A Short History of Romania

James Samuelson

• Publisher: Perennial Press
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781531263317
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Eastern European History
• Index: History

Although the earliest authentic records of Romania or, more correctly speaking, of Dacia, the Roman province which embraced Romania, Transylvania, and some adjoining territories of to-day, do not reach further back than about the century immediately preceding the Christian era, a good deal of information is to be gathered from the writings of Herodotus, Dion Cassius, and other early historians regarding the Getæ, the race from whom the Dacians sprang. The Getæ were in all probability a branch of the Thracians, who were amongst the earliest immigrants from the East; and for some time before they appeared in Dacia, which was situated on the northern side of the Danube (or Ister, as it was called by the Romans), they had settled between the south bank of that river and the Balkans (Mount Hæmus of the Romans). About the fourth century b.c., however, the Getæ had crossed the river, either driven north by an inimical neighbouring tribe, the Triballi, or in consequence of the growth of the nation itself. When they were first encountered by the Greeks, they occupied the eastern part of Dacia, reaching probably to one portion of the Black Sea; and some account of them is given by Ovid, who was exiled to their vicinity, but little is known of them until they came in contact with the Roman armies. The Getæ have little direct interest for us, but as we find associated with them the names of Philip of Macedon, Alexander the Great, and Lysimachus, a few words concerning their connection with those heroes may not be out of place, and will at least serve to fix a period in the history of the people...

FROM THE DEATH OF MICHAEL THE BRAVE (A.D. 1601) TO THE DEPOSITION OF PRINCE COUZA (A.D. 1866).

TURKISH EXACTIONS AFTER MICHAEL’S FALL—TRANSITION from native to Greek Voivodes—Matthew Bassarab (Wallachia) and Basilius Lupus (Moldavia)—Their severe criminal codes—Serban II. (Cantacuzene)—His good deeds—Betrays the Turks before Vienna—Growing power of Russia—Treaty of Carlowitz—Brancovano (Wallachia) and Cantemir (Moldavia) negotiate with Peter the Great—First Russian invasion of the Principalities—Repelled by the Turks—Flight of Cantemir—(Note: Anecdote of Russian cupidity)—Arrest and execution of Brancovano and his family—His great treasures—The Phanariotes—Their origin and rise—Massacred in Wallachia—Second appearance—Extortions and expulsion—Panaiotaki, Dragoman of the Porte—The Mavrocordatos—Nicholas, first Phanariote Hospodar—Suppresses the boyards’ retainers—Constantine modifies slavery—Mode of appointing hospodars—The Caimakam—Homage and servility of boyards—Conduct of Phanariote rulers at home—Court customs—Reputed effeminacy—Rapacity and exactions—Extortions of officials—Extravagance of princesses—Treatment of peasantry—Princes encourage brigandage—Usually deposed and executed—Corruption of clergy—Other baneful effects of Phanariote rule—(Note: Divorces in Romania to-day)—Another view of Phanariote princes—Their good works—Ypsilanti, Gregory Ghika—Nicholas Mavrojeni and his cowardly boyards—Ennobles his horses—Russo-Turkish wars—Treaty of Belgrade—Russian successes and Austrian interference—Treaty of Kainardji—Russian protectorate—Cession of Bucovine to Austria—Treaty of Jassy—Amelioration of state of the Principalities, 1802—French and English consuls appointed—Russo-Turkish war and occupation—Treaty of Bucarest—Hetairia or Greek rising—Rebellion in the Principalities—Career and fate of the patriots Vladimiresco and Ypsilanti—End of Phanariote rule—Russian intervention and occupation—Treaty of Adrianople and restoration of native rulers—Patriotic efforts of Heliade and others—Rise of Romanian learning and art—The year of revolutions, 1848—Partial success of the rising in Romania—Suppression by Russia and Turkey—Escape of the patriots—Review of the benefits of Russian interference in the Principalities—Renewed Russian aggression—Brief history of the war of 1854-1856 between Russia and the Western Powers and Turkey—Treaty of Paris—Return of the patriots—Union of the Principalities under Prince Couza—Incidents of his reign—His deposition—How planned and effected—The provisional government—Evil influence of Couza’s conduct.

I.

The history of Moldo-Wallachia during the seventeenth century—that is to say, from the fall of Michael to the dispossession of the native voivodes at the beginning of the eighteenth century—possesses little interest for English readers. Some of the more important incidents will be referred to in connection with the subsequent régime of the Greek, or, as they are called, the Phanariote rulers appointed by the Porte, and it will only be necessary to make a few brief comments upon the condition of the country, and the character of two or three of the Voivodes who reigned during the century.

