1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Rumania

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RUMANIA, or Roumania [România], a kingdom of south-eastern Europe, situated to the north-east of the Balkan Peninsula,[1] and on the Black Sea. Pop. (1910, estimate) 6,850,000; area, about 50,720 sq. m., or about 6500 sq. m. less than the combined areas of England and Wales. Rumania begins on the seaward side with a band of territory called the Dobrudja (q.v.); and broadens westward into the form of a blunted crescent, its northern horn being called Moldavia, its southern Walachia.

Physical Features.—Along the inner edge of this crescent run the Carpathian Mountains, also called, towards their western extremity, the Transylvanian Mountains (q.v.) or Transylvanian Alps; and the frontier which marks off Rumania from Hungary is drawn along their crests. The eastern boundary is formed by the river Pruth (Prutu), between Moldavia and Russia; farther south by the Kilia mouth of the Danube (Dunarea), between the Dobrudja and Russia, and by the Black Sea. In the extreme south-east, an irregular line, traced from Ilanlâc, 10 m. S. of Mangalia, on the coast, as far as the Danube at Silistria, 85 m. inland, separates the Dobrudja from Bulgaria. Otherwise, the Danube constitutes the whole southern frontier; its right bank being Bulgarian for 290 m., and Servian, in the extreme west, for 50 m. The Danube (q.v.) enters Rumania through the Verciorova or Kazan[2] Pass. It here resembles a long lake, overshadowed by precipitous mountains, which vary from 1000 to 2000 ft. in height, and are covered by birches and pines. In this neighbourhood the channel contracts to about 116 yds. in width, with a depth of 30 fathoms. At the eastern end of the pass are the celebrated Iron Gates, a rapid so named by the Turks, not from the surrounding heights, which here descend gradually to the river, but from the number of submerged rocks in the waterway. As it flows eastward from the frontier, the Danube gains in breadth and volume. Islands are frequent; the banks recede and become lower until, after 50 m., they stand almost level with the water. Henceforward, for 290 m., the Rumanian shore is a desolate fen-country, varied only by a few hills, by cities, and by lagoons often 15 m. long. East of Bucharest, a chain of lagoons and partially drained marshes stretches inland for 45 m. At Silistria the river bends N.N.E. for 110 m. with the Dobrudja on its right, and a barren plain, called the Baragan Steppe, on its left. It here encloses two large swampy islands, the upper being 57 m., the lower 43 m. long. Both have an average breadth of 10 m. Beyond Galatz, the river again turns eastward, branching out, near Tulcea, into three great waterways, which wind through a low-lying alluvial delta to the sea. The northern estuary is named the Kilia Mouth; the central, the Sulina; the southern, the St George's. Between Verciorova and the Sulina Mouth, the Danube traverses 540 m. Its current is rapid, and supplies the motive power for thousands of floating watermills, which lie moored in the shallows. It is fed by many tributaries, which rise in the Carpathians as mountain torrents, growing broad and sluggish as they flow south-eastward through the central Rumanian plain. In Walachia, it is joined by the Jiu (or Schyl) opposite Rahova; by the Olt (ancient Aluta) at Turnu Magurele; by the united streams of the Dimbovitza (Damboviţa) and Argesh (Argeş) at Oltenitza; by the Jalomitza (Ialomįţa) opposite Hirsova. The Olt pierces the Carpathians, by way of the Rothenthurm Pass, and forms the boundary of Little (i.e. western) Walachia, or Oltland. The Sereth (Siretu or Seretu) flows for about 340 m. from its Transylvanian source through Moldavia, and meets the Danube near Galatz, after receiving the Moldova, Bistritza (Bistriţa), Trotosh (Trotoşǔ), Milcovǔ, Putna, Râmnicǔ and Buzěu on the west; and the Bêrlad (Bêrladǔ) on the east. The Milcovǔ was the former boundary between Walachia and Moldavia. The Pruth rises on the northern limit of Moldavia, forms the eastern frontier for 330 m., and falls into the Danube 10 m. E. of Galatz. Its chief Rumanian tributaries are the Basheu (Başeǔ) and Jijia, rivers of the north. The Dobrudja (q.v.) or Dobrogea covers about 2900 sq. m. between the Black Sea and the lower reaches of the Danube. Its high crystalline rocks, covered with sedimentary formations, descend abruptly towards the delta, but more gradually towards the south, where the Bulgarian steppes encroach upon Rumanian soil. The few small rivers which drain the hills generally flow seaward, but those of the delta and steppes belong to the Danubian system. The coast is a low-lying region of sandhills, meres and marshes with one lagoon, 42 m. long, connected by a short stream with the St George Mouth. Its outlet on the sea is named the Portidje Mouth (Gura portiţiǐ) of the Danube. North of this, the lagoon is called Lake Razim; while its southern half, shut off by three long islands, is the Blue Lake (Sinoe Osëro, in Bulgarian).

Apart from the Dobrudja, the whole of Rumania is included in the northern basin of the lower Danube. It consists of a single inclined plane stretching upwards, with a north-westerly direction, from the left bank of the river to the summits of the Carpathians. It is divided into three zones steppe, forest and alpine. The first begins beyond the mud-flats and reed-beds which line the water's edge, and is a vast monotonous lowland, sloping so gently as to seem almost level. The surface is a yellow clay, with patches of brown or dark grey, outliers of the Russian “black earth.” Cereals, chiefly maize, with green crops and fields of gourds, alternate with fallow land overgrown by coarse grasses, weeds and stunted shrubs. Among the scanty trees, willows and poplars are commonest. The second zone extends over the foothills and lower ridges of the Carpathians. This region, called by Rumans “the district of vines,” is the most fertile portion of the country. In it grow most fruits and flowers which thrive in a temperate climate. Oaks, elms, firs, ashes and beeches are the principal forest trees. The third zone covers the higher mountains on their southern and eastern sides, whose violently contorted strata leave many transverse valleys, though usually inclining laterally towards the south-east. The birch and larch woods of this zone give way to pine forests as the altitude increases; and the pines to mosses, lichens and alpine plants, just below the jagged iron-grey peaks, many of which attain altitudes of 6000 to 8000 ft.

EB1911 Rumania.jpg
Emery Walker sc.

Geology.—The axis of the Transylvanian Alps consists of sericite schists and other similar rocks; and these are followed on the south by Jurassic, Cretaceous and Early Tertiary beds. The Jurassic and Cretaceous beds are ordinary marine sediments, but from the Cenomanian to the Oligocene the deposits are of the peculiar facies known in the Alps and Carpathians as Flysch. Farther north, the Flysch forms practically the whole of the Rumanian flank of the Carpathians. Along the foot of the Carpathians lies a broad trough of Miocene salt-bearing beds, and in this trough the strata are sometimes horizontal and sometimes strongly folded. Outside the band of Miocene beds the Sarmatian, Pontian and Levantine series, often concealed by Quaternary deposits, cover the great part of the Danube plain. Even the Pontian beds are sometimes folded. In the Dobrudja crystalline rocks, presumably of ancient date, rise through the Tertiary and recent deposits and form the hills which lie between the Danube and the Black Sea.[3]

Climate.—The Rumanian climate alternates between extreme cold in winter, when the thermometer may; fall to -20° Fahrenheit and extreme heat in summer, when it may rise to 100° in the shade. Autumn is the mildest season; spring lasts only for a few weeks. Spring at Bucharest has a mean temperature of 53°; summer, 72.5°; autumn, 65°; winter, 27.5°. For about 155 days in each year, Rumania suffers from the bitter north-east wind (crivets) which sweeps over south Russia; while a scorching west or south-west wind (austrǔ) blows for about 126 days. Little snow falls in the plains, but among the mountains it may lie for five months. The frosts are severe, the Danube being often icebound for three months. The rainfall, which is heaviest in summer, averages about 15-20 in.

Fauna.—In its fauna, Walachia has far more affinity to the lands lying south of the Danube than to Transylvania, although several species of Claudilia, once regarded as exclusively Transylvanian, are found south of the Carpathians. Moldavia and the Baragan Steppe resemble the Russian prairies in their variety of molluscs and the lower kinds of mammals. Over 40 species of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) have been observed in the Rumanian rivers. The lakes of the Dobrudja likewise abound in molluscs; parent forms, in many cases, of species which reappear, greatly modified, in the Black Sea. Insect life is somewhat less remarkable; but besides a distinctive genus of Orthoptera (Jaquetia Hospodar), there are several kinds of weevils (Curculionidae) said to be peculiar to Rumania. Birds are very numerous, including no fewer than 4 varieties of crows, 5 of warblers, 7 of woodpeckers, 8 of buntings, 4 of falcons, and 5 of eagles; while among the hosts of waterfowl which people the marshes of the Danube are 9 varieties of ducks, and 4 of rails. Roe-deer, foxes and wolves find shelter in the forests, where bears are not uncommon; and chamois frequent the loftiest and most inaccessible peaks.

Minerals.—The mineral wealth of Rumania lies chiefly in the mountains. Petroleum, salt, lignite and brown coal are largely worked. Deposits of rock-salt, a valuable government monopoly, stretch from the department of Succava in northern Moldavia to that of Gorjiu in Walachia, and are mined in the departments of Bacau, Prahova and Râmnicǔ Sǎrat. The presence of petroleum, indicated by many ancient workings in the shape of shallow hand-dug wells, can be traced continuously at the foot of the Transylvanian Alps, from Turnu Severin into Bukovina. Rumans claim for their product a higher percentage of pure oil than is found in the American, Galician and Caucasian wells; and, although American competition nearly destroyed this industry between 1873 and 1895, improved methods and legislation favouring the introduction of foreign capital enabled it to recover. At the beginning of the 20th century the Rumanian petroleum deposits were among the most important in the world. The industry is carried on by private producers as well as by the state, the American Standard Oil Company being largely interested. The total output, coming chiefly from the departments of Bacau, Buzeu, Dimbovitza and Prahova, was 250,000 metric tons in 1900, 615,000 in 1905, and 1,300,000 in 1909. Associated with petroleum is ozokerite, converted by the peasantry into candles. Lignite is used as fuel on the railways. The chief anthracite beds, those in the Gorjiu department, are leased until 1975 to an English capitalist, who has the right to construct railways. Extensive coalfields exist in the Dobrudja, and the Dimbovitza, Mehedintzi, Muscel, Prahova and Vâlcea departments. Iron, copper, lead, mercury, cinnabar, cobalt, nickel, sulphur, arsenic and china clay also occur. Among the mountains, gold was perhaps worked under Trajan, who first appointed a Procurator Metallorum, or overseer of mines, for Dacia; certainly in the 14th century, when immigrant Saxon miners established a considerable trade with Ragusa, in Dalmatia. Under the Turks, gold-washing was carried on by gipsy slaves, but it has long been abandoned as unprofitable. Until 1896 building materials were chiefly imported; but, after that year, many quarries were opened to develop the native resources of limestone, sandstone, serpentine, red, yellow and green granite, and marbles of all colours, including the white marble from Dorna in Suceava, said by Rumans to rival that of Carrara in Italy Clear amber is found beside the Buzeu and its affluents, with brown and grey clouded amber, and a blue fluorescent variety, of considerable value.

Rumania has long been noted for its mineral springs. Ruins of a Roman bath exist near Curtea de Argesh. In the Vâlcea department, besides many other iodine, sulphur and mud baths, there are the state-supported spas of Calimanesciǐ, Caciulata and Govora, situated among some of the finest Carpathian scenery. Most famous of all is Sinaia (q.v.), the summer residence of the Court; while important springs exist at Lake Sarat, near Braila; at Slanic, in the Prahova department, where flooded and abandoned salt-mines are fitted up as baths; at the Tekir Ghiol mere, near Constantza; and at Baltzatesti (Balţateştiǐ), in the Neamtzu (Neamţǔ) department, a favourite resort of invalids from many parts of eastern Europe.

Agriculture.—That, in 1900, Rumania ranked third,[4] after the United States and Russia, among the grain-growing countries of the world, is due partly to the fertile soil, whose chemical constituents are the same as in the “black earth” region of Russia, though even richer in nitrates; partly also to the improved methods and appliances introduced in the last quarter of the 19th century. The frail wooden ploughs with a lance-headed share that only scratched the surface soil, were then superseded by iron ploughs; steam threshers replaced the oxen which trod out the corn, and modern implements were widely adopted. Vast harvests of wheat and maize ripen on the plains and lower hills. Apart from cereals, the principal crops are beans, potatoes, beetroot and tobacco. Among the wine-producing countries of Europe, Rumania stood fifth in 1900, despite the ravages of phylloxera, old-fashioned culture, lack of storage and other drawbacks. The red wines of Moldavia, especially the brand known as Piscul Cerbuluǐ, resemble Bordeaux. The best white wines came from Cotnar in the Jassy department, but here phylloxera ruined the vineyards. Golden Cotnar was akin to Tokay. To combat the phylloxera, the government ordered the destruction of all infected vines, distributed immune American stocks and established schools of viticulture. On the upland fruit farms, although apples, pears, medlars, cherries, plums, peaches, apricots and melons thrive, the chief attention is given to damsons, from which is extracted a mild spirit (tsuica), highly esteemed throughout Rumania. This industry began to decline after 1860, but revived with the establishment of government schools of fruit-culture in many villages. Further instruction was given at various horticultural institutes in the towns, notably the Botanic Gardens and Institute of Bucharest, where the experiments in planting figs, almonds, hops and cotton yielded favourable results. Tobacco is largely cultivated, under state supervision.

There are three breeds of Rumanian oxen, besides the peculiar black buffaloes, with horns lying almost flat along their necks. Cheap transit enables the Rumanian farmers to compete successfully in the meat-markets of Austria, Germany and Holland. The southern Dobrudja and the Baragan Steppe, with the mountain pastures of Argeh, Buzeu, Dimbovitza, Muscel and Prahova, are occupied by large sheep-runs; 1200 farms were created in the Baragan by the Land Act of 1889. In winter the flocks are driven from the highlands to the plains. Cheeses of ewe's milk, packed in sheepskins or bark, are in great demand. Swine and pork are largely exported to Russia and Austria-Hungary. Besides the Moldavian and Servian breeds, thousands of so-called “swamp hogs” run wild among the marshes and on the islands of the Danube. Silkworm-rearing, once an important household industry, had been almost abandoned, when, in 1891, the government established mulberry nurseries, and distributed silkworms free of charge. Silkworm-rearing is taught in the monasteries and agricultural schools, especially in the College of Agriculture and Sylviculture, at Ferestriu, near Bucharest. Similar measures were adopted to check the decline of bee-keeping, and a model apiary was founded in 1890, under government control.

Forests.—The forests of Rumania were long either neglected or exploited in the most reckless fashion. Large tracts of woodland were cleared near the railways, and the communal rights of grazing and gathering firewood destroyed the aftergrowths. Nevertheless, in 1910 there were 2,760,000 acres under forests, chiefly in the mountains of north-western Moldavia. More than 1,000,000 acres are state property. Under King Charles, an ardent forester, the wholesale destruction of timber was arrested, and new plantations met with success. Lumber is floated down the rivers of the Carpathian watershed to the Danube, and so exported to Turkey and Bulgaria; casks, shaped planks and petroleum drums go chiefly to Austria and Russia. Wood-carving is taught in many schools, and a special school of forestry exists at Branesci in the Ilfov department. Estates in private hands are liable to state control, under the Forests Act of 1886.

Land Tenure.—The Rumanian system of land tenure dates from 1864, when most of the land was held in large estates, owned privately, or by the state or by monasteries. There was also a small class of peasant proprietors, called mochenéni in Walachia, résèchi in Moldavia, living and working in family communities; but the great mass of the peasantry cultivated the lands of the large proprietors, giving a certain number of days' work to their manorial lord, in addition to a tithe of the raw produce. They received in return a plot of ground proportionate to the number of animals they owned, and had also rights of grazing and of collecting fuel in the forests. In 1864, under the government of Prince Cuza, a new law was promulgated, conferring on each peasant family freehold property in lots varying from 7½ to 15 acres, according to the number of oxen that they owned. The man with no cattle received the minimum; the owner of 2 oxen got 10 acres, and the possessor of 4 received 12½ to 15 acres. The price of the land, which was calculated on the basis of the value of the forced labour to which the landlord had been entitled, was about £1, 16s. per acre, paid to the landlord by the state as compensation, and subsequently recovered from the peasants in fifteen annual instalments. In the first distribution, which took place almost immediately after the law was passed, 280,000 families in Walachia and about 127,000 in Moldavia became freeholders, holding nearly 4 million acres or one-third of the cultivated area of the country. These peasant plots were all declared inalienable for thirty years. The law of emancipation, although passed with the best of motives, did not to any great extent benefit the peasantry. The limited size of their farms, and the necessity for buying wood and paying for pasturage, both of which were formerly free, prevented them from obtaining complete independence of the large proprietors, on whose estates they still had to work for payment in money or kind, while their improvidence soon got them into the hands of Jewish money-lenders, who, fortunately for the peasants, were by law unable to become proprietors of the soil. In 1866 and 1872 laws were passed for still further improving the position of these small proprietors; and in 1879 a measure was carried for allotting lands to 48,000 recently married couples, and for restoring to many peasant families lands which had been alienated.

By the Land Act of 1889, the state domains, amounting to nearly one-third of the total area of Rumania (originally the property of the church and the convents, confiscated by Prince Cuza in 1866), were distributed among the peasantry. The land was divided into lots of 12½, 25 and 37½ acres. Peasants having no land might purchase the smaller lots on very easy terms. Those who already held less than 12½ acres might purchase up to that amount. When a change of residence became necessary to enable the peasant to take up the new allotment, the state advanced £6 to each family to defray expenses. The price to be paid for the land differed in different districts, and was to be paid to the state in small annual instalments. If any land remained after satisfying the wants of the peasants, it was to be sold by public auction in lots of 50 to 62½ acres. All lots in both cases were declared inalienable for thirty years. The sale of the larger lots gave rise to so many abuses that in 1896 a law was passed abolishing their further sale. As a result of these measures the majority of Rumans are peasant proprietors; but the smallness of the holdings renders scientific farming difficult except by co-operation, and many proprietors can only live by working for the owners of large estates. Thus, though the average value of agricultural land increased by 60% between 1870 and 1900, the position of the peasantry is far from satisfactory, and the resultant discontent was the chief cause of the agrarian rising in 1907.

Fisheries.—Among European freshwater fishing-grounds, the Danube is only surpassed by the Volga; the most valuable fish being sturgeon and sterlet, mostly netted in the St George mouth; carp, often weighing 50 ℔; pike, perch, tench and eels. By an act of 1895, a close period was instituted, the lakes and rivers restocked, and the state fisheries, which are either farmed by private companies or directly administered, were set in order. The coarse-grained grey Rumanian caviare is forwarded to Berlin, and there blended with Russian caviare. Flounders and mullet are caught in the Black Sea, and there are oyster-beds in the delta and on the Dobrudja littoral. The principal markets for Rumanian fish are Turkey, Russia and Austria-Hungary. Fish of inferior quality is imported, chiefly from Russia.

Manufactures and Commerce.—The native mines, fields and forests provide raw material for most of the few factories which exist. These include petroleum refineries, iron foundries, distilleries, flour mills, sugar refineries, sawmills, paper mills, chemical works, glass works, soap and candle works, &c. A law passed in 1887 provided that any one undertaking to found an industrial establishment with a capital of at least 2000, or employing at least 25 workmen (of whom two-thirds should be Rumanians), should be granted 12 acres of state land, exemption for a term of years from all direct taxes, freedom from customs dues for machinery and raw material imported, exemption from road taxes, reduction in cost of carriage of materials on the state railways, and preferential rights to the supply of manufactured articles to the state.

The following table shows the value of Rumanian imports and exports for five years:—

 Year.  Imports. Exports.
1904 £12,455,000  £10,475,000 
1905  13,510,000  18,284,000
1906  16,885,000  19,654,000
1907  17,220,000  22,157,000
1908  16,563,000  15,158,000

The principal imports are metals and machinery (£5,510,000 in 1908), textiles, silk, wool, hair and hides. Grain (£11,297,000 in 1908), petroleum (£1,543,000) and timber (£1,059,000) are by far the most important exports, the remainder consisting of live-stock the animal products, fruit, vegetables and mineral waters. In 1908 the chief consumers of Rumanian goods were (in order) Belgium, Great Britain and Italy; the chief exporters to Rumania were Germany, Austria-Hungary, Great Britain and France. The wide fluctuations in Rumanian commerce are largely due to the dependence of the country on the grain harvest.

Finance.—The state revenue is derived from customs; from public works and public land; from indirect taxes in the shape of stamp, inheritance, beer, spirit, petroleum and other duties; from direct taxes on land and buildings, with road-tolls, licences for the sale of alcohol and traders' registration fees; from the tobacco, salt, match, playing-card and cigarette-paper monopolies; and from the postal, telegraphic and telephonic services. The chief items of expenditure are interest on the national debt, and the cost of defence, public works and education.

The following table shows the estimated revenue and expenditure for five years:—

 Year. Revenue.  Expenditure. 
1906-7 £9,557,000  £9,509,000
1907-8 10,099,000 9,979,000
1908-9 16,440,000 16,390,000
1909-10  17,427,000 17,146,000
1910-11 18,443,000 18,443,000

The great increase after 1907-8 is due to the inclusion of railway receipts and expenditure, with some other items not previously enumerated.

In May 1905 the outstanding public debt, which amounted to about £54,000,000, mainly placed in Germany and bearing interest at an average rate of 5%, was converted into a uniform 4% stock. Besides this reduction of interest, the state secured an extension of fourteen years in each of the various periods allotted for repayment of the component loans. But a considerable increase in the total debt was involved, because a bonus of 10½% in new 4% stock, issued at par, was offered to induce bondholders to convert, while, to cover the bonus, an additional 4% loan was riased at 90.70, amounting to £4,000,000, redeemable in 1945. At the beginning of the fiscal year 1909-10 (March 31st, O.S.) the total outstanding debt was £58,367,000, and the debt charges for the year were estimated at £3,518,080.

