serb and Bulgar
implied no national differentiation, but were used to designate the
brothers of two different provinces. We find then that the Macedonian
Slavs, vaguely Serbs and vaguely Bulgars, passed pretty
indiscriminately, and of course without the least apprehension of the
future, into the Exarchist Church, or else remained under the Greek
Patriarch. Exarchists and Patriarchists were found in the same family:
thus at Tetovo the priest Missa Martinoff was an Exarchist and
president of the Bulgarian community, while his brother Momir
Martinovi['c] was a Patriarchist, and president of the Serbian
community in the same town. Stavro, a well-known watchmaker at
Skoplje, was a Patriarchist, whereas a brother of his, also at
Skoplje, was an Exarchist priest. Ivko, a farmer at the village of
Poboujie and his eight nearest relatives were Exarchists, his other
relatives and all the rest of the village were Patriarchists. Many
similar examples could be given.