The article examines two cartoons by the British artist William Chasemore that reflect on the Congress of Berlin 1878. The Congress was famous for the creation of other cartoons, but the two works by William Chasemore do not fall into this category and may represent an interesting addition to the more popular aspects of satire dedicated to the diplomatic forum after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877 – 1878. Leading European politicians are depicted curiously, including German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (Lord Beaconsfield), Russian Foreign Minister Prince Gorchakov, and other important participants in the meeting in Berlin in the summer of 1878. The satirical presentation of the event is filled with many scathing but accurate observations about international politics in the context of the Eastern Question.

"Eastern Question" in the Newest Era: Reality and Prospects Summary Although the "Eastern issue" is considered a complex of problems that have been kept on the agenda for centuries in order to ensure the political and religious freedom of the Slavic peoples – mostly Orthodox Christians – under the invasion of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans and Eastern Europe, and to ensure the political and economic interests of this state in the region, it the struggle between Russia and Europe for the Balkans and Eastern Europe, the straits as a result of the weakening of the Ottoman Empire is characterized not only by the military-political and religious, but also by the nature of the clash of cultures and civilizations. In addition to showing the contradictory attitude of well-known Russian philosophers and writers to the "Eastern question", the article emphasizes that it still retains its relevance today, creating obvious problems for the entire Slavic world and Turkic peoples as a whole. Keywords: "Eastern question," Ottoman Empire, F.M. Dostoevsky,” “Russian idea“, Turkic peoples, " Greco-Slavic...”or "Russian-Slavic historical-cultural type"

Abstract: The proposed analysis is devoted to issues related to one of the most outstanding examples of Bulgarian Renaissance periodicals – Petko Rachov Sla¬veykov’s newspaper Macedonia. The printed organ, published in Constantinople in the period 1866-1872, played a significant role in shaping public opinion on a number of key issues of the era, shaping the agenda of Bulgarians within the Ottoman political body. The main purpose of this paper is to show how, with a well-established communication strategy, the publisher and editor-in-chief managed to focus public attention on the fundamental issues for the still-forming Bulgarian nation at that time: education and enlightenment, the struggle for an independent exarchate, popular education and, last but not least, the situating of the expectations and dreams of the Balkan peoples amidst the Eastern Question, still not fully resolved by the Great Powers. In this sense, we will trace, through an analysis of quotations from primary source material, the directions in which Slaveikov led his readers (essentially also subscribers of the Macedonia newspaper), so that they would not remain far from the information flow of the time. Keywords: newspaper, Renaissance, Ottoman Empire, Slaveykov, Macedonia newspaper, communication, strategy.

The article examines how the image of Russia and the USSR has been constructed in Bulgarian history textbooks over a broad chronological span — from the emergence of the first textbooks in the 1840s to the fall of the communist regime in 1989. It focuses on moments when the textbooks explicitly address Russia’s role in the fate of the Bulgarian people and state, including Prince Sviatoslav’s campaigns (968–969) against the medieval Bulgarian state, the Russian Empire’s policy on the Eastern Question and its impact on Bulgarian history, St. Petersburg’s direct interference in the internal affairs of the Principality of Bulgaria in the 1880s, the events surrounding the anti-fascist coalition’s victory in World War II, and Bulgaria’s entry into the Soviet sphere of influence. The aim is to analyze whether and how the perception of Russia shifts depending on periods of favorable or strained Bulgarian-Russian relations, to what extent wars and political upheavals serve as turning points in these perceptions, and whether the portrayal of Russia in Bulgarian history textbooks is shaped more by state policy or by the personal views of the authors. Keywords: education, 19th–20th century, Bulgarian-Russian/Soviet relations, Slavophiles, Sovietization.

