The Turkish Conquest.—In 1340 the Turks had begun to ravage the valley of the Maritza; in 1362 they captured Philippopolis, and in 1382 Sofia. In 1366 Ivan Shishman III., the last Bulgarian tsar, was compelled to declare himself the vassal of the sultan Murad I., and to send his sister to the harem of the conqueror. In 1389 the rout of the Servians, Bosnians and Croats on the famous field of Kossovo decided the fate of the Peninsula. Shortly afterwards Ivan Shishman was attacked by the Turks; and Trnovo, after a siege of three months, was captured, sacked and burnt in 1393. The fate of the last Bulgarian sovereign is unknown: the national legend represents him as perishing in a battle near Samakov. Vidin, where Ivan's brother, Strazhimir, had established himself, was taken in 1396, and with its fall the last remnant of Bulgarian independence disappeared.
The five centuries of Turkish rule (1396-1878) form a dark epoch in Bulgarian history. The invaders carried fire and sword through the land; towns, villages and monasteries were sacked and destroyed, and whole districts were converted into desolate wastes. The inhabitants of the plains fled to the mountains, where they founded new settlements. Many of the nobles embraced the creed of Islam, and were liberally rewarded for their apostasy; others, together with numbers of the priests and people, took refuge across the Danube. All the regions formerly ruled by the Bulgarian tsars, including Macedonia and Thrace, were placed under the administration of a governor-general, styled the beylerbey of Rum-ili, residing at Sofia; Bulgaria proper was divided into the sanjaks of Sofia, Nikopolis, Vidin, Silistria and Kiustendil. Only a small proportion of the people followed the example of the boyars in abandoning Christianity; the conversion of the isolated communities now represented by the Pomaks took place at various intervals during the next three centuries. A new kind of feudal system replaced that of the boyars, and fiefs orspahilikswere conferred on the Ottoman chiefs and the renegade Bulgarian nobles. The Christian population was subjected to heavy imposts, the principal being theharatch, or capitation-tax, paid to the imperial treasury, and the tithe on agricultural produce, which was collected by the feudal lord. Among the most cruel forms of oppression was the requisitioning of young boys between the ages of ten and twelve, who were sent to Constantinople as recruits for the corps of janissaries. Notwithstanding the horrors which attended the Ottoman conquest, the condition of the peasantry during the first three centuries of Turkish government was scarcely worse than it had been under the tyrannical rule of the boyars. The contemptuous indifference with which the Turks regarded the Christianrayaswas not altogether to the disadvantage of the subject race. Military service was not exacted from the Christians, no systematic effort was made to extinguish either their religion or their language, and within certain limits they were allowed to retain their ancient local administration and the jurisdiction of their clergy in regard to inheritances and family affairs. At the time of the conquest certain towns and villages, known as thevoïnitchki sela, obtained important privileges which were not infringed till the 18th century; on condition offurnishing contingents to the Turkish army or grooms for the sultan's horses they obtained exemption from most of the taxes and complete self-government under theirvoïvodior chiefs. Some of them, such as Koprivshtitza in the Sredna Gora, attained great prosperity, which has somewhat declined since the establishment of the principality. While the Ottoman power was at its height the lot of the subject-races was far less intolerable than during the period of decadence, which began with the unsuccessful siege of Vienna in 1683. Their rights and privileges were respected, the law was enforced, commerce prospered, good roads were constructed, and the great caravans of the Ragusan merchants traversed the country. Down to the end of the 18th century there appears to have been only one serious attempt at revolt—that occasioned by the advance of Prince Sigismund Báthory into Walachia in 1595. A kind of guerilla warfare was, however, maintained in the mountains by thekaiduti, or outlaws, whose exploits, like those of the Greekklepkts, have been highly idealized in the popular folk-lore. As the power of the sultans declined anarchy spread through the Peninsula. In the earlier decades of the 18th century the Bulgarians suffered terribly from the ravages of the Turkish armies passing through the land during the wars with Austria. Towards its close their condition became even worse owing to the horrors perpetrated by the Krjalis, or troops of disbanded soldiers and desperadoes, who, in defiance of the Turkish authorities, roamed through the country, supporting themselves by plunder and committing every conceivable atrocity. After the peace of Belgrade (1737), by which Austria lost her conquests in the Peninsula, the Servians and Bulgarians began to look to Russia for deliverance, their hopes being encouraged by the treaty of Kuchuk Kaïnarji (1774), which foreshadowed the claim of Russia to protect the Orthodox Christians in the Turkish empire. In 1794 Pasvanoglu, one of the chiefs of the Krjalis, established himself as an independent sovereign at Vidin, putting to flight three large Turkish armies which were despatched against him. This adventurer possessed many remarkable qualities. He adorned Vidin with handsome buildings, maintained order, levied taxes and issued a separate coinage. He died in 1807. The memoirs of Sofronii, bishop of Vratza, present a vivid picture of the condition of Bulgaria at this time. "My diocese," he writes, "was laid desolate; the villages disappeared—they had been burnt by the Krjalis and Pasvan's brigands; the inhabitants were scattered far and wide over Walachia and other lands."
The National Revival.—At the beginning of the 19th century the existence of the Bulgarian race was almost unknown in Europe, even to students of Slavonic literature. Disheartened by ages of oppression, isolated from Christendom by their geographical position, and cowed by the proximity of Constantinople, the Bulgarians took no collective part in the insurrectionary movement which resulted in the liberation of Servia and Greece. The Russian invasions of 1810 and 1828 only added to their sufferings, and great numbers of fugitives took refuge in Bessarabia, annexed by Russia under the treaty of Bucharest. But the long-dormant national spirit now began to awake under the influence of a literary revival. The precursors of the movement were Paisii, a monk of Mount Athos, who wrote a history of the Bulgarian tsars and saints (1762), and Bishop Sofronii, whose memoirs have been already mentioned. After 1824 several works written in modern Bulgarian began to appear, but the most important step was the foundation, in 1835, of the first Bulgarian school at Gabrovo. Within ten years at least 53 Bulgarian schools came into existence, and five Bulgarian printing-presses were at work. The literary movement led the way to a reaction against the influence and authority of the Greek clergy. The spiritual domination of the Greek patriarchate had tended more effectually than the temporal power of the Turks to the effacement of Bulgarian nationality. After the conquest of the Peninsula the Greek patriarch became the representative at the Sublime Porte of theRûm-millet, the Roman nation, in which all the Christian nationalities were comprised. The independent patriarchate of Trnovo was suppressed; that of Ochrida was subsequently Hellenized. The Phanariot clergy—unscrupulous, rapacious and corrupt—succeeded in monopolizing the higher ecclesiastical appointments and filled the parishes with Greek priests, whose schools, in which Greek was exclusively taught, were the only means of instruction open to the population. By degrees Greek became the language of the upper classes in all the Bulgarian towns, the Bulgarian language was written in Greek characters, and the illiterate peasants, though speaking the vernacular, called themselves Greeks. The Slavonic liturgy was suppressed in favour of the Greek, and in many places the old Bulgarian manuscripts, images, testaments and missals were committed to the flames. The patriots of the literary movement, recognizing in the patriarchate the most determined foe to a national revival, directed all their efforts to the abolition of Greek ecclesiastical ascendancy and the restoration of the Bulgarian autonomous church. Some of the leaders went so far as to open negotiations with Rome, and an archbishop of the Uniate Bulgarian church was nominated by the pope. The struggle was prosecuted with the utmost tenacity for forty years. Incessant protests and memorials were addressed to the Porte, and every effort was made to undermine the position of the Greek bishops, some of whom were compelled to abandon their sees. At the same time no pains were spared to diffuse education and to stimulate the national sentiment. Various insurrectionary movements were attempted by the patriots Rakovski, Panayot Khitoff, Haji Dimitr, Stephen Karaja and others, but received little support from the mass of the people. The recognition of Bulgarian nationality was won by the pen, not the sword. The patriarchate at length found it necessary to offer some concessions, but these appeared illusory to the Bulgarians, and long and acrimonious discussions followed. Eventually the Turkish government intervened, and on the 28th of February 1870 a firman was issued establishing the Bulgarian exarchate, with jurisdiction over fifteen dioceses, including Nish, Pirot and Veles; the other dioceses in dispute were to be added to these in case two-thirds of the Christian population so desired. The election of the first exarch was delayed till February 1872, owing to the opposition of the patriarch, who immediately afterwards excommunicated the new head of the Bulgarian church and all his followers. The official recognition now acquired tended to consolidate the Bulgarian nation and to prepare it for the political developments which were soon to follow. A great educational activity at once displayed itself in all the districts subjected to the new ecclesiastical power.
