Page:EB1911 - Volume 04.djvu/807

 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 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 (see ) 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 ). 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. (See : History.) 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 of