Manufactures
The development of manufacturing enterprise on a large scale has been retarded by want of capital. The principal establishments for the native manufactures of aba and shayak (rough and fine homespuns), and of gaitan (braided embroidery) are at Sliven and Gabrovo respectively. The Bulgarian homespuns, which are made of pure wool, are of admirable quality. The exportation of textiles is almost exclusively to Turkey: value in 1896, £104,046; in 1898, £144,726; in 1904, £108,685. Unfortunately the home demand for native fabrics is diminishing owing to foreign competition; the smaller textile industries are declining, and the picturesque, durable, and comfortable costume of the country is giving way to cheap ready-made clothing imported from Austria. The government has endeavoured to stimulate the home industry by ordering all persons in its employment to wear the native cloth, and the army is supplied almost exclusively by the factories at Sliven. A great number of small distilleries exist throughout the country; there are breweries in all the principal towns, tanneries at Sevlievo, Varna, &c., numerous corn-mills worked by water and steam, and sawmills, turned by the mountain torrents, in the Balkans and Rhodope. A certain amount of foreign capital has been invested in industrial enterprises; the most notable are sugar-refineries in the neighbourhood of Sofia and Philippopolis, and a cotton-spinning mill at Varna, on which an English company has expended about £60,000 Commerce. - The usages of internal commerce have been considerably modified by the development of communications. The primitive system of barter in kind still exists in the rural districts, but is gradually disappearing. The great fairs (panairi, iravn-yi)pas) held at Eski-Jumaia, Dobritch and other towns, which formerly attracted multitudes of foreigners as well as natives, have lost much of their importance; a considerable amount of business, however, is still transacted at these gatherings, of which ninety-seven were held in 1898. The principal seats of the export trade are Varna, Burgas and Baltchik on the Black Sea, and Svishtov, Rustchuk, Nikopolis, Silistria, Rakhovo, and Vidin on the Danube. The chief centres of distribution for imports are Varna, Sofia, Rustchuk, Philippopolis and Burgas. About 10% of the exports passes over the Turkish frontier, but the government is making great efforts to divert the trade to Varna and Burgas, and important harbour works have been carried out at both these ports. The new port of Burgas was formally opened in 1904, that of Varna in 1906.
In °1887 the total value of Bulgarian foreign commerce was £4,4 1 9,5 8 9. The following table gives the values for the six years ending 1904. The great fluctuations in the exports are due to the variations of the harvest, on which the prosperity of the country practically depends The principal exports are cereals, live stock, homespuns, hides, cheese, eggs, attar of roses. Exports to the United Kingdom in 1900 were valued at £239,665 in 1904 at £989,127. The principal imports are textiles metal goods, colonial goods, implements, furniture, leather, petroleum. Imports from the United Kingdom in 1900, £301,150; in 1904, £793,972.
The National Bank, a state institution with a capital of £400,000, has its central establishment at Sofia, and branches at Philippopolis, Rustchuk, Varna, Trnovo and Burgas. Besides conducting the ordinary banking operations, it issues loans on mortgage. Four other banks have been founded at Sofia by groups of foreign and native capitalists. There are several private banks in the country. The Imperial Ottoman Bank and the Industrial Bank of Kiev have branches at Philippopolis and Sofia respectively. The agricultural chests, founded by Midhat Pasha in 1863, and reorganized in 1894, have done much to rescue the peasantry from the hands of usurers. They serve as treasuries for the local administration, accept deposits at interest, and make loans to the peasants on mortgage or the security of two solvent landowners at 8%. Their capital in 1887 was £569,260; in 1904, £1,440,000. Since 1893 they have been constituted as the "Bulgarian Agricultural Bank"; the central direction is at Sofia. The post-office savings bank, established 1896, had in 1905 a capital of £1,360,560.
There are over 200 registered provident societies in the country. The legal rate of interest is 10%, but much higher rates are not uncommon.