When Count Agenor Gołuchowski became Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister in May 1895, he adopted a cautious foreign policy aimed at preserving the status quo in the Near East and preventing Russian expansion towards the Straits and the Balkans. However, the Armenian events in Istanbul created considerable public pressure on the European Powers and revived fears about the Eastern Question. Faced with the risk of Russian intervention and growing instability, Gołuchowski sought to reaffirm the importance the Concert of Europe by proposing a naval demonstration and a plan for the occupation of the Straits in November, 1895. Although he expected strong support from Britain, his ally in the Mediterranean Treaty, the British Cabinet ultimately opposed the plan. The British Admiralty, led by Goschen and Richards, raised serious objections to the plan, arguing that Sultan Abdülhamid II’s recent fortification of the Dardanelles made sea passage impossible without significant land support. Moreover, Russia’s firm opposition to any military intervention further isolated Gołuchowski’s proposal and ultimately forced its withdrawal. As a result, the plan collapsed, revealing the fragility of European collective action on the Eastern Question. Drawing mainly on British and Ottoman archival documents, this study argues that the failure of Gołuchowski’s initiative not only exposed the limits of European collective diplomacy, but also accelerated the decline of Austro-Hungarian influence in the Balkans. It also highlights how the collapse of the plan signalled a wider weakening of the Council of Europe in the management of the Ottoman crisis, drawing attention to the growing divergence among the Great Powers over the Eastern Question. By analysing diplomatic correspondence, naval assessments and parliamentary debates of the period, the study provides a comprehensive understanding of how strategic miscalculations, divisions within the British Cabinet and assertive Russian diplomacy frustrated Gołuchowski’s ambitions and reshaped regional alignments. This case study reveals the limits of naval diplomacy and the fragility of European unity in managing the Eastern Question at a critical juncture.

Diplomacy is an important component of power, a deliberate and skillful activity, a means for implementing foreign policy to enable states to achieve their goals. This particularly applies to the wide range of specific activities of Russia and its diplomatic-consular missions in the Balkans during the „long nineteenth century.“ The emergence of state officials who primarily represented Russia's economic interests abroad is linked to the reformist endeavors of Tsar Peter I. Russia pursued an active foreign policy, which manifested in various directions, including entry into foreign markets. A very significant step was the establishment of its permanent foreign missions. By 1701, Russia had opened six permanent missions in Europe (in Poland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, and the Ottoman Empire). Simultaneously, Petrograd sent consuls abroad „to protect the interests of His Imperial Majesty.“ Russia established its first consulates in Western Europe (in Amsterdam in 1707, Venice in 1711, Hamburg in 1713, Paris in 1715, Antwerp in 1717, Vienna in 1718, Bordeaux and Cadiz in 1723), in the East (in China in 1719, Persia in 1720, and in the Ottoman Empire in 1774 – according to the provisions of the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca). The emergence of its consular service was due to similar reasons as those of Western European countries – the development of trade and maritime affairs. With the development of private entrepreneurship and the expansion of consular duties aimed at protecting Russian citizens and their interests, the Russian consular service gradually took on a traditional form. It became more complex with the expansion and deepening of international communications. Among consular functions, two initially stood out: ensuring the rights and interests of Russian citizens abroad, and developing and strengthening trade and economic ties between Russia and foreign countries. In the period after the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca (1774) until the outbreak of the Great Eastern Crisis (1875), the number of consulates grew, and along with the volume and diversity of tasks, the qualifications of diplomatic staff also increased. Differences in the functional responsibilities of consuls in Western and Eastern countries influenced the internal organization of Russia's consular service. Its particular feature in the Ottoman Empire and Eastern countries was the political orientation of consular work. Consuls dealt with and resolved trade, as well as numerous political problems. The directions of their activities in the weakened Ottoman state (the „sick man of Europe“) were conditioned by the peculiarities of that state and its position, dependent on the will of the great powers: a state and legal system different from the European one, Islam as the primary religion, multi-ethnicity, and the unequal nature of relations with leading European countries. Adapting to these conditions, the Russian consular service relied on French experiences based on the system of capitulations, while for its far-reaching goals of resolving the Eastern Question, it used the presence and instrumentalization of a significant percentage of the Orthodox population in the Ottoman Empire. Russian consulates in Eastern and Western countries were initially subordinate to various sections, and later to departments of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Due to the multifunctionality of the consular service, a system of dual subordination (to economic and foreign policy departments) arose, which complicated its work. Russian consuls in the Balkans represented their state's ambitious „Eastern policy.“ Their additional functions went beyond consular ones: opposing non-Orthodox propaganda to preserve, protect, and secure Orthodoxy; fighting for the dominance of Russian influence in the cultural, educational, and enlightenment spheres; establishing contacts with political circles of Orthodox peoples under Ottoman rule, and supporting their plans to achieve political independence.

