East

European

Quarterly

[24] Some authors, beginning with Josef Svatek, believed that Sporck introduced freemasonry to
Bohemia and that he founded in Prague in 1726 the first loge, "At three stars." Pckar in his review
of Bencdikt's monograph rejected Svatek's view. On the other hand, Josef Hanus who presented
Sporck as one of the pioneers of enlightened thought did not adopt such a negative position but recommended further searching for evidence. See Hanus' monumental study of the Czech renascence
and of the foundation of the National museum Narodni museum a nase obrozeni, vol. I, Prague
1921, p. 28.
{25] More about him in Jan KlcpPs article on the rise of Czech glass industry, "Rozmach ceskeho
skla" in a volume of studies Co daly nase zeme Evrope a lidstvu, vol. II, Prague 1940, pp.206-16.

East European Quarterly. Vol.VII, No. 1.

T H E ROMANIAN BOYARS IN T H E 18TH C E N T U R Y

THEIR

[26] Herman Freudenberger wrote a monograph on W's activities, The Waldstein Woolen Mill;
Noble Entrepreneurs/tip in

18th

Century Bohemia,

Boston,

Vlad Georgescu

1963.

[27] According to Ernest Denis, La Boheme . . . vol. I, p. 465, no less than 206 (out of some 500)
lords and 280 knights (out of 700) rendered homage to Charles Albrecht.
[28] At their head was Count Philip Kolovrat; among the members of the Bavarian party were
Count Rudolf Chotek, Count Herman Cernin, Count Francis V. Nostitz. See Denis-Vancura, Cechy
po Bile hore, vol. I, pp.440-1; the Czech version has more details than the French original.

POLITICAL IDEOLOGY*

Institutul

de

Studii

Sud-Est

Europene,

Bucharest

I t will n o t b e n e c e s s a r y h e r e t o try a n d p r e s e n t all a s p e c t s r e l a t e d t o t h e h i s t o r y

o f t h i s social c l a s s d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d 1 7 1 1 - 1 8 3 1 , y e a r s w h i c h r e p r e s e n t for
M o l d a v i a a n d W a l l a c h i a t h e m o s t logical l i m i t s o f t h e 1 8 t h c e n t u r y . S u c h a
lecture w o u l d b e t o o l o n g p a r t i c u l a r l y a s t h e p e r t i n e n t e c o n o m i c a n d social
p r o b l e m s h a v e b e e n t r e a t e d a n d m o r e o r less clarified i n s e v e r a l s e r i o u s a n d
interesting works.
We plan to limit o u r p a p e r to one single aspect, r a t h e r
n e g l e c t e d a l t h o u g h very i m p o r t a n t for t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e h i s t o r y , role a n d
m e n t a l i t y o f t h e b o y a r s a t t h e b e g i n n i g n o f m o d e r n R o m a n i a n h i s t o r y , t h a t is.
the political ideology o f t h e M o l d a v i a n a n d W a l l a c h i a n a r i s t o c r a t s , t h e i r i d e a s
o n s t a t e a n d society, t h e i r p o s i t i o n a n d r o l e i n a c h a n g i n g w o r l d .
Before discussing these p r o b l e m s it may be of interest to p r e s e n t some basic
d a t a o n t h e political a n d e c o n o m i c life o f 18th c e n t u r y R o m a n i a e s p e c i a l l y since
the historical b a c k g r o u n d was quite different from t h a t of t h e 17th century.
T h i s will also h e l p o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e i d e a s o f t h e p o l i t i c a l t h i n k e r s , o f t h e
answers they were giving to t h e n u m e r o u s q u e s t i o n s which confronted their
society.
F r o m t h e political standpoint, the new element was t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of the
P h a n a r i o t regime; from t h e economic, the new reality was t h e beginning of the
p r o c e s s o f d i s s o l u t i o n o f t h e f e u d a l p a t t e r n s a n d t h e rise o f c a p i t a l i s t i c o n e s .
T h e f a i l u r e o f D . C a n t e m i r ' s u p r i s i n g i n M o l d a v i a (1711) a n d o f C . B r a n c o v e a n u ' s a n d St. C a n t a c u z i n o ' s W e s t e r n o r i e n t e d foreign policy i n W a l l a c h i a
(1714, 1716) lead n o t only t o t h e r e p l a c e m e n t o f t h e n a t i v e p r i n c e s with
P h a n a r i o t s b u t also t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a n e w p o l i t i c a l r e g i m e o p p o s e d t o d i e
old p o l i t i c a l s t a t u s o f t h e P r i n c i p a l i t i e s . T h e b o y a r s w h o , a s i n a n y a r i s t o c r a t i c
state u s e d t o c h o o s e t h e p r i n c e s , a p p o i n t e d d i r e c t l y b y t h e S u l t a n , did not

* Paper presented at the Conference on the "Aristocracy in Eastern Europe in the Eighteenth
Century" held at the University n f P n l n r a H n i n M o r n h 1Q71

32

East

European

Quarterly

u n d e r s t a n d how to rule the country as the representaive of the native aristocracy

