book 1, chapter 3.

"In 1817 Milosch was proclaimed hereditary Prince of Servia by the National Assembly. ... In 1830 the autonomy of Servia was at length solemnly recognized by the Porte, and Milosch proclaimed 'the father of the Fatherland.' ... If asked why the descendants of Milosch still rule over Servia, and not the descendants of Kara George, my answer is that every step in Servian progress is connected with the Obrenovitch dynasty. The liberation of the country, the creation of a peasant proprietary, the final withdrawal of the Turkish troops from Belgrade in 1862, the independence of the country, the extension of its territory, and the making of its railways,--all of these are among the results of Obrenovitch rule. The founder of the dynasty had in 1830 a great opportunity of making his people free as well as independent. But Milosch had lived too long with Turks to be a lover of freedom. ... In 1839 Milosch abdicated. The reason for this step was that he refused to accept a constitution which Russia and Turkey concocted for him. This charter vested the actual government of the country in a Senate composed of Milosch's rivals, and entirely independent of that Prince. ... It was anti-democratic, no less than anti-dynastic. Milosch was succeeded first by his son Milan, and on Milan's death by Michael. Michael was too gentle for the troubled times in which he lived, and after a two years's reign he too started upon his travels. ... When Michael crossed the Save, Alexander Kara Georgevitch was elected Prince of Servia. From 1842 to 1858 the son of Black George lived--he can scarcely be said to have reigned--in Belgrade. During these 17 years this feeble son of a strong man did absolutely nothing for his country. ... Late in 1858 he fled from Servia, and Milosch ruled in his stead. Milosch is the Grand Old Man of Serb history. His mere presence in Servia checked the intrigues of foreign powers. He died peacefully in his bed. ... Michael succeeded his father. ... Prince Michael was murdered by convicts in the park at Topschidera near Belgrade." He "was succeeded (1868) by Milan, the grandson of Zephrem, the brother of Milosch. As Milan was barely fourteen years of age, a Regency of three was appointed."

_J. G. C. Minchin, Servia and Montenegro (National Life and Thought, lecture 19)._

ALSO IN: _E. de Laveleye, The Balkan Peninsula, chapter 6._

BALKAN: A. D. 1718 (Bosnia). A part ceded to Austria by the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

BALKAN: A. D. 1739 (Bosnia and Roumania). Entire restoration of Bosnia to the Turks, and Cession of Austrian Wallachia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

{252}

BALKAN: 19th Century (Roumania and Servia). Awakening of a National Spirit. The effect of historical teaching.