The presence of Russia in the Balkan geopolitical scene has deep-rooted traditions. Throughout different historical periods, its relationship with the Balkans and interactions with other Great Powers have proven to be a key factor in shaping the fate of the region's states, as well as influencing changes in their political borders, state structure, economic development, and cultural progress within their respective national states. In the struggle for geopolitical and economic supremacy over the "Balkan geopolitical knot," Russia's interests in the 18th and 19th centuries primarily clashed with those of the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary. Initially, perceptions of the West and the East depend on the postulates of development in the civilizational relations of the Eurasian continent, which determine the differences between its western and eastern parts. Gradually, their socio-cultural, ideological, and geopolitical characteristics are recognized as the primary indicators for the division along the West-East axis. This model for structuring the world is carried out not one hundred percent geographically, but mostly on a cultural principle (which, of course, does not deprive it of its geographical identity). These spaces—the East and the West—should not be viewed as two main, homogeneous, let alone identical entities, as the notion of them should not exclude their complex internal structure, predetermined by historical events in thementality-civilizational sense of the geopolitical worlds and the various forms of self-identification and identification of the communities inhabiting the Balkan Peninsula. It is precisely the circumstances leading to these self identifications in the Balkan area that are crucial for understanding the contemporary spatial relations between the West and the East. Two significant civilizational boundaries pass through the Balkans—the one between Orthodoxy and Catholicism on one side and between Christianity and Islam on the other. There is a disintegration of national and local cultures, in terms of the ethnic diversity in the region. The characteristic phenomenon created by the processes of the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire is precisely Balkanization. In the context of its manifestation in various forms of division and the formation of hostile sentiments among unstable neighboring national states in the 17th century, Russia's interest in the Balkans is primarily directed towards expanding its territory and influence, with Balkanization fitting well within this goal. The Russian Empire is still in its early stages and seeks to establish a strong presence in the region. The Balkans, situated at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, offer Russia a strategic "gateway" to the Mediterranean Sea, which is crucial for its further maritime ambitions. Furthermore, Russia's interests in the region are motivated by the presence of Slavic Orthodox Christians. In the 18th century, with the emergence of the Eastern Question, a peculiar change in the balance of power in the Balkan Peninsula and Eastern Europe occurs. The Eastern Question, defined as a "complex problem with various aspects—political, military, strategic, economic, social, religious, and cultural" (Parev, 2018, p. 23), becomes a turning point for the Balkans as it significantly contributes to the division of the region between the East and the West in political, ethno-cultural, and psychomental aspects. The relations between the Great Powers influence the peoples living in the Balkans, as their interests often clash with the aspirations of the local population for independence and self- determination. The Great Powers definitely pursue their own interests at the expense of the local population, which leads to unrest, conflicts, and tension in the region. Russian diplomacy in the Balkans is characterized by a combination of military force and political maneuvers. The desire to establish and maintain a "buffer zone" between the Ottoman Empire and the rest of Europe remains as a guiding principle. It is not coincidental that Bulgaria and its neighboring young national states are at the center of attention, both in Russia's geopolitical strategy for the Southeast European region and in terms of cultural historical and mental divisions along the East-West