RISE OF NATIONALISM IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE:

HOW DID OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT RESPOND

TO THE BULGARIAN NATONAL MOVEMENT 1839-1870?

By
Assistant Professor Sleyman DEMRC
Lecturer in Early Modern Ottoman History
at Erciyes University, Kayseri-Turkey
e-mail: sdemirci@erciyes.edu.tr

Abstract
Through the latter part of the 18th century, the existence of the Bulgarians as
a nation was not widely known. Linguists still did not know that there existed a language
such as Bulgarian. The people who travelled through the Balkan Peninsula never talked
about the Bulgarian nation. The people living between the river Danube and Aegean Sea
were known as either Turks or Greeks. Kapodistirya, who was the foreign minister of
Russia, sent a report to Cesar Nicola I stating the possibility of establishing five new
Christian states in the Balkan Peninsula. According to this report, the lands in which the
Bulgars were living were shown as Serbia. But after the 1840s, the whole of Europe would
recognise the Bulgars as one of the populous nations of Europe and the political rights of
the Bulgarian nation began to be talked about increasingly. Finally, in 1878 at Berlin, an
agreement on the political rights of the Bulgars was acknowledged. In this paper I shall try
to explain how the Ottoman government responded to the Bulgarian national movement
between 1839 and 1870.
Key Words: Ottoman, Balkan Peninsula, Bulgars, Bulgarian national movement.

OSMANLI MPARATORLUUNDA MLLYETLN DOUU: 1839-1870

BULGAR MLL HAREKETNE OSMANLI HKMET NASIL KARILIK VERD?

zet
18. Yzyl sonlarna doru millet olarak Bulgarlarn varl geni kitlelerce
bilinmezdi. Dil bilimciler bir Bulgar dilinin varlndan haberdar deildi. Balkan
yarmadasnda seyahat eden insanlar Bulgar milletinden bahsetmezdi. Tuna Nehri ile Ege

Authors note: Earlier version of this paper delivered at Second World Middle Eastern
Studies Congress - WOCMES2, June.12-16, 2006, Amman / JORDAN. I would like
to take this opportunity to thank Erciyes University for the finacial support provided to
me towards my treval expences in order to participate in this scholary event. My thanks
also go to the anonymous referees of this Journal for their encouraging comments and
suggestions on various points throughout the process of this paper.
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

Denizi arasnda yaayan insanlar ya Trk yada Rum-Yunan olarak gsterilirdi. Rusya
Dileri bakan Kapodistirya ar I. Nikolaya gnderdii bir raporda balkanlarda
kurulmas muhtemel 5 Hristiyan devletinden bahseder. Bu rapora gre Bulgarlarn
yaad yerler Srbistan olarak gsterilmektedir. Fakat 1840lerden sonra btn Avrupa
Bulgarlar Avrupann kalabalk nfuslu milletlerinden biri olarak tanyarak ve Bulgarlarn
siyasi haklarndan artan oranda bahsedecekti. Nihayet 1878 Berlin anlamas ile Bulgarlarn
siyasi haklar tannacaktr. Bu almada Osmanl Hkmetinin 1839-1870 yllar arasnda
ykselen Bulgar milliyetiliine kar takip edilen siyaset incelenmeye allacaktr.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Osmanl, Balkan Yarmadas, Bulgarlar, Bulgar Milli
Hareketi.

Introduction
Through the latter part of the 18th century, the existence of the Bulgarians
as a nation was not widely known. Linguists still did not know that there existed a
language such as Bulgarian. The people who travelled through the Balkan
Peninsula never talked about the Bulgarian nation. The people living between the
river Danube and Aegean Sea were known as either Turks or Greeks. Ioannis
Kapodistrias, who was the foreign minister of Russia, sent a report to Tsar Nicola I
stating the possibility of establishing five new Christian states in the Balkan
Peninsula. According to this report, the lands in which the Bulgars were living
were shown as Serbia. But after the 1840s, the whole of Europe would recognise
the Bulgars as one of the populous nations of Europe and the political rights of the
Bulgarian nation began to be talked about increasingly. Finally, in 1878 at Berlin,
an agreement on the political rights of the Bulgars was acknowledged. 1
The Bulgarian nationalist 2 movement turned into a national development
movement when the Ottoman Empire began to collapse. The reasons for the
Bulgarian national development are as follows:
1. Corruption in the Ottoman administration
2. Oppression of the Greek patriarch and assimilation attempts against the
Bulgars

1
Halil nalcik, Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi, TTK yayn, Ankara (1943), p. 17.
2
On the nationalism in the Ottoman Balkans, see Barbara Jelavich, Balkan Tarihi (18. ve
19. Yzyllar) 1, Kre Yaynlar, stanbul, Ekim 2006, pp. 195-260. Kemal H. Karpat,
The Balkan National States and Nationalism: Image and Reality, Islamic Studies,
Special Issue: Islam in the Balkans, vol. 36, nu. 2, 3 (1997), pp. 329-359. Cf. also Nikolaj
Todorov, Social Structures in the Balkans During the Eighteenth and Nineteenth
Centuries, Etudes Balkanques, (4/1985), cited in M. Macit Kenanolu, slam-Osmanl
Hukukunda Zimmiler, Trkiye Aratrmalar Literatr Dergisi, Trk Hukuk Tarihi zel
Says, vol. 3, (5/2005), p. 539. Justin; McCarthy, Osmanlya Veda. mparatorluk
kerken Osmanl Halklar, ev. Mehmet Tuncel, Etkileim Yaynlar, stanbul, 2006,
pp. 77-87. Cf. also Seton-Watson, Robert W., The Rise of Nationality in the Balkans,
London, 1917.
418
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

3. Serb and Russian provocation against the Ottoman administration in

Bulgaria. 3
After the Vienna defeat, continuing battles in the Bulgarian region caused
the Ottoman Empire to lose power in there. As a result, there appeared some local
opportunist powers that treated the people badly. These were the major factors,
which triggered of the Bulgarian nationalistic movements. On the other hand, the
Fener district, in Walechia, and the major cities with Greek populations became
wealthy by trading and occupied the important positions in the Ottoman
administration, and were dreaming of re-establishing the Byzantine Empire during
the 18th century. To achieve this, the Greeks did not hesitate to use any opportunity
to assimilate other nations which were associated to the Greek Patriarch by the
Ottoman Empire concerning religious matters and administration, and the position
of the specially privileged Greek people who were working officially for the
Ottoman government, plus their intellectual high level and the Greek trade
monopoly in Bulgaria 4, helped them to assimilate the other nations, especially the
Bulgarian people. 5 Greeks occupied nearly all the important tiers in Government in
Bulgaria. The priest who captured these governmental positions by bribery
defrauded the people of money by all possible means. 6
In the 1800s, the Fener Patriarch sent a declaration to all Metropolis
ordering that Bulgarian church school should be closed and only the books, which
were written in Greek, could be studied. After that, religious ceremonies and
proselytising in Bulgarian churches were banned. The Bulgars who had been
educated in the Greek schools were ashamed of being Bulgarian in those years. To
be Bulgarian meant to be rude, of the peasantry and uneducated person. The
Bulgars had to submit to the Greeks.
The Bulgars, whom the Greeks had attempted to assimilate into their own
culture could only achieve the re-creation of a national identity and a national
education system after a great struggle against the Greek religious and economic
suppression. At first, this struggle began with the new Bulgarian Bourgeoisie. They
formed the new Bulgarian national education system. After that they formed the
establishment of the Bulgar Exarchate against the Greek Church. 7

3
Enver Ziya Karal, Osmanl Tarihi, TTK yayn, vol.7, Ankara (1956), pp. 84-85.
4
On the Greeks in the Otoman Empire see, Rchard Clogg, The Greek Millet in the
Otoman Empire in Christians and Jews in the Otoman Empire. The functioning of a
Plural Society, ed. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis vol.1, Holmes & Meier
Publishers, New York (1982), pp. 185-201.
5
M. V. Pundeff, Bulgarian Nationalism, in Nationalism in Eastern Europe, edid by
Peter Sugar-Leader N.O.J, London (1989), p. 99; nalcik, Bulgar Meselesi, pp.19-20.
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid.
419
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

In this paper I shall try to explain how the Ottoman government responded
to the Bulgarian national movement between 1839 and 1870.