Bulgaria, like the neighbouring states of the Peninsula, has adopted the metric system. Turkish weights and measures, however, are still largely employed in local commerce. The monetary unit is the lee, or "lion"(pl. leva), nominally equal to the franc, with its submultiple the stotinka (pl.-ki), or centime. The coinage consists of nickel and bronze coins (21 f 5, 10 and 20 stotinki) and silver coins (50 stotinki; 1, 2 and 5 leva). A gold coinage was struck in 1893 with pieces corresponding to those of the Latin Union. The Turkish pound and foreign gold coins are also in general circulation. The National Bank issues notes for 5, 10, 20, 50 and Too leva, payable in gold. Notes payable in silver are also issued.
Finance.-It is only possible here to deal with Bulgarian finance prior to the declaration of independence in 1908. At the outset of its career the principality was practically unencumbered with any debt, external or internal. The stipulations of the Berlin Treaty (Art. ix.) with regard to the payment of a tribute to the sultan and the assumption of an "equitable proportion" of the Ottoman Debt were never carried into effect. In 1883 the claim of Russia for the expenses of the occupation (under Art. xx. of the treaty) was fixed at 26,545,625 fr. (£I,061,820) payable in annual instalments of 2,100,000 fr. (£84,000). The union with Eastern Rumelia in 1885 entailed liability for the obligations of that province consisting of an annual tribute to Turkey of 2,951,000 fr. (£ 18,040) and a loan of 3,375, 000 fr. (£135,000) contracted with the Imperial Ottoman Bank. In 1888 the purchase of the Varna-Rustchuk railway was effected by the issue of treasury bonds at 6% to the vendors. In 1889 a loan of 30,000,000 fr. (£T,200,000) bearing 6% interest was contracted with the Vienna Landerbank and Bankverein at 852. In 1892 a further 6% loan of 142,780,000 fr. (£5,711,200) was contracted with the Landerbank at 83, 86 and 89. In 1902 a 5% loan of 106,000,000 fr. (£4,240,000), secured on the tobacco dues and the stamp-tax, was contracted with the Banque de l'Etat de Russie and the Banque de Paris et des Pays Bas at 812, for the purpose of consolidating the floating debt, and in 1904 a 5% loan of 99,980,000 fr. (73,999, 20 0) at 82, with the same guarantees, was contracted with the last-named bank mainly for the purchase of war material in France and the construction of railways. In January 1906 the national debt stood as follows :-Outstanding amount of the consolidated loans, 363,070,500 fr. 04,522,820); internal debt, 1 5, 60 3,774 fr. (£624,151); Eastern Rumelian debt, 1,910,208 (776,408). In February 1907 a 42% loan of 145,000,000 fr. at 85, secured on the surplus proceeds of the revenues already pledged to the loans of 1902 and 1904, was contracted with the Banque de Paris et des Pays Bas associated with some German and Austrian banks for the conversion of the loans of 1888 and 1889 (requiring about 53,000,000 fr.) and for railway construction and other purposes. The total external debt was thus raised to upwards of 450,000,000 fr. The Eastern Rumelian tribute and the rent of the SarambeyBelovo railway, if capitalized at 6%, would represent a further sum of 50,919,100 fr. (£2,036,765). The national debt was not disproportionately great in comparison with annual revenue. After the union with Eastern Rumelia the budget receipts increased from 40,803,262 leva 0,635,730) in 1886 to 119,655,507 leva (£4,786,220) in 1904; the estimated revenue for 1905 was 111,920,000 leva (£4,476, 800), of which 41,179,000 (£1,647,160) were derived from direct and 38,610,000 (£I,544,400) from indirect taxation; the estimated expenditure was 111,903,281 leva(£4,476,131), the principal items being: public debt, 31,317,346 (£I,252,693); army, 26,540,720 (£I,061,628); education, 10,402,470 (£416,098); public works, 1 4,4 61, 1 7 1 (£57 8 ,44 6); interior, 7,559,517 (7302,380). The actual receipts in 1905 were 127,011,393 leva. In 1895 direct taxation, which pressed heavily on the agricultural class, was diminished and indirect taxation (import duties and excise) considerably increased. In 1906 direct taxation amounted to 9 fr. 92 c., indirect to 8 fr. 58 c., per head of the population. The financial difficulties in which the country was involved at the close of the 19th century were attributable not to excessive indebtedness but to heavy outlay on public works, the army, and education, and to the maintenance of an unnecessary number of officials, the economic situation being aggravated by a succession of bad harvests. The war budget during ten years (1888-1897) absorbed the large sum of 275,822,017 leva (7 11, 0 33,3 00) or 35.77% of the whole national income within that period. In subsequent years military expenditure continued to increase; the total during the period since the union with Eastern Rumelia amounting to 599,520,698 leva (£23,980,800).
