Introduction

Benjamin Rogaczewski
Dr. Philip Shashko
European Political Theory
When the Ottoman Empire established their own subjects to
December 5, 2011

govern the Danube Principalities, in what we consider modern day

Romania, it was impossible to know how much Turkish actions would
set into motion the progression towards Romanian independence. The
irony of this progression is fascinating when one considers the purpose
of the actions. The Ottoman Turks invaded the Danube Principalities
long before the established governing from these Turkish subjects.
However, the presence of the Austrian Hapsburgs in the west and the
Russian tsars in the east made it necessary for the Ottoman Turks to
keep their presence known within the Danube Principalities.
These Turkish subjects, referred to as Phanariotes due to their
origins within the Phenar district of Constantinople, came from elite
backgrounds with affluent Byzantine educations. It should also be said
that these Phanariotes were not all necessarily Greek. Although the
Phanariotes came from the Greek district of Constantinople, many of
these Phanariotes intermarried with Romanian families, and so local
Phanariotes were a definite possibility within the Danube Principalities.1
In order that the reader may understand this concept with ease, the

1 Vlad Georgescu, The Romanians, ed. Matei Calinescu, trans.

Alexandra Bley-Vroman (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press,
1991). P. 73.

author of this article has stressed ethnic origins for certain groups of
Phanariotes in order to discern Romanian Phanariotes from Greek
Phanariotes. This becomes important when considering the change of
Phanariot regime during the late 18th century.
Whether or not the decision to bring this affluent education to the
Danube Principalities was made by the Ottoman Turks is difficult to
discern. Several of the early Phanariotes encouraged education within
major cities such as Bucharest and Iasi. This encouragement also led to
the prominent use of both Latin and French within the Danube
Principalities.2 After the Ottoman Turks established Phanariot rule in the
Danube Principalities, documents were printed in both French and
Romanian Latin, allowing a connection with Western Europe.3
Modern historiography was not kind to the Phanariotes and for years
oppressive governing through taxation from the early Phanariotes
overshadowed these enhancements, along with isolation from Western
Europe enforced by the later Phanariotes. Unfortunately for the masses
of the Danube Principalities, the Phanariot reforms favored the elite
minority, who for the most part came from Phanariot families.
It was the nationalist historians of Romania, led by Nicolae Iorga,
who headed the movement for rehabilitation of the Phanariotes.4 This
2 Ibid., p. 67.
3 Ibid., p. 93.
4 Ibid., p. 73.

article is also a part of this rehabilitation movement, and as such,

examines the Phanariot influence toward the Romanian Revolution and
the subsequent nationalist movement within the late 19th and early
20th centuries.
The first part of this article will examine the Phanariot activity within
the Danube Principalities, along with their many reforms and faults.
The second part will view the Phanariot influence within the revolutions
of 1821 and 1848. Both of these revolutions were connected with
activity within the Danube Principalities and as such, were important to
the ideology within Romanian independence and spearheaded the
surge of nationalism in modern Romania. The third and final part will
analyze the nationalistic movement of Romania which broke into two
forms of nationalism: one that was backward, and focused upon a
nation composed of a certain race or ethnicity; the other based upon a
voluntary adherence to a commonwealth, or more plainly, a nation of
choice.5 The best examples of these forms of nationalism within
Romania come through Corneliu Codreanu, one of the most frightening
Romanian nationalists, and his ideologue rival, Nicolae Iorga, thought
to be one of the greatest political minds to come out of Romania. The
irony is not merely from the thought that both grew up in the same

5 Nicholas M. Nagy-Talavera, Nicolae Iorga: A Biography (Portland ,

Oregon: The Center for Romanian Studies, 1998). P. 27.

region of Romania, but because death was connected to both men

through their relation with the Romanian nationalism.

