Rethinking Russian pan-Slavism in the Ottoman Balkans: N.P. Ignatiev and the Slavic Benevolent Committee (1856–77)

ABSTRACT

In the mid-nineteenth century pan-Slavic ideology was evident at two levels: at the personal level in N.P. Ignatiev's diplomacy, and at the institutional level in the Slavic Benevolent Committee's activities. Both served to spread Russian influence among the Slavic Orthodox subjects of the Ottoman Sultan. The Russian Archives contain a wealth of material related to the Slavic Benevolent Committee and Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev's activities concerning Russia's Balkan policy. The memoirs of the Russian and Ottoman bureaucratic elites also offer great detail on the subject. Relying upon these archival sources and memoirs, this article aims to discuss the transformation of pan-Slavic ideology from a cultural organization into a Russian political asset, with special attention to N.P. Ignatiev and the Slavic Benevolent Committee.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge the support from the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) BIDEB – International Doctoral Research Program 2214.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. For example: H. Kohn, Panslavism: Its History and Ideology (New York: Vintage Books, 1960); H. Kohn, ‘The Impact of Pan-Slavism on Central Europe’, The Review of Politics, Vol.23 (1961); L. Levine, ‘Pan-Slavism and European Politics’, Political Science Quarterly, Vol.29 (1914), pp.664–86; M.B Petrovich, The Emergence of Russian Panslavism, 1856–1870 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956); G.C. Guins, ‘The Degeneration of Pan-Slavism’, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol.8 (1948), pp.50–9; G.C. Guins, ‘The Politics of Pan-Slavism’, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol.8 (1949), 125–32.

2. B.H. Sumner, ‘Russia and Panslavism in the Eighteen-Seventies’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fourth Series, Vol.18 (1935); Kohn, Panslavism; Kohn, ‘The Impact of Pan-Slavism’.

3. Ö. Kapıcı, ‘Osmanlı-Rus İlişkilerinde N.P. İgnatyev Dönemi ve Rusya'nın Osmanlı Siyaseti (1864–1877)’ (PhD thesis, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 2013); V.M. Khevrolina, Nikolai Pavlovich Ignatiev, Rossiiskii Diplomat (Moscow: Kvadriga, 2009); D. MacKenzie, Count N.P. Ignat'ev: The Father of Lies? (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002).

4. D. Vovchenko, ‘Modernizing Orthodoxy: Russia and the Christian East (1856–1914)’, Journal of the History of Ideas Vol.73 (2012), pp.295–317; D. Vovchenko, ‘Containing Balkan Nationalism Imperial Russia and Ottoman Christians, 1856–1912’ (PhD thesis, University of Minnesota, 2008); J. Milojkovic-Djuric, Panslavism and National Identity in Russia and the Balkans, 1830–1880 (New York, Columbia University Press, 1994).

5. S.A. Nikitin, Slavianskie Komitety v Rossii v 1858–1876 godakh (Moscow: Izdatelstva Moskovskogo Universiteta, 1960); A.A. Popovkin, ‘Slavianskie Blagotvaritel'nie Obshestva v Moskve i Sankt-Peterburge (1858–1912 gg.)’ (PhD thesis, Voronezhskii Gosudarstvennii Universitet, 2013); Z. Zlatar, ‘For the Sake of Slavdom. II. M.P. Pogodin and The Moscow Slavic Benevolent Committee: A Collective Portrait of 1870’, East European Quarterly, Vol.40 (2006), pp.255–91.

6. A. Adreev, Russkite Slavianski Komiteti i Blgarskoto Vzrozhdensko Obshestvo (1857–1878), (Veliko Trnovo: Abagar, 2014).

7. In this study the names of Russian monarchs will be Anglicised; all other names will be transliterated.

8. For Russia's role in the Napoleonic Wars, see D. Lieven, Russia Against Napoleon: The Battle for Europe, 1807 to 1814 (London: Penguin, 2009).

9. For an overview of Russia's economic and military backwardness, see B.D. Wolfe ‘Backwardness andIndustrialization in Russian History and Thought’, Slavic Review, Vol.26 (1967), pp.177–203. H.J. Ellison, ‘Modernization in Imperial Russia: Purposes and Achievements’, The Journal of Economic History, Vol.25 (1965), pp.523–40.

