On February 27, 1870, the Bulgarian Exarchate was established by a Sultan's decree, adopted by the authorities as the official representative of the Bulgarian people in the Ottoman Empire.
The Ottoman conquests of the late 14th and early 15th centuries not only destroyed the Bulgarian statehood, but also dealt a heavy blow to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. In the course of their devastating invasion, the Ottomans plundered and destroyed dozens of churches and monasteries.
The clergy was persecuted, and some of the Christian churches were converted into mosques.
The Patriarchate of Tarnovo found itself in a particularly difficult situation, as, as a result of the political weakness of the Bulgarian state, it lost part of its dioceses as early as the 1470s and 1480s. Shortly after the conquest of Tarnovo (1393), Patriarch Evtimii was exiled to the Bachkovo Monastery, and on the recommendation of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the affairs of the Bulgarian Church were temporarily taken over by the Metropolitan of Moldova, Jeremiah. Gradually, the Patriarchate of Constantinople managed to subordinate all dioceses to the Bulgarian Patriarchate, which became final according to some researchers around 1402, according to others – between 1410-1416, and according to a third - until 1439.
At the same time, Orthodoxy was also experiencing serious trials in those Bulgarian lands that, on the eve of the Ottoman conquest, were included in the diocese of the Ohrid Archbishopric. Unlike the Tarnovo Patriarchate, however, the Ohrid Archbishopric was not destroyed, and when the Serbian Patriarchate ceased to exist, its southern dioceses voluntarily joined the Ohrid Church. The new status quo was maintained until the restoration of the independent Serbian Patriarchate in 1557, when the Skopje, Sofia, Kyustendil and Samokov dioceses joined it.
After the final destruction of the Byzantine Empire,
The Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople received the status of the sole official representative of the Orthodox population in the Ottoman Empire.
Special legislation regulated the preservation of the old system of church taxes and fees and gave the Patriarchate of Constantinople the right to freely use its church and monastery property. It was also allowed to guide the spiritual life of the subject Christian population. Thus, around the middle and in the second half of the 15th century, real prerequisites were created for the gradual recovery of Orthodoxy. The diocesan network gradually began to function normally, and a number of monastery centers were also restored. Spiritual communication with the Moscow Patriarchate was intensified, some of the old literary centers were revived. The influence of the clergy in public life and among the Bulgarians was noticeably increasing, for whom the activity of the Patriarchate became an important factor in preserving their Orthodox faith. During the 15th-17th centuries, the Patriarchate of Constantinople did not conduct organized and purposeful activities for the assimilation of the Bulgarians.
During the period of the Early Revival, however, significant changes occurred in the attitude of the Patriarchate of Constantinople towards the Bulgarian population. Gradually, the management of church affairs passed into the hands of the so-called Phanariot class, which used its power solely for personal gain. The purchase of church posts (so-called simony) became a widespread practice. Corruption among the clergy acquired widespread proportions. Church taxes and fees collected from the subject Christian population also increased sharply.
Within the framework of the Greek revival processes, the idea of restoring the former Byzantine Empire became widespread. Formed in the 19th century as a comprehensive doctrine under the name of the “megali idea”, it was adopted by the Patriarchate of Constantinople as a kind of program for the Hellenization of the Orthodox population in the Ottoman Empire.
The Patriarchate launched an open offensive against any manifestations of national emancipation of Bulgarians and Serbs.
Thus, in 1766, the Serbian Patriarchate of Ipek was destroyed, and in 1767, the independence of the Ohrid Archbishopric was also taken away. Professor Nikolay Genchev summarizes how in this way Bulgaria completely lost its spiritual independence. All Bulgarian dioceses fall under the direct authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
In the following decades, a process of intensified and undisguised Hellenization of the church affairs of the Balkan peoples began. The higher clergy, composed mainly of Greek clergy, made great efforts to impose the Greek language as the leading one in church services and diocesan administration, in literature and education, and in the economic life of the Bulgarians. In 1819, Patriarch Gregory V even prepared a special regional decree, in which he obliged all bishops to watch over the spread of Hellenism among the Orthodox population of the Ottoman Empire. A serious danger of cultural and national assimilation loomed over the emerging Renaissance intelligentsia and bourgeoisie. Tax arbitrariness on the part of the clergy also intensified. All this not only creates tension in the relations between the Bulgarian population and the Greek clergy, but also creates real prerequisites for the development of a prolonged Bulgarian-Greek church conflict.
