Midchat paša i bălgarite: mitove i realnost
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | Bulgarian |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Sofija
Tangra TanNakRa
2012
|
| Ausgabe: | 1. izd. |
| Schriftenreihe: | Bălgarska večnost
79 |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Beschreibung: | In kyrill. Schr., bulg. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Midhat Pasha and Bulgarian population - facts and fiction |
| Beschreibung: | 223 S. Ill. |
| ISBN: | 9789543780914 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV040766878 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20130227 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 130221s2012 a||| |||| 00||| bul d | ||
| 020 | |a 9789543780914 |9 978-954-378-091-4 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)828809854 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV040766878 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a bul | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Vitošanska, Marija |d 1938- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)1031524800 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Midchat paša i bălgarite |b mitove i realnost |c Marija Vitošanska |
| 250 | |a 1. izd. | ||
| 264 | 1 | |a Sofija |b Tangra TanNakRa |c 2012 | |
| 300 | |a 223 S. |b Ill. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Bălgarska večnost |v 79 | |
| 500 | |a In kyrill. Schr., bulg. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Midhat Pasha and Bulgarian population - facts and fiction | ||
| 600 | 0 | 7 | |a Midhat Paşa |d 1822-1884 |0 (DE-588)123618460 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Tanzimat |0 (DE-588)4184443-9 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a Osmanisches Reich |0 (DE-588)4075720-1 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Bulgarien |0 (DE-588)4008866-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Midhat Paşa |d 1822-1884 |0 (DE-588)123618460 |D p |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Osmanisches Reich |0 (DE-588)4075720-1 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Tanzimat |0 (DE-588)4184443-9 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 3 | |a Bulgarien |0 (DE-588)4008866-2 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 830 | 0 | |a Bălgarska večnost |v 79 |w (DE-604)BV012764044 |9 79 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 2 |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=025745343&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 2 |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=025745343&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 306.09 |e 22/bsb |f 09034 |g 499 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 306.09 |e 22/bsb |f 09034 |g 561 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 909 |e 22/bsb |f 09034 |g 561 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 909 |e 22/bsb |f 09034 |g 499 |
| 943 | 1 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-025745343 | |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1806960870419333120 |
|---|---|
| adam_text |
СЪДЪРЖАНИЕ
БЪЛГАРСКИЯТ
XIX
ВЕК
-
ВРЕМЕ НА ОБЕДИНЯВАНЕ
И РАЗЕДИНЕНИЕ. УРОЦИ ОТ ИСТОРИЯТА
-
Димитър Цанев
.9
ПРЕДИСЛОВИЕ
.15
Глава
I
МИДХАТ ПАША КАТО УПРАВИТЕЛ НА ОБЛАСТИ
С
БЪЛГАРСКО НАСЕЛЕНИЕ
.32
Паша на Нишкия еялет
.39
Валия на Дунавския вилает
.46
Мидхат паша ли е построил жп линията Варна-Русе
и шосейните пътища, или българите
-
с ангария
и повишени данъци
.62
Глава
II
МИДХАТ ПАША СРЕЩУ БЪЛГАРСКОТО НАЦИОНАЛНО-
ОСВОБОДИТЕЛНО ДВИЖЕНИЕ
.78
Мидхатовата училищна реформа
-
опит за турцизация
на българските училища
.78
Четите
-
надежди и саможертва
.93
Палачът на българските четници
.109
Светли идеи, но тъмни дела
.145
Глава
III
МИДХАТ ПАША СРЕЩУ БЪЛГАРСКОТО
ОСВОБОЖДЕНИЕ. КРИЗАТА ОТ
1875-1878
ГОДИНА
.172
ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ
.208
митове и Факти накратко
.
214
Midhat Pasha and Bulgarian Population
-
Facts and Fiction
.216
Assoe.
Prof.
MARIA
VITOSHANSKA
Midhat Pasha and Bulgarian Population - Facts and Fiction
Bulgaria in the twenty-first century is a full member of the
EU, a
state that has become politically
a member of the European family of free, democratic and sovereign states, not just their neighbour
geographically or counterpart culturally. Turkey is also an independent constitutional state with secular
customs and republican government. Bulgaria and Turkey are neighbouring countries and are both
members of the NATO alliance. Such favourable circumstances for cooperation are not remembered
in Balkan history, which makes it inappropriate for some historical scientists to put forward false argu¬
ments from history trying to embellish or even extol life in the time of Ottoman Turkey. It would hardly
be more unreasonable to call up some bright image of this medieval empire with its military-theocratic
structure in the attitude towards its Christian subjects of which Bulgarian population was a part.
