za Sapkarev
za Sapkarev
n/a We said that Sapkarev published eight text-books. Their names are: 1. A Short Sacred History from the Old and New Testaments with a short Holy Catechism” 62 8. 2. A Short Geography 64 8. 3. A Bulgarian Beginner 64 8. 4. A Big Bulgarian Reader 138 8. 5. Primary Knowledge for Small Children 62 8. 6. The Holy Annuncia-tion 146 8. 7. Handy Sacred Orders 144 8. 8. The Mother Tongue - A Beginner 40 8. The first five books appeared in Constantinople in 1868 at the printing press of the newspaper Makedonija. Instead of the name of the compiler they have only “A Macedonian” and the editor was Andreja Anastasov Resenec a well-known old book-seller of the period who sold books at fairs. We come across him as the editor of P. Radov's Eternal Calendar (5th edition supplemented and printed by Andreja A. Resenec Kiev 1865 305 p. 8. (See Danov's Letostruj« 1869) The book under number five is not mentioned in the well-known Description by V. Pogorelov, where, otherwise, all the rest are described. That it was edited in 1868 is clear from p.57 where it is mentioned that the Bishopric of Ohrid had been abolished a hundred years earlier. The language unambiguously points to Sapkarev as a compiler. But Sapkarev himself informing his readers on the back of the flyleaf of the Beginner of 1868 about the books he is publishing mentions as number five Primary Knowledge and he mentions it again in the foreword to the reader, under no. 7. The book under number six was issued in 1869 at the printing house of Tadea Divit?ian (not at that of the newspaper Makedonija). We can call the last two books text books in so far as they served in teaching, otherwise they represent a selection of readings from the Gospel and Acts which were designed for wider usage among the people. Finally The Mother Tongue was edited in 1874 in Thessalonika as a publication of the booksellers the brothers A. & P. Šapkarev. It is said that this is a third completely revised edition. Because this has no connection with the beginner of 1868, we cannot say whether Šapkarev did not consider that as a first edition, and in general when and where the first and second editions appeared we do not know. The books under numbers 1,2 and 5 are written in the form of question and answer. Except for the printed text-books, Šapkarev had only compiled, as he tells us in the foreword to the Reader of 1868 and a few other books Collected Lists for Reading, Collected Lists for Calculation and The Same Collected in a Short Book for Sums. We shall make short notes concerning the language of Sapkarev’s text-books. Generally speaking, compared to Parteni's language, we find in Šapkarev a greater admixture of Bulgarian elements. He himself defines his language as being “a western Macedonian dialect mired mith the Bulgar in unitten dialect of the day.” ... The base of Sapkarev's language is Ohrid speech which is characterized by the change of #1078; > #1098;: r#1098;ka, p#1098;t etc. Sapkarev chose exactly that change, which in this point brought his language nearer to Bulgarian. ... Further on in the foreword Sapkarev enumerates the text-books which he has compiled and says that he hopes “others will follow among which will be a grammar with sufficient notes about the Macedonian dialect and comparisons of it with the Upper-Bulgarian dialect”. It is regrettable that this proposed grammar, like Parteni's did not appear. Did Sapkarev ever manage to compile it? But as a teacher he taught grammar and it was natural for him to model. his teaching in accordance with the language of his text-books... Od ovde slobodno mozam da kazam deka covekot imal vizija za eden jazik -kombinacija od makedonski i gorno bugarski--Zboruva za dialekti bitushanec, ne za jazici! Od ovde mozam da kazam deka Sapkarev vo nieden moment ne pravi distinkcija megju jazicite, bas naprotiv zboruva za obedinuvanje na dijalektite vo eden edinstven jazik koisto ke gi sodrzi zapadnite i istocnite narecja. Jas stvarno neznam od sto zaklucuvas deka e Anti-Bugarin?? [8D] A za TEODOSIJ GOLOGANOV vo druga prilika. Ke iskeniram originalno pismo do Krste Misirkov preku nekoj togasen medium. Pismoto e vo sopstvenost na eden moj drugar. Isto i od avtobiogravska kniga od Hristo Tatarcev. Inaku ne sum bugarski propagandist ili vraboten vo ambasadata. Do sega sum bil dvapati vo Bugarija, po planini i taka.. pozdrav!