The danger of the outbreak of such a conflict was already perceived by Paisius of Hilendar, who in his “Slavonic-Bulgarian History” (1762) pays special attention to the problem of the historical fate of the independent Bulgarian church and outlines the negative consequences on the reviving Bulgarian society of the spiritual expansion of Hellenism. At the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries, Sophrony of Vratsa also tried to counteract the assimilationist policy of the Patriarchate of Constantinople towards the Bulgarians. As the bishop of Vratsa, he actively worked to impose the Bulgarian language in church services. Thus, from the very beginning, the struggle of the Bulgarians against the Patriarchate of Constantinople acquired a clearly expressed political character. However, the first manifestations of organized resistance against the Greek clergy date back only to the 1820s.
In 1821, Hilarion of Crete was appointed metropolitan of Tarnovo. According to the practice imposed by the Phanariotes, the new metropolitan could collect a one-time contribution from all the settlements subordinate to him. Bishop Methodius of Vratsa paid the amount requested by his diocese, but later decided to recover the money by imposing an extraordinary tax on all local Christians. The population opposed yet another arbitrary decision of the bishop, and the Vratsa municipality, led by the influential merchant Dimitraki Hadzhitoshev, refused to refund the money requested by Methodius. The relations between the bishop and the Bulgarian princes deteriorated sharply and very soon an irreconcilable conflict arose.
In 1824, Dimitraki Hadzhitoshev composed a statement against Methodius and demanded his removal. In 1826, he even persuaded Gavril Bistrichanin, who lived in Bucharest, to become the head of the Vratsa diocese, but the plan failed, as Dimitraki Hadzhitoshev was slandered before the Turkish authorities and secretly beheaded in Vidin.
A similar conflict arose in Skopje in the 1820s, where the Bulgarian population openly rose up against the Greek bishop Ananiy.
After a long struggle and with the help of the local Turkish governor, Ananiy was replaced in 1828. The conflict, however, did not subside, because the newly arrived metropolitan quickly became famous for his lawlessness. Then the population refused to pay their church taxes and asked the Patriarchate to appoint a Bulgarian bishop for them.
In the early 1830s of the 19th century, the Samokov population also made similar demands to Constantinople, insisting that Neophyte Rilski be appointed as the bishop of the city. In 1836, representatives of the Stara Zagora, Nova Zagora and Kazanlak kaas also asked for a Bulgarian bishop.
Under the influence of these factors, in the late 1830s of the 19th century, real prerequisites were created for the emergence of the most massive movement in our pre-liberation history - the movement for church-national independence. It took place in two main stages. The first covers the period from the so-called “Tarnovo” events from the end of the 1830s to the beginning of the Crimean War (1853-1856), and the second – from the end of the Crimean War to the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate.
The church struggle during the Revival is the subject of numerous publications and studies, the first of which appeared even before the Liberation. However, the greatest scientific value is the works of Nikolay Genchev, Todor Burmov, Gavril Krastevich, Mikhail Arnaudov, Petar Nikov, Zina Markova, Olga Todorova, Ivan Snegarov, Ivan Shishmanov, etc. Toncho Zhechev's book “The Bulgarian Easter or the Bulgarian Passions” is of great historiographic value.
The beginning of the organized church-national movement is associated with the so-called "Turnovo" events. In 1838, Metropolitan Hilarion of Crete of Turnovo died. Greek by origin, he was a representative of that wing of the Patriarchate of Constantinople that pursued a more moderate policy towards the Bulgarian population. The consecration of the Gabrovo School in 1835 is associated with his name; on his initiative, Neophyte Rilski was recruited as a teacher in this school. He also supported the development of the New Bulgarian education in other settlements of the Turnovo Metropolis. After his death, however, Panaret was appointed Metropolitan of Turnovo - a typical representative of the corrupt Phanariot circles in Constantinople. With his very first actions, he aroused the disapproval of the Bulgarian population and the local leaders began to take steps to replace him. On behalf of 16 kaazi from the Tarnovo diocese, statements were drawn up to the Patriarchate, demanding the recall of Panaret and the appointment of Neofit Bozveli (1785-1848) in his place.
