Култура

In his extensive and interesting article D. Dimitrov offers his view and interpretation of some facts in the chronicle of Metodi Draginov, juxtaposed with numerous of our writings and other historical events of the 17th century. and polemized with the Dutch Ottomanist Michael Kiel due to his erroneous conclusions about the Islamization in Chepino.
Regarding the interpretation of some facts and the conclusions made, I would like to draw attention to the following:
I. The Turkish Empire fought a protracted war from 1645 to 1669. with Venice for o. Crete. The fastest and easiest way to reach Crete is by going from Morea (Peloponnese). And it is quite natural in the chronicle to talk about Mora (Sea). But it also mentions an army sent in ships. It is wrong to believe that there were two wars - one for the Morea and another for Crete. According to the chronicle, the Turkish army arrived in Chepino around April 25 (Gergyovden) and one part remained to force the population to convert to Islam, and the main part of the Janissaries continued their way to the Morea.
The conclusion that "the event occurred in 1666" is not erroneous, but is logical and accurate, because "in May 1666. The Ottomans set off from the Morea and on 3 November Fazl Ahmed Pasha landed in Kanea" - a port city on the north coast of Crete. And in 1669. after 24 years of war at the cost of great casualties and losses they managed to conquer its main city of Kandia and the whole island (History of the Ottoman Empire under the editorship of R. Mantran).
The assumption of D. Dimitrov, ce described events in the chronicle occurred in 1687. during and in connection with a battle for Nikopol, etc. is inconclusive and in complete contradiction with the content of the chronicle and with other information that confirms its veracity. II. For a long period of time, the numbers, numbers and dates in the Bulgarian literature after its occurrence are marked by letters, accompanied by special signs, clarifying that they have a numerical value.
At the end of the Popmethodian Chronicle (St. Zahariev, Description) the year of the event is marked with only two letters with numerical value of 1000 and 600 respectively. Undoubtedly, the next letters with a numerical value have been erased or torn off. Therefore, Zahariev clarifies: "This event took place in 1657. during the time of Sultan Mehmed IV, when she had fought a war in Greece with the Venetians." Therefore, there can be no question of any anachronism regarding the way the year of the event is reflected in the story. III. The text of the chronicle published by Zahariev was obviously edited, but since the original was lost, we cannot today judge what in the text is due to editorial intervention and what is possibly due to misreading or copying of the original. Therefore, I accept very reticently the assertion of anachronisms in the text of the chronicle. It is not true that at the time of writing, there was no practice of using the Arabic (Indian) numerals in written speech. Here are a few examples: on a sahan from Ustovo in the fund of NEM at BAS there is an inscription "Stamat Yankul 1618"; on a tass from Raykovo - "haji Giorgi 1673", on a sahan from seen - "Pacho Mito 168..." etc.
IV. The Chronicle of M. Draginov and the other two documents The Batkun and Belovski are not "the summary of St. Peter's book read. Zahariev". It is true that there is much in common between them, but there are also differences that could not exist if they were indeed summaries of the printed text of the Chronicle. Moreover, the "Belarusian document", first published as a sheet of chronicle, found in the village. Golyamo Belovo, dates back to the early 19th century. In addition, the last open version of the "Belarusian narrative" noted at what time and by whom transcripts were made. The Chronicle of M. Draginov, Batkun and Belovski are considered and juxtaposed by P. Petrov and he convincingly prove their authenticity.
V. For not paying a church fee by Chepinians. Zahariev writes that one of the conditions for the Chepinians to submit to the Turkish conquerors in the person of Lala Shahbedin was: "not to depend on another church authority, but to rule themselves spiritually." And he adds: "This latter pre-eminence to this day have the remaining unburdened Pomaks of Bulgaria, because their two priests are self-governing, they are the ordination from which Vladika demanded and did not pay any righteousness to Agathonicius Bishop in the city in all the Plovdiv metropolitans...". Therefore, one cannot think and talk about some "self-contained church" in Chepino.
The Plovdiv bishops were not satisfied that they did not receive any income from the Chepin churches and therefore they slandered them before the Turkish authorities. Of course, this slander was only an occasion to Islamize part of the Bulgarians in Chepino.
Alexander Arnaudov
(With abbreviations)