Communications.-In 1878 the only railway in Bulgaria was the Rustchuk-Varna line (137 m.), constructed by an English company in 1867. In Eastern Rumelia the line from Sarambey to Philippopolis and the Turkish frontier (122 m.), with a branch to Yamboli (66 m.), had been built by Baron Hirsch in 1873, and leased by the Turkish government to the Oriental Railways Company until 1958. It was taken over by the Bulgarian government in 1908 (see History, below). The construction of a railway from the Servian frontier at Tzaribrod to the Eastern Rumelian frontier at Vakarel was imposed on the principality by the Berlin Treaty, but political difficulties intervened, and the line, which touches Sofia, was not completed till 1888. In that year the Bulgarian government seized the short connecting line Belovo-Sarambey belonging to Turkey, and railway communication between Constantinople and the western capitals was established. Since that time great progress has been made in railway construction. In 1888, 240 m. of state railways were open to traffic; in 18 99, 777 m.; in 1902, 880 m. Up to October 1908 all these lines were worked by the state, and, with the exception of the Belovo-Sarambey line (29 m.), which was worked under a convention with Turkey, were its property. The completion of the important line Radomir-Sofia-Shumen (November 1899) opened up the rich agricultural district between the Balkans and the Danube and connected Varna with the capital. Branches to Samovit and Rustchuk establish connexion with the Rumanian railway system on the opposite side of the river. It was hoped, with the consent of the Turkish government, to extend the line Sofia-Radomir-Kiustendil to Uskub, and thus to secure a direct route to Salonica and the Aegean. Road communication is still in an unsatisfactory condition. Roads are divided into three classes: ` state roads,"or main highways, maintained by the government;" district roads "maintained by the district councils; and" intervillage roads "(mezhduselski shosseta), maintained by the communes. Repairs are effected by the corvee system with requisitions of material. There are no canals, and inland navigation is confined to the Danube. The Austrian Donaudampschiffahrtsgesellschaft and the Russian Gagarine steamship company compete for the river traffic; the grain trade is largely served by steamers belonging to Greek merchants. The coasting trade on the Black Sea is carried on by a Bulgarian steamship company; the steamers of the Austrian Lloyd, and other foreign companies call at Varna, and occasionally at Burgas.
The development of postal and telegraphic communication has been rapid. In 1886,1,468,494 letters were posted, in 1903, 2 9, 06 3, 043. Receipts of posts and telegraphs in 1886 were £40,975, in 1903 £ 1 34,94 2. In 1903 there were 3261 m. of telegraph lines and 531 m. of telephones.
Towns.-The principal towns of Bulgaria are Sofia, the capital (Bulgarian Sredetz, a name now little used), pop. in January 1906, 82,187; Philippopolis, the capital of Eastern Rumelia (Bulg. Plovdiv), pop. 45,572; Varna, 37,155; Rustchuk (Bulg. 33,552; Sliver', 25,049; Shumla (Bulg. Shumen), 22,290; Plevna (Bulg. Pleven), 21,208; Stara-Zagora, 20,647; Tatar-Pazarjik, 17,549; Vidin, 16,168; Yamboli (Greek Hyampolis), 15,708; Dobritch (Turkish Hajiolu-Pazarjik), 15,369; Haskovo, 15,061; Vratza, 14,832; Stanimaka (Greek Stenimachos), 14,120; Razgrad, 13,783; Sistova (Bulg. Svishtov), 13,408; Burgas, 12,846; Kiustendil, 12,353; Trnovo, the ancient capital, 12,171. All these are described in separate articles.
