CHAPTER IV

THE BULGARIAN EXARCHATE AND THE PORTE

A difficult and little-understood problem—Bulgaria the “dark horse” of the Peninsula—An explanation of the question between Bulgaria and Turkey—The Bulgarian Church and the Imperial Firman—The present position of the Exarchate—Europe should listen to the Bulgarian demand—Chats with Macedonian orphans—Their terrible stories.

The question of the Bulgarian Exarchate and the Porte is of paramount importance in Bulgaria at the present moment—a very difficult problem which the Government have to face.

So little is it understood in England, even by those professing to be _au courant_ with the Balkan question, that I may perhaps be pardoned if I endeavour to render the situation intelligible. “What does Bulgaria want?” is the question so very often asked. What she really wants, and what are her aims, will, I hope, be shown in the following pages.

Bulgaria, it must always be remembered, is with Servia, the coming mistress of the Balkans. She is the “dark horse” of the Peninsula. Her power is admitted, but the extent of her force cannot be gauged. One thing is certain, that the present Government being an essentially strong one, and Dr. Stancioff, the Foreign Minister, a man of action, Bulgaria will no longer sit still and allow her people in Macedonia to be decimated as they now are daily.

In view of this, therefore, it will perhaps be of interest to explain impartially at some little length the question which it is feared must, ere long, bring Turkey and Bulgaria face to face.

Ever since the liberation of Bulgaria up to the present moment the Bulgarian Exarchate has led a perturbed existence.

As long ago as the Russo-Turkish War it had to undergo serious trials, the Exarch being obliged to recall the Bulgarian bishops from the Macedonian diocese. When, after the Treaty of Berlin, he attempted to restore them to their former sees and to complete the organisation of the Bulgarian Church—in accordance with the Imperial Firman of May 16, 1870—by establishing a Synod and a Mixed Council, the Exarch received in 1883 from the Turkish Minister of Justice the following significant answer:—

“When we determine to grant you a status in the _vilayets_, then only we shall consider the matter of your administration.”

So that, after an existence of only three years, the Bulgarian Exarchate found its right of having a status in the _vilayets_ put in question. This, however, did not discourage the Exarch. On the contrary, he redoubled his efforts. Relying upon the Imperial Firman, and assisted by the Bulgarian Government, he succeeded in winning for the Exarchate an official status in Macedonia, insisting at the same time on the formation of a Synod and a Mixed Council, attached to the Exarchate.

At the present day the authority of the Exarchate in Macedonia extends over seven dioceses, namely, Uskub, Ochrida, Debr, Monastir, Veless, Nevrokop, and Stroumitza. In addition to these, there are still ten bishoprics which, contrary to the Firman, remain vacant, because the Sultan refuses to grant the indispensable _berats_. During the period referred to, the Exarchate was also deprived of its right of representation at Sketcha and Malgara (_vilayet_ of Adrianople), whose religious communities were suspended in 1897 by the Grand Vizier Rifaat Pasha. The Bulgarian chapel at Sketcha remains to this day under seals placed by the Imperial authorities, and consequently inaccessible to the spiritual needs of the Bulgarian population in that place.

The question of the Mixed Council and the Synod still remains open. The solution of this question is of supreme moment to the Exarchate and to the Bulgarian Government. This is due to the position and importance of the religious communities in the Turkish Empire.

For the better understanding of the bearing of the issues involved, it will be perhaps necessary to refer to the history of the Turkish Empire and its attitude towards Bulgaria.

As is well known, instead of trying to assimilate the Christian nations which they had conquered, the Turks always considered themselves masters of those whom they had vanquished. Their system of government in this respect is, of course, in perfect agreement with the spirit of their religion. The Koran subdivides all countries into two distinct groups: first those belonging to Islam, and secondly those under the domination of the giaours (infidels), with whom Islam was in a state of permanent war. The true believers, the followers of the Prophet, were declared rulers of the infidels. These purely theocratic principles of State organisation form, until this day, the basis of the Ottoman Empire.

