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

After the assassination of his rival, Ypsilanti, who claimed to
represent the movement for Greek regeneration, found himself face to
face with a well-organised Turkish army, whilst his own, consisting of
enthusiastic Greeks and volunteers from various countries, was inferior
in numbers and comparatively undisciplined. Holding discretion to be the
better part of valour, he retired before the enemy, who, however,
brought him to bay and offered him battle at Dragosani on the river
Oltu. Here enthusiasm and devotion to their cause inspired the 'sacred
battalion,' as the Greeks called themselves, with unwonted courage, and
at first the Turks were unable to resist their impetuous charge with
the bayonet. Ypsilanti was, however, no general, and, failing to profit
by the bravery of his troops, the advantage was lost; the Turks rallied,
a rout ensued, and Ypsilanti fled, leaving his lieutenants to resist for
a time and then to die gloriously in defence of their liberties. He
escaped across the Carpathians into Austria, was seized by order of the
Government, imprisoned in the fortress of Munkacs, and some writers say
he was afterwards executed.

VIII.

Two important results for Roumania resulted from the Greek rising. The
first was the termination of the Phanariote rule and the restoration of
the native princes, Gregory Ghika being appointed Prince of Wallachia,
and John Stourdza of Moldavia. The reason of this change was that the
Greek hospodars had made common cause with the insurgents; and we cannot
do better than close this eventful period in the history of the country
than by summarising the Phanariote rule in the words of Consul
Wilkinson, who says: 'From the period at which this system was
introduced to the beginning of the present century, being a space of
ninety years, Wallachia alone has passed through the hands of forty
different princes independently of the time when it was occupied by the
Russians from 1770 to 1774, by the Austrians and Russians from 1789 to
1792, and by the Russians again from 1806 to 1812.' 'Few of them died of
natural death, and the Turkish scimetar was perhaps frequently employed
with justice amongst them. In a political point of view, the short
reigns of most of these princes offer nothing of importance or interest
to deserve a place in history.'[165] From this brief judgment of one who
lived at the time of their extinction, our readers will see that we have
not dealt uncharitably with the _regime_ of the Phanariotes.

Another of the results of the Greek insurrection was the inevitable
Russo-Turkish war. Then followed the occupation of the country by the
Russians; what Carlyle might have called the hand-shaking of
incompatible tyrannies; and eventually the Peace of Adrianople, to which
city the Russian arms had penetrated (1829). The stipulations of that
treaty may be summed up in a few words. A large indemnity to Russia,
with continued occupation until it should be liquidated, and a Muscovite
protectorate of the Principalities; the suzerainty and an annual tribute
for the Porte, and complete autonomy with the appointment of life-long
hospodars for the Principalities. By a subsequent ukase known as the
'Reglement Organique,' the Court of St. Petersburg further expressed its
wishes in regard to the internal government of the Principalities; and
this document having been confirmed by the Porte after great
procrastination, the Russian forces were withdrawn from the
Principalities in 1834, and two princes of the houses of Stourdza and
Ghika were again appointed hospodars.

[Footnote 165: P. 44.]

IX.

We have said that two phases in the history of this period are
interesting to the historian--the gradual encroachments of Russia on the
one hand, and on the other the patriotic efforts of the nationalists to
secure independence. With the Greek rising of 1821-2, and the prospect
of complete liberty, a new spirit was awakened, which took the form
first of a national intellectual regeneration, and then of what proved
to be an unsuccessful struggle for independence. With both these
movements the name of John Heliad Radulesco (known in history as Heliade
or Eliad) is inseparably connected as _litterateur_ and patriot. His
name first appears conspicuously about the year 1826, when, in
conjunction with Constantine Golesco, a returned exile and friend of the
unfortunate Vladimiresco, and with the concurrence and support of the
reigning hospodar, Gregory Ghika, he endeavoured to revive the national
language, which had been displaced by Greek in consequence of the
long-continued Phanariote rule. He was himself a poet of no mean order,
and by his national songs he stirred the hearts of the people. But
poetry did not absorb his whole attention. An able man of science, for
that day, he himself imparted instruction in geography, logic, and
mathematics, in the colleges of which he promoted the
establishment.[166] Of these one was founded on the remains of an
ancient convent at St. Sava, the other at Craiova, and concurrently with
this effort, to promote collegiate education primary and normal schools
were also established. But the march of enlightenment did not end here;
national journals and a national theatre were included in the scheme of
the patriots. The hospodars, too, performed their share of the general
advancement. They founded hospitals, promoted agriculture, welcomed back
those who had emigrated before the scourge of war, and sought by every
means in their power to give security to the national industry.

