existed a Bulgarian kingdom on the banks of the Volga. Whence these Bulgarians came, who they were, and why they were called by this name, cannot be certainly known; but there is reason to believe that they were of Finnish origin. Their kingdom lasted up to the time of the Mongol invasion in the thirteenth century. The ruins of the ancient city of Bulgar still exist, and the Czar of Russia still bears the title of Prince of Bulgaria. Nothing is certainly known of their language, except that a document exists, of the eighth century, in which a Bulgarian king demands interpreters who can speak both Bulgarian and Slavic. This would seem to prove that the languages were not the same.

During the latter half of the seventh century a portion of the Bulgarians of the Volga left their homes, under the leadership of the Kral Asparuch, and emigrated to the West. They crossed the Danube about 680 A.D., and occupied the country as far as the Balkans. It was at that time nominally under the rule of Constantinople, and was peopled by Slavic tribes. It does not appear that any serious effort was made by the Greeks to repel these invaders, and the people submitted to the rule of Asparuch; but, as has often happened in these national migrations, the native element proved to be the stronger; the Bulgarian language disappeared, and the people were amalgamated into a single nation; retaining the name of the conquerors, and but little else. This new Bulgarian nation was converted to Christianity about the year 860 by the two Slavic apostles, Cyril, the theologian and Methodius the painter, who afterwards converted the Slaves of Bohemia. These monks were natives of Salonica, and the story of their mission to King Boris is too well known to be repeated here. It was the skill of the painter, who pictured the Day of Judgment, rather than the arguments of the theologian, which converted the king, and through him the nation.

The capital of the kingdom at that time was Preslava, a city near Shumla. There is no connected history of the Bulgarian Kingdom, a fact which is less surprising when we reflect how little is known of the Byzantine Empire, even of events like the sieges of Constantinople

by the Saracens, whose defeat saved Europe from Mohammedanism; but many important facts in regard to the Bulgarians may be gleaned from Byzantine history and from Slavic writers. The first Bulgarian Kral who assumed the title of King was Terbel, who was rewarded by the Emperor of Constantinople with the title of Cæsar, about the year 715, for the service which he had rendered in defeating the Saracens. The Emperor Nicephorus invaded Bulgaria in 811, but was defeated near Shumla by King Krum and slain, with many of his nobles. Two years later Krum appeared before the walls of Constantinople and ravaged the surrounding country. In 913, Simeon, the greatest of the Bulgarian kings, besieged Constantinople, and compelled the Greeks to submit to the terms of peace which he imposed. He ruled over Bulgaria, Thrace, Servia, and Croatia. In the latter part of the century the Greeks conquered the country, but it was almost immediately freed by King Samuel, whose capital was at Ochrida in Macedonia, and who waged a fierce war with the Empire for nearly forty years. The Greeks finally triumphed in 1019 under the Emperor Basil, who was surnamed the "Slayer of the Bulgarians." It was he who put out the eyes of 15,000 Bulgarian prisoners, leaving one in each hundred with a single eye to conduct his blind companions home. For nearly a hundred and seventy years the Bulgarian Kingdom was more or less under the control of the Empire, but no effectual measures were taken to bring the people under the yoke of the law, and it became independent again in 1186 under King Assen, whose capital was Tirnova. This king utterly routed the armies of the Emperor Isaac Angelus, and compelled him to recognize his independence. The kingdom was consolidated by the skill and power of Ivan, the sucessor of Assen, who is known in European history as Calo-John, or John the Handsome. He determined to cut every link which bound him to Constantinople, and sent an embassy to Pope Innocent III., from whom he received a royal title and a Latin archbishop; but in 1205, disgusted at the pretensions of Baldwin, the Latin Emperor of Constantinople, he allied himself with the

Greeks, defeated the Latins, took Baldwin prisoner, and held him until his death, in spite of the orders and prayers of the Pope. He also defeated and killed Boniface, King of Salonica.

His successor, Ivan Assen II., besieged Constantinople and carried on incessant wars, now with the Greeks, and now with the Latins, seeking to weaken both and seize the Empire of the East for himself; but his sudden death in 1241 put an end to his ambitious schemes; and a stronger than Greek or Bulgarian was soon to appear and subdue them both. The last of the Bulgarian kings was Ivan Shishman (Shishman is a Turkish word, meaning "fat"), who, after resisting the Turks, sometimes by craft and sometimes on the battle-field, was finally captured in his last stronghold on the Danube in 1393. His kingdom was annexed to the New Ottoman Empire.

