[v.04 p.0773]

BULGARIA (continued from part 3)

… the mean interval being 60 m.; the summits are, as a rule,
rounded, and the slopes gentle. The culminating points are in the centre
of the range: Yumrukchál (7835 ft.), Maragudúk (7808 ft.), and Kadimlía
(7464 ft.). The Balkans are known to the people of the country as the
Stara Planina or “Old Mountain,” the adjective denoting their
greater size as compared with that of the adjacent ranges: “Balkán” is
not a distinctive term, being applied by the Bulgarians, as well as the
Turks, to all mountains. Closely parallel, on the south, are the minor
ranges of the Sredna Gora or “Middle Mountains” (highest summit 5167 ft.)
and the Karaja Dagh, enclosing respectively the sheltered valleys of
Karlovo and Kazanlyk. At its eastern extremity the Balkan chain divides
into three ridges, the central terminating in the Black Sea at Cape Eminé
(“Haemus”), the northern forming the watershed between the tributaries of
the Danube and the rivers falling directly into the Black Sea. The
Rhodope, or southern group, is altogether distinct from the Balkans, with
which, however, it is connected by the Malka Planina and the Ikhtiman
hills, respectively west and east of Sofia; it may be regarded as a
continuation of the great Alpine system which traverses the Peninsula
from the Dinaric Alps and the Shar Planina on the west to the Shabkhana
Dagh near the Aegean coast; its sharper outlines and pine-clad steeps
reproduce the scenery of the Alps rather than that of the Balkans. The
imposing summit of Musallá (9631 ft.), next to Olympus, the highest in
the Peninsula, forms the centre-point of the group; it stands within the
Bulgarian frontier at the head of the Mesta valley, on either side of
which the Perin Dagh and the Despoto Dagh descend south and south-east
respectively towards the Aegean. The chain of Rhodope proper radiates to
the east; owing to the retrocession of territory already mentioned, its
central ridge no longer completely coincides with the Bulgarian boundary,
but two of its principal summits, Sytké (7179 ft.) and Karlyk (6828 ft.),
are within the frontier. From Musallá in a westerly direction extends the
majestic range of the Rilska Planina, enclosing in a picturesque valley
the celebrated monastery of Rila; many summits of this chain attain 7000
ft. Farther west, beyond the Struma valley, is the Osogovska Planina,
culminating in Ruyen (7392 ft.). To the north of the Rilska Planina the
almost isolated mass of Vitosha (7517 ft.) overhangs Sofia. Snow and ice
remain in the sheltered crevices of Rhodope and the Balkans throughout
the summer. The fertile slope trending northwards from the Balkans to the
Danube is for the most part gradual and broken by hills; the eastern
portion known as the Delí Orman, or “Wild Wood,” is covered by
forest, and thinly inhabited. The abrupt and sometimes precipitous
character of the Bulgarian bank of the Danube contrasts with the swampy
lowlands and lagoons of the Rumanian side. Northern Bulgaria is watered
by the Lom, Ogust, Iskr, Vid, Osem, Yantra and Eastern Lom, all, except
the Iskr, rising in the Balkans, and all flowing into the Danube. The
channels of these rivers are deeply furrowed and the fall is rapid;
irrigation is consequently difficult and navigation impossible. The
course of the Iskr is remarkable: rising in the Rilska Planina, the river
descends into the basin of Samakov, passing thence through a serpentine
defile into the plateau of Sofia, where in ancient times it formed a
lake; it now forces its way through the Balkans by the picturesque gorge
of Iskretz. Somewhat similarly the Deli, or “Wild,” Kamchik breaks the
central chain of the Balkans near their eastern extremity and, uniting
with the Great Kamchik, falls into the Black Sea. The Maritza, the
ancient Hebrus, springs from the slopes of Musallá, and, with its
tributaries, the Tunja and Arda, waters the wide plain of Eastern
Rumelia. The Struma (ancient and modern Greek Strymon) drains the
valley of Kiustendil, and, like the Maritza, flows into the Aegean. The
elevated basins of Samakov (lowest altitude 3050 ft.), Trn (2525 ft.),
Breznik (2460 ft.), Radomir (2065 ft.), Sofia (1640 ft.), and Kiustendil
(1540 ft.), are a peculiar feature of the western highlands.

Geology.—The stratified formation presents a remarkable
variety, almost all the systems being exemplified. The Archean, composed
of gneiss and crystalline schists, and traversed by eruptive veins,
extends over the greater part of the Eastern Rumelian plain, the Rilska
Planina, Rhodope, and the adjacent ranges. North of the Balkans it
appears only in the neighbourhood of Berkovitza. The other earlier
Palaeozoic systems are wanting, but the Carboniferous appears in the
western Balkans with a continental facies (Kulm). Here
anthracitiferous coal is found in beds of argillite and sandstone. Red
sandstone and conglomerate, representing the Permian system, appear
especially around the basin of Sofia. Above these, in the western
Balkans, are Mesozoic deposits, from the Trias to the upper Jurassic,
also occurring in the central part of the range. The Cretaceous system,
from the infra-Cretaceous Hauterivien to the Senonian, appears throughout
the whole extent of Northern Bulgaria, from the summits of the Balkans to
the Danube. Gosau beds are found on the southern declivity of the chain.
Flysch, representing both the Cretaceous and Eocene systems, is widely
distributed. The Eocene, or older Tertiary, further appears with
nummulitic formations on both sides of the eastern Balkans; the Oligocene
only near the Black Sea coast at Burgas. Of the Neogene, or younger
Tertiary, the Mediterranean, or earlier, stage appears near Pleven
(Plevna) in the Leithakalk and Tegel forms, and between Varna and Burgas
with beds of spaniodons, as in the Crimea; the Sarmatian stage in the
plain of the Danube and in the districts of Silistria and Varna. A rich
mammaliferous deposit (Hipparion, Rhinoceros,
Dinotherium, Mastodon, &c.) of this period has been
found near Mesemvria. Other Neogene strata occupy a more limited space.
The Quaternary era is represented by the typical loess, which covers most
of the Danubian plain; to its later epochs belong the alluvial deposits
of the riparian districts with remains of the Ursus, Equus,
&c., found in bone-caverns. Eruptive masses intrude in the Balkans
and Sredna Gora, as well as in the Archean formation of the southern [v.04
p.0774]ranges, presenting granite, syenite, diorite, diabase,
quartz-porphyry, melaphyre, liparite, trachyte, andesite, basalt,
&c.

Minerals.—The mineral wealth of Bulgaria is considerable,
although, with the exception of coal, it remains largely unexploited. The
minerals which are commercially valuable include gold (found in small
quantities), silver, graphite, galena, pyrite, marcasite, chalcosine,
sphalerite, chalcopyrite, bornite, cuprite, hematite, limonite, ochre,
chromite, magnetite, azurite, manganese, malachite, gypsum, &c. The
combustibles are anthracitiferous coal, coal, “brown coal” and lignite.
The lignite mines opened by the government at Pernik in 1891 yielded in
1904 142,000 tons. Coal beds have been discovered at Trevna and
elsewhere. Thermal springs, mostly sulphureous, exist in forty-three
localities along the southern slope of the Balkans, in Rhodope, and in
the districts of Sofia and Kiustendil; maximum temperature at Zaparevo,
near Dupnitza, 180.5° (Fahrenheit), at Sofia 118.4°. Many of these are
frequented now, as in Roman times, owing to their valuable therapeutic
qualities. The mineral springs on the north of the Balkans are, with one
exception (Vrshetz, near Berkovitza), cold.

Climate.—The severity of the climate of Bulgaria in
comparison with that of other European regions of the same latitude is
attributable in part to the number and extent of its mountain ranges, in
part to the general configuration of the Balkan Peninsula. Extreme heat
in summer and cold in winter, great local contrasts, and rapid
transitions of temperature occur here as in the adjoining countries. The
local contrasts are remarkable. In the districts extending from the
Balkans to the Danube, which are exposed to the bitter north wind, the
winter cold is intense, and the river, notwithstanding the volume and
rapidity of its current, is frequently frozen over; the temperature has
been known to fall to 24° below zero. Owing to the shelter afforded by
the Balkans against hot southerly winds, the summer heat in this region
is not unbearable; its maximum is 99°. The high tableland of Sofia is
generally covered with snow in the winter months; it enjoys, however, a
somewhat more equable climate than the northern district, the maximum
temperature being 86°, the minimum 2°; the air is bracing, and the summer
nights are cool and fresh. In the eastern districts the proximity of the
sea moderates the extremes of heat and cold; the sea is occasionally
frozen at Varna. The coast-line is exposed to violent north-east winds,
and the Black Sea, the πόντος
ἄξεινος or “inhospitable
sea” of the Greeks, maintains its evil reputation for storms. The
sheltered plain of Eastern Rumelia possesses a comparatively warm
climate; spring begins six weeks earlier than elsewhere in Bulgaria, and
the vegetation is that of southern Europe. In general the Bulgarian
winter is short and severe; the spring short, changeable and rainy; the
summer hot, but tempered by thunderstorms; the autumn (yasen, “the
clear time”) magnificently fine and sometimes prolonged into the month of
December. The mean temperature is 52°. The climate is healthy, especially
in the mountainous districts. Malarial fever prevails in the valley of
the Maritza, in the low-lying regions of the Black Sea coast, and even in
the upland plain of Sofia, owing to neglect of drainage. The mean annual
rainfall is 25-59 in. (Gabrovo, 41-73; Sofia, 27-68; Varna, 18-50).

Fauna.—Few special features are noticeable in the
Bulgarian fauna. Bears are still abundant in the higher mountain
districts, especially in the Rilska Planina and Rhodope; the Bulgarian
bear is small and of brown colour, like that of the Carpathians. Wolves
are very numerous, and in winter commit great depredations even in the
larger country towns and villages; in hard weather they have been known
to approach the outskirts of Sofia. The government offers a reward for
the destruction of both these animals. The roe deer is found in all the
forests, the red deer is less common; the chamois haunts the higher
regions of the Rilska Planina, Rhodope and the Balkans. The jackal
(Canis aureus) appears in the district of Burgas; the lynx is said
to exist in the Sredna Gora; the wild boar, otter, fox, badger, hare,
wild cat, marten, polecat (Foetorius putorius; the rare tiger
polecat, Foetorius sarmaticus, is also found), weasel and
shrewmouse (Spermophilus citillus) are common. The beaver (Bulg.
bebr) appears to have been abundant in certain localities,
e.g. Bebrovo, Bebresh, &c., but it is now apparently extinct.
Snakes (Coluber natrix and other species), vipers (Vipera
berus and V. ammodytes), and land and water tortoises are
numerous. The domestic animals are the same as in the other countries of
southeastern Europe; the fierce shaggy grey sheep-dog leaves a lasting
impression on most travellers in the interior. Fowls, especially turkeys,
are everywhere abundant, and great numbers of geese may be seen in the
Moslem villages. The ornithology of Bulgaria is especially interesting.
Eagles (Aquila imperialis and the rarer Aquila fulva),
vultures (Vultur monachus, Gyps fulvus, Neophron
percnopterus), owls, kites, and the smaller birds of prey are
extraordinarily abundant; singing birds are consequently rare. The
lammergeier (Gypaëtus barbatus) is not uncommon. Immense flocks of
wild swans, geese, pelicans, herons and other waterfowl haunt the Danube
and the lagoons of the Black Sea coast. The cock of the woods (Tetrao
urogallus) is found in the Balkan and Rhodope forests, the wild
pheasant in the Tunja valley, the bustard (Otis tarda) in the
Eastern Rumelian plain. Among the migratory birds are the crane, which
hibernates in the Maritza valley, woodcock, snipe and quail; the great
spotted cuckoo (Coccystes glandarius) is an occasional visitant.
The red starling (Pastor roseus) sometimes appears in large
flights. The stork, which is never molested, adds a picturesque feature
to the Bulgarian village. Of fresh-water fish, the sturgeon (Acipenser
sturio and A. huso), sterlet, salmon (Salmo hucho), and
carp are found in the Danube; the mountain streams abound in trout. The
Black Sea supplies turbot, mackerel, &c.; dolphins and flying fish
may sometimes be seen.

Flora.—In regard to its flora the country may be divided
into (1) the northern plain sloping from the Balkans to the Danube, (2)
the southern plain between the Balkans and Rhodope, (3) the districts
adjoining the Black Sea, (4) the elevated basins of Sofia, Samakov and
Kiustendil, (5) the Alpine and sub-Alpine regions of the Balkans and the
southern mountain group. In the first-mentioned region the vegetation
resembles that of the Russian and Rumanian steppes; in the spring the
country is adorned with the flowers of the crocus, orchis, iris, tulip
and other bulbous plants, which in summer give way to tall grasses,
umbelliferous growths, dianthi, astragali, &c. In the
more sheltered district south of the Balkans the richer vegetation
recalls that of the neighbourhood of Constantinople and the adjacent
parts of Asia Minor. On the Black Sea coast many types of the Crimean,
Transcaucasian and even the Mediterranean flora present themselves. The
plateaus of Sofia and Samakov furnish specimens of sub-alpine plants,
while the vine disappears; the hollow of Kiustendil, owing to its
southerly aspect, affords the vegetation of the Macedonian valleys. The
flora of the Balkans corresponds with that of the Carpathians; the Rila
and Rhodope group is rich in purely indigenous types combined with those
of the central European Alps and the mountains of Asia Minor. The Alpine
types are often represented by variants: e.g. the Campanula
alpina by the Campanula orbelica, the Primula farinosa
by the Primula frondosa and P. exigua, the Gentiana
germanica by the Gentiana bulgarica, &c. The southern
mountain group, in common, perhaps, with the unexplored highlands of
Macedonia, presents many isolated types, unknown elsewhere in Europe, and
in some cases corresponding with those of the Caucasus. Among the more
characteristic genera of the Bulgarian flora are the
following:—Centaurea, Cirsium, Linaria,
Scrophularia, Verbascum, Dianthus, Silene,
Trifolium, Euphorbia, Cytisus, Astragalus,
Ornithogalum, Allium, Crocus, Iris,
Thymus, Umbellifera, Sedum, Hypericum,
Scabiosa, Ranunculus, Orchis, Ophrys.

Forests.—The principal forest trees are the oak, beech,
ash, elm, walnut, cornel, poplar, pine and juniper. The oak is universal
in the thickets, but large specimens are now rarely found. Magnificent
forests of beech clothe the valleys of the higher Balkans and the Rilska
Planina; the northern declivity of the Balkans is, in general, well
wooded, but the southern slope is bare. The walnut and chestnut are
mainly confined to eastern Rumelia. Conifers (Pinus silvestris,
Picea excelsa, Pinus laricis, Pinus mughus) are rare
in the Balkans, but abundant in the higher regions of the southern
mountain group, where the Pinus peuce, otherwise peculiar to the
Himalayas, also flourishes. The wild lilac forms a beautiful feature in
the spring landscape. Wild fruit trees, such as the apple, pear and plum,
are common. The vast forests of the middle ages disappeared under the
supine Turkish administration, which took no measures for their
protection, and even destroyed the woods in the neighbourhood of towns
and highways in order to deprive brigands of shelter. A law passed in
1889 prohibits disforesting, limits the right of cutting timber, and
places the state forests under the control of inspectors. According to
official statistics, 11,640 sq. m. or about 30% of the whole superficies
of the kingdom, are under forest, but the greater portion of this area is
covered only by brushwood and scrub. The beautiful forests of the Rila
district are rapidly disappearing under exploitation.

Agriculture.—Agriculture, the main source of wealth to
the country, is still in an extremely primitive condition. The ignorance
and conservatism of the peasantry, the habits engendered by widespread
insecurity and the fear of official rapacity under Turkish rule,
insufficiency of communications, want of capital, and in some districts
sparsity of population, have all tended to retard the development of this
most important industry. The peasants cling to traditional usage, and
look with suspicion on modern implements and new-fangled modes of
production. The plough is of a primeval type, rotation of crops is only
partially practised, and the use of manure is almost unknown. The
government has sedulously endeavoured to introduce more enlightened
methods and ideas by the establishment of agricultural schools, the
appointment of itinerant professors and inspectors, the distribution of
better kinds of seeds, improved implements, &c. Efforts have been
made to improve the breeds of native cattle and horses, and stallions
have been introduced from Hungary and distributed throughout the country.
Oxen and buffaloes are the principal animals of draught; the buffalo,
which was apparently introduced from Asia in remote times, is much prized
by the peasants for its patience and strength; it is, however, somewhat
delicate and requires much care. In [v.04 p.0775]the eastern
districts camels are also employed. The Bulgarian horses are small, but
remarkably hardy, wiry and intelligent; they are as a rule unfitted for
draught and cavalry purposes. The best sheep are found in the district of
Karnobat in Eastern Rumelia. The number of goats in the country tends to
decline, a relatively high tax being imposed on these animals owing to
the injury they inflict on young trees. The average price of oxen is £5
each, draught oxen £12 the pair, buffaloes £14 the pair, cows £2, horses
£6, sheep, 7s., goats 5s., each. The principal cereals are wheat, maize,
rye, barley, oats and millet. The cultivation of maize is increasing in
the Danubian and eastern districts. Rice-fields are found in the
neighbourhood of Philippopolis. Cereals represent about 80% of the total
exports. Besides grain, Bulgaria produces wine, tobacco, attar of roses,
silk and cotton. The quality of the grape is excellent, and could the
peasants be induced to abandon their highly primitive mode of wine-making
the Bulgarian vintages would rank among the best European growths. The
tobacco, which is not of the highest quality, is grown in considerable
quantities for home consumption and only an insignificant amount is
exported. The best tobacco-fields in Bulgaria are on the northern slopes
of Rhodope, but the southern declivity, which produces the famous Kavala
growth, is more adapted to the cultivation of the plant. The rose-fields
of Kazanlyk and Karlovo lie in the sheltered valleys between the Balkans
and the parallel chains of the Sredna Gora and Karaja Dagh. About 6000 lb
of the rose-essence is annually exported, being valued from £12 to £14
per lb. Beetroot is cultivated in the neighbourhood of Sofia.
Sericulture, formerly an important industry, has declined owing to
disease among the silkworms, but efforts are being made to revive it with
promise of success. Cotton is grown in the southern districts of Eastern
Rumelia.

Peasant proprietorship is universal, the small freeholds averaging
about 18 acres each. There are scarcely any large estates owned by
individuals, but some of the monasteries possess considerable domains.
The large tchifliks, or farms, formerly belonging to Turkish
landowners, have been divided among the peasants. The rural proprietors
enjoy the right of pasturing their cattle on the common lands belonging
to each village, and of cutting wood in the state forests. They live in a
condition of rude comfort, and poverty is practically unknown, except in
the towns. A peculiarly interesting feature in Bulgarian agricultural
life is the zadruga, or house-community, a patriarchal institution
apparently dating from prehistoric times. Family groups, sometimes
numbering several dozen persons, dwell together on a farm in the
observance of strictly communistic principles. The association is ruled
by a house-father (domakin, stareïshina), and a
house-mother (domakinia), who assign to the members their
respective tasks. In addition to the farm work the members often practise
various trades, the proceeds of which are paid into the general treasury.
The community sometimes includes a priest, whose fees for baptisms,
&c., augment the common fund. The national aptitude for combination
is also displayed in the associations of market gardeners (gradinarski
druzhini, taifi), who in the spring leave their native
districts for the purpose of cultivating gardens in the neighbourhood of
some town, either in Bulgaria or abroad, returning in the autumn, when
they divide the profits of the enterprise; the number of persons annually
thus engaged probably exceeds 10,000. Associations for various
agricultural, mining and industrial undertakings and provident societies
are numerous: the handicraftsmen in the towns are organized in
esnafs or gilds.

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 1806,
£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 (panaïri, πανηγύρεις)
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 £4,419,589.
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 lev,
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 (2½, 5, 10 and 20 stotinki)
and silver coins [v.04 p.0776](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 100 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.
(£1,061,820) 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. (£118,040) 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. (£1,200,000) bearing 6%
interest was contracted with the Vienna Länderbank and Bankverein at 85½.
In 1892 a further 6% loan of 142,780,000 fr. (£5,711,200) was contracted
with the Länderbank 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’État de Russie and the Banque de Paris et
des Pays Bas at 81½, for the purpose of consolidating the floating debt,
and in 1904 a 5% loan of 99,980,000 fr. (£3,999,200) 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. (£14,522,820); internal debt,
15,603,774 fr. (£624,151); Eastern Rumelian debt, 1,910,208 (£76,408). In
February 1907 a 4½% 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
Sarambey-Belovo 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 (£1,635,730) 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
(£1,544,400) from indirect taxation; the estimated expenditure was
111,903,281 leva (£4,476,131), the principal items being: public debt,
31,317,346 (£1,252,693); army, 26,540,720 (£1,061,628); education,
10,402,470 (£416,098); public works, 14,461,171 (£578,446); interior,
7,559,517 (£302,380). 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
(£11,033,300) 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 1899, 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 “inter-village roads” (mezhduselski
shosseta), maintained by the communes. Repairs are effected by the
corvée 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, 29,063,043.
Receipts of posts and telegraphs in 1886 were £40,975, in 1903 £134,942.
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.
Russé), 33,552; Sliven, 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 long-lived. The census of
January 1901 gives 2719 persons of 100 years and upwards. Young men, as a
rule, marry betore the age of twenty-five, 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),
89,549; Jews (Spanish speaking), 33,661; Tatars, [v.04 p.0777]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.

Ethnology.—The Bulgarians, who constitute 77.14% of the
inhabitants of the kingdom, are found in their purest type in the
mountain districts, the Ottoman conquest and subsequent colonization
having introduced a mixed population into the plains.

The devastation of the country which followed the Turkish invasion
resulted in the extirpation or flight of a large proportion of the
Bulgarian inhabitants of the lowlands, who were replaced by Turkish
colonists. The mountainous districts, however, retained their original
population and sheltered large numbers of the fugitives. The passage of
the Turkish armies during the wars with Austria, Poland and Russia led to
further Bulgarian emigrations. The flight to the Banat, where 22,000
Bulgarians still remain, took place in 1730. At the beginning of the 19th
century the majority of the population of the Eastern Rumelian plain was
Turkish. The Turkish colony, however, declined, partly in consequence of
the drain caused by military service, while the Bulgarian remnant
increased, notwithstanding a considerable emigration to Bessarabia before
and after the Russo-Turkish campaign of 1828. Efforts were made by the
Porte to strengthen the Moslem element by planting colonies of Tatars in
1861 and Circassians in 1864. The advance of the Russian army in
1877-1878 caused an enormous exodus of the Turkish population, of which
only a small proportion returned to settle permanently. The emigration
continued after the conclusion of peace, and is still in progress,
notwithstanding the efforts of the Bulgarian government to arrest it. In
twenty years (1879-1899), at least 150,000 Turkish peasants left
Bulgaria. Much of the land thus abandoned still remains unoccupied. On
the other hand, a considerable influx of Bulgarians from Macedonia, the
vilayet of Adrianople, Bessarabia, and the Dobrudja took place within the
same period, and the inhabitants of the mountain villages show a tendency
to migrate into the richer districts of the plains.

The northern slopes of the Balkans from Belogradchik to Elena are
inhabited almost exclusively by Bulgarians; in Eastern Rumelia the
national element is strongest in the Sredna Gora and Rhodope. Possibly
the most genuine representatives of the race are the Pomaks or Mahommedan
Bulgarians, whose conversion to Islam preserved their women from the
licence of the Turkish conqueror; they inhabit the highlands of Rhodope
and certain districts in the neighbourhood of Lovtcha (Lovetch) and
Plevna. Retaining their Bulgarian speech and many ancient national
usages, they may be compared with the indigenous Cretan, Bosnian and
Albanian Moslems. The Pomaks in the principality are estimated at 26,000,
but their numbers are declining. In the north-eastern district between
the Yantra and the Black Sea the Bulgarian race is as yet thinly
represented; most of the inhabitants are Turks, a quiet, submissive,
agricultural population, which unfortunately shows a tendency to
emigrate. The Black Sea coast is inhabited by a variety of races. The
Greek element is strong in the maritime towns, and displays its natural
aptitude for navigation and commerce. The Gagäuzi, a peculiar race of
Turkish-speaking Christians, inhabit the littoral from Cape Eminé to Cape
Kaliakra: they are of Turanian origin and descend from the ancient
Kumani. The valleys of the Maritza and Arda are occupied by a mixed
population consisting of Bulgarians, Greeks and Turks; the principal
Greek colonies are in Stanimaka, Kavakly and Philippopolis. The origin of
the peculiar Shôp tribe which inhabits the mountain tracts of Sofia,
Breznik and Radomir is a mystery. The Shôps are conceivably a remnant of
the aboriginal race which remained undisturbed in its mountain home
during the Slavonic and Bulgarian incursions: they cling with much
tenacity to their distinctive customs, apparel and dialect. The
considerable Vlach or Ruman colony in the Danubian districts dates from
the 18th century, when large numbers of Walachian peasants sought a
refuge on Turkish soil from the tyranny of the boyars or nobles: the
department of Vidin alone contains 36 Ruman villages with a population of
30,550. Especially interesting is the race of nomad shepherds from the
Macedonian and the Aegean coast who come in thousands every summer to
pasture their flocks on the Bulgarian mountains; they are divided into
two tribes—the Kutzovlachs, or “lame Vlachs,” who speak Rumanian,
and the Hellenized Karakatchans or “black shepherds” (compare the
Morlachs, or Mavro-vlachs, μαῦροι
βλάχες, of Dalmatia), who
speak Greek. The Tatars, a peaceable, industrious race, are chiefly found
in the neighbourhood of Varna and Silistria; they were introduced as
colonists by the Turkish government in 1861. They may be reckoned at
12,000. The gipsies, who are scattered in considerable numbers throughout
the country, came into Bulgaria in the 14th century. They are for the
most part Moslems, and retain their ancient Indian speech. They live in
the utmost poverty, occupy separate cantonments in the villages, and are
treated as outcasts by the rest of the population. The Bulgarians, being
of mixed origin, possess few salient physical characteristics. The
Slavonic type is far less pronounced than among the kindred races; the
Ugrian or Finnish cast of features occasionally asserts itself in the
central Balkans. The face is generally oval, the nose straight, the jaw
somewhat heavy. The men, as a rule, are rather below middle height,
compactly built, and, among the peasantry, very muscular; the women are
generally deficient in beauty and rapidly grow old. The upper class, the
so-called intelligenzia, is physically very inferior to the rural
population.

National Character.—The character of the Bulgarians
presents a singular contrast to that of the neighbouring nations. Less
quick-witted than the Greeks, less prone to idealism than the Servians,
less apt to assimilate the externals of civilization than the Rumanians,
they possess in a remarkable degree the qualities of patience,
perseverance and endurance, with the capacity for laborious effort
peculiar to an agricultural race. The tenacity and determination with
which they pursue their national aims may eventually enable them to
vanquish their more brilliant competitors in the struggle for hegemony in
the Peninsula. Unlike most southern races, the Bulgarians are reserved,
taciturn, phlegmatic, unresponsive, and extremely suspicious of
foreigners. The peasants are industrious, peaceable and orderly; the
vendetta, as it exists in Albania, Montenegro and Macedonia, and the use
of the knife in quarrels, so common in southern Europe, are alike
unknown. The tranquillity of rural life has, unfortunately, been invaded
by the intrigues of political agitators, and bloodshed is not uncommon at
elections. All classes practise thrift bordering on parsimony, and any
display of wealth is generally resented. The standard of sexual morality
is high, especially in the rural districts; the unfaithful wife is an
object of public contempt, and in former times was punished with death.
Marriage ceremonies are elaborate and protracted, as is the case in most
primitive communities; elopements are frequent, but usually take place
with the consent of the parents on both sides, in order to avoid the
expense of a regular wedding. The principal amusement on Sundays and
holidays is the choró (χορός), which is danced on the
village green to the strains of the gaida or bagpipe, and the
gûsla, a rudimentary fiddle. The Bulgarians are religious in a
simple way, but not fanatical, and the influence of the priesthood is
limited. Many ancient superstitions linger among the peasantry, such as
the belief in the vampire and the evil eye; witches and necromancers are
numerous and are much consulted.

Government.—Bulgaria is a constitutional monarchy; by
Art. iii. of the Berlin Treaty it was declared hereditary in the family
of a prince “freely elected by the population and confirmed by the
Sublime Porte with the assent of the powers.” According to the
constitution of Trnovo, voted by the Assembly of Notables on the 29th of
April 1879, revised by the Grand Sobranye on the 27th of May 1893, and
modified by the proclamation of a Bulgarian kingdom on the 5th of October
1908, the royal dignity descends in the direct male line. The king must
profess the Orthodox faith, only the first elected sovereign and his
immediate heir being released from this obligation. The legislative power
is vested in the king in conjunction with the [v.04 p.0778]national
assembly; he is supreme head of the army, supervises the executive power,
and represents the country in its foreign relations. In case of a
minority or an interregnum, a regency of three persons is appointed. The
national representation is embodied in the Sobranye, or ordinary assembly
(Bulgarian, Sŭbranïe, the Russian form Sobranye being
usually employed by foreign writers), and the Grand Sobranye, which is
convoked in extraordinary circumstances. The Sobranye is elected by
manhood suffrage, in the proportion of 1 to 20,000 of the population, for
a term of five years. Every Bulgarian citizen who can read and write and
has completed his thirtieth year is eligible as a deputy. Annual sessions
are held from the 27th of October to the 27th of December. All
legislative and financial measures must first be discussed and voted by
the Sobranye and then sanctioned and promulgated by the king. The
government is responsible to the Sobranye, and the ministers, whether
deputies or not, attend its sittings. The Grand Sobranye, which is
elected in the proportion of 2 to every 20,000 inhabitants, is convoked
to elect a new king, to appoint a regency, to sanction a change in the
constitution, or to ratify an alteration in the boundaries of the
kingdom. The executive is entrusted to a cabinet of eight
members—the ministers of foreign affairs and religion, finance,
justice, public works, the interior, commerce and agriculture, education
and war. Local administration, which is organized on the Belgian model,
is under the control of the minister of the interior. The country is
divided into twenty-two departments (okrŭg, pl.
okrŭzi), each administered by a prefect (uprávitel),
assisted by a departmental council, and eighty-four sub-prefectures
(okolía), each under a sub-prefect (okoliiski natchálnik).
The number of these functionaries is excessive. The four principal towns
have each in addition a prefect of police (gradonatchalnik) and
one or more commissaries (pristav). The gendarmery numbers about
4000 men, or 1 to 825 of the inhabitants. The prefects and sub-prefects
have replaced the Turkish mutessarifs and kaimakams; but
the system of municipal government, left untouched by the Turks, descends
from primitive times. Every commune (obshtina), urban or rural,
has its kmet, or mayor, and council; the commune is bound to
maintain its primary schools, a public library or reading-room, &c.;
the kmet possesses certain magisterial powers, and in the rural districts
he collects the taxes. Each village, as a rule, forms a separate commune,
but occasionally two or more villages are grouped together.

Justice.—The civil and penal codes are, for the most
part, based on the Ottoman law. While the principality formed a portion
of the Turkish empire, the privileges of the capitulations were
guaranteed to foreign subjects (Berlin Treaty, Art. viii.). The lowest
civil and criminal court is that of the village kmet, whose jurisdiction
is confined to the limits of the commune; no corresponding tribunal
exists in the towns. Each sub-prefecture and town has a justice of the
peace—in some cases two or more; the number of these officials is
130. Next follows the departmental tribunal or court of first instance,
which is competent to pronounce sentences of death, penal servitude and
deprivation of civil rights; in specified criminal cases the judges are
aided by three assessors chosen by lot from an annually prepared panel of
forty-eight persons. Three courts of appeal sit respectively at Sofia,
Rustchuk and Philippopolis. The highest tribunal is the court of
cassation, sitting at Sofia, and composed of a president, two
vice-presidents and nine judges. There is also a high court of audit
(vrkhovna smetna palata), similar to the French cour des
comptes. The judges are poorly paid and are removable by the
government. In regard to questions of marriage, divorce and inheritance
the Greek, Mahommedan and Jewish communities enjoy their own spiritual
jurisdiction.

Army and Navy.—The organization of the military forces of
the principality was undertaken by Russian officers, who for a period of
six years (1879-1885) occupied all the higher posts in the army. In
Eastern Rumelia during the same period the “militia” was instructed by
foreign officers; after the union it was merged in the Bulgarian army.
The present organization is based on the law of the 1st of January 1904.
The army consists of: (1) the active or field army (deïstvuyushta
armia), divided into (i.) the active army, (ii.) the active army
reserve; (2) the reserve army (reservna armia); (3) the
opltchenïe or militia; the two former may operate outside the
kingdom, the latter only within the frontier for purposes of defence. In
time of peace the active army (i.) alone is on a permanent footing.

The peace strength in 1905 was 2500 officers, 48,200 men and 8000
horses, the active army being composed of 9 divisions of infantry, each
of 4 regiments, 5 regiments of cavalry together with 12 squadrons
attached to the infantry divisions, 9 regiments of artillery each of 3
groups of 3 batteries, together with 2 groups of mountain artillery, each
of 3 batteries, and 3 battalions of siege artillery; 9 battalions of
engineers with 1 railway and balloon section and 1 bridging section. At
the same date the army was locally distributed in nine divisional areas
with headquarters at Sofia, Philippopolis, Sliven, Shumla, Rustchuk,
Vratza, Plevna, Stara-Zagora and Dupnitza, the divisional area being
subdivided into four districts, from each of which one regiment of four
battalions was recruited and completed with reservists. In case of
mobilization each of the nine areas would furnish 20,106 men (16,000
infantry, 1200 artillery, 1000 engineers, 300 divisional cavalry and 1606
transport and hospital services, &c.). The war strength thus amounted
to 180,954 of the active army and its reserve, exclusive of the five
regiments of cavalry. In addition the 36 districts each furnished 3
battalions of the reserve army and one battalion of opltchenïe, or
144,000 infantry, which with the cavalry regiments (3000 men) and the
reserves of artillery, engineers, divisional cavalry, &c. (about
10,000), would bring the grand total in time of war to about 338,000
officers and men with 18,000 horses. The men of the reserve battalions
are drafted into the active army as occasion requires, but the militia
serves as a separate force. Military service is obligatory, but Moslems
may claim exemption on payment of £20; the age of recruitment in time of
peace is nineteen, in time of war eighteen. Each conscript serves two
years in the infantry and subsequently eight years in the active reserve,
or three years in the other corps and six years in the active reserve; he
is then liable to seven years’ service in the reserve army and finally
passes into the opltchenïe. The Bulgarian peasant makes an admirable
soldier—courageous, obedient, persevering, and inured to hardship;
the officers are painstaking and devoted to their duties. The active army
and reserve, with the exception of the engineer regiments, are furnished
with the .315″ Mannlicher magazine rifle, the engineer and militia
with the Berdan; the artillery in 1905 mainly consisted of 8.7- and
7.5-cm. Krupp guns (field) and 6.5 cm. Krupp (mountain), 12 cm. Krupp and
15 cm. Creuzot (Schneider) howitzers, 15 cm. Krupp and 12 cm. Creuzot
siege guns, and 7.5 cm. Creuzot quick-firing guns; total of all
description, 1154. Defensive works were constructed at various
strategical points near the frontier and elsewhere, and at Varna and
Burgas. The naval force consisted of a flotilla stationed at Rustchuk and
Varna, where a canal connects Lake Devno with the sea. It was composed in
1905 of 1 prince’s yacht, 1 armoured cruiser, 3 gunboats, 3 torpedo boats
and 10 other small vessels, with a complement of 107 officers and 1231
men.

Religion.—The Orthodox Bulgarian National Church claims
to be an indivisible member of the Eastern Orthodox communion, and
asserts historic continuity with the autocephalous Bulgarian church of
the middle ages. It was, however, declared schismatic by the Greek
patriarch of Constantinople in 1872, although differing in no point of
doctrine from the Greek Church. The Exarch, or supreme head of the
Bulgarian Church, resides at Constantinople; he enjoys the title of
“Beatitude” (negovo Blazhenstvo), receives an annual subvention of
about £6000 from the kingdom, and exercises jurisdiction over the
Bulgarian hierarchy in all parts of the Ottoman empire. The exarch is
elected by the Bulgarian episcopate, the Holy Synod, and a general
assembly (obshti sbor), in which the laity is represented; their
choice, before the declaration of Bulgarian independence, was subject to
the sultan’s approval. The occupant of the dignity is titular
metropolitan of a Bulgarian diocese. The organization of the church
within the principality was regulated [v.04 p.0779]by statute in
1883. There are eleven eparchies or dioceses in the country, each
administered by a metropolitan with a diocesan council; one diocese has
also a suffragan bishop. Church government is vested in the Holy Synod,
consisting of four metropolitans, which assembles once a year. The laity
take part in the election of metropolitans and parish priests, only the
“black clergy,” or monks, being eligible for the episcopate. All
ecclesiastical appointments are subject to the approval of the
government. There are 2106 parishes (eporii) in the kingdom with 9
archimandrites, 1936 parish priests and 21 deacons, 78 monasteries with
184 monks, and 12 convents with 346 nuns. The celebrated monastery of
Rila possesses a vast estate in the Rilska Planina; its abbot or
hegumen owns no spiritual superior but the exarch. Ecclesiastical
affairs are under the control of the minister of public worship; the
clergy of all denominations are paid by the state, being free, however,
to accept fees for baptisms, marriages, burials, the administering of
oaths, &c. The census of January 1901 gives 3,019,999 persons of the
Orthodox faith (including 66,635 Patriarchist Greeks), 643,300
Mahommedans, 33,663 Jews, 28,569 Catholics, 13,809 Gregorian Armenians,
4524 Protestants and 419 whose religion is not stated. The Greek Orthodox
community has four metropolitans dependent on the patriarchate. The
Mahommedan community is rapidly diminishing; it is organized under 16
muftis who with their assistants receive a subvention from the
government. The Catholics, who have two bishops, are for the most part
the descendants of the medieval Paulicians; they are especially numerous
in the neighbourhood of Philippopolis and Sistova. The Armenians have one
bishop. The Protestants are mostly Methodists; since 1857 Bulgaria has
been a special field of activity for American Methodist missionaries, who
have established an important school at Samakov. The Berlin Treaty (Art.
V.) forbade religious disabilities in regard to the enjoyment of civil
and political rights, and guaranteed the free exercise of all
religions.

