The formation of the Serbian national idea and its implementation in the political programs of the XIX century

Nikityuk Vladimir Aleksandrovich PhD in History Associate Professor; Department of Modern and Contemporary History of Asian and African Countries; Moscow State Pedagogical University 88 Vernadsky str., Moscow, 119571, Russia vanikityuk@bk.ru

Introduction

The 19th century was the century of the birth of national states, the "beginning of the end" of empires, rapid economic growth and the development of national bourgeoisie. In some places, these processes took place quickly, in others much more slowly, but everywhere there were objective prerequisites for the creation of a new type of state.

This process also affected the Balkan Peninsula. The Slavic lands, which had been under Ottoman rule for more than four hundred years, at the beginning of the XIX century realized the need to fight their conquerors, and at the same time national feelings awoke in society, and the process of self-identification began.

Serbia was one of the first Slavic people who began to resist the Turkish conquerors. The economic and political backwardness caused by years of enslavement did not allow it to enter into a full-fledged battle with the decaying, but still powerful Ottoman Empire. Nevertheless, these were the first important steps towards their own independence. This became the reason for seeking help from other powerful powers – Austria-Hungary and Russia, and sometimes from Slavic neighbors. In such contradictory circumstances, the first foreign policy projects expressing national interests were born.

Subsequently, Serbia, united with the allies, nevertheless received the desired and long-awaited independence in 1878. Strangely enough, it was from this moment that an active political and ideological struggle within the state began. Serbia too quickly joined the ranks of developed and civilized countries, although there were no objective processes for this. In a couple of decades, it had to go through what European states had been going through for a century, if not more. The result was a crisis of power.

The opposition forces played a decisive role in these events. For example, the Serbian Radical Party, the representative of national interests. Her activities, both in domestic and foreign political life, led to both positive and negative consequences. The Serbian Orthodox Church also played an important role. She not only united the Orthodox Christians of the Balkan Peninsula, but also, in the future, tried to dictate the foreign and domestic political course to the state apparatus.

The subject of the study is the formation of the Serbian national idea in the 19th century. The object of the study is the national Serbian political programs in the 19th century.

The purpose of the study is to analyze the formation of the Serbian national idea and consider its implementation in the political programs of the XIX century.

Research objectives: 1) to consider the official state policy in solving the national issue; 2) to determine the role of opposition forces and their influence on the formation of Serbian national identification; 3) to analyze the activities of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the context of the national liberation movement and - later – in the context of an independent Serbian state.

The scientific novelty of the work is determined by the formulation of a scientific problem; by the involvement of publications (including in a foreign language) published over the past 5 years; by the involvement of historical sources that have not been translated into Russian. In addition, the author analyzes the activities of the SEC in the article, the history of which is not given enough attention in the scientific Russian literature.

Literature review

The source base of the study.Official documents: legislative acts, diplomatic documents, official government resolutions, speeches by government representatives, periodicals, correspondence of statesmen. Personal sources were also used: memoirs, memoirs, letters and diaries.

The texts of the Basic Law of Serbia: 1835 - the Sretensky Charter, in 1838 – the Turkish Constitution, 1869 – the Constitution of the Principality of Serbia, 1888 – the Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbia. These documents clearly show the development of Serbia's political thought regarding the implementation of the national issue.

I. Garashanin's "Outline" program, which has been the basis for Serbia's foreign policy for several decades. In addition, programs are also considered – not always designed and specific, but popularly representing the goals of political parties. For example, the Serbian Radical Party.

In addition, personal documents from the archives of the following persons were used as sources – N. Pashich, J. Ristic, S. Markovich, P. A. Kulakovsky, E. Lavele, P. A. Viskovatov and others.

The reports of Russian and European diplomats and public figures, their letters and diaries occupy a special place in the work. Many of the documents are published in the collection edited by K. V. Nikiforov – "Russia and the Uprising in Bosnia and Herzegovina", as well as in A. L. Shemyakin's collection "Russians about Serbia and the Serbs" in three volumes.

Also, press reports were used as sources, in which original thoughts were often expressed, and the analysis of the situation was at a high level. In addition, from the press data, you can find out the official position of the government and, thus, analyze its opinion and possible plans. This is especially evident in the examples of reviews in the foreign press about the adoption of the Constitution in Serbia in 1888.

An extensive layer of sources in Russian and Serbian allows us to consider the picture more fully and come to objective conclusions.

The historiography of the study.The Serbian history of the last third of the XIX – early XX centuries has been extensively studied by both Russian and foreign experts. The relations between Serbia and Russia in a difficult period for the kingdom were highlighted by S. I. Danchenko, K. V. Nikifirov, R. N. Ignatiev, G. Miloradovich and others. In their works, researchers pay close attention to documents, as well as data from the personal archives of direct participants in the events. Often, many documents are published for the first time directly in a monograph.

