NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
Lecture I.
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE BALKAN SLAVS.
The word Slavs, as it is usually written in English and other European languages, does not exactly represent the name by which the people to whom it applies designate themselves. In all Slavic languages of today as well as in old Slavic writers the name is Sloveni. The root of the word is found in the names of Slovenes and Slovaks borne by two Slavic peoples to-day, and the name of Slavonia, which forms a part of Croatia. The derivation of the word is obscure and has given rise to various interpretations. According to some it was originally the name of a country, while others see in it the name of a tribe, which by extension in the course of time was applied to the whole race. Reasoning from the name Nyemets which they derive from the Slavic word nyem (dumb), applied by Slavs in general to a German, some writers have derived the name Sloveni from the word Slovo (word or speech) and have explained it to mean the speaking people in contradistinction from the dumb people, or those whose language was incomprehensible to the Slavs.
l
Besides the name Sloveni, the names of Anti and Venedi are supposed to designate Slavic tribes, and the latter name—Venedi—still survives in the name Wen-den or Winden, by which the Germans call the Slavs who live in Saxony and the Eastern Alps.
The Slavic invasions of the Balkan Peninsula began with the sixth century, although there are writers who maintain that Slavs entered the Peninsula before that date on predatory inroads, either by themselves or in company with other tribes. With the sixth century, however, the Slavs began their incursions across the river Danube into the Peninsula not so much with the object of plundering as of settling in it. By the middle of the seventh century they had established themselves so securely over the larger part of the Peninsula, that the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who wrote in the tenth century, in speaking of the conditions in the Peninsula in the eighth century, says that “the whole country was Slavicised and became barbarian,” that is, non-Greek. Another Greek writer, towards the end of the tenth century, remarks: “And even now the whole Epirus and nearly the whole of Greece and Peloponnesus and Macedonia are occupied by Slavs.” These and other testimonies about the extent of the Slavic settlements in the Balkan Peninsula served as the basis of Prof. Fallmerayer’s theory propounded about ninety years ago that the modem Greeks are not the genuine descendants of the ancient Hellenes, but hellenized Slavs. This theory finds now few supporters and has been disproved by later historians as exaggerated, but the evidence of a large influx of Slavs into Greece and the Peloponnesus is not denied even by those who oppose Fallmerayer’s opinion. The Byzantine Emperors made several attempts with varying success at their subjugation. As late as the thirteenth century these Slavs are reported to be “audacious people, who have no respect for the Byzantine Emperor,” while even in the fifteenth century their descendants are said to have spoken partly Slavic.
The Slavs who settled in the Balkan Peninsula had a tribal organization based upon the clan system. Such an organization is found also among other Slavs, as for example those living at that time in Russia, of which a Russian chronicle tells us that “they had their own customs, and the law of their fathers and traditions, every one his own habits.” There was no political union among the Slavs. They recognized no common ruler, and that is why they are characterized by some ancient writers as “autonomous” or “without chiefs or leaders.” Each clan was ruled by its own chief, whose authority was limited by an assembly of elders or of the whole clan. Democratic government seems to have been the prevailing system among them, and one of the native terms for the ruler really means “army leader,” which shows that he was more of a military chief than a civil administrator. The three words (Tsar, Kral, Knyaz) that are now in use among the Slavs to express the idea of king and prince are borrowed from foreign languages and are not Slavic. Tsar is a contraction of Caesar, Kral is supposed to come from the name of Charlemagne—Carolus Magnus—and Knyaz is derived from the same root from which come König in German and king in English.
Let me say here that the word Tsar was by the Russians exclusively limited to the Emperor of Russia. When in 1908 Bulgaria declared herself an independent kingdom and the king assumed the title of Tsar, many people supposed that this was a sign of Bulgarian imperialism—that the Bulgarians wanted to establish an empire on the Balkan Peninsula and that they were really taking away from the glory of the Russian Emperor by taking his title. Well, the simple explanation of the matter is that in the Bulgarian language we have only one word, Tsar, for king, so that really the use of the name did not mean imperialism or anything of the kind; it was the only title which we could give to our king, as Kral is not in common use among the people.
