Hristov, P. “’Use’ of the Holidey for Propaganda Purposes. (The ‘Serbian’ Slava and/or the ‘Bulgarian’ Sãbor)” – Ethnologia Balcanica, Journal for Southeast European Anthropology. Vol. 6, 2002, 69-80.

“USE” OF THE HOLIDAY FOR PROPAGANDA PURPOSES (The ‘Serbian’ Slava and/or the ‘Bulgarian’ Sãbor)*

A concrete occasion, prompting the writing of this article was the “provocation” of my colleague G.Vãlčinova, who placed the ethnographic facts in “the field of tension” in relations between and Bulgarians, by studying the construction of a boundary-like phenomenon (Vãlčinova G., 1999). Since the basic study of Frederic Barth (Barth F., 1969), the concept of “boundary” in socio-anthropological terms can be interpreted on different levels: cultural, ethnic, and political. In this context the boundary is a state and a process, whose ethnic (or, to be more precise, ethno-cultural) dimensions intertwine with the social and economic factors and processes. The very concepts of nation and of cultural tradition that are identified with it can be regarded through the prism of the propaganda structure, whereby one of the research perspectives is the possibility of destruction of the “imagined” communities and the “invention” of traditions in the spirit of the works of Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawm (Anderson B., 1991; Hobsbawm E., 1983). It is the objective of this article to show how in boundary conditions, when the ethnic or national belonging prove to be, by and large, open to “settlement”, agreement and manipulation, some individual ethnographic facts, detached from the cultural context, become ethno-identification markers, whereby the ideal construction referred to as a political boundary can be substantiated. The choice of the specific regions of Trãn, and Caribrod is purely emotional, owing to the author’s personal commitment, but it moreover opens up great opportunities and prospects for a researcher’s analysis, insofar as, in the words of Vladimir Stojančević, “the so-called Trãn question been a heavy burden in Bulgarian-Serbian relations, because of the attempts of both countries to include the territory and population of Znepole within the territory of their states” (Stojančević V., 1995; 293, reference 32). I have to state well in advance the purely scholarly interest in such an investigation. The historical realities in the from the 19th and the first half of the 20th century turned the regions of Pirot and Trãn into a periphery of the social and cultural processes in the two states. The

1 artificial division of the region which, by that time, had been united in its socio-cultural prospects, resulted in the gradual marginalisation and slow-down of development on either side of the border; the age-old historical and cultural unity was broken and Trãn and Pirot were transformed into insignificant provincial towns of and (Vãlčinova G., 1999; 107-113), - a convenient instrument of manipulation on the part of the great-state ambitions on either side of the frontier. It is my aim to show how a wonderful region in the heart of the Balkans can be transformed, by way of the propaganda discourse both in and in Sofia putting to use ethnographic “arguments” and facts, into marginalised territories, rapidly becoming depopulated after the mid-20th century. In a very indicative work of his on the political usage of tradition, Slobodan Naumović points out that in the interim between the two world wars, that set of ethno-identification markers had already been reaffirmed, which made up “the Serbian national tradition”. He classifies them into three groups: historical tradition, Eastern-Orthodox-St Sava tradition, involving the activity of the Patriarchate of Peč, and folk (rural) tradition, bringing together a number of material elements, traditional institutions, customs and beliefs of the traditional culture of Serbs. Special emphasis among the last group has been given to the custom of slava (Naumović S., 1996; 131). The inclusion in this list of this family and kinship holiday as part of the set of ethno-markers of Serbian national identity is not accidental. It is celebrated under different names in different parts of the Balkan Peninsula (not only West of the Iskãr ) equally by the Slavic population (Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians, Macedonians) and by the non-Slavic Wallachians, and Catholic Albanians. As early as in the 1860s and 1870s, after the publication of Miloš Miloeviæ’s composition (“Putopis dela Prave-Stare-Srbije. Beograd 1871-1877 g.” [Travelogue of Part of the Rightful ]), he and of a number of his followers raised the principle “Gde je slava, tu je Srbin!” [“Wherever There Is Slava, There Is a Serb!”]. They promoted it to the status of a guiding principle in the formation of the national strategy, and the slava was therefore transformed into an ethnic identification marker (alongside the specific features of the traditional attire, folklore and dialects) and into an argument in the diplomatic relations and political discourse concerning the major changes in the Balkans in the wake of the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878, the San Stefano Peace Treaty and the subsequent Berlin Congress (1878). These political developments of enormous aftereffects for the Balkans placed the region of Trãn-Caribrod-Pirot within “the field of tension”1 between Bulgaria and Serbia. The local population and its folk culture and traditions, which were up till then characterised by local identification, cultural unity and, mostly, the Eastern Orthodox Christian

