Transcriber's note:
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
Small capital text has been replaced with all capitals.
Minor typographical and punctuation errors have been corrected
without note. Irregularities and inconsistencies in the text have
been retained as printed.
* * * * *
REMINISCENCES OF THE
KING OF ROUMANIA
[Illustration:
_F. Mándy Bucharest._ _Art Repro Co. London._
Carol]
REMINISCENCES OF THE
KING OF ROUMANIA
EDITED FROM THE ORIGINAL WITH
AN INTRODUCTION BY
SIDNEY WHITMAN
WITH PORTRAIT
_AUTHORIZED EDITION_
NEW YORK AND LONDON
HARPER & BROTHERS
1899
CONTENTS
PAGE.
INTRODUCTION vii
I. THE PRINCIPALITIES OF MOLDAVIA AND WALLACHIA 1
II. THE SUMMONS TO THE THRONE 11
III. STORM AND STRESS 32
IV. MARRIAGE AND HOME LIFE 83
V. FINANCIAL TROUBLES 129
VI. THE JEWISH QUESTION 143
VII. PEACEFUL DEVELOPMENT 155
VIII. THREATENING CLOUDS 218
IX. THE ARMY 250
X. THE WAR WITH TURKEY 265
XI. THE BERLIN CONGRESS AND AFTER 311
EPILOGUE 355
INTRODUCTION
Volk und Knecht und Ueberwinder,
Sie gestehn zu jeder Zeit;
Höchstes Glück der Erdenkinder
Sey nur die Persönlichkeit.
GOETHE (_West-Oestlicher Divan_).
It is said to have been a chance occasion which gave the first
impetus towards the compilation of the German original[1] from which
these "Reminiscences of the King of Roumania have been re-edited and
abridged." One day an enterprising man of letters applied to one
who had followed the King's career for years with vivid interest:
"The public of a country extending from the Alps to the ocean is
eager to know something about Roumania and her Hohenzollern ruler."
The King, without whose consent little or nothing could have been
done, thought the matter over carefully; in fact, he weighed it in
his mind for several years before coming to a final decision. At
first his natural antipathy to being talked about--even in praise
(to criticism he had ever been indifferent)--made him reluctant
to provide printed matter for public comment. On the other hand,
he had long been most anxious that Roumania should attract more
public attention than the world had hitherto bestowed on her. In
an age of universal trade competition and self-advertisement, for
a country to be talked about possibly meant attracting capitalists
and opening up markets: things which might add materially to her
prosperity. With such possibilities in view, the King's own personal
taste or scruples were of secondary moment to him. So the idea
first suggested by a stranger gradually took shape in his mind, and
with it the desire to see placed before his own subjects a truthful
record of what had been achieved in Roumania in his own time. By
these means he hoped to give his people an instructive synopsis of
the difficulties which had been successfully overcome in the task of
creating practical institutions out of chaos.
[1] "Aus dem Leben König Karls von Rumänien. Aufzeichnungen eines
Augenzeugen." Stuttgart: Verlag der J. G. Cotta'schen Buchhandlung.
As so often happens in such cases, the work grew beyond the limits
originally entertained. But the task was no easy one, and involved
the labour of several years. However, the result achieved is well
worth the trouble, for it is an historical document of exceptional
political interest, containing, among other material, important
letters from Prince Bismarck, the Emperor William, the Emperor
Frederick, the Czar of Russia, Queen Victoria, and Napoleon III.
It is, in fact, a piece of work which a politician must consult
unless he is to remain in the dark concerning much of moment in the
political history of our time, and particularly in the history of
the Eastern Question. "The Reminiscences of the King of Roumania"
constitute an important page in the story of European progress. Nor
is this all. They also contain a study in self-revelation which, so
far as it belongs to a regal character, is absolutely unique in its
completeness--even in an age so rich in sensational memoirs as our
own.
The subject-matter deals with a period of over twenty-five years
in the life of a young European nation, in the course of which she
gained her independence and strove successfully to retain it, whilst
more than trebling her resources in peaceful work. In this eventful
period greater changes have taken place in the balance of power in
Europe than in many preceding centuries. A republic has replaced
a monarchy in France, and also on the other side of the Atlantic,
in Brazil, since the days when a young captain of a Prussian
guard regiment, a scion of the House of Hohenzollern, set himself
single-handed the Sisyphean task of establishing a constitutional
representative monarchy on a soil where hitherto periodical
conspiracies and revolts had run riot luxuriously. Just here,
however, our democratic age has witnessed the realisation of the
problem treated by Macchiavelli in "Il Principe"--the self-education
of a prince.
To-day, the man who thirty-three years ago came down the Danube as
a perfect stranger--practically alone, without tried councillors or
adherents--is to all intents and purposes the omnipotent ruler of a
country which owes its independence and present position entirely
to his statesmanship. Nor can there be much doubt that but for him
Roumania and the Lower Danube might be now little more than a name
to the rest of Europe--as, indeed, they were in the past.
