| |
|
 |
By
1185
the
power
of
the
Byzantine
Empire
again
waned
because
of
external
conflicts.
The
noble
brothers
Asen
and
Peter
led
a
revolt
that
forced
Byzantine
recognition
of
an
autonomous
Bulgarian
state.
Centered
at
Turnovo
(present-day
Veliko
Turnovo),
this
state
became
the
Second
Bulgarian
Empire.
Like
the
First
Bulgarian
Empire,
the
second
expanded
at
the
expense
of a
preoccupied
Byzantine
Empire.
In
1202
Tsar
Kaloian
(1197-1207)
concluded
a
final
peace
with
Byzantium
that
gave
Bulgaria
full
independence.
Kaloian
also
drove
the
Magyars
from
Bulgarian
territory
and
in
1204
concluded
a
treaty
with
Rome
that
consolidated
Bulgaria's
western
border
by
recognizing
the
authority
of
the
pope.
By
the
middle
of
the
thirteenth
century,
Bulgaria
again
ruled
from
the
Black
Sea
to
the
Adriatic.
Access
to
the
sea
greatly
increased
commerce,
especially
with
the
Italian
Peninsula.
Turnovo
became
the
center
of
Bulgarian
culture,
which
enjoyed
a
second
golden
age.
The
final
phase
of
Bulgaria's
second
Balkan
dominance
was
the
reign
of
Kaloian's
successor,
Ivan
Asen
II.
In
this
period,
culture
continued
to
flourish,
but
political
instability
again
threatened.
After
the
death
of
Ivan
Asen
II,
internal
and
external
political
strife
intensified.
Sensing
weakness,
the
Tatars
began
sixty
years
of
raids
in
1241,
the
Byzantines
retook
parts
of
the
Second
Bulgarian
Empire,
and
the
Magyars
again
advanced.
From
1257
until
1277,
aristocratic
factions
fought
for
control
of
the
Bulgarian
throne.
Heavy
taxation
by
feudal
landlords
caused
their
peasants
to
revolt
in
1277
and
enthrone
the
"swineherd
tsar"
Ivailo.
After
1300
Tatar
control
ended,
and
a
new
period
of
expansion
followed
under
Mikhail
Shishman
(1323-1330)
and
Ivan
Aleksandur
(1331-1370).
As
before,
however,
military
and
commercial
success
paralleled
internal
disorder;
the
social
chaos
of
the
previous
century
continued
to
erode
the
power
of
Bulgarian
leaders.
Meanwhile,
Serbia
had
risen
as a
formidable
rival
in
the
Balkans,
and
the
Ottoman
Turks
had
advanced
to
the
Aegean
coast.
In
the
late
fourteenth
century,
Bulgaria
was
weakened
by
the
division
of
its
military
defenses
between
the
two
perceived
threats. |
|
 |
The
pre-history
of
the
Ottoman
Turks(after
the
name
of
the
dynasty
of
their
first
ruler
Osman),
proceeded
for
centuries
in
Central
Asia.
Driven
out
of
there
by
the
Mongolian-Tartars,
according
to
some
sources
in
the
13th
century
they,
numbering
about
50,000,
settled
within
the
borders
of
the
ephemerial
and
disintegrating
nomadic
empire
of
the
Seljuks
to
whom
they
were
related.
Their
small
Islamic
state
in
north-western
Anatolia
swelled
rapidly
at
the
expense
of
the
Byzantine
territories
in
Asia
Minor
a
large
part
of
whose
population
they
succeeded
in
assimilating.
Instead
of
storming
Constantinople
as
many
of
their
predecessors
had
done,
they
went
round
it
and
set
foot
on
the
Balkan
Peninsula
in
the
middle
of
the
14th
century
(immediately
after
the
plague
epidemic
that
had
raged
in
the
whole
of
Europe,
decimating
two
thirds
of
the
population
in
some
western
countries).
After
gaining
a
foothold
in
the
Balkans,
they
made
Edirne
their
capital.
That
was
a
real
threat
to
the
population
of
the
peninsula
and
they
put
up
stubborn
resistance.
It
was
after
fifty
years
of
constant
attacks
and
bloodsheds
coupled
with
stratagems
and
combinations
vis-a-
vis
the
disunited
feudal
rulers
that
they
conquered
Bulgaria
and
headed
west.
Meanwhile,
they
seized
Constantinople
in
1453
and
made
it
their
capital.
The
fact
that
Suleiman
the
Magnificent
(1520-1566)
considered
himself
successor
to
the
emperors
of
the
Eastern
Roman
Empire
and
proclaimed
himself
Caesar
was
evidence
of
their
growing
appetites.
Their
campaigns
of
conquest
in
the
west
were
stopped
at
the
gates
of
Vienna.
Thus
Bulgarians,
Greeks,
Serbs,
Albanians,
Ukrainians,
Armenians
and
Arabs
remained
in
Ottoman
bondage
for
several
centuries.
After
taking
Egypt
and
Syria
in
1517,
the
Sultans
also
assumed
the
title
of
caliphs.
During
the
fall
of
Constantinople
the
representatives
of
the
clerical
elite
of
the
Byzantine
Empire
headed
for
the
West
taking
along
valuable
ancient
literature.