2 religion (Vãlčinova G., 1999; 103-107) suddenly found itself in a situation of a “time of parting”, when in the conditions of exceptional political tension and powerful pressure, it had to manifest its national identity and, respectively, its political and state affiliation. In these conditions the problem of the boundary, in the cultural meaning of the word, of the population between the of Timok and South Morava, in the West, and the Iskãr River in the East, acquired new dimensions. The specific features of the local folk culture, which include holidays of the community on various levels – the family-household svetec [saint], the family and kinship obrok [votive site] with the mandatory kurban [offering of a sacrificial common meal], called “molitva” [prayer], referred to in the region of Trãn also as “svetãc”, the village fair (sobor), along with the specific features of the dialect, discussed in both Serbian and Bulgarian science as “transitory” between the two languages, were placed in the situation of a powerful political confrontation and ethnic alternativeness. Without getting into details, which are well familiar to historians (Manolova-Nikolova N., 1997; Stojančeviæ V., 1995), I shall point out that when on 28 November 1877, a few days after the fall of Pleven and after it became clear that Turkey was losing the war, the Serbian Government took a decision to take part in that war. What is today Central Western Bulgaria was de facto “liberated” by the Serbian Army. Throughout the entire period of the Provisional Russian Administration in Bulgaria, the administration in these regions was Serbian (from 19 December 1877 until 5 June 1879). The developments, concerning the signing of the San Stefano Peace Treaty, which brought freedom to Bulgaria and independence to Serbia, as well as concerning the Berlin Congress and the specification of the state boundaries in the Balkans, placed the population of the regions of Trãn and Pirot in the situation of “a time of parting” (using the wonderful metaphor of A.Dončev), in which that boundary character was subjected to powerful politicisation2. In Trãn and in Pirot, as well as in the villages around (later the Lužnica, Dragoman, Caribrod, Godeč and Breznik regions), pro-Serbian and pro-Bulgarian parties were formed, whose leaders wrote addresses of gratitude, requests and petitions on behalf of the local population, to Knyaz Milan, to the Russian Emperor and to the General Staff in San Stefano, and to the representatives of the Provisional Russian Administration in Sofia, aimed at proving one or another ethnic and national affiliation. Ethnographic “argumentation” was included in the propaganda discourse, containing “Srpski jezik, srpsko ime, običaje i nošnju” [, , customs and attire] (from Trãn) and “običaje, slave, zavetine” [customs, celebrations slava, behests], (from Gniljane) as ethno-

3 identification markers of Serbian affiliation (Srbija 1878; 189, 323). It is pointed out in the Petition of the population of Stara Serbia (unnamed inhabitants of Pirot, Trãn and Vranje) to Emperor Alexander II that “the Bulgarian čoprbadžii” (landlords), besides the other cruelties inflicted upon the local population “branded our sacred Serbian slava openly in the churches” (Srbija 1878; 208). In this way, in the discourse of the political contradictions, the local custom of svetec (svetãc in the region of Trãn), considered as similar (identical) with the Serbian slava, was presented as ideological to the maximum. Indicative was the article by Sreten Popoviæ, carried by the “Srpske novine” newspaper (No. 81/11 April 1878) and entitled “Gde je Srbin, tu je slava!” [“Wherever there is a Serb, there is a slava celebration”]. It described the celebration of svetec in the region of Breznik, which was less than 50 km away from Sofia (Stojančević V., 1995; 291, note 27). To the credit and good reputation of the prestigious Serbian ethnographic science, it should be pointed out here that during that period the aggressive propaganda discourse, pitting to use the ethno-cultural specificities of the region for the purposes of serving political ambitions and claims, remained confined within the pages of the mass printed media and the journalistic publications. Some of the extreme “misunderstandings” in the nationalistic compositions by M.Miloević and his followers were received fairly coolly and even with a tinge of irony by serious scholars in Belgrade3. In the opposite variant, in the political discourse of the pro-Bulgarian parties in the region, there was no discussion of individual ethnographic facts, but the ethno-national belonging was specifically viewed: on 20 May, 1878, Tako Peev, leader of the pro-Bulgarian party in Trãn, was officially empowered by the citizens of Trãn “to present to the authorities and to the entire world the local population as purely Bulgarian and to request His Imperial Highness the Tsar and Liberator to rescue us from Serbian bondage and tyranny” (Manolova-Nikolova N., 1997; 164). The division of the local population into pro-Bulgarian and pro-Serbian was not only in the terms of the discourse: an attempt was made on behalf of either side for the institutional inclusion of the representatives of the population in the regions of Trãn and Breznik into the state upbuilding and reaffirmation: on the one hand, telegrams were sent to the Narodna Skupština [Parliament] in Kraguevac (July 1878) from the villages in Visok, Lužnica, the regions of Breznik, Trãn, and from the regions of Niš and Vranje (Srbija 1878; 583). Conversely, notwithstanding the powerful pressure on behalf of the Serbian administration, a demand was addressed to the Bulgarian Constituent Assembly in Tãrnovo (1879) by the emigrants in Sofia from Trãn and Pirot, calling for the inclusion of administrative representatives from Trãn and Breznik. Statements were made