Banks and Currency.—Apart from the General Bank of Rumania (capital £200,000), which is owned by a syndicate mainly of Germans, the largest credit establishments belong to the state. They include the National Bank (capital and reserves in 1910, £1,560,000), founded in 1880; the Agricultural Loan Bank, founded in 1894; the Rural and Urban Land Credit Institutes, which lend money on agricultural and building land respectively; the Cassa Rurala, which buys estates for resale in small lots; savings banks in all the principal towns; and the Deposit and Trust Fund, which takes charge of estates left vacant through intestacy, surplus departmental and communal funds, securities given by contractors for public works, &c.

After the Crimean War, a bimetallic currency was adopted, with the leǔ (franc) of 100 bani (centimes) as the unit of value. But after 1878 the Russian silver rouble was rated so highly as to drive the native coins out of circulation; and in 1889 Rumania joined the Latin Monetary Union and adopted a gold standard. Besides the silver pieces worth ½, 1, 2 and 5 leǐ, gold coins of 5, 10 and 20 leǐ are used. Silver is legal tender only up to 50 leǐ. All taxes and customs dues must be paid in gold, and, owing to the small quantities issued from the Rumanian mint, foreign gold is current, especially French 20-franc pieces (equal at par to 20 leǐ), Turkish gold lire (22.70), Old Russian Imperials (20.60) and English sovereigns of (25.22). Besides bronze coins of less value than ½ leǔ, nickel pieces worth 5, 10 and 20 bani were authorized by a law of 1900. The French decimal system is in use for weights and measures, together with Turkish standards. On the railways and in post offices the Gregorian calendar is employed; elsewhere the Julian remains in use.

Chief Towns.—The chief towns, with their estimated population in 1910, are Bucharest, the capital (300,000); Jassy, the capital of Moldavia (80,000); Galatz (66,000), Braila (60,000), Ploesci (50,000), Craiova (46,000), Botoshani (34,000), Bêrlad (25,000), Focshani (25,000), Tulcea (20,000), Constantza (16,000), Giurgevo (15,000). Other towns which, like the foregoing, are described in separate articles are Alexandria, Babadag, Bacau, Buzeu, Calafat, Calarashi, Câmpulung, Caracal, Curtea de Argesh, Dorohoi, Dragashani, Falticeni, Hushi, Mangalia, Neamtzu, Oltenitza, Piatra, Pitesci, Râmnicu Sǎrat, Râmnicu Vâlcea, Roman, Sinaia, Sulina, Tîrgu Jiu, Tîrgu Ocna, Tîrgovishtea, Tecuci, Turnu Magurele, Turnu Severin and Vaslui.

Communications.—Until the 19th century, traffic was carried on in Rumania chiefly by means of ox-wagons, over the roughest of roads. After 1830, however, many highways were opened, these being usually excellent among the mountains but deteriorating as they descend into the lowlands, where stone is dear. Highways are maintained by the state, department or commune, according to their size and importance. In 1869, the first Rumanian railway was opened, between Bucharest and Giurgevo, its port. Other lines followed rapidly; some built by private enterprise, others by the state, which by 1888 had bought the entire system. This centres in one main line, carried southwards from Suczawa in Bukovina through the whole length of Moldavia, and turning westwards through Walachia to meet the Hungarian frontier at Verciorova. Branch lines extend, on one side, up the lateral valleys of the Carpathians, and, on the other, to Jassy and the principal Danubian ports. A direct line connects Jassy with Galatz; another traverses the Dobrudja from Constantza to Cernavoda, where it crosses the Danube and proceeds north-west to join the main line. The double bridge of Cernavoda, with the viaducts leading to it, stretches for 12½ m. across the river and surrounding marshes. Besides the junctions at Suczawa and Verciorova, the Rumania system meets the Hungarian through the Gyimes, Rothenthurm and Vulkan Passes; the Russian by lines from Jassy and Galatz to Kishinev in Bessarabia; the Bulgarian and Servian by means of numerous ferries. Rumania has no canals, and the canalization of its rivers is impeded by drought and floods. The Pruth and Sereth are navigable for a short distance by small sailing craft; the conservancy of the Danube (q.v.) is controlled by a European commission, which sits at Galatz. Besides river services, the state maintains lines of sea-going ships from Constantza to Constantinople and the Aegean Islands, and from Braila to Rotterdam. In 1908 the ports of Rumania were entered by 32,888 vessels of 9,269,000 tons, of which 30,504 of 6,529,000 tons belonged to the river (Danubian) trade. The merchant navy of Rumania comprised about 495 vessels of 145,000 tons, including 88 steamers.

Population.—The population of Rumania numbered 5,912,520 in 1899, and about 6,850,000 in 1910. Fully 6,000,000 of these were Rumans or Vlachs (q.v.). The population of foreign descent comprises many Jews, Armenians, gipsies, Greeks, Germans, Turks, Tatars and Magyars, Servians and Bulgarians. The Jews increase more rapidly than any of these peoples except the Armenians. They usually congregate in the larger towns, though in northern Moldavia there are a few purely Jewish villages, recalling those of Poland.

The bitter feeling against them in Rumania is not so much due to religious fanaticism as to the fear that if given political and other rights they will gradually possess themselves of the whole soil. In many towns in northern Moldavia the Jews are in a majority, and their total numbers in Rumania are about 300,000, i.e. about one-twentieth of the entire population, a larger ratio than exists in any other country in the world. In many places they have the monopoly of the wine and spirit shops, and retail trade generally; and as they are always willing to advance money on usury, and are more intelligent and better educated than the ordinary peasant, there is little doubt that in a country where the large landowners are proverbially extravagant, and the peasant proprietors needy, the soil would soon fall into the hands of the Jews were it not for the stringent laws which prevent them from owning land outside the towns. When in addition it is considered that the Moldavian Jews, who are mostly of Polish and Russian origin, speak a foreign language, wear a distinguishing dress and keep themselves aloof from their neighbours, the antipathy in which they are held by the Rumanians generally may be understood.

The gipsies, who are mostly converts to the Orthodox Church, still, as a rule, cling to their vagabond existence, though their skill at all handicrafts finds them ready employment in the towns. During their centuries of slavery, they were organized into castes, as musicians, metal workers, masons, &c.; but after about 1850 the bonds of caste were gradually relaxed and gipsies began to intermarry with Rumans. The Greeks form a floating population of merchants and small traders, anxious to amass a fortune and return home. German and Austrian business men visit the country in large numbers, and colonies of German farmers flourish among the mountains of Little Walachia. In central Moldavia there is a large population of Magyar descent, and the Servian and Bulgarian elements are strong near the Danube. The interior of the Dobrudja is occupied largely by Turks and Bulgarians, with Tatars, Russians and Armenians, but here the Ruman steadily gains ground at the expense of the alien. At Megidia, a flourishing town of about 10,000 inhabitants, which sprang up after 1860 between Cernavoda and Constantza, the Tatars predominate. Russians of the Lipovan sect live in exile in Bucharest and other cities, earning a livelihood as cab-drivers, and wearing the long coats and round caps of their countrymen.

National Characteristics.—Two dissimilar types are noticeable among the Rumans. One is fair-haired, florid and blue-eyed; the other, more frequent among the Carpathians, is dark, resembling the southern Italians. Both alike are hardy, though rarely tall; both, when of the peasant class, frugal and inured to toil amid the rigours of their native climate. Proud of their race and country, they acquired, with their independence, an ardent sense of nationality; and they look forward to the day which will reunite them to their kinsmen in Transylvania and Bessarabia. They have been taught, originally in the interests of Transylvanian Roman Catholicism, to regard themselves as true descendants of the Romans. The peasants retain their distinctive dress, long discarded, except on festivals and at court, by the wealthier classes. Men wear a long linen tunic, leather belt, white woollen trousers and leather gaiters, above Turkish slippers or sandals. The lowlanders' head-dress is generally a high cylindrical cap of rough cloth or felt, while the mountaineers prefer a small round straw hat. Sundays and holidays bring out a sleeveless jacket, embroidered in red and gold; and both sexes wear sheepskins in cold weather. The linen dresses of women are fastened by a long sash or girdle, wound many times round the waist; the holiday attire being a white gown covered with embroideries, one or more brightly coloured aprons and necklaces of beads or coins. The standard of comfort is lowest along the Danube and in parts of the Dobrudja. As the land becomes higher, the dwellings improve; but, despite the presence of a doctor in each commune, disease is everywhere rife. Many villages are wholly built of timber and thatch, especially amongst the Carpathians, the floors being frequently raised on piles, several feet above the ground. The inner walls are often hung with hand-woven tapestries, which harmonize well with the smoke-blackened rafters, the primitive loom and the huge Dutch stove characteristic of a prosperous Rumanian farm. Many pagan beliefs linger on in the country, where vampires, witches and the evil eye are dreaded by all. The peasants reassure themselves by the use of charms and spells, and by a strict observance of the forms which their creed prescribes. A cross guards every well or spring; every home has its ikons or sacred pictures. Church festivals and fasts are kept with equal care. For months together a Ruman will subsist on vegetables and mamaliga, the maize porridge that forms his staple diet. Beef and mutton are rarely touched, and in some districts pork is only eaten on St Hilary's day (the 20th of December, O.S.). Veal is the one kind of meat generally consumed. Wine and plum-spirit, or the more powerful brandy distilled from grain, are drunk in great quantities by the townsfolk, more sparingly by countrymen; Rumans generally being more sober than the western Europeans. The ceremonies which accompany a wedding preserve the tradition of marriage by capture; a peasant bride must enter her new home carrying bread and salt, and in parts of Walachia a flower is painted on the outer wall of cottages in which there is a girl old enough to marry. Young men swear eternal brotherhood; girls, eternal sisterhood; and the Church ratifies their choice in a service at which the feet of the pair are chained together. This relationship is morally and legally regarded as not less binding than kinship by birth. The dead are borne to the grave with uncovered faces, and a Rumanian funeral is a scene of much barbaric display. All classes delight in music and dancing. Women hold spinning-parties at which the leader begins a ballad, and each in turn contributes a verse. A number of satirical folk-tales (largely of Turkish origin) are current at the expense of Jew, gipsy or parish priest. The Rumanian folk-songs, sung and often improvised by the villagers, or by a wandering guitar-player (cobzar), are of exceptional interest and beauty (see Literature, below). The national dances and music closely resemble those of the Southern Slavs (see Montenegro and Bulgaria).

Constitution.—In 1866, Prince Charles of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen was chosen prince of Rumania by a constituent assembly elected under universal suffrage. This body at the same time drew up a constitution, which remains in force, though modified in 1879 and 1884. In 1881, Prince Charles was proclaimed king. As he proved childless, the succession was accepted by his brother, Prince Leopold, on behalf of his son William; and in 1888 William renounced his claim in favour of Ferdinand his younger brother. Thus the monarchy became hereditary in the family of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. No woman may ascend the throne; and, in default of a male heir, the representatives of the people can choose a king among the royal families of western Europe.

Parliament consists of a senate, elected for eight years, and a chamber of deputies, elected for four years. Senators must be forty years old and possess an income of 9400 leǐ (£376). They are chosen by two colleges of electors; one composed of citizens with an income of £80; the other, of citizens with incomes varying from £32 to £80. The heir-apparent, the two archbishops, the six bishops and the rectors of both universities, sit ex officio in the senate. For the chamber of deputies, all citizen taxpayers of full age may vote, being organized for the purpose into three colleges. All persons with an income of £50 vote in the first; all residents in an urban commune who pay taxes amounting to sixteen shillings yearly, with those who have been through the primary course of education, and all members of the liberal professions, retired officers and state pensioners, vote in the second. The third college is formed of the remaining taxpayers. Those who can read and write vote directly, the rest indirectly. Every fifty indirect electors choose a delegate, who votes along with the direct electors. The naturalization of Jews and Moslems is hedged about by many technical difficulties, and requires a separate vote of the legislature in every individual case. Deputies must be not less than twenty-five years of age. Both senators and deputies receive 20 leǐ for each day of actual attendance, and travel free on the railways. The king may temporarily veto any measure passed by parliament. Executive power is vested in a council under the presidency of a prime minister, and representing the ministers of foreign affairs; justice; the interior; religion and education; war; finance; agriculture, trade, industry and public domains; and public works. Entire liberty of speech, assembly and the press is guaranteed by the constitution, by which also the titles and privileges of the boiars or nobles were abolished.

For purposes of local government, Rumania is divided into 32 departments, each controlled by a prefect, and subdivided into sub-prefectures and communes. The sub-prefectures (plasiǐ) correspond with the French arrondissements. Prelects and subprefects are appointed by the state, but the chief civic officials are elected. Very heavy octroi duties provide the means of municipal administration.

Law and Justice.—Until the 17th century justice was administered according to custom and precedent, or, in ecclesiastical cases, by the rules of an ill-defined canon law. The first change was introduced by Matthew Bassaraba, prince of Walachia (1633-54), and by Basil the Wolf, prince of Moldavia (1634-53). Basil drew up a criminal code, on the principle of “an eye for an eye.” Thus, a man guilty of arson was burned alive. No idea of equality before the law as yet existed: nobles might only be beheaded or banished. Bassaraba, besides reforming the canon law, issued a similar criminal code, with a number of civil enactments, based on Roman law, and regulating testaments, guardianship, &c. The next great advance began with the Russian protectorate over Rumania (1828-56), when magistrates were made irremovable, and new tribunals created, including a petty court in each rural commune. But nothing was yet done to modify the relative positions of noble and serf. The growth of the present system dates from the union of Moldavia and Walachia in 1859. The main provisions of Rumanian law are drawn from the codes of western powers, especially the Code Napoleon. Besides the communal courts, there are quarter-sessional or circuit courts, where simple cases are decided. An appeal from these lies to the departmental courts, which sit in every capital of a department, and in which sessions are held, at stated times, for the trial by jury of serious offences. Any appeal from the departmental courts is brought before the appeal courts of Bucharest, Craiova, Galatz or Jassy; and thence, if necessary, to the supreme tribunal, or court of cassation (Curtea de Casatie), which sits in Bucharest.

Defence.—At the accession of Prince Charles, the Rumanian army consisted of raw levies, led by adventurers from any country, provided with no uniform, and, in many cases, armed only with pikes or sabres. Under Prince Charles universal and compulsory service was introduced. The present system, in which his reforms culminated, rests upon a law of 1891, modified in 1900 and 1908.

By this law the forces are divided into three sections. The first is composed of men between the ages of 21 and 30, enrolled in the field army and its reserves. Every citizen capable of bearing arms must serve from his 30th to his 36th year in the second section, or territorial militia, which musters in spring for shooting-practice and in the autumn for field manœuvres. In the militia are included soldiers who have served their time in the ranks, and recruits chosen by lot from the yearly contingent of conscripts but not immediately summoned for duty in the field army. Finally, every citizen between the ages of 36 and 46 belongs to the third section, called the Gloata (Landsturm) , which can only be called upon for home service in war. In time of peace the field army consists of four complete army corps, with headquarters at Craiova, Bucharest, Jassy and Galatz, besides an independent brigade in the Dobrudja, and a separate cavalry division with headquarters at Bucharest. Its peace strength in 1909-10 was 4415 officers, 89,227 non-commissioned officers and men, and 18,920 horses. The infantry was armed with the Mannlicher magazine rifle (model 1893), the cavalry with the Mannlicher carbine, the horse and field artillery with Krupp quick-firing guns. On a war footing the field army would contain 225,000 combatants. It was estimated that the militia should ultimately furnish an additional force of 100,000 men, but up to 1910 this branch of the service was not completely organized. The arrangements for mobilization are otherwise very complete, and the field army is maintained in a high state of efficiency. The war budget for 1909-10 was £2,271,300.

The fortifications designed in 1882 by the Belgian engineer, General Brialmont, and completed at a cost of more than £4,000,000, form the keystone of the national defences. They consist of the Sereth Line, an entrenchment extending over a front of 45 m. from Galatz to Focshani, and intended to cover an army of defence against invaders from the north-east, and of the outworks which make Bucharest the largest fortified camp in the world, except Paris. All these fortifications, including the additional works at Galatz and Focshani, are strongly armed with Krupp and Gruson guns.

The Rumanian navy is divided into two squadrons; one for the Danube, with headquarters at Galatz; one for the Black Sea, with headquarters at Constantza. In 1909-10 the fleet comprised one cruiser, seven gunboats, eight torpedo-boats, six coastguard vessels, a training-ship, a despatch-boat, a ship for the mining service and numerous vessels for naval police. The state possesses a floating dock and a marine arsenal at Galatz.

Religion.—The State Church of Rumania, which is governed by a Holy Synod, professes the Orthodox Oriental creed. Its independence was formally recognized by the oecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, in 1885. The Rumanian Church had claimed its independence from very ancient times, but under the Turkish suzerainty and Phanariote hospodars Greeks were generally elected as bishops, and the influence of the Greek patriarch at Constantinople came to be more and more felt. In 1864 it declared itself independent of all foreign prelates. In 1872 a law was passed by which the bishops were elected by the senate, the chamber of deputies, and the synod sitting as an assembly (the only other occasion on which provision is made for such an assembly is in the event of the throne becoming vacant without any apparent heir). It was subsequently decided to consecrate the holy oil in Rumania instead of procuring it from Russia or Constantinople; but the Greek patriarch protested. Secret negotiations were entered into which came to a successful issue. The patriarch feared on the one hand that the growing influence of the Russian Church would give a colour of Slavism to the whole church, and that a Russian might eventually be appointed oecumenical patriarch at Constantinople, while the Rumanians hoped by means of the independence of their church to deprive the Russians of all excuse for interfering in their internal affairs under the pretext of religion. The Rumanians, although obtaining complete independence, agreed to recognize the patriarch at Constantinople as the chief dignitary of the Orthodox Church.

The metropolitan archbishop of Bucharest, officially styled metropolitan primate of Rumania, presides over the Holy Synod; the other members being the metropolitan of Jassy (primate of Moldavia), the six bishops of Râmnicu Vâlcea, Roman, Hushi, Buzeu, Curtea de Argesh and the Lower Danube (Galatz); together with eight bishops in partibus, their coadjutors. Metropolitans and bishops are elected by the senate and deputies, sitting together. In Hungary there are a uniate metropolitan and three bishops belonging to the Rumanian church. The secular clergy marry before ordination; and only regular clergy (kalugari) are eligible for high preferment. Although many convents had been closed and utilized for secular purposes, there were in 1910 no less than 168, including nunneries. The older convents are usually built in places difficult of access and are strongly fortified; for in troublous times they served as refuges for the peasants or rallying-places for demoralized troops. The sequestration of the monastic estates, which in 1864 covered nearly one-third of Rumania, was due to flagrant abuses. Many estates were held by alien foundations, such as the convents of Mount Athos and Jerusalem; while the revenues of many more were spent abroad by the patriarch of Constantinople. Religious liberty is accorded to all churches, Jews, Moslems, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Armenians and Lipovans having their own places of worship.

Education.—Primary education is free and compulsory, “where schools are available,” for children between seven and eleven years of age. At the close of the 19th century, however, the accommodation was insufficient, the attendance limited in consequence, and the percentage of illiterates high; reaching 88.5% in some of the rural communes. Great improvements were effected between 1900 and 1907, the number of schools increasing from 3643 to 4463, and the pupils from 298,000 to 515,000. The state contributes to the maintenance of elementary schools, for the Vlachs in Macedonia, Bulgaria and Transylvania.

Secondary and higher education are also free. There are gymnasia, or grammar schools of four classes, roughly corresponding with the German sub-gymnasia; and lyceums of eight classes, which answer to the German gymnasia. Up to the fourth class all pupils are taught alike in the lyceums; in the fifth, however, they are divided into a literary or “humanist” section, and a scientific or “realist” section. The four upper classes are taught French and German; English and Italian being added for the “realists,” Greek and Latin for the “humanists.” Technical instruction is given in the agricultural schools; in various arts and crafts institutes, such as those of Bucharest and Jassy; in the veterinary and engineering colleges of Bucharest; in numerous commercial schools, and in schools of domestic economy for girls. In 1909-10 there were four ecclesiastical seminaries, seven training schools for teachers and eight military schools. The cost of education is largely borne by the communes, as well as by the state. At Bucharest and Jassy there are universities with faculties of law, philosophy, science and medicine and theology.

