Ela moia parigorie
Da te celvam vustata
Kak ovostie me miriset
Sro to rodi krusata
Tako ti visnego Boga,
Ne mi vezmi dusata
Sto si lepa…

Come my consolation,
So I kiss your mouth
That has the smell of the fruit
That the pear tree gives
My God Almighty,
Do not take my soul
So beautiful you are…

source: "A Macedonian lexicon of the 16th Century AD", Institute of Slavic Studies of Paris, 1958, Ed: Ciro Giannelli,professor of the University of Rome, in collaboration with Andre Vaillant, professor of the College of France and of the School of Superior Studies

The song lyrics above are not recorded on any disc, you will not hear them at anyfestival, nor are they registered in any collection of Macedonian folk songs. Amazingly, they are actually written in the page margins of a 16th century manuscript, next to the text of twocomedies by Aristophanes, plus a version of Gennadius Scholarios, on manuscript C152 of the Central Library of St. Peter, in Rome!
This manuscript was donated along with six others to the St. Peter's Basilica by a high
dignitary of the Orthodox Church, Sylvestro, Mega Protosyngelo (Chancellor), of the Patriarchate
of Jerusalem. Each of the seven volumes bear on the last page the same identical
dedication:"This book, I dedicate myself, the humble Sylvestros, Great protosyngelos of

Jerusalem, to Holy Saint Peter in Holy Rome ... By my own will and opinion I donated it to Saint
Peter for the glory of the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: ROCE, zrkz" It is believed that

the code "ROCE" refers to to the year 1620, AD; while the term "zrkz" refers to year 7127,
counting from the creation of the world, at Genesis.

Based on the evidence, it is likely the Stylianos decided one nice day in 1620 to become
Roman Catholic. So he traveled to Rome, was re-baptized Sylvestros, and he donated to the
Vatican seven precious manuscripts from the Eastern Church as a gesture of good will.
As for how these manuscripts came into his hands, it is likely that he stole them,
or "liberated" them. The first six manuscripts were clearly taken from the libraries of the Holy
Sepulchre in Jerusalem, but the one now marked "C152" was different, and it was clearly
obtained elsewhere.
There are some interesting peculiarites on manuscript C152. For instance, written on
page 213, we read:"These books and rules were bought through the Holy Sepulchre, by the

Blessed holy Monk Sylvestro and Protosyngelo of Jerusalem, in the year 1620 month July. 11th".


But on the same page, next to the Gennadius Scholarios portion, we also read:"...was written by

me, the sinner and smallest of priests Gginou, housekeeper of the Holy Archdiocese of Pogoianni
and who reads this, pray for me to the Lord." Also on page 191, we read:"in God’s glory, 1620,
month June, 14th, Gginos, priest and housekeeper of Pogoianni".

Here is how this story likely unravelled: Stylianos-Sylvestros began his journey from
Jerusalem to Rome, in the winter of 1620. In the summer of that year, he arrived at the
monastery of Pogoniani, in Epirus, northwestern Greece. There, he discovered the precious
manuscript, now marked C152. He observed the text of the two comedies of Aristophanes and
the Theogony of Hesiod, and perceived the priceless value.
Gginos is a derivative of Gjin, or John, in Albanian. Thus, we can conclude that
Sylvestros convinced an Albanian priest named Gginos to copy a version of Gennadius
Scholarios/On the faith of Christians, in the numbers blank back pages of the manuscript.
Sylvestros then asked Gginos to buy this work, on behalf of the Holy Sepulchre. Later, however,
he will add in his own writing "...(the Holy Sepulchre) of St. Peter".
After, Sylvestros departed from Epirus to Rome, and converted to the Catholic church. As
a sign of good faith, he donated the manuscript to the Vatican, together with other six
manuscripts in ancient Greek.

So, what does all of this have to do with Macedonia? Andre Mazon and Andre Vaillant
are the most famous slavologists of the 19th and 20th centuries respectively, specializing in south
Slavic languages and dialects, and they have both recognized the importance of the handwriting
on this particular manuscript. Indeed, Vaillant concludes that the implications of manuscript C152
are enormous, for at least three reasons:

1) In the page margins, aside from the song recorded at the beginning of this article, and next
to the other texts, are recorded also 300 other phrases, words and lyrics, which are invaluable
lexical material on how the language was spoken by the Macedonians four centuries ago

2) All of these phrases and songs were recorded by someone who taught Greek language using
readings from Aristophanes to children in area of Vogatsiko, Kastoria (Kostur), during the period
1580-1600

3) In return, he asked his students to teach him their native Macedonian language, which he
recorded as a lexicon, on the back of this manuscript!

Modern Greek historians and journalists in this area insist that "since ancient times,
Greek and only Greek language was spoken in Vogatsiko". As for the current residents, we are
afraid that the Greek ones might crucify A. Vaillant if he dared to question the ancient origins of
this land. But the facts speak for themselves.
According to Vaillant, all the Macedonian entries in the lexicon are written in calligraphic
and orthographic Greek letters, that under or beside each entry, the corresponding definition is
given in Greek, and throughout, the Greek dialect used demostrates the writer's Epirotic origin.
For instance, on page 12 of the manuscript, the Macedonian phrase for "Which way to
Bogkasko?" is recorded, which is a reasonable question for a young Epirot in western
Macedonia. Epirus lies at least one hundred kilometers away and beyond the Pindos mountains,
which we must remember were near impassable back in 1580. This expression also gives a
valuable information on the origin of the toponym "Vogatsikon".


Another interesting feature of the lexicon is all of the erotic expressions which stand out,
such as: "ela legi pokre mene" meaning, Come lay down with me. These phrases suggest the
love interests of a young Epirote teacher for the local Macedonian maidens in town.

Ракописот Од Ватикан Ц-152 од 16 век , и лексикон на македонски јазик
Од Воденка

Ела моиа паригорие
Да те целвам вустата
Како овоштие ме мирисет
Сро то Роди Крушата
Тако ти виснело Бога,
Не ми везми душата
Што си Лепа ...

Дојди моја утехо,
Да ти бакнам усните
Што има мирис на овошје
Што ја роди крушата
Мојот Бог Семоќен,
Не ми земај душата
Толку си убава ...

Извор: "Македонски лексикон од 16-ти век од н.е., Институт за словенски студии во Париз, 1958 година, Ед: Чиро
Гианели, професор на Универзитетот во Рим, во соработка со Андре Ваилан, професор на Колеџот на Франција и на
училиште со супериорен студии.

Песната погоре, не е снимена на ниту еден диск, нема ни да ја слушнете на било кој
фестивал, ниту пак е запишана во било која збирка на Македонски народни песни.
Неверојатно, таа е всушност напиша но Страна во маргините на ракопис од 16-тиот век, до
текстот помеѓу две комедии од Аристофан, плус верзија на Генадиј Сколариј, ракопис Ц-152
на Централната библиотека на свети Петар, во Рим!