4 backing up that demand by P.Karavelov, K.Stoilov, S.Tumparov. Knyaz A.Dondukov-Korsakov, Russian Imperial Commisar in Bulgaria, stated that “because of special circumstances he could not intive deputies from these regions” (Manolova-Nikolova N., 1997; 167). The metaphoric phrase “time of parting” became a reality: during the time of the Serbian administration, the leaders of the pro-Bulgarian party lived in exile in Sofia, whereas after the establishment of a Bulgarian administration in Trãn, the leader of the pro-Serbian party – “vitez Trãnski” Arandžel Stanojev(ić) and his associates migrated to Pirot, which had remained within the boundaries of the Kingdom of Serbia (Stojančević V., 1995; 246-268; Stojančević V., 2000; 291; Manolova-Nikolova N., 1997). Some of his associates, however, as Simo Sokolov, to whose wedding he had been best man (kum), and who was a leader of a Bulgarian insurgent detachment during the war and officer in Serbian service in 1878-1879, went back and died in Sofia, receiving a pension of a Bulgarian fighter4. The repercussions of that split on the basis of nationality was to be felt in Trãn for many more years after the Liberation; the hatred among the individual vamilii [families] in the town acquired Shakespearean dimensions. This is how K.Ireček descibed in his Diary Trãn and its region, which he visited soon after the Liberation: “A great number of old, isolated villages, no thefts and plunders whatever, but for that matter the families were hostile to each other and assassinated each other, mostly in Trãn itself, where one family stood up against the other, without any friendship between them” (Ireček K., 1930; 91). A repercussion of these migrations on both sides of the frontier5 and that division was also feld directly on the eve of the outbreak of the Serbian-Bulgarian War in 1885, when part of the emigrants of Pro-Serbian orientation were sent by the Government of King Milan as emissaries with the task of preparaing the local population, by way of bribes and promices, for a demmand to become part of Serbia (Stojančević V., 1995; 311-330). Their mission failed and, as K.Ireček wrote about the region of Trãn: “….If some pro-Serbian feelings had been created during the Serbian occupation, they were finally lost after the Serbian-Bulgarian War of 1885” (Ireček K., 1899; 501). The discussion regarding the slava as a household and family custom and its challenging in the discourse about the ethnic and national identification of the population in the Central Balkans acquired particularly great dimensions during the last decade of the 19th and the early 20th century. In the period directly preceding the , and afterwards during the whole interim period between the wars, the focus of the Bulgarian-Serbian disputes shifted from the region of Piron and Trãn to the southern part of what Jovan Cvijić referred to as a “Central” kind. Now Macedonia was

