RUMANIA
226
RUMANIA
election of its princes, and independent domestic
administration. In spite of these treaties, a period
of bondage began for both hinds after the battle of
Mohacs, which had brought Turkey to the height of
its power. The Turks created a militar\- zone along
the Danube and the Dniester, estabUshed Turkish
garrisons in important places, and compelled the
princes to do personal homage to the sultan in Con-
stantinople ever>' three years, to bring (in addition to
the tribute) presents in'token of their submission, to
perform militarj- service, to maintain a troop of jani-
zaries in their retinue, and to give relatives as hos-
tages for their fidehty. The sultans finally arrogated
to themselves the riglit of appointing and removing at
will the vaivodes of both principalities; the princes
thus became mere blind tools of the Porte, were for the
most part engaged in harrj'ing each other, and in very
many instances fell by the hands of assassins. Tur-
key abused its power to appoint new princes at short
intervals; as the princes had usually to purchase the
recognition of the Porte with large sums of money,
they exacted from their subjects twice or three times
the amounts thus paid. The chief portions of these
extortion? were wrung from the peasants, who were re-
duced by the large landowners and the nobles (the
boj'ars) to the condition of serfs. The nobles also be-
came demoralized, and wasted their strength in
scheming to obtain the vaivodeship. Both principali-
ties, however, occasionallj' enjoyed a brief period of
prosperitv. Thus, Michael the Brave of Wallachia
(1.59.3-1601) succeeded in casting off the Turkish
yoke, defeating an army twenty times as numerous as
his own in 1595. In 1599 he occupied Translyvania
and in 1600 Moldavia, and thus formed an united
Rumanian Kingdom which, however, again collapsed
on his assassination in 1601. The reign of Matthias
Bassarab (1632-54) was also beneficient for Wallachia;
he protected his boundaries from the attacks of the
Turks on the Danube, restrained the previously inor-
dinate influence of the Greeks, founded in 1652 the
first Rumanian printing establishment, and had a code
of laws compiled after Greek and Slav models. His
example was imitated by Vasih Lupu, Vaivode of
Molda\'ia (1632-53), who in addition endeavoured by
the foundation of schools and charitable institutions
to promote the culture of the land. Thus, despite the
oppressive political conditions of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, became possible the existence
of a flouri.shing ecclesiastical literature and spiritual
lyrical poetry, which kept alive the national con-
sciousness of the people. At this period were laid
the enduring foundations of Rumanian culture. Of
great importance also was the circumstance that
the Old Slavonic language then began to be re-
place<l by the Rumanian both in public life and in
the Church.
When, towards the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Turkish pKjwer was broken by the victories of Austria, the in- fluence of Austria and Ru.ssia began to make itself felt in the affairs of the two Rumanian principalities. To rid themselves of the Turkish domination, the princes turned now to one power and now U) the other, but were deceived by both. To oppose these attempts the Porte ceasr^d Uj appoint native Rumanian nfibles to the vaivodeship as previou.sly, appointing Greeks — especially from the Panar district in Coiislantinople, who wf-re able U> offer larger sums for tlxir appoint- ment than the boyars; the princely dignity w:is thus in thf Ktrictfist sense of the word lea,s<Kl. Por the Rumanian lands thus began the gloomiest period of their history, the period of the Fanariots, which lasted from 1712 to 1H21. Foreign princes succeeded one another at thf shortost intervals, taking posses- sion of the country with a numerous retinue of warfls, relatives, and erediUjrs, anrl reducing it to greater and greater poverty. A great portion of the land waa pre-
sented to Greek monasteries, and much of its income
left the land and enriched Greek monasteries through-
out the East (especially Mount Athos). M(\niwhile
the Porte arbitrarily raised the tribute to many times
its former amount. Some Greek i)rinc(>s formed a
glorioas exception, and, by introducing reforms in fa-
vour of the peasants, rendered great services to both
countries; especially notable in this resjiect were
Nicholas and Constant ine Mavrocordatus in Walla-
chia and Gregorj^ Ghica in Moldavia. During the
Fanariot dominion Rumania was frequentlj' the scene
of the wars waged bj' Turkey against Austria or
against Russia. In 1718 the western portion fell to
Austria, but in 1739 it was recovered by Turkey.
After the Turco-Russian War of 1768-74 Russia
wished to occupy the Rumanian principalities; Aus-
tria opposed this and, in return for this s(>rvice, the
Porte ceded to Austria Upper Moldavia (the present
crownland of Bucovina). Moldavia had to bear the
co.st of the Russo-Turkish War of 1806-12, the eastern
portion of the countiy between the Pruth and the
Dniester (Bessarabia) being ceded by Turkey to
Russia. Of the Moldavia of Stephen the Great only
half now remained. When Vaivode Alexander Ypsi-
lanti, a Fanariot, utilized the princely office to pro-
mote the rebellion of the Greeks against the Turkish
rule, the Porte found itself compelled to cease ap-
pointing Greeks to the princety dignity, and to revert
to the old practice of naming Rumanians. Russia
now began to interest itseK in the principalities,
though only for interested reasons; by the Treaty of
Akerman it obtained that only boyars should be ap-
pointed princes. A new war having broken out be-
tween Russia and Turkey in connexion with the
Greek struggle for freedom, Russia occupied the two
principalities after the Peace of Adrianojjle (1828);
the Russian Count Kisselew, who governed the terri-
tories at the head of the Russian army of occupation,
regulated anew the administration and the political
organization of the countries. After the Russian oc-
cupation Russia appointed as princes for life, for
Moldavia Michael Sturdza (1834-49), and for Wal-
lachia Alexander Ghica (1834-43), who was suc-
ceeded by another favourite of the tsar, George
Bibescu.
The reforms introduced under the Russians subse- quently prepared the way for the gradual economic development of the territories. However, this im- provement benefited almost exclusively the boyars and the great landowners, while the jjeople remained in their former pitiable ('(jiulition. Tiie.se circum- stances, as well as the interference of Rus.sia in the domestic affairs of the principalities, the spread of patriotic and liberal ideas, the desire for national unity, the curtailment of the privileges of the boyars, and free institutions, finally led (owing to the example giA'en by the French Revolution of Fc'bruarj-) to an insurrection, which was successful only in Wallachia. On 21 June, 1848, George Bibescu was forced to abdi- cate, a new constitution was proclaimed, and a pro- visional government appointed. However, Russia and Turkey occupied the principalities in common, set aside the constitution, and restored the old condi- tions by the Convention of Balta-Limani (1 May, 1849) ; at the same time the election of princes for life and the national a,ssembly were abolished. Barbti StirbcuQ, Bibsecu's brother, was named Prince of Wal- lachia, and Gregory Alexander Prince of Mold.-ivia for a period of seven years. During the Crimean War both principalities were occupied first by Ru.ssia, and then (after 18.54) by .Austria. The Congress of Paris rearranged their relations, setting aside the Russian suzerainty and restoring that of Turkey. A commis- sion of the great powers which had been sent to the principalities having learned the wishes of the Ru- manian people, both were given autonomy to the ex- tent of their ancient treaty with Turkey and a consti-
I