As exponents of these principles, the Osmanlis did not attempt, after the conquest of Byzantium, to impose on their new subjects the Turkish State institutions or civil laws. Although despised and humiliated, the _rayas_ continued to enjoy privileges which, in many respects, remind one of those subsequently granted by the capitulations to the foreign Christians. The place of the rulers of the conquered nations was now occupied by the representatives of their Church. As an instance, Mohammed II., conqueror of Constantinople, conferred upon the Patriarch of Constantinople the title of Miletbashi (Chief of the Nation), and entrusted to him the administration of the secular and spiritual interests of his flock. These same prerogatives were also granted to the Bulgarian Patriarchs of Tirnovo and Ochrida, as representatives of the Bulgarian nation. The spiritual leaders of the conquered races delegated, in their turn, part of their attributes to their inferiors—bishops and priests.

In this way, the clergy formed a body of functionaries invested with large administrative and judicial powers. Every religious community was entrusted with the repartition of the State taxes among the members of the community, and was responsible for their payment into the State Exchequer. In a word, the spiritual head of a Christian race was at the same time its civil representative before the Turkish authorities. As regards the Bulgarian nation, this mission was confided, down to the year 1770, to its Patriarchs—at first, to the Patriarchs of Tirnovo and Ochrida, and, later on, to that of the latter place—until the abolition of the Patriarchate of Ochrida, which was brought about by the intrigues of the Greeks.

The fact remains that during several centuries the Christians in the Turkish Empire—and among them the Bulgarians—have, owing to this peculiarity of the Turkish State policy, enjoyed a relative independence, and in this way have been able to preserve their nationality, language, and customs. These exceptional historical circumstances explain at the same time why, among these Christians, the sentiment of patriotism has been transformed into an attachment to their religious communities and their national Church.

This sentiment of patriotism and spiritual consciousness, which, owing to the oppression exercised by the Greek clergy, after the year 1770 had weakened to the extent of national self-forgetfulness and identification with the Greeks, awakened once more among the Bulgarians during the second half of last century. It acquired great force in the course of the struggle for the restoration of the ancient national Church. This new struggle began at the time of the Tanzimat, a period when the Porte had to fight against the growing omnipotence of the Patriarchate, which was threatening the very foundations of the State. It had, as its legal support, the Hatti-Houmayoun of 1856, which reverted to the historical rights of all religious communities. The second part of Section II. of this Act runs as follows:—

“Chaque communauté Chrétienne ou d’autre rite non-musulman sera tenue, dans un délai fixé et avec le concours d’une commission formée _ad hoc_ dans son sein, de procéder, avec ma haute approbation et sous la surveillance de ma Sublime Porte, à l’examen de ses immunités et privilèges et d’y discuter et soumettre à ma Sublime Porte les réformes exigées par le progrès des lumières et du temps.”

Progress, as well as the State interests of the Empire at that time, required the administrative separation of the Bulgarian Church from the Patriarchate, and its endowment with a special chief and clergy. It is interesting to note that, in this struggle of the Sublime Porte with the Patriarchate for the denationalisation of the Christian communities—which had for its consequence the weakening of the Patriarchate and the restriction of its privileges—the Bulgarian nation acted as allies of the Empire, with “the high approval of the Sultan” and “under the control of the Sublime Porte.” Thanks mainly to this alliance and to this struggle against the Patriarchate in favour of the Bulgarian nation, the Patriarchate was considerably weakened through the Organic Statute of 1862, while the Bulgarian Church was restored in virtue of the Firman of 1870.

With the Bulgarian Church restored, it was necessary, in accordance with the Imperial Firman, that it should be organised after the pattern of the Eastern Orthodox Church, of which it formed a branch, without in any case departing from its canons. The Exarchate, as its highest administrative body, was organised on such close lines with the Patriarchate, that its Organic Statute is, in greater part, nothing but a reproduction of that of the Patriarchate in 1862, which, in its turn, is based on the principles laid down by the Hatti-Houmayoun.

In view of all this, it must be admitted that to-day the struggle—or rather the insistence of the Exarchate for the speedier organisation of a Synod and a Mixed Council, forming part of itself—is only a just and legal claim of the rights and privileges sanctioned by the Firman of 1870. It should be clearly understood that the Bulgarian Exarchate does not ask for any new privileges; all that it demands is the restoration of the Synod and the Mixed Council as they existed before the Russo-Turkish War. Surely this is but a very natural demand! The question concerns two administrative bodies, with attributes strictly defined by the canons of the Church, as well as by the statute of the Exarchate and the Imperial Firman, and which cannot be delegated to anyone else, but must be exercised by the Synod and the Mixed Council. To the Synod are reserved all questions of the _forum ecclesiasticum_, while the mission of the Mixed Council is to look after the schools, the civil administration, and the organisation of the Bulgarian nationality. The Mixed Council forms at the same time the highest judicial body in civil cases between Bulgarians—the mixed courts being reserved for civil cases between Mohammedans and Christians, as well as for commercial and criminal cases without any distinction of religion. This brief mention of the attributes of the Synod and of the Mixed Council is surely sufficient to show the very urgent need of their speedy restoration and organisation.