The Ottoman Empire, also called
Imperia Ottomana,
has been a historical phenomenon at least
since the revolution led by Mustafa Kemal Atatiirk in the
1920s
did away with its institutions, banished
its dynasty and moved its capital. His ambition was to pave the way for secularizing the state, forming
a Turkish nation and boosting economic and cultural growth. These ideas passed on to the generations
after his death and have been held high ever since. Whoever opens the tomb to dig out the mask of the
dead empire brings a curse on Turkey and the possibility for its
EU
membership.
It is true that each historical age and time can be assessed or interpreted differently with an equal
claim to the truth, but any attempt to generalise on medieval practices presenting their age in favourable
light is an open lie.
It is not the aim of this book to discuss bias in the national policies of any state, nor to delve for
skeletons in the cupboard of other societies, which would be bringing it too far. Bulgarian people, how¬
ever, are equally sensitive to any attempt on their national history. It is considered a dutiful right of any
Bulgarian historian to watch their national history from allegations, intrusion and abuse. All disputes
must find their resolution on scientific forums supported with scientific arguments from history.
This book aims to bring its readers closer to a renowned Ottoman statesman of the nineteenth cen¬
tury, rather than claim the truth for any historiological controversies or fill any blank spots in history. Its
focus is on Midhat Pasha who spent three-years in Bulgarian town of
Rousse as
governor of
Danubian
Vilayet (province) of the Ottoman Empire with some relevance to our national history at the time.
Midhat Pasha was a senior state official in the Ottoman Empire which at the time held a number of
nationalities in submission but was uncertain about it own future. His appointments included governor
(hist,
valia)
of several provinces, chairman of the grand council, two terms as grand vizier. He was
also a key figure in the deposition of two sultans, and among the staunch supporters of reforming and
modernizing the Ottoman Empire, established rapport with some of the most influential politicians of
his time, working actively for writing and adopting the first constitution of the empire. He excelled with
talents, ambition and vigour which he wholly committed to keeping, reforming and reviving the Otto¬
man Empire. But prodigy ordained him the bitter fate to be chased and killed in the aftermath by the
sultan who he had helped to the throne.
This unusual life has drawn the attention of a good number of researchers, most of them Turkish,
but also a few West European, Bulgarian and Russian.
Western and Russian researchers consider him mostly as a reformer who joined the effort to push
the empire through a turbulent age for its existence. They are much less concerned with the means he
used to this end, as well as with the fate of its Christian subjects who he used as instruments for his
plans. It stands to reason that the problems of small nationalities appear negligible when it comes to the
216
big
policies
of the Great Powers. For Bulgarian history, however, it appears essential to reveal some
neglected facts about this Ottoman statesman to elicit his proper relevance to our nation at a time when
it looked towards its sovereignty and independence. The purpose of this book is to consider Midhat
Pasha through the eyes of our predecessors, his contemporaries, who at different times thought him a
friend or an enemy but ultimately settled on the latter. Memories by his contemporaries as well publica¬
tions in periodicals at that time (designated as National Revival in Bulgarian history) make this task
manageable.
His name figures in research as well as in popular myths
-
some commonly considered him as a
great benefactor of
Rousse
who almost unassisted helped transform it in a European city. It is true that
Midhat Pasha spent three years in Ruse during which time he undoubtedly contributed to its moderniza¬
tion. But his authority there in no way gives him precedence to the efforts made by the town's inhabit¬
ants for the economic and cultural prosperity of their town (favourably situated at the Danube) during
the whole of our Revival history. After our national independence it became a true European city even
before this happened with the capital Sofia.
Midhat Pasha wasn't anything like a friend and protector of Bulgarian population, too, and it
couldn't have been otherwise for the simple reason that the two were drawing in opposite directions, to
use the metaphor. The esteemed Bulgarian historian Prof
Petar
Nikov called him a dangerous Bulgaro-
phobe. The fact is that Midhat Pasha didn't feel some mad or irrational disdain for Bulgarian people,
just the opposite, he always tried whenever possible to appear in their defense even claiming his own
Bulgarian origin. At first this took unaware even Bulgarian elite at the time about his true character
which was inevitably revealed in the manner of massacre, hanging and dungeon every time the interests
of the empire required him to act. For this was the Ottoman idea of retaliation transpiring under any
sophisticated veneer. As Lyuben Karavelov (Bulgarian enlightener) once pointed out, Christians were
meant to be sacrificed in the name of a revived Ottoman state. The only good Christian therefore was
considered the humble one, or, alternatively, the dead one.
Speaking about the second half of the nineteenth century, Bulgarian national liberation movement
was drawing towards its ultimate goal
-
national independence and their own nation state. At that time
Bulgarian population was already growing aware of its national identity and had an elite to speak its
mind. Neighbouring Greece had already gained independence albeit for part of its territory, while Ser¬
bia, Wallachia and Moldavia had achieved suzerainty (political autonomy). Bulgarian national libera¬
tion movement didn't leave behind with its hard struggle, also claiming valuable European territories
from the Empire.
