You have downloaded a document from

The Central and Eastern European Online Library

The joined archive of hundreds of Central-, East- and South-East-European publishers,

research institutes, and various content providers

Source: Bulgarian Historical Review / Revue Bulgare d'Histoire

Bulgarian Historical Review

Location: Bulgaria
Author(s): Miloš Jagodić
Title: Preparation for the 1850 Vidin Uprising
Preparation for the 1850 Vidin Uprising
Issue: 3-4/2016
Citation Miloš Jagodić. "Preparation for the 1850 Vidin Uprising". Bulgarian Historical Review / Revue
style: Bulgare d'Histoire 3-4:86-111.

https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=646926
CEEOL copyright 2018

Preparation for the 1850 Vidin Uprising*

Miloš Jagodić**

Abstract: The paper deals with the preparations for the Vidin uprising, conducted mainly
in March and April of 1850. The background and role of Jovan Teodorović, organizer and
planner of the insurgency, are explained, as well as his arrest by the Serbian authorities.
Teodorović’s detailed war plan and list of his fellow conspirators are presented. It is shown
that preparations for the uprising continued after his removal, led by village chieftains from the
Vidin, Belogradčik and Lom kazas and monks of the Rakovica Monastery. Serbian policy to-
wards the insurgency is discussed and certain indications about possible Russian involvement
are stated. The paper is based on previously unused documents of Serbian origin.

Keywords: Vidin uprising, Bulgaria, Serbia, Belogradčik, Vidin, Rakovica, Jovan

Teodorović, Ilija Garašanin.

The Bulgarian uprising against the Ottoman rule, which broke in 1850 in
the kazas of Vidin, Belogradčik and Lom in the Sanjak of Vidin, has been a his-
toriographic subject of interest for more than a century. The causes of the upris-
ing, the military operations, the defeat and the aftermath are well known. On
the other hand, the background of the preparations for the uprising has not been
documented enough, relying mostly on the folk tradition recorded in the late
19th century by a Bulgarian historian, Dimităr Marinov. For that reason some of
the questions regarding the uprising have remained unsolved, to which Plamen
Mitev points out.1 The aim of the paper is to present some new information on

* Research for the paper was funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Techno-
logical Development of the Republic of Serbia as a part of a project Serbian Nation: integrative
and disintegrative processes (Reg. No. 177014).
** Miloš Jagodić is an Associate Professor at Faculty of Philosophy, University of Bel-
grade, Serbia; E-mail: mjagodic@f.bg.ac.rs
1
Most relevant literature and publicised sources: Стр. Димитров. Въстанието от
1850  г. в България. София, БАН, 1972; Д. Маринов. Политически движения и възста-
ния въ Западна България (Видинско, Ломско, Бѣлоградчишко и Берковско). – Сборник
Bulgarian Historical Review, 2016, 3–4
86

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

the figures who organised the Vidin Uprising, the insurgents’ battle plans, the
uprising goal to some extent, the timeline of the event and to further clarify the
Serbian policy, all based on the so far unused sources of Serbian origin. All the
dates in the main text are given by the Gregorian, modern day calendar, while
in the notes, in quoting the documents, dual dating is applied.
Unresolved agrarian issue, excessive taxation, abuse of authority and all
sorts of oppression of the Bulgarian Christian population altogether constituted
the causes for the Bulgarian peasants in the Sanjak of Vidin to start an armed
rebellion.2 For backing and support they turned to the autonomous Principality
of Serbia, so we should say something about its basic policy towards the Otto-
man Empire.
Serbia at the time was an attractive model to all the Christians living in
the neighbouring Ottoman provinces. It was a Christian state with extensive
home government, with peasants owning the land they were cultivating. Just
the existence of such a country could have been an encouragement for a Chris-
tian uprising for achieving the same or similar rights.3 From 1842, Prince Alek-
sandar Karađorđević and the Party of the Constitutionalists ruled in Serbia.
They were of anti-Russian sentiment, leading a policy that was formally loyal
to the Porte. However, the Serbian Minister of Interior, Ilija Garašanin, in col-
laboration with the agents of Polish emigration of Prince Adam Czartorisky,
made a secret plan of the Serbian foreign policy called the Načertanije. He
envisioned restoration of the Serbian mediaeval state based on the historical
right, which should have replaced the Ottoman Empire in Europe. Among other
things, the plan envisioned that, to that end, Serbia would win over the Chris-
tians from the neighbouring Ottoman provinces.4 More serious work on realis-

народни умотворения, наука и книжнина, Т. II. София, 1890, 61–114; М. Pinson. Otto-
man Bulgaria in the First Tanzimat Period – The Revolts in Nish (1841) and Vidin (1850). –
Middle Eastern Studies, 1975, № 2, 103–146; Документи за българската история (ДБИ).
Т III. Еd. П. Дорев. София, 1940; В. Стојанчевић. Србија и Бугари 1804–1878. Београд,
Историјски институт, Просвета, 1988, 150–166; Въстанието в Северозападна България.
Т. I. Документи. Comp. Пл. Трифонов. Ed. П. Митев. София, ИК ПАЛ, 2005; П. Митев.
Дискусионни и нерешени въпроси по въстанието от 1850 година. – Българско възражда-
не. Идеи, личности, събития. Т. 12. София, 2011, 216–228.
2
Стр. Димитров. Въстанието…, 12–37; М. Pinson. Ottoman Bulgaria…, 113–118.
3
М. Pinson. Ottoman Bulgaria…, p. 120.
4
For a detailed analysis of Načertanije and literature about it, see: Р. Љушић. Књига
о Начертанију. Национални и државни програм Кнежевине Србије (1844), Крагујевац,
Јефимија, 20032. The latest works on Načertanije: D. Bataković. The Foreign Policy of Serbia
(1844–1867). – In: Ilija Garašanin’s Načertanije. Belgrade, Institute for Balkan Studies, Serbi-

87

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

ing the programme as set in the Načertanije started in spring of 1848, when
the revolution in Europe broke out. Garašanin sent some agents to Turkey to
gather information on the sentiment and readiness of the Christians with regard
to the uprising. Reports coming from the Sanjaks of Niš, Prizren and Priština
showed that, apart from just good will, the Christian population had neither
the means for any armed insurrection nor were ready to rebel before Serbia
declares war to the Ottoman Empire.5 At the same time, being of a view that fa-
vourable international circumstances were in place, a Serbian diplomatic agent
in Constantinople, Konstantin Nikolajević, suggested to Garašanin a plan that
he had made for creating a Serbian Viceroyalty within the Ottoman Empire.
The viceroyalty was supposed to consist of Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Al-
bania, Rumelia (to the Maritsa River, from its mouth to Edirne and from Edirne
by land border to Burgas at the Black Sea coast) and Bulgaria. Such a viceroy-
alty would have a completely independent interior government, including its
own army, but a foreign ministry would be shared with the Ottoman Empire.
Sultan would officially hold a title of sultan – king. According to Nikolajević’s
understanding, the plan was based upon the historical right of the 14th century
Serbian Kingdom, and it was supposed to be brought about peacefully and by
diplomatic means. It was expected that the Ottoman Empire would concede to
such terms, which would actually transform it into a dual monarchy, in order to
achieve durable pacification of the Christians in its European lands. Garašanin
agreed to the plan and tried to carry it out in summer of 1848 with a help of
the agents of the Polish emigration in Constantinople. But since it had no basis
in reality and was not backed by the French diplomacy, the Turks rejected it.6
Further developments prompted Serbia to focus on the revolution in Hun-
gary, on providing active armed support to the Serbs in Serbian Vojvodina.
Numerous volunteers from Serbia, under the command of Stevan Knićanin,
fought in the 1848–49 war against the Hungarians. The support that Serbia

an Academy of Sciences and Arts, 2015; К. В. Никифоров. „Начертание“ Илии Гарашанина

и внешняя политика Сербии: в 1842–1853 гг., Москва, Индрик, 2015.
5
М. Јагодић. Србија и Стара Србија (1839–1868). Наслеђе на југу. Београд, Evoluta,
2016, 115–118.
6
Ј. Милићевић. О Босни 1848. године. – Историјски гласник, 1973, № 1, 89–91; М.
Ек­ме­чић. Гарашанин, Чарториски и Мађари 1848–1849. године. – In: Револуција 1848.
и Балкан, Нови Сад: Матица српска, 2000, p. 186; Р. Љушић. Књига о Начертанију…,
p. 131; D. Bataković. The Foreign Policy of Serbia…, p. 174; М. Јагодић. Србија и Стара
Србија…, 95–97; М. Екмечић. Маргиналије о српско-бугарским везама 1844–1851 годи-
не.  – In: Револуција 1848. и Балкан…, 261–264.