The Emergence of Bulgarian Nationalism in the Ottoman Empire

Paisi, a monk, was the promoter of Bulgar nationalism among the forgotten
and apathetic Bulgarian people. While he was living as a hermit in a monastery on
the top of Mount Athos, he came to detest the brutal attitudes of the Greeks
towards his own people. Therefore, he decided to write the history of Bulgaria,
which showed that they were as noble as the other nations such as Greeks. In his
work, called The History of the Bulgar kings, saints and people, he tried to extol
the glorious days in the past.
Paisi addressing his people; (....) to know what is known of the deeds of
your fathers as all other peoples and nations know about their own nationality and
language, have either own history, and proud of their ridiculed and abused other
peoples and nationalities. I grew very fond of Bulgarian nation and fatherland and
applied much effort to collect various books and histories until I assembled and put
together the history of the Bulgarian nation. I have written it for your benefit and
pride, for you who like to know about your nation and languages. Copy this little
history and pay to have it copied by those who can write and keep it so that it will
not perish. There are those who do not care to know about their own Bulgarian
nation and turn to foreign ways and foreign tongue; they do not care for their own
language but try to read and speak Greek and are ashamed to call themselves
Bulgarian. O, you senseless and stupid people! Why are you ashamed to call
yourselves Bulgarians and do not read and speak your own language? Or had the
Bulgarians no kingdom and state? They have ruled for many years and have
exacted tribute from powerful Romans and wise Greeks. Emperors and kings have
given them royal daughters as wives in order to have piece and amity with the
Bulgarian tsars, they first had a patriarch, they first were converted, and they
conquered the largest territory. (....) 8
After Paisi another priest called Sofroni (1735-1815) played an important
role in the awakening movement of Bulgarian nationalism. Sofrani, in his
impressive work, mentioned the greediness of Greek priests. He especially wrote
about the catastrophies during the time of Pazvantolu, who ruled the district
illegally because of the weakness of Ottoman central administration in this area.
One of the followers of Sofroni was Dr. Petar Beron (1797-1871) who devoted
himself to Bulgarian nationalism. This man, whose real name was Petar
Haciberovic, attained his first nationalist notions during his childhood in Kazan
(Kotel) from Sofroni. In Munich, where he finished his medical education, he set
up a new Bulgarian alphabet, which would be used for the new Bulgarian
education system. Dr. Petar Beron continued his studies on Bulgarian education

8
Cited in ibid.
420
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

system. The books he wrote were distributed in Bulgaria and were greatly
instrumental spreading Bulgarian nationalism. 9
One of the students of Sofroni was George Mamarchev who was a
revolutionist. According to Mamarchev, in order to separate Bulgaria from the
Ottoman Empire, armed combat was necessary. Although he tried to start a
rebellion in Tirnova at 1835, he was arrested and exiled to an island called Sisam
where he died in exile in 1871. 10
Another student of Soffroni, a monk called Neofit Hilandarski Bozveli,
took an important part in the Bulgarian national movement. Bozveli visited nearly
every village and town to make the people conscious of their national ideology.
Besides this, he tried to separate the Bulgarian church and schools from Greek
Church and schools. Therefore, the Greek patriarch accused him of being a Russian
agent. So he was exiled and later died in 1848 whist in exile. After Bozvelis death,
his close friend Hillaryon Makariopolski had to continue the struggle on his own.
He was also exiled twice because of conflict with the Greek Church. In the
meantime he was ex-communicated and exiled to Ktahya. Thereafter he wrote a
letter to the Sultan of the time and he was forgiven. 11
In addition, some non-Bulgarians also helped the Bulgarian national
movement. For example, George Ivanovic Venelin, who originally came from
Russia, wrote a book called The Old and New Bulgars in which he supported
nationalism as well as pan-slavists policies. Eventually, the rich Bulgars who were
living both under the Ottoman administration and in the other States set up
committees to establish schools which would educated in Bulgarian language in
order to awake the nationalist movement amongst the Bulgars living under the
Ottoman administration. Apart from this they sent their youngsters to various
European cities, especially to Russian schools. 12
At that time, a rich Bulgarian traders son called Gabrovali Vasil Aprilov,
who was deeply effected by Venelins call to awake his nation, decided to establish
a school which was based on the European model. Aprivol collected money, which
was needed, from the traders in Odessa and Bucharest. It is interesting that Aprilov,
who was living as a Greek until that time, spent his fortune on these schools. In
1835, in Gabrova, the school was opened with great ceremony. A famous monk,

9
M. Hdai entrk, Osmanl Devletinde Bulgar Meselesi 1850-1875, TTK yayn,
Ankara (1992), p.57; Barbara Jelavich, Balkan Tarihi (18. ve 19. Yzyllar) 1, Kre
Yaynlar, stanbul, Ekim 2006, pp. 365-378 Mithat Aydn, Balkanlarda syan.
Osmanl-ngiliz Rekabeti Bosna-Hersek ve Bulgaristandaki Ayaklanmalar (1875-
1876), Yeditepe Yaynevi, stanbul, 2005, pp. 133-146. Cf. also Mercia Macdermott,
A History of Bulgaria, 1393-1885, Allen & Unwin, London, 1962.
10
Ibid.
11
entrk, Osmanl Devletinde Bulgar Meselesi, p.58.
12
Ibid.
421
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

Neofit Bozveli, who was mentioned above, was appointed as the Principal. The
books for the school were published in Serbia. 13 Thus, they started the national
Bulgarian education movement, which led to establishing the Bulgarian state. In
the first six years, the number of schools was six, which increased to thirteen in the
year of 1841. Between 1841-1845 it increased to 53. In 1860, there were 807; in
1870 there were 1217. 14 In short, the Bulgars were bringing up the generation,
which was needed to achieve their nationalist movement. After taking educational
control from the Greeks, the Bulgars were gaining their own identity quickly. 15
Although the Ottoman Empire did not like these incidents, it did not want
to make difficulties so they stuck to the Tanzimat Ferman. 16 Indeed, it must be kept
in mind that the announcement of the Tanzimat reforms encouraged and somewhat
aided the Bulgarian nationalist movement. For example, the principles of equal
rights for all peoples within the Ottoman Empire was used by the Bulgarian
nationalist leaders to support the Bulgarian demands for their own education,
church and so on.
Another important effect of the Bulgarian national movement was the
creation of missionary schools, especially Robert College that was based in
stanbul. In this school, they educated the most intelligent Bulgarian students.
According to an English agent, G. H. Fitzmaurice, if Robert College had not been
created, they could never have been a Bulgarian State. 17