Education.—No educational system existed in many of the
rural districts before 1878; the peasantry was sunk in ignorance, and the
older generation remained totally illiterate. In the towns the schools
were under the superintendence of the Greek clergy, and Greek was the
language of instruction. The first Bulgarian school was opened at Gabrovo
in 1835 by the patriots Aprilov and Neophyt Rilski. After the Crimean
War, Bulgarian schools began to appear in the villages of the Balkans and
the south-eastern districts. The children of the wealthier class were
generally educated abroad. The American institution of Robert College on
the Bosporus rendered an invaluable service to the newly created state by
providing it with a number of well-educated young men fitted for
positions of responsibility. In 1878, after the liberation of the
country, there were 1658 schools in the towns and villages. Primary
education was declared obligatory from the first, but the scarcity of
properly qualified teachers and the lack of all requisites proved serious
impediments to educational organization. The government has made great
efforts and incurred heavy expenditure for the spread of education; the
satisfactory results obtained are largely due to the keen desire for
learning which exists among the people. The present educational system
dates from 1891. Almost all the villages now possess “national”
(narodni) primary schools, maintained by the communes with the aid
of a state subvention and supervised by departmental and district
inspectors. The state also assists a large number of Turkish primary
schools. The penalties for non-attendance are not very rigidly enforced,
and it has been found necessary to close the schools in the rural
districts during the summer, the children being required for labour in
the fields.

The age for primary instruction is six to ten years; in 1890, 47.01%
of the boys and 16.11% of the girls attended the primary schools; in
1898, 85% of the boys and 40% of the girls. In 1904 there were 4344
primary schools, of which 3060 were “national,” or communal, and 1284
denominational (Turkish, Greek, Jewish, &c.), attended by 340,668
pupils, representing a proportion of 9.1 per hundred inhabitants. In
addition to the primary schools, 40 infant schools for children of 3 to 6
years of age were attended by 2707 pupils. In 1888 only 327,766 persons,
or 11% of the population, were literate; in 1893 the proportion rose to
19.88%; in 1901 to 23.9%.

In the system of secondary education the distinction between the
classical and “real” or special course of study is maintained as in most
European countries; in 1904 there were 175 secondary schools and 18
gymnasia (10 for boys and 8 for girls). In addition to these there are 6
technical and 3 agricultural schools; 5 of pedagogy, 1 theological, 1
commercial, 1 of forestry, 1 of design, 1 for surgeons’ assistants, and a
large military school at Sofia. Government aid is given to students of
limited means, both for secondary education and the completion of their
studies abroad. The university of Sofia, formerly known as the “high
school,” was reorganized in 1904; it comprises 3 faculties (philology,
mathematics and law), and possesses a staff of 17 professors and 25
lecturers. The number of students in 1905 was 943.

Political History

The ancient Thraco-Illyrian race which inhabited the district between
the Danube and the Aegean was expelled, or more probably absorbed, by the
great Slavonic immigration which took place at various intervals between
the end of the 3rd century after Christ and the beginning of the 6th. The
numerous tumuli which are found in all parts of the country (see
Herodotus v. 8) and some stone tablets with bas-reliefs remain as
monuments of the aboriginal population; and certain structural
peculiarities, which are common to the Bulgarian and Rumanian languages,
may conceivably be traced to the influence of the primitive Illyrian
speech, now probably represented by the Albanian. The Slavs, an
agricultural people, were governed, even in those remote times, by the
democratic local institutions to which they are still attached; they
possessed no national leaders or central organization, and their only
political unit was the pleme, or tribe. They were considerably
influenced by contact with Roman civilization. It was reserved for a
foreign race, altogether distinct in origin, religion and customs, to
give unity and coherence to the scattered Slavonic groups, and to weld
them into a compact and powerful state which for some centuries played an
important part in the history of eastern Europe and threatened the
existence of the Byzantine empire.

The Bulgars.—The Bulgars, a Turanian race akin to the
Tatars, Huns, Avars, Petchenegs and Finns, made their appearance on the
banks of the Pruth in the latter part of the 7th century. They were a
horde of wild horsemen, fierce and barbarous, practising polygamy, and
governed despotically by their khans (chiefs) and boyars or
bolyars (nobles). Their original abode was the tract between the
Ural mountains and the Volga, where the kingdom of Great (or Black)
Bolgary existed down to the 13th century. In 679, under their khan
Asparukh (or Isperikh), they crossed the Danube, and, after subjugating
the Slavonic population of Moesia, advanced to the gates of
Constantinople and Salonica. The East Roman emperors were compelled to
cede to them the province of Moesia and to pay them an annual tribute.
The invading horde was not numerous, and during the next two centuries it
became gradually merged in the Slavonic population. Like the Franks in
Gaul the Bulgars gave their name and a political organization to the more
civilized race which they conquered, but adopted its language, customs
and local institutions. Not a trace of the Ugrian or Finnish element is
to be found in the Bulgarian speech. This complete assimilation of a
conquering race may be illustrated by many parallels.

Early Dynasties.—The history of the early Bulgarian
dynasties is little else than a record of continuous conflicts with the
Byzantine emperors. The tribute first imposed on the Greeks by Asparukh
was again exacted by Kardam (791-797) and Krum (802-815), a sovereign
noted alike for his cruelty and his military and political capacity.
Under his rule the Bulgarian realm extended from the Carpathians to the
neighbourhood of Adrianople; Serdica (the present Sofia) was taken, and
the valley of the Struma conquered. Prêslav, the Bulgarian capital, was
attacked and burned by the emperor Nicephorus, but the Greek army on its
return was annihilated in one of the Balkan passes; the emperor was
slain, and his skull was converted by Krum into a goblet. The reign of
Boris (852-884) is memorable [v.04 p.0780]for the introduction of
Christianity into Bulgaria. Two monks of Salonica, SS. Cyril and
Methodius, are generally reverenced as the national apostles; the scene
of their labours, however, was among the Slavs of Moravia, and the
Bulgars were evangelized by their disciples. Boris, finding himself
surrounded by Christian states, decided from political motives to abandon
paganism. He was baptized in 864, the emperor Michael III. acting as his
sponsor. It was at this time that the controversies broke out which ended
in the schism between the Churches of the East and West. Boris long
wavered between Constantinople and Rome, but the refusal of the pope to
recognize an autocephalous Bulgarian church determined him to offer his
allegiance to the Greek patriarch. The decision was fraught with
momentous consequences for the future of the race. The nation altered its
religion in obedience to its sovereign, and some of the boyars who
resisted the change paid with their lives for their fidelity to the
ancient belief. The independence of the Bulgarian church was recognized
by the patriarchate, a fact much dwelt upon in recent controversies. The
Bulgarian primates subsequently received the title of patriarch; their
see was transferred from Prêslav to Sofia, Voden and Prespa successively,
and finally to Ochrida.

The First Empire.—The national power reached its zenith
under Simeon (893-927), a monarch distinguished in the arts of war and
peace. In his reign, says Gibbon, “Bulgaria assumed a rank among the
civilized powers of the earth.” His dominions extended from the Black Sea
to the Adriatic, and from the borders of Thessaly to the Save and the
Carpathians. Having become the most powerful monarch in eastern Europe,
Simeon assumed the style of “Emperor and Autocrat of all the Bulgars and
Greeks” (tsar i samodrzhetz vsêm Blgarom i Grkom), a title which
was recognized by Pope Formosus. During the latter years of his reign,
which were spent in peace, his people made great progress in
civilization, literature nourished, and Prêslav, according to
contemporary chroniclers, rivalled Constantinople in magnificence. After
the death of Simeon the Bulgarian power declined owing to internal
dissensions; the land was distracted by the Bogomil heresy (see Bogomils), and a separate or western empire, including
Albania and Macedonia, was founded at Ochrida by Shishman, a boyar from
Trnovo. A notable event took place in 967, when the Russians, under
Sviatoslav, made their first appearance in Bulgaria. The Bulgarian tsar,
Boris II., with the aid of the emperor John Zimisces, expelled the
invaders, but the Greeks took advantage of their victory to dethrone
Boris, and the first Bulgarian empire thus came to an end after an
existence of three centuries. The empire at Ochrida, however, rose to
considerable importance under Samuel, the son of Shishman (976-1014), who
conquered the greater part of the Peninsula, and ruled from the Danube to
the Morea. After a series of campaigns this redoubtable warrior was
defeated at Bêlasitza by the emperor Basil II., surnamed Bulgaroktonos,
who put out the eyes of 15,000 prisoners taken in the fight, and sent
them into the camp of his adversary. The Bulgarian tsar was so
overpowered by the spectacle that he died of grief. A few years later his
dynasty finally disappeared, and for more than a century and a half
(1018-1186) the Bulgarian race remained subject to the Byzantine
emperors.

The Second Empire.—In 1186, after a general insurrection
of Vlachs and Bulgars under the brothers Ivan and Peter Asên of Trnovo,
who claimed descent from the dynasty of the Shishmanovtzi, the nation
recovered its independence, and Ivan Asên assumed the title of “Tsar of
the Bulgars and Greeks.” The seat of the second, or “Bulgaro-Vlach”
empire was at Trnovo, which the Bulgarians regard as the historic capital
of their race. Kaloyan, the third of the Asên monarchs, extended his
dominions to Belgrade, Nish and Skopïe (Uskub); he acknowledged the
spiritual supremacy of the pope, and received the royal crown from a
papal legate. The greatest of all Bulgarian rulers was Ivan Asên II.
(1218-1241), a man of humane and enlightened character. After a series of
victorious campaigns he established his sway over Albania, Epirus,
Macedonia and Thrace, and governed his wide dominions with justice,
wisdom and moderation. In his time the nation attained a prosperity
hitherto unknown: commerce, the arts and literature flourished; Trnovo,
the capital, was enlarged and embellished; and great numbers of churches
and monasteries were founded or endowed. The dynasty of the Asêns became
extinct in 1257, and a period of decadence began. Two other dynasties,
both of Kuman origin, followed—the Terterovtzi, who ruled at
Trnovo, and the Shishmanovtzi, who founded an independent state at Vidin,
but afterwards reigned in the national capital. Eventually, on the 28th
June 1330, a day commemorated with sorrow in Bulgaria, Tsar Michael
Shishman was defeated and slain by the Servians, under Stephen Urosh
III., at the battle of Velbûzhd (Kiustendil). Bulgaria, though still
retaining its native rulers, now became subject to Servia, and formed
part of the short-lived empire of Stephen Dushan (1331-1355). The Servian
hegemony vanished after the death of Dushan, and the Christian races of
the Peninsula, distracted by the quarrels of their petty princes, fell an
easy prey to the advancing might of the Moslem invader.

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 voïnitchki
sela, obtained important privileges which were not infringed till the
18th century; on condition of [v.04 p.0781]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
voïvodi 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
Báthory into Walachia in 1595. A kind of guerilla warfare was, however,
maintained in the mountains by the kaiduti, or outlaws, whose
exploits, like those of the Greek klepkts, 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 the Rûm-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 the [v.04 p.0782]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.

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 of ex-officio members; 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 [v.04 p.0783]“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 (see Servo-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 Russophil [v.04
p.0784]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 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 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 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 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 [v.04
p.0785]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 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
lesser ûs), 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 ûs changing to ŭ,
as in English “but,” the lesser to ĕ, as in “bet,” while in
Servian, Russian and Slovene the greater ûs becomes ū
or ō, 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,”
“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 vowels yer-golêm and yer-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. 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 yedvoïno, 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 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
(see Slavs). 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 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 Kosmâs and the monk Athanas of
Jerusalem; among the Bogomils the Questions 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 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 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 literary [v.04
p.0786]revival. The Istoria 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. 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. Jireček, Das
Furstenthum Bulgarien (Prague, 1891), and Cesty 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); and
Le 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,” in C.R. IX. Cong. géol. intern. de
Vienne, pp. 348-370, with map, 1904. History: C.J. Jireček,
Geschichte der Bulgaren (Prague, 1876); (a summary in The
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);
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
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 also The 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 1166 A.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 commentary De 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. This [v.04 p.0787]Commentary, 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. The
Harmonia Apostolica (1670) is an attempt to show the fundamental
agreement between the doctrines of Paul and James with regard to
justification. The Defensio 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. The Judicium Ecclesiae Catholicae (1694) and
Primitiva et Apostolica Traditio (1710) won high praise from
Bossuet and other French divines. Following on Bossuet’s criticisms of
the Judicium, Bull wrote a treatise on The 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 the Life by Robert Nelson. The
Harmonia, Defensio and Judicium are 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’s Geschichte der Musik in England,
ii. (1897), p. 155, &c.; and Dr Seiffert’s Geschichte 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, see National
Anthems. Good modern reprints, e.g. of the Fitzwilliam
Virginal-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 section
Bovina of the family Bovidae (q.v.), particularly
the uncastrated male of the domestic ox (Bos taurus). (See Cattle.) The word, which is found in M.E. as bole,
bolle (cf. Ger. Bulle, and Dutch bul or bol), is
also used of the males of other animals of large size, e.g. the
elephant, whale, &c. The O.E. diminutive form bulluc, 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 (see
Account; Stock Exchange).
The word “bull,” according to the New 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.

[v.04 p.0788]

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 term œil de bœuf is 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’s True
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. word bul, first found in the
Cursor Mundi, c. 1300, in the sense of falsehood, trickery,
deceit; the New English Dictionary compares an O.Fr. boul,
boule or bole, 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 the toga 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, bulla denotes 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 papal bullae, which have given their name to the
documents (bulls) to which they are attached. (See Diplomatic; 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 the Edinburgh 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.

In 1898 he took command of the troops at Aldershot, and when the Boer
War broke out in 1899 he was selected to command the South African Field
Force (see Transvaal), and landed [v.04 p.0789]at
Cape Town on the 31st of October. Owing to the Boer investment of
Ladysmith and the consequent gravity of the military situation in Natal,
he unexpectedly hurried thither in order to supervise personally the
operations, but on the 15th of December his first attempt to cross the
Tugela at Colenso (see Ladysmith) was repulsed.
The government, alarmed at the situation and the pessimistic tone of
Buller’s messages, sent out Lord Roberts to supersede him in the chief
command, Sir Redvers being left in subordinate command of the Natal
force. His second attempt to relieve Ladysmith (January 10-27) proved
another failure, the result of the operations at Spion Kop (January 24)
causing consternation in England. A third attempt (Vaalkrantz, February
5-7) was unsuccessful, but the Natal army finally accomplished its task
in the series of actions which culminated in the victory of Pieter’s Hill
and the relief of Ladysmith on the 27th of February. Sir Redvers Buller
remained in command of the Natal army till October 1900, when he returned
to England (being created G.C.M.G.), having in the meanwhile slowly done
a great deal of hard work in driving the Boers from the Biggarsberg (May
15), forcing Lang’s Nek (June 12), and occupying Lydenburg (September 6).
But though these latter operations had done much to re-establish his
reputation for dogged determination, and he had never lost the confidence
of his own men, his capacity for an important command in delicate and
difficult operations was now seriously questioned. The continuance,
therefore, in 1901 of his appointment to the important Aldershot command
met with a vigorous press criticism, in which the detailed objections
taken to his conduct of the operations before Ladysmith (and particularly
to a message to Sir George White in which he seriously contemplated and
provided for the contingency of surrender) were given new prominence. On
the 10th of October 1901, at a luncheon in London, Sir Redvers Buller
made a speech in answer to these criticisms in terms which were held to
be a breach of discipline, and he was placed on half-pay a few days
later. For the remaining years of his life he played an active part as a
country gentleman, accepting in dignified silence the prolonged attacks
on his failures in South Africa; among the public generally, and
particularly in his own county, he never lost his popularity. He died on
the 2nd of June 1908. He had married in 1882 Lady Audrey, daughter of the
4th Marquess Townshend, who survived him with one daughter.

A Memoir, by Lewis Butler, was published in 1909.

BULLET (Fr. boulet, diminutive of boule, ball).
The original meaning (a “small ball”) has, since the end of the 16th
century, been narrowed down to the special case of the projectile used
with small arms of all kinds, irrespective of its size or shape. (For
details see Ammunition; Gun; Rifle, &c.)

BULL-FIGHTING, the national Spanish sport. The Spanish name is
tauromaquia (Gr. ταῦρος, bull, and μαχή, combat).
Combats with bulls were common in ancient Thessaly as well as in the
amphitheatres of imperial Rome, but probably partook more of the nature
of worrying than fighting, like the bull-baiting formerly common in
England. The Moors of Africa also possessed a sport of this kind, and it
is probable that they introduced it into Andalusia when they conquered
that province. It is certain that they held bull-fights in the
half-ruined Roman amphitheatres of Merida, Cordova, Tarragona, Toledo and
other places, and that these constituted the favourite sport of the
Moorish chieftains. Although patriotic tradition names the great Cid
himself as the original Spanish bull-fighter, it is probable that the
first Spaniard to kill a bull in the arena was Don Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar,
who about 1040, employing the lance, which remained for centuries the
chief weapon used in the sport, proved himself superior to the flower of
the Moorish knights. A spirited rivalry in the art between the Christian
and Moorish warriors resulted, in which even the kings of Castile and
other Spanish princes took an ardent interest. After the Moors were
driven from Spain by Ferdinand II., bull-fighting continued to be the
favourite sport of the aristocracy, the method of fighting being on
horseback with the lance. At the time of the accession of the house of
Austria it had become an indispensable accessory of every court function,
and Charles V. ensured his popularity with the people by killing a bull
with his own lance on the birthday of his son, Philip II. Philip IV. is
also known to have taken a personal part in bull-fights. During this
period the lance was discarded in favour of the short spear
(rejoncillo), and the leg armour still worn by the
picadores was introduced. The accession of the house of Bourbon
witnessed a radical transformation in the character of the bullfight,
which the aristocracy began gradually to neglect, admitting to the
combats professional subordinates who, by the end of the 17th century,
had become the only active participants in the bull-ring. The first great
professional espada (i.e. swordsman, the chief
bull-fighter, who actually kills the bull) was Francisco Romero, of Ronda
in Andalusia (about 1700), who introduced the estoque, the sword
still used to kill the bull, and the muleta, the red flag carried
by the espada (see below), the spear falling into complete
disuse.

For the past two centuries the art of bull-fighting has developed
gradually into the spectacle of to-day. Imitations of the Spanish
bull-fights have been repeatedly introduced into France and Italy, but
the cruelty of the sport has prevented its taking firm root. In Portugal
a kind of bull-baiting is practised, in which neither man nor beast is
much hurt, the bulls having their horns truncated and padded and never
being killed. In Spain many vain attempts have been made to abolish the
sport, by Ferdinand II. himself, instigated by his wife Isabella, by
Charles III., by Ferdinand VI., and by Charles IV.; and several popes
placed its devotees under the ban of excommunication with no perceptible
effect upon its popularity. Before the introduction of railways there
were comparatively few bull-rings (plazas de toros) in Spain, but
these have largely multiplied in recent years, in both Spain and Spanish
America. At the present day nearly every larger town and city in Spain
has its plaza de toros (about 225 altogether), built in the form
of the Roman circuses with an oval open arena covered with sand,
surrounded by a stout fence about 6 ft. high. Between this and the seats
of the spectators is a narrow passage-way, where those bull-fighters who
are not at the moment engaged take their stations. The plazas de
toros are of all sizes, from that of Madrid, which holds more than
12,000 spectators, down to those seating only two or three thousand.
Every bull-ring has its hospital for the wounded, and its chapel where
the toreros (bull-fighters) receive the Holy Eucharist.

The bulls used for fighting are invariably of well-known lineage and
are reared in special establishments (vacádas), the most
celebrated of which is now that of the duke of Veragua in Andalusia. When
quite young they are branded with the emblems of their owners, and later
are put to a test of their courage, only those that show a fighting
spirit being trained further. When full grown, the health, colour,
weight, character of horns, and action in attack are all objects of the
keenest observation and study. The best bulls are worth from £40 to £60.
About 1300 bulls are killed annually in Spain. Bull-fighters proper, most
of whom are Andalusians, consist of espadas (or matadores),
banderilleros and picadores, in addition to whom there are
numbers of assistants (chulos), drivers and other servants. For
each bull-fight two or three espadas are engaged, each providing
his own quadrille (cuadrilla), composed of several
banderilleros and picadores. Six bulls are usually killed
during one corrida (bull-fight), the espadas engaged taking
them in turn. The espada must have passed through a trying
novitiate in the art at the royal school of bull-fighting, after which he
is given his alternativa, or licence.

The bull-fight begins with a grand entry of all the bull-fighters with
alguaciles, municipal officers in ancient costume, at the head,
followed, in three rows, by the espadas, banderilleros, picadores,
chulos and the richly caparisoned triple mule-team used to drag from
the arena the carcasses of the slain bulls and horses. The greatest
possible brilliance of costume and accoutrements is aimed at, and the
picture presented is one of dazzling colour. The espadas and
banderilleros wear short jackets and small-clothes of satin richly
embroidered in gold and silver, with [v.04 p.0790]light silk
stockings and heelless shoes; the picadores (pikemen on horseback)
usually wear yellow, and their legs are enclosed in steel armour covered
with leather as a protection against the horns of the bull.

The fight is divided into three divisions (suertes). When the
opening procession has passed round the arena the president of the
corrida, usually some person of rank, throws down to one of the
alguaciles the key to the toril, or bull-cells. As soon as
the supernumeraries have left the ring, and the picadores, mounted
upon blindfolded horses in wretched condition, have taken their places
against the barrier, the door of the toril is opened, and the
bull, which has been goaded into fury by the affixing to his shoulder of
an iron pin with streamers of the colours of his breeder attached, enters
the ring. Then begins the suerte de picar, or division of lancing.
The bull at once attacks the mounted picadores, ripping up and
wounding the horses, often to the point of complete disembowelment. As
the bull attacks the horse, the picador, who is armed with a
short-pointed, stout pike (garrocha), thrusts this into the bull’s
back with all his force, with the usual result that the bull turns its
attention to another picador. Not infrequently, however, the rush
of the bull and the blow dealt to the horse is of such force as to
overthrow both animal and rider, but the latter is usually rescued from
danger by the chulos and banderilleros, who, by means of
their red cloaks (capas), divert the bull from the fallen
picador, who either escapes from the ring or mounts a fresh horse.
The number of horses killed in this manner is one of the chief features
of the fight, a bull’s prowess being reckoned accordingly. About 6000
horses are killed every year in Spain. At the sound of a trumpet the
picadores retire from the ring, the dead horses are dragged out,
and the second division of the fight, the suerte de banderillear,
or planting the darts, begins. The banderillas are barbed darts
about 18 in. long, ornamented with coloured paper, one being held in each
hand of the bull-fighter, who, standing 20 or 30 yds. from the bull,
draws its attention to him by means of violent gestures. As the bull
charges, the banderillero steps towards him, dexterously plants
both darts in the beast’s neck, and draws aside in the nick of time to
avoid its horns. Four pairs of banderillas are planted in this
way, rendering the bull mad with rage and pain. Should the animal prove
of a cowardly nature and refuse to attack repeatedly, banderillas de
fuego (fire) are used. These are furnished with fulminating crackers,
which explode with terrific noise as the bull careers about the ring.
During this division numerous manœuvres are sometimes indulged in
for the purpose of tiring the bull out, such as leaping between his
horns, vaulting over his back with the garrocha as he charges, and
inviting his rushes by means of elaborate flauntings of the cloak
(floréos, flourishes).

Another trumpet-call gives the signal for the final division of the
fight, the suerte de matár (killing). This is carried out by the
espada, alone, his assistants being present only in the case of
emergency or to get the bull back to the proper part of the ring, should
he bolt to a distance. The espada, taking his stand before the box
of the president, holds aloft in his left hand sword and muleta
and in his right his hat, and in set phrases formally dedicates
(brinde) the death of the bull to the president or some other
personage of rank, finishing by tossing his hat behind his back and
proceeding bareheaded to the work of killing the bull. This is a process
accompanied by much formality. The espada, armed with the
estoque, a sword with a heavy flat blade, brings the bull into the
proper position by means of passes with the muleta, a small red
silk flag mounted on a short staff, and then essays to kill him with a
single thrust, delivered through the back of the neck close to the head
and downward into the heart. This stroke is a most difficult one,
requiring long practice as well as great natural dexterity, and very
frequently fails of its object, the killing of the bull often requiring
repeated thrusts. The stroke (estocada) is usually given á
volapié (half running), the espada delivering the thrust while
stepping forward, the bull usually standing still. Another method is
recibiéndo (receiving), the espada receiving the onset of
the bull upon the point of his sword. Should the bull need a coup de
grâce, it is given by a chulo, called puntilléro, with
a dagger which pierces the spinal marrow. The dead beast is then dragged
out of the ring by the triple mule-team, while the espada makes a
tour of honour, being acclaimed, in the case of a favourite, with the
most extravagant enthusiasm. The ring is then raked over, a second bull
is introduced, and the spectacle begins anew. Upon great occasions, such
as a coronation, a corrida in the ancient style is given by
amateurs, who are clad in gala costumes without armour of any kind, and
mounted upon steeds of good breed and condition. They are armed with
sharp lances, with which they essay to kill the bull while protecting
themselves and their steeds from his horns. As the bulls in these
encounters have not been weakened by many wounds and tired out by much
running, the performances of the gentlemen fighters are remarkable for
pluck and dexterity.

See Moratin, Origen y Progeso de las Fiestas de Toros; Bedoya’s
Historia del Toreo; J.S. Lozano, Manual de Tauromaquia
(Seville, 1882); A. Chapman and W.T. Buck, Wild Spain (London,
1893).

BULLFINCH (Pyrrhula vulgaris), the ancient English name
given to a bird belonging to the family Fringillidae (see Finch), of a bluish-grey and black colour above, and
generally of a bright tile-red beneath, the female differing chiefly in
having its under-parts chocolate-brown. It is a shy bird, not associating
with other species, and frequents well-wooded districts, being very
rarely seen on moors or other waste lands. It builds a shallow nest
composed of twigs lined with fibrous roots, on low trees or thick
underwood, only a few feet from the ground, and lays four or five eggs of
a bluish-white colour speckled and streaked with purple. The young remain
with their parents during autumn and winter, and pair in spring, not
building their nests, however, till May. In spring and summer they feed
on the buds of trees and bushes, choosing, it is said, such only as
contain the incipient blossom, and thus doing immense injury to orchards
and gardens. In autumn and winter they feed principally on wild fruits
and on seeds. The note of the bullfinch, in the wild state, is soft and
pleasant, but so low as scarcely to be audible; it possesses, however,
great powers of imitation, and considerable memory, and can thus be
taught to whistle a variety of tunes. Bullfinches are very abundant in
the forests of Germany, and it is there that most of the piping
bullfinches are trained. They are taught continuously for nine months,
and the lesson is repeated throughout the first moulting, as during that
change the young birds are apt to forget all that they have previously
acquired. The bullfinch is a native of the northern countries of Europe,
occurring in Italy and other southern parts only as a winter visitor.
White and black varieties are occasionally met with; the latter are often
produced by feeding the bullfinch exclusively on hempseed, when its
plumage gradually changes to black. It rarely breeds in confinement, and
hybrids between it and the canary have been produced on but few
occasions.

BULLI, a town of Camden county, New South Wales, Australia, 59
m. by rail S. of Sydney. Pop. (1901) 2500. It is the headquarters of the
Bulli Mining Company, whose coal-mine on the flank of the Illawarra
Mountains is worked by a tunnel, 2 m. long, driven into the heart of the
mountain. From this tunnel the coal is conveyed by rail for 1½ m. to a
pier, whence it is shipped to Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane by a fleet
of steam colliers. The beautiful Bulli Pass, 1000 ft. above the sea, over
the Illawarra range, is one of the most attractive tourist resorts in
Australia.

BULLINGER, HEINRICH (1504-1575), Swiss reformer, son of Dean
Heinrich Bullinger by his wife Anna (Wiederkehr), was born at Bremgarten,
Aargau, on the 18th of July 1504. He studied at Emmerich and Cologne,
where the teaching of Peter Lombard led him, through Augustine and
Chrysostom, to first-hand study of the Bible. Next the writings of
Luther and Melanchthon appealed to him. Appointed teacher (1522) in the
cloister school of Cappel, he lectured on Melanchthon’s Loci
Communes (1521). He heard Zwingli at Zürich in 1527, and next year
accompanied him to the disputation at Berne. He was made pastor of
Bremgarten in 1529, and married Anna Adlischweiler, a nun, by whom he had
eleven children. After the battle [v.04 p.0791]of Cappel (11th
of October 1531), in which Zwingli fell, he left Bremgarten. On the 9th
of December 1531 he was chosen to succeed Zwingli as chief pastor of
Zürich. A strong writer and thinker, his spirit was essentially unifying
and sympathetic, in an age when these qualities won little sympathy. His
controversies on the Lord’s Supper with Luther, and his correspondence
with Lelio Sozini (see Socinus), exhibit, in
different connexions, his admirable mixture of dignity and tenderness.
With Calvin he concluded (1549) the Consensus Tigurinus on the
Lord’s Supper. The (second) Helvetic Confession (1566) adopted in
Switzerland, Hungary, Bohemia and elsewhere, was his work. The volumes of
the Zurich Letters, published by the Parker Society, testify to
his influence on the English reformation in later stages. Many of his
sermons were translated into English (reprinted, 4 vols., 1849). His
works, mainly expository and polemical, have not been collected. He died
at Zürich on the 17th of September 1575.

See Carl Pestalozzi, Leben (1858); Raget Christoffel, H.
Bullinger (1875); Justus Heer, in Hauck’s Realencyklopadie
(1897).

(A. Go.*)

BULLION, a term applied to the gold and silver of the mines
brought to a standard of purity. The word appears in an English act of
1336 in the French form “puissent sauvement porter à les exchanges ou
bullion … argent en plate, vessel d’argent, &c.”; and apparently it
is connected with bouillon, the sense of “boiling” being
transferred in English to the melting of metal, so that bullion in
the passage quoted meant “melting-house” or “mint.” The first recorded
instance of the use of the word for precious metal as such in the mass is
in an act of 1451. From the use of gold and silver as a medium of
exchange, it followed that they should approximate in all nations to a
common degree of fineness; and though this is not uniform even in coins,
yet the proportion of alloy in silver, and of carats alloy to carats fine
in gold, has been reduced to infinitesimal differences in the bullion of
commerce, and is a prime element of value even in gold and silver plate,
jewelry, and other articles of manufacture. Bullion, whether in the form
of coins, or of bars and ingots stamped, is subject, as a general rule of
the London market, not only to weight but to assay, and receives a
corresponding value.

BULLOCK, WILLIAM (c. 1657-c. 1740), English
actor, “of great glee and much comic vivacity,” was the original Clincher
in Farquhar’s Constant Couple (1699), Boniface in The Beaux’
Stratagem (1707), and Sir Francis Courtall in Pavener’s Artful
Wife (1717). He played at all the London theatres of his time, and in
the summer at a booth at Bartholomew Fair. He had three sons, all actors,
of whom the eldest was Christopher Bullock (c. 1690-1724), who at
Drury Lane, the Haymarket and Lincoln’s Inn Fields displayed “a
considerable versatility of talent.” Christopher created a few original
parts in comedies and farces of which he was the author or
adapter:—A Woman’s Revenge (1715); Slip;
Adventures of Half an Hour (1716); The Cobbler of Preston;
Woman’s a Riddle; The Perjurer (1717); and The
Traitor (1718).

BULLROARER, the English name for an instrument made of a small
flat slip of wood, through a hole in one end of which a string is passed;
swung round rapidly it makes a booming, humming noise. Though treated as
a toy by Europeans, the bullroarer has had the highest mystic
significance and sanctity among primitive people. This is notably the
case in Australia, where it figures in the initiation ceremonies and is
regarded with the utmost awe by the “blackfellows.” Their bullroarers, or
sacred “tunduns,” are of two types, the “grandfather” or “man tundun,”
distinguished by its deep tone, and the “woman tundun,” which, being
smaller, gives forth a weaker, shriller note. Women or girls, and boys
before initiation, are never allowed to see the tundun. At the Bora, or
initiation ceremonies, the bullroarer’s hum is believed to be the voice
of the “Great Spirit,” and on hearing it the women hide in terror. A
Maori bullroarer is preserved in the British Museum, and travellers in
Africa state that it is known and held sacred there. Thus among the Egba
tribe of the Yoruba race the supposed “Voice of Oro,” their god of
vengeance, is produced by a bullroarer, which is actually worshipped as
the god himself. The sanctity of the bullroarer has been shown to be very
widespread. There is no doubt that the rhombus ῥόμβος which was whirled at
the Greek mysteries was one. Among North American Indians it was common.
At certain Moqui ceremonies the procession of dancers was led by a priest
who whirled a bullroarer. The instrument has been traced among the
Tusayan, Apache and Navaho Indians (J.G. Bourke, Ninth Annual Report
of Bureau of Amer. Ethnol., 1892), among the Koskimo of British
Columbia (Fr. Boas, “Social Organization, &c., of the Kwakiutl
Indians,” Report of the U.S. National Museum for 1895), and in
Central Brazil. In New Guinea, in some of the islands of the Torres
Straits (where it is swung as a fishing-charm), in Ceylon (where it is
used as a toy and figures as a sacred instrument at Buddhist festivals),
and in Sumatra (where it is used to induce the demons to carry off the
soul of a woman, and so drive her mad), the bullroarer is also found.
Sometimes, as among the Minangkabos of Sumatra, it is made of the frontal
bone of a man renowned for his bravery.

See A. Lang, Custom and Myth (1884); J.D.E. Schmeltz, Das
Schwirrholz (Hamburg, 1896); A.C. Haddon, The Study of Man,
and in the Journ. Anthrop. Instit. xix., 1890; G.M.C. Theal,
Kaffir Folk-Lore; A.B. Ellis, Yoruba-Speaking Peoples
(1894); R.C. Codrington, The Melanesians (1891).

BULL RUN, a small stream of Virginia, U.S.A., which gave the
name to two famous battles in the American Civil War.

(1) The first battle of Bull Run (called by the Confederates Manassas)
was fought on the 21st of July 1861 between the Union forces under
Brigadier-General Irvin McDowell and the Confederates under General
Joseph E. Johnston. Both armies were newly raised and almost untrained.
After a slight action on the 18th at Blackburn’s Ford, the two armies
prepared for a battle. The Confederates were posted along Bull Run,
guarding all the passages from the Stone Bridge down to the railway
bridge. McDowell’s forces rendezvoused around Centreville, and both
commanders, sensible of the temper of their troops, planned a battle for
the 21st. On his part McDowell ordered one of his four divisions to
attack the Stone Bridge, two to make a turning movement via Sudley
Springs, the remaining division (partly composed of regular troops) was
to be in reserve and to watch the lower fords. The local Confederate
commander, Brigadier-General P.G.T. Beauregard, had also intended to
advance, and General Johnston, who arrived by rail on the evening of the
20th with the greater part of a fresh army, and now assumed command of
the whole force, approved an offensive movement against Centreville for
the 21st; but orders miscarried, and the Federal attack opened before the
movement had begun. Johnston and Beauregard then decided to fight a
defensive battle, and hurried up troops to support the single brigade of
Evans which held the Stone Bridge. Thus there was no serious fighting at
the lower fords of Bull Run throughout the day.

The Federal staff was equally inexperienced, and the divisions [v.04
p.0792]engaged in the turning movement met with many unnecessary
checks. At 6 A.M., when the troops told off for
the frontal attack appeared before the Stone Bridge, the turning movement
was by no means well advanced. Evans had time to change position so as to
command both the Stone Bridge and Sudley Springs, and he was promptly
supported by the brigades of Bee, Bartow and T.J. Jackson. About 9.30 the
leading Federal brigade from Sudley Springs came into action, and two
hours later Evans, Bee and Bartow had been driven off the Matthews hill
in considerable confusion. But on the Henry House hill Jackson’s brigade
stood, as General Bee said to his men, “like a stone wall,” and the
defenders rallied, though the Federals were continually reinforced. The
fighting on the Henry House hill was very severe, but McDowell, who dared
not halt to re-form his enthusiastic volunteers, continued to attack.
About 1.30 P.M. he brought up two regular
batteries to the fighting line; but a Confederate regiment, being
mistaken for friendly troops and allowed to approach, silenced the guns
by close rifle fire, and from that time, though the hill was taken and
retaken several times, the Federal attack made no further headway. At
2.45 more of Beauregard’s troops had come up; Jackson’s brigade charged
with the bayonet, and at the same time the Federals were assailed in
flank by the last brigades of Johnston’s army, which arrived at the
critical moment from the railway. They gave way at once, tired out, and
conscious that the day was lost, and after one rally melted away slowly
to the rear, the handful of regulars alone keeping their order. But when,
at the defile of the Cub Run, they came under shell fire the retreat
became a panic flight to the Potomac. The victors were too much exhausted
to pursue, and the U.S. regulars of the reserve division formed a strong
and steady rearguard. The losses were—Federals, 2896 men out of
about 18,500 engaged; Confederates, 1982 men out of 18,000.