10. The most harmful terms of the Paris Peace Treaty, from Russia's perspective, were the full demilitarisation of the Black Sea and Danube and the protection of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the treaty, Russia saw its power decrease in the Mediterranean and also lost control of Bessarabia. See F. Splidsboel-Hansen, ‘Past and Future Meet: Aleksandr Gorchakov and Russian Foreign Policy’, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol.54 (2002), pp.380–1.

11. In his correspondence with Ignatiev, for example, Gorchakov stressed the need not to interfere with the rights of Ottoman Christians, as doing so would damage Russia's relations with European countries; for a case in point, see Russian Federation State Archive (Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii), Moscow (hereafter GARF), f.828, first expedition, op.1, d.1434, 149.

12. Galen Blaine Ritchie, ‘The Asiatic Department during the Reign of Alexander II, 1855–1881’ (PhD thesis, Columbia University, 1970), p.374.

13. Ibid., p.369.

14. GARF, f.1750, first expedition, op.1, d.64, 53; GARF, f.1750, first expedition, op.1, d.70, 21, 56; Ritchie, ‘The Asiatic Department’, p.385.

15. D. Geyer, Russian Imperialism: The Interaction of Domestic and Foreign Policy 1860–1914 (New York: Berg, 1987), pp.60–1.

16. Nikolai Pavlovich Ignatiev's notes on his foreign policy evaluations, including Balkan policy, can be found in GARF under fond relating to the correspondences and notes of N.P. Ignatiev: GARF, f.730, first expedition, op.1, d.543 (five microfilms) and GARF, f.730, first expedition, op.1, d.544 (four microfilms). These notes were published in Sophia in the 48th and 54th volumes of the collection of ‘Arkhivite Govariat’. For details, see Graf N.P. Ignatiev, Arkhivite govoriat No. 54&48 Diplomaticheski zapiski (1864–1874) & Doneseniia (1865–1876), Iliia Todev (ed.) (Sophia: Derzhavnaia Agentsiia Arkhivi, 2009). Ignatiev's notes in GARF. f.730 are identical copies of the Sophia publication, except the later includes an added section on ‘Donesenie’ (beginning from the 775th page), consisting of material from the RGIA – Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (Russian State Military-History Archive) and AVPRI – Arkhiv vneshnei politiki Rossiiskoi Imperii (Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire). Additionally, his notes, which were first published in the Russian Foreign Office journal Izvestiia Ministerstva Inostrannykh Del between 1914 and 1915, were gathered together and translated into Bulgarian. See N.P. Ignatiev, Zapiski (1875–1878), V. Dmitrova (trans.) (Sofia: Otechestvennaia Front, 1986).

17. Leonid I. Strakhovsky, ‘General Count N.P. Ignatiev and the Pan-Slav Movement’, Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol.17 (1957), p.223.

18. Kohn, ‘The Impact of Pan-Slavism’, p.323; Levine, ‘Pan-Slavism and European Politics’, pp.665–7.

19. For details on ‘United Slavs’, see M.B. Nechkina, Dekabristy (Moscow: Nauka, 1982), pp.98–104.

20. Levine, ‘Pan-Slavism and European Politics’, pp.668–70.

21. Kohn, Panslavism: Its History and Ideology, pp.77, 173.

22. D. Vovchenko, ‘Gendering irredentism? Self and other in Russian Pan-Orthodoxy and Pan-Slavism (1856–85)’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol.34 (2011), pp.250–1.

23. Ignatiev, Zapiski (1875–1878), pp.51, 64; Vovchenko, ‘Gendering irredentism?’, pp.250–1; Kohn, ‘The Impact of Pan-Slavism on Central Europe’, p.323.

24. H. Seton-Watson, The Decline of Imperial Russia, 1855–1914 (London: Methuen, 1952), pp.90–3.

25. S. Rabow-Edling, Slavophile Thought and the Political Cultural Nationalism (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2006), pp.135-7.

26. Sumner, ‘Russia and Panslavism’, pp.26–7.

27. Rabow-Edling, Slavophile Thought and the Political Cultural Nationalism, pp.1359–7.

28. ‘Vseslavianskii tsar’ is a term used by the nineteenth-century Russian poet F.I Tiutchev in his poem ‘Prorochestvo’. See F.I. Tiutchev, Lirika, K.V. Pigarev (ed.) (Moscow: Nauka, 1966), p.120; J. Lavrin, ‘The Slav Idea and Russia’, Russian Review, Vol.21, No.1 (1962), p.11.

