BOOKSELLERS SUPPLIED WITH TRIMMED OR UNTRIMMED COPIES AS THEY MAY
INDICATE THEIR PREFERENCE.
[Illustration: FRANKLIN SQUARE LIBRARY.]
NUMBER 12. PUBLISHED BY HARPER & BROTHERS, NEW YORK. PRICE 15 CTS.
Copyright, 1878, by HARPER & BROTHERS.
TWENTY YEARS’ RESIDENCE
AMONG
THE PEOPLE OF TURKEY:
BULGARIANS, GREEKS, ALBANIANS, TURKS, AND ARMENIANS.
BY
A CONSUL’S DAUGHTER AND WIFE.
EDITED BY STANLEY LANE POOLE.
DEDICATED (BY PERMISSION) TO
THE MARCHIONESS OF SALISBURY,
BY HER GRATEFUL SERVANT, THE AUTHOR.
PREFACE.
No one who has talked with many people on the Eastern Question can have
failed to remark the wide difference of opinion held on things which
ought to be matters of certainty, and on which two opinions ought to be
impossible. This divergence of view is only a very natural consequence
of the want of any book of authority on the subject. How is one to
learn what manner of men these Bulgarians and Greeks of Turkey really
are? Hitherto our information has been chiefly obtained from newspaper
correspondents: and it is hardly necessary to observe that the nature
of their selected information depends upon the tendency of the paper.
There have, of course, been notable exceptions to this common rule of
a party-conscience: the world of journalists is but now lamenting the
untimely death of one of its most distinguished members, with whose name
honor and truth and indefatigable thoroughness must ever be associated.
But granting the honesty and impartiality of a correspondent, allowing
the accuracy of his report of what he has seen, it must be conceded that
his opportunities for observation are short and hurried, that he judges
almost solely from the immediate present, and that by the nature of
his profession he is seldom able to make a very long or intimate study
of a people’s character. One accepts his reports as the evidence of
an eye-witness; but one does not necessarily pledge one’s self to his
deductions. For the former task he has every necessary qualification: for
the latter he may have none, and he probably has not the most important.
Especially unsafe is it to trust to estimates of nations formed hastily
on insufficient experience in the midst of general disorder, such as that
in which many summary verdicts have lately been composed.
But if newspaper correspondents are placed at some disadvantage, what
can be said for those well-assured travellers who pay a three months’
visit to Turkey, spend the time pleasantly at Pera, or perhaps at the
country-houses of some Pashas, and then consider themselves qualified
to judge the merits of each class in each nationality of the mixed
inhabitants of the land. It is unpleasant to have to say it; but it is
well known that scarcely a single book upon Turkey is based upon a much
longer experience than of three months.
In this dearth of trustworthy information, it was with no little interest
that I learnt that an English lady, who had lived for a great part
or her life in various provinces of European and Asiatic Turkey, and
whose linguistic powers perfected by experience enabled her to converse
equally with Greeks, Turks, and Bulgarians as one of themselves, had
formed a collection of notes on the people of Turkey—on their national
characteristics, the way they live, their manners and customs, education,
religion, their aims, and ambitions. In any case the observations of one
who had for more than twenty years enjoyed such exceptional advantages
must be valuable. Of the opportunities of the Author there could be
as little doubt as of her conscientious accuracy in recording her
experience. The only question was not the quality but the quantity of
the information. But in this the manuscript surpassed all expectations.
Every page teemed with details of life and character entirely novel to
all but Eastern travellers. Every subject connected with the people of
Turkey seemed to be exhaustively treated, and it was rarely that any need
for more ample information was felt.
In editing what, as I have had nothing to do with the matter of it, I
may without vanity call the most valuable work on the people of Turkey
that has yet appeared, I have strictly kept in view the principle laid
down by the Author—that the book was to be a collection of facts, not a
vehicle for party views on the Eastern Question, nor a recipe for the
harmonious arrangement of South-eastern Europe. Politically the book is
entirely colorless. It was felt that thus only could it commend itself
to both, or rather all, the disputing parties on the question, and that
only by delicately avoiding the susceptible points of each party could
the book attain its end—of generally imparting a certain amount of sound
information on the worst-known subject of the day.
The reader, therefore, must not expect to find here a defence of Turkish
rule nor yet an attack thereon: he will only find an account of how the
Turks do rule, with a few incidental illustrations scattered throughout
the book. Comment is, as a rule, eschewed as superfluous and insulting
to the intelligence of the reader. Still less must he look for any
expression of opinion on the wisdom or folly of the policy of Her
Majesty’s Government. All these things are apart from the aim of the
work. It is wished to provide the data necessary to the formation of any
worthy views on the many subdivisions of the Eastern Question. It is not
wished to point the moral. Once conversant with the actual state of the
people of Turkey, once knowing how they live, what are their virtues and
vices, what their aims and ambitions, and it is easy for any rational
man to draw his conclusions; easy to criticise favorably or otherwise
according to the merits of the case the policy of the British Government
towards Turkey and towards Greece, to decide whether after all the
supposed rising in Bulgaria (about which little is said here, because
everything has already been well said) was ever a rising at all; whether
the Turks are or are not incapable of the amenities which many believe
them then to have indulged in; whether the Bulgarians are friendly to
Russia, or are really the very humble servants of the Porte; in short,
whether half the questions which have for two years been the subject of
perpetual contention admit of debate at all.
The book has been divided into four parts. In the first, the general
characteristics of the various races of Turkey are sketched. Very little
is said about their history, for it is not the history but the present
state—or rather the state just before the war—of the people that is the
subject of the book. But the Author has tried to bring home to the reader
the social condition and the national character of their different races.
The Bulgarians, Greeks, Albanians, Turks, Armenians, and Jews are in turn
described, and the, for the time, scarcely less important Circassians,
with the Tatars and Gypsies, have their chapter.
In the second part, the tenure of land in Turkey and the state of the
small peasant farmers are explained, and an account is given of houses
and hovels in Turkey, including that most superb of Turkish houses, the
Seraglio of the Sultan, to which with its inmates a very detailed notice
is devoted; and the part ends with an account of Municipality and Police
in Turkey, together with the kindred subject of Brigandage.
The third part is occupied with the manners and customs of the races.
Few things give such an insight into the character of a people as a
study of their customs, and it is believed that these chapters on the
extraordinary ceremonies employed in Turkey on the occasion of a birth
or marriage, or a death, the dress, food, amusements, of the Greeks,
Bulgarians, Turks, and Armenians will prove of as much value as interest.