88

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

provided to the Serbs in Hungary could inspire hope in Christians living in

Turkey that one day Serbia might help them in the same way.7 In spring 1849,
once again Garašanin turned his attention to the Ottoman Empire. He and his
chief associates, Jovan Marinović, Matija Ban and Toma Kovačević, drafted
a well-known Constitution of Political Propaganda to be implemented in the
Slavic-Turkish lands. It envisioned a conspiracy network of Serbian agents all
over the European part of Turkey. Their job was to provide intelligence and
to prepare a simultaneous uprising of Christians against the Turkish rule. The
uprising led by Serbia was supposed to break out at a moment Serbia was to
set. The goal of the uprising was realisation of the Načertanije programme. It
should be emphasised that at that point Serbia did not have a war plan and was
not ready for a war against the Ottoman Empire, or did it know exactly when
such war, followed by an uprising of the Christians, would start. The European
part of Turkey was divided in the northern and southern parts. Propaganda
in the northern part that included Bulgaria, was led by Toma Kovačević.8 In
summer of 1849, chief agents were selected for each of the provinces of the
empire. Each agent had a task to find in his area and appoint one head of the
organisation in each kaza, who would then place an agent for each major set-
tlement. As a chief propaganda agent in the Vidin area, meaning Bulgaria,
Hrisant Jovanovič of Kalofer was appointed, who had been a student at the
Lycée and the Orthodox Seminary of Belgrade from 1844 to 1849 on a schol-
arship awarded by the Serbian government.9 In June, July and August 1849
he travelled round Bulgaria, organising a network of secret agents. He found
several people he could rely on, told them about the purpose of the mission and
they accepted their duties as the propaganda heads in their districts. For the
propaganda head in the kaza of Vidin he appointed Josif Joakimović, a monk

7
Стр. Димитров. Въстанието…, 43–44; Грађа за историју бугарског народа из Ар-
хива Србије, књига I (1820–1856). Ed. К. Џамбазовски. Београд, Балканолошки институт
САНУ и Архив Србије, 1987, p. 261, doc. № 206.
8
Д. Страњаковић. Политичка пропаганда Србије у југословенским покрајинама
1844–1858. године. Београд, 1936, 21–22.
9
Ђ. Игњатовић. Србија и бугарски препород. Књижевне и културно-просветне
везе Срба и Бугара у XVIII и XIX веку (1762–1878). Unpublished PhD Thesis. Београд,
Филозофски факултет Универзитета у Београду, 1964, 132–133; Грађа за историју бу-
гарског народа…, 250–251, doc. № 198, p. 252, doc. № 200, 267–268, doc. № 210; М.
Екмечић. Маргиналије…, p. 246; Стр. Димитров. Въстанието…, p. 60; Д. Страњаковић.
Политичка пропаганда Србије…, p. 21; В. Стојанчевић. Србија и Бугари…, 147–148; D.
Bataković. The Foreign Policy of Serbia…, p. 175.

89

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

of the Rakovica Monastery. This fact would be quite significant for further
discussion in the paper. In the kaza of Lom Palanka, a merchant, Dimitrije
Panov of the same place was appointed. In Svištov, Hrisant enlisted the mer-
chants, Apostol Konkov, Dimitraki Ikonomov, Jakov Iliević and Ivan Gešov,
who promised to spread the organisation in the kazas of Svištov, Loveč, Pleven
and Vraca. The Hrisant’s report does not say who exactly was in charge for
what district. In the Sanjak of Tărnovo, a teacher from a village of Ljaskovac,
Enčo Todorov and a hegumen of the Gabrovo Monastery, Josif were appointed.
In the Sanjak of Sofia, a merchant Zamfir Dimitrijević was appointed. Hrisant
also visited Kazanluk and Kalofer but there he could not find anyone suitable
for the organisation. According to his assessment, the Bulgarians in the listed
places were willing to start an uprising, expecting support from Serbia. How-
ever, he was of an opinion that the necessary means for the war could not be ob-
tained and made ready in Bulgaria but, when the time came, they should have
been delivered from Serbia.10 After the travel, Hrisant settled in Serbia, in the
St Roman Monastery near Aleksinac, a place rather distant from the regions
where the preparations for the uprising were to be managed. In January of 1850
he rejected a Garašanin’s suggestion to move to Svištov to be a teacher there,
as in the monastery, as he said, it was “quite good”. There were several letters
of his, sent to Toma Kovačević and Garašanin in the period from January to
March of 1850, showing that he did nothing further about spreading the organi-
sation or preparing the uprising, even though, in February, he was contacted by
the merchants from Svištov, Apostol Konkov and Ivan Gešov.11 Consequently,
Hrisant was dismissed from the post of a chief propaganda agent for the Vidin
district and the post remained vacant. In his annual report to Garašanin, sent
on 7 June 1850, Toma Kovačević wrote that Hrisant, prior to his dismissal, had
not managed to spread propaganda in Bulgaria, adding in short the above listed
names of the places and figures involved. The Kovačević’s report was quoted
in literature and a conclusion was drawn upon it that by June 1850 a Serbian
secret organisation was established in Bulgaria.12 But as we see it now, it was

10
Архив Србије (=АС), Збирка Драгослава Страњаковића (=ЗДС), фасцикла (=Ф)
III, списак (=сп.) 11, XXIa, Хрисант Јовановић Томи Ковачевићу, 15/27. 9. 1849, Београд.
11
АС, ЗДС, Ф III, сп. 11, XXIa, Хрисант Јовановић Томи Ковачевићу, 13/25. 1.,
25. 1/6. 2., 4/16. 3. 1850, манастир Св. Романа; Апостол Конков, Иван Гешов Хрисанту
Јовановићу, 12/24. 2. 1850, Свиштов; Хрисант Јовановић Илији Гарашанину, 4/16. 3.
1850, манастир Св. Роман.
12
АС, Илија Гарашанин (=ИГ), 649, Тома Ковачевић Илији Гарашанину, сп. № 39,

