Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T09:50:52.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Population Politics” at the End of Empire: Migration and Sovereignty in Ottoman Eastern Rumelia, 1877–1886

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2013

Anna M. Mirkova
Anna M. Mirkova*
Affiliation:
Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
*
amirkova@odu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores the migrations of Turkish Muslims after the 1878 Peace Treaty of Berlin, which severed much of the Balkans from the Ottoman Empire as fully independent nation-states or as nominally dependent polities in the borderlands of the empire. I focus on one such polity—the administratively autonomous Ottoman province of Eastern Rumelia—which, in wrestling to reconcile liberal principles of equality and political representation understood in ethno-religious terms, prompted emigration of Turkish Muslims while enabling Bulgarian Christian hegemony. Scholars have studied Muslim emigration from the Balkans as the Ottoman Empire gradually lost hold of the region, emphasizing deleterious effects of nationalism and aggressive state-building in the region. Here I look at migration at empire's end, and more specifically at the management of migration as constitutive of sovereignty. The Ottoman government asserted its suzerainty by claiming to protect the rights of Eastern Rumelia's Muslims. The Bulgarian dominated administration of Eastern Rumelia claimed not only administrative but also political autonomy by trying to contain the grievances of Turkish Muslims as a domestic issue abused by ill-meaning outsiders, all the while insisting that the province protected the rights of all subjects. Ultimately, a “corporatist” model of subjecthood obtained in Eastern Rumelia, which fused the traditional religious categorization of Ottoman subjects with an ethnic one under the umbrella of representative government. The tension between group belonging and individual politicization that began unfolding in Eastern Rumelia became a major dilemma of the post-Ottoman world and other post-imperial societies after World War I.

Type
Research Article
Information
Comparative Studies in Society and History , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 955 - 985
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The phrase “population politics” in the title is one Eric Weitz uses to explain a shift in international relations beginning in the second half of the nineteenth century and culminating with the peace settlements after World War I. Specifically, conflicts among the European powers over colonial expansions and imperial ambitions were increasingly addressed not simply by territorial adjustments but by agreements to move, bestow rights on, and grant special status to discrete population groups circumscribed by nationality, ethnicity, race, religion. See Weitz, Eric D., “From the Vienna to the Paris System: International Politics and the Entangled Histories of Human Rights, Forced Deportations, and Civilizing Missions,” American Historical Review 113 (2008): 1313–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 On the linkage between Great Power rivalries and their intervention on behalf of Christians in the Ottoman Empire, see Rodogno, Davide, Against Massacre: Humanitarian Interventions in the Ottoman Empire 1815–1914 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012)Google Scholar.

3 Anghie, Antony, “Finding the Peripheries: Sovereignty and Colonialism in Nineteenth-Century International Law,” Harvard International Law Journal 40 (1999): 1–80Google Scholar.

4 Todorova, Maria, Imagining the Balkans (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Rodogno, Against Massacre, 48.

5 Gong, Gerrit W., The Standard of “Civilization” in International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

6 Anghie, “Finding the Peripheries,” 27–28.

7 Rodogno, Against Massacre, 50–51.

8 Jack Donnelly has argued that the “standard of civilization” was being replaced in the late nineteenth century with “contemporary notions of internationally recognized human rights”; “Human Rights: A New Standard of Civilization,” International Affairs 74 (1998): 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Hanioğlu, M. Şükrü, A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010)Google Scholar, 111.

10 See, for instance, İpek, Nedim, Rumeli'den Anadolu'ya Türk Göçleri (1877–1890) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1999)Google Scholar; Aydın, Mahir, Şarkı Rumeli Vilâyeti (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1992)Google Scholar; Balkanklı, Ali Kemal, Şarkı Rumeli ve Buradaki Türkler (Ankara: Elhan Kitabevi, 1986)Google Scholar; Karpat, Kemal, Ottoman Population, 1830–1914 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985)Google Scholar; McCarthy, Justin, Death and Exile: the Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821–1922 (Princeton: Darwin Press, 1995)Google Scholar; and The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire (London: Arnold, 2001)Google Scholar.

11 See the text of the Treaty of Berlin in Oakes, Sir Augustus and Mowat, R. B., The Great European Treaties of the Nineteenth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1918)Google Scholar.

12 Rodogno, Against Massacre, 147–54.

13 Gladstone, William E., Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East (London: J. Murray, 1876)Google Scholar.

14 See Petrovich, Michael Boro, The Emergence of Russian Panslavism, 1856–1870 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956), 67–72Google Scholar, 242–54.