Овој ракопис беше дониран заедно со шест други , до базиликата на Свети Петар од
висок великодостојник на Православната Црква, Силвестро, мега Протесингело (канцелар), на
Патријаргијата во Ерусалим. Секој од седумте тома имаат на последната страница истата
идентична посветеност: "Оваа книга, ја посветувам на себе, скромниот Силвестрос, Голем
фотосинтез од Ерусалим, на Светиот Свети Петар и Светиот Рим ... Со своја волја и мислење јас
ја донирам до Свети Петар за славата на Отецот и Синот, и Светиот Дух: ROCE, zrkz Се верува
дека на код „ROCE“ се однесува на на годината 1620, н.е. додека терминот „zrkz“ се однесува
на година 7127, сметано од создавањето на светот, според Генезис (Стариот Завет).

Врз основа на доказите,веројатно Стилианос одлучил еден убав ден во 1620 година да
стане Римо-Католик. Затоа, тој патувал во Рим, и беше повторно крстен Стилианос, и тој
донираше на Ватикан седум скапоцени ракописи од Источната Црква, како гест на добра
волја.

Но како овие ракописи дошле во негои раце, веројатноста е дека тој ги украл, или ги
"ослободил". Во првите шест ракописи јасно е дека се земени од библиотеките на Светиот
Гроб во Ерусалим, но еден со ознака „Ц-152“ е различен, и тоа беше јасно дека дотираат од
друго место.
Постојат некои интересни особености на ракопис Ц-152. На пример, напишано
на страница 213, читаме: „Овие книги и правила беа купени преку Светиот Гроб, од страна на
Светиот Блажен Монк Силвестро и фотосинтез на Ерусалим, во годината 1620 месец јули
11ти.“ Но, на истата страница, во делот за Генадиј Сколарис , исто така, читаме :... напишано е

evgenija3-MK-new

од мене, грешник и најмал свештеник Ггиоу, куќен помошник на Светата Архиепископија
Погоиани и кој го чита ова, нека се моли за мене на Бога.“ Исто така на страница 191, читаме:
„Во слава на Бога, 1620, месец јуни, 14, Ггиос, свештеник и куќен помошник на Погоиани“.

Еве како оваа приказна веројатно се одвала: Стиланиос Силвестро го започна своето патување
од Ерусалим до Рим во зимата 1620 год. Во летото таа година, тој пристигннува во
манастирот на Погоиани во Епир, северозападна Грција.Таму тој ги открил скапоцените
ракописи, сега означени Ц-152. Тој забележал текст на две комедии на Аристофан и Теогени
од Хесиод, и смета дека се од непроценлива вредност.

Ггиос е дериват на Џин, или Џон (Јован), на албански јазик. Така, можеме да заклучиме дека
Силвестро убедил Албански свештеник по име Ггиос да копира верзија на Генадиј Сколарис /
за верата на христијаните, во бројните празни страници на крајот од ракописот. Силвестро
потоа го запраша Ггиос да ја купи оваа работа, во име на Светиот Гроб.Подоцна, сепак, тој ќе ја
додаде со свој ракопис „...( на Светиот Гроб) на Свети Петар “.

Потоа, Силвестро отпатува од Епир во Рим, и премина во Католичка црква. Како знак на добра
волја, тој ги донираше ракописот на Ватикан, заедно со другите шест ракописи на старогрчки.

Но што се ова има има врска со Македонија? Андре Mazon и Андре Вајан се најпознатите
славо-логисти на 19 и 20 век, односно, специјализирани за јужнословенски јазици и
дијалекти, и тие ja препознаваат важноста на ракопис на овој ракопис. Всушност, Вајан
заклучува дека импликациите на ракопис Ц-152 се огромни, од најмалку три причини:

1) Во страница , независно од записот на песна (Стиховите) на почетокот на овој артикал, и до
други текстови, се евидентираат и 300 други фрази, зборови и стихови, кои се непроценливи
лексички материјал за тоа како јазик е зборуван од страна на Македонците од пред четири
века

2) Сите овие фрази и песни се запишани од страна на некој кој ги учел децата грчкиот јазик
користеќи записи од Аристофан во областа на Вогатсико, Костур (Костурско), во периодот
1580-1600

3) За возврат, тој побарал од неговите студенти да го научат него на Нивниот мајчин
Mакедонски јазик, што тој го запишал како лексикон, на задната страна од овој ракопис!

Современите грчки историчари и новинари од оваа област тврдат дека „уште од
античките времиња, грчки и само грчкиот јазик е зборуван во Вогатсико“. Што се однесува до
моменталната жители, се плашиме дека грците може да го распнат А. Вајан ако се осмели да се
сомневаат во античкото потекло на оваа земја.“ Но, фактите зборуваат за себе.
Според Вајан, сите македонски записи во лексиконот се напишани во калиграфскиот и
правописни грчките букви, под или покрај секое внесување, соодветна дефиниција е дадена
на грчки и, низ грчки дијалект се користи Периферијално потекло на авторот.

На пример, на страница 12 од ракописот, е запишана македонската фраза „Од која
страна да појдеме во Богакаско?“што е разумено прашањето за млад епирог во западна
Македонија. Епир лежи најмалку сто километри надвор од планината Пиндос кoja мора да се
присетиме беа скоро непроодни во далечната 1580. Овој израз исто така, дава корисни
информации за потеклото на топонимот „Вогатсикон“.
Друга интересна карактеристика на лексикон е сите еротски изрази кои се
издвојуваат , како што се: „Ела леги покре мене“, што значи, Дојди легни покрај мене. Овие
фрази укажуваат на љубовта интересите на младите епирска учител за локалниот
македонски девојки во градот.

The Treaty of Bucharest August 10, 1913
Source: Anderson, Frank Maloy and Amos Shartle Hershey, Handbook for the Diplomatic History of Europe, Asia, and Africa 1870-1914. Prepared for the National Board for Historical Service. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1918.



1. NEGOTIATION.

The Treaty of Bucharest was concluded on August 10, 1913, by the delegates of Bulgaria, Roumania, Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece. As Bulgaria had been completely isolated in the Second Balkan War, and as she was closely invested on her northern boundary by the of Roumania on her western frontier by the allied armies of Greece and Serbia, and in the East by the Turkish Army, she was obliged, in her helplessness, to submit to such terms as her victorious enemies chose to impose upon her. All important arrangements and concessions involving the rectification of the controverted international boundary lines were perfected in a series of committee meetings, incorporated in separate protocols, and formally ratified by subsequent action of the general assembly of delegates.

2. TERMS.

By the terms of the treaty, Bulgaria ceded to Roumania all that portion of the Dobrudja lying north of a line extending from the Danube just above Turtukaia to the western shore of the Black Sea, south of Ekrene. This important territorial Concession has an approximate area of 2,687 square miles, a population of 286,000, and includes the fortress of Silistria and the cities of Turtukaia on the Danube and Baltchik on the Black Sea. In addition, Bulgaria agreed to dismantle all existing fortresses and bound herself not to construct forts at Rustchuk or at Schumla or in any of the territory between these two cities, or within a radius of 20 kilometers around Baltchick.