90

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

not so. By the end of 1850, no one was appointed as a Hrisant’s replacement
as a chief propaganda agent for the Vidin district.13 There is no evidence that
anyone of the Garašanin’s associates maintained direct liaisons with anyone
Hrisant had appointed as chief propaganda agents in certain kazas. Therefore,
it can be said that the Serbian secret organisation in the Vidin district, i.e. in
Bulgaria, was practically non-existent. The only significance of the Hrisant’s
engagement was that he had communicated to certain people the Serbian inten-
tions of secretly preparing an uprising of the Christians for the liberation from
the Ottoman rule. As a comparison, in the second half of 1849, the Serbian
secret organisation was established in Bosnia, Herzegovina and in Sanjaks of
Niš, Priština and Prizren.14 However, its real power and efficacy are another
matter, which is not discussed here.
For accurate understanding of the position of Serbia towards the Vidin Up-
rising, a crucial factor is that it was preparing a general, simultaneous uprising
of the Christians all over European parts of the Ottoman Empire, which Serbia
would manage and lead for purposes of expanding its territories. Officially and
publicly, Serbia carried out a loyal policy towards the Empire. Garašanin was
not ready to support any local Christian revolts in the neighbouring Ottoman
provinces. He was of an opinion, and quite rightly so, that it would be a futile
waste of energy, an unnecessary endangering of the lives and properties of the
Christians, that the Turks would be able to crush it easily, that nothing would
be accomplished, and what is more, it could potentially compromise Serbia at
the Porte, thus endangering its plans. For that reason, for instance, Garašanin
ordered the so-called Puja’s Revolt, that started in April 1849 in a village of
Bojnica, the Sanjak of Vidin, to be quashed from the outset.15
Another potentially significant factor in the preparations of the Vidin Up-
rising, which has not been investigated enough in historiography, was a Rus-
sian influence. In 1848, the Bulgarians from Belogradčik, V’lčo Bočov, Ned-
eljko Vlah and Lilo Panov visited Athos. As it happened, at that time, Russian

26. 5/7. 6. 1850, Београд; Д. Страњаковић. Политичка пропаганда Србије…, p. 21; Стр.
Димитров. Въстанието…, p. 60; М. Екмечић. Маргиналије…, p. 269; В. Стојанчевић.
Србија и Бугари…, 148; D. Bataković, The Foreign Policy of Serbia…, p. 175.
13
АС, ИГ, 651, Тома Ковачевић Илији Гарашанину, Топографическо-штатично опи-
саније они наија северног предела у којима је пропаганда уредно заведена, 16/28. 9. 1850;
654, Тома Ковачевић Илији Гарашанину, Предложенија, 24. 11/7. 12. 1850.
14
М. Јагодић. Србија и Стара Србија…, 120–126.
15
Стр. Димитров. Въстанието…, 50–54; М. Екмечић. Маргиналије…, 271–272.

91

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

Tsar Nikolai I’s younger son, Konstantin Nikolayevich, was staying there. The
Bulgarians took advantage of it and gave him a complaint about the hardships
of the people under the Ottoman rule. According to a later recorded tradition,
Konstantin Nikolayevich communicated to them that Russia would help Bul-
garian liberation, but that they themselves had to start with the struggle for
their rights, i.e. to start an uprising. Because of a revolution in Walachia in
1848, the Ottoman Empire and Russia agreed to intervene. In late September
of 1848, the Ottoman forces entered Bucharest, crushing the revolution and
soon after the Russian army arrived. On 1 May 1849, the two powers signed a
treaty in Balta Liman, the statutes of the Romanian counties changed and their
autonomy reduced. For the Vidin Uprising preparations, a fact that the Russian
army was in Wallachia until 1851, in the vicinity of the Sanjak of Vidin, was
also important.16 So, the insurgents could expect the Russian military support,
even more so if what the Russian Tsar’s son said in his message was true, or if
the Bulgarians believed it to be true.
From an undated letter draft by Ilija Garašanin to Danilo Stefanović, a
chief of the Crna Reka district, and two reports of the French Consul in Bel-
grade from April 1850, Strašimir Dimitrov learnt that the uprising in the San-
jak of Vidin was being prepared by a certain Jovan Teodorović, an ex-military
of the Principality of Serbia, born in the Sanjak of Vidin. In the second half of
1849 he left Belgrade for the Sanjak of Vidin. The start of the uprising was set
for 27 March. Teodorović and some Bulgarians sent some letters to the Serbian
Prince and the Serbian border counties officials, asking for help. In accord-
ance with the said policy, Garašanin ordered the Gurgusovac district chief Sava
Jovanović to secretly arrest Teodorović, thus preventing the revolt. He com-
plied, Teodorović was captured and imprisoned in Gurgusovac and on 30 April
1850 was transferred to Belgrade, and from that point on the sources say noth-
ing about him. Dimitrov drew a conclusion on his own, without any evidence in
the sources, that in Serbia in 1849 Teodorović was in contact with some leaders
of the Niš Revolt of 1841, who lived there as emigrants. Also without any basis
in sources, he deduced that, after Teodorović’s arrest, the Bulgarians, organis-

16
Н. Манолова-Николова. Русия и българското въстание от 1850 г. – In: Юбилейно
издание по случай 80-годишнината на професор Николай Генчев. Ed. Н. Манолова-Ни-
колова, Н. Вълчев. София, Университетски комплекс по хуманитаристика „АЛМА МА-
ТЕР“, Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“, 2012, 132–144; Материали
по Бѣлоградчишкото възстание. Събралъ  – К. Пановъ. Бѣлоградчикъ, Комитета „1850
г.“, 1937, p. 12; С. Павловић. Историја Балкана. Београд, Clio, 2001, 77–78.

92

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

ers of the rebellion, stopped turning to Serbia for help and went on preparing
for the uprising on their own.17 And we shall see later on, that the information
Dimitrov presented on the basis of the Serbian and French sources were actu-
ally correct, but his deductions, or better still assumptions, were not.
The first news on the uprising preparations in the Sanjak of Vidin was
received on 13 March 1850. A Gurgusovac district chief’s agent, Vuča Ivkov
from a village of Rakovica, the Kaza of Vidin, informed him over one of the
border guard commanders that a certain Jovan of Belgrade had already pre-
pared the Bulgarians in the Kazas of Belogradčik and Lom Palanka for the
uprising and at that moment he was preparing them in the Kaza of Vidin. Ivkov
accentuated that Jovan was assuring the population that he was acting with
knowledge of the Serbian Prince and that Serbia was going to help them once
they started fighting. Ivkov said that Jovan was literate and well-dressed in
Turkish clothes, with a good weapon at his waist. The guard commander told
Ivkov not to do anything until he notified his superior, which he did immedi-
ately. Sava Jovanović used the same channels to set a meeting with that Jovan
on 16 March, so as to learn things personally. He also notified Garašanin about
everything, suggesting that Jovan should be captured and arrested at the bor-
der, thus neutralising his intentions, for which he assumed were contrary to the
Serbian government policy. Immediately, Garašanin asked the Belgrade au-
thorities to discretely find out who that Jovan was and whether he left Belgrade
with a Serbian passport. From all this, we deduce that he must have feared that
Serbia could be compromised. At that point, he sent no instructions to Sava
Jovanović.18 Six days later Garašanin received a reply that Jovan Teodorović of
Vidin, had enlisted in the Serbian army, infantry, on 24 October 1841, had left
the army in August 1848, joining the Serbian volunteers and had gone to war
against the Hungarians in Hungary.19
In the meantime, on 16 March, Sava Jovanović met secretly at the border
with Jovan Teodorović and some of his men, not naming them. Jovan told him
about himself, that he had been born in the Kaza of Vidin, had served in the
Serbian army for seven years and that he had fought against the Hungarians

17
Стр. Димитров. Въстанието…, p. 63; Въстанието в Северозападна България…,
33–37, doc. № 8, 9.
18
АС, ЗДС, Ф III, сп. 12, 1850, С. Јовановић И. Гарашанину, 1/13. 3. 1850, Гургусовац;
И. Гарашанин управнику вароши Београда, 1/13. 3. 1850, Београд.
19
АС, ЗДС, Ф III, сп. 12, 1850, К. Хранисављевић И. Гарашанину, 7/19. 3. 1850,
Београд.