The fact, for example, that in many parts of Bulgaria the weddings take
place not in the church but in the cellar of the bridegroom’s house
speaks volumes on the insecurity of a woman’s person while Turkish
governors rule in Bulgarian towns. The custom of the Bulgarian bridegroom
flinging a halter over his bride’s neck and dragging her into his
house is an interesting relic of capture, and the subsequent knocking
of the bride’s head against the wall as a warning against infidelity
illustrates the general chastity of the people. The indecent exhibitions,
again, at Turkish weddings help to explain the want of refinement and
womanly feeling among Turkish ladies. The ceremonies of the Greeks are
interesting from another point of view, inasmuch as very many of them are
identical with those of the ancient Greeks.
The last part is devoted to the education, superstition, and religion
of the people of Turkey. It is here that we get to the root of Turkish
manners; for we see how the Turk is brought up, how he learns the vices
that have become identified with the thought of his race, how he remains,
in spite even of a western education, deeply imbued with superstition,
and finally how he loses all the energy of the old Othmanli character by
the operation of the fatal doctrine of Kismet. The chapters on Education
are among the most valuable in the book; whilst those on Religion
will serve to explain some of the difficulties that beset the proper
adjustment of affairs in Southern Europe.
The study of the facts thus brought together points to a considerable
modification of the views commonly entertained with regard to the
characters of the peoples of Turkey. The Author’s long experience leaves
no doubt of the vast superiority of the Greeks to the other races; yet
there is no people that one is more accustomed to hear spoken of with
distrust and even contempt. The Greeks are commonly charged with a
partiality for sharp practice, with intolerable vanity; their character
is summed up as petty. There is always a grain of truth in a calumny:
when plenty of mud is thrown some of it sticks, not because of the
quantity of the mud, but because there is sure to be an adhesive sympathy
with some part of the object of the attack. The Greeks have in some
degree laid themselves open to these charges. It was very unwise of
them to take the first rank as merchants in the East, and thus arouse
the jealousy of the merchants of all European nations, whom they have
eclipsed by their superior business capacities. Envy will pick holes
anywhere, but it is especially easy to criticise the customs of a
merchant class. Mercantile morality all over the world is a thing of
itself, not generally understanded of the people. But there is nothing to
show that the Greek merchants are less scrupulous than the rest, though
their temptations are infinitely greater. If a little sharp business
is said to be permissible, and even perhaps necessary, at Liverpool,
for instance, it is _à fortiori_ essential in Turkey. It is a perfectly
well-understood principle that in Turkey, where everything is done by
bribery and corruption, a merchant, unless he wishes to be ruined,
must steer a somewhat oblique course. So long as the late Turkish rule
extended over Greek subjects, it was necessary to do in Turkey as the
Turks do. French and English merchants sin as much as the Greeks in this
manner; but the superior commercial ability of the Greeks and their
consequent success have drawn on them the whole evil repute. It is not
that the Greeks cheat more than other commercial nations: it is merely
that they make more money on the same amount of cheating. _Hinc illæ iræ!_
The Greeks, again, are certainly conceited, and with excellent reason.
It would be absurd to expect anything else. They are but newly freed;
after centuries of Ottoman tyranny, followed by a generation of Bavarian
despotism, they have at last been allowed to enjoy some fifteen years of
freedom. Even under the stiff court of George, but much more during the
last fifteen years, they have made prodigious progress. Having worked out
their own freedom, they have been making themselves fit for freedom. From
craven slaves of the Turk they have become a liberty-loving people. Their
thoughts have been casting back to the noble ancestry which they claim
as their own, and looking onward to the great future that is in store
for them. They have measured themselves intellectually with the rest of
Europe and have not been worsted. They have spent the last twenty years
in the work of self-education, and so successful have been their efforts
that it is well known that no nation can compare with Greece in the
general education of its people—that to Greece alone can be applied the
ambiguous taunt that she is over-educated.
All these things are legitimate subjects of pride. It is no wonder that
the Greeks are vain of their adopted ancestors; no marvel that they are
proud of their keen wits and facile intelligence. They have formed a
justly high estimate of their national worth, and are justly proud of the
progress they have already made, and they take no pains to conceal it.
Their faults are only exaggerations of national virtues, the outcome of
the reaction from a long servitude; they are the necessary but temporary
result of the circumstances. A little time for development, a closer
association with the other powers of Europe, and a worthier trust on the
part of these, and the Greeks will lose their blemishes of youth; conceit
will be toned down to a proper pride, and high intelligence will no
longer be called over-cleverness. The nation has marched steadily forward
in the little time it has been free; it has made great steps in educating
itself and in spreading knowledge among its members still subject to the
alien; it has shown itself able to govern itself, even to restrain itself
under terrible provocation when there was much to gain and little that
could be lost. If it is given fair play, the time may yet come when a
seventh Great power shall arise in Europe, when the Greeks shall again
rule in Byzantium, and Europe shall know that the name of Hellenes is
still a sacred name.
The Author’s account of the Bulgarians differs little from the ordinary
opinion, except on one important point. She describes them as honest
hard-working peasants, rather slow and stupid, but excellent laborers.
But she absolutely denies the ferocious character ascribed to them by
some writers. Every one knows that they exacted a terrible vengeance
from the Turks, and no man of spirit can blame them for it; though it is
much to be regretted that, if the accounts be true, they carried their
revenge to the length of Turkish barbarity. But this was an exceptional
time: it has had its parallel in most nations, as those who remember the
feeling in England at the time of the Indian mutiny can witness. As a
rule the Bulgarian is, on the contrary, rather too tame. He is a very
domestic animal, lives happily with his family, keeps generally sober,
enjoys his dance on the common on feast-days, and goes with perfect
willingness and satisfaction to his daily work in the fields or at the
rose-harvest. He is an admirable agricultural laborer, with a stolidity
more than Teutonic, without the Teuton’s energy. Yet these Bulgarians
seem to have a good deal of sound common sense, and show many of the
qualities necessary in a people that is to govern itself. It has hitherto
submitted with curious tranquillity to the Turkish yoke, and the Sultan
has probably had few less ill-affected servants than the Bulgarians. On
the other hand, it seems that the Bulgarians entertain a very decided
hostility to Russia, an enmity second only to their hatred for the Greeks.
The third important element in the future of South-East Europe is the
Turks. Of them it is not necessary to say much: most people are fairly
enlightened as to the manners and rule of the Turk, and the Author has
intentionally avoided crowding her pages with Turkish atrocities: they
are all very much alike, and they are not pleasant reading. The official
classes meet with scant respect at her hands; but with most writers she
speaks favorably of the Turkish peasant. The principal vice he has is
his religious fanaticism, which is the result partly of Mohammedanism
itself, and partly of the form and manner in which it is inculcated
in Turkey. Islam may be broad and tolerant enough; but not the rigid
orthodox Islam as taught in the primary schools of the Ottoman Empire.