13
Karal, Osmanl Tarihi, p. 87; entrk, Osmanl Devletinde Bulgar Meselesi, pp. 61-62.
14
nalcik, Tanzimat Bulgar Meselesi, p. 23; entrk, Osmanl Devletinde Bulgar
Meselesi, p. 63; lknur Polat Haydarolu, Osmanl mparatorluunda Yabanc Okullar,
Ocak Yaynlar, Ankara, 1993, pp. 157-164.
15
Ibid.
16
More on the Tanzimat Ferman and its evaluation, see Halil nalck and Mehmet
Seyitdanlolu, Tanzimat: Deiim Srecinde Osmanl mparatorluu, Phoenix
yaynevi, stanbul 2006. Glhane Hatt- Hmyunu 150. Ylnda Tanzimat, Yayna
Hazrlayan: Hakk Dursun Yldz, Trk Tarih Kurumu Yayn, Ankara, 1992.
17
nalcik, Bulgar Meselesi, p. 23; entrk, Osmanl Devletinde Bulgar Meselesi, p. 63;
lknur Polat Haydarolu, Osmanl mparatorluunda Yabanc Okullar, Ocak Yaynlar,
Ankara, 1993, pp. 157-164. Cf. Ahmet Merdivenci, Robert Kolejin lk Krk Ylnda
Kolejde Yetitirilmi Olan Bulgarlar I, Trk Dnyas Tarih Dergisi, vol. 3, stanbul,
1988, pp. 42-49; Robert Kolejin lk Krk Ylnda Kolejde Yetitirilmi Olan
Bulgarlar II, Trk Dnyas Tarih Dergisi, vol. 4, stanbul, 1988, pp. 2-7; lber Ortayl,
Balkanlarda Milliyetilik, in Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Trkiye Ansiklopedisi, vol.
4, letiim Yaynlar, stanbul, 1985, pp. 1026-1031; Stanford Shaw, Osmanl
mparatorluunda Aznlklar Sorunu, in Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Trkiye
Ansiklopedisi, vol. 4, letiim Yaynlar, stanbul, 1985, pp. 1002-1006; On the
missionary activities in the Ottoman Empire with particular references to Ottoman
Turkey, see Glbadi Alan, Amerikan Boardn Merzifondaki Faaliyetleri Ve Anadolu
Koleji, to be published by Turkish Historical Society, 2007. Forthcoming.

422
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

One of the reasons for so much motivation within Bulgarian nationalism

was the establishment of reading houses-okuma evleri. Beside this, the magazines
and the newspapers, which the Bulgars published, accelerated the call for
Bulgarian nationalism. 18

The Bulgarian Church Question and the Ottoman Response

In studying the evolution of Bulgarian nationalism, the Bulgarian church
question offers one of its most interesting phenomena. As I have already mentioned
above, the Bulgars were practically a lost people by the end of the eighteenth
century. They had forgotten their history, their literature and so on. In the view of
Ahmed Refik, the first step of Bulgarian national awakening was a demand for
independence from the Greek Church-Patriarchate in stanbul. The Ottoman
Empire, without making any distinction between race, nationality, or language,
classed all Christians as millet-i Rum-Greek people and conferred on the Patriarch
of stanbul an unlimited authority over all orthodox churches and schools which led
to the Greek clergy misusing their privileges and power against the non-Greek
Christians, including the Bulgars. 19
In time, as the nationalist notions began to strengthen in Bulgaria, a small
group of native priests was to be found in the Greek Church in Bulgaria, with the
monks making up the nucleus of the future teachers of the Bulgarian nationalist
movement. For the further development of Bulgarian nationalism, it was necessary
to build a number of schools for the education of the younger generation. For this
purpose, the monks and the priest who were under the authority of the Greek
Church in Bulgaria started the first promotion of Bulgarian nationalist movement,
simultaneously with their educational attempts. Now it can be said that the
educational and church movement, on the one hand, and the revolutionary
movement, on the other, increased in Bulgaria.
The Ottoman central government had proclaimed the 1839 ferman.
According to this, all nations living on the Ottoman territories were equal in all
forms. This prompted the Bulgars, who were living in stanbul, to apply to Bab-i
ali/ Sublime Porte for setting up their own independent church. Thus the Bulgarian
national movement had been started as a church movement in the Ottoman Empire.
At he beginning of the Bulgarian church movement, an Ottoman citizen, Stefanaki
Bey, who was originally a Bulgar but living as a Greek, applied for a Priest house-
Papas evi in stanbul, in 1848. Stefaniki Bey, in his application mentioned the
economic and social contribution of the 50,000 Bulgars living in stanbul 20, giving
this as one of the reasons for setting up a Bulgar Priest house:

18
Ibid.
19
Ahmed Refik, Fenar Patrikhanesi ve Bulgar Kilisesi, Trk Tarihi Encmeni
Mecmuas, sene xv, say 8 (85), stanbul (1341), pp. 73-84.
20
Ahmed Refik, Fenar Patrikhanesi ve Bulgar Kilisesi, pp. 73-84.
423
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

Although the Christian nations who were living in stanbul had their own
church like Greek and Armenians and Jewish, the Bulgars did not have their own
church. 21
The ceremonies in the Greek orthodox churches, which Bulgars were
attending was in the Greek language. So the Bulgars could not understand
anything.
On religious days, like Christmas and Easter, as the churches were not big
enough, it caused overcrowding.
In order to avoid all these difficulties, they wanted permission to set up a
Priests house, which would serve all the need of the people in the Fener district of
stanbul. As seen, Stefanaki Beys application was for the Bulgars who were living
in stanbul but later on became a nation-wide enterprise, which included all the
Bulgarian people in the Ottoman territory. This demand of the Bulgars was
appropriate to Tanzimat principles but it was against the Islamic law. Since the
conquest of stanbul, building a new church had been banned. Even for the
repairing of Greek, Armenian and Jewish temples a ferman (imperial permission)
was needed. Considering all this, the Ottoman Empire allowed Bulgars to build not
a church but a priests house in Fener. Thus the characteristics of Bulgar exarchate
were established and the separation movement from the Greek Church started in
October 1849. According to Macdermott this ferman-permission was of historic
importance not only because of the church, but also it was the first Turkish
document to refer to the Bulgar millet-the Bulgarian people, thus recognising
officially a difference between the Bulgars and the Greeks. 22 In addition, the
crowning success in building the free Bulgarian church-papazhane at stanbul,
showed the ostensible approval of the Ottoman government towards the movement
and tended to foster a community feeling among the Bulgarians as a national group
within the Ottoman Empire. 23
The Bulgars were determined to establish their own churches. After the
declaration of the 1856 ferman, which allowed the nations to re-organise
themselves, the church movement extended to the rest of Bulgaria. Now the
Bulgars increased their demands. Using the 1856 fermans principles, the Bulgars,
who were living in Macedonia, demanded native clergy and rejected the authority
21
entrk, Osmanl Devletinde Bulgar Meselesi, p. 216; Cf. Also Bilal Erylmaz,
Osmanl Devletinde Gayrimslim Tebaann Ynetimi, Rsale Yaynlar, stanbul, 1996,
pp. 58-62; M. Macit Kenanolu, Osmanl Millet Sistemi. Mit ve Gerek, Klasik
Yaynlar, stanbul, 2004. Cf. also Yavuz Ercan, Osmanl Ynetiminde Gayrimslimler.
Kurulutan Tanzimata Kadar Sosyal, Ekonomik ve Hukuki Durumlar, Turhan
Kitabevi, Ankara, 2001.
22
Mercia Macdermott, A History of Bulgaria, 1393-1885, (London 1962), p. 149; cf also
Ahmed Refik, Bulgar Kilisesi.
23
V.K. Sugareff, The Church Question, Pages from Bulgarians Life, (New York
1927).
424
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

