Two countries have much in common

During my stay in Bulgaria I was very often reminded of the Transvaal. The two countries have much in common; they are both peasant States, ruled by peasant Ministers, who legislate in accordance with the will of a peasant assembly. In some important respects the conditions of the two countries are fundamentally different. The Boers are, as a body, large landowners, who constitute the dominant race amidst a semi-savage population. In the Transvaal the Kaffirs perform the manual labor which their Dutch masters are unable or unwilling to do for themselves. The trade, industry, and development of the country are left in the hands of foreigners. No amount of money would induce a Boer to earn wages as a laborer, or to work in the fields except as a “boss,” ordering about black workmen. Grazing, hunting, and driving a team are pretty well the only occupations the Boers will consent to follow. In all the above respects the Bulgarians are the exact opposite of the Transvaal farmers. They are small landowners, who till their own fields by their own manual labor. If the land is not large or fertile enough to support the whole family, the members who are not wanted on the farm go to the towns and get employment there as shop men or artisans, till they can save enough to buy a field for themselves. The retail trade and industry of the State are mainly in native hands, and are daily becoming more so. Unlike the Transvaal, which owes its prosperity to enterprises originated, worked, and owned by foreigners, Bulgaria owes her fortune to the almost unassisted industry of her own people. If ever the popular belief should be realized, according to which immense mineral wealth exists in the remote mountain districts, a second Johannesburg may possibly come into existence amidst the Balkan ranges; but in any case it will be a Bulgarian, and not an English, Johannesburg. On the other hand, the Bulgars, who have been for centuries subject to the rule of a race alien to their own in nationality and creed, do not and cannot possess the rugged independence of the Boers.

Respective histories

Apart, however, from the differences due to the influence of their respective histories and their respective surroundings, the Bulgars and Boers have many points of resemblance. Both States are essentially peasant communities; and the people of both countries have the merits and demerits common to the peasant type. When I visited the Transvaal I found an extreme difficulty in reconciling the conflicting accounts about the Boer character, which were given me by old residents, equally well informed, and, to all appearance, equally truthful. On the one hand, I was assured that the Boers were sordid in their habits, ignorant and untruthful, corrupt and unprincipled, and altogether unfit for independence. On the other hand, I was told that the Boers were a homely, simple-minded, law-abiding, and hard-working people, honest in their dealings, anxious to keep their word, though keen-witted about their own affairs, and perfectly competent to govern themselves. My personal observation soon led me to the conclusion that the Boers were neither as good nor as bad as they were described respectively by friendly and unfriendly critics; but that, on the whole, the favorable version came nearer to the truth than the unfavorable one. I suspect, myself, a similar investigation would lead to a similar conclusion as to the two contradictory estimates of the Bulgar character you hear constantly from foreign residents, whose experience gives them some right to express an opinion on the subject. I was frequently told that the Bulgars were a bad lot; that they were greedy, grasping, and ungrateful; that they had no self-respect, no sense of honor. I have no doubt there is an element of truth in the above description.