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

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 _regime_ 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.[154] 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 amount of feudal service to
their new masters, that their wretched condition was rather aggravated
than improved. The Greek or Phanariote boyards who were created, found
it politic to intermarry with the native boyard families in order to
improve their position in the land of their adoption, and the servile
Wallachian nobles deemed it to their interest to encourage such
alliances; indeed it was necessary to save themselves from extinction.
New officers of State were appointed in the supposed interests of the
Porte, but, as we shall see presently, the ruling prince, or, as the
reader will find him called, voivode or hospodar,[155] managed to turn
these changes to account and make them serve for his own aggrandisement.

The new hospodar was always appointed by the Porte with great ceremony.
'The kukka or military crest,' says Wilkinson, 'is put on their heads by
the Muzhur Aga; the robe of honour is put on them by the Vizir himself.
They are honoured with standards and military music, and take the oath
of allegiance in the presence of the Sultan, to whom they are introduced
with the ceremonies usual at a public audience.'[156] They were
appointed by 'Beratt,' an imperial diploma, of which Wilkinson gives a
formula, and wherein the Sultan commands the Wallachian and Moldavian
peoples to acknowledge and obey the bearers of it, as the sole
depositaries of the sovereign authority. As soon as the prince was
appointed, he at once sent an _avant-courrier_, a Kaimakam, to make
preparations for his arrival; and this one, who was practically the
chief of the State for a period of two months, generally managed, whilst
he was carrying out his mission, to do a little profitable business on
his own account. The prince followed in great state, accompanied by a
number of dependants and hangers-on who had succeeded, by means of
presents or otherwise, in ingratiating themselves in his favour. The
bribes, flatteries, and meanness of which these sycophants were guilty,
either before the departure of the prince from Constantinople or after
his arrival in Bucarest (which had been the capital of Wallachia since
the close of the seventeenth century) or Jassy, have been described in
vivid colours by modern historians, some of whom have drawn pretty
freely upon their imagination for the purpose. It is a fact, however,
that the boyards sent presents to the prince before his departure, and
even lodged sums of money in Constantinople for the purpose--money which
had been wrung from the unfortunate peasantry. The new hospodar, who had
paid pretty dearly for his post, submitted to all this homage, accepted
everything, and then acted as it seemed most politic, often punishing
and exiling those who had stooped the lowest or bribed the highest.
Arrived at the principality he generally made a complete change in the
_personnel_ of the court and government, giving the most lucrative
offices to his own relatives, honorary appointments to some, and
pecuniary ones to a few of his best supporters. To Mahommedans he took
care to assign posts of little or no influence, so that it might not be
in their power to expedite his downfall, which took place, at farthest,
at the end of three years, and was usually effected by intrigues at
Constantinople.[157] His dispositions thus gave him almost absolute
power, which he took care to use in such a manner as to enrich himself
and his family during the brief term of his dearly-bought hospodarship.

After their arrival at the capital, the princes delivered an address to
the assembled boyards, promising happiness and prosperity to the people;
but as soon as the first ceremonies were concluded, the greater number
gave themselves up to self-indulgence, exacted servile attentions from
all about them, and practised every kind of unlawful extortion upon all
those who were able to furnish supplies to the treasury.

'It was the custom that the prince never asked for anything at table.
All is prepared for him; even his bread is cut into small pieces. He
refuses food which does not please him. Wine is served to him in carafes
of crystal. The cup-bearer (Paharnik), who is always a near relative,
stands up before him holding a glass half filled.'[158] When he has
finished his dinner, coffee is handed to him, and when, subsequently, he
withdraws to sleep, silence is enforced, not only in the palace, but
throughout the city, so that his rest (which he does not, however,
always take) shall not be disturbed. At a fixed hour, when he is
supposed to have risen, the bells of the city are tolled, and all is
again activity. All kinds of stories, more or less authentic, are
narrated concerning the effeminacy of the Phanariote rulers, such as
that they were lifted about by attendants, who supported them under the
armpits, so that there might be no need for them to place their feet on
the ground; but although such statements may be correct in regard to
some of them, there were undoubtedly princes with whose character and
actions such practices were quite inconsistent.

[Footnote 154: 3 Henry VII. cap. 1, and 21 Henry VIII. cap. 20.]