(2) The operations of the last days of August 1862, which include the
second battle of Bull Run (second Manassas), are amongst the most
complicated of the war. At the outset the Confederate general Lee’s army
(Longstreet’s and Jackson’s corps) lay on the Rappahannock, faced by the
Federal Army of Virginia under Major-General John Pope, which was to be
reinforced by troops from McClellan’s army to a total strength of 150,000
men as against Lee’s 60,000. Want of supplies soon forced Lee to move,
though not to retreat, and his plan for attacking Pope was one of the
most daring in all military history. Jackson with half the army was
despatched on a wide turning movement which was to bring him via Salem
and Thoroughfare Gap to Manassas Junction in Pope’s rear; when Jackson’s
task was accomplished Lee and Longstreet were to follow him by the same
route. Early on the 25th of August Jackson began his march round the
right of Pope’s army; on the 26th the column passed Thoroughfare Gap, and
Bristoe Station, directly in Pope’s rear, was reached on the same
evening, while a detachment drove a Federal post from Manassas Junction.
On the 27th the immense magazines at the Junction were destroyed. On his
side Pope had soon discovered Jackson’s departure, and had arranged for
an immediate attack on Longstreet. When, however, the direction of
Jackson’s march on Thoroughfare Gap became clear, Pope fell back in order
to engage him, at the same time ordering his army to concentrate on
Warrenton, Greenwich and Gainesville. He was now largely reinforced. On
the evening of the 27th one of his divisions, marching to its point of
concentration, met a division of Jackson’s corps, near Bristoe Station;
after a sharp fight the Confederate general, Ewell, retired on Manassas.
Pope now realized that he had Jackson’s corps in front of him at the
Junction, and at once took steps to attack Manassas with all his forces.
He drew off even the corps at Gainesville for his intended battle of the
28th; McDowell, however, its commander, on his own responsibility, left
Ricketts’s division at Thoroughfare Gap. But Pope’s blow was struck in
the air. When he arrived at Manassas on the 28th he found nothing but the
ruins of his magazines, and one of McDowell’s divisions (King’s) marching
from Gainesville on Manassas Junction met Jackson’s infantry near
Groveton. The situation had again changed completely. Jackson had no
intention of awaiting Pope at Manassas, and after several feints made
with a view to misleading the Federal scouts he finally withdrew to a
hidden position between Groveton and Sudley Springs, to await the arrival
of Longstreet, who, taking the same route as Jackson had done, arrived on
the 28th at Thoroughfare Gap and, engaging Ricketts’s division, finally
drove it back to Gainesville. On the evening of this day Jackson’s corps
held the line Sudley Springs-Groveton, his right wing near Groveton
opposing King’s division; and Longstreet held Thoroughfare Gap, facing
Ricketts at Gainesville. On Ricketts’s right was King near Groveton, and
the line was continued thence by McDowell’s remaining division and by
Sigel’s corps to the Stone Bridge. At Centreville, 7 m. away, was Pope
with three divisions, a fourth was north-east of Manassas Junction, and
Porter’s corps at Bristoe Station. Thus, while Ricketts continued at
Gainesville to mask Longstreet, Pope could concentrate a superior force
against Jackson, whom he now believed to be meditating a retreat to the
Gap. But a series of misunderstandings resulted in the withdrawal of
Ricketts and King, so that nothing now intervened between Longstreet and
Jackson; while Sigel and McDowell’s other division alone remained to face
Jackson until such time as Pope could bring up the rest of his scattered
forces. Jackson now closed on his left and prepared for battle, and on
the morning of the 29th the Confederates, posted behind a high railway
embankment, repelled two sharp attacks made by Sigel. Pope arrived at
noon with the divisions from Centreville, which, led by the general
himself and by Reno and Hooker, two of the bravest officers in the Union
army, made a third and most desperate attack on Jackson’s line. The
latter, repulsing it with difficulty, carried its counter-stroke too far
and was in turn repulsed by Grover’s brigade of Hooker’s division. Grover
then made a fourth assault, but was driven back with terrible loss. The
last assault, gallantly delivered by two divisions under Kearny and
Stevens, drove the Confederate left out of its position; but a
Confederate counter-attack, led by the brave Jubal Early, dislodged the
assailants with the bayonet.

In the meanwhile events had taken place near Groveton which were, for
twenty years after the war, the subject of controversy and recrimination
(see Porter, Fitz-John).
When Porter’s and part of McDowell’s corps, acting on various orders sent
by Pope, approached Gainesville from the south-east, Longstreet had
already reached that place, and the Federals thus encountered a force of
unknown strength at the moment when Sigel’s guns to the northward showed
him to be closely engaged with Jackson. The two generals consulted, and
McDowell marched off to join Sigel, while Porter remained to hold the new
enemy in check. In this he succeeded; Longstreet, though far superior in
numbers, made no forward move, and his advanced guard alone came into
action. On the night of the 29th Lee reunited the wings of his army on
the field of battle. He had forced Pope back many miles from the
Rappahannock, and expecting that the Federals would retire to the line of
Bull Run before giving battle, he now decided to wait for the last
divisions of Longstreet’s corps, which were still distant. But Pope,
still sanguine, ordered a “general pursuit” of Jackson for the 30th.
There was some ground for his suppositions, for Jackson had retired a
short distance and Longstreet’s advanced guard had also fallen back.
McDowell, however, who was in general charge of the Federal right on the
30th, soon saw that Jackson was not retreating and stopped the “pursuit,”
and the attack on Jackson’s right, which Pope had ordered Porter to make,
was repulsed by Longstreet’s overwhelming forces. Then Lee’s whole line,
4 m. long, made its grand counter-stroke (4 P.M.). There was now no hesitation in Longstreet’s
attack; the Federal left was driven successively from every position it
took up, and Longstreet finally captured Bald Hill. Jackson, though
opposed by the greater part of Pope’s forces, advanced to the Matthews
hill, and his artillery threatened the Stone Bridge. The Federals, driven
back to the banks of Bull Run, were only saved by the gallant defence of
the Henry House hill by the Pennsylvanian division of Reynolds and the
regulars [v.04 p.0793]under Sykes. Pope withdrew under
cover of night to Centreville. Here he received fresh reinforcements, but
Jackson was already marching round his new right, and after the action of
Chantilly (1st of September) the whole Federal army fell back to
Washington. The Union forces present on the field on the 29th and 30th
numbered about 63,000, the strength of Lee’s army being on the same dates
about 54,000. Besides their killed and wounded the Federals lost very
heavily in prisoners.

BULLY (of uncertain origin, but possibly connected with a
Teutonic word seen in many compounds, as the Low Ger. bullerjaan,
meaning “noisy”; the word has also, with less probability, been derived
from the Dutch boel, and Ger. Buhle, a lover), originally a
fine, swaggering fellow, as in “Bully Bottom” in A Midsummer Night’s
Dream, later an overbearing ruffian, especially a coward who abuses
his strength by ill-treating the weak; more technically a
souteneur, a man who lives on the earnings of a prostitute. The
term in its early use of “fine” or “splendid” survives in American
slang.

BÜLOW, BERNHARD ERNST VON (1815-1879), Danish and German
statesman, was the son of Adolf von Bülow, a Danish official, and was
born at Cismar in Holstein on the 2nd of August 1815. He studied law at
the universities of Berlin, Göttingen and Kiel, and began his political
career in the service of Denmark, in the chancery of
Schleswig-Holstein-Lauenburg at Copenhagen, and afterwards in the foreign
office. In 1842 he became councillor of legation, and in 1847 Danish
chargé d’affaires in the Hanse towns, where his intercourse with
the merchant princes led to his marriage in 1848 with a wealthy heiress,
Louise Victorine Rücker. When the insurrection broke out in the Elbe
duchies (1848) he left the Danish service, and offered his services to
the provisional government of Kiel, an offer that was not accepted. In
1849, accordingly, he re-entered the service of Denmark, was appointed a
royal chamberlain and in 1850 sent to represent the duchies of Schleswig
and Holstein at the restored federal diet of Frankfort. Here he came into
intimate touch with Bismarck, who admired his statesmanlike handling of
the growing complications of the Schleswig-Holstein Question. With the
radical “Eider-Dane” party he was utterly out of sympathy; and when, in
1862, this party gained the upper hand, he was recalled from Frankfort.
He now entered the service of the grand-duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, and
remained at the head of the grand-ducal government until 1867, when he
became plenipotentiary for the two Mecklenburg duchies in the council of
the German Confederation (Bundesrat), where he distinguished himself by
his successful defence of the medieval constitution of the duchies
against Liberal attacks. In 1873 Bismarck, who was in thorough sympathy
with his views, persuaded him to enter the service of Prussia as
secretary of state for foreign affairs, and from this time till his death
he was the chancellor’s most faithful henchman. In 1875 he was appointed
Prussian plenipotentiary in the Bundesrat; in 1877 he became Bismarck’s
lieutenant in the secretaryship for foreign affairs of the Empire; and in
1878 he was, with Bismarck and Hohenlohe, Prussian plenipotentiary at the
congress of Berlin. He died at Frankfort on the 20th of October 1879, his
end being hastened by his exertions in connexion with the political
crisis of that year. Of his six sons the eldest, Bernhard Heinrich Karl
(see below), became chancellor of the Empire.

See the biography of H. von Petersdorff in Allgemeine deutsche
Biographie, Band 47, p. 350.

BÜLOW, BERNHARD HEINRICH KARL MARTIN, Prince
von (1849- ), German statesman, was born on the 3rd of May 1849,
at Klein-Flottbeck, in Holstein. The Bülow family is one very widely
extended in north Germany, and many members have attained distinction in
the civil and military service of Prussia, Denmark and Mecklenburg.
Prince Bülow’s great-uncle, Heinrich von Bülow, who was distinguished for
his admiration of England and English institutions, was Prussian
ambassador in England from 1827 to 1840, and married a daughter of
Wilhelm von Humboldt (see the letters of Gabrielle von Bülow). His
father, Bernhard Ernst von Bülow, is separately noticed above.

Prince Bülow must not be confused with his contemporary Otto v. Bülow
(1827-1901), an official in the Prussian foreign office, who in 1882 was
appointed German envoy at Bern, from 1892 to 1898 was Prussian envoy to
the Vatican, and died at Rome on the 22nd of November 1901.

Bernhard von Bülow, after serving in the Franco-Prussian War, entered
the Prussian civil service, and was then transferred to the diplomatic
service. In 1876 he was appointed attaché to the German embassy in Paris,
and after returning for a while to the foreign office at Berlin, became
second secretary to the embassy in Paris in 1880. From 1884 he was first
secretary to the embassy at St Petersburg, and acted as chargé
d’affaires; in 1888 he was appointed envoy at Bucharest, and in 1893
to the post of German ambassador at Rome. In 1897, on the retirement of
Baron Marshall von Bieberstein, he was appointed secretary of state for
foreign affairs (the same office which his father had held) under Prince
Hohenlohe, with a seat in the Prussian ministry. The appointment caused
much surprise at the time, as Bülow was little known outside diplomatic
circles. The explanations suggested were that he had made himself very
popular at Rome and that his appointment was therefore calculated to
strengthen the loosening bonds of the Triple Alliance, and also that his
early close association with Bismarck would ensure the maintenance of the
Bismarckian tradition. As foreign secretary Herr von Bülow was chiefly
responsible for carrying out the policy of colonial expansion with which
the emperor had identified himself, and in 1899, on bringing to a
successful conclusion the negotiations by which the Caroline Islands were
acquired by Germany, he was raised to the rank of count. On the
resignation of Hohenlohe in 1900 he was chosen to succeed him as
chancellor of the empire and president of the Prussian ministry.

The Berliner Neueste Nachrichten, commenting on this
appointment, very aptly characterized the relations of the new chancellor
to the emperor, in contrast to the position occupied by Bismarck. “The
Germany of William II.,” it said, “does not admit a Titan in the position
of the highest official of the Empire. A cautious and versatile
diplomatist like Bernhard von Bülow appears to be best adapted to the
personal and political necessities of the present situation.” Count
Bülow, indeed, though, like Bismarck, a “realist,” utilitarian and
opportunist in his policy, made no effort to emulate the masterful
independence of the great chancellor. He was accused, indeed, of being
little more than the complacent executor of the emperor’s will, and
defended himself in the Reichstag against the charge. The substance of
the relations between the emperor and himself, he declared, rested on
mutual good-will, and added: “I must lay it down most emphatically that
the prerogative of the emperor’s personal initiative must not be
curtailed, and will not be curtailed, by any chancellor…. As regards
the chancellor, however, I say that no imperial chancellor worthy of the
name … would take up any position which in his conscience he did not
regard as justifiable.” It is clear that the position of a chancellor
holding these views in relation to a ruler so masterful and so impulsive
as the emperor William II. could be no easy one; and Bülow’s long
continuance in office is the best proof of his genius. His first
conspicuous act as chancellor was a masterly defence in the Reichstag of
German action in China, a defence which was, indeed, rendered easier by
the fact that Prince Hohenlohe had—to use his own words—”dug
a canal” for the flood of imperial ambition of which warning had been
given in the famous “mailed fist” speech. Such incidents as this,
however, though they served to exhibit consummate tact and diplomatic
skill, give little index to the fundamental character of his work as
chancellor. Of this it may be said, in general, that it carried on the
best traditions of the Prussian service in whole-hearted devotion to the
interests of the state. The accusation that he was an “agrarian” he
thought it necessary to rebut in a speech delivered on the 18th of
February 1906 to the German Handelstag. He was an agrarian, he declared,
in so far as he came of a land-owning family, and was interested in the
prosperity of agriculture; but as chancellor, whose function it is to
watch over the welfare [v.04 p.0794]of all classes, he was equally
concerned with the interests of commerce and industry (Kölnische
Zeitung, Feb. 20, 1906). Some credit for the immense material
expansion of Germany under his chancellorship is certainly due to his
zeal and self-devotion. This was generously recognized by the emperor in
a letter publicly addressed to the chancellor on the 21st of May 1906,
immediately after the passage of the Finance Bill. “I am fully
conscious,” it ran, “of the conspicuous share in the initiation and
realization of this work of reform… which must be ascribed to the
statesmanlike skill and self-sacrificing devotion with which you have
conducted and promoted those arduous labours.” Rumours had from time to
time been rife of a “chancellor crisis” and Bülow’s dismissal; in the
Berliner Tageblatt this letter was compared to the “Never!” with
which the emperor William I. had replied to Bismarck’s proffered
resignation.

On the 6th of June 1905 Count Bülow was raised to the rank of prince
(Fürst), on the occasion of the marriage of the crown prince. The
coincidence of this date with the fall of M. Delcassé, the French
minister for foreign affairs—a triumph for Germany and a
humiliation for France—was much commented on at the time (see
The Times, June 7, 1905); and the elevation of Bismarck to the
rank of prince in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles was recalled.
Whatever element of truth there may have been in this, however, the
significance of the incident was much exaggerated.

On the 5th of April 1906, while attending a debate in the Reichstag,
Prince Bülow was seized with illness, the result of overwork and an
attack of influenza, and was carried unconscious from the hall. At first
it was thought that the attack would be fatal, and Lord Fitzmaurice in
the House of Lords compared the incident with that of the death of
Chatham, a compliment much appreciated in Germany. The illness, however,
quickly took a favourable turn, and after a month’s rest the chancellor
was able to resume his duties. In 1907 Prince Bülow was made the subject
of a disgraceful libel, which received more attention than it deserved
because it coincided with the Harden-Moltke scandals; his character was,
however, completely vindicated, and the libeller, a journalist named
Brand, received a term of imprisonment.

The parliamentary skill of Prince Bülow in holding together the
heterogeneous elements of which the government majority in the Reichstag
was composed, no less than the diplomatic tact with which he from time to
time “interpreted” the imperial indiscretions to the world, was put to a
rude test by the famous “interview” with the German emperor, published in
the London Daily Telegraph of the 28th of October 1908 (see William II., German emperor), which aroused universal
reprobation in Germany. Prince Bülow assumed the official responsibility,
and tendered his resignation to the emperor, which was not accepted; but
the chancellor’s explanation in the Reichstag on the 10th of November
showed how keenly he felt his position. He declared his conviction that
the disastrous results of the interview would “induce the emperor in
future to observe that strict reserve, even in private conversations,
which is equally indispensable in the interest of a uniform policy and
for the authority of the crown,” adding that, in the contrary case,
neither he nor any successor of his could assume the responsibility
(The Times, Nov. 11, 1908, p. 9). The attitude of the emperor
showed that he had taken the lesson to heart. It was not the imperial
indiscretions, but the effect of his budget proposals in breaking up the
Liberal-Conservative bloc, on whose support he depended in the
Reichstag, that eventually drove Prince Bülow from office (see Germany: History). At the emperor’s request he
remained to pilot the mutilated budget through the House; but on the 14th
of July 1909 the acceptance of his resignation was announced.

Prince Bülow married, on the 9th of January 1886, Maria Anna Zoe
Rosalia Beccadelli di Bologna, Princess Camporeale, whose first marriage
with Count Karl von Dönhoff had been dissolved and declared null by the
Holy See in 1884. The princess, an accomplished pianist and pupil of
Liszt, was a step-daughter of the Italian statesman Minghetti.

See J. Penzler, Graf Bülows Reden nebst urkundlichen Beiträgen zu
seiner Politik (Leipzig, 1903).

BÜLOW, DIETRICH HEINRICH, Freiherr von
(1757-1807), Prussian soldier and military writer, and brother of General
Count F.W. Bülow, entered the Prussian army in 1773. Routine work proved
distasteful to him, and he read with avidity the works of the chevalier
Folard and other theoretical writers on war, and of Rousseau. After
sixteen years’ service he left Prussia, and endeavoured without success
to obtain a commission in the Austrian army. He then returned to Prussia,
and for some time managed a theatrical company. The failure of this
undertaking involved Bülow in heavy losses, and soon afterwards he went
to America, where he seems to have been converted to, and to have
preached, Swedenborgianism. On his return to Europe he persuaded his
brother to engage in a speculation for exporting glass to the United
States, which proved a complete failure. After this for some years he
made a precarious living in Berlin by literary work, but his debts
accumulated, and it was under great disadvantages that he produced his
Geist des Neueren Kriegssystems (Hamburg, 1799) and Der Feldzug
1800 (Berlin, 1801). His hopes of military employment were again
disappointed, and his brother, the future field marshal, who had stood by
him in all his troubles, finally left him. After wandering in France and
the smaller German states, he reappeared at Berlin in 1804, where he
wrote a revised edition of his Geist des Neueren Kriegssystems
(Hamburg, 1805), Lehrsätze des Neueren Kriegs (Berlin, 1805),
Geschichte des Prinzen Heinrich von Preussen (Berlin, 1805),
Neue Taktik der Neuern wie sie sein sollte (Leipzig, 1805), and
Der Feldzug 1805 (Leipzig, 1806). He also edited, with G.H. von
Behrenhorst (1733-1814) and others, Annalen des Krieges (Berlin,
1806). These brilliant but unorthodox works, distinguished by an open
contempt of the Prussian system, cosmopolitanism hardly to be
distinguished from high treason, and the mordant sarcasm of a
disappointed man, brought upon Bülow the enmity of the official classes
and of the government. He was arrested as insane, but medical examination
proved him sane and he was then lodged as a prisoner in Colberg, where he
was harshly treated, though Gneisenau obtained some mitigation of his
condition. Thence he passed into Russian hands and died in prison at Riga
in 1807, probably as a result of ill-treatment.

In Bülow’s writings there is evident a distinct contrast between the
spirit of his strategical and that of his tactical ideas. As a strategist
(he claimed to be the first of strategists) he reduces to mathematical
rules the practice of the great generals of the 18th century, ignoring
“friction,” and manœuvring his armies in vacuo. At the same
time he professes that his system provides working rules for the armies
of his own day, which in point of fact were “armed nations,” infinitely
more affected by “friction” than the small dynastic and professional
armies of the preceding age. Bülow may therefore be considered as
anything but a reformer in the domain of strategy. With more justice he
has been styled the “father of modern tactics.” He was the first to
recognize that the conditions of swift and decisive war brought about by
the French Revolution involved wholly new tactics, and much of his
teaching had a profound influence on European warfare of the 19th
century. His early training had shown him merely the pedantic
minutiae of Frederick’s methods, and, in the absence of any troops
capable of illustrating the real linear tactics, he became an
enthusiastic supporter of the methods, which (more of necessity than from
judgment) the French revolutionary generals had adopted, of fighting in
small columns covered by skirmishers. Battles, he maintained, were won by
skirmishers. “We must organize disorder,” he said; indeed, every argument
of writers of the modern “extended order” school is to be found
mutatis mutandis in Bülow, whose system acquired great prominence
in view of the mechanical improvements in armament. But his tactics, like
his strategy, were vitiated by the absence of “friction,” and their
dependence on the realization of an unattainable standard of bravery.

See von Voss, H. von Bülow (Köln, 1806); P. von Bülow,
Familienbuch der v. Bülow (Berlin, 1859); Ed. von Bülow, Aus
dem Leben Dietrichs v. Bülow, also Vermischte Schriften aus dem
Nachlass von Behrenhorst (1845); Ed. von Bülow and von Rüstow,
Militärische und vermischte Schriften von Heinrich Dietrich v.
Bülow (Leipzig, 1853); Memoirs by Freiherr v. Meerheimb in
Allgemeine deutsche [v.04 p.0795]Biographie, vol. 3 (Leipzig,
1876), and “Behrenhorst und Bülow” (Historische Zeitschrift, 1861,
vi.); Max Jähns, Geschichte der Kriegswissenschaften, vol. iii.
pp. 2133-2145 (Munich, 1891); General von Cämmerer (transl. von Donat),
Development of Strategical Science (London, 1905), ch. i.

BÜLOW, FRIEDRICH WILHELM, Freiherr von,
count of Dennewitz (1755-1816), Prussian general, was born on the 16th of
February 1755, at Falkenberg in the Altmark; he was the elder brother of
the foregoing. He received an excellent education, and entered the
Prussian army in 1768, becoming ensign in 1772, and second lieutenant in
1775. He took part in the “Potato War” of 1778, and subsequently devoted
himself to the study of his profession and of the sciences and arts. He
was throughout his life devoted to music, his great musical ability
bringing him to the notice of Frederick William II., and about 1790 he
was conspicuous in the most fashionable circles of Berlin. He did not,
however, neglect his military studies, and in 1792 he was made military
instructor to the young prince Louis Ferdinand, becoming at the same time
full captain. He took part in the campaigns of 1792-93-94 on the Rhine,
and received for signal courage during the siege of Mainz the order
pour le mérite and promotion to the rank of major. After this he
went to garrison duty at Soldau. In 1802 he married the daughter of
Colonel v. Auer, and in the following year he became lieutenant-colonel,
remaining at Soldau with his corps. The vagaries and misfortunes of his
brother Dietrich affected his happiness as well as his fortune. The loss
of two of his children was followed in 1806 by the death of his wife, and
a further source of disappointment was the exclusion of his regiment from
the field army sent against Napoleon in 1806. The disasters of the
campaign aroused his energies. He did excellent service under Lestocq’s
command in the latter part of the war, was wounded in action, and finally
designated for a brigade command in Blücher’s force. In 1808 he married
the sister of his first wife, a girl of eighteen. He was made a
major-general in the same year, and henceforward he devoted himself
wholly to the regeneration of Prussia. The intensity of his patriotism
threw him into conflict even with Blücher and led to his temporary
retirement; in 1811, however, he was again employed. In the critical days
preceding the War of Liberation he kept his troops in hand without
committing himself to any irrevocable step until the decision was made.
On the 14th of March 1813 he was made a lieutenant-general. He fought
against Oudinot in defence of Berlin (see Napoleonic
Campaigns), and in the summer came under the command of
Bernadotte, crown prince of Sweden. At the head of an army corps Bülow
distinguished himself very greatly in the battle of Gross Beeren, a
victory which was attributed almost entirely to his leadership. A little
later he won the great victory of Dennewitz, which for the third time
checked Napoleon’s advance on Berlin. This inspired the greatest
enthusiasm in Prussia, as being won by purely Prussian forces, and
rendered Bülow’s popularity almost equal to that of Blücher. Bülow’s
corps played a conspicuous part in the final overthrow of Napoleon at
Leipzig, and he was then entrusted with the task of evicting the French
from Holland and Belgium. In an almost uniformly successful campaign he
won a signal victory at Hoogstraaten, and in the campaign of 1814 he
invaded France from the north-west, joined Blücher, and took part in the
brilliant victory of Laon in March. He was now made general of infantry
and received the title of Count Bülow von Dennewitz. In the short peace
of 1814-1815 he was at Konigsberg as commander-in-chief in Prussia
proper. He was soon called to the field again, and in the Waterloo
campaign commanded the IV. corps of Blücher’s army. He was not present at
Ligny, but his corps headed the flank attack upon Napoleon at Waterloo,
and bore the heaviest part in the fighting of the Prussian troops. He
took part in the invasion of France, but died suddenly on the 25th of
February 1816, a month after his return to the Königsberg command.

See General Graf Bülow von Dennewitz, 1813-1814 (Leipzig,
1843); Varnhagen von Ense, Leben des G. Grafen B. von D. (Berlin,
1854).

BÜLOW, HANS GUIDO VON (1830-1894), German pianist and
conductor, was born at Dresden, on the 8th of January 1830. At the age of
nine he began to study music under Friedrich Wieck as part of a genteel
education. It was only after an illness while studying law at Leipzig
University in 1848 that he determined upon music as a career. At this
time he was a pupil of Moritz Hauptmann. In 1849 revolutionary politics
took possession of him. In the Berlin Abendpost, a democratic
journal, the young aristocrat poured forth his opinions, which were
strongly coloured by Wagner’s Art and Revolution. Wagner’s
influence was musical no less than political, for a performance of
Lohengrin under Liszt at Weimar in 1850 completed von Bülow’s
determination to abandon a legal career. From Weimar he went to Zürich,
where the exile Wagner instructed him in the elements of conducting. But
he soon returned to Weimar and Liszt; and in 1853 he made his first
concert tour, which extended from Vienna to Berlin. Next he became
principal professor of the piano at the Stern Academy, and married in his
twenty-eighth year Liszt’s daughter Cosima. For the following
nine years von Bülow laboured incessantly in Berlin as pianist, conductor
and writer of musical and political articles. Thence he removed to
Munich, where, thanks to Wagner, he had been appointed
Hofkapellmeister to Louis II., and chief of the Conservatorium.
There, too, he organized model performances of Tristan and Die
Meistersinger. In 1869 his marriage was dissolved, his wife
subsequently marrying Wagner, an incident which, while preventing Bülow
from revisiting Bayreuth, never dimmed his enthusiasm for Wagner’s
dramas. After a temporary stay in Florence, Bülow set out on tour again
as a pianist, visiting most European countries as well as the United
States of America, before taking up the post of conductor at Hanover,
and, later, at Meiningen, where he raised the orchestra to a pitch of
excellence till then unparalleled. In 1885 he resigned the Meiningen
office, and conducted a number of concerts in Russia and Germany. At
Frankfort he held classes for the higher development of piano-playing. He
constantly visited England, for the last time in 1888, in which year he
went to live in Hamburg. Nevertheless he continued to conduct the Berlin
Philharmonic Concerts. He died at Cairo, on the 13th of February 1894.
Bülow was a pianist of the highest order of intellectual attainment, an
artist of remarkably catholic tastes, and a great conductor. A passionate
hater of humbug and affectation, he had a ready pen, and a biting,
sometimes almost rude wit, yet of his kindness and generosity countless
tales were told. His compositions are few and unimportant, but his
annotated editions of the classical masters are of great value. Bülow’s
writings and letters (Briefe und Schriften), edited by his widow,
have been published in 8 vols. (Leipzig, 1895-1908).

BULRUSH, a name now generally given to Typha latifolia,
the reed-mace or club-rush, a plant growing in lakes, by edges of rivers
and similar localities, with a creeping underground stem, narrow, nearly
flat leaves, 3 to 6 ft. long, arranged in opposite rows, and a tall stem
ending in a cylindrical spike, half to one foot long, of closely packed
male (above) and female (below) flowers. The familiar brown spike is a
dense mass of minute one-seeded fruits, each on a long hair-like stalk
and covered with long downy hairs, which render the fruits very light and
readily carried by the wind. The name bulrush is more correctly applied
to Scirpus lacustris, a member of a different family (Cyperaceae),
a common plant in wet places, with tall spongy, usually leafless stems,
bearing a tuft of many-flowered spikelets. The stems are used for
matting, &c. The bulrush of Scripture, associated with the hiding of
Moses, was the Papyrus (q.v.), also a member of the order
Cyperaceae, which was abundant in the Nile.

BULSTRODE, SIR RICHARD (1610-1711), English author and soldier,
was a son of Edward Bulstrode (1588-1659), and was educated at Pembroke
College, Cambridge; after studying law in London he joined the army of
Charles I. on the outbreak of the Civil War in 1642. In 1673 he became a
resident agent of Charles II. at Brussels; in 1675 he was knighted; then
following James II. into exile he died at St Germain on the 3rd of
October 1711. Bulstrode is chiefly known by his Memoirs and
Reflections upon the Reign and Government of King Charles I. and King
Charles II., published after his death in 1721. He also [v.04 p.0796]wrote
Life of James II., and Original Letters written to the Earl of
Arlington (1712). The latter consists principally of letters written
from Brussels giving an account of the important events which took place
in the Netherlands during 1674.

His second son, Whitelocke Bulstrode
(1650-1724), remained in England after the flight of James II.; he held
some official positions, and in 1717 wrote a pamphlet in support of
George I. and the Hanoverian succession. He published A Discourse of
Natural Philosophy, and was a prominent Protestant controversialist.
He died in London on the 27th of November 1724.

BULWARK (a word probably of Scandinavian origin, from
bol or bole, a tree-trunk, and werk, work, in Ger.
Bollwerk, which has also been derived from an old German
bolen, to throw, and so a machine for throwing missiles), a
barricade of beams, earth, &c., a work in 15th and 16th century
fortifications designed to mount artillery (see Boulevard). On board ship the term is used of the
woodwork running round the ship above the level of the deck. Figuratively
it means anything serving as a defence.

BUMBOAT, a small boat which carries vegetables, provisions,
&c., to ships lying in port or off the shore. The word is probably
connected with the Dutch bumboat or boomboot, a broad Dutch
fishing-boat, the derivation of which is either from boom, cf.
Ger. baum, a tree, or from bon, a place in which fish is
kept alive, and boot, a boat. It appears first in English in the
Trinity House By-laws of 1685 regulating the scavenging boats attending
ships lying in the Thames.

BUMBULUM, Bombulum or Bunibulum, a fabulous musical instrument described in
an apocryphal letter of St Jerome to Dardanus,^[1] and illustrated in a series of
illuminated MSS. of the 9th to the 11th century, together with other
instruments described in the same letter. These MSS. are the Psalter
of Emmeran, 9th century, described by Martin Gerbert,^[2] who gives a
few illustrations from it; the Cotton MS. Tiberius C. VI. in the
British Museum, 11th century; the famous Boulogne Psalter, A.D. 1000; and the Psalter of Angers, 9th
century.^[3] In
the Cotton MS. the instrument consists of an angular frame, from which
depends by a chain a rectangular metal plate having twelve bent arms
attached in two rows of three on each side, one above the other. The arms
appear to terminate in small rectangular bells or plates, and it is
supposed that the standard frame was intended to be shaken like a sistrum
in order to set the bells jangling. Sebastian Virdung^[4] gives
illustrations of these instruments of Jerome, and among them of the one
called bumbulum in the Cotton MS., which Virdung calls Fistula
Hieronimi. The general outline is the same, but instead of metal arms
there is the same number of bent pipes with conical bore. Virdung
explains, following the apocryphal letter, that the stand resembling the
draughtsman’s square represents the Holy Cross, the rectangular object
dangling therefrom signifies Christ on the Cross, and the twelve pipes
are the twelve apostles. Virdung’s illustration, probably copied from an
older work in manuscript, conforms more closely to the text of the letter
than does the instrument in the Cotton MS. There is no evidence whatever
of the actual existence of such an instrument during the middle ages,
with the exception of this series of fanciful pictures drawn to
illustrate an instrument known from description only. The word
bombulum was probably derived from the same root as the βομβαύλιος
of Aristophanes (Acharnians, 866) (βόμβος and αὐλός), a comic compound for a
bag-pipe with a play on βομβυλιός,
an insect that hums or buzzes (see Bag-Pipe). The
original described in the letter, also from hearsay, was probably an
early type of organ.

(K. S.)

BUN, a small cake, usually sweet and round. In Scotland the
word is used for a very rich spiced type of cake and in the north of
Ireland for a round loaf of ordinary bread. The derivation of the word
has been much disputed. It has been affiliated to the old provincial
French bugne, “swelling,” in the sense of a “fritter,” but the
New English Dictionary doubts the usage of the word. It is quite
as probable that it has a far older and more interesting origin, as is
suggested by an inquiry into the origin of hot cross buns. These cakes,
which are now solely associated with the Christian Good Friday, are
traceable to the remotest period of pagan history. Cakes were offered by
ancient Egyptians to their moon-goddess; and these had imprinted on them
a pair of horns, symbolic of the ox at the sacrifice of which they were
offered on the altar, or of the horned moon-goddess, the equivalent of
Ishtar of the Assyro-Babylonians. The Greeks offered such sacred cakes to
Astarte and other divinities. This cake they called bous (ox), in
allusion to the ox-symbol marked on it, and from the accusative
boun it is suggested that the word “bun” is derived. Diogenes
Laertius (c. A.D. 200), speaking of the
offering made by Empedocles, says “He offered one of the sacred liba,
called a bouse, made of fine flour and honey.” Hesychius
(c. 6th century) speaks of the boun, and describes it as a
kind of cake with a representation of two horns marked on it. In time the
Greeks marked these cakes with a cross, possibly an allusion to the four
quarters of the moon, or more probably to facilitate the distribution of
the sacred bread which was eaten by the worshippers. Like the Greeks, the
Romans eat cross-bread at public sacrifices, such bread being usually
purchased at the doors of the temple and taken in with them,—a
custom alluded to by St Paul in I Cor. x. 28. At Herculaneum two small
loaves about 5 in. in diameter, and plainly marked with a cross, were
found. In the Old Testament a reference is made in Jer. vii. 18-xliv. 19,
to such sacred bread being offered to the moon goddess. The cross-bread
was eaten by the pagan Saxons in honour of Eoster, their goddess of
light. The Mexicans and Peruvians are shown to have had a similar custom.
The custom, in fact, was practically universal, and the early Church
adroitly adopted the pagan practice, grafting it on to the Eucharist. The
boun with its Greek cross became akin to the Eucharistic bread or
cross-marked wafers mentioned in St Chrysostom’s Liturgy. In the
medieval church, buns made from the dough for the consecrated Host were
distributed to the communicants after Mass on Easter Sunday. In France
and other Catholic countries, such blessed bread is still given in the
churches to communicants who have a long journey before they can break
their fast. The Holy Eucharist in the Greek church has a cross printed on
it. In England there seems to have early been a disposition on the part
of the bakers to imitate the church, and they did a good trade in buns
and cakes stamped with a cross, for as far back as 1252 the practice was
forbidden by royal proclamation; but this seems to have had little
effect. With the rise of Protestantism the cross bun lost its sacrosanct
nature, and became a mere eatable associated for no particular reason
with Good Friday. Cross-bread is not, however, reserved for that day; in
the north of England people usually crossmark their cakes with a knife
before putting them in the oven. Many superstitions cling round hot cross
buns. Thus it is still a common belief that one bun should be kept for
luck’s sake to the following Good Friday. In Dorsetshire it is thought
that a cross-loaf baked on that day and hung over the chimneypiece
prevents the bread baked in the house during the year from “going
stringy.”

BUNBURY, HENRY WILLIAM (1750-1811), English caricaturist, was
the second son of Sir William Bunbury, 5th baronet, of Mildenhall,
Suffolk, and came of an old Norman family. He was educated at Westminster
school and St Catharine’s Hall, Cambridge, and soon showed a talent for
drawing, and especially for humorous subjects. His more serious efforts
did not rise to a high level, but his caricatures are as famous as those
of his contemporaries Rowlandson and Gillray, good examples being his
“Country Club” (1788), “Barber’s Shop” (1811) and “A Long Story” (1782.)
He was a popular character, and the friend of most of the notabilities of
his day, whom he never offended by attempting political satire; and his
easy circumstances and social position (he was colonel of the West
Suffolk Militia, and was appointed equerry to the duke of York in 1787)
enabled him to exercise his talents in comfort.

[v.04 p.0797]

His son Sir Henry Edward Bunbury, Bart.
(1778-1860), who succeeded to the family title on the death of his uncle,
was a distinguished soldier, and rose to be a lieutenant-general; he was
an active member of parliament, and the author of several historical
works of value; and the latter’s second son, Sir Edward Herbert Bunbury,
also a member of parliament, was well known as a geographer and
archaeologist, and author of a History of Ancient Geography.

BUNBURY, a seaport and municipal town of Wellington county,
Western Australia, 112 m. by rail S. by W. of Perth. Pop. (1901) 2455.
The harbour, known as Koombanah Bay, is protected by a breakwater built
on a coral reef. Coal is worked on the Collie river, 30 m. distant, and
is shipped from this port, together with tin, timber, sandal-wood and
agricultural produce.

BUNCOMBE, or Bunkum (from Buncombe
county, North Carolina, United States), a term used for insincere
political action or speaking to gain support or the favour of a
constituency, and so any humbug or clap-trap. The phrase “to talk for (or
to) Buncombe” arose in 1820, during the debate on the Missouri Compromise
in Congress; the member for the district containing Buncombe county
confessed that his long and much interrupted speech was only made because
his electors expected it, and that he was “speaking for Buncombe.”