of the Greek Church. In addition to this, they also signed a petition in 1858
demanding native bishops. The events in Macedonia were repeated in other parts
where Bulgarians lived. Now in Bulgaria the wave of antagonism against the
Patriarchate took on a fanatical as well as national aspect. Furthermore, a dramatic
incident was enacted when the Bulgarian Bishop Ilarion was forced, amid popular
acclaim, to omit the name of Patriarch as he was celebrating as Easter mass on
April 1860 in stanbul. Thus the patriarch ex-communicated Bishop Ilarion.
Thereupon the Ottoman central government tried to smooth out the differences
between the Greeks and the Bulgarians. Meanwhile, the Bulgars, using the 1856
ferman, set up a committee and sent it to the Sublime Porte in 1860. According to
this committee, the Bulgars would not recognise the Greek patriarch any more.
That is why Patriarch Kyrinos resigned. While the Bulgars demands were being
discussed progress they were also demonstrations in front of the Russian embassy,
where hymns were sung for the Russian Tsar. 24 As seen, the conflict assumed an
international importance and the central governments role as mediators failed.
Meanwhile the Vatican became interested in Bulgarian affairs. Besides
this, France and Austria were interested in the church question. Actually, the
Bulgarians wanted to preserve the church by placing it under the protection of one
of the western powers, for example, France. At the time, the power most interested
in the Bulgarian-Greek church dispute was Russia. The Russian ambassador to
stanbul, Count Ignatief, threw himself into the conflict with characteristic energy,
now advising patriarch, and threatening the Bulgarian representatives, but always
maintaining a dominating attitude. Indeed, the Ottoman government suspected his
motivisand disliked him for interfering in its the domestic affairs. It is clear that
for the time being the church question became one of the most important problems
of the Ottoman Empire because of both internal and external pressure. For
example, when the church conflict first emerged between the Greek patriarch and
the Bulgars, English attitude was lukewarm, but in time she changed her policy
because of Russian influence in the Balkans. According to Hyde, who used the
British ambassadors words to stanbul, Sir Hanry Balwer, the Bulgarian church
should ally itself with Rome because he became aware of Russian plans for
strengthening her influence in the Ottoman Balkan Peninsula. 25
Now let me turn back to the resignation issue. As said before, after the
patriarch Kyrinos resignation, the Bulgarian religious delegations did not attend
the new patriarch election, and they refused to recognise the new Patriarch.
Therefore, the separation from the Greek Church became inevitable. As for the
church the Bulgars were planning to establish, they needed political protection
from any of the European powers. In order to establish the Bulgarian national
church they decided to unite with the Roman Catholic Church. Towards the late
1860, a fully authoritized committee, which was led by a Bulgar bishop, was sent

24
Ibid.
25
Heyd, History of Bulgaria, p. 23.
425
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

to the Armenian Catholic Patriarch. 26 The Armenian Patriarch, on behalf of the

Pope, guaranteed that the Pope would not interfere with Bulgarian religious matters
and the regulations between Rome and Bulgarian Church would be the same as
relations between Rome and the other Eastern Churches. Thereafter, another
Bulgarian committee negotiated with the Armenian Church and they presented a
petition with many signatories, which were concerned with the unification with the
Armenian Catholic Church. According to the petition, unification was necessary in
order to re-establish the Bulgarian national church, which had been established in
the past but abolished by the Greek Patriarch. The reason why the Bulgars changed
their school of thought (mezhep) was obviously political rather than religious.
However, the negotiations between the Greek Church and the Bulgars did not
finish positively. 27
In 1867, the Russian ambassador to stanbul, Ignatief, persuaded the Greek
Patriarch to call a council and to consider the Bulgarian demands, but the council
was made up of Greeks who not compromise. Thereupon another council was
called to settle the Bulgarian-Greek problem. But the Bulgarian leader did not want
to solve the problem under the Greek patriarchy any more. However, the Ottoman
government tried sort the problem out in a peaceful way between the two factions,
she did not succeed. The Ottoman government was sorry for the Russian
ambassador. Indeed she mistrusted Ignatieffs attitude towards the Ottoman
domestic problem. Thus the central government changed its policy and wanted to
end this long and somewhat harmful struggle. But before the last attempt, it tried to
reconcile the two factions without Russian interference. For this purpose, two new
plans were presented to the Patriarch in 1868 but these plans also did not succeed. 28
As previously mentioned, until 1868 the Ottoman government tried to
solve the Bulgarian Church problem within the Greek Patriarchate. After the 1868
Bulgarian uprising against the central government, it was decided to put an end to
this problem once and for all. On March 18, 1870 a ferman was issued, declaring
that all the religious affairs of the Bulgar community were to be re-regulated. This
ferman authorised the creation of a free Bulgarian Church to which the name of

26
On the Armenian Patriarchate, see Kevork B. Bardakjan, The Rise of the Armenian
Patriarchate of Constantinople in Christians and Jews in the Otoman Empire. The
functioning of a Plural Society, ed. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewisi vol.1,
Holmes & Meier Publishers, New York (1982), pp. 89-97. On the Armenians in the
Ottoman society in general, see Hogr Toplumunda Ermeniler, Vols 1-4, Yayna
Hazrlayanlar: Metin Hlag,, Sleyman Demirci, akir Batmaz, Glbadi Alan.,
Erciyes niversitesi Yayn, Yayn No: 153, Kayseri, Ocak 2007.
27
Ibid; Macdermott, A History of Bulgaria, pp. 148-168. Cf. Zina Markova, Bulgarian
Exarchate 1870-1879, Bulgarian Historical Review, (4/1988) cited in M. Macit
Kenanolu, slam-Osmanl Hukukunda Zimmiler, Trkiye Aratrmalar Literatr
Dergisi, Trk Hukuk Tarihi zel Says, vol. 3, (5/2005), pp. 553-572.
28
Ibid.
426
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

Exarchate was given. 29 After the establishment of the free Bulgarian Church in
stanbul, the Bulgarian national movement proceeded to a new era and the political
independence was accelerated.
In short, the Ottoman government did not follow a consistent policy on the
church question. At the beginning, she tried to solve the problem within the Greek
Patriarchate in stanbul. For this purpose sometimes she played a mediator role.
But in time, the European powers, especially the Russian ambassador, Ignatieffs
influence on the church problem, made a significant effect in the changing
Ottoman policy. In addition to this, perhaps, the Ottoman government thought that,
if permission were given, the Bulgarian national movement would be satisfied.
Thus she achieves the division of Orthodox Christianity, and she would survive
herself in the Balkans as long as she could.

The Bulgarian Uprising and the Ottoman Response

The Ottoman central government saw the beginnings of the Bulgarian
revolt shortly after the proclamation of the 1839 ferman, which formerly marked
the initiation of the Tanzimat policy. According to which, the Ottoman policy,
during the reformation period, had, as one of its stated aims, the amelioration of
certain conditions to reduce the discontent on the part of non-Muslim subject of the
Empire. At that time, the general causes of these revolts were rates of taxation and
depredation of the local Turks, who were practising widespread banditry, and thus
the considerably weakening the Ottoman Empires authority in Bulgaria. 30
According to Blanqui, who was one of the contemporary observers who had been
sent to survey the Nish area immediately after the suppression of the revolt by the
French government, there was a definite connection between the Tanzimat and the
revolt. He also added that the main causes of the revolt were to be sought in
problems of taxation and the failure of reform. 31 Indeed, in Tanzimat reforms,
Mltezims were to be replaced by a single tax collected directly by the government
through new officials, named Muhassils. The implementation of this reform
suffered greatly from the fact that when the new posts were created, the older
category was not abolished. So the collection of taxes by the Muhassils moreover