[Footnote 155: Voda, or Domnu (Dominus), was the Roumanian designation
for the prince, and Hospodar was a title of Slavonic or Russian origin
(Russian, Gospodin = Lord).]

[Footnote 156: P. 46.]

[Footnote 157: The most authentic work on the Phanariotes is that of
Marc. Philippe Zallony (Marseilles, Ant. Ricard, April 1824). That
author calls himself 'the medical attendant, of several Fanariote
hospodars,' and his account of the princes and their rule is
sufficiently humiliating without the exaggerations and embellishments of
one or two subsequent French writers. Wilkinson, whose work we have
quoted, and who was 'British Consul Resident,' in 1820, at 'Bukorest,'
as it was then called (he says, after one Bukor who owned the village
four hundred years previously), gives a good deal of information on the
same subject.]

[Footnote 158: Zallony.]

V.

It may, however, be readily believed, that various devices were resorted
to by the princes to enrich themselves as speedily as possible. Their
regular income was augmented by the granting of monopolies, the
depreciation of the currency, and frauds in collecting the revenue and
in providing supplies for the Porte. A poll or capitation tax was levied
upon the nomadic and stationary gipsies, and money was even exacted
under all kinds of pretences from the heads of the religious orders. The
annual income of the princes is said to have exceeded 40,000_l._ in
addition to the tribute payable to the Porte.[159] Nor must it be
supposed that this was the whole amount that was extorted from the
unfortunate inhabitants. It was 'like master like man,' and every
official and underling followed the prince's example, each being aware
that a change of rulers meant dismissal for himself. The princess, too,
had special sources of income, which were usually squandered in rivalry
with the boyardesses, in jewellery, dress, and other luxuries.[160] It
is said that one of the princesses, being offended with a lady of rank
for excelling her in the ostentatious richness of her dress and personal
adornments, caused her to be exiled; and that when she had secured a
sufficiently large sum to purchase a more magnificent apparel than her
rival, she allowed her to return to court, in order that she might enjoy
her humiliation. The complaints of the oppressed peasantry were at best
unheeded, and when these were driven to desperation and ventured to
appeal in person to the prince, a number of them were seized and cast
into prison, 'pour encourager les autres.' The result was that many
turned brigands, and united to form bands; but even these, it is said,
ministered to the rapacity of some of the Phanariote rulers. The prince
secretly encouraged or winked at their misdeeds, until he thought they
had amassed a considerable treasure by free-booting. Then, making a raid
upon them with a strong military force, he deprived them of their
plunder and decapitated or imprisoned them. The greater number were sent
to work in the salt-mines, where (as already stated elsewhere) they
usually died after the expiration of about four years.

This system of extortion and tyranny usually continued until the Porte
could no longer refuse to listen to the call for redress, and in such
cases intriguers for the succession were only too ready to take up the
cry, and even to exaggerate the crimes of the reigning prince. The
result was that one by one they were deposed, and often recalled to
Constantinople, only to be disgraced, exiled, or executed. According to
the historical records, there were eleven distinct hospodars in each
principality between 1716 and 1768; in Wallachia the government was
changed twenty-one, and in Moldavia seventeen times. In one year (1731)
Constantine Mavrocordato ruled twice, and Michael Racovica once; the
former is noted as having reigned six times; the latter was re-elected
in 1741, and was eventually exiled to Mitylene. Charles Ghika (1758) was
exiled to Cyprus; Stephen Racovica (1765) was strangled by order of the
Porte; and so on.

But although the rulers were changed so frequently, the system not only
continued, but became more and more demoralising to the whole nation.
For a time the clergy were content to bleed without drawing blood in
their turn, but at length they, too, began to extort money from rich and
poor alike, in order to meet the demands upon them, and prostituted the
sacred offices of religion to gain their ends. Another terrible result
of the Phanariote rule was the seizure by the officials of the Porte of
Roumanian men and women, the former to replace those who had fallen in
the wars between the Turks and Russians; and the best blood of the
country was sacrificed in a cause in which it had no interest. The moral
degradation of the boyards also became deeper and deeper. Many turned
renegades, and adopted the Mussulman faith, partly from servility, often
to save themselves from being condemned to death. Others pursued that
course that they might not be harassed by the Turkish officials, and
others again because the oriental dress pleased them, and they desired
to indulge in the practice of polygamy. Fathers educated their sons in
every kind of deceit and hypocrisy to minister to their advancement in
life, teaching them how to approach the dominant seigneurs and
ingratiate themselves in their favour, whilst, in the eyes of the common
people, the boyards had sunk so low that they had earned for themselves
the name of 'sleeping dogs.' The women were even worse than the men. The
height of their ambition was to form advantageous alliances without
reference to their happiness in after life; the marriage tie was treated
with the utmost indifference, and the clergy were often compelled, much
against their will, to grant divorces in order to retain their offices
and influence.[161]