Living thus politically disunited, the various Slavonic tribes in the Balkan Peninsula came more or less under the influence of Byzantium. Some of them succeeded in maintaining their local independence, while others became subject to the Byzantine emperors. The main concern of the latter was to make the Slavs accept chiefs appointed by the provincial governors of the empire, to do military service and to pay taxes. That this object was not always easily attained is proved by the various wars, which the Byzantine army was obliged to wage against the Slavs. The results obtained by these military expeditions were seldom certain or permanent, for very often the Slavic tribes, overwhelmed by the numerical superiority and better discipline of their enemy, would submit only to rise again the moment a favorable opportunity presented itself. What the final issue of this struggle between the well-organized forces of the Byzantine empire and the disorganized Slavs would have been is not difficult to surmise. They would have been forced eventually to succumb and be incorporated with the empire. This would certainly have happened, if in the second half of the seventh century the appearance of the Bulgars in the Peninsula had not led to the unification of the Slavs under one ruler, and the foundation of a kingdom, which lasted through various vicissitudes seven hundred years. By this event the foundations of a Balkan Slavic State were laid and a nation that exists to this day was formed.
Within the last five or six years, due to passions stirred up by the late war, a great deal has been written about the origin and nationality of the Bulgarians of to-day. Their Slavic nationality has been denied, and they have been declared to be by origin Turanians, Tartars, Turks, Mongols, Huns, Finns,—anything but Slavs. As these statements, dictated by the spirit of propaganda, have been widely spread both in this country and Europe, and have found credence even among learned men, who should know better, it would be well to examine into their validity and state the historical facts bearing upon the subject.
According to Byzantine historians a band of Bulgar warriors, whose numerical strength is unknown, crossed over the river Danube in 679 from Roumania into the northeastern part of Bulgaria, the present Dobrudja. They easily subdued seven small Slavic tribes living there, and in the course of time extended their conquests westward over other Slavic tribes. All the attempts of Byzantium to prevent their further extension or drive them back across the Danube failed. The Bulgars maintained their position, consolidated their power as conquerors and out of the disunited Slavic tribes, which they subdued, they formed a state under their rule.
Various opinions have been advanced by modern historians about the race to which these Bulgar conquerors belonged. Some have pronounced them to have been Tartars, others think that they were Finns, while others consider them as Huns, Mongols or Turks. I am inclined to believe that they were affiliated to the Turkish race. One thing is certain; they were not Slavs. Everything that we know about their customs, manners and habits, their military and civil organization, the titles of their rulers and nobles, points unmistakably to that fact. The names of the Bulgar Kings up to the middle of the ninth century, when Christianity became the State religion, are distinctly non-Slavic. The reports which are found in Byzantine historians of the eighth and the ninth century about the wars waged by Byzantium against the newly established Bulgarian Kingdom, make a clear distinction between Bulgar and Slavic army detachments. Although the army was under the supreme command of the Bulgar King, the Slavic detachments were evidently commanded by their own chiefs. From this we may conclude that the Slavs, who became subjects of the Bulgar Kings, were not entirely deprived of their communal organization, but shared with their conquerors in the administration. In a document of the eighth century, a distinction is made between the Bulgar and Slav languages, for we are told that the Bulgar King had among his counsellors men, who were conversant with the Greek, the Bulgarian and the Slavic languages.
The Bulgar invaders of the Balkan Peninsula were not a nation. They were a band or a horde of warlike men, superior to the Slavs in military organization and discipline, but inferior to them in almost every other respect. How numerous this band or horde was, is unknown; but an approximate estimate of its numerical strength may be made by comparing it with that of another Bulgar band, which about the same time entered modern Hungary under the leadership of a brother of the man who was at the head of the Balkan Bulgars. This band, it is said, numbered 9,000 men. There is no reason to suppose that the Bulgars who entered the Balkan Peninsula were much more numerous. Granting, however, that they were twice or ten times that number, it is absurd to suppose that a nation like the Bulgarians of to-day, which numbers about six millions, can be the direct descendants of the original Bulgars. Historical facts contradict such a supposition, and prove that the modern Bulgarians take their origin from the numerous Slavs, who in overwhelming numbers inhabited the territory which they occupy at the present day. These facts, briefly stated, are the following:
1. Before the arrival of the Bulgar conquerors and the establishment by them of a Kingdom, in which the Slavic element was by far the most predominant, the Slavs in the Peninsula were in great danger of falling under the rule of the Byzantine emperors. The lack of political and social cohesion among the tribes rendered them incapable of resisting successfully the influence of Byzantium. With the constitution of a State, in which the disunited Slavs were brought, comparatively speaking, under a well-organized military and civil administration, a center of gravitation was created for them.