29. Guins, ‘The Degeneration of Pan-Slavism’, p.51.

30. Ignatiev, Zapiski (1875–1878), pp.49–56.

31. Gorchakov was a product of the European-minded education system and the Russian Army, which was under German influence. Therefore, his policies inclined towards maintaining peace and balance with the European states, and thus generally opposed to Ignatiev's aggressive efforts.

32. Gorchakov's concern with the disturbed relations with the European powers was also expressed by his contemporary, the Ottoman historian Ahmed Saib. Saib stated that Russia did not want to risk its relations with Europe until the general situation had turned to Russia's advantage. See Ahmed Saib, Şark Meslesi, Saadettin Gömeç (ed.) (Ankara: Akçağ Yayınları, 2000), p.32, for the first edition of Saib's work see Ahmed Saib, Tarih-i Meşrutiyet ve Şark Meselesi Hâzırası (Dersaadet: 1328).

33. These Pan-Slavic journals, such as Den, Moskvich, Parus and Moskva, were unpopular among the bureaucracy, and were frequently censured. M.S. Anderson, The Eastern Question (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1966), p.171.

34. Kohn, Pan-Slavism, pp.126–7.

35. See GARF, f.828, first expedition, op.1, d.1434, 149; GARF, f.828, first expedition, op.1, d.1434, 230–2; GARF, f.828, first expedition, op.1, d.1435, 6–8.

36. At the 1867 Congress, when the tsar met with Czech historian Frantisek Palacky and publicist Frantisek Ladislav Rieger, he avoided discussing politics. See Guins, ‘The Politics of “Pan-Slavism”’, p.126.

37. Ignatiev's audacity in this regard derived partly from the support he received from Russian aristocracy from the very beginning of his military and diplomatic career. Ignatiev came from a well-known family whose roots went back to the fourteenth century. His royal blood brought him the title of ‘Count’ in 1877. Most of the predecessors of the Ignatiev family were military men. His father Pavel Nikholaevich Ignatiev was the General of the Armies and the President of the Committee of Ministers. For more information on his background, see: Khevrolina, Nikolai Pavlovich Ignatiev, p.14; and Strakhovsky, ‘General Count N.P. Ignatiev and the Pan-Slav Movement’, p.224. In June 1861, Ignatiev married Princess Ekaterina Golitsina, great-granddaughter of Marshal Mikhail Kutuzov, the Russian commander who destroyed the Grand Army of Napoleon I in 1812. In addition to his surname, which earned him respect among high-rank officials, this marriage brought him the support of the Russian aristocracy. On this point, see MacKenzie, Count N.P. Ignat'ev, p.203. From the very beginning of Ignatiev's appointment to Constantinople, Gorchakov had a great deal of faith in him. Part of Gorchakov's feelings came from his respect for Ignatiev's father. On this point, see: GARF, f.828, first expedition, op.1. d.1434, 295–7; GARF, f.828, first expedition, op.1., d.1435, 76–7. Ignatiev's family connections and success in foreign diplomatic missions brought him respect from the highest ranks of the tsardom. His missions in Khiva, Bukhara and Beijing won him the favour of Tsar Aleksandr II, and led to his appointment as director of the Asiatic Department. On this point, see Ritchie, ‘The Asiatic Department’, pp.299–300.

38. For Ignatiev's biography and diplomatic career, see: Khevrolina, Nikolai Pavlovich Ignatiev; MacKenzie, Count N.P. Ignat'ev; and Kapıcı, ‘Osmanlı-Rus İlişkilerinde N.P. İgnatyev Dönemi’.

39. Ignatiev, Zapiski (1875–1878), pp.49–56.

40. Nikolai Ignatiev's son Pavel Ignatiev wrote that his father fought not only against Europeans and the Ottoman administration but also against the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. See: Strakhovsky, ‘General Count N.P. Ignatiev and the Pan-Slav Movement’, pp.231–2; and Ritchie, ‘The Asiatic Department’, p.429.

41. Midhat Paşa indicated that upon Mahmud Nedim Paşa's elevation to the office of Grand Vizier, Ignatiev found the opportunity to interfere with the palace's internal affairs. He stated that Ignatiev was responsible for the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1872 and for the Herzegovinian uprisings of 1875. Midhat Paşa underlined that Ignatiev and Mahmud Nedim Paşa cooperated during Balkan uprisings to increase Russian influence at the Porte. On this, see: Midhat Paşa, Midhat Paşa'nın Hatıraları (Tabsıra-i İbret), Osman Selim Kocahanoğlu (ed.), Vol.1 (İstanbul: Temel, 1997), pp.41–8; and Ritchie, ‘The Asiatic Department’, p.317.