I would like to note the contribution of K. V. Nikiforov in the study of the "Outline" program. In his work on I. Garashanin and Serbian foreign policy, there is a detailed analysis of the document, as well as its full text in Russian. A. L. Shemyakin contributed to the study of the ideology of the Serbian Radical Party and the activities of Nikola Pasic.

The dissertation research of Y. V. Kolinenko – "The Serbian Orthodox Church in 1878-1920: national ideology and political practice" – turned out to be important directly on the subject of the study. In this work, the author conducts a detailed analysis of the development of relations between the state and the church, based on many historical sources that have not been published in Russia in Russian. Noteworthy for the author is the chosen topic of the work and its in-depth analysis.

It should also be noted the great contribution of the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which publishes collections devoted to one or another narrow issue, including the development of local Orthodox churches. They also consider the stages of modernization of Serbian society, its struggle and the search for national identity. The most significant for the author were "A Man in the Balkans" and "On the way to Yugoslavia".

In addition, the author used the works of the following Russian and Serbian historians in the study: L. V. Kuzmicheva, E. O. Knyazheva, G. I. Shevtsova, A. Y. Timofeev, P. V. Krestich, G. Stankovich, G. Radenkovich, D. Gorchevich, etc.

The origin of the Serbian national idea: from the Sretensky Charter to the "Inscription"

As a result of 400 years of Turkish rule on the Balkan Peninsula, Serbia lost the unique features of statehood, culture and legislation, and the intellectual part of society. Awareness of these processes and the urge to turn Serbia into an independent state led to the First Serbian Uprising. Despite the fact that the uprising was suppressed by Turkey, it gave birth to the basis of the national identity of the Serbian people. The idea of the national liberation movement was reflected in the Second Serbian Uprising. However, until 1830 Serbia remained a province of the Ottoman Empire ^[24].

The main achievement of the Second Serbian Uprising was the proclamation of Serbia as a self-governing principality under the supreme authority of Turkey; our six nahiyas (municipalities) again recognized the rights of Serbia. The Serbs got the right to an army, courts and schools. This was recorded by the Sultan Hatti sheriffs of 1830 and 1833, which was directed against Turkish oppression. It created the basis for the subsequent successful national liberation struggle.

In addition, the First and Second Serbian uprisings "presented" to the state the founders of two dynasties - George Karageorgy and Milos Obrenovich. They succeeded each other during a fierce struggle from 1833 to 1903. In 1830-1833, on the basis of agreements with Russia, the Sultan issued firmans granting Serbia autonomy (within the borders of the Belgrade pashalyk), and Milos Obrenovich was proclaimed hereditary Serbian ruler - prince.

Prince Milos (1830-1839) was characterized by the qualities necessary for a ruler – determination, consistency, but at the same time he was resourceful, crafty and mercenary. Polovchenko K.A., describing the regime of personal power of M. Obrenovich, uses the following remark by Slobodan Jovanovich: "Milos ruled Serbia as a pasha of Serbian origin would rule it: his management system was clearly oriental in nature" ^[24]. Even his former comrades were dissatisfied with his despotic regime, although they were awarded awards and honorary positions. After another popular uprising in 1835, as well as under pressure from Turkey, Russia and Austria, Prince Milos made concessions and agreed to adopt a constitution that limited his power.

The text of this constitution included all the achievements of the liberal bourgeois thought of that time. According to the majority of Serbian constitutionalists, the French Constitution of 1791 and the Constitutional Charter of 1814 served as a model for the draft Sretensky Constitution (it received such an unofficial name because Milos Obrenovich decided to convene the assembly on the day of the celebration of the most important Orthodox holiday "Candlemas").

According to the 1st chapter of the Constitution, Serbia, by recognition of Sultan Mahmud II and Emperor Nicholas I, became an inseparable and independent principality. And, according to the laws, the borders and names of the internal territorial units of the state could be changed ^[5]. Chapter III pointed out that three branches of government had been organized in Serbia: legislative, executive and judicial; moreover, the first two were in the hands of the Prince and the State Council. The same chapter shows the composition of the State Council: 6 trustees of “individuals and spheres of activity” (justice, finance, internal, foreign and military affairs, enlightenment), an indefinite number of advisers, the chairman of the council and the chief Secretary of the council ^[5].