Because
the
Ottoman
Empire
had
imposed
control
over
what
were
until
then
considered
traditional
sea
and
land
merchant
routes
to
the
Asian
continent,
the
search
for
new
routes
was
encouraged
in
the
Western
countries.
What
was
achieved
surpassed
all
expectations:
a
new
continent
was
discovered,
a
new
route
to
India
was
found
and
there
appeared
colonial
empires
of a
capitalist
type
whose
expansion
was
also
in
the
direction
of
the
Ottoman
empire.
What
remained
from
the
long
rule
of
the
Ottoman
sultans
was
the
memory
of
the
education
system
(medreses)
that
fettered
the
spiritual
development
of
their
people,
of
the
atrocities
committed
by
them
and
the
wars
that
followed
one
another
as
well
as
of
the
many
tax
registers
(unlike
the
Arab
caliphs,
for
example,
who
also
ruled
over
part
of
Spain
for
seven
centuries,
and
of
the
Great
Mongols
who
ruled
over
part
of
India
for
nearly
a
century,
but
patronized
the
sciences
and
the
arts
and
encouraged
and
facilitated
the
establishment
of
important
cultural
centres).
The
resources
obtained
from
the
Vassal
States
enabled
the
Ottoman
upper
crust
to
keep
their
own
people
in
obedience
and
patriarchal
oriental
backwardness.
The
decline
of
the
empire
was
precipitated
by
the
national-
liberation
movements
of
the
peoples
ruled
by
them
as
well
as
by
the
series
of
Russo-Turkish
wars.
As a
result
of
the
successful
antiimperialist
lit)eration
movement
headed
by,
Kemal
Ataturk,
the
modern
Repeblic
of
Turkey
was
founded.
On
the
eve
of
the
Ottoman
occupation,
the
population
of
Bulgaria
split
into
two
kingdoms
and
two
independent
feudal
areas,
numbered,
according
to
rough
estimates,
about
2,500,000
people.
It
is
assumed
that
immediately
after
the
establishment
of
Ottoman
power
it
was
reduced
by
half
-
some
part
of
the
Bulgarians
perished
in
the
course
of
the
war,
others
were
taken
captive
and
sold
in
slavery.
From
the
fifteenth
to
the
eighteenth
century
the
Bulgarian
population,
which
was
composed
primarily
of
peasants,
was
placed
in
the
conditions
of
feudal
oppression
much
graver
than
in
previous
times.
The
land
was
regarded
as
the
property
of
the
supreme
ruler,
the
Sultan,
who
distributed
it
among
his
subordinate
administrators
(judges),
war
veterans
and
servicemen
of
the
reserve,
and
to
the
so-called
spahi
-
regular
servicemen
all
of
whom
were
granted
the
rights
of
feudal
landowners
for
life.
It
was
the
duty
of
the
landed
officers
and
servicemen
to
report
in
times
of
war
in
full
battle
trim
at
the
places
of
muster
in
various
districts
(sandjaks).
The
Bulgarian
lands
became
part
of
the
region
governed
by
theRoumelibeilerbei
with
a
seat
first
in
the
town
of
Edirne
and
later
in
Sofia,
including
the
Balkan
provinces
of
the
Ottoman
Empire.
The
lands
with
a
predominantly
Bulgarian
population
were
covered
(in
wholeor
in
part)
by
the
sandjaks
of
Silistra,
Nikopol,
Vidin,
Pasha
(the
regions
of
Edirne,
Elhovo
and
Plovdiv),
Chirmen
(the
Sub-Balkan
valley),
Kyustendil,
Ohrid
and
Sofia.
The
Bulgarian
Patriarchate
was
abolihed;
the
Christian
Bulgarians
were
subordinated
toan
alien
church,
i.e.
the
Constantinople
Patriarch,
who
appointed
mainly
Greeks
to
Bulgarian
bishoprics.
The
Ottoman
military-feudal
system
was
influenced
by
Arab,
Persian,
Turkic,
Mongolian
and
Byzantine
political
practices.
This
system
of
government
headed
by
the
sultan
(the
padishah)
accorded
primary
role
to
the
estste
of
the
ulems
(theologians
and
legislators
upholding
theocracy).
Overcoming
duality
in
the
political
structure
and
the
unification
of
these
two
forces
into
a
unitary
system
of
the
"realm
of
the
faith"
was
achieved
through
the
proclamation
of
the
sultan
as
"Allah's
shadow
on
Earth"
and
by
including
most
of
the
ulems
into
the
state
apparatus.
Unity
and
centralization
in
the
large
empire
was
maintained
mainly
by
extra-economic
methods,
primarily
through
highly
developed
socio-political
institutions.
Prime
importance
was
accorded
to
Islam
(the
word
means
obedience,
submissiveness)
- to
that
last
offshoot
of
monotheism
which
had
become
a
world
religion.
The
Ottomans
claimed
that
it
was
they
who
spread
the
pure,
orthodox
so
called
Sunni
Islam
contrary
to
the
Shiite
branch
of
Islam
which
had
estahlished
itself
in
Iran.
(By
this,they
also
justified
their
numerous
conflicts
with
Iran
in
the
16th
and
17th
centuries).
As
the
Soviet
scholar
of
Ottoman
Turkey
M.
S.