The needs of the Church and of the community have greatly increased; they are no longer what they used to be thirty years ago, and cannot be left disregarded. The requirements of the population and of the times give rise to fresh questions, while on the other hand the Imperial Ottoman Government comes every day with fresh demands to the Exarchate, which shares in the administration of the country, as an auxiliary organ.

In these present-day times of trial the Bulgarian population in Macedonia, broken up, persecuted, and outlawed as it is, turns for help and protection to its legal head and protector, the Exarch. The Exarch is, however, helpless, because personally he has no authority to decide such questions as fall within the competence of the Mixed Council. His only rôle in such matters is to act as an intermediary between the Council and the Sublime Porte.

The present position of the Exarchate is an abnormal one. According to the Firman, which has the force of law within the Empire, it has well-defined rights and obligations as regards the Porte and the Bulgarian nation in the _vilayets_, which, however, it cannot exercise or fulfil because of its imperfect and irregular organisation. This state of things provokes among the populations of the Empire complaints both against the Exarchate and the Imperial authorities. Failing to find help and protection at the hands of the legal authorities, the outraged population is naturally tempted to look for such in illegal quarters, and in its despair places its hopes in foreign intervention. This state of affairs explains and fully justifies such tendencies among the Macedonian population. The true interests of the Ottoman Empire demand the preservation of its Christian inhabitants from similar hopes and tendencies. The population ought to expect all improvements from Constantinople. In this respect the formation of a Synod and of a Mixed Council attached to the Exarchate is not only a just demand, admitted on every hand outside Turkey, but is highly desirable and indispensable for the pacification of public opinion both in the _vilayets_ and in Bulgaria. By their very constitution, this Synod and the Mixed Council would act as legal interpreters of the needs of the Bulgarian population in Macedonia and the _vilayet_ of Adrianople, and would form a strong link between the Bulgarians and the Sublime Porte.

It would surely be preferable both for the Powers and for Turkey if they had to deal with a legally organised and responsible body, such as the Bulgarian Exarchate. Indeed, this latter, if completed and fortified by the creation of the Synod and the Mixed Council, would no doubt succeed in attracting the attention of the Bulgarian population of the _vilayets_ once more to Constantinople. The cause of the Macedonian reforms would benefit considerably from such an organisation, while the difficult task of the Powers would be greatly facilitated.

The just and legal measure I have outlined above would pacify public opinion in the Principality of Bulgaria. That something must be done is very plain. Matters in Macedonia cannot be allowed to remain as they are—a blot upon the civilisation of Europe. Bulgaria is, as far as I have been able to judge from personal inquiry, determined to take a strong and definite line. She cannot remain indifferent to the injustice of the Porte towards the Bulgarian Exarchate; neither can she overlook the burning question. Even if she were inclined to adopt such a course, she would not be in a position to do so. No Bulgarian Government could follow such a policy without being accused of violating the Constitution, according to which the Eastern Orthodox religion is the State religion of the country.

In ecclesiastical matters the Principality is, according to Article 39 of the Bulgarian Constitution, placed under the control of the highest spiritual authority of the Bulgarian Church, wherever that authority may be found. This authority is the Bulgarian Exarchate. It must be remembered, too, that this Constitution was ratified at the time, by the Powers signatory of the Treaty of Berlin. The right of the Principality to take an interest in the normal and regular working of the authority in question now became even more indisputable. Besides, political considerations of the very highest importance to the peace of Europe place upon the Bulgarian Government the duty of reminding the Great Powers, Turkey included, of the liabilities which they assumed towards the Christian population of the vilayets by virtue of Articles 25 and 62 of the Treaty of Berlin.

Only natural is it, and in the cause of humanity, that Bulgaria should seek to protect the Bulgarians in Macedonia. Never has the country been in a worse state than at the present time, and never has European interference been more needed than at this moment.