b u t a s a f u n c t i o n a r y , a g o v e r n o r o f t h e P o r t e . T h i s w a s i n f a c t t h e first t i m e t h a t
even t h e title o f g o v e r n o r w a s s o m e t i m e s u s e d i n lieu o f " D o m n , " o r " V o i e v o d . "
T h e i n d e p e n d e n t foreign policy, s o d y n a m i c d u r i n g B r a n c o v a n u ' s a n d C a n t c m i r ' s reigns, c a m e t o a n end. T h e a r m y was dissolved. T h e political, e c o n o m i c
and cultural orientation toward East-Central Europe, so predominant througho u t t h e 17th c e n t u r y , w a s r e p l a c e d b y o n e p a t t e r n e d o n a n d i n s p i r e d b y t h e
O r i e n t a l world o f C o n s t a n t i n o p l e . T h e f r e q u e n t ties e n t e r t a i n e d i n t h e 1 7 t h
century by intellectuals with E u r o p e b e c a m e u n c o m m o n in the eighteenth since
t h e O t t o m a n s , a s well a s t h e P h a n a r i o t s , w e r e a f r a i d o f t h e i m p a c t o f E u r o p e
upon the R o m a n i a n s (and when we think of E u r o p e we are thinking of it in
t e r m s o f a E u r o p e s t r e t c h i n g f r o m St. P e t e r s b u r g t o P a r i s ) . F o r m o r e t h a n a
c e n t u r y t h e P r i n c i p a l i t i e s h a d t o a c c e p t t h a t w h i c h all t h e p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s a n d
t h i n k e r s h a d t r i e d t o avoid d u r i n g t h e p r e v i o u s c e n t u r i e s : i n t e g r a t i o n , a l b e i t
limited, into a system d o m i n a t e d by O t t o m a n a n d P h a n a r i o t values.
It should be a d d e d t h a t t h e second d e c a d e of the 18th century recorded t h e
death of m a n y of the top intellectuals a n d leaders of the Principalities: two
princes, one metropolitan a n d t h e l a n d ' s foremost writer a n d politician were
e x e c u t e d i n W a l l a c h i a i n less t h a n t w o y e a r s ( 1 7 1 4 - 1 7 1 6 ) ; i n M o l d a v i a w e m u s t
m e n t i o n t h e m i l i t a r y d e f e a t o f C a n t e m i r i n 1 7 1 1 , a n d t h e e x e c u t i o n s o f 1717
w h e n t h e a n t i - P h a n a r i o t p a r t y lost m o s t o f its l e a d e r s . I f w e t h i n k also o f t h e
m a s s i v e t e m p o r a r y o r definitive e m i g r a t i o n o f n u m e r o u s b o y a r s t o A u s t r i a a n d
Russia, we could think of the beginning of t h e P h a n a r i o t regime as a traumatic
psychological experience, with long-range implications.
Politically t h e r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n c r o w n a n d b o y a r s w e r e e x t r e m e l y t e n s e u n t i l
the revolution of 1821.
T h e y were characterized by n u m e r o u s aristocratic
m o v e m e n t s a i m e d a t o v e r t h r o w i n g t h e foreign p r i n c e s a n d t h e e l e c t i n g o f n a t i v e
r u l e r s . A l m o s t all t h e s e m o v e m e n t s o r c o n s p i r a c i e s w e r e u n s u c c e s s f u l a n d for
t h e i r c o u r a g e t h e n a t i v e l e a d e r s p a i d t h e h e a v y p r i c e o f exile, i m p r i s o n m e n t o r
death. These boyar movements had a theoretical expression in the n u m e r o u s
petitions or p r o g r a m s of reform written t h r o u g h o u t the century.
I n d i s c u s s i n g t h e hostility b e t w e e n t h r o n e a n d b o y a r s i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o r e a l i z e
t h a t t h e issues c a n n o t b e e x p l a i n e d i n e t h n i c t e r m s a l o n e .
Most historians
regard the Phanariot epoch as that of princes born in the P h a n a r ; the problem
of the ethnic origin of the rulers being, in t h e last analysis, t h e essential criterion
for classifying t h e r u l e r s o f t h e P r i n c i p a l i t i e s e i t h e r a s " p a n f m t e a n " (native) o r
a s P h a n a r i o t . D e f e n d e r s o f t h e P h a n a r i o t r e g i m e s t r e s s e d t h e fact t h a t m e n like
Callimachi (Calmasul), Racovita and G h i c a were not G r e e k s but natives, a n d
t h a t G r e e k princes h a d ruled even prior to 1711. We do not regard this as
pertinent a n d t h e very h i s t o r y o f t h e C a l l i m a c h i a n d G h i c a f a m i l i e s p r o v i d e
j u s t i f i c a t i o n for o u r p o s i t i o n . T h u s , I o n T e o d o r C a l l i m a c h i , t r a i n e d i n P o l a n d ,

