Turkish rule in Bulgaria

The Bulgars have only just regained their liberty after a servitude of centuries. I have already expressed my opinion that Turkish rule in Bulgaria was by no means so cruel or so oppressive as it is represented to have been by ardent partisans of Sclav proclivities. Still, after making every possible allowance, the rule of Turkey in Bulgaria was an autocratic despotism exercised by master’s alien from their subjects in race, language, and religion. Slavery is slavery all the world over; and till within recent years the Bulgars were slaves, who only enjoyed a modicum of freedom, thanks to the remoteness of their country, the absence of individual wealth, and the contemptuous indifference of their Moslem lords and masters. The marvel is, given these conditions, that they have retained so much of the virtues of freemen, not that they should have imbibed a few of the vices of slavery. Servility, dishonesty, dissimulation, disregard of truth, and absence of self-respect are failings necessarily generated by slavery. I am quite prepared to admit that the present generation of Bulgarians have not lost all the characteristics inherited from their forefathers. There is not a Bulgarian, over the age of eighteen, who was not born under Turkish rule; and till a year or two ago, there was not a child at school who could not remember the day when the Turk was master in the country. Moreover, the indictments against the Bulgarian character, to which I have made reference, are at best generalizations from individual experiences. Whenever you ask for some definite proof that the Bulgarians are all dishonest and untruthful, you are told of some isolated instances of fraud and deceit which have come within the knowledge of your informants.

Dr. Constantine Jirsech

These instances may or may not be fairly stated, but, in any case, they are not sufficient to justify any general conclusion as to the character of a whole nation. As against these hasty denunciations, it may be well to quote the testimony of three witnesses, who enjoyed considerable opportunities of studying the Bulgarian people. Dr. Constantine Jirsech, who, some years ago, published a very impartial work on Bulgaria in German, gives it as his opinion that ‘‘the Bulgarian is sober in every respect, “careful in his expenditure, and hard-working. The energy 44 he displays as a cultivator and an artisan is inexhaustible. 41 Under the exterior of the peasant, cunning and suspicious “in accordance with peasant nature, the common Bulgar 44 conceals a shrewd and observant mind. Being both docile 44 and conscientious, whether as scholar, soldier, artisan, or 44 trader, he identifies himself completely with the duties he 44 has undertaken to perform. His whole mode of life is 44 simple and frugal.” Again, Prince Joseph of Battenburg, the younger brother of the late Prince Alexander, states that 44 the people of Bulgaria are sober, laborious, and persevering. They possess all the qualities which, when Bulgaria has developed her productive forces, must enable her some day or other to play the leading part with the Balkan Peninsula. Bulgaria is a rich, fertile, happy country, a country with a future.” This opinion, I may say, was expressed by Prince Joseph long after his brother’s connection with the Principality had come to an untimely end. Similar testimony is borne by a recent French traveler, Captain Lamouske: 44 The dominant features in the Bulgarian character are a certain seriousness and a sense of what is practical. As a rule the Bulgarian is cold, reserved, and silent. As a rule, too, he leads a moral life, is hardworking and economical.”

 

Ottoman dominion

The Bulgarians hold their land on a system derived from the days of the Ottoman dominion. In Turkey, as in all Oriental countries, the Sultan is theoretically the absolute owner of all the land, over which he rules by the grace of Allah. In practice, he is a sort of ground landlord, whose tenants, subject to certain specified conditions, have a perpetual lease, which descends as a matter of law to their heirs. In Bulgaria the condition of tenure was that the lessees of the land had to pay one-tenth of the gross produce of their farms to the tax-collectors of the Government. In the event of default of payment of the tithe, or of the lands being left uncultivated for three consecutive years, or of the owner dying without legal heirs, the land reverted to the State. In the old days, this system paved the way for a great amount of abuse. Still in this, as in other matters, the Turks adhered loyally to any contract into which they had entered; and I gather that even under Mahommedan rule the Bulgarian peasantry had practically a good title to their lands.

Bulgaria became independent

When Bulgaria became independent, the State stepped into the place of the Sultan; and the old system of land tenure has not been materially modified. Taxation by tithes is, however, at the best, a very costly, cumbrous, and unsatisfactory arrangement In Turkish days the tithe was mainly paid in kind ; during the last few years, various, more or less successful, attempts have been made to substitute payment in cash for payment in kind. But these reforms have not made so much progress as might have been expected. Owing to the intense conservatism, characteristic of peasant communities, and to their profound distrust of any innovation, even if it can be shown to be conducive to their own advantage, payment in cash is viewed with scanty favour by the mass of the population. The tithe system tends to check improvement in agriculture or the employment of money in the development of the land. The farmer, as it is, pays one-tenth of his gross produce. If he raises crops valued at ten pounds, according to the market rates, he pays one pound as a tax to the treasury. But if he spends twenty pounds on manure or irrigation, and thereby raises the produce of his land to twenty pounds, he has to pay two pounds in the shape of taxes, without any deduction being made for the capital he has invested in the per-manent improvement of his lands. Thus the action of the tithe system actually augments the natural reluctance of an ignorant and thrifty community of peasant proprietors to spend money on improvements. In consequence, the Government are anxious to do away with the present mode of estimating the land-tax in proportion to the produce of each particular year, and to substitute for it a fixed rental, payable in coin, irrespective of the rise and fall in the amount of the year’s production. In other words, if the proposed changes should be carried out, the tenant will become a freehold owner, subject only to the payment of a yearly land-tax to the State, in virtue of a perpetual settlement.

 

The Hellenistic Period 330-30 BC

Theaters

The art of theater emerged as an outcome of the festivities held to Athens around the end of the 7th century BC and beginning of the 6th century BC for the god Dionysos to Increase fertility. Organization of these festivities became an annual tradition, and for more people to be able to watch them, wooden benches were placed at the foot of a slope of choice. The festivities held to the center were then watched from here. However, in 498 BC, these wooden benches collapsed and many people died. After this disaster, stone benches were built instead of wooden benches, resulting in the creation of the first theater building Afterwards, the small wooden structure before the theater was developed and transformed into a stage, The stage gained Its typical form from the 3rd century BC onwards and a background was created tor the actors.

Previously performed by a single person, the works of the drama authors were later staged with the addition of Hie chorus and other individuals.

The first dramatic performances were staged to the 5th century BC to Athens in Piraeus, and in the 4th century BC in Epidauros, whereas they also started to be performed In Anatolia in Priene and Magnesia, at the beginning of the 3:i century BC. in Ephesos, and at the beginning of the 2nd century BC in Pergamon. The first plays were in a dance form and were staged before the seats. After the construction of the stage building, they started to be performed on the proskenion section of the stage. Until the century BC, the construction of the theaters was attempted outside of the cities. In cases where they had to be built inside the city, special consideration was given so that they would be built at an independent location. The Hellenistic theaters were rested on a slope and special attention was given so that a beautiful view would be seen from the seats. Furthermore, mobile wooden stages were also used, like in the Pergamon theater.

The type of stone, travertine or marble materials used m the construction ol the theaters were chosen depending on the situation of the region. The first theater samples in Anatolia made from stone belong to the end of the 3rd century BC. Because the previous ones were wooden, they (fid not survive to the present time. The most beautiful examples of the theaters leaning against a slope, as characterized by the Hellenistic Period, are seen in Anatolia in the ancient cities such as Pergamott, Ephesos. MUetos, Phene. In these theaters, the stage was one-storey, the proskemon was narrow and high, whereas the orchestra section was made from earth. Theater structures went through great changes during the Roman Period, which is subsequent to the Hellenistic Period. This will be discussed separately under the Roman section.