29
Ibid.
30
nalcik, Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi, p. 27; M. Pinson, Ottoman Bulgaria in the first
Tanzimat Period-the Revolt in Nish (1841) and Vidin (1850), Middle East Studies,
vol.11, (May 1975), p. 105. Cf. Kemal H. Karpat, Balkanlarda Osmanl Miras ve
Ulusculuk, ev. Recep Boztemur, mge Kitabevi, Ankara (2004); Cf. Also Barbara
Jelavich, Balkan Tarihi (18. ve 19. Yzyllar) 1, Kre Yaynlar, stanbul, Ekim 2006,
pp. 365-378.
31
In the Tanzimat period Bulgaria was under ltizam except for a few brief epodes of
direct collection by central authority. Mltezim, tax-farmer, buy the taxes of a district
for a year that the system known as ltizam. For further information on this see nalcik,
Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi.
427
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

produced new abuses. In Pinsons view, there occurred co-operation between the
Muhassils and the officials. 32 As a result of these difficulties, a meeting attended by
over 600 families of villagers in the area took a decision to revolt. The leader of the
revolt was Milyo. The situation was very explosive, in that the rising spread from
Nish to Vidin in a very short period of time. Actually, there was not enough
Ottoman military force to use against the rebels. In this case, it was necessary to
make certain decisions about the revolt because of the absence of sufficient regular
troops. Thus the governor of Nish, Sabri Mustafa Pasha, called up some 1500
Albanian irregulars who caused great havoc, greatly complicating the pacification
process. 33 When the central government got news about the Albanians attitude
towards citizenry, immediate action was taken and Yakup Pasha, who was
governor of Edirne, was sent to Bulgaria to bring the Albanians under control. In a
very short time, the Albanian forces had been under control and the former
situation was restored. After that, Sabri Mustafa Pasha was accused as the chief
culprit of ill-treatment of the locals and was removed to stanbul. 34
After the Nish uprising the condition of Bulgaria went from bad to worse.
The Nish revolt had produced very little change. Indeed, Bulgaria was occupying
an exceptional position in the Ottoman Empire because its proximity to stanbul.
The Ottoman government made several attempts to improve provincial
administration, such as the assembly of provincial notables (1845), a collection of
provincial meclises which consisted of Muslim notables, and officials, and of
prominent non-Muslims, generally the local heads of the millets. None of these
measures appear to have produced any significant changes and the main causes of
the revolt remained in place. 35
In 1850, a new revolt was seen in Vidin and Lom. The rebels cut the major
roads to disrupt Turkish communication, military movement and provisioning. The
central government was very anxious that the upraising might stretch to rest of the
Bulgaria. 36 The situation was very delicate. Therefore, a special council was set up
to deal with the revolt. Meanwhile, Ali Riza Pasha was sent out from stanbul to
put down the revolt, without force if possible, but if this failed, then he was to use
regular forces i.e. kuvve-i nizamiye. 37 However, before the regular forces arrived,
the local notables went into action and put the rebels down. 38
According to rebels declaration, neither the Nish nor the Vidin uprising
were nationalistic or against the central government: our troubles are due to the

32
nalcik, Bulgar Meselesi, p. 27; Pinson, Ottoman Bulgaria, pp. 105-106.
33
Pinson, Ottoman Bulgaria, p. 107.
34
nalcik, Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi, p. 31; Pinson, Ottoman Bulgaria, p.107.
35
Ibid.
36
Pars Tulaci, Bulgaristan ve Trk-Bulgar likileri, (stanbul 1984), p. 60.
37
nalcik, Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi, p. 55.
38
nalcik, Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi, p. 57; Pinson, Ottoman Bulgaria, p.124.
428
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

tax farmers, village landlords, constables and suchlike 39 But in time the
situation changed in favour of the Bulgarian national movement because of this
failure of the Tanzimat reforms. As it has been said before, the main aim of the
Tanzimat reforms in Bulgaria was to make the people satisfied and thus to maintain
the Empire in this area as long as it could be. In other words, the Ottoman
governments policy towards Bulgarian affairs was to make the necessary
concessions to raya power without eliminating Ottoman authority or to channel
the Bulgarian demands in a direction not harmful to the Empire. This was the
Ottoman governments main policy to all Bulgarian demands concerning
education, church question and so on. For these purpose; she tried from time to
time, to make some amelioration in Bulgaria. However, the tax problems could not
solved for a long time, perhaps, not until the end of the Ottoman sovereignty
because, as mentioned above, of the implementation of the new tax system itself
created conflict. To solve this problem, the government sent special directions to
the governors and officials to treat the people well but they could not avoid the
oppression of local Aas and Kocabais.
In April, 1856, a new rebellion began in Bulgaria. After a short time it
spread to Tirnova and Nish. The Ottoman government, with the intention of not
letting others interfere, sent meclis-i vala katib-i sanisi Mithad Efendi (Pasha) to
the rebellion region with extraordinary powers. Mithad Pasha found out that the
misadministration by the Silistre governor, Mirza Said Pasha, had caused the
rebellions, and he dismissed the governor. Thus it was seen that the general causes
of the rebellions was the oppression by either local notables or government
officers. Shortly after Midhat Pasha arrived, he ended this anarchy but it was not a
permanent solution because the real reason for the rebellion was the existence of
the ky corbacilari who were demanding illegal money and labour from the
people. Due to the peoples common and widespread dissatisfaction of the people
after the 1856 Bulgarian rebellion, Midhad Efendi (Pasha) was sent to Tirnova in
1857 and he regulated a new nizamname which defined the state of orbacis 40.
According to this:

39
Ibid.
40
orbaci was the man who traded. Ky kocabailar who was elected from ky
orbacilar once a year was helping the government with collceting the tax. Before
Tanzimat ferman, every village had only one kocabai but after Tanzimat every village
had three or five kocabai relatively wity its population. These people set up the village
committees (ky meclisleri). These committees were regulating the relations between
government and non-muslims and sometimes they solved the problems between the
villagers. Villages were represented by ky kocabaisi and the region were represented
by memleket orbacisi who was also called knes or ba knez on this see entrk,
Bulgar Meselesi, pp.111-132. Cf. Mercia Macdermott, A History of Bulgaria, 1393-
1885, Allen & Unwin, London, 1962.
429
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

No one could demand any money under different names

No one was expected to work as angarya
Village kocabai could be appointed for one year and only after two years
he would be re-elected. 41
As it is said, before the implementation of the new regulations, the main
aim was to keep the people happy so that the Ottoman interests would be
maintained in this region. But all the positive efforts on behalf of the Ottoman
government could not avoid the rebel movements, in other words the nationalist
movement in Bulgaria. For the time being, the Bulgarian nationalist movement was
increasing and the problem for the central government became more pressing.
In May 1860, the foreign interference became inevitable. The Ottoman
government did not want foreign interference in her domestic affairs. Thus an
Ottoman committee, including non-Muslim representative, led by Sadriazam
Kbrsl Mehmed Pasha, was sent to Bulgaria to inspect the region. 42 After a three-
month inspection, the Sadriazam decided to appoint a very qualified person to
Bulgaria in order to look after Ottoman benefits. So the Sultan sent meclis-i vala
ba katibi Mithad Pasha, who had worked in the region very successfully, as
governor to Nish (February 1861). 43 At that time, the main issue in the region was
security. Banditry was rife across the whole country. Mithad Pasha negotiated with
Muslim and non-Muslim representatives. He examined the problems and the
solutions. Firstly he gained the support of the people to solve the security problem.
He created a convenient environment in which to practise his plans. In a short time,
he built roads, bridges and irrigation channels. In addition to this, he founded a
mail company between Nish and stanbul. As a result of these good works he
became very popular. For the first time in the Ottoman Empire he firmed a
foundation, which was called menafi-i umumiye sandklar in Nish in 1863. 44
During his governorship, Mithat Pasha gave equal opportunities to both
Muslim and non-Muslims. Again for the first time in Ottoman history he founded