5 in the focus and the nationalist propaganda discourse dealt freely and widely with linguistic, historical and ethnographic facts and features, in most of the cases detached of their natural cultural context. Against the background of the disputes about the character of the language and the dialects of the population living between the rivers Timok, Morava and Iskãr, as well as in Macedonia – i.g. the discussion about the language between A.Belić and B.Tzonev; about the historical geographic fronters of Bulgaria and Serbia, in which the old geographical maps of Slavic scholars from the 18th and 19th century proved to be the basic argument – for instance the dispute between A.Iširkov and J.Cvijić, whereby the former declares as belonging to Bulgaria not only the whole of Macedonia, but also and Eastern Serbia with Vranje, Niš and Leskovac, whereas thje other, conversely, refers to Serbs living up to the Iskãr-Mesta line and subjstantiates the Serbian claims by Dušan’s state and the borders of the Patriarchate of Peč6 (Cvijić J., 1989; 29-35; Iširkov A., 1907); the discoursive usage of the ethno-cultural traditions acquire special weight, particularly of the family and kinship holidays of slava and svetec. Centred on the ethno-national character of Macedonia, the discussion about the ethno-identification nature of the custom of slava begins as early as at the end of the 19th century between the Bulgarian Marin Drinov, Professor at the Harkov University in Russia, and the Russian Consul in Bitola I. Jastrebov (Drinov, M., 1911; Jastrebov I., 1886; Peševa R., 1960). The drafting of the peace treaties at the end of the First World War, determined both in Bulgaria and in Serbia as “a national catastrophe” provoked a fresh outburst of aggressive propaganda discourses, whereby the ethnographic facts were adduced by the two countries as “objective proof” of the Serbian or Bulgarian origin of the population of the border region. Naturally, against the backdrop of the descriptions of cruelties of the Serbian Army in Western Bulgaria and of the Bulgarian Army in Eastern Serbia, folk culture was presented in a manner in which “the Devil reads the ”, i.e. customs, folklore and traditional clothing were taken out of their cultural and historical context and were again reaffirmed in their capacity of ethnic markers. A division was suggested not only of Macedonia, but also of the so-called “Šopluk” (i.e. the border region and the villages around the capital of Sofia). The historical and ethnographic division of the Peace Conference in Paris, chaired by J.Cvijić, prepared a study, whereby that region consisted of three belts: with Serbian population, with mixed population and with population close to the Bulgarians (Cvijić J., 1989; 213).

6 The use made by J.Cvijić of the slava as a marker-custom reached its complete form in his major composition “Balkansko poluostrvo i južnoslovenske zemlje” [The Balkan Peninsula and the South Slavic Lands]. In it the zadruga [ the multiple household] as a popular (folk) institution, honouring the genealogy and particularly of the slava custom, as a sign of a patriarchal spirit, alongside folklore, the historical legends and the epic folk poems about Krali Marko were declared to be characteristic of the Serbs alone, or, in the best case, of the South Slavic tribe, in which he included Serbs, Croats, Slovenians, Šops (of the region of Sofia) and Macedonians (Cvijić J., 1922; 263, 276; Cvijić J., 1931; 14, 25, 113, 140, 142, 174). The emphasis was on the so-called “Dinar type”7. The variants of a family and kinship holiday observed among Wallachians, Aromanians and Catholic Albanians had come into being, according to him, under Serbian influemnce in the process of their gradual assimilation by Serbia.. The Bulgarians east of the town Ihtiman, Turks, Greeks and Albanians did not have that holiday, according to him (Cvijić J., 1931; 113, 150). This was a thesis, which due to the prestige of J.Cvijić and his followers was dominant in Serbian ethnology until a late date. Even Vuk Karadžić’s objective instructions as to how “the Bulgarians along the Timok celebrated the feast day of St Nicholas” (Karadžić V., 1987; 52-53), moreover, precisely following the ritual traditional for the whole of Bulgaria – the making of a ribnik (a dish of fish dish, baked covered by dough), was interpreted in literature of a later date as the celebration of slava, adopted under Serbian influence by former inhabitants of Teteven (in Bulgaria), who had come from the central part of the Balkan Range and settled around Zaječar (Stojančević V., 1995; 142). On the other side, in Bulgaria, the annexation of the border region territories inhabited by ethnic Bulgarians to the Serbian-Croat-Slovenian Kingdom, by virtue of the Neuilly Peace Treaty transformed the Caribrod-Trãn region and the region of Bosilegrad from the County of Kjustendil into a collective image of sufferers from the “Western Borderlands”. The discourse that had gone on until that time regarding the backwardness of that part of Bulgaria, its primitive simplicity and archaicness8 was replaced by heroisation of “the offsprings of Western Bulgaria, detached from Mother Bulgaria”. And it was here that the ethnographic facts were already put to propaganda use, whereby the closeness of the dialect and customs of the local Bulgarian population with those of Pirot, for instance, as well as with the whole of Eastern Serbia, were treated instead of an advantage as a menace/threat, which was to keep the people’s conscience even more “alert”. This is what “instructions” were given by the Zapadno Eho [Western Echo] newspaper, a periodical of the refugees from the Western Borderlands published in Sofia (No. 7/15 February 1923/volume 1, page