Born in Kotel, around 1810 he became a monk in the Hilendar Monastery, then went to Svishtov, where he devoted himself to literary and teaching activities. After briefly visiting Serbia, Neofit settled again in the Tarnovo region, where he toured various villages and monasteries and with his patriotic sermons awakened the national consciousness of the Bulgarians. This quickly earned him the fame of an enlightener and a worthy national leader in the fight against the Greek clergy.
In the spring of 1839 In 1841, three envoys of the Diocese of Tarnovo went to Constantinople to expose Panaret's abuses to the government and the Patriarchate and to demand that Neophyte Bozveli be appointed in his place. Ultimately, Panaret was removed, but the Patriarchate officials managed to bribe the envoys and another Greek, Neophyte Byzantios, was appointed metropolitan of Tarnovo, and Bozveli was appointed his protosingel.
Shortly after Neophyte Byzantios' arrival in Tarnovo, the new bishop's relations with the Bulgarian population became strained and Neophyte Bozveli refused to fulfill his duties as protosingel. Disagreeing with the bishop's actions, he settled in the Lyaskov Monastery, which was interpreted by the Turkish authorities as disobedience, and in 1841 Neophyte Bozveli was arrested and sent into exile to Mount Athos.
In 1844, he returned from exile and settled in Constantinople with the intention of turning the capital city into the center of the struggle against the Patriarchate. At that time, about 30-40 thousand Bulgarians lived in Constantinople, most of whom were engaged in trade, crafts, and gardening. Among the wealthy Bulgarians of Constantinople, the Tapchileshtov brothers, the Moravenov brothers, Nikola Sapunov, Nikola Valkovich, and others stood out. The Bulgarian abadji guild was particularly influential, which, in addition to having solid material resources, also enjoyed the favor of senior Ottoman officials.
Neofit Bozveli assessed that Constantinople offered extremely favorable conditions for continuing the struggle with the Patriarchate.
According to him, in the face of European diplomacy and taking advantage of the reformist promises of the Sublime Porte, the Bulgarians could completely legally organize themselves and take active action to restore the independent Bulgarian church. In a short time, Neofit Bozveli found like-minded people and launched active propaganda among the Bulgarian colony in Constantinople. Significant help in this direction was provided by Hilarion Makariopolski, who appeared to be the most zealous follower of Bozveli.
Hilarion Makariopolski (1812-1875), whose secular name was Stoyan Mihaylovski, was born in Elena. He received a solid education for his time - initially in his hometown, later in the Greek school in Arbanassi and in Kareia. He became a monk in the Hilendar Monastery in 1832, after which he continued his education at the famous school of Theophilos Kairis on the island of Andros. He also studied for three years at the renowned Athens Gymnasium. A close friend of Georgi Rakovski, in 1841 he actively participated in the activities of the Macedonian Revolutionary Society. After Neophyte Bozveli's arrival in Constantinople, Hilarion Makariopolsky joined him and the two emerged as leaders of the local Bulgarian colony.
In the autumn of 1844, with the assistance of the Polish agent in Constantinople, Mikhail Tchaikovsky, Neophyte Bozveli and Hilarion Makariopolsky presented the Sublime Porte with memoranda in which they set out the demands of the Bulgarians. They were programmatic in nature, as they contained Bozveli's basic views on the Bulgarian church question, which predetermined the directions of development of the church-national movement throughout its first stage.
Convinced that the dispute with the Patriarchate could only be resolved with the help of the Turkish government, Neophyte Bozveli insisted before the Porte that the Bulgarians should have bishops only from their own nationality, who would be appointed after their election by the respective dioceses. The two memorandums requested permission for the Bulgarians to freely open their own schools, to print books and newspapers in their native language, to allow the construction of a Bulgarian church in Constantinople, to create mixed Bulgarian-Turkish courts, and to form a Bulgarian delegation that would independently represent the Bulgarian people before the Sublime Porte and the Patriarchate.
The Turkish government viewed both memorandums favorably, which gave Neophyte Bozveli and Hilarion Makariopolsky reason to undertake new initiatives. In the spring of 1845 they were officially authorized by the Bulgarian guilds in Constantinople to represent them in all matters of the “faith”. Immediately afterwards, Bozveli submitted a new memoir to the Sublime Porte, in which he exposed the abuses of the Greek clergy and even more clearly set out the Bulgarian demands. In the new document, he raised for the first time the issue of strictly fixing the salaries of the hierarchs.