Tracia,
among others, with its importance as hinterland to the Ottoman capital, where
the majority of the population were Bulgarians.
Midhat Pasha, together with the rest of the reforming elite of the Empire, meant to restore its former
glory from the ashes with their idea of Ottomanism, or Ottomanisation, actively supported by the politi¬
cal elites in Britain and France following their own partial interests. The general idea was to reform the
Empire on a European model with modern institutions and a common identity for its subjects regardless
of their ethnicity or nationality. This could successfully kill two birds with one stone. On the one hand,
it could disgrace its foreign critics who exposed its theocratic structure and medieval character. On the
other, it would give its Christian subjects a common cause that would make their struggle for political
autonomy and national independence seem immaterial. However, the worm in the apple soon showed
bringing out its deterioration. Bulgarian, Greek, Armenian and Serbian population were separate eth¬
nicities each with its own national consciousness rather than some common human mass only aware of
its submission or of some collective spirit that held it together. They already had a long history of inde¬
pendence and sovereignty behind them from the times prior to the Ottoman conquest. It was also a mat¬
ter of Zeitgeist, as observed by Vassil Levski, a national icon ever since, in a century that was meant to
217
bring
freedom and equality to all nations. Retrospectively, the nineteenth century saw the most intense
time of ethnic nationalism, liberation movements and emerging sovereignty in history before or after.
Obviously, this dream for independent nation and sovereign government kept on in the twentieth
century, as well. Our generation witnessed the collapse of multinational entities without identity such
as in Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, or even Czechoslovakia
-
a feeble creation of the Great Powers fol¬
lowing the Second World War. History has long shown that empires (the Ottoman making no exception)
exist in time, not in eternity, which dooms any attempt at bringing back their former lustre, as Midhat
Pasha was so passionate to do.
Historic time, too, provides key understanding of human strivings and their fair assessment. Midhat
Pasha lived in the period of
Tanzimât
(translated as reforms) for the Ottoman Empire.
These reforms, which encompassed economy as well as social and cultural life, were common also
to other countries
ofthat
time and have been known in historical science as Europeization or Western¬
ization (making it as in Europe, or as in the West). Calling it modernization, on which historians have
finally settled, seems much more appropriate.
The course of modernization was followed by the Ottoman Empire undertaking intense reforms of
its primitive hierarchical structure to fend off destruction from outside and from inside, alike. As early
as the
70s
of the eighteenth century the Empire suffered substantial military defeats and weakening of
central authority, which resulted in the blunt loss of large territories and the gross inability to control
effectively what was left. The Ottoman army lost its two most effective invading forces
-
the Sipahi
cavalry regiment and the notorious Janissary infantry corps consisting mainly of boys taken forcibly
from their Christian families, according to the cruel practice of
Devşirme
(blood tax in Bulgarian his¬
tory), then converted in Islam and given appropriate training.
The Balkan provinces of the Empire were plundered by brigand gangs of former Janissaries and
any armed Muslim who considered looting for a living. Bulgarian history remembers these as Kircali
(a Turkish word for them). Similar conflicts abounded in Ottoman territories in Anatolia and North
Africa, too.
The first attempt for reforms belongs to sultan
Selim
III
(1789-1807)
for which he paid a bitter price
-
he was taken off power and stifled to death in prison.
The new sultan
Mahmud
II
( 1807-1839)
took over the task for life-saving reforms, and passed it on
to his son Abdiilmecid I
(1839-1861)
who succeeded him to the throne, and in the first year of his rule,
still
16,
made public a reformer act called Hatt-i Sharif in the
Gülhane
palace. This act, honoured by
Grand Vizier Reshid Pasha and Prince of
Joinville,
son of the French king Louis Philippe, proclaims his
best intentions for reforms that commonly bear the name
Tanzimât
and Hayrie. This can be translated as
'beneficial edict' and marks the years to come which have remained in history as
Tanzimât
era.
This Imperial Edict of Reorganization proclaims equal treatment by law for all subjects, guaran¬
teeing protection for their lives, property and dignity by modernizing the administrative and judicial
services. However, the
Tanzimât Fermani
were not meant to be implemented as legislation, and only ex¬
pressed the good will for reform. For instance, they put all religions on an equal basis without abolish¬
ing the law (existing up to
1844)
punishing apostates from Islam with death, that way making religious
choice practically impossible.
The Hatt-i Shariff of the
Gülhane was
first published in Ottoman Turkish but the same year was
translated in Bulgarian language in Bucharest where it underwent two editions. Its value was that Bul¬
garian population found there its legal right to insist as an ethnic nationality on their own church and
education in the native language.