3. SERBIA'S GAIN IN TERRITORY.

The eastern frontier of Serbia was drawn from the summit of Patarika, on the old frontier, and followed the watershed between the Vardar and the Struma Rivers to the Greek-Bulgarian boundary, except that the upper valley of the Strumnitza remained in the possession of Bulgaria. The territory thus obtained embraced central Macedonia, including Ochrida, Monastir, Kossovo, Istib, and Kotchana, and the eastern half of the sanjak of Novi-Bazar. By this arrangement Serbia increased her territory from 18,650 to 33,891 square miles and her population by more than 1,500,000.

4. GREECE'S GAIN IN TERRITORY.

The boundary line separating Greece from Bulgaria was drawn from the crest of Mount Belashitcha to the mouth of the Mesta River, on the Aegean Sea. This important territorial concession, which Bulgaria resolutely contested, in compliance with the instructions embraced in the notes which Russia and Austria-Hungary presented to the conference, increased the area of Greece from 25,014 to 41,933 square miles and her population from 2,660,000 to 4,363,000. The territory thus annexed included Epirus, southern Macedonia, Salonika, Kavala, and the Aegean littoral as far east as the Mesta River, and restricted the Aegean seaboard of Bulgaria to an inconsiderable extent of 70 miles, extending from the Mesta to the Maritza, and giving access to the Aegean at the inferior port of Dedeagatch. Greece also extended her northwestern frontier to include the great fortress of Janina. In addition, Crete was definitely assigned to Greece and was formally taken over on December 14, 1913.

5. BULGARIA'S GAIN IN TERRITORY.

Bulgaria's share of the spoils, although greatly reduced, was not entirely negligible. Her net gains in territory, which embraced a. portion of Macedonia, including the town of Strumnitza, western Thrace, and 70 miles of the Aegean littoral, were about 9,663 square miles, and her population was increased by 129,490.

6. APPRAISEMENT OF THE TREATY.

By the terms of the Treaty of Bucharest, Roumania profited most in proportion to her sacrifices. The unredeemed Roumanians live mostly in Transylvania, the Bukovina, and Bessarabia, and therefore the Balkan wars afforded her no adequate opportunity to perfect the rectification of her boundaries on ethnographic lines.

The humiliating terms imposed on Bulgaria were due to her own impatience and intemperate folly. The territory she secured was relatively circumscribed; she had failed to emancipate Macedonia, which was her avowed purpose in entering the war; she lost the districts of Ochrida and Monastir, which she especially coveted; she was assigned only a small line on the Aegean, with the wretched port of Dedeagatch; and she was obliged to forfeit her ambition as the leader of the Balkan hegemony.

Greece, though gaining much, was greatly dissatisfied. The acquisition of Saloniki was a triumph; she was assigned the port of Kavala and the territory eastward at the insistence of the King and the army and contrary to the advice of Venizelos; in the northwest Greece encountered the opposition of Italy by urging her claims to southern Albania; in the assignment of the Aegean Islands she was profoundly dissatisfied; and she still claims 3,000,000 unredeemed conationals.

The fundamental defects of the Treaty of Bucharest were that (1) the boundaries which it drew bore little relation to the nationality of the inhabitants of the districts affected, and that (2) the punishment meted out to Bulgaria, while perhaps deserved in the light of her great offense in bringing on the, Second Balkan War, was so severe that she could not accept the treaty as a permanent settlement. While Serbia, Greece, and Roumania can not escape a large share of the blame for the character of the treaty, it should not be forgotten that their action at Bucharest was in large measure due to the settlement forced upon the Balkan States by the great powers at the London conferences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4rqmOS_Kno

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kem4yWIa0VM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__DhGQ2xiaM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSZ9jEF9e7g

After the Balkan Wars (1912-1913), the First World War (1914-1918) and especially after the Peace Treaties of Lausanne (1923), which gave the Macedonian issue a central place, there began a great ethnic cleansing of Macedonians, who in 1912 had numbered 374,000, from the Aegean part of Macedonia.

Disregarding the principle of respect for minority rights within existing states, the negotiations in Lausanne accepted the principle of an obligatory resettlement of Christians from Turkey (Greeks, Turkophones, etc.) and of Moslems from Greece (Turks, Macedonian Moslems, etc.). Under the convention for obligatory emigration, 350,000 Moslems were expelled from the Aegean part of Macedonia. 40,000 of these were Macedonian Moslems.

In place of the Macedonians expelled to Bulgaria and Turkey (a total of 126,000) the Greek state resettled 618,000 persons of Greek and non-Greek origin in the Aegean part of Macedonia. This heterogeneous population, colonized in the Aegean part of Macedonia in the period between the two world wars, came from other parts of Greece, as well as from Asia Minor, the Black Sea region, the Caucasus, western Thrace, Bulgaria and other places.

The large majority of the refugee Christian population was settled in villages throughout the Aegean part of Macedonia, thus creating what has become known as the village, or agricultural, colonization; and a smaller number were colonized in towns, creating the so-called urban colonization.

This large colonization effected by Greece resulted in a major change in the historical status of the Macedonian language. Once the language used by most, it was now afforded only the status of the language of a minority, or the status of a family language, which was spoken by 240,000 Macedonians.

The large ethnic changes were the cause of changes in the status of the Greek language as well. From being the language of a minority, it now became the most used language, being imposed even on the Armenians, the "Turkophones", the in-comers from among the various Caucasian peoples, etc. With the imposition of the Greek language and with the help of mixed marriages, a new Greek nation was being created in the Aegean part of Macedonia.

The colonization by this population, whom the Macedonians called madziri (in-comers, foreigners), resulted in the Aegean part of Macedonia losing its Macedonian ethnic character. The Macedonians (240,000) became a minority; they were present as a majority only in the western part of the Aegean part of Macedonia (Kostur, Lerin and Voden regions).

The large colonization brought about by the Greeks was followed by a law passed by the Greek government in 1926 on the change of the toponymy of the Aegean part of Macedonia. All villages, towns, rivers and mountains were renamed and given Greek names.

The Greek state achieved this through a policy of state terror. As early as the period of the Balkan War of 1913 Greece had begun the ethnic genocide of the Macedonian people. The cruelty displayed by the Greek soldiers in their dealings towards the Macedonian people was merciless.

Following the political partition of Macedonia in 1913, Greece launched upon an active policy of the denial of the nationality and the assimilation of the Macedonians. The name Macedonian and the Macedonian language were prohibited and the Macedonians were referred to as Bulgarians, Slavophone Greeks or simply "endopes" (natives). At the same time, all the Macedonians were forced to change their names and surnames, the latter having to end in -is, -os or -poulos.

