Sea-shore a religious man

I saw on the sea-shore a religious man, who had a wound from a tiger which could not be cured by any medicine. He had been a long time in this woeful state, and was continually thanking God, saying, “ God be praised, that I am afflicted through misfortunate and not through sin. If that dear friend assigns me to the place of slaughter, then, in order that you may not accuse me of being at that instant afraid of my life, I will ask, what crime has your slave committed, that your heart is offended at me ? This reflection only is the cause of my sorrow.”

Blanket interceded

A Durwesh, having some pressing occasion, stole a blanket from the house of a friend. The judge ordered that they should cut off his hand. The owner of the blanket interceded, and said that he absolved him. The judge replied, that he should not forego the legal punishment at his intercession. He rejoined, “ You have said rightly ; but whosoever stealeth any property dedicated to religious purposes, is not subject to the punishment of amputation ; because the beggar is not the proprietor of anything, neither is he the property of any one, whatever the beggar hath being devoted to the benefit of the necessitous.” The judge released him, and said, “Was the world so narrow that you should steal only from such a friend as this ? ” He replied, “ 0 my lord, have you not heard the saying, ‘ Sweep the houses of your friends, but knock not at the doors of your enemies.’ ? When you fall into distress, resign not yourself to despair : strip your enemies of their skin, and your friends of their jackets.”

Whomsoever God

A certain Kong said to a religious man, “ Do you ever think of me ? ” He answered, “ Yes, whenever I forget God.” He fieeth every where whom God driveth from his gate, but whomsoever God inviteth, he will not suffer to run to the door of any one.

A king in paradise

A certain pious man saw in a dream a king in paradise, and a holy man in hell. He asked, What could be the meaning of the exaltation of one and the degradation of the other, as the contrary is generally considered to be the case ? They replied, “ The king has obtained paradise in return for his love of holy men ; and the religious man, by associating with kings, has got into hell.” Of what use are the coarse frock, the beads, and patched garments ? Abstain from evil deeds, and there is no needs of a cap of leaves ; possess the virtues of a Durwesli, and wear a Tartarian crown.

Istanbul public worship

If Moslem women do not attend public worship in the mosques, the reason is not any spiritual dis-qualification, but the idea that the sexes should associate as little as possible. Yet elderly women may be seen at their devotions in a mosque out of the hours of public worship, while during the religious season of Ramadan special services for women are held in some of the great mosques of the city, as well as in the imperial harem and in the harems of wealthy personages, such services being conducted by popular preachers. But after all is said that can be said to prove that honorable views concerning woman are cherished in a society constituted by Moslem thought, it remains true that the fundamental conception underlying the organization of that society and forming its dominant spirit is of an opposite character.

That conception, we should in justice remember, is not peculiar to Islam. On the contrary, it has prevailed outside the Mohammedan world; it has contaminated even the life of Christendom. Nevertheless, the view that man and woman are not equals, that the latter is chiefly made to minister to the pleasure of the former, and that they are morally dangerous to each other, has nowhere been applied so consistently, on so large a scale, and for so long a period in the very presence of a higher civilization, as in Moslem society.

Such a view demands naturally and necessarily that men and women should be kept apart as much as the conditions of human existence permit Where polygamy, concubine, and easy divorce are lawful social arrangements, woman must be put behind the shelter of a jealous protection. She must be placed out of sight secluded, guarded, and, when she appears in public, veiled and forbidden to display her ornaments. Men, on the other hand, must avoid looking at a woman they meet abroad, remembering that “God will reward the Muslim who, having beheld the beauties of a woman, shuts his eyes,” and that, though the first look is excusable, because often unavoidable, the next is unlawful The outward manifestations of these ideas are seen on every hand in the Turkish life of Constantinople.

Hence the division of a Turkish home into apartments for men (salami) and apartments for women (harem), into the former of which no Turkish lady enters, and into the latter of which only the nearest male relatives are admitted. Hence also the two doors leading from the street respectively to these divisions of the house; hence the latticed screens outside the windows of the harem to conceal the inmates from even the hurried glance of passers-by. If you have occasion to call upon a Turk who keeps no man-servant, and a woman comes to answer the door, she wife, before opening it, inquire who has knocked.