15 Benton, Lauren, “From International Law to Imperial Constitutions: The Problem of Quasi-Sovereignty, 1870–1900,” Law and History Review 26 (2008): 595–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 596.

16 Benton, “From International Law to Imperial Constitutions.”

17 Rodogno, Against Massacre, 63–141.

18 Wolff, Henry Drummond, Rambling Recollections, vol. II (London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1908)Google Scholar, 234.

19 Ibid., 237.

20 Manolova, Maria G., Rusiia i Konstitutsionnoto Ustroistvo na Iztochna Rumeliia (Sofia: BAN, 1976)Google Scholar, 91.

21 Ibid., 89.

22 Ibid., 114.

23 Ibid., 116–21.

24 Ibid., 124–34.

25 Ibid., 116–121; Statelova, Elena, Iztochna Rumeliia (1879/1885): Ikonomika, politika, kultura (Sofia: Izd. OF, 1983), 13–51Google Scholar.

26 Lord Salisbury's remark quoted in Varnava, Andrekos, British Imperialism in Cyprus, 1878–1915: The Inconsequential Possession (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009)Google Scholar, 159.

27 Rodogno, Against Massacre, esp. chs. 5 and 9.

28 Sumner, B. H., “Russia and Panslavism in the Eighteen-Seventies,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 18 (1935): 25–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Ignatyev at Constantinople, 1864–1874 I,” Slavonic and East European Review 11 (1933): 341–53Google Scholar; and “Ignatyev at Constantinople: II,” Slavonic and East European Review 11 (1933): 556–71Google Scholar; Jelavich, Charles, Tsarist Russia and Balkan Nationalism: Russian Influence in the Internal Affairs of Bulgaria and Serbia, 1879–1886 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1958)Google Scholar, passim.

29 For the relationship between domestic reform initiatives and Russian international engagements, especially Russian commitment to and articulation of international law, see Peter Holquist, “The Russian Empire as a ‘Civilized State’: International Law as Principle and Practice in Imperial Russia, 1874–1878,” NCEEER Publication, 2004, 20–21, at: http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/2004_818-06g_Holquist.pdf. I thank the author for providing me with this link.

30 Many of his informants later became important politicians and public figures in the Principality of Bulgaria and in Eastern Rumelia. Todorov, Goran, Vremennoto Rusko Uprlavlenie v Bŭlgariia prez 1877–1879 (Sofia: BKP, 1958), 65–71Google Scholar.

31 Todorov, Vremennoto Rusko, 65–71. This practice of knowledge production was not new; the reform impetus in Russia prompted the dispatching of literati to the Russian provinces to gather information about local peasant life and thereby develop strategies for its modernization. On this, see Clay, Catherine B., “Russian Ethnographers in the Service of Empire, 1856–1862,” Slavic Review 54 (1995): 45–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Çiftlik means “farm,” though by the nineteenth century in the Ottoman Balkans the term was increasingly used to denote farms made up of large landholdings. On this, see Dimitrov, Strashimir, “Chiflishkoto Stopanstvo prez 50–70 godini na XIX vek,” Istoricheski Pregled 11 (1955): 3–35Google Scholar. For a discussion of the changing nature of çiftlik in Ottoman history, especially with reference to Anatolia and the Arab heartlands of the empire, see Keyder, Çağlar and Tabak, Farouk, eds., Landholding and Commercial Agriculture in the Middle East (Albany: SUNY, 1991)Google Scholar.

33 Rodogno, Against Massacre, passim.

34 Petrovich, Emergence, 37–38, 241–46.

35 Ibid., 244.

36 Quoted in Todorov, Vremennoto Rusko, 68. Cherkasskii approved of the administrative councils that had been established after the 1864 provincial reforms in the Ottoman Empire; the councils were made up of both Muslims and non-Muslims. On this point, see Todorov, Vremennoto Rusko, 81.

37 Ibid., 81.

38 Lincoln, W. Bruce, The Great Reforms: Autocracy, Bureaucracy and the Politics of Change in Imperial Russia (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1990), 162–63Google Scholar.

39 Lincoln, Great Reforms, 164–73.

40 Todorov, Vremennoto Rusko, 68.

41 Milojković-Djurić, Jelena, The Eastern Question and the Voices of Reason: Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the Balkan States, 1875–1908 (Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, distributed by Columbia University Press, 2002)Google Scholar, 45.

42 Todorov, Vremennoto Rusko, 130–32.

43 G. Levintov, N., “Agrarnyie Otnosheniia v Bolgarii nakanune Osvobozhdeniia i Agrarnyi Perevorot 1878–1879 godov,” in Osvobozhdenie Bolgarii ot Turetskogo Iga (Sbornik Statei) (Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1953), 139–222Google Scholar, here 186–87.