The Romanian

Boyars

in

the

18th

Century

w a s a t y p i c a l P h a n a r i o t p r i n c e , his b r o t h e r , G a v r i l C a l l i m a c h i . b r o u g h t u ; :r.
C o n s t a n t i n o p l e a n d f o r m e r m e t r o p o l i t a n o f S l a v o n i c a w a s for a l m o s t thirry
years the leader of t h e native a n t i - P h a n a r i o t party, while a third b r c i h e : .
D u m i t r a s c u , remained a simple country boyar, entirely indifferent to the
political o p i n i o n s a n d activities o f t h e o t h e r t w o . A s for t h e G h i c a s . G r i e o r e III
identified h i m s e l f w i t h t h e P h a n a r i o t i n t e r e s t s , w h i l e h i s n e p h e w , G i g o r e I V . was
since 1802 t h e l e a d e r o f t h e a n t i - P h a n a r i o t s t r u g g l e a n d i n 1822 b e c a m e t h e firs:
n a t i v e p r i n c e after a c e n t u r y o f P h a n a r i o t r u l e .
And there were also m a n y
n o n - P h a n a r i o t . o r even a n t i - P h a n a r i o t a n d a n t i - O t t o m o n P h a n a r i o t s .
This
m e a n s t h a t P h a n a r i o t i s m w a s i n fact a n e x t r e m e l y c o m p l e x p h e n o m e n o n
comprising Greek, Romanian, Albanian and other Balkan elements.
The
u l t i m a t e c r i t e r i o n w a s t h a t o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h t h e political views o f t h e P o r t e
a n d a c c e p t a n c e o f o r t h o d o x a n d , a t least p a r t i a l l y , o f n e o - G r e e k v a l u e s .
T h e P h a n a r i o t r e g i m e d e p r i v e d t h e b o y a r s n o t only o f t h e i r p o l i t i c a l p o w e r
b u t t r i e d also t o c h a n g e t h e very c h a r a c t e r o f t h a t c l a s s . U p u n t i l t h e b e g i n n i n g
of t h e 18th c e n t u r y , m o s t p r o b a b l y as a r e s u l t of t h e p r o c e s s of f o r m a t i o n of t h e
f e u d a l c l a s s , t h e first m e a n i n g o f t h e w o r d b o y a r w a s t h a t o f l a n d l o r d ; a b o y a r
w a s a n a r i s t o c r a t , a m e m b e r o f t h e f e u d a l family, b e c a u s e h e w a s o w n e r o f l a n d ,
village, serfs. H e w a s a n a r i s t o c r a t b e c a u s e o f h i s p o s i t i o n t o w a r d t h e l a n d a n d
t h e p e a s a n t . T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w a s clearly e x p o s e d b y t h e l e a r n e d p r i n c e D .
C a n t e m i r in Descriptio Moldaviae (1714); it r e p r e s e n t e d , of c o u r s e , t h e p o i n t of
view o f t h e native b o y a r s . P a r a l l e l with t h i s m e a n i n g w a s a s e c o n d a r y one i n
w h i c h b o y a r w a s s y n o n y m o u s with office-holder (dregatorie, boierie).
Still, up
u n t i l 1 7 3 9 t h e l a n d a n d all t h e f e u d a l r i g h t s o v e r i t a n d t h e p e a s a n t s p r o v i d e d
t h e n o b i l i t y with s t a t u s .
I n t h a t y e a r 1739, p r i n c e C . M a v r o c o r d a t m a d e a r e f o r m t h a t c h a n g e d t h e
character of the R o m a n i a n boyars. T h e quality of boyar b e c a m e derivative of
office-holder i r r e s p e c t i v e o f l a n d o w n e r s h i p ;
the boyars were furthermore
d i v i d e d i n t o two c l a s s e s : t h e b i g b o y a r s (veliti) f r o m ban to clucer za arie. a n d
t h e s m a l l b o y a r s . T h e i r d e s c e n d e n t s w e r e also o f t w o c a t e g o r i e s , t h e neamuri
a n d t h e mazili.
T h i s division w a s n e c e s s a r y b e c a u s e o f t h e m a n v privileges
involved, t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t b e i n g t a x - e x e m p t i o n . A s i n a n y f e u d a l society t h e
first c l a s s b o y a r s w e r e c o m p l e t e l y e x e m p t from t a x a t i o n , w h i l e t h e o t h e r s were
partially exempt.
T h i s r e f o r m a n d d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e n o b i l i t y w a s e v i d e n t l y favoring the
P h a n a r i o t following. T h e n u m b e r o f G r e e k s w h o c a m e i n t h e p r i n c e ' s s u i t e a n d
w h o b e c a m e b o y a r s d u e t o a fictitious title w a s g r e a t . F o r i n s t a n c e . A l e x a n d r u
S u t u , t h e l a s t W a l l a c h i a n P h a n a r i o t p r i n c e (1818-1821) c a m e f r o m C o n s t a n t i n o p l e with 9 c h i l d r e n , 31 relatives, 8 2 0 f r i e n d s a n d c r e d i t o r s a n d with a d e b t of
5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 lei. T h i s i s w h y t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f a r i s t o c r a c y with f u n c t i o n a r i e s was
c o n s t a n t l y criticized b y t h e n a t i v e b o y a r s w h o t h o u g h t o f t h e m s e l v e s a s n o b l e s ,

34

East

European

Quarterly

n o t b e c a u s e of t h e title or f u n c t i o n of logoft, vornic, vistiernic, stolnic a n d so

f o r t h , b u t b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e old f a m i l i e s o f l a n d l o r d s a n d d e s c e n d e n t s o f
ancient boyars
In order to prove this sometimes questionable ancestry a n d to differentiate
t h e m s e l v e s f r o m t h e new b o y a r s w h o w e r e b o y a r s o n l y b e c a u s e o f t h e p r i n c e ' s
favor, t h e o l d families l a r g e or s m a l l Bals, B r a n c o v a n , C a n t a c u z i n o ,
Sturdza, Ghica, Rosetti, Balean, Balaceanu, Filipescu, D u d e s c u , Vacarescu,
t i r b e i , C u z a , T a u t u , t o m e n t i o n o n l y a few w e r e w r i t i n g g e n e a l o g i c a l lists,
i n v e n t i n g W e s t e r n o r i g i n s a n d c o a t s o f a r m s , u s i n g t h e r a t h e r n u m e r o u s titles
given t o t h e m e s p e c i a l l y b y t h e A u s t r i a n s a n d t h e G e r m a n e m p e r o r .
It was
p o s s i b l e i n t h i s way t o b e t t e r d i f f e r e n t i a t e b e t w e e n " n a t i v e " a n d " P h a n a r i o t "
boyars.
I t w o u l d b e i n t e r e s t i n g t o k n o w j u s t h o w l a r g e t h i s c l a s s o f b o y a r s was. W e
m u s t b e a r i n m i n d t h a t after 1 7 3 9 t h e t i t l e n o l o n g e r c o r r e s p o n d e d t o t h e
i n d i c a t e d f u n c t i o n , t h a t for e x a m p l e p r i n c e M a t e i G h i c a c r e a t e d i n o n l y
t h r e e m o n t h s (in 1752) 20 paharnici, 30 stolnici a n d 50 sardari; at t h e b e g i n n i n g
o f t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y (1829-1832) W a l l a c h i a h a d 1,311 b o y a r s , m o s t l y o f t h e s e c o n d
c l a s s . T h i s r e p r e s e n t e d a r a t i o of 1.70 b o y a r s p e r 1,000 i n h a b i t a n t s . In 1832 t h e
r a t i o o f b o y a r families h a d r i s e n t o 4 . 6 5 p e r 1,000 f a m i l i e s , t h a t i s m u c h less t h a n
i n F r a n c e i n 1789 w h e r e t h e r a t i o w a s 13.85 p e r 1,000.
Economically t h e boyars were n o t favored by t h e P h a n a r i o t r e g i m e a l t h o u g h
the princes were trying to h a n d l e t h e interests of the boyars with care. T h e y had
t o s h a r e t h e b i g i n c o m e s o f t h e offices w i t h t h e p r i n c e ' s c l i e n t e l e a n d , a s f a r a s
the estates were concerned, they were not able to t u r n t h e m into large e c o n o m i c
u n i t s p r o d u c i n g c e r e a l s for t h e m a r k e t , m a i n l y b e c a u s e o f t h e
Ottoman
monopoly over the country's t r a d e . S o m e of t h e boyars tried to m a k e fortunes in
b o u r g e o i s activities, s o m e e v e n f o u n d e d f a c t o r i e s , b u t t h e s u c c e s s o f t h e s e
ventures was m i n i m a l . Although t h e capitalist elements in t h e estate e c o n o m y
were m o r e n u m e r o u s at t h e beginning of t h e 19th century t h a n they h a d b e e n a
c e n t u r y e a r l i e r , i t w a s only a f t e r t h e T r e a t y o f A d r i n o p l e (1829), w h i c h a b o l i s h e d
t h e T u r k i s h m o n o p o l y , t h a t l a n d e d e s t a t e s b e c a m e t h e m a i n s o u r c e o f r i c h e s for
the boyars.
I t m i g h t b e i n t e r e s t i n g t o give a n e x a m p l e : i n 1782, t h e s m a l l b o y a r Piersic e a n u h a d a n i n c o m e o f 1,782 t a l e r i f r o m his e s t a t e a n d o f 5,792 t a l e r i f r o m h i s
v a r i o u s offices; a n d t h i s w a s a r a t h e r s m a l l i n c o m e s i n c e t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y ban
o f C r a i o v a h a d a n official a n n u a l i n c o m e o f 3 4 , 2 0 0 t a l e r i , n o t t o m e n t i o n t h e
h u g e illegal i n c o m e d e r i v e d f r o m b r i b e s , gifts a n d a b u s e s . A t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f
t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y t h e p r i c e o f a m e d i u m sized e s t a t e w a s a b o u t 6,000-9,000 t a l e r i
a n d o f a b i g e s t a t e a b o u t 15,000 t a l e r i ; i n 1 7 9 4 p r i n c e A l e x a n d r u I p s i l a n t i sold a
s m a l l e s t a t e of 606 stinjeni for 1,400 t a l e r i .