The Revolt of 1876.—Under the enlightened administration of Midhat Pasha (1864-1868) Bulgaria enjoyed comparative prosperity, but that remarkable man is not remembered with gratitude by the people owing to the severity with which he repressed insurrectionary movements. In 1861, 12,000 Crimean Tatars, and in 1864 a still larger number of Circassians from the Caucasus, were settled by the Turkish government on lands taken without compensation from the Bulgarian peasants. The Circassians, a lawless race of mountaineers, proved a veritable scourge to the population in their neighbourhood. In 1875 the insurrection in Bosnia and Herzegovina produced immense excitement throughout the Peninsula. The fanaticism of the Moslems was aroused, and the Bulgarians, fearing a general massacre of Christians, endeavoured to anticipate the blow by organizing a general revolt. The rising, which broke out prematurely at Koprivshtitza and Panagurishté in May 1876, was mainly confined to the sanjak of Philippopolis. Bands of bashi-bazouks were let loose throughout the district by the Turkish authorities, the Pomaks, or Moslem Bulgarians, and the Circassian colonists were called to arms, and a succession of horrors followed to which a parallel can scarcely be found in the history of the middle ages. The principal scenes of massacre were Panagurishté, Perushtitza, Bratzigovo and Batak; at the last-named town, according to an official British report, 5000 men, women and children were put to the sword by the Pomaks under Achmet Aga, who was decorated by the sultan for this exploit. Altogether some 15,000 persons were massacred in thedistrict of Philippopolis, and fifty-eight villages and five monasteries were destroyed. Isolated risings which took place on the northern side of the Balkans were crushed with similar barbarity. These atrocities, which were first made known by an English journalist and an American consular official, were denounced by Gladstone in a celebrated pamphlet which aroused the indignation of Europe. The great powers remained inactive, but Servia declared war in the following month, and her army was joined by 2000 Bulgarian volunteers. A conference of the representatives of the powers, held at Constantinople towards the end of the year, proposed, among other reforms, the organization of the Bulgarian provinces, including the greater part of Macedonia, in two vilayets under Christian governors, with popular representation. These recommendations were practically set aside by the Porte, and in April 1877 Russia declared war (seeRusso-Turkish Wars, andPlevna). In the campaign which followed the Bulgarian volunteer contingent in the Russian army played an honourable part; it accompanied Gourko's advance over the Balkans, behaved with great bravery at Stara Zagora, where it lost heavily, and rendered valuable services in the defence of Shipka.
Treaties of San Stefano and Berlin.—The victorious advance of the Russian army to Constantinople was followed by the treaty of San Stefano (3rd March 1878), which realized almost to the full the national aspirations of the Bulgarian race. All the provinces of European Turkey in which the Bulgarian element predominated were now included in an autonomous principality, which extended from the Black Sea to the Albanian mountains, and from the Danube to the Aegean, enclosing Ochrida, the ancient capital of the Shishmans, Dibra and Kastoria, as well as the districts of Vranya and Pirot, and possessing a Mediterranean port at Kavala. The Dobrudja, notwithstanding its Bulgarian population, was not included in the new state, being reserved as compensation to Rumania for the Russian annexation of Bessarabia; Adrianople, Salonica and the Chalcidian peninsula were left to Turkey. The area thus delimited constituted three-fifths of the Balkan Peninsula, with a population of 4,000,000 inhabitants. The great powers, however, anticipating that this extensive territory would become a Russian dependency, intervened; and on the 13th of July of the same year was signed the treaty of Berlin, which in effect divided the "Big Bulgaria" of the treaty of San Stefano into three portions. The limits of the principality of Bulgaria, as then defined, and the autonomous province of Eastern Rumelia, have been already described; the remaining portion, including almost the whole of Macedonia and part of the vilayet of Adrianople, was left under Turkish administration. No special organization was provided for the districts thus abandoned; it was stipulated that laws similar to the organic law of Crete should be introduced into the various parts of Turkey in Europe, but this engagement was never carried out by the Porte. Vranya, Pirot and Nish were given to Servia, and the transference of the Dobrudja to Rumania was sanctioned. This artificial division of the Bulgarian nation could scarcely be regarded as possessing elements of permanence. It was provided that the prince of Bulgaria should be freely elected by the population, and confirmed by the Sublime Porte with the assent of the powers, and that, before his election, an assembly of Bulgarian notables, convoked at Trnovo, should draw up the organic law of the principality. The drafting of a constitution for Eastern Rumelia was assigned to a European commission.
The Constitution of Trnovo.—Pending the completion of their political organization, Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia were occupied by Russian troops and administered by Russian officials. The assembly of notables, which met at Trnovo in 1879, was mainly composed of half-educated peasants, who from the first displayed an extremely democratic spirit, in which they proceeded to manipulate the very liberal constitution submitted to them by Prince Dondukov-Korsakov, the Russian governor-general. The long period of Turkish domination had effectually obliterated all social distinctions, and the radical element, which now formed into a party under Tzankoff and Karaveloff, soon gave evidence of its predominance. Manhood suffrage, a single chamber, payment of deputies, the absence of property qualification for candidates, and the prohibition of all titles and distinctions, formed salient features in the constitution now elaborated. The organic statute of Eastern Rumelia was largely modelled on the Belgian constitution. The governor-general, nominated for five years by the sultan with the approbation of the powers, was assisted by an assembly, partly representative, partly composed ofex-officiomembers; a permanent committee was entrusted with the preparation of legislative measures and the general supervision of the administration, while a council of six "directors" fulfilled the duties of a ministry.
Prince Alexander.—On the 29th of April 1879 the assembly at Trnovo, on the proposal of Russia, elected as first sovereign of Bulgaria Prince Alexander of Battenberg, a member of the grand ducal house of Hesse and a nephew of the tsar Alexander II. Arriving in Bulgaria on the 7th of July, Prince Alexander, then in his twenty-third year, found all the authority, military and civil, in Russian hands. The history of the earlier portion of his reign is marked by two principal features—a strong Bulgarian reaction against Russian tutelage and a vehement struggle against the autocratic institutions which the young ruler, under Russian guidance, endeavoured to inaugurate. Both movements were symptomatic of the determination of a strong-willed and egoistic race, suddenly liberated from secular oppression, to enjoy to the full the moral and material privileges of liberty. In the assembly at Trnovo the popular party had adopted the watchword "Bulgaria for the Bulgarians," and a considerable anti-Russian contingent was included in its ranks. Young and inexperienced, Prince Alexander, at the suggestion of the Russian consul-general, selected his first ministry from a small group of "Conservative" politicians whose views were in conflict with those of the parliamentary majority, but he was soon compelled to form a "Liberal" administration under Tzankoff and Karaveloff. The Liberals, once in power, initiated a violent campaign against foreigners in general and the Russians in particular; they passed an alien law, and ejected foreigners from every lucrative position. The Russians made a vigorous resistance, and a state of chaos ensued. Eventually the prince, finding good government impossible, obtained the consent of the tsar to a change of the constitution, and assumed absolute authority on the 9th of May 1881. The Russian general Ernroth was appointed sole minister, and charged with the duty of holding elections for the Grand Sobranye, to which the right of revising the constitution appertained. So successfully did he discharge his mission that the national representatives, almost without debate, suspended the constitution and invested the prince with absolute powers for a term of seven years (July 1881). A period of Russian government followed under Generals Skobelev and Kaulbars, who were specially despatched from St Petersburg to enhance the authority of the prince. Their administration, however, tended to a contrary result, and the prince, finding himself reduced to impotence, opened negotiations with the Bulgarian leaders and effected a coalition of all parties on the basis of a restoration of the constitution. The generals, who had made an unsuccessful attempt to remove the prince, withdrew; the constitution of Trnovo was restored by proclamation (19th September 1883), and a coalition ministry was formed under Tzankoff. Prince Alexander, whose relations with the court of St Petersburg had become less cordial since the death of his uncle, the tsar Alexander II., in 1881, now incurred the serious displeasure of Russia, and the breach was soon widened by the part which he played in encouraging the national aspirations of the Bulgarians.
