1. The field of Blagoev studies is sizable, since Blagoev was a tireless writer whose SUchineniia fill twenty volumes (Sofia, 1957-64) and whose activities were interwoven with Bulgarian political and intellectual life until the early 1920s. Publications to September 1, 1964, are listed in Kiincheva, P. et al., DimitUr Blagoev: Bibliografiia (Sofia, 1954)Google Scholar, Likhacheva, L. P., Dimitr Blagoev: Biobibliograficheskii ukasatel (Moscow, 1956)Google Scholar, and Tsolov, I. et al., Istoriia na BKP, 1885-1944: Bibliografiia. Materiali publikuvani sled 9 septemvri 1944 g. (Sofia, 1965), esp. pp. 369–85 Google Scholar. Subsequent relevant works include DimitUr Blagoev, Georgi Kirkov, Georgi Bakalov, DimitUr Polianov v spomenite na sUvremennitsite si (Sofia, 1968), Dimitur Blagoev, 1856-1966 (Sofia, 1968), G. N. Karaev, Blagoev v Peterburg (Sofia, 1969; trans, from Russian), E., Bogdanova, Vela Blagoeva: Biografichen ocherk (Sofia, 1969)Google Scholar, and Spravochnik kUm suchineniiata na DimitUr Blagoev (Sofia, 1967).

2. Existing fragmentary contributions on the period to 1891 are listed in Istoriia na BKP, 1885-1944: Bibliografiia, pp. 35-38; Isvestiia na Instituta po istoriia na BKP, 20 (1969): 577-78; and L., Kirkova, La science historique bulgare, 1965-1969: Bibliographie, supplement to vol. 5 of tudes historiques (Sofia, 1970), pp. 199–222 Google Scholar.

3. Sofia, 1969: hereafter cited as Istoriia na BKP. Other general accounts include Istoriia na BUlgarskata Komunisticheska Partiia: KratUk ocherk, 2nd ed. (Sofia, 1969), and Materiali po istoriia na BUlgarskata Komunisticheska Partiia, issued by the party's publishing office in several editions since 1952 “in aid to persons studying the history of BCP“; for bibliographic details see Istoriia na BKP, 1885-1944: Bibliografiia, pp. 31-32. The 1959 edition of Materiali is available in Russian as Istoriia Bolgarskoi Kommunisticheskoi Partii: V pomoshch’ isuchaiushchim istoriiu BKP (Moscow, 1960).

4. New York, 1959, pp. 11-17.

5. D., Ivanchev, Bulgarski periodichen pechat, 1844-1944: Anotiran bibliografski ukazatel, 3 vols. (Sofia, 1962-69), 1: 94 Google Scholar.

6. The work is, of course, The Condition of the Working Class in England, which Engels published in 1845. It was based on his observations of conditions in Manchester, where his father, a German industrialist, had business interests. 7. Bulgarski knishitsi, July 1858, rubric, p. 50; G., Borshukov, Istoriia na bUlgarskata shurnalistika, 1844-1877; 1878-1885 (Sofia, 1965), p. 110 Google Scholar.

8. Quoted in G. Mladzhov, “Koga za purvi put u nas se spomenava imeto na Marks, Karl, Istorkheski pregled, 1958, no. 3, pp. 68–71Google Scholar.

9. Ibid.

10. On the Exarchate see Mach, Richard von, The Bulgarian Exarchate: Its History and the Extent of Its Authority in Turkey (London, 1907)Google Scholar.

11. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of History, Istoriia na Bulgariia, 2nd rev. ed., 3 vols. (Sofia, 1961-64), 1: 399-402; Black, C. E., The Establishment of Constitutional Government in Bulgaria (Princeton, 1943), pp. 28–36 Google Scholar.

12. Nachov, N, “Tsarigrad kato kulturen tsentur na bulgarite do 1877 godina” Sbornik na BUlgarskata akademiia na naukite, 19 (1925): 149–63Google Scholar; C. E. Black, “The Influence of Western Political Thought in Bulgaria, 1850-1885,” American Historical Review, 48 (April 1943): 507-20. Black indicates that forty-five Bulgarians had graduated from Robert College by 1877 and finds no trace of Marxist influence in the period to 1885. See also R. H., Davison, “Westernized Education in Ottoman Turkey,” Middle East Journal, Summer 1961, pp. 289–301Google Scholar; Davison says that the 195 Bulgarians who graduated from the college in its first forty years (1863-1903) were the largest national group.