44 Todorov, Vremennoto Rusko, 159.

45 Ibid., 176–77.

46 Ibid., 136; Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (BOA), BEO, NGG d. 968 No. 102.

47 Todorov, Vremennoto Rusko, 136.

48 Holquist, “Russian Empire,” 23.

49 Ibid., 24.

50 Ovsianyi, N., Sbornik Materialov po Grazhdanskomu Upravleniiu i Okkupatsii v Bolgarii v 1877–78–79 (S.-Peterburg: Tipografiia “Tovarishtestva Khudozhestvennoi Pechati,” 1903), vol. 5: 22–30Google Scholar, 101–5, 161–64, 173–79, 219; vol. 6: 50.

51 Wolff, Rambling Recollections, 217–18.

52 Ibid., 216–17.

53 Ovsianyi, Sbornik, vol. 6: 50.

54 Todorov, Vremennoto Rusko, 144–45.

55 Ovsianyi, Sbornik, vol. 5: 161–64.

56 Todorov, Vremennoto Rusko, 135–37, presents evidence about rather violent clashes among Bulgarians over abandoned land. It is unclear if the PRA articulated a policy for addressing such conflicts, but in any case there is always a discrepancy between official policy and action by individual officers. Only further archival research can illuminate this question.

57 Ovsianyi, Sbornik, vol. 5: 101–04.

58 Ibid.

59 Todorov, Vremennoto Rusko, 169–71.

60 İpek, Rumeli'den, 130–36.

61 On the numbers, see Berov, Liuben, “Agrarnoto Dvizhenie v Iztochna Rumeliia po vreme na Osvobozhdenieto,” Istoricheski Pregled 12 (1956): 3–36Google Scholar. His numbers are bit high, and I have used reports by prefects to compile a more accurate count.

62 In Against Massacre, Rodogno shows well how humanitarian intervention in effect diminished Ottoman sovereignty.

63 Villages from a district would usually group and write one petition. See, for instance, BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 2/11, s. 4, s. 25–3, s. 41.

64 See, for instance, David Cameron Cuthell Jr., The Muhacirin Komisyonu: An Agent in the Transformation of Ottoman Anatolia, 1860–1866, PhD diss., Columbia University, 2005; also McCarthy, Death and Exile.

65 Cuthell, Muhacirin Komisyonu, 107.

66 Ibid., 250.

67 See the records of the commission: BOA, BEO AYN. d. 1553.

68 İpek, Rumeli'den, passim.

69 See Oktay Özel, “Migration and Power Politics: The Settlement of Georgian Immigrants In Turkey (1878–1908),” Middle Eastern Studies 46 (2010): 477–96.

70 BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 4/3, s. 69.

71 The words belong to the statesmen and intellectual Ahmet Cevdet Paşa, quoted in Deringil, Selim, The Well-Protected Domains: Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman Empire 1876–1909 (London: I. B. Tauris 2011)Google Scholar, 136.

72 Wolff, Rambling Recollections, 234.

73 Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains, 135–41.

74 BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 4/3, s. 97. “Vizieral” means sent from the Office of the Ottoman grand vizier.

75 BOA, Y. A. HUS 163/26 s. 2; Todorov, Vremennoto Rusko, 129, 163, 176.

76 Kuneralp, Sinan, ed., The Queen's Ambassador to the Sultan: Memoirs of Sir Henry A. Layard's Constantinople Embassy 1877–1880 (Istanbul: The Isis Press, 2009), 658–59Google Scholar.

77 Ikonomov, Todor, Memoari, Zhechev, Toncho, ed. (Sofia: Bulgarski Pisatel, 1973)Google Scholar, 177, 225–31.

78 Ibid., 225–31.

79 Todorov, Vremennoto Rusko, 169–76.

80 Ibid., 175.

81 Or at least the archival trail shows us that much; BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 9/1, s. 37, 68, 70 and A. MTZ. RŞ 131/5, s. 125. A similar situation of conflicting evidentiary interpretation can be seen in the case of Fatima Hanım, in BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 3/2 s. 144.

82 BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 3/2 s. 64. Ahmed Ağa's case can be traced in BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 3/2, s. 64, 70–79, 116–21, 131, 132, 140–42, 156, 157; BOA, BEO NGG d. 969, No. 466, 477, 504, 508, and 539.

83 See Kamile Hanım's case, in BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 6/3, s. 18, 19, 46, 58, 76, 77, and 78.