7 1): “Your conquerors (meaning the Serbs – P.H.) are very well skilled in shooting their arrows, by way of tenderness and allurement, against the mainstays of a people, against their spirit; therefore beware and be careful and alert. The closeness of the language and the common faith and customs help them, but for that matter a greater alertness on your part is a must.” A title in the same newspaper from 17 April 1923 (No. 11, p. 1) reads: “Do not try to speak in Serbian!”. In the form of a discourse, the oppositions are played out on the pages of the newspaper between the wearing of white clothes (characteristic of the regions of Pirot, Trãn and Caribrod) and the black clothes, “brought” by the Serbs as an urban attire (No. 12, 1 May 1923); the wearing of cloth caps (as a Bulgarian feature) against the imposition of the Serbian “šajkača” (a kind of a cap) as obligatory (in connection with an order, issued by Deputy Prime Minister Velizar Janković for the substitution of the fez by the “šajkača” in Bosna) (No. 21, 9 February, 1923); the imposition as a school holiday (slava) of the Feast Day of St Sava, instead of the celebration of the holy apostles of St St Cyril and Methodius, celebrated by that time as an official holiday in the Bulgarian schools9. The propaganda opposition between slava and sãbor was particulrly intensified, whereby the organisation of the refugees from the Western Borderline and a number of Bulgarian politicians tried to transform the traditional local gatherings (sobors) into a place for political agitation and an occasion for the internationalisation of the problem of the “Western Borderline Regions”. Along these lines, the rallies on the feast day of St St Cyril and Methodius in 1929 and 1931 were vigorously made use of in the village of Strezimirovci, divided into two by the border, and the traditional gatherings on the Day of the Holy Spirit in the Slavčeto (Slavišta) locality in the region of Bosilegrad and in the border village of Kalotina in 1929. Their ceremonious celebration and their transformation into “a nationwide peaceful demonstration again fratricides” (the newspaper “Zapadni pokrajnini”, No. 256/29 May, 1931) was counteropposed to the increasingly waning and listless celebrations of the traditional gathers “across the border”10. This is how this was described regarding the region of Caribrod: “The gatherings, fairs and markets, to which the population of the neighbouring hamlets streamed en masse earlier – these places now resemble empty village squares, standing in which not cleaned is still the garbage, left behind during the occupation of the town by the Serbs” (“Zapadno Eho” newspaper, No. 22/Vol. 1, 15 Sept., 1923/p. 1). The opposition between the Serbian slava and the Bulgarian sãbor acquired new dimensions in the 1920s on the pages of the “Makedonski Pregled” [Macedonian Review] magazine, published in Sofia, in connection with proving the ethnic and national character of the Slavic population in

8 Macedonia. Some of the most outstanding Slavic scholars of that time joined the discussion as to whether the slava was only a Serbian custom. The beginning was laid with the publication in Sofia in 1929 of the voluminous work by A.Selištev “Polog I ego bolgarskoe naselenie” [Polog and Its Bulgarian Population]. After the publication of this book, the opposition between slava and sãbor was specified as alternativeness of the family slava – and as bloodless – blood sacrificial offering, insofar as the traditional common kurban (“prayer”) as part of the set of rituals of the family and kinship settlement holidays, particularly characteristic of Macedonia, was declared to be a Bulgarian ethnic identification marker (Selištev, A. 1929; 276-278). In the Serbian tradition, the giving up of the blood sacrificial offering as an inrrevocable part of the slava ritual was associated with the consolidation and internal strengthening of the Serbian Sv.Savian Orthodox Church in the 13th century (Bogdanović D., 1985; 506). Particularly indicative are the interpretations of the earliest historical information in writing in the Chronicles of Skyllitzes-Kedrin (Filipović M., 1985; 153) about the family and clan celebration of the Assumption of the Holy Virgin by voivoda [master] Ivac in South Macedonia (in Devol, south of Ochrid) in 1018: to the old Serbian authors, Ivac is “a Serbian voivoda”, for the contemporary authors in Macedonia he is “a Macedonian voivoda”, while for Bulgarian authors he is “a Bulgarian voivoda”11 (Stamenova Z., 1985; 154). In fact the discussion going on in the 1920s and 1930s, enlisted in which were among the most prominent names of Serbian and Bulgarian science – Vladislav Skarić, Čiro Truhelka, Radoslav Gruić, Afanasij Selištev, Ljubomir Miletić and others contributed a lot towards leading the discourse about the slava beyond the propaganda clichés in the pages of the public press and the political struggles, becoming an incentive for more thorough investigations and enrichment of the techniques of interpretation. The major discussion began in Serbian historical and ethnological literature regarding the origin of the slava; a discussion which has not ended to this day (Vlahović P., 1985; 152). And here we completely agree to the conclusion of Milenko Filipović that the thesis regarding the slava, služba or the krastno ime were a purely Serbian feature, was “…a delusion of the romantic and patriotic citizenry and those from among those circles that were writers”, a delusion, of which “…je samo Srpstvo imalo više štete, nego koristi” [“The Serbian people have had more losses than benefits/advantages”]. (Filipović M., 1985; 152). Although here and there in scholarly publications, and particularly in popular books, even in the formal publications of the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Church12 some of these romantic delusions about the slava as a Serbian ethnic identification marker13 are repeated, the serious scholars giving interpretation to the slava –