Mayer
points
out,
the
sultans
"devoted
a
great
deal
of
attention
to
the
spreading
of
the
Muslim
religion
in
the
newly
conquered
European
territories,
both
by
forcible
Islamization
of
the
population
and
by
creating
numerous
faith-propagating
centres
(imarets)
on
the
basis
of
vakif
property".
The
aim
was
to
inculcate
obedience
and
submissiveness
to
the
supreme
authority,
given
the
existing
economic
fragmentariness
and
ethnic
and
religious
diversity
of
the
subjects
in
the
Empire.
Naturally,
the
results
of
these
efforts
fell
far
short
of
expectations.
It
was
a
system
under
which
the
central
authorities
were
mainly
interested
in
the
efficient
functioning
of
the
fiscal
institutions.
Every
one
of
the
feudal
lords
in
the
Empire
was
entitled
to a
portion
of
the
incomes
of
his
subordinate
households
and
the
fees
on
the
issued
certificates
(tapis)
through
which
the
households
acquired
plots
of
land
(the
fee
equalled
half
of
the
yearly
revenue
from
the
land).
The
"owners"
thus
bound
to
the
soil
had
to
conform
to
the
preferences
of
the
lord
as
to
what
to
plant
on
the
soil
and
had
no
right
to
leave
their
feudal
lord.
The
service
feudal
estates
(spahiliks)
in
many
respects
resembled
the
Byzantine
pronia.
Naturally,
the
Ottoman
system
of
land
ownership
sustained
substatial
transformations,
especially
at
the
turn
of
the
19th
century
when
in
the
regions
suitable
for
industrial
crops
new
estates
called
cifliks
were
formed.
They
were
subject
to
lawful
sale
and
purchase,
could
employ
hired
labour
and
produced
crops
for
the
market
(e.g.
in
north-western
Bulgaria,
in
the
Macedonia
area
and
in
Thrace).
That
was
a
process
similar
to
the
"enclosures"
in
16th
and
17th
century
England
as a
result
of
which
the
land
was
expropriated
from
the
peasants
who
became
hired
hands
to
the
new
owners
or
joined
the
urban
plebs.
In
any
case,
the
Ottoman
state
developed
best
those
of
its
functions
which
most
helped
plunder
the
population.
The
heaviest
tax
collected
by
the
state
from
the
non-Muslim
people
was
the
poll-tax
(ciziye).
Every
non-Muslim
from
the
age
of
15
to
75
had
to
pay
only
for
figuring
in
the
lists
of
the
Sultan's
subjects
(such
lists
were
made
once
in
30
years).
According
to a
1736
decree,
the
wealthier
Christians
paid
10
grosh
each,
the
middling
ones
- 5
grosh
and
the
poorer
ones
-
2.5
grosh
(one
grosh
at
that
time
bought
13
loaves
of
bread
of
750
g
each).
The
local
lord
was
paid
by
the
non-Muslim
households
a
land
tax
(ispenc
)
which
was
greater
than
the
tax
owed
by a
Muslim
household
on
the
same
size
of
land.
Another
regular
obligation
of
the
raya
(subjects)
towards
the
feudal
lord
was
the
tithe
on
the
produce
of
the
land
(usur)
-
between
1/10
and
1/8
of
the
yield.
These
were
the
main
taxes
which
were
systematically
infringed,
i.e.
they
were
arbitrarily
increased
by
their
collectors,
to
say
nothing
of
various
other
levies,
fees,
fenes
and
corvee,
extraordinary
taxes
during
military
campaigns
which
subsequently
became
permanent
and
which
burdened
the
non-Muslim
population.
In
addition
to
this
economic
pressure,
there
were
regular
campaigns
of
Islamizing
the
Bulgarian
people
by
force,
especially
in
the
Rhodopes
and
in
Northern
Bulgaria.
A
particularly
cruel
form
of
oppression
was
the
blood
tax
(devsirme),
levied
periodically
from
the
15th
to
the
18th
century.
The
Bulgarian
families
were
forced
to
give
up
their
best
male
children
who
were
then
Turkified
and
educated
in
exceptional
Muslim
fanaticism.
They
made
up
the
janissary
corps
and
became
the
mainstay
of
the
Ottoman
authorities.
Other
forms
of
assimilation
included
abductions
of
Christian
women
who
were
forced
to
become
wives
and
mothers
of
Muslims,
the
forcible
re-settlement
of
Bulgarians
in
Anatolia,
physical
extermination,
etc.
Under
these
conditions,
the
Bulgarians
found
refuge-particularly
in
the
initial
centuries
of
Ottoman
domination-in
their
traditional
commune
and
also
in
the
local
cloister,
newly-built
or
remaining
from
the
past
age.
Although
their
state
had
been
abolished
and
they
themselves
were
reduced
to
living
in
primitive
conditions,
the
Bulgarians
succeeded
in
preserving
themselves
as a
nationality.
The
more
stouthearted
resorted
to
armed
resistance,
fleeing
into
the
mountains.
From
acts
of
personal
revenge,
the
haidout
movement
of
rebels
became
a
means
of
collective
self-defence.
There
were
also
periodic
rebellions
and
insurrections.
The
campaigns
against
the
Ottomans
by
the
rulers
of
certain
Central
European
states
sparked
off
armed
unrest
among
the
Bulgarians
but
failed
to
bring
about
the
expected
change
in
the
state
of
affairs.
