CEU eTD Collection Supervisor Second Reader Second N. P. Ignatiev (1832-1908)’s Pan-Slav mission In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of degree for the requirements ofthe fulfillment In partial Midhat Pa : Professor Alfred J. Rieber J. Alfred : Professor : Professor Constantin Iordachi Constantin : Professor Central European University European Central ú a (1822-1884)’s policies vs. History Department History Budapest, Hungary Budapest, Gözde Yaz Master ofArts Master Submitted to Submitted By 2009 ÕFÕ CEU eTD Collection the written permission oftheAuthor Further copies madein accordance with such instructions maynot be made without obtained fromthelibrarian. This pagemustformapart ofanysuch copies made. given bytheAuthor and lodged in theCentral European Library. Details maybe process, either in fullorpart may bemade only in accordancewith theinstructions Copyright in thetext ofthis thesis rests with theAuthor. Copies byany . CEU eTD Collection the issue provides new the issue tothemid-19 providesnew insights the problem,butalso therather obvious from observation thatacomparativeapproach to choose this comparison asathesis subjectstemmednotonlyfrommypersonal interest in political missionofN.P.Ignatievin Istanbul betweenThe 1864and1877. inspiration to compared tothe thegrandvizierate in1877 dismissalDanube Province from in1864 to his comparison with eachother are issues significant that I’vedealt with inthisthesis. their failures,their personaland imperialof thedilemmas policiesinconjunctionand of their Peninsula.exclusive politicsandthereasons inBalkan control ofRussia Apartfrom underthe aPan-Slavfederation inestablishing failure Ottoman EmpireandIgnatiev’s Pa aim toshow I ofMidhat he pursed hisambassadorshipthe reasons inIstanbul. during reforms tothese and thepragmatic policy Peninsula with conservativereactions Ignatiev’s whichwereregulations, so toprovidesolutions executed todisintegratingBalkan as Pan-Slavism. Inanalyzingtheissue, I’veattempted tocompare Midhat Pa ú a’s failure inprovidinga’s failure theOttomanism asa solution tothe nationalities problem ofthe This thesis aimstoanalyzeThis Pa thetargetsofMidhat Abstract th century concepts of Ottomanism vis-à-vis of century concepts ú a from his governorshipa from inthe ú a’s progressive CEU eTD Collection BIBLIOGRAPHY CONCLUSION THIRD CHAPTER: MIDHAT PATHIRD CHAPTER:MIDHAT SECOND CHAPTER: (1864-1877) IGNATIEVINCONSTANINOPLE MIDHAT MIDHAT PA OFIGNATIEVFIRST AND THEEARLIERCAREERS CHAPTER: Midhat Pa His Grand Vizierate His governorship intheDanubeProvince (1864-1868) Ignatiev andthe Treaty ofSan Stefano roleinthe Ignatiev’s Greek-Bulgarian ChurchDispute His ideasaboutthe Eastern Question Midhat Pa Ignatiev (1832-1864) INTRODUCTION Table ofContent ú ú a andthe promulgation of theFirst OttomanConstitution a (1822-1864) ù A Table of Content of Table ù A (1864-1877) i 58 47 41 39 31 31 27 17 10 10 ii 5 1 1 i CEU eTD Collection rotations throughout the empire, and see how they were determined to pursue theiraims. how they were determinedto empire, the see rotations throughout and Pa Midhat and Ignatiev both both that hadmutually tosolve ideologies exclusive thein same question Balkans.Since the political mission N. P.Ignatievof inIstanbulbetween 1864 and1877.Itis studyingworth Danubethe in Province his 1864 to dismissalfrom grandthe in vizierate 1877 and the Pa ofMidhat analyze thetargets is to my research of The focus with other. each comparison and conjunction in policies imperial and personal their of dilemmas the out find during my life timeandin eventual theirfailed.Idedicated sense,they to targets thesis one their reach not could both that interesting quite is it point, that At to. belonged they regimes always suffer clash ofcentury. interests However, with as eachhaving19 the during intersect never rival did empires two ofthese interests the that certain other, imperial asis It well empires. their visions of interests the of sake the asfor agendas withpersonal having and always as history personalthe policies agendas, of autocraticthese in names figures etchedtheir two these empires since of two imperial these the policies two men would of modern Bulgaria? The of answer this requiresquestion more than solely understanding founders the men whowere the among were remembered Balkans, timesthe of heated most Pa Ottoman Empire Midhat from RussianEmpirethe theother Pavlovich Ignatiev Nikolai from (1832-1908), one the How come two prominent historical figures from the second half of the 19 ú ú a (1822-1884),following duringexclusive totally politics the a had imperial visions, it is also very exciting to follow their follow to exciting very is also it visions, imperial a had INTRODUCTION ii ú a from his governorship in his governorship a from th century, one century, th CEU eTD Collection second half of 19 the of second half the detriment of the Ottoman and a rent to the landlords and do corvée work in landlords’ private farms. Discontent of the of Discontent farms. private landlords’ in work corvée do and landlords the to a rent and Balkan Balkan provinces in mid-19 the in Ottoman the reformation need of urgent the for reasons important several There were in Istanbul. ambassadorship his hepursedduring policy andthepragmatic reforms tothese reactions conservative socarriedas provide out to disintegrating solutions to BalkanPeninsula with Ignatiev’s were progressive regulations, which Midhat Pasha’s comparewill I Empire. regard, this In called Pa with Midhat conflict inprocess Balkansthe theideaand fostered nationalism,of Bulgarian which intoturned a modernization a these started ofthe empire, reforms happenedit otherprovinces inthe Lewis, Vol.1, Homes & Meier Publishers, NY, 1982, pp. 319-337. Century Ottoman Empire”, in focus of the the shifting materialized Balkans in the policies reformist his Especially, provinces. the Publishers, NY,1982, pp.141-169., Roderic H. Davison, “The Christians and Jews Ottoman inthe Empire carrier, Midhat Pa Midhatcarrier, his in Early Empire. Ottoman the of provinces various in the reforms many practice into Karpat, reformist-minded bureaucrat but differingreformist-minded bureaucrat men from the of was a landmark in the modernization process of the Ottoman Empire. Midhat Pa Empire. Ottoman Midhat the of process modernization inwas alandmark the the the extent of theirjurisdictions and Jews) and vis-à-visCatholics the Ottoman (Orthodox, groups system is a moot non-Muslim of point, someacquiescence historians Ottoman of even degree the ask whether between balance one mind either the emergence of the 1 The promulgation of The millet millet gospodarl “Millets systemwas imperium in imperia or not. Forthe system has been highly controversial issue among Ottoman historians, who have never been all of all been never have who historians, Ottoman among issue controversial highly been has system tanzimat and Nationality: The Roots of the Incongruity of Nationand State in the Post-Ottoman Era”, in Õ k ú regime put the peasants in a difficult position. They had to pay state taxes a proved himself as a capable man to introduce notionintroduce the himself manto of a proved asacapable reforms away from the center and toward the periphery of the state. As th Tanzimat- century, was alsoinconsistent with the Pan-Slav politics of Russian ú a’s ultimate aim aim of a’s ultimate Christians and JewstheOttoman in Empire millet th Õ millet century. Theproblems newlandowningthe of system, so- Hayriye , eds. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, Vol.1, Homes & Meier Homes Vol.1, Lewis, Bernard and Braude Benjamin , eds. system, system or the course of it until the end of 19 (Auspicious re-ordering) on re-ordering)November on 3,1839 (Auspicious Ottomanism 1 iii which had already started todissolve whichhadalreadystarted in the millet Millets . The emergence of nationalism to system in the 19 as Agents of Change in the Nineteenth tanzimat , eds., Benjamin Braude Bernardand to a certain extent, certain a to th century, see: Kemal H. th century. Since the Since century. tanzimat ú a, asa put to CEU eTD Collection Europe 3 reaction against Midhat Pasha’s appointment arose from the Russian side. A side. powerful from Russian arose the Pasha’s appointment Midhat reaction against provincenew the of regulations of set the against were groups conservative the and though Even Empire. the nomination of Midhat Pasha for the implementation of it, the actual a region the where a region Midhat Pasha was appointed to the governorship of this province. The Danube Province was 13,1864and October name DanubeProvince on of the under the a singlegovernment The restless provinces of the empire in the Balkans (Silistra, Vidin and Nish), organized into inideology provinces. the Pa Midhat mechanism. political the into population non-Muslim and Muslim both incorporating while provinces the on center the of authority the increasing for essentially regulations, Balkans” the throughout sympathizers Christian for point rallying a becoming now “was which in Serbia, movements National Balkans. in the rule Ottoman integrity the threatened Empire Russian the of policies Apart from economical and administrative problems, separatist movements and Pan-Slavist under the governance of reformists Ali and Fuat Pa Aliand of reformists under governance the in Empire Ottoman Ottoman Bulgarian ChurchincreasedThe the Balkans. National travails the of concerningthe establishment Greekhegemony, events the the and reaction to traditional and were the traditional against regime they these factthat the to be due realized to seemed difficult conditions economic and social peasants’ the of improvement the However, 1839. until 2 banditry, dueto peasants Avigdor Levy, "Ottoman Attitudes to the Rise of Balkan Nationalism", Halil ú a emerged on the political scene as the first and prominent executive of ø , Vol.1., eds. Bela K. Kiraly and Gunter F. Rothenberg, (NY: Columbia University Press, 1979), p. 328. nalc Õ k, Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi tanzimat gospodars reforms would be executed as example for the rest of the , (Eren Yay and their abusive way of collecting taxes continued taxes collecting of way abusive their and 3 , the emergence of the Bulgarian nationalism as a as nationalism Bulgarian the of emergence , the tanzimat iv Õ nlar Õ , ø stanbul), 1992, pp. 8-10. ú reforms. as witnessed the execution of of a set of execution the as witnessed War and Society in East Central gospodars 2 supported theold supported tanzimat CEU eTD Collection Slavdom The Ottoman central administrationdiffered from the political motivations of the Tsar and the men of Foreign Ministry. standing and his personal wasdiplomacy were the proofs of his aspirations in the Balkans, which not unaware the rising Russian propaganda of Hungarian Empires. However, the men of autocracy behaved prudently when the ideology the when prudently behaved autocracy of men the However, Empires. Hungarian destroy the potential threats against the other Slavs, were Balkan Slavs undertheRussian Russia, Pan-Slavs that believed guidance. together with the invincible Constantinopleand the future as the capital defeat.The final goal the of this anti-Western ideology was restore profoundly to belonged of a Christian to empire,them. Crimean the after for elite most of Russian life jacket becameanideological Pan-Slavism thereby The implyingprimary the liberation goal was of theto empires. rival two of these policies the onboth formed empires War(1853-1856) of effects Crimean the bad impactsFurthermore, Balkans the the Ottoman 1848Revolution thethe and of on challenge to the Ottomans and imposition of Pan-Slavistideology in the Balkans. military and political Russia’s of context the within be shouldanalyzed attempts reformist his Basically,all Russianthreat. as a reprisalto the of Balkans weredirected the groups Province Midhat Pa during in Danube the developments and other structural educational, economic, administrative, Russian in Embassy inIstanbul became 1864.Ignatiev thefollower and critic of the Asiatic Affairs of Russian Foreign of director and Pan-Slavist a passionate that coincidence a than bemoremust It region. the Ministry, Count N.in P. interests Ignatiev Russian the against threat big be a would was Balkans the in appointed administration Ottoman to the among Slavic nations the of Midhat Balkans. the Pa ú a’s governorship from 1864 to 1868. Ignatiev’sfrom a’s governorship anti-Midhat1864 to Slavdom v coming from coming from of Ottoman the and Austro- ú a’s policies toward a’s policies toward Slavicthe CEU eTD Collection (Mouton&Co, Paris The Hague), 1966, p. 83. Crimean War. The other one was the rapidly spreading nationalist sentiment among the among sentiment nationalist spreading rapidly the was one other The War. Crimean sway over the Balkan Christians. One of the major factors was Russia’s poor showing traditional Russia’s resumption of tothe impediments infundamental several also There were the itself it.itfrom and penalizeddissociated attimes identify itself the but movement, zenith, andwith governmentdid not the Tsar the its reached pressure whenPan-Slav 1875-1878, fervor of nationalistcrisis during the Balkan Pan heightthe of Slav evenat Alexander to agitation. succumb 1876 and Yet, 1877 did in intervene in andSerbian popularaffairs Bulgarian to Only pressure inresponseto once 5 Realities: Tsarist Foreign Policy, 1815-1917 to nationalist and pro-Slav elements to impose their policies. David MacKenzie, some places strategic such asinCentral Asia in 1865and in Balkansthe in 1877-78. This left political the arena advises of various elements follow to and interest prone was He groups. risks. Alexandergreat avoided losthe overall sense, controlcommon of and Russiancaution foreign relationscommendable at revealed he though 4 Russia, hedemanded to adaptRussianforeign Pan-Slavic ideology.policy to theweakenedstate Emphasizing of hewasunwilling actions.middle of 1860s, Inthe concrete totake hesitate made Alexander political system, especiallycoordination poor the of Russian efforts on diplomaticthe front Pan-Slavism. neverbecame doctrine.government Alexander IIand his did ministers notreadily adopt Nicholas I, Pan-Slavs initsof zenith half second the reached Pan-Slavism 19 the of were rarely to be found in official circles, and their teachings were Alfred J. Rieber, Compare to NicholasAlexanderI and I, AlexanderII was less knowledgeableforeign aboutaffairs. Even crusade in the Balkans. the in crusade revolutionary underscored upheavals his embark onaPan-Slavic reluctance to overwhelming deep-seated Empire. The the Tsar’s ofand hatred fear all prevent‘a certain disaster’ which theRussians ‘had longforeseen’ from to avoid an internaluprisingof Ottomanthe moment’ ‘for Christians order in to 4 Apart from personal predisposition of Alexander, the structural weakness of weakness structural the Alexander, of predisposition personal from Apart The Politics ofAutocracy 5 , (Harcourt Brace College Publishers, USA),1994, p.57. , Letters of AlexanderPrince Bariatinskii IIto A.I. 1857-1864 vi th century. During the reign of reign the During century. Imperial Dreams &HarshDreams Imperial , CEU eTD Collection 7 INC., NY), 1970, p.3. 6 groupings to bemutually hostile.” not only this unity replacing itnational with distinctwas also groupings, causingthese was nationalism “modern dispute, AsGreek-Bulgarian caseof inthe confession. Orthodox their on but nationality, their on not based been had Empire Ottoman the of Christians of the support Russian ideology. Previously expensePan-Slavic Balkan atthe of peoples Pa logicallong andinhis seek thereasons damaged quite career of to run.It’s the Midhat basically attempt toshow why Ignatiev’s diplomatic mission in Istanbul turned intoa failure eliminating himfrom political active the life in 1880s.Within the borders of this thesis, I finally bureaucracy, from central the greatly Pan-Slavism differed to reaction Ignatiev’s problems should betakeninto consideration context. within this the of political and diplomatic mission. My research at the Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives in Archives Ottoman Ministry Prime the at research My mission. diplomatic and political Historiography, isno there solely comprehensive study, devoted N.P. Ignatievto and his in his a Danube Also, the Ottoman and reformist. dedicated as standing Province Pa Midhat analyzing require would questions answer these to Acorrect Empire. Ottoman the promulgation of territorialities under the Ottoman regime. The appearance of nationality problems soon after Fadeeva Even though Midhat Pa autocracy. Ottoman à-vis the I. E.Fadeeva, I. Thomas A. Meininger, ú ú a’s failurein providing the Ottomanism as to thenationalitiesa solution of problem the a’s ambiguous relations with the Ottoman Porte and exploring his a’s ambiguousrelationswith and exploringpersonal struggle vis- Ottoman the Porte millet 7 , these works do not give analytic explanations of Midhat Pasha’s governorshipin Midhat Pasha Jizn i Deyatel’nost system in the sense that nations started to be defined in connection with their with in connection be defined to started nations that sense inthe system tanzimat Ignatiev and the Establishmentof theBulgarian Exarchate1864-1872 ú a has been studied by several Russian scholars, such as I. E. and the strategies of the Ottoman Empire to deal with these 6 The Greek-Bulgarian wasalsodispute asign of decline , ø zdatel’stvo Moskva,Nauka, 1977. vii , (Arno Press, (Arno , CEU eTD Collection nationalities problem. nationalities the to solution Ottoman an and Slav a Pan of conceptions different the into insights valuable I aim to delineate the interaction between Ignatiev and Midhat Pa andMidhat between Ignatiev interaction the delineate I aim to research, in my Thus, inIstanbul. stay his during standing anti-Midhat his and mission Slav diplomatic mission in Istanbul nountil 1877. However, study has everfocused onhis Pan- in Ignatiev werefollowingbystep that showed course of Ottomans Istanbul the the step his viii ú a, which could yield some could a, which CEU eTD Collection 9 London), 1987. 1861, and after1867,President of Imperialthe Council Ministers.of 1879), whoheld several posts, suchimportant as Governor-General SaintPetersburgof by Ignatiev was born inin SaintPetersburg firstthe son 1832 as of Paul N. Ignatiev (1797- Ignatiev (1832-1864) Pavel Dmitriyevich Kiselev, in the negotiations over the frontiers of Bessarabia. Kiselev Bessarabia. of frontiers the over negotiations in the Kiselev, Dmitriyevich Pavel Conference in1856-1857.Hegavehisfull support Russianto the in Ambassador Paris, revolutionary”. a of energy the and“with a reactionary” of mentality the “with age a young at service diplomatic policy increased during his stay in London. Asif a natural born diplomat, he the entered foreign British to hostility deep already His Office. Foreign British of attention attracted He India. and East Near the in policies Britain’s Great and problems Persian and Indian Chinese,In 1856,he in he wasamilitary attaché attention London paidspecial where to of hisin career 1850s, Alexander his IIshowed favor toward young Ignatiev. During the Crimean War, he served on Berg’s staff in the Baltic Provinces. At the beginning years,he to was appointed Warthe Academy part andtook on GuardsGeneral the Staff. in the Corpsof andHussarin heentered Pages Life then regimentAfter two Guard 1849. intoan elitefamily, he had opportunities to receive a prestigious education. He was educated 8 B. H. Sumner, For four generation of Ignatiev’s family story, see Michael Ignatieff, FIRST CHAPTER: THE EARLIER CAREERS OF IGNATIEV AND IGNATIEV OF CAREERS THEEARLIER FIRST CHAPTER: Russia and the Balkans 1878-1880 9 Ignatiev was assigned to his first diplomatic mission at the Paris Peace the at mission diplomatic his first to was assigned Ignatiev MIDHAT PA , (The Clarendon Press, Oxford), 1937, pp. 30-31. 