The Romanian

Boyars

in

the

18th

Century:

All t h i s h a s b e e n said t o e x p l a i n w h y t h e b o y a r s , a l t h o u g h sociail;*

t:
c o n s e r v a t i v e a n d s o m e t i m e s even r e a c t i o n a r y a s far a s t h e a g r a r i a n quesxicr. i s
c o n c e r n e d , h a d c o n d u c t e d a n a n t i - P h a n a r i o t a n d a n t i - O t t o m a n policy ir.z
r e p r e s e n t e d t h e m a i n if not t h e only n a t i o n a l force;
this in c o m r a s : ::
T r a n s y l v a n i a w h e r e t h e R o m a n i a n n a t i o n a l m o v e m e n t w a s led b y t h e b o u r g e
oisie.
Up until t h e m i d d l e of t h e 18th century t h e o p p o s i t i o n was led mainly by the
d e s c e n d e n t s o f t h e C a n t a c u z i n o a n d C a n t e m i r f a m i l i e s , t h a t is, b y t h o s e w h o
h a d lost t h e t h r o n e s t o t h e P h a n a r i o t s . T h e i r p r o g r a m w a s r a t h e r s i m p l e : i t
d e m a n d e d t h e overthrowing of t h e foreign rulers a n d of t h e g r a n t i n g of a m o r e
o r less i n d e p e n d e n t s t a t u s t o t h e P r i n c i p a l i t i e s . I t w a s o n l y a f t e r 1 7 6 9 t h a t t h e
b o y a r m o v e m e n t g a i n e d a b r o a d e r b a s i s a n d e x p r e s s e d its p r a g m a t i c - p o l i t i c a l
d e s i d e r a t a also i n t h e o r e t i c a l t e r m s .
T h e political p r o g r a m of the R o m a n i a n nobility was expressed mainly in
petitions a n d p r o g r a m s of reforms send to Vienna, Paris, St. Petersburg.
C o n s t a n t i n o p l e , o r addressed directly t o t h e R o m a n i a n s . W e know today t h a t
208 s u c h p r o g r a m s w e r e w r i t t e n b e t w e e n 1 7 6 9 - 1 8 3 0 b u t t h a t n u m b e r w o u l d b e
m u c h larger if the Russian and T u r k i s h archives were to be studied m o r e
seriously.
A m o n g t h e i r a u t h o r s w e find s u c h n a m e s a s G r i g o r e B a l e a n u .
Grigore Brancoveanu, Ion and Mihai Cantacuzino, Iordache Rosetti-Rosnovanu, B a r b u Stirbei, D u m i t r a c h e and M i h a i S t u r d z a , E n a c h i t a a n d B a r b u
Vacarescu, I o n T a u t u . Statistically, 45 percent of t h e p r o g r a m s were written or
s i g n e d exclusively b y b i g b o y a r s , 1 5 p e r c e n t exclusively b y s m a l l b o y a r s , a n d 3 ?
p e r c e n t r e p r e s e n t e d all t h e b o y a r s , a s a n e s t a t e , a s t h e first e s t a t e o f t h e c o u n t r y .
I n o t h e r w o r d s , 9 3 p e r c e n t o f all t h e p r o j e c t s o f r e f o r m w e r e w r i t t e n b y t h e
b o y a r s . O u t o f 2 0 8 p r o g r a m s o n l y 1 0 w e r e s i g n e d b y P h a n a r i o t p r i n c e s , only 5
b y m e m b e r s o f t h e b o u r g e o i s i e , a n d o n l y 2 b y free p e a s a n t s .
W h a t tyoe o f society, o f g o v e r n m e n t w e r e t h e b o y a r s d r e a m i n g of?
Forty
p e r c e n t of t h e p r o j e c t s w e r e p r i m a r i l y i n t e r e s t e d in t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l posit 1 ..::: ::
t h e P r i n c i p a l i t i e s , t h a t is, i n t h e i r p o l i t i c a l t i e s with C o n s t a n t i n o p l e a s well 5
with t h e t w o b i g n e i g h b o r i n g C h r i s t i a n p o w e r s , A u s t r i a a n d R u s s i a . T h e secor.h
most i m p o r t a n t problem was t h a t of g o v e r n m e n t the reform of the state a n c
o f its i n s t i t u t i o n s .
T h e l e a s t i m p o r t a n t w a s t h e p r o b l e m o f sociai : _ : : - .
W e d o n o t h a v e t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e all t h e s e a s p e c t s i n d e t a i l .
W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l s t a t u s , suffice i t t o stress t h e fact t h a t . ::er
1711 t h e m a i n a i m w a s t h e s e c u r i n g o f i n d e p e n d e n c e . D . C a n t e n . i : I ' l l . his
n e p h e w s in 1736-39, M i h a i C a n t a c u z i n o in 1 7 7 2 - 7 3 , I o n C a n t a c u i i r . : In 1 "90-91.
the whole divan of W a l l a c h i a i n 1789, other writers in 180". 1821,
-ere
c o n s t a n t l y e m p h a s i z i n g t h e necessity t o s e c u r e i n d e p e n d e n c e a s a p r e r e q u i s i t e
for p r o g r e s s , for social a n d e c o n o m i c i m p r o v e m e n t .
F o r m o s t : t the w r i t e r s ,
m o d e r n i z a t i o n , a c o n c e p t often f o u n d i n t h e p r o g r a m s , was i m p o s s i b l e
ithoui