Islam is an excellent creed by itself; but a ruling Mohammedan minority
in a Christian country is an endless source of trouble. But the religious
question is only one of those which have disturbed the position of the
Porte. The system of administration, as described in these pages, is
enough to overturn any power, and an official class brought up under
vicious home influences, educated in fanatical mosque-schools, living
the self-indulgent indolent life of Stamboul, getting and keeping office
by bribery, administering “justice” to the highest bidder, is a doomed
class. When one sees how a Turkish child is brought up he begins to
wonder how any Turk can help being vicious and dishonest. It is quite
certain that there is no hope for the Turks so long as Turkish women
remain what they are, and home-training is the initiation of vice. So
far as can be judged, the Turk naturally possessed some of the true
elements of greatness; but it is rarely they come to bear fruit: they are
choked by the pernicious social system which destroys the moral force
of the women and thereafter the men of the empire. It is this carefully
inculcated deficiency in all sense of uprightness and justice, and this
trained tendency to everything that is a crime against the community,
that renders the Pasha incapable of governing. It is this fact which
compels one to admit that, whatever the decisions of the Berlin Congress,
it is a clear gain that the war has won for Europe, to be able to speak
of Turkish rule in the past tense.
With full knowledge of the experience and research of the Author, I must
yet say there are some points—notably the Greek Church of Russia—in
which I cannot bring myself to agree with her; and I must also add that,
owing to the haste with which the book was put through the press, I have
allowed a few misprints to escape me.
STANLEY LANE POOLE.
_June 20th, 1878._
CHAPTER I.
THE BULGARIANS.
Sketch of Bulgarian History—The Slav Occupation—Bulgar
Conquest—Mixture of the Races—The Bulgarian Kingdom—Contests
with Constantinople—Basil Bulgaroktonos—Bulgaria under
Ottoman Rule—Compulsory Conversion—The Pomaks—Oppressive
Government—Janissary Conscription—Extortion of Officials—Misery
of the People—Improvement under Abdul-Medjid—Fidelity of
the Bulgarians to the Porte—The late Revolt no National
Movement—The Geographical Limits of Bulgaria—Mixture with
Greeks—Life in the House of a Bulgarian Country Gentleman—Daily
Levées of Elders and Peasants—Counsel of the Chorbadji and
Stupidity of the Clients—Instances of Bulgarian Grievances—St.
Panteleemon—A Spiritual Elopement—Dentist’s Fees—Woman’s
Work in Bulgaria—Sobriety—Town Life—A Bulgarian Ball—A
Night in a Bulgarian Hamlet, and the Comfort thereof—Unity
of the Nation—Distrust of Foreigners—Demoralization of the
Bulgarians—The Hope for the Future.
The Bulgarians, who were completely crushed by the Ottoman Conquest,
and whose very existence for centuries was almost forgotten, have been
suddenly brought before the world by the late unhappy events in their
country.
Much has been written by English and foreign authors respecting them, but
few of the writings on the subject appear to agree with regard to the
origin, the history, or the present social and moral condition of this
much injured but deserving people. I have no pretensions to throw a fresh
light on the first two points. The few remarks I shall make are based
upon such authors as are considered most trustworthy, and especially on
the recent researches of Professor Hyrtl, reserving to myself the task of
describing the moral and social condition of the modern Bulgarians, as
fourteen years spent among them enables me to do.
From the Bulgarian Professor Drinov, who appears to have made the Balkan
peninsula his especial study, we learn that before the arrival of the
Bulgarian tribes into European Turkey, the southern side of the Danube
had been invaded by the Slavs, who during four centuries poured into the
country and, steadily spreading, drove out the previous inhabitants, who
directed their steps towards the sea-coasts and settled in the towns
there. In the beginning of the sixth century the Slavonic element had
become so powerful in its newly-acquired dominions, and its depredatory
incursions into the Byzantine Empire so extensive, that the Emperor
Anastasius found himself forced to build a wall from Selymbria on the Sea
of Marmora to Derkon on the Black Sea in order to repel their attacks.
Procopius, commenting on this, relates that while Justinian was winning
useless victories over the Persians, part of his empire lay exposed to
the ravages of the Slavs, and that not less than 200,000 Byzantines were
annually killed or carried away into slavery.
The hostile spirit, however, between these two nations was broken by
short intervals of peace and friendly relations, during which the
Slav race supplied some emperors and many distinguished men to the
Byzantines. Many Slavs resorted to Constantinople in order to receive
the education and training their newly-founded kingdom did not afford
them. The migration of the Slavs into Thrace ceased towards the middle
of the seventh century, when they settled down to a more sedentary life,
and, under the civilizing influence of their Byzantine neighbors, betook
themselves to agricultural and pastoral pursuits. According to historical
accounts the Slavs did not long enjoy their acquisitions in peace, for
about the year 679 A.D. a horde of Hunnish warriors, calling themselves
Bulgars (a name derived from their former home on the Volga), crossed
the Danube under the leadership of their Khan, Asparuch, and after some
desperate fighting with the Slavs, finally settled on the land now known
as Bulgaria and founded a kingdom which in its turn lasted about seven
hundred years.
From the little that is known of the original Bulgarians, we learn that
polygamy was practised among them, that the men shaved their heads and
wore a kind of turban, and the women veiled their faces. These points of
similarity connect the primitive Bulgarians with the Avars, with whom
they came into close contact, as well as with the Tatars, during their
long sojourn between the Volga and Tanais, as witness the marked Tatar
features some of the Bulgarians bear to the present day. The primitive
Bulgarians are said to have subsisted chiefly on the flesh of animals
killed in the chase; and it is further related of them that they burnt
their dead, and when a chieftain died his wives and servants were also
burnt and their ashes buried with those of their master. Schafarik, whose
learned and trustworthy researches on the origin of the Bulgarians can
scarcely be called in question, remarks that the warlike hordes from the
Volga regions, though not numerous, were very brave and well skilled in
war. They attacked with great ferocity the patient plodding Slavs, who
were engaged in cultivating the land and rearing cattle, quickly obtained
the governing power, and after tasting the comforts of a settled life,
gradually adopted to a great extent the manners, customs, and even the
language of the people they had conquered. This amalgamation appears to
have been a slow process, occupying, according to historical evidence,
full two hundred and fifty years. It is during this period that the
Bulgarian language must have gradually been effaced, and the vanquishing
race, like the Normans in England, absorbed by the vanquished.
This fresh mixture with the Slav element constituted the Bulgarians a
separate race, with no original title to belong to the Slavonic family
beyond that derived from the fusion of blood that followed the long
intercourse of centuries, by which the primitive Bulgarians became
blended with the former inhabitants of the country. It is evident that
they were superior to the Slavs in military science and power, but
inferior as regards civilization, and thus naturally yielded to the
influence of the more advanced and better organized people. By this
influence they created a distinct nation, gave their name to the country,
and consolidated their power by laws and institutions.