1 ù A The RussianAlbum 8 Since he was born , (PenguinBooks, CEU eTD Collection n xlrto o eta sa teetbihet f ilmtc eain with relations diplomatic of establishment the Asia, Central of exploration an succeeded Nesselrode asforeign and minister attheend conference of 1856. Paris the at delegate Russian and Vienna in ambassador was Germany, in career diplomatic A.M.Prince Gorchakov (1798-1883), acousin of general the of Crimeanthe War, who served most of his 1858”,in Fakültesi, Tarih Ara Tarih Fakültesi, 12 11 ( 10 The Ministry. the of control the under expedition the keep to loyalty and energy Ignatiev’s 12 In 1858, Gorchakov nominated Ignatiev Khivato andBukharafor adiplomatic expedition. convincedby Alexander II that arguing inonly Asia, would Russia be outflank able into Britain case of an war. Healsoeventual significance of Central for upamemorandum on the the young Ignatiev drawing AlexanderBariatinskii, IIslated Asia. AsIvanovich Aleksandr a of supporter suggestions the Through negotiations. treaty the for Paris of the forwardin maneuvers his after soon circles diplomatic Russian in climb policy,upward his began Ignatiev Ignatiev claimed that Europe. Southern and in Eastern Russia of cause Pan-Slavism in the belief his stimulated men prominent these with contacts Rieger andspite their of Dobriansky. In on cultural emphasis Ignatiev’s Pan-Slavism, life. On a tour in Also, landmarks year1857wasone Ignatiev’s the of ofherformerterritory. Bessarabian Bohemia he metas aresult more attheconference, stated of that of Russiawonbackmuch Ignatiev’s work with such famous Slav leaders as Palacky, Brauner, Moskva :Terra), 1990, p.785. See, Mehmet Saray, “Kont Ignatiev’in Buhara ve Hive’yi Ziyareti (1858)”, Ziyareti ve Hive’yi Buhara Ignatiev’in “Kont Saray, Mehmet See, Rieber, 1966: 77-78. Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar : Reprintnoe Vosproizvodenie Vosproizvodenie Reprintnoe : Slovar Entsiklopedicheskii Even though Gorchakov had divergent views than Ignatiev, at least, hecouldviews at had trust than Ignatiev, Eventhough Gorchakov divergent merchants and industrialists will be eager to help this enterprise’. this help to eager be will industrialists and merchants the of expenses the cover expeditions to undertakeninorder explore to local conditions…Many wealthy Treasury the by sacrifices great the necessitate not ‘does influence Russian in rise the and area, the in khanates various Canadian Slavonic Papers úWÕ rma Merkezi , , XVII/2-3, 1975. ø stanbul, 1993; J.W. Strong, “The Ignat’ev’s Mission to Khiva and Bukhara 10 2 ø zdaniia, Vol: 24, F.A. Brokgauz -I.A. Efron , Efron -I.A. Brokgauz F.A. 24, Vol: zdaniia, 11 ø stanbul Üniversitesi stanbul , Edebiyat CEU eTD Collection the Treaty of Peking did much to compensate Russia for the Crimean debacle. (MecKenzie, 1994: 104) 1994: (MecKenzie, debacle. Crimean the for Russia compensate to did much Peking of Treaty the HughSeton-Watson, and the Pacific and more14 importantly, 13 Russia’s position as a Great Power in the Northern Pacific was assured. It was also his first contact with the politics of the Ottoman Empire. His appointment as theEmpire. Ottoman of the newof the Sultan coronation attend the to representative diplomatic Ignatiev’s adventure personal andfavortrust towardIgnatiev. in Istanbulwas made started inHe was1861 regarded when as the ‘star bureaucracy. inposition the importanta more to and honors promoted with greater rewarded he of Russianwas sentdiplomacy’. demands. Russian original therethe On his return as to Saintthe than more extensive Petersburg, were Peking Russiain of Treaty to the given concessions commercial Tsar’s he forwardhis policy in his China. to Thanks the maneuvers, territorialdiplomatic and Chinahe in1859, hadbeena already promoted to General’sdefend hard rank. Heworked to negotiator and a soldier of initiative and courage in Ignatiev hiscompleted successfullydiplomatic mission and success this earned himfame as a affairs. When he was sent to expansion. Russia’s favor would region the into penetration British of difficulty the and khanates of the military weakness the issuethat the to drew attention intoexpansion Central Asia for the Russia.up excitingwould open possibilities Healso Russian Ignatiev, the to that was apparent It Asian khanates. Central with relations commercial of improvement the was Russia of aims important most the of one region, the in interests British the commercial counter Asia. To of Central territories unexplored into the influence andeconomic diplomatic extend Russia’s was to mission diplomatic aim the of With the Treaty of Peking, Russia received substantially all the territory she had claimed between the Ussuri the between claimed had she territory the all substantially received Russia ofPeking, Treaty the With Rieber, 1966: 81. aide-de-camp The Russian Empire 1801-1917 General to Alexander II in 1860, which was a sign of the Tsar’s 14 Completing his missions with great success, he was , Oxford University, Oxford pp.Press, 1988, 439-441.Inaddition, 3 13 CEU eTD Collection 15 will As I Europe. Eastern and Southern into expansion Russian justified Pan-Slavism that claimed Ignatiev Pan-Slavism. of cause the to commitment their was Ministry Foreign the and between Department Asiatic the basis relation of problematic The mainthe ideological disputes. settle the means to asthe conferences international to basically They opposed were concert. of European the constraints the from independence favored Russia’s Asiatic Department men of the Ministry, Foreign of Russian departments the politics of the East, tothe extension of the imperial frontiers. Unlike the men of the main forerunner CountNicholas Muraviev, diplomats. They weresoldier themselvesdevoted to their like group, this of representatives eminent most Moreover, diplomacy. tsarist of lines autonomous institution and sometimes conducted apolicy in contradiction to official the marked boldnessinto with almost Department andtough-mindedness. turned The asemi- were activities Their in outlook. nationalistic strongly were they and languages in Oriental training special had they Generally Russian. in mainly correspondence their conducted who with middle-class ethnic Russians, professionals and people of Balkan and origin, Asiatic was staffed Asiatic Department the Europe, Central Western and with dealt who colleagues and Ignatiev P.N.(1861-1864) his successor Stremoukhov Unlike (1864-1875). their of direction competent the under autonomy its greater of before because than more active Foreign Ministry. reign (1855-1881), theAsiatic During the Alexanderof II was Department of the maindepartment the affairs than international the adifferent viewtoward took states, deal Eastern inwith 1819to been whichhad established officially Department, The Asiatic Departmentthe until 1864. head at of year asthe the same andheremained occurred of Department Asiatic the director Meininger, 1970: 8-9. 4 15 CEU eTD Collection commissions to conduct provincial inspection. As secretary to two of the commissions, the of two to secretary As inspection. provincial conduct to commissions nationalin parliamentin1877 wascarried out Itspeeded up 1845. of process the sending of the establishment the before notables meeting of these meetings.last The such of number of promulgation After the affairs. administrative the officials various from the in provinces, discussorder to policy in times conflictandof direct The Ottoman government assembled the notables,who were the civil, religious, and military his career. advancein to in order leave department the to itnecessary he considered to them, contrary wasthat officials from other Midhat’s career separated what Nevertheless, it. mastered officials who knew French, he only started in his At sameArabic1840. teens the other hestudied Compared andPersian. time, to to learn it whenin he offices wasin government aclerk as began thirty-five life working his way in this vizier, grand of offices and he never offices the of entered into in Imperial he the Councils Subsequently,the transferred 1833. (Cambridge, London, and New York: Cambridge University Press) 1977, p. 67. Akif ageat Astheprotégé of Pa ten. by heart Koran the Hecould recite schools. in education mannerstarted an he andhis old-fashioned spent yearsearly in religious Ruschuk and a judgefrom Midhat Pa Midhat 16 Midhat Pa by controlled Russia. states clientcreating Empire, Ignatiev struggled for freeing the Balkan nations from Ottomanrulethe and explainin secondthe chapter,during his aquarter-century almost instay Ottoman the Stanford J. Shaw and Ezel Kural Shaw, ú 16 a was born in Istanbul in 1822, as the son of of as the son Hac in1822, in Istanbul a wasborn ú a (1822-1864) ulema , who had , who workedin in several posts Balkans.the His History ofthe OttomanEmpire andModernTurkey, 5 tanzimat the government increased the government the Õ Ali Efendizade, a native of a native Efendizade, Ali Volume II, ú a, he CEU eTD Collection Pa Pa Pa Emin Mustafa Re Pa Midhat reducing corruption. the K against directed the accusations investigating holdings and with treasury and Aleppo and Damascus of tariffs the in taxes in collecting problems the solving with EminMehmet Pa Damascus andAleppo toresolve the of problems governed byK these regions caused him hisprevioushe trouble. Relying experiences, wassentto on considerable who their regained once hierarchy, intheOttoman places enmity several bureaucrats, of Pa Midhat While withhemalfeasance. investigating various wasentrusted where assigned tothe provinces, With the reference of hisWith of reference the previous provincial Pa experiences, Midhat 19 than the other men of the intimate affairs knowledge of acquire to hebegan provincial afarmore several provinces, 18 Anatolian cities, Konya in1845 and Kastamonu 1847. Sami Pa of Bekir thesecretary became he Afterwards, inyears Saida. Damascusand two in Hestayed Document 1842. Officer 17 half ofthe 1840s. Pa Midhat Shaw, 1977: 67. ø Roderic H. Davison, ú ú slam Ansiklopedisi, Cilt: 30, (Türkiye Diyanet Vakf a, who was temporarily appointed as grand vizier in 1856 took as grandinhis viziera, whowastemporarily appointed revenge. Heaccused 1856 took a do justice due to the fact that hejustice wasaprotégé factthat a do hein of Sultan, duetothe the could succeed ú a. Midhat Pa Midhat a. ú ú a was made chief scribe of the Anatolian Department of by Council of Supreme the Department scribe of Anatolian a wasmadethe chief a gained some of his earliest experience in the Asian first the intheAsian provinces during his experience a gainedsomeearliest of ú itPa ú ú ú a in1853andposition remained K inthis until 1856. 17 a performed honorable and honestly, he was exposed to the everlasting the to exposed was he honestly, and honorable a performed a, a wrongdoer and prospective enemy of Midhat Pa enemy of Midhat andprospective a, awrongdoer Reform in the Ottoman Empire 1856-1876 His firstwas Hisprovincial assistantshipthe appointment Damascus the of ú a stayed there six months. Even though he could not bring malefactor bring not could he though Even months. six there a stayed tanzimat , Ali and Fuad Pa ú a and together with him, he went to the inner the to him,he went with together a and Õ 6 , ø stanbul), 2005, p. 7. ú as. , (Gordian Press, NY), 1973, p.48. 19 18 During his fiveyears inwork Õ br ú ú a. Hewascharged a was temporarily Õ sl Õ Mehmet Emin Mehmet Õ br Õ sl Õ Mehmet Õ br Õ sl Õ CEU eTD Collection (TTK, Ankara), 1937. in investigation the and earnedthe favor of palacethe by conducting trials. the Supremethe he Council, which his wasmade Midhatfrom on return Europe, Pa of As secretary varying second punishments. the to of were sentenced ringleaders. They the arrests after the collapsed The conspiracy city. the itsprevent spreadthroughout to in order Alithough Pa lacked unity, composed mainly of Pa Ali of vizierate especially grand duringthe government, the with A dissatisfaction general citieshis contributed understandingto greater civilization. of European visitsmonths,in Vienna, Brusselsand stay payingHis London. Paris, European various to Pa Midhat Frustrated intervention. Sultan’s the dueto there governors thecriminal prosecute the conspirators launched a movement against the reforms of movementthe launchedagainst conspirators the of a reforms government. the incident, Kuleli in the situation, financial and economic difficult generally to due discontent a from the Abdülmecid and excessive Sultan 1859. Apartto spendinga reaction of Pa Mustafa Re When repairing the for damage. wentthere he immediately inBursa, After anearthquake establish in and order Balkan Edirne surrounding by hands areas eliminatinglooters. of especially the equality of Muslims and Christians. (See: Ulu was against the great reform decrees of 1839 and 1856 since they were in conflict with the Muslim law, Pa Midhat 20 Pa Emin But asareprisal, Porte. the at increased prestige and Midhat’s attempt his in failed He imprisonment. with him threatening farm tax illegal an holding of Midhat The leader of the conspiracy, ú ú ú a (from January 1858 to October 1859) led thronein Octoberagainst the 1859)plot January toaconservative a (from 1858 to goa requestedpermission to to Europe. In Pa 1858, Midhat a on an investigatory mission to Silistra and Vidin. Midhat Pa Midhat andVidin. Silistra mission to a on an investigatory ú ú a away from the capital during the Crimean War. Then he was assigned to assigned he was War.Then Crimean the during capital the a awayfrom itPa ú a’s administration seemed to ignore the conspiracy, it took someit conspiracy,took seemedtoignore the precaution a’s administration ú a returned to his six term tohis hesentMidhat vizierin 1857, a returned six as grand term October, ù eyh Ahmed, a teacher in the medrese attached to the Sultan Beyazid Mosque, ulema , theological students and army officers. Even officers. army and students theological , 7 ÷ø÷ demir, Kuleli Vakas ú ú a leftfor Europe for six a was again not able a was not to again Õ Hakk Õ nda Bir Ara ú a took part a took 20 ú They a sent úWÕ rma, CEU eTD Collection ø and a joint matters reaching demanded andviews their various listened complaints to on he forum, where common a non-Muslims andprovided Muslimsbetween and discriminate he sameAtthe didnot and time, actions. their suppressed fiercely any separatist groups sentiments among Bulgarians and he cautiously approached this issue. He did notconcede to imminent separatist movements among the Bulgarians. He was aware of rising nationalist What Pa Midhat concerned brigandage andbuilding roads. province.the Unsurprisingly,Midhat succeededin suppressing public order, reestablishing in of unrest primary reasons were the means public for transportation andabsenceof farmers of shoulders on burden tax heavy banditry, non-Muslims, and Muslims between Tension in Nish. unrest identify reasonsof to the inorder Bulgarians local the with cooperating Midhat Pa and empire the of spots ungovernable the of one was Nish Sultan. the from away him get in Syria, most probably was content to putMehmet Emin Pa him in charge of the governance of Nish and to Mehmet EminPa centralization policies of centralization place This of K government. the took appointmentpolicies during 21 Pa Midhat conditions. provincial the on information with Porte the provided also commissioners and Capable and discontent reasons for revolt. the provincial discover governors extraordinary powers, often civil and military, tothe provinces, where they could control the with commissioners out sent government the policies, centralization its of part a As stanbul, 1982. Nejat Göyünç, “ Midhat Pa “ Midhat Göyünç, Nejat ú ú a’s mission was not easy to accomplish. Midhat Pa a’s appointment as a governor of Nish in 1861 was the result of these of theresult Nishin 1861was of as a governor a’s appointment ú ú a, whom Midhat had investigated and caused his removal from andhad from his Midhat investigated a, whom office caused the removal a’s third term as grand vizier (from May 1860 to August 1861). K August 1861). vizier 1860 to May as grand third(from term a’s ú a’n ú a during his three years service as a governor ina duringhis yearsservicea the three as Nishgovernor was Õ n Ni n 21 ú Valili ÷ i Hakk i 8 Õ nda Notlar ve Belgeler”, Notlar nda ú Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi, a started to work by Õ Õ br br Õ Õ sl sl XII, Õ Õ CEU eTD Collection Pa Midhat of modifications final the With law. reform provisional the on opinion his ask to emergence of emergence Ignatiev’s of Pan-Slavism andMidhat Pa isthe careers of their earlier aspect prominent most The careers. subsequent theircause of the determine would which vision, imperialistic an inspired also rotations Their missions. Pa Midhat and Ignatiev autocracy. weresubstantiated,radical whilethey in standings anddiscourse men the worried of deed officials. areputation highestamong posts, immediately acquired they bureaucratic Their the the they occupied after them. Soon of story success were lives their of decades several Pa andMidhat of Ignatiev careers earlier tothe look A closer of DanubeProvince. the governor as the November, 1868. Onemonth before the introduction of this law, Midhat Pa Pa for Fuad a provinces. the lawnew produced reform Midhat Pa problems, social these understood resolutionpossible for Having action. a ú a on the basis of hisprovincial law in a onthe basisof new experiences, the 1864 wasreleased of ú a were chosen to carry out several important official important several carry out a werechosen to 9 ú a’s Ottomanism. ú a summoned him to Istanbul in Istanbul order him to a summoned ú a shows us that the first the that us a shows ú a was appointed ú a CEU eTD Collection 24 23 1956, pp. 258-259. 22 policy during 1870s. the foreign Russian of motivatingforce was thechief Panslavism fearing powers that Western Ministry histhan diplomaticIgnatiev. Dueto soon alarmed reputation, hisappointment the posts diplomatic the in to thisdiplomats better its assigned capital usually Ministry Foreign The city.activity. None diplomatic Russian of center major of a been always had theConstantinople diplomacy, European Panslavist of his in in prominenceQuestion Ottoman Eastern of Russian interests the Empire the and the time held a higheras in Russian Ambassador March 1867 and remaineduntil atthis post 1877. Becauseof post in the Foreign Ignatiev became Minister Plenipotentiary in Constantinoplein 1864 andofficially appointed EasternQuestion His ideasaboutthe concept of Russian foreign policy solely for the sake of the interests of Russia. of interests the of sake the for solely policy foreign Russian of concept formed intervention in his Ignatiev Russia’s Disregarding theEuropean politics, Eastern inPanslavism it Russia,although was not the basis inRussian foreign of policy the 1860s. It might be claimed that his appointment symbolized of course action. independent and diplomacy the growth personal of paths the Hefollowed Gorchakov’s. from anddiffered sharply policy diplomatic politicization of the John Erickson, Meininger, 1970: 7-8. Michael Boro Petrovich, Boro Michael SECOND CHAPTER: IGNATIEV IN CONSTANINOPLE (1864-1877) INCONSTANINOPLE IGNATIEV SECOND CHAPTER: Panslavism The Emergence of Russian Panslavism 1856-1870 , (The Historical Association, London), 1964, p. 23. 