great importance, and became in 1361 the capital of Hungary. In 1526 Pest was taken and pillaged by the Turks, and from 1541 to 1686 Buda was the seat of a Turkish pasha. Pest in the meantime entirely lost its importance, and on the departure of the Turks was left little more than a heap of ruins. Its favourable situation and the renewal of former privileges helped it to revive, and in 1723 it became the seat of the highest Hungarian officials. Maria Theresa and Joseph II. did much to increase its importance, but the rapid growth which enabled it completely to outstrip Buda belongs entirely to the 19th century. A signal proof of its vitality was given in 1838 by the speed and ease with which it recovered from a disastrous inundation that destroyed 3000 houses. In 1848 Pest became the seat of the revolutionary diet, but in the following year the insurgents had to retire before the Austrians under Windischgrätz. A little later the Austrians had to retire in their turn, leaving a garrison in the fortress of Buda, and, while the Hungarians endeavoured to capture this position, General Hentzi retaliated by bombarding Pest, doing great damage to the town. In 1872 both towns were united into one municipality. In 1896 took place here the millennium exhibition, in celebration of the thousandth anniversary of the foundation of the kingdom of Hungary.
Bibliography.—The official publications of the Budapest Communal Bureau of Statistics have acquired a European repute for their completeness, and their fearless exposure of shortcomings has been an element in the progress of the town. Reference should also be made to separate works of the director of that institution, Dr Joseph de Körösy, known in England for his discovery of the law of marital fertility, published by the Royal Society, and by his labours in the development of comparative international statistics. His Statistique Internationale des grandes villes and Bulletin annuel des finances des grandes villes give valuable comparative data. See also Die Österreichisch-Ungarische Monarchie in Wort und Bild (Wien, 1886–1902, 24 vols.); volume xii., published in 1893, is devoted to Budapest. (O. Br.)
BUDAUN, a town and district of British India, in the Rohilkhand division of the United Provinces. The town is near the left bank of the river Sot. Pop. (1901) 39,031. There are ruins of an immense fort and a very handsome mosque of imposing size, crowned with a dome, and built in 1223 in great part from the materials of an ancient Hindu temple. The American Methodist mission maintains several girls’ schools, and there is a high school for boys. According to tradition Budaun was founded about A.D. 905, and an inscription, probably of the 12th century, gives a list of twelve Rathor kings reigning at Budaun (called Vodamayuta). The first authentic historical event connected with it, however, is its capture by Kutb-ud-din in 1196, after which it became a very important post on the northern frontier of the Delhi empire. In the 13th century two of its governors, Shams-ud-din Altamsh, the builder of the great mosque referred to above, and his son Rukn-ud-din Firoz, attained the imperial throne. In 1571 the town was burnt, and about a hundred years later, under Shah Jahan, the seat of the governorship was transferred to Bareilly; after which the importance of Budaun declined. It ultimately came into the power of the Rohillas, and in 1838 was made the headquarters of a British district. In 1857 the people of Budaun sided with the mutineers, and a native government was set up, which lasted until General Penny’s victory at Kakrala (April 1858) led to the restoration of British authority.
The District Of Budaun has an area of 1987 sq. m. Pop. (1901) 1,025,753. The country is low, level, and is generally fertile, and watered by the Ganges, the Ramganga, the Sot or Yarwafadar, and the Mahawa. Budaun district was ceded to the British government in 1801 by the nawab of Oudh. There are several indigo factories. The district is crossed by two lines of the Oudh & Rohilkhand railway, and by a narrow-gauge line from Bareilly. The chief centre of trade is Bilsi.
BUDDEUS, JOHANN FRANZ (1667–1729), German Lutheran divine, was born at Anklam, a town of Pomerania, where his father was pastor. He studied with great distinction at Greifswald and at Wittenberg, and having made a special study of languages, theology and history, was appointed professor of Greek and Latin at Coburg in 1692, professor of moral philosophy in the university of Halle in 1693, and in 1705 professor of theology at Jena. Here he was held in high esteem, and in 1715 became Primarius of his faculty and member of the Consistory.