"No political fact is of more importance and interest in modern continental history than the tenacity with which the smaller nations of Europe preserve their pride of nationality in the face of the growing tendency towards the formation of large, strongly concentrated empires, supported by powerful armies. Why should Portugal utterly refuse to unite with Spain? Why do Holland and Belgium cling to their existence as separate States, in spite of all the efforts of statesmen to join them? Why do the people of Bohemia and Croatia, of Finland, and of Poland, refuse to coalesce with the rest of the population of the empires of which they form but small sections? Why, finally, do the new kingdoms of Roumania and Servia show such astonishing vitality? The arguments as to distinctive race or' distinctive language fail to answer all these questions. ... This rekindling of the national spirit is the result chiefly of the development of the new historical school all over the Continent. Instead of remaining in ignorance of their past history, or, at best, regarding a mass of legends as containing the true tale of their countries' achievements, these small nations have now learnt from the works of their great historians what the story of their fatherlands really is, and what title they have to be proud of their ancestors. These great historians--Herculano, Palacky, Széchenyi, and the rest--who made it their aim to tell the truth and not to show off the beauties of a fine literary style, all belonged to the generation which had its interest aroused in the history of the past by the novels of Sir Walter Scott and the productions of the Romantic School, and they all learnt how history was to be studied, and then written, from Niebuhr, Von Ranke and their disciples and followers. From these masters they learnt that their histories were not to be made interesting at the expense of truth. ... The vitality of the new historical school in Roumania is particularly remarkable, for in the Danubian provinces, which form that kingdom, even more strenuous efforts had been made to stamp out the national spirit than in Bohemia. The extraordinary rapidity with which the Roumanian people has reasserted itself in recent years, is one of the most remarkable facts in modern European history, and it is largely due to the labours of its historians. Up till 1822 the Roumanian language was vigorously proscribed; the rulers of the Danubian provinces permitted instruction to the upper classes in the language of the rulers only, and while Slavonic, and in the days of the Phanariots Greek, was the official and fashionable language, used in educating the nobility and bourgeois, the peasants were left in ignorance. Four men, whose names deserve record, first endeavoured to raise the Roumanian language to a literary level, and not only studied Roumanian history, but tried to teach the Roumanian people something of their own early history. Of these four, George Schinkaï was by far the most remarkable. He was an inhabitant of Transylvania, a Roumanian province which still remains subject to Hungary, and he first thought of trying to revive the Roumanian nationality by teaching the people their history. He arranged the annals of his country from A. D. 86 to A. D. 1739 with indefatigable labour, during the last half of the 18th century, and, according to Edgar Quinet, in such a truly modern manner, after such careful weighing of original authorities, and with such critical power, that he deserves to be ranked with the creators of the modern historical school. It need hardly be said that Schinkaï's History was not allowed to be printed by the Hungarian authorities, who had no desire to see the Roumanian nationality re-assert itself, and the censor marked on it 'opus igne, auctor patibulo dignus.' It was not published until 1853, more than forty years after its completion, and then only at Jassy, for the Hungarians still proscribed it in Transylvania. Schinkaï's friend, Peter Major, was more fortunate in his work, a 'History of the Origin of the Roumanians in Dacia,' which, as it did not touch on modern society, was passed by the Hungarian censorship, and printed at Buda Pesth in 1813. The two men who first taught Roumanian history in the provinces which now form the kingdom of Roumania were not such learned men as Schinkaï and Peter Major, but their work was of more practical importance. In 1813 George Asaky got leave to open a Roumanian class at the Greek Academy of Jassy, under the pretext that it was necessary to teach surveying in the Roumanian tongue, because of the questions which constantly arose in that profession, in which it would be necessary to speak to the peasants in their own language, and in his lectures he carefully inserted lessons in Roumanian history, and tried to arouse the spirit of the people. George Lazarus imitated him at Bucharest in 1816, and the fruit of this instruction was seen when the Roumanians partially regained their freedom. The Moldo-Wallachian princes encouraged the teaching of Roumanian history, as they encouraged the growth of the spirit of Roumanian independence, and when the Roumanian Academy was founded, an historical section was formed with the special mission of studying and publishing documents connected with Roumanian history. The modern scientific spirit has spread widely throughout the kingdom."

_H. Morse Stephens, Modern Historians and Small Nationalities (Contemporary Review, July, 1887)._

BALKAN: A. D. 1829 (Roumania, or Wallachia and Moldavia). Important provisions of the Treaty of Adrianople. Life Election of the Hospodars. Substantial independence of the Turk.

See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

BALKAN: A. D. 1856 (Roumania, or Wallachia and Moldavia). Privileges guaranteed by the Treaty of Paris.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

BALKAN: A. D. 1858-1866. (Roumania or Wallachia and Moldavia). Union of the two provinces under one Crown. Accession of Prince Charles of Hohenzollern.

See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.

{253}

BALKAN: A. D. 1875-1878. The Breaking of the Turkish yoke. Bulgarian atrocities. Russo-Turkish War.