The Bulgarian kingdom, from its very foundation in 679 until its final
overthrow by the Turks in 1396, presents a wearisome tale of battles
with short intervals of peace, in the struggle for supremacy between the
Emperors of Byzantium and the rulers of Bulgaria. The balance of power
alternately inclined from one party to the other; the wars were inhuman
on both sides; on the one hand, we read of hundreds of thousands of
Byzantines yearly sacrificed by the Slavs; on the other, we have equally
horrible spectacles presented to us, like that enacted during the reign
of Basil, surnamed Βουλγαροκτόνος (The Bulgarian-killer), on account of
the great number of Bulgarians killed by his order. This savage, having
on one occasion captured a large number of Bulgarians, separated 15,000
into companies of 100 each, and ordered ninety-nine out of each of these
companies to be blinded, allowing the remaining hundredth to retain his
sight in order to become the leader of his blind brethren.
In the midst of such scenes, and at the cost of torrents of blood,
successive kingdoms were constituted in this unhappy land of perpetual
warfare. Raised into momentary eminence by the force of arms, they were
again hurled to the ground by the same merciless instrument. Supreme
power has been alternately wielded by the savage, the Moslem, and
the Christian; each of whom to the present day continues the work of
destruction.
The condition of Bulgarians did not improve under the Ottoman rule. Their
empire soon disappeared, leaving to posterity nothing but a few ruined
castles and fortresses, and some annals and popular songs illustrating
its past glory. The Turkish conquest was more deeply felt by the
Bulgarians than by their brethren in adversity, the Byzantines and the
neighboring Slav nations. These, owing to the more favorable geographical
position of their countries and other advantages, were able to save some
privileges out of the general wreck, and to retain a shadow of their
national rights. The Byzantines were protected by a certain amount of
influence left in the hands of the clergy, while the Slav nations were
enabled to make certain conditions with their conqueror before their
complete surrender, and were successful in enlisting the sympathies
and protection of friendly powers in their behalf, and in obtaining
through their instrumentality at intervals reforms never vouchsafed to
the Bulgarians. This nation, isolated, ignored, and shut out from the
civilized world, crouched under the despotic rule of the Ottomans, and
submitted to a life of perpetual toil and hardship, uncheered by any
of the pleasures of life, unsupported by the least gleam of hope for a
better future.
This sad condition has lasted for centuries; and by force of misery the
people became grouped into two classes: the poor, who were constant to
their faith and national feeling, and the wealthy and prosperous, who
adopted Islam in order to escape persecution and save their property. To
this latter class may be added the Pomaks, a predatory tribe inhabiting
a mountainous district between the provinces of Philippopolis and
Serres. They live apart, and pass for Mussulmans because they have some
mosques; but they have no knowledge of the Koran nor follow its laws very
closely. Most of them to this day bear Christian names and speak the Slav
language. The men are a fine race, but utterly ignorant and barbarous.
Upon the poor and therefore Christian class fell all the weight of
the Ottoman yoke, which made itself felt in their moral and material
condition, and reached even to the dress, which was enforced as a mark of
servility. They were forbidden to build churches, and beyond the ordinary
annual poll-tax imposed by Moslems on infidel subjects, they had to
submit to the many illegal extortions of rapacious governors and cruel
landlords; besides the terrible blood-tax collected every five years to
recruit the ranks of the Janissaries from the finest children of the
province. Nor were the Bulgarian maidens spared: if a girl struck the
fancy of a Mohammedan neighbor or a government official, he always found
means to possess himself of her person without using much ceremony or
fearing much commotion.
The depressing and demoralizing effect of such a system upon the
Bulgarians may be imagined; it was sufficient to brutalize a people far
more advanced than they were at the time of the conquest. It cowed them,
destroyed their brave and venturous spirit, taught them to cringe, and
weakened their ideas of right and wrong. It is not strange that a people
thus demoralized should, under the pressure of recent troubles, be said
in some instances to have acted treacherously both towards their late
rulers and present protectors; but the vices of rapacity, treachery,
cruelty, and dishonesty could not have been the natural characteristics
of this unhappy people until misery taught them the lesson.
The laws promulgated in the reign of Sultan Abdul-Medjid with respect to
the amelioration of the condition of the rayahs were gradually introduced
into Bulgaria, and their beneficial influence tended greatly to remove
some of the most crying wrongs that had so long oppressed the people.
These reforms apparently satisfied the Bulgarians—always easily contented
and peacefully disposed. They were thankful for the slight protection
thus thrown over their life and property. They welcomed the reforms with
gratitude as the signs of better days, and, stimulated by written laws,
as well as by the better system of government that had succeeded the old
one and had deprived their Mohammedan neighbors of some of their power of
molesting and injuring them, they redoubled their activity and endeavored
by industry to improve their condition. Such changes can be only gradual
among an oppressed people in the absence of good government and easy
communication with the outer world.
The Bulgarians, inwardly, perhaps, still dissatisfied, seemed outwardly
content and attached to the Porte in the midst of the revolutionary
movements that alternately convulsed the Servian, Greek, and Albanian
populations. A very small section alone yielded to the influence of the
foreign agents or _comitats_, who were using every means to create a
general rising in Bulgaria, or was at any time in the Bulgarian troubles
enticed to raise its voice against the Ottoman Government and throw off
its allegiance. The late movement is said to have received encouragement
from the Bulgarian clergy acting under Russian influence, and from the
young schoolmasters, whose more advanced ideas naturally led them to
instil notions of independence among the people. But these views were
by no means entertained by the more thoughtful and important members
of the community, and no organized disaffection existed in Bulgaria at
the time the so-called revolt began. The action of a few hot-headed
patriots, followed by some discontented peasants, started the revolt
which, if it had been judiciously dealt with, might have been suppressed
without one drop of blood. The Bulgarians would probably have continued
plodding on as faithful subjects of the Porte, instead of being made—as
will apparently be the case—a portion of the Slav group. Whether this
fresh arrangement will succeed remains to be seen; but according to my
experience of Bulgarian character, there is very little sympathy between
it and the Slav. The Bulgarians have ever kept aloof from their Slavonic
neighbors, and will continue a separate people even when possessed of
independence.
The limits of Bulgaria, which must be drawn from an ethnological
standpoint, are not very easily determined. The right of conquest and
long possession no doubt entitles the Bulgarians to call their own the
country extending from the Danube to the Balkans. South of that range
and of Mount Scardos, however, _i.e._, in the northern part of Thrace
and Macedonia, their settlement was never permanent, and their capital,
originally established in Lychnidos (the modern Ochrida), had to be
removed north of the Balkans to Tirnova. The colonies they established
were never very important, since they were scattered in the open country
as better adapted to the agricultural and pastoral pursuits of the
nation. These settlements, forming into large and small villages, took
Bulgarian names, but the names of the towns remained Greek.