Chapter IV was devoted to the activities of legislative bodies, as well as the implementation of newly issued laws: Article 10 - "every law <...> it will be made public on behalf of the State Council and signed in the name of the Prince" ^[5]; Articles 11-14 - The Board of Trustees proposes laws to the State Council, the Council considers them and submits them to the Prince for approval, and the Prince, in turn, decides within 20 days whether to adopt the law or reject it.

The Constitution allocated a separate chapter to the powers of the prince: the prince became the inviolable head of state, had the right to pardon or commute the sentence for the guilty, could grant insignia and nobility to the family, had the right to keep with him people who were not in the service of the State Council, who would be able to give advice and whom he could choose independently. According to this constitution, the State Council was the "second power" of the state after the prince and the princely power. The Council ensures that "no injustice is caused" ^[5] to an ordinary Serbian citizen; directs legislation in all areas; suggests solutions to this or that issue that came from the prince.

There were supposed to be 3 stages of the judicial system: the District Court, the Great (Big) the Court and the State Council, which will allocate one office for trials. Throughout Serbia, justice should have been equal for all, "and no one would have the right to challenge the court's decision, with either more or less authority in Serbia"^[5].

The Constitution was approved by the Prince in February 1835. However, it never came into force due to the negative reaction of Russia, Austria and Turkey. Instead, in 1838, Sultan Mahmud II granted Serbia another constitution, which was called the "Turkish Constitution". Its draft was drawn up in Constantinople by the Serbian delegation, represented by Avram Petronevich, Yakov Zhivanovich and Jovan Spasic, representatives of Russia and the Porte. In the process of drafting the constitution, the main issue for disputes was to what extent "to limit the influence of the prince on making responsible decisions" ^[25]. Later, some drafters admitted that it was absolutely unclear to them how the government system in Serbia would continue to function. She expanded the power of the prince, but in order to control him, she transferred the legislative power of the oligarchic body - the State Council, whose advisers forced Milos to leave the principality in mid-1839. Three years later, his son was exiled to Austria, and the opponents of the Obrenovichi came to power. In 1843, Karageorgy's youngest son, Alexander, was invited to the Serbian throne.

Thus, at the stage of the First and Second Serbian Uprisings, the Serbian national idea was born, the purpose of which was liberation from Turkish rule. As a result of the uprisings in Serbia, two branches (two clans) appeared that could claim power – Obrenovichi and Karageorgievichi. The national liberation movement turned out to be fused with state power, and the legislative apogee of this was the creation of the Sretensky Constitution, which fixed Serbia's rights to its own army, education, culture and state apparatus. Nevertheless, these hopes were not destined to come true, and the path of struggle continued.

The Serbian national idea was most fully reflected in the "Outline" program of Ilia Garashanin, the Serbian Minister of the Interior. It should be noted that the "Outline" was significantly influenced by earlier documents – "Report on Serbia by David Urquhart" (1833), "Councils of Serbia on Foreign Policy"; foreign authors took an active part in their creation – F. Zach, A. Czartoryski ^{[23, p. 123]}.

At the beginning of the program, I. Garashanin formulated the first most important task for the development of Serbia's own statehood, as well as the expansion of its territories – "... in alliance with the rest of the peoples surrounding it [Serbia], to ensure their future" ^{[1, p. 237]}. The author also noted that the Serbs were the first of the Slavic peoples who fought for their freedom from the Turkish yoke on their own, which means they had the right to direct the struggle against Ottoman rule. Serbia, according to Garashanin's program, was supposed to become the dominant state between Austria and Russia, the hegemon on the Balkan Peninsula.

To do this, it was necessary to solve the following tasks – to determine the means to achieve the goal, as well as to define a policy towards Bulgaria, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro and Northern Albania. To do this, it was supposed to send people loyal to the government to these lands, who, upon their return, would make a report on the internal situation in these territories (the political situation; the military state of the people and the country; influential people, including opponents of the state; thoughts about Serbia). To strengthen its own influence in Bulgaria, the program offered: 1) the opening of a school for Bulgarians; 2) the implementation of religious relations by sending Bulgarian clergy to study in Serbia; 3) the printing of Bulgarian religious literature in Serbia, and vice versa ^{[1, pp. 237-238]}.

Serbia had the greatest influence on the peoples of Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro and Northern Albania. The Serbian playwright and poet, Matija Ban, who adhered to pan-Slavic views and supported the ideas of I. Garashanin, in one of his works cited a fictional dialogue between a Serb and a Frenchman. According to the plot, the Frenchman insisted that the freedom of the population of the Balkans is possible only if the peoples stand united first against the Turks, i.e. the Bosniaks, and then the Ottomans. The Serb replied: "What are you saying! Who should we kill? Our Turks? To shed our blood and weaken our national strength? No. If we exterminate the Turks, won't thousands of us die? And then what? If they disappear, then only half of us will remain, and we will again fall under the rule of the Ottomans or Austrians. So what do we get? This is a bad deal, my friend!" ^{[12, p. 118]}.