Antiquities.—The history of primitive civilization in Rumania can be traced back to the Neolithic Age; numerous remains of this period have been found at Vodastra in the Romanatzi department. Roman rule Jeft a deep imprint on the country. The following Roman towns have been identified: (1) in the Dobrudja, Cius (Hirsova), Troësmis (Iglitza), Arrubium (Machin), Viodunum (Isakcha), Istrus (Karaharman), Tropaeum (Adam Klissi), Kallatis (Mangalia), Tomi (Constantza); (2) in Moldavia, Dinogetia (Tiglina); (3) in Walachia, Drobetae (Turnu Severin), Malva (Celeiu), Castra Nova (Craiova), Romula (Resca), Sorium (Roshiori de Vede), Pelendava (Bradesci), Acidava (Jenuseshti), Rusidava (Dragaşani), Castra Traiana (Râmnicu Vâlcea), Arutela (Bivolari), Pons Vetus (Caineni), Koraidava (Petroasa), Ramidava (Buzeu). A great military road encircled the Dobrudja hills and skirted the Bulgarian shore of the Danube. It was linked by a ferry at Celeiu to two lesser roads; one striking northwards into Transylvania, up the Olt valley, the other bending westwards until it reached the Jiu, and there diverging southwards to Turnu Severin, and northwards to the Vulcan Pass. The plains near the Olt and Jiu estuaries are rich in Roman remains, notably in the towns of Caracal, Grodjibod and Islaz. Ruins and inscriptions may be seen at Resca, a temple at Slaveni, villas and a statue of the emperor Commodus (A.D. 161-92) at Celeiu. All these lie within a radius of 60 m. Two ramparts, known as Trajan's wall, can be discerned, one on either side of the railway from Cernavoda to Constantza; and there were bridges over the Danube at Turnu Severin and Turnu Magurele. The Tropaeum Trajani, or Adam Klissi monument (found near Rassova in the Dobrudja and removed to Bucharest museum), is a round stone structure of 100 ft. circumference and 40 ft. high, carved in low relief with scenes representing Trajan's conquest of Dacia. (See G. Tocilescu, Das Monument von Adam Klissi, Vienna, 1895.) Few monuments were left by the barbarian invaders who ravaged Rumania from the 3rd century to the 14th save some vestiges of Gothic culture at Buzeu, and at Petroasa, close by. The celebrated treasure of Petroasa (commonly written Petrossa), preserved in Bucharest museum, consists of embossed and jewelled gold plate, and probably dates from the 6th century (see Plate). Medieval tapestries, with ecclesiastical vestments, ornaments and some fine pieces of early woodwork, are also preserved in Bucharest museum. The attempt to create a national style of architecture, based on Greek and Byzantine models, began under Stephen the Great of Moldavia (1457-1504), lasting until the 17th century, when it was arrested, first by oolitical disorders, and, later, by the commercial development which caused a demand for cheap and rapid building. Its chief accomplishment is the cathedral of Curtea de Argesh (q.v.). Painting and sculpture, like modern Rumanian architecture, are still in their infancy.

Bibliography.—A list of the numerous statistical and other official publications issued at Bucharest in Rumanian or French is given yearly in Annual statistic al României. The final results of the census of 1899 were published by the ministry of agriculture in 1905, with introduction by Dr L. Colescu. See also G. J. Lahovari, Marele dicţionar geografic al României (vols. 1-5, Bucharest, 1899-1902); A. de Gubernatis, La Roumanie et les Roumains (Florence, 1898); E. de Martonne, La Valachie, essai de monographie géographique; J. Samuelson, Rumania, Past and Present (London, 1882); G. Beuger, Rumania in 1900 (trans. from the German by A. H. Keane (London, 1901)); A. Bellessort, La Roumanie contemporaine (Paris, 1905); L. Colescu, Progrès économiques . . . réalisés sous la règne de Sa Majesté le Roi Carol I. (Bucharest, 1907); G. D. Creanga, Grundbesitzverteilung und Bauernfrage in Rumänien (Leipzig, 1907); C. Baicoianǔ, Histoire de la politique douanière de la Roumanie de 1870-1903 (2 vols., Bucharest, 1904). (X.)

History

(1) Introduction.—The earliest record of the lands which constitute the kingdom of Rumania begins with the period Dacia. immediately preceding their conquest by the Romans. For information upon this period, and upon the subsequent centuries of Roman or Byzantine rule, see Dacia. From the 6th to the 12th century, wave after wave of barbarian conquerors, Goths, Tatars, Slavs and others, passed over the country, and, according to one school of historians, almost obliterated its original Daco-Roman population; the modern Vlachs, on this theory, representing a later body of immigrants from Transdanubian territory. According to others, the ancient inhabitants were, at worst, only submerged for a time, and their direct descendants are the Rumans of to-day. Each of these conflicting views is supported by strong evidence; and the whole controversy, too large and too obscure for discussion here, is considered under the heading Vlachs.

Towards the close of the 13th century, Walachia and Moldavia were occupied by a mixed population, composed partly of Vlachs, but mainly of Slavs and Tatars; in Great Walachia,[5] The Vlachs in the 13th century. also called Muntenia, the Petchenegs and Cumanians predominated. Rumanian historians have striven, by piecing together the stray fragments of evidence which survive, to prove that their Vlach ancestors had not, as sometimes alleged, been reduced to a scattered community of nomadic shepherds, dwelling among the Carpathians as the serfs of their more powerful neighbours. The researches of Haşdeu, Xenopol and other historians tend to show the existence of a highly organized Vlach society in Transylvania, Oltland and certain districts of Hungary and Moldavia; of a settled commonalty, agricultural rather than pastoral; and of a hereditary feudal nobility, bound to pay tribute and render military service to the Hungarian crown, but enjoying many privileges, which were defined by a distinct customary law (jus valahicum) . Although the characteristic title's of voivode, knez and ban (all implying military as well as civil authority) are of Slavonic origin, and perhaps derived from the practice of the later Bulgarian (or Bulgaro-Vlachian) empire, the growth of Vlach feudal institutions is attributed to German influences, which permeated through Hungarian channels into the Vlach world, and transformed the primitive tribal chiefs into a feudal aristocracy of boiars or boyards[6] (nobles).

With the 13th century, at latest, begins the authentic political history of the Vlachs in Rumania, but it is not the history of Growth of Rumanian nationality. a united people. The two principalities of Walachia and Moldavia developed separately, and each has its separate annals. About the year 1774 it first becomes possible to trace the progress of these Danubian Principalities in a single narrative, owing to the uniform system of administration adopted by the Turkish authorities, and the rapid contemporary growth of a national consciousness among the Vlachs. At last, in 1859, the two principalities were finally united under the name of Rumania. The subjoined history of the country is arranged under the four headings: Walachia, Moldavia, the Danubian Principalities and Rumania, in order to emphasize this historical development.

(2) Walachia.—Tradition, as embodied in a native chronicle of the 16th century, entitled the History of the Ruman Land since Foundation of the Principality. the arrival of the Rumans (Istoria tiereǐ Românéscǐ de cândǔ au descǎlicata Româniǐ), gives a precise account of the founding of the Walachian state by Radu Negru, or Rudolf the Black (otherwise known as Negru Voda, the Black Prince), voivode of the Rumans of Fogaras in Transylvania, who in 1290 descended with a numerous people into the Transalpine plain and established his capital first at Câmpulung and then at Curtea de Argesh. Radu dies in 1310, and is succeeded by a series of voivodes whose names and dates are duly given; but this early chapter of Walachian history has been rudely handled by critical historians. A considerable body of Vlachs doubtless emigrated from Hungary at this time, and founded in Walachia a principality dependent on the Hungarian crown; but material is lacking for a detailed description of the movement.

In 1330 the voivode John Bassaraba[7] or Bazarab the Great (1310-38) succeeded in inflicting a crushing defeat on his suzerain King Charles I. of Hungary, and for fourteen Hungarian Supremacy. years Walachia enjoyed complete independence. Louis the Great (1342-82) succeeded for a while in restoring the Hungarian supremacy, but in 1367 the voivode Vlad or Vladislav inflicted another severe defeat on the Hungarians, and succeeded for a time in ousting the Magyar governor of Turnu Severin, and thus incorporating Oltland in his own dominions. Subsequently, in order to retain a hold on the loyalty of the Walachian voivode, the king of Hungary invested him with the title of duke of Fogaras and Omlas, Ruman districts in Transylvania.

Under the voivode Mircea (1386-1418), whose prowess is still celebrated in the national folk-songs, Walachia played for a Mircea. while a more ambitious part. This prince during the earlier part of his reign sought a counterpoise to Hungarian influence in close alliance with King Ladislaus V. of Poland. He added to his other titles that of “count of Severin, despot of the Dobrudja, and lord of Silistria,” and both Vidin and Sistora appear in his possession. A Walachian contingent, apparently Mircea's, aided the Servian tsar Lazar in his vain endeavour to resist the Turks at Kossovo (1389); later he allied himself with his former enemy Sigismund of Hungary against the Turkish sultan Bayezid I., who inflicted a crushing defeat on the allied armies at Nikopolis in 1396. Bayezid subsequently invaded and laid waste a large part of Walachia, but the voivode succeeded in inflicting considerable loss on the retiring Turks, and the capture of Bayezid by Timur in 1402 gave the country a reprieve. In the internecine struggle that followed amongst the sons of Bayezid, Mircea espoused the cause of Musa; but, though he thus obtained for a while considerable influence in the Turkish councils, this policy eventually drew on him the vengeance of the sultan Mahomet I., who succeeded in reducing him to a tributary position.

During the succeeding period the Walachian princes appear alternately as the allies of Hungary or the creatures of the Relations with Hungary and the Turks. Turk. In the later battle of Kossovo of 1448, between the Hungarians, led by Hunyadi János and the sultan Murad II., the Walachian contingent treacherously surrendered to the Turks; but this did not hinder the victorious sultan from massacring the prisoners and adding to the tribute a yearly contribution of 3000 javelins and 4000 shields. In 1453 Constantinople fell; in 1454 Hunyadi died; and a year later the sultan invaded Walachia to set up Vlad IV. (1455-62), the son of a former voivode. The father of this Vlad had himself been notorious for his ferocity, but his son, during his Turkish sojourn, had improved on his father's example. He was known in Walachia as Dracul, or the Devil, and has left a name in history as Vlad the Impaler. The stories of his ferocious savagery exceed belief. He is said to have feasted amongst his impaled victims. When the sultan Mahomet, infuriated at the impalement of his envoy, the pasha of Vidin, who had been charged with Vlad's deposition, invaded Walachia in person with an immense host, he is said to have found at one spot a forest of pales on which were the bodies of men, women and children. The voivode Radu (1462-75) was substituted for this monster by Turkish influence, and constrained to pay a tribute of 12,000 ducats; but Vlad returned to the throne in 1476-77.

The shifting policy of the Walachian princes at this time is well described in a letter of the Hungarian king Matthias Corvinus (1458-90) to Casimir of Poland. “The voivodes,” he writes, “of Walachia and Moldavia fawn alternately upon the Turks, the Tatars, the Poles and the Hungarians, that among so many masters their perfidy may remain unpunished.” The prevalent laxity of marriage, the frequency of divorce, and the fact that illegitimate children could succeed as well as those born in lawful wedlock, by multiplying the candidates for the voivodeship and preventing any regular system of succession, contributed much to the internal confusion of the country. The elections, though often controlled by the Turkish Divan, were still constitutionally in the hands of the boiars, who were split up into various factions, each with its own pretender to the throne. The princes followed one another in rapid succession, and usually met with violent ends. A large part of the population led a pastoral life, and at the time of Verantius's visit to Walachia in the early part of the 16th century, the towns and villages were built of wood and wattle and daub. Tîrgovishtea alone, at this time the capital of the country, was a considerable town, with two stone castles.

A temporary improvement took place under Neagoe Bassaraba (1512-21). Neagoe was a great builder of monasteries; he founded the cathedrals of Curtea de Argesh (q.v.) and Tîrgovishtea, and adorned Mount Athos with his pious works. He transferred the direct allegiance of the Walachian Church from the patriarchate of Ochrida in Macedonia to that of Constantinople. On his death, however, the brief period of comparative prosperity which his architectural works attest was tragically interrupted, Turkish oppressions. and it seemed for a time that Walachia was doomed to sink into a Turkish páshalic. The Turkish commander, Mahmud Bey, became treacherously possessed of Neagoe's young son and successor, and, sending him a prisoner to Stambul, proceeded to nominate Turkish governors in the towns and villages of Walachia. The Walachians resisted desperately, elected Radu, a kinsman of Neagoe, voivode, and succeeded with Hungarian help in defeating Mahmud Bey at Grumatz in 1522. The conflict was prolonged with varying fortunes until in 1524 the dogged opposition of the Walachians triumphed in the sultan's recognition of Radu.

But the battle of Mohacs in 1526 decided the long preponderance of Turkish control. The unfortunate province served as a transit route for Turkish expeditions against Hungary and Transylvania, and was exhausted by continual requisitions. Turkish settlers were gradually making good their footing on Walachian soil, and mosques were rising in the towns and villages. The voivode Alexander, who succeeded in 1591, and like his predecessors had bought his post of the Divan, carried the oppression still further by introducing a janissary guard and farming out his possessions to his Turkish supporters. Meanwhile the Turkish governors on the Bulgarian bank never ceased to ravage the country, and again it seemed as if Walachia must share the fate of the Balkan States and succumb to the direct government of the Ottoman.

In the depth of the national distress the choice of the people fell on Michael, the son of Petrushko, ban of Craiova, the first dignitary of the realm, who had fled to Transylvania to escape Alexander's machinations. Supported at Constantinople by two influential personages, Sigismund Báthory, prince of Transylvania (1581-98 and 1601-2), and the English ambassador, Edward Barton, and aided by a loan of 200,000 florins, Michael succeeded in procuring from the Divan the deposition of his enemy and his own nomination.

The genius of Michael “the Brave” (1593-1601) secured Walachia for a time a place in universal history. The moment Michael the Brave. for action was favourable. The emperor Rudolph II. had gained some successes over the Turks, and Sigismund Báthory had been driven by Turkish extortions to throw off the allegiance to the sultan. But the first obstacle to be dealt with was the presence of the enemy within the walls. By previous concert with the Moldavian voivode Aaron, on the 13th of November 1594, the Turkish guards and settlers in the two principalities were massacred at a given signal. Michael followed up these “Walachian Vespers” by an actual invasion of Turkish territory, and, aided by Sigismund Báthory, succeeded in carrying by assault Rustchuk, Silistria and other places on the right bank of the lower Danube. A simultaneous invasion of Walachia by a large Turkish and Tatar host was successfully defeated; the Tatar khan withdrew with the loss of his bravest followers, and, in the great victory of Mantin on the Danube (1595), the Turkish army was annihilated, and its leader, Mustafa, slain. The sultan now sent Sinan Pasha, “the Renegade,” to invade Walachia with 100,000 men. Michael withdrew to the mountains before this overwhelming force, but, being joined by Báthory with a Transylvanian contingent, the voivode resumed the offensive, stormed Bucharest, where Sinan had entrenched a Turkish detachment, and, pursuing the main body of his forces to the Danube, overtook the rearguard and cut it to pieces, capturing enormous booty. Sinan Pasha returned to Constantinople to die, it is said, of vexation; and in 1597, the sultan, weary of a disastrous contest, sent Michael a red flag in token of reconciliation, reinvested him for life in an office of which he had been unable to deprive him, and granted the succession to his son.

In 1599, on the abdication of Sigismund Báthory in Transylvania, Michael, in league with the imperialist forces, and in Conquest of Transylvania. connivance with the Saxon burghers, attacked and defeated his successor Andreas Báthory near Hermannstadt, and seizing himself the reins of government, secured his proclamation as prince of Transylvania. The emperor consented to appoint him his viceroy (locum tenens per Transylvaniam), and the sultan ratified his election. As prince of Transylvania he summoned diets in 1399 and 1600, and, having expelled the voivode of Moldavia, united under his sceptre three principalities. The partiality that he showed for the Ruman and Szekler parts of the population alienated, however, the Transylvanian Saxons, who preferred the direct government of the emperor. The imperial commissioner General Basta lent his support to the disaffected party, and Michael was driven out of Transylvania by a successful revolt, while a Polish army invaded Walachia from the Moldavian side. Michael's coolness and resource, however, never deserted him. He resolved to appeal to the emperor, rode to Prague, won over Rudolph by his singular address, and, richly supplied with funds, reappeared in Transylvania as imperial governor. In conjunction with Basta he defeated the superior Transylvanian forces at Gorosló, expelling Sigismund Báthory, who had again aspired to the crown, and taking one hundred and fifty flags and forty-five cannon. But at the moment of his returning prosperity Basta, who had quarrelled with him about the supreme command of the imperial forces, procured his murder on the 19th of August 1601. Not only had Michael succeeded in rolling back for a time the tide of Turkish conquest, but for the first and last time in modern history he united what once had been Trajan's Dacia, in its widest extent, and with it the whole Ruman race north of the Danube, under a single sceptre.

Michael's wife Florika and his son Nicholas were carried off into Tatar captivity, and Şerban or Sherban, of the Bassaraba family, was raised to the voivodeship of Walachia by imperialist influences, while Sigismund resumed the government of Transylvania. On his deposition by the Porte in 1610, there followed a succession of princes who, though still for the most part of Ruman origin, bought their appointment at Stambul. Walachian contingents were continually employed by the Turks in their Polish wars, and the settlement of Greeks in an official or mercantile capacity in the principality provoked grave discontent, which on one occasion took the form of a massacre.

The reign of the voivode Matthias Bassaraba (1633-54) was an interval of comparative prosperity. Matthias repulsed Matthias Bassaraba. his powerful rival, Basil the Wolf, the voivode of Moldavia and his Tatar and Cossack allies. His last days were embittered, however, by an outbreak of military anarchy. His illegitimate son and successor, Constantine Şerban (1654-58), was the last of the Bassaraba dynasty to rule over Walachia; and on his death the Turkish yoke again weighed heavier on his country. The old capital, Tîrgovishtea, was considered by the Divan to be too near the Transylvanian frontier, and the voivodes were accordingly compelled to transfer their residence to Bucharest, which was finally made the seat of government in 1698.

The mechanical skill of the Walachians was found useful by the Turks, who employed them as carpenters and pontonniers; Şerban Cantacuzene. and during the siege of Vienna in 1683 the Walachian contingent, which, under the voivode Şerban Cantacuzene, had been forced to co-operate with the Turks, was entrusted with the construction of the two bridges over the Danube above and below Vienna. The Walachian as well as the Moldavian prince, who had been also forced to bring his contingent, maintained a secret system of communication with the besieged, which was continued by Şerban after his return to Walachia. The emperor granted him a diploma creating him count of the empire and recognizing his descent from the imperial house of Cantacuzene, Şerban meanwhile collecting his forces for an open breach with the Porte. His prudence, however, perpetually postponed the occasion, and Walachia enjoyed peace to his death in 1688. This peaceful state of the country gave the voivode leisure to promote its internal culture, and in the year of his death he had the satisfaction of seeing the first part of a Walachian Bible issue from the first printing-press of the country, which he had established at Bucharest. He had also caused to be compiled a history of Walachia, and had called to the country many teachers of the Greek language, whose business it was to instruct the sons of the boiars in grammar, rhetoric and philosophy.

Immediately on Şerban's death the boiars, to prevent the Porte from handing over the office to the Greek adventurer who Constantine Brancovan. bid the highest, proceeded to elect his sister's son Constantine Brancovan. The Turkish envoy then in Bucharest was persuaded to invest Brancovan with the caftan, or robe of office, in token of Turkish approval, and the patriarch of Constantinople, who was also present, and the archbishop of Walachia, Theodosius, consecrated him together at the high altar of the cathedral, where he took the coronation oath to devote his whole strength to the good of his country and received the boiars' oath of submission. Brancovan, it is true, found it expedient to devote his predecessor's treasure to purchasing the confirmation of his title from the Divan, but the account of his coronation ceremony remains an interesting landmark in the constitutional history of the country. In his relations with the Habsburg power he displayed the same caution as the voivode Şerban. In spite of defeats inflicted on the Turks by the imperial troops at Pozharevats, Nish and Vidin, in 1689, it was only by an exercise of force that they secured winter quarters in Walachia; and though, after the battle of Poltava in 1709, Brancovan concluded a secret treaty with the tsar Peter the Great, he avoided giving open effect to it. The tranquillity which he thus obtained was employed by Brancovan as by his predecessor in furthering the internal well-being of the country, with what success is best apparent from the description of Walachia left by the Florentine Del Chiaro's description of Walachia. Del Chiaro, who visited the country in 1709 and spent seven years there. He describes the stoneless Walachian plain, with its rich pastures, its crops of maize and millet, and woods so symmetrically planted and carefully kept by Brancovan's orders that hiding in them was out of the question. Butter and honey were exported to supply the sultan's kitchen at Stambul; wax and cattle to Venice; and the red and white wine of Walachia, notably that of Pitesei, to Transylvania. The Walachian horses were in demand among the Turks and Poles. Near Ribnik and elsewhere were salt-mines which supplied all the wants of the Transdanubian provinces of Turkey; there were considerable copper mines at Maidan; and iron was worked near Tîrgovishtea. The gipsy community was bound to bring fifteen pounds weight of gold from the washings of the Argesh. Many of the boiars were wealthy, but the common people were so ground down with taxation that “of their ancient Roman valour only the name remained.” To avoid the extortion of their rulers numbers had emigrated to Transylvania and even to the Turkish provinces. The principal Walachian city was Bucharest, containing a population of about 50,000; but, except for two large hans or merchants' halls built by Brancovan and his predecessor, and the recently erected palace, which had a marble staircase and a fine garden, the houses were of wood. The dress of the men was thoroughly Turkish except for their lambskin caps, that of the women half Greek, half Turkish. The houses were scrupulously clean and strewn with sweet herbs. Del Chiaro notices the great imitative capacity of the race, both artistic and mechanical. A Walachian in Venice had copied several of the pictures there with great skill; the copper-plates and wood engravings for the new press were executed by native hands. The Walachians imitated every kind of Turkish and European manufacture; and, though the boiars imported finer glass from Venice and Bohemia, a glass manufactory had been established near Tîrgovishtea which produced a better quality than the Polish. From the Bucharest press, besides a variety of ecclesiastical books, there were issued in the Ruman tongue a translation of a French work entitled The Maxims of the Orientals and The Romance of Alexander the Great. In 1700 Brancovan had a map of the country made and a copperplate engraving of it executed at Padua.

The prosperity of Walachia, however, under its “Golden Bey,” as Brancovan was known at Stambul, only increased the Fall of Brancovan. Turkish exactions; and, although all demands were punctually met, the sultan finally resolved on the removal of his too prosperous vassal. Brancovan was accused of secret correspondence with the emperor, the tsar, the king of Poland and the Venetian republic, of betraying the Porte's secrets, of preferring Tîrgovishtea to Bucharest as a residence, of acquiring lands and palaces in Transylvania, of keeping agents at Venice and Vienna, in both of which cities he had invested large sums, and of striking gold coins with his effigy.[8] An envoy arrived at Bucharest on the 4th of April 1714, and proclaimed Brancovan mazil, i.e. deposed. He was conducted to Constantinople and beheaded, together with his four sons. A scion of the rival Cantacuzenian family was elected by the pasha's orders, and he, after exhausting the principality for the benefit of the Divan, was in turn deposed and executed in 1716.