It may well be imagined that the humiliating defeats inflicted by Michael upon the Turkish armies would not tend to mollify the severity of their subsequent rule, and that the chief aim of the Porte would be to extort as large a revenue as possible from the conquered provinces, without regard to the sufferings of any class, This was effected by taking advantage of the jealousies and intrigues of the boyards who aspired to the rulership to obtain an increase of the tribute, and bribes; and a reference to the records of the time shows that whilst in Wallachia the rule of only three voivodes, and in Moldavia that of two only, exceeded five years, there were often two new princes appointed in the same year. A noteworthy circumstance in connection with these voivodes is their gradual transition from native to Greek families. Here and there we have an Italian appellative, such as Quatiani or Rosetti, but in the main there is a change from the Bassarabs, the Bogdans, and the Radus, to the Ghikas, Cantacuzenes, Brancovanos, and eventually to the Mavrocordatos. The explanation of this change will be given presently, but amongst the native rulers we may select two or three for brief comment. Between 1627 or 1633 and 1654 Matthew Baasarab ruled over Wallachia to the advantage of the nation. He drove out the Tartars who had overrun the country, and afterwards devoted himself to the welfare of his subjects. Bucarest was not yet the acknowledged capital, but he established a printing-press there, and also reformed the administration of justice. At the same time Basilius (known as Basil the Wolf), Prince of Moldavia, between whom and Matthew there had been great jealousy, followed his example in his own country, and a criminal code was introduced into both principalities, which, amongst its other provisions, legalised slavery in some of its most iniquitous forms. A few extracts from this code may be of interest, as showing the condition of the people at that time.

Anyone guilty of arson was burned alive.

Anyone harbouring a fugitive serf was liable to a fine of twelve silver lions into court and twenty-four to the seigneur.

If the gipsy of a boyard or his children stole some such trifle as a chicken or an egg twice or three times, he was to be pardoned, but if he stole anything more considerable he should be punished as a thief. If he committed a theft to ward off starvation, he was pardoned, and also if he stole from the enemy.

A treasure discovered by means of sorcery became the property of the prince.

Besides the very severe punishments directed against other forms of murder, poisoning, which must therefore have been frequent, has two clauses provided for it. One is that, in addition to the punishment of a murderer, his children shall be declared infamous.

If a man gave another a box on the ear, and was stabbed in return, no punishment was inflicted, even if death ensued; and the whole code of honour is of a like savage nature.

Doctors are to be believed in matters of hygiene before barbers or sorcerers.

Bigamy was punished by the culprit being whipped through the town, riding naked on a donkey.

If a person to whom the training of young girls was confided corrupted and betrayed them to licentious men, hot lead was to be poured down his (or her) throat until it reached his heart (sic), ‘for it was from thence that the seductive counsels had proceeded.’

A slave or paid serf who committed rape was not put to death as were others, but he was burned alive.

Torture was evidently quite common, for judges are forbidden to torture innocent persons even by order of the prince.

Nobility clearly gave immunity to crime—at least it mitigated the punishment; for ‘neither nobles nor boyards nor their sons could be condemned to the galleys nor to the mines, but they might be banished for a longer or shorter period; they might not be hung, nor impaled, nor dragged through the streets like ordinary malefactors, but they should be decapitated.’

A wise and good Prince of Wallachia was Serban II. (Cantacuzene), 1679-1688, who built and improved churches and monasteries, and erected factories and workshops for the people. He also encouraged education and literature, founded the first Romanian seminary, translated the Bible into Romanian, and, so far as it was possible in the unfortunate condition of the country, he diminished the taxes of the poor. He was compelled to join the Turks in their wars against Germany, but, summoning courage at a critical moment, he turned his arms against—or perhaps it would be more honest to say he betrayed—those of whom he was the unwilling ally. This happened during the siege of Vienna in 1683, where Serban was at the head of a contingent of four thousand Wallachians in the army of Cara Mustapha, and the duty was entrusted to him of constructing bridges and works. He took advantage of his position to communicate with the Germans, facilitated the destruction of the works which he himself had raised, and it is said that he loaded his guns with straw. He is said also to have erected a high cross opposite his tent, on which an inscription was graven capable of bearing a double interpretation, and which gave courage to the besieged. After the defeat of the Turks before Vienna through its relief by Sobieski, King of Poland, Serban fostered the idea of asserting his independence of Turkish rule; but before he was able to carry his plans into execution, he died (1688), it is said, poisoned by his brother and nephew.

II.