II
King Charles of Roumania is the second son of the late Prince
Charles Anthony[2] of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen: the elder South
German Roman Catholic branch of the House of Hohenzollern, of
which the German Emperor is the chief. Until the year 1849 the
Hohenzollern-Sigmaringens, whose dominions are situated between
Württemberg and Baden, near the spot where the Danube rises in the
Black Forest, possessed full sovereign rights as the head of one of
the independent principalities of the German Confederation. These
sovereign rights of his own and his descendants Prince Charles
Anthony formally and voluntarily ceded to Prussia on December 7,
1849. Of him we are credibly informed:
"Prince Charles Anthony lives in the history of the German people
as a man of liberal thought and high character, who of his own
free will gave up his sovereign prerogative for the sake of the
cause of German Unity. His memory is green in the hearts of his
children as the ideal of a father, who--for all his strictness and
discipline--was not feared, but ever loved and honoured, by his
family. He was always the best friend and adviser of his grown-up
sons." His letters to his son Charles, which are frequently quoted
in the present memoir, fully bear out this testimony to the Prince's
intimate, almost ideal, relationship with his children, as also to
the magnanimity with which he is universally credited.
[2] This Prince always wrote his name Karl Anton, as a double name:
hence the retention here.
Of the King's mother--Princess Josephine of Baden--we learn:
"Princess Josephine was deeply religious without being in the least
bigoted. Her unselfishness earned for her the love and devotion of
all those who knew her. As a wife and a mother her life was one of
exceptional harmony and happiness. The great deference which King
Charles has always shown to the other sex has its source in the
veneration which he felt for his mother."
Prince Charles was born on April 20, 1839, at the ancestral
castle of the Hohenzollerns at Sigmaringen on the Danube, then
ruled over by his grandfather, the reigning Prince Charles of
Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. The castle was not in those days the
treasury of art and history which it is at the present day. The
grandfatherly _régime_ was of a patriarchal, almost despotic kind:
every detail of household affairs was regulated with a view to
strict economy. Though, perhaps, unpleasant at times, all this
proved to be invaluable training for the young Prince, whose
ultimate destiny it was to rule over one of the most extravagant
peoples in Europe. Punctuality was strictly enforced: at nine
o'clock the old Prince wound up his watch as a sign that the day
was over, and at ten darkness and silence reigned supreme over the
household.
Prince Charles was a delicate child, and was considered so
throughout his early manhood, though in reality his health and
bodily powers left little to be desired. The first happy years of
his childhood were passed at Sigmaringen and the summer residences
of Inzigkofen and Krauchenwies. This peaceful life was broken by
a visit in 1846 to his maternal grandmother, the Grand Duchess
Stéphanie of Baden. On this occasion Prince Charles attracted the
attention and interest of Mme. Hortense Cornu, the intimate friend
and confidant of Prince Louis Napoleon--later Napoleon III.
It cannot be said that the young Prince progressed very rapidly in
his studies; but though he learned slowly, his memory proved most
retentive. His naturally independent and strong character, moreover,
prevented him from adopting outside opinions too readily, and this
trait he retained in after years. For though as King of Roumania he
is ever willing to listen to the opinion of others, the decision
invariably remains in his own hands.
An exciting period supervened for the little South German
Principality with the year 1848, when the revolutionary wave forced
the old Prince to abdicate in favour of his son Prince Charles
Anthony. Owing to the action of a "Committee of Public Safety,"
the Hohenzollern family quitted Sigmaringen on September 27. This
the children used to call the "first flight" in contradistinction
to the "second," some seven months later. Though Prince Charles
Anthony succeeded in gaining the upper hand over the revolutionary
movement of '48, the trouble commenced again in 1849 owing to
the insurrection in the Grand Duchy of Baden. As soon as order
had been completely restored, Prince Charles Anthony carried out
his long-cherished plan of transferring the sovereignty of the
Hohenzollern Principality to the King of Prussia, and in a farewell
speech he declared his sole reason to be "the desire to promote
the unity, greatness, and power of the German people." The family
settled first at Neisse in Prussian Silesia, then at Düsseldorf,
as Prince Charles Anthony was appointed to the command of the
Fourteenth Military Division, while Prince Charles Anthony, and
later on also his brother Friedrich, were settled with their tutor
in Dresden, where Prince Charles spent seven years.
Before joining his parents at Düsseldorf, Prince Charles
successfully passed his ensign's examination, though he was entitled
as a Prince of the House of Hohenzollern to claim his commission
without submitting to this test. As a reward for his success he was
permitted to make a tour through Switzerland and Upper Italy before
being placed under his previously appointed military governor,
Captain von Hagens. This officer was a man in every way fitted to
instruct and prepare the young Prince for his career by developing
his powers of initiative and independence of action. In accordance
with his expressed wish, he was gazetted Second Lieutenant in the
Prussian Artillery of the Guard, but was not required to join his
corps until his studies were completed. A thorough knowledge of the
practical part of his profession was acquired at the fortress of
Jülich, followed, after a visit to the celebrated Krupp Works at
Essen, by a course of instruction at Berlin.