The long way that the Empire needed to go on its way to reform starting with good intentions only
is elicited by an astute observation of the then young and little known Prussian officer
Helmuth
von
218
Moltke
(1800-1891).
His counsel was sought by the sultan reformer
Mahmud
II to help modernize the
Ottoman army.
Von
Moltke, too, had a long way to go in his career to become a Field Marshal and chief
of staff of the Prussian army between
1858
and
1888.
An associate of Prince of
Bismark,
he achieved
three important military victories for Prussia in its wars with Spain
(1864),
Austria
(1866)
and France
( 1870-1871 )
in the wake of which Germany emerged as a great power on the European continent. Dur¬
ing his stay in the Ottoman Empire he zealously collected data from his travels which he published
in
1851
in
Ausburger Allgemeine Zeitung.
After two times crossing Bulgarian territory far and wide,
he predicts the inevitable end of the Ottoman Empire and the imminent Bulgarian uprising which, he
concludes, will draw Russia in the conflict.
Joining the sultan on one of his rounds of the Empire,
von
Moltke was shocked by their acceptance
in Bulgarian town of Shumen. The Muslims, gathered on the right, were standing while the Christians
on the left were sprawling and only dared to look up after the ruler had passed by them.
Von
Moltke uses
this description to illustrate their different footing in the common status quo.
This dramatic controversy was nourished by the historic discrepancy between two peoples already
going into different directions. The Ottoman reformers conceded some
de
jure freedom to the Christians
only in the eyes of the outer world while
defacto
kept them in humble submission as hitherto. Bulgar¬
ians in turn would be content with nothing less than their own independent country. Historically, such
controversies commonly find their resolution in armed struggle and revolutionary means and this one
proved no exception to the rule.
Midhat Pasha was an Ottoman statesman whose personality is almost totally hidden behind myths
and false beliefs including his birthplace.
As confirmed by his own son
Ali
Haydar Midhat, and taken as a historic fact, Ahmet Shefik Midhat
was bom in Constantinople in
1822.
His father Neji
Ali Effendi
(Hadji
Hafiz
Mehmet Esref),
a civil
judge (kadia in Turkish), came from
Rousse but
later moved to Constantinople. The family frequently
changed locations following the father's appointment in different Bulgarian towns, which is the reason
why his son's place of birth confused even his contemporaries. For instance, Ivancho Hajji Penchovich,
a notorious figure form Bulgarian Revival history, owned that Midhat Pasha was born in a location a
couple of hours away from
Rousse
and the two studied and often played together in their childhood
years. It is quite possible that Ivan Chorbadzhi made up the whole story to give his fellow countrymen
a plausible excuse for his close collaboration with Midhat Pasha, as they already suspected some foul
play on his part as Bulgarian patriot (obviously for the right reason, as it later proved).
Konstantin
Jireček
considers Midhat Pasha an Ottoman born in Bulgarian village of Zavet. According to Petko Ra-
chev Slaveykov, Midhat Pasha was born in Bulgarian town of Lovetch where his father was appointed
for a long time. In Pandeli Kissimov's words Midhat Pasha flattered himself on his Bulgarian origin
asserting that his birthplace was in Bulgaria, more precisely the town of
Nis
(present-day Serbia) during
one of his father's appointments.
In all probability Midhat Pasha used his alleged Bulgarian roots to break the ice with ethnic Bulgar¬
ian population (where he worked and lived for a long time) and to promote his idea of an Ottoman na¬
tion. Pandeli Kissimov's claim that Midhat Pasha never missed a chance to bring forward his Bulgarian
origin corroborates this.
Another contemporary of the period George Washburn, a professor in the famous American Robert
College of the time, published a book called Fifty Years in Constantinople and Recollections of Robert
College in which he found appropriate place to discuss his encounters with Midhat Pasha, who both
he and his colleague
Dr Long
knew quite well. George Washburn (whose name is esteemed in Bulgar¬
ian history) reveals that Grand Vizier
Mehmet Rushdi
lived in a neighbouring place and Midhat Pasha
was a frequent visitor there. There he confirms that Midhat Pasha had Bulgarian background despite
219
his Islamic bringing (a Muslim Bulgarian, or
pomak)
and was
Dr
Long's long acquaintance during his
time in Bulgaria.
In his pamphlet published in French immediately before the Congress of Berlin Midhat Pasha
shows his ambiguous attitude to Bulgarian population giving Muslim Bulgarians their fair share. In his
words, they counted almost a million in number and were mistakenly considered coming from Asia.
These people, he argued, came down from the part of Bulgarian population that had been converted to
Islam in the time of the conquest of their territory and in the years to come, their race, their kin, their
blood, and it was not uncommon that Bulgarian was the only language they knew.