42. Ignatiev, Zapiski (1875–1878), pp.50–6; I.J. Lederer, Russian Foreign Policy (New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1962), p.434.

43. In Aug. 1861 Ignatiev firstly contacted Ottoman high officials in Constantinople, during the coronation of Sultan Abdul-Aziz.

44. Sumner, ‘Russia and Panslavism’, p.37.

45. GARF, f.1750, first expedition, op.1, f.352. (16 May 1869).

46. “En effet, la Russie doit toujours avoir la haute main dans les destinées de la presquîle des Balkans et être le ciment qui relie les différentes races coreligionnaires entre elles.” See, Graf N.P. Ignatiev, Arkhivite govoriat No.48, p.246.

47. “Au milieu toutes ces combinaisons politiques…la Russie seule était complètement isolée; elle n'avait aucun point d'appui pour servir de base à son action et son influence sur les Turcs s’était à cette époque presque entièrement éteinte...La résistance héroïque que nous avions opposée aux armées réunies des plus grandes Puissances du monde n’était pas faite pour diminuer notre prestige et notre gloire.” See, Graf N.P. Ignatiev, Arkhivite govoriat No. 48, p.8.

48. Ritchie, ‘The Asiatic Department’, p.317.

49. “…blgrite predstavliavakha zasega samo surov material, bez dostatchno kadri”, see Ignatiev, Zapiski (1875–1878), p.57.

50. Secret letter from Ignatiev to Gorchakov, 27 Dec. 1866. Ignatiev, Zapiski (1875–1878), pp.56–64.

51. Ritchie, ‘The Asiatic Department’, p.319.

52. Strakhovsky, ‘General Count N.P. Ignatiev and the Pan-Slav Movement’, p.227. The conduct of Near Eastern policy was directly under the responsibility of Gorchakov and the ambassador at Constantinople. Ignateiv's predecessor in Constantinople was Prince A.B. Lobanov-Rastovskii. Unlike Ignatiev, he was not so energetically interested in Ottoman affairs. See Ritchie, ‘The Asiatic Department’, p.331.

53. Ibid., p.397–9.

54. Ibid., p.331.

55. Ibid., p.318; GARF, f.828, first expedition, op.1, d.1434, 149.

56. The reports and letters concerning the Moscow Slavic Benevolent Committee are located at GARF, f. no. 1750.

57. Nikitin, Slavianskie Komitety v Rossii v 1858–1876 godakh, pp.35–6.

58. Ibid., p.45. The three other branches of the Committee were founded under Pogodin's administration of the Moscow branch. These committees provided support in the form of money and books, especially to divinity schools. They opened Slavic centres in public libraries and donated books to cities in the Balkans. Russian professors gave public lectures and seminars, the proceeds from which were donated to needy Slavs. In 1875-76 Kiev Committee gathered 34,933 roubles to support Montenegrins and Bulgarians. In general, the Moscow Committee and its three other divisions obtained high praises from Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and operated on a budget of up to 1000 silver roubles annually from the Ministry. See Popovkin, ‘Slavianskie Blagotvaritel'nie Obshestva’, pp.67–85.

59. Zlatar, ‘For the Sake of Slavdom’, p.255. Nikitin notes that the Moscow Committee was not composed only of Pan-Slavists, but also of people from different classes and views. However, he admits that the archival sources concerning the details of members have not been preserved, and that therefore much cannot be said about the pan-Slavic views of the members. See Nikitin, Slavianskie Komitety v Rossii v 1858–1876 godakh, pp.40, 57.

60. This network included Russian empress Maria Aleksandrovna, the metropolitan bishop Philaret (Drozdov), the archpriest Ioann Kronshtatskii (Sergiev), famous Russian writers F.M. Dostoevskii, L.N. Tolstoi and F.I. Tiutchev, famous Russian chemist D.I. Mendeleev, composer P.I. Tchaikovskii, Russian historian and journalist M.P. Pogodin, Slavophile writer I.S. Aksakov, Russian art collectors P.M. and S.M. Tretiakovi, Minister of National Education I.D. Delianov and Russian generals A.A. Kireev, M.G. Cherniaev and R.A. Fadeev. In addition, many historians, specialists of medicine, philologists, philosophers, sociologists, economists and pedagogues were associates of the Moscow Slavic Benevolent Committee. See: Anderson, The Eastern Question, p.171; Sumner, ‘Russia and Panslavism’, pp.29–34; Popovkin, ‘Slavianskie Blagotvaritel'nie Obshestva’, pp.4–5.