13. Brief biography in Kratka bUlgarska entsiklopediia, vol. 4 (Sofia, 1967), p. 550, where the ten-volume edition of his works and the literature on him are cited. See also S., Baeva, Petko Slaveikov: Zhivot i tvorchestvo, 1827-1870 (Sofia, 1968)Google Scholar.

14. Hall, W. W., Puritans in the Balkans: The American Board Mission in Bulgaria, 1878-1918 (Sofia, 1938), pp. 34–35 Google Scholar; Baeva, , Slaveikov, p. 124 Google Scholar.

15. D. Kosev, “Petko Rachev Slaveikov: Obshtestvena i politicheska deinost,” part 1, Godishnik na Sofiiskiia universitet, Istoriko-filologicheski fakultet, 43 (1946-47): 135-37.

16. Nachov, N, “Bulgarskata koloniia v Odesa,” Uchilishten pregled, May 1929, pp. 601–28Google Scholar; Diakovich, V. I., Bulgarska Besarabiia (Sofia, 1918)Google Scholar.

17. Nikitin, S. A., Slavianskie komitety v Rossii v 1858-1876 godakh (Moscow, 1960), pp. 343–51 Google Scholar; Petrovich, Michael B., The Emergence of Russian Panslavism, 1856-1870 (New York, 1956), pp. 146–52 Google Scholar.

18. Istoriia na Blgariia, 1: 373-76. Nikitin indicates (p. 94) that the Moscow and St. Petersburg committees supported 242 students, the majority of whom were Bulgarians.

19. Karavelov's most recent and detailed biography is by M., Arnaudov, Liuben Karavelov: Zhivot, delo, epokha, 1834-1879 (Sofia, 1964)Google Scholar. Karavelov's works are collected in SUbrani suchineniia, 9 vols. (Sofia, 1965-68). For earlier editions and works on him see Konstantinov, G. et al., BUlgarski pisateli: Biografii, bibliografiia (Sofia, 1961), pp. 126–32 Google Scholar.

20. Vorobiev, L. V., Liuben Karavelov: Mirovozzrenie i tvorchestvo (Moscow, 1963), pp. 38–71 Google Scholar.

21. Arnaudov, , Liuben Karavelov, pp. 376–78Google Scholar. The context in which Karavelov's ideas developed is presented by Stavrianos, L. S., Balkan Federation: A History of the Movement Toward Balkan Unity in Modern Times (Northampton, Mass., 1944), pp. 84–122 Google Scholar.

22. Quoted in Arnaudov, , Liuben Karavelov, p. 498 Google Scholar.

23. For an elaboration on the controversy and the Bulgarian and Soviet authors involved in it see A., Biinkov, Razvitie na filosofskata misul v Bulgariia (Sofia, 1966), pp. 158–77 Google Scholar. A leading Bulgarian Marxist historian of philosophy, Bunkov thinks that the two positions “coexisted” in Karavelov, causing him to vacillate, and that in the last analysis he was an ideologist of the liberal bourgeoisie, “which always vacillates.” For an interesting attempt at a psychological explanation see Chilingirov, S, “Liuben Karavelov (prinos kum krizata v negovata dusha),” Uchilishten pregled, January 1929, pp. 2–17Google Scholar.

24. Borshukov, , Istoriia na bulgarskata zhurnalistika, pp. 250–99, esp. p. 288 Google Scholar. A thorough student of the early Bulgarian press, Borshukov sides with the view that Karavelov should be classified as a revolutionary democrat. On Karavelov's contacts with Russian revolutionaries see G. Bakalov, “Russkaia revoliutsionnaia emigratsiia sredi bolgar. I. Do osvobozhdeniia Bolgarii,” Katorga i ssylka, 1930, no. 2, pp. 114-37.