93

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

as a volunteer. In December of 1849 he took a Serbian passport in Belgrade

and left for Turkey to visit some relatives. He prepared the uprising very seri-
ously. It was supposed to start on 27 March or soon after that, depending on
the weather conditions. Jovan admitted that he had not prepared the uprising
with the Prince’s knowledge or of any other Serbian official. He told Jovanović
that he would soon send him some letters, in which he and other conspirators
were inviting Serbia to support in weapons their struggle against the Ottoman
rule. Sava Jovanović advised Jovan to desist from his intentions as many of
the Bulgarians would be killed and the Turks would crush the revolt easily. He
explicitly said that Serbia was not going to help them. Finally, Jovanović man-
aged to persuade Teodorović to wait for a few days and do nothing until they
got instructions from Garašanin. The district chief was of an impression that
Jovan Teodorović was of “fearless and fiery” nature, able to lead an uprising,
considering particularly his warfare experience acquired in 1848–1849. Once
again, he suggested Garašanin, should another opportunity arose, to capture
and arrest him.20
As already announced, on 18 March Sava Jovanović received four let-
ters from Teodorović, written by him and his conspirators, ready to be sent to
certain individuals in Serbia. He immediately forwarded them to Garašanin.21
The archival material contains three of the four letters. They are all in the same
handwriting, written in the Rakovica Monastery. The first undersigned of each
letter is “Jovan T. Sekulić”, meaning that his full name was Jovan Teodorović
Sekulić. Beside each name of the others undersigned is an “X”, meaning they
were illiterate and the letters were originally written by Jovan. The first one is
dated 13 March, addressed to the Serbian Prince, Aleksandar Karađorđević. It
is generally a complaint about hard position of the Bulgarian people under the
Ottoman rule and there is a concrete example of cruel treatment of the tax col-
lectors. It further emphasises that the people are frustrated and decided to start
a revolt. They ask from the Serbian Prince to order the district border officers
to open up the borders and accept the refugees from Bulgaria once the uprising
has started, to allow some hundred or hundred and fifty volunteers from Serbia
to cross over in order to help the insurgents, and also to send them some weap-
ons and ammunition in order to occupy Belogradčik. They intend to seize gun-

20
АС, ЗДС, Ф III, сп. 12, 1850, С. Јовановић, И. Гарашанину, 4/16. 3. 1850, Гургу-
совац.
21
Ibid., С. Јовановић, И. Гарашанину, 6/18. 3. 1850, Гургусовац.

94

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

powder, ammunition and 26 cannons, as they know that number is in the town.
The set date is 27 March. Next to his signature, Jovan Teodorović added that
he was 27 years of age. The other signatures go as follows: “1) Vlčo Nikolić, a
goldsmith; 2) Lilo Panović, a tailor and a merchant; 3) Velјko Nikolić, a farm-
er; 4) Petko, a smithy; 5) Đorđe Ružanović; 6) Prvan, a merchant; 7) Bratuja, a
farmer; 8) priest Velјan; 9) priest Ignjat and 10) Cvetko Tolovičanin”.22
The content of the other two letters is almost identical to the one sent
to the Prince. The second letter is addressed to the chief of the Krajina Dis-
trict in Negotin, Jevrem Gavrilović and is dated on 14 March. Besides Jovan
Teodorović, there are signatures: “1) Đorđe Ružanov; 2) Prvan, a merchant
and 3) Vlča Nikolić of Belogradčik”. From Gavrilović they asked, once the
revolt has started, to let women and children from Bulgaria to find refuge in
Serbia and to send them at least 50 volunteers from Serbia. The third letter is
addressed to the chief of the Crna Reka district in Zaječar, Jovan Naumović and
dated 15 March. The chief of the Crna Reka district at that time was actually
Danilo Stefanović, not Jovan Naumović. After Teodorović’s signature, follow:
“1) Vlčo Nikolić, 2) Lilo, a merchant, 3) Velјko Nikolić, 4) Petko, a smithy, 5)
Đorđe Ružanović, 6) Prvan, a dyer, 7) Vlča Ivkov, 8) Nenčo, a merchant, 9)
Bratuja, a farmer, 10) grandad Ceko, a peasant, 11) Lilo Velјković, 12) Gmitar
Punčić, 13) Velјko Jocović and 14) Lazar Grivnin”. The letter also asks for
refugees to be accepted in Serbia and at least 50 volunteers to be sent to the
Rakovica Monastery. Here Teodorović emphasises that he himself will accept
the volunteers in the monastery, that he is going to take them as his personal
guard and will pay them 6 thalers each (it is unclear if it was meant monthly,
which was a great sum or in total), as he fears that the Turkish spies, which are
many among the Bulgarians, as he says, are going to kill him.23 We can assume
that the fourth letter was addressed to the Gurgusovac district chief, as it was
the third border district towards the Sanjak of Vidin. The Prince was asked to
allow 150 volunteers from Serbia to cross over, which means 50 from each
district – Krajina, Crna Reka and Gurgusovac.
On 20 March, that is, immediately upon receiving reliable information
that Teodorović had crossed over from Serbia to Turkey with his Serbian pass-
port and that he was really a Serbian ex-military and a volunteer in 1848–49,
Garašanin ordered Sava Jovanović to lure him to the border, then capture him

22
АС, ЗДС, document extracted in a folder with a list of all the material.
23
АС, ЗДС, Ф III, сп. 12, 1850.

95

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

in secret and imprison him, thus preventing the planned uprising. The Gurgu-
sovac district chief carried out the order on 23 March. Teodorović came to a
meeting with Jovanović at the border crossing in the mountain, accompanied by
some unnamed figures, two monks from the Rakovica Monastery and several
other people. At that point Jovanović captured him with a help of his assistants,
tied him up, took him to Gurgusovac and imprisoned him. To the Teodorović’s
companions, disappointed with the developments, he indicated that they were
to desist from the revolt as at that point in time they had no chance of success.
He advised them to listen to the input from Serbia in future and to act upon it,
assuring them that Serbia had them in mind and would help them liberate from
the Ottoman rule when the favourable time came. According to Jovanović, the
Teodorović’s companions saw the reason behind those words and promised to
act according to his instructions.24 Sava Jovanović thought that by arresting
Teodorović, all danger of the uprising was removed. He also had information
that 190 villages in the Eyalet of Vidin were ready for the revolt.25 The events
would, however, prove him wrong.
On the date set for the uprising, 27 March, the Vidin pasha sent his men
all over the eyelet to look for and find “a certain Jovan” and his helpers. The
pursuit lasted for a few days and, of course, ended up unsuccessfully. It was
obvious that the Turks had some information about the uprising plans and un-
dertook some precautionary measures.26 So, in that light we should consider
a report of a sultan’s emissary, Ali Riza Pasha of 15 July 1850, where it said
that few months back, a Serb visited a great number of villages in the Sanjak
of Vidin, preparing the Bulgarians for an uprising.27 The term “Serb” should
not be taken in an ethnic sense, but in a sense of citizenship. Jovan Teodorović
was a naturalised Serb, a subject of the Principality of Serbia. The Turks were
not interested in his ethnic Bulgarian origin, but, understandably, the fact that
he came from Serbia.28

24
Ibid., С. Јовановић, И. Гарашанину 10/22. 3. 1850, 12/24. 3. 1850, Гургусовац;
Стр. Димитров. Въстанието…, 61–62.
25
АС, ЗДС, Ф III, сп. 12, 1850, С. Јовановић, И. Гарашанину, 15/27. 3. 1850, Гургу-
совац.
26
АС, ЗДС, Ф III, сп. 12, 1850, С. Јовановић, И. Гарашанину, 18/30. 3. 1850, 22. 3/3.
4. 1850, Гургусовац.
27
ДБИ. Т III, p. 315–316, doc. № 577; Въстанието в Северозападна България…,
89–90, doc. № 35.
28
Compare with: П. Митев. Дискусионни и нерешени въпроси…, p. 219.