22 Moreover, as I will mention later, Ignatiev’s long-term Ignatiev’s later, mention will I as Moreover, 23 10 , (Columbia University Press, NY), 24 Moreover, CEU eTD Collection were willing form to it.coalitions Therefore, against forIgnatiev, hadtoconclude Russia a and wereanti-Russian states all concerned, was question Eastern asfar asthe sure that quite neitherwas of them. He trusted Ignatiev solutions, for eventual conferences international meansGorchakov,butover inand whobelieved inthe policy.to Contrary concert European of the revision of the Treaty, the conflict between Ignatiev and Gorchakov was not over ends limitation clauses, by Europeaninfluence aswell as reducing Western in Turkey. case the In of Bessarabia and the Danube’s delta, the abolition of the Black Sea neutralization and naval by apart This obtaining be achieved herleading Sea. regain intheBlack could had place to Russia powers, these with compete to order In Empire. the Ottoman of seat the at Austria) Britain, France, (Great Powers Coalition of the ascendancy Treaty was the the of Paris primarily AlexanderTsar II. Also, Russians, see Meininger, 1970:10-12;educated many 60. for goal policy foreign chief a became treaty this of consequences the Destroying by the Great guarantee collective a Powers with subjects Christian meantEmpire’s Ottoman of the that guarantee sole Russia ofRussia’s replacement lost her prerogative she had sinceexport of graintrade provinces. itssouthernthe Inaddition, one of clauses the the Treaty ofthe Treatyconcerning on the dependence increasing of Empire’s Küçükthe with concern Kaynarcaeconomic of matters becoming (1774). were Straits the and 26 25 1) Straits, and some form of common action by the Slavs under the direction of Russia. the and Constantinople control the of (1856), Paris Treaty of of the revision the objectives: main three follow must policy foreign Russian that realized Ignatiev Affairs, Foreign As head of the Asiatic Department of the Ministry of Foreign AffairsBalkan Slavs (Serb, Bulgarian and Montenegrin) and Greeks. and vice-minister of Question and he engaged himself with internalthe andpolitics mutual conflicts of the independenthecourse in incrisis aimedatpursuing 1875-1878, an solving Eastern the Question Eastern the concerning in negotiations the participants active most the as oneof Erickson, 1964: 27 The Treaty of Paris (1856) and its Black Sea clauses were insulting to national pride of Russia. The Black Sea Black The ofRussia. pride to national insulting were clauses Sea Black its and (1856) ofParis Treaty The The revision of the TreatyofParis(1856): The revision of For Ignatiev, the most serious consequence of 11 25 26 CEU eTD Collection 28 (1932/1933), p. 343. Ministry. Seealso, B.H.Sumner, “IgnatyevConstantinople, at I”, reveals that even before the 1870s, Count Ignatiev wasactive an supporter of Panslavism in the Russian Foreigna panoramic depicted picture of problems Ignatiev the in theBalkans during reports. the and Eastern Crisis (1875-1878) inthis book.instructions book The correspondence-letters, private and memoirs, later, added he that Russkaya Starina struggle with The West.the powerful enmity Austria-Hungary of andof threats this dualistic in allies be usedas to in order Tsar Russian the of banner the under unite could they so that do of first away neededparticularismall, to independent Slav with Russia the the peoples of Slavic who peoples, Russiawere linked to linguistic byethnic, and religious However, ties. power in Europe and prevailbe dominant the to order In peoples. Christian the over itsrestore influence stepsto to take over the Western European states, Russia needed the help of published posthumously first Russia1914time in the forin 1915- (andin 1916)in 3) over theSultan and providing a for pursuingopt occupying policy seemed city.dominance theof to peaceful the Ignatiev Constantinople could beachieved by either influenceobtaining strong by over the sultan or of master beingthe aim of ultimate the Hence thoroughfares. required curbing Constantinople to road because an Bosporus alternative & gainDardanelles accessto had to 27 2) would provide. Austria or Turkey, and thus to get Bessarabia as a reward for the military support that Russia and Romania awarbetween provoke to administration, Romanian with the disaffection encourage thelocal he to andBulgarian population’s Bessarabia, wanted Russian returningthe inAs for lostdirect agreement with ofthe 1856. territories about Turkey Sumner, 1932/1933: 343. N.P. Ignatiev, The Control ofConstantinople and the Straits: Some form of common action by the Slavs under the direction of Russia: thedirection of common actiontheSlavsunder by Some formof Zapiski (1875-1878) . The book The . 27 Zapiski , (Izdatelstvo na Otechestvennia Front, Sophia), 1986, pp. 49-51. His Notes contains his daily notes, commentaries to the notes, thoughts, conclusions de facto Russian control over the Straits. 12 For political and economic reasons, Russia Slavonicand East European Review 28 Istorichesky Vestnik Russia needed Russia and , 11 CEU eTD Collection 31 30 directed effortshis from 1861 to 1877.(Sumner, 1932/33:344.) Eastern and Slav affairs. Ignatiev’s belief the in salvationof the BalkanSlavs exclusively by the Russian Tsar greatly theirattitudesin toward Austria-Hungary. Ignatiev opposedcompliance to their to Austrian influence on 29 rival thereweretwo groups hegemony Sea.Since Russia’s in the Balkans Black and the Ignatiev openly declared thathis policy in 1877 from Turkey was 1861 to aimed atsecuring not give up its own interests just for the sake of an honorable deed. should Russia liberation, their after influence enemy’s an under fall would peoples Slavic criminal”. and “unreasonable Ignatiev claimed that for Russia, to content itself with a policy of humanitarianism wouldbe accomplish this mission AustrianRussia had to work for theirandand protection theTurkish Orthodoxy the of and representative Slavicbe the to right the liberation.preserving for and East the in hegemony ruleworld,Otherwise, must granted natural enemy Russia. Oneof day Russia wouldinevitably have tofightwith Austria for the become to a Russiawas Austria-Hungary of Poles. Therefore the leadership the Slavs to subordinate the was to Russia’s by God. target of The ultimate strategy this Aegean Sea. reaching the at Habsburg Empire aiming allies He insisted in an create Eastern to was Austria-Hungary of political hisview,the strategy Slavs. In its thatanti-German the HungariansSlavs wereunder in policy.theSlavs and itsfinal government aim was to Germanizethe them. For him, the other problems were that in ToViennaunfortunately,Austria-Hungary followed thepolicy spreading Catholicism of among the and that the Poles that concerned were Ignatiev was Slav. But, was population Austria-Hungary’s of The majority the leaders of the end a warbetween with Austria-Hungary. Russia and probably abigmost Slav inthe would cause tension and empire Balkans toward the people Zapiski Petrovich, 1956:261. Ignatiev and Gorchakov nearesthis counselors(and Jomini Novikov Vienna and Embassy) atthe differed , pp.52-53. 30 Moreover, in case a possibility occurred to Russia that the 13 29 31 CEU eTD Collection finding such a radical solutionto the Eastern Question, whichwill provide us with indisputable control overthe way the for autonomy of Christiansthe indebted to us and sharing our religion, render Turkey harmless…by 36 Bomb thatdid not Explode”, ARussian 1866: Question, Sea Black the and Gorchakov “Prince Clark, W. Chester Sea.” Black the to relating 35 34 33 cause. Russian Armenians, Greeksand himself Sultan the even couldmanipulated for purposes be of the Question on its own, neutralizingthe related Slavs and precludingunder prestige primary changed method Ignatiev, the for augmenting Russian the state by unifying the aegis theFor differently. interference Question of Eastern on policy the Russian of objectives main Russianthe depicted who of autocrat.the Western Russia powers. had to solve the Eastern Treaty, Gorchakov was preoccupied with the Black SeaQuestion with Black the waspreoccupied Treaty, Gorchakov two provisions of the treaty. revise to maneuvers bydiplomatic They tried by force. treaty the expectoverthrown to not could nation a defeated However, seek its revision. to weredetermined Gorchakov Ministry Alexander andhisSince March PeaceTreaty the II signing of Paris the Foreign on 30 1856, control of the straits. Question itssolve Eastern ownandtake on the to opportunity circumstances Russiaan gave intendedinprepare sought toset motion independence. them for inorderto all peoples Slavic He to continue working in this direction until a propitious concurrence of 32 play the Western embassies against one another and thereby neutralize them. the Russian influence Russia. was friend in Turkey. He establishedHungary)’s in expansion Balkansandmeanwhilethe convince Slavsthe thattheir only close ties with itsprevent rival (Austria- had Russia to Slavs, Balkan of control inwhohad stakesthe Sultan Abdülaziz, tried to “Ignatiev thought that by living in amity with the Sultan andcontrolling his ministers we could prepare the clauses of the abrogation the especially and Moldavia to ceded of Bessarabia portion of the return “The Zapiski Y.EE. Dosya No: 80, Gömlek No:15. Zapiski , pp.54-55. , p.54. 36 As a long-term ambassador in Istanbul, Ignatiev was in contact with was incontact Ignatiev inIstanbul, Asambassador along-term 32 In order to eliminate Russia’s rival, Ignatiev did his best to strengthen to best his did Ignatiev rival, Russia’s eliminate to order In 34 The American Historical Review, 35 Even though Ignatiev also struggled for the revision of the of revision the for struggled also Ignatiev though Even 14 Vol. 48,Vol. No.1, (Oct. 1942), p. 53. per se per more than Ignatiev, 33 He was CEU eTD Collection 39 Historiography, is not able to depict Ignatiev other than a hypocrite concerning his relations to the Porte. 1986, pp.124-131. I should state that Kocaba 38 the Nineteenth Century Russia’s assistance in order to win the Sultanate to become asultan. Elizabeth W.Latimer, Ignatiev knew asylum inRussia andasked Ignatiev forhelp. However, wasthis not Russian allowedgovernment.by the relations with 37 No.4, 2005, p. 30, government. Since Ignatiev’s main objective was to maintain the possibility of combining of possibility the maintain to was objective main Ignatiev’s Since government. of the Christian subjectsimprovement the and Greece to Crete and of Thessaly, the Epirus, of Porte, union the proposals, French were firmly rejected by Ignatiev, but The forcome asolution Crete. to tried Russia up with and 1867, France In of beginning the accepted by the withdraw his demands. hadIgnatiev to out, actuallybroke in Crete revolt after the soon However, nationalism. right time to ask Thefor outbreak the revision of the Austro-Prussian of Slavs. in the later Greeksasallies use the and liberation in the influence Western Greece of the Treaty War of replace the to able been have inwould This wayRussia Greece. to annexation Crete’s the Paris1866 also and gave to Ignatievstirproclaimedsupport therebels to who convince Russian government to the Greeks andtried to hopeaction that itthe was Balkan the Duringwanted rebellion tosolve the Crete in of Ignatiev favor thecrisis the (1866-1869) during the Bulgarian inrevolt April 1876. decision-making ofMahmudNedim Pa processes influenced he manipulatedthe decision-making. Especially theprocess of their skillfully and officials state Ottoman and Sultan the on influence an had Ignatiev that is undoubted It “Bulgarians Greeksand during Easternthe Crisis (1875-1878)Count in Ignatiev’s constant allies, by precluding all possibilities of theirswitching to our enemies.” Rumyana Komsalova,and Greek Bulgarian the to population turn Armenians…to on and theGreeks oneSerbs, side Bulgarians, andthe the over Armenianinfluence our ensure on thestraits, other into a reliable tool of the Russian policy and Abdülaziz andhis grandvizier MahmudNedim Pa Sumner, 1932/1933: 346-347. Süleyman Kocaba Zapiski , p. 76. He talkswith long p.76. the Sultanand had GrandVizier., the ø ø zzeddin personally zzeddin for a longtime. zzettin(Abdülaziz’s son) and Murad (Abdülaziz’s nephew). Muradevenwanted to anfind Zapiski ú , , (University Press of Pacific the Honolulu, Hawaii, 2002), p.209. Avrupa Türkiyesi’ninAvrupa Kayb , p.6, pp. 51-52. 39 38 ú ø Õ , as , one of the historians of the mainstream Ottoman veBalkanlarda Panslavism zzeddin stayedtouchIgnatievwith in to trying use and his 15 ú a and persuaded him to accepthishim a and politics persuaded to ú a andmany Turkishother dignitaries. Zapiski , (VatanYay Notes p.100-101. He close had Zapiski ”, Russia andTurkey in Études Balkaniques Õ , pp. 317-318. nlar Õ , ø stanbul), 37 , CEU eTD Collection igniting a rivalry between Ignatiev and Midhat Pa betweenigniting and arivalry Midhat Ignatiev Russia’s insistence on revision of the Treaty of Paris opened a new period on the straits, agreement with with Ignatiev. agreement Ali any clauses, Pa accept in naval tothe changes Reluctant empire. the integrity of principle the of attacking intention of wasno there that stated also He in Sea. Black the navalstrength Russia’s limiting and clauses the Bessarabian districts Porte toward Russia. Ignatiev did not loseAli Pa time Russia. innot didPorte approaching toward Ignatiev French defeat in Franco-Prussianplace everything under his control. Meanwhile,his relation Ignatiev improvedto because the War led to a rapid change of attitude on the part of the from Constantinople his two most dangerous rivals, Midhat and Nam met London,in the unilateral declarationof 31 Octoberconference in was accepted.1871, (Sumner, March 13 1932/1933:560-561.) On Sea. Black inthe rights sovereign to her inregard Paris of Treaty by the bound 41 Russiawas againIgnatiev, being For deceived by duplicity1867. the of September a Western power,in this time France. (Meininger, 1870, 64.) of nonintervention declaration a in Powers Western the joined Gorchakov when specifically and step every almost at affair Cretan the on policy government’s Russian and Gorchakov’s Pa Russia and became an English tool against Pan-Slavism. 40 After FuadPa the Ignatiev regarded foreigndecision as afailurethis government. of Russian politics. new with be quoshoulda kept status the was decided that by It annexed Greece. be would decide Crete whetherthe to in order together came Conference, Paris the attended Hüseyin Avni Pa successesof the Serbiain June 1868, Michael of of Prince Theassassination attempt. Christians Foreignwith the Affairs, Tsar Turkish of the Ministry September issue.in 1867, In Cretan of intervention Powers the the and Fuad attempted Pa Christiansthe on mainlandthe in some form common of action, he was againstany of kind a compromise solution, but it remained a vain On31October,1870,Gorchakov officially to declared his circularRussia that longer no consider herself Komsalova,2005:31. Ignatiev wrote theCrete that rebellion wassuppressed the and Greeks away turned from ú a in the Danubian Province won the favor of the Porte. A Greek delegation, which had which delegation, AGreek Porte. the of favor the won Province Danubian in the a ú ú a in Crete anda in Crete suppression uprisingsinof the 1867and by Midhat 1868 a’s death in 1869, Ali Pa a’s deathin1869, 41 ú a arrived in Livadia to talk over the problems of the Balkan The French defeat and the London Conference’s acceptance of acceptance Conference’s and London the defeat TheFrench ú a struggled against his opponents and hisopponents removed against a struggled 16 ú a. Ignatiev did his best to underminebest didhis a. Ignatiev to Zapiski , p.70.Moreover, Ignatiev criticized Ignatiev p.70.Moreover, , ú a allegedly came to an to a allegedly came Õ k Pa ú a about the ceded the a about ú as in order to 40 CEU eTD Collection 2007, p. 19. 44 43 p.131,132,135. Mihailo D. Stojanovich, D. Mihailo Empire. Ottoman ofthe integrity and independence threatened they since Conference the in Powers the of proposals the rejected Porte the Moreover, provinces. Slavic other to interests of Russia’s extension the for way Bulgaria because thereby Russiawouldbe autonomous dominant inthe Eastern large half of a Balkans, the of whichwould pave emergence the the preventing for strove Austria Herzegovina. Bosnia secured also it though 42 technically wasdissolved continue andarchbishop of Ohrid wasallowedPatriarchate to Bulgarian the as a Bulgarian institution under the domination of the Greek Patriarchate in in1876. Ottoman Constantinoplethe Decemberat Conference Empire preventinterests from Ignatiev did of within defending the Christianpeoples not the all the Greeks, who had historicalConstantinople and under the leadership of Russia would have probably been by refused the claims on the city.Ignatiev’s However, the struggle over ConstantinopledreamRussian. of establishingMidhat’s relations with the Sultan because his politicala federation standing was pro-British and anti - of orthodox states with the capital in Bulgarian state, monarchy,Bulgarian state, churchand nobility. Ottoman conquest of Bulgarian lands in the 14 national independence with from their emancipation The religious GreekPatriarchate. the Empire. the Under influence of rising nationalism in Balkans,the Bulgarians identified their declineof the to the wasdirectly related dispute Church Greek-Bulgarian the of The historical reasons Dispute Church Greek-Bulgarian Ignatiev’s roleinthe Balkans. in the nationalities Orthodox all please emphasized that Russia was not renouncing the interests of the Greeks, but was trying to R.J. Crampton, Komsalova, Constantinoplethe 2005:33.In Conference, Austria refused most ofIgnatiev’s proposals even Zapiski , p.213. millet Bulgaria system during the second half of the 19 the of half second the during system ThePowers Great andtheBalkans, 1875-1878 , The Oxford History of Modern Europe, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, NY), Oxford, Press, University (Oxford Europe, Modern of History Oxford , The 17 43 th century meant the destruction of the 44 After the conquest, the Turnovo the conquest, the After , Cambridge University Press,1968, th century in Ottoman century the 42 Ignatiev CEU eTD Collection 48 47 46 Empire: The Central Lands, Vol.1., eds. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis,London, NY, 1982, pp. 69-90. 