25. A. Kiselinchev, “Filosofsldte viizgledi na Khristo Botev,” in Khristo Botev: Sbomik po sluchai sto godini ot roshdenieto tnu, ed. M. Dimitrov and P. Dinekov (Sofia, 1949), pp. 106-20; Bakalov, “Russkaia revoliutsionnaia emigratsiia sredi bolgar. I, “ p. 120. Botev's works in various editions and works on him are listed in Likhacheva, L. P., Khristo Botev: Bio-bibliograficheskii ukasatel’ (Moscow, 1960)Google Scholar, Konstantinov, et al., Bulgarski pisateli, pp. 147–54Google Scholar, and Kratka blgarska entsiklopediia, vol. 1 (Sofia, 1963), pp. 278-79.

26. Derzhavin, K. N., Khristo Botev (Moscow, 1962), pp. 71–72 Google Scholar.

27. Ibid., p. 71. For Bulgarian reactions to the Paris Commune see Daskalov, D, “Parizhkata komuna i bulgarskoto revoliutsionno dvizhenie,” Novo vreme, 1971, no. 2, pp. 98–106Google Scholar; and Bakalov, G, “Kak Parizhkata komuna bide posreshtnata ot bulgarite?” Isbrant istoricheski proisvedeniia (Sofia, 1960), pp. 363–92 Google Scholar. Bakalov originally published his article in 1930 in Letopisi marksiema while he was in exile in the Soviet Union.

28. See, for example, Likhacheva, , Khristo Botev, p. 10 Google Scholar; Borshukov, , Istoriia na bUlgarskata zhurnalistika, p. 344 Google Scholar.

29. Derzhavin, , Khristo Botev, pp. 73–74Google Scholar.

30. Istoriia, na Biilgariia, 1: 444; Borshukov, , Istoriia na bulgarskata shurnalistika, pp. 330–31Google Scholar.

31. Ibid., p. 344.

32. Istoriia na Biilgariia, 1: 446; I. Klincharov, “Boteviiat ekzempliar ot purviia torn na Marksoviia Kapital,” in Khristo Botev: Sbomik, pp. 223-25. The findings of Klincharov (1878-1942), published posthumously, are inconclusive: the copy bears only the signature of Stefan Stambolov, the future Bulgarian statesman, who was one of Botev's close friends in Bucharest and allegedly obtained the copy after Botev died. A Marxist, Klincharov was obviously anxious to establish that Botev had read Marx and had been influenced by him.

33. Istoriia na Biilgariia, 1: 447.

34. Istoriia na BKP, p. 18; Biinkov, , Rasvitie na filosofskata misUl v Biilgariia, pp. 178–90Google Scholar, and M., Buchvarov, Bulgarskata filosofska misUl pres VUzrazhdaneto (Sofia, 1966), pp. 200–223 Google Scholar; see also B. Mintses, “Durzhavnopolitichnite i sotsialnostopanskite idei v bulgarskata doosvobozhdenska Hteratura,” Sbomik za narodni umotvoreniia i narodopis, 16-17 (1900): 24-25,

35. The details of Blagoev's life are known from his “Kratki belezhki iz moia zhivot, “ which he dictated to his daughter, Stela Blagoeva, after World War I and from the sources referred to in note 1 above; see also N. A. Malevanov and M. A. Kuzmina, “Neopublikovannaia avtobiografiia Dimitra Blagoeva (1881 g.),” Istoricheskii arkhiv, 1962, no. 2, pp. 229-31, and D. Labelle, “Dimitrii Blagoev in Russia: An Autobiographical Letter,” International Review of Social History, 9, no. 2 (1964): 286-97. Blagoev was uncertain about his date of birth, 1855 or 1856, but his postwar biographies have fixed it at June 14, 1856. Rothschild's repetition (p. 11) of Blagoev's uncertainty is not justified. 36. Later, while in Russia, Blagoev Russianized his father's Greek name, Vangel, into Blagoi and made it his surname; cf. Spomeni sa DimitUr Blagoev (Sofia, 1956), pp. 110-11. 37. Dinkov or Dinkata (1839—76) was also an ardent Bulgarian patriot who aided Stefan Verkovic in his researches on the Bulgarians in Macedonia before becoming a teacher at Zagorichane. Blagoev himself later wrote about him and his influence; cf. Blagoev, , Schineniia, 1: 112–25 and 19: 355-56Google Scholar. See also K., Babov, PrinosUt na Dimitur Blagoev sa isuchavaneto na ruskiia ezik i ruskata literatura v BUlgariia (Sofia, 1961), pp. 5–7 Google Scholar, and Khristo Khristov, “Gradivo za biografiiata na Dinkov, Georgi K. Godishnik na Sofiiskiia universitet, Filosofsko-istoricheski fakultet, 58 (1964), no. 3, Istoriia, pp. 131–65.Google Scholar