The betrothal of his sister, Princess Stéphanie, to King Pedro V.
of Portugal, in the autumn of 1857, was followed by her marriage by
proxy at Berlin on April 29, 1858, whilst another important family
event occurred in November of the same year. William, Prince of
Prussia (afterwards King William I., who had assumed the regency
during the illness of his brother the King, Frederick William IV.),
appointed Prince Charles Anthony, of Hohenzollern, to the Presidency
of the Prussian Ministry. His son Charles developed the greatest
interest in politics, and at that time unconsciously acquired a fund
of diplomatic knowledge and experience which was to stand him in
good stead in his future career.
In the midst of the gaieties of Berlin the Prince was deeply
affected by the melancholy news of the death of his sister Stéphanie
on July 17, 1859. Two years later the marriage of his brother
Leopold to the Infanta Antoinette of Portugal afforded him a welcome
opportunity of visiting the last resting-place of his dearly loved
sister near Lisbon. On his return from his journey, Prince Charles
requested to be transferred to an Hussar Regiment, as the artillery
did not appear at that time to take that place in public estimation
to which it was entitled. This application, however, was postponed
until his return from a long tour through the South of France,
Algiers, Gibraltar, Spain, and Paris. After a short stay at the
University of Bonn, Prince Charles again resumed military duty as
First Lieutenant in the Second Dragoon Guards stationed at Berlin,
where he speedily regained the position he had formerly held in
the society of the capital. The Royal Family, especially the Crown
Prince, welcomed their South German relative most warmly, and the
friendship thus created was subsequently more than equal to the test
of time and separation.
A second visit to the Imperial Court of France in 1863, this time
at the invitation of Napoleon III., was intended by the latter
to culminate in a betrothal to a Princess of his House, but the
project fell through, as the proposed conditions did not find
favour with the King of Prussia. Prince Charles was forced to
content himself with the consolation offered by King William, that
he would soon forget the fair lady amidst the scenes of war (in
Denmark). As orderly officer to his friend the Crown Prince of
Prussia, Prince Charles took part in the siege and assault of the
Düppel entrenchments, the capture of Fridericia, and the invasion
of Jütland. The experience he gained of war and camp-life during
this period was of inestimable benefit to the young soldier, who was
afterwards called upon to achieve the independence of Roumania on
the battlefields of Bulgaria.
The war of 1864 having come to an end, Prince Charles returned to
the somewhat dreary monotony of garrison life in Berlin. This not
unnaturally soon gave rise to a feeling of _ennui_ and a consequent
longing on his part for more absorbing work than that of mere
subordinate military routine. Nothing then indicated, however, that
in a short time he would step from such comparative obscurity to the
wide field of European politics by the acceptance of a hazardous,
though pre-eminently honourable, position of the utmost importance
in Eastern Europe--the throne of the United Principalities of
Wallachia and Moldavia, which, thanks to his untiring exertions and
devotion to duty, are now known as the Kingdom of Roumania.
III
In starting on his adventurous, not to say perilous, experiment,
Prince Charles already possessed plenty of valuable capital to draw
upon. In the first place, few princes to whose lot it has fallen to
sway the destinies of a nation have received an early training so
well adapted to their future vocation, or have been so auspiciously
endowed by nature with qualities which in this instance may fairly
be said to have been directly inherited from his parents. His early
and most impressionable years had been passed in the bosom of an
ideally happy and plain-living family, and this in itself was one
of the strongest of guarantees for harmonious development and for
future happiness in life. Both his father and mother had earnestly
striven to instil into their children the difference between the
outward aspect and the true inwardness of things--the very essence
of training for princes no less than for those of humbler rank. Also
we find the following significant reference to the Prince and his
feelings on the threshold of his career:
"The stiff and antiquated 'Junker' spirit which in those days
was so prevalent in Prussia and Berlin, and more particularly at
the Prussian Court, was most repugnant to him. His nature was
too simple, too genuine, for him to take kindly to this hollow
assumption, this clinging to old-fashioned empty formula. His
training had been too truly aristocratic for him not to be deeply
imbued with simplicity and spontaneity in all his impulses. His
instincts taught him to value the inwardness of things above their
outward appearance."
Nor was it long before he had ample opportunity of putting
these precepts into practice. Neither as Prince nor as King
has the Sovereign of Roumania ever permitted prosecution for
personal attacks upon himself. The crime of _lèse majesté_ has
no existence--or, to say the least, is in permanent abeyance--in
Roumania.
Anti-dynastic newspapers have for years persisted in their attacks
upon the King, his policy, and his person--sometimes in the most
audacious manner. Although his Ministers have from time to time
strenuously urged his Majesty to authorise the prosecution of these
offenders, he has never consented to this course. He even refused to
prosecute those who attacked his consort, holding that the Queen is
part of himself, and, like himself, must be above taking notice of
insults, and must bear the penalty of being misunderstood, or even
calumniated, and trust confidently to the unerring justice of time
for vindication.