The Bulgarians south of the Balkans are a mixed race, neither purely
Greek nor purely Bulgarian; but their manners and customs and physical
features identify them more closely with the Greeks than with the
Bulgarians north of the Balkans. There the Finnish type is clearly marked
by the projecting cheek-bones, the short upturned nose, the small eyes,
and thickly-set but rather small build of the people.
In Thrace and Macedonia, where Hellenic blood and features predominate,
and Hellenic influence is more strongly felt, the people call themselves
Thracians and Macedonians, rather than Bulgarians; the Greek language,
in schools, churches, and in correspondence, is used by the majority in
preference to the Bulgarian, and even in the late church question in many
places the people showed themselves lukewarm about the separation, and
the bulk remained faithful to the Church of Constantinople.
The sandjak of Philippopolis, esteemed almost entirely Bulgarian by some
writers, is claimed for the Greeks by others upon the argument that
Stanimacho, with its fifteen villages, is Greek with regard to language
and predilection, and Didymotichon, with its forty-five villages, is a
mixture of Greeks and Bulgarians. As a matter of fact, however, in this
sandjak, in consequence of its proximity to Bulgaria proper, and to its
developed and prosperous condition, the Bulgarian element has taken the
lead.
The revival of the church question and the educational movement have
stayed and almost nullified Greek influence, which is limited to
certain localities like Stanimacho and other places, where the people
hold as staunchly to their Greek nationality as the Bulgarians of
other localities do to their own. While dispute waxed hot in the town
of Philippopolis between the parties of Greeks and Bulgarians, each
in defence of its rights, no spirit of the kind was ever evinced in
Adrianople, where the population is principally Greek and Turkish, with
a small number of Armenians and Bulgarians. In Macedonia the sandjak of
Salonika, comprising Cassandra, Verria, and Serres, numbering in all
about 250.000 souls, is, with few exceptions, Greek, or so far Hellenized
as to be so to all intents and purposes. The inhabitants of Vodena and
Janitza, and the majority in Doïran and Stromnitza, and a considerable
portion of the population of Avrat Hissar, on the right bank of the
Vardar, claim Greek nationality. The Greeks in this part of the country
have worked with the same tenacity of purpose and consequent success in
Hellenizing the people, as the Bulgarians of the kaza of Philippopolis in
promoting the feeling of Bulgarian nationality there. This mission of the
Greeks here has not been a very difficult one, as the national feeling of
the bulk of the population is naturally Greek.
Notwithstanding the marked tendency of the people towards Hellenism, the
language in Vodena and other places is Bulgarian; but the features of the
people, together with their ideas, manners, and customs, are essentially
Greek; even the dress of the Bulgarian-speaking peasant is marked by the
absence of the typical _potour_ and the _gougla_ or cap worn in Bulgaria.
Most of the authors who have written on the populations of these regions
have, either through Panslavistic views or misled by the prevalence of
the Bulgarian language in the rural districts, put down the whole of the
population as Bulgarian, a mistake easily corrected by a summary of the
number of Greeks and Bulgarians conjointly occupying those districts,
separating the purely Greek from the purely Bulgarian element, and taking
into consideration at the same time the number of mixed Greeks and
Bulgarians.
If the wide geographical limits projected by Russia for Bulgaria be
carried out, there will be a recurrence of all the horrors of the recent
war in a strife between the Greeks and Bulgarians, in consequence of the
encroachment of the future Bulgaria upon territory justly laid claim to
by the Greeks as ethnologically their own and as a heritage from past
ages. The question would be greatly simplified and the danger of future
contests between the two peoples much lessened, if not entirely removed,
by the Bulgarian autonomy being limited to the country north of the
Balkans.
The Greek Government might not be equal at first to the administration
of their newly-acquired kingdom, but if united in close alliance with
some friendly power and placed under its tutelage, an honest and stable
empire might be established with every probability of soon rising into
a flourishing condition in the hands of a people whose intelligence,
activity, and enterprising spirit give them an incontestable superiority
over the other races of Turkey.
The Bulgarians south of the Balkans being, as before said, of a mixed
race engrafted upon the Hellenic stock, would not be found to offer any
serious opposition. They are closely incorporated with the Greek element
in some districts; while in others, where Bulgarian feeling predominates,
the people would willingly migrate to Bulgaria proper, as the Hellenized
Bulgarians under such an arrangement would draw nearer to Greece; whilst
in parts of Macedonia, where Hellenism has the ascendancy, very little
difficulty would be met with from the Bulgarian settlements.
My recollections of Bulgarian social life are to a great extent derived
from a three months’ stay I made under the hospitable roof of a Bulgarian
gentleman, or _Chorbadji_, as he was called by his own people. He was the
most wealthy and influential person in the town of T⸺, where his position
as member of the _Medjeiss_ constituted him the chief guardian and
advocate of the Bulgarian people of the district. I mention this in order
to show the reader that in his house the opportunity of making important
observations and of witnessing national characteristics were not wanting.
These observations embraced the social features I was allowed to study in
the midst of the home and family life both of the educated and thinking
Bulgarians and of the peasants who daily flocked to the house of my
friend from the towns and villages to submit to him their wrongs and
grievances, and, as their national representative, to ask his advice and
assistance before proceeding to the local courts.
These levées began sometimes as early as six o’clock in the morning,
and lasted until eleven. The _Kodja-bashi_, or headmen, would come in
a body to consult about the affairs of the community, or to represent
some grave case pending before the local court of their respective
towns; or groups of peasants of both sexes, sometimes representing the
population of a whole village, would arrive, at the request of the
authorities, to answer some demand made by them, or plead against an act
of gross injury or injustice. Whatever the cause that brought them daily
under my notice, the picture they presented was extremely curious and
interesting, and the pleasure was completed by the privilege I enjoyed
of afterwards obtaining a detailed account of the causes and grievances
that brought them there. When the interested visitors happened to be
elders of their little communities or towns, they were shown into the
study of my host. After exchanging salutes and shaking hands, they were
offered _slatko_ (preserves) and coffee, and business was at once
entered into. At such moments the Bulgarian does not display the heat and
excitement that characterizes the Greek, nor fall into the uproarious
argument of the Armenians and Jews, nor yet display the finessing wit of
the Turk; but steering a middle course between these different modes of
action, he stands his ground and perseveres in his argument, until he
has either made his case clear or is persuaded to take another view of
it. The subjects that most animated the Bulgarians in these assemblies
were their national affairs and their dissensions with the Greeks; the
secondary ones were the wrongs and grievances they suffered from a bad
administration; and although they justly lamented these, and at times
bitterly complained of the neglect or incapacity of the Porte to right
them in an effective manner and put a stop to acts of injustice committed
by their Mohammedan neighbors and the local courts, I at no time noticed
any tendency to disloyalty or revolutionary notions, or any disposition
to court Russian protection, from which, indeed, the most enlightened and
important portion of the nation at that period made decided efforts to
keep aloof.