38. Blagoev, , Siichineniia, 19: 357 Google Scholar. Slaveikov was then publishing a newspaper called Makedoniia.

39. Ibid., pp. 366-73. Blagoev's memoirs do not indicate when he abandoned the idea that Russia was “a land of milk and honey” which he had before he arrived there.

40. The parallelism of Blagoev's movement toward Marxism with Plekhanov's is striking. Contemporaries in age (Plekhanov was also born in 1856), they became converts to Marxism at the same time—Blagoev in Russia and Plekhanov in Western Europe, where he lived in self-imposed exile from 1880 to 1917. Plekhanov's acquaintance with Marxism in the 1870s, however, preceded Blagoev's. Cf. Polevoi, Iu. Z., Zaroshdenie marksisma v Rossii, 1883-1894 gg, (Moscow, 1959), pp. 138–64 Google Scholar, and Baron, S. H., Plekhanov: The Father of Russian Marxism (Stanford, 1963), pp. 59–77 Google Scholar, for Plekhanov's conversion. Contacts between the “father of Russian Marxism” and the “father of Bulgarian Marxism“ apparently did not begin until late 1884, when Blagoev's group of Marxists in St. Petersburg read Plekhanov's Sotsialism i politicheskaia bor'ba (Geneva, 1883), learned of the existence of hisi Marxist group in Geneva, and wrote him to establish contact; Blagoev, , Suchineniia, 19: 390–91Google Scholar. 41. Ibid., p. 400.

42. Polevoi, , Zaroshdenie marksizma v Rossii, pp. 283–323Google Scholar; see also S., Ovsiannikova, Gruppa Blagoeva (Moscow, 1959)Google Scholar, translated into Bulgarian as Grupata na Blagoev: Is istoriiata na rasprostranemeto na marksizma v Rusiia (Sofia, 1960), and Ovsiannikova's article in Sovetskaia istoricheskaia entsiklopediia, vol. 2 (Moscow, 1962), cols. 478-79. Copies of Rabochii, which published the program (drafted by Blagoev) and contributions by Plekhanov and Axelrod, reached Moscow, Kiev, Odessa, and other Russian cities. This caused Lenin to say later that “for the twelve years between 1883 and 189S, practically the only attempt to establish a Social Democratic workers’ press in Russia was the publication … of Rabochii.” See his Collected Works, English version of the 4th ed., 20: 247. 43. Blagoev, , SSchineniia, 1: 46–54Google Scholar.

44. See the preface (pp. xix-xxi) by Kiril Vasilev, a leading Blagoev scholar, to vol. 1 of Blagoev's SUchineniia.

45. Ivanchev, , Btilgarski periodichen pechat, 1: 293 Google Scholar. Only three issues appeared; a fourth was announced in February 1886, but was not published.

46. Zheliazov was the first of many pseudonyms Blagoev was to use in Bulgaria. A device of the Russian revolutionaries to conceal identity or simulate numerical strength, pseudonyms were widely used by the Bulgarian socialists. Cf. I., Bogdanov, Rechnik na blgarskite psevdonimi (Sofia, 1961)Google Scholar.