From this period onwards the Porte introduced a new system with regard to its Walachian vassals. The line of national The Phanariote régime. princes ceased. The office of voivode or hospodar was sold to the highest bidder at Stambul, to be farmed out from a purely mercenary point of view. The princes who now succeeded one another in rapid succession were mostly Greeks from the Phanar quarter of Constantinople who had served the palace in the quality of dragoman (interpreter), or held some other court appointment. They were nominated by imperial firman without a shadow of free election, and were deposed and transferred from one principality to another, executed or reappointed, like so many pashas. Like pashas they rarely held their office more than three years, it being the natural policy of the Porte to multiply such lucrative nominations. The same hospodar was often reappointed again and again as he succeeded in raising the sum necessary to buy back his title. Constantine Mavrocordato was in this way hospodar of Walachia at six different times, and paid on one occasion as much as a million lion-dollars (£40,000) for the office. The princes thus imposed on the country were generally men of intelligence and culture. Nicholas Mavrocordato, the first of the series, was himself the author of a Greek work on duties, and maintained at his court Demeter Prokopios of Moschopolis in Macedonia, who wrote a review of Greek literature during the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries. Constantine Mavrocordato was the author of really liberal reforms. He introduced an urbarium or land law, limiting to 24 the days of angaria, or forced labour, owed yearly by the peasants to their feudal lord. In 1747 he decreed the abolition of serfdom, but this enactment was not carried into effect. But the rule of the Phanariotes could not but be productive of grinding oppression, and it was rendered doubly hateful by the swarms of Greek adventurers who accompanied them. Numbers of the peasantry emigrated, and the population rapidly diminished. In 1745 the number of tax-paying families, which a few years before had amounted to 147,000, had sunk to 70,000. Yet the taxes were continually on the increase, and the hospodar Scarlat Ghica (1758-61), though he tried to win some popularity by the removal of Turkish settlers and the abolition of the vakarit or tax on cattle and horses, which was peculiarly hateful to the peasantry, raised the total amount of taxation to 25,000,000 lion-dollars, about £1,000,000. The Turks meantime maintained their grip on the country by holding on the Walachian bank of the Danube the fortresses of Giurgevo, Turnu Severin and Orsova, with the surrounding districts.

But the tide of Ottoman dominion was ebbing fast. Already, by the peace of Passarowitz Pozharevats in 1718, the banat of Craiova had been ceded to the emperor, though by the peace of Belgrade in 1739 it was recovered by the Porte for its Walachian vassal. In 1769 the Russian general Romanzov occupied the principality, the bishops and clergy took an oath of fidelity to the empress Catherine, and a deputation of boiars followed. The liberties of the country were guaranteed, taxation reformed and in 1772 the negotiations at Fokshani between Russia and the Porte broke down because the empress's representatives insisted on the sultan's recognition of the independence of Walachia and Moldavia under a European guarantee. Turkish rule was, however, definitely restored by the treaty of Kutchuk Kainardji, in 1774; and as from this period onwards Walachian history is closely connected with that of Moldavia, it may be convenient before continuing this review to turn to the earlier history of the sister principality.

(3) Moldavia.—According to the native traditional account, as first given by the Moldavian chroniclers of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, Dragosh the son of Bogdan, the founder of the Moldavian principality, emigrated with his followers from the Hungarian district of Marmaros in the northern Carpathians. The dates assigned to this event vary from 1299, given by Urechia, to 1342, given by the monastic chronicle of Putna. The story is related with various fabulous accompaniments. From the aurochs (zimbru), in pursuit of which Dragosh first arrived on the banks of the Moldova, is derived the ox-head of the Moldavian national arms, and from his favourite hound who perished in the waters the name of the river. From the Hungarian and Russian sources, which are somewhat more precise, the date of the arrival of Dragosh, who is confused with the historical Bogdan Voda (1340-1365), appears to have been 1349, and his departure from Marmaros was carried out in defiance of his Hungarian suzerain.

These legendary accounts seem to show that the Moldavian voivodate was founded, like that of Walachia, by Vlach Early History. immigrants from Hungary, during the first half of the 14th century. Its original strength lay probably in the compact Ruman settlements among the eastern Carpathians, first mentioned by Nicetas of Chonae, about 1164. The Moldavian lowlands were still held by a variety of Tatar tribes, who were only expelled after 1350, by the united efforts of Andrew Laszkovich, voivode of Transylvania, and Bogdan Voda, the first independent prince of Moldavia. Coins bearing the name of Bogdan are still extant; and there is an inscription over his tomb at the monastery of Radautzi, in Bukovina, placed there by Stephen the Great of Moldavia (1457-1504).

In the agreement arrived at between Louis of Hungary and the emperor Charles IV. in 1372, the voivodate of Moldavia was Rival claims of Poland and Hungary. recognized as a dependency of the crown of St Stephen. The overlordship over the country was, however, contested by the king of Poland, and their rival claims were a continual source of dispute between the two kingdoms. In 1412 a remarkable agreement was arrived at between Sigismund, in his quality of king of Hungary, and King Ladislaus II. of Poland, by which both parties consented to postpone the question of suzerainship in Moldavia. Should, however the Turks invade the country, the Polish and Hungarian forces were to unite in expelling them, the voivode was to be deposed, and the Moldavian territories divided between the allies. During the first half of the 15th century Polish influence was preponderant, and it was customary for the voivodes of Moldavia to do homage to the king of Poland at his cities of Kameniec or Snyatin.

In 1456 the voivode Peter, alarmed at the progress of the Turks, who were now dominant in Servia and Walachia, offered Stephen the Great. the sultan Mahomet II. a yearly tribute of 2000 ducats. On his deposition, however, in 1457 by Stephen, known as “the Great,” Moldavia became a power formidable alike to Turk, Pole and Hungarian. Throughout the long reign of this voivode, which lasted forty-six years, from 1458 to 1504, his courage and resources never failed. In the early part of his reign he appears, in agreement with the Turkish sultan and the king of Poland, turning out the Hungarian vassal, the ferocious Vlad, from the Walachian throne, and annexing the coast cities of Kilia and Cetatea Alba or Byelgorod, the Turkish Akkerman. These cities he refused to cede to the sultan, and, about this period, he entered into negotiations with Venice and the shah of Persia, in the vain hope of organizing a world-wide coalition against the Turks. In the autumn of 1474 the sultan Mahomet entered Moldavia at the head of an army estimated by the Polish historian Dlugosz at 120,000 men. The voivode Stephen withdrew into the interior at the approach of this overwhelming host, but on the 17th of January 1475, turned to bay at Rahova (Podul Inalt, near Vaslui) and gained a complete victory over the Turks. Four pashas were among the slain; over a hundred banners fell into the Moldavian hands; and only a few survivors succeeded in reaching the Danube. In 1476 Mahomet again invaded Moldavia, but, though successful in the open field, the Turks were sorely harassed by Stephen's guerilla onslaughts, and, being thinned by pestilence, were again constrained to retire. In 1484 the same tactics proved successful against an invasion of Bayezid II. Three years later a Polish invasion of Moldavia under John Albert with 80,000 men ended in disaster, and shortly afterwards the voivode Stephen, aided by a Turkish and Tatar contingent, laid waste the Polish territories to the upper waters of the Vistula, and succeeded in annexing for a time the Polish province of Pokutia, between the Carpathians and the Dniester.

Exclusive of this temporary acquisition, the Moldavian territory at this period extended from the river Milcovu, which formed Moldavia circa 1500. the boundary of Walachia, to the Dniester. It included the Carpathian region of Bukovina, literally “the beechwood,” where lay Sereth and Suciava (Suczawa), the earliest residences of the voivodes, the maritime district of Budzak (the later Bessarabia), with Kilia, Byelgorod and the left bank of the lower Danube from Galatz to the Sulina mouth. The government, civil and ecclesiastical, was practically the same as that described in the case of Walachia, the officials bearing for the most part Slavonic titles derived from the practice of the Bulgaro-Vlachian tsardom. The church was Orthodox Oriental, and depended from the patriarch of Ochrida. In official documents the language used was Slavonic, the style of a Moldavian ruler being Nachalnik i Voievoda Moldovlasi, prince and duke (= Ger. Fürst and Herzog) of the Moldovlachs. The election of the voivodes, though in the hands of the boiars, was strictly regulated by hereditary principles, and Cantemir describes the extinction of the house of Dragosh in the 16th century as one of the unsettling causes that most contributed to the ruin of the country. The Moldavian army was reckoned 40,000 strong, and the cavalry were especially formidable. Verantius of Sebenico, an eye-witness of the state of Moldavia at the beginning of the 16th century, mentions three towns of the interior provided with stone walls—Suciava, Chotim (Khotin) and Ncamtzu; the people were barbarous, but more warlike than the Walachians and more tenacious of their national costume, punishing with death any who adopted the Turkish.

In 1504 Stephen the Great died, and was succeeded by his son, Bogdan III. “the One-eyed.” At feud with Poland about Moldavia tributary to the Turks. Pokutia, despairing of efficacious support from hard-pressed Hungary, the new voivode saw no hope of safety except in a dependent alliance with the advancing Ottoman power, which already hemmed Moldavia in on the Walachian and Crimean sides. In 1513 he agreed to pay an annual tribute to the sultan Selim in return for the sultan's guarantee to preserve the national constitution and religion of Moldavia, to which country the Turks now gave the name of Kara Bogdan, from their first vassal. The terms of Moldavian submission were further regulated by a firman signed by the sultan Suleiman at Budapest in 1529 by which the yearly present or backshish, as the tribute was euphoniously called, was fixed at 4000 ducats, 40 horses and 25 falcons, and the voivode was bound at need to supply the Turkish army with a contingent of 1000 men. The Turks pursued much the same policy as in Walachia. The tribute was gradually increased. A hold was obtained on the country by the occupation of various fortresses on Moldavian soil with the surrounding territory—in 1538 Cetatea Alba, in 1592 Bender, in 1702 Chotim (Khotin). Already by the middle of the 16th century the yoke was so heavy that the voivode Elias (1546-51) became Mahommedan to avoid the sultan's anger.

At this period occurs a curious interlude in Moldavian history. In 1561 the adventurer and impostor Jacob Basilicus succeeded Jacob Basilicus. with Hungarian help in turning out the voivode Alexander Lapusheanu (1552-61 and 1563-68) and seizing on the reins of government. A Greek by birth, adopted son of Jacob Heraklides, despot of Paros, Samos and other Aegean islands, acquainted with Greek and Latin literature, and master of most European languages; appearing alternately as a student of astronomy at Wittenberg, whither he had been invited by Count Mansfeld, as a correspondent of Melanchthon, and as a writer of historical works which he dedicated to Philip II. of Spain, Basilicus, finding that his Aegean sovereignty was of little practical value beyond the crowning of poet laureates, fixed his roving ambition on a more substantial dominion. He published an astounding pedigree, in which, starting from “Hercules Triptolemus,” he wound his way through the royal Servian line to the kinship of Moldavian voivodes, and, having won the emperor Ferdinand to his financial and military support, succeeded, though at the head of only 1600 cavalry, in routing by a bold dash the vastly superior forces of the voivode, and even in purchasing the Turkish confirmation of his usurped title. He assumed the style of Βασιλεύς Μολδαβίας, and eluded the Turkish stipulation that he should dismiss his foreign guards. In Moldavia he appeared as a moral reformer, endeavouring to put down the prevalent vices of bigamy and divorce. He erected a school, placed it under a German master, and collected children from every part of the country to be maintained and educated at his expense. He also busied himself with the collection of a library. But his taxes—a ducat for each family—were considered heavy; his orthodoxy was suspected, his foreign counsellors detested. In 1563 the people rose, massacred the Hungarian guards, the foreign settlers, and finally Jacob himself.

The expelled voivode Alexander was now restored by the Porte, the schools were destroyed, and the country relapsed into its normal state of barbarism under Bogdan IV. (1568-72). Bogdan's successor, John the Terrible (1572-74), was provoked by the Porte's demand for 120,000 ducats as tribute instead of 60,000 as heretofore to rise against the oppressor; but after gaining three victories he was finally defeated and slain (1574), and the country was left more than ever at the mercy of the Ottoman. Voivodes were now created and deposed in rapid succession by the Divan, but the victories of Michael the Brave in Walachia infused a more independent spirit into the Moldavians. The Moldavian dominion was now disputed by the Transylvanians and Poles, but in 1600 Michael succeeded in annexing it to his “Great Dacian” realm. On Michael's murder the Poles under Zamoyski again asserted their supremacy, but in 1618 the Porte once more recovered its dominion and set up successively two creatures of its own as voivodes—Gratiani, an Italian who had been court jeweller, and a Greek custom-house official, Alexander.

As in Walachia at a somewhat later date, the Phanariote régime seemed now thoroughly established in Moldavia, and The Phanariote régime. it became the rule that every three years the voivode should procure his confirmation by a large baksheesh, and every year by a smaller one. But Prince Basil the Wolf (Vasilie Lupul), an Albanian, who succeeded in 1634, showed great ability, and for twenty years maintained his position on the Moldavian throne. He introduced several internal reforms, codified the written and unwritten laws of the country, established a printing press, Greek monastic schools, and also a Latin school. He brought the Moldavian Church into more direct relation with the patriarch of Constantinople, but also showed considerable favour to the Latins, allowing them to erect churches at Suciava, Jassy and Galatz. The last voivode of the Bassaraba family, Elias Voda, reigned from 1667 to 1669.

During the wars between Sobieski, king of Poland (1674-96), and the Turks, Moldavia found itself between hammer Demetrius Cantemir. and anvil, and suffered terribly from Tatar devastations. The voivode Duka was forced like his Walachian contemporary to supply a contingent for the siege of Vienna in 1683. After Sobieski's death in 1696, the hopes of Moldavia turned to the advancing Muscovite power. In 1711 the voivode Demetrius Cantemir, rendered desperate by the Turkish exactions, concluded an agreement with the tsar Peter the Great by which Moldavia was to become a protected and vassal state of Russia, with the enjoyment of its traditional liberties, the voivodeship to be hereditary in the family of Cantemir. On the approach of the Russian army the prince issued a proclamation containing the terms of the Russian protectorate and calling on the boiars and people to aid their Orthodox deliverers. But the long Turkish terrorism had done its work, and at the approach of a Turkish and Tatar host the greater part of the Moldavians deserted their voivode. The Russian campaign was unsuccessful, and all that Peter could offer Cantemir and the boiars who had stood by him was an asylum on Russian soil.

In his Russian exile Cantemir composed in a fair Latin style his Descriptio Moldaviae, the counterpart, so far as Moldavia Cantemir's description of Moldavia. is concerned, to Del Chiaro's contemporary description of Walachia. The capital of the country was now Jassy, to which city Stephen the Great had transferred his court from Suciava, the earlier residence of the voivodes. It had at this time forty churches—some of stone, some of wood. Fifty years before it had contained 12,000 houses, but Tatar devastations had reduced it to a third of its former size. The most important commercial emporium was the Danubian port of Galatz, which was frequented by vessels from the whole of the Levant from Trebizond to Barbary. The cargoes which they here took in consisted of Moldavian timber (oak, deal and cornel), grain, butter, honey and wax, salt and nitre. Kilia, at the north mouth of the Danube, was also frequented by trading vessels, including Venetian and Ragusan. Moldavian wine was exported to Poland, Russia, Transylvania, and Hungary; that of Cotnar was in Cantemir's opinion superior to Tokay. The excellence of the Moldavian horses is attested by a Turkish proverb; and annual droves of as many as 40,000 Moldavian oxen were sent across Poland to Danzig. Moldavia proper was divided into the upper country or T’erra de sus, and the lower country, or T’erra de josu. Bessarabia had been detached from the rest of the principality and placed under the direct control of the military authorities. It was divided into four provinces: that of Budzak, inhabited by the Nogai Tatars; that of Cetatea Alba, the Greek Monkastron, a strongly fortified place; and those of Ismaila and Kilia. The voivodes owed their nomination entirely to the Porte, and the great officers of the realm were appointed at their discretion. These were the Great Logothete (Marele Logofetu) or chancellor; the governor of Lower Moldavia—Vorniculu de t’erra de josu; the governor of Upper Moldavia—Vorniculu de t’erra de sus; the Hatman or commander-in-chief; the high chamberlain—Marele Postelnicu; the great Spathar, or sword-bearer; the great cup-bearer—Marele Paharnicu; and the treasurer, or Vistiernicu, who together formed the prince's council and were known as Boiari de Svatu. Below these were a number of subordinate officers who acted as their assessors and were known as boiars of the Divan (Boiari de Divanu). The high court of justice was formed by the prince, metropolitan and boiars: the Boiari de Svatu decided on the verdict; the metropolitan declared the law; and the prince pronounced sentence. The boiars were able to try minor cases in their own residences, but subject to the right of appeal to the prince's tribunal. Of the character of the Moldavian people Cantemir does not give a very favourable account. Their best points were their hospitality and, in Lower Moldavia, their valour. They cared little for letters, and were generally indolent, and their prejudice against mercantile pursuits left the commerce of the country in the hands of Armenians, Jews, Greeks and Turks. The pure-blood Ruman population, noble and plebeian, inhabited the cities and towns or larger villages; the peasantry were mostly of Little Russian and Hungarian race, and were in a servile condition. There was a considerable gipsy population, almost every boiar having several Zingar families in his possession; these were mostly smiths.

From this period onwards the character of the Ottoman domination in Moldavia is in every respect analogous to that Continuation of Phanariote régime. of Walachia. The office of voivode or hospodar was farmed out by the Porte to a succession of wealthy Greeks from the Phanar quarter of Constantinople. All formality of election by the boiars was now dispensed with, and the princes received their caftan of office at Constantinople, where they were consecrated by the Greek patriarch. The system favoured Turkish extortion in two ways: the presence of the voivode's family connexions at Stambul gave the Porte so many hostages for his obedience; on the other hand the princes themselves could not rely on any support due to family influence in Moldavia itself. They were thus mere puppets of the Divan, and could be deposed and shifted with the same facility as so many pashas—an object of Turkish policy, as each change was a pretext for a new levy of baksheesh. The chief families that shared the office during this period were those of Mavrocordato, Ghica, Callimachi, Ypsilanti and Murusi. Although from the very conditions of their creation they regarded the country as a field for exploitations, they were themselves often men of education and ability, and unquestionably made some praiseworthy attempts to promote the general culture and well-being of their subjects. In this respect, even the Phanariote régime was preferable to mere pasha rule, while it had the further consequence of preserving intact the national form of administration and the historic offices of Moldavia. Gregory Ghica (1774-77), who himself spoke French and Italian, founded a school or “gymnasium” at Jassy, where Greek, Latin and theology were taught in a fashion. He encouraged the settlement of German Protestant colonists in the country, some of whom set up as watchmakers in Jassy, where they were further allowed to build an evangelical church. J. L. Carra, a Swiss who had been tutor to Prince Ghica's children, and who published in 1781 an account of the actual state of the principalities, speaks of some of the boiars as possessing a taste for French literature and even for the works of Voltaire, a tendency actively combated by the patriarch of Constantinople.

The Russo-Turkish War, which ended in the peace of Kutchuk Kainardji (1774), was fatal to the integrity of Moldavian Cession of Bukovina. territory. The house of Austria, which had already annexed Galicia in 1772, profited by the situation to arrange with both contending parties for the peaceful cession of Bukovina to the Habsburg monarchy. This richly wooded Moldavian province, containing Suciava (Suczawa), the earliest seat of the voivodes, and Cernautiǐ or Czernovicz, was in 1774 occupied by Habsburg troops with Russian connivance, and in 1777 Baron Thugut procured its formal cession from the sultan.

(4) The Danubian Principalities: 1774-1859.—By the treaty of Kutchuk Kainardji Russia consented to hand back Treaty of Kutchuk Kainardji. the principalities to the sultan, but by Article xvi. several stipulations were made in favour of the Walachians and Moldavians. The people of the principalities were to enjoy all the privileges that they had possessed under Mahomet IV.; they were to be freed from tribute for two years, as some compensation for the ruinous effects of the last war; they were to pay a moderate tribute; the agents of Walachia and Moldavia at Constantinople were to enjoy the rights of national representatives, and the Russian minister at the Porte should on occasion watch over the interests of the principalities. The stipulations of the treaty, though deficient in precision (the Walachians, for instance, had no authentic record of the privileges enjoyed under Mahomet IV.), formed the basis of future liberties in both principalities; but for the moment all reforms were postponed.