Even those Slavic tribes that did not enter originally into the composition of this State did not look upon it with disfavor, for it represented to them not an altogether alien institution, but one in which kinsmen of theirs had a share. Hence, in the further expansion of this Slavo-Bulgar or Bulgaro-Slav Kingdom, we do not find the Slavs outside of the original limits of it offering any violent opposition to its expansion. On the contrary, it commanded their sympathy, and Professor Ramband, the well-known French historian, is right in saying that every time there was a war between Byzantium and Bulgaria, the Slavs under Byzantine dominion were sure to rebel. To them incorporation with the Bulgar Kingdom was evidently preferable to remaining under Byzantine rule.
2. When in the second half of the tenth century the eastern part of the Bulgarian Kingdom fell under Byzantine rule a long struggle, lasting forty years, was stoutly maintained in the west—that is, in Macedonia —against Byzantine attacks. The center of this western Kingdom was in Macedonia and not in Bulgaria proper, and all chroniclers—Greek, Arab, Armenian and others—speak of it as Bulgarian and of the people who took part in the struggle as Bulgarians. It is positively certain that the original Bulgars never set foot in Macedonia, the population of which was for the most part Slav. The part which these Slavs took in fighting for the independence of the Bulgarian Kingdom, and the name Bulgarians by which they are designated, proves that the original Bulgars had by that time been thoroughly Slavicized. Their name had become synonymous with that of Slav, and their kingdom in the eyes of the Macedonian Slavs was a Slavic kingdom, a kingdom of their own.
3. When in 885 Methodius, who with his younger brother Cyril had preached Christianity to the Slavs in Moravia, died, his pupils, said to have numbered about 200, were exposed to the persecution of the German hierarchy. They left Moravia and took refuge in Bulgaria, which at that time occupied the position of the most prominent Slavic State. Both the government and the people received them gladly, and they found themselves among their own co-nationals, Slavs like themselves. They brought with them Slavic church books, and many of them were given important appointments in the Church of Bulgaria. These men certainly would not have come to Bulgaria with their Slavic books, if the country had been peopled by a Tartar or Turk population with a language totally unlike the Slavic. In documents of the early part of the tenth century we find the word Bulgarian used for Slavic, and the language of the books spoken of as Bulgarian—that is, the language not of the original Bulgars, but of the Slavs who had assumed the name of Bulgarians.
4. With the introduction of Christianity into Bulgaria in the second half of the ninth century, the foundations of a literature were laid. It was the first literature to appear among the Slavs. The language of it is purely Slavic, without any Tartar, Turkish or Finnish traces in it. Its productions were freely copied by Serbians and Russians as perfectly intelligible to them. Even to-day this language is called by many philologists and historians Old-Bulgarian, meaning thereby not the language of the original non-Slav Bulgars, but of the numerous Slavs who were their subjects and at the time of the appearance of the literature were already known by the name of Bulgarians.
In presenting these historical facts I hope that I have made it clear why the Bulgarians of the present day cannot be considered the descendants of the original Bulgars, who were so small in number that they were easily assimilated to and swallowed up in the overwhelming Slavic majority. The modern Bulgarian is essentially a Slavic language, akin to the Russian, Serbian, Croat, Slovene, etc. In their popular beliefs, folk-lore, customs and manners the Bulgarians in no way differ from the other Slavs, and have nothing in common with Tartars, Turks or Finns. Serbians, Russians and other Slavs have always recognized them as their brethren, and modem historians and philologists have proved beyond any doubt their Slavic origin. The late Czech historian, Prof. Jiretchek, who was a recognized authority on the history of the Balkan Slavs, says:
“The ancestors of the Bulgarians of to-day are not the small bands of Isperikh’s Bulgars, who in 679 took possession of Moesia on the Danube, but the Slavs, who in the course of the third to the seventh century had established themselves in Moesia, as well as in Thrace, Macedonia, Epirus, Thessaly, ay, almost in the whole Peninsula. The blood of the Finnish Bulgars [he considers the Bulgars Finns], which principally flowed in the veins of the noble families, seems to have long since vanished.”