47. Blagoev, “Prinos kum istoriiata na sotsializma v Bulgariia” (first published in 1906), SUchineniia, 11: 106-8.

48. Ibid., 19: 404. After the journal's first issue appeared, the government of Petko Karavelov fired Vela from her teaching job at the request of the Russian diplomatic representative in Sofia. The Russian government showed increasing alarm at the activities of “anarchists, nihilists, socialists, atheists,” and others in Bulgaria hostile to official Russia, and voices in the Russian press demanded that the journal be stopped for “insult of the Russian emperor.” In the second issue Blagoev wrote bitterly that if the Russians had their way, Bulgaria would be “nothing but a Russian province where absolutism rages“ (ibid., 1: 173-74). See also V., Topencharov, Bulgarskata zhurnalistika, 1885-1903 (Sofia, 1963), pp. 5–30 Google Scholar.

49. Quoted in Andreev, B. M., Nachalo, rasvoi i vskhod na blgarskiia pechat, 2 vols. (Sofia, 1946-48), 2: 18–19 Google Scholar.

50. Khristo Khristov, “Zakharii Stoianov: Obshtestvena i politicheska deinost, “ Godishnik na Sofiiskiia universitet, Istoriko-filologicheski fakultet, 44 (1947-48), no. 2, Istoriia, pp. 73-74; see also the brief biography in Kratka bulgarska entsiklopediia, 4: 646-47, and the sources listed in it. Stoianov's works were most recently reissued in three volumes (Sofia, 1965-66), the third of which contains (pp. 5-42) an article on him by Borshukov. Parts of his history of the 1876 uprising are available as Pages from the Autobiography of a Bulgarian Insurgent (London, 1913).

51. Khristov, “Zakharii Stoianov,” pp. 112-14; Blagoev, , SHchineniia, 11: 109–10Google Scholar. In his newspaper Borba in Plovdiv Stoianov had also noted the ideological line of Blagoev's journal and had concluded that “in a country where the towns are still free of the murderous smoke of factories, the capitalist class consists for the most part of some former thieves, and the landlord's estate is in a most pitiable condition, Marx, Mill, and Chernyshevsky will not be understood.” Cf. Topencharov, , Bulgarskata shurnalistika, p. 25 Google Scholar.

52. Blagoev, , Siichineniia, 1: 242–55Google Scholar.

53. In his preface to vol. 1 of Blagoev's SUchineniia (p. xxxi), Vasilev points out that Blagoev was wrong in his early judgment of the unification and that “this great historic act was above all the work of the broad masses of the people, a work patriotic and progressive in its significance.” Blagoev changed his mind in 1906 (in “Prinos kum istoriiata na sotsializma v Bulgariia“) and wrote (quoted by Vasilev): “The unification … created a larger national unit (from the two Bulgarias), combined their resources for common economic goals, and created better conditions for the development of their productive forces. In general, in socioeconomic terms the unification meant a greater space and more favorable conditions for the bourgeois development of Bulgaria. In political terms it made Bulgaria a stronger factor in the Balkan peninsula.“

54. Ibid., pp. 205-13.

55. Ibid, pp. 221-25.

56. Blagoev's usage of “patriotism” was negative and pejorative, close in meaning to “nationalism” and unlike its present usage in Bulgaria.

57. The reference is to the early medieval empire, which on occasion had threatened Constantinople and held sway over much of the Balkan peninsula. Nationalist historians set it up as an “ideal” the nation should strive to attain again. Cf. Steven, Runciman, A History of the First Bulgarian Empire (London, 1930)Google Scholar.

58. Blagoev, , Suchineniia, 1: 225–55. 59Google Scholar. Ibid., p. 227.

60. Ibid., 11: 48-49.

61. Kratka biilgarska entsiklopediia, 4: 646-47. Borshukov (see note SO above) goes further in concluding that Stoianov's “errors and strayings” are “much less important than his total patriotic contribution” and that “the people—the readers who are still fascinated by his work—will put him where he deserves to be: on the pedestal with the nation's other great sons.” For an earlier postwar negative evaluation of Stoianov, see Khristo Khristov, “Otnoshenieto na Z. Stoianov kum bulgarskoto natsionalno-revoliutsionno demokratichno dvizhenie i kum sotsializma,” Istoricheski pregled, 1947, no. 2, pp. 155-76.