n/a za izvorot: INSTITUTE OF NATIONAL HISTORY TOWARDS THE MACEDONIAN RENAISSANCE (Macedonian Textbooks of the Nineteenth Century) by BLAZE KONESKI SKOPJE - 1961
Misirkov Ne znam koj e toj. No sum cul pak za Petar Zagorov, koj za vreme na Ilinden 1903, napisal: "Tamu kaj Pind i Shar, kaj Struma i Vardar, kade se e pokrieno so dlaboki rani, dostojni potomci na Veliki Aleksandar, herojski se borat so vekovni tirani..." v. "Avtonomna Makedonija", septemvri 1903 godina. Imase eden zabluden pak, kojsto prerabotil edna makedonska pena pred nekoja godina i pee: "cheda sme na Asparuh". Interesno toa za drvata...
n/a Maverick, z`s more ne mi odgovaras na topicot VMRO?! Tuku zar si tolku nedoveten pa mislis deka Ircite se Anglicani, deka Versanite se Anglicani, deka Skotite se Anglicani, deka Baskite se Spanci, deka Korzikancite se Francuzi?! Bugarskata propaganda e tokmu toa: makedoncite gi pravi bugari, a toa e potpolno isto kako anglicanite (anglo-saksonci) da gi pravat ircite (kelti) cisti anglicani (sto i se pravese vo minatoto), ili spancite da gi pravat baskite cisti spanci, sto se pravese vo minatoto. Se nadevam deka i buagsrkiot intelekt ke evoluira vo idnina i ke se osovremeni, oti i vo 21 vek bugarskiot dug e kopija na eden primitivizam od 19 vek!
n/a Maveric, vo istiot izvor glej sto najdov: In order to help this forward Sapkarev worked at a “Short Dictionary« divided into three parts. “The first containing Macedonian translated into Upper Bulgarian, the second Upper-Bulgarian translated into Macedonian and the third foreign words found in the Bulgarian literary language.” The second foreword which is important for Sapka-rev's views and those of other people in Macedonia, appeared a year later in the book The Holy Annunciation (dated: Kukus, 29th May, 1869). We can draw particularly important evidence from the following words: “In our area, from which the Bulgarian language has been expelled, it is understood that nobody from the youngest to the oldest does not know how to read Bulgarian, so how can it be easily introduced? Moreover there are some, among our people, who, besides not knowing and not wanting to learn and being from the one side convinced of what they have found and from the other exercising influence upon people are a considerable obstacle to the others by giving them all sorts of excuses. One of their numerous handy obstacles is this - the Bulgarian church language was Serbian (?) and they could not understand it (!) and even that it was forbidden (?) by the Government (?) Concerning the contemporary East-Bulgarian dialect they say that it is “Sopian” and here Sop means the most vulgar potbelly, and demand “Are we all going to make Sops of ourselves?” It here becomes clearer that the penetration of the Bulgarian language met with opposition from among the people. The appearance of the Macedonian text-books and all the questions of language connected with them rested finally upon that fact. Sapkarev with all his marks of exclamation attempts to separate himself from those people who cried “Are we going to make Sops of ourselves” from the so-called Macedonists. Their influence upon the people, as we can see, was not small. “But” says Sapkarev, “it must not be thought that some of tho-se people do this from malice to Bulgarianism or affection for Hellenization. On the contrary, they readily agree to listen to the Bulgarian in churches and schools. But so that they all understand, in such cases they are pleased.” The people this means. as was quite natural, were glad to hear an understandable word of their own mother tongue in church and at school. They did not feel that the Bulgarian language was such. It is important to understand what Sapkarev says here about the Macedonists - that they had no love for Hellenization such as some wished to attribute to them. Seen in this light, what is the meaning of Sapkarev's work? He separates himself off from those who were speaking against the “Sopian dialect”, and in practice - though not fully - he follows the line of their demands in relation to the language. He declares that he has no intention of dividing the common language but in practice his text-books do just that, independently of how much be himself was aware of the fact. The editing of those works was not an armchair affair but came from life experience and in turn influenced it. As to the creation of a “Bulgarian” generally which Sapkarev also declared himself for, what could have had a more destructive effect than the demand that the cultural development of the Bulgarian language be changed from its normal course up to that time to create an artificial Bulgaro-Macedonian language? We now repeat that it was impossible. The only choice was either to adopt the Bulgarian or the Serbian language or to build a Macedonian literary language. The second was the choice realized. For what was in fact thought at the time by the Bulgarians of text-books especially adapted for Macedonians as a counter attraction to Serbian we have some evidence. In an article “Some Features of Nikola Pervanov’s Life” (Citaliste 1875, Bk. 6) we read that he “Much earlier wrote a Bulgarian beginner for the Macedonians. His main object in publishing that book was to preserve our Macedonian brothers from the way in which Serbians pronounce Bulgarian words, i. e. not to stress the first syllable in each word.” ZNACHI MAKEDONCITE BILE RAZLICHNI OD BUGARITE, AKO BILE BUGARI SHTO IMA DA SE PISHUVA "ZA MAKEDONCITE" KOGA BUGAR SI E BUGAR! NIKADE NEMA VO ISTORIJATA SPOMNATO "BUGARSKI BUKVAR ZA TRAKIJCI, ZA DOBRUDJANCI, ZA MIZIJCI, ZA SHOPI"..... Maverick, uste si nedokvakan!