Union with Eastern Rumelia.—In Eastern Rumelia, where the Bulgarian population never ceased to protest against the division of the race, political life had developed on the same lines as in the principality. Among the politicians two parties had come into existence—the Conservatives or self-styled "Unionists," and the Radicals, derisively called by their opponents"Kazioni" or treasury-seekers; both were equally desirous of bringing about the union with the principality. Neither party, however, while in power would risk the sweets of office by embarking in a hazardous adventure. It was reserved for the Kazioni, under their famous leader Zakharia Stoyánoff, who in early life had been a shepherd, to realize the national programme. In 1885 the Unionists were in office, and their opponents lost no time in organizing a conspiracy for the overthrow of the governor-general, Krstovitch Pasha. Their designs were facilitated by the circumstance that Turkey had abstained from sending troops into the province. Having previously assured themselves of Prince Alexander's acquiescence, they seized the governor-general and proclaimed the union with Bulgaria (18th September). The revolution took place without bloodshed, and a few days later Prince Alexander entered Philippopolis amid immense enthusiasm. His position now became precarious. The powers were scandalized at the infraction of the Berlin Treaty; Great Britain alone showed sympathy, while Russia denounced the union and urged the Porte to reconquer the revolted province—both powers thus reversing their respective attitudes at the congress of Berlin.
War with Servia.—The Turkish troops were massed at the frontier, and Servia, hoping to profit by the difficulties of her neighbour, suddenly declared war (14th November). At the moment of danger the Russian officers, who filled all the higher posts in the Bulgarian army, were withdrawn by order of the tsar. In these critical circumstances Prince Alexander displayed considerable ability and resource, and the nation gave evidence of hitherto unsuspected qualities. Contrary to general expectation, the Bulgarian army, imperfectly equipped and led by subaltern officers, successfully resisted the Servian invasion. After brilliant victories at Slivnitza (19th November) and Tsaribrod, Prince Alexander crossed the frontier and captured Pirot (27th November), but his farther progress was arrested by the intervention of Austria (seeServo-Bulgarian War). The treaty of Bucharest followed (3rd of March 1886), declaring, in a single clause, the restoration of peace. Servia, notwithstanding her aggression, escaped a war indemnity, but the union with Eastern Rumelia was practically secured. By the convention of Top-Khané (5th April) Prince Alexander was recognized by the sultan as governor-general of eastern Rumelia; a personal union only was sanctioned, but in effect the organic statute disappeared and the countries were administratively united. These military and diplomatic successes, which invested the prince with the attributes of a national hero, quickened the decision of Russia to effect his removal. An instrument was found in the discontent of several of his officers, who considered themselves slighted in the distribution of rewards, and a conspiracy was formed in which Tzankoff, Karaveloff (the prime minister), Archbishop Clement, and other prominent persons were implicated. On the night of the 21st of August the prince was seized in his palace by several officers and compelled, under menace of death, to sign his abdication; he was then hurried to the Danube at Rakhovo and transported to Russian soil at Reni. This violent act met with instant disapproval on the part of the great majority of the nation. Stamboloff, the president of the assembly, and Colonel Mutkuroff, commandant of the troops at Philippopolis, initiated a counter-revolution; the provisional government set up by the conspirators immediately fell, and a few days later the prince, who had been liberated by the Russian authorities, returned to the country amid every demonstration of popular sympathy and affection. His arrival forestalled that of a Russian imperial commissioner, who had been appointed to proceed to Bulgaria. He now committed the error of addressing a telegram to the tsar in which he offered to resign his crown into the hands of Russia. This unfortunate step, by which he ignored the suzerainty of Turkey, and represented Bulgaria as a Russian dependency, exposed him to a stern rebuff, and fatally compromised his position. The national leaders, after obtaining a promise from the Russian representative at Sofia that Russia would abstain from interference in the internal affairs of the country, consented to his departure; on the 8th of September he announced his abdication, and on the following day he left Bulgaria.
The Regency.—A regency was now formed, in which the prominent figure was Stamboloff, the most remarkable man whom modern Bulgaria has produced. A series of attempts to throw the country into anarchy were firmly dealt with, and the Grand Sobranye was summoned to elect a new prince. The candidature of the prince of Mingrelia was now set up by Russia, and General Kaulbars was despatched to Bulgaria to make known to the people the wishes of the tsar. He vainly endeavoured to postpone the convocation of the Grand Sobranye in order to gain time for the restoration of Russian influence, and proceeded on an electoral tour through the country. The failure of his mission was followed by the withdrawal of the Russian representatives from Bulgaria. The Grand Sobranye, which assembled at Trnovo, offered the crown to Prince Valdemar of Denmark, brother-in-law of the tsar, but the honour was declined, and an anxious period ensued, during which a deputation visited the principal capitals of Europe with the twofold object of winning sympathy for the cause of Bulgarian independence and discovering a suitable candidate for the throne.
Prince Ferdinand.—On the 7th of July 1887, the Grand Sobranye unanimously elected Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, a grandson, maternally, of King Louis Philippe. The new prince, who was twenty-six years of age, was at this time a lieutenant in the Austrian army. Undeterred by the difficulties of the international situation and the distracted condition of the country, he accepted the crown, and took over the government on the 14th of August at Trnovo. His arrival, which was welcomed with enthusiasm, put an end to a long and critical interregnum, but the dangers which menaced Bulgarian independence were far from disappearing. Russia declared the newly-elected sovereign a usurper; the other powers, in deference to her susceptibilities, declined to recognize him, and the grand vizier informed him that his presence in Bulgaria was illegal. Numerous efforts were made by the partisans of Russia to disturb internal tranquillity, and Stamboloff, who became prime minister on the 1st of September, found it necessary to govern with a strong hand. A raid led by the Russian captain Nabokov was repulsed; brigandage, maintained for political purposes, was exterminated; the bishops of the Holy Synod, who, at the instigation of Clement, refused to pay homage to the prince, were forcibly removed from Sofia; a military conspiracy organized by Major Panitza was crushed, and its leader executed. An attempt to murder the energetic prime minister resulted in the death of his colleague, Beltcheff, and shortly afterwards Dr Vlkovitch, the Bulgarian representative at Constantinople, was assassinated. While contending with unscrupulous enemies at home, Stamboloff pursued a successful policy abroad. Excellent relations were established with Turkey and Rumania, valuable concessions were twice extracted from the Porte in regard to the Bulgarian episcopate in Macedonia, and loans were concluded with foreign financiers on comparatively favourable terms. His overbearing character, however, increased the number of his opponents, and alienated the goodwill of the prince.
In the spring of 1893 Prince Ferdinand married Princess Marie-Louise of Bourbon-Parma, whose family insisted on the condition that the issue of the marriage should be brought up in the Roman Catholic faith. In view of the importance of establishing a dynasty, Stamboloff resolved on the unpopular course of altering the clause of the constitution which required that the heir to the throne should belong to the Orthodox Church, and the Grand Sobranye, which was convoked at Trnovo in the summer, gave effect to this decision. The death of Prince Alexander, which took place in the autumn, and the birth of an heir, tended to strengthen the position of Prince Ferdinand, who now assumed a less compliant attitude towards the prime minister. In 1894 Stamboloff resigned office; a ministry was formed under Dr Stoïloff, and Prince Ferdinand inaugurated a policy of conciliation towards Russia with a view to obtaining his recognition by the powers. A Russophilreaction followed, large numbers of political refugees returned to Bulgaria, and Stamboloff, exposed to the vengeance of his enemies, was assassinated in the streets of Sofia (15th July 1895).