With the denial of the Macedonian nation went the non-recognition of the Macedonian language. It was prohibited, its standing was minimized and it was considered a barbarian language, unworthy of a cultured and civilized citizen. Its use in personal communication, between parents and children, among villagers, at weddings and funerals, was strictly forbidden. Defiance of this ban produced Draconian measures, ranging from moral and mental maltreatment to a "language tax" on each Macedonian word that was uttered. The written use of Macedonian was also strictly prohibited, and Macedonian literacy was being eliminated from the churches, monuments and tombstones. All the churches were given Greek names.

The attacks on the Macedonian language culminated at the time of Ioannis Metaxas (1936). General Metaxas banned the use of Macedonian not only in everyday life in the villages, in the market-place, in ordinary and natural human communications and at funerals, but also within the family circle. Adult Macedonians, regardless of their age, were forced to attend what were known as evening schools and to learn "the melodious Greek language". The violation of the ban on the use of the Macedonian language in the villages, market-places or the closed circle of the family caused great numbers of Macedonians to be convicted and deported to desolate Greek islands.

--------------------------------------------
Change of Toponyms and Names
In its attempts to eradicate the Macedonian name,


"Greece followed a policy of assimilating the Macedonian minority and Hellenizing the Macedonian region in northern Greece. The government changed place names and personal names from Macedonian to Greek, (Decree No. 332 of 1926) ordered religious services to be performed in Greek, and altered religious icons."

A few examples of changed village names:

Macedonian Name - New Greek Name Armensko - Alonas Banica - Vevi Bouf - Akrita Gabresh - Gavros Kostur - Kastoria Kukush - Kilkis Lerin - Florina Negochani - Niki Oshchima - Trigonon Solun - Thessaloniki Voden - Edessa Zhelevo - Antartikon

If Macedonia was always Greek, why would the Greek government have to change the Macedonian names of people, towns, and villages to Greek?

"Between 1913 and 1928 the Slavic names of hundreds of villages and towns were Hellenized by a Committee for the Changing of Names, which was charged by the Greek government with 'the elimination of all the names which pollute and disfigure the appearance of our beautiful fatherland and which provide an opportunity for hostile peoples to draw conclusions that are unfavourable for the Greek nation' (Lithoxoou 1992b: 55). In 1927 the Greek government issued a directive calling for the destruction of all Slavic inscriptions in churches and forbidding church services from being held in a Slavic language. Finally, in 1936 a law was passed ordering that all Slavic personal names, both first and last, be Hellenized (Human Rights Watch/Helsinki 1994b: 6-7). Jovan Filipov, therefore, became Yannis Filippidis, and Lena Stoikov became Eleni Stoikou." 9


Sveti Atanas Church in Zhelevo, Aegean Macedonia
The original Macedonian inscriptions were wiped out and replaced with Greek writing


"The participants in this partitioning claimed right to parts of Macedonia, declaring Macedonians to be Southern Serbs, Bulgarians and Slavophonic Greeks. They changed their new subjects' names and surnames. They forbade the Macedonian language, forced Macedonians to learn in foreign languages and imposed their own interpretations of history. They forced them to go to their churches. In short, they turned them into second-rate citizens, subjected to systematic re-settling and permanent exile. The common denominator of such politics was denationalization of the Macedonian people, erasing them from the Balkan's map of peoples, usurping its history, identity and desire for its own state. They forced upon us the fate of disappearing through assimilation." 10

"After the Greeks occupied Aegean Macedonia, they closed the Slavic-language schools and churches and expelled the priests. The Macedonian language and name were forbidden, and the Macedonians were referred to as Bulgarians, Serbians or natives. By a law promulgated on November 21, 1926, all place-names were Hellenized; that is the names of cities, villages, rivers and mountains were discarded and Greek names put in their place. At the same time the Macedonians were forced to change their first names and surnames; every Macedonian surname had to end in 'os', 'es', or 'poulos'. The news of these acts and the new, official Greek names were published in the Greek government daily Efimeris tis Kiverniseos no.322 and 324 of November 21 and 23, 1926. The requirement to use these Greek names is officially binding to this day. All evidence of the Macedonian language was compulsorily removed from churches, monuments, archaeological finds and cemetaries. Slavonic church or secular literature was seized and burned. The use of the Macedonian language was strictly forbidden also in personal communication between parents and children, among villagers, at weddings and work parties, and in burial rituals." 11

"In 1926 the Greek government ordered in decree no. 332 of November 1926 that all Slavonic names of towns, villages, rivers and mountains should be replaced by Greek ones." 12

Summary of the Change of Toponyms and Names 13

Immediately after the Bucharest Peace Treaty, when it became quite clear that Greece had usurped territory which did not belong to it either by the ethnic structure of the population or geographically, the Greek government conducted a census of the population in the new lands. According to this census the Aegean part of Macedonia numbered 1,160,477 inhabitants. In 1917 the law known under the number 1051 was passed, article 6 of which established the formation and functioning of the town and village municipalities of the New Lands.

On 10th October 1919 the Commission on Toponym in Greece issued a circular letter which contained instructions for the choice of place-names. The circular letter from the Commission was immediately followed by a booklet by N. Politis entitled "Advice on the Change of the Names of Municipalities and Villages" (Athens, 1920), published by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Greece. At the same time, special sub-commissions were formed in the newly-established districts in the Aegean part of Macedonia, whose task it was to study the problem on the spot and to suggest new names for the villages and towns in the respective districts.

In the spirit of this letter, in 1922, the Commission on Toponyms of Greece issued a more detailed statement under the number 426. This Commission had intensified its activities and was now giving concrete suggestions. However, owing to the Graeco-Turkish War, the still undefined peace agreement with Turkey and also the great migrations of the population between Aegean Macedonia and Turkey and the forced movement of an estimated 33,000 Macedonians to Bulgaria (imposed by the Neuilly Convention, signed by Bulgaria and Greece, for "voluntary" resettlement) the process of renaming was slightly slowed down.

Thus in the period from 1918 to 1925 inclusive, 76 centres of population in Aegean Macedonia were renamed: in 1918 - one; in 1919 - two; in 1920 - two; in 1921 - two; in 1922 - eighteen; in 1923 - eighteen; in t924 - six and in 1925 - twenty-six. But as soon as the processes of migration came to an end and the position of the state was strengthened, and, following the legislative orders of 17th September 1926, published in the "Government Gazette" N2 331, 21st September 1926, and the Decision of the Ministerial Council dated 10th November 1927, and published in the Government Gazette S2 287, 13th November 1927, the process of renaming the inhabited places was accelerated to an incredible degree. Consequently, in the course of 1926, 440 places in the Aegean part of Macedonia were renamed: 149 in 1927, 835 and-in 1928, 212, i.e. in only three years , 1926, 1927 and 1928, 1,497 places in the Aegean part of Macedonia were renamed.