Midhat Pasha must have been motivated by political interest when he insisted on his Bulgarian
background, a fact that was disowned later by his own son. Bulgarian researcher Stilian Chilingirov,
too, rejects this claim verifying that in
Nis
(where Midhat Pasha claimed to be from) there were no
traces of Islam conversions in Bulgarian population. This doesn't prove that Midhat Pasha didn't have
such distant relatives in his genealogy, and he could have been well acquainted with this fact which was
anything but shocking news. Even Mustafa Kemal Ataffirk, founding father of the Turkish Republic,
revealed once in an interview for a Western newspaper that his pale skin and blue eyes were legacy
from his grandmother born in Macedonia who had Slav origin. During the whole period of the Ottoman
yoke on our ethnic territory there were instances of Islam conversions
-
some of them organized, af¬
fecting whole regions, other stray. It has been established and is widely known that its peak was in the
seventeenth century. As can be proved, the genotype of the Muslim population in Bulgaria (commonly
considered of Turkish background) actually confirms their Bulgarian roots, although there haven't been
such studies recently and even if there had, they would have proved nothing that this article means to
do.
Ahmet Shefik Midhat's education has also spawned a number of myths. He has often been seen
as one of the most enlightened Ottoman statesmen with University education from the Paris
Sorbonne
who knew perfectly French.
In
1865
a French journalist wrote for Illustration magazine that Midhat Pasha was born in a noble
family whose father worked in the Constantinople judiciary, and was given brilliant education. He also
credits him with the talents and instincts of a self-made man in an empire where patronage was essential
to make a career.
This might have made the French reader content but can't have been further from the truth. The
French idea of nobility had to do with aristocracy but as a matter of fact in the Ottoman Empire it had
never been an inherited right as this was contrary to custom and the laws of Islam. Adding to this,
Midhat didn't come from a distinguished or even rich family. His father and grandfather, however,
although low in hierarchy, were well-educated by the standards of their time when religious education
was everything they had. His father was a second judge (in Turkish naib) who remained unemployed
and Ahmet Shefik started work as a scribe to provide for his family. According to various sources, this
happened when he was
17
or
15,
but in all likelihood it was at the age of
13
as confirmed in a book
written by his son, AH Haydar.
That's how the story started. At that time all education in the Ottoman Empire was based on reli¬
gion.
Ali
Haydar wrote that young Ahmet Shefik (a would-be pasha) was educated by his own father.
At
10
he could quote
114
Suras from the Qur'an. In
1833
Ahmet Shefik's father was appointed naib in
Bulgarian town of
Vidin
where the family lived for a year before they returned to Istanbul. There, at the
age of
13,
Ahmet Shefik started work as a scribe. Later he spent a year in Lovetch during his father's ap¬
pointment there, but after the family returned to Constantinople he took on his former education while
at the same time enrolling in the newly opened school for administrative officials. The school started in
1838
and was meant by its creator sultan
Mahmud
II to include in its curriculum subjects like French,
220
Geography, Arithmetic, Geometry
-
all having nothing to do with religion. But the reformer
Mahmud
II didn't live to see it happen, as after his death in the following year his ideas about it were never put
into practice (a claim made by the Russian researcher Fadeeva, who has written a number of papers on
the
Tanzimât
era and knows it well). Fadeeva, following the Turkish historian Bekir Baikal maintains
that Ahmet Shefik started work in the office of the grand vizier in
1840
after he had allegedly finished
the school, The latter seems precarious since the school, which started in
1838,
had a 4-year programme
of education. Again as witnessed by
Ali Haydar,
his grandfather hired excellent private tutors for the
young Ahmet Shefik, who taught him Arabic,
Farsi
(Persian), Grammar, Philosophy and
Sharia
law.
Midhat Pasha never studied in Europe. He only visited Paris, London, Vienna and Brussels for
6
months during his leave from office at the age of
36.
All facts confirm that Midhat Pasha, who allegedly
went to the
Sorbonne,
actually was educated at home or by private tutors in his own country.
Late in his years Ahmet Shefik Midhat started learning French and probably spoke it well, but as a
senior state official he had to rely on the interpreters in his office. His personal assistant Anton
Effendi
Klichyan Vasaf, who was by his side even during the years in exile, also knew foreign languages. Ac¬
cording to all biographic data for Ahmet Shefik Midhat, his career was helped by Mustafa Reshid Pasha,
who trusted him and was generously disposed to his aspirations. Midhat Pasha later paid respect to him
as his mentor and patron.
Mustafa Reshid Pasha even in his time was known by historiographers as initiator of the
Tanzimât
reforms.
Midhat Pasha's reputation as a great reformer and protector of Bulgarian population in the Empire
was result of a carefully planned strategy on his part to build a corresponding image among Bulgarian
educated elite during his service as a governor of the
Danubian
Vilayet. At first he was successful, but
his true face was soon revealed.