It was also proposed to send several young Bosniaks to the service so that they would receive the skills of "political and financial management, justice and public education" and could apply them in their homeland, "so that in their work they would be absolutely imbued with the saving idea of common reunification and great development" ^{[1, pp. 245-246]}.

In order to attract the attention of the peoples of the Catholic and Muslim faiths, it was necessary to interest them in the idea of uniting Bosnia with Serbia. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to start printing prayer books; collections of songs that would be printed in both Cyrillic and Latin; a short, accessible and popular history of Bosnia with all the names and people who converted to the Mohammedan faith. In this way, Austrian influence in Bosnia could be reduced.

I. Garashanin understood that peoples of different faiths live in Bosnia, and writes that it will be much more difficult to attract Bosnian Catholics to "his" side than Bosnian Muslims, because "they are led by Franciscan monks."

I. Garashanin understood the importance of Montenegro for Serbia and offered to provide the Bishop of Montenegro with adequate annual financial assistance. The program only advises you to get acquainted with the Czech Slavs. The benefits of this alliance would become apparent as the plan progressed.

In this regard, the "Outline" highlights three fundamental principles of Serbian politics: freedom of religion; the hereditary nature of princely dignity (it should be noted at once that Serbia assigns itself unity of command in government, and other peoples could elect authoritative people for a while so that they could form a council); unity of nationality.

Thus, the "Outline" becomes a kind of utopia, the dream of the Serbian people of an ideal state, in which they assign themselves the role of governing the state, and other affiliated peoples the role of participants in the council. In many ways, the program was inspired by the successes of the First and Second Serbian Uprisings, as well as the increased authority of Serbia on the Balkan Peninsula. The attempt to determine its place in the region and the development of the strategy were a natural response to the growing Serbian authority.

Serbia after liberation: national forces against the ruling dynasty and the coming to power of the opposition

Serbia's centuries-old dependence on the Ottoman Empire could not but affect its political and economic life. Its development did not fit into the framework of the development of European states, and independent since 1878, Serbia differed from its western neighbors. We will note several fundamental points that later influenced the political life of the principality: 1) the absence of their own nobility and elite; 2) a weak economic system; 3) predominantly agricultural and agrarian labor; 4) a special economic and social system: the land was almost equally divided among members of society, local government was elected from the peasant population; 5) weak centralized power, concentration within a "community-friendly society".

Emile de Lavelle, a Belgian economist, spoke about the political structure of the principality in this way: "The people are governed by themselves, through their representatives, who are elected by everyone who pays taxes. Democracy, which in other places had to be founded by force, sometimes at the cost of bloody coups, exists here as an ancient institution and an inherited custom" ^{[3, p. 27]}.

After gaining independence, Serbia experienced a serious political leap. In Western European countries, this took years, if not centuries, and in the lands of the Balkan Peninsula, a kind of "modernization" had to be carried out within a few years.

It was also influenced by the fact that Prince Milan of the Berlin Congress slowly turned away from Russia, deciding to link "the fate of the country with the Habsburg monarchy" ^{[9, p. 43]}. The Westernization of the country implied following European liberal ideas, which was difficult to implement in a traditional and patriarchal Serbian society, whose democracy was based on the principles of relations between elders and the community. As the historian D. Djordjevic correctly noted: "The Balkan countries in the 19th century tried to join Europe by establishing European institutions, but that Balkan "aping" was permeated with the strongest traditionalism" ^{[13, p. 55]}

In addition, in 1881, the Austro-Serbian Convention was concluded, according to which the country's foreign policy was subordinated to Vienna, which in fact meant the Austro-Hungarian protectorate. In return, the empire promised economic and political support to the Obrenovich dynasty. The Serbian principality became a kingdom.

The political struggle in Serbia is becoming more fierce and is taking on its own forms, far from European ones. In 1881, Serbian society was divided into "parties", and each of them "perceived itself as the savior of Serbia" ^{[27, p. 181]}, and the rest, especially representatives of the official authorities, were perceived as enemies of the people.

The most popular among Serbian society were the progressive Party, which broadcast the interests of government representatives, and the radical party opposing it. The second enjoyed political success, including in the elections to the Assembly.

Let's look at the program of the Serbian Radical Party (PSA) and dwell in detail on its ideologue, the man who focused on its activities and program – Nikola Pasic. This figure is one of the most significant in Serbian history, and gradually her image "transformed in the minds of many into a kind of myth or a saving talisman, without which no business can be solved correctly" ^{[26, pp. 186-187]}. He was seen as a man who defended Serbia from European modernization and sought to preserve traditions and strengthen the independence acquired during uprisings and brutal wars.