By the end of 1928 most of the centres of population in the Aegean part of Macedonia had been given new names, but the Greek state continued the process by a gradual perfection of the system of renaming, effected through new laws and new instructions. On t3th March 1929 the special law known under its number, 4,096, was passed and published in the "Government Gazette" S-- 99 of 13th March 1929.

This law contained detailed instructions and directives as to the process of renaming places. By the force of this law and the earlier instructions, amended by Law Ng 6,429 of 18th June 1935, Law S2 1418 of 22 November 1938, Law N2 697 of 4th December 1945 and many other instructions, legislative orders and other enactments, the process of renaming the inhabited areas has been carried on to this day, taking care of each and every geographical name of suspicious origin throughout Macedonia, including entirely insignificant places, all aimed at erasing any possible Slav trace from the Aegean part of Macedonia and from the whole of Greece. With these laws, instructions and other enactments, the district commissions in charge of the change of place names and the Principal Commission at the Ministerial Council of Greece (established as early as 1909) enforced many more changes.

In the period from 1929 to 1940 inclusive, another 39 places in the Aegean part of Macedonia were renamed, and after World War II (up to 1979 inclusive) yet another 135 places in this part of Macedonia were renamed. An estimated total of 1,666 cities, towns and villages were renamed in the Aegean part of Macedonia in the period from 1918 to 1970 inclusive. This number does not include those inhabited places the renaming of which has not been announced in the "Government Gazette", which has been taken as the exclusive source for the figures and the dynamics of renaming given here by years and districts. Neither does it include the numerous Macedonian settlements named after saints, the names of which official Greece simply translated from the Macedonian into the Greek language.

Renamed centres of population in the Aegean part of Macedonia by district:

1. Ber - 49; 2. Negush - 16; 3. Greven - 82; 4. Voden - 34; 5. Enidzevardar - 56; 6. Meglen - 48; 7. Drama - 233; 8. Kavala - 24; 9. Pravishta - 36; 10. Sari shaban - 38; 11. Tasos - 3; 12. Katerini 42; 13. Kajlari - 32; 14. Kozzani - 88; 15. Naselichka - 72; 16. Gumendze 29; 17. Kukush - 179; 18. Kostur 104; 19. Lerin - 101; 20. Valovishta 84; 21. Zihneni - 20; 22. Nigride - 35; 23 Ser - 55; 24. Lagadin 76; 25. Salonica - 78; 26. Larigovo - 6; 27. Halkidiki - 40; or a total of 1,666.

Renamed places in the Aegean part of Macedonia by years:

1918 - 1; 1919 - 2; 1920 - 2; 1922 - 19; 1923 - 18; 1924 - 6; 1925 - 26; 1926 - 440; 1927 - 835; 1928 - 212; 1929 - 9; 1930 - 7; 1932 - 6 1933 - 2; 1934 5; 1936 - 2; 1939 - 2; 1940 - 6; 1946 - 1; 1948 - 2; 1949 - 5; 1950 - 17; 1951 - 4; 1953 - 22; 1954 - 18; 1955 - 25; 1956 - 4; 1957 - 3; 1958 - 2; 1959 - 2; 1960 - 5; 1961 - 6; 1962 - 3; 1963 - 6; 1964 - 3; 1965 - 4; 1966 - 1; 1968 - 1; 1970 - 1; or a total of 1,646.

We shall give just a few examples of renamed places, rivers, mountains, rivers, lakes and mountains: The town of Voden was renamed Edessa; Rupista - Argos Orestikon; S'botska - Aridea; Postlo - Pella; Libanovo - Eginion; Larigovo - Arnea; ostrovo - Arnisa; Vrtikop - Skidra; Valovista - Sidirokastron, and the small settlements of Barbesh and Kutlesh into Vergina. The River Vardar was renamed Axios, the Bistrica - Alliakmon; the Galik - Erigon, etc. Lake ostrovsko became Limni Arnisis; Lake Gorchlivo became Pikrolimi, etc. Mt. Pijavica was renamed as Stratonikion; Grbovica on Mt. Athos Agion Oros; Karakamen - Vermion, Kusnica - Pangeon, etc. The Voden district became Nomos Pelis; Gumendze district - Eparhia Paeonis; Valovista district - Eparhia Sindikis; Zihnenska ditrict - Eparhia Philidos; Pravishka district - Eparhia Pangeu, etc.

The ABECEDAR Case
The Greek government, upon signing the Treaty of Sevres on August 10, 1920, undertook obligations to protect its national minorities. Articles 7,8,and 9 stipulated the free use of the minorities' language, education, religious services, etc.

In March 1925, the Council of the League of Nations insisted that Greece carry out the stipulations of the agreement and provide the Macedonians with their educational and religious needs. The Greek government notified the League of Nations that:

"...measures were being taken towards the opening of schools with instruction in the Slav language in the following school year of 1925/1926 and towards granting freedom to practise religion in the Slav language." 14

A primer, entitled ABECEDAR, was written in the Macedonian language and was intended for use by Macedonian school-children. This was used by Greece as evidence of their commitment to the League of Nations agreement. It was prepared by a special government commission and published by the Greek government in Athens in 1925.

The following is a quote from Salonica Terminus: 15


"Official policy, since the integration into the modern Greek State of the region called Macedonia, has been to deny the existence of the Slav-Macedonians as a distinct people, separate from the Greeks. But lingering just below the bright, hard surface of the discourse of authority is an ill-concealed malaise. In 1925, the country's education ministry prepared a primary school reader in Slav-Macedonian entitled Abecedar for submission to the League of Nations. The book was to be held up as proof that the Macedonian Slavic tongue was neither Bulgarian nor Serbian, but a distinct language protected and encouraged by the State. On the delegation's return from Geneva, the Abecedar was confiscated and destroyed. Two years later, by government decree, all Slavonic church icons were repainted with Greek names. Why had it become necessary to eradicate that which did not exist?"

Summary of the Abecedar Case 16

By signing the Treaty of Sevres on 10th August, 1920, the Greek government undertook certain obligations regarding "the protection of the non-Greek national minorities in Greece". Articles 7, 8 and 9 of this treaty stipulated precisely the free use of the minorities' language, education, religious practice, etc. Bulgaria and the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes interested themselves in the implementation of this treaty, and when Greece realized it was in its interest to sign the "Lesser Protocols" (League of Nations, Geneva, 29th September 1924) on the protection of the Greek minority in Bulgaria and the reciprocal protection of the Bulgarian minority in Greece, Sofia launched a campaign in support of the activities initiated by the Joint Greek-Bulgarian Commission for the ,'voluntary" exchange of minorities. Large numbers of Macedonians were forcibly moved to Bulgaria, and Orthodox Christians from Turkey, Bulgaria and other places were brought to the Aegean part of Macedonia where, as Greeks, they took over the Macedonians' property. However, since this met with resolute opposition not only in Sofia but in Belgrade as well, the Greek parliament did not ratify certain relevant clauses of the "Lesser Protocols".