45 him was personal orinstitutional has been still discussion.open to althoughsome form authority to Patriarch the of Gennadios, whether granted recognition inActually,granted Istanbul. conquestof the Constantinopleafter 1453,MehmedII soon allow Bulgarians to perform perform allow in native language. to ceremonies Bulgarians theirtheir religious churches. While he forbade the publication of religious books in Bulgarian, he also did not at theGreekone than other books and ofreligious abolition any texts Greek use of only the the School, Church Bulgarian of the closure the demanded Patriarch The “hellenization”. At verythe beginning of 19 that crippled the religious and cultural institutes of the Bulgarians. . autonomous in its internal itaffairs, abolished theBulgarian archbishop of Ohrid in1767 under was groups thePatriarchate Ottoman the Since spiritual leaderall rule. Orthodox of gave a religious and political authority to the Patriarch, who was officially accepted as the one, with this motto: “Without anational church, there is no salvation.” within At beginninggroups the intoa national their Orthodoxy. of 1850s, evolved struggle seek equality to wereencouraged Muslims non-Muslims,between Bulgarians and some After the promulgation of part great roles for raising the national amongconsciousness the Bulgarian communities. trained in Slav the dominated seminaries of rather inRussia, than hellenizedthe ones, took levyhigh Bulgarian on Alarger of number peasants. Bulgarian whopriests, werebeing social and economic reasons, specifically the greed of the local Greek bishops, whoimposed addition, until the end of 1840s, the Bulgarian reaction to the Patriarchate wasmainly due to Crampton, 2007: 69. Crampton, 2007: 66. ø See Benjamin Braude, “ Braude, Benjamin See nalc Õ k,1992: 19. Foundation MythsoftheMillet System tanzimat th century, Bulgarians were exposed to the Patriarch’s policy Patriarch’s tothe exposed policy were of century, Bulgarians in 1839, which declared the between equality religious 18 ” inChristians and Jews inthe Ottoman 45 The Ottomans basically 48 Briefly; 46 In 47 CEU eTD Collection side, both Greek lay and clerical members denounced the proposals as heretical asheretical lay membersand proposals the andclerical denounced Greek side, both for settlement. Althoughsome leading Bulgariansin an inad hoccommittee November1865,toestablish basis the it was an unexpected move mostby fourbusinessmanproposals and prominentGreek of of Istanbul the were discussed from the lay committeePlovdiv’s of Paisius movement, Bulgarian the of leaders influential most the of one of the Greek negotiate with Patriarch infavorofBulgarians. Throughthe Sophronius help of Ignatiev, duringOttoman-Russianmaltreatmentby tried wars.Ignatiev Bulgarians to the Russians of especially the due to andbenefactor, onRussia asaprotector traditional dependence nations’ Balkan the rejected They Bulgars. the conciliate to Ignatiev for work easy an not (Ignatiev to Gerov,2 Jan., 1865,Meininger, in 1970:32.) the important interests of the Bulgarians and at the same time…without breaking the unity of the church.” 50 49 both. of toobtain support Greeks andthe hestrove Bulgarians, relation to inneutral mediatingremain between Porte, GreeksandBulgarians. the he ofthisperiod,to tried between In course the resolve1864 and1866. disputestarted the to firstefforts issue. Ignatiev’s church overthe Bulgarians the and Greeks between the an andfavoredOrthodox an union eastern people,Orthodox of he wasagainstschism Ignatiev role had asignificant theGreek-Bulgarian Since dispute. heChurch insolving was He reminded NajdenGerov that his activities were “constantly directed to a settlement …inconformity with Crampton, 2007: 63-64. emerging sense of Bulgarian national consciousness. national ofBulgarian sense emerging the by influenced were and influenced both Church national a achieve to strivings refused to recognize it andin1872denounced the Exarchate as schismatic. The 1870 that aseparate Bulgarian Exarchate should be created the Patriarchate This strugglewasonly partially successful whilstbecause Porte the stated in and the Patriarchate of the separate Bulgarian Church as a discrete institution. Afterin 1860. was 1860thechiefobjective recognitionsecure to the Porte by Bulgarians of all behalf on church that by independence of declaration unilateral a to amounted what with and Constantinople in church Bulgarian separate a The church struggle achieved anotable successin with 1849 the establishment of 19 49 50 Especially, in his Especially, However, it was CEU eTD Collection predominantly Greeks, which was a notable obstacle to asettlement of the Church dispute. governing bodies of the Orthodox recognize the Bulgarians as a separate nation in every inevery respect. nation as a separate Bulgarians the recognize 55 54 53 Balkans In Transition Nationalism”, of Balkan Development in the Religion of Role “The Arnakis, G. George ofGreece. Church 52 demands. Bulgarian of the all rejected categorically Assembly Patriarchal the 1866, April in met it When unacceptable. was Istanbul in representation Church 51 Orthodox the and Church the of administration whichlaity in voice those anincreased tothe granted especially Patriarch’s the the authority, Warhadwhich the the Ottoman Church Crimean after forced onthe damaged government governmentalreadyit hinted would that authorities disregardthe Orthodox the of attempt tosolve theissue inits ownfavor blocked a solution. Also,in mid-1860s, the its and sides both to promises exclusive mutually making of practice administration’s Ignatiev,For followed Ottoman ‘divide the government andrule’ policy and the dispute. Greek-Bulgarian complicatedthe Porte the maneuvers of itself, the and Patriarchate by agitated groups, extremist deplorablethe financial stateof and organizational the independence. political mustprecede emancipation ecclesiastical that argued They with difference. a major by statism BulgariansOpposing Greeks,the card, too ecclesiastical playedtheethnic the the independence. by completed shouldbelief thatpolitical independence be ecclesiastical the to due in Constantinople Patriarchate the from Greece Churchof the separate to decided Regency independence Greecewon her yearafter It is in1830,the thatone remarkable Greeks. infringementof of natural the as an decried rights project the the democratic andfurther Meininger, 1970:40-41. Meininger, 1970: 37-38. Arnakis, 1974: 138. autocephalous new the to recognition its extended Patriarchate Ecumenical the 16/28, June on until Not Meininger, 1970:36-37. Patriarchal To the Assembly, Bulgarian especially the request for anofficialhaving 51 53 Moreover, the mutual enmity between both Bulgarians Greeksand between the theenmity mutual Moreover, , ed. by andCharles Barbara Jelavich, (Archon Book, USA), 1974, pp. 134-135. millet , the Assembly and the Mixed Council were 20 millet . 55 The national composition of the 54 Moreover, the reforms millet and 52 The CEU eTD Collection declared that he would seek to satisfy the grievances of Bulgarians. the of grievances satisfy the to seek wouldhe that declared arguments of Gregory for the state’s withdrawal from Church affairs. Gregory also explicitly the seconded Ignatiev affairs. Church the to interference laity’s Greek the and Porte’s The an influential figure,new aimed wasaturningdiminishing point. Patriarch the at The appointmentof new Patriarch inGregory VI February 1867, behindwhich Ignatiev was peoples. Balkan of ambition andseparatist national the development plans: existed hisalready where he apply area, could concrete only as the remained Church of Bulgarian matter the failed, autonomies states’ win of to revolutionary common Balkan activities andthe Balkan action encouragement the Panslav platform, Ignatiev’s words were ignored. Moreover, since Ignatiev’s plans for itsa maintaining policy Concert aswellopposing governmentheldof theto European 58 57 56 expanded. whencrisis the Turkey frontier of and Caucasus the borders theWestern toward troops move the should government the that hesuggested with Europe, war of possibility the discounted Ignatiev though Even interests. coreligionists’ its of those and Russia’s sacrificing without power another with noninterference of declaration joint of governments Ignatiev, andGreece.For Russianthe Serbia follow government should a revolt of the Balkan Christians, thereby endorsing an imminentmilitary alliance between the dispatched alongmessage toGorchakov on October 16,1866proposing aspontaneous himself with a Panslavist affiliated Ignatiev time this During Church solvingquestion. Bulgarian the tantamountto solutionwas that Russia’s advantage to Question Eastern of the andasettlement state Ottoman the of the Eastern betweenmajor Ignatiev’s dismemberment program favored immediate the of 1866 and1867 Question more closely than before. He Meininger, 1970:81. Meininger, 1970:74. Meininger, 1870:61-62. 57 21 58 For the first time first the For 56 Since the Since CEU eTD Collection affairs and handling localissues.”(Meininger’s 79 purview of the particular patriarchate to which it has ties, an Exarchate is generally free in administrating hierarchal ladderits falling betweenMetropolitan and Patriarchate. Though, in matters ofstill underdogma, the 59 policies. Ambassador’s the to threat leading the was administration, Turkish inthe official influential an and extremist Bulgarian Russophobe the Chomakov, ignored Gregory’sand they proposal. could build.” easily evenin anational nucleusuponwhich most its “exarchate, form,they restrained offered the leaders that Bulgarian the topersuade Ignatiev endeavored manner.Yet, satisfactory in a claims territorial settle Bulgarian not did plan also Gregory’s that aware was Ignatiev mentionand future didnot and Thrace position in the of Bulgarian the Church Istanbul. Gregory’s planavoidedon Bulgarian comment claims inthemixed dioceses of Macedonia Bulgarians. of the independence of the political this for importance the awareof was quite andhe Exarchate Bulgarian anautonomous of creation the VI proposed Patriarch Gregory approach to Churchthe dispute. (Meininger,1970:90.) positionand a probable imminent embattled joint uprising government’s the ofdue to the BalkanHowever, peoples Greeks. and caused itto Bulgarians continuethe between a divide-and-rule relation the offset to policy a pursed Porte The Bulgarians. the and Greeks the between agreement an revise to factor determinant a was Porte not negotiations with Churchthe or subservience not Russian toAmbassador.the (Meininger, 1970:88.) The 62 Russian national Bulgarianfeeling could be developed. (Sumner, 1932/1933: 568.) forthe Turks themselves to promote the setting up of a Bulgarian Exarchate within which ahealthily anti- 61 60 intervened.program Asix-point Ottoman the government Gregory between and Paisius, negotiations and inthe Bulgarians reconcile the Patriarchate the to struggled While Ignatiev with Patriarchate. the rapprochement program of that moment, Bishoptime he reached Paisius an agreement ofbenefit dividedthe opinions among the Bulgarian andModerates Extremist andin ashort withPlovdiv, the Moderates who and wasthe chiefthe representativefirm supporter of them, at of the Moderates’ Meininger, 1970: 82-83.“An Exarchate is ecclesiasticalan jurisdiction headed by an Exarch, a rung onthe ABulgarian victory,according to Chomakov and his supporters,entailed direct dealings with the Turks,but was Bulgars the on influence Russian against safeguard best the that arguments his in succeeded Chomakov Meininger, 1970:85. 60 The Bulgar Extremists petitioned the Porte directly directly freeChurch for a Porte the petitioned Extremists TheBulgar th 61 footnote) Throughout this whole period Dr. Stoyan Throughout Dr. thisperiod whole 22 62 Ignatiev tried to 59 CEU eTD Collection autocephalous nature of the new Church. However, his last maneuvers did not retreat a few Bulgarian bishops few Bulgarian a retreat not did maneuvers last his However, Church. new ofthe nature autocephalous the sanction to order in Council Ecumenical an gather to demanded Gregory Patriarch the situation, the with by the Serbiangovernment, which introduced its ownterritorial aspirations inMacedonia. Being dissatisfied 65 64 63 Church. own their have to nationality distinct a as Bulgarians of rightthe the want torecognize notdid it because program the rejected Patriarchate of the Church.For the first time criticizing the motives of Gregory, Ignatiev claimed that the rights the government’sinfringement the for wasresponsible Greeks,Russia some notable government’sthe which project, furiouslyby was opposed his Patriarch the and Synod. For in Istanbul. toheaditprimate built at their own expense,from ApartelectMinisters. bishops them theirand retaining thepermitting churches to own it also paved the way for Councilof by fulfillingmost Ottoman Bulgarthe waspromulgated of demands the creation of a Bulgarian Synod and a April, 1869andthen by government.the in by commission the parishes, wasaccepted to respect mixedareas with the of division participation of Turkish the government. Krustevich’s proposal includedwhich aninternal commission findcould amiddlegroundof whichwouldcompromise, avoid the decisive member with Krustevich, Gavril a mixed the of Ignatiev, moderate However, the together which inthe springconvened arriveearly of 1869. Thecommission a solution. not did at both Greeks andBulgars, a commissionof composed to question solution Church the of government the Greeks, the and government the between tension the relieve to in order Conference retreated in issueby the Cretan involvement aEuropean calling states’ Following theEuropean from their commitmentsPanaret of Plovdiv. to the Bishop and Gregory between meeting a arranging by Bulgars. Bulgars and Greeks the reconcile The government left the Meininger, 1970: 108. Krustevich’s division of the mixed areas between the Greeks and Bulgars was rejected was Bulgars and Greeks the between areas mixed of the division Krustevich’s 108. 1970: Meininger, Meininger, 1970:105. Meininger, 1970:97. 63 InOctober, 1868 the Bulgarians declared that they accepted 65 23 64 Ignatiev tried in vain to in vain tried Ignatiev CEU eTD Collection first task of IgnatievAmbassador. after the timing,the form and of contentthis theBulgarians achievement, much owed Russianto the without the intervention of the Turkish government, he was satisfied with the with hewassatisfied government, Turkish the intervention of the without settlement, adirect preferred have certainly he would that admitted Ignatiev Although Bulgarians for the most partincluding DanubianBulgaria and excluding Macedonia. Krustevich’s proposal Krustevich’s proposal the the to Compared internaladministration. of matters to with regard Patriarchate Ecumenical ferman itself.legalreceive enactment Bulgarians The independent not did a fully Church.The notable also indraftingthe had Moderates role a proposal the Bulgarian early of 1869 and 69 68 67 66 1970:111.) from declaring that theywould officiate approachingonthe feast of Cyril andMethodius.SS. (Meininger, pan-Slavism.from to pan-Orthodoxy hesitating on matterthe of Hellenic sentiment that was a signfor his political transformation without goals Bulgarian of achievement tothe hisefforts directed Ignatiev 1869, Greeks. In supports heof the lost already that the became because he aware asimpossibility Orthodox) The years between 1867 and1869 theIgnatiev’srevealed conceptof united action (pan- national Bulgarian Church. The Church. Bulgarian national promulgated the On March Porte 12, 1870the andGregory Ignatiev. Patriarch betweenthe of relation deterioration the for Church Unity, hefailed achieveto ajoint settlement between the disputants, which cause Meininger, 1970:133. Meininger, 1970:132. Meininger, 1970:126. Meininger, 1970:120. granted them the right to have an Exarch, who would be completely free of the of free completely be would who Exarch, an have to right the them granted 69 To seek a peaceful settlement with the Patriarchate and the Bulgars wasthe and Bulgars the Patriarchate the with settlement Toseekapeaceful ferman ferman ferman reduced by one half its territorial allocations to the to allocations territorial its half one by reduced 66 . The Greek nationalists governmentand the. TheGreek Greek of of 1870 was based for themost part on Krustevich’s Even though Ignatiev did not abandon his concern his abandon not did Ignatiev though Even 24 ferman which authorized the formation of a 67 ferman . 68 In CEU eTD Collection the leadership, Bulgarian the keep all to Macedonia. Concomitantly, demand within to dioceses of nationalityground not on andterritory factorbehind mostthe prominentwas their on claim Their in Macedonia. dioceses of division the about mind one of were Moderates andthe Extremists Bulgarian be The unbridgeable. to proved could go Patriarchate the which limit Bulgarian gapbetween the territorial the andthedesigns However, issue.the to about especially Greeks, the and Bulgarians the between reconciliation for promising very protection of Russianthe Embassy in return. he wouldthat if end Greek-Bulgarian the hecoulddispute thebacking and receive influence of Ignatiev growing the showed Anthimus, Patriarch former the newPatriarch, the of The election on the Bulgarian-Greek dispute. The new thePatriarchate. with at reconciliation Patriarch attempt further assured Ignatiev ferman the of implementation the for assent Patriarchal of importance the was which view, Synod’s Russiaits in and of affairs. Church main Ottoman includedemphasis Ignatiev’s also the with the with 73 72 71 70 Pa Ali convince to tried He Porte. in the influence from increasingIgnatiev resignation After his for Patriarchate, Gregory’s the struggled Empire. revive Byzantine which wasto the Idea, its Great tothe threat of spite were inconsistentin their policies. The Hellenic government did notdefy the Porte’s edict in Meininger, 1970: 172-173. Meininger, 1970: 163-164. Meininger, 1970:160. Meininger, 1970:143. ferman . That was . That reasonbehindAliPa the ferman ’s plebiscite provision virtually these dioceses to granted Bulgarians.the proved that the Porte hadfor no Porte the inabout being rolegrounds the that proved doubt of ú 25 a’s urge to the Bulgarian urgetothe delegation a about a’s 72 The Anthimus meeting Bulgarian with was ú a that the Russian Church’s compromise Church’s Russian the a that 71 70 73 CEU eTD Collection was the main reason behind his endeavor for the reconciliation of Orthodox Bulgarians and Bulgarians Orthodox of reconciliation the for endeavor his behind reason main the was catholic religion, the national and ethic groupings ought not to set a limit its on borders. That advances imaginaryan of Ignatiev, Pan-Slavism. To sinceOrthodoxy was a universal, fightagainst the in to the Turks order idea alliance of with anti-Slavan the sidewith forThe Greeksweredetermined nationaltake the new to schism providedunity. asource 76 Council from declaring the Bulgarians as schismatic during the short reign as duringCouncil from short Bulgarians Pa the of the schismatic declaring Midhat prevent Local the histo to attempt were restricted inquestion Church the His proceedings Vizier. With the appointment of Midhat Pa an outlet among the Greeks for their frustrations proved abortive. proved frustrations amongan Greeksfortheir the outlet his In late July, the Sultan appointed Midhat Pa Ignatiev also supported. Bishop Anthimus of Vidin was electedFebruary on 27, 1872asthefirst Exarch, whom choice, Moderates’ newfor The theelection of Exarch. the figure emergedas acrucial Bulgarian Churchschismatic. (Meininger,1970: 185-189.) the declared members Council of the rest the of Ignatiev, backing Jerusalem’s and Antioch Alexandria, Councildispute included the subversion Council.ofIgnatiev this to demanded be propped upby ofparticipants the the for thepunishing theBulgarians and compelling them to obey Patriarchate.the Ignatiev’s lasteffort Church inthe prevention76 from the Patriarchate. (Meininger,of 1970: 181-184.) a declaration purely ecclesiastical dispute.By the supporting Bulgars, Austria-Hungary supported theircomplete separation international arena, they Greatlost support. Britain declined intervention regarding Bulgarianthe questionas a of schismzeal”. and the governmentagainst of the Greek Kingdom acted inopposition to the BulgariansWhile by “stimulating its anti-Slav Hellenic nationalismFurious was the reply Bulgarians. forthe Ignatiev’sthe and Greeks attempts to the keep the Orthodoxy between of schism together. The Churchpronouncement of Greek Bulgarians. permanent probable Greeksa prevent Patriarchthe reply, a prompt As Church. Bulgarian ofthe cut independence the proclaimed which In act, along read Exarch new spitestrippedloose of the75 theRussia newPatriarchs Exarch74 of withhis ecclesiasticalof the appointments dignity. Ignatiev’s actof in thethe summerRussophobe of 1872 was to state officials, on the the of basis the on Exarchate the establish to Bulgars the authorized Vizier Grand the Patriarch, the and of reaction Ignatiev indignant the Despite The Patriarchate organized the assembling of the twenty-nine ecclesiastics so as to act as a tribunal in tribunal a as act to as so ecclesiastics twenty-nine of the assembling the organized Patriarchate The Meininger, 1970: 179.During celebrationthe of feast the ofSS. MethodiusCyril and onMay 1872, 23, the Meininger, 1970: 178. For the Bulgarians, the consequences of the schism were political and not religious. The millet organization into an extraordinary Patriarchal Assembly and Ignatiev’s effort for effort Ignatiev’s and Assembly Patriarchal extraordinary an into organization 75 ú a, Ignatiev lost his predominance at the Porte. 