The active activities of Neophyte Bozveli and Hilarion Makariopolsky, as well as the increasingly visible involvement of the influential Bulgarians of Constantinople in the church dispute, forced the Patriarchate to take retaliatory measures. Initially, it tried to win Bozveli over by offering him the post of metropolitan, but when this move did not yield results, Bozveli and Makariopolsky were exiled to Mount Athos. During this second exile, Neofit Bozveli died (1848).
After the exile of Neofit Bozveli and Hilarion Makariopolski, the Bulgarians of Constantinople focused their efforts on obtaining permission to build a Bulgarian church in the Turkish capital. At the end of 1847, the guilds in Constantinople gave a power of attorney to Alexander Exarch (1810-1891) and he renewed the request for a Bulgarian church before the Grand Vizier and the Patriarch. Subsequently, Nikola Sapunov - the first master of the Abadji guild - also joined the negotiations, but the Patriarchate categorically refused to give its consent. In this situation, the Bulgarians of Constantinople turned for help to their influential compatriot Stefan Bogoridi, who enjoyed the trust of the Sultan himself. After his intervention, Abdul Medjid issued a special decree in the summer of 1849 and with the voluntary labor of the Bulgarians of Constantinople, the chapel of “St. Stephen” was built in a short time. The solemn consecration took place on October 9, 1849, and the management of the temple was taken over by the board of trustees of the Bulgarian municipality of Constantinople.
In parallel with the work on the opening of the Bulgarian church in the Turkish capital, the Constantinople colony also undertook the implementation of the remaining points of Neofit Bozveli's program. In 1848, Ivan Bogorov began publishing a pan-Bulgarian newspaper under the name “Tsarigradski vestnik”. A school for Bulgarian clergy was also established in the capital, and books in the Bulgarian language began to be printed in the patriarchal printing house. In 1851 The Constantinople colony also organized a representative assembly, at which a 24-member board of trustees was elected. All this contributed to strengthening the authority of the Constantinople Bulgarian municipality and to its real transformation into a leading center of the church-national movement.
Meanwhile, the struggle against the Greek clergy grew throughout the country and in the 1840s and 1850s it covered the regions of Tarnovo, Lovech, Vidin, Vratsa, Samokov, Haskovo, Sofia, and Edirne. Everywhere, Bulgarian municipalities opposed the corrupt Greek bishops and demanded their replacement with Bulgarian clergy. Emigration to Russia and Wallachia also intervened in the conflict with the Patriarchate. The church dispute also attracted the attention of the great powers, with Russia and France taking the most active position on it.
Even during the first serious clashes between the Bulgarian population and the Greek clergy, Russian diplomacy openly supported the Ecumenical Patriarchate, defending the thesis of the unity of Orthodoxy. Russia's position did not change until the 1860s. France, on the other hand, skillfully took advantage of the escalating Bulgarian-Greek dispute and managed to significantly expand its cultural and political presence in the Balkans. Although France's strategic interests were mainly related to the spread of Catholicism among the Orthodox population of the Ottoman Empire, in 1849 French diplomacy proposed to the Sublime Porte to undertake radical reforms, including the restoration of the independent Bulgarian Church. In 1844 the French embassy contacts Neofit Bozveli and Hilarion Makariopolsky in connection with the preparation of memoranda to the government of the Ottoman Empire.
The outbreak of the Crimean War led to a temporary lull in the Bulgarian-Greek church dispute. Only after the cessation of hostilities, when the situation in the Balkan provinces of the Ottoman Empire normalized, did the conflict with the Patriarchate of Constantinople resume, and with even greater force.
The first impetus for the renewal of the struggle came as a reaction to another reformist act of the Sublime Porte - Hatihumayun of February 1856. In this document, promulgated under pressure from the Western great powers, Abdul Mejid committed himself to continuing the modernization of the Empire, promising to guarantee equal opportunities to all his subjects. Of particular importance to the Bulgarians was the Sultan's intention to allow each Christian community to send a representative commission from its midst, with which the Porte could discuss specific reforms in church affairs, so as to guarantee the rights of all.