Population.-The area of northern Bulgaria is 24,535 sq. m.; of Eastern Rumelia 12,705 sq. m.; of united Bulgaria, 37,240 sq. m. According to the census of the 12th of January 1906, the population of northern Bulgaria was 2,853,704; of Eastern Rumelia, 1,174,535; of united Bulgaria, 4,028,239 or 88 per sq. m. Bulgaria thus ranks between Rumania and Portugal in regard to area; between the Netherlands and Switzerland in regard to population: in density of population it may be compared with Spain and Greece.
The first census of united Bulgaria was taken in 1888: it gave the total population as 3,154,375. In January 1893 the population was 3,310,713; in January 1901, 3,744,283.
The movement of the population at intervals of five years has been as follows: The death-rate shows a tendency to rise. In the five years 1882-1886 the mean death-rate was 18.0 per 1000; in 1887-1891, 20.4; in 1892-1896, 27.0; in 1897-1902, 23.92. Infant mortality is high, especially among the peasants. As the less healthy infants rarely survive, the adult population is in general robust, hardy and longlived. The census of January 1901 gives 2719 persons of Too years and upwards. Young men, as a rule, marry before the age of twentyfive, girls before eighteen. The number of illegitimate births is inconsiderable, averaging only 0.12 of the total. The population according to sex in 1901 is given as 1,909,567 males and 1,834,716 females, or 51 males to 49 females. A somewhat similar disparity may be observed in the other countries of the Peninsula. Classified according to occupation, 2,802,603 persons, or 74.85% of the population, are engaged in agriculture; 360,834 in various productive industries; 118,824 in the service of the government or the exercise of liberal professions, and 148,899 in commerce. The population according to race cannot be stated with absolute accuracy, but it is approximately shown by the census of 1901, which gives the various nationalities according to language as follows :-Bulgars, 2,888,219; Turks, 531,240; Rumans, 71,063; Greeks, 66,635; Gipsies (Tziganes), 8 9,549; Jews (Spanish speaking), 33,661; Tatars, ' Excess of births over deaths.
18,884; Armenians, 14,581; other nationalities, 30,451. The Bulgarian inhabitants of the Peninsula beyond the limits of the principality may, perhaps, be estimated at 1,500,000 or 1,600,000, and the grand total of the race possibly reaches 5,500,000.
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 or spahiliks were conferred on the Ottoman chiefs and the renegade Bulgarian nobles. The Christian population was subjected to heavy imposts, the principal being the haratch, 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 Christian rayas was 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 the voinitchki sela, obtained important privileges which were not infringed till the 18th century; on condition of furnishing 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 their voavodi or 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 Bathory into Walachia in 1595A kind of guerilla warfare was, however, maintained in the mountains by the haiduti, or outlaws, whose exploits, like those of the Greek klephts, 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 Kainarji (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 the Rum-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 Panagurishte 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 Panagurishte, 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 the district 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 (see Russo-Turkish Wars, and Plevna). 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.