The King's equable temperament has enabled him to take an even
higher flight. For let us not forget that it is possible to be
lenient, even forgiving, in the face of calumny, and yet to suffer
agonies of torture in the task of repressing our wounded feelings.
King Charles is said to have read many scurrilous pamphlets and
papers directed against him and his dynasty--for singularly
atrocious examples have been ready to his hand--and to have been
able sometimes even to discover a fund of humour in the more
fantastic perversions of truth which they contained.
Speaking of one of the most outrageous personal attacks ever
perpetrated upon him, he is reported to have said that such things
could not touch or affect him--that he stood beyond their reach.
Here the words employed by Goethe regarding his deceased friend
Schiller might well be applied:
Und hinter ihm im wesenlosen Scheine
Lag, was uns Alle bändigt: das Gemeine.
His absolute indifference towards calumny is doubtless due to his
conviction that time will do him justice--that a ruler must take his
own course, and that the final estimate is always that of posterity.
IV
One who for years has lived in close contact with the Roumanian
royal family gives the following sympathetic and yet obviously
sincere description of the personal impression the King creates:
"King Charles had attained his fiftieth year when I saw him for
the first time. There is, perhaps, no other stage of life at which
a man is so truly his full self as just this particular age. The
physical development of a man of fifty is long completed, whereas
on the other hand he has not yet suffered any diminution of
strength or elasticity. His spiritual individuality is also ripe
and complete, in so far as any full, deep nature can ever be said
to have completed its development. It is only consonant with that
true nobility which precludes every effect borrowed or based on
calculation, that the first impression the King makes upon the
stranger is not a striking one: he is too distinguished to attract
attention; too genuine to create an effect for the eye of the many.
An artist might admire the handsome features; but the King lacks
the tall figure, the impressive mien which is the attribute of the
hero of romance, and which excites the enthusiasm of the crowd. On
the other hand, his slender figure of medium height is elegant and
well knit; his gait is energetic and graceful. His sea-blue eyes,
which lie deep beneath strong black eyebrows--meeting right across
his aquiline nose--now and then take a restless roving expression.
They are those of an eagle, a trite comparison which has often been
made before. Moreover, their keenness and their great reach of sight
justifies an affinity with the king of birds."
It is not generally known--but it is true, nevertheless--that the
King of Roumania is half French by descent. His grandmother on his
father's side was a Princess Murat, and his maternal grandmother,
as already mentioned, was a French lady well known to history as
Stéphanie Beauharnais, the adopted daughter of the first Napoleon,
and later, by her marriage, Princess Stéphanie of Baden. It is to
this combination in his ancestry that people have been wont to
ascribe some of the marked characteristics of the King. His personal
appearance--notably the fine clear-cut profile--undoubtedly recalls
the typical features of the old French nobility. Also the slight,
symmetrical, and graceful figure is rather French Beauharnais than
German Hohenzollern. His gift for repartee--_l'esprit du moment_,
as it is so aptly styled--is decidedly French; and perhaps not less
so his sanguine temperament, which has stood him in such good stead,
and encouraged him not to lose heart in the midst of his greatest
troubles, particularly years ago, when his subjects did not know
and value him as they do now. An abnormal capacity for work and an
absolute indifference towards every form of material enjoyment--or
gratification of the senses--have also singularly fitted him for
what posterity will probably deem to have been King Charles's most
striking vocation: that of the politician. And his success as a
politician is all the more remarkable, since his youthful training
as well as his early tastes were almost exclusively those of the
Prussian soldier. He even lacked the study of law and bureaucratic
administration, which are commonly held to be the necessary
groundwork of a political career. Yet not an atom of German
dreaminess is to be detected in him; nor aught of roughness: little
of the insensible hardness of iron; but rather something of the
fine temper of steel--the elasticity of a well-forged blade--which,
though it will show the slightest breath of damp, and bend at times,
yet flies back rigid to the straight line. Thus I am assured is
King Charles as a politician--not to be swayed or tampered with by
influences of any kind, the sober moderation of an independent
judgment has, in fact, never deserted him. It is also owing to a
felicitous temperament that he has always been able to encounter
opposition--even bitter enmity--without feeling its effect in a way
common to average mankind.
He had to begin by acquiring the difficult art of "taking people,"
and this--as the King himself admits--he only acquired gradually.
However, he possessed an inborn genius for the business of ruler.
By nature he is a practical realist whose insatiable appetite for
facts, _faits politiques_, crowds out most other interests. So he
quickly profited by experience, which, added to an independence of
judgment which he always possessed, has made him an opportunist
whose opportunity always means the welfare of his country. In
dealing with public questions he endeavours to start with the
Gladstonian open mind: _i.e._, by having no fixed opinion of his
own. He listens to all--forms his own opinion in doing so--and
invariably finishes by impressing and influencing others. He even
indirectly manipulates public opinion by constantly seeing and
conversing with a vast number of people. For in Roumania there is
no class favouritism so far as access to the monarch is concerned.