61. In 1827 Pogodin founded the journal Moskovskii Vestnik which was based on the idea of ‘Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality’, which was put forward by the minister of education S.S. Uvarov. Between 1841 and 1854 he published Moskovitianin. The main topics of this journal were Russian culture, history and folklore. Popovkin, ‘Slavianskie Blagotvaritel'nie Obshestva’, pp.67–85.

62. In addition to Pogodin, another prominent name from the committee was Nil Aleksandr Popov, professor at Moscow University. He was seen as a guardian among the Slavs who came to Russia for education. Bulgarians, Serbians and sometimes Czechs and Slovaks, following their arrival in Moscow, would visit Popov to ask for his support. See. Popovkin, ‘Slavianskie Blagotvaritel'nie Obshestva’, pp.67–85.

63. Nikitin, Slavianskie Komitety v Rossii v 1858–1876 godakh, pp.36–7; The Tsarist government frequently censored Pan-Slavist publications; however they continued to be issued under different names. These publications included Russkaia Beseda (1856–60), Molva (1857), Parus (1859), Den (1861–65), Moskva (1867–69), Moskvich (1867–68) and Rus (1880–85). See Popovkin, ‘Slavianskie Blagotvaritel'nie Obshestva’, pp.86–98.

64. GARF, f.1750. first expedition, op.1, d. 64, p.17, 53, 56; GARF, f.1750, first expedition, op.1, d. 70, 2, 21, 45, 57.

65. Popovkin, ‘Slavianskie Blagotvaritel'nie Obshestva’, p.65.

66. GARF, f.1750. first expedition, op.1, d. 64, p.17.

67. Nikitin, Slavianskie Komitety v Rossii v 1858–1876 godakh, pp.35–6.

68. GARF, f.1750, first expedition, op.1, d.64, 53; GARF, f.1750, op.1, 70, pp.21, 56.

69. For example see, GARF, f.1750, first expedition, op.1, d.227, 12, (16.3.1866)

70. BOA İ.MTZ, No.8, 16/Za/1259.

71. The committee supported several institutions in Bulgaria, including the Bulgarian Church and school community (Bolgarskaia Tserkovno-Shkolnaia Obshina), the publication of ‘Bulgarian pamphlets’ (Bolgarskie Knizhnitsi), and the Bulgarian printing house in Constantinople (Bolgarskaia Tipographia v Konstatinopole), which received the greatest proportion of these donations – 800 roubles, almost double what the other institutions received. In the first three of years of its foundation the committee spent a total of 10,000 roubles. See Popovkin, ‘Slavianskie Blagotvaritel'nie Obshestva’, pp.64–5.

72. GARF, f.1750, first expedition, op.1, d.70, pp.34–5.

73. GARF, f.1750, first expedition, op.1, d.352.

74. GARF, f.1750, first expedition, op.1, d.64, pp.23, 45–7, 53, 67; GARF, f.1750, first expedition, op.1, d.226, 12. The committee paid special attention to the education of Bulgarian women, especially in the 1870s. As an example of this attention, in 1872, Ignatiev helped several Bulgarian girls attain places at the Moscow Aleksandrovskii Monastery. GARF, f.1750, first expedition, op.1, d.64, pp.23, 67.

75. Ignatiev, Zapiski (1875–1878), pp.56–64.

76. The eminent Turkish historian Halil Inalcik suggests that it would be simplistic to say that Balkan uprisings were the direct result of Russian propaganda. He argues that although Russian Pan-Slavism was effective in mobilising local peasants, the immediate cause of uprisings in the Balkans was the taxation policy of the Ottoman gospodarlık regime. For this and more on the Ottoman gospodarlık regime and Russian policy, see Halil İnalcık, Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi (İstanbul: Eren, 1992), pp.38–72. The Ottoman archives contain an interesting account of how, in the 1870s, Ottoman Bulgarian subjects were encouraged by pan-Slavists to emigrate to Russia and Serbia from the region of Rumelia. After a short period they demanded to return home, but upon their return found that their living conditions, which had forced them to quit Ottoman soil in the first place, had grown even worse. On this, see BOA İ. MTZ, No.73.16/R/1278; BOA İ. MTZ, No.79, 1/Ş/1278. For population movements in the Ottoman Balkans in the mid-nineteenth century, see Kemal H. Karpat, Ottoman Population 1830–1914, Demographic and Social Characteristics (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), pp.60–77.