However,
it
was
Russia
who
became
the
mainstay
of
the
Balkan
Christian
population,
the
Bulgarians
included.
(By
the
end
of
the
15th
century
Russia
had
already
freed
itself
from
Tartar
domination).
Cultural
and
political
links
between
the
Bulgarian
people
and
Russia
were
restored
during
the
16th
century,
when
the
Moscow
kingdom
had
come
to
stay
as
the
only
large,
independent
state
where
the
Eastern
Orthodox
religion
had
survived
and
struck
roots
as
the
official
religion.
In
the
words
of
Priest
Philotey
of
Pskov
after
the
Turks
conquered
Constantinople,
i.e.
after
1453,
Moscow
became
the
third
Rome,
'and
a
fourth
there
will
never
be'.
The
legendary
myth
of
'grandfather
Ivan'
as
the
personification
of
protective
Russia
was
widespread
among
the
Bulgarians.
The
Russo-Turkish
wars
of
the
18th
and
19th
centuries,
some
of
which
were
fought
on
Bulgarian
soil,
helped
confirm
the
credibility
of
this
legend.
All
along
economy
had
forged
ahead.
Through
trade
and
finance
the
Ottoman
empire
worked
its
way
into
the
Western
European
economy.
European
merchandise
appeared
on
the
markets
of
the
empire
and
ports
were
built
for
the
export
of
farm
products
to
Western
and
Central
Europe.
Many
Bulgarians
were
engaged
in
this
area
of
trade.
The
changes
affected
the
rural
areas
too,
leading
to
somewhat
easier
living
circumstances.
A
great
number
of
peasants
migrated
to
the
towns,
where
the
Bulgarian
element
was
beginning
to
gain
dominance.
The
Bulgarians,
quick
at
learning
commerce
and
mastering
the
crafts,
formed
their
own
trade
guilds,
which
had
a
large
membership.
The
husiness
section
of
the
Bulgarians
was
coming
to
the
fore.
Well-off
Bulgarians
became
the
proprietors
of
trading
firms,
in
import
and
export
of
goods,
organized
large-scale
stock-breeding
or
took
over
the
collection
of
state
taxes.
The
Bulgarians
did
brisk
business
on
the
markets
in
Central
Europe
(Hungary,
Poland,
Walachia
and
Russia)
where
full-fledged
colonies
of
Balkan
and
Bulgarian
merchants
sprang
up.
At
home
the
Bulgarian
townfolk
competed
with
the
Greeks
and
the
Walachians
for
business.
The
Bulgarian
side
of
the
competition
was
supported
hy
the
peasantry,
which
was
suffering
under
the
arbitrary
taxation
policy
of
the
Constantinople
patriarchy,
which
controlled,
in
addition
to
the
Church,
the
Bulgarian
schools
where
instruction
was
given
in
Greek.
The
Bulgarians
longed
to
exterminate
the
Greek
language
and
influence
in
the
Bulgarian
church,
schools
and
public
life.
The
most
outstanding
exponent
of
such
endeavours
was
Father
Paissi
of
Hilendar
(1722
-
1773).
He
himself
came
from
a
village
(Bansko,
present-day
Blagoevgrad
district),
whose
craftsmen
and
merchants
were
competing
with
the
Greeks
both
on
the
domestic
and
Austrian
markets.
Being
familiar
with
the
Greek
and
Serbian
national
movements
(they
developed,
for
a
number
of
reasons,
earlier
than
the
Bulgarian)
he
sat
down
and
wrote
a
small
book
called
'Slav-Bulgarian
History'
(1762),
which
became
a
'popular
patriotic
gospel'
(Prof.
Hristo
Gandev).
Paissi's
book
was
the
result
of
several
decades
of
uplift,
which
spread
throughout
the
Central
and
North
-
Eastern
Balkans,
where
the
population
was
predominantly
Bulgarian.
This
was
an
epoch
of
the
re-creation
of
Bulgaria,
known
as
the
Bulgarian
national
revival. |
|
 |
which
spanned
a
period
from
the
early
18th
c.
to
1878.
The
revival
process
was
in
full
swing
during
the
first
half
and
especially
during
the
third
quarter
of
the
19th
century,
the
time
when
the
Bulgarian
bourgeoisie,
having
gained
in
number,
economic
power
and
social
status,
was
highly
susceptible
to
West
European
political
and
cultural
influence
and
was
able
to
appreciate
the
significance
of
national
enlightenment
and
science.
All
this
came
as a
result
of
the
intense
trade
with
Europe.
And,
while
we
know
of
the
existence
of
some
390
monasteries
and
settlements
in
which
books
were
handcopied
and
most
of
which
had
small
schools
during
the
17th
and
18th
century
(in
these
schools,
mostly
set
up
at
monasteries,
instruction
was
given
by
the
synthetical
method,
the
church
psalms
and
basic
arithmetic,
though
on a
smaller
scale;
teachers
at
such
schools
used
to
exercise
the
pupils
on a
wax-coated
board),
in
the
'70s
of
the
19th
century
there
were
some
2000
schools
in
the
Bulgarian-populated
lands
-
democratic
in
character
and
secular
in
the
nature
of
education.
Textbooks,
too,
began
to
be
published
as
early
as
the
first
stage
of
the
ensuing
education
work.