No nation was ever more thoroughly conquered. For almost 500 years they submitted quietly to the Turkish rule, and there is no record of any effort on their part to throw it off and regain their independence. Many of them became Mohammedans, and are now known as Pomaks, but most of them submitted to every indignity rather than give up their Christian faith. At the time of the Greek revolution some efforts were made by the Bulgarians to aid the Greeks, and when the Russians occupied the country, some "atrocities" were committed upon the Turks in several towns, but there was nothing which could be called a rebellion. There was not even an inclination to aid the Russians. All life and hope had been crushed out of the people by the weight of the Turkish yoke.

The ecclesiastical history of these centuries may be told in a few words. King Boris, after his conversion, negotiated with Rome and Constantinople, but finally accepted an archbishop from the Patriarch. In the time of Simeon there was a Bulgarian Patriarch at Preslava, independent of Constantinople. Samuel transferred the Patriarch to Ochrida. Assen recognized the Pope, and received a Latin archbishop at Tirnova. At the time of the Turkish conquest, the Patriarch, who was again of the Orthodox Church, was transferred to Ochrida, where he continued until 1777, when

the Patriarch of Constantinople succeeded, by intrigues with the Turks, in securing the abolition of this see, annexing it to his own jurisdiction. This was the end of the Bulgarian Church, which survived the Kingdom almost four hundred years, and was no doubt the means of preserving the Bulgarian nation from destruction. It is believed by many that the absorption of the Bulgarian Church was a part of a grand scheme for Hellenizing all the Christians of European Turkey, to prepare the way for a restoration of the Greek Empire. This is possible, for this idea has been cherished by the Greeks ever since the fall of Constantinople; but those who are acquainted with the history of the Patriarchate will be more inclined to believe that the immediate motive was a desire to increase the revenue of the Patriarch.

This brief sketch of the history of the Bulgarian Church and Kingdom has been given here simply as a necessary introduction to the history of the national awakening, which first attracted the attention of Europe in 1859, but which had really commenced many years before.

It was supposed for some years to be simply an ecclesiastical contest with the Greek Patriarch, and to some extent it was so. It was inevitable, from the very constitution of the Ottoman Empire, which recognizes the Patriarch as the civil as well as the ecclesiastical head of a National Church, that the first return of national consciousness should bring the people into conflict with their bishops, who were appointed by the Patriarch, not on account of their piety, but for their supposed skill in political intrigue. Whatever may have been the motive for suppressing the Bulgarian Patriarchate, there is no question about the aim of the Greeks since the revolution. They have sought by every possible means to destroy the Bulgarian nationality, and have made use of the Church for this purpose. Greek bishops were appointed everywhere, whose chief work was to Hellenize the Bulgarians, to substitute Greek books, schools, and religious rites for Bulgarian; and, so far as possible, to make the people believe that they were Greeks. There was at first but little opposition to this attempt; and the unimportant conspira

cies at Tirnova in 1840, and at Sofia in 1844, were more Greek than Bulgarian. Had the bishops been better or wiser men it is possible that they might have brought about a hearty alliance between the two nationalities. There were, of course, always some ecclesiastics of the Bulgarian race, and among them men who remembered their nationality and protested against the Greeks. The Bishop of Vratza was one, and he was exiled in 1800. Neophyte Bosveli, of Kotel, was exiled for the same reason in 1845, and in 1846 Hilarion, who afterwards became the leader of the Bulgarian movement. There appears to have been no general dissatisfaction among the people before 1840; but from that time petitions were constantly coming to the Porte and the Patriarchate for the removal of bishops. It is unnecessary to add that very little attention was paid to them. About this time a determined effort was made by a Bulgarian named Rakovsky, of Kotel, to awaken the national spirit of the people. He was educated at Athens and Paris, and was in the Turkish service at Constantinople. About 1845 he went to Austria, and, after some years, established a newspaper at Novisat, in Croatia, which was printed in French and Bulgarian, and designed to rouse the Bulgarians to action. It was secretly circulated all through the provinces, and widely read. It was no doubt one of the influences which led the Bulgarians to establish schools and cultivate their own language, and ultimately it led to the establishment of a revolutionary committee at Bucharest; but this was in 1865.