When it was the peasants who gathered at the Chorbadji’s house, their
band was led by its Kodja-Bashi, who, acting as spokesman, first entered
the big gate, followed by a long train of his brethren. Ranged in a line
near the porch, they awaited the coming of the master to explain to him
the cause of their visit. Their distinguished-looking patron, pipe in
hand, shortly made his appearance at the door, when caps were immediately
doffed, and the right hands were laid on the breast and hidden by the
shaggy heads bending over them in a salaam, answered by a kindly “Dobro
deni” (good morning), followed by the demand “Shto sakaty?” (what do
you want?) The peasants, with an embarrassed air, looked at each other,
while the Kodja-Bashi proceeded to explain matters. Should his eloquence
fall short of the task, one or two others would step out of the ranks
and become spokesmen. It was almost painful to see these simple people
endeavoring to give a clear and comprehensive account of their case,
and trying to understand the advice and directions of the Chorbadji. A
half-frightened, surprised look, importing fear or doubt, a shrug of
the shoulders, accompanied by the words “Né znam—Né mozhem” (I do not
know, I cannot do), was generally the first expression in answer to the
eloquence of my friend, who in his repeated efforts to explain matters
frequently lost all patience, and would end by exclaiming, “Né biddy
magari!” (Don’t be donkeys!)—a remark which had no effect upon the band
of rustics further than to send them off, full of gratitude, to do as he
had counselled.
Perhaps the reader may be curious to know the details of some of the
cases daily brought under my notice. I will mention a few not connected
with Turkish oppression and maladministration; for by this time the
English public has been pretty well enlightened on that subject. My list
will include some rather more original incidents which took place in the
community: disputes between all non-Mussulmans are generally settled by
the temporal or spiritual chiefs, and seldom brought before the Courts of
Justice.
While Greeks and Bulgarians in the heat of controversy were snatching
churches and monasteries from each other, the priests and monks who
were attached to these sacred foundations found themselves unpleasantly
jostled between the two hostile elements. To be a Greek priest or monk
and be forced to acknowledge the supremacy of an anathematized and
illegal church was a profanation not to be endured; and, on the other
hand, to be a Bulgarian and be forced to pray day by day for a detested
spiritual head rejected by his nation was an insupportable anomaly.
In the midst of the difficulty and confusion at first caused by this
state of affairs, some of the good fathers and monks had to remove their
quarters and betake themselves to a wandering life, visiting their
respective communities and encouraging the people by their exhortations
to hold fast to their church and oppose with all their might the
claims and usurping tendencies of the others. Among these a Bulgarian
monk, more venturous and evidently endowed with a greater amount of
imaginative eloquence than the rest, and rejoicing in the title of Spheti
Panteleemon, regarded himself as the prophet of the Bulgarian people.
This Saint Panteleemon was a man of middle age and middle height, with a
jovial face, a cunning look, and an intelligent but restless eye, by no
means indicative of an ascetic view of life.
Contrary to the saying that no man is a prophet in his own country,
Spheti Panteleemon was acknowledged as such by a considerable class of
his people, consisting entirely of the gentle sex, and his success among
them was as great as ritualism appears to be in England.
The preaching of this prophet, intended solely for the Bulgarian women,
became so pronounced in its tenets, so eloquent in its delivery, and
was rendered so impressive by the different means he employed to instil
his precepts into the hearts and minds of his hearers, that their
number soon increased into a vast congregation, which flocked from all
parts of the country to hear the words of their favorite saint. On such
occasions, this false prophet, who had managed to usurp possession of
a small monastery, would stand forth amid thousands of women, who at
his approach would cross themselves and fall down almost to worship
him. Spheti Panteleemon, in acknowledgment of this mark of devotion,
would raise his voice and rehearse his doctrines to the devotees. These
doctrines included strange principles, asserted by their author to be
the best and surest way to Paradise; but they scarcely conduced to
the satisfaction of the husbands. Women, according to this man, were
to be free and independent, and their principal affections were to be
bestowed upon their spiritual guide; their earnestness was to be proved
by depositing their earthly wealth (consisting chiefly of their silver
ornaments) at his feet. The practical Bulgarian husbands, however, were
by no means admirers of this new spiritual director, whose sole object
appeared to be to rob them of the affections of their wives along with
their wealth, and they soon raised their voices against his proceedings.
After holding counsel on the subject, they decided to give notice of his
doings to the local authorities, and by their influence to have him sent
out of the country. The prophet was arrested one fine morning, while
addressing a congregation of 500 women, by a body of police, and brought
to the prison of the town of S⸺, whilst all the women devoutly followed,
weeping, beating their breasts, and clamoring for the release of their
saint. The husbands, on the other hand, pleaded their grievances against
this disorganizer of society, and proved his dishonesty by displaying
to the authorities a quantity of silver trinkets of all descriptions
taken from his dwelling, to the great indignation of his devotees. The
imagination of some of these ignorant and superstitious peasant women had
been so worked upon that they solemnly declared to me that the feet of
their prophet never touched the ground, but remained always a distance
of two feet above it, and that his sole sustenance was grass. While his
fate was still undecided, amidst the wailings of the women, the protests
of the husbands, and the embarrassment of the authorities, the fellow got
out of the difficulty by declaring himself a “Uniate” and a member of the
Church of Rome. This avowal could not fail to excite the interest of the
agents of that body: they claimed the stray sheep as redeemed, took him
under their immediate protection, but (it is to be hoped) deprived him
of his pretended attribute of sanctity and the power of making himself
any longer a central object of attraction to the _beau sexe_.
Another incident was of a nature less sensational but equally repulsive
to the feelings and notions of the strict portion of the Bulgarian
nation, and had also a monk for its hero. It consisted of an elopement,
and if there is one crime that shocks and horrifies orthodox people more
than another, it is that of a monk who, taking the vows of celibacy,
perjures himself by adopting the respectable life of a married man. Such
events are of very rare occurrence, and when they take place cause a
great commotion.
This monk, at the time of the disputed church rights, lost his solitary
retreat, and was once more thrown in contact with the world he had
forsworn. Sent adrift, he set out in search of an unknown destiny,
without hope or friends, uncertain where his next meal was to come
from. After a long day’s march, he lay down to rest under a tree in a
cultivated field, and, overcome by fatigue, fell asleep. He was about
twenty-five years of age, tall, with regular features, a startlingly
pale complexion, and coal black eyes, hair, and beard; his whole
appearance, indeed, rather handsome than otherwise. Such, at least, was
the description given of him by the rustic beauty who surprised him while
driving her father’s cattle home.