In March 1925 the Council of the League of Nations concerned itself with the situation so created and addressed three questions to the Greek government, insisting particularly on a reply on the measures taken with regards to the needs, the education and the freedom of religious practice of the "Slav speaking minority" in Greece. These documents treated the Macedonians neither as a Serbian nor as a Bulgarian minority, but as a "Slav-speaking minority". In its reply the Greek government categorically denied the Bulgarian government the right to be interested in the "Slav-speaking minority", claiming that only the League of Nations could have and had the right to intervene with regard to the rights of this minority. Greece stated that no steps were taken for the protection of the "Slav-speaking minority in Greece" as it had been thought that the convention on reciprocal resettlement would result in "the moving of all Macedonians" beyond the borders of Greece.

The Greek government also notified the League of Nations that "measures were being taken towards the opening of schools with instruction in the Slav language in the following school year of 1925/26" and towards granting freedom to practice religion in the Slav language. The primer intended for the Macedonian children in this part of Macedonia, entitled ABECEDAR, was offered as an argument in support of this statement. This primer, prepared by a special government commission and published by the Greek government in Athens in 1925, was written in the Lerin-Bitola vernacular (even though Bitola was not within the Greek borders!) but printed in a specially adapted Latin alphabet (instead of the traditional Cyrillic, which was the official alphabet of Bulgaria and Serbia).

Many primers written mainly in Macedonian and intended for schools in Macedonia were published in the 19th century, but this was the first primer for Macedonians written and published by a legitimate government for its citizens and under the aegis of the League of Nations. This significant act on the part of the Greek government was condemned outright by both Belgrade and Sofia. The former proved that those for whom the primer was intended were in fact "Serbs", whereas the latter claimed that they were "Bulgarians". Bulgaria commissioned its outstanding philologists and Slavists to help its diplomats and Belgrade inspired petitions from two ailari villages (written in Serbian!) which were sent to the League of Nations. These petitions stated that the signatories were "Serbs by nationality" and that they demanded their rights "as a national minority" and also a "Serbian school" in order to "protect their language from enforced Graecization". At the same time, propaganda activities were undertaken among the population of these villages, promising free land and Serbian priests and teachers to those who declared themselves as Serbs. The Greek government's immediate response was another petition from the same village (Birinci), signed 16th October 1925, in which the signatories claimed that "in this region there are no Serbs, nor are there any Serbian institutions, and consequently the Serbian language is not used". The League of Nations used this statement to ask, in writing, the following question: the Greek government claims that this population does not speak Serbian, but does not say "what the language they speak in is".

At the last moment before the deadline the Greek government replied by cable saying that "the population of these villages knows neither the Serbian nor the Bulgarian language and speaks nothing but a Slav-Macedonian idiom". Thus the Greek government officially recognized for the first time the separate national entity of the Macedonians within Greece's borders, which is also clearly confirmed by the pure language of the pnmer, ABECEDAR, published in Greece. Following the stormy and violent reaction in the press of the three monarchies the Greek government decided, with relief, not to introduce the primer, which was already published, into Macedonian schools.

One of the major, long-standing questions confusing the historical record has been the question of state legality and legitimacy of the kings of Prilep. The contemporary Serbian historiography proved that the long-time governing notion regarding Volkashin's (and Uglesha's) act of "usurping" and "tyrannical" act of assuming the king's (and tyrant's) crown was untenable. Although data on the origin of the King Volkashin and his son Marko are extremely insufficient and unsure, it is indisputable that they have arisen from the hierarchy of the Serbian feudal state. However, it is indisputable that there were state formations which were opposed to the north Serbian states, and were not even close to the eastern Bulgarian kingdoms in Macedonia in the XIVth century.

On April 15, 1345, when the Serbian king Dushan was crowned as Tzar in Skopje, almost the entire territory of Macedonia was within the scope of his large state, and individual parts were governed by feudal vassals of high rank. Ten years later, after the death of Tzar Dushan (1355), his kingdom began to fall apart - due to, among other causes, intensified strivings of the feudal lords for greater independence. It is believed that the process of the establishment of independent states and feuds between them in Macedonia began during this period. The most respected among the numerous Serbian feudal lords of that time were the brothers Volkashin and Uglesha Mrnjavchevich.



The fortress on King Marko


Volkashin - King Marko's father - occupied various positions in Dushan's state: he was a head of a tribal state in Prilep, and late became a high courtier and a despot. In about 1365, he proclaimed himself a Tzar and thus became a co-ruler with the Tzar Urosh. His brother, the despot Uglesha ruled over the Struma region. Both brothers were killed in 1371 at Chernomen (Thrace), during the Marica battle against the Turks, in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent further penetration by the Turks into the Balkan Peninsula and forestall the direct danger of Turkish occupation of their territories. This defeat began the lose of independence held by the feudal rulers of Bulgaria, Serbia and Macedonia. By the end of the 14th century, the Turks had subjected Macedonia to their direct authority. It was the beginning of five centuries of slavery for the Macedonians under the Turks.

After the death of Volkashin, his eldest son Marko inherited the throne and title of his father. He was, however, forced to recognize Turkish authority, as supreme, to take an obligation before the Sultan to pay tribute (jizia and poll-tax) and to provide military assistance whenever so requested by the Sultan. The other Turkish vassals, like Konstantin Dragash or the Serbian despot Stefan Lazarevich (after the battle at Kosovo), had similar obligations.

The territory of Marko's state stretched on the right bank of the River Vardar: from the mountain of Shar and Albanian mountains in the northeast, to Kostur (Kastoria) in the southwest, with its capilal in Prilep. Skopje and Ohrid did not belong to Marko, except perhaps temporanly. As a king, Marko minted coins with the inscription: "King Marko faithful to Lord Jesus Christ." A similar inscription is found on the frescoes depicling his figure in the monastery of St. Dimitar in Varos, Prilep. In the Prizren (Serbia) church of the Introduction of the Holy Virgin, an inscription is found where Marko is named as "a young king. " Fulfilling his vassal obligation for military assistance to Sultan Bayazit, King Marko was killed on May 17,1395 in Craiova (Romania) during the battle against the Vlach military leader Mircho. Other vassals of Sultan Bayazit also took part in the battle: the despot Stefan Lazarevich and Konstantin Dragash, who was also killed at the battlefield.

The preserved frescoes in St. Dimitriya church, Marko's Monastery, Skopje, Macedonia, also speak about the in dependence of the brothers Volkashin and Uglesha. In Marko's monastery near Skopje, "King Marko" is presented in king's clothes in all his dignity, and also with the curved metallic horn decorated with ornaments and pearls which advanced the new dynasty. The intention was to emphasize not only the independence, but also the differences from the Nemagnich dynasty. It was shown not only by the absence of the saints from the Nemagnich circle who had incarnated the Serbian church and historical tradition (St. Simeon, Nemagna and St. Sava) but also by the presence of St. Clement of Ohrid among the holy fathers. By that, a clear distinction was made between the Serbian Patriarchate of Pec (which supported the duke Lazar) and the Archbishopric of Ohrid (which stood behind King Marko and his state.)

