Eastern Rumelia

The province of Eastern Rumelia, located south of the Balkan mountains, came into being with the Berlin Treaty of July 13, 1878. The whole region was known as Northern Trace and is today's Southern Bulgaria. The name Eastern Rumelia was a creation of the participants of the Berlin Conference. Once the heartland of Ottoman state-building it was now shifting to the periphery of Ottoman influence.⁷⁴ Its capital was Plovdiv in today's Bulgaria. The new Ottoman province exercised certain administrative autonomy, but remained under Ottoman political and military jurisdiction. The province was governed by a Governor-General appointed by the Sublime Porte. It remained autonomous until 1885 when it was incorporated by a coup d'etat into the Bulgarian kingdom which was still nominally but not factually under Ottoman suzerainty.

Therefore the region was still an Ottoman province de jure until 1908, when Bulgaria proclaimed independence officially. In this setting, the contested status of Eastern Rumelia reflected a number of conflicts about dress fought out between the central government and different provincial agents.

Aleko Paşa

On the evening of May 25^th, 1879 (13 Mayis 1295), a case which provoked quite an amount of disturbance involved the recently appointed first Govenor-General of Eastern Rumelia. The question at hand was what he would wear for his inauguration whereas he wanted to leave Istanbul the next day.⁷⁵ Different central state offices interfered when

73 As Isa Blumi has pointed out, negotiation of identity in the Ottoman Empire did not necessarily take place within the framework of modernity, but involved local agents who might have acted beyond eurocentric imaginations. Thus it would also be important to consider the present cases not just within the narrow framework of modern national identity, but as expressions of local involvements with modernity which are not necessarily modern. This is unfortunately a task I am not able to accomplish here. See Isa Blumi, Rethinking the Late Ottoman Empire: A Comparative Social and Political History of Albania and Yemen, 1878 - 1918, 1. ed., Analecta Isisiana 67 (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2003). On Ottoman borderlands see also Olga Dēmētriu, Capricious Borders: Minority, Population, and Counter-Conduct between Greece and Turkey (New York [u.a.]: Berghahn, 2013).

74 The province Rumelia had been part of the Ottoman Empire already since the fourteenth century.

75 BOA Y.A.HUS. 161/22.

3 Politics of Identity during the Hamidian Period

rumors emerged that he intended to go without “Ottoman dress” including the fez.

The officers at the Sublime Porte suggested that the Aleko Paşa would not be receive a friendly welcome in Rumeli Sarki in that kind of dress.⁷⁶ Thus under the initiative of the central government, a telegraph was issued to stop the departure of Aleko Paşa to Eastern Rumelia on the following day. More information about the futures Vali's intentions regarding dress were demanded immediately. The central state expected Aleko Paşa to reconsider his decision and to make declaration that he will wear the fez and Ottoman dress, otherwise his journey was to be postponed. They expected disturbances from the populace if he appeared without “Ottoman dress” and fez. The correspondence on the case displays excitement on side of the state officers involved. The sultan had also expressed worries about the situation and attributed high importance to the issue. He expected a statement by Aleko Paşa regarding which kind of dress he intended to wear. State officials - amongst them the Minister of War - discussed whether he should be allowed to depart the next day before the issue of his dress was resolved: “If he considers to go without a fez, it seems appropriate to postpone his departure.”⁷⁷ and in another document: “If he eventually considers going without wearing Ottoman dress and fez, he puts forward that it is appropriate to postpone his departure.”⁷⁸ Aleko is asked to issue a statement regarding which kind of dress he intends to wear in his official capacity. The decision of allowing him to travel to his inauguration depends on his answer.