So much for the dark side of the Phanariote rule; and it is much to be
regretted that all modern historians have contented themselves with
looking at its unfavourable aspect, and have sought to shift all the
sins and errors of the period upon the shoulders of the Greek princes.
It is not our intention to follow their example, for we believe that the
government of the Greek hospodars was by no means an unmixed evil. The
modern descendants of those men still occupy honourable positions in
Roumania, but these have little to say in their defence; indeed we have
heard Greeks express the opinion that it would be more creditable to
them if they were to lay bare the exaggerations of evil, and bring into
prominence the better traits in the character of their ancestry.[162]
That they were not all tyrants and extortioners is certain, although
many, especially the earlier ones, were only too faithful servants of
the Porte who may have played their part _con amore_ in remembrance of
the massacre of their ancestors, and in conformity with the customs of
the period. But amongst them were brave, religious, charitable, and
learned men, who contributed to raise the Roumanians from a condition of
barbarism to one of comparative civilisation. Of this we have evidence
in the law reforms, imperfect as they were, introduced by Constantine
Mavrocordato; in the buildings and charitable foundations of Ypsilanti
and Gregory Ghika in both Principalities (between 1768-1778); in the
courage of the latter, who paid with his life the penalty of serving his
adopted country; and of Nicholas Mavrojeni (1786-1790), whose boyards
were too cowardly to follow him in the defence of their country against
a Russian invasion.

The last-named is rather a notorious incident in Roumanian history, and
some writers have devoted pages to the narrative. It appears that
Nicholas had received instructions from the Porte to raise a force and
set himself in motion against the combined Russians and Austrians who
menaced Wallachia. He thereupon assembled the boyards and called upon
them to take up arms. Too cowardly, in the opinion of certain writers,
or distrusting the prince, according to others, each excused himself on
some flimsy pretext, whereupon Nicholas, indignant and furious, called
upon one of his attendants to bring forth thirty horses, which were soon
standing caparisoned in the court-yard. The prince invited his boyards
to descend, and when they were arrived below, 'Now,' he cried, 'to
horse!' They maintained a sullen silence, however, and no one moved.
Casting a look of contempt upon them, he turned round to the horses,
and, addressing one after the other, he cried, 'I make you Ban; you,
Grand Vornic; you, Grand Logothet;' and so on, until he had exhausted
all the offices of the State. Then, turning again to his cowardly
boyards, he reminded them of the deeds of their ancestors, of Mircea,
Vlad, and Michael, and denounced them as women, puppets, worse than
eunuchs. Several he ordered into exile; while others, stung with shame
by his taunts, mounted and followed him to victory.

This is the story of how Nicholas Mavrojeni is said to have ennobled his
horses; but, if the reader wishes to hear how, after disputing every
yard of ground with the invaders, he was rewarded by the Porte with an
ignominious death, we must refer him to the pages of the historian.

[Footnote 159: Vaillant, at vol. ii, pp. 219-220 and 224-226, gives some
interesting details of receipts and expenditure. In one place (p. 225)
he gives a list of 'presents paid by the principality of Moldavia.' The
amounts arc stated in piastres, which he says were then worth 2 fr. 50
c. One item is 'secret presents at Constantinople 250,000 piastres,'
whereas the tribute was only 65,000! The list appears to include the
whole expenses of the prince and princess and some military and State
expenditure, the total being 1,162,267 piastres, or, according to
Vaillant, about 116,200_l._, an enormous sum in those days (1769).]