41
Ibid.
42
Ahmed Cevded Paa, Maruzat, Yay. Haz. Yusuf Halaolu, ari yaynlar, (stanbul
1980), pp. 20-21; entrk, Osmanl Devletinde Bulgar Meselesi, pp. 163-165.
43
Ibid.
44
Seil Akgn, Mithad Paann Kurduu Memleket Sandklar: Ziraat Bankasnn
Kkeni, Uluslararas Mithad Paa Semineri, Bildiriler ve Tartimalar, Edirne 8-10
Mays 1984, (Ankara 1986), pp. 186-210; entrk, Osmanl Devletinde Bulgar
Meselesi, pp. 166-168; A. Cevat Eren, Ni, slam Ansiklopedisi, M.E.B. Yayn, vol.
9, (Ankara 1964), pp. 293-298; cf. also Nejat Gyn, Mithat Paann Ni Valilii,
Tarih Enstits Dergisi, Say:12 (1981-1982), pp. 279-316; Tevfik Gran, Osmanl
mparatorluunda Zirai Kredi Politikasnn Gelimesi 1840-1910, a paper presented
at Uluslarars Mithad Paa Semineri, Bildiriler ve Tartmalar, Edirne 8-10 Mays
1984, Ankara, 1986, pp. 95-126.
430
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

the slahhane which is the origin of industry schools. Mithat Pasha made the
region safe within less than three years. 45
The Ottoman statesmen wanted to spread these good works all over
Bulgaria and get rid of external interference so they founded Tuna vilayeti, which
centred in Ruscuk. Silistre, Nish and Vidin were in the same Vilayet. 46 Mithat
Pasha was appointed to the newly established Tuna vilayeti. During his time of
office, Mithat Pasha built 3000 km of roads, 1420 bridges and a railway between
Ruscuk and Varna. Mithat Pasha spread the menafi-i umumiye sandklar a all
over Bulgaria, which was the origin of Ziraat Bankas in Turkey. As well as this,
he founded similar slahhanes in Ruscuk and Sofia. In these schools, it was state
policy to teach Muslim, non-Muslims indeed all students, that there part of the
Ottoman Empire (Ottomanism-Osmanlclk) 47 in order to avoid the subject of
Bulgarian nationalism. In addition to this, he established the first publishing house
in Ruscuk in order to avoid the influence of Russian and Serbian agents. They
printed the Tuna paper, which addressed both Muslims and non-Muslims. 48 Tuna

45
Maria Todorova, Mithat Pashas Governorship of Danube Province, in Decision
Making and Change in the Ottoman Empire, edited by Easesar. E Farah, (Missouri
1993), pp. 115-126.
46
entrk, Osmanl Devletinde Bulgar Meselesi, pp. 166-169. On the population of Tuna
Vilayeti, see Slavka Draganova, Tuna Vilayetinin Ky Nfusu, Trk Tarih Kurumu
Yayn, Ankara, 2006, pp. 17-42, 124-138, 177-179; Cf. also Draganova, 1874 Yl
Dolaylarnda Tuna Vilyetinde Nfus Hareketleri zerine, XII. Trk Tarih
Kongresi, Ankara, 12-16 Eyll 1994, Kongreye Sunulan Bildiriler, Cilt 3, Trk Tarih
Kurumu Yayn, Ankara, 1999, pp. 979-981.
47
On the Ottomanism in the late Ottoman Empire, see Carter V. Findley, The Acid Test
of Ottomanism: The Acceptance of Non-Muslims in the Late Otoman Bureaucracy, in
Christians and Jews in the Otoman Empire. The functioning of a Plural Society, ed.
Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis vol.1, Holmes & Meier Publishers, New York
(1982), pp. 339-367. Cf. also Roderic H. Davison, The Millets as Agents of Change in
the Nineteenth-Century Otoman Empire in Christians and Jews in the Otoman
Empire, pp. 319-333; Skender Rzaj, Mithat Paann Rumelide Vilayetler
Kurulmasndaki Rol a paper presented at Uluslarars Mithad Paa Semineri,
Bildiriler ve Tartmalar, Edirne 8-10 Mays 1984, Ankara, 1986, pp. 59-69. lber
Ortayl, Mithat Paann Vilyet Ynetimindeki Kadrolar ve Politikas, in Osmanl
mparatorluunda ktisadi ve Sosyal Deiim Makaleler 1, second edition, Turhan
Kitabevi Yaynlar, Ankara 2004, pp. 241-246.
48
Todorova, Mithat Pashas Governorship of Danube Province pp. 123-125; entrk,
Osmanl Devletinde Bulgar Meselesi, pp. 173-181; Yusuf Halaolu,
Bulgaristan:Osmanl Dnemi, Diyanet Vakf slam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 6, stanbul,
1992, pp.396-399. Cf. also lber Ortayl, Osmanl Bulgar Basn zerine Notlar, in
Osmanl mparatorluunda ktisadi ve Sosyal Deiim Makaleler 1, second edition,
Turhan Kitabevi Yaynlar, Ankara 2004, pp. 483-488. and his Tanzimat Devri Basn
zerine Notlar in Osmanl mparatorluunda ktisadi ve Sosyal Deiim Makaleler 1,
pp. 489-496.
431
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

Vilayeti, in other words, Bulgaria, was re-developed by every means possible, and
it became a modern state in Europe, which was ruled by Mithat Pasha.
In 1868, Mithat Pasha was appointed to the uray-i Devlet Reislii. Just
after his appointment, a new rebellion occurred in Bulgaria. So Mithat Pasha was
sent back to suppress the rebellion, but the nationalistic movement could never be
suppressed. 49 Now, if we have a look at the works which Mithat Pasha

did, we can obviously see the Ottoman response to Bulgarian nationalism. On the
other hand, she tried to develop rest of the Bulgaria as much as could be, but
suppressed any possible nationalistic movement using regular forces on the other.
In this stage, I will look at the 1868 Bulgarian Revolution and the Ottoman
response to these improvements.

1868 Bulgarian Revolution and The Ottoman Response

As explained above, according to Government policy, Midhad Pasha, as
one of the best qualified statesmen of the time, had been sent to Bulgaria. During
the period of nationalist development in the Balkans and especially in Bulgaria, the
Ottoman statesmen asked themselves the question what could they do for the
continuation of the Empire in Bulgaria despite all the nationalist movements and
external interference. The only thing to be done was to protect the Empire by a
number of reforms, such as abolishing angarya, Gospodarlik regime; creation of a
provincial assembly and so on. Thus the condition of the Bulgarian people would
be improved and the people would be kept away from the nationalist movements.
But all these positive thoughts could not bring about any significant change in the
Bulgarian society. In contract with these, according to nalcik 50, at the time the
central government made lots of promises for the amelioration of the conditions in
the Bulgaria, and all these promises created high hopes among the non-Muslim
subject, especially the Bulgarian people. But in time it became apparent that the
government could not afford what she promised. The people were disappointed.
Therefore, because it seemed that no hope remained, people who had not
previously been politically active began to join the nationalist movements.
Midhat Pasha re-established security by his successful strategies but as
mentioned above, after he was appointed from Tuna vilayet governor to uray-i
devlet reislii. According to Ahmed Refik 51 gangs of about 30-40 people crossed