In connection with this is also the creation of the new dynasty. The proclamation of King Marko as a young king in a situation when the Czar Urosh (like the tyrant Uglesha) had no legal successor, has already predetermined the king's crown to Marko and the legitimacy or the separate dynasty - especially when Volkashin ended the co-ruler status and proclaimed himself to be independent and the sole sovereign of his state.

The reaction on the Nemagnich dynasty to the crowning of Volkashin and his declared independence is understandable and logical. That's why in that tradition King Volkashin, although a victim of the fight against the Turk, remained a damned usurper . All of this was also the result of intention which is not mentioned very often

In 1369, the decisive Kosovo battle took place between the two dynasties: Lazar I Irebeglanovic, Nikola Altomanovich and the Czar Urosh. That is, the Nemagnich dynasty on one side and the brothers King Volkashin (probably together with the young successor Marko) and Tyrant Uglesha - the new "Mrgnavchevich" dynasty -on the other . The southern rulers won the battle and as cited they even took Czar Urosh prisoner. Details are missing, and the sources are greatly lacking, but the event has historical importance. Although according to the Serbian tradition Czar Urosh was considered to have been killed by King Volkashin, recent data points to the fact that he lived longer than Volkashin. However, as R. Mirkhaljchich says, Czar Urosh become "a Czar without empire, a sovereign without sovereignty," without the support of the Romeyes and without the legitimacy of the Patriarchate of Pec, already in schism at that time. The brothers Volkashin and Uglesha, thanks to the size of the territories they governed and the supplied legitimacy of the Archbishopric of Ohrid (with the support of the Ecumenical Patriarchate) became the strongest power. They were the only power which could oppose the invasion of the Turks.

Such relations were the logic by which the Serbian north did not take place in the Marica battle against the Turks (1371) and King Marko did not take place in the Kosovo battle in 1389. It was a state and church antagonism between two dynasties which perhaps had no expressive national character but in which basis - as Misirkov also thinks - probably was the cultural and historical difference between the north and the south. It is not exactly known when and where Marko was crowned, but it was probably immediately after the Marica battle and his father's death. Literally and legally, Marko might be considered as a co-ruler of the still living Czar Urosh. Taking into consideration the ending of the Nemagnich dynasty, Marko should be considered to be the sole legitimate king of Serbia. But the real situation was probably different. In fact, King Marko was sovereign of the new Mrgnavchevich dynasty, if this name can also be confirmed by more trustworthy sources - because, as we are now informed, nowhere in the contemporary sources is the surname of Mrgnavchevich fixed. By the way, the name of the founder of this dynasty in Macedonia in the previous sources is found in Slovenian in the form ofKing Volkashin (without the suffix Stephen), while in the Dubrovnik documents in Latin he is recorded as Regis Volcassini, dominus rex Volkasinus.

Until now no official document, no charter, nor any royal gold seal has been found -herein Marko is titled as Prince Marko -- only as Young King or King Marko. The folk tradition in Macedonia has been responsible.

King Marko was born about 1335. The first time he is mentioned in a document is when he visited Dubrovnik as a delegate of Volkashin. His name is also mentioned in some notes and chronicles of his time as a son of Volkashin or, later, as a king. Thus, in a document dated 1370, Volkashin mentioned his sons Marko and Andrea and his wife Elena, about whom there is no other data available in the history.

From the more recent documentation, the structure of the Volkashin family appears. King Volkashin and Queen Elena (in the monasticism she is called Elisaveta, and in the folk tradition she is mostly known as Efrosima) had four sons (Marko, Andrea, Ivanish and Dimitrya-Mitrush) and an unknown number of daughters, of which only the name of Olivera is mentioned, married to Gjurgje Balshish. King Marko married the daughter of Radoslav Hlapen, and left her before the Marica battle. Later he probably married Teodora and after 1377, he gave her to his father-in-law Radoslav and brought back Radoslav's daughter, "Marko's first wife, Jelena. " It is not known if Marko had a child and a successor. All this concerning the marriage relations of King Marko gave a base for folk tradition.

In general, these facts are the basic historical data about King Marko. There are some other opinions about Marko to be mentioned, found in the chronicles and histories. The Dubrovnik chroniclers (Orbinin, Lukarevich and others) had mentioned Marko as a successor of Volkashin and had recorded his death at Rovine as a Turkish vassal. The Serbian Patriarch Paisie, a 17th century biographer, in his work The Life of Czar Urosh, does not mention Marko at all, which is strange when one considers the fact that the work was mainly based on folk tradition. Likewise, other 18th century chroniclers and historians did not attribute serious significance to Marko. On the contrary, some accused him of serving the Sultan and the Turks. Thus, in the Thronous geneaology ( 1791), he is even accused of bringing the Turks to the Balkan Peninsula. Jovan Rajich, in his History of the South Slavs (1794), criticized the folk cult of Marko. The opinion of the Bulgarian historian Paisie of Chilandar about King Marko is in no milder.

After the death of King Marko, his state was incorporated by the Turks within their contemtories, perhaps because he had no direct heir. Dimitar and Andrea were forced to leave the country. Dimitar went to Dubrovnik (about 1400) and from here he left for Hungary, where he entered the service of the King Sigmund; he died sometime after 1407.

The destiny of the queen - the mother Elena -and of Marko's brothers gives a possibility for concluding some situations and relations of the states of both Volkashin and Uglesha. It is known that Queen Elena / Elisaveta, Marko and Andrea all minted their own coins. This suggests that they had separate finances, and separate state borders. In 1374 Queen Elena/Elisaveta sent her logothete Dabizhiv to Dubrovnik in connection with the silver deposits of Volkashin. Until 1377, she was still alive, and she was mentioned in an official document with a gold seal of her son Andrea in St. Andrea church near Matka. It is not known when and were they entered the monastic order, but her name is mentioned in a later document of St. Jovan Pretecha monastery.

Especially unclear are the relations of Marko toward his brothers that in 1385 Ivanish left Macedonia and joined the Zeta and Albanian powers in the battle against the Turks where he died. Other data indicates that Andrea, as "a prince" in the time of the Kosovo battle in 1389, built the St. Andrea church. However, more trustworthy sources are missing, preventing us from establishing who was the Andreas de Macedonia who on April 14, 1389 enrolled in Vienna University. We are sure that in the middle of 1394 the brothers Andrea and Dimitrya had already left Macedonia and reached Dubrovnik in order to take their share of their father's deposit. On August 10, they took the money and left for Hungary, where they served the greatest enemy of the Turks, the Hungarian king Sigmund.