axis. The Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 fueled Russia's ambitions in the following decades, as the country pursued an intensified policy of "Pan-Slavism" aimed at uniting all Slavic peoples under Russian leadership. With the decision of the Berlin Congress for the regions of Macedonia, Adrianople, and Bosnia to remain within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire, significant problems arose in the Eastern Balkans from 1878 to 1914. The Balkan Peninsula played a strategic role for the Russian Empire in terms of economic ties, transportation, and communications. During the 19th to the early 20th century, Russia, due to its economic and military-technical challenges and its lag in armament compared to other European powers, sought to maintain the status quo imposed by the Berlin Treaty. Regardless of its cautious behavior, Russia aimed for dominance in bilateral relations with Balkan peoples based on their Orthodox and Slavic backgrounds. The duality in Russia's geostrategic line only emphasizes its lasting interests in the region, which are directed towards the future. Russia uses existing traditional cultural, ethnic, and historical connections as a basis for creating a Balkan Slavic union. However, this endeavor proves to be impossible considering the strategic and conceptual aspirations of the Balkan peoples. The duality in Russian policy towards Bulgarian-Turkish relations aims to preserve the status quo on one hand, while on the other hand, it seeks to control all issues related to Macedonia and prevent agreements between the Ottoman Empire and the Principality that could lead to the creation of a large state in close proximity to the straits. The objective circumstances and geopolitical interests of Russia outlined in the discussed period largely persist in the period before, during, and after the First World War, despite historical upheavals. These interests continue to exist during the periods of the Second World War and its aftermath as lasting Russian interests in the region, convincingly demonstrating that, although modified, the Russian geopolitical strategy firmly establishes itself in the Balkans. Библиография: Костов, Александър. Транспорт и съобщения на Балканите 1800-1914. София: УИ "Св. Климент Охридски", 2017 Кръстев, В., Михайлов, В. Регионални геополитически изследвания. София: Стено, 2010 Лалков, М. България в балканската политика на Австро-Унгария 1878-1903. София: УИ "Св. Климент Охридски", 1993 Орбини, Мавро. Наследството на царството на славяните. София: Дамян Яков, 2012 Палангурски, М. България в балканската политика на Русия 1899 – 1903. В. Търново: УИ „Св. св. Кирил и Методий”, 2005 Попов, Р. Балканската политика на България 1894-1898. София: БАН, 1984 Първев, Иван. Балканите между две империи: Хабсбургската монархия и Османската империя (1683 - 1739). София: УИ "Св. Климент Охридски", 1997 Саздов, Д. Демократическа партия в България 1887-1908. София: Наука и изкуство, 1987 Стефанова, С. (съст.) Международни актове и договори 1648 – 1918 г. София: Наука и изкуство, 1958 Фотиаду, С. Мечката в овча кожа, която ни се представя за православна, иска да ни изяде“: Гръцките възприятия за Русия по време на Балканската криза (1875–1878 г.). – В: Русия: Погледи от Балканите. София: БАН, 2023, с. 143 – 164; Bolton, M. The First Russo-Turkish War, 1768-1774: An Inquiry into the Causes, Course and Effects of Russia's Intervention in the Turkish War of National Liberation. London: Oxford University Press, 1930 Clogg, R. A Short History of Modern Greece. Cambridge: University Press, 1992 Gerolimatos, Andre. The Balkan Wars: Conquest, Revolution and Retribution from the Ottoman Era to the Twentieth Century and Beyond. Basic Books, 2008 Lieven, Dominic. Empire: The Russian Empire and Its Rivals. New Haven, Yale: University Press, 2002 River, Charles. The Serbo-Bulgarian War, 1885: The History and Legacy of the Conflict That Led to Bulgaria's Independence from the Ottoman Empire Stojanovic, T. Balkanski svetovi: Prava i poslednja Evropa. Beograd: Equilibrium, 1997 Косик, В.И. „Русская политика в Болгарии“ Москва, 1991 Парашкевов, Пламен. Западът и Изтокът като географски и ментални конструкции. // Балканите - език, история, култура, III, 2013, № 1, с. 527 – 532. http://journals.uni-vt.bg/balkans/bul/vol3/iss1/49 (Посетено на 14. 04. 2023)