62. Brief biographic sketches in Kratka biilgarska entsiklopediia, 4: 449; Sovetskaia istoricheskaia entsiklopediia, vol. 12 (Moscow, 1969), col. 481; and Topencharov, , Bulgarskata shurnalistika, pp. 185–86Google Scholar. One of the men who influenced Sakuzov was Henry George, the American social critic, reformer, and author of Progress and Poverty (1879). Rothschild provides some information on Sakuzov's early life, and Istoriia na BKP mentions him only once, in connection with the founding congress of the Bulgarian Social Democratic Party in 1891, obviously underplaying the contribution to the rise of the Marxist movement of a man who was to become Blagoev's leading antagonist in it. One of the lacunae in the history of this period and of Bulgarian Marxism in general is the lack of a full-length biography of Sakuzov.

63. Blagoev, , Suchineniia, 19: 405–6Google Scholar. Blagoev also edited for a while, behind another “responsible editor,” a newspaper of the local teachers’ association; see Topencharov, , Bulgarskata zhurnalistika, p. 155 Google Scholar. From an orthodox Marxist point of view, Blagoev, still an impure Marxist, was guilty of a “narodnik overestimation of the role of the intelligentsia“; see Istoriia na BKP, p. 40. Rothschild (p. 17) is confused about the chronology of Blagoev's stay in Vidin.

64. Kratka bulgarska entsiklopediia, vol. 2 (Sofia, 1964), p. 97; Topencharov, , Bulgarskata zhurnalistika, pp. 65–77Google Scholar; and G. Borshukov, “Danni za niakoi ranni sotsialisticheski grupi do osnovavaneto na BSDP,” Izvestiia na Instituta za istoriia, 6 (1956): 237-90, esp. pp. 265-66. Our knowledge of Dabev's life is sketchy, and we do not know how this indigenous Marxist became acquainted with Marxism.

65. Topencharov, , Bulgarskata zhurnalistika, pp. 68–69Google Scholar; Karutsin, K. and Kovachev, V., Karl Marks i Fridrikh Engels na bulgarski: Bibliografiia (Sofia, 1961), pp. 12–13 and 47Google Scholar

66. Published in Geneva in 188S with a preface by Plekhanov; see Polevoi, , Zarozhdenie tnarksizma v Rosiii, p. 233 Google Scholar. 67. These and other publications that made up the early Marxist literature in Bulgaria are listed in Nikola V. Mikhov, “Kakvo e chela bulgarskata sotsialisticheska i progresivna inteligentsiia prez purvite dvadeset godini sled Osvobozhdenieto,” Godishnik na Bulgarskiia bibliografski institut, 1 (1945-46): 423-64; see also G. Borshukov, “Oshte danni za deinost na bulgarski sotsialisti do osnovavaneto na BSDP,” Isvestiia na Instituta sa istoriia, 7 (1957): 269-319, and Stopanska i sotsialna knizhnina v Bulgariia: Bibliografiia na bulgarskite knigi i statii ot nachaloto do dnes, 1850-1945 (Svishtov, 1948), pp. 120-41 and 785-817.

68. Borshukov, “Oshte danni,” p. 272.

69. Ivanchev, , Bulgarski periodichen pechat, 2: 206 Google Scholar. The paper appeared from March to June 1887, and was stopped by the authorities.

70. Topencharov, , Bulgarskata shurnalistika, pp. 116–18Google Scholar

71. N. V. Kaulbars was a Russian general sent by Alexander III to Bulgaria in 1886, after the dethronement of Prince Alexander, to browbeat the Bulgarian nationalists into following Russia's wishes. In addition to pressuring the political leaders, Kaulbars toured the country to mount support for Russia's desires and even summoned Russian warships to Varna to threaten occupation, but his efforts were counterproductive and aroused general resentment. Cf. Charles, Jelavich, Tsarist Russia and Balkan Nationalism: Russian Influence in the Internal Affairs of Bulgaria and Serbia, 1879-1886 (Berkeley, 1958), pp. 262–74 Google Scholar; Istoriia na Bulgariia, 2: 48-51 and 102-4.

