It was no doubt natural that Austrian statesmen should wish to end the anomalous situation created by the treaty of Berlin, by incorporating Bosnia and Herzegovina into the Dual Monarchy. The treaty had contemplated the Austrian annexation. evacuation of the occupied provinces after the restoration of order and prosperity; and this had been expressly stipulated in an agreement signed by the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman plenipotentiaries at Berlin, as a condition of Turkish assent to the provisions of the treaty. But the Turkish reform movement of 1908 seemed to promise a revival of Ottoman power, which might in time have enabled the Turks to demand the promised evacuation, and thus to reap all the ultimate benefits of the Austrian administration. The reforms in Turkey certainly encouraged the Serb and Moslem inhabitants of the occupied territory to petition the emperor for the grant of a constitution similar to that in force in the provinces of Austria proper. But the Austro-Hungarian government, profiting by the weakness of Russia after the war with Japan, and aware that the proclamation of Bulgarian independence was imminent, had already decided to annex Bosnia and Herzegovina, in spite of the pledges given at Berlin, and although the proposal was unpopular in Hungary. Its decision, after being communicated to the sovereigns of the powers signatory to the treaty of Berlin, in a series of autograph letters from the emperor Francis Joseph, was made known to Bosnia and Herzegovina in an imperial rescript published on the 7th of October 1908. The Serb and Moslem delegates, who had started on the same day for Budapest, to present their petition to the emperor, learned from the rescript that the government intended to concede to their compatriots “a share in the legislation and administration of provincial affairs, and equal protection for all religious beliefs, languages and racial distinctions.” The separate administration was, however, to be maintained, and the rescript did not promise that the new provincial diet would be more than a consultative assembly, elected on a strictly limited franchise.
Bibliography.—G. Capus, A travers la Bosnie et l’Herzégovine (Paris, 1896) contains a detailed and fully illustrated account of the combined provinces, their resources and population. J. Asbóth, An Official Tour through Bosnia and Herzegovina (London, 1890) is valuable for details of local history, antiquities and topography: A. Bordeaux, La Bosnie populaire (Paris, 1904) for social life and mining. Much information is also contained in the works by Lamouche, Miller, Thomson, Joanne, Cambon, Millet, Hamard and Laveleye, cited under the heading [Balkan Peninsula]. See also B. Nikašinović, Bosnien und die Herzegovina unter der Verwaltung der österreich-ungarischen Monarchie (Berlin, 1901, &c.), and M. Oransz, Auf dem Rade durch Kroatien und Bosnien (Vienna, 1903). The best map is that of the Austrian General Staff. See also for geology, J. Cvijić, Morphologische und glaciale Studien aus Bosnien (Vienna, 1900); F. Katzer, Geologischer Führer durch Bosnien und Herzegovina (Serajevo, 1903); P. Ballif, Wasserbauten in Bosnien und Herzegovina (Vienna, 1896). Sport: “Snaffle,” In the Land of the Bora (London, 1897). Agriculture and Commerce: annual British consular reports, and the official Ergebnisse der Viehzahlungen (1879 and 1895), and Landwirtschaft in Bosnien und Herzegovina (1899). The chief official publications are in German. For antiquities, see R. Munro, Through Bosnia-Herzegovina and Dalmatia (Edinburgh, 1900); A.J. Evans, Illyrian Letters (London, 1878); W. Radimský, Die neolithische Station von Butmir (Vienna 1895-1898); P. Ballif, Römische Strassen in Bosnien und Herzegovina (Vienna, 1893, &c.). No adequate history of Bosnia was published up to the 20th century; but the chief materials for such a work are contained in the following books:—A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia (Rome, 1860) and Vetera monumenta Slavorum Meridionalium (1. Rome, 1863; 2. Agram, 1875),—these are collections of Latin documents from the Vatican library; V. Makushev, Monumenta historica Slavorum Meridionalium (Belgrade, 1885); Y. Shafarik, Acta archivi Veneti spectantia ad historiam Serborum, &c. (Belgrade, 1860-1862); F. Miklosich, Monumenta Serbica (Vienna, 1858). Other important authorities are G. Lucio, De Regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae (Amsterdam, 1666); M. Orbini, Regno degli Slavi (Pesaro 1601); D. Farlatus and others, Illyricum Sacrum (Venice, 1751-1819); C. du Fresne du Cange, Illyricum vetus et novum (1746); M. Simek, Politische Geschichte des Königreiches Bosnien und Rama (Vienna, 1787). The best modern history, though valueless for the period after 1463, is by P. Coquelle, Histoire du Monténégro et de la Bosnie (Paris, 1895). See also V. Klaić, Geschichte Bosniens (Leipzig 1884). J. Spalaïkovitch (Spalajković), in La Bosnie et l’Herzégovine (Paris, 1897), give a critical account of the Austro-Hungarian administration.
(K. G. J.)
[1] This was soon modified in detail. Arrears of debt, for instance, were made recoverable for one year only, instead of the ten years allowed by Turkish law.
[2] De Administrando Imperio, 33 and 34. The names of Chulmia and Chelmo, applied to this region by later Latin and Italian chroniclers, are occasionally adopted by English writers.
[3] For the commercial and political relations of Ragusa and Bosnia, see L. Villari, The Republic of Ragusa (London, 1904).
[4] Given by Theiner, Vetera monumenta Hungariam ... illustrantia, 173-185.
[5] This is the first recorded instance of such an alliance. The Slavs were probably Bogomils.
[6] These magnates played a considerable part in the politics of south-eastern Europe; see especially their correspondence with the Venetian Republic, given by Shafarik, Acta archivi Veneti, &c.