96

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

Receiving reports from Sava Jovanović, saying that the Turkish authori-
ties knew something about the preparations of the uprising and that a pursuit
for Teodorović and his companions had been ordered, on 2 April Garašanin
ordered the chief of the Gurgusovac district to question thoroughly his secret
prisoner. He probably wanted to know whether besides Teodorović there was
someone or something else that could be compromising for Serbia in the eyes
of the Turks. When questioned, Teodorović said the following about himself,
his work and the preparations for the uprising.
He was born in a village of Orešac, near Belogradčik. He lost his parents
and brothers in his early childhood and due to poverty, in October 1841 he
came to Serbia, looking for work. He joined the army and stayed there until
July 1848. He then left the service and as a volunteer went to Hungary to fight
against Hungarians under the command of Stevan Knićanin, a commander of
the Serbian volunteer squads. When the war ended, he returned to Belgrade.
He did not want to go to the army again, so he decided to go Bulgaria where
he had an unmarried sister and some distant relatives. In November of 1849,
with his Serbian passport that he had obtained in Belgrade, to which he was
entitled as a naturalised Serbian citizen, he went to Vidin via Negotin. There
he reported to the police authorities who took his Serbian passport, issuing
him a permit to freely move around the Eyalet of Vidin, to visit his relatives.
That event would explain why Ali Riza Pasha wrote that “a certain Serb” was
travelling the villages, stirring up the Bulgarians – Jovan’s passport had been
kept at the Vidin police. From Vidin, he first went to his birthplace to visit his
relatives and stayed there for six days. Then he went to Belogradčik to visit his
cousin, Dimitrije Paunčić, a leatherworker. He then stayed there, helping his
cousin with his craft.
Since he had come from Serbia and had been a soldier actively fighting in
a war, the Bulgarians in Belogradčik, his relatives and friends asked him about
the situation in Serbia, complaining about their hard times under the Ottoman
rule, calling it slavery. They asked Jovan if Serbia would ever help them liber-
ate from the Turks, like it had helped Serb liberation from the Hungarians in
Serbian Vojvodina. Jovan told them that both the Serbian Prince and the high
officials knew very well about the difficulties they were enduring, so they were
certainly working on their liberation when the favourable time came.
For the uprising goals analysis it is significant that, when mentioning the
Prince, Jovan said, “If God permit, and soon our sovereign”. If this was really
true, then it would mean that Jovan Teodorović wished that the liberated re-

97

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

gions be joined to the Serbian Principality. Further on, Jovan hinted to his inter-
locutors that it was of crucial importance for them to start a revolt themselves
first, like the Serbs in Hungary had done, and then Serbia would be able to
help them politically and secretly, but certainly not openly, as the policy of the
great powers would not allow it. Coincidentally or not, but that advice was very
similar to the one supposedly given to Vlčo Bočov, Lilo Panov and Nedeljko
Vlah by the Russian Tsar’s son in Athos in 1848. Jovan went on explaining that
for such a thing they had to find trusted people who would work in Serbia and
in Russia for their benefit. Of course, according to Jovan, liberation was not
possible without a strong will, determination, money and readiness to sacrifice.
Jovan Teodorović further said that after many such talks, the Bulgarians
decided to start preparations for the uprising. They chose him as their leader,
since he had lived in Serbia, was literate and resolute and was an experienced
soldier. The conspirators, whose names are listed further below in the text, un-
der the Jovan’s leadership, worked all through the winter of 1849–50, prepar-
ing for the uprising, so by 13 February everything was ready. They even made a
military flag, kept secretly in the house of Petko a smithy of Belogradčik. That
same Petko forged a sword for Jovan Teodorović, as a symbol of a commander.
The sword came to the hands of Sava Jovanović when he captured Jovan. He
then sent the sword to Garašanin, along with this report of the questioning.
Jovan emphasised that his plan had been for the uprising to start on 27 March,
but only with the knowledge, consent and help of Serbia. That was why, as the
preparations had been completed, he had sent from the Rakovica Monastery
the above mentioned letters to the Serbian Prince and the district chiefs on 13,
14 and 15 March. He openly admitted that it was quite clear that without the
Serbian, but also the Russian help, the uprising had no chance of success.
As a motive for preparing the uprising, Teodorović stated solely the ex-
tremely hard situation of the Bulgarian people, particularly in the view of the
freedom the Serbs enjoyed in Serbia. He explicitly said that he had not worked
on the uprising preparations with anyone from Serbia. As for the weapons and
equipment, the Bulgarians had not got much but had decided to start fighting
with whatever implement they would have been able to take from home. The
general intention was that at the very start of the revolt they would seize the
weapons and ammunition from the Turks. There is a detailed plan presented
later on in the text. In the end, he said that the preparations comprised the
“Nahiye of Vidin” and that the conspirators had no contacts with the people
from other nahiye. However, it is unclear what is meant here by the Nahiye

98

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

of Vidin. The Serbian sources commonly use a popular term of nahiye for the
kaza administrative units. But it was clear that the conspiracy had been plotted
in Belogradčik that was the centre of the kaza of the same name. On the other
hand, the list of conspirators shows that the uprising preparations also included
the Kaza of Lom Palanka. It is unlikely that he meant the Sanjak of Vidin,
since the term sanjak in Serbian sources is commonly replaced with the word
pashalik. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the conspirators’ organisation
crossed over to the said three kazas. It is also possible that Sava Jovanović
reported the Jovan Teodorović’s words incorrectly. In any case, it is clear that
the preparations for the uprising were contained to a relatively narrow local
frame.29
As it has already been stated, Sava Jovanović sent a report of the ques-
tioning with an enclosed detailed war plan and a list of names of the conspira-
tors, made upon the Jovan Teodorović’s statements. The enclosure is of a great
importance for the history of the Vidin Uprising. The insurgents actually tried
to implement the war plan devised by Teodorović. The list of names of the
conspirators, along with the three previously stated letters, are the only doc-
umented evidence about the people participating in the uprising preparatory
phase managed by Jovan Teodorović.
The Jovan Teodorović’s war plan envisioned the following:
1. An attack on Belogradčik with 300 people at dawn and seize of the
fortress, where there were 26 6-pounder cannons, one large cannon and a lot
of ammunition.
2. To cut the road to Vidin at a gorge called Krnul, where the Turkish
guard was posted, and leave 100 men to guard the road. We actually do not
know where that place was, but it would make sense to place it somewhere
between Belogradčik and Vidin.
3. To cut the road from Pirot to Belogradčik at St Nicholas on Stara Plan-
ina, where also the Turkish guard was posted, and guard the place with 100
men.
4. To cut the road from Pirot, in a gorge near a village of Stakevci on Stara
Planina, and guard it with 60 men.
5. To take a village of Gornji Lom and all the dangerous places around it
with 5,000 men and guard them.

29
АС, ЗДС, Ф III, сп. 12, 1850, С. Јовановић, И. Гарашанину, 29. 3/10. 4. 1850, Гур-
гусовац.