26 ú a to replace Mahmud Nedim Pa ferman . The Patriarch’s convocation of 74 However, Ignatiev However, ú a as Grand ú a. CEU eTD Collection discipline and brutal attitude towards Christians. ( 6) put in practice, especially forthe equality of Christians and Muslims. 5) Province, Sophia Plovdiv andthe Niš.Province, Sliven the Province, Danube the include will Bulgaria Bulgaria. in be applied should In case this is not possible because of numerous Muslim populations, at least the reforms suggestedfor Bosnia 4) militia.local and Christians be local should officials of the half and language official be the should Serbian Crete. in that 3) belonged to the Ottoman Empire at this time and it has to be givento Serbia. 2) 1) infrom Hewasinclinedcontribute discouraging Greeks taking the conflict. to apart to the Affairs and the Russian ambassador in Athens for localization of the conflict Foreign of by Ministry Russian the blamed He Crete). of island (the Candia and Thessaly immediate actioninof with ajoint against Turkey Bulgaria,Epirus, population revolt the After RussiadeclaredwaronTurkey an on 12 April supported to take 1877, Ignatiev Question. a concreteBulgaria, Ignatiev politicalwas working agendaconcerning out theEastern 78 77 Ottoman Empire. inthe Serbiaawaragainst Montenegro starting and warand animmediate supported wanted orientation, apro-British Ignatiev class assumed ruling1876 and Ottoman the Empire’s and without Turkey the participation West.However,the of whenAbdülaziz in wasdeposed Russiabetween bymutual agreement solving Eastern insistedthe Ignatiev Question on still Ignatiev and theTreaty of SanStefano religion. their from their nationalism separate have disputants the hefailed to However, Greeks. Zapiski Meininger, 1970: 190-192. 79 Ignatiev presented a plan fordealing with crisis the in1876: Ottoman Empire should not use Caucasians, bandits ( Europe should insist that the reforms promised in the Bulgaria have should autonomy with anOrthodox governor, localgovernment, administrationand militia. Bosnia and the northern part of Herzegovinashould have eitherautonomy orlocalgovernment similar to In Serbia, the prewar situation has to be preserved except for small part of Old Serbia. Old SerbiaMontenegro and (Kosovo)part of Herzegovina should be independent. , p.19. 77 79 78 During the warbetween Serbia and Turkey and the rebellions in Zapiski 27 , pp. 149-156.) ba irade úÕ bozuk s and ) and otherirregular troops fortheirlack of ferman s of the late Abdülaziz should be CEU eTD Collection Thessaly and the parts of Macedonia& Thrace that remain in the Ottoman Empire. Ottoman the in remain that Thrace of Macedonia& parts the and Thessaly 8) 7) strong Bulgarian Army. 6) 5) 4) 3) 2) 1) Stefano. is worth of noting 83 that the clauses82 of this project were almost the same with the clauses of the Treaty of San 81 80 Warof high 1878. and other officialsJanuary on 12, Minister the Foreign Affairs, Ministry the of RussianEmperor, was presented tothe project The BlackSea. on the have territories not which all did in states, war to of becase closed areas of Turkey. in Christian the implementationlead governments of totheemergence reforms,autonomous of which would he agreedtheestablishmentof a self-governing Bulgarian principality and the moderate final several was more draft onesin andthen thetimes previous sense the that of armistice draftthe wrote Ignatiev of armistice. theproject on of working task the to then to leave the city. After had Ignatiev war, the of his beginning the At return Constantinople. from todismissal his Russia, caused policy he was assigned first to a military imminentwarwith Ignatiev’s forin plans the his context the of Turkey question eastern position and Russia’s assistance. possible leadersin union.Albanianreceivebe would North Thetribal to especiallyglad with the Serbs and the South Albanians’ Albanians could also beusedas emphasis relations put an ally. Albanians’ He on North the relations with the Greeks that would have beintensified. Russia andGreecewould made a between antagonism otherwise andSlavs; interests of Greeks of common the realization the Komsalova, 2005:34. Komsalova, Zapiski Zapiski Zapiski The decisions of the Istanbul Conference about Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia will be applied for Epirus, for be applied will Rumelia Eastern and Bulgaria about Conference Istanbul ofthe decisions The months. three in Turkey Asiatic and European evacuate will troops Russian The Russian representatives and at least 50.000 troops Conference. will stay Istanbul Bulgariain the by (vassal) prescribed until those as the same creation the ofbe atleast a should borders Bulgarian In Bosnia &Herzegovina, the decisionof Istanbul Conference should be applied. River. Romania Morava should the to getEast the some to islands extending in the border Danubeits Delta with and the portindependent be Sulina.should Serbia Small territories should be added to Montenegro. , p.63. , pp.233-234. , pp. 319-324. Here are the other clauses written by Ignatiev in his plan for provisional peace treaty. It 81 82 Secret clause of the project was that the Black Sea would 80 Furthermore, Ignatiev laid claim to the idea that the to claim laid Ignatiev Furthermore, 28 83 In addition, Gorchakov asked Gorchakov addition, In CEU eTD Collection 85 (iii)”, continuous warwith the Ottoman Empire at that moment. AlexanderOnou, “The Memoirs of Count N.Ignatyev 84 millionOttoman liras should given to Russia. 13) 12) incurred. have they damages the for compensated be to years for waiting been 11) Catholics and Protestants. 10) 9) to return from alreadyConstantinople in January,1877. summoned hewas when opposed wasalready problems Balkan the for solutions Ignatiev’s failedIgnatiev gethis to eventual goal The accepted. official Russian view the towards Turkey. with treaty heplenipotentiary,concludein onJanuary inAdrianople arrived to 29, 1878 a order peace In secondhalfofJanuary the Bucharest.As1878, hewassent to Russia’s chief treaty. of the clauses make in the of should terms hisRussia concession presentthe on views to Ignatiev of of As proposals.Ignatiev’s Saffet Pa firstlybureaucracy central and the latter’s behaviorand subsequently affirming dismissing Russian the and between Ignatiev ideological differences noting herethe It isworthy of little until Russia demanded a revision of the treaty. a only lasted Constantinople in mission Ignatiev’s of triumph The scenario. Crimean the toinvolveinthreatened Russia anda warwith England Russianofficials fearedarepeatof it for policy but Russian was atriumph in Treaty March1878.Thetreaty San of Stefano difficulties in negotiations, Ignatiev achieved a victory as mainthe Russiannegotiator of the Empire. of Ottoman the existence the with incompatible was principality Pa Saffet representative Komsalova, 2005: 35. 2005: Komsalova, Foran interesting article onIgnatiev’s arrival in Adrianople and his oppositional comments on Russia’s Slavonic andEast European Review Either 410 million silver rubbles, or Bessarabia, Kars, Ardahan, Batum, Kagizman and six armored and 40 and armored six and Kagizman Batum, Ardahan, Kars, Bessarabia, or rubbles, silver million 410 Either Turkey to lethas Russian ships pass through the Bosporus including 10 warships peryear. Turkey has to take active steps for the peaceful resolution of the lawsuits of Russians in Turkey who have The RussianBetterconstitution forCrete and the Orthodox clergy in Turkey will have the same privileges as those given to the 84 Even though he offered his project revised by TurkishGorchakov, the ú a firmly adhered to the idea that the establishment of of a Bulgarian establishment the ideathat the to firmly adhered a , 11(1932/1933), pp.108-125. ú a lost against willof a lost in the Stefano, Ignatiev San 29 85 In spite of the CEU eTD Collection gaining approval from Westernthe powers. his policy theof plans manifested dueto him, hisopposition Ignatiev’s to Gorchakov for Unfortunately in Berlin. negotiations the to led which policy, foreign Russian in split a tothe caused official which Ignatiev, policy of policy Gorchakov of opposed remained Gorchakovism RussianForeign Policy”, and non-aggressiveness,policy 3)a of revisionism. Flemming Splidsboel-Hansen, “AleksandrGorchakov and as calls he which 89 No.2,(June, 1947), p. 134. a conclusion from thepolitical despite Gorchakov opposition to beginning. the beshould the hismissionfor rememberedthat solving hadbeenbroughteastern question to it However, diplomacy. of his personal from point the beas afailure seen can peace treaty from Ignatiev’s for of the during negotiations the dismissal decision-making process the being discussed in international failed.an congress theissuefrom andpreventing Sultan the with directly negotiating Straits problem the of “Pobedonostsev Russian and influence in theBalkans, 1881-1888”, and successfavor in ofof ofefforts reunion Bulgarianresumption the the the church the withCatholic Church”.MelvinC.Wren, predict and I foresee Berlin, of Treaty the after But Balkans. the in orthodoxy of integrity to Pobedonostsev88 in 188187 that2002:331. “the TreatyVol.33, No.4,(Dec., 1961), 388. p. Ignatiev wasoffice putin reverseto policy the of Loris-Melikov. Latimer, of San Stefano would easily have made it possible to assure the inConstantinople. endeavors his undermined they because Berlin of in Congress the Russia of strategies political the criticized Ignatiev congress. 86 occasion. the suited Bismarck with relations friendly his and Britain in Great conditions of knowledge long in Russia represented theand Congressof Berlinin July 1878 and Shuvalov’s diplomat, career. diplomatic The inevitable result situation this hisof Ignatiev was that pursuing from was removed InhisarticleSplidsboel-Hansenmentions three maincharacters of Gorchakov’s post-1865 foreignpolicy, As a supporter of the Greek Orthodoxy Stojanovic, 1968: 256. against the pro-Catholic groups among the Bulgarian clergy, he wrote Hans Heilbronner, “Alexander III and the Reform Plan of Loris-Melikov”, Plan Reform the and III “Alexander Heilbronner, Hans was inconsistent with the pragmatic politics Ignatiev pursed in terms of the Balkan problems. Gorchakovism 86 87 Gorchakov Andreyevich Gorchakov and administrator Pyotr Shuvalov, Russian Europe-Asia Studies Ignatiev’s notes did not affect the policy Russia would pursue in the pursue would Russia policy the affect not did notes Ignatiev’s . 1) the primacy of domestic restructuring, 2) the twinprinciples of predictability , Vol. 54, No.3,(May, 2002), pp.380-381. It is not surprising that 30 The Journal ofModern History 88 Ignatiev’s aim to settle the The Journal ofModern History , Vol., 19, 89 The , CEU eTD Collection Porte. Moreover, the internal problems in the region, such as banditry, class tensions class banditry, as such region, the in problems internal the Moreover, Porte. such as and Serbia Roumania, which resolutely were independenceforagitating from the frontier, the on regions other the of status the of change a as well as separatism, Bulgarian in new increasedtheuneasinessthe province people. amongnative incited the Russians consciousness national Bulgarian developing The Empire. Russian the by supported Slavism places in empiredue the to the influences andseparatistof groups the ideology Pan-of Pa Midhat under The regions side. from other the by it together to thecapital from connecting sideone far-off and such as Bosnia to places, these provinces with Silistra. and theVidin Nish, of provinces empire, thereof the new province declared 1864togetherof with on 13 October was regulations, a set a combination the of was formed was which Province, Danube The mission. his fulfill to to equipped holdwell he was experiences, the empire his previous newprovince.Dueto inthe thepostof governor and to was assigned 90 the executing of mission important an with charged was the peripheries of the empire. towards turned interests imperial the 1860s, after However, than periphery. the rather center Midhat Pa itsFrom beginningin 1839, (1864-1868) Province theDanube His governorship in Tuna Vilayet Nizamnamesi ( THIRD CHAPTER:MIDHATPA the Law of Danube Province tanzimat ú a’s responsibilities in the Balkans were the most troublesome most the were Balkans in the responsibilities a’s reforms in the Ottoman Empire aimed totransform the 90 The rise of nationalism threatened the integrity of integrity the threatened nationalism of rise The ú a, as one of the prominent reformists of his era, 31 ), BOA, I.M.M.S. No: 1245. tanzimat ù A (1864-1877) reforms in countrysidethe CEU eTD Collection the province. This assembly met annually in the capital city the city capital provinceunder the of in met province.the the annually assembly This parts from of of different non-Muslim was composed delegates equal numberMuslim and of 91 officers. and offices governmental into the took only not council This issues. economic and social consideration the from responsible was it province, highestadministrativethe councilin and As foreignagriculture. the affairs, works public the service, complaints civil the with dealt council This delegates. non-Muslim and Muslim of number of commoners, withinstituted an Administration was also equal The Council Provincial of guaranteed. butcouncilslocal in councils, top-down the supervised cooperation the province wasefficiently alsojudicial and administrative the these Because up. set were members, non-Muslim and Muslims problems among of elected consisted which councils, judicial and administrative various local these councils, the from Apart reconstructed. local councils were law of new1864, the With provincial the state. the of mechanism political the into governments local the include to was intention main his by groups, the separatist While the central eliminating province.authority strengthening Pa Midhat beginning, very Province for the first time. Due to his previous experience as the governor of Nish, from The implementation of newthe law the in provincial of reform 1864 started Danube the Danube Province. in the demandedprocess and areformation taxation landowners andpeasants between unfair The Law of Danube Province of 1864 ú a was aware the deficiencies of the Ottoman rule in the newin the rule Ottoman the of deficiencies aware the a was , No:77-78. 91 There was the Provincial General Assembly, which 32 CEU eTD Collection 95 94 Unpublished PhD Thesis, PrincetonUniversity, September 2006, pp. 265., 271. the improvement of their own economic and social situation”. which persuade to them tried “their that in participation would reform the inpolicies result rhetoric, ingovernment’s wasachange force There local of people. labor the needed greatly modernization”, the since government rhetoric and of government “pervasive progress In the course of enforcement province’s urban centers. of of “de-Orientalization” the and“beautification” cleaning, to the general gave weight the new codes,and schools, shops and market places. Underthe the control of these councils,lower Midhat Pa lights,buildings public bridges, telegraphlines,street paved steamships, railroads, roads, classes Danubethe They many Province. carrying from were responsible such out works, public as were promptedThe Municipal Councils werealso amonginnovations the subsequent of new the system in by Nineteenth Century Ottoman Reform Movement Before 1876”, Before Movement Reform Ottoman Century Nineteenth groups could directly inparticipated policy making. Stanford J.Shaw, “The Central Legislative Councils inthe Assembly workedGeneral withdelegates Provincial the from variouseducation, and parts of the province. Inthis way, (trade/agriculture), works bothMuslim andpublic non-Muslimjustice, finance, (police/military), from eachprovincial representative assembly separatedand into five different departments as administration 92 non- of system comprehensive a time first again courts, ( from Islamic the were separated bodies judicial these capital that distinct hierarchy of judicial which The Appeal in and represented Criminal alaterwere combined period, Courts, bodies. It was the first time in the empire andlocal Christians were representedoutside in the councils for the first time in the Ottoman Empire. of the governor. leadershipthe of 93 Vol.1., No.I., January 1970, p.74. Petrov, 2006: 133. Petrov, 2006: 117. Similar to the Ottoman Council of State in Istanbul, which received legislative recommendations annually Milen V. Petrov, “ Tanzimat 94 For the Countryside Forthe Pa : Midhat 92 The most prominent improvement in this structure was that the 33 International Journal of Middle EastStudies ú a and the Vilayeta andthe of Danube, 1864-1868, ú er-i 95 tribunals was established. was tribunals ú er-i ) courts. In these new ú a also 93 , CEU eTD Collection Yay as the founder of the bank. See, Bekir S province was to establish the Agricultural Credit Cooperatives Banks. Cooperatives establishCredit theAgricultural province wasto well in Nish and he was determined to continue the same system in the Danube Province. He Pa landlords. Midhat their with unstable relations animals. He economic conditions of alsopeasants by providing them credits with low interests rate, seeds and wanted of governor Nish in 1863, heestablished agricultural cooperativescredit toimprove the to create solidarityOne of amongthe main contributions them, of Midhat Pa especially subjects.” “ordinary” in terms of their already intimately understood and proactively taken advantage of and of proactively Pa by intimately already advantage taken Midhat understood the TurkishRepublic Agricultural Bank ( best-developedcredit cooperatives the Balkans. (Davison, in 1973: 152) In the centennial of establishment,its 99 98 future.” foreseeable the in endure to was likely that arrangement political a as part a were interrogations the which of framework imperial the regarded complex rules of the 97 Society forComparative Study of Society and History 96 the about assumptions common the of one Indeed, how, “less than two years after the establishment of the interrogation game.” MidhatPa of willingness and “the ability documents Petrov province, led serious modernization inreforms many fields of legal and institutional system, the Though project. top-down a large extent was to project legal ( legal subjects.” Ottoman of non-elite the worlds epistemological had with interaction and nevertheless amore and “cognitive complicated the tangible ledissues andelitist project with regard to direction,of and organization,it timing Midhat is still accepted Petrov, 2004: 746. as the father of the agricultural bank in Turkey and in Bulgaria, as the founder of Petrov,the 2004: 759. The macro-political implicationof the willingness and ability of Bulgarians to learn the MilenV. Petrov, “Everyday ofForms Compliance: Subaltern Commentaries onOttoman Reform, 1864-1868, Õ nlar nizamî Õ , ø stanbul), 1964. ) courts in the Danube Province where Midhat Pa Midhat in where theDanube Province ) courts nizamî 97 98 The discourses, arguments and strategies of the litigants clearly show interrogation,according to Petrov, is that, “at least into the late 1860s, most of them T.C.Ziraat Bankas Õ tk Õ Baykal, , 2004, , p. 731. ú a to the economic problems of peasants in the 34 Midhat Pa Õ ) was devoted a book to the memory of Midhat Pa ú a’s new agricultural worked regulation a’s newagricultural tanzimat ú vilayet, a, Siyasia, ve tanzimat 96 ú reforms is that this political this is that reforms ú its new legal framework was legal framework its new a’s subjects to playnew to the a’s subjects a, as the first governor of of governor the firstas the a, Focusing on the records of ø dari was undeniably was undeniably a state- ù 99 ahsiyeti When he was the , (Ziraat Bankas ú a’s ú a Õ CEU eTD Collection Semineri 101 Midhat Pa Pa Midhat though Even administration. previous the from holdovers usually were who officers, middle level lower and and corrupted untrustworthy the dismissed Province.the Healso involved the of capable appointments officialsfrom and honest in Istanbul, would who work vizier Fuad Pa vizier Fuad Empire and thePa Midhat Bulgarian nationalists. well. functioned officials However, he was backed by the reformist grand Pa his Midhat of in governorship, course Inaddition,the cartographers. and teachers, employees, telegraph as civilengineers, military and who worked modernization Hungarian and policiesdevelopment inrefugees, werePolish and Danube of Ottomanism. of Pa Midhat reflected clearly also This respectively. 