Taking advantage of the promises enshrined in Hatihumayun, the Bulgarians of Constantinople immediately prepared an address to the Sultan, in which they wanted to allow the Bulgarians to elect their own archbishop, to have their own courts and their own representatives before the Sublime Porte. At the end of 1856, the Bulgarian municipality in Constantinople called on all Bulgarian municipalities to elect and send their own representatives, who would submit to the Turkish government a petition for an independent Bulgarian church. At the beginning of 1857, the large municipalities sent their own representatives, who, together with the representatives of the Constantinople municipality, formed a general Bulgarian representation, numbering about 40 people. Among its members, Petko Slaveykov, Ivan Geshov, Kh. Nikoli, the Tapchileshtovi brothers, Stoyan Chomakov, etc. stand out. Immediately after its formation, the representation prepared about 60 petitions to the Sublime Porte, in which it explicitly insisted on the restoration of the independent Bulgarian church.
The Patriarchate rejected the Bulgarian demands, which is why in the late 1950s it began a drastic campaign to expel the Greek clergy and to recognize the ordination in 1858 of the Bulgarian bishop Hilarion Makariopolski as the leader of the Bulgarian church. According to Prof. Nikolay Genchev The center of this new uprising was Plovdiv, where the Bulgarians used armed force to expel the Greek clergy and impose Church Slavonic worship.
In this situation, the Porte took on the role of mediator to resolve the dispute and forced the patriarch to convene a special church council. After almost a year of procrastination, the council was opened in October 1858, with only three Bulgarians participating in its sessions. During the discussions, all Bulgarian demands were rejected and in the end the council ended without reaching a compromise.
The irreconcilable position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople gave rise to spontaneous discontent in the Bulgarian dioceses, with particularly strong reactions in Tarnovo, Elena, Gabrovo, Dryanovo, Plovdiv, Stara Zagora, Shumen, Vidin, etc.
In this situation, the more radical figures in Constantinople planned the so-called Easter action, which aimed to lead to an open break with the Patriarchate. On April 3, 1860, during the solemn Easter service in the church of “St. Stephen” Hilarion Makariopolsky did not mention the name of the Greek patriarch. According to church canons, this meant rejecting the authority of the patriarch.
The example of the Bulgarians of Constantinople was followed in larger settlements throughout the country.
Thus, one after another, the Bulgarian municipalities renounced their Greek bishops and recognized Hilarion Makariopolsky as their church head. In 1861, the Patriarchate decided to deal with the leaders of the church movement and exiled Hilarion Makariopolsky and the bishops Paisius of Plovdiv and Auxentius of Veles who supported him.
These events exacerbated relations between Bulgarians and Greeks to the limit and gave room for open intervention by the great powers in the course of the church-national movement. Russia continued to support the Patriarchate, trying to preserve the unity of Orthodoxy in the Ottoman Empire. Gradually, however, as a result of the objective information provided to the government by the ambassador in Constantinople, Gen. Nikolai Ignatiev, and by the Russian vice-consul in Plovdiv, Nayden Gerov, Russia began to change its position and from the mid-1860s agreed to mediate in finding a compromise solution to the Bulgarian-Greek church dispute.
In the years after the Crimean War, France also paid increasing attention to the Bulgarian church issue. Trying to neutralize the traditionally strong Russian influence among the Bulgarians, French diplomacy relied on the so-called Uniate movement. Supported by French Catholic missionaries, the Bulgarian Uniates, led by Dragan Tsankov, promoted the idea of joining the Roman Catholic Church as the most painless means of resolving the church dispute. In 1859, they began publishing their own newspaper under the name "Bulgaria". After the Easter Campaign, Dragan Tsankov launched very active propaganda and managed to attract a significant number of supporters. Encouraged by the success, the leaders of the Uniate movement organized a public presentation of a petition to the Pope in Constantinople on December 18, 1860, and on the same day the act of accession of the Bulgarian Church to Rome was signed. The new Uniate Church was headed by Joseph Sokolsky, who was personally ordained by the Pope as archbishop in 1861. A little later, however, opponents of the union prepared the kidnapping of Joseph Sokolsky and, left without a spiritual leader, the Uniate Church began to lose its gained positions among the Bulgarian population.