It was the Crimean war which finally brought the Bulgarian movement to a head. Its influence upon the people themselves was very great. It roused their hopes, quickened their intellectual life, excited their interest in the nations of Europe, and directed attention to their own inferiority. But it had a still more important influence upon their destiny. The Turkish Government, during the war, had found the Bulgarians thoroughly loyal, while the Greeks had made no secret of their sympathy with Russia. At the close of the war the Patriarch was ordered to call an assembly to reform the Church and satisfy the complaints of the Bulgarians against

their bishops. The Porte was anxious to reward the Bulgarians for their loyalty, and increase their influence in the Holy Synod, as the best means of checking the revolutionary influence of the Church. After many difficulties and delays, this assembly finally met in 1858; but the Patriarch managed to have Bulgaria represented almost exclusively by Greeks. There were but three Bulgarian members, and one of these was the servant of the Greek Bishop of Widin. They were refused a hearing, and their demand for an adequate representation in the Synod treated with contempt, although they constituted a majority of the Orthodox Church in Turkey. This refusal to listen to the legitimate demands of the Bulgarians not only roused the nation to defend its rights, but also offended the Sublime Porte, and led the Turks to support the Bulgarians. This was the origin of the Bulgarian Question. The Greeks were warmly supported by Russia, and felt strong enough to refuse all compromise. The Bulgarians had but little faith in the friendship of the Porte, or in their own strength, and would have been very glad to accept a small part of what they demanded. A conciliatory policy on the part of the Patriarch would have quieted the agitation, and settled the question at once; but he chose the opposite course, and the breach grew wider every day.

An important influence was exerted upon the Bulgarians at this time by the establishment of American missionaries in Bulgaria. They opened schools, circulated the Scriptures and other books in the Bulgarian language, and did all in their power to rouse the intellectual life of the people. The Evangelical Alliance also interested itself to prevent the exile of the three bishops who were the leaders of the Bulgarians in this controversy.

At this crisis these bishops showed more than ordinary courage, virtue, and honesty. When they appealed to the foreign Ambassadors for support they were informed that they might secure not only their personal liberty, but the complete emancipation of their people, by declaring themselves Protestants or Catholics. The most tempting offers were made to them on behalf of the

Pope and the Emperor Napoleon, but - they had the courage to refuse and suffer persecution. They knew that their people were Orthodox, and that a nominal adhesion to any other Church would only divide the nation and prevent the real reform which they desired. So they were imprisoned and exiled. The Porte could not protect them without infringing upon the recognized rights of the Church. This at once roused and united the Bulgarian people, who drove off the Greek ecclesiastics and went without bishops for ten years.

The combat went on slowly at Constantinople with varying fortune, but throughout Bulgaria the people seemed to be inspired with the single thought of educating their young men. Schools of a high order were established and maintained by voluntary contributions in all the principal towns. Literary societies were formed. Young men were sent to Russia, where they were generally supported by charitable individuals, also to Constantinople, especially to the American Robert College, and to the principal cities of Europe, to secure a higher education than could be given in Bulgaria. Newspapers were established, and every effort was made to provide the people with books. It is doubtful whether any nation ever made such rapid progress as did the Bulgarians during these years of conflict with the Patriarch. It finally became evident to the Patriarch and to the Porte that something must be done. A Commission was appointed by the Turkish Government to settle the question. Fuad Pacha, the Grand Vizier, was President, and Greeks and Bulgarians were both represented. On the removal of Fuad Pacha, Aali Pacha took his place. The negotiations were long and complicated, but Aali Pacha finally presented two projects, and invited the parties to choose between them. The Greeks rejected both, but the Bulgarians accepted one, which had been originally suggested by the Greek Patriarch Gregorius, but had been rejected by the Synod. After some delay Aali Pacha issued a Firman for the execution of the project accepted by the Bulgarians. But the opposition of the Greeks, supported by Russia, was so vigorous, that it remained a dead letter. No attempt was made to carry it out, and ne

gotiations between the parties continued. The excitement throughout the country meanwhile increased, and a serious riot took place in Constantinople, when the Bulgarians attempted to celebrate Epiphany in their own church in opposition to the orders of the Patriarch.