36

East

European

Quarterly

liberation from the political, economic and cultural system of t h e O t t o m a n s and

of the Phanariots.
T h e idea of independence was supplemented by that of
n e u t r a l i t y a n d s i n c e 1772 b y t h a t very m o d e r n a n d n a t i o a l i s t i c o n e o f p o l i t i c a l
unification of the Principalities. T h i s last idea was expressed by t h e W a l l a c h i a n
divan t h r e e t i m e s in 1 7 7 2 , by I o n C a n t a c u z i n o in 1 7 9 0 a n d , after 1800, in several
Moldavian and Wallachian writings.
Political t h i n k e r s such as E. Vacarescu, I. R o s n o v a n u , G r . G h i c a , were aware
o f t h e difficulty o f r e a l i z i n g s u c h a p r o g r a m .
T h a t is why they sought to
reinforce the a u t o n o m y of the country by accepting the O t t o m a n suzerainty and
t h e p a y m e n t o f a s y m b o l i c t r i b u t e w h i l e a t t h e s a m e t i m e s e v e r i n g p r a c t i c a l l y all
o t h e r p o l i t i c a l a n d e c o n o m i c ties w i t h t h e P o r t e , for e x a m p l e , t h e O t t o m a n t r a d e
monopoly, the obligation to supply t h e capital of the empire, the right to
a p p o i n t p r i n c e s , a n d even t h e T u r k s ' r i g h t t o travel t h r o u g h t h e P r i n c i p a l i t i e s
w i t h o u t s p e c i a l p e r m i s s i o n . S i n c e t h e M u s l i m s n e v e r h a d t h e legal r i g h t t o b u i l d
m o s q u e s , t o o w n l a n d o r a n y o t h e r p r o p e r t y , o r t o h o l d office, d e m a n d s r e l a t i v e
to these points were seldom included in the projects. W h a t is m o r e interesting is
t h e c o n s t a n t a t t e m p t t o e x t e n d t h e s e i n t e r d i c t i o n s also t o n o n - M u s l i m s u b j e c t s
of the Porte. T h i s R o m a n i a n position was unrelated to religious or national
considerations; t h e natives were trying to limit the rights of t h e Bulgarians,
Greeks, or Albanians in the Principalities not because they were Bulgarians,
Greeks, or Albanians, but because they were at that time subjects of the
O t t o m a n empire. T h e concept of a Moldo-Wallachian citizenship was m a k i n g
rapid progress.
I n o r d e r t o justify t h e s e d e m a n d s , t h e w r i t e r s m a d e u s e o f t h e t h e o r y o f
h i s t o r i c a l r i g h t s a n d p r o d u c e d t h e so-called " c a p i t u l a t i o n s " (1772) t r e a t i e s
w h i c h h a d b e e n o s t e n s i b l y a c c e p t e d b y R o m a n i a n s a n d T u r k s i n t h e 14th a n d
15th c e n t u r i e s a n d w h i c h g r a n t e d s p e c i a l r i g h t s t o t h e P r i n c i p a l i t i e s i n r e t u r n for
R o m a n i a n acceptance of the O t t o m a n suzerainty.
These "capitulations,"
w h o s e o r i g i n a l v e r s i o n s h a v e n o t b e e n f o u n d a n d w h o s e a u t h e n t i c i t y i s still
u n d e r discussion, were used by t h e R o m a n i a n s up until 1859 as a theoretical
j u s t i f i c a t i o n for t h e i r d e m a n d s for g r e a t e r a u t o n o m y o r i n d e p e n d e n c e .
And
s t r a n g e l y e n o u g h , t h e s e p r o b a b l y i m a g i n a r y t r e a t i e s w e r e t a k e n seriously even
b y t h e T u r k s w h o w e r e s e a r c h i n g t h e i r a r c h i v e s i n a vain a t t e m p t t o l o c a t e t h e m .
F r o m t h e p o i n t o f view o f b o y a r i n t e l l e c t u a l h i s t o r y t h e i d e a s o n g o v e r n m e n t
are of great importance. T h e R o m a n i a n s t h o u g h t of their Principalities as being
of a m o n a r c h i c type and m o s t of the p r o g r a m s are focused on the relation
b e t w e e n t h e c e n t r a l p o w e r a n d t h e nobility.
T h e r e is no need to stress t h e idea of enlightened despotism, proclaimed
m o s t l y b y P h a n a r i o t a n d n a t i v e p r i n c e s s u c h a s C a n t e m i r , Al. I p s i l a n t i , G r .
G h i c a , M . S t u r d z a ; m o r e i m p o r t a n t for t h e b o y a r p s y c h o l o g y a r e t h e p r o g r a m s
s u p p o r t i n g d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of a r i s t o c r a t i c r e p u b l i c s a n d P o l a n d w a s a close