In 1875, a revolt broke out in Herzegovina. "The efforts made to suppress the growing revolt strained the already weakened resources of the Porte, until they could bear up against it no longer, and the Herzegovinese rebellion proved the last straw which broke the back of Turkish solvency. ... The hopes of the insurgents were of course quickened by this catastrophe, which, as they saw, would alienate much sympathy from the Turks. The advisers of the Sultan, therefore, thought it necessary to be conciliatory, and ... they induced him to issue an Iradé, or circular note, promising the remission of taxes, and economical and social reforms. ... Europe, however, had grown tired of the Porte's promises of amendment, and for some time the Imperial Powers had been laying their heads together, and the result of their consultations was the Andrassy Note. The date of this document was December 30th, 1875, and it was sent to those of the Western Powers who had signed the treaties of 1856. It declared that although the spirit of the suggested reforms was good, there was some doubt whether the Porte had the strength to carry them out; Count Andrassy, therefore, proposed that the execution of the necessary measures should be placed under the care of a special commission, half the members of which should be Mussulmans and half Christians. ... It concluded with a serious warning, that if the war was not gone with the snow, 'the Governments of Servia and Montenegro, which have had great difficulty in keeping aloof from the movement, will be unable to resist the current.' ... It was evident, however, that this note would have but little or no effect; it contained no coercive precautions, and accordingly the Porte quietly allowed the question to drop, and contented himself with profuse promises. ... So affairs drifted on; the little war continued to sputter on the frontier; reinforced by Servians and Montenegrins, the Herzegovinese succeeded in keeping their enemy at bay, and, instigated, it is said, by Russian emissaries, put forward demands which the Porte was unable to accept. ... The Powers, in no wise disconcerted by the failure of their first attempt to settle the difficulties between the Sultan and his rebellious subjects, had published a sequel to the Andrassy Note. There was an informal conference of the three Imperial Chancellors, Prince Bismarck, Prince Gortschakoff, and Count Andrassy, at Berlin, in May. ... Then on May 18th the Ambassadors of England, France, and Italy were invited to Prince Bismarck's house, and the text of the famous Berlin Memorandum was laid before them. ... While the three Chancellors were forging their diplomatic thunderbolt, a catastrophe of such a terrible nature had occurred in the interior of Turkey that all talk of armistices and mixed commissions had become stale and unprofitable. The Berlin Memorandum was not even presented to the Porte; for a rumour, though carefully suppressed by Turkish officials, was beginning to leak out that there had been an insurrection of the Christian population of Bulgaria, and that the most horrible atrocities had been committed by the Turkish irregular troops in its suppression. It was communicated to Lord Derby by Sir Henry Elliot on the 4th of May. ... On June 16th a letter was received from him at the Foreign Office, saying, 'The Bulgarian insurrection appears to be unquestionably put down, although I regret to say, with cruelty, and, in some places, with brutality.' ... A week afterwards the Constantinople correspondent of the Daily News ... gave the estimates of Bulgarians slain as varying from 18,000 to 30,000, and the number of villages destroyed at about a hundred. ... That there was much truth in the statements of the newspaper correspondents was ... demonstrated beyond possibility of denial as soon as Sir Henry Elliot's despatches were made public. ... 'I am satisfied,' wrote Sir Henry Elliot, 'that, while great atrocities have been committed, both by Turks upon Christians and Christians upon Turks, the former have been by far the greatest, although the Christians were undoubtedly the first to commence them.' ... Meanwhile, the Daily News had resolved on sending out a special commissioner to make an investigation independent of official reports. Mr. J. A. MacGahan, an American, who had been one of that journal's correspondents during the Franco-German War, was the person selected. He started in company with Mr. Eugene Schuyler, the great authority on the Central Asian question, who, in the capacity of Consul-General, was about to prepare a similar statement for the Honorable Horace Maynard, the United States Minister at Constantinople. They arrived at Philippopolis on the 25th of July; where Mr. Walter Baring, one of the Secretaries of the British Legation at Constantinople, was already engaged in collecting information. The first of Mr. MacGahan's letters was dated July the 28th, and its publication in this country revived in a moment the half-extinct excitement of the populace. ... Perhaps the passage which was most frequently in men's mouths at the time was that in which he described the appearance of the mountain village of Batak. 