The Greek historian Paparigopoulos of the University of Athens attributes the complete amalgamation of the Bulgars with the Slavs to two causes: first, the Bulgars, being small in number, needed allies; second, though superior to the Slavs by their warlike virtues, they were inferior to them in every other respect; hence they yielded easily to their moral and social influence. This easy and complete assimilation of the Bulgars with the Slavs gave rise to the theory, advanced by some Slavic historians of the last century, one of whom was a Serbian, that the original Bulgars must have been Slavs, for otherwise they could not have been absorbed in a little over a century and a half so completely as not to leave any trace in the language, the folk-lore or the customs of the modern Bulgarians.
What happened to the original Bulgars in the Balkan Peninsula is not a unique ethnographic phenomenon without a parallel in history. Two centuries before, a Frankish tribe under the leadership of Clovis extended its conquests in Roman Gaul and established a kingdom among the Gallo-Romans, whom they subdued. The kingdom as well as the people received the name of the Frankish conqueror and to this day they are known as France and Français. The Germans still call France Frankreich, the Frank Kingdom, while the Frenchman still feels pride in his German name and does not consider it a derogation to his nationality to bear it.
The other case is still more to the point, for it is the exact counterpart of what took place in the Balkan Peninsula. Two centuries after the establishment of the Bulgar Kingdom, namely in 862, a band of warlike Northmen or Normans, bearing the name of Russ and racially a Scandinavian or Teutonic tribe, came from the north into Russia, subdued the disunited Slavic tribes around Kiev, and laid the foundations of the modern Russian State. As in Bulgaria, so in Russia the names of the first rulers and of many nobles, which have been preserved in the Russian chronicles, are of foreign and not Slavic origin. In a Russian chronicle we have mention made of a delegation of about twenty Russians who were sent to Constantinople, I think it was in the tenth century, to make a treaty with Byzantium. Of the names which are given of these people not a single one is a Slavic name; they are all Teutonic.
The name Russ became the general designation for the various Slavic tribes and their country, and it subsists to this day. It would be absurd to assert or maintain that the French and Russians of to-day are Germans or Teutons, because they bear German names. It is equally absurd and historically untrue to apply such a reasoning to the modem Bulgarians. What occurred in these three cases was that a numerically inferior band or horde of conquerors imposed their name upon those whom they conquered, but were swallowed up in the great mass of the vanquished and disappeared. Such is the conclusion which historical facts warrant and which is accepted by all Slav and other historians and philologists of to-day; all else is a perversion of history into which one lands when he tries to distort it and make political capital out of it.
It would be of no particular interest to enter into a full presentation of the history of Bulgaria. We may touch only upon its most salient points. From the beginning of its political existence as a State down to its downfall under the Turks towards the end of the fourteenth century, Bulgaria was engaged with few intermissions in wars against the Byzantine empire. Peaceful relations were the exception, and common action between the two very rare. Twice or thrice Bulgaria was able to extend its dominion over almost the whole Balkan Peninsula as far as the Adriatic sea and northern Greece. This expansion was due to the personal initiative and enterprise of the ruler at the time. On his death, when a weak successor was unable to cope with internal and external difficulties, a collapse came and all of the advantages formerly gained were lost. In the thirteenth century, when Constantinople fell under Latin domination, the Bulgarian kings worked in harmony with the Greek emperor, who had transferred his capital from Constantinople to Nicæa, to drive the Latins out, and had a large share in breaking their power. When the common danger, however, was passed, the former hostile feeling between Byzantium and Bulgaria reappeared. From the second half of the 13th century the Bulgarian Kingdom may be said to have begun its downward course. Internal dissensions and rivalries among the nobility, frequent rebellions against the royal authority, court intrigues from within and from without, foreign invasions and wars were gradually sapping the foundations of the State. When in the year 1353 the Turks crossed over from Asia Minor and established themselves at Gallipoli and the Dardanelles in Europe, Bulgaria was in the throes of political agony. Ten years later the Turks occupied Adrianople and in a few years more they had conquered almost the whole of Thrace, from where their irruption into the north of the Peninsula was only a question of time. Their conquest of Bulgaria was facilitated because of the division of the Kingdom into two parts, ruled by two half-brothers, whose mutual relations were unfriendly. In 1393 the Bulgarian capital, Tirnovo, was captured and the country became a Turkish province.