Anybody may be presented at Court, and on any Sunday afternoon all
are at liberty to call and see the King even without the formality
of an audience paper to fix an appointment.
Personal favouritism has never existed under him. In fact, so
thoroughly has he realised and carried into practice what he
considers to be his duty of personal impartiality, that he once
vouchsafed the following justification of an apparent harshness:
that a ruler must take up one and drop another as the interests of
the country require. In other words, he must not allow personal
feeling to sway him--whereas in private life he should never forsake
a friend. And yet withal King Charles is anxiously intent upon
avoiding personal responsibility--not from timidity, but from an
idea that it is irreconcilable with the dignity of a constitutional
king to put himself forward in this way. Thus not "Le Roi le veut,"
but rather "I hold it to be in the public interest that such and
such a thing should be done" is his habitual form of speech in
council with his Ministers.
One of the King's favourite aphorisms is singularly suggestive in
our talkative age: "It is not so much by what a prince _does_ as
by what he _says_ that he makes enemies!" Like all men of true
genius--or what the Germans call "geniale Naturen"--King Charles is
of simple, unaffected nature;[3] without a taint of the histrionic
in his composition, yet gifted with great reserve force of
self-repression, and rare powers of discernment and well-balanced
judgment.
[3] Lord Macaulay cites the Earl of Chatham in the following words
as the exception to this invariable rule, thus: "He was an almost
solitary instance of a man of real genius, and of brave, lofty, and
commanding spirit, without simplicity of character."--(William Pitt,
Earl of Chatham.) Macaulay's "Critical and Historical Essays."
With all the pride of a Hohenzoller, a sentiment which he never
relinquishes, and which, indeed, is a constant spur to regulate
his conduct by a high standard, he yet holds that nobody should
let a servant do for him what he can do for himself. Also, he has
ever felt an unaffected liking for people of humble station who
lead useful lives, and have raised themselves _honestly_ by their
own merit. In fact, the man who works--however lowly his sphere of
life--is nearer to his sympathies than one whose position gives him
an excuse for laziness. He instinctively dislikes the "loafer,"
whatever his birth. He admits as little that exalted position is
an excuse for a useless life as that it should be put forward to
excuse deviation from the principles of traditional morality. And
in this respect his own life, which has been singularly marked by
what the German language terms "Sittenreinheit," "purity of morals,"
offers an impressive justification for his intolerance upon this one
particular point.
V
It is said to be King Charles's earnest conviction that the maxims
he has striven to put into practice are the only possible ones
upon which a monarchy on a democratic basis can hope to exist in
our time. But here he is obviously attempting to award to principle
what, in this instance at least, must be largely due to the
intuitive gifts of an extraordinary personality. Maxims are all very
well so far as they go, but they did not go the whole length of the
way. Did not even Immanuel Kant himself admit that, during a long
experience as a tutor, he had never been able to put those precepts
successfully into practice upon which his work on "Pädagogik" is
founded? Also many of the difficulties successfully encountered
by the King of Roumania have been of such a nature as cut-and-dry
application of precepts or maxims would never have sufficed to
vanquish. Among these may be cited the acute crises which from time
to time have been the product of bitter party-warfare in Roumania.
Thus, during the Franco-German War, when the sympathies of the
Roumanian people were with the French to a man, his position was
one of extreme difficulty. The spiteful enmity he encountered in
those days taxed his endurance to its utmost limits, and even called
forth a threat of abdication. A weaker man would have left his
post. Again, in 1888, when a peasant rising brought about by party
intrigues seemed to threaten the results of many years' labour,
even experienced statesmen hinted that the Hohenzollern dynasty
might not last another six months. The King was advised to use
force and fire upon the rioters. This he declined to do. He simply
dismissed the Ministry from office, and called the Opposition into
power, and subsequent events proved that his decision was the right
one. But by far the greatest crisis of his reign, and at the same
time the greatest test of his nerve and political sagacity, was
furnished by the singularly difficult situation of Roumania during
the Russo-Turkish War of 1877: here, indeed, the very existence of
Roumania was at stake. The situation may be read between the lines
in the present volume.
The King, by virtue of a convention, had allowed the Russians to
march through Roumania, but the latter had declined an acceptable
alliance which the Roumanians wished for. When things in Bulgaria
went badly with the Russians, they wanted to call upon some bodies
of Roumanian troops which were stationed on the banks of the Danube.