Abstract . In the 19th century, Balkan problems appeared in Europe and rose to the international level. The main reason for this is that during this period the Balkan Peninsula was part of the Ottoman Empire, and every nation on it sought autonomous governance or independence. Greeks, Serbs, Montenegrins, Romanians and other peoples fought for independence. The European empires of England, France, Russia, and Austria-Hungary politically and morally supported the Balkan peoples on the path to independence and set them up against the Ottoman Empire as part of the “Eastern Question.” One of them were the Serbs, and the role of the Russian Empire was very important for the independence of Serbia. The Serbs were part of the Ottoman Empire from the 14th-15th centuries, and in the 19th century they tried to gain independence, taking advantage of the weakening of the empire. Recently, the field of research on the "Eastern Question" and the Ottoman Empire, which is considered the center of this international problem, has been expanding in historical science. In particular, scientific questions are being raised regarding the independence of the Serbs and the influence of the Russian Empire on them. This scientific article examines the problems of Serbian independence, as well as the political support and influence of the Russian Empire on the path to Serbian independence. Political issues between the Ottoman Empire and Russia for the independence of Serbia are analyzed, its successes and results are shown. In addition, the authors examine the influence of international political processes in Europe on the Ottoman Empire in Serbia's quest for independence.

The article analyzes the coverage of the Eastern question and the RussianTurkish war of 1877–1878 in the British Empire, on the pages of the satirical «Fun». In the context of the modern confrontation between Russia and the collective West, it is an important task to study the origins of Russophobia, the next round of intensification of which occurred in the English society in 1875–1878. The purpose of this article is to study how the events of the Russian-Turkish war were reflected in the English caricature on the pages of the satirical magazine «Fun», and how a negative and hostile image of Russia and its policies was built. This is all the more important in the light of the visual and iconic developments in modern historical science and the achievements of imagology. The methodological basis of the article is interdisciplinary in nature. An important role in the field of interaction between visual and verbal methods is played by the iconological method, which studies and describes the image. Both in English and in Russian historiography, there were no attempts to trace the image of the Russo-Turkish war of 1877–1878 on the pages of the «Fun». The materials of the «Fun» for1875–1878 were the main primary source used in the article. The periodical took liberal and anti-Russian positions. The talented cartoonist George Gordon Thomson was the main representative of that point of view. He worked for the weekly for more than 20years and created hundreds of cartoons on foreign policy issues. The «Fun», spreading criticism on Disraeli’s foreign policy line, actually supported and directed the construction of Russofobic attitudes in the English society.

The article briefly examines the biographies and activities of the most prominent Spanish diplomats in Istanbul from the end of the 18th century and in the 19th century. The correspondence sent from the capital of the Ottoman Empire to the Spanish Secretary of State in Madrid is used, as well as other documents of the Spanish legation. The diplomats’ documentation established a number of important events in the history of the Balkans and the Bulgarians over the two centuries, as well as their attitude towards the Eastern Question, which was important for Europe.

Abstract Reappraising the approaches to the “Eastern Question”, this article analyses how the heroic reputation of Osman Paşa, the Ottoman defender of Plevna, evolved in Britain from 1877 to 1900. Besides recognising geopolitical concerns that nurtured Turcophile hero-worship, I stress how socio-cultural or political factors determined the way Britons regarded Ottoman hero figures. I explore how Osman-mania in 1877–1878 served as an instrument to popularise anti-Russian realpolitik, whilst acknowledging how such representations aggrandised Victorian values such as “character”, meritocracy and temperance. Post-1878, the belief that Osman was a driving force behind Anglo-Ottoman geopolitical rivalry soured his reputation and the memory of Plevna in Britain. Turcophobia stemming from the Armenian massacres also eclipsed pro-Osman narratives during the mid-1890s. Nevertheless, British military anxieties and friendly overtures with the Ottomans contributed to more positive outlooks on Osman during the Second Boer War. With his death in 1900, Osman’s image evoked conflicting negative and positive responses.

Introduction. The article examines the views of a prominent Russian legal scholar, known for his active anti-war position, L.A. Kamarovsky, on the Eastern question. Analysis. In his opinion, Turkey was a weak and artificial political entity, whose existence was largely supported by the disagreements of the great powers. Attempts by European states to involve Turkey in the common political and legal space were doomed to failure and only delayed its inevitable disintegration. Methods and materials. Among the most important methods and approaches used in writing this work are historical-systemic, historical-genetic, and historical-comparative methods. The source base of the research was primarily journalistic materials. Results. The scientist considered several projects for the settlement of the Eastern question, considering the optimal option based on the principles of international law and public discussion of the problem in the format of an international organization. Kamarovsky was convinced of the need to find a common consensus in resolving the Eastern question, which required mutual concessions and compromises. To do this, it was necessary to abandon the usual forms of political settlement of the problem and establish new principles of interstate cooperation based on trust and morality. Only in this case could the Eastern question be effectively and conflict-free resolved in order to achieve common peace and prosperity. Authors’ contribution. N.Yu. Nikolaev has identified the peculiarities of L.A. Kamarovsky’s views on the Eastern question and analyzed the options he proposed for its solution. S.P. Ramazanov has revealed the differences in approaches to the settlement of the Eastern question by L.A. Kamarovsky and N.Ya. Danilevsky.