84 BOA, BEO NGG d. 967 No. 180.

85 Ibid.

86 BOA. MTZ. RŞ 9/5, s. 6, 7, BEO NGG d. 969 #658, A. MTZ. RŞ 9/1, s. 73; Todorov, Vremennoto Rusko, 144.

87 BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 131/5, s. 42, 76. The Vergi Emaneti in Ahmed Beğ's case feared that refugee requests for title deeds and the legalization of land sales might spur the spread of false documents.

88 BOA, BEO NGG d. 968 No. 102.

89 BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 1/37 s. 1.

90 Todorov, Vremennoto Rusko, 169–71.

91 BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 4/3, s. 78.

92 Ibid.

93 Ibid.

94 Ibid.

95 Ibid.

96 Ibid.

97 BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 4/3 s. 97.

98 Ibid.

99 Dnevnitsi ot Petata Redovna Sessiia na Oblastnoto Sŭbranie (10-ii Oktomvri—10-ii Dekemvri 1883 g.): Stenografski Protokoli (Sofia: Ianko S. Kovachev, 1892)Google Scholar, 144.

100 See Doklad na Starozagorskii Prefekt za Sŭstoianieto na Okrŭga (Stara Zagora: Pechatnitsa “Znanie,” 1884), 7–8Google Scholar, and 12–15; Doklad na Haskovskii Prefekt za Sŭstoianieto na Okrŭga (Plovdiv: Khristo G. Danov, 1884)Google Scholar, 8; Doklad na Slivenskii Prefekt za sŭstoianieto na Okrŭga (Sliven: Pechatnitsa na vestnik “Bŭlgarsko Zname,” 1884)Google Scholar, 5.

101 BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 2/11 s. 4; BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 2/11, s. 26; BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 2/11, s. 25-1, 25-2; BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 2/11 s. 25-3.

102 BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 2/11, s. 26; BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 2/11, s. 25-1, 25-2; BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 2/11 s. 25-3.

103 BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 2/11 s. 25-3.

104 BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 2/11, s. 4.

105 See Doklad na Starozagorskii Prefekt za Sŭstoianieto na Okrŭga (Stara Zagora: Pechatnitsa “Znanie,” 1884)Google Scholar, 15. On discrepancies among units and methods for land measurements in the Ottoman Empire, see also Minkov, Anton, “Mernata edinitsa za povŭrkhnost ‘dionium’ v administrativno-finansovata praktika na Osmanskata Impreiia (XV–XXv.),” Istoricheski Pregled 48 (1991): 47–53Google Scholar.

106 Geshov, Ivan Ev., “Iztochno-Rumeliiski finansi,” in Dumi i Dela: Finansovi i Ekonomicheski Studii (Sofia: Iv. G. Govedarov i C-ie, 1899), 186–87Google Scholar.

107 “Oblasten Zakon za sŭstavlenie na kadastr,” in Oblasten sbornik ot zakoni v Iztochna Rumeliia, vol. 2 (Plovdiv: n.p., 1881), 263–324.

108 See Katsarkova, Vera S., “Opiti za reformirane na danŭchnata sistema v Bŭlgariia v pŭrvite godini sled Osvobozhdenieto,” Trudove na Visshiia Ikonomicheski Institut “Karl Marks,” vol. 1 (1979): 165–203Google Scholar.

109 See the opinions of Hakanov and Milkovski in Dnevnitsi ot Petata Redovna Sessiia na Oblastnoto Sŭbranie (10-ii Oktomvri—10-ii Dekemvri 1883 g.): Stenografski Protokoli (Sofia: Ianko S. Kovachev, 1892)Google Scholar, 145, 148–49.

110 Ibid., 146, 150.

111 Dnevnitsi ot Shestata Redovna Sessiia na Oblastnoto Sŭbranie, 22-ii Oktomvri—22-ii Dekemvri 1884 g.): Stenograficheski Protokoli (Sofia: Ianko S. Kovachev, 1892)Google Scholar, 319, 438. On taxation as way of articulating the modern subject, see Kotsonis, Yanni, “‘No Place to Go’: Taxation and State Transformation in Late Imperial and Early Soviet Russia,” Journal of Modern History 76 (2004): 531–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “‘Face to Face’: The State, the Individual, and the Citizen in Russian Taxation, 1863–1917,” Slavic Review 63 (2004): 221–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I thank Peter Holquist for drawing my attention to these articles.

112 Plovdivski Oblasten Dŭrzhaven Arkhiv (PODA), F-40k, O-1.

113 Doklad na Starozagorskii Prefekt za Sŭstoianieto na Okrŭga (Stara Zagora: Pechatnitsa “Znanie,” 1884)Google Scholar, 49; see the Brezovo court records, PODA, F-40k, O-1; Katsarkova, “Opiti za reformirane,” 192; Iliev, Atanas T., Spomeni na Atanasa T. Iliev (Sofia: P. Glushkov, 1926), 220–47Google Scholar. Dnevnitsi ot Petata Redovna Sessiia, 142, 144.