99

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

6. To guard the Danube at Lom Palanka with large cannons and 5,000
men, so that the Turkish army would not be able to come along the river route
to try to help the already taken places and Vidin.
7. No to attack Vidin at first if there was no need.
8. To block Arčar Palanka immediately.
9. After taking Belogradčik, to attack Lom Palanka and Arčar Palanka.
10. With the cannons seized in Belogradčik, Lom Palanka and Arčar
Palanka would be easy to take.
11. Once Belogradčik, Arčar Palanka and Lom Palanka were taken, the
insurgents would have about 50 cannons and much of ammunition.
12. The next thing would be to attack Vidin from three sides: 1) from the
Ciganska Mahalla (the Gypsies’ Quarters) with 4,000 infantry and 10 cannons;
2) from Strašena Kapija with 2,500 infantry and 4 cannons, and 3) from Kum-
bair with 4,000 infantry and 8 cannons. Simultaneous attacks at dawn with all
the three divisions would result in taking Vidin within five hours. The fortress
of Vidin was not supposed to be touched. Once the city is taken, the fortress
would surrender, otherwise it would be bombarded and the Turks would flee by
the Danube route, the Wallachian side of the river.
13. Once Vidin is taken, much of the material needed for the war would be
seized. Thence they would advance “as God permit”.
A list of Jovan Teodorović’s chief conspirators and helpers:
From Belogradčik:
1. Vuča Nikolić, a goldsmith and a good master of a household. The first
arrangements for the uprising started at his house;
2. Lila Panić, a tailor and a good merchant;
3. Lazar Grivnić, a partner to Lila Panić;
4. Lila Velјković, a leatherworker;
5. Lila Karča, a partner of Lila Velјković;
6. Nedelјko Vlah.

From a village of Orešac:

7. Velјko Nikolić;
8. Petko, the maker of the sword;
9. Priest Ignjat.

From a village of Vrbovčica:

10. Old Lozan, 60 years of age.

100

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

From a village of Stakevci:

11. Prvul Stanković, a wealthy and good merchant.

From a village of Tolovica:

12. Old Ceka, 70 years of age, “healthy and ruddy like a ten-year-old
child”.

From a village of Rakovica:

13. Đergo Oružanov;
14. Đergo Dilov;
15. Prvan, a dyer;
16. Nenča, an innkeeper;
17. Vlča Ivkov, the Gurgusovac district chief’s agent.

From Lom Palanka:

18. Priest Velјko, very influential with people.

From a village of Poletkovci:

19. Bratuja N., a farmer.

From a village of Bojnica:

20. Petar Pujić.

From Vidin:
21. Jovan, a dyer; a son-in-law to priest Rista.

From the Rakovica Monastery:

22. Serafim Nikolić, the hegumen;
23. Josif, a monk;
24. Pahomije Pavlović, a former teacher from a village of Novi Han in the
Gurgusovac district.

Of particular importance is that at the end of the list of conspirators, the

Gurgusovac district chief recorded that in 1850 the Rakovica Monastery hegu-
men, Serafim, wrote to a Russian general in Kalafat about the preparations for
the uprising and received his reply. But, the hegumen refused to say what he

101

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

had written and what the reply had been. He also, allegedly, wrote to the Crna
Reka district chief, but never received a reply.30
The Jovan Teodorović’s war plan was remembered by the folk and Marinov
recorded its general outline.31 However, the plan does not provide an answer to
one question: who would handle the seized Turkish artillery? It is clear that the
Bulgarian peasants were not skilful in handling it and there was no time to train
them during the uprising, as the plan envisioned an immediate use of the arms.
Teodorović himself was a member of infantry. He may have planned to use the
volunteers from Serbia as artillerymen, for which he had asked to be allowed
to cross over. If so, he must have had some sort of an agreement with someone
from Serbia, who would arrange especially for the artillerymen to cross the
border, and in a sufficient number, as well. Did he count on the veterans of the
war in Hungary perhaps, like himself? With that regard, the letter that had been
sent, if at all, to a Russian general in Kalafat could bear some significance.
There is a fact that during the uprising the Turks captured three Russian offic-
ers in Belogradčik, who were fighting on the side of the insurgents. There are
also some more testimonies to a possible Russian support to the revolt.32 It is
unknown to which military unit the officers belonged to. If they had been the
artillerymen, could they have been sent in an unofficial capacity, as instructors,
perhaps? For now, such important questions remain without answers.
When we compare the names signed in the letters sent from the Rakovica
Monastery on 13, 14 and 15 March 1850 and the names of the conspirators
listed by Jovan Teodorović with the names of the uprising organisers recorded
by Marinov, we see that they do not differ much. It is clear that Vuča Nikolić,
a goldsmith of Belogradčik and old Ceka or Cvetko of Tolovica, mentioned in
the documents, are actually Vuča Bočov and Colo Todorov that Marinov talks
about. However, it is noteworthy that Jovan Teodorović is not mentioned by
Marinov, particularly because he talked with the oldest participant in the revolt,
Petko, a smithy of a village of Orešac, who had made Teodorović the sword.33
Despite the Jovan Teodorović’s arrest, not only did the conspirators not
back down from the preparations for the revolt, but they did not even give up
the attempt to get help from Serbia. On 10 April 1850, the Rakovica Monastery

30
АС, ЗДС, document extracted in a folder with a list of all the material.
31
Д. Маринов. Политически движения…, p. 90; Стр. Димитров. Въстанието…,
p. 77.
32
Н. Манолова-Николова. Русия и българското въстание…, 132–144.
33
Д. Маринов. Политически движения…, p. 89, 100.

102

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

hegumen, Serafim Nikolić, through his confidants contacted the Gurgusovac

district chief, Sava Jovanović, asking him for a meeting with him and another
delegation of Bulgarian peasants in secret at the border. On 12 April, the con-
spirators held the meeting at the Rakovica Monastery and made a decision to
start the uprising anyway. After the meeting, at night between 12–13 April,
Serafim secretly met with Sava Jovanović and conveying him their intentions,
asked for help. According to the Jovanović’s report, Serafim said that they had
no help whatsoever, not even from Russia, not enough weapons or ammunition,
not enough men capable of leading the uprising. They put all their hopes in help
from Serbia. The district chief told him explicitly not to expect anything from
Serbia, that Serbia would not support the revolt as it was not a right moment
for it. He advised them to back down, warning them of tragic consequences
for the Bulgarian people if they proceed with the activities. Serfaim promised
Jovanović that he would accept his advice and would try to discourage his com-
patriots from their pursuit. The other delegation was led by Jovan Nikolov from
a village of Vlaovci, to the south-east from Belogradčik. Sava Jovanović met
with them in secret on another location at the border on 14 April, telling them
the same thing as to Serafim. Jovan also said that he would accept the advice
and that in future they would be guided only by the advice coming from Serbia.
Both Jovan and Serafim told Jovanović that the Turks knew something was
brewing among the people but they had no reliable information about the up-
rising. The Bulgarians were aware that there were many Turkish spies among
them, so they took care not to reveal any plans.
After the meeting with the Gurgusovac district chief, immediately upon
returning to the monastery on the morning of 13 April, Serafim Nikolić wrote
a letter to the Crna Reka district chief, Danilo Stefanović and sent it by two
men, Vuča of a village of Rakovica and Pana Nikolić of Staropatica, who in
1849 had fled to Serbia and settled in the border villages of Veliki Izvor and
Zagrađe. The previous day they had crossed over the border in secret to at-
tend the meeting in the monastery, and after that Vuča took the letter Zaječar.
Serafim wrote to Stefanović that the people of the Vidin, Belogradčik, Lom
and Berkovica “districts” had made a decision to start an uprising. The term
“district” most probably meant a kaza. He asked him for help from Serbia, as
they did not have any weapons or ammunition. He also told him that he had
met with Sava Jovanović and that at his advice they decided to postpone the
uprising, finally asking for advice what to do. Stefanović enclosed the original
letter to the report on the event sent to Garašanin on 15 April. In his report he