In the 1880s, the ideological foundation of the radical party was already outlined in detail, and it was expressed by N. Pasic himself: "Our party believes that the Serbian people have so many good and sound institutions and customs that they would only have to be preserved and supplemented with those excellent institutions that the Russian people and other Slavic peoples have tribes, and from the West to take only technical knowledge and science and use them in the Slavic-Serbian spirit."

N. Pashich proposed to rely on the Orthodox Church, the rural community and the tradition of national self-government. These traditional institutions for the Slavs not only helped to withstand the Ottoman yoke, but also should play a decisive role in the confrontation that begins with Austria-Hungary and the government subordinate to it.

Of course, N. Pashich understood that in order to implement this policy he needed a loyal ally. The views of the radicals were turned to Russia. N. Pashich began to restore the authority of the "elder sister", which was noticeably shaken after the San Stefano Peace Treaty and the Berlin Congress. The culprit of the current situation N. Pashich recognized the policy of Y. Ristic, who was allegedly "anti-Russian" and "publicly absolved Russia of its San Stefano "sin", giving a simple Serbian peasant to strengthen his shattered faith" ^{[11, p. 195]}.

N. Pashich and his supporters maintained relations with Slavophile organizations. In addition, they also tried to achieve "from the outside – the liberation and unification of all parts of the Serbian people" ^{[22, p. 112]}, i.e. rapprochement with Bulgaria, Montenegro, the withdrawal of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Austrian occupation.

Due to the "invasion" of foreign states into the political sphere of Serbia, the issue of the country's economic independence was also acute. The radical party was opposed to the introduction of foreign capital, the purchase of land by Western powers and the construction of railways and enterprises by them. Svetozar Markovic, a Serbian socialist and one of N. Pasic's confidants, believed that the state should have assumed an economic function – to create conditions for the growth of domestic production and not allow exploitation to penetrate into relations.

The success of the radical party is the Timok uprising of 1883, which was caused not only by economic reasons (increased tax oppression, increased power of commercial and economic capital), but also by political ones. The pro-Western sentiments of King Milan and his supporters did not arouse the sympathy of the masses. However, success turned to defeat: the uprising was suppressed, which dealt a crushing blow to the PSA. Many supporters were shot and sent to hard labor. N. Pashich managed to escape.

It should be noted that, however, both the official policy and the activities of the opposition groups were aimed at following the national Serbian interests. The paths of achievement were just different.

King Milan saw salvation in an alliance with Western powers, modernization, centralization of government according to the European model and the preservation of the dynasty; N. Pasic believed that one should strive for a truly Slavic-Serbian democracy and establish ties with other Slavic peoples, protect the economy from foreign interference.

Well, the price of this struggle was high… The winner would have received the Serbian throne.

The situation in Serbia and neighboring countries was escalating. N. Pasic, who was abroad at that time, was actively engaged in pushing Serbia to revolt. One of the plans was to "proclaim the [Serbian-Bulgarian] union under the auspices of the Karageorgievich dynasty, raise an uprising in Macedonia and annex it to our joint state" ^{[11, p. 273]}. However, this was not to be realized: the Bulgarian government, headed by Petko Karavelov, was quite cautious and did not support the ardent ideas of N. Pashich and his supporters in Bulgaria.

King Milan was not popular among the masses: he was accused of national betrayal after the Timok uprising, but the war with Bulgaria dealt a stronger blow to the prestige of the king.

Austria-Hungary, which "secretly incited the Serbs against the Bulgarians," managed to convince Milan Obrenovich of the need for military action. In 1885, Serbian King Milan Obrenovich declared war on Bulgaria, moreover, he planned to use Porto as an ally, and this did not happen only because of Russian intervention. The conflict was finally ended only in 1887, while Serbia did not receive the territories promised from the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Many eyewitnesses of those events later recalled the "cowardly, non–military and even cowardly behavior of King Milan", who, despite contradictory decisions, "imagined himself a great voivode and made many decisions without the knowledge of the Supreme Commander" ^{[28, pp. 92-93]}.

During this difficult time for both states, N. Pashich did not deviate from the idea of a Serbo-Bulgarian union. The views of the radicals were shared not only by the Serbian public, but also by many representatives within the government. In this regard, King Milan decided to change the existing policy in order to keep the dynasty in power.

