Blind despotism, the corps of the Janissaries, the Seraglio adorned with human heads, a firm belief in the invincibility of the Osman dynasty, the _rayâh_ regarded as an unclean being, the French ambassadors dressed and fed at the confines of the throne-room to symbolize the miserable poverty of the unbeliever in the eyes of the supreme lord,--all of these, it must be remembered, are but things of yesterday, and, as a matter of fact, I suppose there is not much divergence of opinion on this head, even between Europeans and the Turks themselves: that about which there is the greatest disagreement, and consequently great difficulty for a stranger who wishes to arrive at a correct judgement, is the estimation in which the private and personal characteristics of the individual Turk is held. If you question a _rayâh_, you hear only the complaints of the oppressed against the oppressor, while from the free European colonists, who have no cause either to dislike or fear the Ottomans, but, on the contrary, every reason for congratulating themselves on the existing condition of things, you get nothing, as a rule, but opinions which are possibly sincere, but certainly are excessively favorable. The majority of these last agree in pronouncing the Turk to be frank, loyal, honest, and sincerely religious; but in crediting him with this sentiment of religion, it must always be borne in mind that the faith which he upholds so loyally does not interfere with any one of his tastes or interests; in fact, it caters to his sensual nature, justifies his indolence, upholds his rule: he clings to it tenaciously because his national life is in its dogmas and upon belief in it depends his fate. With regard to his probity, many individual cases are brought forward of the same kind as hundreds of others which might be cited with equal force about the most corrupt peoples of Europe; and it must be remembered in this connection that the Turk in his dealings with Christians often assumes a sort of ostentatious honesty, acting, out of sheer pride, in a manner which he would never dream of doing if he were influenced by his conscience alone; he simply cannot bear to appear of small account in the eyes of those whom he considers his inferiors both in race and in moral worth. Hence his attitude as a ruler gives birth to certain characteristics, praiseworthy enough in the abstract, such as frankness, pride, and dignity, but which he would certainly never have developed had he been subjected to the same conditions as the people under his sway. At the same time, though, he undoubtedly possesses some admirable qualities, such, for instance, as liberality in the giving of alms, which, even though it does encourage sloth and thus add to the general wretchedness, constitutes almost the sole alleviation for the innumerable miseries of his ill-ordered society; and he has other traits indicative of a kindly spirit, such as his