The prince's plans were favoured by the death of the tsar Alexander III. in November 1894, and the reconciliation was practically effected by the conversion of his eldest son, Prince Boris, to the Orthodox faith (14th February 1896). The powers having signified their assent, he was nominated by the sultan prince of Bulgaria and governor-general of Eastern Rumelia (14th March). Russian influence now became predominant in Bulgaria, but the cabinet of St Petersburg wisely abstained from interfering in the internal affairs of the principality. In February 1896 Russia proposed the reconciliation of the Greek and Bulgarian churches and the removal of the exarch to Sofia. The project, which involved a renunciation of the exarch's jurisdiction in Macedonia, excited strong opposition in Bulgaria, and was eventually dropped. The death of Princess Marie-Louise (30th January 1899), caused universal regret in the country. In the same month the Stoïloff government, which had weakly tampered with the Macedonian movement (seeMacedonia) and had thrown the finances into disorder, resigned, and a ministry under Grekoff succeeded, which endeavoured to mend the economic situation by means of a foreign loan. The loan, however, fell through, and in October a new government was formed under Ivanchoff and Radoslavoff. This, in its turn, was replaced by acabinet d'affairesunder General Petroff (January 1901).
In the following March Karaveloff for the third time became prime minister. His efforts to improve the financial situation, which now became alarming, proved abortive, and in January 1902 a Tzankovist cabinet was formed under Daneff, who succeeded in obtaining a foreign loan. Russian influence now became predominant, and in the autumn the grand-duke Nicholas, General Ignatiev, and a great number of Russian officers were present at the consecration of a Russian church and monastery in the Shipka pass. But the appointment of Mgr. Firmilian, a Servian prelate, to the important see of Uskub at the instance of Russia, the suspected designs of that power on the ports of Varna and Burgas, and her unsympathetic attitude in regard to the Macedonian Question, tended to diminish her popularity and that of the government. A cabinet crisis was brought about in May 1903, by the efforts of the Russian party to obtain control of the army, and the Stambolovists returned to power under General Petroff. A violent recrudescence of the Macedonian agitation took place in the autumn of 1902; at the suggestion of Russia the leaders were imprisoned, but the movement nevertheless gained force, and in August 1903 a revolt broke out in the vilayet of Monastir, subsequently spreading to the districts of northern Macedonia and Adrianople (seeMacedonia). The barbarities committed by the Turks in repressing the insurrection caused great exasperation in the principality; the reserves were partially mobilized, and the country was brought to the brink of war. In pursuance of the policy of Stamboloff, the Petroff government endeavoured to inaugurate friendly relations with Turkey, and a Turco-Bulgarian convention was signed (8th April 1904) which, however, proved of little practical value.
The outrages committed by numerous Greek bands in Macedonia led to reprisals on the Greek population in Bulgaria in the summer of 1906, and the town of Anchialo was partially destroyed. On the 6th of November in that year Petroff resigned, and Petkoff, the leader of the Stambolovist party, formed a ministry. The prime minister, a statesman of undoubted patriotism but of overbearing character, was assassinated on the 11th of March 1907 by a youth who had been dismissed from a post in one of the agricultural banks, and the cabinet was reconstituted under Gudeff, a member of the same party.
Declaration of Independence.—During the thirty years of its existence the principality had made rapid and striking progress. Its inhabitants, among whom a strong sense of nationality had grown up, were naturally anxious to escape from the restrictions imposed by the treaty of Berlin. That Servia should be an independent state, while Bulgaria, with its greater economic and military resources, remained tributary to the Sultan, was an anomaly which all classes resented; and although the Ottoman suzerainty was little more than a constitutional fiction, and the tribute imposed in 1878 was never paid, the Bulgarians were almost unanimous in their desire to end a system which made their country the vassal of a Moslem state notorious for its maladministration and corruption. This desire was strengthened by the favourable reception accorded to Prince Ferdinand when he visited Vienna in February 1908, and by the so-called "Geshoff incident,"i.e.the exclusion of M. Geshoff, the Bulgarian agent, from a dinner given by Tewfik Pasha, the Ottoman minister for foreign affairs, to the ministers of all the sovereign states represented at Constantinople (12th of September 1908). This was interpreted as an insult to the Bulgarian nation, and as the explanation offered by the grand vizier was unsatisfactory, M. Geshoff was recalled to Sofia. At this time the bloodless revolution in Turkey seemed likely to bring about a fundamental change in the settled policy of Bulgaria. For many years past Bulgarians had hoped that their own orderly and progressive government, which had contrasted so strongly with the evils of Turkish rule, would entitle them to consideration, and perhaps to an accession of territory, when the time arrived for a definite settlement of the Macedonian Question. Now, however, the reforms introduced or foreshadowed by the Young Turkish party threatened to deprive Bulgaria of any pretext for future intervention; there was nothing to be gained by further acquiescence in the conditions laid down at Berlin. An opportunity for effective action occurred within a fortnight of M. Geshoff's recall, when a strike broke out on those sections of the Eastern Rumelian railways which were owned by Turkey and leased to the Oriental Railways Company. The Bulgarians alleged that during the strike Turkish troops were able to travel on the lines which were closed to all other traffic, and that this fact constituted a danger to their own autonomy. The government therefore seized the railway, in defiance of European opinion, and in spite of the protests of the suzerain power and the Oriental Railways Company. The bulk of the Turkish army was then in Asia, and the new régime was not yet firmly established, while the Bulgarian government were probably aware that Russia would not intervene, and that Austria-Hungary intended to annex Bosnia and Herzegovina, and thus incidentally to divert attention from their own violation of the treaty of Berlin. On the 5th of October Prince Ferdinand publicly proclaimed Bulgaria, united since the 6th of September 1885 (i.e.including Eastern Rumelia), an independent kingdom. This declaration was read aloud by the king in the church of the Forty Martyrs at Trnovo, the ancient capital of the Bulgarian tsars. The Porte immediately protested to the powers, but agreed to accept an indemnity. In February 1909 the Russian government proposed to advance to Bulgaria the difference between the £4,800,000 claimed by Turkey and the £1,520,000 which Bulgaria undertook to pay. A preliminary Russo-Turkish protocol was signed on the 16th of March, and in April, after the final agreement had been concluded, the independence of Bulgaria was recognized by the powers. Of the indemnity, £1,680,000 was paid on account of the Eastern Rumelian railways; the allocation of this sum between Turkey and the Oriental railways was submitted to arbitration. (SeeTurkey:History.)
Language and Literature
Language.—The Bulgarian is at once the most ancient and the most modern of the languages which constitute the Slavonic group. In its groundwork it presents the nearest approach to the old ecclesiastical Slavonic, the liturgical language common to all the Orthodox Slavs, but it has undergone more important modifications than any of the sister dialects in the simplification of its grammatical forms; and the analytical character of its development may be compared with that of the neo-Latin and Germanic languages. The introduction of the definite article, which appears in the form of a suffix, and the almost total disappearance of the ancient declensions, for which the use ofprepositions has been substituted, distinguish the Bulgarian from all the other members of the Slavonic family. Notwithstanding these changes, which give the language an essentially modern aspect, its close affinity with the ecclesiastical Slavonic, the oldest written dialect, is regarded as established by several eminent scholars, such as Šafařik, Schleicher, Leskien and Brugman, and by many Russian philologists. These authorities agree in describing the liturgical language as "Old Bulgarian." A different view, however, is maintained by Miklosich, Kopitar and some others, who regard it as "Old Slovene." According to the more generally accepted theory, the dialect spoken by the Bulgarian population in the neighbourhood of Salonica, the birthplace of SS. Cyril and Methodius, was employed by the Slavonic apostles in their translations from the Greek, which formed the model for subsequent ecclesiastical literature. This view receives support from the fact that the two nasal vowels of the Church-Slavonic (the greater and lesserûs), which have been modified in all the cognate languages except Polish, retain their original pronunciation locally in the neighbourhood of Salonica and Castoria; in modern literary Bulgarian therhinesmushas disappeared, but the old nasal vowels preserve a peculiar pronunciation, the greaterûschanging toŭ, as in English "but," the lesser toĕ, as in "bet," while in Servian, Russian and Slovene the greaterûsbecomesūorō, the lessereorya. The remnants of the declensions still existing in Bulgarian (mainly in pronominal and adverbial forms) show a close analogy to those of the old ecclesiastical language.