There is a great deal of similarity between the history of the Bulgarians and that of the Serbians. The latter like the former had to wage frequent wars with the Byzantine empire and neighboring countries. Prof. Jiretchek considers the territory between the rocky mountains of Montenegro and its surroundings and the basin of the river Morava as the oldest and most permanent fatherland of the Serbian people. It is what is called to-day Old Serbia, which is found on the river Rasa near the old town of Rasa, the modem name of which is Novi-Bazar, or New Market Town. Specifying more particularly this territory, he says: “Among the Slavic tribes that settled in the Balkan lands, the real Serbians established themselves originally in the interior of the country, and lived away from the Danube and the sea in the valleys of the
rivers Lim, Ibar and western Morava.” The name Serbs, which originally denoted one of the Slavic tribes, was gradually extended to the neighboring tribes and their kinsmen, so that it was applied sometimes to the Croats and to those living in the Herzegovina of to-day.
About the way the Serbians and Croats came to settle in the Balkan Peninsula, a story is told by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, which most probably is only a legend. The Byzantine Emperor, Heraklios (575-642), wishing to people some regions devastated by former incursions of predatory tribes, invited the Serbians and Croats to occupy them. The probability is that both these Slavic peoples entered the Peninsula at some time or other during the Slav immigration, although they were not known by those names to the Byzantine historians, or the latter knew very little as to what was going on at the time in distant parts of the Peninsula. The names Serbs and Croats are met with for the first time in the ninth century. The introduction of Christianity among the Serbs and Croats is referred by the same historian to the reign of Emperor Heraklios. It is said that priests sent by the Pope of Rome at the emperor’s request baptized them. The conversion, if it did really take place, was either not complete or the people soon lapsed into their former heathen practices, for about two centuries and a half later we read of another conversion again by order of a Byzantine emperor. This took place soon after the conversion of the Bulgarians and the translation into Slavic of the church books. Both these events must have helped the firmer establishment of Christianity among the Serbs.
The history of the Serbs before the thirteenth century presents very little interest. The country was divided into small counties ruled over by chiefs, called Zhupans, one of whom, probably owing to his larger possessions, was called the Great Chief. Dissensions and strifes about supremacy or the succession were very frequent among the chiefs, and opened the door to outside interference. Greek and Latin writers speak of the ruler of the country as archon or dux, whose power was limited by the other chiefs who acted as his advisers, and by the people’s Assembly. The government was based upon democratic principles as among the other Slavs. But in the course of time his power grew wider, until towards the end of the twelfth century Stephen Nemanya succeeded in founding a dynasty which ruled over Serbia till the second half of the fourteenth century. With him Serbian history really begins, and under his successors the country acquired the position of a Balkan State with which its neighbors had to reckon. The unification of the region inhabited by Serbians was gradually and successfully accomplished. Nemanya was fortunate in being succeeded by a very able son, who consolidated the work begun by his father and is known in Serbian history as “the first-crowned” King. Quarrels and wars among rival brothers and relatives in the Nemanya family were not wanting, but the dynasty survived them all. Wars against Byzantium, the Hungarians, the Bulgarians and other neighboring countries, as Bosnia, Ragusa, etc., in which the Serbians were involved, were maintained with success and the frontiers of the Kingdom were extended. Under the rule of Stephen Dushan (1331-1355) Serbian power in the Peninsula reached its highest point. Nearly two-thirds of the Peninsula came under his authority, and in order to assert his preponderating influence, Dushan was proclaimed “Tsar” by a Serbian parliament and assumed the title of “Tsar of the Serbians and Greeks.”1 He also promulgated a code of laws, known by his name, the contents of which prove that Serbia at that time was juridically and administratively a well-organized State. Unfortunately, the grand work accomplished by Dushan could not be maintained and carried on by his successors. Rivalries and jealousies among the various chieftains, dissensions and even wars between pretenders to the Serbian throne, destroyed the political structure that Dushan had erected and divided the country into small and mutually hostile principalities. According to the opinion of a modem Serbian historian (Prof. Stanoyeivitch of Belgrade), the kingdom of Dushan was composed of elements differing in nationality, religion, traditions, culture and political tendencies. His personality alone held together these heterogeneous elements and prevented a decline. At his death, the centrifugal and separatist elements gained the upper hand, and ambitious feudal governors of provinces, which during the reign of Dushan had not had the time to amalgamate, were eager to weaken the kingly power and strengthen their own influence. Serbia, like Bulgaria, was found at the time of the Turkish invasion of the Peninsula a distracted
1This title was always assumed by either Bulgarian or Serbian kings whenever they extended their dominion over the great part of the peninsula. They always called themselves “Tsar of the Bulgarians and Greeks” or “Tsar of the Serbians and Greeks.”