THE ECONOMIC CONDITION OF BULGARIA

HISTORY OF BULGARIAN FORESTRY

UP to the time of the constitution of Bulgaria as an autonomous principality, the history of our forestry is very obscure. All we know is, that in ancient times the country was covered with impenetrably dense virgin forest. Unfortunately, the greater part of this forest has been cut down by the peasants who wanted pasture land. Up to the very eve of our deliverance from the Ottoman yoke, no control was exercised over the demolition of forests and no measures were taken for their preservation.

The State granted entire liberty to private persons to pasture their flocks and herds in the forests when and how they chose. From time immemorial certain parishes had forests of their own, called “ baltalik ” by the Turks. The parishioners alone had the rights of cutting wood or of pasturage within the boundaries of the forest of the parish, and they profited by these rights to their heart’s content, the more so as no dues were exacted in return.

Private individuals looked upon the forests as their own property. In return for the payment of a certain tax, they thought they had a right to dispose of it, to cut wood at their pleasure, and even to make clearings without being accountable to any one for their action. There was as yet no such thing as public interest in forestry.

In 1869 (11 Horse, 1285, according to Mohammedan reckoning) the Turkish Government published a law which brought a certain amount of control to bear on the exploitation of forests; but from the inquiries made we are pretty well assured that this law, together with the subsequent orders and instructions issued concerning its application, remained a dead letter, save for a few of its clauses which were carried out in certain vilayets.

FACTS FREE BULGARIA

In consequence of these facts free Bulgaria, in place of the virgin forest which had been the pride of the country, started with forests sadly thinned, their area reduced to a minimum.

The RussoTurkish war contributed further to the work of devastation. Such forests as had thus far escaped, for one reason or another, were completely cut down and turned into waste lands.

The first enactment by the Bulgarian Government for the protection of forests was the ordinance of December 20th, 1878, issued by the section of the Ministry of Finance. The ministry ordered governors of provinces to appoint special keepers to look after the forests. Many other enactments followed, for the levying of taxes on all forests, whether they belonged to the State, to parishes, or private individuals (1879), to prohibit the export of wood (1880)—this having caused the destruction of forests in neighbouring countries,—and to order the collection of seeds for the replanting of forests. Further instructions determined the portions of forest which might be felled, and exercised control over attempts of individuals to monopolise forestland, incendiarism, destructive exploitation, etc.

These measures did not produce the hopedfor results. They were insufficient to cure the country people of their old habits, and the destruction of forests went on just as before.

 

Vidin streaming down the Danube

Noyes’ first contact with Bulgaria occurred as he approached Vidin streaming down the Danube. The city appeared as “a genuine Turkish city” with a population of about twenty thousand souls and the residence of a “Greek Bishop”. As his boat approached the city, “the magnificence” of Vidin he saw from a distance disappeared.  The doctor showed greater interest in the natural scenery than in the city. The action of water, assisted by other natural causes had produced on the Bulgarian hills “curious and fantastic shapes”, which, in many instances, had “the exact resemblances of military works.”

Noyes visited Lorn, Nikopol, and other cities and made observations about the past and present condition of these places. The old cities consisted, according to Noyes, of three parts: the grad or fortress, occupying the most elevated position; and “barosch” or lower city, and the parlance or suburbs outside the city proper where the lower classes resided. The old cities were destroyed during the Ottoman conquest and were never rebuilt. The contemporary cities were of “genuine Turkish character”, unaffected by European ideas. The author regarded Ruse as the most important transportation center on the Lower Danube and noted its morocco and silk factories.

Managed by a Christian

Noyes devoted twenty-six pages describing Silistra. The ravages of war were to be seen everywhere. As the author passed through the city gates, it seemed to him “as if the genius of death reigned within those solitary walls” of the city-fortress where “people glide along the narrow streets and stony lanes more like ghosts than human beings.”  He was surprised to find that there was not one hotel or lodging of any kind in the city owned or managed by a Christian. The Turkish part was “filthy and dusty,” while the houses of the Bulgarians were low cabins with windowless court-yards.

Noyes was very much aware of the terrible sufferings that war brought on the people. As he passed through the city of Svishtov he compared the beautiful vineyards around the town with the destruction produced by war. The Russo-Turkish war, he wrote, “From a war of monarchs, came so near merging into a war of races.”

Going through the Bulgarian countryside, the American physician wrote: “There is but one sight more sad than that of deserted cities and villages: it is to behold well-filled cities of the dead in places once busy with life  to step from gravestone to gravestone in solitudes once throbbing with multitudes of human beings. This sense of loneliness in the wilds of Bulgaria often weighed upon me with a secret terror.”