The treaty was hardly concluded when it was violated by the Porte, which refused to recognize the right of the Walachian boiars to elect their voivode, and nominated Alexander Ypsilanti, a creature of its own. In 1777 Constantine Murusi was made voivode of Moldavia in the same high-handed fashion. The Divan seemed intent on restoring the old system of government in its entirety, but in 1783 the Russian representative extracted from the sultan a decree (hattisherif) defining more precisely the liberties of the principalities and fixing the amount of the annual tribute—for Walachia 619 purses exclusive of various “presents” amounting to 130,000 piasters, and for Moldavia 135 purses and further gifts to the extent of 115,000 piasters. By the peace of Jassy in 1792 the Dniester was recognized as the Russian frontier, and the privileges of the principalities as specified in the hattisherif confirmed. In defiance of treaties, however, the Porte continued to change the hospodars almost yearly and to exact extraordinary installation presents. The revolt of Pasvan Oglu in Bulgaria was the cause of great injury to Walachia. The rebels ravaged Little Walachia in 1801-2, and their ravages were succeeded by those of the Turkish troops, who now swarmed over the country. Exaction followed exaction, and in 1802 Russia resolved to assert her treaty rights in favour of the oppressed inhabitants of the principalities. On the accession of Constantine Ypsilanti (1802-6) in Walachia, and of Alexander Murusi (1802-6) in Moldavia, the Porte was constrained to issue a new hattisherif by which every prince Russian protection. was to hold his office for at least seven years, unless the Porte satisfied the Russian minister that there were good and sufficient grounds for his deposition. This clause of the hattisherif was not enforced. All irregular contributions were to cease, and all citizens, with the exception of the boiars and clergy, were to pay their share of the tribute. The Turkish troops then employed in the principalities were to be paid off, and one year's tribute remitted for the purpose. The boiars were to be responsible for the maintenance of schools, hospitals and roads; they and the prince together for the militia. The number of Turkish merchants resident in the country was limited. Finally, the hospodars were to be amenable to representations made to them by the Russian envoy at Constantinople, to whom was entrusted the task of watching over the Walachian and Moldavian liberties. This, it will be seen, was a veiled Russian protectorate.

In 1804 the Serbs under Karageorge rose against the Turkish dominion, and were secretly aided by the Walachian voivode Ypsilanti. The Porte, instigated by Napoleon's ambassador Sebastiani, resolved on Ypsilanti's deposition, but the hospodar succeeded in escaping to St Petersburg. In the war that now ensued between the Russians and the Turks, the Russians were for a time successful, and even demanded that the Russian territory should extend to the Danube. They occupied the principalities from 1806 to 1812. In 1808 they formed a governing committee consisting of the metropolitan, another bishop, and four or five boiars under the presidency of General Kusnikov. The seat of the president was at Jassy, and General Engelhart was appointed as vice-president at Bucharest. By the peace of Bucharest, however, in 1812, the principalities were restored to the sultan under the former conditions, with the exception of Bessarabia, which was ceded to the tsar. The Pruth thus became the Russian boundary.

The growing solidarity between the two Ruman principalities received a striking illustration in 1816, when the Walachian and Moldavian hospodars published together a code applicable to both countries, and which had been elaborated by a joint commission. The Greek movement was now beginning to assume a practical shape. About 1780 Riga Velestiniul, a Hellenized Vlach from Macedonia who is also known by the purely Greek name of Rigas Phereos, had founded in Bucharest a patriotic and revolutionary association known as the Society of Friends The “Hetaerist” movement. (ἑταιρία τῶν φίλων) which gradually attained great influence. In 1810 Ignatius, the metropolitan of Walachia, founded a Greek literary society in Bucharest which soon developed into a political association, and many similar bodies were formed throughout the Greek world, and finally united into one powerful secret society, the Hetairia. Some of the members even cherished the fantastic hope of restoring the ancient Byzantine empire. In 1821 Alexander Ypsilanti, a son of the voivode, and an aide-de-camp of the tsar Alexander I., entered Moldavia at the head of the Hetaerists, and, representing that he had the support of the tsar, prevailed on the hospodar Michael Sutzu to aid him in invading the Ottoman dominions. To secure Walachian help, Ypsilanti advanced on Bucharest, but the prince, Theodore Vladimirescu, who represented the national Ruman reaction against the Phanariotes, repulsed his overtures with the remark “that his business was not to march against the Turks, but to clear the country of Phanariotes.” Vladimirescu was slain by a Greek revolutionary agent, but Ypsilanti rashly continuing his enterprise after he had been repudiated by the Russian emperor, his forces were finally crushed by the Turks at Dragashani, in Walachia, and at Skuleni, in Moldavia; and the result of his revolt was a Turkish occupation of the principalities. In 1822 the Turkish troops, who had committed great excesses, were withdrawn on the combined representations of Russia, Austria and Great Britain. The country, however, was again ravaged by the retiring troops, quarters of Jassy and Bucharest burnt, and the complete evacuation delayed till 1824, when the British government again remonstrated with the Porte (see Eastern Question; Greece; Ypsilanti; Alexander).

By the convention of Akkerman between the Russians and the Turks in 1826 the privileges of the principalities were once Peace of Adrianople, 1829. more confirmed, and they were again ratified in 1829, under Russian guarantee, by the peace of Adrianople. By this peace all the towns on the left bank of the Danube were restored to the principalities, and the Porte undertook to refrain from fortifying any position on the Walachian side of the river. A Russian army occupied the country until the Porte fulfilled its promises. The principalities were to enjoy commercial freedom, and the right of establishing a quarantine cordon along the Danube or elsewhere. The internal constitution of the countries was to be regulated by an “Organic Law,” which was drawn up by assemblies of bishops and boiars at Jassy and Bucharest, acting, however, under Russian control. The Organic Law thus elaborated was by no means of a liberal character, and amongst other abuses maintained the feudal privileges of the boiars. It was ratified by the Porte in 1834, and the Russian army of occupation thereupon withdrew. The newly elected hospodars, Alexander Ghica (1834-42) and George Bibescu (1842-48) in Walachia, and Michael Sturdza (1834-49) in Moldavia, ruled in accordance with the Organic Law. Their reigns were marked by the social, financial and political predominance of Russia, which had steadily increased since 1711. The treaty of 1774 had given Russia a firm foothold in Rumanian politics. This had been strengthened by the hattisherif of 1802; while the treaties of 1812, 1826 and 1829 had respectively yielded up Bessarabia, the Sulina mouth of the Danube and the St George mouth to the tsar. From 1834 to 1848 the Russian consul at Bucharest was all-powerful.

The revolutionary movement of 1848 extended from the Rumans of Hungary and Transylvania to their kinsmen of the Movement of 1848. Transalpine regions. Here its real object was the overthrow of Russian influence. In Moldavia the agitation was mostly confined to the boiars, and the hospodar Michael Sturdza succeeded in arresting the ringleaders. In Walachia, however, the outbreak took a more violent form. The people assembled at Bucharest, and demanded a constitution. Prince Bibescu, after setting his signature to the constitution submitted to him, fled to Transylvania, and a provisional government was formed. The Turks, however, urged thereto by Russian diplomacy, crossed the Danube, and a joint Russo-Turkish dictatorship restored the Organic Law. By the Balta-Liman convention of 1849 the two governments agreed to the appointment of Barbǔ Stirbeiǔ (Stirbey) as prince of Walachia, and Gregory Ghica for Moldavia.

On the entry of the Russian troops into the principalities in 1853, the hospodars fled to Vienna, leaving the government in Russian and Austrian occupation, 1853-54. the hands of their ministers. During the Danubian campaign that now ensued great suffering was inflicted on the inhabitants, but in 1854 the cabinet of Vienna induced the Russians to withdraw. Austrian troops occupied the principalities, and the hospodars returned to their posts. One important consequence of the revolution had been the banishment of many rising politicians to western Europe, where they were brought into contact with a higher type of civilization. The practice initiated by the more liberal Phanariotes of sending Rumanian students to the French, German and Italian universities tended in the same direction. Statesmen such as I. C. Bratianu, D. A. Sturdza, S. I. Ghica, D. Ghica and Lascar Catargiu (whose biographies are given under separate headings) received their political training abroad, and returned to educate their countrymen. To this fact the surprisingly rapid progress of Rumania, as compared with the Balkan States, may very largely be attributed.

By the treaty of Paris in 1856 the principalities with their existing privileges were placed under the collective guarantee Treaty of Paris, 1856. of the contracting Powers, while remaining under the suzerainty of the Porte—the Porte on its part engaging to respect the complete independence of their internal administration. A strip of southern Bessarabia was restored to Moldavia, so as to push back the Russian frontier from the Danube mouth. The existing laws and statutes of both principalities were to be revised by a European Commission, sitting at Bucharest, and their work was to be assisted by a Divan or national council which the Porte was to convoke for the purpose in each of the two provinces, and in which all classes of Walachian and Moldavian society were to be represented. The European commission, in arriving at its conclusions, was to take into consideration the opinion expressed by the representative councils; the Powers were to come to terms with the Porte as to the recommendations of the commission; and the final result was to be embodied in a hattisherif of the sultan, which was to lay down the definitive organization of the two principalities. In 1857 the commission arrived, and the representative councils of the two peoples were convoked. On their meeting in September Union of the principalities. they at once proceeded to vote with unanimity the union of the two principalities into a single state under the name of Romania (Rumania), to be governed by a foreign prince elected from one of the reigning dynasties of Europe, and having a single representative assembly. The Powers decided to undo the work of national union. By the convention concluded by the European congress at Paris in 1858, it was decided that the principalities should continue as heretofore to be governed each by its own prince. Walachia and Moldavia were to have separate assemblies, but a central commission was to be established at Fokshani for the preparation of laws of common interest, which were afterwards to be submitted to the respective assemblies. In accordance with this convention the deputies of Moldavia and Walachia met in separate assemblies at Bucharest and Jassy, but the choice of both fell unanimously on Prince Alexander John Cuza (January 1859). (A. J. E.; X.)

(5) Rumania.—Thus the union of the Rumanian nation was accomplished. A new conference met in Paris to discuss Prince Cuza, 1859-66. the situation, and in 1861 the election of Prince Cuza was ratified by the Powers and the Porte. The two assemblies and the central commission were preserved till 1862, when a single assembly met at Bucharest and a single ministry was formed for the two countries. The central commission was at the same time abolished, and a council of state charged with preparing bills substituted for it. In May 1864, owing to difficulties between the government and the general assembly, the assembly was dissolved, and a statute was submitted to universal suffrage giving greater authority to the prince, and creating two chambers (of senators and of deputies). The franchise was now extended to all citizens, a cumulative voting power being reserved, however, for property, and the peasantry were emancipated from forced labour. Up to this point the prince had ruled wisely; he had founded the universities of Bucharest and Jassy; his reforms had swept away the last vestiges of feudalism and created a class of peasant freeholders. But the closing years of his reign were marked by an attempt to concentrate all power in his own hands. He strove to realize his democratic ideals by despotic methods. His very reforms alienated the goodwill of all classes; of the nobles, by the abolition of forced labour; of the clergy, by the confiscation of monastic estates; of the masses, by the introduction of a tobacco monopoly and the inevitable collapse of the inflated hopes to which his agrarian reforms had given rise. His own dissolute conduct increased his unpopularity, and at last the leading statesmen in both provinces, who had long believed that the national welfare demanded the election of a foreign prince, conspired to dethrone him. In February 1866 he was compelled to abdicate; and a council of regency was formed under the presidency of Prince Ion Ghica. The count of Flanders, brother to the king of the Belgians, was proclaimed hospodar of the united provinces, but declined the proffered honour.

Meanwhile a conference of the Powers assembled at Paris and decided by a majority of four to three that the new hospodar Election of Prince Charles, 1866. should be a native of the country. The principalities, however, determined to elect Prince Charles, the second son of Prince Charles Antony of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. On a referendum, 685,969 electors voted in his favour, against 224 dissentients. Prince Charles was an officer in the Prussian army, twenty-seven years of age, and was related to the French imperial family as well as to the royal house of Prussia: his nomination obtained not only the tacit consent and approval of his friend and kinsman King William of Prussia, but also the warm and more open support of Napoleon III. The king of Prussia, however, had agreed that the new hospodar should be a native of the principalities, and could not therefore openly approve of Prince Charles's election. Acting on the advice of Bismarck, the prince asked for a short leave of absence, resigned his commission in the Prussian army on crossing the frontier, and hastened down the Danube to Rumania, under a feigned name and with a false passport. On the 20th of May he landed at Turnu Severin, where he was enthusiastically welcomed. He reached Bucharest on the 22nd, and on the same day, in the presence of the provisional government, took the oaths to respect the laws of the country and to maintain its rights and the integrity of its territory. In October Prince Charles proceeded to Constantinople and was cordially received by his suzerain, the sultan, who bestowed on him the firman of investiture, admitted the principle of hereditary succession in his family, and allowed him the right of maintaining an army of 30,000 men. Rumania was to remain part of the Ottoman empire within the limits fixed by the capitulations and the treaty of Paris.

The first Rumanian ministry formed under the new prince was composed of the leading statesmen of all political parties, Foreign and domestic politics, 1866-70. care being taken that the two provinces should be equally represented. A new constitution was unanimously passed by the chamber on the 11th of July. It provided for an Upper and Lower House of Representatives, and conferred on the prince the right of an absolute and unconditional veto on all legislation. Other reforms were urgently needed. There was an empty treasury, and the floating debt amounted to £7,000,000; maladministration was rampant in every department of the state; the national guard was mutinous, while the small army of regulars was badly organized and inefficient. The existence of famine and cholera added to the difficulties of the government, and in March 1867 the Lower House, by a majority of three, passed the laconic resolution, “The chamber inflicts a vote of blame on the government.” As the result of this vote M. Kretzulescu, a Moderate Conservative, was called to the head of affairs, and I. C. Bratianu entered the government as minister of the interior. The new ministry, of which Bratianu was the leading spirit, showed considerable energy: a concession was granted for the construction of the first Rumanian railway, from Bucharest to Giurgevo, and the reorganization of the army was undertaken. Among other less judicious measures, a decree was passed ostensibly directed against all vagabond foreigners, but really aimed at the Jews, large numbers of whom, including many respected landowners and men of business, were imprisoned, or expelled, from Jassy, Bacau and other parts of Moldavia. This harsh treatment created intense indignation abroad, especially in France and Great Britain; and the emperor Napoleon wrote personally to Prince Charles, protesting against the persecution. The country could not afford to lose the goodwill of the emperor of the French, at that time one of the most powerful factors in Europe—in July 1869 Bratianu, although immensely popular, found it necessary to resign office, and with him fell the rest of the cabinet.

On the 15th of September 1869, Prince Charles married Princess Elizabeth of Wied, afterwards celebrated under her literary name of Carmen Sylva.[9] In the same year the army was reorganized, and a rural police created. Every able-bodied citizen was rendered liable to give three days' work yearly towards the construction of roads, or to pay a small tax as an equivalent. An important railway concession, which subsequently caused grave political complications, was granted to the German contractors Strausberg and Offenheim.

Much excitement was aroused in Rumania by the outbreak of the war between Prussia and France. The sympathies of The rebellion of 1870. the Rumanians were entirely on the side of the French, whom they regarded as a kindred Latin race, while those of the prince were naturally with his native country. The excitement culminated in a revolutionary outbreak at Ploesci, where a hot-headed deputy, Candianu Popescu, after the mob had stormed the militia barracks, issued a proclamation deposing Prince Charles and appointing General Golescu regent. Owing to the loyalty of the regular army the insurrection was speedily quelled. But the feeling in the country was strong against the German sovereign, who seriously thought of abdicating when a jury acquitted the accused rebels. On the 7th of December he wrote confidentially to the sovereigns whose representatives had signed the treaty of Paris, suggesting that the future of Rumania should be regulated by a European congress.

A few days subsequently the prince learned that the German railway contractor Strausberg was unwilling or unable to pay The railway crisis of 1871. the coupons of the railway bonds due on the 1st of January 1871, which were mostly held by influential people in Germany. This threw the responsibility of payment on Rumania, and was a severe blow to the prince, through whose instrumentality the loan had been placed. Matters were brought to a crisis by the Prussian government threatening to force the Rumanian government to provide for the unpaid coupons. The country was financially in no condition to comply. Bitter indignation prevailed against everything German, and culminated in an attack on the German colony in Bucharest on the 22nd of March 1871. On the following morning the prince summoned the members of the council of regency of 1866, and informed them of his intention to place the government in their hands. Lascar Catargiu and General Golescu, the only two members present, as well as Dimitrie Sturdza and other influential persons, declined to accept the responsibility. Catargiu offered to unite the different sections of the Conservative party in order to deal with the crisis. The prince accepted his offer. The elections took place early in May 1871, and the government, to which all the most respectable elements in the country had rallied, obtained a large majority. When parliament met in May the prince had a most enthusiastic reception. The anti-German feeling in the country had greatly subsided, in consequence of the crushing defeat of France; and in January 1872 the chambers passed a law by which Rumania undertook to pay the railway coupons. The German syndicate was satisfied, and the railway crisis ended.

Catargiu's ministry was the tenth that had held office in the five years since the prince's arrival, but it was the first one that The Catargiu ministry, 1871-75. was stable. In March 1875 the budget for 1876, amounting to £4,000,000, nearly double in amount that of the year 1866, was passed without difficulty, and on the 28th of the month the parliamentary session closed. It was the first occasion in Rumania that the same chamber had sat for the whole constitutional period of four years, and also the first time that the same ministry had opened and closed the same parliament.

Only the fall of the Catargiu ministry saved the country from revolution. The leading Liberals had promoted a conspiracy for the arrest and expulsion of the prince, and the formation of a provisional government under General Dabija. The prospect of a return to power put an end to these machinations. Catargiu's ministry was succeeded by an administration under General Florescu, known as the “cabinet of the generals,” and, a month later, by the so-called “ministry of conciliation” under M. Jepureanu. A commission of the chambers drew up an indictment against Catargiu and his late colleagues, accusing them of violating the constitution and the public liberties, squandering the state revenues, and other abuse of power. Unable to stem the tide of popular passion, which was crying for the impeachment of Catargiu, Jepureanu resigned office, and Bratianu formed a new Liberal cabinet, destined to guide the country through many eventful years.

But the re-opening of the Eastern Question was destined to bring to a climax the great struggle of Rumania for existence The Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78. and independence, and temporarily to throw into the shade all domestic questions. The insurrection in Bulgaria, with its accompanying horrors, followed by the deposition of sultan Murad and the succession of the sultan Abdul Hamid, contributed to indicate the near approach of a Russo-Turkish war. Russia had shown symptoms of anger against Rumania for not having taken up a decided attitude in the approaching struggle, and the Russian ambassador Ignatiev had some months previously threatened that his government would seize Rumania as a pledge as soon as the Turks occupied Servia and Montenegro. Prince Charles decided to send a mission, composed of Bratianu and Colonel Slaniceanu (the minister of war), to the imperial headquarters at Livadia. They were well received by the emperor (October 1876), but in spite of mixed threats and cajoleries on the part of Gorchakov, Ignatiev and others, Bratianu returned without having definitively committed his country to active measures.

On the 14th of November six Russian army corps were mobilized to form the army of the south under the grand duke Nicholas. A few days later two secret envoys arrived at Bucharest, the one M. de Nelidov, to negotiate on the part of the Russian government for the passage of their army through Rumania, the other Ali Bey, to arrange on behalf of the sultan a combination with Rumania against Russia. Prince Charles cleverly temporized with both powers. Negotiations with Russia were continued, and Bratianu was sent to Constantinople to put pressure upon Turkey to secure certain rights and privileges which would practically have made Rumania independent, except that it would still have paid a fixed tribute; but the conference of the powers assembled at that capital came to a definite end on the 19th of January 1877, when the Turkish government declined every proposal of the conference. Meanwhile the Porte, in issuing Midhat Pasha's famous scheme of reforms, had greatly irritated Rumanian politicians by including their country in the same category as the other privileged provinces, and designating its inhabitants as Ottoman subjects. A secret convention was signed between Russia and Rumania on the 16th of April, by which Rumania allowed free passage to the Russian armies, the tsar engaging in return to maintain its political rights and to protect its integrity, while all matters of detail connected with the passage of the Russian troops were to be regulated by a special treaty. On the 23rd of April Russia declared war against Turkey, and the grand duke Nicholas issued a proclamation to the Rumanian nation, announcing his intention of entering their territory in the hope of finding the same welcome as in former wars. The Rumanian government made a platonic protest against the crossing of the frontier, and the Rumanian troops fell back as the Russians advanced; provisions and stores of all kinds were supplied to the invading army against cash payments in gold, and the railways and telegraphs were freely placed at its disposal. The Rumanian chambers were assembled on the 26th of April, and the convention with Russia was sanctioned. The Ottoman government immediately broke off diplomatic relations with Rumania, and on the 11th of May the chambers passed a resolution that a state of war existed with Turkey. (For a detailed account of the subsequent campaign, in which Prince Charles and the Rumanian army contributed greatly to the success of the Russian arms, see Russo-Turkish Wars, and Plevna.) The fall of Plevna left the Russian army free to march on Constantinople, and on the 31st of January 1878 the preliminaries of peace were signed at Adrianople. They stipulated that Rumania should be independent and receive an increase of territory.

Peace between Russia and Turkey was signed at San Stefano on the 3rd of March. On the 29th of January the Rumanian The Berlin settlement. 1. Cession of Bessarabia. agent at St Petersburg was officially informed of the intention of the Russian government to regain possession of the Rumanian portion of Bessarabia, i.e. that portion which was ceded to Moldavia by Russia after the Crimean War. Rumania was to be indemnified at the expense of Turkey by the delta of the Danube and the Dobrudja as far as Constantza. The motive assigned was that this territory had not been ceded to Rumania, but to Moldavia, and had been separated from Russia by the almost obsolete treaty of Paris (1856). But the proposed exchange of territory aroused the most bitter indignation at Bucharest. Bratianu and Cogǎlniceanu were sent to Berlin to endeavour to prevail on the representatives of the Powers there assembled in June 1878 to veto the cession of Bessarabia to Russia; but the Rumanian delegates were not permitted to attend the sittings of the congress until the Powers had decided in favour of the Russian claim. The treaty of Berlin in dealing with Rumania decided to recognize its independence, subject to two conditions: First (Art. xlv.), that the principality should restore to the emperor of Russia that portion of the Bessarabian territory detached from Russia by the treaty of Paris in 1856, bounded on the west by the mid-channel of the Pruth, and on the south by the mid-channel of the Kilia branch and the Staryi Stambul mouth. Second (Art. xliv.), that absolute freedom of worship should be granted to all persons in Rumania; that no religious beliefs should be a bar to the enjoyment of any political rights; and, further, that the subjects of all the powers should be treated in Rumania on a footing of perfect equality. Article xlvi. declared that the islands forming the delta of the Danube, the Isle of Serpents, and the province of Dobrudja, as far as a line starting from the east of Silistria and terminating on the Black Sea south of Mangalia, should be added to Rumania. Other articles defined the international position of Rumania, while Article liii. decreed that it should have a representative on the European commission of the Danube. Bratianu wrote with some truth that the Great Powers by sacrificing Rumania were able to obtain more concessions for themselves from Russia, and Lord Beaconsfield was constrained to admit that “in politics ingratitude is often the reward of the greatest services.” The Rumanians submitted reluctantly to the retrocession of Bessarabia; and the Dobrudja was occupied by Rumanian troops on the 26th of November 1878.