country, and although it made supreme efforts to withstand the Turkish onslaught, the elements of disintegration were preparing its downfall. In 1389, at the fateful battle at Kossovo Polje, Serbian independence was shattered. For seventy years more Serbia existed as a vassal of the Sultan, bound to pay him tribute and supply him with a military contingent; but in 1459 she lost the few privileges she had and was annexed to Turkey as a simple Turkish province.
The internal history of both Serbia and Bulgaria during the time of Turkish domination till the period of their resuscitation is very imperfectly known. The Turkish conquest forced thousands of people to flee from their homes into neighboring countries, as Roumania and Hungary. In the beginning the Turks respected the communal organizations of the Christians. What they cared most about was that the latter should be submissive, pay their taxes and render all the service that their masters required of them during the almost incessant wars, which they waged for the extension of their dominions. These wars naturally kept the Christian people in constant servitude, for they were obliged to supply the Turkish army, without any remuneration, with food, means of transportation and everything else that they might want. The lawlessness of the troops increased the people’s hardships and helped to devastate the regions through which they passed on their expeditions. It was the Sultan’s policy, however, to propitiate his Christian subjects as far as he could, because he needed their assistance in his efforts to push his conquests beyond the limits of the Balkan Peninsula.
If we may believe popular tradition, the Christians did not have a bad opinion of Turkish rule, when it was first established among them. According to a Serbian popular ballad the despot1 or ruler of Serbia once asked the famous John Hunyadi, the Hungarian hero, who was trying to persuade him to continue the war against the Turks: “If we are conquerors, what will you do with us?” “You will go to Rome and implore the Pope’s benediction,” was the reply, meaning thereby that the Serbians would have to become Roman Catholics. Not satisfied with this prospect, the Serbian ruler put the same question to the Sultan, and received in answer the following assurance: “By every mosque there will be a church and every one will be free to bow before the one or to cross himself before the other.”
Whether any Turkish Sultan ever made such a generous promise or not is immaterial. The facts are that the Christians for a long time were forbidden to erect new churches, and even the repairing of churches already existing could not be undertaken except on a special permit by the Sultan himself. This permit usually was not readily granted, and entailed a great deal of expense, mostly graft, before it was obtained.
The sufferings of the Christian subjects of Turkey increased in intensity when the former power of the Empire began to wane and internal disintegration, owing to the vices and corruption of the authorities, set in. The Janissaries, who were recruited from Christian children, were the elite troops by which the Sul-
1 Despot is the title that the ruler of Serbia bore at that time. It does not mean a tyrant; it simply means a ruler, and in modern Greek the word is used to designate a bishop.
tans won their splendid victories. It was a terrible toll which the poor Christians had to pay, in addition to other taxes and exactions, for three hundred years. The corps, under the loose discipline and bad administration of later weak Sultans, degenerated into a body of legalized plunderers, a terror to the Christians and a standing menace to the Sultans themselves. The testimony of contemporary writers, who had visited Turkey in the sixteenth century, assures us that the Janissary corps at that time was so overwhelmingly Slav that they spoke their respective languages, Serbian or Bulgarian. Many Christians converted to Mohammedanism occupied the highest posts in the administration of the empire as grand viziers—that is, prime ministers—or in the army and navy as officers. Even in the Sultan’s court the Slav element predominated and many documents issued by the imperial chancery are extant written in the Slavic language with Cyrillic characters. These high functionaries came mostly from former noble Slav families in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who in order to save their lives and property became converts to Mohammedanism. Some of them, however, who were of obscure origin, by their ability or by the favoritism of the Sultan rose to high positions, for in Turkey public offices were not limited to a standing aristocracy, but were open to all who either by merit or by “pull” could attain to them. It is said that in the sixteenth century, during the grand-viziership of the famous Mehmed Sokolli or Sokolitch, by origin a Serbian of Bosnia, half of his council consisted of Mohammedan Slavs. These Christian renegades, among whom there were also Albanians and
Greeks, were really the great factors who rendered the greatest services to the Sultans in the extension of their empire and the administration of it. Von Hammer, the historian, says: “It was a State maxim with the Osmanlis (the Turks), that one had to be the son of a Christian in order to attain to the highest dignities of the Empire.”