103

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

said that he would go to the border in a day or two, and through some reliable
people he would tell Serafim to desist from the revolt if he wished well to the
Christians there. The next day he really was at the border, but we do not know
whether he said anything to Serafim.
From the messenger who brought the letter, Vuča of Rakovica  – Veliki
Izvor, Stefanović learnt that the organiser of the meeting at the monastery was
Serafim the hegumen and that the other monk “Joksim” was going around the
villages, supposedly collecting alms, but was actually making people ready for
the revolt. That Joksim was probably Josif Joakimović whose name Stefanović
recorded erroneously. The report by Crna Reka district chief to Garašanin con-
tained another potentially significant detail. On 14 April he had found a monk
of the Rakovica Monastery, Pahomije in Zaječar. He thought that the monk was
familiar to him from before, so he questioned him. He was assured that it was,
as stated earlier, a former teacher from a village of Novi Han. His secular name
was Petăr Pavlović of Požarevac. In 1845 he was arrested in Serbia for some
fraud, escaped from prison and crossed over to Turkey. He then worked as a
teacher in the Rakovica Monastery and in 1847 went to Athon, the Hilandar
Monastery where he was ordained. In early 1850 he returned to Rakovica. Ac-
cording to Pahomije, the first information given to Sava Jovanović about Jovan
Teodorović and the preparations of the uprising had originally come from him
and it was he who helped Jovanović to trick Teodorović and to capture him.
He had a Serbian passport on him, which had been issued on 10 April 1850
by Jovanović in Gurgusovac, allowing him to travel to the border checkpoint
Vrška Čuka, supposedly on his way to Hilandar. However, Jovanović entrusted
him with a task to go back to the Rakovica Monastery and see the content
of the correspondence between hegumen Serafim and the Russian general in
Kalafat. As evidence to that he showed Stefanović a list of questions written in
Sava Jovanović’s handwriting, to which he was supposed to get answers. Now
certain without any doubt that Pahomije was a Jovanović’s agent, on 15 April
Stefanović let him cross the border and go to Turkey. Here we should remem-
ber that the three uprising organisers, Vučo Bočov Nikolić, a goldsmith, Lilo
Panov and Nedelјko Vlah of Belogradčik, had stayed in Athos in 1848, but
we don’t know in which monastery. They could have been in Hilandar where
Pahomije was at the same time, because at that time mostly Bulgarian monks
lived there. The question remains whether they had met there or not.
Vuča of Rakovica  – Veliki Izvor, gave Danilo Stefanović a list of men
attending the meeting at Rakovica on 12 April 1850. The list of names was

104

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

enclosed in the Crna Reka district chief’s report to Garašanin on 15 April, with
the following names:

From a village of Urbabinci:

1. Vuča Dimitrov, a chieftain (knez);
2. Cena Jovanov;
3. Cola Stojanov.

From a village of Gramada:

4. Petko Marinov, a chieftain;
5. Colo Nikolov;
6. V’lčo Cenov.

From a village of Turčin:

7. Stojan Ninov, a chieftain;
8. Nikola Jovanov.

From a village of Brankovac:

9. [?]34alčo Ninov, a chieftain;
10. Nino Petrov.

From a village of Staropatica:

11. Vučo Todorov, a chieftain;
12. Lalo Nikolov, inn keeper;
13. Koco Nikolin.

From a village of Kula:

14. Najdan Lilov, a chieftain;
15. V’lčo Jačov;
16. Senko Menov;
17. Colo Čenov;
18. Ceko Dončov;
19. Marko Vukov;
20. Calo Vučov.

34
Illegible letter.

105

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

From a village of Poletkovci:

21. Bratuja, a chieftain;
22. V’lčo Cekov;
23. Grujo Kosov;
24. Pančo Jovanov;
25. Nino Cenov.

From a village of Čičil:

26. Nikola Nanov, a chieftain;
27. Dimitar Iliev;
28. Cano Milčov;
29. Cono Neov.

From a village of Medoševac:

30. Dono Jovanov, a chieftain;
31. Đešo Nikolov;
32. Pano Petrov.

From a village of Tatardžik:

33. Vučo Velјkov, a chieftain;
34. Ceno Dimitrov;
35. Đergan Božov;
36. Vučo Stojanov;
37. Colo Letkov.

From a village of Bojnica:

38. Nino Velikin, a wealthy merchant;
39. Nikola Cokov;
40. Benčo Stojanov.

From a village of Golemanovo:

41. Žiko Petrov, a chieftain;
42. Čačo Ninov;
43. Nino Stojanov.

From a village of Makreš:

44. Ceko Ninov, a chieftain;

106

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

45. Jovan Stojanov;

46. Cvetko Nikolov.

From a village of Vlaovci:

47. Jovan Nikolov, a chieftain;
48. Nikola Petkov;
49. Nino Cekov.

From a village of Rakovica:

50. Prvan, a chieftain;
51. Vuča, a wealthy merchant.

At the end of the list there is a note that there were another five to six men
there from the village of Rakovica, whose names were not recorded.35
No more documents on the uprising preparations have been found. Chron-
ologically, the next known document of Serbian provenance is the already used
Sava Jovanović’s report from 11 June 1850, on how the fights started.36 So the
events from the second half of April until the outbreak of the uprising remain
unknown for now.
When we consider all the stated, the following can be deduced about the
Vidin Uprising preparations. An idea of an uprising with a Russian support
was brought to Bulgaria by the pilgrims from Athos, Vuča Bočov Nikolić, Lilo
Panov and Nedelјko Vlah, encouraged by a message from the Russian Tsar’s
son. The Serbian political propaganda, managed by Ilija Garašanin, was not
embraced in the Eyalet of Vidin. Josif Joakimović, a monk from the Rako-
vica Monastery, knew about the idea of a simultaneous uprising of the Balkan
Christians, so he could have given them hope for the support from Serbia. Jo-
van Teodorović, an ex Serbian military, was the chief organizer and a potential
leader, until his arrest and imprisonment in Serbia. He devised a war plan that
was later implemented unsuccessfully, however. The organisers asked Serbia
for help but received explicit communications that it would not be provided and

35
АС, ЗДС, Ф III, сп. 12, 1850, Д. Стефановић, И. Гарашанину, 3/15. 4. 1850, Зајечар;
С. Јовановић, И. Гарашанину, 4/16. 4. 1850, 7/19. 4. 1850, Гургусовац; Ф III, списак лица
присутних на састанку у манастиру Раковица 31. 3/12. 4. 1850, extracted document at the
top of the folder; Ф III, сп. 11, XXIа, Серафим Николић Д. Стефановићу, 1/13. 4. 1850,
манастир Раковица.
36
Стр. Димитров. Въстанието…, p. 83.

107

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

advice not to start the revolt at that time. The meetings at the Rakovica Mon-
astery were held on 13, 14, 15 March and 12 April 1850. Marinov recorded
that the meeting participants sent a letter to the Crna Reka district chief. The
letters were sent to him on 15 March and 13 April. Whether the folk tradition
remembers one of the meetings or the meetings just merged into one, or later
on another meeting was held, it is hard to say. The organisers tried to make
contact with the Russians in Wallachia. However, we know nothing about the
content of their correspondence, if there was any in the period discussed here.
At first, the uprising preparations comprised kazas of Vidin, Lom Palanka and
Belogradčik, and after the Jovan Teodorović’s arrest, the kaza of Berkovica
was also mentioned. A territorial expansion of the revolt, after the assumed
liberation of Belogradčik, Lom Palanka and Vidin with its surroundings, ac-
cording to the plan, remained open. A general goal of the uprising was the
liberation from the Ottoman rule, and from a note of Jovan Teodorović, it could
be said that he was of an opinion that the liberated lands should be joined with
Serbia. Plamen Mitev, a historian, gave an assumption that Teodorović might
have been a man of the former Serbian Prince Miloš Obrenović and that he
was acting by his orders. Supposedly, Prince Miloš wanted to spur a revolt in
the Eyalet of Vidin and taking advantage of the chaos, make a coup and return
and restore his rule in Serbia.37 The archival material we had at our disposal38
does not say anything about the Miloš Obrenović’s involvement. Last but not
least in the history of the Bulgarian people, participation of real figures in the
preparations of the uprising has been confirmed and documented.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Unpublished sources:
1. Архив Србије:
2. Збирка Драгослава Страњаковића;
3. Илија Гарашанин

П. Митев. Дискусионни и нерешени въпроси…, 219–220.