The Slavonic apostles wrote in the 9th century (St Cyril died in 869, St Methodius in 885), but the original manuscripts have not been preserved. The oldest existing copies, which date from the 10th century, already betray the influence of the contemporary vernacular speech, but as the alterations introduced by the copyists are neither constant nor regular, it is possible to reconstruct the original language with tolerable certainty. The "Old Bulgarian," or archaic Slavonic, was an inflexional language of the synthetic type, containing few foreign elements in its vocabulary. The Christian terminology was, of course, mainly Greek; the Latin or German words which occasionally occur were derived from Moravia and Pannonia, where the two saints pursued their missionary labours. In course of time it underwent considerable modifications, both phonetic and structural, in the various Slavonic countries in which it became the liturgical language, and the various MSS. are consequently classified as "Servian-Slavonic," "Croatian-Slavonic," "Russian-Slavonic," &c., according to the different recensions. The "Russian-Slavonic" is the liturgical language now in general use among the Orthodox Slavs of the Balkan Peninsula owing to the great number of ecclesiastical books introduced from Russia in the 17th and 18th centuries; until comparatively recent times it was believed to be the genuine language of the Slavonic apostles. Among the Bulgarians the spoken language of the 9th century underwent important changes during the next three hundred years. The influence of these changes gradually asserts itself in the written language; in the period extending from the 12th to the 15th century the writers still endeavoured to follow the archaic model, but it is evident that the vernacular had already become widely different from the speech of SS. Cyril and Methodius. The language of the MSS. of this period is known as the "Middle Bulgarian"; it stands midway between the old ecclesiastical Slavonic and the modern speech.
In the first half of the 16th century the characteristic features of the modern language became apparent in the literary monuments. These features undoubtedly displayed themselves at a much earlier period in the oral speech; but the progress of their development has not yet been completely investigated. Much light may be thrown on this subject by the examination of many hitherto little-known manuscripts and by the scientific study of the folk-songs. In addition to the employment of the article, the loss of the noun-declensions, and the modification of the nasal vowels above alluded to, the disappearance in pronunciation of the final vowelsyer-golêmandyer-malúk, the loss of the infinitive, and the increased variety of the conjugations, distinguish the modern from the ancient language. The suffix-article, which is derived from the demonstrative pronoun, is a feature peculiar to the Bulgarian among Slavonic and to the Rumanian among Latin languages. This and other points of resemblance between these remotely related members of the Indo-European group are shared by the Albanian, probably the representative of the old Illyrian language, and have consequently been attributed to the influence of the aboriginal speech of the Peninsula. A demonstrative suffix, however, is sometimes found in Russian and Polish, and traces of the article in an embryonic state occur in the "Old Bulgarian" MSS. of the 10th and 11th centuries. In some Bulgarian dialects it assumes different forms according to the proximity or remoteness of the object mentioned. Thuszhena-tais "the woman";zhena-vaorzhena-sa, "the woman close by";zhena-na, "the woman yonder." In the borderland between the Servian and Bulgarian nationalities the local use of the article supplies the means of drawing an ethnological frontier; it is nowhere more marked than in the immediate neighbourhood of the Servian population, as, for instance, at Dibra and Prilep. The modern Bulgarian has admitted many foreign elements. It contains about 2000 Turkish and 1000 Greek words dispersed in the various dialects; some Persian and Arabic words have entered through the Turkish medium, and a few Rumanian and Albanian words are found. Most of these are rejected by the purism of the literary language, which, however, has been compelled to borrow the phraseology of modern civilization from the Russian, French and other European languages. The dialects spoken in the kingdom may be classed in two groups—the eastern and the western. The main point of difference is the pronunciation of the letteryedvoïno, which in the eastern has frequently the sound ofya, in the western invariably that ofein "pet." The literary language began in the western dialect under the twofold influence of Servian literature and the Church Slavonic. In a short time, however, the eastern dialect prevailed, and the influence of Russian literature became predominant. An anti-Russian reaction was initiated by Borgoroff (1818-1892), and has been maintained by numerous writers educated in the German and Austrian universities. Since the foundation of the university of Sofia the literary language has taken a middle course between the ultra-Russian models of the past generation and the dialectic Bulgarian. Little uniformity, however, has yet been attained in regard to diction, orthography or pronunciation.
The Bulgarians of pagan times are stated by the monk Khrabr, a contemporary of Tsar Simeon, to have employed a peculiar writing, of which inscriptions recently found near Kaspitchan may possibly be specimens. The earliest manuscripts of the "Old Bulgarian" are written in one or other of the two alphabets known as the glagolitic and Cyrillic (seeSlavs). The former was used by Bulgarian writers concurrently with the Cyrillic down to the 12th century. Among the orthodox Slavs the Cyrillic finally superseded the glagolitic; as modified by Peter the Great it became the Russian alphabet, which, with the revival of literature, was introduced into Servia and Bulgaria. Some Russian letters which are superfluous in Bulgarian have been abandoned by the native writers, and a few characters have been restored from the ancient alphabet.
Literature.—The ancient Bulgarian literature, originating in the works of SS. Cyril and Methodius and their disciples, consisted for the most part of theological works translated from the Greek. From the conversion of Boris down to the Turkish conquest the religious character predominates, and the influence of Byzantine literature is supreme. Translations of the gospels and epistles, lives of the saints, collections of sermons, exegetic religious works, translations of Greek chronicles, and miscellanies such as theSbornikof St Sviatoslav, formed the staple of the national literature. In the time of Tsar Simeon, himself an author, considerable literary activity prevailed; among the more remarkable works of this period was theShestodnev, or Hexameron, of John the exarch, an account of the creation. A little later the heresy of the Bogomils gave an impulse to controversial writing. The principal champions of orthodoxy were St Kosmâs and the monk Athanas of Jerusalem; among the Bogomils theQuestions of St Ivan Bogosloff, a work containing a description of the beginning and the end of the world, was held in high esteem. Contemporaneously with the spread of this sect a number of apocryphal works, based on the Scripture narrative, but embellished with Oriental legends of a highly imaginative character, obtained great popularity. Together with these religious writings works of fiction, also of Oriental origin, made their appearance, such as the life of Alexander the Great, the story of Troy, the tales ofStephanit and IchnilatandBarlaam and Josaphat, the latter founded on the biography of Buddha. These were for the most part reproductions or variations of the fantastical romances which circulated through Europe in the middle ages, and many of them have left traces in the national legends and folk-songs. In the 13th century, under the Asên dynasty, numerous historical works or chronicles (lêtopisi) were composed. State records appear to have existed, but none of them have been preserved. With the Ottoman conquest literature disappeared; the manuscripts became the food of moths and worms, or fell a prey to the fanaticism of the Phanariot clergy. The library of the patriarchs of Trnovo was committed to the flames by the Greek metropolitan Hilarion in 1825.