72. Blagoev, , Schineniia, 1: 300–302Google Scholar.

73. Stoianov, SHchineniia (see note 50 above), 3: 213-28.

74. The articles are in Blagoev, , Siichineniia, 1: 303–23Google Scholar. Napred was one of the many journalistic ventures of Georgi A. Kurdzhiev (1854-1907), at that time a follower of the “sentimental socialism” of the Serbian Vasa Pelagic. Cf. Kratka bulgarska entsiklopediia, vol. 3 (Sofia, 1966), p. 203; Topencharov, , Bulgarskata zhurnalistika, pp. 98–102Google Scholar; and Sharova, K, “Idei Vasy Pelagicha v Bolgarii,” Studes balkaniqttes, 2-3 (1965): 193–211Google Scholar.

75. Blagoev, , Siichineniia, 1: 543 Google Scholar. 76. Topencharov, , BMgarskata zhurnalistika, pp. 122–23Google Scholar. 77. Blagoev, , Siichineniia, 11: 93 Google Scholar.

78. Ibid., preface by Mikhailov and P. Tsanev (pp. xv-xvi) and editor's note 49, p. 594.

79. Ibid., pp. 112-16; K. Sharova, “Ideiniiat put na Spiro Gulabchev,” Izvestiia na Instituta sa istoriia, 11 (1962): 103-51; S. Slavov, “Sotsiologicheski i obshtestvenopoliticheski vuzgledi na Spiro Gulabchev,” Izvestiia na Instituta po filosofiia, 19 (1970): 247-69.

80. Istoriia na BKP, pp. 39-40. Rothschild does not mention Gulabchev or his organization. Gulabchev was also the first to publish Chernyshevsky's Chto delaff in Bulgarian. The first translation was attempted by Stambolov in 187S, but events in Bulgaria deflected his attention from it; see Bakalov, “Russkaia revoliutsionnaia emigratsiia sredi bolgar. I,” p. 127.

81. Blagoev, , Suchineniia, 19: 406 Google Scholar. At the University of St. Petersburg, Blagoev shifted to law in 1883 but did not graduate. Kitanchev (1858—95) later became the first president of the nationalist Supreme Macedonian Committee in Sofia.

82. Kratka bulgarska entsiklopediia, 1: 591; Blagoev, , Suchineniia, 11: 118–24 Google Scholar; Istoriia na BKP, pp. 40-41. In 1914 Gabrovski rejoined Blagoev's “Narrow Socialists” and remained in their'party until his assassination in 192S. A maverick Marxist with merits in the establishment of the party rivaling those of Blagoev, Gabrovski has been neglected in Bulgarian postwar research on the party's history.

83. Protokoll des Internationalen Arbeiter-Congresses zu Paris abgehalten vom 14. bis 20. Juli 1889 (Nuremberg, 1890). The Protokoll does not list Gabrovski among those who attended, since he was not a delegate representing an organization, but listed a “Vereinigung der bulgarischen Studenten in Brussel.” Similar socialist groups of Bulgarian students existed in Liege, Zurich, and Geneva; see Blagoev, , SUchineniia, 1: 376–92Google Scholar; A. Shnitman, “K voprosu o vliianii russkogo revoliutsionnogo dvizheniia 1885-1903 godov na revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie v Bolgarii,” Voprosy istorii, 1949, no. 1, pp. 39-55; and K. Sharova, “Bulgarskoto sotsialistichesko dvizhenie v navecherieto na Buzludzhanskiia kongres (1890-1891 g.),” Istoricheski pregled, 1961, no. 4, pp. 41-74.

84. G., Bakalov, Isbrani proisvedeniia, vol. 4 (Sofia, 1964), pp. 206–7 Google Scholar; Dancheva, , Georgi Bakalov, pp. 7–8Google Scholar.

85. In connection with the student strike in Plovdiv, Nikola Genadiev, one of the younger leaders of the Liberals, wrote in the local paper Balkanska sora that “the socialist propaganda has no purpose in our country and can have no success.” Balkanska sora also published Engels's “The Foreign Policy of Russian Tsarism” to show how the Marxists viewed Russia's imperialism. Cf. Topencharov, , Bulgarskata zhurnalistika, p. 176 Google Scholar.

