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.]
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.
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.
'Roumanians, by the election of a foreigner as Prince of Roumania,
the votes of the Divan will become an accomplished fact.'
Let us add a few words concerning this proceeding. We have heard blame
attributed to the revolutionists, who, as already stated, comprised the
leading statesmen of the country, for using force in order to ensure
Couza's abdication, and so far as the mere legality of the document is
concerned, his signature, thus obtained, was of course valueless. But in
order to be able to form a correct opinion on the crisis and the acts of
the revolutionists, it would be necessary to understand not only the
character of the prince (which would alone have justified extreme
measures, if one half be true that has been written concerning him), but
also to estimate the effect of any delay that might have arisen from a
more pacific and deliberate course of action. The popular leaders had
not forgotten the lessons of 1848, and it was not likely they would be
so insensate as to give time for Russian or Turkish intrigues once more
to break down the barriers of their hardly-won liberties. That the
nation was satisfied is proved by the sequel. No one troubled himself
about Couza, who was allowed to withdraw from Roumania laden with the
spoils of his reign; and when afterwards the name of the present ruler
was placed before the people it was accepted with joy and acclamation.
But we have had another reason for dwelling at greater length than has
been customary with historians upon this incident in Roumanian annals.
It was to show the kind of example in morality, or rather immorality and
faithlessness, which was set by one of the princes of the country so
recently as fifteen or sixteen years since. Such conduct may be treated
with contempt in countries having a well-established and settled
constitution, but in a new-born nationality it could not fail to work
great mischief, which has not yet been fully remedied despite the
example of an unblemished Court.
[Footnote 169: As the event is comparatively recent, we have considered
it desirable to suppress two or three names of persons who may be still
living, and whose connection with the revolution is of no moment.]
[Footnote 170: That _would_ have been cowardly.--AUTHOR.]
[Footnote 171: One of his mistresses, who was with him.]