The King, or, as he was then, Prince Charles, with the instinct
of the soldier--and in this case, moreover, of the far-sighted
politician--was burning to let Roumania take her share in the
struggle. But he was determined that she should only enter the
fray--if at all--as an independent belligerent power. So he held
back--and held back again, risking the grave danger which might
accrue to Roumania, and above all to himself, from ultimate Russian
resentment. In the meantime, the Russians were defeated in the
battles round Plevna; still he held back; not with a point-blank
refusal, but with a dilatory evasiveness which drove the Russians
nearly frantic. For, during those terrible months of July and August
1877, in which their soldiers were dying like flies, they could see
the whole Roumanian army standing ready mobilised, but motionless,
a few hours away to the north, on the Danube--immovable in the face
of all Muscovite appeals for assistance. At last the Russians were
obliged to accept Prince Charles's conditions, to agree to allow
him the independent command of all Roumanian troops, and to place
a large corps of Russian troops besides under his orders. Then,
indeed, the former Prussian lieutenant started within twenty-four
hours, after playing the Russians at their own game for four months,
and beating them at it to boot. Had Russia refused his demands, not
a single Roumanian would have entered upon that struggle in the
subsequent course of which their Sovereign covered himself with
renown. It was no part of his business as the ruler of Roumania
to seek military glory _per se_, although the instinct for such
was strong within the Hohenzoller. Also on the 11th September, the
battle of Grivitza--which was fought against his advice--saw him
at his post, and sixteen thousand Russians and Roumanians[4] were
killed and wounded under his command, probably a greater number
slain in open battle in one day than England has lost in all her
wars since the Crimea! Surely there was something of the heroic
here; and yet it could hardly weigh as an achievement when compared
with those Fabian tactics which preceded it, and the execution of
which, until the psychological moment came, called for nerves of
steel. Hardly ever has _la politique dilatoire_--of which Prince
Bismarck was such a master in his dealings with Benedetti--had an
apter exponent than King Charles on this eventful occasion. And its
results, although afterwards curtailed by the decision of the Berlin
Congress, secured the independence of Roumania and its creation as a
kingdom.
[4] The Roumanians alone lost 2659 killed and wounded on that day.
VI
King Charles is peculiarly German in his passionate love of nature.
At Sinaja--his summer residence--he looks after his trees with the
same solicitude which filled his great countryman, Prince Bismarck.
He spends his holidays by preference amid romantic scenery--at
Abbazia, on the blue Adriatic, or in Switzerland. He visits Ragatz
nearly every year, and thoroughly enjoys his stay among the bluff
Swiss burghers. It is impossible for him to conceal his identity
there; but he does his best to avoid the dreaded royalty-hunting
tourist of certain nationalities, and finds an endless fund
of amusement in the rough politeness of the inhabitants, with
their customary greeting: "_Herr König, beehren Sie uns bald
wieder_"--"Mr. King, pray honour us again with your visit."
He also loves to roam at will unknown among the venerable buildings
of towns, such as Vienna and Munich, to look at the picture and art
galleries, and gather ideas of the way to obtain for his own people
some of those treasures of culture which he admires in the great
centres of civilisation. He has even, at great personal sacrifice,
collected quite a respectable gallery of pictures at Bucharest and
Sinaja.
If I have dwelt somewhat at length upon the King's personal
characteristics and his political methods, it has been in order to
assist the reader to appreciate what kind of man he is, and so the
more readily to understand cause and effect in estimating how the
apparently impossible grew into an accomplished fact. This seemed
to be all the more necessary as the "Reminiscences" themselves--far
more of a diary than a "Life"--are conceived in a spirit of rarely
dispassionate impartiality. The letters, in particular, addressed
to the King by his father--whilst they afford us a sympathetic
insight into a charming relationship between father and son--do
credit to the fearless spirit of the latter in publishing them; and
the frankness with which the most painful situations are placed on
record can scarcely fail to elicit the sympathy and respect of the
reader. In fact, the book contains passages which it would trouble
the self-love of many a man to publish. This it is, however, which
stamps it with the invaluable hall-mark of veracity, whilst, at
the same time, it leaves the reader full liberty to form his own
judgment.
SIDNEY WHITMAN.
REMINISCENCES OF THE KING OF ROUMANIA
CHAPTER I
THE PRINCIPALITIES OF MOLDAVIA AND WALLACHIA
After the conquest of the Balkan Peninsula by the Turks, who were
intent on extending the Ottoman Empire even to the north of the
Danube, there was little left for the Roumanian Principalities
of Moldavia and Wallachia, deserted and abandoned to their fate
by the neighbouring Christian States, except to make the best
possible terms with the victorious followers of the Crescent. Each
Principality, therefore, concluded separate conventions with the
Sublime Porte, by means of which they aimed at domestic independence
in return for the payment of tribute and military service. These
conventions or capitulations were not infrequently violated by the
Turks as well as by the Roumanian Hospodars or Princes. Though
the rulers of Bucharest and Jassy were appointed and dismissed
at the pleasure of the Grand Seignior, the very existence of the
Principalities was due solely to the provisions of the treaties
above mentioned, by virtue of which they escaped incorporation
in the Ottoman Empire; nor were the nobility of Moldavia and
Wallachia forced to follow the example of their equals in Bosnia
and Herzegovina in embracing Islam, in order to maintain their
power over the Christian population. Still the Principalities of
the Danube did not entirely escape the ruin and misery which befell
Bulgaria and Roumelia; but, since the forms and outward appearance
of administrative independence remained, it was yet possible that
the Roumanian patriot might develop his country socially and
politically without threatening the immediate interests of the
Turkish Empire south of the Danube.