Part I

Before we can understand how the Phanariotes were established to

rule the Danube Principalities, we must first understand how the
Danube Principalities were governed before the Ottoman
establishment of the Phanariotes.
Before the Phanariot period, princes called boyars governed the
Danube Principalities. These boyars encouraged a prototype of
nationalism, promoting the use of Romanian through Latin characters,
the transition from Old Church Slavonic into Romanian Latin, and the
printing of Romanian historiographies.6 It would appear that during the
rule of the boyars, miniature enlightenment had taken place and
academies built within major cities were indeed impressive, but
eclipsed by other European academies.
As the intelligentsia of the Danube Principalities grew more numerous,
so too did the boyar ambition for power. Soon many of the boyars
sought after aid from Great Powers, such as Austria and Russia, in
order to solidify their rule, creating conflict amongst one another.
Nicolae Iorga states in his History of Roumania that
6 Georgescu, The Romanians. P. 67-69.

It was as if fate had wanted to indicate by a

line of blood that the end of the royal
absolutism of the indigenous princes [the
boyars] must also be the end of the Romanian
civilisation.7
According to Iorgas criticism of the moments prior to the Phanariot
period, the boyars fought amongst each other for power within the
Danube Principalities and so stunted the chances of a Romanian nation
within the 17th century. Instead, the Ottomans, realizing the chaotic
mess created by the boyars, replaced the Romanian princes with their
Phanariot subjects.
It should be understood that these early Phanariotes were
considered to be mostly Romanian Phanariotes since they had married
into Romanian families, thus distinguishing them from the later
Phanariotes who for the most part came from Greek families.
The other distinguishable characteristic for these early
Phanariotes was their numerous reforms within the Danube
Principalities. Many of these Phanariotes wished to rule as enlightened
despots in order to strengthen central power and ring the rebellious
boyars under Phanariot rule.8 These different reforms became
important to the Danube Principalities for a number of reasons, but
most essential was the affect of the reforms on Ottoman control within
7 Nicolae Iorga, A History of Roumania, trans. Joseph McCabe (New
York, New York: AMS Press, 1970). P. 178. (My italics)
8 Georgescu, The Romanians. P. 91-92.

the Principalities. The Ottomans seemed to trust their Romanian

Phanariotes immensely and so this allowed those within the
Principalities some political autonomy.9 Turks who had acquired
property within the Principalities were withdrawn from the country in
1756, and in 1775 the sultan formally denied Turks access to the
Principalities, with the exception of certain merchants.10 Essentially,
the Romanians had somewhat of a nation under Ottoman rule due to
Phanariot reforms.
Most of these reforms were of a fiscal nature. One of the most
famous Phanariotes, Konstantin Mavrocordat, established several of
these imperative fiscal reforms in order to improve taxation within the
Principalities. The sultan of the Ottoman Empire demanded a certain
amount of capital from the Phanariotes, often times seen as evidence
of excessive indulgency. Unfortunately, this statement would become
evidence against the Phanariotes, as proof of their greed. However, the
Phanariotes needed a reasonable strategy for taxation in order to gain
enough capital to appease their Ottoman masters in Constantinople.
Mavrocordat unified the taxes through a set tax that was collected four
times a year and abolished certain taxes, such as tax on cultivated
land and cattle, relieving the Principalities farmers of fewer taxes. 11 Of
9 Ibid., p. 80.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid., p. 93.

course, in order to abolish these taxes, Mavrocordat noticed that he

had to slightly replace these abolished taxes. With the influence from
other enlightened rulers, Mavrocordat decided to abolish serfdom
within the Principalities and increase the taxable population.12 Along
with these fiscal reforms, Mavrocordat also improved the rate of pay
amongst the high officials, granting them a salary, rather than a
percentage of taxes fines.13 This new rate of pay allowed the high
officials to be paid at a standard rate, rather than a fluctuating pay
from a percentage. However, these reforms did not last very long, and
seemed to have been abandoned by 1769.14 Fortunately for the
memory of Mavrocordat, these reforms were remembered to this very
day thanks to the rehabilitation of the Phanariotes.
Other important reforms within the Principalities were concerned
with the law codes of the land. A concerted effort was done through
the effort of the Phanariotes to compile law codes from their past
codes and from the Byzantine-Roman sources. Strangely enough, the
later Greek Phanariotes established the most prominent legal codes. 15
Perhaps the legal codes were meant to restrict those within the

12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid., p. 94.