Abstract During the heyday of British imperialism in the nineteenth century, perceptions and attitudes towards Islam were derived from the British Empire’s special relationship with the Eastern Question and long-standing trends in Victorian culture. This article explores the views of William Gladstone towards Islam, which have been the subject of a series of controversial debates among scholars. Although most studies of Gladstone have explored the links between his political development and his Christian faith, they have not analysed the grounds of his doctrines towards the Islamic world. In light of the inflammatory rhetoric that Gladstone employed in the ‘Bulgarian Horrors’ pamphlet, his indignation over Turkish rulers, and key elements of his policies towards Christian minorities, some historians have presented the view that he was antagonistic towards Muslims. This study argues that Gladstone had always regarded the Ottoman nation states with ethnic-religious differences independently from the Sublime Porte’s Islamic character of the state. The origins of his thoughts on Islamic civilization, self-government, and cumulative disillusionment with Ottoman reforms reveal the extent to which his humanitarian feelings, ‘religious nationality’, and moral foreign policy influenced his thinking about Islamic governance. It further considers how Gladstone’s liberal mindset and perceptions of Islam developed since his early life and how these later influenced his connections with other Muslim communities—Afghans, Bosnians, Egyptians, Indians, and Albanians.

This study examines the role of the Russian-American relations in the establishment of the Eastern Question. Although relations between Russia and the United States cannot be considered a major factor in the international relations in the Balkans, they nevertheless have had some influence at certain stages, and in some cases have even been of considerable importance. Russian-American relations in the Balkans and the Middle East must be studied in the context of the general development of the relations between Russia and the United States in the late 18th-19th centuries. Numerous studies by Soviet, Russian, and American historians show that although the two countries were radically different in their political and ideological characteristics, this fact did not prevent the successful development of the relations and a cooperation between the bourgeois United States and autocratic Russia. The difference in political systems was never a decisive factor for this relationship. The realities of the concrete international situation and international contradictions, and especially the mutual contradictions of Russia and the United States with Great Britain, were of bigger importance. The study allows us to provide an interpretation of the European strategy in the US foreign policy during the so-called ‘isolationism’ period.

The article presents and analyzes the proposal for the potential eastern border of the Polish state (north-eastern section) following the Polish-Bolshevik War, as envisioned by Bishop Zygmunt Łoziński. The Ordinary of Minsk outlined his solution to the “Eastern Question” in a memorandum titled On the Eastern Borders of the Republic of Poland, submitted to Marshal Józef Piłsudski on September 7, 1919. The document, accompanied by a handwritten letter from the bishop, was received by the General Adjutancy of the Supreme Command of the Polish Armed Forces in Warsaw four days later (September 11). It is currently preserved in the Archives of the Józef Piłsudski Institute in New York, within the “Second Republic of Poland” collection, as part of the General Adjutancy of the Commander-in-Chief’s archive.

In the post-Cold War era, the competition between West and East – naval and land powers – for influence in Eurasia in the form of the “New” Eastern Question is more dangerous than ever. The culmination of the classical Eastern Question in the 19th century led to the extinction of the great European empires. Today we are experiencing the peak of the New Eastern Question. This article examines the main parameters of the Eastern Question in the 19th century and, through comparison with the modern era, concludes that the culmination of the “New” Eastern Question will lead to the establishment of a new world order.

A few months prior to the planned withdrawal of the Russian army on the 3rd of May 1879, and also as the term of the European Commission’s work approached its closure, the Great Powers reached a deadlock in Eastern Rumelia. Despite the inherently liberal nature of the Organic Statute elaborated by the Commission, which aimed to grant comprehensive rights to the inhabitants of the province and to establish autonomy, the implementation of Articles XV and XVI of the Treaty of Berlin ‒ allowing the Ottoman authorities to maintain garrisons on the border and send troops into the province ‒ risked triggering an armed resistance from the Bulgarian population against the introduction of the Ottoman authority. In response, the Russian authorities warned that they would be compelled to return to protect the population if an insurrection broke out. However, the British cabinet declared that any such action would lead to war. To avoid this, Britain and Russia began negotiations for the implementation of a joint occupation of Eastern Rumelia by the European forces. The project for a joint occupation engaged the diplomatic corps of the Great Powers from December 1878 to April 1879. Given the complex diplomatic challenges posed by the project, skillful maneuvering, the use of threats, and the pursuit of mutually beneficial agreements threatened to reopen the Eastern Question. The purpose of this research is to analyze Britain’s political motives for introducing a foreign occupation of Eastern Rumelia in the context of the strategic interests it sought to secure in the Balkans and to examine Russia’s political attitude and response to this issue. The main sources used in the preparation of this study are documents from The National Archive, the Private Archive of Lord Salisbury and published documents from the Russian archives.