Petar
Karapetrov, a contemporary journalist, described eloquently how
this happened. In his words, following the issue of the document called The
Mémoire
and the passage
of Bulgarian rebel bands of emigres
(1867,1868)
Midhat Pasha became bluntly inimical to Bulgarian
population and started to favour the Greek priests in their contentions with Bulgarian clergy; to him
Bulgarian ethnicity invoked the idea of
panslavism,
they were no more than instruments of Russian
foreign policy making them enemies of state number one.
There is a clear connection between this reappearance of Midhat Pasha as an enemy in disguise to
Bulgarian population and the crisis around the Eastern Question in the period
1866
to
1869.
Following
the Crimean War
(1856-1856),
when Russia suffered a bitter blow on its reputation as a great power in
international affairs, the Christian Orthodox population of the Ottoman Empire had to put up with the
protection of Britain and France. The two winning countries were bound to guarantee the integrity and
stability of the Ottoman Empire according to the Paris peace treaty of
1856,
taking Russia any change
to intervene against their will. This soon proved walking on thin ice. In
1867
the two principalities
Wallachia and Moldavia chose their new monarch Karl of
Hohenzollern
openly expressing their will
to become one state. The same year the Greek population on the island of Cyprus rebelled against the
false promise of reforms, while the people of the principality of Serbia insisted that all deployments of
the Ottoman army were removed from its territory.
Bulgarian population, too, made its demands. In
1867
a patriotic organization called Bulgarian
Central Committee issued The
Mémoire
in which they required from the sultan autonomy for their land
within the Empire in the form of a dual monarchy, obviously influenced by the same form of govern¬
ment established the same year in Austria-Hungary. The suggestion went so far as inaugurating the sul¬
tan as Bulgarian monarch in the medieval Bulgarian capital Turnovo. In the spring of
1867
two bands of
Bulgarian emigres, each counting around
30
volunteers, crossed the Danube from Romania led by the
voivodes Panayot
Hitov
and
Filip Totyu
trying to get support for this idea among Bulgarian population.
221
The band of
Filip
Totyu was located and attacked resulting in the death of all but the
voivode
and four
of his men. In Bulgarian town of Svishtov
20
young men volunteered
tojóin
the band and
5
Ottomans
were killed leading to massive retaliation for the whole population there.
Considering the safety in the number there could have been hardly any reason for worry. Two bands
of
30
men each hardly posed a threat to an empire whose territory was safely set on three continents and
which could easily recruit a million men for its army in times of war. Bulgarian uprisings, some of the
supported widely by the population, had also been recurrent.
Why then was Midhat Pasha so unforgiving in his sentiment for rebellion?
One likely answer is that he justly foresaw in this sparse struggle the onset of an organized libera¬
tion movement.
Midhat Pasha tried to create the image of an extremely religious person and many of his biogra¬
phers quote pages written by him in defense of the French enlightenment and its concern for human
rights. But he did nothing to support it accordingly with facts. For there is no religion, including the
Muslim, that could justify what Midhat Pasha calling himself a reformer did in
1867
when survivors
were left dying in agony, people were made to witness the death of their closest relative if they had
joined a band, or were hung only for giving food to a volunteer. This year drew a dividing line between
him and Bulgarian population.
On July 6th
1868
a hundred and twenty-nine Bulgarian patriots led by the voivodes Hadzhi Dimi-
tar and Stefan Karadzha crossed the Danube on their way to the Balkans with the memorable words
(roughly translated as) Lethe
sive Libere
embroidered on their flag. This motto kept the national spirit
high in the decade to
1878
which saw a lot of death and freedom at the end of the tunnel.
Midhat Pasha, who had risen in the meantime from governor of the
Danubian
Vilayet to chairman of
the State Council of the Empire, was given extra powers to exterminate all rebellion spirit. A description
by the Italian consul at the time
Di Donato
presents Midhat Pasha as a hangman par excellence and as
inimical to every mercy which to him was a display of women's prejudice. He personally authorized the
immediate death of any ethnic Bulgarian who showed the slightest reluctance to obey, and generously
rewarded its fulfillment. Foreign diplomats openly disdained such practices, which is evident from their
numerous accounts in diplomatic papers. Even Sabri Pasha, who took over Midhat Pasha's office in the
Danubian
Vilayet, expressed cautious doubts about the good of such brutal display of power.
In April
1878
a revolutionary organization called Bulgarian Revolutionary Central Committee was
at the forefront of resistance in a massive rebellion known as the April Uprising in Bulgarian history.