100 Efendi and K Pa agricultural creditcooperatives. OnJuly 19, 1867with a nineadditionalMidhat to principles these of system the in working part took equally Muslims and Christians Both cooperatives. credit agricultural the of twenty principles pointing anout explanatory document, wrote main members of the leading team were were team leading the of members main Midhat Pa within empire. whole them prevalent ø SeçilAkgün, “MidhatPa ú ú a received some reactions due to his policies of innovation, the system innovation, system duetohispolicies of somea received upwith reactions the he his set a’s document, the law of agricultural credit cooperatives was issued in order to makeinissued to thelaw was order cooperatives of a’s document, creditagricultural lberOrtayl , TTK,Ankara, 1986, p.227. ú a Semineri ú ú a came to the Danube Province with a cosmopolitan and Ottomanist cadre. The a was not able to cooperate with the conservative bureaucrats of Ottoman withthe a wasnotcooperate bureaucrats ableconservative the to Õ , “Midhat Pa ÕOÕ ú a and the local notables, who sided with the Ottoman state againstthe state Ottoman the sided who with notables, local the a and ç Vas 101 , TTK, Ankara, 1986,pp. 185-211. Also, the technicians and engineers who had great contributions to the to contributions great had who engineers and technicians the Also, Õ f Efendi, who were Albanian, Armenian, Turkish and Croatian, ú ú a’n a’n Õ Õ n Vilayetn Yönetimindeki Kadrolar n Kurdun ÷ u Memleket Sand 100 ø smail Kemal Bey, Odian Efendi, Ahmet Midhat Ahmet Efendi, Odian Bey, Kemal smail 35 ú a’s belief in sharing a common ideology common a in sharing belief a’s Õ klar Õ : Ziraat Bankas Õ ve Politikas Õ ”, Õ ’n Uluslararas Õ n Kökeni”, ú a was personally Õ Midhat Pa Uluslararas ú a Õ CEU eTD Collection preventing the Bulgars from preventingfrom theBulgars ineducation hepursuing their However, Russia. not could Midhat Pa Midhat educationhe both good provided Christians in andto mixed Muslims schools. Actually, receivefirm able of of a them. thesupport supporter modern tothe education, as Secondly, inhabitantsallgovernmentand of he to ordinary the was equitable province, the treatment Midhat Pa uprising, Zakhari referringStoianov, applicationthis to in Ottoman bureaucracy, arguedthat inofficials ladders.Oneof in active bureaucratic the the 1876Bulgarian participants the therise of Bulgarian nationalism obstructed BulgarinHowever, Ruse. governorship 103 102 Pa Midhat during Bulgarian tothe elites opened bureaucratic ranks Ottoman of Bulgarians. the him as and powerful opponent a province, they real recognized Even many nationalists Midhat Bulgarian appreciated though Pa high positions in provincialthe administration imperialand awarded medals. to appointed were who Bulgarians, the with in collaborating hesucceeded extent, a certain movements, such as the establishments of the schools, reformatories and printinghouses. To reform his of outcome natural a as Province Danube the within intelligentsia Bulgarian separatist movements. Actually, Midhat Pa 104 political science.” (Petrov,2006: 11) Ottoman reformers know howPa to supplementfanatical their Asiatic unreconstructed oppressionthe than with cause the refined Bulgarian methods the to ofdanger Western greater a posed nationalists to the 1867 Paris Conference declared that “enlightened Ottoman administrators, suchas Midhat, Apetition[the text of documentthis was published in BOA, I.D.H. No: 38984. Petrov, 2006: 12. 2006: Petrov, more loyal to Osman’sthrone than the Turks themselves different, since Bulgarians the in Ottoman governmentservice invariably became the finaloutcome of Ottoman in reform application, mightBalkansthe its have in quite been persistent more and scope its in broader been had policy if that ú ú a struggled against the threat of a strugglednationalism against threatof the Firstly, ways.exerting inthree good a wanted to change the school system in the province entirely. He aimed at aimed He entirely. province inthe system school change the to a wanted ú 36 a intended to generate a sort of Turkish and Narodnost . 104 , vol.2, issue 10] by Bulgarian émigré ú a’s efforts efforts to developa’s the ú as of old; this new brand of brand new this ofold; as 102 103 The ú a’s CEU eTD Collection 106 105 Pa Midhat to Church werethreatening autocephalous and an autonomy acceptable. Bulgarian Bulgaria, nor the petition asked for an autocephalous Bulgar Orthodox Church was 1867 for theestablishment monarch, of a dual whichwould self give government to Pa Midhat refugees. andCircassian Tatar Pa ofMidhat meager sides most Oneof the government. it tothe had acost andsocially, economically However, Bulgars. the among activity the separatist against as apreventive action thought was also It Danube. the along a protection as and Serbia against defense border a as serve to planned was in Province Danube refugees of the the The resettlement newprovince. of the borders the within were resettled who from Russia, refugees and Circassian with Tatar flooded Province were of The regions Danube Crimean war. the beginningthe problem of since the refugee the hadencountered Empire Ottoman the theWar, of wounds recovering the for While Russia sought region. history inlandmarkWarof the the The wasa Crimean 105 suppressshowingachieve the thisaim. third mercy.way wasto without The any rebellions if their demands did not cause problems in any given locality. tothemembers he insidesboth his support manner, of declared of atacit conflict, the each with In aconversation conflict. tothe solution capable acomprehensive offering of was not Province, he comment in evenhandedremained reticent to he and publicand issue the on See, 7.3.The Tatar and Circassian Migrations, Petrov, 2006: 346-382. Davison, 1973: 154-155. ú a’s efforts to create Ottomanism. Yet, in the course of his governorship of the Danube ú a thought that neither the proposal of some moderate Bulgar nationalists in early nationalists Bulgarmoderate some of neither proposal the that a thought ú a’s reform movement in the Danube Province was to settle the to in was Province Danube the movement a’s reform 106 37 CEU eTD Collection 110 109 Truth About Russia laughed; but in 1877 exclaimed,he ‘You told us—you toldusbut we would believe’.” not William T.Stead, with Ali Pa (his friction factors internal both reason, noaclear Although therewas asagovernor. there his appointment threeyearsafter Porte by the was recalled He province’s governorship. opponents. anumberpowers, of accusation broughtagainstwere himby his rivals political and himwhich bring permitted some emergency to cases into the arbitration of plenipotentiary with Egypt.” from hascase been adefactothe empire independence as the towards Danubethe province “Midhat Pa hinted that Ignatiev in region. the interests Powers’ Pa Midhat over The controversy of San Stefano. Treaty of the signing the after events Pa 1878 Midhat Danube In Province. Churchthe from Question national the in question mindsthe mostof Bulgarians in the inseparating successful were policies administration’s the reversals, and local variations of revolutionary propaganda’.” andcool towards religious demands should be granted in order to ‘keep them grateful to the Sultan’s authority “informed theBritish in consuls RuseandBelgrade that in his opinion, Bulgarians’ the Bulgarian nationalism. Having keptthis idea during hisfirst grand vizierate, Midhat Pa war, I told Midhat Pa 108 107 Pa Midhat Petrov, 2006: 418. 26. 2006: Petrov, In an interesting interview of William T. Stead with him, Ignatiev told that “A dozen Petrov, 2006: 345. years Also, see whole before part: “Midhat’s Policies the the on Churchlast Question” (Petrov, 2006: 338-346) ú ú a was aware that the resolution of the Church question was related to the fate of fate tothe related was Church question of the resolution the a wasawarethat 110 a, his possible assignment tothe presidency of the reorganized Council of State) 109 Although unfounded,Midhat led they to Pa Especially after he secured the issuance of Especially he of issuance after a royal inFebruary securedthe 1868, decree , Cassell,, London, 1888, p.266. ú a that at the first opportunity, I would establish an independent Bulgaria. He [Midhat Pa ú a’s success in the Danube Province was related to Great to wasrelated Province in theDanube success a’s ú a declared an autonomous Bulgaria due to the political the Bulgaria dueto autonomous a declaredan 38 107 Petrov continues by claiming that in spite that claiming by continues Petrov 108 ú a’s dismissal from a’s Danube from the dismissal ú a’s reforms steering were a’s reforms ú a ú a] CEU eTD Collection In 1868, Midhat Pa In 1868,Midhat Pa deathofFuad the after Pa 112 in principle. administrative and legislative from functions judicial of separation the accepted Pa most andhis prominentrivals capital.grand vizierate In the from removing 1869, Midhat spending revenue from Midhat’sledbudgetfrom spending to of which Baghdadthe Province, revenue the system well, was sent out to Baghdad by Ali Pa lending bank to extend credit to small employers.” (Davison, 1973: 243.) nationality law, the new organizationof public education, and regulations onmining, the metric system, anda 112 concept ofcivilizationwhich pressed ofthe upon theempire demands from the to all directions.’ and ”(Davison, 1973: populations 157-158.) the of customs the to country, the of needs the to altogether of administration form corresponding ‘a Minister, Foreign the said found, had Empire “The powers: European the Midhat Pa throughout whole empire was the reasonof Midhat’s recall to Istanbul. Fuad Pa 111 Pa Porte.the Ali Pa win not over hecould tenure, his three-year during of interests his cost own atthe Baghdad duplicatedhein what had the Danube done Even though Midhat Pa Province. improvements in material activities his Especially Provinces. Danube in the showed Pa Midhat Pa Midhat His GrandVizierate might his move)have caused recall. anylikely separatist maltreatment histo Porte, onthe (Russia’s factors pressure and external Under Midhat Pa Midhat Under Pa Fuad 1867, March In ú ú ú Midhat Pa a provided control over the affairs in foreign ministry, while at the same time keeping the sametime atthe keeping while ministry, inforeign affairs the over control a provided a, as a governor who ina, asagovernor hadalready hiscapability proved running newprovincial the a was a manifest opponent of Midhat Pa ú a’s policies in the Danube Province, as it’s seen in his memorandum of May 15, 1867, addressed to ú ú a got along FuadPa with a got well a continued his reform activities in Baghdad with the same determination he determination the same in with Baghdad his activities reform a continued ú a quarreled with Ali Pa ú a died in 1871 and his successor inhisin Mahmud successor 1871and vizierate a died Nedim grand the ú a’s presidency, these following regulations were done by Council of State: “the new “the State: of byCouncil done were regulations following these presidency, a’s ú a became the first president of the reorganized Council of whicha becameof first Council president the State, reorganized of the ú a declared that the necessity of extension and implementation of the provincial law provincial of the implementation and extension of necessity the that a declared ú a in 1869, the gap between these two rival men expanded.Ali theserival gapbetween a in1869,the two 111 ú a over the operation of Council of State. Especially ú a, but his relation AliPa with his relation a, but 39 ú ú a. a. A quarrel occurred between them over ú a seemed quite satisfiedwith ú a was not the same. notthe a was ú a worked in a worked CEU eTD Collection 31 July 1872. Pa Midhat the Sultan Mahmud Nedim’sappointed actandinstead approve him notto Sultan with convinced Midhat’s the audience Abdülaziz. However, appointmentas governor of Edirnethe on July consulting province 29, 1872without Midhat Pa Midhat powers. great previous in empireanddiplomats putthe amuch more vis-à-vissusceptible position the the of policies centralizing the contradicted Abdülaziz and Nedim Mahmud of policies The empire. the of provinces Balkan in the interests Russian the threatened policies Ottoman Ali previousthe of policies Fuad Pa and Porte. in the agents his of one as him mention not did Ignatiev though “Nedimoff”, as andMahmud Nedim as “Sultan Ignatiev” to referred was sometimes without wasnotIgnatiev avail Mahmud It closer toIgnatiev. ambassadors, that Nedim was Contrary to Ali in him as asuccessful reputation lot. Baghdad disquieted governor a and Fuad Pa 113 becoming inpossibility governor’s Midhat Pa powerful hisprovince. any and popular of behindhis system reaction to the was duetothehe fact wasalso that the worried about One of reasons the Porte. and the assemblies between provincial general communication the itvirtuallyby abandoned organizeattempting to smaller provinces and byrestricting the resignation at the end. Mahmud Nedimwas warring against provincial the system and he Davison, 1973: 283. ú a’s presence in the capital worried Mahmud Nedim, who announced his announced who Mahmud Nedim, worried capital inthe a’s presence ú as, who had conferred with the British and French ú a was quite understandable.Western-oriented a wasquite 40 113 ú Ignatiev’s opposition to a asnewvizier on grand ú a’s CEU eTD Collection and because such acts were unusual in the Ottoman system, it attracted the attention of attention the itattracted system, in theOttoman were unusual suchacts because and they were implicitly forced out of the government by late fall. Midhat Pa grandvizierand the of dealings the any against action take not they rebels. did However, time. Midhatand Avnihad Hüseyin views similar on needthe actagainst Balkan to the AfterPa Mahmuddays, several Nedim war. On August 21,1875Midhat wasnamedjustice of minister and HüseyinAvniasminister of Midhat Pa Pa this way,Midhat Pa Midhat on Sultan the congratulated Ignatiev foreign loanshis caused from his dismissal short-lived grandvizierateon 1872. 19 October, warnings. Ultimately, Pa Midhat constitutional aspirations and it was impossible that the Sultan would be indifferent to their mind of Midhat Pa Midhat of mind constitutional plan and a plan for federal organization of the empire began to preoccupy the Pa Midhat of minister foreign as appointed Vienna andwas at ambassador 114 he was a governorexchange for bribe. Disregarding the politics of office-holding, Midhat Pa in the and province.the Palace’s cooperation Ismail khedive the of opponent overt an also was He with scandal. financial him of investigation over the Underthe right for Egypt to thecontract foreigninfluence loans in of Halil Pa Midhat vizierate lasted only eighty days. Midhat Pa Midhat days. eighty only lasted vizierate andwitnessing forward looked vizierate to his his fall. circumstances, grand these Under Pa Midhat to opposed andIgnatiev khedivethe were completely Also, Ismail Davison, 1973: 291-292. ú a’s experience and character were not completely suitable for the grand vizierate. grand for the suitable completely not were character and a’s experience ú a and the promulgation of the FirstOttoman Constitution ofthe promulgation a andthe ú a. The khedive Ismail and Ignatiev warned the Sultan about these men’s these about Sultan the warned Ignatiev and Ismail khedive The a. ú a began eighteen months of of months a beganunemployment. eighteen ú a’s investigation of Mahmud in Nedim’s fraud obtaining ú ú a was nominated as grand vizier for the second the vizier for asgrand nominated a was 41 a did not hesitate to implicate the Sultan into Sultan the implicate to hesitate not a did ú a’s removal from the grand vizierate. grand the from removal a’s ù erif, who had been ú a actually resigned ú a embarked on as ú a’s grand ú 114 a, a In CEU eTD Collection 115 Pa Midhathe Seemingly, had creating and asaway senate. ministerial duty out proposed Pa Midhat in Istanbul, manuscript in circulated which Palace, tothe letters resignation his In public. Moreover, notonly Midhat Pa timeafter soon his resignation hisand to period out of office between 1875 and 1876. crisis. financial and subjects Christian rebels, the the deal with powers, the to measures taken the about He complained vizier. Similar to ideasthe of YoungOttomansthe and Islamic other his modernists of era, was supported by these softas.Pa Midhat influence. Russian andthe government the weaknessof the early May against Their eventualin strike on go to demandbegun already had professors their was of some and students to install theological The Midhat Pa non-Muslims. the of one of reiteration Nedim, and Mahmud and Sultan the of government wretched the specifically regimes, autocraticthe of problems the in empire, andthe races creeds of all assembly, representative consultative needa for wason urgent the manifesto of the mainemphasis on The March 9, 1876. ideas. MidhatPa honesty andprovincial good administration and was ready riskto allfor sake the of his Pa Midhatideas of constitutionalistthe Nedim supported Mahmud to Ottomans, badly affectedbytheeconomicand distress those opposed those New the MahmudAmbassador, Nedim. British The thepolicies of society seemed tooppose Davison, 1973: 318-319. ú a’s intensive endeavors to secure a constitution for the Ottoman Empire corresponded to forcorresponded secure aconstitution the Ottoman Empire intensiveto endeavors a’s ú a portrayed a dark picture of the international and internal situation of of empire. internal the situation a portrayedand international of adarkpicture the ú a took a took leadthe of an manifestosignedanonymous by‘the Muslim patriots’ 115 ú Hehad giventhesignals ofhis dissatisfaction hisduring a andHüseyinAvni,butalmost of all Ottoman groups tanzimat 42 mottos, the equality between Muslims and Muslims between equality the mottos, ú a, who had a reputation for a, whohada reputation ú a as grand ú a CEU eTD Collection Ideas withcontinued. Cevdet Hefellout Pa amongministers constitution of disputes the the articles of Duringwriting the process means wasbyno easy The 1876Constitution the forPa Midhat of process drafting inapproved meeting. this his The basicof draftwere on 15 July,1876. principles Sublime was atthe Porte convened gettriedhis to revised by constitutional accepted draft grandthe councilofnotables, which patriots in patriots While Istanbul. Midhat Pa Muslim of the themanifesto of publication the witnessed also June early The of State. 