n/a Namely the newspaper “Pravo” on 30 November 1870 published an article entitled “One Truth” and signed “A True Macedonian.” This article is a very sharp attack on Sapkarev as the destroyer of Bulgarianism in Macedonia. .................... The correspondent asserts the most interesting things about Sapkarev in passing to his conduct in Ohrid. At the same time he reveals something more of the Macedonian peoples disposition at the time than the evidence so far has revealed. We quote this part of his piece: “I am unaware how far Mr. K.A.S. has succeeded in converting the Bulgarians from their brothers in Ohrid, his native town, but I have been informed that he has been more active there, having also his brother as a collaborator. His first words of hate for everything Bulgarian have been “We have hardly liberated ourselves from the Greeks and are we now to become Sops?” From all we have said above it is clear over what sort of precipice the said gentleman wants to push our people, for some have even had the impudence to say “we are Macedonians - not Bulgarians.
Misirkov Nekako mnogu im preci na "Bugarite" aktivnosta na Kuzman Shapkarev da soizade makedonski bukvari, gramatika i ucebnici. Samata pomisla da se aludira na makedonskiot narod ja okarakterizirale kako "najlosa misla": "...Ïà êàêâà ïîëîøà ìèñëà òðåáà äà èìà ãîñïîäèí Øàïêàðåâ? Òîj çíàå êàäå ïèïà. Äåíåñêà áóêâàð÷å, óòðå äðóãè ó÷åáíè êíèãè è òóêó êå ãî âèäèø òè èçâàäèë è ñîñòàâèë íåêîà èñòîðèjà íà ìàêåäîíñêèîò íàðoä..." "Äåí" îä 30. jóíè 1875 ãîäèíà. Maverick: idejata ti bese........? Ili kje se vratis vo bugarskite planini?
n/a Ne be decki, i ja se cuvstvuvam Makedonec i smetam deka Makedoncite se vo mnogu nesta unikatni sto e dovolno za samobitnosta za eden narod, kolku i da vi zvuci smesno vo momentov. Razlikata pomegju mene i vas e vo stavovite.. Razbiranjeto za moeto nacionalno cuvstvo poveke go gledam kaj da receme: Miladinovi, Partenija Zogravski, Sapkarev, Venko Markovski i mnogu drugi no mnugu, mnogu daleku vo odnos na karikaturi kako Ivan Kantardziev ,Aleksandar Donski i kompanija cij stavovi samo pravat razdor megju Makedoncite. Vo koja prilika nekoj golem makedonski deec/revolucioner zborel za Bugarite kako Tatari, tuku naprotiv gi smetal za najbliski; Na poveketo od niv, familiite denes im ziveat vo Sofija tokmu poradi moroni kako gorenavedenite sto gi izvitoperuvaat rabotite. Site tie primeri sto gi dava bitushanec za odnosi pomegju narodi ne drzat ni nanosekunda. Irci-Anglicani(irskiot od angliskiot se razlikuvaat kako nokj i den; Jazikot sto se zbori vo Juzna Irska go zborat i vo severna Skotska vo nekoi izolirani oblasti;nekoj keltski), Baskiici-Spanci(isto)..za Korzika neznam,mislam deka nema nekoj separatizam tamu.. posoodvetno bi bilo: Srbi-Crnogorci Germanci-Avstrijci Svegjani-Norvezani.. drugo: E da, na 11 april vo univerzalna sala so Vlatko Stefanovski ke gostuva i Teodosii Spasov(na kaval)..netreba da se propusti, mnogu dobra muzika:) pozdrav!