A Bulgarian monk in those stirring times was always an object of
interest, even to a less imaginative person than a young maiden. She,
therefore, considered it her duty to watch over his slumbers, and refresh
him with bread and salt on awaking. Quietly seating herself by his side,
she awaited the arousal of the unconscious sleeper. When he awoke, his
eyes met those of the girl, and in that exchange of looks a new light
dawned upon these two beings, who, though they had never met before, were
now to become dearer to each other than life itself. The monk forgot
his vows and poured forth his tale of love to a willing listener, who
immediately vowed to follow his fortunes and become his wife, or end
her days in a convent. This illustrates the definition of love once
given to me by a Bulgarian gentleman: “Chez nous l’amour n’a point de
préliminaires; on va droit au fait.” The adventurous couple forthwith
eloped, and wandered about the country, until the monk was discovered,
in spite of his disguise, by the scandalized Bulgarians, by whom he
was once more sent to a monastery, imprisoned in a dungeon, condemned
to live upon dry bread and to undergo daily corporal chastisement for
his sins. But the adventurous maiden, determined to effect his release,
contrived to make friends with the Kir Agassi, or head of the mounted
police in the district where the monastery was situated, and through
his instrumentality the monk was again set at liberty. The subject
was discussed in all its bearings at the house of my friends, until
the couple wisely adopted Protestantism, and after being married by a
minister of that church settled down to a peaceful life of domestic bliss.
A third incident illustrates the Bulgarian appreciation of surgical
art. The name of surgeon was unknown in the country villages, and that
of dentist, even in a large town like S⸺, until an adventurous spirit
belonging to the latter profession, in the course of a speculative tour,
established himself there. The inhabitants, on passing his house, used to
stop and gaze in wonder at the sets of teeth displayed under glass cases.
Conjecture ran wild as to how these were made and could be used. Some
imagined them to be abstracted front the jaws of dead persons, salted,
and prepared in some mysterious way for refitting in the mouths of the
living.
The fame of the dentist’s art began to be noised abroad throughout the
district, and many became desirous, if not of procuring new teeth, at
least of having some troublesome old stumps extracted. Among these was a
well-to-do Bulgarian peasant, who presented himself in the surgery for
this purpose. The dentist relieved him of his tooth with great facility,
to the man’s exceeding astonishment. On leaving he took out his long
knitted money-bag, carefully counted out five piastres (10_d._), and
handed them to the dentist, who returned them, saying that his fee would
be half a lira. “What!” exclaimed the indignant Bulgarian; “do you mean
to say that you will charge me so much, when last week I underwent the
same operation at the hands of my barber, and after a struggle of two
hours over an obstinate tooth, during which I had several times to lie
flat on my back and he and I were both bathed in perspiration until
it finally yielded, I paid him five piastres, with which he was quite
contented; and you, who were only a few minutes over it, demand ten times
that sum! It is simply monstrous, and I shall forthwith lodge a complaint
against you!”
As good as his word, in a fever of excitement he arrived at the
Chorbadji’s house to denounce the extortionate Frank. When quietly
asked if it were not worth while to pay a larger sum and get rid of his
tooth without loss of time and trouble, instead of spending two hours
of suffering and violent exertion for which he was charged only five
piastres, he admitted that such was the case, and that the Frank was a
far cleverer man than the barber could ever hope to be.
Social life among the Bulgarians differs little from that of the Greeks,
save in the greater ascendancy the Bulgarian wives of the working classes
have over their husbands. This advantage is probably derived from the
masculine manner in which they share in the hardy toil, working by the
side of their husbands, and by their personal exertions gaining almost
as much as the men do. The care of clothing the family also devolves
entirely upon them, besides which they have to attend to their domestic
duties, which are always performed with care, cleanliness, and activity.
Simple as these tasks may be, they require time, which the housewife
always manages to find. The well-beaten earthen floor is always neatly
swept, the rugs and bedding carefully brushed and folded up, and the
copper cooking utensils well scoured and ranged in their places. The
cookery is simple but very palatable, especially the pastry, which is
excellent; whilst the treacle and other provisions stored away for the
winter are wholesome and good.
Some uninformed authors have, I believe, stated that not only are the
Bulgarian men seldom to be seen in a state of sobriety, but that the
women also indulge to a great extent in the vice of drunkenness. So far
as I am able to judge, this statement is utterly groundless; for no woman
in the east, whatever her nationality, disgraces herself by drinking to
excess in the shops where spirituous drinks are sold, or is ever seen
in the streets in a state of intoxication. The man certainly likes his
glass, and on occasions freely indulges in it; but excesses are committed
only on feast-days, when the whole village is given up to joviality and
merriment.
The townspeople seldom indulge in these festivities; but tied down to a
sedentary life, cheered by no view of the open country, nor by fresh air
and the rural pursuits congenial to their nature, they lead a monotonous
existence, divided between their homes and their calling. The women on
their side fare no better, and with the exception of paying and receiving
calls on feast-days, or taking a promenade, keep much within doors,
occupying themselves with needlework and taking an active part in their
domestic affairs. This quiet uniform life is occasionally brightened by
an evening party, or even a ball, if the deficiency in the arrangement
of the rooms, the refreshments, and especially the _sans gêne_ observed
with regard to dress, permit of the name. One of these festive scenes was
illuminated by large home-made tallow candles, supported by candelabra
of Viennese manufacture, further supplemented by another innovation in
the shape of a pair of elegant snuffers, which fortunately obviated the
usual performance with the fingers, by which the ball-rooms are usually
perfumed with the odor of burnt mutton chops. Setting aside minor
details, my attention was much attracted by the queer versatility of the
band, which suddenly changed from the national _hora_ to an old-fashioned
polka which had just been introduced as a great novelty, but was indulged
in only by married couples, or timid brothers and sisters, who held each
other at so respectful a distance that another couple might easily have
passed between them. But the greatest charm of the gathering was the
_coup d’œil_ that embraced dress, deportment, and decorations. The dress
was as varied in shape and material as the forms of the wearers. Double
and triple fur coats, according to age and taste, safely sheltered the
majority of the gentlemen from cold and draughts; well-fitting frock
coats distinguished the few _comme il faut_ officials; while dress coats
of Parisian cut distinguished the quiet and apparently gentlemanlike
youths brought up in Europe, and contrasted with the less elegant
toilettes of their untravelled brethren dressed _à la Bulgare_.