But another great Power was drawing nearer and nearer to Romania, which was eventually to exercise a grave influence upon her destiny. Already the Muscovites had taken part with the Christian Powers in their struggles with the Ottoman Empire, and in 1699 the Treaty of Karlowitz was concluded, which gave Transylvania to Austria and Azov to the Russian Empire. The position of the Principalities as vassal states of Turkey remained unaffected, but the indirect influence of the growing power of Russia soon became manifest. In the beginning of the eighteenth century there ruled two voivodes, Constantine Brancovano in Wallachia, and Demetrius Cantemir in Moldavia, both of whom had been appointed in the usual manner under the suzerainty of the Porte; but these princes, independently of each other, had entered into negotiations with Peter the Great after the defeat of Charles XII. at Pultawa (1709) to assist them against the Sultan, their suzerain, stipulating for their own independence under the protection of the Czar. Encouraged by these advances Peter approached the Pruth with his army; but the Moldavian boyards were generally opposed to the alliance, and Cantemir found himself supported only by three or four of his ministers. Notwithstanding this, the Russian army crossed the Pruth, and pitched their camp near Jassy. A general massacre of the Turks throughout Moldavia followed, but no advantage accrued to the Russian arms, as the Moldavian prince was unable to furnish the Czar with the promised supplies for his army. It is even said that one of the boyards, who enjoyed the confidence of Cantemir, appropriated certain funds which he had received for the supply of the army to his own use, and placed himself in communication with the Grand Vizier. The Porte, aided by its allies, raised a powerful army, which crossed the Danube; and although one of Peter’s generals is said to have obtained some temporary advantage, the Czar soon found himself so hard pressed by the superior forces of the Ottomans that he was glad to conclude a treaty with the Porte and make the best of his way home, harassed on his return by fierce Tartar hordes.

At Stephanesti the Czar was met by Cantemir, who sought and obtained his protection, and returned with him into Russia, where it is said that his representations inflamed the desire of Peter to possess the Principalities, if not Constantinople, and led to those subsequent wars of which Romania afterwards became the seat and the victim.

Brancovano, Prince of Wallachia, who had not taken any active part in the war, met with the fate which his neighbour had escaped. His secret correspondence and alliance with Peter the Great were betrayed to the Porte by a member of his own family, and after the conclusion of peace steps were taken to depose him. With this view the Kapidgi Mustapha was sent with a small escort to arrest and bring him to Constantinople with his whole family. The story of his deposition is narrated with great dramatic effect: how the Kapidgi with twelve janissaries entered the throne-room where Brancovano awaited him unconscious of his impending fate; and how the former, refusing to take a seat by his side, drew a long crape shawl from his breast and, throwing it over the shoulders of the prince, pronounced the terrible word ‘deposed.’ He then called the boyards together, read the decree of the Sultan, and threatened them with an invasion if they resisted. The cowardly boyards allowed their prince and his family to be carried off to Constantinople without an effort to save them. On his arrival at Constantinople, Brancovano was declared a traitor, and, having refused to embrace Islamism, he and four of his sons and his son-in-law were decapitated (a.d. 1714) in the Sultan’s presence. Satiated with their blood, it is said that the Sultan Achmet III. spared the last member of his family, a young grandchild, and that this one, with the widow, were permitted to retire into Wallachia.

One of the temptations to put an end to the life as well as the reign of Constantine Brancovano was undoubtedly his great wealth. Along with his person his papers were seized, and his property was confiscated, an inventory having been made of the latter, in which the following are said to have been included:—A service of gold plate; the ancient crown of the voivodes, valued at 37,000l.; a gold belt and a rich collar set with jewels; the effigy of the hospodar in gold pieces of ten ducats; harnesses embroidered with gold and precious stones; a vast sum of money in coinages of different countries; and deposit-receipts for sums lodged in his name in Vienna, Venice, &c. Also landed property in various places, making an estimated total of three and a half millions sterling. The immense value of his treasures, and the sums of money which he possessed in various coinages and countries, led to the charge against him of having betrayed the interests of the Porte for bribes, received from Austria, Poland, and Venice, and, what was more unfortunate for him, to the suspicion that still larger treasures were secreted. Previous to his execution he and his eldest son are said to have been tortured for five days, to compel them to make discovery of further possessions, but without result. After the deposition of Brancovano, Stephen Cantacuzene, the son of one of his accusers, was made Voivode of Wallachia, but like his predecessors he only enjoyed the honour for a brief term, and two years afterwards he was deposed, ordered to Constantinople, imprisoned, and decapitated; and with him terminated the rule of the native princes, who were followed, both in Wallachia and Moldavia, by the so-called Phanariote governors or farmers-general of the Porte.

III.