After
the
'Fish
Primer'
was
issued
in
1824
(the
first
textbook
for
elementary
school),
textbooks
in
grammar,
arithmetic,
history,
geography,
physics
and
other
school
subjects
began
to
appear
at
various
times.
During
the
early
19th
century
a
unified
spoken
and
written
new
Bulgarian
language
started
to
establish
itself
through
education,
literature
and
journalism.
This
language
became
prevalent
in
all
regions
populated
by
Bulgarians
who,
towards
the
mid-19th
century,
numbered
no
fewer
than
4
million
in
Moesia,
Thrace
and
Macedonia,
which
equalled
four
times
as
much
as
the
ruling
nationality
-
the
Turks
(according
to
approximate
estimates,
based
on a
1844
household
census
taken
in
the
Balkan
provinces
vassal
to
the
Porte).
The
Bulgarian
parishes
(the
sole
form
of
organization
for
the
Bulgarians
after
their
state
was
conquered)
during
the
19th
century
gradually
became
a
major
institution
of
the
Bulgarian
nation,
carrying
out
administrative,
taxation,
educational
and
c'ultural
work.
They
also
became
schools
for
public
life,
notwithstanding
their
limited
authority
and
the
conservatism
of
the
well-to
- do
Bulgarians
(the
chorbadjii).
The
trade
guilds
too
were
involved
in
this
upsurge
and
the
teachers,
both
in
the
town
and
in
the
country,
stood
at
its
helm.
The
movement
for
Bulgarian
education
and
an
independent
Bulgarian
church,
this
'bourgeois
peaceful
revolution
in
the
Bulgarian
lands'
(Dimiter
Blagoev)
engaged
generations
of
national
enlighteners,
some
of
whom
fell
prey
to
the
persecution
and
slander
of
the
Patriarchy
and
the
Ottoman
rule.
Such
was
the
fate,
for
instance,
of
the
brothers
Dimiter
and
Kostadin
Miladinov,
who
pioneered
the
collection
and
publication
of
Bulgarian
folklore
(their
work
has
today
been
published
in
ten
volumes).
In
1870
the
Porte
officially
recognized
the
independent
Bulgarian
church
and
hence
the
Bulgarians
as
an
independent
nationality
(prior
to
this
the
Bulgarians
were
categorized
either
as
Christians
or
Greeks).
The
intellectual
life
of
the
Bulgarians
in
the
19th
century
was
influenced
strongly
by
Russian
culture.
Russian
scholars
and
public
figures
placed
themselves
at
the
service
of
the
Bulgarian
revival.
The
government
of
Russia
issued
grants
to
Bulgarian
youths
who
were
sent
to
study
in
Russia
by
Bulgarian
village
communes
and
city
municipalities,
school
trustees
and
parish
councils.
Among
those
educated
in
Russia
were
such
distinguished
Bulgarians
as
Naiden
Gerov
(author
of a
six-volume
dictionary
of
the
Bulgarian
language),
Prof.
Marin
Drinov,
Nesho
Bonchev,
Lyuben
Karavelov
and
Hristo
Botev.
The
Bulgarians
also
drew
on
the
experience
of
the
European
democratic
movements.
Quite
a
few
Bulgarians
were
involved
in
these
movements
and
the
liberation
struggles
of
neighbouring
peoples.
However,
the
struggle
of
the
Bulgarians
for
political
liberation
encountered
many
complications.
Russia
and
the
Austrian
empire
had,
since
the
end
of
the
16te
century,
been
putting
systematic
pressure
on
the
Porte,
directing
their
expansion
to
the
Balkans.
In
the
meantime
the
economic
contacts
of
the
Ottoman
empire
with
Western
Europe
facilitated
the
development
of
productive
forces
on
the
empire's
territory
and
the
promotion
of
the
new,
mor'e
progressive
bourgeois
social
relations.
The
credits
allocated
to
the
empire
by
the
West
European
capitalist
countries
bound
it
to
economic
dependency
and
in
time
the
Ottoman
empire
became
a
kind
of a
semi-colony
and
a
target
of
the
conflicting
interests
of
the
Great
Powers
who
spelled
the
course
of
European
affairs.
These
conflicting
interests,
the
designs
of
the
foreign
powers
on
the
possessions
of
the
withering
Ottoman
empire
were
impersonally
known
as
the
'Eastern
Question'.
The
object
of
the
antagonistic
aspirations
was
very
much
partial,
however.
In
the
chronically
ailing
empire
the
oppressed
nationalities
were
standing
up
for
their
rights,
seeking
ways
and
means
to
throw
off
foreign
domination.
They
also
were
a
part
of
this
'Eastern
Question'.
During
the
first
half
of
the
nineteenth
century
Russia
dominated
the
scene,
becoming,
by
virtue
of
her
political
and
military
might,
a
major
factor
in
European
politics.
At
the
time
Russia
acted
more
or
less
unimpeded
against
the
Ottoman
empire,
and
her
aspirations
objectively
coincided
with
those
of
the
liberation
struggles
of
the
Balkan
peoples.
During
the
war
of
1810-1811
Russian
troops
controlled
for
some
time
the
Bulgarian
towns
of
Dobrich,
Pleven,
Razgrad,
Lovech
and
Sevlievo.