86. The Bulgarian student socialist group in Geneva was already sizable (about thirty students) and very close to Plekhanov, who had a high opinion of its leaders, especially Rakovski. Plekhanov's closeness with the young Bulgarians and the Russian-Bulgarian diplomatic rupture encouraged him for a while to hope for a teaching position at the new Higher School in Sofia. A fellow exile in Geneva, the Ukrainian narodnik and federalist Mikhail P. Dragomanov, who influenced Gulabchev's views, had been brought to the school in 1889 by his Bulgarian son-in-law, Professor Ivan Shishmanov. Cf. Bakalov, , Isbrani proisvedeniia, 4: 207–Google Scholar; Stoian Nokov, “Studentski spomeni ot Zheneva (1889-1894 g.), “ Istoricheski pregled, 1956, no. 4, pp. 81-103.

87. Ivanchev, , Bulgarski periodichen pechat, 1: 238 Google Scholar; Rothschild, , Communist Party of Bulgaria, pp. 14, 16Google Scholar. Den was printed by Gulabchev in Ruse.

88. Blagoev, , Suchineniia, 11: 131–Google Scholar, and editor's note 84, p. 601; Topencharov, , Bulgarskata shurnalistika, pp. 179–85Google Scholar; Istoriia na BKP, pp. 43-44; Sharova, “Bulgarskoto sotsialistichesko dvizhenie,” pp. 60-63. Rothschild does not mention the Novo vreme venture of 1891.

89. Blagoev, , Suchineniia, 11: 601 Google Scholar, editor's note 86; Rabotnichesko delo, May 3, 1971.

90. Blagoev, , SHchineniia, 11: 132–Google Scholar; Istoriia na BKP, pp. 44-45; Bakalov, , Isbrani proisvedeniia, 4: 279–Google Scholar. As an eyewitness Bakalov writes that while Blagoev took the role of theoretician, “the spokesman, agitator, and general agent of the party was Gabrovski.” Since Gabrovski was also at home in Western Europe and spoke the languages, it is not surprising that it was he, rather than Blagoev, who was chosen by the party to represent it at the 1893 congress of the Second International in Zurich.

91. Kovachev, Karutsin and, Karl Marks i Fridrikh Engels na biilgarski, p. 47 Google Scholar; Topencharov, , Blgarskata zhurnalistika, p. 186 Google Scholar.

92. Here as elsewhere in the article the dates follow the Gregorian calendar, which Bulgaria adopted in 1916.

93. The peak is not near Sofia, as Rothschild states

94. The existing version of what took place at Buzludzha was produced by Blagoev in 1906 in his “Prinos kum istoriiata na sotsializma v Bulgariia” (Siichineniia, 11: 135—38). Blagoev was not only understandably anxious to present himself in the best light and as the main figure and to create an epic with some myths for his followers, but writing with the bitterness engendered by his split with Sakuzov and the other “Broad Socialists” in 1903, he produced literally a “contribution” rather than a full and objective account. It is not clear, for example, whether he and Gabrovski were at the evening gathering or arrived the next day, whether Sakuzov was represented in any way, whether he or Gabrovski (who had the genuine oratorical ability Blagoev lacked) led the meeting, or whether Gabrovski alone drafted the program for the party from materials in French. Without further research, Blagoev's “contribution,” as incorporated in the Bulgarian histories and in Rothschild's book, cannot be accepted as the final word.

95. Istoriia na BKP, pp. 46-48. Text of the 1891 program in Blgarskata Komunisticheska Partiia v resoliutsii i resheniia na kongresite, konferentsiite i plenumite na TsK, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (Sofia, 1957), pp. 13-25. Under French influence, the program included a demand for decentralization of the state and its transformation into a federation of producers’ communes. In 1893 it was replaced by another, modeled after the Erfurt program of the German Social Democratic Party. The documents reproduced (ibid., 1st ed., 1947, p. 35) concerning the party's third congress in 1893 list the “general council“ as consisting of, in that order, Gabrovski, Blagoev, Postompirov, and three others.