Misirkov Pa rece li nekoj nesto za tebe? Pazi samo da ne e "muvata na kapata". Ako go citas Slavejkov na primer, kje vidis deka povekjeto Makedonci vo 19 vek gi smetale Bugarite za Tatari. Tie toa vsusnost i se - azijatski narod. E sega dali od Mongolija, zapadna Kina ili bas od Avganistan - ne e nashe da kazame. I nikoj tuka ne veli deka ne treba da bideme bliski so Bugarite! Makedoncite imaat tolku mnogu napraveno za niv i navnata drzava, sto ni samite Bugari ne se svesni! No sepak treba da se znae koj e koj, i da se pocituva toa. Ova go kazuvam zosto ima edna "zakachalka" vo samata Bugarija koja e zakachena dolgo vreme na bugarski jasli i si pravi dobra zarabotuvacka od nepocituvanjeto na faktite. Jas za razlika od tebe ne mozam da go stavam vo ist kosh "partiskiot istoricar" Ivan Katardziev (samiot taka kaza) so nezavisen istoricar kako Aleksandar Donski. Zosto bi bilo soodvetno da ne sporeduvas so bugarskiot narod kako vo kalap Srbi-Crnogorci; Germanci-Avstrijci; Svegjani-Norvezani??? Pa nasite etnogenezi se razlcni, korenite. Jas velam grankite neka se bliski, no za dve drva se raboti, ne za edno. Procitaj sto napisal eden nas Makedonec vo 1888 g. vo Ruse: "...Nasata tatkovina Makedonija si ima istorija za svoeto minato, kade sto se gleda nejzinata mokj, velicina, kako i nejzinoto politicko potinuvanje pod vlasta na togas mokjnata Turska imperija..... Denes, sekoj Makedonec, koga go spomnuva Aleksandar Makedonski, veli: 'Nie sme go imale car Aleksandar Veliki'. So tie zborovi toj si pripomnuva za bleskaviot period i velicieto na Makedonskata drzava. Aleksandar Makedonski stoi pred liceto na sekoj Makedonec kako nacionalna gordost!..." v. "Makedonija", 1888 godina. P.S. Iako Ircite denes zboruvaat angliski, irskiot jazik e "Gaelic"; se razlikuva od angliskiot kako den i nokj. NO nikoj normalen ne veli deka se anglicani. Baskijcite se domoroden i anticki narod so svoj jazikc i kultura koja so spanskata nema vrska; shpancite se meshavina (pak razlika den i nokj).
angomako jazikot na antickite bugari sepak bil drug...se razlikuval od makedonskiot kako baskiskiot od latino-spanskiot.
n/a >>. Jas velam grankite neka se bliski, no za dve drva se raboti, ne za edno. Procitaj sto napisal eden nas Makedonec vo 1888 g. vo Ruse: "...Nasata tatkovina Makedonija si ima istorija za svoeto minato, kade sto se gleda nejzinata mokj, velicina, kako i nejzinoto politicko potinuvanje pod vlasta na togas mokjnata Turska imperija..... Denes, sekoj Makedonec, koga go spomnuva Aleksandar Makedonski, veli: 'Nie sme go imale car Aleksandar Veliki'. So tie zborovi toj si pripomnuva za bleskaviot period i velicieto na Makedonskata drzava. Aleksandar Makedonski stoi pred liceto na sekoj Makedonec kako nacionalna gordost!..." v. "Makedonija", 1888 godina. << Da be da, pa jas znam za eden covek sto vika: Nie ne sme s''rbi, bugaaari i g''rci ceda sme na Aleksandar gordost makedonska Mislam deka se vikase Vojo Mihajlovski [:D]