There is no mention in the documents of what kind of dress he intended to wear instead. The kind of dress regarded as proper Ottoman dress is described in the following, though no details of which pieces it consisted and how they looked like were provided: “[...] if he wears clothes which officers of the sublime state wear”⁷⁹ and “[dress which] belongs to the office of the governor and is an attribute of [his] citizenship.”⁸⁰

According to the regulations, the governor of Eastern Rumelia had to be Christian.⁸¹

76 Also known als Vogoridis Paşa, see Sinan Kuneralp, Son Dönem Osmanlı Erkân ve Ricali: (1839 - 1922) : Prosopografik Rehber (Beylerbeyi, İstanbul: İsis, 2003), 125.

77 “şayed fes ile gidemeyeceğini dermiyān eder ise ʿazīmetinin te'ḫīr buyrulmasını münāsib gibi görüyor,”

BOA Y.A.HUS. 161/22. A document with unspecified sender and recipient probably sent within different offices of the Sublime Porte.

78 “ve şāyed fes ve elbise-yi ossmāniyye iktisāsıyla gidemeyeceğini yine dermiyān edecek olur ise ʿazīmetinin te'ḫīr olunması münāsib olacaġı irād eylemesi,” BOA Y.A.HUS. 161/22.

79 “libās-i me'mūriyet-i devlet-i aliyye'yi lābis olduġu ḥālde,” BOA Y.A.HUS. 161/22.

80 “vālīğe ve sıfāt-i tābiʿyyete ʿā'id,” BOA Y.A.HUS. 161/22.

81 See article 13, Berlin Treaty.

3 Politics of Identity during the Hamidian Period

Aleko Paşa (5 April 1822- 17 July 1910), respectively Aleksandr Stefanov Bogoridi or Aleko Vogorides, was governor of Eastern Rumelia from May 1879 until May 1884. Like his father Aleko Paşa himself was an experienced Ottoman statesman.⁸² Born in Istanbul in 1822 he went to several middle European countries for education. In the Ottoman Empire he held different high ranking positions such as member of the state council and minister of public works, post and telegraph. As to one source he was an activist of the Bulgarian renaissance.⁸³ His biography suggests a pro-Ottomanist stance and I found some hints that he suppressed separatist movements during his post as governor in Eastern Rumelia. That might even be the reason why he did not continue his post after 1884. Still he was loyal to the Bulgarian state which is underlined by his candidacy to the Bulgarian throne in 1886. On a photograph which was taken during his time as governor he is wearing a kalpak which was at that time still more an item of Bulgarian identity than of Ottoman identity. A hint to Aleko Paşa's relation with the Ottoman central government is provided by a New York Times article from October 21, 1879, one and a half year after his inauguration. A short note announced that Aleko Pasa had refused to visit the capital even though he had promised to come there twice a year to report on the situation in Eastern Rumelia. His refusal had caused displeasure among the officials at the Sublime Porte.

The case is further enlightened by the details provided on Aleko Paşa's appointment by the account of Henry A. Layard, who was British ambassador from 1877 to 1880. Layard considered Aleko Paşa as unfit for the post, because of he imputes him a pro-Russian attitude.⁸⁴ He also reported on conflicts with the Grand Vizier Edhem Paşa due Aleko Paşa's conduct as ambassador in Vienna. That led to his recall, whereupon Aleko Paşa went to Paris instead where he, according to Layard's knowledge, “wrote violent and offensive articles against Turkey in the public journals.”⁸⁵ Concerning the incidence itself, which for Layard proves that Aleko Paşa“ would be completely under the

82 His father Stefan Bogoridi already had been a high ranking Ottoman statesmen. According to one lexicon article he even had been one of the most influential Ottoman politicians. Amongst other positions he had been a member of the Tanzimat council and the first Christian Orthodox governor of the island of Samos.

83 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Bogoridi. I could not find this confirmed, but do not want to leave it unmentioned.

84 Austen Henry Layard, The Queen’s Ambassador to the Sultan: Memoirs of Sir Henry A. Layard’s Constantinople Embassy, 1877 - 1880, ed. Sinan Kuneralp, 1st ed. (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2009).

