Part 82

"But a turbulent militia overawed the government and tyrannized over the Rayahs. Pasvan Oglou and his bands at Widdin were, at the end of the last century, in open revolt against the Porte. Other chiefs had followed his example; and for the first time the Divan thought of associating Christian Rayahs with the spahis, to put down these rebels. The Dahis, as these brigand-chiefs were called, resolved to anticipate the approaching struggle by a massacre of the most influential Christians. This atrocious massacre was carried out with indescribable horrors. … Kara Georg [Black George], a peasant, born at Topola about the year 1767, getting timely information that his name was in the list of the doomed, fled into the woods, and gradually organized a formidable force. In the name of the Porte he combated the Dahis, who had usurped local authority in defiance of the Pasha of Belgrade. The Divan, little anticipating the ultimate issue of the struggle in Servia, was at first delighted at the success of Kara Georg; but soon saw with consternation that the rising of the Servian peasants grew into a formidable rebellion, and ordered the Pashas of Bosnia and Scodra to assemble all their disposable forces and invade Servia. Between 40,000 and 50,000 Bosniacs burst into Servia on the west, in the spring of 1806, cutting to pieces all who refused to receive Turkish authority. Kara Georg undauntedly met the storm," defeating the Turkish forces near Tchoupria, September, 1804, and more severely two years later (August, 1806) at Shabatz. In December of the same year he surprised and took Belgrade. "The succeeding years were passed in the vicissitudes of a guerilla warfare, neither party obtaining any marked success; and an auxiliary corps of Russians assisted in preventing the Turks from making the re-conquest of Servia. … Kara Georg was now a Russian lieutenant-general, and exercised an almost unlimited power in Servia; the revolution, after a struggle of eight years, appeared to be successful, but the momentous events then passing in Europe completely altered the aspect of affairs. Russia, in 1812, on the approach of the countless legions of Napoleon, precipitately concluded the treaty of Bucharest, the eighth article of which formally assured a separate administration to the Servians. Next year, however, was fatal to Kara Georg. In 1813, the vigour of the Ottoman empire … was now concentrated on the resubjugation of Servia. A general panic seemed to seize the nation; and Kara Georg and his companions in arms sought a retreat on the Austrian territory, and thence passed into Wallachia. In 1814, 300 Christians were impaled at Belgrade by the Pasha, and every valley in Servia presented the spectacle of infuriated Turkish spahis avenging on the Servians the blood, exile and confiscation of the ten preceding years. At this period, Milosh Obrenovitch appears prominently on the political tapis. He spent his youth in herding the famed swine of Servia; and during the revolution was employed by Kara Georg to watch the passes of the Balkans. … He now saw that a favourable conjuncture had come for his advancement from the position of chieftain to that of chief; he therefore lost no time in making terms with the Turks, offering to collect the tribute, to serve them faithfully, and to aid them in the resubjugation of the people. … He now displayed singular activity in the extirpation of all the other popular chiefs," until he found reason to suspect that the Turks were only using him to destroy him in the end. Then, in 1815, he turned upon them and raised the standard of revolt. The movement which he headed was so formidable that the Porte made haste to treat, and Milosch made favourable terms for himself, being reinstated as tribute-collector. "Many of the chiefs, impatient at the speedy submission of Milosh, wished to fight the matter out, and Kara Georg, in order to give effect to their plans, landed in Servia. Milosh pretended to be friendly to his designs, but secretly betrayed his place of concealment to the governor, whose men broke into the cottage where he slept, and put him to death."

_A. A. Paton, Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic, 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.