9 M.Filipović, V.Čajkanović, P.Vlahović, N.Pantelić, S.Zečević, D.Bandić, point out mostly the agrarian and integrative functions of the set of rites and rituals, united under the name of slava, and its tie-up with the cult for the forefathers14. At the same time, the scholarly discussion, which began in the 1920-1930s and prompted detailed investigations in Bulgaria, contributed to widening the scope of spread of the family and kinship holidays honouring the patron saints of the home, the family plots of land, as well as the entire village. They have been interpreted as a sign of patriarchal spirit15 (Peševa R., 1960) and the svetec and služba [saint and service] family and kinship rituals in Western Bulgaria, similar to the Serbian slava are placed in a typological series of traditional holidays. In the Bulgarian tradition these include some archaic forms of rituals honouring an anonymous family and kinship or personal patron (stopanova gozba, namesnik, kurban na djadoto [the host’s meal, trustee, votive offering to the grandfather], as well as the holidays (služba, svetec, obrok, kurban, čerkva, molitva [service, saint, votive site, votive offering, church, prayer]), dedicated to Christian saints and the Holy Virgin, considered to be patrons of a specific family, kinship, neighbourhood, territorial, church or handicraft community (Stamenova Z., 1985; 156-158). The attempts to bring out the system of votive offerings honouring patron saints of family, kinship and village lands, associated in Bulgarian tradition with the ritual making of blood offering (kurban) as “a reliable ethnic differentiation sign of the Bulgarian folk culture” (Mutafov V., 2000; 353) is wrong, insofar as on the level of typology there are sets of similar rites and rituals in the Western Balkans, too, particularly where the Oriental influence is stronger (Bosnia), as well as in Greece (Varvunis M., 2001; 180), and among the Turks in the Balkans. In any case, the problem of the further investigation of the family and kinship rituals, related to the household cult of the type of the Serbian slava, the Macedonian svetec and sluga, the obrok in Bulgaria and Serbia and the common village fairs sãbor and zavetina needs fresh perspectives in the scholarly investigations. This type of holidays has to be discussed in a common Balkan wide perspective, whereby the natural social and cultural context has to be borne in mind, and the entire set of rites and rituals reckoned with, in the agrarian calendar and the family genealogical reproduction cycle. This task is still facing researchers in the Balkans.

10

NOTES

* This work has been done with the assistance of the Research Support Scheme Program of the Open Society Foundation, project No. 974/2000. The text was presented to the Boundary Conference, organised by the DIOS Society in Stakevci, Bulgaria, in August 2001.