Principalities from western ideas and limit the society under a relaxed
Romanian Phanariot regime.
The final Phanariot contribution to the Principalities was a
Hellenized education. Education within the national academies spread
the ideas of the Enlightenment and connected the Principalities with
Western Europe. Nevertheless, it was the Phanariotes who established
the rival Byzantine academies, focusing on Greek influences, and at
the same time allowing ideas of the Enlightenment to reach their
students.16 It was this rivalry of education within the Principalities that
encouraged the printing of a multitude of books pertaining to authors
such as Voltaire and Rousseau, and would lead the way to translations
of Alexander Pope and Jean Pierre de Florian.17
These advancements would not protect the Phanariots for long,
and so change could be felt throughout the Principalities. Peasants
became incensed from the Phanariot oppression and the enfeebled
boyars wished to regain their political power. Word began to spread of
revolution in France, and the Ottoman Empire feared revolution would
spread in the Principalities as well. Therefore, a change in the
Phanariot regime took place around 1774 when the Romanian
Phanariotes abdicated rule and were replaced by the Greek

16 Ibid., p. 112.
17 Ibid.

Phanariotes.18. With this change we begin to see the Phanariotes

enforce an even stronger restriction of western ideas within the
Principalities, in order to quell the thought of nationalism and
revolution. However, it was too late. The seeds of the national
awakening within Romania were planted by the boyars, and fertilized
through the reforms of the early Romanian Phanariotes. It is no
surprise that the age of revolutions would see the beginning struggle
for Romanian independence, and toll the knell for the Phanariot
regime.

Part II

During the period prior to the 1821 revolution in Romania, and the
Greek War of Independence, Phanariotes had begun to lose control of
the Principalities The French Revolution had come and gone, but its
ideas and influences spread throughout Europe. The Francophiles of
the Principalities saw fit to utilize these ideas for their own purposes in
order to light flames of nationalism once more. However, both the
boyars and Greek Phanariotes wished to use the French Revolution to
their own advantages. The boyars felt that enlisting the aid of France
would ensure the expulsion of the Greek Phanariotes, while on the
other hand, the Phanariotes cultivated good relations with France due
18 Ibid., p. 107.

10

to its relationship with the Ottomans.19 This would ensure their control
of the Phanariotes through the sultans good graces.
Of course there were some Phanariotes and boyars who joined
together along with the national movement of this period. Alexander
Ypsilantis came from a prominent Phanariot family, and his own father
had been a ruling Phanariot prince. Ypsilantis, however, held his
allegiance with Russia, where he had fought in the Tsars army.20 It was
this connection with Russia that caught the eye of the secret society
known as the Philiki Eteria, and so the society insisted that Ypsilantis
lead their society, along with the revolution they were planning. The
Philiki Eteria wished to free Greece from the oppressive hands of the
Ottoman Empire, and so through Ypsilantis promise of Russian aid, the
society planned to simultaneously begin two revolutions: one in the
Principalities and the other in Greece. The main idea was to liberate
the Balkans from Ottoman rule, unifying the Serbs, Bulgarians and
Romanians.21
Unfortunately, the peasants of the Principalities saw Ypsilatis and the
Philiki Eteria as a Greek organization and were not amused by the irony

19 Ibid., p. 99.
20 David Brewer, The Greek War of Independence (New York, New York:
The Overlook Press, 2001). P. 49.
21 Barbara Jelavich, Russia and the formation of the Roumanian
national state, 1821-1878 (New York, New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1984). P. 21.

11

that a Greek society aimed to liberate the Romanians from the Greek
Phanariotes.22 In order to guarantee the success of the revolution two
things were necessary: foreign aid and the support of the Romanian
peoples.
Luckily for Ypsilantis and the Philiki Eteria, several of the boyars
decided to join the Greek movement and they brought with them a
military boyar with similar connections with Russia. His name was
Tudor Vladimirescu, and he was given the task of gathering support
from the peasants. While Ypsilantis spoke to the peasants of Moldavia
about the oppression from the Ottoman Empire, Vladimirescu spoke to
the peasants of Wallachia about the despotism of the Phanariot
regime.23 Here are some of the heated words Vladimirescu spoke at
Pades
Brothers living in Wallachia, whatever your
nationality, no law prevents a man to meet evil
with evilHow long shall we suffer the dragons
that swallow us aliveNeither God nor the
sultan approves of such treatment of their
faithful. Therefore, brothers, come all of you
and deal out evil to bring evil to an end.24
From Vladimirescus speech, we can gather that his focus is not on the
Ottoman Empire, but rather on the Phanariot regime. As the months