But Article xliv. of the treaty of Berlin caused tremendous agitation throughout the country, and almost provoked a 2. The Jewish question. revolution. Article vii. of the constitution of 1866 laid down that “only Christians can become citizens of Rumania”—in other words, all Jews were excluded from the rights of citizenship; and as no foreigner could own land in Rumania outside the towns, no Jew could become a country proprietor. Public opinion in Rumania rendered it almost impossible for any government to carry out the wishes of the Berlin tribunal. To do so involved a change in the constitution, which could only be effected by a specially elected constituent assembly. This body met on the 3rd of June, and sat through the entire summer. The irritation of the powers at the unexpected delay was so great that Great Britain proposed a collective note on the subject, to be executed by the Austrian cabinet; while Prince Bismarck threatened, if the Berlin proposition were not carried out, to refer to the suzerain power at Constantinople. At last, however, on the 18th of October, Article vii. was repealed, and it thus became possible for Rumanian Jews to become naturalized and to hold land. It was further decided to admit to naturalization the 883 Jewish soldiers who had served in the war; but with all other Jews individual naturalization was required, and this was hedged about by so many difficulties, a special vote of the legislature being required, with a two-thirds majority in each individual case, that although the compromise thus effected was accepted by the powers, the actual result was that, from 1880 to 1884, out of 385 persons who were naturalized in Rumania, only 71 were Rumanian Jews. As the process of naturalization has never been accelerated, the 300,000 Jews said to inhabit Rumania are still regarded as foreigners; and although liable to military service and to the payment of taxes, are unable to own rural land or possess electoral or other civil rights.

Italy was the first of the Powers to notify its recognition of Rumanian independence (December 1879); but Bismarck 3. Establishment of the Rumanian kingdom. succeeded in prevailing on the Western Powers not to give official recognition until Rumania should have purchased the railways from their German owners. This unpopular measure caused some delay; but Great Britain, France and Germany formally recognized the independence of the country on the 20th of February 1880. Early in 1881 it was generally felt that the time had arrived for Rumania to be created a kingdom. On the 13th of March the tsar Alexander II. was assassinated, and the Rumanian opposition chose this occasion to accuse the Liberal government of aiming at republican and anti-dynastic ideals. To refute this charge, the ministry proposed the elevation of the Rumanian principality into the kingdom of Rumania. The prince accepted the resolution; within ten days the new kingdom was recognized by all the Great Powers, and the coronation took place at Bucharest on the 22nd of May 1881. The royal crown was constructed of steel made from Turkish cannon captured at Plevna.

Rumania was now comparatively, but not entirely, free from fears of serious foreign complications. Austria and Relations with Russia and Austria-Hungary. Russia alike resented the decision to fortify Bucharest and the Sereth line, adopted by the Rumanian government in 1882. Relations with Russia had remained strained ever since the war. The delimitation of the Dobrudja frontier was still unsettled, and owing to Russian opposition was not finally disposed of till 1884. Expenses incurred during the war led to much controversy, especially when the Russian government claimed the return of £120,000 advanced to enable the Rumanians to mobilize, and considered by them as a free gift. A compromise was made, both parties withdrawing their claims, in April 1882.

Relations with Austria-Hungary were also on a very unpleasant footing. There were two principal subjects of discord—the navigation of the Danube (q.v.) and the “national question,” i.e. the status of the Vlach communities outside Rumania, and especially in Transylvania and Macedonia (see Vlachs and Macedonia). The Danube question became acute in 1881, 1883 and 1899; the national question is a more permanent source of trouble, affecting Austria-Hungary, Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria. King Charles, who naturally favoured the ally of Germany, and Bratianu, who regarded Russian policy with suspicion, endeavoured to promote a better understanding with Austria-Hungary. But there was a strong anti-German party in the country, especially among the old boiars and the peasantry. Community of creed, ancient traditional influence, the entire absence of Russian merchants, and the consequent avoidance of many small commercial rivalries, contributed to bring about a sort of passive preference for Russia, while the bitter disputes that had occurred with Germany on the question of railway finance had left a very hostile feeling.

In March 1883 the government decided to introduce various important changes into the constitution. Three electoral colleges Revision of the Constitution, 1883-84. were formed instead of four; a considerable addition was made to the numbers of the senate and chamber; trial by jury was established for press offences, except those committed against the royal family and the sovereigns of foreign states; these were to be tried by the ordinary tribunals without jury. A bill was passed endowing the crown with state lands, giving an annual rent of £24,000 in addition to the civil list fixed in 1866 at £49,000; another measure granted free passes on the railways and an allowance of £1 daily during the sitting of parliament to all senators and deputies. The revision of the constitution had estranged the two heads of the Liberal party, I. C. Bratianu, who was mainly responsible for the new measures, and C. A. Rosetti, who unsuccessfully advocated reforms of a far more democratic character. These two had been united by a most intimate friendship. One had never acted without the other. Rosetti was said to be the soul whilst Bratianu was the voice of the same personality. Henceforward Bratianu had sole control of the Liberal government. The revising chambers having fulfilled their special mandate, were dissolved in September 1884, and a new parliament assembled in November, the government, as usual, obtaining a large majority in both houses.

Since 1876 Bratianu had exercised an almost dictatorial power, and anything like a powerful parliamentary opposition Coalition of parties against I. C. Bratianu, 1883-88. had ceased to exist. But he had been too long in power; the numerous state departments were exclusively filled with his nominees; and some pecuniary scandals, in which the minister of war and other high officials were implicated, helped to augument his fast-growing unpopularity. New parties were formed in opposition, and the National Liberal and Liberal-Conservative parties combined to attack him. The first of these maintained that the government should be essentially Rumanian, and, while maintaining friendly relations with foreign Powers, should in no wise allow them to interfere with interal affairs. They also advocated reduction of expenditure and the independence of the magistracy. The Liberal-Conservatives held generally the same views, but had as their ideal of foreign policy a guaranteed neutrality. Another party which now attracted considerable attention was that of the Junimists, or Young Conservatives. The name was taken from the Junimea, a literary society formed in Jassy in 1874 by P. Carp, T. Rosetti, and Maiorescu, and transformed into a political association in 1881. Their programme for home affairs involved the amelioration of the position of the peasantry and artisan classes, whose progress they considered had been overlooked, the irremovability of the magistracy, and a revision of the communal law in the sense of decentralization. In financial matters they advocated the introduction of a gold standard and the removal of the agio on gold, also the introduction of foreign capital to develop industries in the country; and as regards foreign policy, they were strong advocates of intimate and friendly relations with Austria-Hungary. Elections for a new chamber took place in February 1888, and the whole of the leaders of the opposition were elected, including Dimitrie Bratianu, the premier's brother, and Lascar Catargiu. I. C. Bratianu definitely retired on the 4th of April, after having held the premiership for twelve eventful years. Had he continued much longer in office it is probable that there would have been a revolutionary movement against the dynasty. During the previous parliament a Conservative manifesto, signed by Catargiu, D. Bratianu and other leaders of the opposition, openly threatened that if the ministers were not removed before the general election, the responsibility would be thrown, “not on those who served the crown, but on him who bore it”; and the name of Prince George Bibescu had been openly mentioned as a possible successor.

In the new chamber elected in October 1888 only five members of Bratianu's party retained their seats. The most prominent The Conservative-Junimist coalition, 1888-95. statesman in the new Conservative-Junimist administration was P. Carp, who in the spring of 1889 succeeded in passing a bill which authorized the distribution of state lands among the peasantry. Despite this admirable measure, he was unable to retain office, and three changes of ministry followed. The Conservative-Junimist parliament nevertheless restored tranquillity to the country. On the 22nd of May 1891, the 25th anniversary of the king's accession was celebrated with great enthusiasm. Meanwhile the gold standard had been introduced (1889), and the financial situation was regarded as satisfactory. In December 1891 a stable cabinet was at last formed by Lascar Catargiu. The new ministry during their four years' tenure of office passed several useful measures through parliament. The state credit was improved by the conversion of the public debt; the sale of the state lands to the peasantry was actively continued; a law was passed making irremovable the judges of the court of appeal and the presidents of tribunals, and other important judicial reforms were carried out; a mining law was passed with the object of introducing foreign capital; and the commercial marine was developed by the formation of a state ocean service of passsenger and cargo steamers. Great reforms, which had been unsuccessfully attempted by former governments, were made in the service of public instruction and in the organization of the clergy. In 1893 and 1894 commercial and extradition treaties and a trade-mark convention were made with Great Britain, Austria-Hungary and Germany. Meanwhile the Liberal opposition was being reorganized. On the death of I. C. Bratianu, in 1891, his brother Dimitrie was proclaimed chief of the united Liberal party, but he also died in June 1892, and the veteran statesman Dimitrie Sturdza was recognized as the head of the Liberals. In 1894 he started a very violent agitation in favour of the Rumanians in Hungary. Another popular opposition cry was “Rumania for the Rumanians.” The new mining law, among other concessions, gave foreigners the right to lease lands for long periods for the working of petroleum, and this was denounced by the opposition as being hostile to national interests, and also as being against the spirit of the constitution, which prohibited foreigners from holding lands. The bill was carried by the government in April 1895, as well as another important measure favouring the construction of local railways by private contractors. The Liberal opposition protested, retired from the chamber, and took no further part in legislative proceedings. The Liberal party had been out of office for eight years, the Conservative-Junimist coalition had practically carried out its complete programme, and legislation was at a deadlock owing to the abstention of the Liberal opposition. As the electorate showed itself in favour of a change of ministry, Catargiu resigned, and a new Liberal government was formed by D. Sturdza.

The advent to power of a statesman who had recently been making such violent attacks on the Hungarian government The Liberal administration of 1895-99. caused some anxiety in Austria-Hungary. When once office was obtained, it was to the interest of the new government that the agitation should subside. The official opening by the emperor of Austria of the new channel through the Iron Gates of the Danube, on the 27th of September 1896, was the means of bringing about a great improvement in the relations between the two countries. It led to an exchange of visits between the emperor and King Charles, who also visited the tsar Nicholas II. in August 1898. The visit was the symbol of a reconciliation between the Rumanians and the Russians, the relations between whom had been the reverse of cordial since 1878. As regards home politics, the overwhelming majority of the Liberal party at the elections of 1895, instead of being a source of strength, proved the very reverse. It caused the party to split up into factions—Sturdzists, Aurelianists and Flevists, so called after the names of their respective chiefs. Sturdza himself soon had to retire. The head of the Orthodox Church, the metropolitan Gennadius, had for some years past, as head of the philanthropic establishments founded by the princess Brancovan, desired to obtain the entire management of these wealthy foundations, and had made violent attacks on the two administrators, Prince George Bibescu and Prince Stirbei, both members of the Brancovan family. In the quarrel that ensued the prelate was openly accused of simony, of heresy, and other matters more suitable for a criminal court. After a public trial before the Holy Synod, he was found guilty of certain canonical offences, and sentenced to be deposed. The same night, he was seized by the police, and removed by force to a neighbouring monastery. This harsh treatment of the head of the Church led to an attack on Sturdza. On the 3rd of December 1896, the president of the council, M. Aurelian, was called on to reconstitute a Liberal cabinet, with the principal object of calming public opinion by the settlement of this question. Aurelian then appealed to the patriotic sentiments of the Conservative party to help to solve the difficulty, and with the aid of Lascar Catargiu and Tache Ionescu the following decision was reached: the Holy Synod was to reverse its judgment, and the metropolitan was to be restored to his ecclesiastical rank; but, after holding it for a few days, he was voluntarily to resign and to receive as compensation a handsome pension. Calm was thus restored, but Aurelian and his colleagues were not inclined to hand over their portfolios to Sturdza and his partisans. The struggle terminated in the success of Sturdza, who in April 1897 returned to power and remained president of the council until 1899. Few of the important measures promised in the Liberal programme were passed, one for the reform of public instruction being the most noteworthy. Sturdza's government, which had risen to power mainly on the national question, was also destined to fall on it. A popular agitation was raised on the subject of certain subsidies made by the Rumanians for the support of the Rumanian schools at Kronstadt in Transylvania, and Sturdza was accused of too great subserviency to the Hungarian government. The agitation culminated in street riots at Bucharest. On the same evening that Sturdza tendered his resignation to the king (April 1899) the veteran Conservative statesman Lascar Catargiu suddenly died.

The Conservatives, led by G. G. Cantacuzene, returned to office with an overwhelming majority. They were immediately The financial crisis of 1899-1901. confronted by an acute economic crisis. The financial position of the country had hitherto on the surface been very satisfactory. The public debt, mostly placed in Germany, amounted to about £51,000,000. The interest had been regularly paid. But the facility with which money had always been borrowed gave rise to great extravagance. Expenses which ought to have been defrayed out of the ordinary budget, such as the erection of magnificent public offices at Bucharest, were frequently defrayed out of the loans; and the custom had arisen when money was scarce of issuing treasury bonds. When the Conservatives came into office they found that the payment of 2½ millions of these bonds would shortly become due, and there were no resources in the treasury to meet them. Owing to the Transvaal War and other causes, the money market was most unfavourable, especially in Germany; and there was an almost entire failure of the harvest. The value of cereals exported in 1898 was about 9 millions sterling, in 1899 only 3½ millions. The government managed to extricate itself from its immediate difficulties in the autumn of 1890, by raising a loan of £7,000,000 in Berlin, but on very stringent terms. Besides paying a much higher rate of interest than heretofore, it bound itself not to contract any further loans until this one was paid. The Conservatives were united in wishing to meet the financial crisis by a moderate reduction of expenditure and a large increase of taxation, while the Liberal opposition advocated the permanent reduction of the annual expenditure of £800,000, which would necessitate the raising of £200,000 only by fresh taxation. The Conservative programme was naturally unpopular; Carp and the Junimists were unwilling to co-operate with the government, and, on the 26th of February 1901, D. Sturdza again became premier.

His administration lasted until the 31st of December 1904, and averted the impending bankruptcy of Rumania by a policy Financial reform, 1901-5. of strict retrenchment. In 1904 Sturdza was able to exceed the proposed limit of annual expenditure, £8,740,000, owing to a great increase in the value of the tobacco monopoly. Even a recurrence of agricultural depression during the same year left the national credit intact. Another financial reform was undertaken by the Conservatives, who returned to power on the 4th of January 1905, with G. G. Cantacuzene as prime minister, and in May floated the conversion loan, already described.

The chief causes of the agrarian insurrection in March 1907 have been outlined above (under Land Tenure). But Agrarian rising of l907. an additional cause was the harsh treatment of the peasants on the state and communal lands leased to Jewish middlemen. At first an attack on the Jews alone, the rising soon became a jacquerie directed against all the large landowners. Numerous towns and villages were sacked and partly burned, and 140,000 soldiers were employed to suppress the revolt. On the 24th of March the Cantacuzene ministry resigned and was succeeded by a Liberal government under the leadership of D. Sturdza, who completed the restoration of order by strong military measures and afterwards initiated remedial legislation. He abolished the system by which public lands were leased to middlemen, reduced the land tax on small holdings, and granted new facilities for obtaining credit to the peasants. After a general election in June 1907, Sturdza remained in office with an overwhelming majority. To meet the cost of agrarian reform, and of the reorganization of the army (1908), he introduced various fiscal changes, notably an alteration in the budget system, by which the total revenue and expenditure were shown for the first time (see Finance, above).

Rumania was little affected by the political changes in the Balkan Peninsula (1908-10) coincident with the Turkish Rumania and the Macedonian question. revolution, the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Dual Monarchy, the proclamation of Bulgarian independence and the erection of Montenegro into a kingdom. South of the Danube its chief political interest centred in the Kutzo-Vlach communities in Macedonia, which were the object of a Panhellenic propaganda most offensive to Rumanian nationalism. An irade of the sultan Abdul Hamid had in 1906 recognized the existence of the Kutzo-Vlachs as a religious body (millet), forming an integral part of the Rumanian Church. This decision was regarded by the Greeks as a blow to their own interests, and Greek revolutionary bands were accused of persecuting the Kutzo-Vlachs. (See also Macedonia.) Even before 1906 there was keen rivalry between Greece and Rumania, and the “Macedonian question” was the underlying cause of the disputes which, arising ostensibly from quite trivial causes, led temporarily to the rupture of diplomatic relations between Gieece and Rumania in 1905, 1906 and 1910.

Bibliography.—No scientific history of Rumania was published up to the 20th century, but the task of collecting and editing original documents was partially carried out by the Rumanian Academy and by private students, especially after 1880. The so-called Chronicle of Hurul is a modern forgery, and up to the 14th century the only valid authorities are Slavonic, Hungarian and Byzantine chroniclers. Thenceforward a great mass of material is available. It is partly incorporated in the yearly Annalele of the Academy, 2nd series, from 1880; and in the 30 volumes of E. de Hurmuzaki's Documente privitore relative la istoria Românilor (Bucharest, 1876, &c.). Other important original documents, or works containing such documents, are Verantius's 16th-century De situ Transylvaniae, Moldaviae, et Transalpinae, in Kovachich's Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum minores (Budapest, 1798); G. Urechia's late 16th-century Chronique de Moldavie, ed. J. Picot (Paris, 1878); Rumanian text in Old Slavonic characters, with French translation and notes of great value; the 17th-century Opere Complete of Miron Costiu, ed. V. A. Urechia (Bucharest, 1886); A. M. del Chiaro, Istoria delle moderne rivoluzioni della Valachia con la descrizione del paese (Venice, 1878); the early 18th-century Operele principeluǐ D. Cantemirǔ, issued by the Academy (Bucharest, 1872, &c.); N. Iorga, Acte şi fragmente cu privire la istoria Românilor (Bucharest, 1895-97); M. Kogalniceanu, Cronicele Româniǐ (Bucharest, 1872-74); J. L. Carra, Histoire de Moldavie et de Valachie, avec une dissertation sur l'état actuel de ces deux Provinces (Jassy, 1777); A. M. Blanc de Lanautte, Mémoire sur l'état ancien et actuel de la Moldavie, présenté à S.A.S. le prince A. Ypsilanti en 1787 (Bucharest, 1902); D. A. Sturdza, Acte şi documente relative la istoria renascereǐ Româniǐ (Bucharest, 1900, &c.); ibid., Scrierile şi cuvîntarile luǐ I. C. Bratianu (Bucharest, 1903, &c.). On the Phanariote period see P. Eliade, De l'influence française sur l'esprit public en Roumanie. Les origines. Étude sur l'état de la société roumaine à l'époque des règnes phanariotes (Paris, 1898). For a general history of Rumania, see V. A. Urechia, Istoria Românilor (Bucharest, 1891, &c., 8 vols.); A. D. Xenopol, Istoria Românilor din Dacia Traianǎ (Jassy, 1888-93, 6 vols.—abridged French edition entitled Histoire des Roumains, 2 vols., Paris, 1896); and P. Negulescu, Histoire du droit et des institutions de la Roumanie (Paris, 1898, &c.). Sketches of Rumanian history are given in A. Sturdza, La terre et les races roumaines (Paris, 1905); and W. Miller, The Balkans (London, 1896). For a comprehensive bibliography of Rumanian history, see N. Iorga's introduction to vol. x. of the Hurmuzaki collection; vol. xxii. of the Annalele; Bibliografia Românéscǎ veche 1508-1830, by C. Bianu and H. Hodos (Bucharest, 1903, &c.); and D. Onciul, Originile principatelor române (Bucharest, 1898). (H. Tr.; X.)

Language

Rumanian[10] is, geographically, an isolated eastern member of the group of Romance languages (q.v.), being severed from all the rest by countries in which the predominant speech is Slavonic or Magyar. It represents the original rustic Latin of the Roman provincials in Moesia and Dacia, as modified by centuries of alien rule. Structurally, its Latin characteristics have been well preserved; but its vocabulary has undergone great changes, becoming so far Slavonized that the ratio of words of Slavonic origin to words of Latin origin is approximately as three to two; large numbers of loan-words have also been added from Turkish, Greek, Magyar and other sources. It is noteworthy, however, that where Latin words have survived they are sometimes purer than in the Romance languages of the West (e.g. Lat. domina is better represented by Rum. domnǎ, “lady,” than by Ital. donna, Span. doña, Port. dona, Fr. dame). Some words indeed[11]—such as laudare, to praise, ducere, to lead—retain unaltered the forms under which they were used by Virgil and Cicero. A feature of the language which distinguishes it from all other members of the group, and appears to be of even higher antiquity than the word-forms above mentioned, is the retention of a suffix article—e.g. frate, brother, fratele, the brother; zi, day, ziua, the day. This usage seems to have survived from the pre-Roman period. A similar suffix article is retained in Albanian, which almost certainly represents the original language of the Thraco-Illyrian tribes (see Albania); and these tribes belonged to the same ethnical and linguistic group as the Daco-Moesians represented by the Vlachs.