The Romanian

Boyars

in

the

18th

Century

e x a m p l e of t h i s or t h o s e d e f e n d i n g t h e m o d e l of l i m i t e d a n d r e p r e s e n i a : : e
princely p o w e r .
L i m i t a t i o n o f p o w e r h a d t w o m e a n i n g s . T h e first w a s t o l i m i t p o w e r b y t h e
r i g h t s a n d privileges o f t h e b o y a r s , a n d t h i s t h e o r y p r e v a i l e d i n M o l d a v i a i n 1 5 2 "
when t h e p r i n c e w a s forced, f o r t u n a t e l y for only o n e y e a r , t o a d o p t t h e s o - c a i l e c
' D e c r e e c o n c e r n i n g t h e privileges of M o l d a v i a " t h a t is t h e privileges or
the Moldavian boyars. T h e second was to limit power by constitutional m e a n s .
T h e n o t i o n o f a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a c t itself w a s m u c h o l d e r , b u t t h e m o s t c o m p l e t e
t h e o r y of a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i n c e w a s w r i t t e n in 1 8 0 7 w h e n a M o l d a v i a n a s k e d
for a F r e n c h or I t a l i a n p r i n c e , r u l i n g on t h e b a s i s of a c o n s t i t u t i o n , r e s p e c t i n g
t h e law, r i g h t s a n d l i b e r t i e s o f t h e c i t i z e n s a n d t h e g e n e r a l welfare o f t h e
c o u n t r y . P r o p o s a l s t o limit t h e u n t i l t h e n u n l i m i t e d p o w e r o f t h e p r i n c e were
also m a d e b y I o r d a c h e R o s e t t i - R o s n o v a n u (1818), b y h i s son N i c o l a e (1826) a n d
especially b y I . T a u t u , t h e a u t h o r o f a so-called " C a r b o n a r i c o n s t i t u t i o n " (1822).
which c o n t a i n e d n o less t h a n 7 7 a r t i c l e s . All t h e s e p o l i t i c a l w r i t e r s a n d l e a d e r s
were i n favor o f e n l a r g i n g t h e a t t r i b u t e s o f t h e old " G e n e r a l A s s e m b l y " a n d t o
assign t o t h e p r i n c e only a r a t h e r f o r m a l a n d h o n o r i f i c r o l e . T h e s t a t e e n v i s a g e d
by all t h e s e t h i n k e r s w a s m o r e or less a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o n e b u t it w a s n o t a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o n e s i n c e t h e r i g h t o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w a s l i m i t e d exclusively t o the
boyars.
T h e first r e p u b l i c a n i d e a s w e r e f o u n d only i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e 18th c e n t u r y
when t h e M o l d a v i a n b o y a r s a s k e d C a t h e r i n e t h e G r e a t t o allow t h e m t o r e p l a c e
t h e P h a n a r i o t p r i n c e w i t h a collective b o d y o f 1 2 b i g b o y a r s e n d o w e d w i t h
extensive e x e c u t i v e p o w e r s . S i m i l a r p r o j e c t s , r e a c t i o n a r y b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e n o
longer m o t i v a t e d b y t h e d e s i r e t o r e m o v e t h e P h a n a r i o t s w h o h a d a c t u a l l y lost
their t h r o n e s after t h e T u d o r V l a d i m i r e s c u u p r i s i n g , w e r e m a d e i n 1 8 2 1 a n d
1822. T h e s e very c o n s e r v a t i v e p r o g r a m s i n w h i c h w h o l e p o w e r w a s t o r e s t i n t h e
h a n d s of a small g r o u p of big boyars ruling with unlimited rights was strongly
criticized b y m a n y a n i n t e l l e c t u a l a n d e v e n b y b i g b o y a r s . S o m e w h a t a t y p i c a l o f
the c o n s e r v a t i v e p r o g r a m s w a s t h a t o f D u m i t r a c h e S t u r d z a , t h e a u t h o r o f a
strange, English influenced " P l a n of an aristo-democratic-republican governm e n t " (1802). S t u r d z a ' s w a s t h e m o s t l i b e r a l p r o j e c t w r i t t e n b y a b i g b o y a r a n d
the o n l y o n e willing t o s h a r e p o w e r w i t h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f o t h e r classes,
T h e i d e a s o n g o v e r n m e n t r a n g e d from e n l i g h t e n e d d e s p o t i s m t o a r i s t o c r a t i c
r e p u b l i c . T h e differences w e r e c o n s i d e r a b l e b u t w i t h very few e x c e p t i o n s all h a d
one c o m m o n t r a i t : t h e p o w e r h a d t o r e m a i n i n t h e h a n d s o f t h e b o y a r s . T h u s ,
the R o m a n i a n a r i s t o c r a c y a n d clergy w e r e a c t i n g a s a n e s t a t e a w a r e o f their
privileges a n d u n w i l l i n g t o r e l i n q u i s h w h a t t h e y c o n s i d e r e d t o b e a n e x a l t e d
political a n d social s t a t u s .
T h e i d e a s o n social p r o b l e m s w e r e even m o r e c o n s e r v a t i v e :
o u t o f 205
p r o g r a m s only 5 d i s c u s s e d t h e p e a s a n t p r o b l e m , o n l y 3 t h e b o u r g e o i s i e ' s . Very

