scholarly journals The Society of Physicians and Naturalists of Iași and the Union of the Romanian Principalities

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-69
Author(s):  
Dana Baran

The Union of the Romanian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia has been an ideal of the nation for centuries, expressed by its intellectuals and policy makers. Its fulfillment was rendered possible in the enlightened era of the nineteenth century, following the Crimean War (1853-1856) and the Peace of Paris. The Peace Treaty of 1856, involving Russia, the Ottoman Empire, France, Great Britain and the Kingdom of Sardinia, and then the Paris convention of 1858, enabled the Union of the Principalities in 1859. In this context, the progressive Romanian intellectuals played an essential role in awakening the national consciousness of the masses called upon to vote, as well as in the elaboration of the strategy to be implemented, both internally and internationally. The Society of Physicians and Naturalists of the Principality of Moldavia (SPN), the first scientific society not only in the Romanian Principalities but also in Southeast Europe (1830), got involved in this national unification process, seen as a condition of emancipation, stability and European integration of their country. SPN was therefore not only the seat where Colonel Alexandru Ioan Cuza was appointed as the sole candidate for the Reign of Moldavia on January 3rd , 1859, but also a nucleus of struggle for the Union. It is plausible that, due to the participation of some of the leading SPN members, ideological confrontations took place within this scientific forum and tactics were envisaged meant to achieve the Union of the Principalities through the victory of the Unionist Party. Ever since SPN remained linked to the memory of Cuza's election in Moldavia, and this constituted another fundamental contribution of this academic institution to the overall establishment of modern Romania. Immediately after the Union, in 1860 the Society of Physicians and Naturalists of the Principality of Moldavia became the Society of Physicians and Naturalists of Iași and kept on integrating both national and international personalities from the entire world.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leyla von Mende

How did intellectual elites, who had acquired their position and formed their self-conception within the Ottoman Empire, deal with its loss and change? This question is discussed by looking at their representations of Southeast Europe in Ottoman and Turkish travel literature. The study analyses their attempts to continuously reposition themselves, their homeland and Southeast Europe in times of a shifting international balance of power. It also explores two mechanisms of processing the things observed – wonder and remembering. This approach allows us to reassess the importance of the lost region to the authors’ present and sheds new light on the transition from empire to republic.


2019 ◽  
pp. 137-147
Author(s):  
Ivan Parvev

The proposed analysis evaluates Russian and British policies during the Great Eastern Crisis (1875-78), with bilateral relations being placed in the context of the global hostility between England and Russia lasting from 1815 onwards. In the period between the end of the Crimean War (1853-56) and early 1870s there were serious changes in the balance of power in Europe, which was related to the creation of the German Empire in 1871. The possibility of Russian-German geopolitical union however was a bad global scenario for the United Kingdom. Because of this, English policy during the Great Eastern Crisis was not that strongly opposed to the Russia one, and did not support the Ottoman Empire at all costs. This made it possible to establish political compromise between London and St. Petersburg, which eventually became the basis of the Congress of Berlin in 1878.


2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 183-191
Author(s):  
Tatiana A. Bazarova ◽  

Тhe paper considers diplomatic struggle around fixing in the Russian-Turkish agreements the refusal of annual payments to the Crimean Khan. This problem was one of the key issues in Russia’s relations with the Ottoman Empire and the Crimean Khanate during the Petrine era. The participation of Crimean diplomacy in the discussion of the problem at the Russian-Turkish peace talks remains poorly studied in Russian historiography. The Treaty of Constantinople (1700) secured the abolition of annual payments to the Crimean Khanate. However, the failure of the Prut campaign and non-fulfilment of Russian-Turkish peace agreements obligations by the tsar led to the renewal of the demand for annual payments. In 1711 and 1712, during negotiations with Russian ambassadors, the Ottomans did not insist on including to the peace treaty a clause on payments to the Crimean Khan and were content with oral promises. A difficult diplomatic struggle on the “Crimean dacha” unfolded at the peace talks in 1713, when Kaplan I Giray joined the active discussion of the problem. The clause on Crimean payments (without declaring direct obligations) was included in the text of the Adrianople (1713) and Constantinople (1720) treaties. By supporting the “khan’s claims” at the Russian-Turkish peace talks, the Sublime Porte demonstrated the readiness to protect the interests of its vassal. Peter I regarded the return of the clause about the “Crimean dacha” as a blow to Russia’s international prestige.


