Roumania Past and Present

J >> James Samuelson >> Roumania Past and Present

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27

Shortly after this, however, the Transylvanian nobles, as faithless to
Rudolph, to whom they had sworn fealty, as they had been to Michael,
recalled Sigismund Bathori, and, without the sanction of the Emperor,
placed him on the throne of Siebenbuergen. Then it was that Rudolph found
it convenient to allow Michael to approach his person. The latter, on
his arrival, presented a petition embodying his defence which might have
been drawn by a special pleader, and which was accepted by the Emperor
as a justification of his proceedings. A complete reconciliation took
place between them, and Michael was formally re-appointed vicegerent of
Transylvania. A sufficiently well-appointed army and a large sum of
money were placed at his disposal, and he was requested to join with his
old enemy, General Basta, in dethroning Sigismund. An apparent
reconciliation took place between the two chiefs, Michael and Basta, and
they marched as allies into Siebenbuergen. Sigismund, finding that his
case with the Emperor was hopeless, and after, it is said, vainly
endeavouring by foul means to prevent the junction of Michael and Basta,
sought and obtained the aid of the Turks and Moldavians. That is to say,
the former would have sent him a contingent of troops had not Michael,
by means of forged letters, purporting to be signed by Sigismund, kept
them at a distance. The opposing forces met at Goroszlo near
Klausenburg, and after a hotly contested battle the Transylvanians were
defeated with terrible slaughter. Hardly, however, was the victory won
when jealousies and recriminations between the two generals followed.

Michael considered himself, as viceroy of Siebenbuergen, called upon to
manage the affairs of the country. Basta, smarting under the
disappointment of having failed to secure the viceroyalty, continued to
assume the position of commander-in-chief of the forces, and not only
interfered with the orders and wishes of Michael, but charged him with
various offences, the chief one being that he was again usurping the
supreme power. Believing that he would be safe in using this charge as a
justification for his acts, and that his removal would pave the way for
his own accession to the viceroyalty, Basta then determined to have
Michael assassinated. Knowing that it was his intention to proceed to
the Carpathians and liberate his family which had been kept there in
confinement, Basta sent a captain with three hundred Walloons to effect
his purpose. This man applied at Michael's tent for permission to
accompany him on his journey, and asked him to obtain the necessary
permission from Basta. Michael assented, whereupon the officer entered
the tent hastily, and, approaching the prince who was reposing,
addressed him as his prisoner. Michael exclaimed that he would not yield
himself alive, but before he could obtain possession of his sword to
defend himself, the officer had ran him through the body with his
halberd.[144] This foul deed was perpetrated between August 17 and
September 1, 1601, and it is said that the assassins struck off his head
and sword-hand with Michael's own sword. Afterwards they tortured and
assassinated his minister, a veteran of eighty years of age, and spread
such terror amongst the troops who had remained faithful to their
murdered prince, that his boyards and their followers took to flight and
sought refuge in Wallachia.

Thus fell Michael the Brave, rash, courageous, false, ambitious,
patriotic, the central figure in the past history of Roumania. Basta
sought to justify his act of treachery in a letter to the Emperor; but
whilst on the one hand the German court dared not quarrel with him in
the then condition of Transylvania, on the other hand they refused to
reward him for a deed of blood which has sent down his name with
execration to posterity.

[Footnote 143: Teutschlaender, p. 201.]

[Footnote 144: According to Vaillant and others there were two officers
each with 300 men, and Michael ran his sword through one of the
officers, but before he could withdraw it the other, called Bory, struck
him down with his halberd.]

CHAPTER XIII.

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 Roumania 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 Roumanian
learning and art--The year of revolutions, 1848--Partial success of
the rising in Roumania--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 _regime_ 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.[145] 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.[146] 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.[147]

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 Roumanian seminary, translated the Bible
into Roumanian, and, so far as it was possible in the unfortunate
condition of the country, he diminished the taxes of the poor.[148] 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.[149]

[Footnote 145: Vaillant (chronological table, vol. ii. p. 444) gives
nineteen distinct princes, some of whom reigned twice in Wallachia, and
twenty-eight, of whom one reigned three times in Moldavia, between 1601
and 1714. His dates and names must not, however, be regarded as
authoritative.]

[Footnote 146: The reader who is interested in this subject will find a
concise history of the following families in Carra, namely, Cantemir
(said by some to be of Tartar origin), Ghika, Petreczeicus, Duca,
Cantacuzene, Brancovano, Mavrocordato.]

[Footnote 147: A lion, crown, or ecu, of gold was worth about 4_s._
8_d._, of silver 2_s._ 8_d._]

[Footnote 148: An interesting reference to his good deeds will be found
in the description of the cathedral of Curtea d'Ardges in the first part
of this work.]

[Footnote 149: The carelessness of the Roumanian chroniclers is simply
intolerable. Vaillant, vol. ii. p. 88, says that Serban was poisoned on
October 19, 1688; at p. 91 he says Constantine Preda, his successor,
began to reign 1687; and in his chronology, p. 445, he says 1688. Such
discrepancies constantly recur. Wilkinson makes the successor of Serban,
Constantine Brancovano, the Voivode who secretly aided the Germans at
Vienna, and places the event after 1695. He says the Voivode was
probably bribed by the German Emperor to remain neutral. The siege of
Vienna was in 1693.]

II.

But another great Power was drawing nearer and nearer to Roumania, 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,[150] 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 Roumania afterwards became the seat and the victim.[151]

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.[152]

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 37,000_l._; 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.

[Footnote 150: Brancovano is also called Constantine Bassarab and
Constantine Preda.]

[Footnote 151: The following story is related of the conduct of the
Russians whilst they were encamped before Jassy, during the early part
of the campaign. It appears that Peter and his generals were invited to
a banquet by the Prince, and, having drunk freely, hosts and guests lay
scattered promiscuously about the floor. The Russians were the first to
recover consciousness, and when their eyes fell upon the gold-laced
boots of the boyards, the desire to possess them was so irresistible
that they took advantage of the helpless condition of their hosts to
perpetrate a common theft. Drawing them from their feet, they made off
with the boots to their tents, leaving their own weather-worn chaussure
in exchange.]

[Footnote 152: Wilkinson (p. 40) says that in his day a descendant of
the grandson of Brancovano was living in Wallachia in great state, and
was considered one of the wealthiest boyards; and there is still a
family assuming the title of Prince Bassaraba de Brancovan. See _Gotha
Almanack_, 1881, p. 225.]

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.[153]

[Footnote 153: Although Nicholas Mavrocordato is chiefly referred to as
the first Phanariote Prince of Wallachia, in 1716, a comparison of the
authorities (Engel, Wilkinson, Neigebaur, &c.) shows that he had already
ruled in Moldavia since 1712. Vaillant is, as usual, vague, and supplies
the place of precise facts by abundant rhetoric.]

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27