But the unfortunate geographical position of the Principalities, which
made them the battle-field of the two contending powers of the Orient,
still militated against the complete liberation of Roumania, and her
efforts at regeneration were watched with jealousy by both her powerful
semi-barbarous neighbours. The period soon arrived, however, when, for a
time at least, the intrigues of emperors, sultans, and courts were
unavailing, and when crowns were at a decided discount--the great
European convulsion of 1848. Then, when the French monarchy fell and the
rulers of other European States fled from their dominions into a more or
less abiding exile, the awakening of nationalities extended to
Moldo-Wallachia, and caused a patriotic rising far more hopeful and for
a time more successful than the revolt of 1821; and the Principalities
would no doubt have been permanently freed from foreign domination had
not disunion amongst the national leaders once more prevented such a
desirable issue. In the year of revolution, Nicholas I. being the Czar,
and Abdul Medjid (the 'Sick Man') Sultan, simultaneous risings took
place in the Principalities. The one in Moldavia was headed by a number
of leading boyards, who at first contented themselves with petitioning
for the restoration of their liberties. They were seized by order of the
hospodar, Michael Stourdza, and sent into confinement, but most of them
escaped and returned to reorganise the revolt. In the same year,
however, as we shall hear presently, the Russians invaded the
principality, entered Jassy, and quelled the revolution.

In Wallachia the rising assumed more serious proportions. It was led by
Heliad and the brothers Golesco, George Maghiero, a Greek by descent,
Tell, Chapka, a priest, and by three young men, two of whom will
hereafter be spoken of in connection with the Roumania, of
to-day--Demetrius and John Bratiano and C. Rosetti. Although all these
men were united in the desire to liberate their fatherland from the
heavy burdens with which it was oppressed, they disagreed as to the best
mode of proceeding. Long experience had taught them that between the two
fires of St. Petersburg and Constantinople there was little hope of
escape, and some leaned to the former, others to the latter power,
whilst the younger men, the Bratianos and Rosetti, looked anxiously to
Western Europe and its advanced civilisation for succour. The hospodar
Bibesco soon yielded before the storm, and fled to Kronstadt in
Transylvania. A provisional government was formed, dissolved, and formed
again.[167] Great assemblages of the people took place at Bucarest;
proclamations were issued and oaths administered and taken; but the
whole thing eventually resolved itself into a 'Princely Lieutenancy,'
under the suzerainty of the Porte. This was at first recognised by the
Turkish general, Suleiman Pasha, who along with Omar Pasha had entered
Wallachia with Turkish armies; for it suited the policy of the Porte to
look favourably upon a rising which was chiefly directed against Russian
influence in the Principalities. But the Muscovite Cabinet was not
easily outwitted. Nicholas witnessed the rising with equal satisfaction,
for it justified a new intervention in the affairs of Moldo-Wallachia.
He issued a proclamation, calling the revolution the work of a turbulent
minority whose ideas of government were plagiarised from the socialistic
and democratic propaganda of Europe. This proclamation was followed by a
march of the Russians into the disturbed provinces as 'liberators.' The
nationalist leaders were glad to escape to France, Omar Pasha having
occupied and plundered Bucarest on the Russian approach, and a
convention--that of Balta-Liman--was entered into between Russia and
Turkey, which deprived the Principalities of all their electoral rights,
substituted a divan, or council of ministers, and reserved to the two
contracting powers the nomination of hospodars. Russia, however, managed
to get the lion's share even in this negotiation, for, contrary to the
understanding, she succeeded in appointing both hospodars, Stirbei in
Wallachia, and Alexander Ghika in Moldavia, thus largely increasing her
influence in both Principalities.

[Footnote 166: Neigebaur (pp. 327 et seq.) gives a long list of
important works published in the Principalities up to his time (1854),
and amongst them will be found a large number either composed or
published by Heliad on various subjects in theology, philology, grammar,
history, mathematics, and medicine, besides original poems,
translations, and dramas.]