116 After the deposition of the sultan, Midhat Pa althoughitscoup, he reservation hadabout strong popularefficacy, demonstrations. or MidhatPa 1876, May, 30 on Abdülaziz Sultan of deposition the Until both. or sultan the of deposition the or regime, constitutional a either alternatives, possible two itrevealed problems, andexternal internal to solution As a sentiment. anti-Russian especially and patriotic the strengthened the demonstrations and the overthrow of Mahmud Nedim were crucial in the sense that they portfolio. as heshouldthat vizier.have been appointed Hethought grand The outcomes of Pa law. Islamic under legitimacy had and politics Islamic early Pa Midhat Mehmed Rü Almost one month after the issuance of the manifesto, Mahmud Nedim was replaced with ù  ú a wouldbe able tobe very influential on between clerics 1875 and 1876. erif erif Mardin, , (Syracuse, 2000), pp. 81-106. ú a thought that the consultative principle of government was an integral feature of was anintegral of government principle that theconsultative a thought ú di Pa di The Genesis ofYoungOttoman Thought. AStudy in the ModernizaitonTurkish of Political ú a attempted touseall carry a attempted both military eitherto his energy a through out ú a and Midhat Pa Midhat a and ú ú a was trying to maketo a was hisvoicetrying heardby he public,the a was again added to the ministry, though ministry,without the though to added a wasagain ú a, the famous historian, jurist and author of juristhistorian, famousa, the author of and the ú a was nominated the presidency of the Council 43 116 With these thoughts, Midhat ú a. CEU eTD Collection Pa leadership of grandvizier The continued Ignatiev. the under Midhat conference, negotiations While leftthe Balkan of powers on the issue. proposals European delegates the Ottoman the in the sense This 1876. wasmoreDecember, 23 on a coincidence promulgation constitution than the of that it providedThe Constantinople the Ottoman delegates (or Admiralty) a strong reason Conference not to accept coincided the with the official date of the Ministers officially refused to accept the decisions taken at the Constantinople Conference. at theConstantinople acceptthedecisions taken to Ministers officially refused constitution,Pa Midhat clause. accept this supposedly promulgate persons. Inorderto dangerous the constitution Midhat Pa exile to which Sultan article the the 13, allow an to clause minute, proposed additional last participate to their own government. totheirparticipate own can people which through mechanisms legislative the constitute to also but administration Midhat Pa to according words, other tanzimat 119 118 117 Pa Midhat Actually, totally. draft Constitutional Ottoman Civil Code and among the conservative men of turned into a mutual intomutual Pa a andfinallyturned Cevdet accusation Davison, 1973: 381. Davison, 1973: 379. Ortayl ú a declared that he opposed to the conference proposals and later on the Council of Council the on later and proposals conference the to heopposed that a declared he could hardly overlook him in the circumstances, might and use him. filibuster madman. and Abdülhamida was undoubtedly warya of Midhattoo, but brigand, a Midhat called had who Ignatyev, to blow a was appointment The international reputation as aweapon against the coming diplomatic conference. wantedthe helmofreform andtouse MidhatMidhat’s at asasymbol Õ , 1986:, 227. reformers because he was committed to the regime of constitutional monarchy. In regime of to the constitutional hewascommitted because reformers 118 After the Sultan Abdülhamid consented to the promulgation of the ú a was appointed as grand vizierDecember1876. on 19, Abdülhamid 117 ú a, the issue was not only to establish andfairlawful issuewas notonly a to a, the Also, chief palace secretary Küçük Said Pa 44 ú a was different from the first generation of generation first the from different was a ú tanzimat a withdrew his support from from hisa withdrew support the . Their political arguments political Their . 119 ú ú a, on the a hada to CEU eTD Collection 122 inand Otoman Turkish in1879. Askeri,Asaduryan Artin Matbaas The aim of such a campaign biography inin circleown biography somewhere the of that originated Midhat’s supporters Istanbul. was clearly “to help Constitutionalism. the Ottoman an praise pushto for a constitution, to parliament. He soughta and to make constitution written a use Empire, of theOttoman the of public problems the to interestsolutions right the find in the Eastern Question, as well as endeavored to who as asuperhero, Midhat and Hedepicted anti-Russian. and pro-Midhat was book biography entirely first Ottoman book-length vizier.His grand pro-Ottoman an of 200 pages in was Pacha` init `Midhat entitled book and early1877.Thisthe published Paris of over abook wrote writer, French Leaprofessional Duc, Leouzon time, same the About regime. and empire the peoples aconstitutional fusion of the heof a solution a offered He attributed Balkan the movementsseparatist toRussian influence As andbad government. well. as form in pamphlet and journal June, 1878,was heinwritten when exile.This was article in appearedimmediately French a and of in Future published Present the “The Turkey” and Past, against Russia, andpersonal contacts principally byinterviews. article, His entitled through against the Ottoman government, MidhatPa Ottomanagainst the government, mind he sent himfar from instead In of away center. Europe, the spreading propaganda Pa of Midhat course 121 Hans Georg Majer and Raoul Motika, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), 1995, p. 63. Statesmen: The Case of Pasha`, Midhat in Turkische Wirtschafts undSozialgeschichte von1071 bis 1920, ed.by already Leouzon’s inmentioned book.Roderic Davison, ‘The Beginning of BiographiesPublished of Ottoman were which Midhat, of views the of of some consisted also article The before. year the Midhat of biography 120 Pa Midhat in of Sultan’s perception hisrooted the dismissal of exile. Thereasons was dismissedMidhatfrom on grandvizierate February the into European 5, 1877and sent Davison, 1995: 61. 1995: Davison, Midhat Pa Davison states that the publisher of the pamphlet in Paris was the same man who published the Leouzon’s ú a, “Türkiye’ninMazisi ve ú a’s grand vizierate, the Sultan never felt at ease and for his peace of ease andfor hispeace feltat never theSultan vizierate, a’s grand Õ , Dersaadet 1326(1908-1909). Thisarticle wasEnglish1878 inin published ø stikbali”, Mütercimi Ahmed Refik, Tab- 120 In this article he set forth his views quite clearly. quite views his forth set he article this In 122 ú The publication of suggests process book the a used his influence to help the Ottoman helpcause influence histheOttoman to a used 45 The NineteenthCentury Õ Na ú iri Kitabhane-i ú a. In a. In the 121 ø slam ve in CEU eTD Collection . Istanbul in late 1878,and this tension Pa disqualified Midhat Midhat Pa when intensified him andAbdülhamid between controversy 123 owncareer”. further Midhat’s perhaps, to European opinion andany againstpower particularly great any Russian intervention, and influence bythe massacres, to Bulgarian aroused counter anti-Ottomansentimentthe Davison, 1995: 62-63. 46 123 Despite this campaign biography, the ú a from officesinstate end.the ú a backin was CEU eTD Collection Barbara Jelavich, (ArchonBook, USA), 1974, pp. 56-80. 124 of religion, race and class in society. In other words, itmeant an end to the regardless sultan the of all subjects for citizenship a common Ottomanism, of ideology the to rise gave centralization of favor in provinces Balkan and minorities the of Reconciliation the of legacies prominent the of one as administration in centralization of policy the followed They class. ruling the on limitations constitutional and sultan the Young the and lodged equality aclaimfor subjects thepoliticalTurks, of social among the intellectualsYoung Ottoman and alliesthirdgeneration, in successors their and political the includingPa of Thereformists Midhat secondgeneration, the rebellious peasants. reforms of the the whowereagainst groups, of asslanders taken independence were or autonomy securing the eventually require urgent social and political reform. Moreover, the effect of nationalisminstitutional reforms theystrove introduce forto theon benefitof autocratic ruling classwould Balkans.the They focused military on and administrative reforms. But, technicalthe and proposenot social inordertofightchanges imminentagainst emergence of nationalism in of the generation first the However, actions, in which intensiveapply of reforms weretaken previously. moderate place the subsequent outburst of social and economic crises led to the men of the The of Ottoman Empire. the of loss central provinces the aconsiderable The crisis entailed Stanford J. Shaw, “The Ottoman View of the Balkans”, millet system was disregarded. The political demands of the Balkan people such as such Balkan the of demands people Thepolitical disregarded. system was tanzimat . Also, for them Balkan nationalism was no more than the treason of CONCLUSION tanzimat 47 , like the traditionalist Ottoman reformers did reformers Ottoman traditionalist the like , The BalkansInTransition tanzimat millet , ed. by Charles and Charles by ed. , system. to start and tanzimat ú a the 124 . CEU eTD Collection individual rights, dutiesindividual and loyalty.rights, modern of be anewproviding citizenship community replacedwith concept would that MidhatPa that Orientalism.” “Ottoman it called Makdisi as empire, The same discourse was usedthe for a modernist transformation that with assurance practicein the Danube Province into put the modernism was Ottoman of the Arab periphery of the realized. was not ultimatethe aim dissolveof reform the to period, national Ottomanism, through difference andPa of mostbehindforce theMidhat projects driving reforms determinant Danube in Province included1864 the hope for Ottomanism. Thisideology was also the MidhatPa state. of the Ottoman Orientalism due to the fact that the former lacked the ethnic claim of superiority of “fusion”. modernism Ottoman the However, inDanube of differedfrom Province the development of Ottomanism ( the foster to was aspirations Christian assuring and suspicions Muslim allaying of way only possible mind the of were all one that They acceptable. claims not were irredentist Hümayun for the time, same the At pioneersnon-Muslims. the with primacy social and political their share to started of the reform periods, namely the The decomposition of the of The decomposition 126 169, Davison, 1982: 319-337. 125 the of re-organization and the dept Ottoman the of accumulation the itcaused since victory pyrrhic a was War Crimean the Empire, Ottoman the of men reformist the For Usama Makdisi, “Otoman Orientalism”, Misha Glenny, tanzimat of 1856, the Christians’ exploitation of their new social status to strengthen reforms would brought in the benefactions of modernity to all their subjects. ú a’s Ottoman Orientalism was represented the promise of imperial project of promise an the represented was Orientalism a’s Ottoman The Balkans 1804-1999 ú a’s appointment as a provincial administrator by the center tothe by center the administrator as aprovincial a’s appointment millet Osmanl system disquieted the Muslims due to the fact that they , (Granta Books, London), 2000,p.92. See also,Karpat, 1982: 141- American Historical Review 125 ÕOÕ Ottomanism emerged as a new ideological contour ideological emergedasanew Ottomanism k ). The identification with the with identification The ). 48 126 Hatt- And in this regard, Makdisi claims Makdisi regard, in this And , 107(2002), p. 768-796. ù Õ erif of of 1839 and the millet millet orreligious ú a. However system. Hatt- Õ CEU eTD Collection policies. They were unabledecide to whether they had a problem with the Bulgarians andon his governorship in the Danube Province. Therethe was a debate dominating the writings of Pa chance against the inexorable forces of national inexorable forces ofnational chance againstthe resurgence.” skillful administrator, “but128 someone, whose efforts his proof of anda bias anti-Bulgarian confessional law.of and rule the equality rejection of to strengthen the empire were his primary the They groups these rebellious arguments. dealings with argued that never stood a to therebellions of Bulgarian brigands in and1867 1868strengthenedideological their response Midhat’s Especially, it. implement to efforts Midhat’s or in general Ottomanism of Pa in Midhat accepting faced nationalist Bulgarians inthe difficulties originated Nationalist intellectuals Bulgarian were into divided groups intwo evaluatingMidhat Pa Midhat Pa establishment of the Bulgarian nation state amounted to the apogee of Bulgarian criticism of and he and sought todamage it in anyway could.“ (Petrov,he 2006: 21) age of the everywhere [nationalist] Slavists and Russian pawns; he considered them the most implacable enemies of the state; …he was seeing comparing the relative order and prosperity of the late the of andprosperity order comparing relative the 130 129 128 127 prevented the developmenthad rule of Ottoman the Balkanthat asserted society.which claims, nationalist The menBulgarian and of Orientalist modernismBalkans,vis-à-vis defend had the Ottoman the European itsto existence the in population non-Muslim majority its with contrary, the On another. over group one Petur Karapetrov wrote in 17. 2006: Petrov, Petrov, 2006:19-20. Petrov, 2006: 320. The narrative Bulgarian of years 1878portrayed victorious the after MidhatPa ú ayans a and his policies. that hadit.that preceded committees ú a’s polices, whether these policies were anti-Bulgarian, or not. It Bulgarska Sbirka 130 ; couldhe stand not Bulgarianthe Exarchate- itwas like a thorn in eyehis 127 in 1899 in that“Midhat Pa 49 tanzimat tanzimat ú a regarded Bulgarians all as Pan- period with the anarchical with the period 129 retorted such claims by suchclaims retorted The years after the after years The tanzimat principle ú a as a ú a’s ú a CEU eTD Collection would also allow the government to divide and rule the Christians. However, Midhat Pa that of Bulgarians the infavor to comea solution upwith Porte the at used hisinfluence also the weaken slowly would Patriarchate from the Church Bulgarian independent an in1870. Theideawasthat Exarchate states that Petrov andBulgarians. Greeks between the for abalancedpolitics strive 131 minded reformistthe Pa undermine As Ottomanism began the to middle of this conflict.When he wasAs Ignatiev,a governor in Midhatthe Danube Pa Province,purpose. Midhat Pa Ottoman-Russian War of 1877-78. Hesought alone torealize such a hugeimperialistic not only Greek,buttruly as ecumenical Ignatiev patriarch. staked hisclaims during the ecumenical in patriarch the natural should serve incapital Constantinople Constantinople, itsby formed with Bismarck) German Confederation North tothe union’ an ‘eastern (similar couldin establish he theRussians claimed that case Furthermore, dispute. the complicated this Patriarchate, the theinterests of theGreeksand oppose notto sensitive enough Ignatiev was of Constantinople. patriarchate churchfrom the Bulgarian the of separation in in wasinstrumental caseof andGreeks.Ignatiev the the Bulgarians accomplishing especially mattered, of issuesgreatly Balkans the church the ofpolitical conflict, As objects Petrov, 2006: 9. clerical elites of both communitiesengaged in struggle”. skillful such diplomaticof maneuvering, the Pa result As a support. his of indications cryptic or vague conflict of the and even-handed arbiter of issue,the yet privately managed to give key players on both sides governor“as he largely succeeded in creating a public image ofhimself asadisinterested ú as, including supported establishmentthe as, Midhat, of Bulgarian the ú a was able to remain onexcellentwith terms laythe and millet millet system in system Ottomanism.Ignatiev favorof was 50 system in the second half of the 19 ú a’s efforts on the church dispute were to 131 ú a was found himself in the th century, ú a’s CEU eTD Collection 1986, p. 173. 133 132 From Pa beginning,Midhatthe Pa Midhat space to find an answer the question- what if the Ottoman Empire actually did collapse? open left communities an and Christian between the tension the increased issuein general it would strengthen the influence of the administration. But the Greek-BulgarianPa Midhat Church populations, Bulgarian and Greek the both on hierarchy Orthodox of the influence the undermine wouldit As from Ignatiev. very different issues, was andmotivationfindoutlook the church to asolution asitto dispute, happened inmany other protecting non-Muslims, the separatist movements caused a conservative reaction inmovements reaction public caused aconservative separatist protecting non-Muslims, the Although inOttoman reforms an 1839 and1856tried to constitute empire including and in movements Balkans. uprisingthe nationalist the 1868-1873asareaction to period numberideology regards of elites. of prestigious of Ottoman This a quite grew out the a reprisal of non-Muslim tothe groups empire,whichthe wereunsatisfied in unruly and the struggles, and unsurprisingly paved the wayfor Pan-Islamism. Basically, Pan-Islamismwas generalthe tension confessional wereamong different entangledgroups innationalistic crisis,Eastern and Great tothe was theprologue in which Herzegovina, situation worsening failed. HewronglybelievedOttomanism that wouldbe solutionthe of these The problems. Roderic Davison, “Midhat Pa Glenny,2000: 115, 124. Could disagreements among the powers stop the threat? and greatest the military dangerwas Russia. How could the danger be avoided? independence and sovereignty of the empire maintained? 