38

East

European

Quarterly

few b o y a r s s o u g h t t o i m p r o v e t h e a g r a r i a n r e l a t i o n s a n d m o s t o f t h e m w e r e
a c t u a l l y s e e k i n g f u r t h e r l i m i t a t i o n o f t h e a l r e a d y p r o s c r i b e d r i g h t s a n d liberties
of the peasantry.
Such physiocratic theories as were p r o p o u n d e d by D.
Philippide or I. T a u t u were ignored a n d t h e O r g a n i c Statutes (1831) recorded
t h e c o m p l e t e victory o f t h e l a n d l o r d s o v e r t h e p e a s a n t s .
Less conservative were t h e ideas on e c o n o m i c , institutional a n d cultural
policy. P l a n s for i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e f o r m w e r e b o u r g e o i s , m o d e r n , i n c o n c e p t . T h e
most interesting proposals were those connected with the modernization of the
legislative, j u d i c i a r y a n d f i n a n c i a l s t r u c t u r e s . N o t w i t h o u t i n t e r e s t also w e r e t h e
constant b u t vain a t t e m p t s to recreate a native a r m y to secure the i n d e p e n d e n c e
or autonomy of the country.
T h e e c o n o m i c policy c o n t a i n e d i n t h e b o y a r s ' p r o g r a m s w a s i n t h a t a g e o f
capitalist development m o r e bourgeois t h a n aristocratic.
Freedom of trade,
necessary to render the estates profitable, was sought constantly b u t granted
only b y t h e T r e a t y o f A d r i n o p l e (1829). A l o n g w i t h t h e a b o l i t i o n o f i n t e r n a l
c u s t o m s (1831), f r e e d o m o f t r a d e p r o v i d e s t h e b e s t e x p l a n a t i o n for t h e r a p i d
g r o w t h o f e c o n o m i c activity i n t h e t h i r d d e c a d e o f t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y . T h e b o y a r s
also e n c o u r a g e d t h e s e t t i n g u p o f f a c t o r i e s a n d , t o o b t a i n c r e d i t s , t h e y
p r o p o u n d e d a v a r i e t y o f s c h e m e s for t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a n a t i o n a l m o n e t a r y
system and even of a n a t i o n a l b a n k .
A few w o r d s m a y b e s a i d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e m a i n s o u r c e s o f t h e b o y a r s '
ideology. T h e s e s o u r c e s c o u l d b e d i v i d e d r o u g h l y i n t o t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s : t h e R o manian, those of the European Enlightenment, and the South-East European.
In our opinion, the most i m p o r t a n t , at least until t h e end of the 18th century,
w e r e t h e n a t i v e s o u r c e s , t h e s y s t e m o f p o l i t i c a l v a l u e s set u p d u r i n g t h e s e c o n d
half of t h e 17th century and particularly d u r i n g the times of B r a n c o v e a n u and
Cantemir. Indeed, t h e writings of C. Cantacuzino, M. Costin, C. Cantemir, I.
Neculce, G. Ureche, A n t i m Ivireanu, a n d even t h e political t h o u g h t s of prince
Neagoe B a s a r a b written one century earlier, were copied, printed, b o u g h t , and
r e a d b y t h e b i g b o y a r s . W e m u s t also b e a r i n m i n d t h e fact t h a t m a n y o f t h e
t h i n k e r s a m o n g t h e b i g boyars were relatives of B r a n c o v e a n u , C. C a n t a c u z i n o ,
Cantemir, or of other i m p o r t a n t m e n of the 17th century. T h e basic elements of
the political t h o u g h t of t h a t t i m e influenced especially t h e 18th century ideas on
t h e international status of the Principalities.
Even if the arguments, the
theoretical justifications were new, p e r h a p s more m o d e r n , the ultimate goal
remained t h e same an independent country.
A l o n g with t h e n a t i v e s o u r c e s , t h e i d e o l o g y o f t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t p l a y e d a n
i m p o r t a n t role in the political p r o g r a m s of t h e b o y a r s . T h e b o y a r s ' libraries
were replete with F r e n c h or G e r m a n books;
some " p h i l o s o p h e s " were
translated into R o m a n i a n . T h e impact of Western ideas was thought dangerous
b y t h e O t t o m a n s and the P h a n a r i o t s and a t t e m p t s were m a d e t o forbid t h e

The Romanian

Boyars

in

the

18th

Century

entrance into t h e Principalities of books printed in F r a n c e or Austria.

censorship was introduced in 1741.

0~\z:i.

A m o n g t h e d i f f e r e n t s t r a n d s o f t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t , e n l i g h t e n e d d e s p o t i s m was
i n g r e a t favor p a r t i c u l a r l y b e c a u s e o f t h e p e r s o n a l i n f l u e n c e o f J o s e p h I I a r c
Catherine t h e G r e a t whose " N a k a z " w a s t r a n s l a t e d as early as 1773.
Great
h o p e s w e r e r a i s e d b y t h e e n l i g h t e n e d a b s o l u t i s m o f N a p o l e o n a n d , like all t h e
peoples of Southeastern E u r o p e , the R o m a n i a n s sent petitions and delegations
t o P a r i s s e e k i n g h e l p a n d s u p p o r t for t h e i r p r o g r a m s . T h e p r o j e c t s s e n t t o
Napoleon were indeed t h e most liberal drafted by boyars.
It is i m p o r t a n t to ascertain the i m p a c t of Southeast E u r o p e a n influences on
t h e R o m a n i a n s . Politically, t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e R o m a n i a n a n d G r e e k
p r o g r a m s was negligible.
Only two reform p r o g r a m s , b o t h a n t i - O t t o m a n in
c h a r a c t e r , s u g g e s t c o l l a b o r a t i o n with o t h e r p e o p l e s o f S o u t h e a s t e r n E u r o p e .
T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t G r e e k revolutionary writer, Rhigas Velestinlis, was unk n o w n t o M o l d a v i a n a n d W a l l a c h i a n t h i n k e r s d e s p i t e R h i g a s h a v i n g lived for
m a n y y e a r s i n t h e P r i n c i p a l i t i e s . T h e R o m a n i a n s ' will t o a c t i n d e p e n d e n t l y
e x p l a i n s n o t only t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e l e a d e r s o f t h e 1 8 2 1 G r e e k a n d W a l l a c h i a n
uprising to collaborate with one another, b u t also their actual clashing
immediately prior to the battle with t h e O t t o m a n s .
A s far a s t h e T u r k s t h e m s e l v e s a r e c o n c e r n e d , t h e c o n t a c t s o f t h e R o m a n i a n
w r i t e r s ( w h o , w i t h t w o e x c e p t i o n s , did n o t k n o w T u r k i s h ) w i t h O t t o m a n p o l i t i c a l
views w e r e e x t r e m e l y r a r e a n d h i s t o r i a n s h a v e yet t o s t u d y s u c h l i n k s .
It is
k n o w n , h o w e v e r , t h a t s o m e r e f o r m p r o g r a m s for t h e e m p i r e w e r e p r e s e n t e d t o
the s u l t a n , Selim III, by prince Al Ipsilanti a n d by the M o l d a v i a n boyar,
I.Tautu.
We are now at the end of our paper and some conclusions have to be
p r e s e n t e d . H o w c a n w e c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e b o y a r i d e o l o g y ? W h a t w a s its p o s i t i o n
in t h e general East E u r o p e a n political ideology?
T h e role of the boyars must be discussed in a m o r e careful a n d n u a n c e d
m a n n e r . T h e boyars c a n n o t be c o n d e m n e d only because theirs was the ruling
class o f t h e c o u n t r y .
M a n y b o y a r s e x p o u n d e d a very b o l d , p r o g r e s s i v e a n d
n a t i o n a l policy a n d a t t h e s a m e t i m e d i s p l a y e d a c o n s e r v a t i v e s o c i a l ideoloev.
T h e s a m e writers who were seeking an increase in the n u m b e r of days to be
w o r k e d b y t h e p e a s a n t for t h e l a n d l o r d a n d f u r t h e r r e s t r i c t i v e l e g i s l a t i o n for the
p e a s a n t r y a s a w h o l e w e r e also s e e k i n g t h e i n d e p e n d e n c e a n d u n i f i c a t i o n o f the
c o u n t r y a s well a s its c u l t u r a l a n d e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t .
The Romanian
political p r o g r a m s w e r e e n l i g h t e n e d a n d , a s all t h e a r i s t o c r a t i c e n l i g h t e n e d E a s t
E u r o p e a n p r o g r a m s , w e r e a m i x t u r e o f p r o g r e s s i v e a n d c o n s e r v a t i v e ideas.
:

I t i s very difficult t o c o m p a r e t h e M o l d a v i a n a n d W a l l a c h i a n p o l i t i c a l c r o e : i s
with t h o s e o f t h e o t h e r S o u t h e a s t E u r o p e a n c o u n t r i e s since t h e b a s i c d a t a are
quite different; there was no Christian aristocracy South of the D a n u b e , there

40

East

European

Quarterly

was n o C h r i s t i a n s t a t e , a n d t h e social a n d p o l i t i c a l r e a l i t i e s w e r e d i f f e r e n t . T h a t
i s why t h e b o y a r s ' t h o u g h t m u s t b e c o m p a r e d a n d u n d e r s t o o d i n r e l a t i o n t o
E a s t - C e n t r a l E u r o p e a n i d e a s , especially t h e P o l i s h a n d R u s s i a n .
T h e b o y a r t i t l e s w e r e a b o l i s h e d i n 1858 b u t b y t h a t t i m e t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h a t
class h a d c h a n g e d a l t o g e t h e r . A s t h e n a t i o n a l - p o l i t i c a l p r o g r a m w a s fulfilled,
the progressive elements of the boyar projects b e c a m e obsolete while their conservative social views r e m a i n e d i n e v i d e n c e . B u t t h e n t h e b o y a r s ' c o n c e p t s w e r e
n o l o n g e r e x p r e s s e d i n t h e n a m e o f t h e old a r i s t o c r a c y (boierii) b u t i n t h a t o f its
m o d e r n c a p i t a l i s t form, t h e l a n d l o r d s (mosierii).

East European Quarterly. Vol.VII, No. 1.

T H E PHILOSOPHE AS PUBLIC SERVANT:

TOBIAS PHILIP GEBLER *

Paul P. Bernard
University

of Illinois

Not m u c h i s k n o w n a b o u t J o s e p h i n i a n officials o f t h e m i d d l e r a n k s . W i t h t h e
one e x c e p t i o n o f J o s e p h v o n S o n n e n f e l s , they a r e s o m e w h a t s h a d o w y figures.
E v e n a t t h e t o p , P r i n c e W e n z e l K a u n i t z , a b o u t w h o m relatively m u c h h a s b e e n
w r i t t e n , s t a n d s o u t only b e c a u s e o f h i s e c c e n t r i c i t i e s . H i s p r i v a t e p a p e r s h a v e
never b e e n f o u n d a n d his official c o r r e s p o n d e n c e o n m o s t m a t t e r s i s sufficiently
g u a r d e d t o m a k e i t e x t r e m e l y difficult t o p a s s m o r e t h a n t e n t a t i v e j u d g m e n t s
a b o u t h i s r o l e i n t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f a n y given policy. A s o n e d e s c e n d s t h e l a d d e r
of the state hierarchy, the situation rapidly worsens.
It becomes almost
i m p o s s i b l e t o s e p a r a t e t h e o p i n i o n s o f a n y o n e p u b l i c s e r v a n t from collective
j u d g m e n t s , w h i c h o f t e n a r e n o m o r e t h a n r e s p o n s e s t o q u i t e specific I m p e r i a l
directives. T h i s s i t u a t i o n h a s c o n t r i b u t e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a
m y t h : J o s e p h I I t h e Einzelgaenger, i n t h i s c a s e n o t t h e r e v o l u t i o n a r y b u t t h e
i d e o l o g u e o n t h e t h r o n e , a m a n w h o forces his views u p o n a n u n w i l l i n g officiald o m w h o s e t r a d i t i o n s o f u n c r i t i c a l o b e d i e n c e p r e v e n t i t from m a k i n g effective
protest.
E v e n i f o n e s u b s t i t u t e s p r a g m a t i c r e s p o n s e t o specific n e e d tor
ideology, t h e a r g u m e n t i s little c h a n g e d . J o s e p h i n i s m r e m a i n s a m o v e m e n t with
a l e a d e r b u t only r e l u c t a n t followers. M o r e o v e r , S o n n e l f e l s ' i n f l u e n c e on t h e
c o n d u c t of p u b l i c affairs w a s s p o r a d i c a n d often only i n d i r e c t , it is n o t really
clear w h i c h policy d e c i s i o n s owe very m u c h t o h i s i n f l u e n c e , w h i c h a t a n y r a t e
was s t r o n g e r o n M a r i a T h e r e s a t h a n o n J o s e p h , a n d h e i s a n y t h i n g b u t t h e
typical official.
A m u c h m o r e likely c a n d i d a t e for t h i s role is T o b i a s P h i l i p G e b l e r .
It is
possible t o say s o m e w h a t m o r e a b o u t G e b l e r t h a n a b o u t m o s t o f his c o l l e a g u e s
b e c a u s e h e n o t only h e l d a s u c c e s s i o n o f relatively i m p o r t a n t g o v e r n m e n t posts
* The author wishes to express his thanks to the American Philosophical Society for i r-ir.: .- ;
spring of 1972 which made possible the research for this article.