[Footnote 167: Regnault says (p. 437): 'Twice in three weeks the
provisional government had fallen, first through an audacious _coup de
main_, then through a spontaneous act of weakness. Twice the people had
reinstated it, setting a resolute example for the conduct of their
leaders. It is worth noting that this nation, new to political life of
which the birth is manifested by courage and wisdom, retired before its
leaders when they triumphed, raised them when they fell, giving
alternate evidences of energy and moderation.']

X.

Much has been said here, and a great deal more in the works of those
French writers who were unfriendly towards Russia, concerning her
intrigues and encroachments in the Principalities, but it is only fair
to admit that her interference invariably resulted in the ameliorating
of their condition. This the French writers sometimes grudgingly admit,
and the facts of history clearly prove. In nearly every instance Russian
interference meant relief to the peasantry and enforced moderation in
the rulers. In 1710, when Cantemir III. of Moldavia sought the aid of
Peter the Great, it was 'to put an end to the spoliations of the Porte.'
In 1769 Constantine Mavrocordato entered into secret relations with
Catherine II., and after the Russian invasion the Porte was compelled by
the Treaty of Kainardji to grant autonomy to the Principalities, and to
diminish its exactions; in 1802, through Russian remonstrances, abuses
were suppressed and the evil-doers punished. In 1812 the chicanery of
the rulers and the exactions of the Porte had brought the people to the
brink of starvation; the Russians interfered, and put a limit to the
demands of the Porte; but after their departure, we are told, the
current value of agricultural produce again fell so low that it was
impossible for the cultivator to live, and this circumstance, along with
the renewed exactions of the rulers and officials, once more brought
ruin upon the peasantry. In 1820 Wilkinson, who, it must be remembered,
was Consul at Bucarest, and who was far from being enamoured of Russia,
says: 'During my residence in the Principalities several instances have
occurred within my observation of very active exertion on the part of
Russia to keep the accustomed system of extortion in restraint, and to
relieve the inhabitants from oppression, and such exertion has certainly
on many occasions prevented the condition of the inhabitants from
becoming worse.'[168]

But that the ultimate design of Russia was to secure and incorporate the
Principalities as part of her general scheme of aggression, there can be
no doubt in the mind of anyone who has followed her operations previous
to the Crimean campaign. That and subsequent events may be said to
belong to contemporary history; but we must briefly refer to such
incidents of the war as affected the Danubian Principalities and laid
the foundation of Roumanian freedom. The Emperor Nicholas had picked a
wolf-and-lamb quarrel with the Porte, of which the ostensible ground was
the protection of subjects professing the Greek Catholic faith in the
'holy places;' and little expecting, perhaps little caring, that he
would arouse the jealousy of France and England, he had sent an
ultimatum to the Porte, demanding the right of intervention in
conformity with the Treaty of Kainardji, threatening the invasion and
occupation of the Danubian Principalities in default of immediate
acquiescence. Not having received the satisfaction he required, he
ordered General Gortschakoff to cross the Pruth and to take possession
of and hold the Principalities. This was done in the month of July 1853.
In September the Turkish Commander-in-Chief on the Danube demanded an
immediate evacuation of those territories, and, failing compliance, war
was declared. For some time the Russians, fearing the enmity of Austria,
which had massed troops on the Wallachian frontier, remained on the
defensive, but in October Omar Pasha assumed the aggressive, sending a
small force across the Danube at Vidin, and it was thought that the
straggle between the contending forces would take place in 'Lesser
Wallachia.' Omar Pasha, however, either intended this as a feint, or
changed his plan, for he soon afterwards occupied strong positions on
the Danube at Turtukai and Oltenitza, between Silistria and Rustchuk,
and was there attacked by a Russian force, which he succeeded in
repulsing. No results followed this encounter; the Russians retreated
towards Bucarest, and the Turks fell back across the Danube into
Bulgaria.