1. The term has been suggested by Galja Vãlčinova. 2. According to legend, during the third invasion of the Russian units in the town of Breznik (May 1879) the local “intellectuals” were forced to define themselves in terms of national affiliation publicly. Only the priest took the Serbian side. This was an occasion for the sexton to reminded him for decades afterwards about that “shameful” choice. 3. Cf. for instance the paper by S.Novaković and M.Kujundjić on M.Miloević’s book of songs from “Prava Srbija” in Glasnik Srpsog ucenog druzstva, 38, Belgrade, 1873. 4. Some of the family of Arandjel Stanojev(ić) also returned to Bulgaria. In 1885 Ivan Pejcov(ić), the leader of the pro-Serbian party in the region of Breznik, reassured the Serbian authorities of the unrealiability of A.Stanojev(ić), of whom “you cannot expect anything useful, because his sons are in the Bulgarian army” (Stojančević V., 1995; 326). His grandson Vlada Stanojević, however, was a medical officer in the Serbian Army in both the First and the Second World War (Stojančević V., 2000; 287). 5. Evidence of this are, for instance, the materials of S.Bobčev from the village of Slišovci, Trãn region (Bobčev S., 1908; 46). 6. Some of the most outstanding Slavic scholars of that time were drawn into the disputes, as, for instance L. Niderle (Niderle L., 1902; Minkov I., 1988). A repercussion of the political claims for the restoration of the Serbian state within the frameworks of what used to be the Patriarchate of Peč is a song, recorded by folklorist

11 A.Mihajlova in 1973 in the village of Vitanovci, Breznik region, Bulgaria. It goes like this: A great assembly got together Sobrali se velika skupština In that village of San Stefano u onova selo San Stefano Seven kings and seven masters sedem kralja I sedem šaove A couple of younger Knyazes dvamina po-malki knjazove And twenty royal highnesses i dvaise carski visočestva And at the head - the Russian Emperor i za glava ruski imperator …………………………………………………………………………. And then said the King – King Milan: Togaj si duma kralju-kral Milan: I want back for myself my old homeland Ja si sakam staro otečestvo From Kjustendil, along the Struma River ot Kjustendil pa po reka Struma Up to Mount Vitoša, to Serbian Samokov do Vitoša, do Srabski Samokov Behind Sofia, up to the Pobit Kamãk locality zad Sovija, pa do Pobit kamik My homeland must be that big. do tam da e moe otečestvo. (Manolova-Nikolova N., 1997; 173) 7. Some of the theses of J.Cvijić about “the patriarchal regime” in the Balkans can be identified to this day in Karl Kaser’s theory about the family and kinship nature of the slava as “Ilyirian heritage” (Kaser K., 1993). 8. It is not accidental that quoted in literature are the words of the commander of the Russian units which entered Trãn in 1879: “Citizens of Trãn, citizens of Trãn, you are the Bulgarian Kamčatka!” (“Tranci, Tranci, vy Bolgarskaja Kamčatka”)(Mironova S., 1971; 125). 9. Cf. the story about the last secret celebvration of 24 May in 1921 in Caribrod – the Day of the Apostles St St Cyril and Methodius, disbanded by the county governor resorting to the use of a police force, according to the newspaper (Zapadno eho newspaper, No. 14/2 June 1923/vol. 1/p. 1-2). 10. For instance, regarding the region of Bosilegrad, cf. the Zapadni pokrajnini newspaper, No. 210/10 June 1929/vol. vii; regarding the fair on the Feast Day of the Holy Virgin in Caribrod, cf. Zapadno eho newspaper, No. 24/2 October 1923/vol. I;

12 about the villge of Kostrošovci, Trãn region on Friday, 1 June 1923, (Blagi Petãk) cf. Zapadno eho newspaper, No. 13/10 June 1923, p.2. 11. For the sake of historical truth, in the Chronicles he is denoted as Βούλγαρος (Selištev A.,1929; 226). 12. Cf. the book of instructions “O krsnoj slavi” published in 1999 by the “Svetilo” Church Publishing House in Belgrade, containing new texts, as well as older texts that have already been published. 13. In a reversed and “softened” variant: “Gde je Srbin – tu je slava!” [“Wherever there is a Serb, there is slava!”] (O krsnoj slavi 1999; 25, 36). 14. Cf. the articles in the collections O krsnom imenu. Beograd, 1985 and Etno-kulturološki zbornik. , No. IV, 1998. Even serious scholars like M. Mitterauer repeat “the thesis” of the Serbian of the 19th century that the custom of krsno ime [name given by baptism] - slava has its beginning in the glorification of the memory about the family and clan adoption of Christianity by the Slavs in the Balkans (Mitterauer M.,1994; 28-29). 15. Cf. M. Mitterauer regarding the discussion between K.Kaser and M.Todorova (Mitterauer M.,1994).