Chief amongst the difficulties which beset the regeneration of
Roumania was the rule of the Phanariotes,[5] to whom the Porte
had practically handed over the territories of the Lower Danube.
The dignity of Hospodar[6] was confined to members of the great
Phanariot families, who oppressed and misruled the whole country,
whilst the Greek nobles in their train not only monopolised all
offices and dignities, but even poisoned the national spirit
by their corrupt system. Even to-day Roumania suffers from the
after-effects of Levantine misrule, which blunted the public
conscience and confused all moral conceptions.
[5] An oligarchy of Greek families in Turkey, from which a large
proportion of high stations in the Turkish administration were
filled.
[6] Hospodar: Old Slavonic term for Lord or Master applied to the
reigning Princes in Wallachia and Moldavia.
Since the end of the eighteenth century the Danubian Principalities
have attracted the unenviable notice of Russia, whose objective,
Constantinople, is covered by them. In less than a century, from
1768 to 1854, these unfortunate countries suffered no less than six
Russian occupations, and as many reconquests by the Turks. It speaks
highly for the national spirit of the Roumanians that they should
have borne the miseries entailed by these wars without relapsing
into abject callousness and apathy; and that, on the contrary, the
memory of their former national independence should have continued
to gather fresh life, and that their wish to shake off the yoke of
their bondage, be it Russian or Turkish, should have grown stronger
with the lapse of time. The Hospodars, appointed by the Russians,
were hindered in every way by the Turks in their task of awakening
the national spirit and preparing the way for the regeneration of
their enslaved people. Besides this, many of these Hospodars were
prejudiced against the introduction of reforms which could only
endanger their own interests and positions. They were, therefore,
far more disposed to seek the protection of foreign States than to
rely upon the innate strength of the people they governed. Such were
the causes that hindered the development of the moral and material
resources of the Roumanian nation.
The ideas from time to time conceived by the rulers of Russia
for the unification of the Principalities were based solely on
selfish aims and considerations. Thus, for instance, a letter dated
September 10, 1782, from Catherine II., who gave the Russian Empire
its present shape and direction, to the Emperor Joseph II., shows
clearly that the state then proposed, consisting of Wallachia,
Moldavia and Bessarabia, was to be merely a Russian outpost,
governed by a Russian nominee, against the Ottoman Empire. Even in
this century (1834) Russia would have been prepared to further the
unification of the Principalities, if only they and the other Great
Powers had declared themselves content to accept a ruler drawn from
the Imperial House of Russia, or some closely allied prince. As,
however, this was not the case, the Russian project was laid aside
in favour of a policy of suppressing the national spirit by means
of the Czars influence as protector. The Sublime Porte, on the
other hand, was straining every nerve to maintain the prevailing
state of affairs. And finally, Austria, the third neighbour of the
Principalities, hesitated between its desire to gain possession
of the mouths of the Danube by annexing Wallachia and Moldavia,
and its disinclination to increase the number of its Roumanian
subjects by four or five millions, and thereby to strengthen those
incompatible elements beyond the limits of prudence. At the same
time Austria looked upon the interior development of Roumania with
an even more unfavourable eye than Russia, and it seemed as though
Moldavia and Wallachia, in spite of the ever increasing desire
of their inhabitants for union and for the development of their
resources, so long restrained, were condemned to remain for ever in
their lamentable condition by the jealousy of their three powerful
neighbours.
At length came the February Revolution of 1848 in Paris, the effects
of which were felt even in far Roumania. An insurrection arose in
Moldavia: the Hospodar was forced to abdicate; and a Provisional
Government, the _Lieutenance Princière_,[7] was formed at Bucharest,
and proceeded to frame a constitution embodying the freedom of
the Press, the abolition of serfdom and all the privileges of the
nobility. The earlier state of affairs was, however, restored on
September 25 of the same year by the combined action of the Russians
and the Turks, with the result that the Principalities for a time
lost even the last remnants of their former independence, and the
power of the Hospodars was hedged in with such narrow restrictions
by the Treaty of Balta Liman (May 1, 1849) that they could undertake
no initiative without the sanction of the Russian and Turkish
commissaries, under whose control they were placed.
[7] The so-called _Lieutenance Princière_ was a kind of governorship
or regency which was formed after Prince Kusa's fall, and consisted
of the chiefs of all the recognised political parties.