Rumanian orthography remained in a transitional state throughout the 19th century. The Latin alphabet is used, with special signs to represent sounds borrowed from Slavonic, &c. All the unaccented vowels except e are pronounced as in Italian; e has the same phonetic value as in Old Slavonic (= French é) and is often similarly preiotized (= ye in yet), notably at the beginning of all words except neologisms. The accented vowels é and ó are pronounced as ea and oa (pétra, rock, = peatra; mórte, death, = moarte); they are written in full, as diphthongs, at the end of a word and sometimes in other positions. The sound of the Slavonic Ы (a guttural y) is represented by ǎ, ě or ǒ, though these letters occur as frequently in words of Latin origin (e.g. cînd = quando) as in those derived from Slavonic; Ѫ is represented by â or î, having the nasal sound of un in French; ǐ and ǔ at the end of a word are mute or short. Of the consonants, c followed by e or i = ch (as in church), otherwise k; or resembles the English j; g is hard before e and i, otherwise soft; h is guttural, as ch in loch, j is pronounced as in French; r as in Russian; ş or (Slav. Ш) as sh; ţ or (Slav. П) as ts or tz; w is wanting. The remaining consonants have the same phonetic values as in English.

Rumanian is highly inflected. It possesses two regular substantive declensions and six cases, the vocative being in common use. The large class of heterogeneous nouns which are masculine in the singular and feminine in the plural constitute what is sometimes called the neuter declension. There are three regular conjugations, distinguished (as in Latin) according to the termination of the present infinitive in a, e or i; e.g. (1) a ara or arare, to plough, (2) a crede or credere, to believe, (3) a dormi or dormire, to sleep. Verbs ending in î, however, are sometimes classed as a fourth conjugation. The second form of the present infinitive (arare, credere, dormire) is used as a noun. The so-called “simple perfect” (perfectul simplu) has often the force of an aorist. Compound tenses are formed by the addition of certain particles and of the auxiliary verbs—a ave, to have, a fi, to be, and a voi, to will. For the passive voice, a fi is used, with the past participle of the required verb. All tenses of reflexive verbs except the imperative and present participle are formed by prefixing the pronoun which indicates the object to the verb, in the dative or genitive case (abbreviated) as the verb may require; but in the reflexive imperative and present participle the verb precedes the pronoun; e.g. a propune, to propose, a şî propune, to propose to oneself, but propune ţǐ, propose to yourself.

The accentuation of Rumanian, though complex, is governed by certain broad principles, except in the case of neologisms, many of which have been borrowed from French and Italian without change of accent. Nouns retain the accent of the nominative singular in all cases and in both numbers (e.g. copīlā, girl, vocative plur. copīlelor), except when a diminutive or augmentative suffix is added; the accent then shifts to the suffix. The language is very rich in diminutive and augmentative forms; e.g. the name Ión or Ioan (John), has the diminutives Ionicǎ, Ioniţa, Ionaşcǔ, Ianache, Ienǎchel, &c. In verbs—apart from a few exceptional tenses—the accent falls on the first syllable of the inflectional suffix, e.g. eǔ dorm, I sleep, but eǔ dormīssem, I had slept. For the sake of euphony, a vowel is frequently interpolated between two consonants; e.g. in masculine nouns terminating in a consonant, an interpolated u precedes l to form the suffix article (om, man, om-u-l, the man).

Bibliography. (1) Dictionaries: A. de Cihac, Dictionnaire d'étymologie daco-roumaine (2 vols., Frankfort, 1870-79), valuable for non-Latin elements; B. P. Hǎşdeǔ, Etymologicum magnum Romaniae (Bucharest, Academia Românǎ, 1887, &c.); F. Damé, Dictionnaire roumain-français (Paris, 1896); S. Puşcariu, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der rumänischen Sprache (Heidelberg, 1905, &c.); I. A. Candréa-Hecht and O. Densusianu, Dicţionar general al limbeǐ române (Bucharest, 1909, &c.); I. Dalametra, Dicţionar Macedoromân (Bucharest, Academia Românǎ, 1006). (2) Grammars, &c.: T. Cipariu, Gramatec'a limbeǐ române (Bucharest, 1870-77); I. Nǎdejde, Gramateca limbeǐ române (Bucharest, 1884), id., Istoria limbeǐ şi literatureǐ române (Jassy, 1886); B. P. Hǎşdeǔ, Cuvente din bǎtrânǐ (Bucharest, 1878-79); L. Şǎineanu, Istoria filologieǐ române (Bucharest, 1895), id., Influenţa orientalǎ asupra limbeǐ şi culturei române (3 vols., Bucharest, 1900); S. C. Mândrescu, Elemente unguresţi în limba românǎ (Bucharest, 1802); S. Puşcariu, “Studii istroromâne” in Annalele of the Academia Românǎ, ser. 2, vol. xxviii.; T. Gartner, Darstellung der rumänischen Sprache (Halle, 1904); G. Weigand, Praktische Grammatik der rumänischen Sprache (Leipzig, 1903). Important studies on the separate dialects of Moldavia, Walachi, the Dobrudja, Bessarabia, Bukovina, the Banat, Macedonia, Istria, &c., have been published by G. Weigand, cither in book form or in the Leipzig Jahresbericht des Instituts für rumänische Sprache, which he edited from its foundation in 1894. (X.)

Literature

The intellectual development of Rumania has never until modern times been affected by Latin culture, but it has been profoundly influenced first by Slavonic literature, then by the Greek or Byzantine literature, and last, by the Western, notably French and Italian novels. The history of Rumanian literature can be divided into three distinct periods: the Slavonic, from the beginnings of Rumanian literature in the middle of the 16th century down to 1710; the Greek, from 1710-1830, corresponding with the era of Phanariote rule; and the modern period, from 1830 to the present. The change from Slavonic to Rumanian was very gradual. Slavonic had been the language of the Church from the early middle ages, and was therefore hallowed in the eyes of the people and the clergy; through the political connexion with the Slavonic kingdoms of the south, Bulgaria and Servia, it had also been the language of the chancelleries and of the court. Even when the Rumanian language at last supplanted the Slavonic, it did not emancipate itself from the original; the new was merely a translation from the old, and at the beginning it was as literal as possible. We have therefore in the first period a medieval literature transplanted to Rumania and consisting of translations from the Slavonic. The reason of the change from Slavonic into Rumanian is to be sought in the influence the Reformation had among the Rumanian inhabitants of Transylvania.

The second period is marked by a complete waning of Slavonic influence, through the literary activity of the Greek hospodars. The Slavonic kingdoms of the south had lost their independence; they had ceased to produce anything worth having, whilst the Greeks brought with them the old literature from Byzantium and thus drove out the last remnants of Slavonic. They also treated Rumanian as an uncouth and barbarian language, and imposed upon the Church their own Greek language, Greek literature and Greek culture. This literature may be taken to represent the period of the Renaissance in the West; but when the yoke of the Phanariotes was shaken off, the link that connected Rumanian literature with Greek was also broken, and under modern influences began the romantic movement which has dominated Rumanian literature since 1830.

Much of the Rumanian literature of the first two periods has been preserved only in MSS.; few of these have been investigated, and a still smaller number have been compared with their original. The Rumanian Academy keeps jealous watch over the treasures it has accumulated, and few have had access to the riches entombed in its archives; nor has any private or public collection been catalogued. An exhaustive history of Rumanian literature is, for the time being, a pious wish.

First Period: c. 1550-1710.—Rumanian literature begins, like all modern European literature, with translations from the Bible. The oldest of these are direct translations from Slavonic texts, following the original word for word, even in its grammatical construction. The first impetus towards the printing of the Rumanian translations came from the princes and judges in Transylvania. It is under their orders and often at their expense that the first Slavonic printing-presses were established in places like Kronstadt (Brashov) Oraştia, Sasz-Shebesh and Belgrad (Alba Julia, in Transylyania) where Slavonic and Rumanian books appeared. The foremost printer and translator was a certain Diakonus Koresi, of Greek origin, who had emigrated to Walachia and thence to Transylvania. He was assisted in his work by the “popes” (parish priests) of those places where he worked. The very first book published in Rumanian is the Gospels printed in Kronstadt between 1560 and 1561. An absolutely identical Slavonic text of the Gospels appeared in the same year, or one year earlier, which no doubt was the original for the Rumanian translation. Following up the list of publications of the books of the Bible in chronological The Bible. order, we find Diakonus Koresi immediately afterwards—the date has not yet been definitely ascertained—printing a Rumanian translation of the Acts of the Apostles; in 1577 he printed at Sasz-Shebesh a Psalter in both Slavonic and Rumanian; the Rumanian follows the Slavonic verse for verse. A MS. Psalter more recently discovered shows close affinity to this edition, and, in spite of the opinions held by some critics, must be considered as a copy of it made about 1585; it even reproduces the printer's errors of Koresi's edition. To the 16th century belong also the first attempts to translate the historical books of the Old Testament which appeared in Oraştia in 1582, under the title Palia. The example thus set could not fail to react upon the Rumanians in Walachia, with whom the Transylvanians stood in close commercial and political connexion. The Slavonic language still reigned supreme in the Church; yet once the example had been set in Transylvania, and the influence of the Slavonic nations had begun to slacken, it was inevitable that the Rumanian language should sooner or later come to its own. It was in Transylvania that the first complete Rumanian translation of the New Testament appeared (Belgrad, 1648). This translation was based upon the Slavonic original, but the text had been verified and corrected, by comparison with a Calvinistic translation, and had been collated with the Greek. The chief author of this translation, which may be termed classical, seems to have been a certain Hieromonach Sylvestre who lived in Walachia and who had undertaken, by order of the prince Betlengabor of Transylvania (1613-29), a translation of the whole Bible. Upon this version, no doubt, are based the editions of Iordache Cantacuzene (Bucharest, 1682), and that of Şerban Greceanu (1693), in which for the first time the Greek text is printed side by side with the Rumanian; and the edition of Anthim the Iberian (1703). In these may also be traced a few reminiscences of the older version by Koresi, of which a copy, made by Radu Gramatik (1574), and once the property of Peter Cercel, is now in the British Museum. Sylvestre also prepared a new edition of the Psalter as part of his Bible (Belgrad, 1651), verifying the text by reference to the Hebrew and Greek originals. The first edition of the complete Bible was published (1688) by order of Prince Ioan Serban* Cantacuzene, by Radu Greceanu, assisted by his brother Serban* and by Metrofan the bishop of Buzeu. This may be considered as the supreme monument of Rumanian literature in Walachia in the 17th century. No other Rumanian translation approaches it in style and diction, although the authors, as they own, utilized the older translations, and for the New Testament and the Psalter they utilized Sylvestre's work. At least a hundred years had to pass ere a new edition of the whole Bible was undertaken, nor was the Bible used for private reading, except such passages as were included in the lessons read in church. These were translated independently by Dositheiu under the title of Pirimiar (Jassy, 1683), and were almost the last work that came from his prolific pen. As far back as 1600 Dositheiu had made a new translation of the Psalter from the Slavonic and printed it in both languages (Jassy, 1680). Upon this translation he based the rhymed Psalter at which he had worked from 1660-73, when it appeared in Uniev. This is the first example of rhymed psalms in Rumanian, the author following the Polish rhymed version of Ian Kohanowski. Albert Molnar had translated a French rhymed Psalter into Hungarian (1607) and this served as the basis for a literal translation made by Ianos Viski (1697). About the same time Theodor Korbea attempted to versify the Psalter and dedicated his work to Peter the Great of Russia. A new translation of the Psalter from Slavonic, with a commentary, the first of its kind, was made in 1697 by Alexander Dascalul (Alexander Preceptor Polonus). All these last-mentioned Psalters are still in MS.

Turning from the Bible to homilies and the liturgy, we find the ancient collections of homilies in Rumania to be due to the same Homilies. proselytizing movement. Almost the first book printed by Koresi (at the expense of the magistrate of Kronstadt, Foro Miklaus, c. 1570), seems to have been a translation from some Calvinistic compilation of homilies, one for every Sunday in the year. A Slavonic original sent by the metropolitan Serafim of Walachia served as the basis for a second collection of homilies known as Evangelie invâţǎtoare (1580). It differs from the former in language and tendency and proves that Koresi was only a translator and printer. The first collection of homilies, henceforth known as Cazanii, appeared in Dlǔgopole, i.e. Câmpulung, in Walachia, in 1642. It was compiled by a certain Melchisedec and contained thirteen homilies, very voluminous is the next collection, Evangelie invâţǎtoare talcuitǎ, translated from the Russian by Sylvestre (Govora, 1643). One year later appeared the first book printed in Moldavia, the collection of homilies Carte româneascǎ de invâţǎturǎ (Jassy, 1643). It is a volume of 1000 folio pages, of which the first half is absolutely identical with Sylvestre's collection. A similar unacknowledged loan was made by Meletie the Macedonian, compiler of the homilies which appeared at Deal in 1644. Of special interest is the next publication of homilies Cheea inţelesului, “the Key of understanding,” by the Walachian metropolitan Varlaam, translated from the Russian and printed at Bucharest in 1678. This, the first book printed in Bucharest, begins the long series of editions which have issued from the press of the “Mitropolie” in Bucharest. From this press originated also the no less important presses at Buzeu and Râmnicu Vâlcea, where in the following two centuries almost all the books for the Church service were printed. Two or three more collections may be mentioned here—one called Sicriu de aur, “the Golden treasury,” by Ioan of Vinţi (Sasz-Shebesh, 1688), probably from some Hungarian Calvinistic collection of obituary sermons; and the “Pearls,” Mârgǎritare, an anthology made from the Greek homilies of St Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Anastasius Sinaita, &c., and translated from the Greek by the brothers Radu and Şerban Greceanu. The only collection of original sermons is the Didahii delivered by the metropolitan Anthim the Iberian (q.v.), the scholar, artist, translator, printer and great linguist, who was the first to issue books in Arabic and even in Georgian from his printing-presses in Bucharest. The Didahii were published at Bucharest in 1888.

The Rumanian language was not yet introduced into the Church. All the service books were in Slavonic, but during this period most of The Liturgy. them were translated, and some of them printed, although not yet officially used. The burial service seems to have been the first to be translated. Two Evhologia appeared during the second half of the 17th century, one by the bishop Dositheiu (Jassy, 1679-80), which remained almost unknown, and the other based upon the Slavonic, by Ioan of Vinţi (Belgrad, 1689). This Molitǎvnic (prayer-book) has been the basis of all subsequent editions of the Rumanian Prayer-book. The Liturgy proper was also translated by bishop Dositheiu in 1679, but a translation from the Greek, by Jeremia Kakavela (Jassy, 1697), was the one adopted in the churches. Passing over the numerous editions of the Akathist and Katavasiar, some partly in Rumanian, we may mention the Ceasoslov (Book of Hours), said to have been printed for the first time in Transylvania in 1696, but certainly printed or reprinted by the metropolitan Anthim (Tîrgovishtea, 1715). In 1694 Alexander Dascalul translated, and the bishops Mitrofan of Buseu and Kesarie of Râmnicu Vâlcea printed (among other church books) the twelve volumes of the Mineu in Slavonic with Rumanian rubrics, and short lives of the saints, as well as the Triod and the Anthologion.

In addition to the activity of the Reformers in Transylvania, there was also a Roman Catholic propaganda in Rumania, and the Orthodox Church found it necessary to convoke a synod in Jassy for the purpose of formulating anew its own dogmatic standpoint. It was held in 1642 under the presidency of Peter of Mogila, and a formulary of the Orthodox creed was drawn up. An answer to the Lutheran Catechism of Heidelberg (translated into Rumanian and printed at Fogaras in 1648) was also prepared by Bishop Varlaam. R. Greceanu translated the formulary from Greek into Rumanian under the title Pravoslavnicǎ mǎrturisire (Bucharest, 1692). Of a more decided polemical character is the Lumina of Maxim of Peloponnesus, translated from the Greek (Bucharest, 1699).

Of far greater interest is the literature of maxims, and lives of saints, real or apocryphal, intended to teach by example. Such are Ethical literature. the maxims in the Floaerea darurilor, translated from the Greek (Sneagov, 1700), and going back to the Italian Fiore de virtù; the Invâtǎţuri creştineşti, “Christian teachings” of Filoteos (ibid., 1700); the short moral guide, Cǎrare pre scurt, by Ioan of Vinţi (Belgrad, 1685), translated from some Hungarian original; the Mdntmrea pǎcǎtosilor, or “Salvation of sinners,” translated from the Greek by a certain Cozma in 1682, which is a storehouse of medieval exempla; and above all the Mirror of Kings, ascribed to Prince Neagoe Bassaraba, written originally in Slavonic (or Greek, if the prince be really the author), and translated (c. 1650) into Rumanian. This exceeds all the other publications of its class in purity of language and excellence of style. Of the lives of saints, the Prolog, translated from the Slavonic at the beginning of the 17th century (MS.), and the Vieţile Sfinţilor, by Dositheiu (2 vols., Jassy, 1682), are the most important. In the latter, which is his greatest work, Dositheiu uses not only Greek texts, but also Slavonic legends and other MS. material; and he includes a goodly number of the apocryphal legends of saints. To this kind of literature belongs also the Lafsaikon, i.e. the Historia Lausiaca of Palladius, differing, however, in some points from the original. The legends of the saints of the Pecherskaya in Kiev were translated by Alexander Dascalul. All these are still in MS.

The first law-books were also compiled during this period. The Slavonic Nomokanon, which rests on Greek legislation and embodies Law. the canonical and civil law, had previously been used in Rumania. In 1640 there appeared in Govora the first canonical law-book, which was at the same time the first Rumanian book printed in Walachia. This Pravilǎ (code) was probably the work of the historian Moxa or Moxalie. In 1632 Evstratie the Logofet (Iogothete) also translated a Pravilǎ from the Greek, which remains in MS. In 1646 appeared the Pravilǎ aleasǎ, or “Selected Code,” compiled, no doubt, by Evstratie and published with the authority of the then reigning Prince Vasile Lupul (Basil the Wolf), hence known as the Code of Vasile. In 1652 there appeared in Bucharest a complete code of laws, translated from the Greek and Slavonic and adapted to local needs under the direction of the prince of Walachia, Matthias Bassaraba. The Indreptarea legii, in which Pravilǎ of Vasile was incorporated without acknowledgment, remained the recognized code almost down to 1866. It embraces the canonical as well as the civil law. The chief authors were Uriil Nǎsturel and Daniil M. Panoneanul.

The earliest historical works are short annals, written originally in Slavonic by monks in the monasteries of Moldavia and Walachia. History. In 1620 Moxa translated from the Slavonic a short history of the world down to 1498. Two other universal histories were translated from Greek and Slavonic chronographs. One by Pavel Danovici contains the history of the world told in the style of the Byzantine chroniclers; it includes the legend of Troy, the history of Pope Sylvester and the description of the various church councils; and it concludes at the year 1636. The second is the Hrongraf of Dorotheus of Monembasia, translated by a certain Ion Buburezǎu. Both are still in MS. The Old Slavonic annals were later on translated and new notes were added, each subsequent writer annexing the work of his predecessor, and prefixing his name to the entire compilation. Ancient Rumanian historiography is thus difficult to unravel. In Moldavia, where the influence of Poland had been great and Western writings were accessible, we find the best chroniclers. The writers are often actors in the dramas which they describe, and often also the victims. A history of Moldavia from the earliest times to 1594 is ascribed to Nestor or to his son, Gregorie Ureche, or to Simion Dascalul. It was continued by the Evstratie mentioned above, and probably also by Missail Cǎlugǎrul. The most important author whose writings rank as classical is Miron Costin, who either took up the thread where it was left by Simion and Ureche and wrote the history of Moldavia from 1594-1662, or continued the history from where (probably) Evstratie had left it (c. 1630-62). Nicolae Costin (d. 1715), son of Miron, completed the history at both ends. He starts from the creation and endeavours to fill up the lacuna from 1662 to his own time, 1714. It is doubtful, however, whether the portion from 1662-1701 is his work or whether another compiler had filled up that section. Acsintie Uricariul, 1715, brings to a close the corpus of Moldavian Chronicles.

The same uncertainty holds good also for Walachia. The beginnings are the work of an anonymous author, whose chronicle, continued by a certain Constantly Capitanul, describes the history of Walachia from Radu Negru (i.e. Rudolph the Black), c. 1290-1688. An addition to this Chronicle from the time of the Roman Conquest to Attila is ascribed to Tudosie Vestemianul, twice metropolitan of Walachia (1669-73, 1677-1703). The Chronicle of Capitanul was further continued by Radu Greceanu to 1707, and finally by Radu Popescu to 1720. Two works remain still to be mentioned a comprehensive history of both principalities by an anonymous author, probably the Spatar Milescu, who finished his eventful life as ambassador of Russia to China (still in MS.), and the Hronicul Moldo-Vlahilor of Prince Demetrius Cantemir (see Cantemir), more an apology for the Roman origin of the Rumanians than a true history. Cantemir wrote the original in Latin and translated it into Rumanian in 1710. His style shows an immense superiority to that of the previous historians. Of poetry there is scarcely a trace during the whole period under review except some rhymed Psalters and a few rhymed dedications to patrons.

Second Period: 1710-1830.—The Phanariote period has been described as one of total decay; the political degradation of Rumania was thought to be reflected in its spiritual life. But the facts do not warrant this opinion. The few who had taken the trouble to study Rumanian literature paid not the slightest attention to the vast MS. material accumulated during the years of the Phanariote dominion, and out of sheer ignorance and political bias condemned this period as sterile. Another influence was far more potent than the conduct of the Greek princes, though some of them were real benefactors Influence of Roman Catholicism. of the people. In Transylvania one section of the Rumanian population had accepted the spiritual rule of the pope; they became now Greek-Catholic, instead of Greek Orthodox. Rome took good care to educate the priesthood far above the status of the Orthodox priests, and continued an extensive proselytizing activity. So long as the Rumanians were spiritually united with the other Orthodox nations, and so long as they used the Slavonic or Cyrillic alphabet, they would practically be cut off from the Latin West. If, however, they could be induced to discard the old Slavonic alphabet and substitute for it the Latin, and could be brought to recognize their national and ethnical unity with ancient Rome, it was hoped that then they would be more easily induced to enter into the unity of faith. Thus a great change was wrought towards the end of the 18th and in the first half of the 19th century in the whole current of Rumanian literature. It suited the promoters of that movement to pretend that they started a new era. But the Latin or Transylvanian movement wrought great havoc in Rumanian literature and caused the greatest confusion in the language. Only now are some authors beginning to free themselves from the evil influence.