In the 1850s and 1860s, Great Britain also took an active position on the Bulgarian church issue. Initially, English diplomacy carefully monitored the development of the conflict without intervening in it. However, from the mid-1860s, London increasingly categorically insisted before the Sublime Porte that the Bulgarians receive their church independence.
The position of Austria-Hungary was similar to that of England. At the same time, French, English and American missionaries continued to open religious schools in the Bulgarian lands. The influence of Catholicism and Protestantism in the Bulgarian lands, however, was weak.
The expanding intervention of the great powers in the Bulgarian-Greek dispute forced the Turkish government to intervene more actively for its final resolution. In 1864, the Porte asked the newly elected Patriarch Sophrony to take the necessary measures to find a compromise between Bulgarians and Greeks. After long hesitation, the Patriarch convened a new council, in which four Bulgarian representatives participated. In the end, however, reconciliation was not achieved and this unleashed a new wave of discontent in all Bulgarian dioceses. Tensions in the country grew. The positions of the émigré political organizations also strengthened, which in the mid-1860s carried out active and purposeful revolutionary propaganda. At that time, the first serious Chetnik actions were also undertaken. In 1867-1868, the detachments of Panayot Hitov, Philip Totyu, Hadji Dimitar and Stefan Karadzha invaded Bulgarian lands. Various initiatives were also underway to organize an uprising in Bulgaria.
In this complex situation, a division into two main currents was noticeable among the participants in the church struggle. The "Young", led by Dr. Stoyan Chomakov, Ilarion Makariopolski, Petko Slaveykov and Todor Ikonomov, were adamant in their demands for an independent Bulgarian church. The "Old", among whom the names of Gavril Krastevich, N. Mihaylovski and the Tapchileshtov brothers stand out, were inclined to compromise under Turkish aegis.
In 1867 Gregory VI was elected patriarch in Constantinople, who prepared a project for understanding with the Bulgarians while preserving the unity of Orthodoxy. Gregory VI envisaged that all dioceses in the region between the Danube and the Balkan Mountains would unite in an autonomous district under the name of Exarchate. The project was also approved by the Russian ambassador Nikolai Ignatiev, because it proposed the creation of a semi-autonomous Bulgarian church, recognizing the supremacy of the Patriarchate. However, Bulgarian activists rejected such a partial solution to the church question and asked the Turkish government to make a final decision on its fate.
In 1869, the Sublime Porte convened a mixed Bulgarian-Greek commission. The meetings were chaired by the Grand Vizier Ali Pasha, and on the Bulgarian side the main representative was Gavril Krastevich. The draft prepared by the commission was presented to the Patriarchate, but it tried to delay the decision-making and in this situation, on February 28, 1870, the Sublime Porte issued a decree for the creation of an independent Bulgarian church under the name of the “Bulgarian Exarchate”. The diocese of the Exarchate, consisting of 15 dioceses, included all territories settled by Bulgarians. In individual settlements and regions where there is a mixed population, a consultation was planned to be held in order to determine under whose jurisdiction they would remain in the future.
In early March 1870, a meeting was convened in Constantinople, which issued a Provisional Council. It was to draft a statute for the Exarchate and manage diocesan affairs until the election of the first Bulgarian exarch. In February 1871, the Church-People's Council began its work in Constantinople, which in May adopted the final text of the statute and proposed several candidates for the exarchate to the Porte.
On February 16, 1872, the Vidin Metropolitan Antim was elected exarch.
Immediately after that, the appointment of metropolitans and bishops began. Despite this, the Patriarchate of Constantinople refused to recognize the Exarchate, and in September 1872, at a specially convened council, the Bulgarian Church was declared schismatic. A fierce struggle followed in the disputed dioceses, where, according to the firman of February 27, 1870, a referendum was to be held among the population. The struggle in the Macedonian dioceses was particularly uncompromising, and in the end the Exarchate managed to win in both Skopje and Ohrid.
The establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate was a major success for Bulgarian Renaissance society. The conquest of the Exarchate was the result of nationwide efforts to achieve spiritual and cultural independence. In the course of the church movement, the national self-confidence of the Bulgarians was strengthened, the public role of the Renaissance bourgeoisie and intelligentsia was strengthened, and rich organizational and political experience was accumulated. All this had a beneficial effect both on the spiritual emancipation of the Renaissance Bulgarians and on the general development of the Bulgarian national liberation movement.