BUNCRANA, a market-town and watering-place of Co. Donegal,
Ireland, in the north parliamentary division on the east shore of Lough
Swilly, on the Londonderry & Lough Swilly & Letterkenny railway.
Pop. (1901) 1316. There is a trade in agricultural produce, a salmon
fishery, sea fisheries and a manufacture of linen. The town is
beautifully situated, being flanked on the east and south by hills
exceeding 1000 ft. The picturesque square keep of an ancient castle
remains, but the present Buncrana Castle is a residence erected in 1717.
The golf-links are well known.

BUNDABERG, a municipal town and river port of Cook county,
Queensland, Australia, 10 m. from the mouth of the river Burnett, and 217
m. by rail N. by W. of Brisbane. Pop. (1901) 5200. It lies on both sides
of the river, and connexion between the two ports is maintained by road
and railway bridges. There are saw-mills, breweries, brickfields and
distilleries in the town, and numerous sugar factories in the vicinity,
notably at Millaquin, on the river below the town. There are wharves on
both sides of the river, and the staple exports are sugar, golden-syrup
and timber. The climate is remarkably healthy.

BUNDELKHAND, a tract of country in Central India, lying between
the United and the Central Provinces. Historically it includes the five
British districts of Hamirpur, Jalaun, Jhansi, Lalitpur and Banda, which
now form part of the Allahabad division of the United Provinces, but
politically it is restricted to a collection of native states, under the
Bundelkhand agency. There are 9 states, 13 estates and the pargana of
Alampur belonging to Indore state, with a total area of 9851 sq. m. and a
total population (1901) of 1,308,326, showing a decrease of 13% in the
decade, due to the effects of famine. The most important of the states
are Orchha, Panna, Samthar, Charkhari, Chhatarpur, Datia, Bijawar and
Ajaigarh. A branch of the Great Indian Peninsula railway traverses the
north of the country. A garrison of all arms is stationed at Nowgong.

The surface of the country is uneven and hilly, except in the
north-east part, which forms an irregular plain cut up by ravines scooped
out by torrents during the periodical rains. The plains of Bundelkhand
are intersected by three mountain ranges, the Bindhachal, Panna and
Bander chains, the highest elevation not exceeding 2000 ft. above
sea-level. Beyond these ranges the country is further diversified by
isolated hills rising abruptly from a common level, and presenting from
their steep and nearly inaccessible scarps eligible sites for castles and
strongholds, whence the mountaineers of Bundelkhand have frequently set
at defiance the most powerful of the native states of India. The general
slope of the country is towards the north-east, as indicated by the
course of the rivers which traverse or bound the territory, and finally
discharge themselves into the Jumna.

The principal rivers are the Sind, Betwa, Ken, Baighin, Paisuni, Tons,
Pahuj, Dhasan, Berma, Urmal and Chandrawal. The Sind, rising near Sironj
in Malwa, marks the frontier line of Bundelkhand on the side of Gwalior.
Parallel to this river, but more to the eastward, is the course of the
Betwa. Still farther to the east flows the Ken, followed in succession by
the Baighin, Paisuni and Tons. The Jumna and the Ken are the only two
navigable rivers. Notwithstanding the large number of streams, the
depression of their channels and height of their banks render them for
the most part unsuitable for the purposes of irrigation,—which is
conducted by means of jhils and tanks. These artificial lakes are
usually formed by throwing embankments across the lower extremities of
valleys, and thus arresting and accumulating the waters flowing through
them. Some of the tanks are of great capacity; the Barwa Sagar, for
instance, is 2½ m. in diameter. Diamonds are found, particularly near the
town of Panna, in a range of hills called by the natives Band-Ahil.

The mines of Maharajpur, Rajpur, Kimera and Gadasia have been famous
for magnificent diamonds; and a very large one dug from the last was kept
in the fort of Kalinjar among the treasures of Raja Himmat Bahadur. In
the reign of the emperor Akbar the mines of Panna produced diamonds to
the amount of £100,000 annually, and were a considerable source of
revenue, but for many years they have not been so profitable.

The tree vegetation consists rather of jungle or copse than forest,
abounding in game which is preserved by the native chiefs. There are also
within these coverts several varieties of wild animals, such as the
tiger, leopard, hyena, wild boar, nilgái and jackal.

The people represent various races. The Bundelas—the race who
gave the name to the country—still maintain their dignity as
chieftains, by disdaining to cultivate the soil, although by no means
conspicuous for lofty sentiments of honour or morality. An Indian proverb
avers that “one native of Bundelkhand commits as much fraud as a hundred
Dandis” (weighers of grain and notorious rogues). About Datia and Jhansi
the inhabitants are a stout and handsome race of men, well off and
contented. The prevailing religion in Bundelkhand is Hinduism.

The earliest dynasty recorded to have ruled in Bundelkhand were the
Garhwas, who were succeeded by the Parihars; but nothing is known of
either. About A.D. 800 the Parihars are said to
have been ousted by the Chandels, and Dangha Varma, chief of the Chandel
Rajputs, appears to have established the earliest paramount power in
Bundelkhand towards the close of the 10th century A.D. Under his dynasty the country attained its
greatest splendour in the early part of the 11th century, when its raja,
whose dominions extended from the Jumna to the Nerbudda, marched at the
head of 36,000 horse and 45,000 foot, with 640 elephants, to oppose the
invasion of Mahmud of Ghazni. In 1182 the Chandel dynasty was overthrown
by Prithwi Raj, the ruler of Ajmer and Delhi, after which the country
remained in ruinous anarchy until the close of the 14th century, when the
Bundelas, a spurious offshoot of the Garhwa tribe of Rajputs, established
themselves on the right bank of the Jumna. One of these took possession
of Orchha by treacherously poisoning its chief. His successor succeeded
in further aggrandizing the Bundela state, but he is represented to have
been a notorious plunderer, and his character is further stained by the
assassination of the celebrated Abul Fazl, the prime minister and
historian of Akbar. Jajhar Singh, the third Bundela chief, unsuccessfully
revolted against the court of Delhi, and his country became incorporated
for a short time with the empire. The struggles of the Bundelas for
independence resulted in the withdrawal of the royal troops, and the
admission of several petty states as feudatories of the empire on
condition of military service. The Bundelas, under Champat Rai and his
son. Chhatar Sal, offered a successful resistance to the proselytizing
efforts of Aurangzeb. On the occasion of a Mahommedan invasion in 1732,
Chhatar Sal asked and obtained the assistance of the Mahratta Peshwa,
whom he adopted as his son, giving him a third of his dominions. The
Mahrattas gradually extended their influence over Bundelkhand, [v.04
p.0798]and in 1792 the peshwa was acknowledged as the lord
paramount of the country. The Mahratta power was, however, on the
decline; the flight of the peshwa from his capital to Bassein before the
British arms changed the aspect of affairs, and by the treaty concluded
between the peshwa and the British government, the districts of Banda and
Hamirpur were transferred to the latter. Two chiefs then held the ceded
districts, Himmat Bahadur, the leader of the Sanyasis, who promoted the
views of the British, and Shamsher, who made common cause with the
Mahrattas. In September 1803, the united forces of the English and Himmat
Bahadur compelled Shamsher to retreat with his army. In 1809 Ajaigarh was
besieged by a British force, and again three years later Kalinjar was
besieged and taken after a heavy loss. In 1817, by the treaty of Poona,
the British government acquired from the peshwa all his rights, interests
and pretensions, feudal, territorial or pecuniary, in Bundelkhand. In
carrying out the provisions of the treaty, an assurance was given by the
British government that the rights of those interested in the transfer
should be scrupulously respected, and the host of petty native
principalities in the province is the best proof of the sincerity and
good faith with which this clause has been carried out. During the mutiny
of 1857, however, many of the chiefs rose against the British, the rani
of Jhansi being a notable example.

BUNDI, or Boondee, a native state of
India, in the Rajputana agency, lying on the north-east of the river
Chambal, in a hilly tract historically known as Haraoti, from the Hara
sept of the great clan of Chauhan Rajputs, to which the maharao raja of
Bundi belongs. It has an area of 2220 sq. m. Many parts of the state are
wild and hilly, inhabited by a large Mina population, formerly notorious
as a race of robbers. Two rivers, the Chambia and the Mej, water the
state; the former is navigable by boats. In 1901 the population was
171,227, showing a decrease of 42% due to the effects of famine. The
estimated revenue is £46,000, the tribute £8000. There is no railway, but
the metalled road from Kotah to the British cantonment of Deoli passes
through the state. The town of Bundi had a population in 1901 of 19,313.
A school for the education of boys of high rank was opened in 1897.

The state of Bundi was founded about A.D.
1342 by the Hara chief Rao Dewa, or Deoraj, who captured the town from
the Minas. Its importance, however, dates from the time of Rao Surjan,
who succeeded to the chieftainship in 1554 and by throwing in his lot
with the Mahommedan emperors of Delhi (1569) received a considerable
accession of territory. From this time the rulers of Bundi bore the title
of rao raja. In the 17th century their power was curtailed by the
division of Haraoti into the two states of Kotah and Bundi; but they
continued to play a prominent part in Indian history, and the title of
maharao raja was conferred on Budh Singh for the part played by him in
securing the imperial throne for Bahadur Shah I. after the death of
Aurangzeb in 1707. In 1804 the maharao raja Bishan Singh gave valuable
assistance to Colonel Monson in his disastrous retreat before Holkar, in
revenge for which the Mahratas and Pindaris continually ravaged his state
up to 1817. On the 10th of February 1818, by a treaty concluded with
Bishan Singh, Bundi was taken under British protection. In 1821 Bishan
Singh was succeeded by his son Ram Singh, who ruled till 1889. He is
described as a grand specimen of the Rajput gentleman, and “the most
conservative prince in conservative Rajputana.” His rule was popular and
beneficent; and though during the mutiny of 1857 his attitude was
equivocal, he continued to enjoy the favour of the British government,
being created G.C.S.I. and a counsellor of the empire in 1877 and C.I.E.
in 1878. He was succeeded by his son Raghubir Singh, who was made a
K.C.S.I. in 1897 and a G.C.I.E. in 1901.

BUNER, a valley on the Peshawar border of the North-West
Frontier Province of India. It is a small mountain valley, dotted with
villages and divided into seven sub-divisions. The Mora Hills and the
Ilam range divide it from Swat, the Sinawar range from Yusafzai, the Guru
mountains from the Chamla valley, and the Duma range from the Puran
Valley. It is inhabited by the Iliaszai and Malizai divisions of the
Pathan tribe of Yusafzais, who are called after their country the
Bunerwals. There is no finer race on the north-west frontier of India
than the Bunerwals. Simple and austere in their habits, religious and
truthful in their ways, hospitable to all who seek shelter amongst them,
free from secret assassinations, they are bright examples of the Pathan
character at its best. They are a powerful and warlike tribe, numbering
8000 fighting men. The Umbeyla Expedition of 1863 under Sir Neville
Chamberlain was occasioned by the Bunerwals siding with the Hindostani
Fanatics, who had settled down at Malka in their territory. In the end
the Bunerwals were subdued by a force of 9000 British troops, and Malka
was destroyed, but they made so fierce a resistance, in particular in
their attack upon the “Crag” picket, that the Indian medal with a clasp
for “Umbeyla” was granted in 1869 to the survivors of the expedition. The
government of India refrained from interfering with the tribe again until
the Buner campaign of 1897 under Sir Bindon Blood. Many Bunerwals took
part in the attack of the Swatis on the Malakand fort, and a force of
3000 British troops was sent to punish them; but the tribe made only a
feeble resistance at the passes into their country, and speedily handed
in the arms demanded of them and made complete submission.

BUNGALOW (an Anglo-Indian word from the Hindustani
banglā, belonging to Bengal), a one-storeyed house with a
verandah and a projecting roof, the typical dwelling for Europeans in
India; the name is also used for similar buildings which have become
common for seaside and summer residences in America and Great Britain.
Dak or dawk bungalows (from dak or dawk, a post, a relay of
men for carrying the mails, &c.) are the government rest-houses
established at intervals for the use of travellers on the high roads of
India.

BUNGAY, a market-town in the Lowestoft parliamentary division
of Suffolk, England; 113 m. N.E. from London on a branch from Beccles of
the Great Eastern railway. Pop. (1901) 3314. It is picturesquely placed
in a deep bend of the river Waveney, the boundary with Norfolk. Of the
two parish churches that of St Mary has a fine Perpendicular tower, and
that of Holy Trinity a round tower of which the lower part is Norman. St
Mary’s was attached to a Benedictine nunnery founded in 1160. The ruins
of the castle date from 1281. They are fragmentary though massive; and
there are traces of earth-works of much earlier date. The castle was a
stronghold of the powerful family of Bigod, being granted to Roger Bigod,
a Norman follower of the Conqueror, in 1075. A grammar school was founded
in 1592. There are large printing-works, and founding and malting are
prosecuted. There is a considerable carrying trade on the Waveney.

BUNION (a word usually derived from the Ital. bugnone, a
swelling, but, according to the New English Dictionary, the late
and rare literary use of the word makes an Italian derivation unlikely;
there is an O. Eng. word “bunny,” also meaning a swelling, and an O. Fr.
buigne, modern bigne, showing a probable common origin now
lost, cf. also “bunch”), an inflamed swelling of the bursa mucosa,
the sac containing synovial fluid on the metatarsal joint of the big toe,
or, more rarely, of the little toe. This may be accompanied by corns or
suppuration, leading to an ulcer or even gangrene. The cause is usually
pressure; removal of this, and general palliative treatment by dressings,
&c. are usually effective, but in severe and obstinate cases a
surgical operation may be necessary.

BUNKER HILL, the name of a small hill in Charlestown (Boston),
Massachusetts, U.S.A., famous as the scene of the first considerable
engagement in the American War of Independence (June 17, 1775). Bunker
Hill (110 ft.) was connected by a ridge with Breed’s Hill (75 ft.), both
being on a narrow peninsula a short distance to the north of Boston,
joined by a causeway with the mainland. Since the affair of Lexington
(April 19, 1775) General Gage, who commanded the British forces, had
remained inactive at Boston awaiting reinforcements from England; the
headquarters of the Americans were at Cambridge, with advanced posts
occupying much of the 4 m. separating [v.04 p.0799]Cambridge from
Bunker Hill. When Gage received his reinforcements at the end of May, he
determined to repair his strange neglect by which the hills on the
peninsula had been allowed to remain unoccupied and unfortified. As soon
as the Americans became aware of Gage’s intention they determined to
frustrate it, and accordingly, on the night of the 16th of June, a force
of about 1200 men, under Colonel William Prescott and Major-General
Israel Putnam, with some engineers and a few field-guns, occupied Breed’s
Hill—to which the name Bunker Hill is itself now popularly
applied—and when daylight disclosed their presence to the British
they had already strongly entrenched their position. Gage lost no time in
sending troops across from Boston with orders to assault. The British
force, between 2000 and 3000 strong, under (Sir) William Howe, supported
by artillery and by the guns of men-of-war and floating batteries
stationed in the anchorage on either side of the peninsula, were fresh
and well disciplined. The American force consisted for the most part of
inexperienced volunteers, numbers of whom were already wearied by the
trench work of the night. As communication was kept up with their camp
the numbers engaged on the hill fluctuated during the day, but at no time
exceeded about 1500 men. The village of Charlestown, from which a galling
musketry fire was directed against the British, was by General Howe’s
orders almost totally destroyed by hot shot during the attack. Instead of
attempting to cut off the Americans by occupying the neck to the rear of
their position, Gage ordered the advance to be made up the steep and
difficult ascent facing the works on the hill. Whether or not in
obedience—as tradition asserts—to an order to reserve fire
until they could see the whites of their assailants’ eyes, the American
volunteers with admirable steadiness waited till the attack was on the
point of being driven home, when they delivered a fire so sustained and
deadly that the British line broke in disorder. A second assault, made
like the first, with the precision and discipline of the parade-ground
met the same fate, but Gage’s troops had still spirit enough for a third
assault, and this time they carried the position with the bayonet,
capturing five pieces of ordnance and putting the enemy to flight. The
loss of the British was 1054 men killed and wounded, among whom were 89
commissioned officers; while the American casualties amounted to 420
killed and wounded, including General Joseph Warren, and 30 prisoners.
(See American War of Independence.)

The significance of the battle of Bunker Hill is not, however, to be
gauged by the losses on either side, heavy as they were in proportion to
the numbers engaged, nor by its purely military results, but by the moral
effect which it produced; and when it is considered from this standpoint
its far-reaching consequences can hardly be over-estimated. “It roused at
once the fierce instinct of combat in America …, and dispelled … the
almost superstitious belief in the impossibility of encountering regular
troops with hastily levied volunteers … No one questioned the
conspicuous gallantry with which the provincial troops had supported a
long fire from the ships and awaited the charge of the enemy, and British
soldiers had been twice driven back in disorder before their fire.”^[1] The pride
which Americans naturally felt in such an achievement, and the
self-confidence which it inspired, were increased when they learnt that
the small force on Bunker Hill had not been properly reinforced, and that
their ammunition was running short before they were dislodged from their
position.^[2]
Had the character of the fighting on that day been other than it was; had
the American volunteers been easily, and at the first assault, driven
from their fortified position by the troops of George III., it is not
impossible that the resistance to the British government would have died
out in the North American colonies through lack of confidence in their
own power on the part of the colonists. Bunker Hill, whatever it may have
to teach the student of war, taught the American colonists in 1775 that
the odds against them in the enterprise in which they had embarked were
not so overwhelming as to deny them all prospect of ultimate success.

In 1843 a monument, 221 ft. high, in the form of an obelisk, of Quincy
granite, was completed on Breed’s Hill (now Bunker Hill) to commemorate
the battle, when an address was delivered by Daniel Webster, who had also
delivered the famous dedicatory oration at the laying of the corner-stone
in 1825. Bunker Hill day is a state holiday.

See R. Frothingham, The Centennial: Battle of Bunker Hill
(Boston, 1895), and Life and Times of Joseph Warren (Boston,
1865); Boston City Council, Celebration of Centen. Aniv. of Battle of
Bunker Hill (Boston, 1875); G.E. Ellis, Hist. of Battle of
Bunker’s (Breed’s) Hill (Boston, 1875); S. Sweet, Who was
the Commander at Bunker Hill? (Boston, 1850); W.E.H. Lecky,
History of England in the Eighteenth Century, vol. iii (London,
1883); Sir George O. Trevelyan, The American Revolution (London,
1899); Fortescue, History of the British Army, vol. iii. pp. 153
seq. (London, 1902).

(R. J. M.)

BUNN, ALFRED (1796-1860), English theatrical manager, was
appointed stage-manager of Drury Lane theatre, London, in 1823. In 1826
he was managing the Theatre Royal, Birmingham, and in 1833 he undertook
the joint management of Drury Lane and Covent Garden, London. In this
undertaking he met with vigorous opposition. A bill for the abolition of
the patent theatres was passed in the House of Commons, but on Bunn’s
petition was thrown out by the House of Lords. He had difficulties first
with his company, then with the lord chamberlain, and had to face the
keen rivalry of the other theatres. A longstanding quarrel with Macready
resulted in the tragedian assaulting the manager. In 1840 Bunn was
declared a bankrupt, but he continued to manage Drury Lane till 1848.
Artistically his control of the two chief English theatres was highly
successful. Nearly every leading English actor played under his
management, and he made a courageous attempt to establish English opera,
producing the principal works of Balfe. He had some gift for writing, and
most of the libretti of these operas were translated by himself. In
The Stage Before and Behind the Curtain (3 vols., 1840) he gave a
full account of his managerial experiences. He died at Boulogne on the
20th of December 1860.

BUNNER, HENRY CUYLER (1855-1896), American writer, was born in
Oswego, New York, on the 3rd of August 1855. He was educated in New York
City. From being a clerk in an importing house, he turned to journalism,
and after some work as a reporter, and on the staff of the
Arcadian (1873), he became in 1877 assistant editor of the comic
weekly Puck. He soon assumed the editorship, which he held until
his death in Nutley, N.J., on the 11th of May 1896. He developed
Puck from a new struggling periodical into a powerful social and
political organ. In 1886 he published a novel, The Midge, followed
in 1887 by The Story of a New York House. But his best efforts in
fiction were his short stories and sketches—Short Sixes
(1891), More Short Sixes (1894), Made in France (1893),
Zadoc Pine and Other Stories (1891), Love in Old Cloathes and
Other Stories (1896), and Jersey Street and Jersey Lane
(1896). His verses—Airs from Arcady and Elsewhere (1884),
containing the well-known poem, The Way to Arcady; Rowen (1892);
and Poems (1896), edited by his friend Brander
Matthews—display a light play of imagination and a delicate
workmanship. He also wrote clever vers de société and parodies. Of
his several plays (usually written in collaboration), the best was The
Tower of Babel (1883).

BUNSEN, CHRISTIAN CHARLES JOSIAS, Baron
von (1791-1860), Prussian diplomatist and scholar, was born on the
25th of August 1791 at Korbach, an old town in the little German
principality of Waldeck. His father was a farmer who was driven by
poverty to become a soldier. Having studied at the Korbach grammar school
and Marburg university, Bunsen went in his nineteenth year to Göttingen,
where he supported himself by teaching and later by acting as tutor to
W.B. Astor, the American merchant. He won the university prize essay of
the year 1812 by a treatise on the Athenian Law of Inheritance,
and a few months later the university of Jena granted him the honorary
degree of doctor of philosophy. During 1813 he travelled with Astor in
South Germany, and then turned to the study of the religion, laws,
language and literature of the Teutonic [v.04 p.0800]races. He had
read Hebrew when a boy, and now worked at Arabic at Munich, Persian at
Leiden, and Norse at Copenhagen. At the close of 1815 he went to Berlin,
to lay before Niebuhr the plan of research which he had mapped out.
Niebuhr was so impressed with Bunsen’s ability that, two years later,
when he became Prussian envoy to the papal court, he made the young
scholar his secretary. The intervening years Bunsen spent in assiduous
labour among the libraries and collections of Paris and Florence. In July
1817 he married Frances Waddington, eldest daughter and co-heiress of B.
Waddington of Llanover, Monmouthshire.

As secretary to Niebuhr, Bunsen was brought into contact with the
Vatican movement for the establishment of the papal church in the
Prussian dominions, to provide for the largely increased Catholic
population. He was among the first to realize the importance of this new
vitality on the part of the Vatican, and he made it his duty to provide
against its possible dangers by urging upon the Prussian court the wisdom
of fair and impartial treatment of its Catholic subjects. In this object
he was at first successful, and both from the Vatican and from Frederick
William III., who put him in charge of the legation on Niebuhr’s
resignation, he received unqualified approbation. Owing partly to the
wise statesmanship of Count Spiegel, archbishop of Cologne, an
arrangement was made by which the thorny question of “mixed” marriages
(i.e. between Catholic and Protestant) would have been happily
solved; but the archbishop died in 1835, the arrangement was never
ratified, and the Prussian king was foolish enough to appoint as
Spiegel’s successor the narrow-minded partisan Baron Droste. The pope
gladly accepted the appointment, and in two years the forward policy of
the Jesuits had brought about the strife which Bunsen and Spiegel had
tried to prevent. Bunsen rashly recommended that Droste should be seized,
but the coup was so clumsily attempted, that the incriminating
documents were, it is said, destroyed in advance. The government, in this
impasse, took the safest course, refused to support Bunsen, and
accepted his resignation in April 1838.

After leaving Rome, where he had become intimate with all that was
most interesting in the cosmopolitan society of the papal capital, Bunsen
went to England, where, except for a short term as Prussian ambassador to
Switzerland (1830-1841), he was destined to pass the rest of his official
life. The accession to the throne of Prussia of Frederick William IV., on
June 7th, 1840, made a great change in Bunsen’s career. Ever since their
first meeting in 1828 the two men had been close friends and had
exchanged ideas in an intimate correspondence, published under Ranke’s
editorship in 1873. Enthusiasm for evangelical religion and admiration
for the Anglican Church they held in common, and Bunsen was the
instrument naturally selected for realizing the king’s fantastic scheme
of setting up at Jerusalem a Prusso-Anglican bishopric as a sort of
advertisement of the unity and aggressive force of Protestantism. The
special mission of Bunsen to England, from June to November 1841, was
completely successful, in spite of the opposition of English high
churchmen and Lutheran extremists. The Jerusalem bishopric, with the
consent of the British government and the active encouragement of the
archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of London, was duly established,
endowed with Prussian and English money, and remained for some forty
years an isolated symbol of Protestant unity and a rock of stumbling to
Anglican Catholics.

During his stay in England Bunsen had made himself very popular among
all classes of society, and he was selected by Queen Victoria, out of
three names proposed by the king of Prussia, as ambassador to the court
of St James’s. In this post he remained for thirteen years. His tenure of
the office coincided with the critical period in Prussian and European
affairs which culminated in the revolutions of 1848. With the visionary
schemes of Frederick William, whether that of setting up a strict
episcopal organization in the Evangelical Church, or that of reviving the
defunct ideal of the medieval Empire, Bunsen found himself increasingly
out of sympathy. He realized the significance of the signs that heralded
the coming storm, and tried in vain to move the king to a policy which
would have placed him at the head of a Germany united and free. He felt
bitterly the humiliation of Prussia by Austria after the victory of the
reaction; and in 1852 he set his signature reluctantly to the treaty
which, in his view, surrendered the “constitutional rights of Schleswig
and Holstein.” His whole influence was now directed to withdrawing
Prussia from the blighting influence of Austria and Russia, and
attempting to draw closer the ties that bound her to Great Britain. On
the outbreak of the Crimean War he urged Frederick William to throw in
his lot with the western powers, and create a diversion in the north-east
which would have forced Russia at once to terms. The rejection of his
advice, and the proclamation of Prussia’s attitude of “benevolent
neutrality,” led him in April 1854 to offer his resignation, which was
accepted.

Bunsen’s life as a public man was now practically at an end. He
retired first to a villa on the Neckar near Heidelberg and later to Bonn.
He refused to stand for a seat, in the Liberal interest, in the Lower
House of the Prussian diet, but continued to take an active interest in
politics, and in 1855 published in two volumes a work, Die Zeichen der
Zeit: Briefe, &c., which exercised an immense influence in
reviving the Liberal movement which the failure of the revolution had
crushed. In September 1857 Bunsen attended, as the king’s guest, a
meeting of the Evangelical Alliance at Berlin; and one of the last papers
signed by Frederick William, before his mind gave way in October, was
that which conferred upon him the title of baron and a peerage for life.
In 1858, at the special request of the regent (afterwards the emperor)
William, he took his seat in the Prussian Upper House, and, though
remaining silent, supported the new ministry, of which his political and
personal friends were members.

Literary work was, however, his main preoccupation during all this
period. Two discoveries of ancient MSS. made during his stay in London,
the one containing a shorter text of the Epistles of St Ignatius,
and the other an unknown work On all the Heresies, by Bishop
Hippolytus, had already led him to write his Hippolytus and his Age:
Doctrine and Practice of Rome under Commodus and Severus (1852). He
now concentrated all his efforts upon a translation of the Bible with
commentaries. While this was in preparation he published his God in
History, in which he contends that the progress of mankind marches
parallel to the conception of God formed within each nation by the
highest exponents of its thought. At the same time he carried through the
press, assisted by Samuel Birch, the concluding volumes of his work
(published in English as well as in German) Egypt’s Place in Universal
History—containing a reconstruction of Egyptian chronology,
together with an attempt to determine the relation in which the language
and the religion of that country stand to the development of each among
the more ancient non-Aryan and Aryan races. His ideas on this subject
were most fully developed in two volumes published in London before he
quitted England—Outlines of the Philosophy of Universal History
as applied to Language and Religion (2 vols., 1854).

In 1858 Bunsen’s health began to fail; visits to Cannes in 1858 and
1859 brought no improvement, and he died on November 28th, 1860. One of
his last requests having been that his wife would write down
recollections of their common life, she published his Memoirs in
1868, which contain much of his private correspondence. The German
translation of these Memoirs has added extracts from unpublished
documents, throwing a new light upon the political events in which he
played a part. Baron Humboldt’s letters to Bunsen were printed in
1869.

Bunsen’s English connexion, both through his wife (d. 1876) and
through his own long residence in London, was further increased in his
family. He had ten children, including five sons, Henry (1818-1855),
Ernest (1810-1903), Karl (1821-1887), Georg (1824-1896) and Theodor
(1832-1892). Of these Karl (Charles) and Theodor had careers in the
German diplomatic service; and Georg, who for some time was an active
politician in Germany, eventually retired to live in London; Henry, who
was an English clergyman, became a naturalized Englishman, [v.04 p.0801]and
Ernest, who in 1845 married an Englishwoman, Miss Gurney, subsequently
resided and died in London. The form of “de” Bunsen was adopted for the
surname in England. Ernest de Bunsen was a scholarly writer, who
published various works both in German and in English, notably on
Biblical chronology and other questions of comparative religion. His son,
Sir Maurice de Bunsen (b. 1852), entered the English diplomatic service
in 1877, and after a varied experience became minister at Lisbon in
1905.

See also L. von Ranke, Aus dem Briefwechsel Friedrich Wilhelms IV.
mit Bunsen (Berlin, 1873). The biography in the 9th edition of this
encyclopaedia, which has been drawn upon above, was by Georg von
Bunsen.

BUNSEN, ROBERT WILHELM VON (1811-1899), German chemist, was
born at Göttingen on the 31st of March 1811, his father, Christian
Bunsen, being chief librarian and professor of modern philology at the
university. He himself entered the university in 1828, and in 1834 became
Privat-docent. In 1836 he became teacher of chemistry at the
Polytechnic School of Cassel, and in 1839 took up the appointment of
professor of chemistry at Marburg, where he remained till 1851. In 1852,
after a brief period in Breslau, he was appointed to the chair of
chemistry at Heidelberg, where he spent the rest of his life, in spite of
an urgent invitation to migrate to Berlin as successor to E.
Mitscherlich. He retired from active work in 1889, and died at Heidelberg
on the 16th of August 1899. The first research by which attention was
drawn to Bunsen’s abilities was concerned with the cacodyl compounds (see
Arsenic), though he had already, in 1834,
discovered the virtues of freshly precipitated hydrated ferric oxide as
an antidote to arsenical poisoning. It was begun in 1837 at Cassel, and
during the six years he spent upon it he not only lost the sight of one
eye through an explosion, but nearly killed himself by arsenical
poisoning. It represents almost his only excursion into organic
chemistry, and apart from its accuracy and completeness it is of
historical interest in the development of that branch of the science as
being the forerunner of the fruitful investigations on the
organo-metallic compounds subsequently carried out by his English pupil,
Edward Frankland. Simultaneously with his work on cacodyl, he was
studying the composition of the gases given off from blast furnaces. He
showed that in German furnaces nearly half the heat yielded by the fuel
was being allowed to escape with the waste gases, and when he came to
England, and in conjunction with Lyon Playfair investigated the
conditions obtaining in English furnaces, he found the waste to amount to
over 80%. These researches marked a stage in the application of
scientific principles to the manufacture of iron, and they led also to
the elaboration of Bunsen’s famous methods of measuring gaseous volumes,
&c., which form the subject of the only book he ever published
(Gasometrische Methoden, 1857). In 1841 he invented the
carbon-zinc electric cell which is known by his name, and which conducted
him to several important achievements. He first employed it to produce
the electric arc, and showed that from 44 cells a light equal to 1171.3
candles could be obtained with the consumption of one pound of zinc per
hour. To measure this light he designed in 1844 another instrument, which
in various modifications has come into extensive use—the
grease-spot photometer. In 1852 he began to carry out electrolytical
decompositions by the aid of the battery. By means of a very ingenious
arrangement he obtained magnesium for the first time in the metallic
state, and studied its chemical and physical properties, among other
things demonstrating the brilliance and high actinic qualities of the
flame it gives when burnt in air. From 1855 to 1863 he published with
Roscoe a series of investigations on photochemical measurements, which W.
Ostwald has called the “classical example for all future researches in
physical chemistry.” Perhaps the best known of the contrivances which the
world owes to him is the “Bunsen burner” which he devised in 1855 when a
simple means of burning ordinary coal gas with a hot smokeless flame was
required for the new laboratory at Heidelberg. Other appliances invented
by him were the ice-calorimeter (1870), the vapour calorimeter (1887),
and the filter pump (1868), which was worked out in the course of a
research on the separation of the platinum metals. Mention must also be
made of another piece of work of a rather different character. Travelling
was one of his favourite relaxations, and in 1846 he paid a visit to
Iceland. There he investigated the phenomena of the geysers, the
composition of the gases coming off from the fumaroles, their action on
the rocks with which they came into contact, &c., and on his
observations was founded a noteworthy contribution to geological theory.
But the most far-reaching of his achievements was the elaboration, about
1859, jointly with G.R. Kirchhoff, of spectrum analysis, which has put a
new weapon of extraordinary power into the hands both of chemists and
astronomers. It led Bunsen himself almost immediately to the isolation of
two new elements of the alkali group, caesium and rubidium. Having
noticed some unknown lines in the spectra of certain salts he was
examining, he set to work to obtain the substance or substances to which
these were due. To this end he evaporated large quantities of the
Dürkheim mineral water, and it says much both for his perseverance and
powers of manipulation that he dealt with 40 tons of the water to get
about 17 grammes of the mixed chlorides of the two substances, and that
with about one-third of that quantity of caesium chloride was able to
prepare the most important compounds of the element and determine their
characteristics, even making goniometrical measurements of their
crystals.

Bunsen founded no school of chemistry; that is to say, no body of
chemical doctrine is associated with his name. Indeed, he took little or
no part in discussions of points of theory, and, although he was
conversant with the trend of the chemical thought of his day, he
preferred to spend his energies in the collection of experimental data.
One fact, he used to say, properly proved is worth all the theories that
can be invented. But as a teacher of chemistry he was almost without
rival, and his success is sufficiently attested by the scores of pupils
who flocked from every part of the globe to study under him, and by the
number of those pupils who afterwards made their mark in the chemical
world. The secret of this success lay largely in the fact that he never
delegated his work to assistants, but was constantly present with his
pupils in the laboratory, assisting each with personal direction and
advice. He was also one of the first to appreciate the value of practical
work to the student, and he instituted a regular practical course at
Marburg so far back as 1840. Though alive to the importance of applied
science, he considered truth alone to be the end of scientific research,
and the example he set his pupils was one of single-hearted devotion to
the advancement of knowledge.

See Sir Henry Roscoe’s “Bunsen Memorial Lecture,” Trans. Chem.
Soc., 1900, which is reprinted (in German) with other obituary
notices in an edition of Bunsen’s collected works published by Ostwald
and Bodenstein in 3 vols. at Leipzig in 1904.

BUNTER, the name applied by English geologists to the lower
stage or subdivision of the Triassic rocks in the United Kingdom. The
name has been adapted from the German Buntsandstein, Der bunte
Sandstein, for it was in Germany that this continental type of
Triassic deposit was first carefully studied. In France, the Bunter is
known as the Grès bigarré. In northern and central Germany, in the
Harz, Thuringia and Hesse, the Bunter is usually conformable with the
underlying Permian formation; in the south-west and west, however, it
transgresses on to older rocks, on to Coal Measures near Saarbruck, and
upon the crystalline schists of Odenwald and the Black Forest.

The German subdivisions of the Bunter are as follows:—(1)
Upper Buntsandstein, or Röt, mottled red and green marls
and clays with occasional beds of shale, sandstone, gypsum, rocksalt and
dolomite. In Hesse and Thuringia, a quartzitic sandstone prevails in the
lower part. The “Rhizocorallium Dolomite” (R. Jenense, probably a
sponge) of the latter district contains the only Bunter fauna of any
importance. In Lorraine and the Eifel and Saar districts there are
micaceous clays and sandstones with plant remains—the
Voltzia sandstone. The lower beds in the Black Forest, Vosges,
Odenwald and Lorraine very generally contain strings of dolomite and
carnelian—the so-called “Carneol bank.” (2) Middle
Buntsandstein-Hauptbuntsandstein (900 ft.), the bulk [v.04 p.0802]of
this subdivision is made up of weakly-cemented, coarse-grained
sandstones, oblique lamination is very prevalent, and occasional
conglomeratic beds make their appearance. The uppermost bed is usually
fine-grained and bears the footprints of Cheirotherium. In the
Vosges district, this subdivision of the Bunter is called the Grès des
Vosges, or the Grès principal, which comprises: (i.) red
micaceous and argillaceous sandstone; (ii.) the conglomérat
principal; and (iii.) Grès bigarré principal (=grès des
Vosges, properly so-called). (3) Lower Buntsandstein,
fine-grained clayey and micaceous sandstones, red-grey, yellow, white and
mottled. The cement of the sandstones is often felspathic; for this
reason they yield useful porcelain clays in the Thuringerwald. Clay galls
are common in the sandstones of some districts, and in the neighbourhood
of the Harz an oolitic calcareous sandstone, Rogenstein, occurs.
In eastern Hesse, the lowest beds are crumbly, shaly clays,
Brockelschiefern.

The following are the subdivisions usually adopted in
England:—(1) Upper Mottled Sandstone, red variegated sandstones,
soft and generally free from pebbles. (2) Bunter Pebble Beds, harder red
and brown sandstones with quartzose pebbles, very abundant in some
places. (3) Lower Mottled Sandstone, very similar to the upper division.
The Bunter beds occupy a large area in the midland counties where they
form dry, healthy ground of moderate elevation (Cannock Chase, Trentham,
Sherwood Forest, Sutton Coldfield, &c.). Southward they may be
followed through west Somerset to the cliffs of Budleigh Salterton in
Devon; while northward they pass through north Staffordshire, Cheshire
and Lancashire to the Vale of Eden and St Bees, reappearing in Elgin and
Arran. A deposit of these rocks lies in the Vale of Clwyd and probably
flanks the eastern side of the Pennine Hills, although here it is not so
readily differentiated from the Keuper beds. The English Bunter rests
with a slight unconformity upon the older formations. It is generally
absent in the south-eastern counties, but thickens rapidly in the
opposite direction, as is shown by the following table:—

The material forming the Bunter beds of England came probably from the
north-west, but in Devonshire there are indications which point to an
additional source.