[Footnote 160: In Vaillant's list referred to, the charge for the
dresses of the princess is put down at 22,908 piastres, or 2,290_l._,
against 36,000 piastres, or 3,600_l._, the entire expenses of the
palace. The list shows that the prince kept many Turkish soldiers,
musicians, &c., in his service, and had borrowed large sums in
Constantinople before acquiring the hospodarship, as there is an item of
68,620 piastres for interest thereon.]

[Footnote 161: This phase in the Phanariote rule still rests as a blight
upon Roumanian society, and the causes of the laxity of the marriage tie
and of divorces are to a large extent the same as formerly. Young men of
the upper classes who have been nurtured in affluence find themselves
unable to indulge in the luxuries to which they have been accustomed
upon their limited incomes. They therefore frequently marry women who
are much older than themselves, but are possessed of large pecuniary
means. Neither cares for the other; they go their own ways, with the
usual unfortunate results. If the reader refers to the statistics of the
country, he will find that in 1880 there were 3,891 divorce causes set
down for trial, and that the number of divorces legally granted or
judged for the six years previously varied from 760 to 929 annually.]

[Footnote 162: Zallony tells us that amongst the modern Greek families
the Mavrocordatos and Mavrojeni originally came from the Isle of Miconos
(Archipelago); Ghika is of Albanian origin; Racovica and Manolvoda, Asia
Minor; Ypsilanti and Morousy, Trebizonde; Soutzo, Bulgaria; Caragia,
Ragusa Canzerli, Constantinople, &c.]

VI.

Nothing can be more dreary and wearisome than to wade through an account
of the wars between Russia and the Sublime Porte from the accession of
the Phanariote rulers down to the Crimean campaign of 1853-6, and yet,
for any but Roumanian readers, the history of the country contains
little else of interest during that period. There are two aspects of
these struggles, however, which devastated the unfortunate
Principalities almost as much as the incursions of the barbarians, that
are well worthy of our consideration. The first is the tenacity and
perseverance with which the Czars, one after the other, sought to
tighten their grasp upon the Principalities, with ultimate aims upon
Constantinople; the second, the occasional efforts which were made by a
few patriots, backed up not so much by the boyards as by the common
people, to relieve the country from foreign domination, whether
Mussulman, Russian, or Austrian--for the last-named nation also sought
to gain a foothold in the land.

Let us briefly review the leading events of the period referred to, and
consider their bearing upon Roumania of to-day. After the unsuccessful
campaign of Peter the Great in which the voivodes, Cantemir and
Brancovano, were enlisted on the side of the Russians, the latter made
no serious attempt to interfere with the government of the
Principalities until about the year 1735, when, under the Empress Anne,
and in alliance with the German Emperor Charles VI., they endeavoured to
expel the Turks, and partially succeeded in doing so. After two
campaigns, however, the allies were ingloriously defeated at Belgrade;
and by the treaty of that name (1739 A.D.) they were not only
compelled to restore all their conquests, but even to relinquish some of
the territory of which the Porte had been deprived in the seventeenth
century. The hospodars who ruled at that time in Wallachia and Moldavia
were Constantine Mavrocordato and Gregory Ghika.[163]

About twenty-five years later the Russians returned to the charge under
Catherine IV., and this time with better success. Their operations
extended over about six years, and the war commenced in 1768 by an act
of hostility on the part of the Sultan, provoked by a Russian
propaganda. In 1769-70 the Muscovites overran Moldavia and Wallachia;
the former, it is said by some, with the connivance of the reigning
prince, Constantine Mavrocordato III.; and, having defeated the Turks in
several pitched battles, and even penetrated into Bulgaria, they
actually ruled in the country until 1774 A.D., and introduced
many useful reforms. Then, however, owing to the interference of Maria
Theresa, Empress of Germany, who, as Queen of Hungary, herself claimed
rights of suzerainty over Wallachia, and largely also in consequence of
the passive resistance of the Porte, the Czarina agreed to the Treaty of
Kainardji, by which, under conditions favourable to the Principalities,
they were once more restored to the Porte. Amongst the conditions were a
complete amnesty; the restitution of lands and goods to their rightful
owners; freedom of worship for Christians, and liberty to build or
restore places of worship; the privilege of sending two _charges
d'affaires_ (one from each principality) to Constantinople; and the
right on the part of the Court of St. Petersburg to speak in favour of
the Principalities in cases of complaint, with the further provision
that such remonstrances should be treated with the respect due from one
friendly power to another.