77. BOA İ. MTZ, No.103, 29/Ca/1285.

78. BOA HR. SYS. No.182 /43, 1–2 (Neue Frei Presse, 8 February 1873).

79. G. Grbesic, ‘Od ilirskoga pokreta i jugoslavenske ideje do neuralgicnih tocaka u hrvatsko-srpskim odnosima u 20. stoljeccu’, Diacovensia, Vol.21 (2013), p.89.

80. L. Leger, Le Monde Slave, Etudes Politique et Literaires (Paris: Librairie Hacette et Cie, 1897), p.126.

81. Ibid., pp.123–8.

82. N. Traikov, Bratia Miladinovi – prepiska, Izdiril, komentiral i redaktiral (Sofia: Blgarskaia Akademiia Nauka, Institut za Istorii, Izdatelstvo na BAN, 1964), pp.257–8.

83. D. Raikov. Istoricheskata cdba na makedonskite blgari Svidetelstva za blgarskoto vzrazhdanie v Makedoniia (Sofia: Makedonski Nauchen Institut, 1997), pp.256–7.

84. The Miladinov brothers worked for the idea of an independent Bulgarian Church. However, after a Greek archbishop in Skopje complained about them, the brothers were taken captive by the Ottoman government. Strossmayer sent a letter to the Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs petitioning his aid, but this proved insufficient to save them. See, V. Roudometof, Nationalism, Globalization, and Orthodoxy, (London: Greenwood Press, 2001), p.144.

85. Bratia Skorpilovi, Pametnitsi iz Blgarsko. chast 1. Trakiia (Sofia: Pridvorna Pechatnitsa na B. Proshek, 1888), p.1.

86. K. Irechek, Kniazhestvo Blgariia, (Plovdiv: Khr. G. Danov, 1899).

87. V. Dinova-Ruseva, ‘Mnozhenski aspekti v zhvopista na Mrkvichka’, Problemi na Izkustvoto, Vol.3 (2009), pp.14–22.

88. Ignatiev, Zapiski (1875–1878), pp.39–42.

89. Kohn, Panslavism, p.177.

90. This is especially evident in Austro-Hungarian newspapers, such as Fremden-Blatt, La Nouvelle Presse Libre, La Gazette Oficielle and La Gazette Allemande, which warned the Ottomans about pan-Slavic activities and their possible undesirable outcomes. See BOA HR. SYS. 182. 48.3, 1–2, (22 June 1873).

91. BOA HR.SYS. 158. 3., (27 January 1870).

92. This Ottoman administrative division was established in 1864 and lasted until 1878. Midhat Paşa continued his governorship until 1868. For the Ottoman vilayet system and Tanzimat reforms see S.J. Shaw and E.K. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Vol.II, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), pp.55–172 and Halil İnalcık and Mehmet Seyitdanlıoğlu, Tanzimat, Değişim Sürecinde Osmanlı İmparatorluğu (İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2012).

93. See Ali Haydar Midhat Bey, The Life of Midhat Pasha (London: John Murray, 1903), pp.32–66; G. Yazıcı, ‘Midhat Paşa (1822–1884)'s Policies vs. N.P. Ignatiev (1832–1908)'s Pan-Slav Mission’ (MA Thesis, Central European University, 2009), pp.31–47.

94. Midhat Paşa, Midhat Paşa'nın Hatıraları, pp.39–40, 60–2.

95. GARF, f.828, first expedition, op.1, d.1434, 149. Gorchakov was warning Ignatiev on acting through the orders coming from St. Petersburg.

96. For the report dated to 9 Dec. 1867, see Toder Panchev (ed.), Iz Arkhivata na Naiden Gerov, Vol.2 (Sofia: Blgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1911), p.287.

97. Ignatiev, Arkhivite govoriat No. 48, p.246.

98. Ahmet Midhat Efendi, Üss-i İnkılap, İ.N. Uysal (ed.) (İstanbul: Dergah, 2013), pp.142–3.

99. BOA İ. MTZ, No.96, 2/R/1285.

100. GARF, f. 1750, first expedition, op.1, d.19: ‘Ocherk neizvestnogo avtora ‘Bolgarskie Haidugsskie druzhini na Balkanakh’ (1868), essay of an unidentified author ‘Bulgarian Volunteer Bandits in the Balkans’, 1-1ob.

101. GARF, f. 1750, first expedition, op.1, d.19, 5-5ob.

102. Midhat Paşa, Midhat Paşa'nın Hatıraları, pp.65–6.