Organizing
their
assistance
to
the
Russians,
the
Bulgarians
set
up
their
own
People's
Committee
for
Liberation,
headed
by
bishop
Sophronius
of
Vratsa,
one
of
the
first
writers
of
the
Bulgarian
Revival.
The
Committee
also
organized
a
Bulgarian
People's
Army,
which
took
part
in
the
siege
of
Silistra
in
1811.
During
the
war
of
1828-29,
when
the
Russian
army
crossed
the
Balkans
from
the
Danube
on
the
way
to
Adrianople,
the
Bulgarians
again
organized
themselves
to
fight
for
liberation.
The
Porte
relinquished
its
hold
on
some
of
its
possessions,
albeit
on
the
outlying
ones.
It
granted
autonomy
to
Serbia
in
1815
and
independence
to
Greece
in
1829.
The
attainment
of
the
political
freedom
of
the
Bulgarians,
due
to
the
country's
proximity
to
the
capital
of
the
empire
and
for
a
number
of
other
reasons,
proved
the
crux
of
the
Eastern
question.
Many
Bulgarians
over
this
period
left
their
native
parts
to
settle
in
Russia.
After
the
Crimean
War
(1853-1856)
external
circumstances
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
Bulgarian
struggles
for
political
liberation
were
complicated.
Russia
suffered
defeat.
The
West
European
capitalist
states,
whose
designs
provided
for
the
preservation
of
the
entity
of
the
Ottoman
empire,
gained
superiority
in
the
settlement
of
the
Eastern
question.
From
the
beginning
of
the
19th
century
the
Porte
launched
some
reforms
aimed
at
revitalizing
the
empire.
A
regular
army
was
set
up
on
the
Western
European
model.
The
spahi
institution
was
abolished
in
the
'30s
to
let
the
basic
producers,
the
farmers
and
artisans,
settle
their
relationship
with
central
power
directly
through
taxation,
independent
of
their
local
masters.
These
and
other
reforms
that
followed
were,
however,
either
only
half
-
way
implemented
or
simply
remained
on
paper.
Great
care
was
expended
only
on
the
upkeep
of a
well-equipped
and
modernized
army.
The
penetration
of
European
capitalism
into
the
economy
of
the
Ottoman
empire
led
to a
one-sided
economic
development
within
the
empire
and
the
Bulgarian
lands.
Many
of
the
workshops,
whose
produce
had
been
sold
on
the
empire's
markets
all
the
way
from
Bosnia
to
Egypt
and
throughout
the
Arab
Peninsula,
failed
to
keep
up
with
the
competition
and
went
bankrupt.
The
Ottoman
empire
became
an
exporter
of
farm
produce
(cotton,
wool,
leather,
fur,
silk,
etc.)
to
the
European
markets
and
a
consumer
of a
large
portion
of
Europe's
industrial
goods.
It
was
in
these
circumstances
that
the
Bulgarians'
patriarchal
and
regional
awareness
became
a
national
awareness.
In
the
context
of
foreign
domination
the
structure
of
Bulgarian
society
did
not
become
entirely
bourgeois.
In
the
third
quarter
of
the
19th
century
four
textile
and
two
silk-spinning
mills,
two
soap-making
factories,
a
salt-petre
factory,
a
state
printing
house
and
rolling
stock
repair
shop,
a
macaroni
factory,
a
beer
and
liquor
breweries,
a
shoepolish
factory,
three
tanneries,
six
steam-operated
flour
mills
and
some
twenty
more
advanced
water-mills
went
into
operation
on
territories
populated
by
Bulgarians.
This
made
a
total
of
25
industrial
enterprises
employing
no
more
than
750
workers.
The
numbers
of
the
working
class
grew
also
as a
result
of
the
differeritiation
that
took
place
among
the
artisans
and
the
increasing
demand
for
wage
labour
by
city
firms,
shops
and
inns.
According
to
latest
research,
hired-
and
white-collar
workers
in
the
cities
by
the
end
of
the
'60s
amounted
to
12
per
cent.
Their
wages
were
paltry
and
labour
legislation
non-existent.
A
fair
number
of
Bulgarians
had
intentions
of
building
new
factories
but
they
came
up
against
insurmountable
difficulties
and
their
capital
thus
went
mostly
into
commerce
or
money-lending.
In
this
way
Bulgarian
society
was
unable
to
go
beyond
the
manufacturing,
commercial
and
money-lending
stage
of
capitalist
development.
In
this
situation
the
individual
social
groups
had
two-way
functions
-they
were
bound
both
to
the
old
disintegrating
system
and
to
the
new
economic
activities
opposing
the
old
system.
All
strata
of
Bulgarian
society
suffered,
to a
varying
degree,
under
the
burden
of
foreign
political
oppression
and
were
aware
of
the
need
for
their
own
Bulgarian
state
organization.
For
this
reason
patriotic
aspirations
prevailed
in
the
Bulgarian
liberation
movement
despite
class
and
ideological
differences.
This
found
expression
in
social
charity:
the
well-off
Bulgarians
donated
money
for
the
construction
of
schools
and
public
buildings,
the
decoration
of
churches
and
monasteries,
the
development
of
their
native
places,
the
erection
of
water-fountains,
book
publication,
the
education
of
the
young,
etc.