The variety in the dress of the ladies was equally diverting. Some wore
their fur jackets over rich silk dresses, others, more fashionable,
dispensed with the weight of this unnecessary article; while the heads
of all of them sparkled with jewelry. Crinoline, often heard of under
the name of “Malakoff,” but unseen in the town before 1855, was supposed
to be introduced into the room by a German Jewish lady, an old resident
in the town, and was so proudly displayed by her in all its proportions,
that it attracted the attention of a homely old Bulgarian _gospoyer_,
who, in a simple manner, quietly turned up the hem of her dress and
displayed to a small section of the astonished assembly an ingenious
substitute for the crinoline made of _The Times_ newspaper!
The chapter on Peasant-holdings treats at some length of the Bulgarian
peasant, of his capacity for work, and the amount of ease and prosperity
he is able to attain in spite of the many drawbacks that surround him.
His prosperity is due to two sources—the modesty of his wants, and the
activity of his whole family. The fruits of such a system are naturally
good when the soil, climate, and other natural advantages favor it.
But some parts of Bulgaria are far from being the Utopia some newspaper
correspondents have represented it, with vines hanging over every
cottage-door, and milk and honey flowing in the land. Nothing but long
residence and personal experience can enable one to arrive at a true
estimate of such matters.
Though in some parts I found the scenery delightful, the prosperity of
the inhabitants astonishing, and Moslems and Christians rivalling each
other in hospitable kindness to the traveller, some spots were anything
but romantic or prosperous, and far from happy-looking. Some villages,
in particular, I noticed in the midst of a dreary plain, such as the
traveller may see on the road from Rodosto to Adrianople, where the
soil looks dry and barren, and the pastures grow yellow and parched
before their time, and where flying bands of Circassian thieves and
cut-throats hover about like birds of prey. I was once travelling through
the country, riding the whole of one day on such bad roads that the
mud often reached up to my horse’s knees, and the carriage containing
my maid and the provisions often came to a dead stop, while the rain
poured incessantly. The journey appeared interminable, and as darkness
crept on and several miles of road still separated us from our projected
halting-place, I made up my mind to stop at an isolated village for the
night. So traversing fresh pools of mud we entered the hamlet, and were
met by the Kodja-Bashi, a poorly-clad, miserable-looking individual,
who led our party into his farm-yard. On alighting from my horse I was
ushered into a dark, bare, dismal hovel, without windows, and lighted
only by a hole in the roof, through which escaped some of the smoke from
a few dung-cakes smouldering in a corner. One or two water-jars stood
near the door, and an earthen pot, serving for all culinary purposes, was
placed by the fire, in front of which was spread a tattered mat occupied
by a few three-legged stools. A bundle of uninviting rags and cushions,
the family bedding, was stowed in a corner, and in another were seen a
few pots and pans, the whole “table service” of the occupants.
This hovel was attached to a similar one opening into it, where I heard
some bustle going on. I was told that a member of the family who occupied
it and was seriously ill was being removed to a neighbor’s house.
Much annoyed at having caused so much trouble and disturbance to the
unfortunate sufferer, I asked my host why he had not placed me in another
cottage. “Well, _gospoyer_,” answered he, with an apologetic gesture,
“poor and wretched as my home is, it is the best the village possesses.
The rest are not fit to kennel your dogs in. As for my daughter, I
could not but remove her, as her cries during the night would prevent
your sleeping.” I inquired her complaint, and was told that she was in
high fever, and suffered from sharp pains all over her body. There was
no doctor to attend her, nor had she any medicine but the decoctions
prepared for her by the old _bulkas_.
I visited the poor creature and gave what help I could; but, being by no
means reassured as to the nature of her malady, and unwilling to sleep
in the vicinity of an infected room, I ordered the carriage to be placed
under a shed and proposed to pass the night in it. The host, however, on
hearing this, told me that it was quite impracticable, as the village
dogs were so famished that they would be sure to attack the carriage for
the sake of the leather on it. “I have taken the precaution,” he added,
“of removing every part that is liable to be destroyed, but there is no
telling what these animals will do.” I then ordered the hamper to be
brought in and supper to be prepared; but on sitting down on the floor to
partake of it we discovered that our provision of bread was exhausted,
and learnt that not a morsel was procurable in the village. Our host
explained this by saying, “You see, _gospoyer_, our village is so poor
and miserable that we have no drinkable water, and our _bulkas_ have to
fetch it from a distance of three miles. We have no fuel either, for the
village has no forest, and we content ourselves with what you see on the
hearth. As for bread, it is a luxury we seldom enjoy; millet flour mixed
with water into a paste and baked on the ashes is our substitute for it;
it does for us, but would not please you.”
In the mean time the women and children had gathered round me in the
little room, all looking so poor, fever-stricken, and miserable, and
casting such looks of eager surprise at the exhibition of eatables before
me, that I felt positively sick at heart; all my appetite left me, and
distributing my supper among the hungry crowd, I contented myself with a
cup of tea, and endeavored to forget in sleep the picture of misery I had
witnessed. I was thankful to get away in the morning, and am happy to say
that neither before nor since have I witnessed such poverty and misery as
I saw in that village.
The marked slowness of perception in the character of the Bulgarian
peasants, and their willingness to allow others to think and act for
them in great matters, is not so apparent when the immediate interests
of the village or community are concerned. Before referring these to
the higher authorities, they meet and quietly discuss their affairs,
and often settle the differences among themselves. The respect the
Bulgarian entertains for the clergy and for the enlightened portion of
his fellow-countrymen is so great that he allows himself to be entirely
guided by them, evincing in small things as well as great the feeling of
harmony and union that binds the whole people together. But the reverse
of this disposition is manifested by the Bulgarians, more especially
the peasants, towards any foreign element, and particularly towards the
Turkish authorities. Obedient and submissive as they have generally shown
themselves under the Ottoman rule, they have inwardly always disliked and
distrusted it, saying that the government with regard to their country,
its richest field of harvest, has only one object in view—that of getting
as much out of it as possible.
This prevalent idea, not altogether ill-founded, gave to the Bulgarian
character that rapacity and love of gain which, being developed by late
events, in the midst of general ruin and loss of property, tempted him to
try to get what he could of what had been left, without much scruple as
to the means. When unmerited calamities befall a people, and oppression
long weighs heavily upon them, the sense of justice and humanity is
gradually lost and replaced by a spirit of vindictiveness which incites
to ignoble and cruel actions. This ought not to surprise the world in
the case of the Bulgarians, when their national life during the last
two years is taken into consideration; for what is it but a series of
unspeakable outrages by their enemies, and destruction by those who
professed themselves their friends?
The Bulgarians, however, as I have known them in more peaceful times,
never appeared to possess as national characteristics the vices that
hasty and partial judges arguing from special instances have attributed
to them. On the contrary, they seemed a peace-loving, hard-working
people, possessing many domestic virtues which, if properly developed
under a good government, might make the strength of an honest and
promising state.