His principal works are: Leipzig, allgemeines historisches Lexikon (Leipzig, 1709 ff.); Historia, Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti (4 vols., Halle, 1709); Elementa Philosophiae Practicae, Instrumentalis, et Theoreticae (3 vols., 1697); Selecta Juris Naturae et Gentium (Halle, 1704); Miscellanea Sacra (3 vols., Jena, 1727); and Isagoge Historico-Theologica ad Theologiam Universam, singulasque ejus partes (2 vols., 1727).
BUDDHA. According to the Buddhist theory (see Buddhism), a “Buddha” appears from time to time in the world and preaches the true doctrine. After a certain lapse of time this teaching is corrupted and lost, and is not restored till a new Buddha appears. In Europe, Buddha is used to designate the last historical Buddha, whose family name was Gotama, and who was the son of Suddhōdana, one of the chiefs of the tribe of the Sākiyas, one of the republican clans then still existent in India.
We are accustomed to find the legendary and the miraculous gathering, like a halo, around the early history of religious leaders, until the sober truth runs the risk of being altogether neglected for the glittering and edifying falsehood. The Buddha has not escaped the fate which has befallen the founders of other religions; and as late as the year 1854 Professor Wilson of Oxford read a paper before the Royal Asiatic Society of London in which he maintained that the supposed life of Buddha was a myth, and “Buddha himself merely an imaginary being.” No one, however, would now support this view; and it is admitted that, under the mass of miraculous tales which have been handed down regarding him, there is a basis of truth already sufficiently clear to render possible an intelligent history.
The circumstances under which the future Buddha was born were somewhat as follows.[1] In the 6th century B.C. the Āryan tribes had long been settled far down the valley of the Ganges. The old child-like joy in life so manifest in the Vedas had died away; the worship of nature had developed or degenerated into the worship of new and less pure divinities; and the Vedic songs themselves, whose freedom was little compatible with the spirit of the age, had faded into an obscurity which did not lessen their value to the priests. The country was politically split up into little principalities, most of them governed by some petty despot, whose interests were not often the same as those of the community. There were still, however, about a dozen free republics, most of them with aristocratic government, and it was in these that reforming movements met with most approval and support. A convenient belief in the doctrine of the transmigration of souls satisfied the unfortunate that their woes were the natural result of their own deeds in a former birth, and, though unavoidable now, might be escaped in a future state of existence by present good conduct. While hoping for a better fate in their next birth, the poor turned for succour and advice in this to the aid of astrology, witchcraft and animism—a belief in which seems to underlie all
- ↑ Note on the Date of the Buddha.—The now generally accepted date of the Buddha is arrived at by adding together two numbers, one being the date of the accession of Asoka to the throne, the second being the length of the interval between that date and that of the death of the Buddha. The first figure, that of the date of Asoka, is arrived at by the mention in one of his edicts of certain Greek kings, as then living. The dates of these last are approximately known; and arguing from these dates the date of Asoka’s accession has been fixed by various scholars (at dates varying only by a difference of five years more or less) at about 270 B.C. The second figure, the total interval between Asoka’s accession and the Buddha’s death, is given in the Ceylon Chronicles as 218 years. Adding these two together, the date of the Buddha’s death would be 488 B.C., and, as he was eighty years old at the time of his death, the date of his birth would be 568 B.C. The dates for his death and birth accepted in Burma, Siam and Ceylon are about half a century earlier, namely, 543 and 623 B.C., the difference being in the date of Asoka’s accession. It will be seen that the dates as adopted in Europe are approximate only, and liable to correction if better data are obtainable. The details of this chronological question are discussed at length in Professor Rhys Davids’ Ancient Coins and Measures of Ceylon (London, 1877), where the previous discussions are referred to.