22 Brewer, The Gr. Ind. P. 52.

23 Ibid., p. 55.
24 Jelavich, Rus. Rou. Nat. p. 23.

12

went by, both Vladimirescu and Ypsilantis continued to speak out

against the tyranny brought on by the Ottoman Empire and assured
the peasants that Russian aid was guaranteed for the revolutionary
movement within Romania.
However, several aspects within the revolutionary movement
began to collapse. Both Vladimirescu and Ypsilantis found problems
equally uncontrollable. Tsar Alexander I of Russia delegated at the
Congress of Laibach concerned with the revolutionary movements in
the Italian peninsula, and so was not politically ready to ally his power
to a similar revolutionary movement, seeing the hypocrisy of the
action.25 The Russian tsar denounced the revolution in Romania, along
with its champions: Ypsilantis and Vladimirescu. It would appear that
Russian aid was not going to be provided for the movement. When
Ottoman troops entered the Principalities, the Russian military stood at
the borders watching and waiting.
The peasant uprisings gathered by Vladimirescu grew out of control.
Property damage and violence traveled with the revolution, and the
Ottoman officials saw this as a definite threat. Although Vladimirescu
sent numerous messages to these Ottoman officials stating that the
violence was aimed at the Phanariot regime and not the Ottoman
Empire, the Ottomans still felt threatened enough to send troops

25 Ibid., p. 23-24.

13

towards Bucharest in Wallachia.26 With no Russian aid and a stronger

Ottoman military entering the Principalities, the revolution that began
with the Philiki Eteria collapsed quickly. Its champions soon collapsed
along with it. Vladimirescu was arrested by the Philiki Eteria and tried
as a traitor due to his communications with the Ottoman high officials.
The very people who only months had embraced him as a friend and
ally soon executed Vladimirescu. Ypsilantis, on the other hand, took his
army to fight the Turkish military that had entered the Principalities,
and was defeated at Dragasani.27 He too would die soon upon his
release from his Ottoman jailers.
The main question to ask is whether or not the revolution of 1821 was
a success. At a first glance it would seem that the revolution was
unsuccessful, and for the most part this would be true. The movement
did not accomplish what it had set out to do, but the aftermath of the
revolution would grant some drastic changes for Romania. The
Ottoman high officials would not allow another Greek revolution to take
place within their territories, and so these same officials found that
they could no longer trust the Phanariotes in power within Romania.
Therefore the Phanariote regime was removed from the Principalities
and power returned to the boyars.28 Many years later, after the Russo26 Ibid., p. 23.
27 Georgescu, The Romanians. P. 103.
28 Jelavich, Rus. Rou. Nat. p. 26.

14

Turkish War of 1828-29, the Russians and Turks agreed upon the Treaty
of Adrianople, which essentially replaced Ottoman rule within Romania
with the rule of the Russian Empire. Russias rule of Romania was
similar to that of the previous Ottoman rule, but allowed more
autonomy for Romania and granted Romania a constitution within the
Organic Statutes.29 These statutes changed many portions of Romanian
life, including a stimulation of the economy through free commerce
and a reform of the chaotic taxation introducing a single poll tax.30
However, the reader must be asking what this has to do with Phanariot
influence. The Phanariotes both influenced the vision of Romanian
nationalism through negative means and positive means. The early
Phanariotes provided enlightened examples of reformation within the
Principalities and introduced a Hellenized education, along with a
promotion of other arts as well. Granted these reforms of education
often times clashed with the national academies, it was the
modernization of education that the early Phanariotes brought to the
Principalities. These modernizations led to the progression continued
by the boyars during the change of Phanariot regime.
As for the negative means of influence, the reader shall look no
further than the regime of the later Greek Phanariotes. It is true that
taxation was a fault for the entirety of the Phanariot period, although
29 Georgescu, The Romanians. P. 105.
30 Ibid., p. 106.

15

the early Phanariotes should some resolve with taxation reforms.