By
the
mid-nineteenth
century
the
Bulgarian
nation
already
had
its
own
intelligentsia
whose
members
had
obtained
their
degrees
in
various
European
universities
and
who
had
learned
from
the
experience
of
the
other
liberation
movements
on
the
continent.
This
intelligentsia
began
to
revise
the
traditional
national
virtues
in
unison
with
the
cultural
upsurge
of
Western
Europe,
supplemented
by
the
general
pan-Slavic
spiritual
awakening.
This
brought
in
its
wake
the
creation
of
inimitable
works
of
Bulgarian
art
(particularly
during
the
third
quarter
of
the
19th
century,
and
in
iconography
and
church-painting
as
early
as
the
beginning
of
the
century).
There
were
many
Bulgarians
among
the
numerous
builders,
icon-painters,
woodcarvers
and
stone-masons
who
travelled
to
work
in
Constantinople,
Jerusalem
and
Alexandria.
Upon
return
to
their
country
they
constructed
and
decorated
the
tall
and
elegant
houses,
preserved
to
date
in
Plovdiv
and
Koprivshtitsa.
In
the
meantime
the
first
Bulgarian
scholars
obtained
their
degrees
and
began
to
work
outside
their
homeland,
in
Russia,
Romania,
France
and
other
countries.
Suffice
it
to
follow
the
work
and
progress
of
Spiridon
Palaouzov,
Marin
Drinov
and
Dr
Peter
Beron
of
Kotel
(author
of
the
Fish
Primer)
who
worked
in
France,
building
his
own
cosmogony-panepistemology.
The
Bulgarian
Revival,
this
'wonder
of
the
19th
century',
as
Louis
Leger
called
it,
does
not
lend
to a
sketchy,
diagrammatical
description;
it
cannot
be
conceived
as
the
direct
result
of
the
existing
economic
base,
which
remained
but
implicit.
The
main-spring
of
the
potential
of
the
nation,
elevated
to a
maximum,
was
something
different.
The
antipodes
stood
out
clearly
and
when
the
prerequisites
and
conditions
were
at
hand
they
brought
to
life
titans
of
the
mind
and
the
cause.
When
a
community
combines
its
forces
to
overcome
the
factors
impeding
its
progress,
it
professes
an
extraordinary
affinity
for
the
accomplishments
of
the
preceding
generations
and
the
surrounding
world.
The
maxim:
'We
are
in
time
and
time
is
in
us.
We
transform
it
and
it
transforms
us'
(Vassil
Levski)
holds
good
in
this
case.
The
third
quarter
of
the
century
was
characterized
by
the
rapid
development
of
Bulgarian
culture
which,
permeated
by
Renaissance,
Enlightenment
and
humanistic
ideas,
adapted
modern
bourgeois
conceptions
of
social
life
to
regional
conditions
and
tasks.
Most
of
the
writers
and
revolutionaries
of
the
Bulgarian
National
Revival
were
educated
in
Russia,
in
the
atmosphere
and
spirit
of
the
Russian
populist
intelligentsia,
who
fought
against
the
autocracy
for
a
republic
and
a
representative
popular
government.
We
must
add
to
this
the
direct
or
oblique
influence
of
the
forces
opposing
national
and
social
injustice
in
the
European
countries
-
the
platform
of
Giuseppe
Mazzini
which
had
acquired
European
significance,
the
Italian
national
liberation
movement
headed
by
Giuseppe
Garibaldi,
the
Polish
revolutionaries,
the
revolutionary
democratism
of
Hertzen,
Chernishevski,
Dobrolyubov
and
Nekrasov,
of
Proudhon
and
Bakunin,
of
the
First
International
and
the
example
set
by
the
Paris
Commune.
The
preparations
for
the
national
liberation
revolution
began
in
the
early
'60s
under
the
guidance
of
Georgi
Sava
Rakovski
(1821
-
1867).
The
revolutionary
actions
of
the
time,
the
dispatching
to
Bulgaria
across
r'eighbouring
borders
of
Bulgarian
revolutionary
chetas
did
not
meet
the
support
of
the
local
population.
The
well-to-do
Bulgarians
were
as
yet
reserved
and
hesitant.
Relatively
better
prospects
for
the
Bulgarian
national
liberation
movement
opened
up
only
at
the
end
of
the
'60s
and
the
early
'70s
after
the
Austro-Prussian
war
(1866)
and
the
Franco-Prussian
war
(1870-1871)
when
the
Ottoman
empire
lost
two
of
its
most
ardent
patrons
(Austria
and
France)
and
Russia
rejected
the
restrictive
clauses
of
the
1856
Treaty
of
Paris
and
regained
its
status
as a
great
power.
As
far
as
Russian
foreign
policy
was
concerned,
however,
the
Eastern
Question
remained
in
the
background
during
this
period,
too.
This
made
it
imperative
for
the
Bulgarians
to
surmount
the
policy
of
temporization
and
accommodation
towards
Great
Power
policy
and
turn
to
active
revolutionary
work
which
would
bring
about
the
final
resolution.
The
Bulgarian
revolutionaries
became
aware
of
this
necessity
in
time.