Ethnic Bulgarian population was mercilessly repressed on a large scale
- 70
settlements were completely
routed, others ruined, women and children were treated on a par with rebels. Such cruelty raised a wave
of contempt among European public. Its most enlightened minds, such as Victor Hugo, Charles Darwin,
Giuseppe Garibaldi, William Gladstone. Oscar Wilde, Mendeleev, Tolstoy, Dostoyevski, Turgenev,
et
al,
spoke in defense of Bulgarian resistance. Another diplomatic crisis was on the way.
Midhat Pasha used the momentum to subvert politics in favour of brutal oppression. During the
uprising he suggested as a minister to rout all prospering Bulgarian settlements, close all prospective
Bulgarian schools, send in exile or put to death all Bulgarian teachers, exterminate all Russian sym¬
pathies in Bulgarian population, enforce Islam conversion on part of it
-
all aiming to terminate any
capacity for resistance as a nationality once and for all.
Midhat Pasha was among the plotters who planned the military coup in the early hours of June 30th
1876
which resulted in the deposition of sultan Abdul
Azis.
A week later followed a report that Abdul
Azis
had taken his own life, which was shocking news and its historic truth hasn't been established yet.
At the end of August sultan
Murad V,
who was mentally ill, was brought down, too. The new sultan
Abdul
Hamid
promoted Midhat Pasha to the office of Grand Vizier.
222
At a diplomatic conference in Constantinople the same year attended by the ambassadors of the six
European great powers
-
Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, Midhat
Pasha, together with the British representative Sir Henry Eliot, went to great lengths to undermine all
efforts for peaceful solution that would have made provisions for giving autonomy to ethnic Bulgarian
population in two large areas, called vilayets. For a short-lived period of time the decision of one man
would make the difference between peace and unrest which he gambled in favour of the latter. The
result was perish and misery for militants and peaceful population alike from both confronting parties
-
Bulgarians supported by Russians
et al
against the Ottoman army of soldiers and officers. The same
territory that could have been ceded in peace was lost in war.
The momentum during the Constantinople Conference, when Abdul
Hamid
wasn't established
firmly in power and all authority was in the hands of one, was lost on Midhat Pasha. He should have
showed better judgment for the changed political situation in Europe, as well as for the actual political
interests pursued by his allies. He bet too much on French and British support but in March
1877
the
British reached an agreement with Russia for which they got the island of Cyprus. Later, the French
turned him in to his prosecutors.
Midhat Pasha was looking towards a deplorable end for his life. The new sultan was a tyrannical
ruler paranoiac about the possibility of limiting his power and surreptitiously planned to get rid of all
who could do that. He enforced an inquiry into the death of his predecessor Abdul
Azis
whose first vic¬
tims were those who put him on the throne. In April
1881,
when Midhat Pasha was governor in Izmir
the prosecution was already under way. Major
Hüsni bei,
one of his trusted adjutants, was sent to Izmir
to make final preparations. After getting word of it, Midhat Pasha sought refuge in the French consulate
service in the early hours of May 17th.
After a series of parley talks the fugitive (rather than refugee) was handed in by the French govern¬
ment which at the time was preparing for the conquest of Tunisia and was interested in keeping sultan
Abdul
Hamid
on their side.
The trial seemed more like incurring disgrace on the sultan's political adversaries than bringing jus¬
tice. It must have been the right time for Midhat Pasha to remember the justice he had done to Bulgarian
patriots in
1867
and
1868.
Today researchers appear divided whether Abdul
Azis
committed suicide or
was murdered. Although many contemporaries were convinced in the latter, its truthfulness hasn't been
established beyond doubt. The jury, no matter if manipulated or of its own conviction, found the defen¬
dants guilty and sentenced Midhat Pasha and
Mahmoud Damad
Pasha to death. The British and Italian
ambassadors interceded in their defense bringing in joint protest to court. To smooth out any appearance
of mockery, the sultan commuted the death sentence to life banishment, and in July
1881
Midhat Pasha
and the other convicts were sent to Taif prison. In the early hours of May 8th
1884
Midhat Pasha was
put to death while the official report was that he died as a result of a long bout of anthrax.
Midhat Pasha dedicated his whole career to keeping whole and empire state which finally wished
his own death. His fate stands as a sad example to statesmen and politicians showing how tyranny
degrades in evil ultimately ruining the lives of both its rebelling victims and its loyal hangmen. Midhat
Pasha was a talented man and a capable state official, but the empire that he served so well turned him
into a hangman only to dispose of him later in its own ruthless manner.
It would have been nice if comparing tyranny with the bettering of the time, we could nowadays
declare it a phenomenon of the past. But since we can't and tyrants better prove, history should be kept
for its eternal award.