However, it was the Greek Phanariotes who enforced a restriction of
western ideas stemming from the French Revolution, although the
boyars ruined any chance of restriction through their connections to
Western Europe. All of these aspects, both positive and negative
contributed to the different Romanian revolutions.
Although the aftermath of the revolution of 1821 signaled the
death of the Phanariot regime, these Phanariot families who had
married into Romanian families continued to influence the revolutions
with their presence and would contribute to the rise of Romanian
nationalism.
The next revolution would come in 1848, and its main purpose
would be similar to that of the situation in 1821. The new antagonist
was Russia and Romania wished to be free of it. Romanian intellectuals
who were raised in the Phanariot period, such as C. A. Rosetti and Ion
Ghica, both of which came from prominent Phanariot families, headed
the revolution of 1848. These individuals founded a secret society
called Fratia, a Romanian Philiki Eteria, which was meant to formulate
the strategies for the revolution of 1848.31 However, this revolution did
not hold for long since it failed in Moldavia, and only amassed about
30,000 people within Wallachia.32 When Ottoman and Russian military
31 Ibid., p. 142.
32 Ibid., p. 143.

16

became involved against the revolutionaries, the intellectuals of the

Fratia looked to negotiate with the Russians and Ottomans.
The aftermath of the revolution of 1848 was not nearly as impressive
as that of 1821, but a major event would make this revolution
incredibly important. This event was the Crimean War, which began in
1853 and ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1856. The belligerents of the
Crimean War were the Russian military force and allies against the
French Empire and its allies, which included Britain and the Ottoman
Empire. The end of the war ensured a Romanian monarch to reign over
Moldavia and Wallachia, and protection of the Great Powers of
Europe.33 Another aspect of this agreement was the removal of Russian
influence over Romanian politics within Moldavia and Wallachia.
Ultimately, this agreement meant a direct progression towards
Romanian unification and modern Romanian nationalism.
This same sense of nationalism broke into two factions within
20th century Romania, through a progression that was cultivated
through the Phanariot period, and leads us to our final examination:
Romanian nationalism.

Part III and Epilogue

33 Ibid., p. 144-145.

17

As is evident from the title of this article, an allusion is proper when

considering the Phanariot period and the progression to the Romanian
revolutions, and ultimately, Romanian nationalism. The primordial
myth of Prometheus is one that echoes through several cultures, but
certainly held the most meaning within the Greco-Roman world,
especially within the Hellenized Byzantine Empire. By utilizing this
myth, we can gain a better understanding of Phanariot influence.
For those who do not know the myth, Prometheus was a Titan
who stole fire from the gods, and gave it to mankind to use. For this
fatal sin, he was chained to a mountain and tortured for countless
years by Zeus, the king of the gods. However, mankind utilized the fire
for good and for evil. Man was able to heat their food and warm their
homes, but they were also able to create weaponry and incendiary
devices. Fire was a curse and a blessing for mankind.
When considering this myth with the Phanariot period, it is clear
that the Phanariot encompass our Prometheus. The reforms and
education are certainly the primordial fire, and how the Romanians use
these reforms leads to nationalism. To better understand this concept
of Romanian nationalism, we must first grasp the dangers of
nationalism.
It was Isaiah Berlin who stated that a proper nation-state should
be inspired by a patriotism not tainted by aggressive nationalism (itself

18

a symptom of a pathological condition induced by oppression). 34

Oppression was a definite aspect of the Phanariot period, and therefore
would certainly create what Berlin calls aggressive nationalism.
However, as Nicholas M. Nagy-Talavera stated in his biography of
Nicolae Iorga
Nationalism is often misunderstood because
there are two kinds. One is backward
nationalismdepended on race or hereditary.
The other nation, the progressive onewas
based on a voluntary adherence to a
commonwealth: a nation of choice.35
By this description of nationalism and the distinguishing characteristics
of its nature, modern Romanian history contains primary examples of
both nationalisms. These examples are found within the characters of
Nicolae Iorga and Corneliu Codreanu.
Nicolae Iorga was born within Moldavia, from Phanariot
ancestors, and raised amongst the intellectuals of Iasi. It was there
that Iorga found his calling within the philosophies of academia, and
soon was taught the ideals of the French Revolution. When the Great
War took place across Europe, Iorga spoke out promoting a defense of
France in the war, while the Romanian stance was that of a neutral
one. When Romania declared it would aid the Entente, Iorga wrote
34 Michael Rosen and Jonathan Wolff, , Political Thought, ed. Michael
Rosen and Jonathan Wolff (New York, New York: Oxford University Press,
Inc., 1999). P. 267.
35 Nicholas M. Nagy-Talavera, Nicolae Iorga: A Biography (Portland ,
Oregon: The Center for Romanian Studies, 1998). P. 27.