The monk Païsii (born about 1720) and Bishop Sofronii (1739-1815) have already been mentioned as the precursors of the literaryrevival. TheIstoria Slaveno-Bolgarska(1762) of Païsii, written in the solitude of Mount Athos, was a work of little historical value, but its influence upon the Bulgarian race was immense. An ardent patriot, Païsii recalls the glories of the Bulgarian tsars and saints, rebukes his fellow-countrymen for allowing themselves to be called Greeks, and denounces the arbitrary proceedings of the Phanariot prelates. TheLife and Sufferings of sinful Sofronii(1804) describes in simple and touching language the condition of Bulgaria at the beginning of the 19th century. Both works were written in a modified form of the church Slavonic. The first printed work in the vernacular appears to have been theKyriakodromion, a translation of sermons, also by Sofronii, published in 1806. The Servian and Greek insurrections quickened the patriotic sentiments of the Bulgarian refugees and merchants in Rumania, Bessarabia and southern Russia, and Bucharest became the centre of their political and literary activity. A modestbukvar, or primer, published at Kronstadt by Berovitch in 1824, was the first product of the new movement. Translations of the Gospels, school reading-books, short histories and various elementary treatises now appeared. With the multiplication of books came the movement for establishing Bulgarian schools, in which the monk Neophyt Rilski (1793-1881) played a leading part. He was the author of the first Bulgarian grammar (1835) and other educational works, and translated the New Testament into the modern language. Among the writers of the literary renaissance were George Rakovski (1818-1867), a fantastic writer of the patriotic type, whose works did much to stimulate the national zeal, Liuben Karaveloff (1837-1879), journalist and novelist, Christo Boteff (1847-1876), lyric poet, whose ode on the death of his friend Haji Dimitr, an insurgent leader, is one of the best in the language, and Petko Slaveikoff (died 1895), whose poems, patriotic, satirical and erotic, moulded the modern poetical language and exercised a great influence over the people. Gavril Krstovitch, formerly governor-general of eastern Rumelia, and Marin Drinoff, a Slavist of high repute, have written historical works. Stamboloff, the statesman, was the author of revolutionary and satirical ballads; his friend Zacharia Stoyanoff (d. 1889), who began life as a shepherd, has left some interesting memoirs. The most distinguished Bulgarian man of letters is Ivan Vazoff (b. 1850), whose epic and lyric poems and prose works form the best specimens of the modern literary language. His novelPod Igoto(Under the Yoke) has been translated into several European languages. The best dramatic work isIvanko, a historical play by Archbishop Clement, who also wrote some novels. With the exception of Zlatarski's and Boncheff's geological treatises and contributions by Georgieff, Petkoff, Tosheff and Urumoff to Velnovski'sFlora Bulgarica, no original works on natural science have as yet been produced; a like dearth is apparent in the fields of philosophy, criticism and fine art, but it must be remembered that the literature is still in its infancy. The ancient folk-songs have been preserved in several valuable collections; though inferior to the Servian in poetic merit, they deserve scientific attention. Several periodicals and reviews have been founded in modern times. Of these the most important are thePerioditchesko Spisanie, issued since 1869 by the Bulgarian Literary Society, and theSbornik, a literary and scientific miscellany, formerly edited by Dr Shishmanoff, latterly by the Literary Society, and published by the government at irregular intervals.
Authorities.—C.J. Jireček,Das Furstenthum Bulgarien(Prague, 1891), andCesty po Bulharsku(Travels in Bulgaria), (Prague, 1888), both works of the first importance; Léon Lamouche,La Bulgarie dans le passé et le présent(Paris, 1892); Prince Francis Joseph of Battenberg,Die Volkswirthschaftliche Entwicklung Bulgarians(Leipzig, 1891); F. Kanitz,Donau-Bulgarien und der Balkan(Leipzig, 1882); A.G. Drander,Événements politiques en Bulgarie(Paris, 1896); andLe Prince Alexandre de Battenberg(Paris, 1884); A. Strausz,Die Bulgaren(Leipzig, 1898); A. Tuma,Die östliche Balkanhalbinsel(Vienna, 1886); A. de Gubernatis,La Bulgarie et les Bulgares(Florence, 1899); E. Blech,Consular Report on Bulgaria in 1889(London, 1890);La Bulgarie contemporaine(issued by the Bulgarian Ministry of Commerce and Agriculture), (Brussels, 1905). Geology: F. Toula,Reisen und geologische Untersuchungen in Bulgarien(Vienna, 1890); J. Cvijić, "Die Tektonik der Balkanhalbinsel," inC.R. IX. Cong. géol. intern. de Vienne, pp. 348-370, with map, 1904. History: C.J. Jireček,Geschichte der Bulgaren(Prague, 1876); (a summary inThe Balkans, by William Miller, London, 1896); Sokolov,Iz drevneì istorii Bolgar(Petersburg, 1879); Uspenski,Obrazovanïe vtorago Bolgarskago tsarstva(Odessa, 1879);Acta Bulgariae ecclesiastica, published by the South Slavonic Academy (Agram, 1887). Language: F. Miklosich,Vergleichende Grammatik(Vienna, 1879); andGeschichte d. Lautbezeichnung im Bulgarischen(Vienna, 1883); A. Leskien,Handbuch d. altbulgarischen Sprache(with a glossary), (Wiemar, 1886); L. Miletich,Staroblgarska Gramatika(Sofia, 1896);Das Ostbulgarische(Vienna, 1903); Labrov,Obzor zvulkovikh i formalnikh osobenostei Bolgarskago yezika(Moscow, 1893); W.R. Morfill,A Short Grammar of the Bulgarian Language(London, 1897); F. Vymazal,Die Kunst die bulgarische Sprache leicht und schnell zu erlernen(Vienna, 1888). Literature: L.A.H. Dozon,Chansons populaires bulgares inédites(with French translations), (Paris, 1875); A. Strausz,Bulgarische Volksdichtungen(translations with a preface and notes), (Vienna and Leipzig, 1895); Lydia Shishmanov,Légendes religieuses bulgares(Paris, 1896); Pypin and Spasovich,History of the Slavonic Literature(in Russian, St Petersburg, 1879), (French translation, Paris, 1881); Vazov and Velitchkov,Bulgarian Chrestomathy(Philippopolis, 1884); Teodorov,Blgarska Literatura(Philippopolis, 1896); Collections of folk-songs, proverbs, &c., by the brothers Miladinov (Agram, 1861), Bezsonov (Moscow, 1855), Kachanovskiy (Petersburg, 1882), Shapkarev (Philippopolis, 1885), Iliev (Sofia, 1889), P. Slaveïkov (Sofia, 1899). See alsoThe Shade of the Balkans, by Pencho Slaveïkov, H. Bernard and E.J. Dillon (London, 1904).
(J. D. B.)
BULGARIA, EASTERN,formerly a powerful kingdom which existed from the 5th to the 15th century on the middle Volga, in the present territory of the provinces of Samara, Simbirsk, Saratov and N. Astrakhan, perhaps extending also into Perm. The village Bolgari near Kanzañ, surrounded by numerous graves in which most interesting archaeological finds have been made, occupies the site of one of the cities—perhaps the capital—of that extinct kingdom. The history,Tarikh Bulgar, said to have been written in the 12th century by an Arabian cadi of the city Bolgari, has not yet been discovered; but the Arabian historians, Ibn Foslan, Ibn Haukal, Abul Hamid Andalusi, Abu Abdallah Harnati, and several others, who had visited the kingdom, beginning with the 10th century, have left descriptions of it. The Bulgars of the Volga were of Turkish origin, but may have assimilated Finnish and, later, Slavonian elements. In the 5th century they attacked the Russians in the Black Sea prairies, and afterwards made raids upon the Greeks. In 922, when they were converted to Islam, Ibn Foslan found them not quite nomadic, and already having some permanent settlements and houses in wood. Stone houses were built soon after that by Arabian architects. Ibn Dasta found amongst them agriculture besides cattle breeding. Trade with Persia and India, as also with the Khazars and the Russians, and undoubtedly with Biarmia (Urals), was, however, their chief occupation, their main riches being furs, leather, wool, nuts, wax and so on. After their conversion to Islam they began building forts, several of which are mentioned in Russian annals. Their chief town, Bolgari or Velikij Gorod (Great Town) of the Russian annals, was often raided by the Russians. In the 13th century it was conquered by the Mongols, and became for a time the seat of the khans of the Golden Horde. In the second half of the 15th century Bolgari became part of the Kazañ kingdom, lost its commercial and political importance, and was annexed to Russia after the fall of Kazañ.
(P. A. K.)