13

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson B., Imagined Communities: reflection on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso, 1991. Барjактаровић М., 1998 О пореклу и коренима слава. – В: Етно- културолошки зборник. Књ. ІV, Сврљиг, 37-42. Barth F., 1969 Introduction. – In: Barth, F. (ed.) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference. Bergen, Oslo, Universitetsforlaget, London, pp. 9-38. Бобчев С., 1908 Сборник на българските юридически обичаи. Ч. ІІ. Държавно право. София. Богдановић Д., 1985 Крсна слава као светосавски култ. – В: О крсном имену. Београд, 486-511. Варвунис М., 2001 Култ светих у грчкоj традициjскоj култури. – В: Култ светих на Балкану. Лицеум 5, Крагуjевац, 175-190. Влаховић П., 1998 Крсна слава и њена улога у породичном и друштвеном животу код Срба. – В: Етно-културолошки зборник. Књ. ІV, Сврљиг, 23-32. Вълчинова Г., 1999 “Знеполски похвали”. Локална религия и идентичност в Западна България. София. Дринов М., 1911 Нескоько слов об языке, народных песнях и обычаях дебрских славян. Заметки об обычаях и обрядних песнях. – В: Съчинения. Т.2, София, 385-396. Zečević S., 1977 Slava u limitrofnoj zoni Donjeg Dunava. – В: Зборник од ХІХ конгрес на Соjузот на здружениjата на фолклористите на Jугославиjа. Крушево, 167-169. Иречек К., 1899 Пътувания из България. София. Иречек К., 1930 Български дневник 1879-1884. Т. І, Пловдив (фототипно изд. 1995). Иширков А., 1907 Принос към етнографията на македонските славяни. София.

14 Kaser K., 1993 Ahnenkult und Patriarchalismus auf dem Balkan. – In: Historische Anthropologie, 1, 93-122. Караџић В., 1987 Описаниje Србиjе. Избрана књижевна проза. Београд. Манолова-Николова Н., 1997 Средна Западна България 1877-1879. Преходът между две епохи в Трънско-Брезнишкия край. – В: Родина. Кн.ІІІ-ІV, София, 159-173. Минков И., 1988 Лубор Нидерле за етническата територия на българите. – В: Исторически преглед. Бр.9, София, 82-91. Миронова С., 1971 Трънският край. Очерци из неговото минало. София. Митерауер М., 1994 Един архаичен реликт? “Балканското семейство” в дискусия. – В: Balkanistic forum. 2, рр. 5-32. Мутафов В., 2000 Реконструкция на оброчната система в селищата от Западна България. – В: Етнологията на границата на два века. Изследвания и материали, посветени на 60-годишния юбилей на доц. Д-р Николай Колев. Велико Търново, 337-358. Naumović S., 1996 Od ideje obnove do prakse upotrebe: ogled o odnosu politike I tradicije na primeru savremene Srbije. – В: От мита до фолка. Лицеум 2. Крагуjевац, 109-145. Нидерле Л., 1902 Македонският въпрос. София. О крсноj слави. 1999 Светило, Београд. О крсном имену. 1985 Београд. Пантелић Н., 1998 Слава – крсно име. – В: Етно-културолошки зборник. Књ. ІV, Сврљиг, 33-36. Пешева Р., 1960 Един старинен семеен празник. Празнуване на светец в Северозападна и Средна Западна България. – В: Езиковедско – етнографски изследвания в памет на акад. Романски. София, 731-754. Селищев А., 1929 Полог и его болгарское население. София. Србиjа 1878, 1978 Документи. Београд. Стаменова Ж., 1985 Родови празници и обичаи. – В: Етнография на България. Т.ІІІ. Духовна култура. София, 139-158. Стоjанчевић В., 1995 Срби и Бугари 1804-1878. Нови Сад.

15 Стоjанчевић В., 2000 Др Владимир – Влада Станоjевић (1884-1978). – В: Пиротски зборник. 25-26, 287-292. Филиповић М., 1985 Слава, служба или крсно име у писаним изворима до краjа 18. века. – В: О крсном имену. Београд, 151-192. Hobsbawm E., 1983 Introduction. – In: E. Hobsbawm; T. Ranger (eds.) The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge U. P. Цвиjић J., 1922 Балканско полуострво и jужнословенске земље. Књ. І, Београд. Цвиjић J., 1931 Балканско полуострво и jужнословенске земље. Књ. ІІ, Београд. Цвиjић J., 1989 Говори и чланци. – В: Собрана дела. Књ. 5 (Т. ІІ), Београд. Ястребов И., 1886 Обычаи и песни турецких сербов. Санкт Петербург.

16