In January 1886, a decree was issued pardoning radicals, with the exception of those who emigrated. A month later, a conference was held in Nis, the main result of which was the response of the radical party on Serbia's foreign policy - its willingness to support national interests and help the king in overcoming the foreign policy crisis.

In April, the Liberal Party of Y. Ristic and the radical party have concluded an agreement. However, this union did not bring positive changes to Serbia. Each of the parties sought to take the position of leader in the Assembly, and in 1887 the radicals succeeded, who took over the government. Sava Gruich became the head of the government, who agreed to all the conditions of the king. Nevertheless, the "radical" cabinet was not going to be limited to economic issues, after the Assembly elections of 1888 they came to power again and attempted to change the legislative system. King Milan saw this as a preparation for a new coup, the government of S. Gruich had to resign.

One of the main events for Serbian statehood after the third of the 19th century was the adoption of a new constitution in 1888. It reflected the aspirations of not only liberals, but also radicals. The first article declared Serbia to be a monarchical state with a people's representation. The change in the system of elections of these representatives became one of the main internal political changes: representatives appointed by the king were abolished and closed-ballot elections were introduced ^{[8, part 78]}; a district assembly should be formed in each district ^{[8, part 161]}.

In general, the Constitution was evaluated positively by both Serbian and Russian government and political figures. The only problem was that it was almost impossible to implement the regulations.

Already in 1887-1888, during the preparation of the new Constitution, King Milan faced the question of abdication. This was due not only to the failed foreign and domestic policy and the lack of support in the government and the people, but also to problems in family life. Milan himself believed that he was faced with the "national aspirations" of the Serbian people, which were expressed in the desire for anarchy and revolution. He is tired of using brute force, repression and executions in order to restore the desired order in the country.

In 1889, King Milan voluntarily abdicated in favor of his son Alexander, leaving John as regent. Ristich. This news was received with delight in radical circles, but political stability in the country did not come – the crisis was delayed, but inevitable.

Nevertheless, the radicals have firmly established themselves in power. In the late 1880s and early 1890s, they implemented a "national" policy. The changes affected not only political, but also economic life. For example, the government now owned a salt monopoly, a monopoly on the tobacco industry; many domestic activities were exempt from taxes and duties. The radicals in economic life stood on Serbian positions and in every possible way supported the national economy, which was directly related to national interests.

In addition, in 1890, and then in 1891, amendments were made to the law on elections to the Assembly, thanks to which the property qualification was practically abolished. The rights of the Assembly were also expanded (the Law on the Working Procedure of the People's Assembly, 1889), the responsibility of officials to Parliament was strengthened (the Law on the Responsibility of Ministers to Parliament, 1891), the rights of the community in the field of self-government were expanded (the Law on Communities, 1889), and police oppression was reduced.

In 1891, N. Pashich returned from abroad. Thanks to his experience and interference in the political life of the country, it was possible to avoid a serious conflict that arose between the radicals and the liberal elite led by Y. Ristich. With the inclusion of radicals in real power and politics, the degree of extremism in the party decreased, and for the most part its representatives sought to smooth out existing conflicts.

Thus, by the end of the 19th century, there was a "merger" of state and opposition forces. The radical Party pursued a national policy in the economic sphere and tried to influence the foreign policy. The abdication of King Milan from the throne contributed to this, but power was still in the hands of the liberal Party and its main representative, Y. Ristich. The crisis was becoming inevitable, and the events of the early twentieth century would be the answer to it.

The influence of the Serbian Orthodox Church on the formation of national identity

Relations between secular and ecclesiastical authorities have been developing in Serbia since gaining autonomy. The Sretensky Statute regulated not only state and church relations in the ninth chapter "On the Church" (Articles 92-98), but also organized relations within. Thus, an attempt was made to regulate the actions of the church.

The presence of "one Metropolitan of Serbia in the Orthodox Eastern Serbian Church" was determined, while the number of bishops could be the number needed by the "people", that is, the community (v. 92). Article 93 indicated the dependence of the spiritual authority on the Patriarchate of Constantinople. 95 indicates that the Serbian clergy could not have other titles and ranks. Most likely, this was to limit the interference of religious figures in state affairs. However, Article 96 indicated that a bishop or metropolitan may participate as an adviser on church affairs if called by the prince or the state council ^[2].

It should also be noted the changes that occurred after the Hatti sheriffs of 1830 and 1833 and the Constitution of 1838, granted by the Turks: the Serbian Orthodox Church becomes a large landowner. The government had to reckon with the church.