In February 1854 the French and English Governments sent an ultimatum to
Russia, requiring her to evacuate the Principalities, and in March they
declared war against her. In June Austria followed suit, so far as
demanding the evacuation of Moldo-Wallachia, and received permission
from the Porte to drive the Russians out of the Principalities, and
occupy them with her troops. She, however, contented herself during the
continuance of the war with accumulating forces on her frontiers, and no
doubt it was this threatening attitude which at length compelled Russia
to evacuate them. Meanwhile active hostilities were proceeding between
Omar Pasha and Gortschakoff. In the early part of 1854, the Russians
having met with a reverse at Cetate, near Calafat, the Russian army was
ordered to invade Turkey, and, having succeeded in crossing into the
Dobrudscha at Galatz, Braila, and Ismail, it was deemed necessary to
capture Silistria as a strategic post, in order to ensure the safety of
the advancing army. In May 1854 the Russians attacked that fortress
unsuccessfully, and after they had attempted to storm it four times, the
Turks (in June) assumed the offensive, and made a sally, during which
one of the Russian generals was slain. In the same month Nicholas,
finding himself threatened by the Western allies in the Black Sea, and
fearing to make an open enemy of Austria, whose forces were constantly
increasing on her frontier, gave orders for raising the siege of
Silistria, and subsequently for the entire withdrawal of his troops from
the Principalities. This was not, however, effected until July, nor
before the Russians had sustained another defeat from the Turks at
Giurgevo.

Then it was that the army was completely withdrawn, the Turkish vanguard
entered Bucarest, and, says one of the historians of the war, 'the
Wallachian nobles celebrated a Te Deum in the metropolitan church to
commemorate the restoration of Turkish supremacy--the same boyards who,
in 1829, kissed the hands of the Russians who had freed them from the
Turkish yoke.'

As for the hospodars. Stirbei of Wallachia, and Alexander Ghika of
Moldavia, they had retired for safety to Vienna shortly after the
outbreak of hostilities, and remained there until September, when the
Austrians occupied the country with the approval of the Porte. They then
returned for a short period, but Stirbei again abdicated permanently a
month afterwards. The Roumanians wore compelled by the Russians to serve
in their armies as long as they occupied the country, but a Turkish
amnesty relieved them from the consequences of this procedure.

The military operations of the contending Powers external to the
Principalities have an interest for us only in their results. After the
termination of the Crimean campaign, when Russia was compelled to sue
for peace, the Treaty of Paris was concluded, and it contained
stipulations of vital consequence to Moldo-Wallachia.

These stipulations may be summarised as follows:--The neutralisation of
the navigation of the Danube, which was placed under the control of a
European Commission; the cession by Russia to Turkey (and thus to
Moldavia) of a portion of Bessarabia at the embouchure of the Danube;
and the re-organisation, on an entirely autonomic basis, but still under
the suzerainty of the Porte, of the Danubian Principalities. In the year
1857, before the deliberations of the European Powers had given
permanent effect to the stipulations of the Treaty of Paris, a movement
was actively proceeding in both Principalities, the object of which was
to effect their union under one governing head.

The exiles of 1848, who had fled to Paris, and there endeavoured by
their published works to keep alive the spirit of independence in
Roumania, now returned to their native country and renewed an active
agitation at home. Amongst those who then and thereafter strove for the
liberties of their country were John Bratiano, C.A. Rosetti, two members
of the family of Ghika, Demetrius Stourdza, John Cantacuzene, and other
laymen, and Golesco and others of the military profession. These so far
attained their end that, after a great deal of idle intervention on the
part of Turkey and the other European Powers, most of whom were
intriguing for their own hands rather than for the welfare of the
Principalities, they succeeded in obtaining from a conference of the
Powers at Paris, in 1858, a kind of agreement, which, whilst it insisted
upon the retention in each Principality of a separate prince or
hospodar, gave to each an elective parliament, and admitted of a partial
fusion, under a kind of central commission, for the 'united
Principalities.' This was a species of compromise which was no doubt
satisfactory to the guaranteeing Powers, with their conflicting
interests, but was not at all to the taste of the young nation
struggling for union and independence. By a clever and perfectly
justifiable manoeuvre the people of Moldavia and Wallachia proceeded to
supplement the deliberations and decisions of the Powers, by each
choosing the same ruler, Captain John Couza, and, in spite of
protestations from the Porte, which refused to recognise this as a
lawful proceeding, Couza, under the title of Alexander John I., mounted
the united throne as _Prince of Roumania_. In 1861, chiefly in
consequence of the recommendation of the guaranteeing Powers, the Porte
assented to the union.

[Footnote 168: P. 183.]

XI.