BULGARUS,an Italian jurist of the 12th century, born at Bologna, sometimes erroneously called Bulgarinus, which was properly the name of a jurist of the 15th century. He was the most celebrated of the famous "Four Doctors" of the law school of that university, and was regarded as the Chrysostom of the Gloss-writers, being frequently designated by the title of the "Golden Mouth" (os aureum). He died in 1166A.D., at a very advanced age. Popular tradition represents all the Four Doctors (Bulgarus, Martinus Gosia, Hugo de Porta Ravennate and Jacobus de Boragine) as pupils of Irnerius (q.v.), but while there is no insuperable difficulty in point of time in accepting this tradition as far as regards Bulgarus, Savigny considers the general tradition inadmissible as regards the others. Martinus Gosia and Bulgarus were the chiefs of two opposite schools at Bologna, corresponding in many respects to the Proculians and Sabinians of Imperial Rome, Martinus being at the head of a school which accommodated the law to what his opponents styled the equity of "the purse" (aequitas bursalis), whilst Bulgarus adhered more closely to the letter of the law. The school of Bulgarus ultimately prevailed, and it numbered amongst its adherents Joannes Bassianus, Azo and Accursius, each of whom in his turn exercised a commanding influence over the course of legal studies at Bologna. Bulgarus took the leading part amongst the Four Doctors at the diet of Roncaglia in 1158, and was one of the most trusted advisers of the emperor Frederick I. His most celebrated work is his commentaryDe Regulis Juris, which was at one time printed amongst the writings of Placentius, but has been properly reassigned to its true author by Cujacius, upon the internal evidence contained in the additions annexed to it, which are undoubtedly from the pen of Placentinus. ThisCommentary, which is the earliest extant work of its kind emanating from the school of the Gloss-writers, is, according to Savigny, a model specimen of the excellence of the method introduced by Irnerius, and a striking example of the brilliant results which had been obtained in a short space of time by a constant and exclusive study of the sources of law.
BULL, GEORGE(1634-1710), English divine, was born at Wells on the 25th of March 1634, and educated at Tiverton school, Devonshire. He entered Exeter College, Oxford, in 1647, but had to leave in 1649 in consequence of his refusal to take the oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth. He was ordained privately by Bishop Skinner in 1655. His first benefice held was that of St George's near Bristol, from which he rose successively to be rector of Suddington in Gloucestershire (1658), prebendary of Gloucester (1678), archdeacon of Llandaff (1686), and in 1705 bishop of St David's. He died on the 17th of February 1710. During the time of the Commonwealth he adhered to the forms of the Church of England, and under James II. preached strenuously against Roman Catholicism. His works display great erudition and powerful thinking. TheHarmonia Apostolica(1670) is an attempt to show the fundamental agreement between the doctrines of Paul and James with regard to justification. TheDefensio Fidei Nicenae(1685), his greatest work, tries to show that the doctrine of the Trinity was held by the ante-Nicene fathers of the church, and retains its value as a thorough-going examination of all the pertinent passages in early church literature. TheJudicium Ecclesiae Catholicae(1694) andPrimitiva et Apostolica Traditio(1710) won high praise from Bossuet and other French divines. Following on Bossuet's criticisms of theJudicium, Bull wrote a treatise onThe Corruptions of the Church of Rome, which became very popular.
The best edition of Bull's works is that in 7 vols., published at Oxford by the Clarendon Press, under the superintendence of E. Burton, in 1827. This edition contains theLifeby Robert Nelson. TheHarmonia, DefensioandJudiciumare translated in the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology (Oxford, 1842-1855).
BULL, JOHN(c.1562-1628), English composer and organist, was born in Somersetshire about 1562. After being organist in Hereford cathedral, he joined the Chapel Royal in 1585, and in the next year became a Mus. Bac. of Oxford. In 1591 he was appointed organist in Queen Elizabeth's chapel in succession to Blitheman, from whom he had received his musical education. In 1592 he received the degree of doctor of music at Cambridge University; and in 1596 he was made music professor at Gresham College, London. As he was unable to lecture in Latin according to the foundation-rules of that college, the executors of Sir Thomas Gresham made a dispensation in his favour by permitting him to lecture in English. He gave his first lecture on the 6th of October 1597. In 1601 Bull went abroad. He visited France and Germany, and was everywhere received with the respect due to his talents. Anthony Wood tells an impossible story of how at St Omer Dr Bull performed the feat of adding, within a few hours, forty parts to a composition already written in forty parts. Honourable employments were offered to him by various continental princes; but he declined them, and returned to England, where he was given the freedom of the Merchant Taylors' Company in 1606. He played upon a small pair of organs before King James I. on the 16th of July 1607, in the hall of the Company, and he seems to have been appointed one of the king's organists in that year. In the same year he resigned his Gresham professorship and married Elizabeth Walter. In 1613 he again went to the continent on account of his health, obtaining a post as one of the organists in the arch-duke's chapel at Brussels. In 1617 he was appointed organist to the cathedral of Notre Dame at Antwerp, and he died in that city on the 12th or 13th of March 1628. Little of his music has been published, and the opinions of critics differ much as to its merits (see Dr Willibald Nagel'sGeschichte der Musik in England, ii. (1897), p. 155, &c.; and Dr Seiffert'sGeschichte der Klaviermusik(1899), p. 54, &c.). Contemporary writers speak in the highest terms of Bull's skill as a performer on the organ and the virginals, and there is no doubt that he contributed much to the development of harpsichord music. Jan Swielinck (1562-1621), the great organist of Amsterdam, did not regard his work on composition as complete without placing in it a canon by John Bull, and the latter wrote a fantasia upon a fugue of Swielinck. For the ascription to Bull of the composition of the British national anthem, seeNational Anthems. Good modern reprints,e.g.of the FitzwilliamVirginal-Book, "The King's Hunting Jig," and one or two other pieces, are in the repertories of modern pianists from Rubinstein onwards.
BULL, OLE BORNEMANN(1810-1880), Norwegian violinist, was born in Bergen, Norway, on the 5th of February 1810. At first a pupil of the violinist Paulsen, and subsequently self-taught, he was intended for the church, but failed in his examinations in 1828 and became a musician, directing the philharmonic and dramatic societies at Bergen. In 1829 he went to Cassel, on a visit to Spohr, who gave him no encouragement. He now began to study law, but on going to Paris he came under the influence of Paganini, and definitely adopted the career of a violin virtuoso. He made his first appearance in company with Ernst and Chopin at a concert of his own in Paris in 1832. Successful tours in Italy and England followed soon afterwards, and he was not long in obtaining European celebrity by his brilliant playing of his own pieces and arrangements. His first visit to the United States lasted from 1843 to 1845, and on his return to Norway he formed a scheme for the establishment of a Norse theatre in Bergen; this became an accomplished fact in 1850; but in consequence of harassing business complications he went again to America. During this visit (1852-1857) he bought 125,000 acres in Potter county, Pennsylvania, for a Norwegian colony, which was to have been called Oleana after his name; but his title turned out to be fraudulent, and the troubles he went through in connexion with the undertaking were enough to affect his health very seriously, though not to hinder him for long from the exercise of his profession. Another attempt to found an academy of music in Christiania had no permanent result. In 1836 he had married Alexandrine Félicie Villeminot, the grand-daughter of a lady to whom he owed much at the beginning of his musical career in Paris; she died in 1862. In 1870 he married Sara C. Thorpe of Wisconsin; henceforth he confined himself to the career of a violinist. He died at Lysö, near Bergen, on the 17th of August 1880. Ole Bull's "polacca guerriera" and many of his other violin pieces, among them two concertos, are interesting to the virtuoso, and his fame rests upon his prodigious technique. The memoir published by his widow in 1886 contains many illustrations of a career that was exceptionally brilliant; it gives a picture of a strong individuality, which often found expression in a somewhat boisterous form of practical humour.
There is a fountain and portrait statue to his memory in the Ole Bulls Plads in Bergen.
BULL,(1) The male of animals belonging to the sectionBovinaof the familyBovidae(q.v.), particularly the uncastrated male of the domestic ox (Bos taurus). (SeeCattle.) The word, which is found in M.E. asbole, bolle(cf. Ger.Bulle, and Dutchbulorbol), is also used of the males of other animals of large size,e.g.the elephant, whale, &c. The O.E. diminutive formbulluc, meaning originally a young bull, or bull calf, survives in bullock, now confined to a young castrated male ox kept for slaughter for beef.