The ascendancy which these Mohammedan converts acquired in the councils of the Sultans brought no relief to the mass of Christians, who were exposed to oppression. At rare intervals feeble attempts at rebellion against the lawlessness of the military and civil authorities were made, but they were quickly and sternly repressed. As the Christians were forbidden to carry arms, they were helpless before their oppressors. Speaking of Serbia in the 16th century, Ranke, the German historian, quotes a traveller of that time who describes the people as “poor captives, none of whom dared to lift up his head.” The same might justly be said of the other Christians in the Peninsula.
The impossibility of obtaining any outside help for their deliverance from the Turkish yoke or of throwing it off by their own unaided efforts, brought about a curious social phenomenon in the life of the Christians, which needs some explanation in order to be understood and appreciated. Its parallel may be found in the story of Robin Hood, so familiar to students of English history. Among civilized people of to-day brigandage is considered as a highly disreputable profession, and the brigand a reprobate and an outlaw of society to be despised and hunted down. Not farther back than the last century, ere any of the
Balkan States had regained their political independence, the Bulgarian haïdout, the Serbian haïdouk and the Greek klephtis, all meaning a brigand, were regarded by their fellow-countrymen with sympathy and admiration. The people delighted in telling of their deeds, and many a popular ballad, current even today, extols them as meritorious heroes.
To a foreigner, unacquainted with the social and political conditions under which the Christians had lived for centuries under the Turkish rule, this attitude towards brigandage and brigands seems a sign of moral depravity. The Christian brigand, however, was not a sneak thief or a vile cut-throat, who took to his profession out of a wanton desire for murder. He was a man who, wronged and outraged in his own person or in that of his family by Turkish misrule and injustice, or unable to bear the sight of Turkish insolence and oppression, preferred to shoulder his gun and lead a life of freedom in the mountains. A Greek folk-song relates how a son, in bidding good-bye to his mother, tells her that he can no longer bear to live under the Turks; he prefers life in the mountains with the wild beasts to living with the Turks in the plains, and begs his mother to pray that he may kill as many Turks as he can.
These brigands used to go in bands under the leadership of a captain chosen by them, with a standard bearer, and their chief object was to keep in fear and respect the Turkish oppressor, and afford protection and defence to the Christian. With the loot which they obtained from the exercise of their profession, they not infrequently, as the popular ballads tell us, helped poor people in distress or made donations to churches and monasteries. Among the leaders of such brigand bands women also are mentioned, and some of them are represented to have been superior to the men in valor, and very dextrous in the manipulation of weapons. In the struggle for independence of Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria, these so-called outlaws took an active part and rendered valuable service as leaders of insurgent bands. With the extinction of Turkish rule the profession of the brigand has fallen into disrepute, and if at any time wicked and lawless men, actuated by ferocious instincts, have taken to it, they have been quickly and summarily dealt with, because their conduct found no support among the people.
The Serbians who, at various times since the conquest of Serbia by the Turks, emigrated into Hungary, took an active share with the Austrian army in trying to stem the tide of Turkish invasion. They formed the so-called military boundary and had to bear the first impact of the Turkish attacks. It was among them that the spirit of freedom was more or less maintained. To the Montenegrins (who belong to the Serbian race) belongs the greatest praise for the determination with which they have striven to resist the establishment of Turkish rule in their country. The history of Montenegro is almost an uninterrupted series of wars waged against the attempts of the Turks to plant their flag upon its rocky mountains. Favored by the nature of their country, the brave mountaineers have desperately defended themselves and the Turks have never succeeded in really subduing them and establishing their rule over the country.
