Roumania Past and Present Part 15

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

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

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

[Footnote 143: Teutschlander, p. 201.]

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

CHAPTER XIII.

FROM THE DEATH OF MICHAEL THE BRAVE (A.D. 1601) TO THE DEPOSITION OF PRINCE COUZA (A.D. 1866).

Turkish exactions after Michael's fall--Transition from native to Greek Voivodes--Matthew Ba.s.sarab (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 Princ.i.p.alities--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--Ma.s.sacred 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--Enn.o.bles 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 Ja.s.sy--Amelioration of state of the Princ.i.p.alities, 1802--French and English consuls appointed--Russo-Turkish war and occupation--Treaty of Bucarest--Hetairia or Greek rising--Rebellion in the Princ.i.p.alities--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 Princ.i.p.alities--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 Princ.i.p.alities 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 cla.s.s, 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 circ.u.mstance 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 Ba.s.sarabs, 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 princ.i.p.alities, 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.

n.o.bility clearly gave immunity to crime--at least it mitigated the punishment; for 'neither n.o.bles 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 a.s.serting 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 Princ.i.p.alities as va.s.sal 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 a.s.sist 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 Ja.s.sy. A general ma.s.sacre 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, hara.s.sed 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 Princ.i.p.alities, 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 c.r.a.pe shawl from his breast and, throwing it over the shoulders of the prince, p.r.o.nounced 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 Ba.s.sarab and Constantine Preda.]

[Footnote 151: The following story is related of the conduct of the Russians whilst they were encamped before Ja.s.sy, 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 a.s.suming the t.i.tle of Prince Ba.s.saraba 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 a.s.sumed 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 Princ.i.p.alities, 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 ma.s.sacred, 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 Princ.i.p.alities, 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 princ.i.p.alities.[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 n.o.bles 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 aggrandis.e.m.e.nt.

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.