3) The major opponent intervened in Ottoman How affairs. could such intervention be avoided and the reasons, selfish for often more but reasons humanitarian for sometimes justice, good and government be 2) greatsufficient? The powers of Europe, equality, Would saved? itbe How could subjects. its of many among nationalism 1) The empire was anon-national, ormulti-national state in an ofgrowingage ú a faced three major problems of the Ottoman Empire and its foreign relations. foreign its and Empire Ottoman the of problems major three faced a ú a and OtomanForeign Relations” ú a strove finding for solutions tothese buthe questions, 51 The Journalof Otoman Studies 133 ú a thought that thought a V., ø stanbul, 132 CEU eTD Collection 136 Pan-Ottomanism. (Türköne, 1991:211) 219. Some authors claimed that the most influential way against Russian Pan-Slavism was not Pan-Islamism, but 135 Siyasi Dü arrested. He was charged with complicity in the alleged murder of Sultan Hewascharged alleged murderof in deposed arrested. the complicity the with of governor provincethe of inIzmir 1880 andstayedthere until 1881. In 1881, he was replaced the and 1880,then between of of 1878 Syria was made province the governor empireinlate 1878.Evenbe hereluctant to assignedthough he wasold asagovernor, and From beginningend. he Hewas return of wasinexile the 1877 allowed to Europe. to the The strife between Midhat Pa Midhat between The strife Midhat Pa Midhat Pa Midhat with relation his disrupted Pan-Islamism of ideology the to Abdülhamid of adherence The Ottomanism. of 134 Pa which Midhat distinguished that the revival of Islam could be saved by the Islamic unity. itinternal andwas In behind uneasiness of affairs. thought regard, this discontentment the notion basic of reason the was non-Muslims, the to given were concessions superfluous that In feelingaddition, the negligence the of dominated Muslimsin who Rumelia, also thought liberty and equality within the Ottoman nation, atleast among Muslim subjects. a fervent buthe to patriotica supporterof Ottomanconcept,struggle turned for other the Nam of discourses in the as Pan-Islamism, to a turn to led voices heard.During increasing 1870s,the the effectsof Pan-Slavism (and Pan-Germanism) tomake of started their Pan-Islamism supporters inwith the andthis, to thereforms, dealing prudently approached men, who hereby conservative of the Europe, opinion. Theopponents ø Mümtazer Türköne, Selçuk Ak slam Ansiklopedisi, Cilt: 30, (Türkiye Diyanet Vakf ú ünce, Cilt1, ( ú a’s failure during the reign Abdülhamid.of ú in Somel,in “Osmanl ø Siyasi leti ú im Yay ú a in the long run. This was one of the fundamental reasons of reasons fundamental the of one was This run. long the in a ø deoloji Olarak Õ Reform Ça Õ ú nlar ú a and the Sultan also brought Midhat Pa Midhat brought a and Sultan also the a from idea the a from washis Abdülhamid Sultan to devotion the Õ , ø stanbul), 2001, pp. 88-116. ÷Õ ø slamc nda Osmanl ÕOÕ÷Õ 52 Õ , ø n Do stanbul), 2005, p. 10. ÕFÕOÕ ÷Xú k Dü 136 u , ( Õ ú ø k Kemal. Nam k Kemal. üncesi (1839-1913)”, Modern Türkiye’de leti 135 ú im Yay . One of characters, One main of the Õ nlar Õ ú Õ , a’s life to a tragic a’s life to k Kemal had been had Kemal k ø stanbul), 1991, p.204, 134 CEU eTD Collection hopes and interests inAsia. hopes interests and Russian Empire soughttore-examine Russia’s foreign policy foundand in asolution their itsWarin andpolitical harsh the outcomes, Russian the (1853-56) Crimean defeat Eurasian images. A beliefingrowing benefits Russia’s in Asiareinforced thisimage. Due to in Asia in interests Russian wrapping at aimed policy foreign the in Russia, feelings national rising the toward powers Western of the approach suspicious the to asareaction Also, in Asia. interests Russian advance to was policy foreign this of manifestations the of One tension. toreleasethe path anunforeseen followed affairs foreign the crisis, of moment the In crisis. the overcome to policy a conscious havemay not followed anew autocracy The consensus. create and internal stability establish tomeetnationalists, challenge in of the order neededurgently foreign successful was policy unrest, international display of power would satisfy the nationalist aspirations of Russians. A foreign pursuit the moderate of disrupted and the Facedbyinternal policy. weakness 138 Russia, Volume II, Imperial Russia, 1689-1917 137 and adventurism. for aggression a reputation despite diplomacy, conservative essentially rule characterized duringPower 19 the Great asa European status won Russian foreign motivatedpolicy was particularly by needthe tokeep empire’sthe hard- Arabia. On May 8, 1884he was strangled by soldiersthe of Abdülhamid.Sultan Abdülaziz andsenttoharsh in1876.Hewastried,Taif in convicted at a fortress exile in Political Quarterly ofRussia”, Case The Fatherland: of the Image Geopolitical “The Kristof, K. D. Ladis lies.” Europe, argued Gorchakov,1856 there by is thea vast Foreignfield of activities139 Minister openPublishers to Ltd. NY), her 1987,of p. in64. Asia;A.M. it isGorchakov. there that Russia’s Whilefuture there is a list of consequence that Russia can do in Dietrich Geyer, Dietrich David Schimmelpenninck VanDerOye, “RussianForeign Policy:1815-1917”, “The first official document signaling a reorientation of Russia’s policies was a memorandum prepared in , Vol.20, No.4, (Dec., 1967), p.946. Russian Imperialism The Interaction of Domestic and Foreign Policy 1860-1914 137 However, theinternal of crisis Russia during the 1860sand 1870s 139 This does not mean that the Russians abandoned the idea of , Cambridge University Press,2006, p.554. 53 138 th century. The final century of Tsarist The Cambridge History of TheWestern , (Berg CEU eTD Collection this ideology. this actions sakeof for the still he precipitous ideology. But avoided well-targeted and coherent of the Moscow Slavonic Benevolent in participated 1870sin the movement. As Petersburg Pan-Slav a memberof the St. section Committee, IgnatievChernyaev, who werethe influential in figures Russianexpansion into Central Asia, also thought that Pan-Slavism men and that Itissignificant resurgenceof like Ignatiev empire. to the contribute the was a inAsiaforward policy would Russia’s quite convinced that was respectively. Ignatiev signs of policythis in revealed of Treaties the Aigun and Peking, signedon1858and 1860, 143 142 141 140 to take an active role in the Balkans for “theIgnatiev, as Porte” Tsar’sMachiavellianthe thehim,to envoy Geyer named decisive was benefit of Russia in consultation with the Pan- himself to the Russian course in both Europe and Asia. Europe. inEastern demands and Southern the Russian also empire guarantee becauseapowerful would Russian Russian ideologies there. interests commercial protect theRussia’s militaryin to order Ignatiev necessity operations of urged the from region, the his In dispatches Foreign of Ministry. the Department to the Asiatic Ignatiev withwas entrusted a mission Bukharato and Khivain 1858 before his appointment assigned to it amission in Europe. still autonomy spiritual and separateness Russia’s stressed who Those preference. first a not itAsia, was eventhough turningalienation Russia’sadventurous to from Westcaused the Russian defeat, Crimean After Europe. Eastern in the mission Slav their of primacy the Geyer, 1987: 94. Geyer, 1987: 72-73. Geyer, 1987: 91-92. Kristof,1967: 947. 142 Russian colonial by expansion was supported Pan-Slavic andimperial 141 Ignatiev pursed the policy of enthusiastic imperialism. The imperialism. enthusiastic of policy the pursed Ignatiev 140 143 As having an imperial vision, Ignatiev devoted Ignatiev vision, imperial an having As 54 CEU eTD Collection affairs. in independent course 1870s caused a in duality perplexing the policy of Russian foreign Russia. of protection the under Empire theOttoman of provinces of of establishmenta confederation the Rumelian proposed containing rule. Healso Ignatiev supporter of politicalwas astrong of Balkanfrom the freedom Ottoman the Slavs government, the defeat of French did not give Russia an opportunity to unite all Slavs. Russian of expectations to Contrary Bismarck. the of support the with Treaty the of Russia gained some modest acquisitions, such as the renouncement of the Black Sea clauses 1867.In1871, endthe non-interferenceOctober at of of declared principle Gorchakov the to Ignatiev, this would groundsfor provide denouncing thefor Treaty However, Russia. inmight Porteand in havein ageneral Balkansagainstthe the Crete sparked 1867-9 revolt insurrection The anti-Ottoman Petersburg. of itmain concerns St. was oneof as the Ignatiev, 60, 68. Russia, Volume II, Imperial Russia,1689-1917 146 145 144 Gorchakov and Shuvalov Congresshappen. aboutthe in he when Hewasinformed hisfamily was with Kiev. were the Russiannot itdid but treaty, peace the of negotiations Berlinfordelegates the to be sent to expected Ignatiev in the Congress. Shuvalov was welland the supporters of the status quo within the Foreign Ministry. imperial vision his between disjuncture in aprofound hislife rooted decades of several last of course in the empire the of politics actual the from isolation His Balkans. in the failure Russia’s the behind reasons main the of one was Department Asiatic subordinate nominal beginningthe inhis of post Istanbul. Slavicby movement cooperating with Prince A.I.Bariatinskii, Caucasus since Viceroy of David Schimmelpenninck VanDerOye, “RussianForeign Policy:1815-1917”, HR. SYS. Dosya No:183, Gömlek No:2. Geyer, 1987: 66. 146 The lack of cooperation and coordination between the Foreign Ministry and its and Ministry Foreign the between coordination and cooperation of lack The 144 , Cambridge, University 2006: 573;MecKenzie,Press, 1994:59- Revision of Treaty of Paris was on the agenda of 55 145 Nevertheless, his semi- his Nevertheless, The Cambridge History of CEU eTD Collection supported supported Ignatiev’s appointmentby sendingto Alexander adispatch III: Ignatievof appointment the behind statesman The II. Alexander of assassination the after Interior was Pobedonostsevof Minister asthe Loris-Melikov M.T. replaced Ignatiev Interior. of Minister as the his post people. However, it was his reputation for liberalism which caused Ignatiev’s dismissal from whoin Russia. liberalism for was an wonhima reputation states and Balkan Bulgarian of creation to the attachment Ignatiev’s opponent of Loris-Melikov. Pobedonostsevmission. Ignatiev’s to opposition Shuvalov’s proves Ignatiev, of opponent and great the (1871-1879) Minister Austria-Hungarian Foreign Andrassy,whowas the 150 entitled “the RussianMr. Gladstone”. pp.259-269. 149 148 Modern History 147 revolutionary. Pobedonostev,For Ignatiev’s tothe equivalent plan of amounted Pan-Slavism refuted his nationalism as therecurrence and asdangerously Slavophile proposal of for a national assembly of the call aplan presented Alexander III to to when of In 1882, Ignatiev as theInterior, Minister Pan-Slav pressures. histo resistance provincesand aswell andPoland, Balticthe against forces directing andcentralist nationalist to his known for reaction Heilbronner, 1961:388. in chapter Stead’s see Gladstone, and Ignatiev between of resemblance points the For Weeks, 1979:D1062. A reinterpretation”, Berlin: of Congress the and Shuvalov “Peter Jr., Weeks, G. Richard the ordinary people ordinary the enjoys agood reputation name among elementsthe healthy his of the and Russian population- soul, Russian a and instincts Russian healthy has still Ignatiev amused. merely is create is an absurdity. Europe is not, as Gorchakov thinks, inflamed with anger, it to ittear upunder eyesof the all Europe.Bulgaria The which Ignatiev wished to stupidity that we could have made. The Theend of the storySan is that we Stefanoare compelled pact was a misfortune for us, not for you. It was the greatest , Vol. 51, No.1, (March, 1979), p. D1058. 148 149 . 150 Yet, he liberal was both known as and conservative byvarious zemsky sobors , the Tsarunder, the influence the of Pobedonostev 56 147 Truth About Russia Truth About What he said to The Journal of , CEU eTD Collection 152 151 in foreign affairs. This was the end of Ignatiev’s career as aminister. diplomatic career: “Peking and San andStefano”. “Peking San career: diplomatic his in names death inscribed in his 1908.Two summary thevery epitaph his were good of until in retirement lived but council state the of member a as he remained work, ministerial Ignatieff, 1987:83. Stead, 1888:298. 152 57 151 After his oneyear After CEU eTD Collection ø Baykal, Bekir S Bekir Baykal, Balkans InTransition Arnakis, George G., “The Role of Religion in the Development of Balkan Nationalism”, Uluslararas Akgün, Seçil, “MidhatAkgün, Pa Seçil, Secondary Sources Tuna Vilayet Nizamnamesi ( HR. SYS.183/2 80/15 Y.EE. BOA, I.D.H. No: 38984. BOA, I.M.M.S. No: 1245. N.P. Ignatiev, N.P. Kitabhane-i Midhat Pa Primary Sources stanbul),1964. ú a, “Türkiye’nin Mazisi ve Õ ø MidhatPa slam ve Askeri, Artin Asaduryan Matbaas Zapiski (1875-1878) Õ tk Õ , , ed. by Charles and Barbara Jelavich, (Archon Book, USA), 1974. Midhat Pa ú a Semineri ú a’n the Law the Law Danube Province of Õ n Kurdun ú a, Siyasive , (Izdatelstvona Otechestvennia Sophia), Front, 1986. , TTK, Ankara, 1986. BIBLIOGRAPHY ÷ u Memleket Sand u Memleket ø stikbali”, Mütercimi Ahmed Refik, Tab- 58 ø dari dari ù Õ ahsiyeti , Dersaadet 1326 , Dersaadet (1908-1909). ) Õ klar Õ : Ziraat Bankas Ziraat : , (Ziraat Bankas Õ ’n Õ Õ Yay n Kökeni”, n Õ Na Õ nlar The ú iri Õ , CEU eTD Collection Erickson, John, Erickson, ed. by Hans Georg Majer and Raoul Motika, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), 1995. CasePasha”,in of Midhat WirtschaftsTurkische undSozialgeschichtevon 1071 bis 1920, The Statesmen: Ottoman Biographies of Published of “The Beginning H., Davison, Roderic Fadeeva, I. E., Empire”, in Empire”, Glenny, Misha, 1914 Dietrich, Geyer, Studies “MidhatPa H., Davison, Roderic Lewis, Vol.1, Homes & Meier Publishers, NY, 1982. Davison, Roderic H., “The H., Roderic Davison, Davison, Roderic H., NY), 2007. Oxford, Crampton, R.J., that didthat Explode”,not A Bomb SeaQuestion, 1866: Russian andthe Black W.,“Prince Gorchakov Clark,Chester London, NY,1982. Ottoman Empire: eds.BenjaminLands, Vol.1., TheCentral andBernard Lewis, Braude Braude, Benjamin,“ , (Berg , (Berg Publishers NY), Ltd. 1987. V., ø Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire Christians intheOttoman andJews stanbul,1986. Midhat Pasha Jizn iDeyatel’nost Panslavism The Balkans1804-1999 Bulgaria Russian Imperialism The Interaction of DomesticRussian ImperialismThe andForeignInteraction of Policy 1860- Foundation Myths of the Millet System Myths oftheMillet Foundation Reform in Reform the Ottoman Empire 1856-1876 The AmericanHistoricalReview, , The Oxford History of Modern Europe, (Oxford University Press, , (The Historical Association, London), 1964. Millets ú a and Otoman Foreign Foreign Relations” Otoman a and as Agents of Change in the Nineteenth Century Ottoman Century Nineteenth in the Change of Agents as , (Granta Books,, (Granta London),2000. 59 , ø zdatel’stvo Nauka,Moskva, 1977. , eds. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Vol. 48, No.1,Vol. 48, (Oct. 1942). ” in Christians and Jews in the Jews and Christians in ” , (Gordian1973. Press, NY), The Journal of Otoman of The Journal CEU eTD Collection Latimer, Elizabeth W., Elizabeth Latimer, Western Political Quarterly Kristof, Ladis K. D., “The Geopolitical Image of the Fatherland: The Case of Russia”, Columbia University 1979. Press), East Central Europe. Levy,Avigdor, "Ottoman Attitudes to the Rise Balkanof Nationalism.", Pacificthe Honolulu, Hawaii),2002. Ignatiev’s Count Komsalova,“Bulgarians Rumyana, and Eastern the Crisis in Greeks during (1875-1878) Yay State in the Post-Ottoman Era”, in Era”, in State Post-Ottoman the Kocaba Benjamin BraudeandBernard Lewis,Homes & Vol.1, Meier1982. Publishers, NY, Karpat, Kemal H., “ ø ø÷ Ignatieff, Michael, Modern History Loris-Melikov”, of Plan and“Alexander the Reform Heilbronner, III Hans, Enstitüsü Dergisi, Göyünç, Nejat, “Midhat Pa “Midhat Nejat, Göyünç, nalc demir,Ulu Õ nlar Õ k, Halil, k, ú , Süleyman, Õ , ø stanbul),1986. ÷ , KuleliVakas Tanzimat veBulgarMeselesi , Vol.33, No.4, (Dec., 1961) Notes XII, The RussianAlbum Millets Vol.eds. Bela 1, and K.Kiraly Rothenberg, Gunther E. York: (New ”, Avrupa Türkiyesi’nin Kayb ø Russia and Turkey in the Nineteenth Century Russia andTurkey in the stanbul, 1982. Études Balkaniques , Vol.20, No.4, (Dec., Vol.20,1967). , and Nationality: The Roots of the Incongruity of Nation and Õ Hakk ú a’n Õ n Ni n Õ nda BirAra , (Penguin Books,London),1987. Christians andJews intheOttoman Empire ú Valili , (Eren Yay , No.4, 2005. 60 úWÕ ÷ i Hakk rma, (TTK, Ankara), (TTK, rma, 1937. Õ veBalkanlarda Panslavism Õ nlar Õ nda Notlar ve Belgeler”, ve Notlar nda Õ , ø stanbul), 1992. , (University Press of War and Societyin The Journal of The Journal , (Vatan , eds. , Tarih The CEU eTD Collection Seton-Watson, Hugh, Seton-Watson, Üniversitesi Saray,“Kont Mehmet, Ignatiev’in Buhara veHive’yi Ziyareti (1858)”, Bariatinskii(Mouton&Co, 1857-1864, Paris The Hague),1966. Rieber, Alfred J., The Politics ofAutocracy,Letters of AlexanderPrince II to A.I. University Press, NY),1956. The Petrovich,Emergence Michael Boro, of (ColumbiaRussian Panslavism 1856-1870, Unpublished1864-1868, PhDThesis,University, Princeton 2006. September Petrov, Milen V., “ Reform, 1864-1868, Petrov, Milen V., “Everyday Forms of Compliance: Subaltern Commentaries on Ottoman Uluslararas Ortayl Review Onou, Alexander, “The Memoirs of Count N. Ignatyev1872 (iii)”, A., Thomas Meininger, Turkish PoliticalIdeas Mardin, Mardin, Makdisi, Usama, “Otoman Orientalism”, College1994. Brace USA), (Harcourt Publishers, MacKenzie, David, , (Arno Press, INC., NY), 1970. Õ , , 11(1932/1933). ù ø erif, lber, “Midhat Pa lber, “Midhat , Õ MidhatPa Edebiyat Fakültesi, Tarih Ara The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought. A StudyintheModernizationof The GenesisofYoungOttomanThought. Tanzimat Imperial Dreams &HarshImperial Dreams Tsarist Realities: ForeignPolicy, 1815-1917 Society for ComparativeStudySociety for ofSocietyandHistory The Russian 1801-1917 Empire , (Syracuse, 2000). ú a Semineri Ignatiev and the Establishment of the Bulgarian Ignatiev andtheEstablishmentof Exarchate 1864- For the Countryside : Midhat Pa :Midhat Countryside For the ú a’n Õ n Vilayet Yönetimindeki Kadrolar Yönetimindeki n Vilayet , TTK, Ankara, 1986. American Historical Review úWÕ rma Merkezi 61 , Oxford University 1988. Press, , ø stanbul, 1993. ú a and the Vilayet of Danube, of Vilayet a and the Slavonic andEastEuropean , 107(2002). Õ , 2004. vePolitikas ø stanbul Õ ”, , CEU eTD Collection Journal ofModern History Wren, Melvin C., “Pobedonostsev and Russian influence in Balkans,the 1881-1888”, Journal ofModern History A reinterpretation”, Berlin: of Congress the and Shuvalov “Peter G., Richard Jr. Weeks, ø Türköne, Mümtazer, Türköne, Sumner, B.H., 1932/1933. Sumner, B.H., “Ignatyev at Constantinople, I”, Constantinople, at “Ignatyev B.H., Sumner, Papers Strong, J.W.,“The Khiva Mission Ignat’ev’s to andBukharain 1858”, University Press,1968. D., Mihailo Stojanovich, Stead, William T., Modern Türkiye’de Siyasi Dü Reform Reform Before 1876”, Movement Shaw, Stanford J., “ The Central Legislative Councils in the Nineteenth Century Ottoman Shaw, Stanford J., “The Shaw, Balkans”, the Ottoman J., View Stanford of January No.I., 1970. Somel, Ak Selçuk Volume II,(Cambridge, London, NY:Cambridge University Press), 1977. & Kural Shaw, J. Ezel Shaw, Stanford Charles and Barbara Jelavich, (Archon Book, USA), 1974. stanbul),1991. , XVII/2-3, 1975., XVII/2-3, Russia andtheBalkans1878-1880 Truth About Russia ú in, “Osmanl Siyasi , Vol. 19, No.2, (June, 1947) , Vol. 51, No.1, (March, 1979) The Great Powers andtheBalkans,1875-1878 ú ø ünce, Cilt1, ( deoloji Olarak Õ Reform Reform Ça International Journal of Middle East StudiesInternational Middle East Journal of , (Cassell, London), 1888. History of the OttomanEmpireandModernTurkey, History of ø leti 62 ÷Õ ú nda Osmanlnda ø im Yay , (The Clarendon 1937. Press, Oxford), slamc Slavonic andEastEuropean Review ÕOÕ÷Õ Õ nlar The Balkans In TransitionThe BalkansIn n Do ÕFÕOÕ Õ , ø stanbul),2001. k Dü ÷Xú u ú , ( , üncesi (1839-1913)”, üncesi ø Canadian Slavonic leti ú im Yay im , Cambridge , Vol.1., , ed. by Õ nlar , 11, The The Õ , CEU eTD Collection ø I.A. Efron , Entsiklopedicheskii Reprintnoe Vosproizvodenie : Slovar Encyclopedias University Press, 2006. Russia, VolumeII,ImperialCambridge Russia, Historyof 1689-1917 Van Der“Russian Oye, DavidSchimmelpenninck, Foreign 1815-1917”, Policy: slam Ansiklopedisi, Cilt: 30, (Türkiye Diyanet Vakf ( Moskva :Terra), 1990. Moskva :Terra), 63 Õ , ø stanbul), 2005. ø zdaniia, Vol: 24, F.A. Brokgauz - F.A.zdaniia, Brokgauz 24, Vol: , Cambridge The