HUNNT. Bloody as is Ills memorjr bistoiy gires ns Imi three cunpaigns, — one in Thrace, Illyricuin, and Qreeoe ; one in Gaol ; one (during which he died) in Italy. "VTith AStins he intrigued long and -steadily ; so he <lid with Genserio (in Africa); so he did with Theo- doriOfking of the Franks. Add to this, the five embas- sies from Constantinople,and the one (probably more) from Boine,and we knowthe so>called Soour)^ o/'(ro^ better in the council than in the field. The steady object of his enmi^ was the Gothic name. Rome 'Was only an ordinary and occasional foe. His alliances and intrignes comdde remarkably with the difi^ision of the Aiani, who, either as allies or mercenaries, had penetrated the western parts of Enrope befoce him. Spain was conqnered by Akni (the proposed cor- rectiott, AUftiatmi, is grataitoos), Saevi, and Vandali ; and when Genserio led his Vandals into Africa, some of the Alani accompanied him. Now Genserio and Attila were mntnal coadjutors. There were Alani ■n France, and the Frsnk sing intrigued with Attila. The Scythian (Alan or Htm) extraction of AStins baa been mentioDed* POPUIJkTIONS AKIH TO THB HuifB I7MDBB omsB Nambs. — When Attila died, his kingdom broke up ; but as we are not so much writing the history of a name, but that of a people, we may ask whether the Hnn history be not oontinned under other denwninationw ? The answer is in the affirm- atiTc. The ^pdition and comprehensiyeness of the closest investigator of the widest field in all hi»tory — the unrivalled historian of the decline and fall of the Roman empire— makes any exception that may be taken to his gnmt work distastefuL Nevertheless, it may truly be said that few pages of Gibbon are more objectionable than those which deal with the ethnology of the Bulgarians. (See chapi Iv.) After renoarking that ^Theodoric, the Ostiogoth, had trampled oo the arms of the Bulgarians ;" Uiat "after this defeat the name was lost during a century and a half,** — he suggests that ** the same or a similar appellation was revived by strange colonies from the BcNTstheneo, the Tanais, or the VQlga." He further adds, that ** the unquestiooable evidence of language attests the descent of the Bulgarians from ^e original stock of the Slavonian race." Ho also speaks of ^* the Servians, Bosnians, Rascians, Croatians, Wallackiam, Ac," being "kindred bands." The italics are the present writer's, who remarks that, in the case before us the evidence of language, always ezceptionabte (though strong jn-nnd/aas) evidence, is eminently exceptionable here, and also that it is inconsistently applied. The language of the Wal- lachians is not Slavonic, but Bomanyo, i. e. Roman, even as French and Spanish are Roman. In respect to the Bulgarians, the present language b Slavonic, «-bnt Slavonic of a very exceptional character. But to return to Gibbon. His note states that
- Chalcoodyles, a competent judge, affirms the iden-
tity of the language of the Dalmatians, Bosnians, Servians, Bulgariam^ (the italics are Gibbon's), ^ Pules, and — Bohemians." Now, granting Ghal- condyles to be a competent judge, he is so only for bis own times, the 13th centniy. Between, how- ever, his time and that of the Bulgarian predo- minance, the Slavonian king Sviatoslav (a.d. 955 —973) conquered Bulgaria. This accounts for the change of language. It should be added, that neither the Tanais nor the Volga, in the 7th century, could supply a SUvonic population; and that the evidence in favour of the more distant river of the two having been the home of the Bulgarians is unexceptionable, HUNNL 1095 — unexceptionable, and scarcely excepted to by Gib- bon himself. " Tbeophanes places the old Bulgaria on the banks of the Atel, or Volga ; but he deprives himself of all geographical credit by dischaiging that river into theEuxine" (note). On the other hand, one of the most valuable articles in Zeuss {DeuUdke undeeme Nackbare ta mme) is the one on Btdgari: wherein he proves, as clearly as mattera of the kind can be proved, that the Bul- garians were Huns under another name (or vice vend) ; or, at least, that the Bulgarians were part of the Hun confederation. Ennodius is the first author who mentions them, and he does so in his Panegyric on Theodoric, tiieir conquerar-— their conqueror al- ready alluded to. Ennodius writes: "Stat ante oculos meos Bidgartun ductor — dexteratua — pro- stratus. — Haec est natlo c^jus ante te fuit omne quod vduit. — His ante mundus pervins esse crede- batur.** Zmiss rightly remarks that, though this is the fint mention of the BulgarianB, it is not the first mention of a nation -veiy like them, if not the same. They eat hor8e<flesh, like the Huns and other Scy- thians, — '* Credunt esse satis ad delicias equini pe- ooris lac potare. Quia ferat adversarium, qui pemicis jumenti beneficio cnrrit et pasdtur ?** Agam — Procopius mentions no Bulgarians; only Huns ; but certain deeds that Jomandes and othere attribute to the fonner he gives to the latter. A third passage, that, admitting some distinction to have existed between the Huns and Bulgarians suggests the likelihood of its having been but slight^ is from Fredegarius (c. 72) : " £o anno, in Ava- rorum, oognoroenti Ghunorum, regno in Pannonia surrexit vebemens intentio^ eo quod de regno cer- tarent, cui deberetur ad succedendum, unus ex Avarie et alius ex BulfforitJ* Fourthly. We must remember that both fftm and Bttlfforian are collective names. Having done this, we have two divisions. The exact names are dif- ficult to ascertain; but names sufficiently like to pass for denominations of the same tribe are found in one author amongst the Huns, in another amongst the Bulgarians — iw ro&r^ r^ XP^'^ ^^ ^'^ BovA- yipatv f$ws iini,9tr rf BpoKfr iuwyieatoy 8^ ciVcak Kol wcol T^s ipxM^^Wos rmw 'Ovayowioi^pmi^ Bwydpwf icol KoTpdywy. (Theophan. ed. Par. p. 296.) The pUce, however, the Huns is more usual; and here the names are 'Orayovpoi (ffumffori) and KovT(7oi/fHM (KfUziagiri,') Such is the evidence of Zeuss as opposed to that of the passage of Gibbon that preened it. B u Gibbon himself, in another part of his great work (ch. xlii.), identifies the Bulgarians with the Huns. ^ I adopt the appellation of Bulgarians from Enno- dius, Jomandes, Theopbanes, and the Chronicles of Cassiodorus and Haroellinos. The name of Huns is too vsgue: the tribes of the Cuttnigurians and Ut- tuigurians are too minute and harsh." Again : " the same year... was marked by an invasion of the Huns or Bulgarians." The Cntigurians are the KvncU yovpoi, or Gntsiagiri, of the last extract. Their name will reoccur. The next population akin to the Huns (the proofs of this will be seen in the sequel and in Avares) is that of the Avars. The reign of Justinian givea the fint, that of Charlemagne die last, of this name. For further details, tee Avares. The fourth great name is that of the Khazan; who are unequivocally mentioned under that desig- nation as early as A. D. 626, though not by a contemponuy historian. The evidence, however, o£ 4 A 4