But who and what were the Phanariotes? the reader may enquire; and in order fully to answer the question we must revert to the beginning of the seventeenth century, and hastily review a series of events which, during that century, laid the foundation of their subsequent rule. About the commencement of the century many Greeks, coming chiefly from the islands of the Archipelago and from Asia Minor, sought refuge in Constantinople, where in the course of time they founded a colony in a parish or district known as the ‘Phanar:’ hence their name of Phanariotes. Being more learned, or at least better instructed, than the people amongst whom they resided, and moreover well acquainted with trade, they assumed similar functions to those performed by the Jews of the west of Europe, and like the latter they at once became the objects of cordial dislike, and indispensable factors in society. Not content with settling in Constantinople, they spread themselves into the Turkish pashaliks and dependencies, amongst others into the Danubian Principalities, where, too, owing to their extortionate practices, they became thoroughly detested; and it is said that Michael the Brave issued an edict excluding them from all public offices of trust. About the year 1617 they had so greatly increased in numbers, and excited such hatred, that the native population could no longer be restrained; a second edition of the Sicilian Vespers was enacted, and they were massacred, men, women, and children, a deed for which their successors took ample vengeance. For a time we hear nothing more about them, but about half a century afterwards (1665) they returned in great numbers in the suite of two Voivodes, who had purchased the thrones of the Principalities, and once more sought to establish themselves. Two of these seem to have played the part for the reigning prince that Empson and Dudley filled for our Henry VII., namely, that of extortioners, but with far greater tyranny and cruelty. They were at length cut in pieces by the populace, and the Greeks were once more expelled from the country. Meanwhile, however, they had grown in favour in Constantinople, where, through their learning and intelligence, they began to fill confidential offices under the Porte. To their ordinary avocations some added the practice of medicine, in which they were adepts; and one of them, Panaiotaki Nicosias, a medical attendant of the Grand Vizier, managed to ingratiate himself with his patron, and then, having exerted his influence in favour of his fellow-countrymen, he succeeded in obtaining minor offices for some, and toleration for all. He was appointed Dragoman or interpreter to the Porte, and, proving an able and faithful servant, he was permitted to nominate as his successor Alexander Mavrocordato, who is said by some to have been a common labourer and to have married a butcher’s daughter, whilst others call him a silk-dealer of Constantinople or of Chio. Be that as it may, he made himself so useful to his employers, especially during the negotiation of the Treaty of Carlowitz, that after the execution of Brancovano he managed to secure the succession to the throne of Wallachia (1716) for his son Nicholas Mavrocordato, and became the ancestor of a long line of rulers in both principalities.

IV.

The selection of Greek princes, or, as they are often called, ‘farmers-general,’ by the Porte, was probably the result of the distrust which the native voivodes and boyards had engendered, as much as the respect entertained for its faithful dragomans; and if Nicholas Mavrocordato did not receive explicit instructions on the subject, he knew that the most welcome change he could make in the interests of his patrons would be to introduce an entirely new régime into his dominions. The most important step taken by him was to suppress the guards of the native boyards, which made them as dangerous to the ruler as the retainers of our barons had been to the Crown until they were suppressed by the Act of Henry VII. He established new tribunals and disbanded the militia. His successor, Constantine (about 1731), was superior in his views and aspirations to almost any of the princes who had ruled over Wallachia. He abolished the old form of slavery, but unfortunately political considerations still caused the retention of the peasantry in servitude; for, in order to weaken the native boyards, a large number of serfs, it is said 60,000 in all, were transferred as labourers from their old masters to the Crown, and to the newly created Greek boyards. Whilst their bodies were nominally freed, these poor creatures were required to render such an...

Table of contents

• FROM THE GETÆ (ABOUT 335 B.C.) TO THE CLOSE OF THE ROMAN DOMINATION IN DACIA TRAJANA (ABOUT A.D. 274).
• FROM THE EVACUATION OF DACIA BY AURELIAN (ABOUT 274 A.D.) TO THE END OF THE BARBARIAN RULE (ABOUT THE CLOSE OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY).
• FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE PRINCIPALITIES, BETWEEN THE MIDDLE OF THE THIRTEENTH AND OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURIES TO THE ACCESSION OF MICHAEL THE BRAVE, A.D. 1593.
• THE TIMES AND CAREER OF MICHAEL THE BRAVE.
• FROM THE DEATH OF MICHAEL THE BRAVE (A.D. 1601) TO THE DEPOSITION OF PRINCE COUZA (A.D. 1866).
• FROM THE DEPOSITION OF PRINCE COUZA (1866) TO THE CORONATION OF KING CHARLES (1881).