85 Ibid., 558.

3 Politics of Identity during the Hamidian Period

control of the Bulgarian's and the Russian party,”⁸⁶ he reports that Aleko Paşa had replaced the fez by a kalpak as soon as he reached the Bulgarian frontier. Yet initially, and here Layard also provides more information of the kind of dress that was designated as Ottoman in the documents mentioned above, Aleko Paşa had intended to wear the

“usual uniform of the provincial governor and Turkish functionary.”⁸⁷ Before that the Russian commander of Eastern Rumelia seems to have approached and advised him to don a European hat upon is arrival, as the wearing of the fez would provoke protest and even unrest among the Bulgarian population in Eastern Rumelia. Upon this Russian intervention the Ottoman sultan even appealed to the Layard as the British ambassador to stress the importance the wearing of Ottoman dress by Aleko Paşa had for him.⁸⁸

The case of Aleko Paşa is a rare case where other clothing, and especially Ottoman official's dress, together with headgear is discussed and given importance for the construction of Ottoman identity and the transgression of dress codes. The denotation of a certain style of dress as Ottoman is also singular to this incident. Through his journey with “Ottoman” dress to the autonomous province, the central government expected Aleko Paşa to strengthen the affiliation of Eastern Rumelia with the Ottoman state. His case reminds of Isa Blumi's depiction of the Ottoman bureaucratic elite, their sometimes-ambivalent position towards the Ottoman state, and their respective communities which make them appear both as agents of Ottoman state policies and supporters of newly founded nation-states on former Ottoman territories.⁸⁹

Disputes about Headgear of Eastern Rumelian Militia and Gendarmes

In March 1881 authorities in Eastern Rumelia turned to the central government in Istanbul and complained that attempts were made to force Muslim gendarmes and militia in Eastern Rumelia to give up established greeting practices they designated as Islamic.⁹⁰ This form of greeting of called temennā ( انمت) involved kissing of the fingers of the right

86 Ibid., 559.

87 Ibid., 559.

88 See Ibid., 559-560.

89 See Blumi, Foundations of Modernity, 44-45; Blumi, Reinstating the Ottomans, 98; Kemal H. Karpat,

‘Millets and Nationality: The Roots of the Incongruity of Nation and State in the Post-Ottoman Period’, in Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History: Selected Articles and Essays, ed. Kemal H. Karpat, Social, Economic and Political Studies of the Middle East (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 633.

90 Muslim soldiers in Rumeli Şarki were forced to wear hats and Muslim gendarme are supposed to salute instead of temennā, by doffing their kalpak. BOA ŞD. 1999/32.

3 Politics of Identity during the Hamidian Period

hand and then tipping of the forehead with these fingers.⁹¹ Gendarmes and militia were expected to take off their headpiece for greeting instead of saluting by temennā, while the headpiece in question was a kalpak.⁹² According to the Treaty of Berlin, the gendarmes and local militia in Eastern Rumelia had to be composed proportionally to the religion of its inhabitants.⁹³ Their task was to keep internal order in the province. In the present discussion only the Muslim gendarmes and militia were addressed. Besides the abolition of temennā, the introduction of peaked caps for the these police forces is mentioned. The administrator in Eastern Rumelia who sent a letter to the central government in Istanbul to picture the problem did not mention who wanted to introduce the raising of the headpiece for salute. They put forward that the matter actually had already been solved in internal regulations, issued also in 1881, which dealt with military strategy and esteemed dress code and conduct in the Eastern Rumelia as part of “internal regulations on Eastern Rumelia (Rumeli Sarki Nizamname-i Dahiliyyesi)” issued by the Grand Vizier.⁹⁴ Communication on the issue took place between prime ministry and ministry of war.⁹⁵

Taking off one's headgear when greeting another person is considered as a sign of deference and respect in many parts the Western world, but was not common in Islamic

91 I could not find further information on the temennā ( انمت) and its supposed Islamic character, i.e. if it was exclusively used by Muslims. The spread of the term which does not exist in any relevant references. Furthermore the notion only exists in Turkish, not in Arabic as far as I could see. Yet it seems to be existing in Urdu, carrying a similar meaning.