Prince Couza was born at Galatz in 1820. He was of an old boyard family,
and was educated at Jassy, Athens, and Paris. In 1845 he married Helena,
the daughter of another boyard, Rosetti, and subsequently held high
offices in the State. His princess was a patriotic lady who founded and
supported many charitable institutions, amongst others the orphan asylum
known as the Asyle Helene, of which we have already spoken; and had her
husband recognised her virtues, and remembered his own obligations to
her; he would probably have still sat upon the throne of Roumania. For
there is no doubt that during the earlier part of his reign, which
lasted from 1859 to 1866, he enjoyed the cordial support of all parties
in the State; but he soon endeavoured to render himself absolute, and in
1864 he effected a _coup d'etat_, very similar to the one which has
recently been perpetrated by the Prince of Bulgaria, in all probability
under the same tutelage. In his case, however, the nation refused to
submit to such an arbitrary proceeding, and although it succeeded for a
time, that, coupled with his avarice, gross immorality, and general
misgovernment, led to his ultimate downfall. In 1864 the monasteries
were secularised, that is to say, they were claimed as State property, a
proceeding which was sanctioned by the guaranteeing Powers against
payment of an indemnity. In 1865 a complete reform took place in the
relations between the landed proprietors and the peasantry, who were
freed from feudal obligations and became part owners of the soil. Of
this reform we have already spoken at length. As we have said, however,
the personal actions of the Prince, who enriched himself at the expense
of a still suffering country, sought by every means in his power to
obtain absolute rule, and led an openly immoral life, against which his
advisers protested and warned him in vain, led to what some have called
a conspiracy, but which was an uprising of all the leading
representatives of the people, lay and military, who united to drive him
from the throne.

The so-called abdication, but really the deposition, of Prince Couza, as
it was narrated at the time, was effected as follows. The conspiracy
being ripe, on February 11 [23], 1866, a sufficiently strong body of
military, acting under the orders of General Golesco and others,
surrounded the palace in which the Prince was lodged, and a number of
officers then forced their way inside. On entering the palace they
proceeded to the room of the Prince, arresting on their way thither M.
L----[169] and two officers of the body-guard. Before they forced the
door the Prince, it seems, had a presentiment of some danger, and cried
from within, 'Don't enter, for I shall fire.' Before the sentence was
finished, however, the door was burst open, and he saw before him the
conspirators with revolvers in their hands. He was cowardly enough (says
the narrative) not to fire once. It is possible that if he had known
that they had an order not to fire, whatever might happen, he would have
killed one or other of them.[170] Or, perhaps, the presence of Madame
----[171] prevented him from offering resistance, for she was there
undressed.

'What do you want?' he asked, trembling.

'We have brought your Highness's abdication,' said Captain C----. 'Will
you sign it?'

'I have neither pen nor ink,' he answered.

'We thought of that,' said one of the conspirators.

'I have no table.'

'For this once, I offer myself as such,' said Captain P----.

Having no alternative, the Prince then signed the following act of
abdication, as it lay on the shoulders of the stooping officer who had
condescended to serve as a desk for the occasion.

'We, Alexander, according to the will of the whole nation, and the oath
we took on ascending the throne, this day, February 11 [23], 1866, lay
down the reins of government and relegate the same to a princely
_locum-tenens_ and to the ministry chosen by the people.

(Signed) 'ALEXANDER JOHN.'

'This has been my wish for a long time,' said the Prince after having
signed; 'but circumstances not dependent upon myself have caused me to
postpone. Spite of all this, I was willing to do it in May.'

* * * * *

After he had signed the act of abdication the conspirators made him
dress, and led him to a carriage where Ch----, in the dress of a
coachman, received him and drove him to the house of M. Ciocarlanu.
Madame ----, on the other hand, was taken home to her own house after
she had habited herself. Immediately after Couza's arrest the bells rang
out a merry peal, a band of music struck up before the theatre, and
masses of people collected before the palace where the Provisional
Government had installed itself, and shortly afterwards issued the
following proclamation:--

'Roumanians,

During seven years you have shown Europe what can be effected by
patriotism and civic virtue. Unhappily you were mistaken in your
selection of the prince whom you called to lead the nation. Anarchy
and corruption, violation of the laws, squandering of the national
finances, degradation of the country at home and abroad, these have
characterised the conduct of this culpable Government. Roumanians,
the princely _locum-tenens_ will maintain the constitutional
government in its integrity. It will uphold public order, and
remove personal ambition from the altar of the Fatherland.

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