49
Ibid. Cf. also R. H. Davison, Midhat Pasha, Encyclopaedia of slam, Second edition,
vol.8, pp. 1032-1035.
50
Halil nalcik, Tanzimatn Uygulamas Ve Sosyal Tepkiler, Belleten, XXVIII/112,
October 1964, pp. 623-690.
51
Ahmed Refik, 1284 Bulgar htilali, TTEM, Sene XV, say 9 (86) (stanbul 1341), pp.
137-164.
432
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

the river Danube from memleketeyn (Eflak-Bodan) side and began to march
towards the village Karaisa. The revolutionary groups, who were led by Haci
Dimitri, were trained, carried modern arms and in wore military uniform, whereas
the former groups were just ordinary average men. Wherever they went, they gave
out leaflets on behalf of Balkan muvakkat hkmeti and encouraged the people to
rebel for sake of Bulgarian independence. They promised to rescue both Muslim
and non-Muslims from oppression and invited them to co-operate. In addition to
this, the leaflets, which were distributed by these rebels, included a Bulgarian
national anthem. Apparently this movement was quite different from the other
rebellions.
Besides this, we learn of the real intention of these rebels from the letters,
which we got from the dead rebels. According to these letters, the rebels demanded
that the Ottoman sultan recognise the Bulgarian independence. After mentioning
the unjust treatment that the Bulgars had to face and the difficulties they had been
through, they clearly expressed that they would continue to fight for independence.
And for this purpose, they would encourage all the people to rebellion. 52
Considering all this, the intention of these rebellions was to establish a
national and independent Bulgarian state. Meanwhile external forces helped rebels
continuously. The conflict was becoming more intense and spreading all over
Bulgaria. At the time, the Ottomans were having difficulties in Eflak-Bogdan,
Serbia and Gritte. On the other hand, the conflict in Bulgaria caused the Ottomans
to focus on the Bulgarian rebellion. As we mentioned before, Bulgaria was too
close to stanbul, indeed, it was the capital of Ottoman sovereignty in the Balkans.
As the rebellion began to spread, Bab-i li appointed uray-i Devlet reisi
Midhat Pasha who recently served successfully in this region to suppress the
rebellion before it spread to the other parts of Bulgaria and other states might
interfere. The appointment of Midhat Pasha was significant proof of the importance
the Ottomans gave to Bulgaria. Midhat Pasha suppressed the rebellion within
twenty days and re-established security but as he did not believe this was sufficient
and he gave a report to Bab-i li for further improvements. After that, the rebellion
movement could not be controlled and the Ottomans had to use force against the
rebels. 53

52
Ibid.
53
More on this see, Kemal H. Karpat, Ottoman Relations With The Balkan Nations
After 1683, Balkanistica: Occosional Papers in Southeast European Studies I, ed.
Kenneth E. Naylor, The American Association for South Slavic Studies,
(Charlotesville, Virginia: Slavica Publishers, Ann Arbor, (1974), pp. 7-55.
433
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

Conclusion
During this paper I have tried to explain in particular the Ottoman response
to the Bulgarian nationalism movement. The first stage of Bulgarian nationalism
was started with liberation of Bulgarian people from the Greek Patriarchate who
were living in stanbul. But later on it became nation-wide and included all the
Bulgarian people in the Ottoman Empire. The first response of the Ottoman
government to the Bulgarian demands was lukewarm. In the eyes of the Ottoman
government, it was a religious problem rather than a political one. Thus it should
be solved within the Greek Patriarchate. But, in time, the Ottoman government had
to change their policy towards the Church question because of Bulgarian demands
and gave her permission of the autonomy of the Bulgarian Church from the Greek
Patriarchate, in 1870.
Indeed, the first aim of the Bulgarian nationalist movement leaders was to
increase Bulgarian national education and cultural revival movement
simultaneously with their religious liberation movement from the Greek
Patriarchate. For this purpose, using the Tanzimat principles, a number of schools
were established in Bulgaria in a very short period of time. The Ottoman central
government kept a close watch on the Bulgarian education movement in order to
be prepared for future developments. Firstly, the government tried to get Bulgarian
education under her control with the establishment of a number of schools in which
all the students, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, were taught Ottomanism as a
state policy in order to avoid the idea of Bulgarian nationalist movement. Besides
this, the Ottoman government tried to increase prosperity among the Bulgarian
people. For this purpose, one of the best of the Ottoman statesmen, Midhat Pasha,
was appointed governor to the newly established of the Tuna Vilayeti, in other
word Bulgaria. During his office he tried to improve conditions in order to cut off
the advance of nationalism. In short, the Ottoman response to the Bulgarian affairs
was to make the necessary concessions to Bulgarian people without eliminating
Ottoman authority or to channel the Bulgarian demands in a direction not harmful
to the Empire. In this respect, it can be said that the Ottoman governments attitude
towards the Bulgarian nationalist movement was not consistent. 54

54
On the Ottoman policy towards the Balkan peninsula in general for the later period, see
Sleyman Demirci, The Methods Employed by the Unionists in Power to Control
People of the Ottoman Balkan Peninsula, Journal of Institute of Social Sciences /
Erciyes niversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi, 21, 2006/2:467-480
434
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

REFERENCES

Ahmed Cevdet Paa, Maruzat, Ed. by Yusuf Halaolu, ar Yaynlar, stanbul,

1980.

Ahmed Refik, Fener Patrikhanesi ve Bulgar Kilisesi, Trk Tarihi Encmeni

Mecmuas, sene:15, say:8/85, stanbul, 1341:73-84.

Ahmed Refik, 1284 Bulgar htilali, Trk Tarihi Encmeni Mecmuas, sene:15,
say:9/86, stanbul, 1341:137-164.

Akgn, S.; Midhat Paann Kurduu Memleket Sandklar: Ziraat Bankasnn

Kkeni in Uuslarars Midhat Paa Semineri, Bildiriler ve Tartmalar,
Edirne, 8-10 Mays 1984, Turkish Historical Society Publication, Ankara
,1986.

Alan, Glbadi; Amerikan Boardn Merzifondaki Faaliyetleri Ve Anadolu Koleji, to

be published by Turkish Historical Society, 2007. Forthcoming.

Aydn, M; Balkanlarda syan. Osmanl-ngiliz Rekabeti Bosna-Hersek ve

Bulgaristandaki Ayaklanmalar (1875-1876), Yeditepe Yaynevi, stanbul,
2005.

Braude, B.-B. Lewis ed., Christians and Jews in the Otoman Empire. The functioning
of a Plural Society, vol.1, Holmes & Meier Publishers, New York (1982).

Cvetkova, B.; The Bulgarian Haiduk Movement in the 15th-18th Centuries, in East
Central European Society and War in the Pre-revulotionary Eighteenth
Century, redited by Sugar, P.,

Champton, R. J.; Bulgarian Society in the Early 19th Century, Balkan Society in the
Age of Greek Independence, Edited by Clagg, Richard, London, 1981.

Davison, R. H.; Midhat Pasha, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, vol. 8:1032-
1035.

Demirci, Sleyman, The Methods Employed by the Unionists in Power to Control

People of the Ottoman Balkan Peninsula, to be published in Journal of
Institute of Social Sciences / Erciyes niversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstits
Dergisi, 21, 2006/2: 467-480.

--------, Hogr Toplumunda Ermeniler, Volumes I-4, Edited: M. Hlag, S.

Demirci, . Batmaz, G. Alan, Erciyes niversitesi Yayn, Yayn No: 153,
Kayseri, Ocak 2007.