92 An author of a document issued by the prime ministry suggested that raising of the kalpak was introduced during the stationing of Russian soldiers in the region, BOA ŞD. 1999/32, line 9.

93 See Berlin Treaty, Article 15: “Die innere Ordnung in Ost-Rumelien wird durch eine, von einer Ortsmiliz unterstützte Gendarmerie aufrechterhalten. Bezüglich der Zusammensetzung dieser beiden Korps, deren Offiziere vom Sultan ernannt werden, soll, je nach der Oertlichkeit, der Religion der Einwohner Rechnung getragen werden.”

http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Vertrag_zwischen_Deutschland,_%C3%96sterreich-Ungarn,_Frankreich,_Gro%C3%9Fbritannien,_Italien,_Ru%C3%9Fland_und_der_T%C3%Bcrkei._

%28Berliner_Vertrag%29; “Internal order shall be maintained in Eastern Roumelia by a native gendarmerie, assisted by a local militia. In the composition of these two corps, whose officers shall be named by the Sultan, account will be taken, according to locality, of the religion of the inhabitants.”

According to an 1884 census about 20 percent of the population of Eastern Rumelia were Turks (used as synonym for Muslims), and about 70 percent were considered as Bulgarians. See Kemal H. Karpat, Ottoman Population 1830 - 1914, 1. print., Turkish and Ottoman Studies (Madison, Wis. [u.a.]: Univ. of Wisconsin Pr., 1985); or Kemal H. Karpat, Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History: Selected Articles and Essays, Social, Economic and Political Studies of the Middle East. - Leiden : Brill, 1971- 81 (Leiden [u.a.]: Brill, 2002), 370: “The Muslim population (Turks, Pomaks, Albanians, Circassians) of Eastern Rumelia before the war, according to a British report, consisted of about 290,000 people as against 450,000 non-Muslims, mostly Bulgarians. In a matter of two years the Muslim population was reduced to about 120,000 people or by roughly 60 percent).”

94 “Twelfth appendix of Paragraph 66 of the internal regulation of Eastern Rumelia (Rumeli Şarḳī nizāmnāme-i dāḫiliyyesinden onikinci numeru ẕeylinden altmış altinci māddesi).” BOA ŞD. 1999/32 (line 10-11).

95 BOA ŞD. 1999/32.

3 Politics of Identity during the Hamidian Period

contexts.⁹⁶ But Muslim practice is just one aspect that was used to argue against the raising of the hat. Several references are made in the documents, i.e.: “This issue is profoundly unacceptable because together with it being irreconcilable with military practice, it is contrary to the Muslim confession […].”⁹⁷ Local and central state administrators adduced arguments against the introduction of the raising of one's headpiece for salute on the level of military practices, religious and local customs, and national consciousness. A subject invoked repeatedly is religious freedom⁹⁸. On those grounds the administrators demanded an exception for Muslim soldiers from the hat-raising practice. In addition to religious freedom, the authors say that it was a matter of local customs and everyday Muslim practices,⁹⁹ national consciousness,¹⁰⁰ and the temperament or constitution of the people. They contend that therefore the issue went beyond military matters, and one should bear in mind what was custom and esteemed in the region of Eastern Rumelia. The reference made to national consciousness is not defined further. It remains open as to what kind of identity millet refers to in this case.

And yet it is given an extra emphasis, stating that “beyond being [a matter of the] law this concerns national consciousness.” ¹⁰¹

In their discussion of what was common military practice, state officials include the practicability and convenience of taking off one's headgear in military praxis, specifically concerning members of armed military. According to the authors of the documents, it is not common in European armies to take off one's headgear during military activities, meaning that soldiers just practice saluting with a hat when they were unarmed and inside of a military barrack. Thus they are strengthening their argument by pointing out that it is not always common in Europe to take off the hat.