Europe should listen attentively to this Bulgarian complaint against Turkey, for it is surely a just one, crying loudly for remedy. The blood of the poor massacred thousands in Macedonia calls to-day to the Powers for mercy and justice, and yet to-morrow, and still to-morrow, a hundred more defenceless men and women and innocent children are put to the sword, mutilated and murdered, and we in England hear nothing about it. Macedonia is, alas! a country where God is high and Justice far away.

This question of the Bulgarian Exarchate and the Porte is, I know, an abstruse one, neglected by most writers on the subject. However, it is one of the highest importance—one which is inseparable from the future policy of Bulgaria.

Things cannot remain long in Macedonia as I myself saw them. Europe holds up her hands in virtuous horror at the so-called Congo scandals and seeks out every detail of maladministration, yet she turns a deaf ear to the piteous cry of the Macedonians, whose homes are daily burned and pillaged, and whose villages are often completely wiped out—both dwellings and inhabitants—in the course of a few hours by fiends filled with the lust of blood.

If you doubt that there are horrible atrocities daily committed in Macedonia by Greeks and Turks alike, you need go no farther than Sofia. Visit the Orphanage for Macedonian boys established three years ago by Mr. Pierce O’Mahony, an Irish philanthropist, of Grange Con, County Wicklow. This gentleman was living in Sofia, and hearing terrible stories of massacres across the frontier, established an institution for the education of orphans whose parents had been killed in the raids. When I visited the place, I found it neat, orderly, and doing a most charitable and excellent work under the care of two English nursing sisters. In a large commodious house on the outskirts of the capital were thirty lads ranging in age from seven to fifteen, all dressed in their white woollen and black-braided national costume of Macedonia.

When the boys were assembled in the large classroom, I heard some of their stories, and truly they were appalling, many of the details too terrible to be placed here on record. As an instance, one lad I saw, a bright, intelligent little fellow, was admitted to the Orphanage a few months ago. He lived in the district of Ochrida, and was one day tending his sheep as usual, when some Turkish soldiers came past.

“Have you seen a Bulgarian band pass along just now?” they inquired.

The lad declared that he had seen nobody. The soldiers doubted him, for the Bulgarian band in question was protecting the villages in that neighbourhood.

They asked again, and the boy denied having seen anybody, which was the truth. Whereupon one of the Sultan’s soldiers smashed the little fellow’s skull in with the butt end of his rifle, while another took a knife and cut his throat from ear to ear. They then dug a rough hole in the ground and buried him. Some hours after, a shepherd passing noticed that his dog was scratching the earth, and on going to the spot, heard moans. The lad was quickly exhumed, and found to be still living. For many weeks he was in the hospital in Salonica, but was eventually admitted to Mr. O’Mahony’s Home. When I saw him, the wound in the head had only just healed, and the ugly scar across the throat was still red. I have his photograph, but it is too ghastly to here reproduce.

Another little lad described to me how his father and mother had been tortured by the Turks and afterwards burnt alive before his eyes, while another related how he had been captured by the Turks, taken into slavery, and afterwards escaped.

Each orphan boy had his own terrible story to tell, stories that were full of horror and inhuman butchery, stories that made one wonder whether such things could really happen in this enlightened century.

As to the institute and its general conduct, there is no doubt it is performing a most humane and charitable work. There are thousands of the homeless and fatherless in Macedonia, increasing thousands, and the institute, which is purely a piece of private philanthropy, cannot possibly admit one-tenth of the applicants for its charity. The founder hopes, if private subscribers or donors come forward, to extend his work, and Lady Buchanan of the British Legation, Sofia, who takes a great interest in it, told me that she would be very pleased to acknowledge any subscriptions sent to her.

Certainly it is most deserving of support, for already it has sent Macedonian lads into the Bulgarian Agricultural School at Kustendil; two others are in the Cadet School in Sofia, and will become officers; others have been taught trades and are earning their living; and one has been sent to England. Though the founder is a member of the Church of England, the lads are allowed to retain their own religion, the Orthodox.

Every right-minded man must, after investigating the complaint of Bulgaria against the Porte regarding the Exarchate, take the part of Bulgaria. Macedonia is to-day and every day being decimated by Greek bands who raid under the protection and with the connivance of the Turks, and assuredly Bulgaria has just cause for reprisals. At present, however, her bands are inactive, and she is endeavouring to adjust the difficulty by diplomatic channels. Bulgaria has no desire for war, neither has Turkey.

But the question must ere long be faced boldly and fearlessly, and a solution arrived at. Bulgaria has right on her side, and in the name of humanity it is the duty of the Powers to support her.