2019 ◽  
pp. 325-341
Author(s):  
Natalia Strunina-Borodina

The article is devoted to a diffi cult period in the history of Montenegro after the Congress of Berlin of 1878, when the young Balkan state was offi cially recognised an independent from the Ottoman Empire. Montenegro sought, fi rst of all with the help of its faithful patron Russia, the implementation of the peace treaty articles concerning border demarcation between the Principality and Turkey. Due to the Turkish unwillingness to transfer the territories established by the agreement to Montenegro, this process turned out to be rather complicated, and eventually it дштпукув on for several years and was accompanied by recurrent military clashes. All these plots were described in detail in «Niva», an illustrated magazine published in Saint Petersburg, very popular in Russia at the time.


1999 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. v-ix
Author(s):  
AbdulHamid A. AbuSulayman

Any Muslim intellectual who has a serious concern for the relativelydeteriorating condition of the Muslim Ummah with respect to the WesternWorld would be depressed and confused. However, the recent history of theMuslim World shows how many determined reformist movements playeda positive role in changing the Muslim condition. But these movements metwith partial or limited success.It was in the late seventeenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries,an ascendant Europe undermined and overran much of the UthmaniDuwlah (Ottoman Empire) and finally put an end to it, much to the shockand dismay of the Muslim World. The powerful European challenge andthis drastic event elicited two contrasting responses from the Muslim eliteand the masses. While many of them resorted to superficial imitation andinitiated capricious copycat reform movements, some harnessed the risingawareness and the attendant spirit of resistance to launch more genuineefforts and reform movements. Understandably, these efforts were conflicting,emotional, and limited in their scope but they eventually helpedMuslim societies to gain political independence in the post-World War IIera. At the heart of these reforms and political liberation was the Muslimpeoples’ desire to realize their Islamic, national, and cultural aspirationsalong with the hope of enjoying a standard of living comparable to that ofthe West.Unfortunately, these hopes were not achieved and the cultural reformscontinued to be emotional, arbitrary, and patchwork (talfiq). The conditionof the Muslim people continued to deteriorate and the gap between theWestern world and the Muslim world continued to widen. The former continuedto dominate and exploit that latter. All this proved that arbitrary,emotional, superficial, and limited patchwork reforms would not have aserious impact on the conditions of the Muslim people and will fail to realizetheir national or Islamic aspirations ...


2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 63
Author(s):  
SaurabhRamBihariLal Shrivastava ◽  
PrateekSaurabh Shrivastava ◽  
Jegadeesh Ramasamy

2013 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 955-985
Author(s):  
Anna M. Mirkova

AbstractThis 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.


2015 ◽  
Vol 49 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 351-365
Author(s):  
Tatiana A. Bazarova

The article examines the accounting documents (“Stateinye spiski”) of the Russian ambassadors, Peter Shafirov and Michael Sheremetev, in Istanbul during the years 1711–1714. They were assembled several years after the embassy returned to Russia, in 1721, and are currently held in archives in Moscow and St. Petersburg. “Stateinye spiski” show complex circumstances in which the Russian ambassadors had to struggle in order to sign a peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire after the unsuccessful Prut campaign. The documents are daily reports that contain descriptions of events, the contents of letters sent and received, the text of decrees, and papers associated with peace treaties projects. Particularly significant are descriptions of the diplomats’ actions during conference preparation and during meetings with Turkish representatives; features of etiquette are also noted.


2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (03) ◽  
pp. 351-367
Author(s):  
Deniz T. Kilinçoğlu

Otto Hübner’s (1818–1877) international bestseller introduction to political economy, Der kleine Volkswirth, appeared in Turkish in 1869 in two different editions. Two Ottoman officials translated the book into Turkish with different linguistic styles and pedagogical objectives. Beyond being an exceptional case in Ottoman-Turkish economic literature in this respect, the Hübner translations heralded the dawn of popular political economy in the Ottoman Empire. Economic literature before 1869 consisted of works written exclusively for the elite to introduce this new science as an instrument of state administration. Starting with the Hübner translations, we observe the burgeoning of a popular economic literature in the empire aiming at changing the economic mentality and behavior of the masses. This study is a comparative examination of the two Ottoman-Turkish translations of Der kleine Volkswirth in historical context.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document