The Crimean War brought with it emancipation from the Russian
protectorate, but although the situation was now improving, much
was still necessary before the Roumanians could regain their
domestic independence. A French protector had taken the place of
the Russian. The pressure, it is true, was by no means so severe,
nor was it felt so directly as formerly, yet the country perforce
suffered no inconsiderable damage, both moral and material, from the
half-voluntary, half-compulsory compliance with the wishes of the
French ruler. Napoleon wished to elevate Roumania, the "Latin sister
nation," into a French dependency, and thereby to make France the
decisive factor in the Oriental question. A willing tool was found
in the person of the new Hospodar of the now united Principalities,
and thenceforth everything was modelled upon French pattern.
An international Commission assembled in Bucharest in 1857, together
with a Divan convoked by an Imperial Firman for Moldavia and
Wallachia, to consider the question of the future position of the
Danubian Principalities. The deliberations of these two bodies,
however, resulted in nothing, as neither the Sublime Porte nor the
Great Powers were inclined to agree to the programme submitted
to them, the main features of which were: the union of the two
Principalities as a neutral, autonomous state under the hereditary
sovereignty of a prince of a European dynasty, and the introduction
of a constitution. A conference held at Paris, on the other hand,
decided that each Principality should elect a native Hospodar,
subject to the Sultan's confirmation.
The desire for national unity had, however, become so strong that
the newly elected legislative bodies of both countries rebelled
against the decision of the Great Powers, and elected Colonel
Alexander Kusa as their ruler in 1859. Personal union was thus
achieved, though the election of a foreign prince had, for the time
being, to be abandoned. Still Prince Kusa was required to pledge his
word to abdicate should an opportunity arrive for the closer union
of the two countries under the rule of a foreign prince.
Guided by the advice of the Great Powers, the Sultan confirmed the
election of Prince Kusa, but by means of _two_ Firmans, a diplomatic
sleight of hand, by which the _fait accompli_ of the irregular union
remained undisturbed, albeit unrecognised. Formal sanction to the
union was not conceded by the Sublime Porte until 1861. Prince Kusa,
whose private life was by no means above reproach, endeavoured to
fulfil in public the patriotic ambition of furthering his people's
progress. But Roumania at that period was not prepared for the
purely parliamentary form of government it had assumed, and the
well-meant reforms initiated by the Prince and the Chamber achieved
no immediate result. Prince Kusa, therefore, felt himself compelled
to abolish the Election Laws by a _coup d'état_, and to frame a
new one, which obtained the sanction of the Sublime Porte, and
eventually the approval of the majority of the nation.
The increased liberty of action gained by the Prince was utilised to
the full in formulating a series of necessary and excellent reforms;
he failed, however, to place the budget on a satisfactory footing,
and the finances remained in the same unfavourable condition as
before, whilst several of his measures were directly opposed to the
interests of certain factions and classes of the population. In
addition to these difficulties, scandals arose which were based only
too firmly upon the extremely lax life which Prince Kusa led, and a
conspiracy was formed for his overthrow which found a ready support
throughout the land. The Palace at Bucharest was surprised on the
night of February 22, 1866, by a band of armed men, who forced the
Prince to abdicate and quit the country. This accomplished, the
leaders of the various parties assembled and formed a Provisional
Government under the _Lieutenance Princière_, or regency, which
consisted of General N. Golesku, Colonel Haralambi and Lascar
Catargiu.
The Chamber at once proceeded to elect a new ruler, and their first
choice fell upon the Count of Flanders, the younger brother of
the King of Belgium. Napoleon III., however, who was then still
able to play the arbitrator in the affairs of Europe, hinted that
the Count would be better advised to decline the proffered crown.
The Emperor's wish was acceded to, and, although the Provisional
Government for a time appeared to persist in the election of the
Count of Flanders, Roumania was ultimately forced to look for a
candidate whose election would not be opposed by any of the Great
Powers.
The choice was difficult, if not impossible; for the Paris
Conference, which had reassembled in the meantime, had decided
against the union of the Principalities; and, unless Roumania could
attain its object semi-officially by the favour of the Great Powers,
the position was hopeless.
It was, indeed, a serious, not to say alarming, situation; for a
war between Prussia and Austria for the hegemony of Germany was
imminent, and threatened to lead to further complications in the
East. If the election were delayed until after the outbreak of
hostilities, one of the belligerent parties was certain to reject
the candidate whose election the other approved, whilst Russia
would take advantage of the interregnum to stir up the whole of
Roumania, especially Moldavia, against the union; for anything that
might tend to impede the Russian advance upon Constantinople could
not fail to evoke the most lively hostility in St. Petersburg. It
was, therefore, upon France and her Emperor that all the hopes of
the Roumanians reposed: with Napoleon on their side everything was
possible, without him nothing.
The leading Roumanian statesmen were well aware of the difficulties
in the way, and eventually fixed upon Prince Charles of Hohenzollern
as their candidate, for he was related to both the French and
Prussian dynasties, upon whose goodwill and support he might
confidently reckon. It was of the utmost importance, therefore, to
move him to accept their offer at once, and to obtain the sanction
of the nation by a _plébiscite_.