Prince Ferdinand
On the 7th of July 1887, the Grand Sobranye unanimously elected Prince Ferdinand of SaxeCoburg-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 1903 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 Staloff, and Prince Ferdinand inaugurated a policy of conciliation towards Russia with a view to obtaining his recognition by the powers. A Russophil reaction 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 MarieLouise (30th January 1899), caused universal regret in the country. In the same month the Stoiloff government, which had weakly tampered with the Macedonian movement (see Macedonia) 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 a cabinet d'affaires under 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 (see Macedonia). 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 TurcoBulgarian 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 regime 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 f4,800,000 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. (See Turkey: 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 Sla y s, 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 of prepositions 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 Safarik, 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 lesser its), 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 the rhinesmus has disappeared, but the old nasal vowels preserve a peculiar pronunciation, the greater its changing to u, as in English "but," the lesser to e, as in "bet," while in Servian, Russian and Slovene the greater its becomes u or o, the lesser e or ya. 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," "CroatianSlavonic," "Russian-Slavonic," &c., according to the different recensions. The "Russian-Slavonic" is the liturgical language now in general use among the Orthodox Sla y s 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 noundeclensions, and the modification of the nasal vowels above alluded to, the disappearance in pronunciation of the final vowels yer-golem and yer-maluk, 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 IndoEuropean 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. Thus zhena-ta is "the woman"; zhena-va or zhena-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 letter yedvoino, which in the eastern has frequently the sound of ya, in the western invariably that of e in "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 literar y 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 (see Slavs). The former was used by Bulgarian writers concurrently with the Cyrillic down to the 12th century. Among the orthodox Sla y s 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 the Sbornik of 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 the Shestodnev, 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 Kosmas and the monk Athanas of Jerusalem; among the Bogomils the Questions of St Ivan Bogoslof, 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 of Stephanit and Ichnilat and Barlaam 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 Asen dynasty, numerous historical works or chronicles (letopisi) 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 Paisii (born about 1720) and Bishop Sofronii (1739-1815) have already been mentioned as the precursors of the literary revival. The Istoria Slaveno-Bolgarska (1762) of Paisii, 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, Paisii 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. The Life 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 the Kyriakodromion, 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 modest bukvar, 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 novel Pod Igoto (Under the Yoke) has been translated into several European languages. The best dramatic work is Ivanko, 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's Flora 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 the Perioditchesko Spisanie, issued since 1869 by the Bulgarian Literary Society, and the Sbornik, 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. Jirecek, Das Fiirstenthum Bulgarien (Prague, 1891), and Cesty po Bulharsku (Travels in Bulgaria), (Prague, 1888), both works of the first importance; Leon Lamouche, La Bulgarie dans le passé et le present (Paris, 1892); Prince Francis Joseph of Battenberg, Die Volkswirthschaftliche Entwicklung Bulgariens (Leipzig, 1891); F. Kanitz, Donau-Bulgarien and der Balkan (Leipzig, 1882); A. G. Drander, Evenements politiques en Bulgarie (Paris, 1896); and Le Prince Alexandre de Battenberg (Paris, 1884); A. Strausz, Die Bulgaren (Leipzig, 1898); A. Tuma, Die ostliche 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 and geologische Untersuchungen in Bulgarien (Vienna, 1890); J. Cvijic, "Die Tektonik der Balkanhalbinsel," in C.R. IX. Cong. geol. intern. de Vienne, pp. 348-370, with map, 1904. History: C. J. Jirecek, Geschichte der Bulgaren (Prague, 1876); (a summary in The Balkans, by William Miller, London, 1896); Sokolov, Iz drevnei istorii Bolgar (Petersburg, 1879) Uspenski, Obrazovanie vtorago Bolgarskago tsarstva (Odessa, 1879) Acta Bulgariae ecclesiastica, published by the South Slavonic Academy (Agram, 1887). Language: F. Miklosich, Vergleichende Grammatik (Vienna, 1879); and Geschichte 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 and Schnell zu erlernen (Vienna, 1888). Literature: L. A. H. Dozon, Chansonsopulaires bulgares inedites (with French translations), (Paris, 187 5); A. Strausz, Bulgarische Volksdichtungen (translations with a preface and notes), (Vienna and Leipzig, 1895); Lydia Shishmanov, Legendes 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), Bersonov (Moscow, 1855), Kachanovskiy (Petersburg, 1882), Shapkarev (Philippopolis, 1885), Iliev (Sofia, 1889), P. Slaveikov (Sofia, 1899). See also The Shade of the Balkans, by Pencho Slaveikov, H. Bernard and E. J. Dillon (London, 1904). (J. D. B.)
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Bibliography Information
Chisholm, Hugh, General Editor. Entry for 'Bulgaria'. 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica. https://www.studylight.org/​encyclopedias/​eng/​bri/​b/bulgaria.html. 1910.