'We entered the town. On every side were skulls and skeletons charred among the ruins, or lying entire where they fell in their clothing. There were skeletons of girls and women, with long brown hair hanging to their skulls. We approached the church. There these remains were more frequent, until the ground was literally covered by skeletons, skulls, and putrefying bodies in clothing. Between the church and school there were heaps. The stench was fearful. We entered the churchyard. The sight was more dreadful. The whole churchyard, for three feet deep, was festering with dead bodies, partly covered; hands, legs, arms, and heads projecting in ghastly confusion. I saw many little hands, heads, and feet of children three years of age, and girls with heads covered with beautiful hair. The church was still worse. The floor was covered with rotting bodies quite uncovered. I never imagined anything so fearful. ... The town had 9,000 inhabitants. There now remain 1,200. Many who had escaped had returned recently, weeping and moaning over their ruined homes. Their sorrowful wailing could be heard half a mile off. Some were digging out the skeletons of loved ones. A woman was sitting moaning over three small skulls, with hair clinging to them, which she had in her lap. The man who did this, Achmed Agra, has been promoted, and is still governor of the district.' An exceeding bitter cry of horror and disgust arose throughout the country on the receipt of this terrible news. Mr. Anderson at once asked for information on the subject, and Mr. Bourke was entrusted with the difficult duty of replying. He could only read a letter from Mr. Baring, in which he said that, as far as he had been able to discover, the proportion of the numbers of the slain was about 12,000 Bulgarians to 500 Turks, and that 60 villages had been wholly or partially burnt. ... Mr. Schuyler's opinions were, as might be expected from the circumstance that his investigations had been shorter than those of Mr. Baring, and that he was ignorant of the Turkish language--which is that chiefly spoken in Bulgaria--and was therefore at the mercy of his interpreter, the more highly coloured. He totally rejected Lord Beaconsfield's idea that there had been a civil war, and that cruelties had been committed on both sides. On the contrary he asserted that 'the insurgent villages made little or no resistance. {254} In many cases they surrendered their arms on the first demand. ... No Turkish women or children were killed in cold blood. No Mussulman women were, violated. No Mussulmans were tortured. No purely Turkish village was attacked or burnt. No Mosque was desecrated or destroyed. The Bashi-Bazouks, on the other hand, had burnt about 65 villages, and killed at least 15,000 Bulgarians.' The terrible story of the destruction of Batak was told in language of precisely similar import to that of Mr. MacGahan, whose narrative the American Consul had never seen, though there was a slight difference in the numbers of the massacred. 'Of the 8,000 inhabitants,' he said, 'not 2,000 are known to survive'. ... Abdul Aziz had let loose the hordes of Bashi-Bazouks on defenceless Bulgaria, but Murad seemed utterly unable to rectify the fatal error; the province fell into a state of complete anarchy. ... As Lord Derby remarked, it was impossible to effect much with an imbecile monarch and bankrupt treasury. One thing, at any rate, the Turks were strong enough to do, and that was to defeat the Servians, who declared war on Turkey on July 1st. ... Up to the last Prince Milan declared that his intentions were purely pacific; but the increasing troubles of the Porte enabled him, with some small chance of success, to avail himself of the anti-Turkish spirit of his people and to declare war. His example was followed by Prince Nikita of Montenegro, who set out with his brave little army from Cettigne on July 2nd. At first if appeared as if the principalities would have the better of the struggle. The Turkish generals showed their usual dilatoriness in attacking Servia, and Tchernaieff, who was a man of considerable military talent, gave them the good-bye, and cut them off from their base of operations. This success was, however, transitory; Abdul Kerim, the Turkish Commander-in·Chief, drove back the enemy by mere force of numbers, and by the end of the month he was over the border. Meanwhile, the hardy Montenegrins had been considerably more fortunate; but their victories over Mukhtar Pasha were not sufficiently important to effect a diversion. The Servians fell back from all their positions of defence, and on September 1st received a most disastrous beating before the walls of Alexinatz. ... On September 16th the Porte agreed to a suspension of hostilities until the 25th. It must be acknowledged that the Servians used this period of grace exceedingly ill. Prince Milan was proclaimed by General Tchernaieff, in his absence and against his will, King of Servia and Bosnia; and though, on the remonstrance of the Powers, he readily consented to waive the obnoxious title, the evil effect of the declaration remained. Lord Derby's proposals for peace, which were made on September 21st, were nevertheless accepted by the Sultan when he saw that unanimity prevailed among the Powers, and he offered in addition to prolong the formal suspension of hostilities to October 2nd. This offer the Servians, relying on the Russian volunteers who were flocking to join Tchernaieff, rejected with some contempt, and hostilities were resumed. They paid dearly for their temerity. Tchernaieff's position before Alexinatz was forced by the Turks after three days' severe fighting; position after position yielded to them; on October 31st Alexinatz was taken, and Deligrad was occupied on November 1st. Nothing remained between the outpost of the crescent and Belgrade, and it seemed as if the new Kingdom of Servia must perish in the throes of its birth." Russia now invoked the intervention of the powers, and brought about a conference at Constantinople, which effected nothing, the Porte rejecting all the proposals submitted. On the 24th of April, 1877, Russia declared war and entered upon a conflict with the Turks, which had for its result the readjustment of affairs in South-eastern Europe by the Congress and Treaty of Berlin.

_Cassell's Illustrated History of England,