The existence of a large Serbian population in Austria was of great service to Serbia in her efforts to regain her political independence in the early part of the last century. In comparison with the condition of the Serbians under the rule of Turkey, that of the Serbians in Austria was vastly better. Civil and military offices were open to them, and many of them gained distinction, especially in the army. During the wars which Austria was obliged to wage for the recovery of her territories from the Turks, Serbia was occupied and held, off and on, by Austrian troops. A great number among these troops were Serbians, and the contact with them must have awakened among the people of Serbia ideas of political freedom and national self-assertion. In the successful issue of the Serbian struggle for independence in the first quarter of the nineteenth century and in the organization of a Serbian government the Austrian Serbians rendered valuable services.
The Serbian element in Turkey suffered considerable diminution by the emigrations which the Austro-Turkish wars necessitated. This loss was felt most sensibly in the regions of what is called Old Serbia, north of the Shar Mountain. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries these territories fell for a time under Austrian rule, but eventually had to be retroceded to Turkey. Fearing the vengeance of the Turks on their reoccupation of the territory many thousands of Serbians preferred to emigrate to Austria, where they were certain of better treatment by a Christian government. The country thus vacated by the Serbians was occupied by Albanians, who, favored by the
Turkish government, have pushed forward their settlements south of the Shar Mountain into Macedonia. The policy of having these Albanian settlements planted among the Christians of Macedonia has been to overawe and keep in subjection the Christians. These Albanians, who were practically unmolested by the provincial authorities in their treatment of the Christians, have been one of the principal causes of all the unrest and discontent in Macedonia. As these regions are now in the possession of Yugoslavia, Albanian licence will be curbed, and if Albania gets an independent government of her own, these Albanians may prefer to join their fellow-countrymen to remaining under the domination of Yugoslavia. The possibility of future disagreements and even conflicts between Albania and Yugoslavia in regard to these territories that are inhabited by Albanians is not at all excluded.
Another people of the Balkan peninsula which deserves notice because of its intermixture with the Bulgarians and Serbians are the so-called Aromani of Thessaly and Macedonia. The name Aromani is the one they like to give to themselves. The name by which they are called by their neighbors is Vlakh, Koutso-Vlakh or Tsintsar.1 The accepted theory about their origin is that they are the Latinized descendants of the Thracians. Their language is akin to the Roumanian, with a great many words borrowed
1 Vlakh is supposed to have the meaning of a stranger, foreigner, like the word Welsh. In Polish and Czekh the word means Roman and Italian. Koutso Vlakh means a lame Vlakh, while Tsintsar is derived from the word tsintsi (five) which these people use instead of tchintchi in Roumanian.
from the Greek. The Vlakhs have been very susceptible to the process of hellenization, and in the opinion of those who are well acquainted with Macedonia and its nationalities, most of the people whom Greek statistics give out as Greek are really hellenized Aromani. According to Dr. Weigand, the best authority on the Balkan Vlakhs, they number about 160,000, half of them inhabiting Thessaly around Mount Pindus and the other half Macedonia. The Aromani form nowhere a compact mass; they are mostly scattered among the other nationalities of the province. The interest that the kingdom of Roumania has taken in them has been dictated by political expediency rather than by any consideration of Roumanian vital interests. In order to justify to a certain extent her claim to have a part in the solution of the Macedonian question, the Roumanian government has openly carried on a propaganda among the Aromani by subsidizing their churches and schools. The propaganda has been a failure, for the Aromani by themselves and separated from the Greeks are not numerically or otherwise strong enough to act as a factor in the questions affecting the Balkan Peninsula.
In looking back upon the history of the Balkan Slavs one notices with regret the want of union among them. The history of the Balkan Peninsula might have been different if Serbia and Bulgaria, while existing as independent States, had acted in unison, instead of engaging, as they did, in mutual jealousies and strifes. Disunion and mutual envy, of which foreign intrigues have often availed themselves to work woe among them, are the characteristic weaknesses of the Slavic
peoples. Unfriendly relations existed in the past not only between Serbians and Bulgarians, but between Serbians on the one hand and Croats and Bosnians on the other. Had all the Slavs in the Peninsula acted as one man at the time of the Turkish invasion, the day of Kossovo Polje, instead of marking the defeat of the Cross by the Crescent, might have marked a victory which would have secured the prolonged free development of all the people of the Balkan Peninsula.