Chapter 17

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