What later happened to Andrea is not known, but it is clear that in 1399 he was no longer alive as his brother Dimitrya came alone to Dubrovnik in order to take over the part of the deposits left to the already slain Marko.

Dimitrya (Mitrush) served King Sigmund until the beginning of the century as a castellan of the town of Vilagosh and as head of the Zarand tribal state. The task of researching Hungarian archives and finishing the discovery of the descendants of King Volkashin remains. It is known that from the four brothers (there is no data about the sisters) only Andrea left successors, and his son was father of the wife of the Bosnian feudal lord Stepan Kosach.

In any case, one of the most important questions is that about the vassalage of Marko. Although immediately after the Marica battle many territories from Volkashin's and Uglesha's states were occupied by neighboring Christian rulers, the kingdom of Marko had an independent status for a quarter of a century. Its borders were often disturbed by the Turks, sieges were laid even in Prilep and Bitola, slaves were taken and later sold on Crete; however, the people had a relatively peaceful life. This was reflected in the folk memory and expressed through folk creativity. It is written that after 1377 Marko became a vassal of Bayazit I, but without trustworthy proofs. It is known that Marko's brothers, who were anti-Turkish, left Macedonia toward the middle of 1394 and joined the king of Hungary (Ivanish had been slain in the battle against the Turks nine years before). What was Marko's status at that time and what was the reason for the split between the brothers ? It seems that the crucial events place in the winter of 1393 - 94 when Bayazit I decided to liquidate his Balkan vassals and to include their territories into the borders of the Ottoman Empire. He invited them one-by- one to a conference in Seres, intending to execute them there. But Bayazit I changed his mind; he allowed a part of them to go back, and with the others he went to Thessaly. In some sources it is cited that the vassals gave their word they would not stand for remaining vassals any longer and later that they divided themselves into two groups: one group accepted the vassal destiny. Yet the names of Marko and his, brothers are not mentioned. Was this political schism the period of the split between the brothers?

It is a historical fact that King Marko as a vassal went with Bayazit's army to battle against the Vlach duke Mirche and was killed along with Konstantin Dragash at Rovine on May 17, 1395. Obviously the people could not accept such a destiny for their king. According to folk tradition, immediately before the battle Marko comprehended his dishonest position and said, "I am saying and begging God to help the Christians, even if I am among the first to die in this".

It is very normal that certain entity, in accordance with its views on past and visions of present and future, have profiled and built the personality of King Marko in the national mind. Poor written documents have even more given way to fantasy and encouraged hopes of long occupied Orthodox Balkan Slavs. That is how it came to creating a myth of his character, who absorbed a great deal of characteristics of mythological and legendary characters of the Balkan and non-Balkan provenance. On the other hand, his circumstances of the centuries long position of the Macedonian people. Slavery and freedom, justice and force, antipodes of the cross and the crescent were also in question.

XIVth century represents a turning point in the history of the south Slavic and Balkan nations. It, in fact, was the end of one civilization period and beginning of another completely different period, which significantly changed the ethno-cultural map of the Balkan Peninsula, and to a large extent, Europe's map. It was a historical moment of factual dissolution of a few powerful Christian kingdoms domination Balkan people were dominated by an ethnic and religiously different occupier. The fact itself, creates important presumptions for modulating the ideas pertaining to the King Marko among the south Slavic people, as their last legitimate Christian and Slavic sovereign and protector

Folklore tradition has been trying for two centuries now, to reveal the reasons taking into consideration that in the last years of his ruling, King Marko was an Ottoman vassal. Even Krste Misirkov, in his graduate study at Petersburg University in 1902, entitled as Approaching the Issue of the Nationality and Reasons for Popularity of the Macedonian King Marko, represents an interesting attempt for answering this question. However, final answer to this question has not been yet found Neither has science given the answer of a number of other issues concerning the multidimensional personality of Marko in the south Slavic, and, generally, Balkan folklore.

The character of King Marko is surely the most realistic among the people in Macedonia. It should not be forgotten that Prilep was his seat. The memory of him can be seen in the ma out Macedonia: Marko's Towers in Prilep, where he was born, churches and monasteries with frescoes with his picture. His suggestive look on the frescoes had encouraged the Impressions on the last prominent Christian King in the country.

If we take in consideration all the presentations of the poetic figure of King Marko in Macedonian creative folk works -- to be found in the poems, the legends and the oral traditions -- then we see a figure of a hero who is not "without faults and fears," as in fact every idealized "hero above heroes" should look. But he is a hero who is, first and foremost, a human being, like any other human being, having both positive and negative characteristics. Who has. almost equally, as many faults as he has virtues. It is obvious that the poetic figure of King Marko, in his centuries of development in the environment of the Macedonian people and in those of the other South Slavic peoples, was gradually changing shape in accordance with the living circumstances of the everyday people. In fact, it may be said that the most important good and bad sides of mankind have been incorporated in Marko's personality. That is the reason why King Marko is such a controversial figure in our folk creative works and, at the same time, he is yet so close and understandable, even when some of his actions and deeds are normally unacceptable.

No matter that data concerning King Volkashin and King Marko are extremely uncertain and insufficient, it is undeniable that they emerge from the hierarchy of the Serbian feudal state, and in one period even, they used to be co-rulers of the Serbian throne. I'm not planning to elaborate the question of the ethnic character of the middle century states, including feudal Serbia, it is a historical fact that there were state formations in Macedonia in the second half of the XIV century, which were in many respects opposed to the north Serbian states, and were not close even with the Eastern Bulgarian kingdoms. There were separate regional interests which dictated this relation. It, however, was dictated by the former ethno-cultural development of the people who lived in this area. We are not talking about state formations which had the current ethno-name - Macedonian. It does not mean taking over someone else's history Is not the parallel with the Ukrainians, Slovenians and Slovaks an indicating factor's. In the historical sources often find ethno-names concerning Macedonians which identify us with the Romeis. Bulgarians, Serbs, and rarely. mainly in the last two countries we are represented as Macedonians.

THREEFOLD TYRANNY

In 1914 Dimitriya Chupovski, in his poem "King Marko", call on Marko to awake and dash forward with his people against the "triple tyranny" by dividers and conquerors of his homeland Macedonia. Pointing out the strife and culture of the Macedonian people in a Memorandum sent to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Macedonian colonies in Petersburg and Odessa, Chupovski, together with Krste Misirkov, inter alia emphasized: "We have an old and high local Macedonian culture, dating back from the times of the founders of Macedonian Slav education St. Clement, Naum and Gorazd, as well as from the period of the first Slav state - Czar Samuil's one, the second Dobromir Strezo's state; and the third one - Kings Volkashin and Marko's, and through the 19th century, particularly in its second half.


The Salutation of newborn Jesus by the three Wisemen of the East,
Markov Manastir, Skopje, 14th century. The Construction of the monastery was initiated
by Volkashin 1345, Krali Marko's father, and finished by Krali Marko himself.