Mahmoud Neddim Pacha was then Grand Vizier, and, under the influence of Achmet Vefik Effendi, his Musteshar, he gave orders for the execution of the Firman and the appointment of a Bulgarian Exarch. The Firman did not contemplate anything more than a partial separation of the Bulgarians from the immediate jurisdiction of the Patriarch, to whom the Exarch was subordinate ; but the Greeks responded to the Firman by excommunicating the Exarch and all those Bulgarians who should recognize his authority, and declaring them schismatics. No reply to the notification of this action has ever been received by the Patriarch from the other branches of the Orthodox Church; but, so far as is known, it was generally regarded as a serious blunder. But it had its designed effect. It made it impossible for the Turks to execute the Firman, and carried the conflict between Greek and Bulgarian into every town and village where both nationalities were represented. It was a delicate situation for the Turks. They had encouraged the Bulgarians and led them on to this point. Now they had to decide whether they would recognize the action of the Greeks and treat the Bulgarians as schismatics, or whether they would ignore that action and execute the Firman, which was based upon the theory that the Bulgarians were still a part of the Orthodox Church. If they took the former course, then they must allow both Greek and Bulgarian bishops in every city and in every Government Council in Bulgaria. If the latter, then the Firman decreed that the bishops must be Greek or Bulgarian, as the majority of the population was of one or the other nationality. This was what the Bulgarians demanded, but the Greeks protested against delivering Orthodox Greeks over to the jurisdiction of an excommunicated Bulgarian bishop.

The Turks followed their usual pol icy. They decided nothing. They encouraged negotiations between the par

ties, and trusted to Kismet to find some solution for the difficulty. But meanwhile the excitement in the provinces was daily increasing. The partial execution of the Firman had sent Bulgarian bishops to a number of important sees; the Exarch had been recognized; the Patriarch no longer exercised any control over the Bulgarians; but still nothing was settled.

Just at this time Mahmoud Neddim Pacha was exiled and Mithad came into power. Soon after, the Sultan was deposed, and all was confusion, but Mithad refused to execute the Firman, and used all his influence to excite the animosity of the Greeks against the Bulgarians. At the time of the Conference of Constantinople the Bulgarian Exarch was the only ecclesiastic who had the courage to brave the Turkish Government and refuse to protest against the action of the European Powers. was exiled and deposed by the Porte, and there was some question of abolishing the Church, but another Exarch was chosen, and the question of the status of the Bulgarian Church remains unsettled to this day.

He

Meanwhile, in the summer of 1875, the insurrection broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was chiefly the result of Austrian intrigue, and was supported by Austrian money and sympathy. The Bulgarians had nothing to do with it, either directly or indirectly. The Church question, which originated with the Turks themselves, was in no sense political, and the Bulgarians had no thought of rebellion. A revolutionary committee was organized at Bucharest in 1865, composed of young men, who were in part disciples of Rakovsky and in part Socialists. This committee varied in numbers and in personality from year to year, but it was generally made up of criminals who had escaped from Turkey, of Bulgarian students who had been expelled from Russia for their Nihilist views, and occasionally of young men of good character who had fled from Bulgaria to escape punishment for political crimes which they had not committed. It was strictly a Bulgarian association, but was, for a time at least, affiliat ed to the "International." Its influIts influence in Bulgaria was very limited, and the better class of Bulgarians at Bucha

rest had no sympathy with it; but it was very active, and its agents labored incessantly to establish committees in the Bulgarian towns. A man called "the deacon," whose name was Lefsky, was their chief agent for many years, but he was finally caught and hung. He had some success in gaining over boys and young men who had nothing to lose, and committees were organized from this material in many towns; but the respectable classes had nothing to do with them, and the peasants knew nothing about them. The general plan of the committee was to send over a band from Roumania every year or two to create disturbance, rouse the suspicion of the Turks, cause the arrest and execution of innocent persons, and thus rouse the people to desperation and revolt. The first inroad was made in 1867, and their expectations were fully satisfied by the fierce and indiscriminate manner in which Mithad Pacha undertook to strike terror into the Bulgarians. Another raid was made in 1870, another still in 1875. In both these cases the utmost severity was exercised by the Turkish Government, and a great number of perfectly innocent persons were hung or exiled to the fortresses of Asia. Still there was no general excitement among the people and no thought of revolt, except among a few hot-headed young men, who were ready for anything, but who had neither money nor influence. The whole attention of the people was concentrated upon the pending ecclesiastical question.

But the revolt in Bosnia and Herzegovina had excited the hopes of Servia, and the Bucharest Committee was encouraged to make new efforts to organize an outbreak in Roumelia to support the Servians, as soon as they should declare war with Turkey. In the autumn of 1875, two Bulgarian spies, in the employ of the Turks, reported the existence of a conspiracy at Eski Zagraa; and many persons were imprisoned and exiled. was true that agents of the Bucharest Committee were in the town, and that it was known to many Bulgarians that an effort would be made to organize an insurrection, but beyond this there was no conspiracy there. conspiracy there. At this time all the plans of the Bucharest Committee became known to the Turkish Govern

It