In 1777 the Porte ceded Bucovine to Austria. The signature of the ruling
Hospodar of Moldavia, Gregory Ghika, was necessary to validate the
cession, but that patriotic 'Phanariote' refused to append it, whereupon
he was deposed and cruelly murdered by the creatures of the Porte. We
have already referred to his patriotism and its results.

In 1781-2, by an arrangement with the Porte, Catherine II. secured the
right to send consuls to Bucarest and Jassy, who were maintained and
served in great state at the cost and provision of the Principalities,
and were authorised to exercise a certain control over their public
income and expenditure for the protection of the inhabitants. This new
influence was secured by Russia through the complaints of the Roumanians
in regard to the rapacity of the Turkish rulers; through her growing
influence; and, last but not least, her threatening attitude on the
Turkish frontiers. In 1788 an alliance was again formed between Russia
and Austria, having for its object the dispossession of the Porte in the
Principalities. This was the occasion on which Nicholas Mavrojeni is
said to have ennobled his horses. He was afterwards defeated at Calafat,
and after several reverses the Porte was glad to conclude treaties of
peace, first with the Austrians and then (1792) with Russia at Jassy. By
this treaty the Russians gained territory and secured the promise from
the Porte of a more merciful government in Moldo-Wallachia, the
condition of which at that time is represented to have been desperate,
owing to the Phanariote exactions and the frequent change of hospodars.

Consequent upon the bitter complaints of the inhabitants the Russians
again interfered in 1802, forcing the Porte to extend the duration of
the rulership to seven years and to repress other abuses. About this
time the first English Consul was appointed. Vaillant refers to him as
'Sir Francis,' and charges the English Government with having sent him
to co-operate with Russia against Turkey.[164] A French diplomatist also
appeared at Bucarest, and, whatever part these representatives may have
played in the matter, it is certain that in 1806 another Russo-Turkish
war broke out. The Russians under General Michaelson overran the
Principalities, held possession of the country until 1812, and then only
restored it after the peace of Bucarest, by which the Russians gained
the whole of Bessarabia (the river Pruth being fixed as the boundary),
with the ports of Ismail, Khilia, and other places at the embouchure of
the Danube.

[Footnote 163: This is not the Gregory Ghika already referred to.
Members of the different families were distinguished by the affix I. II.
III. &c.]

[Footnote 164: Who this 'Sir Francis' was, we have not been able to
ascertain.]

VII.

Shortly after this time, the Hellenic regeneration, or the Hetaerie as it
was called, commenced in the south-east of Europe. This movement, which
liberated Greece from the Ottoman yoke, brought much misery but ultimate
gain to Roumania. In 1821 there reigned in Wallachia Alexander Soutzo
III., and in Moldavia Michael Soutzo III., two Phanariotes who, true to
their traditions, had pressed upon the people with their exactions until
they were ripe for a revolt. This took place in Wallachia under Theodor
(or, as he is sometimes called, Tudor) Vladimiresco, an ex-officer in
the Russian army (indeed, Russia is said to have fomented the Greek
revolt everywhere); whilst in Moldavia a Greek called Alexander
Ypsilanti joined with the reigning hospodar to drive the Turks out of
that principality. Vladimiresco soon succeeded in establishing himself
in Bucarest, where he ruled supreme for a short time, and whence he sent
representations to the Porte complaining of the conduct of the
Phanariotes, requiring their recall and the reinstatement of the native
hospodars, as well as a restitution of the rights of the people under
the old 'capitulations.' The reply to this was the entrance into
Wallachia of a considerable army under the Pasha of Silistria, whereupon
Vladimiresco withdrew towards the mountains and stationed himself at
Pitesti. Ypsilanti, meanwhile, had also approached Bucarest with his
forces, but was unable to come to an understanding with his companion in
revolt. When he heard of the withdrawal of Vladimiresco and the march of
the Turkish Pasha, he believed, or professed to believe, that the former
was about to betray him, and the scene of Basta and Michael was acted
over again. Ypsilanti sent one of his lieutenants with a strong escort
who decoyed Vladimiresco out of his tent by vain promises, carried him
off by force, and then murdered him with great barbarity.

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