 

Russian Influence

If, therefore, one is to counteract Russian influence, which in any case must act as a counterpoise to the undoubtedly growing German influence in Bulgaria, by making concessions at the expense of Greece and to the annoyance of Turkey, it is considered that the price would be too high.

I agree that in due course Bulgaria’s claims to access to the sea should receive consideration but it must be remembered that in recent history she only possessed the Aegean seaboard for a short period, i.e. from 1913 to 1918. So that except on grounds of economic necessity, which is by no means clearly proved, she has little real legal claim to such an outlet, and in any case Article 48 of the Treaty of Neuilly only undertook “to ensure the economic outlets of Bulgaria to the Aegean Sea”.

To turn now to the question of Greece; in the first place, would Greece consider that the cession of Cyprus would compensate her for the loss of Thrace and of contiguity with her new friend Turkey? In any case such an exchange would be contrary to the Greco-Turkish Treaty of September 1933.

Might she not regard the access of a Slav nation to the northern Aegean aside beginning of the forward movement the Slavs which she has always feared, and which might possibly be extended to Salonika if the Yugoslavs took it into their heads to give practical effect to a policy which has always been in the immediate background?

In any case, would we consider the potential gain from an arrangement whereby we obtained Bulgarian co-operation (provided, of course, that we did not thereby lose Greek friendship) worth the cession of the Island of Cyprus, which, in view of developments in the Eastern Mediterranean, including the air route to India and Australia and the completion of the pipe line to Haifa, has assumed a special strategic significance?

Bulgarian newspaper

The general impression I have gained from various conversations is that the answer is “no”.

Even had Swire’s idea been accepted in informed but unofficial circles in London it would not have been popular in the Foreign Office, nor perhaps even in Sofia. When the Bulgarian newspaper, Mir, raised the question of the Aegean a year later, a Foreign Office official in London minuted, ‘The Bulgarians continue to harp rather vaguely on the injustice of the Treaty.

No one sympathizes with their claim to an Aegean port as long as they continue to demand full sovereignty over it.’  A few months later the same official noted in a memorandum recording a conversation with the British minister in Sofia, ‘The King of Bulgaria has recently told Mr. Bentinck that he did not regard the question of the Aegean outlet as actual.’

 

Occur in England or affecting England

Bulgarian journalists visiting England would write their experiences and impressions in a series of articles. But even more important, when events occur in England or affecting England, these journalists will have perspective or “background.”

These points held good before the change of regime here, [19 May 1934  RJC] and they have more than ever now, since the newspapers will be obliged, owing to the censorship and the suppression of party politics, to turn more than ever before to foreign affairs for “copy”.

There is, moreover, the value of personal contacts between those Bulgarians who visit England and the friends they will make there; and the mere fact that an invitation is issued would make a most favorable impression.

Swire did not think that the proposed scheme would be lavishly expensive, estimating it a total cost of five hundred pounds per capita. As to the itinerary he thought it should include a day in Fleet Street, two days “sight-seeing” in London and visits to York, Edinburgh, the Trossachs, Glasgow, the Lake District, Liverpool, Manchester, Southampton, Portsmouth and Aldershot, with opportunities to see industrial undertakings, (coal, steel, cotton, ship-building) agriculture, and naval and military spectacles’. Finally he also had ideas as to who should arrange the tour

Invite Bulgarian journalists

It may be contended that it would be a delicate matter for the British government to invite Bulgarian journalists that it would create a precedent and why should Bulgarians be asked?

It would be simple, however, for the idea to come, in the first place, from Lord Noel-Buxton, Sir Edward Bayle and other members of the Balkan Committee whose particular interest in Bulgaria is well-known and who might NOMINALLY bear the expense, while the arrangements could probably be entrusted to such public spirited bodies as REUTERS and THE PRESS ASSOCIATION who would, I feel sure, gladly lend their aid and would be very well qualified to make the arrangements.

Beyond providing the necessary funds therefore, there would be no need for any official intervention if it was thought undesirable that the plan should be carried out officially.

Nothing eve r came of Swire’s planter of another scheme he put forward for improving Anglo-Bulgarian relations, this time one with much more weighty political content.

In August 1933 Swire, had strongly argued Bulgaria’s case over an outlet on the Aegean and in April 1934, even before Velchev had taken office, he returned to this theme in a letter to Mr. Stephen Heald of the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London.