In the "Outline" of I. Garashanin, the following steps were considered important. Firstly, liberation from the influence of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as well as the establishment of strong and trusting relations between church and state, since "it is through the church that Russia is trying to influence all state affairs of the Serbian Principality" ^{[5, 97]}. Secondly, freedom of religion and ritual was assumed for residents who do not profess Orthodoxy. To do this, as mentioned above, entire agent networks were created. However, it should have been presented as "an internal matter of the oppressed people, and not as the selfish aspirations of Serbia" ^{[4, p. 124]}.

In the future, the alienation of the church from the state gradually began. Of course, the religious institution was given a secondary role, and the church was obliged to recognize any secular authority, as well as to justify to society the need for the existence of this particular state model, this particular representative of power. However, besides the worldly law, the divine law must also be respected. If the authorities err against Christian morality, then the church should not only react, but also make an attempt to influence the state. If the authorities do not accept the demands, then the church takes a wait-and-see attitude.

These and other requirements for the church charter were developed by Bishop Nicodemus (in the world – Nikola Milash). He was also an ardent opponent of the participation of the clergy in politics, and vice versa, the participation of the state in church affairs concerning the Christian canon and rite. According to Nicodemus, the church and the state should provide mutual assistance to each other, and not conflict.

Thus, the Serbian Orthodox Church occupied one of the central roles in the national liberation movement in the first half of the 19th century. She was given a place in the ideological work, which, in accordance with I. Garashanin's program "Outlines" was aimed at the Christian population outside Serbia.

The figure of Metropolitan Michael is one of the most significant in the history of the Serbian Orthodox Church. This man became a symbol of the revival of the Serbian Church and its traditions on the Balkan Peninsula: under him, in 1879, the church became autocephalous, he also made a huge contribution to theological literature, literature and religious education. Despite this, Metropolitan Michael spent several years in exile, and the reason for this was the difficult political relations within the Serbian government, as well as the influence of foreign powers on decisions made by the existing government at that time. This conflict, which lasted for almost a dozen years (1881-1889), remains in the historiography of contemporaries as a "church issue".

We have already said above that Milan Obrenovich's policy was pro-Austrian in nature, and relations with the Russian Empire had cooled. However, the claims were hot. "The Russians are taking the redeemed and liberated Serbian lands from the Serbs with Serbian blood, giving them to the Bulgarians" ^{[28, p. 100]}, General Kosta Portich believed.

Were these sentiments fair? Perhaps. Serbia has lost at this stage the opportunity to declare itself a hegemon on the Balkan Peninsula.

It is impossible to imagine a stage of fierce political struggle without religious authorities. Metropolitan Michael was one of the central figures of the developing domestic and foreign policy conflict. It should be said that already at the dawn of his activity, Mikhail (in the world Milos Jovanovich) did not disdain underhand struggle and intrigues and, perhaps, had something to do with the removal of his teacher and predecessor Metropolitan Peter.

Of course, this has left a certain imprint on the behavior and manner of conducting a dialogue with the authorities. Nevertheless, Metropolitan Michael, who was the main Russophile of Serbia (this characteristic was given to him by his contemporaries, and it later became entrenched in historiography), was objectionable to the existing Obrenovich government at that time.

Metropolitan Michael represented the former, almost medieval Serbia, in which the state and the church are parallel to each other and have the same influence on decision-making. This was impossible during the period of fierce Westernization of King Milan in Serbia's foreign and domestic politics. The combination of these factors was the reason why the state authorities decided to remove Metropolitan Michael from his post.

The reason for the removal of Metropolitan Michael was formal. In April 1881, the Law on Taxes was passed, which obliged private individuals to pay a fee to the state treasury for services rendered by various state institutions (for example, courts, government bodies, religious institutions, etc.). The fee was issued even if a person accepted the rank of a monk or other church position. It is not surprising that Metropolitan Michael considered it necessary to express his own opinion, because the matter concerned the church and the clergy.

In his letter, Metropolitan Michael addresses the authorities and gives the following arguments: "In all civilized countries and everywhere in the east there are precisely delineated boundaries of the activity of state power, which it does not dare to cross, and pass laws to the detriment of the church - the church has its own laws, which the government cannot change. The Church exists in all countries without encountering state institutions, but also without changing or adjusting its laws under the influence of the state" ^{[29, p. 145]}.

The Government found a witness who claimed that the tax was not paid when he was ordained. Accordingly, this was a gross violation of existing legislation, which, moreover, the metropolitan tried to challenge. This was also reported by the Russian Ambassador to Serbia, A. Persiani: "Relations between the metropolitan and the government have become so strained that a final rupture is inevitable. Today, the ministry invited him to resign from his position. The metropolitan refused" ^{[29, p. 147]}. Nevertheless, the Minister of Education Stoyan Novakovich achieved his goal, Metropolitan Mikhail was defrocked. The main claim was not only disobedience to the law, but also – according to S. Novakovich – an attempt by the church authorities to take over the powers of the state and engage in lawmaking.