In the Alpine region, most of the Trias differs markedly from that of
England and northern Germany, being of distinctly marine origin; here the
Bunter is represented by the Werfen beds (from Werfen in Salzburg)
in the northern Alps, a series of red and greenish-grey micaceous shales
with gypsum, rock salt and limestones in the upper part; while in the
southern Alps (S. Tirol) there is an upper series of red clays, the
Campil beds, and a lower series of thin sandstones, the Seis
beds. Mojsisovics von Mojsvar has pointed out that the Alpine Bunter
belongs to the single zone of Natica costata and Tirolites
cassianus.

Fossils in the Bunter are very scarce; in addition to the footprints
of Cheirotherium, direct evidence of amphibians is found in such
forms as Trematosaurus and Mastodonsaurus. Myophoria
costata and Gervillea Murchisoni are characteristic fossils.
Plants are represented by Voltzia and by equisetums and ferns.

In England, the Bunter sandstones frequently act as valuable
reservoirs of underground water; sometimes they are used for building
stone or for foundry sand. In Germany some of the harder beds have
yielded building stones, which were much used in the middle ages in the
construction of cathedrals and castles in southern Germany and on the
Rhine. In the northern Eifel region, at Mechernich and elsewhere, this
formation contains lead ore in the form of spots and patches
(Knotenerz) in the sandstone; some of the lead ore was worked by
the Romans.

For a consideration of the relationship of the Bunter beds to
formations of the like age in other parts of the world, see Triassic System.

(J. A. H.)

BUNTING, JABEZ (1779-1858), English Wesleyan divine, was born
of humble parentage at Manchester on the 13th of May 1779. He was
educated at Manchester grammar school, and at the age of nineteen began
to preach, being received into full connexion in 1803. He continued to
minister for upwards of fifty-seven years in Manchester, Sheffield,
Leeds, Liverpool, London and elsewhere. In 1835 he was appointed
president of the first Wesleyan theological college (at Hoxton), and in
this position he succeeded in materially raising the standard of
education among Wesleyan ministers. He was four times chosen to be
president of the conference, was repeatedly secretary of the “Legal
Hundred,” and for eighteen years was secretary to the Wesleyan Missionary
Society. Under him Methodism ceased to be a society based upon Anglican
foundation, and became a distinct church. He favoured the extension of
lay power in committees, and was particularly zealous in the cause of
foreign missions. Bunting was a popular preacher, and an effective
platform speaker; in 1818 he was given the degree of M.A. by Aberdeen
University, and in 1834 that of D.D. by Wesleyan University of
Middletown, Conn., U.S.A. He died on the 16th of June 1858. His eldest
son, William Maclardie Bunting (1805-1866), was also a distinguished
Wesleyan minister; and his grandson Sir Percy William Bunting (b. 1836),
son of T.P. Bunting, became prominent as a liberal nonconformist and
editor of the Contemporary Review from 1882, being knighted in
1908.

See Lives of Jabez Bunting (1859) and W.M. Bunting (1870) by
Thomas Percival Bunting.

BUNTING, properly the common English name of the bird called by
Linnaeus Emberiza miliaria, but now used in a general sense for
all members of the family Emberizidae, which are closely allied to
the finches (Fringillidae), though, in Professor W.K. Parker’s
opinion, to be easily distinguished therefrom—the
Emberizidae possessing what none of the Fringillidae do, an
additional pair of palatal bones, “palato-maxillaries.” It will probably
follow from this diagnosis that some forms of birds, particularly those
of the New World, which have hitherto been commonly assigned to the
latter, really belong to the former, and among them the genera
Cardinalis and Phrygilus. The additional palatal bones just
named are also found in several other peculiarly American families,
namely, Tanagridae, Icteridae and
Mniotiltidae—whence it may be perhaps inferred that the
Emberizidae are of Transatlantic origin. The buntings generally
may be also outwardly distinguished from the finches by their angular
gape, the posterior portion of which is greatly deflected; and most of
the Old-World forms, together with some of those of the New World, have a
bony knob on the palate—a swollen outgrowth of the dentary edges of
the bill. Correlated with this peculiarity the maxilla usually has the
tomia sinuated, and is generally concave, and smaller and narrower than
the mandible, which is also concave to receive the palatal knob. In most
other respects the buntings greatly resemble the finches, but their eggs
are generally distinguishable by the irregular hair-like markings on the
shell. In the British Islands by far the commonest species of bunting is
the yellow-hammer (E. citrinella), but the true bunting (or
corn-bunting, or bunting-lark, as it is called in some districts) is a
very well-known bird, while the reed-bunting (E. schoeniclus)
frequents marshy soils almost to the exclusion of the two former. In
certain localities in the south of England the cirl-bunting (E.
cirlus) is also a resident; and in winter vast flocks of the
snow-bunting (Plectrophanes nivalis), at once recognizable by its
pointed wings and elongated hind-claws, resort to our shores and open
grounds. This last is believed to breed sparingly on the highest
mountains of Scotland, but the majority of the examples which visit us
come from northern regions, for it is a species which in summer inhabits
the whole circumpolar area. The ortolan (E. hortulana), so highly
prized for its delicate flavour, occasionally appears in England, but the
British Islands seem to lie outside its proper range. On the continent of
Europe, in Africa and throughout Asia, many other species are found,
while in America the number belonging to the family cannot at present be
computed. The beautiful and melodious cardinal (Cardinalis
virginianus), commonly called the Virginian nightingale, must be
included in this family.

(A. N.)

BUNTING (a word of doubtful origin, possibly connected with
bunt, to sift, or with the Ger. bunt, of varied colour), a
loosely woven woollen cloth for making flags; the term is also used of a
collection of flags, and particularly those of a ship.

[v.04 p.0803]

BUNYAN, JOHN (1628-1688), English religious writer, was born at
Elstow, about a mile from Bedford, in November 1628. His father, Thomas
Bunyan,^[1] was
a tinker, or, as he described himself, a “brasier.” The tinkers then
formed a hereditary caste, which was held in no high estimation. Bunyan’s
father had a fixed residence, and was able to send his son to a village
school where reading and writing were taught.

The years of John’s boyhood were those during which the Puritan spirit
was in the highest vigour all over England; and nowhere had that spirit
more influence than in Bedfordshire. It is not wonderful, therefore, that
a lad to whom nature had given a powerful imagination and sensibility
which amounted to a disease, should have been early haunted by religious
terrors. Before he was ten his sports were interrupted by fits of remorse
and despair; and his sleep was disturbed by dreams of fiends trying to
fly away with him. As he grew older his mental conflicts became still
more violent. The strong language in which he described them strangely
misled all his earlier biographers except Southey. It was long an
ordinary practice with pious writers to cite Bunyan as an instance of the
supernatural power of divine grace to rescue the human soul from the
lowest depths of wickedness. He is called in one book the most notorious
of profligates; in another, the brand plucked from the burning. Many
excellent persons, whose moral character from boyhood to old age has been
free from any stain discernible to their fellow-creatures, have, in their
autobiographies and diaries, applied to themselves, and doubtless with
sincerity, epithets as severe as could be applied to Titus Oates or Mrs
Brownrigg. It is quite certain that Bunyan was, at eighteen, what, in any
but the most austerely puritanical circles, would have been considered as
a young man of singular gravity and innocence. Indeed, it may be remarked
that he, like many other penitents who, in general terms, acknowledge
themselves to have been the worst of mankind, fired up, and stood
vigorously on his defence, whenever any particular charge was brought
against him by others. He declares, it is true, that he had let loose the
reins on the neck of his lusts, that he had delighted in all
transgressions against the divine law, and that he had been the
ringleader of the youth of Elstow in all manner of vice. But when those
who wished him ill accused him of licentious amours, he called on God and
the angels to attest his purity. No woman, he said, in heaven, earth or
hell, could charge him with having ever made any improper advances to
her. Not only had he been strictly faithful to his wife; but he had, even
before his marriage, been perfectly spotless. It does not appear from his
own confessions, or from the railings of his enemies, that he ever was
drunk in his life. One bad habit he contracted, that of using profane
language; but he tells us that a single reproof cured him so effectually
that he never offended again. The worst that can be laid to his charge is
that he had a great liking for some diversions, quite harmless in
themselves, but condemned by the rigid precisians among whom he lived,
and for whose opinion he had a great respect. The four chief sins of
which he was guilty were dancing, ringing the bells of the parish church,
playing at tipcat and reading the history of Sir Bevis of Southampton. A
rector of the school of Laud would have held such a young man up to the
whole parish as a model. But Bunyan’s notions of good and evil had been
learned in a very different school; and he was made miserable by the
conflict between his tastes and his scruples.

When he was about seventeen the ordinary course of his life was
interrupted by an event which gave a lasting colour to his thoughts. He
enlisted in the Parliamentary army,^[2] and served during the Decisive
campaign of 1645. All that we know of his military career is, that, at
the siege of some town,^[3] one of his comrades, who had
marched with the besieging army instead of him, was killed by a shot.
Bunyan ever after considered himself as having been saved from death by
the special interference of Providence. It may be observed that his
imagination was strongly impressed by the glimpse which he had caught of
the pomp of war. To the last he loved to draw his illustrations of sacred
things from camps and fortresses, from guns, drums, trumpets, flags of
truce, and regiments arrayed each under its own banner. His Greatheart,
his Captain Boanerges and his Captain Credence are evidently portraits,
of which the originals were among those martial saints who fought and
expounded in Fairfax’s army.

In 1646 Bunyan returned home and married about two years later. His
wife had some pious relations, and brought him as her only portion some
pious books. His mind, excitable by nature, very imperfectly disciplined
by education, and exposed to the enthusiasm which was then epidemic in
England, began to be fearfully disordered. The story of the struggle is
told in Bunyan’s Grace Abounding.

In outward things he soon became a strict Pharisee. He was constant in
attendance at prayers and sermons. His favourite amusements were, one
after another, relinquished, though not without many painful struggles.
In the middle of a game at tipcat he paused, and stood staring wildly
upwards with his stick in his hand. He had heard a voice asking him
whether he would leave his sins and go to heaven, or keep his sins and go
to hell; and he had seen an awful countenance frowning on him from the
sky. The odious vice of bell-ringing he renounced; but he still for a
time ventured to go to the church tower and look on while others pulled
the ropes. But soon the thought struck him that, if he persisted in such
wickedness, the steeple would fall on his head; and he fled in terror
from the accursed place. To give up dancing on the village green was
still harder; and some months elapsed before he had the fortitude to part
with his darling sin. When this last sacrifice had been made, he was,
even when tried by the maxims of that austere time, faultless. All Elstow
talked of him as an eminently pious youth. But his own mind was more
unquiet than ever. Having nothing more to do in the way of visible
reformation, yet finding in religion no pleasures to supply the place of
the juvenile amusements which he had relinquished, he began to apprehend
that he lay under some special malediction; and he was tormented by a
succession of fantasies which seemed likely to drive him to suicide or to
Bedlam. At one time he took it into his head that all persons of
Israelite blood would be saved, and tried to make out that he partook of
that blood; but his hopes were speedily destroyed by his father, who
seems to have had no ambition to be regarded as a Jew. At another time
Bunyan was disturbed by a strange dilemma: “If I have not faith, I am
lost; if I have faith, I can work miracles.” He was tempted to cry to the
puddles between Elstow and Bedford, “Be ye dry,” and to stake his eternal
hopes on the event. Then he took up a notion that the day of grace for
Bedford and the neighbouring villages was past; that all who were to be
saved in that part of England were already converted; and that he had
begun to pray and strive some months too late. Then he was harassed by
doubts whether the Turks were not in the right and the Christians in the
wrong. Then he was troubled by a maniacal impulse which prompted him to
pray to the trees, to a broomstick, to the parish bull.

As yet, however, he was only entering the valley of the shadow of
death. Soon the darkness grew thicker. Hideous forms floated before him.
Sounds of cursing and wailing were in his ears. His way ran through
stench and fire, close to the mouth of the bottomless pit. He began to be
haunted by a strange curiosity about the unpardonable sin, and by a
morbid longing to commit it. But the most frightful of all the forms
which [v.04
p.0804]his disease took was a propensity to utter blasphemy, and
especially to renounce his share in the benefits of the redemption. Night
and day, in bed, at table, at work, evil spirits, as he imagined, were
repeating close to his ear the words, “Sell him, sell him.” He struck at
the hobgoblins; he pushed them from him; but still they were ever at his
side. He cried out in answer to them, hour after hour, “Never, never; not
for thousands of worlds; not for thousands.” At length, worn out by this
long agony, he suffered the fatal words to escape him, “Let him go if he
will.” Then his misery became more fearful than ever. He had done what
could not be forgiven. He had forfeited his part of the great sacrifice.
Like Esau, he had sold his birthright; and there was no longer any place
for repentance. “None,” he afterwards wrote, “knows the terrors of those
days but myself.” He has described his sufferings with singular energy,
simplicity and pathos. He envied the brutes; he envied the very stones on
the street, and the tiles on the houses. The sun seemed to withhold its
light and warmth from him. His body, though cast in a sturdy mould, and
though still in the highest vigour of youth, trembled whole days together
with the fear of death and judgment. He fancied that this trembling was
the sign set on the worst reprobates, the sign which God had put on Cain.
The unhappy man’s emotion destroyed his power of digestion. He had such
pains that he expected to burst asunder like Judas, whom he regarded as
his prototype.

Neither the books which Bunyan read, nor the advisers whom he
consulted, were likely to do much good in a case like his. His small
library had received a most unseasonable addition, the account of the
lamentable end of Francis Spira. One ancient man of high repute for
piety, whom the sufferer consulted, gave an opinion which might well have
produced fatal consequences. “I am afraid,” said Bunyan, “that I have
committed the sin against the Holy Ghost.” “Indeed,” said the old
fanatic, “I am afraid that you have.”

At length the clouds broke; the light became clearer and clearer; and
the enthusiast who had imagined that he was branded with the mark of the
first murderer, and destined to the end of the arch-traitor, enjoyed
peace and a cheerful confidence in the mercy of God. Years elapsed,
however, before his nerves, which had been so perilously overstrained,
recovered their tone. When he had joined a Baptist society at Bedford,
and was for the first time admitted to partake of the eucharist, it was
with difficulty that he could refrain from imprecating destruction on his
brethren while the cup was passing from hand to hand. After he had been
some time a member of the congregation he began to preach; and his
sermons produced a powerful effect. He was indeed illiterate; but he
spoke to illiterate men. The severe training through which he had passed
had given him such an experimental knowledge of all the modes of
religious melancholy as he could never have gathered from books; and his
vigorous genius, animated by a fervent spirit of devotion, enabled him
not only to exercise a great influence over the vulgar, but even to
extort the half-contemptuous admiration of scholars. Yet it was long
before he ceased to be tormented by an impulse which urged him to utter
words of horrible impiety in the pulpit.^[4] Bunyan was finally relieved from
the internal sufferings which had embittered his life by sharp
persecution from without. He had been five years a preacher when the
Restoration put it in the power of the Cavalier gentlemen and clergymen
all over the country to oppress the dissenters. In November 1660 he was
flung into Bedford gaol; and there he remained, with some intervals of
partial and precarious liberty, during twelve years. The authorities
tried to extort from him a promise that he would abstain from preaching;
but he was convinced that he was divinely set apart and commissioned to
be a teacher of righteousness, and he was fully determined to obey God
rather than man. He was brought before several tribunals, laughed at,
caressed, reviled, menaced, but in vain. He was facetiously told that he
was quite right in thinking that he ought not to hide his gift; but that
his real gift was skill in repairing old kettles. He was compared to
Alexander the coppersmith. He was told that if he would give up preaching
he should be instantly liberated. He was warned that if he persisted in
disobeying the law he would be liable to banishment, and that if he were
found in England after a certain time his neck would be stretched. His
answer was, “If you let me out to-day, I will preach again to-morrow.”
Year after year he lay patiently in a dungeon, compared with which the
worst prison now to be found in the island is a palace.^[5] His fortitude
is the more extraordinary because his domestic feelings were unusually
strong. Indeed, he was considered by his stern brethren as somewhat too
fond and indulgent a parent. He had four small children, and among them a
daughter who was blind, and whom he loved with peculiar tenderness. He
could not, he said, bear even to let the wind blow on her; and now she
must suffer cold and hunger; she must beg; she must be beaten; “yet,” he
added, “I must, I must do it.”

His second wife, whom he had married just before his arrest, tried in
vain for his release; she even petitioned the House of Lords on his
behalf. While he lay in prison he could do nothing in the way of his old
trade for the support of his family. He determined, therefore, to take up
a new trade. He learned to make long-tagged thread laces; and many
thousands of these articles were furnished by him to the hawkers. While
his hands were thus busied he had other employments for his mind and his
lips. He gave religious instruction to his fellow-captives, and formed
from among them a little flock, of which he was himself the pastor. He
studied indefatigably the few books which he possessed. His two chief
companions were the Bible and Fox’s Book of Martyrs. His knowledge
of the Bible was such that he might have been called a living
concordance; and on the margin of his copy of the Book of Martyrs
are still legible the ill-spelt lines of doggerel in which he expressed
his reverence for the brave sufferers, and his implacable enmity to the
mystical Babylon.

Prison life gave him leisure to write, and during his first
imprisonment he wrote, in addition to several tracts and some verse,
Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, the narrative of his own
religious experience. The book was published in 1666. A short period of
freedom was followed by a second offence and a further imprisonment.
Bunyan’s works were coarse, indeed, but they showed a keen mother wit, a
great command of the homely mother tongue, an intimate knowledge of the
English Bible, and a vast and dearly bought spiritual experience. They
therefore, when the corrector of the press had improved the syntax and
the spelling, were well received.

Much of Bunyan’s time was spent in controversy. He wrote sharply
against the Quakers, whom he seems always to have held in utter
abhorrence. He wrote against the liturgy of the Church of England. No two
things, according to him, had less affinity than the form of prayer and
the spirit of prayer. Those, he said with much point, who have most of
the spirit of prayer are all to be found in gaol; and those who have most
zeal for the form of prayer are all to be found at the alehouse. The
doctrinal Articles, on the other hand, he warmly praised and defended.
The most acrimonious of all his works is his Defence of Justification
by Faith, an answer to what Bunyan calls “the brutish and beastly
latitudinarianism” of Edward Fowler, afterwards bishop of Gloucester, an
excellent man, but not free from the taint of Pelagianism.

Bunyan had also a dispute with some of the chiefs of the sect to which
he belonged. He doubtless held with perfect sincerity [v.04 p.0805]the
distinguishing tenet of that sect, but he did not consider that tenet as
one of high importance, and willingly joined in communion with pious
Presbyterians and Independents. The sterner Baptists, therefore, loudly
pronounced him a false brother. A controversy arose which long survived
the original combatants. The cause which Bunyan had defended with rude
logic and rhetoric against Kiffin and Danvers has since been pleaded by
Robert Hall with an ingenuity and eloquence such as no polemical writer
has ever surpassed.

During the years which immediately followed the Restoration, Bunyan’s
confinement seems to have been strict. But as the passions of 1660
cooled, as the hatred with which the Puritans had been regarded while
their reign was recent gave place to pity, he was less and less harshly
treated. The distress of his family, and his own patience, courage and
piety, softened the hearts of his judges. Like his own Christian in the
cage, he found protectors even among the crowd at Vanity Fair. The bishop
of the diocese, Dr Barlow, is said to have interceded for him. At length
the prisoner was suffered to pass most of his time beyond the walls of
the gaol, on condition, as it should seem, that he remained within the
town of Bedford.

He owed his complete liberation to one of the worst acts of one of the
worst governments that England has ever seen. In 1671 the Cabal was in
power. Charles II. had concluded the treaty by which he bound himself to
set up the Roman Catholic religion in England. The first step which he
took towards that end was to annul, by an unconstitutional exercise of
his prerogative, all the penal statutes against the Roman Catholics; and
in order to disguise his real design, he annulled at the same time the
penal statutes against Protestant nonconformists. Bunyan was consequently
set at large.^[6] In the first warmth of his
gratitude he published a tract, in which he compared Charles to that
humane and generous Persian king, who, though not himself blest with the
light of the true religion, favoured the chosen people, and permitted
them, after years of captivity, to rebuild their beloved temple.

Before he left his prison he had begun the book which has made his
name immortal.^[7] The history of that book is
remarkable. The author was, as he tells us, writing a treatise, in which
he had occasion to speak of the stages of the Christian progress. He
compared that progress, as many others had compared it, to a pilgrimage.
Soon his quick wit discovered innumerable points of similarity which had
escaped his predecessors. Images came crowding on his mind faster than he
could put them into words, quagmires and pits, steep hills, dark and
horrible glens, soft vales, sunny pastures, a gloomy castle, of which the
courtyard was strewn with the skulls and bones of murdered prisoners, a
town all bustle and splendour, like London on the Lord Mayor’s Day, and
the narrow path, straight as a rule could make it, running on up hill and
down hill, through city and through wilderness, to the Black River and
the Shining Gate. He had found out, as most people would have said, by
accident, as he would doubtless have said, by the guidance of Providence,
where his powers lay. He had no suspicion, indeed, that he was producing
a masterpiece. He could not guess what place his allegory would occupy in
English literature; for of English literature he knew nothing. Those who
suppose him to have studied the Faery Queen might easily be
confuted, if this were the proper place for a detailed examination of the
passages in which the two allegories have been thought to resemble each
other. The only work of fiction, in all probability, with which he could
compare his Pilgrim was his old favourite, the legend of Sir Bevis
of Southampton. He would have thought it a sin to borrow any time from
the serious business of his life, from his expositions, his controversies
and his lace tags, for the purpose of amusing himself with what he
considered merely as a trifle. It was only, he assures us, at spare
moments that he returned to the House Beautiful, the Delectable Mountains
and the Enchanted Ground. He had no assistance. Nobody but himself saw a
line till the whole was complete. He then consulted his pious friends.
Some were pleased. Others were much scandalized. It was a vain story, a
mere romance, about giants, and lions, and goblins, and warriors,
sometimes fighting with monsters, and sometimes regaled by fair ladies in
stately palaces. The loose atheistical wits at Will’s might write such
stuff to divert the painted Jezebels of the court; but did it become a
minister of the gospel to copy the evil fashions of the world? There had
been a time when the cant of such fools would have made Bunyan miserable.
But that time was past; and his mind was now in a firm and healthy state.
He saw that in employing fiction to make truth clear and goodness
attractive, he was only following the example which every Christian ought
to propose to himself; and he determined to print.

The Pilgrim’s Progress was published in February 1678. Soon the
irresistible charm of a book which gratified the imagination of the
reader with all the action and scenery of a fairy tale, which exercised
his ingenuity by setting him to discover a multitude of curious
analogies, which interested his feelings for human beings, frail like
himself, and struggling with temptations from within and from without,
which every moment drew a smile from him by some stroke of quaint yet
simple pleasantry, and nevertheless left on his mind a sentiment of
reverence for God and of sympathy for man, began to produce its effect.
In puritanical circles, from which plays and novels were strictly
excluded, that effect was such as no work of genius, though it were
superior to the Iliad, to Don Quixote or to Othello,
can ever produce on a mind accustomed to indulge in literary luxury. A
second edition came out in the autumn with additions; and the demand
became immense. The eighth edition, which contains the last improvements
made by the author, was published in 1682, the ninth in 1684, the tenth
in 1685. The help of the engraver had early been called in; and tens of
thousands of children looked with terror and delight on execrable
copperplates, which represented Christian thrusting his sword into
Apollyon, or writhing in the grasp of Giant Despair. In Scotland, and in
some of the colonies, the Pilgrim was even more popular than in
his native country. Bunyan has told us, with very pardonable vanity, that
in New England his dream was the daily subject of the conversation of
thousands, and was thought worthy to appear in the most superb binding.
He had numerous admirers in Holland, and amongst the Huguenots of
France.

He continued to work the gold-field which he had discovered, and to
draw from it new treasures, not indeed with quite such ease and in quite
such abundance as when the precious soil was still virgin, but yet with
success, which left all competition far behind. In 1680 appeared the
Life and Death of Mr Badman; in 1684 the second part of the
Pilgrim’s Progress. In 1682 appeared the Holy War, which if
the Pilgrim’s Progress did not exist, would be the best allegory
that ever was written.

Bunyan’s place in society was now very different from what it had
been. There had been a time when many dissenting ministers, who could
talk Latin and read Greek, had affected to treat him with scorn. But his
fame and influence now far exceeded theirs. He had so great an authority
among the Baptists that he was popularly called Bishop Bunyan. His
episcopal visitations were annual. From Bedford he rode every year to
London, and preached there to large and attentive congregations. From
London he went his circuit through the country, animating the zeal of his
brethren, collecting and distributing alms and making up quarrels. The
magistrates seem in general to have given him little trouble. But there
is reason to believe that, in the year 1685, he was in some danger of
again occupying his old quarters in Bedford gaol. In that year the rash
and wicked enterprise of Monmouth gave the government a pretext for
prosecuting the nonconformists; and scarcely one eminent divine of the
Presbyterian. Independent [v.04 p.0806]or Baptist persuasion remained
unmolested. Baxter was in prison: Howe was driven into exile: Henry was
arrested.

Two eminent Baptists, with whom Bunyan had been engaged in
controversy, were in great peril and distress. Danvers was in danger of
being hanged; and Kiffin’s grandsons were actually hanged. The tradition
is that, during those evil days, Bunyan was forced to disguise himself as
a wagoner, and that he preached to his congregation at Bedford in a
smock-frock, with a cart-whip in his hand. But soon a great change took
place. James II. was at open war with the church, and found it necessary
to court the dissenters. Some of the creatures of the government tried to
secure the aid of Bunyan. They probably knew that he had written in
praise of the indulgence of 1672, and therefore hoped that he might be
equally pleased with the indulgence of 1687. But fifteen years of
thought, observation and commerce with the world had made him wiser. Nor
were the cases exactly parallel. Charles was a professed Protestant;
James was a professed Papist. The object of Charles’s indulgence was
disguised; the object of James’s indulgence was patent. Bunyan was not
deceived. He exhorted his hearers to prepare themselves by fasting and
prayer for the danger which menaced their civil and religious liberties,
and refused even to speak to the courtier who came down to remodel the
corporation of Bedford, and who, as was supposed, had it in charge to
offer some municipal dignity to the bishop of the Baptists.

Bunyan did not live to see the Revolution.^[8] In the summer of 1688 he
undertook to plead the cause of a son with an angry father, and at length
prevailed on the old man not to disinherit the young one. This good work
cost the benevolent intercessor his life. He had to ride through heavy
rain. He came drenched to his lodgings on Snow Hill, was seized with a
violent fever, and died in a few days (August 31). He was buried in
Bunhill Fields; and many Puritans, to whom the respect paid by Roman
Catholics to the reliques and tombs of saints seemed childish or sinful,
are said to have begged with their dying breath that their coffins might
be placed as near as possible to the coffin of the author of the
Pilgrim’s Progress.

The fame of Bunyan during his life, and during the century which
followed his death, was indeed great, but was almost entirely confined to
religious families of the middle and lower classes. Very seldom was he
during that time mentioned with respect by any writer of great literary
eminence. Young coupled his prose with the poetry of the wretched
D’Urfey. In the Spiritual Quixote, the adventures of Christian are
ranked with those of Jack the Giant-Killer and John Hickathrift. Cowper
ventured to praise the great allegorist, but did not venture to name him.
It is a significant circumstance that, for a long time all the numerous
editions of the Pilgrim’s Progress were evidently meant for the
cottage and the servants’ hall. The paper, the printing, the plates, were
all of the meanest description. In general, when the educated minority
and the common people differ about the merit of a book, the opinion of
the educated minority finally prevails. The Pilgrim’s Progress is
perhaps the only book about which the educated minority has come over to
the opinion of the common people.

The attempts which have been made to improve and to imitate this book
are not to be numbered. It has been done into verse; it has been done
into modern English. The Pilgrimage of Tender Conscience, the Pilgrimage
of Good Intent, the Pilgrimage of Seek Truth, the Pilgrimage of
Theophilus, the Infant Pilgrim, the Hindoo Pilgrim, are among the many
feeble copies of the great original. But the peculiar glory of Bunyan is
that those who most hated his doctrines have tried to borrow the help of
his genius. A Catholic version of his parable may be seen with the head
of the virgin in the title-page. On the other hand, those Antinomians for
whom his Calvinism is not strong enough, may study the Pilgrimage of
Hephzibah, in which nothing will be found which can be construed into an
admission of free agency and universal redemption. But the most
extraordinary of all the acts of Vandalism by which a fine work of art
was ever defaced was committed in the year 1853. It was determined to
transform the Pilgrim’s Progress into a Tractarian book. The task
was not easy; for it was necessary to make two sacraments the most
prominent objects in the allegory, and of all Christian theologians,
avowed Quakers excepted, Bunyan was the one in whose system the
sacraments held the least prominent place. However, the Wicket Gate
became a type of baptism, and the House Beautiful of the eucharist. The
effect of this change is such as assuredly the ingenious person who made
it never contemplated. For, as not a single pilgrim passes through the
Wicket Gate in infancy, and as Faithful hurries past the House Beautiful
without stopping, the lesson which the fable in its altered shape
teaches, is that none but adults ought to be baptized, and that the
eucharist may safely be neglected. Nobody would have discovered from the
original Pilgrim’s Progress that the author was not a
Paedobaptist. To turn his book into a book against Paedobaptism, was an
achievement reserved for an Anglo-Catholic divine. Such blunders must
necessarily be committed by every man who mutilates parts of a great
work, without taking a comprehensive view of the whole.

(M.)

The above article has been slightly corrected as to facts, as compared
with its form in the 9th edition. Bunyan’s works were first partially
collected in a folio volume (1692) by his friend Charles Doe. A larger
edition (2 vols., 1736-1737) was edited by Samuel Wilson of the Barbican.
In 1853 a good edition (3 vols., Glasgow) was produced by George Offer.
Southey’s edition (1830) of the Pilgrim’s Progress contained his
Life of Bunyan. Since then various editions of the Pilgrim’s
Progress, many illustrated (by Cruikshank, Byam Shaw, W. Strang and
others), have appeared. An interesting life by “the author of Mark
Rutherford” (W. Hale White) was published in 1904. Other lives are by
J.A. Froude (1880) in the “English Men of Letters” series, and E.
Venables (1888); but the standard work on the subject is John Bunyan;
his Life, Times and Work (1885), by the Rev. J. Brown of Bedford. A
bronze statue, by Boehm, was presented to the town by the duke of Bedford
in 1874.

BUNZLAU, a town of Germany, in Prussian Silesia, on the right
bank of the Bober, 27 m. from Liegnitz on the Berlin-Breslau railway,
which crosses the river by a great viaduct. Pop. (1900) 14,590. It has a
handsome market square, an Evangelical and a Roman Catholic church, and
monuments to the Russian field marshal Kutusov, who died here, and to the
poet Martin Opitz von Boberfeld. The Bunzlau pottery is famous; woollen
and linen cloth are manufactured, and there is a considerable trade in
grain and cattle. Bunzlau (Boleslavia) received its name in the 12th
century from Duke Boleslav, who separated it from the duchy of Glogau.
Its importance was increased by numerous privileges and the possession of
extensive mining works. It was frequently captured and recaptured in the
wars of the 17th century, and in 1739 was completely destroyed by fire.
On the 30th of August 1813 the French were here defeated on the retreat
from the Katzbach by the Silesian army of the allies.

BUONAFEDE, APPIANO (1716-1793), Italian philosopher, was born
at Comachio, in Ferrara, and died in Rome. He became professor of
theology at Naples in 1740, and, entering the religious body of the
Celestines, rose to be general of the order. His principal works,
generally published under the assumed name of “Agatopisto Cromazione,”
are on the history of philosophy:—Della Istoria e delle Indole
di ogni Filosofia, 7 vols., 1772 seq.; and Della Restaurazione di
ogni Filosofia ne’ Secoli, xvi., xvii., xviii., 3 vols., 1789 (German
trans. by C. Heydenreich). The latter gives a valuable account of
16th-century Italian philosophy. His other works are Istoria critica e
filosofica del suicidio (1761); Delle conquiste celebri esaminate
col naturale diritto delle genti (1763); Storia critica del
moderno diritto di natura e delle genti (1789); and a few poems and
philosophic comedies.

BUOY (15th century “boye”; through O.Fr. or Dutch, from Lat.
boia, fetter; the word is now usually pronounced as “boy,” and it
has been spelt in that form; but Hakluyt’s [v.04 p.0807]Voyages
spells it “bwoy,” and this seems to indicate a different pronunciation,
which is also given in some modern dictionaries), a floating body
employed to mark the navigable limits of channels, their fairways, sunken
dangers or isolated rocks, mined or torpedo grounds, telegraph cables, or
the position of a ship’s anchor after letting go; buoys are also used for
securing a ship to instead of anchoring. They vary in size and
construction from a log of wood to steel mooring buoys for battleships or
a steel gas buoy.

In 1882 a conference was held upon a proposal to establish a uniform
system of buoyage. It was under the presidency of the then duke of
Edinburgh, and consisted of representatives from the various bodies
interested. The questions of colour, visibility, shape and size were
considered, and any modifications necessary owing to locality. The
committee proposed the following uniform system of buoyage, and it is now
adopted by the general lighthouse authorities of the United
Kingdom:—

Fig. 3.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 1.

(1) The mariner when approaching the coast must determine his position
on the chart, and note the direction of flood tide. (2) The term
“starboard-hand” shall denote that side which would be on the right hand
of the mariner either going with the main stream of the flood, or
entering a harbour, river or estuary from seaward; the term “port-hand”
shall denote the left hand of the mariner in the same circumstances.
(3)^[1] Buoys
showing the pointed top of a cone above water shall be called conical
(fig. 1) and shall always be starboard-hand buoys, as above defined.
(4)^[1] Buoys showing a flat top
above water shall be called can (fig. 2) and shall always be port-hand
buoys, as above defined. (5) Buoys showing a domed top above water shall
be called spherical (fig. 3) and shall mark the ends of middle grounds.
(6) Buoys having a tall central structure on a broad face shall be called
pillar buoys (fig. 4), and like all other special buoys, such as bell
buoys, gas buoys, and automatic sounding buoys, shall be placed to mark
special positions either on the coast or in the approaches to harbours.
(7) Buoys showing only a mast above water shall be called spar-buoys
(fig. 5).^[2]
(8) Starboard-hand buoys shall always be painted in one colour only. (9)
Port-hand buoys shall be painted of another characteristic colour, either
single or parti-colour. (10) Spherical buoys (fig. 3) at the ends of
middle grounds shall always be distinguished by horizontal stripes of
white colour, (11) Surmounting beacons, such as staff and globe and
others,^[3]
shall always be painted of one dark colour. (12) Staff and globe (fig. 1)
shall only be used on starboard-hand buoys, staff and cage (fig. 2) on
port hand; diamonds (fig. 7) at the outer ends of middle grounds; and
triangles (fig. 3) at the inner ends. (13) Buoys on the same side of a
channel, estuary or tideway may be distinguished from each other by
names, numbers or letters, and where necessary by a staff surmounted with
the appropriate beacon. (14) Buoys intended for moorings (fig. 6) may be
of shape and colour according to the discretion of the authority within
whose jurisdiction they are laid, but for marking submarine telegraph
cables the colour shall be green with the word “Telegraph” painted
thereon in white letters.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 4.

Buoying and Marking of Wrecks.—(15) Wreck buoys in the
open sea, or in the approaches to a harbour or estuary, shall be coloured
green, with the word “Wreck” painted in white letters on them. (16) When
possible, the buoy should be laid near to the side of the wreck next to
mid-channel. (17) When a wreck-marking vessel is used, it shall, if
possible, have its top sides coloured green, with the word “Wreck” in
white letters thereon, and shall exhibit by day, three balls on a yard 20
ft. above the sea, two placed vertically at one end and one at the other,
the single ball being on the side nearer to the wreck; in fog a gong or
bell is rung in quick succession at intervals not exceeding one minute
(wherever practicable); by night, three white fixed lights are similarly
arranged as the balls in daytime, but the ordinary riding lights are not
shown. (18) In narrow waters or in rivers and harbours under the
jurisdiction of local authorities, the same rules may be adopted, or at
discretion, varied as follows:—When a wreck-marking vessel is used
she shall carry a cross-yard on a mast with two balls by day, placed
horizontally not less than 6 nor more than 12 ft. apart, and by night two
lights similarly placed. When a barge or open boat only is used, a flag
or ball may be shown in the daytime. (19) The position in which the
marking vessel is placed with reference to the wreck shall be at the
discretion of the local authority having jurisdiction. A uniform system
by shape has been adopted by the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board, to assist
a mariner by night, and, in addition, where practicable, a uniform
colour; the fairway buoys are specially marked by letter, shape and
colour.

Fig. 11.

Fig. 10.

Fig. 9.

Fig. 8.

British India has practically adopted the British system, United
States and Canada have the same uniform system; in the majority of
European maritime countries and China various uniform systems have been
adopted. In Norway and Russia the compass system is used, the shape,
colour and surmountings of the buoys indicating the compass bearing of
the danger from the buoy; this method is followed in the open sea by
Sweden. An international uniform system of buoyage, although desirable,
appears impracticable. Germany employs yellow buoys to mark boundaries of
quarantine stations. The question of shape versus colour, irrespective of
size, is a disputed one; the shape is a better guide at night and colour
in the daytime. All markings (figs. 8, 9, 10 and 11) should be
subordinate to the main colour of the buoy; the varying backgrounds and
atmospheric conditions render the question a complex one.