114 Ibid., 139.

115 Dnevnitsi ot Shestata Redovna Sessiia, 439–41.

116 Ibid., 541.

117 Ibid., 442.

118 Ibid., 535.

119 Katsarkova, “Opiti za reformirane,” 194, and 194n.

120 Dnevnitsi ot Petata Redovna Sessiia, 140.

121 Ibid., 146.

122 Ibid., 144.

123 Ibid., 148.

124 Ibid. The term “fatherland” was used by Assembly Member Milkovski.

125 For the appeal, see BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 2/11, s. 27.

126 Ibid., s. 172.

127 Ibid., s. 40.

128 See Roderick Davison's chapter on Midhat Paşa, in Davison, Roderic H., Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856–1876 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963)Google Scholar.

129 Crampton, Richard J., Bulgaria 1878–1918 (Boulder: East European Monographs, distributed by Columbia University Press, 1983)Google Scholar, 92.

130 See Geshov, Ivan Ev., “Iztochno-Rumeliiski finansi,” in Spomeni i Studii (Sofia: P. Glushkov, 1928), 179–91Google Scholar.

131 Aydın, Şarkı Rumeli, 30–31.

132 BOA, A. MTZ. RŞ 4/3, s. 80.

133 See the abridged text in Iochev, Evgeni, Zakonodatelstvoto v tsarstvo Bŭlgariia (1879–1944 g.): konstitutsiia, zakoni, motivi, dokladi, ukazi, naredbi, naredbi-zakoni (Sofia: Fondatsiia “Otvoreno Obshtestvo,” 1999)Google Scholar.

134 See Weitz, “Vienna to the Paris System,” 1339–40.

135 Georgeon, Francois, Abdülhamid II: le sultan calife (1876–1909) (Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard, 2003), 194–95Google Scholar.

136 Hanioğlu, Brief History, 142.

137 Georgeon, Abdülhamid II, 194–95.

138 Ibid., 197.

139 Madzharov, Mikhail, Iv., Iztochna Rumeliia (Istoricheski Pregled) (Sofia: Pechtnitsa S. M. Staikov, 1925), 192–93Google Scholar.

140 Ibid., 191–92.

141 Ibid., 197–98.

142 Here “those” refers to (in addition to Bulgarian-speaking Orthodox Christians) Catholic Bulgarians, Jews, and Armenians.

143 Madzharov, Iztochna Rumeliia, 194.

144 Ivan Ev. Geshov, “Iztochna Rumeliia i izborŭt na pŭrviia postoianen komitet,” in Spomeni i Studii, 125–39.

145 See Madzharov, Mikhail Iv., Spomeni, Andreev, Veselin, ed. (Sofia: Bŭlgarski Pisatel, 1968)Google Scholar; as well as his Iztochna Rumeliia.

146 BOA, Ş.D. RŞ 1999/5, s. 13.

147 BOA, Ş.D. RŞ 1999/26, s. 7; Bogoridi's claim is on s. 5.

148 Statelova, Iztochna Rumeliia, 14.

149 BOA, ŞD 1999/26, s. 2.

150 Madzharov, Iztochna Rumeliia, 236–37; Maritsa no. 279, 24 Apr. 1881.

151 BOA, Ş.D. RŞ 1995/5, s. 12-4.

152 Ibid., s. 2, 11, 12-4.

153 Iono Mitev, Sŭedinenieto 1885 (Plovdiv: Hristo G. Danov, 1985), 140–43.

154 Ibid.

155 Crampton, Bulgaria, 90–91.

156 Mitev, Sŭedinenieto, 140–43. See also, Narodnii Glas no. 386, 16 Apr. 1883.

157 Mitev, Sŭedinenieto, 114–22.

158 Ibid.

159 Ibid., 151–53.

160 Ibid.; Crampton, Bulgaria, 91.

161 Mitev, Sŭedinenieto, 122–23.

162 Iliev, Spomeni, 258–61. The prefect of Stara Zagora Atanas Iliev related an incident in the district of Chirpan, where in the summer of 1885 guns were stolen from the municipality. He was also horrified that the newspaper Borba (“struggle,” “fight”) advocated disobedience.

163 Dnevnitsi ot Petata Redovna Sessiia, 150.

164 See Madzharov, Spomeni, 336–39; Iliev, Spomeni, 299–303.

165 Iliev, Spomeni, 299–300.