This
is
shown
by
the
way
in
which
the
great
Bulgarian
poet
and
revolutionary
Hristo
Botev
(1848-1876)
called
for
'a
revolution
of
the
people,
immediate,
desperate':
'Europe
and
the
political
circumstances
grant
freedom
and
independence
only
to
those
who
can
win
it
alone'.
It
became
apparent
that
armed
struggle
was
the
only
way
out
and
that
the
path
was
irreversible.
It
was
in
this
spirit
that
an
entire
generation
of
revolutionaries
matured,
whose
humanism
and
uncompromising
patriotism,
respect
for
equality
and
freedom
went
hand
in
hand
with
the
building
of a
revolutionary
organization
congenial
to
the
conditions
prevailing
in
Bulgaria.
Lyuben
Karavelov,
the
classic
of
Bulgarian
prose-writing
and
publicism,
complemented
the
Balkans
and
in
Europe
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
Bulgarian
cause,
while
Hristo
Botev,
through
his
poetry
and
dazzling
publicism
elevated
responsibility
before
the
nation
and
mankind's
freedom
to
the
level
of a
cult.
Together
with
other
Bulgarian
revolutionaries
Hristo
Botev
enthusiastically
hailed
the
Paris
Commune
and
proclaimed
'The
Credo
of
the
Bulgarian
Commune'.
Unlike
the
pioneers
of
the
Bulgarian
Revival,
who
as
individuals
gave
an
impression
of
timidity,
Hristo
Botev
was
one
of
those
people
who
came
across
powerfully
with
a
clear-cut
individuality
of
their
own.
He
was
also
fully
aware
of
what
the
times
and
duty
to
his
country
demanded
of
him.
Reviewing
what
was
achieved
during
the
epoch
under
consideration,
literary
critics
place
Botev
on a
par
with
such
world-renowned
poets
as
Adam
Mickiewicz
and
Sandor
Petofi,
and
rightly
so.
During
the
decisive
stage
of
the
struggle
for
political
liberation
there
stood
out
the
genius
of
Vassil
Levski
(1837-
1873)
as
an
organizer
who
inspired
hope
in
the
Bulgarian
nation's
own
strength
and
also
took
into
account
its
possibilities
of
creating
a
military
force
of
its
own.
Twice
during
the
1860s
he
joined
the
Belgrade
legion
(voluntary
task
force)
which
took
part
in
operations
carried
out
by
the
Serbian
government
against
the
Turkish
garrison
in
Belgrade.
A
professional
revolutionary,
Vassil
Levski
toured
the
country
on
various
occasions.
During
one
of
these
tours,
in
1869,
he
distributed
propaganda
materials
both
among
Christians
and
Muslims.
Vassil
Levski
advanced
a
new
tactics
of
revolutionary
struggle
which
consisted
in
carrying
out
a
purposeful
and
prolonged
political
and
organizing
work
among
the
Bulgarians
within
the
movement
for
national
education
and
for
an
independent
Bulgarian
church,
a
movement
that
had
developed
during
the
preceding
decades.
Instead
of
engaging
in
scattered
and
sporadic
actions
depending
on
the
f.oreign
political
situation,
he
advocated
the
establishment
of a
political
structure
and
military
organization
backed
up
by
the
mass
of
the
people.
Levski
himself
took
up
the
difficult
task
setting
up
as
he
did
a
network
of
local
revolutionary
committees,
a
secret
postal
service
and
security
guard
whose
leadership
was
elective
and
subordinate
to a
single
centre
based
in
the
town
of
Lovech.
He
drew
up
the
Statutes
of
this
Internal
Revolutionary
Organization
which
was
approved
by
the
General
Assembly
of
the
Bulgarian
Central
Revolutionary
Committee
headquarters
in
Bucharest.
The
Statutes
indicated
the
way
of
casting
off
tyranny
and
outlined
the
administration
of
the
future
free
Bulgarian
state.
In
setting
up
the
revolutionary
organization
Vassil
Levski
proceeded
from
the
strictly
established
principles
which
he
further
developed
and
upheld
during
his
practical
revolutionary
activity:
democratic
centralism,
internal
organizational
discipline,
collective
method
of
work,
criticism
and
self-criticism
in
the
relations
between
his
followers.
According
to
Levski,
only
'sensible,
persevering,
fearless
and
magnanimous
people'
were
to
be
entrusted
with
responsible
work.
The
Apostle
of
Freedom,
as
he
was
called
by
his
contemporaries,
was
categorical:
if
one
of
these
qualities
was
absent,
the
organizer
of
the
'people's
work'
could
harm
the
cause.
Respect
for
the
rights
and
freedoms
of
every
individual
was,
to
his
mind,
a
sacred
law
dictated
by
the
imperatives
of
the
time.
At
the
height
of
his
activity,
in
early
1873,
Levski
was
caught
and
hanged
in
Sofia.
His
work
was
continued
by
his
adherents
in
the
four
revolutionary
districts
that
had
taken
shape
in
the
Bulgarian
lands.
After
the
settlement
of
policy
problems
and
some
reshuffles
the
Central
Revolutionary
Committee
organized
an
armed
uprising
by
the
Bulgarians
on
both
sides
of
the
Balkan
Range,
in
the
region
of
Sredna
Gora
Mountain
and
in
the
northern
parts.of
the
Rhodopes
against
the
oppressors.
This
was
the
April
uprising
of
1976. |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