Fig. 14.

Fig. 13.

Fig. 12.

London Trinity House buoys are divided into five classes, their use
depending on whether the spot to be marked is in the open sea or
otherwise exposed position, or in a sheltered harbour, or according to
the depth of water and weight of moorings, or the importance of the
danger. Buoys are moored with specially tested cables; the eye at the
base of the buoy is of wrought iron to prevent it becoming “reedy” and
the cable is secured to blocks (see Anchor) or
mushroom anchors according to the nature of the ground. London Trinity
House buoys are [v.04 p.0808]built of steel, with bulkheads to
lessen the risk of their sinking by collision, and, with the exception of
bell buoys, do not contain water ballast. In 1878 gas buoys, with fixed
and occulting lights of 10-candle power, were introduced. In 1896 Mr T.
Matthews, engineer-in-chief in the London Trinity Corporation, developed
the present design (fig. 12). It is of steel, the lower plates being 5/8
in. and the upper 7/16 in. in thickness, thus adding to the stability.
The buoy holds 380 cub. ft. of gas, and exhibits an occulting light for
2533 hours. This light is placed 10 ft. above the sea, and, with an
intensity of 50 candles, is visible 8 m. It occults every ten seconds,
and there is seven seconds’ visibility, with three seconds’ obscuration.
The occultations are actuated by a double valve arrangement. In the body
of the apparatus there is a gas chamber having sufficient capacity, in
the case of an occulting light, for maintaining the flame in action for
seven seconds, and by means of a by-pass a jet remains alight in the
centre of the burner. During the period of three seconds’ darkness the
gas chamber is re-charged, and at the end of that period is again opened
to the main burner by a tripping arrangement of the valve, and remains in
action seven seconds. The gas chamber of the buoy, charged to five
atmospheres, is replenished from a steamer fitted with a pump and
transport receivers carrying indicating valves, the receivers being
charged to ten atmospheres. Practically no inconvenience has resulted
from saline or other deposits, the glazing (glass) of the lantern being
thoroughly cleaned when re-charging the buoy. Acetylene, generated from
calcium carbide inside the buoy, is also used. Electric light is
exhibited from some buoys in the United States. In England an automatic
electric buoy has been suggested, worked by the motion of the waves,
which cause a stream of water to act on a turbine connected with a dynamo
generating electricity. Boat-shaped buoys are also used (river Humber)
for carrying a light and bell. The Courtenay whistling buoy (fig. 13) is
actuated by the undulating movement of the waves. A hollow cylinder
extends from the lower part of the buoy to still water below the movement
of the waves, ensuring that the water inside keeps at mean level, whilst
the buoy follows the movements of the waves. By a special apparatus the
compressed air is forced through the whistle at the top of the buoy, and
the air is replenished by two tubes at the upper part of the buoy. It is
fitted with a rudder and secured in the usual manner. Automatic buoys
cannot be relied on in calm days with a smooth sea. The nun buoy (fig.
14) for indicating the position of an anchor after letting go, is secured
to the crown of the anchor by a buoy rope. It is usually made of
galvanized iron, and consists of two cones joined together at the base.
It is painted red for the port anchor and green for the starboard.

Mooring buoys (fig. 6) for battleships are built of steel in four
watertight compartments, and have sufficient buoyancy to keep afloat
should a compartment be pierced; they are 13 ft. long with a diameter of
6½ ft. The mooring cable (bridle) passes through a watertight 16-in.
trunk pipe, built vertically in the centre of the buoy, and is secured to
a “rocking shackle” on the upper surface of the buoy. Large mooring buoys
are usually protected by horizontal wooden battens and are fitted with
life chains.

(J. W. D.)

BUPALUS AND ATHENIS, sons of
Archermus, and members of the celebrated school of sculpture in marble
which flourished in Chios in the 6th century B.C. They were contemporaries of the poet Hipponax
(about 540 B.C.), whom they were said to have
caricatured. Their works consisted almost entirely of draped female
figures, Artemis, Fortune, the Graces, whence the Chian school has been
well called a school of Madonnas. Augustus brought many of the works of
Bupalus and Athenis to Rome, and placed them on the gable of the temple
of Apollo Palatinus.

BUPHONIA, in Greek antiquities, a sacrificial ceremony, forming
part of the Diipolia, a religious festival held on the 14th of the month
Skirophorion (June-July) at Athens, when a labouring ox was sacrificed to
Zeus Polieus as protector of the city in accordance with a very ancient
custom. The ox was driven forward to the altar, on which grain was
spread, by members of the family of the Kentriadae (from κέντρον, a goad), on whom this
duty devolved hereditarily. When it began to eat, one of the family of
the Thaulonidae advanced with an axe, slew the ox, then immediately threw
away the axe and fled. The axe, as being polluted by murder, was now
carried before the court of the Prytaneum (which tried inanimate objects
for homicide) and there charged with having caused the death of the ox,
for which it was thrown into the sea. Apparently this is an early
instance analogous to deodand (q.v.). Although the slaughter of a
labouring ox was forbidden, it was considered excusable in the
exceptional circumstances; none the less it was regarded as a murder.

Porphyrius, De Abstinentia, ii. 29; Aelian, Var. Hist.
viii. 3; Schol. Aristoph. Nubes, 485; Pausanias, i. 24, 28; see
also Band, De Diipoliorum Sacro Atheniensium (1873).

BUR, or Burr (apparently the same word
as Danish borre, burdock, cf. Swed. kard-boore), a prickly
fruit or head of fruits, as of the burdock. In the sense of a woody
outgrowth on the trunk of a tree, or “gnaur,” the effect of a crowded
bud-development, the word is probably adapted from the Fr. bourre,
a vine-bud.

BURANO, a town of Venetia, in the province of Venice, on an
island in the lagoons, 6 m. N.E. of Venice by sea. Pop. (1901) 8169. It
is a fishing town, with a large royal school of lace-making employing
some 500 girls. It was founded, like all the towns in the lagoons, by
fugitives from the mainland cities at the time of the barbarian
invasions. Torcello is a part of the commune of Burano.

BURAUEN, a town of the province of Leyte, island of Leyte,
Philippine Islands, on the Dagitan river, 21 m. S. by W. of Tacloban, the
capital. Pop. (1903) 18,197. Burauen is situated in a rich hemp-growing
region, and hemp is its only important product. The language is
Visayan.

BURBAGE, JAMES (d. 1597), English actor, is said to have been
born at Stratford-on-Avon. He was a member of the earl of Leicester’s
players, probably for several years before he is first mentioned (1574)
as being at the head of the company. In 1576, having secured the lease of
land at Shoreditch, Burbage erected there the successful house which was
known for twenty years as The Theatre from the fact that it was
the first ever erected in London. He seems also to have been concerned in
the erection of a second theatre in the same locality, the Curtain, and
later, in spite of all difficulties and a great deal of local opposition,
he started what became the most celebrated home of the rising
drama,—the Blackfriars theatre, built in 1596 near the old
Dominican friary.

His son Richard Burbage (c. 1567-1619),
more celebrated than his father, was the Garrick of the Elizabethan
stage, and acted all the great parts in Shakespeare’s plays. He, too, is
said to have been born at Stratford-on-Avon, and made his first
appearance at an early age at one of his father’s theatres. He had
established a reputation by the time he was twenty, and in the next dozen
years was the most popular English actor, the “Roscius” of his day. At
the time of his father’s death, a lawsuit was in progress against the
lessor from whom James Burbage held the land on which The Theatre stood.
This suit was continued by Richard and his brother Cuthbert, and in 1569
they pulled down the Shoreditch house and used the materials to erect the
Globe theatre, famous for its connexion with Shakespeare. They occupied
it as a summer playhouse, retaining the Blackfriars, which was roofed in,
for winter performances. In this venture Richard Burbage had Shakespeare
and others [v.04 p.0809]as his partners, and it was in one
or the other of these houses that he gained his greatest triumphs, taking
the leading part in almost every new play. He was specially famous for
his impersonation of Richard III. and other Shakespearian characters, and
it was in tragedy that he especially excelled. Every playwright of his
day endeavoured to secure his services. He died on the 13th of March
1619. Richard Burbage was a painter as well as an actor. The Felton
portrait of Shakespeare is attributed to him, and there is a portrait of
a woman, undoubtedly by him, preserved at Dulwich College.

BURBOT, or Eel-Pout (Lota
vulgaris), a fish of the family Gadidae, which differs from the ling
in the dorsal and anal fins reaching the caudal, and in the small size of
all the teeth. It exceeds a length of 3 ft. and is a freshwater fish,
although examples are exceptionally taken in British estuaries and in the
Baltic; some specimens are handsomely marbled with dark brown, with black
blotches on the back and dorsal fins. It is very locally distributed in
central and northern Europe, and an uncommon fish in England. Its flesh
is excellent. The American burbot (Lota maculosa) is coarser, and
not favoured for the table.

BURCKHARDT, JAKOB (1818-1897), Swiss writer on art, was born at
Basel on the 25th of May 1818; he was educated there and at Neuchâtel,
and till 1839 was intended to be a pastor. In 1838 he made his first
journey to Italy, and also published his first important articles
Bemerkungen über schweizerische Kathedralen. In 1839 he went to
the university of Berlin, where he studied till 1843, spending part of
1841 at Bonn, where he was a pupil of Franz Kugler, the art historian, to
whom his first book, Die Kunstwerke D. belgischen Städte (1842),
was dedicated. He was professor of history at the university of Basel
(1845-1847, 1849-1855 and 1858-1893) and at the federal polytechnic
school at Zurich (1855-1858). In 1847 he brought out new editions of
Kugler’s two great works, Geschichte der Malerei and
Kunstgeschichte, and in 1853 published his own work, Die Zeit
Constantins des Grossen. He spent the greater part of the years
1853-1854 in Italy, where he collected the materials for one of his most
famous works, Der Cicerone: eine Anleitung sum Genuss der Kunstwerke
Italiens, which was dedicated to Kugler and appeared in 1855 (7th
German edition, 1899; English translation of the sections relating to
paintings, by Mrs A.H. Clough, London, 1873). This work, which includes
sculpture and architecture, as well as painting, has become indispensable
to the art traveller in Italy. About half of the original edition was
devoted to the art of the Renaissance, so that Burckhardt was naturally
led on to the preparation of his two other celebrated works, Die
Cultur der Renaissance in Italien (1860, 5th German edition 1896, and
English translation, by S.G.C. Middlemore, in 2 vols., London, 1878), and
the Geschichte der Renaissance in Italien (1867, 3rd German
edition 1891). In 1867 he refused a professorship at Tübingen, and in
1872 another (that left vacant by Ranke) at Berlin, remaining faithful to
Basel. He died in 1897.

See Life by Hans Trog in the Basler Jahrbuch for 1898, pp.
1-172.

(W. A. B. C.)

BURCKHARDT, JOHN LEWIS [Johann Ludwig]
(1784-1817), Swiss traveller and orientalist, was born at Lausanne on the
24th of November 1784. After studying at Leipzig and Göttingen he visited
England in the summer of 1806, carrying a letter of introduction from the
naturalist Blumenbach to Sir Joseph Banks, who, with the other members of
the African Association, accepted his offer to explore the interior of
Africa. After studying in London and Cambridge, and inuring himself to
all kinds of hardships and privations, Burckhardt left England in March
1809 for Malta, whence he proceeded, in the following autumn, to Aleppo.
In order to obtain a better knowledge of oriental life he disguised
himself as a Mussulman, and took the name of Sheikh Ibrahim Ibn Abdallah.
After two years passed in the Levant he had thoroughly mastered Arabic,
and had acquired such accurate knowledge of the Koran, and of the
commentaries upon its religion and laws, that after a critical
examination the most learned Mussulmans entertained no doubt of his being
really what he professed to be, a learned doctor of their law. During his
residence in Syria he visited Palmyra, Damascus, Lebanon and thence
journeyed via Petra to Cairo with the intention of joining a caravan to
Fezzan, and of exploring from there the sources of the Niger. In 1812,
whilst waiting for the departure of the caravan, he travelled up the Nile
as far as Dar Mahass; and then, finding it impossible to penetrate
westward, he made a journey through the Nubian desert in the character of
a poor Syrian merchant, passing by Berber and Shendi to Suakin, on the
Red Sea, whence he performed the pilgrimage to Mecca by way of Jidda. At
Mecca he stayed three months and afterwards visited Medina. After
enduring privations and sufferings of the severest kind, he returned to
Cairo in June 1815 in a state of great exhaustion; but in the spring of
1816 he travelled to Mount Sinai, whence he returned to Cairo in June,
and there again made preparations for his intended journey to Fezzan.
Several hindrances prevented his prosecuting this intention, and finally,
in April 1817, when the long-expected caravan prepared to depart, he was
seized with illness and died on the 15th of October. He had from time to
time carefully transmitted to England his journals and notes, and a very
copious series of letters, so that nothing which appeared to him to be
interesting in the various journeys he made has been lost. He bequeathed
his collection of 800 vols. of oriental MSS. to the library of Cambridge
University.

His works were published by the African Association in the following
order:—Travels in Nubia (to which is prefixed a biographical
memoir) (1819); Travels in Syria and the Holy Land (1822);
Travels in Arabia (1829); Arabic Proverbs, or the Manners and
Customs of the Modern Egyptians (1830); Notes on the Bedouins and
Wahabys (1831).

BURDEAU, AUGUSTE LAURENT (1851-1894), French politician, was
the son of a labourer at Lyons. Forced from childhood to earn his own
living, he was enabled to secure an education by bursarships at the Lycée
at Lyons and at the Lycée Louis Le Grand in Paris. In 1870 he was at the
École Normale Supérieure in Paris, but enlisted in the army, and was
wounded and made prisoner in 1871. In 1874 he became professor of
philosophy, and translated several works of Herbert Spencer and of
Schopenhauer into French. His extraordinary aptitude for work secured for
him the position of chef de cabinet under Paul Bert, the minister
of education, in 1881. In 1885 he was elected deputy for the department
of the Rhone, and distinguished himself in financial questions. He was
several times minister, and became minister of finance in the cabinet of
Casimir-Périer (from the 3rd of November 1893 to the 22nd of May 1894).
On the 5th of July 1894 he was elected president of the chamber of
deputies. He died on the 12th of December 1894, worn out with
overwork.

BURDEN, or Burthen, (1) (A.S.
byrthen, from beran, to bear), a load, both literally and
figuratively; especially the carrying capacity of a ship; in mining and
smelting, the tops or heads of stream-work which lie over the stream of
tin, and the proportion of ore and flux to fuel in the charge of a
blast-furnace. In Scots and English law the term is applied to an
encumbrance on real or personal property. (2) (From the Fr.
bourdon, a droning, humming sound) an accompaniment to a song, or
the refrain of a song; hence a chief or recurrent topic, as “the burden
of a speech.”

BURDER, GEORGE (1752-1832), English Nonconformist divine, was
born in London on the 5th of June 1752. In early manhood he was an
engraver, but in 1776 he began preaching, and was minister of the
Independent church at Lancaster from 1778 to 1783. Subsequently he held
charges at Coventry (1784-1803) and at Fetter Lane, London (1803-1832).
He was one of the founders of the British and Foreign Bible Society, the
Religious Tract Society, and the London Missionary Society, and was
secretary to the last-named for several years. As editor of the
Evangelical Magazine and author of Village Sermons, he
commanded a wide influence. He died on the 29th of May 1832, and a Life
(by H. Burder) appeared in 1833.

BURDETT, SIR FRANCIS (1770-1844), English politician, was the
son of Francis Burdett by his wife Eleanor, daughter of William Jones of
Ramsbury manor, Wiltshire, and grandson of [v.04 p.0810]Sir Robert
Burdett, Bart. Born on the 25th of January 1770, he was educated at
Westminster school and Oxford, and afterwards travelled in France and
Switzerland. He was in Paris during the earlier days of the French
Revolution, a visit which doubtless influenced his political opinions.
Returning to England he married in 1793 Sophia, daughter of Thomas Coutts
the banker, and this lady brought him a large fortune. In 1796 he became
member of parliament for Boroughbridge, having purchased this seat from
the representatives of the 4th duke of Newcastle, and in 1797 succeeded
his grandfather as fifth baronet. In parliament he soon became prominent
as an opponent of Pitt, and as an advocate of popular rights. He
denounced the war with France, the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act,
the proposed exclusion of John Horne Tooke from parliament, and quickly
became the idol of the people. He was instrumental in securing an inquiry
into the condition of Coldbath Fields prison, but as a result of this
step he was for a time prevented by the government from visiting any
prison in the kingdom. In 1797 he made the acquaintance of Horne Tooke,
whose pupil he became, not only in politics, but also in philology. At
the general election of 1802 Burdett was a candidate for the county of
Middlesex, but his return was declared void in 1804, and in the
subsequent contest he was defeated. In 1805 this return was amended in
his favour, but as this was again quickly reversed, Burdett, who had
spent an immense sum of money over the affair, declared he would not
stand for parliament again.

At the general election of 1806 Burdett was a leading supporter of
James Paull, the reform candidate for the city of Westminster; but in the
following year a misunderstanding led to a duel between Burdett and Paull
in which both combatants were wounded. At the general election in 1807
Burdett, in spite of his reluctance, was nominated for Westminster, and
amid great enthusiasm was returned at the top of the poll. He took up
again the congenial work of attacking abuses and agitating for reform,
and in 1810 came sharply into collision with the House of Commons. A
radical named John Gale Jones had been committed to prison by the House,
a proceeding which was denounced by Burdett, who questioned the power of
the House to take this step, and vainly attempted to secure the release
of Jones. He then issued a revised edition of his speech on this
occasion, and it was published by William Cobbett in the Weekly
Register. The House voted this action a breach of privilege, and the
speaker issued a warrant for Burdett’s arrest. Barring himself in his
house, he defied the authorities, while the mob gathered in his defence.
At length his house was entered, and under an escort of soldiers he was
conveyed to the Tower. Released when parliament was prorogued, he caused
his supporters much disappointment by returning to Westminster by water,
and so avoiding a demonstration in his honour. He then brought actions
against the speaker and the serjeant-at-arms, but the courts upheld the
action of the House. In parliament Burdett denounced corporal punishment
in the army, and supported all attempts to check corruption, but his
principal efforts were directed towards procuring a reform of parliament,
and the removal of Roman Catholic disabilities. In 1809 he had proposed a
scheme of parliamentary reform, and returning to the subject in 1817 and
1818 he anticipated the Chartist movement by suggesting universal male
suffrage, equal electoral districts, vote by ballot, and annual
parliaments; but his motions met with very little support. He succeeded,
however, in carrying a resolution in 1825 that the House should consider
the laws concerning Roman Catholics. This was followed by a bill
embodying his proposals, which passed the Commons but was rejected by the
Lords. In 1827 and 1828 he again proposed resolutions on this subject,
and saw his proposals become law in 1829. In 1820 Burdett had again come
into serious conflict with the government. Having severely censured its
action with reference to the “Manchester massacre,” he was prosecuted at
Leicester assizes, fined £1000, and committed to prison for three months.
After the passing of the Reform Bill in 1832 the ardour of the veteran
reformer was somewhat abated, and a number of his constituents soon took
umbrage at his changed attitude. Consequently he resigned his seat early
in 1837, but was re-elected. However, at the general election in the same
year he forsook Westminster and was elected member for North Wiltshire,
which seat he retained, acting in general with the Conservatives, until
his death on the 23rd of January 1844. He left a son, Robert, who
succeeded to the baronetcy, and five daughters, the youngest of whom
became the celebrated Baroness Burdett-Coutts. Impetuous and illogical,
Burdett did good work as an advocate of free speech, and an enemy of
corruption. He was exceedingly generous, and spent money lavishly in
furthering projects of reform.

See A. Stephens, Life of Horne Tooke (London, 1813); Spencer
Walpole, History of England (London, 1878-1886); C. Abbot, Baron
Colchester, Diary and Correspondence (London, 1861).

(A. W. H.*)

BURDETT-COUTTS, ANGELA GEORGINA BURDETT-COUTTS, Baroness (1814-1906), English philanthropist, youngest
daughter of Sir Francis Burdett, was born on the 21st of April 1814. When
she was three-and-twenty, she inherited practically the whole of the
immense wealth of her grandfather Thomas Coutts (approaching two millions
sterling, a fabulous sum in those days), by the will of the duchess of St
Albans, who, as the actress Henrietta Mellon, had been his second wife
and had been left it on his death in 1821. Miss Burdett then took the
name of Coutts in addition to her own. “The faymale heiress, Miss Anjaley
Coutts,” as the author of the Ingoldsby Legends called her in his
ballad on the queen’s coronation in that year (1837), at once became a
notable subject of public curiosity and private cupidity; she received
numerous offers of marriage, but remained resolutely single, devoting
herself and her riches to philanthropic work, which made her famous for
well-applied generosity. In May 1871 she was created a peeress, as
Baroness Burdett-Coutts of Highgate and Brookfield, Middlesex. On the
18th of July 1872 she was presented at the Guildhall with the freedom of
the city of London, the first case of a woman being admitted to that
fellowship. It was not till 1881 that, when sixty-seven years old, she
married William Lehman Ashmead-Bartlett, an American by birth, and
brother of Sir E.A. Ashmead-Bartlett, the Conservative member of
parliament; and he then took his wife’s name, entering the House of
Commons as member for Westminster, 1885. Full of good works, and of
social interest and influence, the baroness lived to the great age of
ninety-two, dying at her house in Stratton Street, Piccadilly, on the
30th of December 1906, of bronchitis. She was buried in Westminster
Abbey.

The extent of her benefactions during her long and active life can
only be briefly indicated; but the baroness must remain a striking figure
in the social history of Victorian England, for the thoughtful and
conscientious care with which she “held her wealth in trust” for
innumerable good objects. It was her aim to benefit the working-classes
in ways involving no loss of independence or self-respect. She carefully
avoided taking any side in party politics, but she was actively
interested in phases of Imperial extension which were calculated to
improve the condition of the black races, as in Africa, or the education
and relief of the poor or suffering in any part of the world. Though she
made no special distinction of creed in her charities, she was a notable
benefactor of the Church of England, building and endowing churches and
church schools, endowing the bishoprics of Cape Town and of Adelaide
(1847), and founding the bishopric of British Columbia (1857). Among her
many educational endowments may be specified the St Stephen’s Institute
in Vincent Square, Westminster (1846); she started sewing schools in
Spitalfields when the silk trade began to fail; helped to found the
shoe-black brigade; and placed hundreds of destitute boys in
training-ships for the navy and merchant service. She established
Columbia fish market (1869) in Bethnal Green, and presented it to the
city, but owing to commercial difficulties this effort, which cost her
over £200,000, proved abortive. She supported various schemes of
emigration to the colonies; and in Ireland helped to promote the fishing
industry by starting schools, and providing boats, besides [v.04
p.0811]advancing £250,000 in 1880 for supplying seed to the
impoverished tenants. She was devoted to the protection of animals and
prevention of cruelty, and took up with characteristic zeal the cause of
the costermongers’ donkeys, building stables for them on her Columbia
market estate, and giving prizes for the best-kept animals. She helped to
inaugurate the society for the prevention of cruelty to children, and was
a keen supporter of the ragged school union. Missionary efforts of all
sorts; hospitals and nursing; industrial homes and refuges; relief funds,
&c., found in her a generous supporter. She was associated with
Louisa Twining and Florence Nightingale; and in 1877-1878 raised the
Turkish compassionate fund for the starving peasantry and fugitives in
the Russo-Turkish War (for which she obtained the order of the Medjidieh,
a solitary case of its conference on a woman). She relieved the
distressed in far-off lands as well as at home, her helping hand being
stretched out to the Dyaks of Borneo and the aborigines of Australia. She
was a liberal patroness of the stage, literature and the arts, and
delighted in knowing all the cultured people of the day. In short, her
position in England for half a century may well be summed up in words
attributed to King Edward VII., “after my mother (Queen Victoria) the
most remarkable woman in the kingdom.”

BURDON-SANDERSON, SIR JOHN SCOTT, Bart. (1828-1905), English
physiologist, was born at West Jesmand, near Newcastle, on the 21st of
December 1828. A member of a well-known Northumbrian family, he received
his medical education at the university of Edinburgh and at Paris.
Settling in London, he became medical officer of health for Paddington in
1856 and four years later physician to the Middlesex and the Brompton
Consumption hospitals. When diphtheria appeared in England in 1858 he was
sent to investigate the disease at the different points of outbreak, and
in subsequent years he carried out a number of similar inquiries,
e.g. into the cattle plague and into cholera in 1866. He became
first principal of the Brown Institution at Lambeth in 1871, and in 1874
was appointed Jodrell professor of physiology at University College,
London, retaining that post till 1882. When the Waynflete chair of
physiology was established at Oxford in 1882, he was chosen to be its
first occupant, and immediately found himself the object of a furious
anti-vivisectionist agitation. The proposal that the university should
spend £10,000 in providing him with a suitable laboratory, lecture-rooms,
&c., in which to carry on his work, was strongly opposed, by some on
grounds of economy, but largely because he was an upholder of the
usefulness and necessity of experiments upon animals. It was, however,
eventually carried by a small majority (88 to 85), and in the same year
the Royal Society awarded him a royal medal in recognition of his
researches into the electrical phenomena exhibited by plants and the
relations of minute organisms to disease, and of the services he had
rendered to physiology and pathology. In 1885 the university of Oxford
was asked to vote £500 a year for three years for the purposes of the
laboratory, then approaching completion. This proposal was fought with
the utmost bitterness by Sanderson’s opponents, the anti-vivisectionists
including E.A. Freeman, John Ruskin and Bishop Mackarness of Oxford.
Ultimately the money was granted by 412 to 244 votes. In 1895 Sanderson
was appointed regius professor of medicine at Oxford, resigning the post
in 1904; in 1899 he was created a baronet. His attainments, both in
biology and medicine, brought him many honours. He was Croonian lecturer
to the Royal Society in 1867 and 1877 and to the Royal College of
Physicians in 1891; gave the Harveian oration before the College of
Physicians in 1878; acted as president of the British Association at
Nottingham in 1893; and served on three royal commissions—Hospitals
(1883), Tuberculosis, Meat and Milk (1890), and University for London
(1892). He died at Oxford on the 23rd of November 1905.

BURDWAN, or Bardwan, a town of British
India, in Bengal, which gives its name to a district and to a division.
It has a station on the East Indian railway, 67 m. N.W. from Calcutta.
Pop. (1901) 35,022. The town consists really of numerous villages
scattered over an area of 9 sq. m., and is entirely rural in character.
It contains several interesting ancient tombs, and at Nawab Hat, some 2
m. distant, is a group of 108 Siva lingam temples built in 1788.
The place was formerly very unhealthy, but this has been to a large
extent remedied by the establishment of water-works, a good supply of
water being derived from the river Banka. Within the town, the principal
objects of interest are the palaces and gardens of the maharaja. The
chief educational institution is the Burdwan Raj college, which is
entirely supported out of the maharaja’s estate.

The town owes its importance entirely to being the headquarters of the
maharaja of Burdwan, the premier nobleman of lower Bengal, whose
rent-roll is upwards of £300,000. The raj was founded in 1657 by
Abu Ra Kapur, of the Kapur Khatri family of Kotli in Lahore, Punjab,
whose descendants served in turn the Mogul emperors and the British
government. The great prosperity of the raj was due to the
excellent management of Maharaja Mahtab Chand (d. 1879), whose loyalty to
the government—especially during the Santal rebellion of 1855 and
the mutiny of 1857—was rewarded with the grant of a coat of arms in
1868 and the right to a personal salute of 13 guns in 1877. Maharaja
Bijai Chand Mahtab (b. 1881), who succeeded his adoptive father in 1888,
earned great distinction by the courage with which he risked his life to
save that of Sir Andrew Fraser, the lieutenant-governor of Bengal, on the
occasion of the attempt to assassinate him made by Bengali malcontents on
the 7th of November 1908.

The District of Burdwan lies along the right
bank of the river Bhagirathi or Hugli. It has an area of 2689 sq. m. It
is a flat plain, and its scenery is uninteresting. Chief rivers are the
Bhagirathi, Damodar, Ajai, Banka, Kunur and Khari, of which only the
Bhagirathi is navigable by country cargo boats throughout the year. The
district was acquired by the East India Company under the treaty with
Nawab Mir Kasim in 1760, and confirmed by the emperor Shah Alam in 1765.
The land revenue was fixed in perpetuity with the zemindar in 1793. In
1901 the population was 1,532,475, showing an increase of 10% in the
decade. There are several indigo factories. The district suffered from
drought in 1896-1897. The Eden Canal, 20 m. long, has been constructed
for irrigation. The weaving of silk is the chief native industry. As
regards European industries, Burdwan takes the first place in Bengal. It
contains the great coal-field of Raniganj, first opened in 1874, with an
output of more than three million tons. The Barrakur ironworks produce
pig-iron, which is reported to be as good as that of Middlesbrough. Apart
from Burdwan town and Raniganj, the chief places are the river-marts of
Katwa and Kalna. The East Indian railway has several lines running
through the district.

The Division of Burdwan comprises the six
districts of Burdwan, Birbhum, Bankura, Midnapore, Hugli and Howrah, with
a total area of 13,949 sq. m., and a population in 1901 of 8,240,076.

BUREAU (a Fr. word from burel or bureau, a coarse
cloth used for coverings), a writing-table or desk (q.v.), also in
America a low chest of drawers. From the meaning of “desk,” the word is
applied to an office or place of business, and particularly a government
department; in the United States the term is used of certain subdivisions
of the executive departments, as the bureau of statistics, a division of
the treasury department. The term “bureaucracy” is often employed to
signify the concentration of administrative power in bureaux or
departments, and the undue interference by officials not only in the
details of government, but in matters outside the scope of state
interference. The word is also frequently used in the sense of
“red-tapism.”

BURFORD, a market town in the Woodstock parliamentary division
of Oxfordshire, England, 18 m. W.N.W. of Oxford. Pop. (1901) 1146. It is
pleasantly situated in the valley of the Windrush, the broad, picturesque
main street sloping upward from the stream, beside which stands the fine
church, to the summit of the ridge flanking the valley on the south,
along which runs the high road from Oxford. The church of St John the
Baptist has a nave and aisles, mainly Perpendicular in appearance owing
to alterations in that period, but actually of [v.04 p.0812]earlier
construction, the south aisle flanked by two beautiful chapels and an
ornate porch; transepts and a central tower, and choir with flanking
chapels. The massive Norman tower contrasts strongly with the delicate
Perpendicular spire rising upon it. The church contains many interesting
memorials, and, in the nave, a Perpendicular shrine dedicated to St
Peter. Near the church is the half-ruined priory house, built in the 17th
century, and containing much fine plaster ornament characteristic of the
period; a curious chapel adjoins it. William Lenthall, speaker of the
Long Parliament, was granted this mansion, died here in 1662, and is
buried in the church. In the High Street nearly every house is of some
antiquity. The Tolsey or old town hall is noteworthy among them; and
under one of the houses is an Early English crypt. Burford is mentioned
as the scene of a synod in 705; in 752 Cuthred, king of the West Saxons,
fighting for independence, here defeated Æthelbald, king of Mercia; and
in 1649 the town and district were the scene of victorious operations by
Cromwell.

BURG, a town of Germany, in Prussian Saxony, on the river Ihle,
and the railway from Berlin to Magdeburg, 14 m. N.E. of the latter. Pop.
(1900) 22,432. It is noted for its cloth manufactures and boot-making,
which afford employment to a great part of its population. The town
belonged originally to the lordship of Querfurt, passed with this into
the possession of the archbishops of Magdeburg in 1496, and was ceded in
1635 with other portions of the Magdeburg territories to Saxony; in 1687
it was ceded to Brandenburg. It owes its prosperity to the large influx
of industrious French, Palatinate and Walloon refugees, which took place
about the end of the 17th century.

BURGAGE (from Lat. burgus, a borough), a form of tenure,
both in England and Scotland, applicable to the property connected with
the old municipal corporations and their privileges. In England, it was a
tenure whereby houses or tenements in an ancient borough were held of the
king or other person as lord at a certain rent. The term is of less
practical importance in the English than in the Scottish system, where it
held an important place in the practice of conveyancing, real property
having been generally divided into feudal-holding and burgage-holding.
Since the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1874, there is, however, not much
distinction between burgage tenure and free holding. It is usual to speak
of the English burgage-tenure as a relic of Saxon freedom resisting the
shock of the Norman conquest and its feudalism, but it is perhaps more
correct to consider it a local feature of that general exemption from
feudality enjoyed by the municipia as a relic of their ancient
Roman constitution. The reason for the system preserving for so long its
specifically distinct form in Scottish conveyancing was because
burgage-holding was an exception to the system of subinfeudation which
remained prevalent in Scotland when it was suppressed in England. While
other vassals might hold of a graduated hierarchy of overlords up to the
crown, the burgess always held directly of the sovereign. It is curious
that while in England the burgage-tenure was deemed a species of socage,
to distinguish it from the military holdings, in Scotland it was strictly
a military holding, by the service of watching and warding for the
defence of the burgh. In England the franchises enjoyed by burgesses,
freemen and other consuetudinary constituencies in burghs, were dependent
on the character of the burgage-tenure. Tenure by burgage was subject to
a variety of customs, the principal of which was Borough-English
(q.v.).

See Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law (1898).

BURGAS (sometimes written Burghaz, Bourgas or
Borgas, and, in the middle ages, Pyrgos), a seaport, and
capital of the department of Burgas, in Bulgaria (Eastern Rumelia), on
the gulf of Burgas, an inlet of the Black Sea, in 42° 27′ N. and
27° 35′ E. Pop. (1906) 12,846. Burgas is built on a low foreland,
between the lagoons of Ludzha, on the north, and Kara-Yunus, on the west;
it faces towards the open sea on the east, and towards its own harbour on
the south. The principal approach is a broad isthmus on the north-west,
along which runs the railway to Philippopolis and Adrianople. Despite its
small population and the rivalry of Varna and the Turkish port of
Dedeagatch, Burgas has a considerable transit trade. Its fine harbour,
formally opened in 1904, has an average depth of five fathoms; large
vessels can load at the quays, and the outer waters of the gulf are well
lit by lighthouses on the islets of Hagios Anastasios and Megalo-Nisi. In
1904, the port accommodated over 1400 ships, of about 700,000 tons. These
included upwards of 800 Bulgarian and Turkish sailing-vessels, engaged in
the coasting trade. Fuel, machinery and miscellaneous goods are imported,
chiefly from Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Germany and the United Kingdom;
the exports include grain, wool, tallow, cheese, butter, attar of roses,
&c. Pottery and pipes are manufactured from clay obtained in the
neighbourhood.

BURGDORF (Fr. Berthoud), an industrial town in the Swiss
canton of Bern. It is built on the left bank of the Emme and is 14 m. by
rail N.E. of Bern. The lower (or modern) town is connected by a curious
spiral street with the upper (or old) town. The latter is picturesquely
perched on a hill, at a height of 1942 ft. above sea-level (or 167 ft.
above the river); it is crowned by the ancient castle and by the
15th-century parish church, in the former of which Pestalozzi set up his
educational establishment between 1798 and 1804. A large trade is carried
on at Burgdorf in the cheese of the Emmenthal, while among the industrial
establishments are railway works, and factories of cloth, white lead and
tinfoil. In 1900 the population was 8404, practically all Protestants and
German-speaking. A fine view of the Bernese Alps is obtained from the
castle, while a still finer one may be enjoyed from the Lueg hill (2917
ft.), north-east of the town. The castle dates from the days of the dukes
of Zäringen (11th-12th centuries), the last of whom (Berchtold V.) built
walls round the town at its foot, and granted it a charter of liberties.
On the extinction (1218) of that dynasty both castle and town passed to
the counts of Kyburg, and from them, with the rest of their possessions,
in 1272 by marriage to the cadet line of the Habsburgs. By that line they
were sold in 1384, with Thun, to the town of Bern, whose bailiffs ruled
in the castle till 1798.

(W. A. B. C.)

BURGEE (of unknown origin), a small three-cornered or
swallow-tailed flag or pennant used by yachts or merchant vessels; also a
kind of small coal burnt in engine furnaces.