223 |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Vitošanska, Marija 1938- |
| author_GND | (DE-588)1031524800 |
| author_facet | Vitošanska, Marija 1938- |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Vitošanska, Marija 1938- |
| author_variant | m v mv |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV040766878 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)828809854 (DE-599)BVBBV040766878 |
| edition | 1. izd. |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>00000nam a2200000 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV040766878</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20130227</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">130221s2012 a||| |||| 00||| bul d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9789543780914</subfield><subfield code="9">978-954-378-091-4</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)828809854</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV040766878</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">bul</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vitošanska, Marija</subfield><subfield code="d">1938-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1031524800</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Midchat paša i bălgarite</subfield><subfield code="b">mitove i realnost</subfield><subfield code="c">Marija Vitošanska</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="250" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">1. izd.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Sofija</subfield><subfield code="b">Tangra TanNakRa</subfield><subfield code="c">2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">223 S.</subfield><subfield code="b">Ill.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bălgarska večnost</subfield><subfield code="v">79</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In kyrill. Schr., bulg. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Midhat Pasha and Bulgarian population - facts and fiction</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="600" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Midhat Paşa</subfield><subfield code="d">1822-1884</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)123618460</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Tanzimat</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4184443-9</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Osmanisches Reich</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4075720-1</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Bulgarien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4008866-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Midhat Paşa</subfield><subfield code="d">1822-1884</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)123618460</subfield><subfield code="D">p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Osmanisches Reich</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4075720-1</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Tanzimat</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4184443-9</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Bulgarien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4008866-2</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="830" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Bălgarska večnost</subfield><subfield code="v">79</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV012764044</subfield><subfield code="9">79</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 2</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=025745343&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 2</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=025745343&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">306.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09034</subfield><subfield code="g">499</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">306.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09034</subfield><subfield code="g">561</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">909</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09034</subfield><subfield code="g">561</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">909</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09034</subfield><subfield code="g">499</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="943" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-025745343</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Osmanisches Reich (DE-588)4075720-1 gnd Bulgarien (DE-588)4008866-2 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Osmanisches Reich Bulgarien |
| id | DE-604.BV040766878 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-08-10T01:09:32Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9789543780914 |
| language | Bulgarian |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-025745343 |
| oclc_num | 828809854 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 |
| physical | 223 S. Ill. |
| publishDate | 2012 |
| publishDateSearch | 2012 |
| publishDateSort | 2012 |
| publisher | Tangra TanNakRa |
| record_format | marc |
| series | Bălgarska večnost |
| series2 | Bălgarska večnost |
| spelling | Vitošanska, Marija 1938- Verfasser (DE-588)1031524800 aut Midchat paša i bălgarite mitove i realnost Marija Vitošanska 1. izd. Sofija Tangra TanNakRa 2012 223 S. Ill. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Bălgarska večnost 79 In kyrill. Schr., bulg. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Midhat Pasha and Bulgarian population - facts and fiction Midhat Paşa 1822-1884 (DE-588)123618460 gnd rswk-swf Tanzimat (DE-588)4184443-9 gnd rswk-swf Osmanisches Reich (DE-588)4075720-1 gnd rswk-swf Bulgarien (DE-588)4008866-2 gnd rswk-swf Midhat Paşa 1822-1884 (DE-588)123618460 p Osmanisches Reich (DE-588)4075720-1 g Tanzimat (DE-588)4184443-9 s Bulgarien (DE-588)4008866-2 g DE-604 Bălgarska večnost 79 (DE-604)BV012764044 79 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 2 application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=025745343&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 2 application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=025745343&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Vitošanska, Marija 1938- Midchat paša i bălgarite mitove i realnost Bălgarska večnost Midhat Paşa 1822-1884 (DE-588)123618460 gnd Tanzimat (DE-588)4184443-9 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)123618460 (DE-588)4184443-9 (DE-588)4075720-1 (DE-588)4008866-2 |
| title | Midchat paša i bălgarite mitove i realnost |
| title_auth | Midchat paša i bălgarite mitove i realnost |
| title_exact_search | Midchat paša i bălgarite mitove i realnost |
| title_full | Midchat paša i bălgarite mitove i realnost Marija Vitošanska |
| title_fullStr | Midchat paša i bălgarite mitove i realnost Marija Vitošanska |
| title_full_unstemmed | Midchat paša i bălgarite mitove i realnost Marija Vitošanska |
| title_short | Midchat paša i bălgarite |
| title_sort | midchat pasa i balgarite mitove i realnost |
| title_sub | mitove i realnost |
| topic | Midhat Paşa 1822-1884 (DE-588)123618460 gnd Tanzimat (DE-588)4184443-9 gnd |
| topic_facet | Midhat Paşa 1822-1884 Tanzimat Osmanisches Reich Bulgarien |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=025745343&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=025745343&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV012764044 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT vitosanskamarija midchatpasaibalgaritemitoveirealnost |