On the London and New York stock exchanges "bull" and "bear" are correlative technical slang terms. A "bull" is one who "buys for a rise,"i.e.he buys stocks or securities, grain or other commodities (which, however, he never intends to take up), in the hope that before the date on which he must take delivery he will be able to sell the stocks, &c., at a higher price, taking as a profit the difference between the buying and selling price. A "bear" is the reverse of a "bull." He is one who "sells for a fall,"i.e.he sells stock, &c., which he does not actually possess, in the hope of buying it at a lower price before the time at which he has contracted to deliver (seeAccount;Stock Exchange). The word "bull," according to theNew English Dictionary, was used in this sense as early as the beginning of the 18th century. The origin of the use is not known, though it is tempting to connect it with the fable of the frog and the bull.
The term "bull's eye" is applied to many circular objects, and particularly to the boss or protuberance left in the centre of a sheet of blown glass. This when cut off was formerly used for windows in small leaded panes. The French termœil de bœufis used of a circular window. Other circular objects to which the word is applied are the centre of a target or a shot that hits the central division of the target, a plano-convex lens in a microscope, a lantern with a convex glass in it, a thick circular piece of glass let into the deck or side of a ship, &c., for lighting the interior, a ring-shaped block grooved round the outer edge, and with a hole through the centre through which a rope can be passed, and also a small lurid cloud which in certain latitudes presages a hurricane.
(2) The use of the word "bull," for a verbal blunder, involving a contradiction in terms, is of doubtful origin. In this sense it is used with a possible punning reference to papal bulls in Milton'sTrue Religion, "and whereas the Papist boasts himself to be a Roman Catholick, it is a mere contradiction, one of the Pope's Bulls, as if he should say a universal particular, a Catholick schismatick." Probably this use may be traced to a M.E. wordbul, first found in theCursor Mundi, c. 1300, in the sense of falsehood, trickery, deceit; theNew English Dictionarycompares an O.Fr.boul,bouleorbole, in the same sense. Although modern associations connect this type of blunder with the Irish, possibly owing to the many famous "bulls" attributed to Sir Boyle Roche (q.v.), the early quotations show that in the 17th century, when the meaning now attached to the word begins, no special country was credited with them.
(3)Bulla(Lat for "bubble"), which gives us another "bull" in English, was the term used by the Romans for any boss or stud, such as those on doors, sword-belts, shields and boxes. It was applied, however, more particularly to an ornament, generally of gold, a round or heart-shaped box containing an amulet, worn suspended from the neck by children of noble birth until they assumed thetoga virilis, when it was hung up and dedicated to the household gods. The custom of wearing the bulla, which was regarded as a charm against sickness and the evil eye, was of Etruscan origin. After the Second Punic War all children of free birth were permitted to wear it; but those who did not belong to a noble or wealthy family were satisfied with a bulla of leather. Its use was only permitted to grown-up men in the case of generals who celebrated a triumph. Young girls (probably till the time of their marriage), and even favourite animals, also wore it (see Ficoroni,La Bolla d' Oro, 1732; Yates,Archaeological Journal, vi., 1849; viii., 1851). In ecclesiastical and medieval Latin,bulladenotes the seal of oval or circular form, bearing the name and generally the image of its owner, which was attached to official documents. A metal was used instead of wax in the warm countries of southern Europe. The best-known instances are the papalbullae, which have given their name to the documents (bulls) to which they are attached. (SeeDiplomatic;Seals;Curia Romana;Golden Bull.)
BULLER, CHARLES(1806-1848), English politician, son of Charles Buller (d. 1848), a member of a well-known Cornish family (see below), was born in Calcutta on the 6th of August 1806; his mother, a daughter of General William Kirkpatrick, was an exceptionally talented woman. He was educated at Harrow, then privately in Edinburgh by Thomas Carlyle, and afterwards at Trinity College, Cambridge, becoming a barrister in 1831. Before this date, however, he had succeeded his father as member of parliament for West Looe; after the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832 and the consequent disenfranchisement of this borough, he was returned to parliament by the voters of Liskeard. He retained this seat until he died in London on the 29th of November 1848, leaving behind him, so Charles Greville says, "a memory cherished for his delightful social qualities and a vast credit for undeveloped powers." An eager reformer and a friend of John Stuart Mill, Buller voted for the great Reform Bill, favoured other progressive measures, and presided over the committee on the state of the records and the one appointed to inquire into the state of election law in Ireland in 1836. In 1838 he went to Canada with Lord Durham as private secretary, and after rendering conspicuous service to his chief, returned with him to England in the same year. After practising as a barrister, Buller was made judge-advocate-general in 1846, and became chief commissioner of the poor law about a year before his death. For a long time it was believed that Buller wrote Lord Durham's famous "Report on the affairs of British North America." However, this is now denied by several authorities, among them being Durham's biographer, Stuart J. Reid, who mentions that Buller described this statement as a "groundless assertion" in an article which he wrote for theEdinburgh Review. Nevertheless it is quite possible that the "Report" was largely drafted by Buller, and it almost certainly bears traces of his influence. Buller was a very talented man, witty, popular and generous, and is described by Carlyle as "the genialest radical I have ever met." Among his intimate friends were Grote, Thackeray, Monckton Milnes and Lady Ashburton. A bust of Buller is in Westminster Abbey, and another was unveiled at Liskeard in 1905. He wrote "A Sketch of Lord Durham's mission to Canada," which has not been printed.
See T. Carlyle,Reminiscences(1881); and S.J. Reid,Life and Letters of the 1st earl of Durham(1906).
BULLER, SIR REDVERS HENRY(1839-1908), British general, son of James Wentworth Buller, M.P., of Crediton, Devonshire, and the descendant of an old Cornish family, long established in Devonshire, tracing its ancestry in the female line to Edward I., was born in 1839, and educated at Eton. He entered the army in 1858, and served with the 60th (King's Royal Rifles) in the China campaign of 1860. In 1870 he became captain, and went on the Red River expedition, where he was first associated with Colonel (afterwards Lord) Wolseley. In 1873-74 he accompanied the latter in the Ashantee campaign as head of the Intelligence Department, and was slightly wounded at the battle of Ordabai; he was mentioned in despatches, made a C.B., and raised to the rank of major. In 1874 he inherited the family estates. In the Kaffir War of 1878-79 and the Zulu War of 1879 he was conspicuous as an intrepid and popular leader, and acquired a reputation for courage and dogged determination. In particular his conduct of the retreat at Inhlobane (March 28, 1879) drew attention to these qualities, and on that occasion he earned the V.C.; he was also created C.M.G. and made lieutenant-colonel and A.D.C. to the queen. In the Boer War of 1881 he was Sir Evelyn Wood's chief of staff; and thus added to his experience of South African conditions of warfare. In 1882 he was head of the field intelligence department in the Egyptian campaign, and was knighted for his services. Two years later he commanded an infantry brigade in the Sudan under Sir Gerald Graham, and was at the battles of El Teb and Tamai, being promoted major-general for distinguished service. In the Sudan campaign of 1884-85 he was Lord Wolseley's chief of staff, and he was given command of the desert column when Sir Herbert Stewart was wounded. He distinguished himself by his conduct of the retreat from Gubat to Gakdul, and by his victory at Abu Klea (February 16-17), and he was created K.C.B. In 1886 he was sent to Ireland to inquire into the "moonlighting" outrages, and for a short time he acted as under-secretary for Ireland; but in 1887 he was appointed quartermaster-general at the war office. From 1890 to 1897 he held the office of adjutant-general, attaining the rank of lieutenant-general in 1891. At the war office his energy and ability inspired the belief that he was fitted for the highest command, and in 1895, when the duke of Cambridge was about to retire, it was well known that Lord Rosebery's cabinet intended to appoint Sir Redvers as chief of the staff under a scheme of reorganization recommended by Lord Hartington's commission. On the eve of this change, however, the government was defeated, and its successors appointed Lord Wolseley to the command under the old title of commander-in-chief. In 1896 he was made a full general.