BÜRGER, GOTTFRIED AUGUST (1748-1794), German poet, was born on
the 1st of January 1748 at Molmerswende near Halberstadt, of which
village his father was the Lutheran pastor. He was a backward child, and
at the age of twelve was practically adopted by his maternal grandfather,
Bauer, at Aschersleben, who sent him to the Pädagogium at Halle.
Hence in 1764 he passed to the university, as a student of theology,
which, however, he soon abandoned for the study of jurisprudence. Here he
fell under the influence of C.A. Klotz (1738-1771), who directed Bürger’s
attention to literature, but encouraged rather than discouraged his
natural disposition to a wild and unregulated life. In consequence of his
dissipated habits, he was in 1767 recalled by his grandfather, but on
promising to reform was in 1768 allowed to enter the university of
Göttingen as a law student. As he continued his wild career, however, his
grandfather withdrew his support and he was left to his own devices.
Meanwhile he had made fair progress with his legal studies, and had the
good fortune to form a close friendship with a number of young men of
literary tastes. In the Göttingen Musenalmanach, edited by H. Boie
and F.W. Gotter, Bürger’s first poems were published, and by 1771 he had
already become widely known as a poet. In 1772, through Boie’s influence,
Bürger obtained the post of “Amtmann” or district magistrate at
Altengleichen near Göttingen. His grandfather was now reconciled to him,
paid his debts and established him in his new sphere of activity.
Meanwhile he kept in touch with his Göttingen friends, and when the
“Göttinger Bund” or “Hain” was formed, Bürger, though not himself a
member, kept in close touch with it. In 1773 the ballad Lenore was
published in the Musenalmanach. This poem, which in dramatic force
and in its vivid realization of the weird and supernatural remains
without a rival, made his name a household word in Germany. In 1774
Bürger married Dorette Leonhart, the [v.04 p.0813]daughter of a
Hanoverian official; but his passion for his wife’s younger sister
Auguste (the “Molly” of his poems and elegies) rendered the union unhappy
and unsettled his life. In 1778 Bürger became editor of the
Musenalmanach, and in the same year published the first collection
of his poems. In 1780 he took a farm at Appenrode, but in three years
lost so much money that he had to abandon the venture. Pecuniary troubles
oppressed him, and being accused of neglecting his official duties, and
feeling his honour attacked, he gave up his official position and removed
in 1784 to Göttingen, where he established himself as
Privat-docent. Shortly before his removal thither his wife died
(30th of July 1784), and on the 29th of June in the next year he married
his sister-in-law “Molly.” Her death on the 9th of January 1786 affected
him deeply. He appeared to lose at once all courage and all bodily and
mental vigour. He still continued to teach in Göttingen; at the jubilee
of the foundation of the university in 1787 he was made an honorary
doctor of philosophy, and in 1789 was appointed extraordinary professor
in that faculty, though without a stipend. In the following year he
married a third time, his wife being a certain Elise Hahn, who, enchanted
with his poems, had offered him her heart and hand. Only a few weeks of
married life with his “Schwabenmädchen” sufficed to prove his mistake,
and after two and a half years he divorced her. Deeply wounded by
Schiller’s criticism, in the 14th and 15th part of the Allgemeine
Literaturzeitung of 1791, of the 2nd edition of his poems,
disappointed, wrecked in fortune and health, Bürger eked out a precarious
existence as a teacher in Göttingen until his death there on the 8th of
June 1794.

Bürger’s character, in spite of his utter want of moral balance, was
not lacking in noble and lovable qualities. He was honest in purpose,
generous to a fault, tender-hearted and modest. His talent for popular
poetry was very considerable, and his ballads are among the finest in the
German language. Besides Lenore, Das Lied vom braven Manne, Die Kuh,
Der Kaiser und der Abt and Der wilde Jäger are famous. Among
his purely lyrical poems, but few have earned a lasting reputation; but
mention may be made of Das Blümchen Wunderhold, Lied an den lieben
Mond, and a few love songs. His sonnets, particularly the elegies,
are of great beauty.

Editions of Bürger’s Samtliche Schriften appeared at Göttingen,
1817 (incomplete); 1829-1833 (8 vols.), and 1835 (one vol.); also a
selection by E. Grisebach (5th ed., 1894). The Gedichte have been
published in innumerable editions, the best being that by A. Sauer (2
vols., 1884). Briefe von und an Burger were edited by A.
Strodtmann in 4 vols. (1874). On Bürger’s life see the biography by H.
Prohle (1856), the introduction to Sauer’s edition of the poems, and W.
von Wurzbach, G.A. Burger (1900).

BURGERS, THOMAS FRANÇOIS (1834-1881), president of the
Transvaal Republic, was born in Cape Colony on the 15th of April 1834,
and was educated at Utrecht, Holland, where he took the degree of doctor
of theology. On his return to South Africa he was ordained minister of
the Dutch Reformed Church, and stationed at Hanover in Cape Colony, where
he exercised his ministrations for eight years. In 1862 his preaching
attracted attention, and two years later an ecclesiastical tribunal
suspended him for heretical opinions. He appealed, however, to the
colonial government, which had appointed him, and obtained judgment in
his favour, which was confirmed by the privy council of England on appeal
in 1865. On the resignation of M.W. Pretorius and the refusal of
President Brand of the Orange Free State to accept the office, Burgers
was elected president of the Transvaal, taking the oath on the 1st of
July 1872. In 1873 he endeavoured to persuade Montsioa to agree to an
alteration in the boundary of the Barolong territory as fixed by the
Keate award, but failed (see Bechuanaland). In
1875 Burgers, leaving the Transvaal in charge of Acting-President
Joubert, went to Europe mainly to promote a scheme for linking the
Transvaal to the coast by a railway from Delagoa Bay, which was that year
definitely assigned to Portugal by the MacMahon award. With the
Portuguese Burgers concluded a treaty, December 1875, providing for the
construction of the railway. After meeting with refusals of financial
help in London, Burgers managed to raise £90,000 in Holland, and bought a
quantity of railway plant, which on its arrival at Delagoa Bay was
mortgaged to pay freight, and this, so far as Burgers was concerned, was
the end of the matter. In June 1876 he induced the raad to declare war
against Sikukuni (Secocoeni), a powerful native chief in the eastern
Transvaal. The campaign was unsuccessful, and with its failure the
republic fell into a condition of lawlessness and insolvency, while a
Zulu host threatened invasion. Burgers in an address to the raad (3rd of
March 1877) declared “I would rather be a policeman under a strong
government than the president of such a state. It is you—-you
members of the raad and the Boers—who have lost the country, who
have sold your independence for a drink.” Sir Theophilus Shepstone, who
had been sent to investigate the condition of affairs in the Transvaal,
issued on the 12th of April a proclamation annexing the Transvaal to
Great Britain. Burgers fully acquiesced in the necessity for annexation.
He accepted a pension from the British government, and settled down to
farming in Hanover, Cape Colony. He died at Richmond in that colony on
the 9th of December 1881, and in the following year a volume of short
stories, Tooneelen uit ons dorp, originally written by him for the
Cape Volksblad, was published at the Hague for the benefit of his
family. A patriot, a fluent speaker both in Dutch and in English, and
possessed of unbounded energy, the failure of Burgers was due to his
fondness for large visionary plans, which he attempted to carry out with
insufficient means (see Transvaal:
History).

For the annexation period see John Martineau, The Life of Sir
Bartle Frere, vol. ii. chap, xviii. (London, 1895).

BURGERSDYK, or Burgersdicius,
FRANCIS (1590-1629), Dutch logician, was born at Lier, near Delft,
and died at Leiden. After a brilliant career at the university of Leiden,
he studied theology at Saumur, where while still very young he became
professor of philosophy. After five years he returned to Leiden, where he
accepted the chair of logic and moral philosophy, and afterwards that of
natural philosophy. His Logic was at one time widely used, and is
still valuable. He wrote also Idea Philosophiae Moralis
(1644).

BURGES, GEORGE (1786-1864), English classical scholar, was born
in India. He was educated at Charterhouse school and Trinity College,
Cambridge, taking his degree in 1807, and obtaining one of the members’
prizes both in 1808 and 1809. He stayed up at Cambridge and became a most
successful “coach.” He had a great reputation as a Greek scholar, and was
a somewhat acrimonious critic of rival scholars, especially Bishop
Blomfield. Subsequently he fell into embarrassed circumstances through
injudicious speculation, and in 1841 a civil list pension of £100 per
annum was bestowed upon him. He died at Ramsgate, on the 11th of January
1864. Burges was a man of great learning and industry, but too fond of
introducing arbitrary emendations into the text of classical authors. His
chief works are: Euripides’ Troades (1807) and Phoenissae
(1809); Aeschylus’ Supplices (1821), Eumenides (1822) and
Prometheus (1831); Sophocles’ Philoctetes (1833); E.F.
Poppo’s Prolegomena to Thucydides (1837), an abridged translation
with critical remarks; Hermesianactis Fragmenta (1839). He also
edited some of the dialogues of Plato with English notes, and translated
nearly the whole of that author and the Greek anthology for Bohn’s
Classical library. He was a frequent contributor to the Classical
Journal and other periodicals, and dedicated to Byron a play called
The Son of Erin, or, The Cause of the Greeks (1823).

BURGESS, DANIEL (1645-1713), English Presbyterian divine, was
born at Staines, in Middlesex, where his father was minister. He was
educated under Busby at Westminster school, and in 1660 was sent to
Magdalen Hall, Oxford, but not being able conscientiously to subscribe
the necessary formulae he quitted the university without taking his
degree. In 1667, after taking orders, he was appointed by Roger Boyle,
first Lord Orrery, to the headmastership of a school recently established
by that nobleman at Charleville, Co. Cork, and soon after he became
private chaplain to Lady Mervin, near Dublin. There he was [v.04
p.0814]ordained by the local presbytery, and on returning to
England was imprisoned for preaching at Marlborough. He soon regained his
liberty, and went to London, where he speedily gathered a large and
influential congregation, as much by the somewhat excessive fervour of
his piety as by the vivacious illustrations which he frequently employed
in his sermons. He was a master of epigram, and theologically inclined to
Calvinism. The Sacheverell mob gutted his chapel in 1710, but the
government repaired the building. Besides preaching, he gave instruction
to private pupils, of whom the most distinguished was Henry St John,
afterwards Lord Bolingbroke. His son, Daniel Burgess (d. 1747), was
secretary to the princess of Wales, and in 1723 obtained a regium
donum or government grant of £500 half-yearly for dissenting
ministers.

BURGESS, THOMAS (1756-1837), English divine, was born at
Odiham, in Hampshire. He was educated at Winchester, and at Corpus
Christi College, Oxford. Before graduating, he edited a reprint of John
Burton’s Pentalogia. In 1781 he brought out an annotated edition
of Richard Dawes’s Miscellanea Critica (reprinted, Leipzig, 1800).
In 1783 he became a fellow of his college, and in 1785 was appointed
chaplain to Shute Barrington, bishop of Salisbury, through whose
influence he obtained a prebendal stall, which he held till 1803. In 1788
he published his Considerations on the Abolition of Slavery, in
which he advocated the principle of gradual emancipation. In 1791 he
accompanied Barrington to Durham, where he did evangelistic work among
the poorer classes. In 1803 he was appointed to the vacant bishopric of
St David’s, which he held for twenty years with great success. He founded
the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge in the diocese, and also St
David’s College at Lampeter, which he liberally endowed. In 1820 he was
appointed first president of the recently founded Royal Society of
Literature; and three years later he was promoted to the see of
Salisbury, over which he presided for twelve years, prosecuting his
benevolent designs with unwearied industry. As at St David’s, so at
Salisbury, he founded a Church Union Society for the assistance of infirm
and distressed clergymen. He strenuously opposed both Unitarianism and
Catholic emancipation. He died on the 19th of February 1837.

A list of his works, which are very numerous, will be found in his
biography by J.S. Harford (2nd ed., 1841). In addition to those already
referred to may be mentioned his Essay on the Study of
Antiquities, The First Principles of Christian Knowledge;
Reflections on the Controversial Writings of Dr Priestley,
Emendationes in Suidam et Hesychium et alios Lexicographos
Graecos; The Bible, and nothing but the Bible, the Religion of the
Church of England.

BURGESS (Med. Lat. burgensis, from burgus, a
borough, a town), a term, in its earliest sense, meaning an inhabitant of
a borough, one who occupied a tenement therein, but now applied solely to
a registered parliamentary, or more strictly, municipal voter. An early
use of the word was to denote a member elected to parliament by his
fellow citizens in a borough. In some of the American colonies
(e.g. Virginia), a “burgess” was a member of the legislative body,
which was termed the “House of Burgesses.” Previously to the Municipal
Reform Act 1835, burgess was an official title in some English boroughs,
and in this sense is still used in some of the states of the United
States, as in Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. The
Burgess-roll is the register or official list of burgesses in a
borough.

BURGH [Bourke, Burke], the name of an
historic Irish house, associated with Connaught for more than seven
centuries. It was founded by William de Burgh, brother of Hubert de Burgh
(q.v.). Before the death of Henry II. (1189) he received a grant
of lands from John as lord of Ireland. At John’s accession (1199) he was
installed in Thomond and was governor of Limerick. In 1199-1201 he was
supporting in turn Cathal Carrach and Cathal Crovderg for the native
throne, but he was expelled from Limerick in 1203, and, losing his
Connaught, though not his Munster estates, died in 1205. His son Richard,
in 1227, received the land of “Connok” [Connaught], as forfeited by its
king, whom he helped to fight. From 1228 to 1232 he held the high office
of justiciar of Ireland. In 1234 he sided with the crown against Richard,
earl marshal, who fell in battle against him. Dying in 1243, he was
succeeded as lord of Connaught by his son Richard, and then (1248) by his
younger son Walter, who carried on the family warfare against the native
chieftains, and added greatly to his vast domains by obtaining (c. 1255)
from Prince Edward a grant of “the county of Ulster,” in consequence of
which he was styled later earl of Ulster. At his death in 1271, he was
succeeded by his son Richard as 2nd earl. In 1286 Richard ravaged and
subdued Connaught, and deposed Bryan O’Neill as chief native king,
substituting a nominee of his own. The native king of Connaught was also
attacked by him, in favour of that branch of the O’Conors whom his own
family supported. He led his forces from Ireland to support Edward I. in
his Scottish campaigns, and on Edward Bruce’s invasion of Ulster in 1315
Richard marched against him, but he had given his daughter Elizabeth in
marriage to Robert Bruce, afterwards king of Scotland, about 1304.
Occasionally summoned to English parliaments, he spent most of his forty
years of activity in Ireland, where he was the greatest noble of his day,
usually fighting the natives or his Anglo-Norman rivals. The patent roll
of 1290 shows that in addition to his lands in Ulster, Connaught and
Munster, he had held the Isle of Man, but had surrendered it to the
king.

His grandson and successor William, the 3rd earl (1326-1333), was the
son of John de Burgh by Elizabeth, lady of Clare, sister and co-heir of
the last Clare earl of Hertford (d. 1314). He married a daughter of
Henry, earl of Lancaster, and was appointed lieutenant of Ireland in
1331, but was murdered in his 21st year, leaving a daughter, the sole
heiress, not only of the de Burgh possessions, but of vast Clare estates.
She was married in childhood to Lionel, son of Edward III., who was
recognized in her right as earl of Ulster, and their direct
representative, the duke of York, ascended the throne in 1461 as Edward
IV., since when the earldom of Ulster has been only held by members of
the royal family.

On the murder of the 3rd earl (1333), his male kinsmen, who had a
better right, by native Irish ideas, to the succession than his daughter,
adopted Irish names and customs, and becoming virtually native chieftains
succeeded in holding the bulk of the de Burgh territories. Their two main
branches were those of “MacWilliam Eighter” in southern Connaught, and
“MacWilliam Oughter” to the north of them, in what is now Mayo. The
former held the territory of Clanricarde, lying in the neighbourhood of
Galway, and in 1543 their chief, as Ulick “Bourck, alias
Makwilliam,” surrendered it to Henry VIII., receiving it back to hold, by
English custom, as earl of Clanricarde and Lord Dunkellin. The 4th earl
(1601-1635) distinguished himself on the English side in O’Neill’s
rebellion and afterwards, and obtained the English earldom of St Albans
in 1628, his son Ulick receiving further the Irish marquessate of
Clanricarde (1646). His cousin and heir, the 6th earl (1657-1666) was
uncle of the 8th and 9th earls (1687-1722), both of whom fought for James
II. and paid the penalty for doing so in 1691, but the 9th earl was
restored in 1702, and his great-grandson, the 12th earl, was created
marquess of Clanricarde in 1789. He left no son, but the marquessate was
again revived in 1825, for his nephew the 14th earl, whose heir is the
present marquess. The family, which changed its name from Bourke to de
Burgh in 1752, and added that of Canning in 1862, still own a vast estate
in County Galway.

In 1603 “the MacWilliam Oughter,” Theobald Bourke, similarly resigned
his territory in Mayo, and received it back to hold by English tenure. In
1627 he was created Viscount Mayo. The 2nd and 3rd viscounts (1629-1663)
suffered at Cromwell’s hands, but the 4th was restored to his estates
(some 50,000 acres) in 1666. The peerage became extinct or dormant on the
death of the 8th viscount in 1767. In 1781 John Bourke, a Mayo man,
believed to be descended from the line of “MacWilliam Oughter,” was
created Viscount Mayo, and four years later earl of Mayo, a peerage still
extant. In 1872 the 6th earl was murdered in the Andaman Islands when
viceroy of India.

The baronies of Bourke of Connell (1580) and Bourke of Brittas (1618),
both forfeited in 1691, were bestowed on branches [v.04 p.0815]of the family
which has also still representatives in the baronetage and landed gentry
of Ireland.

The lords Burgh or Borough of Gainsborough (1487-1599) were a
Lincolnshire family believed to be descended from a younger son of Hubert
de Burgh. The 5th baron was lord deputy of Ireland in 1597, and his
younger brother, Sir John (d. 1594), a distinguished soldier and
sailor.

(J. H. R.)

BURGH, HUBERT DE (d. 1243), chief justiciar of England in the
reign of John and Henry III., entered the royal service in the reign of
Richard I. He traced his descent from Robert of Mortain, half brother of
the Conqueror and first earl of Cornwall; he married about 1200 the
daughter of William de Vernon, earl of Devon; and thus, from the
beginning of his career, he stood within the circle of the great ruling
families. But he owed his high advancement to exceptional ability as an
administrator and a soldier. Already in 1201 he was chamberlain to King
John, the sheriff of three shires, the constable of Dover and Windsor
castles, the warden of the Cinque Ports and of the Welsh Marches. He
served with John in the continental wars which led up to the loss of
Normandy. It was to his keeping that the king first entrusted the captive
Arthur of Brittany. Coggeshall is our authority for the tale, which
Shakespeare has immortalized, of Hubert’s refusal to permit the
mutilation of his prisoner; but Hubert’s loyalty was not shaken by the
crime to which Arthur subsequently fell a victim. In 1204 Hubert
distinguished himself by a long and obstinate defence of Chinon, at a
time when nearly the whole of Poitou had passed into French hands. In
1213 he was appointed seneschal of Poitou, with a view to the invasion of
France which ended disastrously for John in the next year.

Both before and after the issue of the Great Charter Hubert adhered
loyally to the king; he was rewarded, in June 1215, with the office of
chief justiciar. This office he retained after the death of John and the
election of William, the earl marshal, as regent. But, until the
expulsion of the French from England, Hubert was entirely engaged with
military affairs. He held Dover successfully through the darkest hour of
John’s fortunes; he brought back Kent to the allegiance of Henry III.; he
completed the discomfiture of the French and their allies by the naval
victory which he gained over Eustace the Monk, the noted privateer and
admiral of Louis, in the Straits of Dover (Aug. 1217). The inferiority of
the English fleet has been much exaggerated, for the greater part of the
French vessels were transports carrying reinforcements and supplies. But
Hubert owed his success to the skill with which he manœuvred for
the weather-gage, and his victory was not less brilliant than momentous.
It compelled Louis to accept the treaty of Lambeth, under which he
renounced his claims to the crown and evacuated England. As the saviour
of the national cause the justiciar naturally assumed after the death of
William Marshal (1219) the leadership of the English loyalists. He was
opposed by the legate Pandulf (1218-1221), who claimed the guardianship
of the kingdom for the Holy See; by the Poitevin Peter des Roches, bishop
of Winchester, who was the young king’s tutor; by the foreign mercenaries
of John, among whom Falkes de Bréauté took the lead; and by the feudal
party under the earls of Chester and Albemarle. On Pandulf’s departure
the pope was induced to promise that no other legate should be appointed
in the lifetime of Archbishop Stephen Langton. Other opponents were
weakened by the audacious stroke of 1223, when the justiciar suddenly
announced the resumption of all the castles, sheriffdoms and other grants
which had been made since the king’s accession. A plausible excuse was
found in the next year for issuing a sentence of confiscation and
banishment against Falkes de Bréauté. Finally in 1227, Hubert having
proclaimed the king of age, dismissed the bishop of Winchester from his
tutorship.

Hubert now stood at the height of his power. His possessions had been
enlarged by four successive marriages, particularly by that which he
contracted in 1221 with Margaret, the sister of Alexander II. of
Scotland; in 1227 he received the earldom of Kent, which had been dormant
since the disgrace of Odo of Bayeux. But the favour of Henry III. was a
precarious foundation on which to build. The king chafed against the
objections with which his minister opposed wild plans of foreign conquest
and inconsiderate concessions to the papacy. They quarrelled violently in
1229, at Portsmouth, when the king was with difficulty prevented from
stabbing Hubert, because a sufficient supply of ships was not forthcoming
for an expedition to France. In 1231 Henry lent an ear to those who
asserted that the justiciar had secretly encouraged armed attacks upon
the aliens to whom the pope had given English benefices. Hubert was
suddenly disgraced and required to render an account of his long
administration. The blow fell suddenly, a few weeks after his appointment
as justiciar of Ireland. It was precipitated by one of those fits of
passion to which the king was prone; but the influence of Hubert had been
for some time waning before that of Peter des Roches and his nephew Peter
des Rievaux. Some colour was given to their attacks by Hubert’s
injudicious plea that he held a charter from King John which exempted him
from any liability to produce accounts. But the other charges, far less
plausible than that of embezzlement, which were heaped upon the head of
the fallen favourite, are evidence of an intention to crush him at all
costs. He was dragged from the sanctuary at Bury St Edmunds, in which he
had taken refuge, and was kept in strait confinement until Richard of
Cornwall, the king’s brother, and three other earls offered to be his
sureties. Under their protection he remained in honourable detention at
Devizes Castle. On the outbreak of Richard Marshal’s rebellion (1233), he
was carried off by the rebels to the Marshal stronghold of Striguil, in
the hope that his name would add popularity to their cause. In 1234 he
was admitted, along with the other supporters of the fallen Marshal, to
the benefit of a full pardon. He regained his earldom and held it till
his death, although he was once in serious danger from the avarice of the
king (1239), who was tempted by Hubert’s enormous wealth to revive the
charge of treason.

In his lifetime Hubert was a popular hero; Matthew Paris relates how,
at the time of his disgrace, a common smith refused with an oath to put
fetters on the man “who restored England to the English.” Hubert’s
ambition of founding a great family was not realized. His earldom died
with him, though he left two sons. In constitutional history he is
remembered as the last of the great justiciars. The office, as having
become too great for a subject, was now shorn of its most important
powers and became politically insignificant.

See Roger of Wendover’s Flores Historiarum, edited for the
English Historical Society by H.O. Coxe (4 vols., 1841-1844); the
Chronica Majora of Matthew Paris, edited by H.R. Luard for the
Rolls Series (7 vols., 1872-1883); the Histoire des ducs de
Normandie, edited by F. Michel for the Soc. de l’Hist. de France
(Paris, 1840); the Histoire de Guillaume le Marechal, edited by
Paul Meyer for the same society (3 vols., Paris, 1891, &c.); J.E.
Doyle’s Official Baronage of England, ii. pp. 271-274; R. Pauli’s
Geschichte von England, vol. iii.; W. Stubbs’s Constitutional
History of England, vol. ii.

(H. W. C. D.)

BURGHERSH, HENRY (1292-1340), English bishop and chancellor,
was a younger son of Robert, Baron Burghersh (d. 1305), and a nephew of
Bartholomew, Lord Badlesmere, and was educated in France. In 1320 owing
to Badlesmere’s influence Pope John XXII. appointed him bishop of Lincoln
in spite of the fact that the chapter had already made an election to the
vacant bishopric, and he secured the position without delay. After the
execution of Badlesmere in 1322 Burghersh’s lands were seized by Edward
II., and the pope was urged to deprive him; about 1326, however, his
possessions were restored, a proceeding which did not prevent him from
joining Edward’s queen, Isabella, and taking part in the movement which
led to the deposition and murder of the king. Enjoying the favour of the
new king, Edward III., the bishop became chancellor of England in 1328;
but he failed to secure the archbishopric of Canterbury which became
vacant about the same time, and was deprived of his office of chancellor
and imprisoned when Isabella lost her power in 1330. But he was soon
released and again in a position of influence. He was treasurer of
England from 1334 to 1337, and high in the favour and often in the
company of Edward III.; he was sent on several important [v.04
p.0816]errands, and entrusted with important commissions. He died
at Ghent on the 4th of December 1340.

The bishop’s brother, Bartholomew Burghersh (d. 1355), became Baron
Burghersh on the death of his brother Stephen in 1310. He acted as
assistant to Badlesmere until the execution of the latter; and then,
trusted by Edward III., was constable of Dover Castle and warden of the
Cinque Ports. He filled other important positions, served Edward III.
both as a diplomatist and a soldier, being present at the battle of Crecy
in 1346; and retaining to the last the royal confidence, died in August
1355. His son and successor, Bartholomew (d. 1369), was one of the first
knights of the order of the Garter, and earned a great reputation as a
soldier, specially distinguishing himself at the battle of Poitiers in
1356.

BURGHLEY, WILLIAM CECIL, Baron
(1521-1508), was born, according to his own statement, on the 13th of
September 1521 at the house of his mother’s father at Bourne,
Lincolnshire. Pedigrees, elaborated by Cecil himself with the help of
Camden, the antiquary, associated him with the Cecils or Sitsyllts of
Altyrennes in Herefordshire, and traced his descent from an Owen of the
time of King Harold and a Sitsyllt of the reign of Rufus. The connexion
with the Herefordshire family is not so impossible as the descent from
Sitsyllt; but the earliest authentic ancestor of the lord treasurer is
his grandfather, David, who, according to Burghley’s enemies, “kept the
best inn” in Stamford. David somehow secured the favour of Henry VII., to
whom he seems to have been yeoman of the guard. He was serjeant-at-arms
to Henry VIII. in 1526, sheriff of Northamptonshire in 1532, and a
justice of the peace for Rutland. His eldest son, Richard, yeoman of the
wardrobe (d. 1554), married Jane, daughter of William Heckington of
Bourne, and was father of three daughters and Lord Burghley.

William, the only son, was put to school first at Grantham and then at
Stamford. In May 1535, at the age of fourteen, he went up to St John’s
College, Cambridge, where he was brought into contact with the foremost
educationists of the time, Roger Ascham and John Cheke, and acquired an
unusual knowledge of Greek. He also acquired the affections of Cheke’s
sister, Mary, and was in 1541 removed by his father to Gray’s Inn,
without, after six years’ residence at Cambridge, having taken a degree.
The precaution proved useless, and four months later Cecil committed one
of the rare rash acts of his life in marrying Mary Cheke. The only child
of this marriage, Thomas, the future earl of Exeter, was born in May
1542, and in February 1543 Cecil’s first wife died. Three years later he
married (21st of December 1546) Mildred, daughter of Sir Anthony Cooke,
who was ranked by Ascham with Lady Jane Grey as one of the two most
learned ladies in the kingdom, and whose sister, Anne, became the wife of
Sir Nicholas, and the mother of Sir Francis, Bacon.

Cecil, meanwhile, had obtained the reversion to the office of
custos rotulorum brevium, and, according to his autobiographical
notes, sat in parliament in 1543; but his name does not occur in the
imperfect parliamentary returns until 1547, when he was elected for the
family borough of Stamford. Earlier in that year he had accompanied
Protector Somerset on his Pinkie campaign, being one of the two “judges
of the Marshalsea,” i.e. in the courts-martial. The other was
William Patten, who states that both he and Cecil began to write
independent accounts of the campaign, and that Cecil generously
communicated his notes for Patten’s narrative, which has been reprinted
more than once.

In 1548 he is described as the protector’s master of requests, which
apparently means that he was clerk or registrar of the court of requests
which the protector, possibly at Latimer’s instigation, illegally set up
in Somerset House “to hear poor men’s complaints.” He also seems to have
acted as private secretary to the protector, and was in some danger at
the time of the protector’s fall (October 1549). The lords opposed to
Somerset ordered his detention on the 10th of October, and in November he
was in the Tower. On the 25th of January 1550 he was bound over in
recognizances to the value of a thousand marks. However, he soon
ingratiated himself with Warwick, and on the 15th of September 1550 he
was sworn one of the king’s two secretaries. He was knighted on the 11th
of October 1551, on the eve of Somerset’s second fall, and was
congratulated on his success in escaping his benefactor’s fate. In April
he became chancellor of the order of the Garter. But service under
Northumberland was no bed of roses, and in his diary Cecil recorded his
release in the phrase ex misero aulico factus liber et mei juris.
His responsibility for Edward’s illegal “devise” of the crown has been
studiously minimized by Cecil himself and by his biographers. Years
afterwards, he pretended that he had only signed the “devise” as a
witness, but in his apology to Queen Mary he did not venture to allege so
flimsy an excuse; he preferred to lay stress on the extent to which he
succeeded in shifting the responsibility on to the shoulders of his
brother-in-law, Sir John Cheke, and other friends, and on his intrigues
to frustrate the queen to whom he had sworn allegiance. There is no doubt
that he saw which way the wind was blowing, and disliked Northumberland’s
scheme; but he had not the courage to resist the duke to his face. As
soon, however, as the duke had set out to meet Mary, Cecil became the
most active intriguer against him, and to these efforts, of which he laid
a full account before Queen Mary, he mainly owed his immunity. He had,
moreover, had no part in the divorce of Catherine or in the humiliation
of Mary in Henry’s reign, and he made no scruple about conforming to the
religious reaction. He went to mass, confessed, and out of sheer zeal and
in no official capacity went to meet Cardinal Pole on his pious mission
to England in December 1554, again accompanying him to Calais in May
1555. It was rumoured in December 1554 that Cecil would succeed Sir
William Petre as secretary, an office which, with his chancellorship of
the Garter, he had lost on Mary’s accession. Probably the queen had more
to do with the falsification of this rumour than Cecil, though he is said
to have opposed in the parliament of 1555—in which he represented
Lincolnshire—a bill for the confiscation of the estates of the
Protestant refugees. But the story, even as told by his biographer (Peck,
Desiderata Curiosa, i. 11), does not represent Cecil’s conduct as
having been very courageous; and it is more to his credit that he found
no seat in the parliament of 1558, for which Mary had directed the return
of “discreet and good Catholic members.”

By that time Cecil had begun to trim his sails to a different breeze.
He was in secret communication with Elizabeth before Mary died, and from
the first the new queen relied on Cecil as she relied on no one else. Her
confidence was not misplaced; Cecil was exactly the kind of minister
England then required. Personal experience had ripened his rare natural
gift for avoiding dangers. It was no time for brilliant initiative or
adventurous politics; the need was to avoid Scylla and Charybdis, and a
via media had to be found in church and state, at home and abroad.
Cecil was not a political genius; no great ideas emanated from his brain.
But he was eminently a safe man, not an original thinker, but a
counsellor of unrivalled wisdom. Caution was his supreme characteristic;
he saw that above all things England required time. Like Fabius, he
restored the fortunes of his country by deliberation. He averted open
rupture until England was strong enough to stand the shock. There was
nothing heroic about Cecil or his policy; it involved a callous attitude
towards struggling Protestants abroad. Huguenots and Dutch Were aided
just enough to keep them going in the struggles which warded danger off
from England’s shores. But Cecil never developed that passionate aversion
from decided measures which became a second nature to his mistress. His
intervention in Scotland in 1559-1560 showed that he could strike on
occasion; and his action over the execution of Mary, queen of Scots,
proved that he was willing to take responsibility from which Elizabeth
shrank. Generally he was in favour of more decided intervention on behalf
of continental Protestants than Elizabeth would admit, but it is not
always easy to ascertain the advice he gave. He has left endless
memoranda lucidly setting forth the pros and cons of every course of
action; but there are few indications of the line which he actually
recommended when it came to a decision. How far he was personally
responsible for the Anglican Settlement, the Poor Laws, and the foreign
policy of the reign, how far he was [v.04 p.0817]thwarted by the
baleful influence of Leicester and the caprices of the queen, remains to
a large extent a matter of conjecture. His share in the settlement of
1559 was considerable, and it coincided fairly with his own somewhat
indeterminate religious views. Like the mass of the nation, he grew more
Protestant as time wore on; he was readier to persecute Papists than
Puritans; he had no love for ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and he warmly
remonstrated with Whitgift over his persecuting Articles of 1583. The
finest encomium was passed on him by the queen herself, when she said,
“This judgment I have of you, that you will not be corrupted with any
manner of gifts, and that you will be faithful to the state.”

From 1558 for forty years the biography of Cecil is almost
indistinguishable from that of Elizabeth and from the history of England.
Of personal incident, apart from his mission to Scotland in 1560, there
is little. He represented Lincolnshire in the parliament of 1559, and
Northamptonshire in that of 1563, and he took an active part in the
proceedings of the House of Commons until his elevation to the peerage;
but there seems no good evidence for the story that he was proposed as
speaker in 1563. In January 1561 he was given the lucrative office of
master of the court of wards in succession to Sir Thomas Parry, and he
did something to reform that instrument of tyranny and abuse. In February
1559 he was elected chancellor of Cambridge University in succession to
Cardinal Pole; he was created M.A. of that university on the occasion of
Elizabeth’s visit in 1564, and M.A. of Oxford on a similar occasion in
1566. On the 25th of February 1571 he was raised to the peerage as Baron
Burghley of Burghley^[1] (or Burleigh); the fact that he
continued to act as secretary after his elevation illustrates the growing
importance of that office, which under his son became a secretaryship of
state. In 1572, however, the marquess of Winchester, who had been lord
high treasurer under Edward, Mary and Elizabeth, died, and Burghley
succeeded to his post. It was a signal triumph over Leicester; and,
although Burghley had still to reckon with cabals in the council and at
court, his hold over the queen strengthened with the lapse of years.
Before he died, Robert, his only surviving son by his second wife, was
ready to step into his shoes as the queen’s principal adviser. Having
survived all his rivals, and all his children except Robert and the
worthless Thomas, Burghley died at his London house on the 4th of August
1598, and was buried in St Martin’s, Stamford.

Burghley’s private life was singularly virtuous; he was a faithful
husband, a careful father and a considerate master. A book-lover and
antiquary, he made a special hobby of heraldry and genealogy. It was the
conscious and unconscious aim of the age to reconstruct a new landed
aristocracy on the ruins of the old, and Burghley was a great builder and
planter. All the arts of architecture and horticulture were lavished on
Burghley House and Theobalds, which his son exchanged for Hatfield. His
public conduct does not present itself in quite so amiable a light. As
the marquess of Winchester said of himself, he was sprung from the willow
rather than the oak, and he was not the man to suffer for convictions.
The interest of the state was the supreme consideration, and to it he had
no hesitation in sacrificing individual consciences. He frankly
disbelieved in toleration; “that state,” he said, “could never be in
safety where there was a toleration of two religions. For there is no
enmity so great as that for religion; and therefore they that differ in
the service of their God can never agree in the service of their
country.” With a maxim such as this, it was easy for him to maintain that
Elizabeth’s coercive measures were political and not religious. To say
that he was Machiavellian is meaningless, for every statesman is so more
or less; especially in the 16th century men preferred efficiency to
principle. On the other hand, principles are valueless without law and
order; and Burghley’s craft and subtlety prepared a security in which
principles might find some scope.

The sources and authorities for Burghley’s life are endless. The most
important collection of documents is at Hatfield, where there are some
ten thousand papers covering the period down to Burghley’s death; these
have been calendared in 8 volumes by the Hist. MSS. Comm. At least as
many others are in the Record Office and British Museum, the Lansdowne
MSS. especially containing a vast mass of his correspondence; see the
catalogues of Cotton, Harleian, Royal, Sloane, Egerton and Additional
MSS. in the British Museum, and the Calendars of Domestic, Foreign,
Spanish, Venetian, Scottish and Irish State Papers.

Other official sources are the Acts of the Privy Council (vols.
i.-xxix.); Lords’ and Commons’ Journals, D’Ewes’ Journals, Off. Ret.
M.P.’s; Rymer’s Foedera; Collins’s Sydney State Papers;
Nichols’s Progresses of Elizabeth. See also Strype’s Works (26
vols.), Parker, Soc. Publ. (56 vols.); Camden’s Annales;
Holinshed, Stow and Speed’s Chron.; Hayward’s Annals;
Machyn’s Diary, Leycester Corr., Egerton Papers (Camden Soc.). For
Burghley’s early life, see Cooper’s Athenae Cantab.; Baker’s St
John’s Coll., Camb., ed. Mayor; Letters and. Papers of Henry
VIII.; Tytler’s Edward VI.; Nichols’s Lit. Remains of
Edward VI.; Leadam’s Court of Requests, Chron. of Queen Jane
(Camden Soc.) and throughout Froude’s Hist. No satisfactory life
of Burghley has yet appeared; some valuable anonymous notes, probably by
Burghley’s servant Francis Alford, were printed in Peck’s Desiderata
Curiosa (1732), i. 1-66; other notes are in Naunton’s Fragmenta
Regalia. Lives by Collins (1732), Charlton and Melvil (1738), were
followed by Nares’s biography in three of the most ponderous volumes
(1828-1831) in the language; this provoked Macaulay’s brilliant but
misleading essay. M.A.S. Hume’s Great Lord Burghley (1898) is
largely a piecing together of the references to Burghley in the same
author’s Calendar of Simancas MSS. The life by Dr Jessopp (1904)
is an expansion of his article in the Dict. Nat. Biog.; it is
still only a sketch, though the volume contains a mass of genealogical
and other incidental information by other hands.

(A. F. P.)

BURGKMAIR, HANS or John (1473-? 1531),
German painter and engraver on wood, believed to have been a pupil of
Albrecht Dürer, was born at Augsburg. Professor Christ ascribes to him
about 700 woodcuts, most of them distinguished by that spirit and freedom
which we admire in the works of his supposed master. His principal work
is the series of 135 prints representing the triumphs of the emperor
Maximilian I. They are of large size, executed in chiaroscuro, from two
blocks, and convey a high idea of his powers. Burgkmair was also an
excellent painter in fresco and in distemper, specimens of which are in
the galleries of Munich and Vienna, carefully and solidly finished in the
style of the old German school.