Swire said he felt more convinced than ever that Bulgaria is the key to the Straits on the one hand and the Balkans on the other: and that the key to Bulgaria’s heart is an Aegean seaboard.’    He also sensed that destinations Bulgaria, this vital strategic point, was under threat from the totalitarian powers.

 

Letter to Bentinck Giving

In June 1934 he suggested to Bentinck a scheme to promote increased knowledge and experience of British affairs amongst Bulgarian journalists. In a letter to Bentinck giving details of this proposal Swire wrote:

I have proposed that six Bulgarian journalists, editors or sub-editors of different newspapers, who have not hitherto visited Great Britain, should be invited; and all their expenses should be paid from the time they leave Sofia until they return for it is, I think, essential that the invitation should be made generously or not at all, and that their visit should last two full weeks. So far as I know there is no Bulgarian journalist who has ever visited England, and there are very few either journalists or reporters who speak English, even brokenly.

The reasons for the proposal were interesting enough to warrant recital at length.

– The newspapers are the chief literature of the Bulgarian masses. Books take second place every Bulgarian reads his newspaper, but only a percentage read books. Thus the newspapers are a vital medium for propaganda.

– Bulgarian journalists occupy a very high place in the country and are very highly thought of. Often journalists become ministers and minister’s journalists there are any number of journalists. Thus the Bulgarian journalist is a man of importance, partly for himself and partly on account of the influence he exercises, through his papers, over the masses.

– Various European countries, alive to the importance of the press, and interested in Bulgaria for political or economic reasons, have set a precedent. During the last two years Bulgarian journalists have been invited to visit Italy, France, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Rumania, and their expenses have been paid.

– Apart from obvious commercial interests Great Britain has, I maintain, a very vital political interest in Bulgaria, chiefly on account of the Dardanelles question. Bulgaria’s strategic importance was proved up to the hilt during the World War and she entered that war against us largely because we neglected to take, in time, obvious steps to prevent that occurrence. The disastrous consequences are matters of common knowledge. But, during recent years, no serious steps whatever have been taken to make British propaganda in this country, whereas other European countries have been spending large sums of money for this purpose, maintaining schools and clubs.

It may be argued that British prestige is already high enough that British power and culture are widely known. This I contest. It was. But now it is in grave danger of eclipse by the activities of others. The memories of the masses are short, and the press is the best medium for reviving them.

 

Century Bulgaria

My plea, then, is for a friendly hand to Bulgaria. She has purged herself. She aspires to better things. There is much that is admirable in her people. She has courageous leaders with high ideals and proved motives, who deserve confidence. Surely we should now cease to carp and sneer and extend, instead, the encouraging hand of friendship?

There can be no doubt that in many of his political judgements, statements and actions Swire can be accused of naivety and hot-headedness. His admiration of Velchev was so intense that it prevented the asking of some important questions, more especially as to the degree of support Velchev enjoyed amongst the masses; the Aegean scheme was impossible given British interests in Keeping Cyprus.

And British diplomacy in Bulgaria, though unadventurous and lacking in imagination, was more rational than Swire would admit. Nevertheless, there would be few who would want to reject his plea for the extending of the hand of friendship and it is the hope of this author that his own contribution to this volume will help to do that, at least in the world of historical scholarship.

IN AMERICAN TRAVEL ACCOUNTS

PHILIP SHASHKO (USA)

Scholars have not yet ascertained when the first mention and writings on Bulgaria and the Bulgarians were published in the New World. It is known, however, that books and articles exist written by Americans before the nineteenth century dealing with the Balkans in general and Bulgaria in particular. Americans interested in the fate of the Balkan peoples always had the opportunity to acquaint themselves with Southeastern Europe.

The special linguistic, socio-political and cultural relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom facilitated the continuous flow and exchange of books and ideas across the Atlantic. Many early English publications found their way in American homes and private and public institutions and libraries. These writings, together with those of American authors, formed the bases for the American reading public to acquire some knowledge about medieval Bulgaria as well as Bulgaria under Ottoman rule.

This essay presents American images of nineteenth-century Bulgarian history and culture as they were portrayed in a few typical travel accounts published during the nineteenth century. Although the books examined here did not deal exclusively with Bulgaria, they contain enough varied and sufficient material to render a portrait of the American representation of Bulgaria and the Bulgarians.

Scholarly historical, geographical books and articles as well as the writings of American missionaries, diplomats and well-known journalists whose writings form the bulk of works on Bulgaria are not examined in this paper. Travel accounts published in newspapers and journals are also not considered here.