A year after these events, the entire correspondence between the metropolitan and statesmen was published in the newspaper Srpske Novine. The issue of Mikhail's removal became one of the main issues discussed at the People's Assembly. Through their speeches, government representatives made it clear that there is only one legitimate force in Serbia, and this is the state power, in whose hands administrative, judicial, economic and even ideological resources are concentrated.

This event stirred up the entire Serbian society. His liberal part supported Metropolitan Michael and blamed the state, seeing in him an exclusively punitive body; the party of the Peredniaks (Serbian Progressive Party), on the contrary, believed that Metropolitan Michael had trampled on the laws by his actions, and therefore trampled on Serbian statehood. The radical party, the most conservative, national and traditionalist of all, reacted to the defrocking of Metropolitan Michael with detachment, considering this event nothing more than an internal political struggle between several forces. Metropolitan Mikhail was accused of changing his own mind and underhand intrigues. Nevertheless, the message of the radicals clearly shows their desire to consolidate the authority of the government, unlike the authority of the church.

The clergy reacted rather coolly, contrary to S. Novakovich's fears, to the removal of the metropolitan. Some supporters of Mikhail greeted his successor, Theodosius, quite warmly, and only a smaller part protested about this process.

The only party that absolutely negatively perceived the process against Metropolitan Mikhail was Russia, despite the fact that representatives in Serbia assured everyone that this was purely internal affairs of the state. Nevertheless, Mikhail's removal was seen by St. Petersburg as a success for Austria-Hungary and its own defeat, as a slap in the face of Russian diplomacy.

N. P. Ignatiev wrote to K. N. Pobedonostsev: "The removal of Mikhail, our most reliable ally, a pupil of our theological academy and a firm and enterprising man, is an incorrigible blow inflicted by the Hungarians and Germans on our influence. I supported him for 15 years in a row against various enemies and intrigues. In one fell swoop, they allowed the hard-to-create to be crushed. We are now tasting the fruits of the Berlin Treaty and our shame" ^{[29, p. 143]}.

Thus, the case of Metropolitan Michael, or rather, the reaction to it, indicated several vectors of the direction of national Serbian thought. First of all, Slavophiles who supported Mikhail saw Serbia's path in merging church and state power, as well as under the reliable protection of Russia. The other side was in full agreement with the government's policy towards Mikhail: many were unhappy with his interference in state affairs. Adherents of this position saw strength in the independent legislative, judicial and executive authorities, as well as in the final separation of church and state.

Conclusions

During the XIX century. Serbia was in constant struggle. At the first stage, it was the "Turkish yoke", under the yoke of which the Slavic peoples of the Balkan Peninsula were oppressed. The People's Liberation movement was a bright page in Serbian history, and the elite of the new state emerged from uprisings and war, which gained independence in 1878. However, the fight was not over. Serbia was still a weak international player, and was influenced by both the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires. Constant pressure formed a special attitude towards the national issue.

After examining official documents, the author came to the conclusion that attempts to formalize national policy were made back in the Sretensky Charter (1835), but this was most clearly expressed in I. Garashanin's program "Outlines", which remained the main source of Serbian national policy both inside and outside the state.

Later, this issue was not only the subject of state power, but also the political programs of opposition parties. The Serbian Radical Party, whose ideology was based on devotion to traditions, strengthening state authority (if power was in their hands) and support for the national economy, had a huge impact. N. Pasic, its leader, and his supporters repeatedly tried to seize power both through armed uprising and political struggle. The struggle was crowned with success: the government in Serbia for several years was represented by radicals who implemented their own national programs, mainly in the field of economics.

The Serbian Orthodox Church played a special role in the formation of the Serbian national identity. At the initial stage, it was a body uniting Orthodox Serbs of the Balkan Peninsula (including on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina), later it attempted to influence public administration. The SPC's intervention in the national issue most fully reflects the activities of Metropolitan Michael, as well as his subsequent removal from office for ideological inconsistency with the official state course.

Thus, the Serbian national ideology in the 19th century was formed in the conditions of the people's liberation movement, as well as - partially – under the influence of the Austrian (since 1867 Austro–Hungarian), Russian and Ottoman Empires; not only state institutions, but also opposition political parties influenced the formation of the national idea; a special place in the evolution The national idea is occupied by the Serbian Orthodox Church, which competed with the state apparatus in the field of ideology. Thus, during the 19th century, the Serbian national idea was born, formed, and evolved, some aspects of which were not only fixed, but also implemented in domestic and foreign policy.