BURGLARY (burgi latrocinium; in ancient English law,
hamesucken^[1]), at common law, the offence of
breaking and entering the dwelling-house of another with intent to commit
a felony. The offence and its punishment are regulated in England by the
Larceny Act 1861. The four important points to be considered in connexion
with the offence of burglary are (1) the time, (2) the place, (3) the
manner and (4) the intent. The time, which is now the essence of
the offence, was not considered originally to have been very material,
the gravity of the crime lying principally in the invasion of the
sanctity of a man’s domicile. But at some period before the reign of
Edward VI. it had become settled that time was essential to the offence,
and it was not adjudged burglary unless committed by night. The day was
then accounted as beginning at sunrise, and ending immediately after
sunset, but it was afterwards decided that if there were left sufficient
daylight or twilight to discern the countenance of a person, it was no
burglary. This, again, was superseded by the Larceny Act 1861, for the
purpose of which night is deemed to commence at nine o’clock in the
evening of each day, and to conclude at six o’clock in the morning of the
next succeeding day.

The place must, according to Sir E. Coke’s definition, be a
mansion-house, i.e. a man’s dwelling-house or private residence.
No building, although within the same curtilage as the dwelling-house, is
deemed to be a part of the dwelling-house for the purposes of burglary,
unless there is a communication between such building and dwelling-house
either immediate or by means of a covered and enclosed passage leading
from the one to the other. Chambers in a college or in an inn of court
are the dwelling-house of the owner; so also are rooms or lodgings in a
private house, provided the owner dwells elsewhere, or enters by a
different outer door from his lodger, otherwise the lodger is merely an
inmate and his apartment a parcel of the one dwelling-house.

[v.04 p.0818]

As to the manner, there must be both a breaking and an entry.
Both must be at night, but not necessarily on the same night, provided
that in the breaking and in the entry there is an intent to commit a
felony. The breaking may be either an actual breaking of any external
part of a building; or opening or lifting any closed door, window,
shutter or lock; or entry by means of a threat, artifice or collusion
with persons inside; or by means of such a necessary opening as a
chimney. If an entry is obtained through an open window, it will not be
burglary, but if an inner door is afterwards opened, it immediately
becomes so. Entry includes the insertion through an open door or window,
or any aperture, of any part of the body or of any instrument in the hand
to draw out goods. The entry may be before the breaking, for the Larceny
Act 1861 has extended the definition of burglary to cases in which a
person enters another’s dwelling with intent to commit felony, or being
in such house commits felony therein, and in either case breaks
out of such dwelling-house by night.

Breaking and entry must be with the intent to commit a felony,
otherwise it is only trespass. The felony need not be a larceny, it may
be either murder or rape. The punishment is penal servitude for life, or
any term not less than three years, or imprisonment not exceeding two
years, with or without hard labour.

Housebreaking in English law is to be distinguished from
burglary, in that it is not essential that it should be committed at
night, nor in a dwelling-house. It may, according to the Larceny Act
1861, be committed in a school-house, shop, warehouse or counting-house.
Every burglary involves housebreaking, but every housebreaking does not
amount to burglary. The punishment for housebreaking is penal servitude
for any term not exceeding fourteen years and not less than three years,
or imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years, with or without
hard labour.

In the United States the common-law definition of burglary has been
modified by statute in many states, so as to cover what is defined in
England as housebreaking; the maximum punishment nowhere exceeds
imprisonment for twenty years.

Authorities.—Pollock and Maitland,
History of English Law; Stephen, History of Criminal Law;
Archbold, Pleading and Evidence in Criminal Cases; Russell, On
Crimes and Misdemeanours; Stephen, Commentaries.

BURGON, JOHN WILLIAM (1813-1888), English divine, was born at
Smyrna on the 21st of August 1813, the son of a Turkey merchant, who was
a skilled numismatist and afterwards became an assistant in the
antiquities department of the British Museum. His mother was a Greek.
After a few years of business life, Burgon went to Worcester College,
Oxford, in 1841, gained the Newdigate prize, took his degree in 1845, and
won an Oriel fellowship in 1846. He was much influenced by his
brother-in-law, the scholar and theologian Henry John Rose (1800-1873), a
churchman of the old conservative type, with whom he used to spend his
long vacations. Burgon made Oxford his headquarters, while holding a
living at some distance. In 1863 he was made vicar of St Mary’s, having
attracted attention by his vehement sermons against Essays and
Reviews. In 1867 he was appointed Gresham professor of divinity. In
1871 he published a defence of the genuineness of the twelve last verses
of St Mark’s Gospel. He now began an attack on the proposal for a new
lectionary for the Church of England, based largely upon his objections
to the principles for determining the authority of MS. readings adopted
by Westcott and Hort, which he assailed in a memorable article in the
Quarterly Review for 1881. This, with his other articles, was
reprinted in 1884 under the title of The Revision Revised. His
biographical essays on H.L. Mansel and others were also collected, and
published under the title of Twelve Good Men (1888). Protests
against the inclusion of Dr Vance Smith among the revisers, against the
nomination of Dean Stanley to be select preacher in the university of
Oxford, and against the address in favour of toleration in the matter of
ritual, followed in succession. In 1876 Burgon was made dean of
Chichester. He died on the 4th of August 1888. His life was written by
Dean E.M. Goulburn (1892). Vehement and almost passionate in his
convictions, Burgon nevertheless possessed a warm and kindly heart. He
may be described as a high churchman of the type prevalent before the
rise of the Tractarian school. His extensive collection of transcripts
from the Greek Fathers, illustrating the text of the New Testament, was
bequeathed to the British Museum.

BURGONET, or Burganet (from Fr.
bourguignote, Burgundian helmet), a form of light helmet or
head-piece, which was in vogue in the 16th and 17th centuries. In its
normal form the burgonet was a large roomy cap with a brim shading the
eyes, cheek-pieces or flaps, a comb, and a guard for the back of the
neck. In many cases a vizor, or other face protection, and a chin-piece
are found in addition, so that this piece of armour is sometimes mistaken
for an armet (q.v.), but it can always be distinguished by the
projecting brim in front. The morion and cabasset have no face, cheek or
neck protection. The typical head-piece of the 17th-century soldier in
England and elsewhere is a burgonet skull-cap with a straight brim,
neck-guard and often, in addition, a fixed vizor of three thin iron bars
which are screwed into, and hang down from, the brim in front of the
eyes.

BURGOS, a province of northern Spain; bounded on the N.E. by
Biscay and Álava, E. by Logroño, S.E. by Soria, S. by Segovia, S.W. by
Valladolid, W. by Palencia, and N.W. by Santander. Pop. (1900) 338,828;
area, 5480 sq. m. Burgos includes the isolated county of Treviño, which
is shut in on all sides by territory belonging to Álava. The northern and
north-eastern districts of the province are mountainous, and the central
and southern form part of the vast and elevated plateau of Old Castile.
The extreme northern region is traversed by part of the great Cantabrian
chain. Eastwards are the highest peaks of the province in the Sierra de
la Demanda (with the Cerro de San Millan, 6995 ft. high) and in the
Sierra de Neila. On the eastern frontier, midway between these highlands
and the Cantabrian chain, two comparatively low ranges, running east and
west of Pancorbo, kave a gap through which run the railway and roads
connecting Castile with the valley of the Ebro. This Pancorbo Pass has
often been called the “Iron Gates of Castile,” as a handful of men could
hold it against an army. South and west of this spot begins the plateau,
generally covered with snow in winter, and swept by such cold winds that
Burgos is considered, with Soria and Segovia, one of the coldest regions
of the peninsula. The Ebro runs eastwards through the northern half of
the province, but is not navigable. The Douro, or Duero, crosses the
southern half, running west-north-west; it also is unnavigable in its
upper valley. The other important streams are the Pisuerga, flowing south
towards Palencia and Valladolid, and the Arlanzón, which flows through
Burgos for over 75m.

The variations of temperature are great, as from 9° to 20° of frost
have frequently been recorded in winter, while the mean summer
temperature is 64° (Fahr.). As but little rain falls in summer, and the
soil is poor, agriculture thrives only in the valleys, especially that of
the Ebro. In live-stock, however, Burgos is one of the richest of Spanish
provinces. Horses, mules, asses, goats, cattle and pigs are bred in
considerable numbers, but the mainstay of the peasantry is sheep-farming.
Vast ranges of almost uninhabited upland are reserved as pasture for the
flocks, which at the beginning of the 20th century contained more than
500,000 head of sheep. Coal, china-clay and salt are obtained in small
quantities, but, out of more than 150 mines registered, only 4 were
worked in 1903. The other industries of the province are likewise
undeveloped, although there are many small potteries, stone quarries,
tanneries and factories for the manufacture of linen and cotton of the
coarsest description. The ancient cloth and woollen industries, for which
Burgos was famous in the past, have almost disappeared. Trade is greatly
hindered by the lack of adequate railway communication, and even of good
roads. The Northern railways from Madrid to the French frontier cross the
province in the central districts; the Valladolid-Bilbao line traverses
the Cantabrian mountains, in the north; and the Valladolid-Saragossa line
skirts the Douro valley, in the south. The only [v.04 p.0819]important town
in the province is Burgos, the capital (pop. 30,167). Few parts of Spain
are poorer; education makes little progress, and least of all in the
thinly peopled rural districts, with their widely scattered hamlets. The
peasantry have thus every inducement to migrate to the Basque Provinces,
Catalonia and other relatively prosperous regions; and consequently the
population does not increase, despite the excess of births over
deaths.

BURGOS, the capital formerly of Old Castile, and since 1833 of
the Spanish province of Burgos, on the river Arlanzón, and on the
Northern railways from Madrid to the French frontier. Pop. (1900) 30,167.
Burgos, in the form of an amphitheatre, occupies the lower slopes of a
hill crowned by the ruins of an ancient citadel. It faces the Arlanzón, a
broad and swift stream, with several islands in mid-channel. Three stone
bridges lead to the suburb of La Vega, on the opposite bank. On all
sides, except up the castle hill, fine avenues and public gardens are
laid out, notably the Paseo de la Isla, extending along the river to the
west. Burgos itself was originally surrounded by a wall, of which few
fragments remain; but although its streets and broad squares, such as the
central Plaza Mayór, or Plaza de la Constitucion, have often quite a
modern appearance, the city retains much of its picturesque character,
owing to the number and beauty of its churches, convents and palaces.
Unaffected by the industrial activity of the neighbouring Basque
Provinces, it has little trade apart from the sale of agricultural
produce and the manufacture of paper and leathern goods.

But it is rich in architectural and antiquarian interest. The citadel
was founded in 884 by Diego Rodriguez Porcelos, count of Castile; in the
10th century it was held against the kings of Leon by Count Fernan
Gonzalez, a mighty warrior; and even in 1812 it was successfully defended
by a French garrison against Lord Wellington and his British troops.
Within its walls the Spanish national hero, the Cid Campeador, was wedded
to Ximena of Oviedo in 1074; and Prince Edward of England (afterwards
King Edward I.) to Eleanor of Castile in 1254. Statues of Porcelos,
Gonzalez and the Cid, of Nuño Rasura and Lain Calvo, the first elected
magistrates of Burgos, during its brief period of republican rule in the
10th century, and of the emperor Charles V., adorn the massive Arco de
Santa Maria, which was erected between 1536 and 1562, and commemorates
the return of the citizens to their allegiance, after the rebellion
against Charles V. had been crushed in 1522. The interior of this arch
serves as a museum. Tradition still points to the site of the Cid’s
birthplace; and a reliquary preserved in the town hall contains his
bones, and those of Ximena, brought hither after many changes, including
a partial transference to Sigmaringen in Germany.

Other noteworthy buildings in Burgos are the late 15th century Casa
del Cordón, occupied by the captain-general of Old Castile; the Casa de
Miranda, which worthily represents the best domestic architecture of
Spain in the 16th century; and the barracks, hospitals and schools.
Burgos is the see of an archbishop, whose province comprises the diocese
of Palencia, Pamplona, Santander and Tudela. The cathedral, founded in
1221 by Ferdinand III. of Castile and the English bishop Maurice of
Burgos, is a fine example of florid Gothic, built of white limestone (see
Architecture, Plate II. fig. 65). It was not
completed until 1567, and the architects principally responsible for its
construction were a Frenchman in the 13th century and a German in the
15th. Its cruciform design is almost hidden by the fifteen chapels added
at all angles to the aisles and transepts, by the beautiful 14th-century
cloister on the north-west and the archiepiscopal palace on the
south-west. Over the three central doorways of the main or western façade
rise two lofty and graceful towers. Many of the monuments within the
cathedral are of considerable artistic and historical interest. The
chapel of Corpus Christi contains the chest which the Cid is said to have
filled with sand and subsequently pawned for a large sum to the credulous
Jews of Burgos. The legend adds that he redeemed his pledge. In the
aisleless Gothic church of Santa Agueda, or Santa Gadéa, tradition
relates that the Cid compelled Alphonso VI. of Leon, before his accession
to the throne of Castile in 1072, to swear that he was innocent of the
murder of Sancho his brother and predecessor on the throne. San Estéban,
completed between 1280 and 1350, and San Nicolás, dating from 1505, are
small Gothic churches, each with a fine sculptured doorway. Many of the
convents of Burgos have been destroyed, and those which survive lie
chiefly outside the city. At the end of the Paseo de la Isla stands the
nunnery of Santa Maria la Real de las Huelgas, originally a summer palace
(huelga, “pleasure-ground”) of the kings of Castile. In 1187 it
was transformed into a Cistercian convent by Alphonso VIII., who invested
the abbess with almost royal prerogatives, including the power of life
and death, and absolute rule over more than fifty villages. Alphonso and
his wife Eleanor, daughter of Henry II. of England, are buried here. The
Cartuja de Miraflores, a Carthusian convent, founded by John II. of
Castile (1406-1454), lies 2 m. south-east of Burgos. Its church contains
a monument of exceptional beauty, carved by Gil de Siloë in the 15th
century, for the tomb of John and his second wife, Isabella of Portugal.
The convent of San Pedro de Cardeña, 7 m. south-east of Burgos, was the
original burial-place of the Cid, in 1099, and of Ximena, in 1104. About
50 m. from the city is the abbey of Silos, which appears to have been
founded under the Visigothic kings, as early as the 6th century. It was
restored in 919 by Fernan Gonzalez, and in the 11th century became
celebrated throughout Europe, under the rule of St Dominic or Domingo. It
was reoccupied in 1880 by French Benedictine monks.

The known history of Burgos begins in 884 with the foundation of the
citadel. From that time forward it steadily increased in importance,
reaching the height of its prosperity in the 15th century, when,
alternately with Toledo, it was occupied as a royal residence, but
rapidly declining when the court was finally removed to Madrid in 1560.
Being on one of the principal military roads of the kingdom, it suffered
severely during the Peninsular War. In 1808 it was the scene of the
defeat of the Spanish army by the French under Marshal Soult. It was
unsuccessfully besieged by Wellington in 1812, but was surrendered to him
at the opening of the campaign of the following year.

Of the extensive literature relating to Burgos, much remains unedited
and in manuscript. A general description of the city and its monuments is
given by A. Llacayo y Santa Maria in Burgos, &c. (Burgos,
1889). See also Architectural, Sculptural and Picturesque Studies in
Burgos and its Neighbourhood, a valuable series of architectural
drawings in folio, by J.B. Waring (London, 1852). The following are
monographs on particular buildings:—Historia de la Catedral de
Burgos, &c., by P. Orcajo (Burgos, 1856); El Castillo de
Burgos, by E. de Oliver-Copons (Barcelona, 1893); La Real Cartuja
de Miraflores, by F. Tarin y Juaneda (Burgos, 1896). For the history
of the city see En Burgos, by V. Balaguér (Burgos, 1895);
Burgos en las comunidades de Castilla and Cosas de la vieja
Burgos, both by A. Salvá (Burgos, 1895 and 1892). The following
relate both to the city and to the province of Burgos:—Burgos,
&c., by R. Amador de los Ríos, in the series entitled
España (Barcelona, 1888); Burgos y su provincia, anon.
(Vitoria, 1898); Intento de un diccionario biográfico y bibliográfico
de autores de la prov. de Burgos, by M. Anibarro and M. Rives
(Madrid, 1890).

BURGOYNE, JOHN (1722-1792), English general and dramatist,
entered the army at an early age. In 1743 he made a runaway marriage with
a daughter of the earl of Derby, but soon had to sell his commission to
meet his debts, after which he lived abroad for seven years. By Lord
Derby’s interest Burgoyne was then reinstated at the outbreak of the
Seven Years’ War, and in 1758 he became captain and lieutenant-colonel in
the foot guards. In 1758-1759 he participated in expeditions made against
the French coast, and in the latter year he was instrumental in
introducing light cavalry into the British army. The two regiments then
formed were commanded by Eliott (afterwards Lord Heathfield) and
Burgoyne. In 1761 he sat in parliament for Midhurst, and in the following
year he served as brigadier-general in Portugal, winning particular
distinction by his capture of Valencia d’Alcantara and of Villa Velha. In
1768 he became M.P. for Preston, and for the next few years he occupied
himself chiefly with his parliamentary duties, in which he was remarkable
for his general outspokenness [v.04 p.0820]and, in particular, for his
attacks on Lord Clive. At the same time he devoted much attention to art
and drama (his first play, The Maid of the Oaks, being produced by
Garrick in 1775), and gambled recklessly. In the army he had by this time
become a major-general, and on the outbreak of the American War of
Independence he was appointed to a command. In 1777 he was at the head of
the British reinforcements designed for the invasion of the colonies from
Canada. In this disastrous expedition he gained possession of Ticonderoga
(for which he was made a lieutenant-general) and Fort Edward; but,
pushing on, was detached from his communications with Canada, and hemmed
in by a superior force at Saratoga (q.v.). On the 17th of October
his troops, about 3500 in number, laid down their arms. The success was
the greatest the colonists had yet gained, and it proved the
turning-point in the war. The indignation in England against Burgoyne was
great, but perhaps unjust. He returned at once, with the leave of the
American general, to defend his conduct, and demanded, but never
obtained, a trial. He was deprived of his regiment and a governorship
which he held. In 1782, however, when his political friends came into
office, he was restored to his rank, given a colonelcy, and made
commander-in-chief in Ireland and a privy councillor. After the fall of
the Rockingham government in 1783, Burgoyne withdrew more and more into
private life, his last public service being his participation in the
impeachment of Warren Hastings. In his latter years he was principally
occupied in literary and dramatic work. His comedy, The Heiress,
which appeared in 1786, ran through ten editions within a year, and was
translated into several foreign tongues. He died suddenly on the 4th of
June 1792. General Burgoyne, whose wife died in June 1776 during his
absence in Canada, had several natural children (born between 1782 and
1788) by Susan Caulfield, an opera singer, one of whom became Field
Marshal Sir J.F. Burgoyne. His Dramatic and Poetical Works
appeared in two vols., 1808.

See E.B. de Fonblanque, Political and Military Episodes from the
Life and Correspondence of Right Hon. J. Burgoyne (1876); and W.L.
Stone, Campaign of Lieut.-Gen. J. Burgoyne, &c. (Albany, N.Y.,
1877).

BURGOYNE, SIR JOHN FOX, Bart. (1782-1871), British field
marshal, was an illegitimate son of General John Burgoyne (q.v.).
He was educated at Eton and Woolwich, obtained his commission in 1798,
and served in 1800 in the Mediterranean. In 1805, when serving on the
staff of General Fox in Sicily, he was promoted second captain. He
accompanied the unfortunate Egyptian expedition of 1807, and was with Sir
John Moore in Sweden in 1808 and in Portugal in 1808-9. In the Corunna
campaign Burgoyne held the very responsible position of chief of
engineers with the rear-guard of the British army (see Peninsular War). He was with Wellesley at the Douro in
1809, and was promoted captain in the same year, after which he was
engaged in the construction of the lines of Torres Vedras in 1810. He
blew up Fort Concepcion on the river Turones, and was present at Busaco
and Torres Vedras. In 1811 he was employed in the unsuccessful siege of
Badajoz, and in 1812 he won successively the brevets of major and
lieutenant-colonel, for his skilful performance of engineer duties at the
historic sieges of Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajoz. He was present in the same
year (1812) at the siege and battle of Salamanca, and after the battle of
Vittoria in 1813 he became commanding engineer on Lord Wellington’s
staff. At the close of the war he received the C.B., a reward which, he
justly considered, was not commensurate with his services. In 1814-1815
he served at New Orleans and Mobile. Burgoyne was largely employed,
during the long peace which followed Waterloo, in other public duties as
well as military work. He sat on numerous commissions, and served for
fifteen years as chairman of the Irish board of public works. He became a
major-general and K.C.B. in 1838, and inspector-general of fortifications
in 1845. In 1851 he was promoted lieutenant-general, and in the following
year received the G.C.B. When the Crimean War broke out he accompanied
Lord Raglan’s headquarters to the East, superintended the disembarkation
at Old Fort, and was in effect the principal engineer adviser to the
English commander during the first part of the siege of Sevastopol. He
was recalled early in 1855, and though he was at first bitterly
criticized by the public for his part in the earlier and unsuccessful
operations against the fortress the wisdom of his advice was ultimately
recognized. In 1856 he was created a baronet, and promoted to the full
rank of general. In 1858 he was present at the second funeral of Napoleon
I. as Queen Victoria’s representative, and in 1865 he was made constable
of the Tower of London. Three years later, on resigning his post as
inspector-general of fortifications, he was made a field marshal.
Parliament granted him, at the same time, a pension of £1500. He died on
the 7th of October 1871, a year after the tragic death of his only son,
Captain Hugh Talbot Burgoyne, V.C. (1833-1870), who was in command of
H.M.S. “Captain” when that vessel went down in the Bay of Biscay
(September 7, 1870).

See Life and Correspondence of F.M. Sir John Fox Burgoyne
(edited by Lt.-Col. Hon. G. Wrottesley, R.E., London, 1873); Sir Francis
Head, A Sketch of the Life and Death of F.M. Sir John Burgoyne
(London, 1872); Military Opinions of General Sir John Burgoyne
(ed. Wrottesley, London, 1859), a collection of the most important of
Burgoyne’s contributions to military literature.

BURGRAVE, the Eng. form, derived through the Fr., of the Ger.
Burggraf and Flem. burg or burch-graeve (med. Lat.
burcgravius or burgicomes), i.e. count of a castle
or fortified town. The title is equivalent to that of castellan (Lat.
castellanus) or châtelain (q.v.). In Germany, owing
to the peculiar conditions of the Empire, though the office of burgrave
had become a sinecure by the end of the 13th century, the title, as borne
by feudal nobles having the status of princes of the Empire, obtained a
quasi-royal significance. It is still included among the subsidiary
titles of several sovereign princes; and the king of Prussia, whose
ancestors were burgraves of Nuremberg for over 200 years, is still styled
burgrave of Nuremberg.

BURGRED, king of Mercia, succeeded to the throne in 852, and in
852 or 853 called upon Æthelwulf of Wessex to aid him in subduing the
North Welsh. The request was granted and the campaign proved successful,
the alliance being sealed by the marriage of Burgred to Æthelswith,
daughter of Æthelwulf. In 868 the Mercian king appealed to Æthelred and
Alfred for assistance against the Danes, who were in possession of
Nottingham. The armies of Wessex and Mercia did no serious fighting, and
the Danes were allowed to remain through the winter. In 874 the march of
the Danes from Lindsey to Repton drove Burgred from his kingdom. He
retired to Rome and died there.

See Saxon Chronicle (Earle and Plummer), years 852-853, 868,
874.

BURGUNDIO, sometimes erroneously styled Burgundius, an Italian jurist of the 12th century. He
was a professor at the university of Paris, and assisted at the Lateran
Council in 1179, dying at a very advanced age in 1194. He was a
distinguished Greek scholar, and is believed on the authority of
Odofredus to have translated into Latin, soon after the Pandects were
brought to Bologna, the various Greek fragments which occur in them, with
the exception of those in the 27th book, the translation of which has
been attributed to Modestinus. The Latin translations ascribed to
Burgundio were received at Bologna as an integral part of the text of the
Pandects, and form part of that known as The Vulgate in
distinction from the Florentine text.

BURGUNDY. The name of Burgundy (Fr. Bourgogne, Lat.
Burgundia) has denoted very diverse political and geographical
areas at different periods of history and as used by different writers.
The name is derived from the Burgundians (Burgundi, Burgondiones),
a people of Germanic origin, who at first settled between the Oder and
the Vistula. In consequence of wars against the Alamanni, in which the
latter had the advantage, the Burgundians, after having taken part in the
great invasion of Radagaisus in 407, were obliged in 411 to take refuge
in Gaul, under the leadership of their chief Gundicar. Under the title of
allies of the Romans, they established themselves in certain cantons of
the Sequani and of upper Germany, receiving a part of the lands, houses
and serfs that belonged to the inhabitants. Thus was founded the first
kingdom of Burgundy, the boundaries of which were widened at different
times by Gundicar and his son [v.04 p.0821]Gunderic; its chief towns being
Vienne, Lyons, Besançon, Geneva, Autun and Mâcon. Gundibald (d. 516),
grandson of Gunderic, is famous for his codification of the Burgundian
law, known consequently as Lex Gundobada, in French Loi
Gombette. His son Sigismund, who was canonized by the church, founded
the abbey of St Maurice at Agaunum. But, incited thereto by Clotilda, the
daughter of Chilperic (a brother of Gundibald, and assassinated by him),
the Merovingian kings attacked Burgundy. An attempt made in 524 by
Clodomer was unsuccessful; but in 534 Clotaire (Chlothachar) and his
brothers possessed themselves of the lands of Gundimar, brother and
successor of Sigismund, and divided them between them. In 561 the kingdom
of Burgundy was reconstructed by Guntram, son of Clotaire I., and until
613 it formed a separate state under the government of a prince of the
Merovingian family.

After 613 Burgundy was one of the provinces of the Frankish kingdom,
but in the redistributions that followed the reign of Charlemagne the
various parts of the ancient kingdom had different fortunes. In 843, by
the treaty of Verdun, Autun, Chalon, Mâcon, Langres, &c., were
apportioned to Charles the Bald, and Lyons with the country beyond the
Saône to Lothair I. On the death of the latter the duchy of Lyons
(Lyonnais and Viennois) was given to Charles of Provence, and the diocese
of Besançon with the country beyond the Jura to Lothair, king of
Lorraine. In 879 Boso founded the kingdom of Provence, wrongly called the
kingdom of Cisjuran Burgundy, which extended to Lyons, and for a short
time as far as Mâcon (see Provence).

In 888 the kingdom of Juran Burgundy was founded by Rudolph I., son of
Conrad, count of Auxerre, and the German king Arnulf could not succeed in
expelling the usurper, whose authority was recognized in the diocese of
Besançon, Basel, Lausanne, Geneva and Sion. For a short time his son and
successor Rudolph II. (912-937) disputed the crown of Italy with Hugh of
Provence, but finally abandoned his claims in exchange for the ancient
kingdom of Provence, i.e. the country bounded by the Rhône, the
Alps and the Mediterranean. His successor, Conrad the Peaceful (93
7-993), whose sister Adelaide married Otto the Great, was hardly more
than a vassal of the German kings. The last king of Burgundy, Rudolph
III. (993-1032), being deprived of all but a shadow of power by the
development of the secular and ecclesiastical
aristocracy—especially by that of the powerful feudal houses of the
counts of Burgundy (see Franche-Comté), Savoy and
Provence—died without issue, bequeathing his lands to the emperor
Conrad II. Such was the origin of the imperial rights over the kingdom
designated after the 13th century as the kingdom of Arles, which extended
over a part of what is now Switzerland (from the Jura to the Aar), and
included Franche-Comté, Lyonnais, Dauphiné, Savoy and Provence.

The name of Burgundy now gradually became restricted to the countship
of that name, which included the district between the Jura and the Saône,
in later times called Franche-Comté, and to the duchy which had
been created by the Carolingian kings in the portion of Burgundy that had
remained French, with the object of resisting Boso. This duchy had been
granted to Boso’s brother, Richard the Justiciary, count of Autun. It
comprised at first the countships of Autun, Mâcon, Chalon-sur-Saône,
Langres, Nevers, Auxerre and Sens, but its boundaries and designations
changed many times in the course of the 10th century. Duke Henry died in
1002; and in 1015, after a war which lasted thirteen years, the French
king Robert II. reunited the duchy to his kingdom, despite the opposition
of Otto William, count of Burgundy, and gave it to his son Henry,
afterwards King Henry I. As king of France, the latter in 1032 bestowed
the duchy upon his brother Robert, from whom sprang that first ducal
house of Burgundy which flourished until 1361. A grandson of this Robert,
who went to Spain to fight the Arabs, became the founder of the kingdom
of Portugal; but in general the first Capet dukes of Burgundy were
pacific princes who took little part in the political events of their
time, or in that religious movement which was so marked in Burgundy, at
Cluny to begin with, afterwards among the disciples of William of St
Bénigne of Dijon, and later still among the monks of Cîteaux. In the 12th
and 13th centuries we may mention Duke Hugh III. (1162-1193), who played
an active part in the wars that marked the beginning of Philip Augustus’s
reign; Odo (Eudes) III. (1193-1218), one of Philip Augustus’s principal
supporters in his struggle with King John of England; Hugh IV.
(1218-1272), who acquired the countships of Châlon and Auxonne, Robert
II. (1272-1309), one of whose daughters, Margaret, married Louis X. of
France, and another, Jeanne, Philip of Valois; Odo (Eudes) IV.
(1315-1350), who gained the countship of Artois in right of his wife,
Jeanne of France, daughter of Philip V. the Tall and of Jeanne, countess
of Burgundy.

In 1361, on the death of Duke Philip de Rouvres, son of Jeanne of
Auvergne and Boulogne, who had married the second time John II. of
France, surnamed the Good, the duchy of Burgundy returned to the crown of
France. In 1363 John gave it, with hereditary rights, to his son Philip,
surnamed the Bold, thus founding that second Capet house of Burgundy
which filled such an important place in the history of France during the
14th and 15th centuries, acquiring as it did a territorial power which
proved redoubtable to the kingship itself. By his marriage with Margaret
of Flanders Philip added to his duchy, on the death of his father-in-law,
Louis of Male, in 1384, the countships of Burgundy and Flanders; and in
the same year he purchased the countship of Charolais from John, count of
Armagnac. On the death of Charles V. in 1380 Philip and his brothers, the
dukes of Anjou and Berry, had possessed themselves of the regency, and it
was he who led Charles VI. against the rebellious Flemings, over whom the
young king gained the victory of Roosebeke in 1382. Momentarily deprived
of power during the period of the “Marmousets'” government, he devoted
himself to the administration of his own dominions, establishing in 1386
an audit-office (chambre des comptes) at Dijon and another at
Lille. In 1396 he refused to take part personally in the expedition
against the Turks which ended in the disaster of Nicopolis, and would
only send his son John, then count of Nevers. In 1392 the king’s madness
caused Philip’s recall to power along with the other princes of the
blood, and from this time dates that hostility between the party of
Burgundy and the party of Orleans which was to become so intense when in
May 1404 Duke Philip had been succeeded by his son, John the
Fearless.

In 1407 the latter caused the assassination of his political rival,
Louis of Orleans, the king’s brother. Forced to quit Paris for a time, he
soon returned, supported in particular by the gild of the butchers and by
the university. The monk Jean Petit pronounced an apology for the murder
(1408).

The victory of Hasbain which John achieved on the 23rd of September
1408 over the Liégeois, who had attacked his brother-in-law, John of
Bavaria, bishop of Liége, still further strengthened his power and
reputation, and during the following years the struggle between the
Burgundians and the partisans of the duke of Orleans—or Armagnacs,
as they were called—went on with varying results. In 1413 a
reaction took place in Paris; John the Fearless was once more expelled
from the capital, and only returned there in 1418, thanks to the treason
of Perrinet Leclerc, who yielded up the town to him. In 1419, just when
he was thinking of making advances towards the party of the dauphin
(Charles VII.), he was assassinated by members of that party, during an
interview between himself and the dauphin at the bridge of Montereau.

This event inclined the new duke of Burgundy, Philip the Good, towards
an alliance with England. In 1420 he signed the treaty of Troyes, which
recognized Henry V. as the legitimate successor of Charles VI.; in 1423
he gave his sister Anne in marriage to John, duke of Bedford; and during
the following years the Burgundian troops supported the English
pretender. But a dispute between him and the English concerning the
succession in Hainaut, their refusal to permit the town of Orleans to
place itself under his rule, and the defeats sustained by them, all
combined to embroil him with his allies, and in 1435 he concluded the
treaty of Arras with Charles VII. The king relieved the duke of all
homage for his estates during his lifetime, [v.04 p.0822]and gave up to
him the countships of Mâcon, Auxerre, Bar-sur-Seine and Ponthieu; and,
reserving the right of redemption, the towns of the Somme (Roye,
Montdidier, Péronne, &c.). Besides this Philip had acquired Brabant
and Holland in 1433 as the inheritance of his mother. He gave an asylum
to the dauphin Louis when exiled from Charles VII.’s court, but refused
to assist him against his father, and henceforth rarely intervened in
French affairs. He busied himself particularly with the administration of
his state, founding the university of Dôle, having records made of
Burgundian customs, and seeking to develop the commerce and industries of
Flanders. A friend to letters and the arts, he was the protector of
writers like Olivier de la Marche, and of sculptors of the school of
Dijon. He also desired to revive ancient chivalry as he conceived it, and
in 1429 founded the order of the Golden Fleece; while during the last
years of his life he devoted himself to the preparation of a crusade
against the Turks. Neither these plans, however, nor his liberality,
prevented his leaving a well-filled treasury and enlarged dominions when
he died in 1467.

Philip’s successor was his son by his third wife, Isabel of Portugal,
Charles, surnamed the Bold, count of Charolois, born in 1433. To him his
father had practically abandoned his authority during his last years.
Charles had taken an active part in the so-called wars “for the public
weal,” and in the coalitions of nobles against the king which were so
frequent during the first years of Louis XI.’s reign. His struggle
against the king is especially marked by the interview at Péronne in
1468, when the king had to confirm the duke in his possession of the
towns of the Somme, and by a fruitless attempt which Charles the Bold
made on Beauvais in 1472. Charles sought above all to realize a scheme
already planned by his father. This was to annex territory which would
reunite Burgundy with the northern group of her possessions (Flanders,
Brabant, &c.), and to obtain the emperor’s recognition of the kingdom
of “Belgian Gaul.” In 1469 he bought the landgraviate of Alsace and the
countship of Ferrette from the archduke Sigismund of Austria, and in 1473
the aged duke Arnold ceded the duchy of Gelderland to him. In the same
year he had an interview at Trier with the emperor Frederick III., when
he offered to give his daughter and heiress, Mary of Burgundy, in
marriage to the emperor’s son Maximilian in exchange for the concession
of the royal title. But the emperor, uneasy at the ambition of the
“grand-duke of the West,” did not pursue the negotiations.

Meanwhile the tyranny of the duke’s lieutenant Peter von Hagenbach,
who was established at Ferrette as governor (grand bailli or
Landvogt) of Upper Alsace, had brought about an insurrection. The
Swiss supported the cause of their allies, the inhabitants of the free
towns of Alsace, and Duke René II. of Lorraine also declared war against
Charles. In 1474 the Swiss invaded Franche-Comté and achieved the victory
of Hericourt. In 1475 Charles succeeded in conquering Lorraine, but an
expedition against the Swiss ended in the defeat of Grandson (February
1476). In the same year the duke was again beaten at Morat, and the
Burgundian nobles had to abandon to the victors a considerable amount of
booty. Finally the duke of Lorraine returned to his dominions; Charles
advanced against him, but on the 6th of January 1477 he was defeated and
killed before Nancy.

By his wife, Isabella of Bourbon, he only left a daughter, Mary, and
Louis XI. claimed possession of her inheritance as guardian to the young
princess. He succeeded in getting himself acknowledged in the duchy and
countship of Burgundy, which were occupied by French garrisons. But Mary,
alarmed by this annexation, and by the insurrection at Ghent (secretly
fomented by Louis), decided to marry the archduke Maximilian of Austria,
to whom she had already been promised (August 1477), and hostilities soon
broke out between the two princes. Mary died through a fall from her
horse in March 1482, and in the same year the treaty of Arras confirmed
Louis XI. in possession of the duchy. Franche-Comté and Artois were to
form the dowry of the little Margaret of Burgundy, daughter of Mary and
Maximilian, who was promised in marriage to the dauphin. As to the lands
proceeding from the succession of Charles the Bold, which had returned to
the Empire (Brabant, Hainaut, Limburg, Namur, Gelderland, &c.), they
constituted the “Circle of Burgundy” from 1512 onward.

We know that the title of duke of Burgundy was revived in 1682 for a
short time by Louis XIV. in favour of his grandson Louis, the pupil of
Fénelon. But from the 16th to the 18th century Burgundy constituted a
military government bounded on the north by Champagne, on the south by
Lyonnais, on the east by Franche-Comté, on the west by Bourbonnais and
Nivernais. It comprised Dijonnais, Autunois, Auxois, and the pays de
la montagne or Country of the Mountain (Châtillon-sur-Seine), with
the “counties” of Chalonnais, Mâconnais, Auxerrois and Bar-sur-Seine,
and, so far as administration went, the annexes of Bresse, Bugey,
Valromey and the country of Gex. Burgundy was a pays d’états. The
estates, whose privileges the dukes at first, and later Louis XI., had to
swear to maintain, had their assembly at Dijon, usually under the
presidency of the governor of the province, the bishop of Autun as
representing the clergy, and the mayor of Dijon representing the third
estate. In the judiciary point of view the greater part of Burgundy
depended on the parlement of Dijon; but Auxerrois and Mâconnais were
amenable to the parlement of Paris.