37

In the Archive of Serbia “Поклони и откупи” collection and the “Светозар Марковић”
38

University Library “Јоца Вујић” collection, where the correspondence of the Obrenovićs’
in emigration is kept, we have not found any sources that would indicate the former Prince
Miloš’s involvement in the preparations of the Vidin Uprising.

108

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

Literature and published sources:

4. Въстанието в Северозападна България. Т. I. Документи. Съставител

Пл. Трифонов. Под ред. на Пл. Митев. София, ИК ПАЛ, 2005.
5. Грађа за историју бугарског народа из Архива Србије, књига I
(1820–1856). Ур. К. Џамбазовски. Београд, Балканолошки институт САНУ
и Архив Србије, 1987.
6. Димитров, Стр. Въстанието от 1850 г. в България. София, БАН,
1972.
7. Документи за българската история. Т III. Под ред. на П. Дорев.
София, 1940.
8. Екмечић, М. Гарашанин, Револуција 1848. и Балкан, Нови Сад:
Матица српска, 2000.
9. Игњатовић, Ђ. Србија и бугарски препород. Књижевне и културно-
просветне везе Срба и Бугара у XVIII и XIX веку (1762–1878). Необјављена
докторска дисертација. Београд, Филозофски факултет Универзитета у
Београду, 1964.
10. Јагодић, М. Србија и Стара Србија (1839–1868). Наслеђе на југу.
Београд, Evoluta, 2016.
11. Љушић, Р. Књига о Начертанију. Национални и државни програм
Кнежевине Србије (1844), Крагујевац: Јефимија, 20032.
12. Манолова-Николова, Н. Русия и българското въстание от 1850 г. –
В: Юбилейно издание по случай 80-годишнината на професор Николай
Генчев. Под ред. на Н. Манолова-Николова, Н. Вълчев. София, Универси-
тетски комплекс по хуманитаристика „АЛМА МАТЕР“, Университетско
издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“, 2012, 132–144.
13. Маринов, Д. Политически движения и възстания въ Западна Бъл-
гария (Видинско, Ломско, Бѣлоградчишко и Берковско). – Сборник народ-
ни умотворения, наука и книжнина. Т. II. София, 1890.
14. Материали по Бѣлоградчишкото възстание. Събралъ К. Пановъ.
Бѣлоградчикъ, Комитета „1850 г.“, 1937.
15. Милићевић, Ј. О Босни 1848. године. – Историјски гласник, 1973,
№ 1, 89–110.
16. Митев, П. Дискусионни и нерешени въпроси по въстанието от
1850 година. – Българско възраждане. Идеи, личности, събития. Т. 12. Со-
фия, 2011.

109

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

17. Никифоров, К. В. „Начертание“ Илии Гарашанина и внешняя

политика Сербии: в 1842–1853 гг. Москва, Индрик, 2015.
18. Павловић, С. Историја Балкана. Београд, Clio, 2001.
19. Стојанчевић, В. Србија и Бугари 1804–1878. Београд, Историјски
институт, Просвета, 1988.
20. Страњаковић, Д. Политичка пропаганда Србије у југословенским
покрајинама 1844–1858. године. Београд, 1936.
21. Bataković, D. The Foreign Policy of Serbia (1844–1867): Ilija
Garašanin’s Načertanije, Belgrade. Institute for Balkan Studies, Serbian Acad-
emy of Sciences and Arts, 2015.
22. Pinson, М. Ottoman Bulgaria in the First Tanzimat Period – The Re-
volts in Nish (1841) and Vidin (1850). – Middle Eastern Studies, 1975, № 2,
p. 103–146.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Unpublished sources:
1. Arhiv Srbiјe:
2. Zbirka Dragoslava Straњakoviћa;
3. Iliјa Garašanin

Literature and published sources:

4. Văstanieto v Severozapadna Bălgarija. T. I. Dokumenti. Săstavitel Pl.

Trifonov. Pod red. na Pl. Mitev. Sofija, IK PAL, 2005.
5. Graђa za istoriјu bugarskog naroda iz Arhiva Srbiјe, kњiga I (1820–
1856). Ur. K. Џambazovski. Beograd, Balkanološki institut SANU i Arhiv
Srbiјe, 1987.
6. Dimitrov, Str. Văstanieto ot 1850 g. v Bălgarija. Sofija, BAN, 1972.
7. Dokumenti za bălgarskata istorija. T III. Pod red. na P. Dorev. Sofija,
1940.
8. Ekmečiћ, M. Garašanin, Revoluciјa 1848. i Balkan, Novi Sad: Matica
srpska, 2000.
9. Igњatoviћ, Ђ. Srbiјa i bugarski preporod. Kњiževne i kulturno-pros-
vetne veze Srba i Bugara u XVIII i XIX veku (1762–1878). Neobјavљena dok-
torska disertaciјa. Beograd, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, 1964.

110

CEEOL copyright 2018

CEEOL copyright 2018

10. Јagodiћ, M. Srbiјa i Stara Srbiјa (1839–1868). Nasleђe na јugu. Beo-

grad, Evoluta, 2016.
11. Љušiћ, R. Kњiga o Načertaniјu. Nacionalni i državni program
Kneževine Srbiјe (1844), Kraguјevac: Јefimiјa, 20032.
12. Manolova-Nikolova, N. Rusija i bălgarskoto văstanie ot 1850 g. – V:
Jubilejno izdanie po slučaj 80-godišninata na profesor Nikolaj Genčev. Pod
red. na N. Manolova-Nikolova, N. Vălčev. Sofija, Universitetski kompleks po
humanitaristika „ALMA MATER“, Universitetsko izdatelstvo „Sv. Kliment
Ohridski“, 2012, 132–144.
13. Marinov, D. Političeski dviženija i văzstanija vă Zapadna Bălgarija
(Vidinsko, Lomsko, Bѣlogradčiško i Berkovsko).  – Sbornik narodni umot-
vorenija, nauka i knižnina. T. II. Sofija, 1890.
14. Materiali po Bѣlogradčiškoto văzstanie. Săbrală K. Panovă. Bѣlograd­
čikă, Komiteta „1850 g.“, 1937.
15. Miliћeviћ, Ј. O Bosni 1848. godine. – Istoriјski glasnik, 1973, № 1,
89–110.
16. Mitev, P. Diskusionni i nerešeni văprosi po văstanieto ot 1850 go-
dina. – Bălgarsko văzraždane. Idei, ličnosti, săbitija. T. 12. Sofija, 2011.
17. Nikiforov, K. V. „Načertanie“ Ilii Garašanina i vnešnjaja politika Ser-
bii: v 1842–1853 gg. Moskva, Indrik, 2015.
18. Pavloviћ, S. Istoriјa Balkana. Beograd, Clio, 2001.
19. Stoјančeviћ, V. Srbiјa i Bugari 1804–1878. Beograd, Istoriјski institut,
Prosveta, 1988.
20. Straњakoviћ, D. Politička propaganda Srbiјe u јugoslovenskim pokraјi­
nama 1844–1858. godine. Beograd, 1936.
21. Bataković, D. The Foreign Policy of Serbia (1844–1867): Ilija
Garašanin’s Načertanije, Belgrade. Institute for Balkan Studies, Serbian Acad-
emy of Sciences and Arts, 2015.
22. Pinson, M. Ottoman Bulgaria in the First Tanzimat Period – The Re-
volts in Nish (1841) and Vidin (1850). – Middle Eastern Studies, 1975, № 2,
p. 103–146.

111

CEEOL copyright 2018