This controversy again depicts Rumeli sarki as a contested border land to be defended by the establishment or perpetuation of dress codes. The opponents of the abolition of the temennā for Muslim militia and gendarmes make no reference to a common Ottoman identity but instead to religion via Islam. It is not clear if they open up

96 See Ign. Goldziher, ‘Die Entblößung des Hauptes.’, Der Islam 6, no. 4 (1915), doi:10.1515/islm.1915.6.4.301.

97 “şu vażʿiyyet uṣūl-i ʿaskeriyye'ye muvāfiḳ olmamaġla beraber meẕheb-i islāma muġayreti cihetle esāsen ġayr-i cā'iz olduġundan [...],” BOA ŞD. 1999/32 (line 2).

98 “ḥürriyet-i meẕhebiye,” BOA ŞD. 1999/32.

99 “gündelik ʿādāt-i islāmiyye,” BOA ŞD. 1999/32.

100“aḫlāḳ-i milliye,” BOA ŞD. 1999/32.

101 “kanūn olmaḳdan ziyāde aḫlāḳ-i milliye münāsebeti anlaşılmaḳta,” BOA ŞD. 1999/32.

3 Politics of Identity during the Hamidian Period

a broader scope when they talk about local populace and their customs, including non-Muslims:

“Because it is self-evident that local customs and habits of the populace are something to be applied, and that among the Muslim segment of the population it is not common to open the head [raise one's headgear], there is therefore no chance to raise the kalpak or [any other] headpiece anyway. By the internal regulation four hundred, paragraph one, it will be made explicit that members of the militia will attain freedom to perform the duties of their confession.”¹⁰²

Even though both sides of the local and central administration refer to religion to legitimize their argument to keep up the practice of temennā, they emphasis the other points mentioned to a similar degree. In this case arguments pro or against a certain practice of dress were grounded on many different levels, as well as local practices related to international (European) standards. Reference to European military practice, local customs and national consciousness might have been included to strengthen the argument in favor of the maintenance of temennā beyond a religious framework. Local customs might have been included to pay tribute to the autonomous status of Eastern Rumelia. In contrast to other conflicts which had more of an internal Ottoman character, the level of international politics was included here directly which made it insufficient to argue exclusively on the level of national or religious identity. This is the only case analyzed that contains a reference to religious freedom. That must have been related to the codification of it in the Berlin Treaty, which was used by Ottoman officials to argue against the raising of the police forces' hats.¹⁰³

The other issue which had provoked unease, the claim that Muslim soldiers should wear peaked caps, was obviously resolved through an instruction that the peaks of the hats shall be destroyed while the raising of the kalpak remained an open question. In Eastern Rumelia a special regulation was in preparation to introduce the lifting of the

102“ʿĀdāt-ı maḥalliye ve mizāc-i ahāliye taṭbīḳ edilmiş bir şey olduġu bedihiyātdan bulunduğundan ve he'yet-i islāmiyye beyninde ẕāten başını açmaḳ ʿādeti ẕāten olmadıġından şu ḥālde ḳalpaḳ ve serpūş çıkarmaġa imkān olmayacaġı gibi nizāmnāme-i dāḫilinin dört yüz elli birinci māddesinde milis efrādı veẓā'if-i meẕhebiyyelerinin icrāsınca her yer hürriyete nā'il olacaḳlari.” BOA ŞD. 1999/32.

102“ʿĀdāt-ı maḥalliye ve mizāc-i ahāliye taṭbīḳ edilmiş bir şey olduġu bedihiyātdan bulunduğundan ve he'yet-i islāmiyye beyninde ẕāten başını açmaḳ ʿādeti ẕāten olmadıġından şu ḥālde ḳalpaḳ ve serpūş çıkarmaġa imkān olmayacaġı gibi nizāmnāme-i dāḫilinin dört yüz elli birinci māddesinde milis efrādı veẓā'if-i meẕhebiyyelerinin icrāsınca her yer hürriyete nā'il olacaḳlari.” BOA ŞD. 1999/32.