Cyprus for the Aegean Coast

The notion of exchanging Cyprus for the Aegean coast was wildly impractical and was never acted upon. A similar fate awaited another scheme put forward by Swire to the Foreign Office at a time when much of Europe, including Britain, had already been plunged into the horrors of the Second World War.

In an article for the Quarterly Review in the summer of 1939 Swire noted that in the First World War ‘bands of irregulars directed by the General Staff and financed by the Austro-Hungarian Legation in Sofia repeatedly attempted to destroy the railway line upon which the Serbs depended for supplies from their allies through Salonika. . .’  What had happened in one war could easily, in Swire’s active imagination, happen in another. In the spring of 1940, therefore, Swire contacted ‘Jock’ Balfour, since 1938 attached to the College of Imperial Defense. The result of these contacts was that Swire submitted the following confidential memorandum to the Foreign Office.

Mr. Swire puts forward the following for consideration.

– Traffic destined for Germany and passing either by way of the Danube or over Bulgarian railways might be interrupted or impeded by certain factions in Bulgaria.

– The factions referred to are (a) the Shandanovists  the “Diehard” wing of the Protogrooviest faction and “Old Guard” of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (whose revolutionary traditions and experience are not to be confused with the purely murderous activities of their sworn opponents the Mihailovists); (b) the Velchevists  supporters of the imprisoned leader of the coup d’etat of May, 1934 (Colonel Damian Velchev) and amongst whom are many of the ablest Bulgarian officers; (c) certain factions of the Agrarian Party, notably the followers of Nikola Zahariev and Constantin Mouraviev former ministers, (d) In association with these groups are certain Serb Agrarians and Macedonians in Yugoslavia.

– The above Bulgarian groups shared (and presumably still share) certain political aims of liberal-radical character and looked for sympathy to France and Great Britain; indeed, in recent years, one of their main aims was to oppose the growth of German influence in Bulgaria. There is every reason to suppose that there are many men in these groups who would require little encouragement to translate into action their long-standing hostility to Germany.

– The action proposed would consist of the destruction of barges upon the Danube, the blowing up of bridges, and of similar acts in which the groups described have had a vast experience. The precise methods to be employed cannot, of course, be laid down in advance.

 

 

British and French support for Bulgaria

On the one hand, he feared Communist subversion sponsored by the Soviet Union, and thus he urged strong British and French support for Bulgaria as the best means of preventing this form of Russian encroachment. On the other hand he was concerned at the economic tutelage which the Nazi regime was establishing in Bulgaria as in other East European states. The threat for the future was as clear to Swire as the remedies which needed to be taken against it:

One cannot yet foretell into what groups the powers will fall if and when war does break out again. But whatever the grouping may be, it is vitally important that we should bring Bulgaria in on our side . . . Bulgaria, by joining the central powers in 1915, prolonged the war by two years. Numerically she is small but strategically she is a giant.

So we must be in a position to offer her such possibilities and opportunities as will bring her in on our side if a crash comes. There must be no hesitation or delay or futile diplomacy as in 1915. So we must prepare NOW for the necessary action.

As has been noted, Swire believed that the Key to Bulgaria’s support lay in the Aegean question and in this there was nothing singular, but what was unusual was the method he suggested for meeting Bulgaria’s demands.

Occupation of Greek Thrace

If we offered Bulgaria immediate occupation of Greek Thrace from the Mesta line to the Turkish frontier, including Porto Lagos and Dedeagach, she would come in with us… My proposal is simply this that we should be prepared to cede Cyprus to Greece provided she ceded Thrace to Bulgaria. Cyprus is a rich island, it is no use to us 2, the Greeks clamor for it, it IS Greek, and its area is the same or greater than Thrace east of the Maritza.36

Swire’s proposal seems to have been taken more seriously than perhaps it deserved. The objections to it, from a British point of view, were set out at length and with patience by Heald.

The general impression is that, while fully recognizing the force of your argument about the danger of growing Russian influence in Bulgaria and agreeing that everything possible should be done to keep Bulgaria “sweet”, it will be extremely hard to make concessions without at the same time spoiling good relations with other states whose friendship and co-operation is clearly important to our position in the Balkans and in the Eastern Mediterranean, having special regard to the air route to the middle East and India and beyond, and to Egypt and South Africa, never, of course, forgetting the Suez Canal.