In addition to being frequently featured in Punch’s satirical squibs, Benjamin Disraeli was the subject of their full-page cartoons for almost forty years. In all there were well over 100 of them and many used a theatrical motif to illustrate their political point. This illustrated paper examines a representative sample of these cartoons and discusses the implications of depicting Disraeli variously, but consistently, as a magician, wizard, trapeze artist, dancer, musical performer, literary character, and dramatic actor. Many of the cartoons portray him as an alien figure in English politics and a good number of them are overtly anti-Semitic. Drawing mostly on material from historical English drama, contemporary theatrical productions and popular entertainments of the day, these cartoons, perhaps as befits their satiric perspective, repeatedly suggest that Disraeli is a politician who cannot be trusted and who always has ulterior motives. These cartoons are of special interest to students and scholars of the Victorian era, for their metaphors are, in effect, rhetorical critiques of Disraeli’s performances in the political public sphere. Over the period of Disraeli’s political career—from his involvement in Young England to the leadership of the Conservative Party and his eventual climb to ‘the top of the greasy pole’, and then his great triumph at the Congress of Berlin—Punch’s humorous scepticism darkens into paranoia about what the ‘oriental wizard’ is really up to: what at first, in the 1840s, is merely the ridiculous ambition of an outsider becomes by the late 1870s a sinister threat to the British constitution. For example, ‘Young Gulliver and the Brobdingnag Minister’ (8 April 1845) suggests that Disraeli’s attacks on the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, in the 1840s ought to be seen as merely the efforts of an insignificant nuisance. But by the mid-70s, when Disraeli, as Prime Minister, had the power of a significant majority in Parliament, the satirical metaphorical representations of his identity in Punch are darker and seem to share the paranoid fears of the Liberal Opposition. ‘New Crowns for Old Ones! (Aladdin adapted)’ (15 April 1876), for example, sees Disraeli’s role in the debate over the Royal Titles Bill in 1876 as that of an eastern magician’s subversive trickery. And in 1878, as the Eastern Question became the focus of British foreign policy, Punch repeatedly aligned Disraeli’s identity with the Sphinx, thereby suggesting that his power was mysterious and his intentions sinister. Such representations raise questions about the rhetorical function of humour so directed and about the relationship between Punch and its readers.

This essay considers an aspect of the great ‘Eastern’ (Ottoman and Balkan) crisis of 1875‒78, which has never been properly treated before: the policies of Disraeli (Earl of Beaconsfield), that secured a great British triumph, at once peaceful and painless. His actions were original and unusual—as one might expect—but they also drew on long established ideas about British strength in international relations. What was original was the emphasis he placed on the show of strength: politically, by manipulating parliamentary and public proceedings as symbolic gestures, and by troop and naval movements, actual or projected. This was the so-called policy of ‘determination’ or ‘demonstrations’. The conventional aim of this apparently aggressive policy was to avoid Crimean ‘drift’ and so uphold peace. It was supported by presenting Britain as politically united (thereby marginalising Gladstone’s opposition), and by conceiving of British military resources in thoroughly traditional fashion: as a small, mobile force that could be transported by sea to a wide range of possible destinations. Above all, Disraeli traded on Britain’s financial strength as compared to Russia’s weakness, and hence inability to fight a major European war—ideas that were orthodox in both Britain and Russia as well as the international money markets. These instruments of strength and manipulation produced the collapse of Russia’s position, as between the peace terms she imposed on the Turks at San Stefano and the European settlement at the Congress of Berlin.

Between the 1840s and the 1910s, Russia was regularly visited by alms collectors (taxidiots) from the monasteries of the Balkans and the Near East, who were allowed to travel about the country and gather money and church objects during one or two years. This practice, usual for the Balkans since the 16th century, had not been common in Russia. The alms collecting became an important element of the supportive policy in favour of Orthodoxy in the Ottoman Empire and at the same time an instrument of politics during the aggravation of the Eastern Question. Many collectors came from the Athos monasteries. The issuing of permissions depended on different factors: a preference was given to Slav monasteries, or to those Greek abbots who were disposed to Russia. The attempts at unofficial alms collecting were persecuted both by the government and by police measures on the ground. The present research is based on unpublished documents from the Russian Holy Synod. Its object is the study of: 1) the bureaucratic procedure of the admission of foreign monks to the Russian territory; 2) the monks’ actions and methods of obtaining their permissions; 3) the motives for a permission being allowed or refused; 4) the place of the alms collecting in the system of financing Orthodoxy in the Balkans and the Near East.