Benjamin RogaczewskiDr. Philip Shashko

European Political TheoryDecember 5, 2011

Introduction

When the Ottoman Empire established their own subjects to 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

author of this article has stressed ethnic origins for certain groups of Phanariotes in

order to discern Romanian Phanariotes from Greek Phanariotes. This becomes

1 Vlad Georgescu, The Romanians, ed. Matei Calinescu, trans. Alexandra Bley-Vroman (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1991). P. 73.

2

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 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.

2 Ibid., p. 67.3 Ibid., p. 93.4 Ibid., p. 73.

3

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 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.

5 Nicholas M. Nagy-Talavera, Nicolae Iorga: A Biography (Portland , Oregon: The Center for Romanian Studies, 1998). P. 27.

4

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

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 Iorga’s 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

6 Georgescu, The Romanians. P. 67-69.7 Nicolae Iorga, A History of Roumania, trans. Joseph McCabe (New York, New York: AMS Press, 1970). P. 178. (My italics)

5

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 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

8 Georgescu, The Romanians. P. 91-92.9 Ibid., p. 80.10 Ibid.

6

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 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 Principalities from western ideas and limit the society under a relaxed

Romanian Phanariot regime.

11 Ibid., p. 93.12 Ibid.13 Ibid.14 Ibid.15 Ibid., p. 94.

7

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 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

16 Ibid., p. 112.17 Ibid.18 Ibid., p. 107.

8

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 to its relationship with the

Ottomans.19 This would ensure their control of the Phanariotes through the sultan’s

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

Tsar’s army.20 It was this connection with Russia that caught the eye of the secret

19 Ibid., p. 99.20 David Brewer, The Greek War of Independence (New York, New York: The Overlook Press, 2001). P. 49.

9

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 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 evil…How long

21 Barbara Jelavich, Russia and the formation of the Roumanian national state, 1821-1878 (New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984). P. 21.22 Brewer, The Gr. Ind. P. 52.23 Ibid., p. 55.

10

shall we suffer the dragons that swallow us alive…Neither 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 Vladimirescu’s speech, we can gather that his focus is not on the

Ottoman Empire, but rather on the Phanariot regime. As the months 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

24 Jelavich, Rus. Rou. Nat. p. 23.25 Ibid., p. 23-24.

11

enough to send troops 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 Russo-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. Russia’s rule of Romania was

similar to that of the previous Ottoman rule, but allowed more autonomy for

26 Ibid., p. 23.27 Georgescu, The Romanians. P. 103.28 Jelavich, Rus. Rou. Nat. p. 26.

12

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 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.

29 Georgescu, The Romanians. P. 105.30 Ibid., p. 106.

13

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 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

31 Ibid., p. 142.32 Ibid., p. 143.

14

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

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.

33 Ibid., p. 144-145.

15

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 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 nationalism…depended on race or hereditary. The other nation, the progressive one…was 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

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.

16

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 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 life…We 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 Iorga’s biography. Talavera is Jewish and

comes from a Sephardic ancestry.37 He also has nothing but praise for Iorga’s

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 Iorga’s 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,

36 Ibid., p. 185.37 Ibid., p. 35.

17

when Codreanu states how upset 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 Iorga’s nationalism through these writings.39 The main concept of

Codreanu’s 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 Codreanu’s 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.

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.

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.

18

BibliographyBrewer, 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.

19