Draganova, Slavka; Tuna Vilayetinin Ky Nfusu, Trk Tarih Kurumu Yayn,

Ankara, 2006.

435
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

-----------; 1874 Yl Dolaylarnda Tuna Vilyetinde Nfus Hareketleri zerine, XII.

Trk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara, 12-16 Eyll 1994, Kongreye Sunulan Bildiriler,
Cilt 3, Trk Tarih Kurumu Yayn, Ankara, 1999: 979-981

Ercan, Y.; Osmanl Ynetiminde Gayrimslimler. Kurulutan Tanzimata Kadar

Sosyal, Ekonomik ve Hukuki Durumlar, Turhan Kitabevi, Ankara, 2001.

Eren, A. C.; Ni, slam Ansiklopedisi, M.E.B. Yayn, vol. 9, Ankara, 1964:293-298.

Gyn, Nejat, Mithat Paann Ni Valilii, Tarih Enstits Dergisi,

Say:12 (1981-1982), pp. 279-316.
Gran, Tevfik, Osmanl mparatorluunda Zirai Kredi Politikasnn
Gelimesi 1840-1910, a paper presented at Uluslarars Mithad Paa
Semineri, Bildiriler ve Tartmalar, Edirne 8-10 Mays 1984, Ankara,
1986, pp. 95-126.
Halaolu, Y.; Bulgaristan: Osmanl Dnemi, Diyanet Vakf slam Ansiklopedisi,
vol. 6, stanbul, 1992:396-399.

nalck, H.; Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi, Turkish Historical Society Publication,

Ankara, 1943.

nalck, H.; Tanzimatn Uygulamas ve Sosyal Tepkiler, Belleten, XXVIII/112,

October 1964:623-690.

nalck, H- Seyitdanlolu, M., Tanzimat: Deiim Srecinde Osmanl mparatorluu,

Phoenix yaynevi, stanbul 2006.

Jelavich, B.; Balkan Tarihi (18. ve 19. Yzyllar) 1, Kre Yaynlar, stanbul, Ekim
2006.

Karal, E.Z.; Osmanl Tarihi, vol. 7, Turkish Historical Society Publication, Ankara,
1988.

Karpat, Kemal H., The Balkan National States and Nationalism: Image and Reality,
Islamic Studies, Special Issue: Islam in the Balkans, vol. 36, nu. 2, 3 (1997),
pp. 329-359.

Karpat, Kemal H., Ottoman Relations With The Balkan Nations After 1683,
Balkanistica: Occosional Papers in Southeast European Studies I, ed. Kenneth
E. Naylor, The American Association for South Slavic Studies,
(Charlotesville, Virginia: Slavica Publishers, Ann Arbor, (1974), pp. 7-55.

Karpat, Kemal H., Balkanlarda Osmanl Miras ve Ulusculuk, ev. Recep Boztemur,
mge Kitabevi, Ankara (2004).

436
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

Kenanolu, M., slam-Osmanl Hukukunda Zimmiler, Trkiye Aratrmalar

Literatr Dergisi, Trk Hukuk Tarihi zel Says, vol. 3, (5/2005), pp. 553-
572.

Kiel, M.; Tatar Pazarck: The Development of an Ottoman Town in Central-Bulgaria

or the Story of how the Bulgarians Conquered Upper Thrace Without Firing A
Shot 1485-1875 in Das Osmansche Reich in Seinen Archivalien Und
Chroniken Nejat Gyn Zu Ehren edited by Von. H, Kreiser, K and
Neumann, C. K., in Komission Bei Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart, stanbul,
1997:31-67.

Kiel, M.; Bulgaristanda Osmanl Dnemi: Kentsel Geliimi ve Mimari Antlar, Ter.
lknur Kolay, Kltr Bakanl Yayn, Ankara, 2000.

Macdermott, M.; A History of Bulgaria, 1393-1885, London, 1962.

Markova, Zina, Bulgarian Exarchate 1870-1879, Bulgarian Historical Review,

(4/1988).

Merdivenci, A.; Robert Kolejinin lk Krk Ylnda Kolejde Yetitirilmi Olan

Bulgarlar, I, Trk Dnyas Tarih Dergisi, vol.3, stanbul, 1988:42-49.

Merdivenci, A.; Robert Kolejinin lk Krk Ylnda Kolejde Yetitirilmi Olan

Bulgarlar, II, Trk Dnyas Tarih Dergisi, vol.4, stanbul, 1988:2-7.

McCARTHY, Justin; Osmanlya Veda. mparatorluk kerken Osmanl Halklar,

ev. Mehmet Tuncel, Etkileim Yaynlar, stanbul, 2006.

Pinson, M.; Ottoman Bulgaria in the first Tanzimat Period: The Revolt in Nish (1841)
and Vidin (1850), Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 11, May 1975:103-147.

Pundeff, M.; Bulgarian Nationalism, in Nationalism in Eastern Europe, Edited by

Sugar, P.- Leader, N. O. J., London, 1989.

Rzaj, Skender, Mithat Paann Rumelide Vilayetler Kurulmasndaki Rol

a paper presented at Uluslarars Mithad Paa Semineri, Bildiriler ve
Tartmalar, Edirne 8-10 Mays 1984, Ankara, 1986, pp. 59-69.
entrk, H.; Osmanl Devletinde Bulgar Meselesi 1850-1875, Turkish Historical
Society Publication, Ankara, 1992.

Shaw, S.; Osmanl Imparatorluunda Aznlklar Sorunu, in Tanzimattan

Cumhuriyete Trkiye Ansiklopedisi, vol. IV, letiim Yaynlar, Istanbul,
1985:1002-1006.

Tulac, P.; Bulgaristan ve Trk Bulgar likileri, stanbul, 1984.

437
 Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi Say : 22 Yl : 2007/1 (417-438 s.)

Todorova, M..; Midhat Pashas Governership of the Danupe Province, in Decision

Making and Change in the Ottoman Empire, Edited by Farah, E., Missouri,
1993.

Todorov, N. Social Structures in the Balkans During the Eighteenth and Nineteenth
Centuries, Etudes Balkanques, (4/1985).

Turan, .; Amerikan Protestan Misyonerlerin Bulgar Milliyetcilerine Katklar, XII.

Trk Tarih Kongresi, Kongreye Sunulan Bildiriler, vol. 3, Turkish Historical
Society Publication, Ankara, 1999:1097-1109.

Ortayl, .; Balkanlarda Milliyetilik, in Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Trkiye

Ansiklopedisi, vol. IV, letiim Yaynlar, Istanbul, 1985:1026-1031.

-----------, Mithat Paann Vilyet Ynetimindeki Kadrolar ve Politikas, in Osmanl

mparatorluunda ktisadi ve Sosyal Deiim Makaleler 1, second edition,
Turhan Kitabevi Yaynlar, Ankara 2004:241-246.

-----------, Osmanl Bulgar Basn zerine Notlar, in Osmanl mparatorluunda

ktisadi ve Sosyal Deiim Makaleler 1, second edition, Turhan Kitabevi
Yaynlar, Ankara 2004:483-488.

-----------, Tanzimat Devri Basn zerine Notlar in Osmanl mparatorluunda

ktisadi ve Sosyal Deiim Makaleler 1, second edition, Turhan Kitabevi
Yaynlar, Ankara 2004:. 489-496.

Seton-Watson, Robert W., The Rise of Nationality in the Balkans, London, 1917.

Yldz, H. D., Glhane Hatt- Hmyunu 150. Ylnda Tanzimat, Yayna Hazrlayan:
Hakk Dursun Yldz, Trk Tarih Kurumu Yayn, Ankara, 1992.

438