19

within his editorial Neamul Romanesc words of excitement and

revelation.
The hour has arrived for which we have waited
for more than two centuries, for which I have
lived my lifeWe demand the right of life for
ourselves!36
Nicolae Iorga spoke with the nationalistic fervor of a Romanian patriot,
seeking freedom for all Romanians. However, for years the study of
Romanian nationalism in history has coincided with anti-Semitism, and
so one becomes associated with the other. In this manner, modern
historians knew Iorga as an anti-Semite and so the view was eschewed
by this bias. An interesting defense of the opposite finds itself within
the author of Iorgas biography. Talavera is Jewish and comes from a
Sephardic ancestry.37 He also has nothing but praise for Iorgas
nationalism. It was quite unfortunate for the world that Iorga met his
death at the hands of the Iron Guard, a fanatical group founded by
Iorgas nationalistic rival, Corneliu Codreanu.
If Nicolae Iorga represented the nation of choice, Corneliu Codreanu
represented nation based on race or heredity. Born and raised in
Moldavia, Codreanu expressed anti-Semitism emphatically within his
writings. However, we find a similar fondness for Romanian action
within the Great War as that of Iorga, when Codreanu states how upset
36 Ibid., p. 185.
37 Ibid., p. 35.

20

he is that he cannot serve his nation due to his age.38 Codreanu read
editorials written by Iorga during his high school years, and so learned
of Iorgas nationalism through these writings.39 The main concept of
Codreanus sense of nationalism comes from his Nationalist Creed in
which he states, I believe in one tricolor surrounded by the rays of
National-Christian Romania.40 Through his religious fanaticism,
Codreanu created a nationalist group known as the Iron Guard, which
shared Codreanus radical sense of nationalism. When Nicolae Iorga
spoke out against the radical nature of the Iron Guard, it became
obvious that the monarchy had to deal with Codreanu and his Iron
Guard. Codreanu was arrested along with several others in November
of 1940 and killed near Jilava.41 Blaming Iorga for the death of their
Captain and spiritual leader, the Iron Guard kidnapped Iorga and
murdered him.
The pain of aggressive nationalism created a martyr for each school
of nationalism: one martyr a greater loss than the other.

38 Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, For My Legionaries (York, South Carolina:

Liberty Bell Publications, 1990). P. 5.
39 Ibid., p. 6-7.
40 Ibid., p. 16.
41 Ibid., p. 351.

21

In conclusion, it is evident that with the progression of Romanian

history from the Phanariot period to our own day, Phanariot influence
was present within the revolutions of Romania, and certainly aided in
the progression of Romanian nationalism through the works of Nicolae
Iorga and actions of Corneliu Codreanu.

Bibliography
Brewer, David. The Greek War of Independence . New York, New York:
The Overlook Press, 2001.
Codreanu, Corneliu Zelea. For My Legionaries. York, South Carolina:
Liberty Bell Publications, 1990.
Georgescu, Vlad. The Romanians. Edited by Matei Calinescu. Translated
by Alexandra Bley-Vroman. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University
Press, 1991.
Iorga, Nicolae. A History of Roumania. Translated by Joseph McCabe.
New York, New York: AMS Press, 1970.
. Byzantium after Byzantium. Translated by Laura Treptow. Oxford:
The Center for Romanian Studies, 2000.
Jelavich, Barbara. Russia and the formation of the Roumanian national
state, 1821-1878. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press,
1984.
Nagy-Talavera, Nicholas M. Nicolae Iorga: A Biography. Portland ,
Oregon: The Center for Romanian Studies, 1998.
Rosen, Michael, and Jonathan Wolff, . Political Thought. New York, New
York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1999.

22