By the end of the 17th century Rumanian had become the authorized language of the Church, and the Rumanian translation of Liturgical, theological and ethical literature. the Gospels (printed 1693) had become the Authorized Version. Most of the liturgical books officially adopted and revised in this period are still used for church services. Such are the Ceasoslov, revised by Bishop Kliment of Râmnicu Vâlcea (1745), the Evhologion (1764), the Katavasiar (1753). The monumental publication of the Mineiu, in 12 folio volumes, by Bishops Kesarie and Filaret of Râmnicu Vâlcea (1776-80), is equal in importance if it be not superior to the no less monumental publication of the Lives of Saints, also in 12 huge folio volumes, published under the direction and with the assistance of the metropolitan Veniamin of Moldavia. The latter was translated from the Russian, appeared in Neamtzu (1809-12), and was reprinted in Bucharest (1835-36). In beauty, richness and lucidity of language, and in dignity of style, these two books resemble the Bible of 1688.

Slavonic having entirely disappeared from the sources of literature, writers and translators turned to Greek originals and for more than a century were busy translating into Rumanian the most important works of the older Fathers of the Church. Some of these translations were printed much later; thus the Hexaemeron of Basil the Great (and of Epiphanius) translated in the middle of the 18th century, was printed at Bucharest in 1827. The Scala Coeli of Jon. Klimakus, the Treasury of St Damascenus (MS. 1747 by a certain Mihalacea), the homilies of Cyril of Alexandria, and those of Ephraem the Syrian, were printed at Neamtzu in 1818. The Panoplia of Euthymius Zygabenus (1775) and the Commentary of Theophylact were printed by Veniamin (Jassy, 1805). The homilies of Theodor Studites (MS. of 1712) were edited by Bishop Filaret and published at Râmnicu Vâlcea in 1784; a translation of Gregory of Nazianzus appeared at Bucharest in 1727. The great polemical work of Simeon of Thessalonica, the Greek original of which was published by Dositheiu (Jassy, 1683), had been translated into Rumanian long before it was printed (Bucharest, 1756). The Lafsaikon, mentioned above, was printed at Bucharest in 1754. All these translations are written in good Rumanian. One can see how a language not originally suited for abstract problems and theological dialectics was slowly but surely improved and made capable of expressing profound and subtle ideas.

In Transylvania, with the conversion to Greek-Catholicism of Bishop Athanasius in 1701, the Greek Orthodox had to place themselves down to 1850 under the protection of the Servian metropolitan of Karlovatz. No writer of any consequence arose among them. The “United” fared better, and many a gifted young Rumanian was sent to Rome and helped from Vienna to obtain a serious education and occasionally also temporal promotion. With a view probably to counteract the literary activity in Rumania, the bishops P. P. Aaron and Ioan Bobb were indefatigable in the translation of Latin writers. First and foremost a new translation of the whole Bible was undertaken by Samuel Klain. It appeared in Blazh (1793-95). It falls short of the older version of 1688; it was modernized in its language, and no doubt a careful examination would reveal differences in the translation of those passages in which the Catholic tradition differs from the Eastern. Bobb translated Thomas à Kempis's Imitatio Christi (Blazh, 1812); he wrote a Theologhie moralǎ (ibid. 1801) and adapted the Rumanian service-books to the new order of things. Popular catechisms and various histories of the Church were then written. Mention may be made of a few more moral treatises such as the Uşa pocǎinţei, “Gate of Penitence”, (Kronstadt, 1812); Oglinda omului din ǎuntru, “The Mirror of the Inner Man”; or Pilde filosofeşti, “Philosophical Saws and Maxims” (Tîrgovishtea, 1715). Of greater importance was the collection of fables with their “moral” translated and modified from the Servian of Obrenovich—Fabule moraliceşti, by Tzikindeal (Budapest, 1814). These are heavy and follow the original too literally. Tzikindeal (d. 1818) and his contemporaries in Hungary had lost contact with the Rumanian literature in Walachia and Moldavia, and the same was the case with the other writers of their school. Radovici or Dinu din Goleşti, an enlightened Walachian boyar, who was one of the first Rumanians to describe a journey in Western Europe, is also the author of a collection of maxims and parables, Adunare de pilde bisericeşti şi filosofeşti (Budapest, 1824); he left a larger collection in MS. partly edited by Zane in his Proverbele Românilor, vols. xi.-xvi.

After 1727 Rumanian was recognized as the language of the law-courts, and through the annexation of Bukovina by Austria Law. (1774) and of Bessarabia by Russia (1812), codes for the civil and political administration of those provinces were drawn up in Rumanian, either in accordance with the established law of the land or in consonance with the laws of Austria and Russia. Such legal codes reflect the German or Russian original. They were, however, of importance as they served as models (to some extent) for the new legislative code compiled in Moldavia under Prince Calimach; this was originally published in Greek (1816), and afterwards translated into Rumanian with the assistance of G. Asaki (Jassy, 1833). The Walachian civil laws and local usages were collected and arranged under the direction of Prince Ypsilanti (1780) in Greek and Rumanian; and under Prince Caragea another code was published (1817), which remained in force until 1832, when the “Organic Law” changed the whole trend of legislation. One more collection, an abstract from the Greek Basilica, published by Donici (Jassy, 1814), must be mentioned, for through it the legal terminology of the modern codes was more or less fixed.

The last and probably the best writer of Rumanian history in the Phanaripte period is Neculcea. He wrote a history of Moldavia History. to his own time, but for the period before 1684 his work is more or less an abstract from older writers. The original part covers the period from 1684-1743, and is to some extent an autobiography of a very adventurous life. Neculcea adds to his chronicle a collection of historical legends, many of them still found in the ballads of Moldavia. Among other historians might be mentioned N. Roset, the continuator of Neculcea. Enaki (Ianache) Cogǎlniceanu wrote a history of the period 1730-1774, and followed the example of Greek writers by introducing rhymes into it. He was also the author of some political satires and other poems on G. Ghica, M. Bogdan and Ioan Cuza. The historians of the time under pressure of political exigencies did not scruple to invent treaties between the Porte and the Rumanian principalities. A series of such spurious collections of treaties were submitted to the Powers for ratification; in them imaginary rights and privileges alleged to have been granted by the Turks were described, and the Rumanian representatives asked that after the peace negotiations of 1774 they should be sanctioned afresh. In Walachia there was not a single historian of importance in the first half of the 18th century. In the second we have the chronicle of Dionisie Eclesiarh (1764-1815), a simple-minded and uncritical writer who describes contemporary events. The ancestor of a great family of poets and writers, I. Vacarescu described the history of the Ottoman empire from the beginning to 1791, interpolating doggerel verses. Alexander Beldiman describes in a rhymed epic, Eteria (1821), the first battles between the Greeks and the Turks in Moldavia. It is a bitter satire upon the Greeks. Similar in tendency is another rhymed chronicle known under the name of Zilot (c. 1825).

Whilst a political and national revival was taking place in Moldavia and Walachia, towards the beginning of the 19th century, the Latin movement went on in Transylvania. There ethical and religious tendencies got the upper hand. Three historians had been partly educated in Rome under the protection of Prince Borgia and the influence of the Jesuit Minotto and the College of the Propaganda; they were Samuel Klain, Petru Maior and George Şincai. To Klain's initiative can be traced most of the work of the three. Unfortunately his writings, with a few exceptions, are still in MS. He is the author of the first history of the Rumanians in Dacia written according to the standards of Western science. It seems to have described the wars between the Romans and the Dacians, and to have been continued down to 1795; a history of the Rumanian Church also formed part of the book. P. Maior published an almost identical history (Budapest, 1812), and it is probable that he had made use of Klain's composition. In both the tendency is the same—to trace the modern Rumanians directly from the ancient Romans, and to prove their continuity in these countries from the time of Trajan to this day. Political and religious aims were combined in this new theory. A conflict was raging between the Hungarians and Rumanians, and history was required to furnish proofs of the greater antiquity of the Rumanians in Transylvania. George Şincai (1753-1816), who was an intimate friend of Klain and collaborated in most of his works, succeeded him as revisor at the printing office in Budapest. Şincai worked for nearly forty years at his monumental History of Rumania, which the Hungarian censor did not allow to be printed on account of its nationalist and anti-Magyar tendencies. It remained until 1853-54, when it was printed at the expense of Prince Gr. Ghica. The edition of 1886 is only a reprint, though both the original MS. and a better copy had meanwhile been discovered.

These books had no immediate influence in Walachia and Moldavia, where fiction and the drama had developed under the influence, Imaginative Literature. first, of Greek and then to an increasing extent of French, Italian and German models. It was towards the end of the 18th century that Rumanian literature began to emancipate itself, very slowly of course, and to start on a career of its own in poetry and belles lettres. Curiously enough, the first novel to be translated was the “Ethiopic History” of Bishop Heliodorus. The Odyssey and Iliad were then translated into prose, and the Arabian Nights, after undergoing an extraordinary change in Italian and modern Greek, appear in Rumanian literature at the middle of the 18th century under the name of Halima. The Glykis, a Greek printing firm in Venice, published many popular books in Rumanian which found their way into the principalities. The epic of Vincenzo Cornaro was translated into prose alternating with verse, first under the name of Erotocrit and then slightly changed as Filerot şi Antusa. Anton Pann printed it as his own composition. Kritil şi Andronius (Jassy, 1794) is almost the last novel or story translated direct from the Greek. The young men of Walachia had come into contact with Western literature, which they were anxious to transplant to their own country. Some had been sent to Paris for their education, such as Poteca, Marcovici, the Voinescus, Moroiu and others, who developed an almost feverish activity in translation. Most of the writings of Florian, Marmontel, Le Sage, Montesquieu and others were rapidly translated into Rumanian. The picaresque novel Lazarillo de Tormes also found its translator, and appeared in 1839, Paul and Virginia in 1831. Campe's German Robinson Crusoe (1816) and his Discovery of America were translated by Draghici (1835). G. Asaki and Alexander Bcidiman in Moldavia developed a similar activity. Beldiman copied a number of ancient chronicles, wrote a satire on the Greeks, and translated and adapted a number of French tragedies and dramas, in verse and prose.

Nowhere has the theatre played a more important rôle in the history of civilization than in Walachia and Moldavia, more in the The Drama. former than in the latter. It formed the rallying-ground for the new generation which chafed under the tyranny of a Greek court. A certain Aristia, of Greek origin, but soon acclimatized to his surroundings as teacher at the high school in Bucharest, was the first to adapt foreign dramas for the Rumanian stage. These were first performed in Greek and afterwards translated into Rumanian. The plays produced on the Rumanian stage included most of the dramas of Molière, some of Corneille, Kotzebue and Metastasio, whose Achille in Schiro was the first drama translated into Rumanian (by Iordache Slǎtineau, printed at Şibiu in 1797). Schiller was also translated, and a few plays of Shakespeare (Hamlet, &c.) from a French version. Victor Hugo's Angelo and Maria Tudor were translated by Constantin Negruţin. Those who kept in touch with the old literature—men such as Beldiman, Marcovici and Negruţin—were able even in their metrical translations to do justice to the originals and at the same time not to distort the character of the Rumanian language. Among such translators was Skavinschi, who came originally from Transylvania to Jassy, and translated Regnald's Democrit into verse.

The lyrical and epic poetry of the time follows somewhat the same lines, but with certain notable differences. The individuality Poetry. of the authors is more marked, and they advance much sooner from translations to independent poetry. Transylvania, which awoke to a new life towards the end of the 18th century, produced some of the most popular poets. Among them were Vasile Aaron (1770-1822) and Ion Barak (1779-1848). Aaron wrote the Passion, in 10,000 verses (1802; often reprinted); the lyrical romances of Piram şi Tisbe (1808) and Sofronim şi Hariti (1821); and the humorous Leonat şi Dorofata, a satire on bad women and on drunken husbands, now a chapbook. Barak wrote Rǎsipirea Ierusalimului (1821), “The Destruction of Jerusalem,” almost as long as Aaron's Passion; and he versified a Magyar folktale, Argkir şi Elena, which has also become a chapbook, and has been interpreted as a political poem with a hidden meaning. He also translated the Arabian Nights from the German. In Walachia a certain Ion Budai Deleanu, a man of great learning, author of a hitherto unpublished Rumanian dictionary of great value, wrote a satirical epos in which gipsies play the chief part. It is called Ţiganiafa (1812) and consists of 12 songs and of many thousand verses. The author displays a profound knowledge of the life and the customs of the gipsies, and of Western literature from the Batrachomyomachia to the Pucelle of Voltaire.

The love-songs of the time are primitive imitations of the Neo-Greek lyric dithyrambs and rhapsodies, which through the teaching of the princes of Walachia were considered as the fountainhead of poetical inspiration. But a closer acquaintance with the West led to greater independence in poetical composition. In the three generations of the Vacarescu one can follow this process of rapid evolution. Ianache Vacarescu, author of the first native Rumanian grammar on independent lines, was also the first who tried his hand at poetry, following Greek examples. He then studied Italian, French and German poetry, and made translations from Voltaire and Goethe. His son Alecu (b. 1795) followed his example. Both were overshadowed by the grandson Ioan (b. 1818), who was more than any other man both the representative of an epoch fast vanishing and the harbinger of the new spirit that was stirring young Rumania. The collected poems of I. Vacarescu were published in 1848; but among them were some of the poems of Ianache and Alecu, which were confused with his own work. In this volume, Colecţie din poeziile domnului mare logofet I. Vacarescu, there are odes, hymns, patriotic poems, ballads, lyrical and didactic poems, some of them among the most beautiful in the language. A contemporary of his earlier period, Paris Mumuleanu (1794-1837), wrote his Rost de poezie (1820) under Greek influence, but afterwards passed under the spell of Maior and Tzikindea, whose Latin propaganda he was one of the first to advocate in Rumania. In his Caractere (Bucharest, 1828) Latin forms are common. One more poet, and a real one, is Vasile Cǎrlova (1809-1831), whose Ruins of Tĭrgovishtea sufficed to place him among the foremost Rumanian poets of the 19th century.

In Moldavia a similar development took place, translations leading up to independent production. The most prominent figure is that of the scholar and linguist Constantin Konaki (1777-1849), who might be termed the Rumanian Longfellow for the facility and felicity of his translations from Western poetry and for his short poems, easily set to music and very popular. His Alcǎtuiri şi tǎlmǎciri appeared in 1858. Constantin Negrutin, who was at first influenced by the Russian poets, notably Pushkin, successfully translated poems of Victor Hugo, and rivalled Konaki in his dexterity and fidelity to the original.

Third Period: 1830-.—The agitation for the transliteration of the alphabet, the elimination of all non-Latin words from the language and the ostracism of the old literature, completely crippled all literary activity, first in Transylvania and then in Rumania. The Latin movement was first brought into Walachia by a certain George Lazar from across the mountains. Lazar was appointed teacher at the St Sava school of Bucharest, where he spread the new doctrine of the Latin origin of the Rumanians; Latinizing tendencies were, however, not yet imported into the language. Of his pupils there was one whose influence became decisive: Ion Eliade (Heliade), Eliade. afterwards also known as I. E. Radulescu (1802-1872), a man of immense activity, of great power of initiative and of still greater imagination. He it was who ushered in the new epoch, and for close upon forty years he stood at the head of almost every literary undertaking.

There were two periods in his life—the latter the exact opposite and negation of the former. Up to 1848 he was closely connected with politics, the theatre and the school—he was the successor to Lazar; he wrote grammars, and the introductions to his grammars are models of lucidity, combined with a wide historical view. He was the founder of the first political and literary review, and he had a genius for discovering talent, and the merit of assisting it. Through his reviews he trained the middle-class to read and to take an active interest in literary problems. Through his Curier de ambe sexe (1837-41) he disseminated translations from political and other works, thus paving the way for the political change of 1848. About this time he turned to philology, and fell under the spell of the Transylvanian school. Slowly he developed his theories about language and writing, and he ended as a fanatic wedded to extraordinary views. He was a prolific writer and translator of dramas and novels from French and Italian, the latter appearing mostly in his periodical. The number of his publications is legion.

All the prominent Rumanians of that period were politicians; they strove to obtain the emancipation of the country from Turkish Bolintineanu. dominion, and, later on, the union of Walachia and Moldavia. Everything was placed at the service of this national aspiration, which is the keynote of the poems of Bolintineanu (1826-1873). He also was discovered by Radulescu, who published his first and best known poem, “The Dying Virgin.” In 1848 he was exiled, together with the other leaders of the revolution, and he spent the next nine years in travels in the East. There he gathered the materials for his lyrical poems “Macedonele” and “Florile Bosforului?” Returning in 1857 to Walachia, he occupied high administrative posts, and he wrote a number of historical novels (Traian, Mircea, Ştefan, &c.), dramas (Lǎpuşneanu, Mihnea, Mihaiu, &c.), longer poems (Sorin, Conrad), and his politico-philosophical novel Elena. These mostly patriotic compositions were as a rule less felicitous than his political satires (Nemesis, Menade, &c.). His peculiar strength lay in the historical ballad, which he was the first to introduce into Rumanian poetry, and in the vivid portraiture of Oriental scenery and emotions. He died in a lunatic asylum forgotten by all, and even his writings have, save in one early edition, not been published without unwarranted alterations by the editor Sion.

A contemporary of Bolintineanu was Grigorie Alexandrescu (1812-1885), also a pupil of Eliade. Imperfect in his rhyme and G. Alexandrescu. rhythm, his poetry is of a didactical nature, and his best poems are rhymed fables, many of which are thinly disguised political satires. He also translated the Alzire (1834) and Mérope (1847) of Voltaire. Among his contemporaries may be mentioned G. Creţeanu (1829-1887) and A. Sihleanu (1834-1857), who left some weak poems of a sentimental and patriotic character. A Deparaţianu (1835-1865), whose language shows traces of the new Latinizing school; and Nicolae Nicoleanu (1833-1871), whose powerful poems, full of deep and often mystical reflections, lead on from Alexandrescu to Eminescu, all three being the poets of pessimism. In Teodor Şerbǎnescu (b. 1839) we find the reflex of Bolintineanu of the earlier period, in the beauty and simplicity of his lyrical poems not yet published in complete form. Like Şerbǎnescu, Vasile Alecsandri (1821-1890), the greatest of Rumanian lyrical poets (see Alecsandri), was a Moldavian. In France, under the influence of Beranger and the romantic school, he was led to turn to popular poetry for inspiration. He collected Rumanian popular songs and Alecsandri. ballads (Doine, 1844) (Lǎcrǎmioare, 1853). In Pasteluri (1867) he introduced admirable pictures of popular life into Rumanian poetry. In Legende (1871) and Ostaşii nostrii (1877) he strikes the patriotic note. His fame rests on his lyrical poetry alone, which retains some of the charm of popular poetry. Alecsandri is less successful in his dramas, most of which are adaptations from French originals; the only merit of his novels is that amidst the phonetic and philological turmoil he kept to the purer language of the people.

From Alecsandri there is a natural transition to his great rival, who was also his superior in depth of thought and in mastery of Eminescu. form and language, the great poet of pessimism, Mihail Eminescu (q.v.). Mention may also be made of Matilde Cugler Poni (b. 1853), who published some admirable short poems in the Rumanian reviews (Poesii, 1888). Veronica Micle (1853-1889) belongs to the same circle of gifted Moldavian women (Poesii, 1887). But all these men or women disappear with the appearance of Eminescu, who, like Bolintineanu, started a new school of poetry and left a deep and growing influence upon the new generation. His best follower, though possessing originality of his own, is A. Vlahuţǎ (b. 1859). G. Coşbuc, who has risen more recently to fame, is the poet of the unfortunate Rumanian peasant, emancipated only in name and on paper, and a prey to greedy landowners and to a medieval administration. The poets of this school drew their inspiration from popular poetry, and all of them were sons of the lower middle class or of peasants, who by dint of heavy work and great hardship were able to rise above the narrow social conditions in which they were born.

Somewhat different has been the development of the Rumanian prose writers. They suffered in consequence of the philological Prose Writers. confusion brought about by Eliade and his assistants, mostly men who after 1848 immigrated from Transylvania and brought with them their own prejudices and narrow intolerance. Too great influence was accorded to them, and the result was that for a long time scarcely a single Rumanian novelist or historian can be mentioned. It was only after N. Bǎlcescu had undertaken the edition of the ancient Walachian chronicles, and had found in them admirable prose writers, that he ventured on a continuous history (1851-52) of the Rumanians under Michael the Brave, written not as a didactic treatise but as a poem in prose—full of colour and of energy. A. Odobescu, the friend and literary executor of Bǎlcescu, was a consummate scholar of ancient and medieval antiquities, and wrote a history of ancient art. His Pseudkynegetikos is an unsurpassed model of elegant writing and of fine irony. What Alecsandri was for verse, Odobescu was for prose. He also created the Rumanian historical novel, by his Mihnea Vodǎ (1858) and Doamna Kiajna (1860). The first novel describing human nature in everyday life is the Ciocoii vechi şi noi (1863) of Nicolae Filimon (1819-1865). In Moldavia where the knowledge of the old chroniclers had not entirely died out and disturbing philological influences were not so acutely felt, we find the vigorous writings of Mihail Cogǎlniceanu—one of the leading spirits of the 19th century, the greatest mind and the real founder of Rumania. Cogǎlniceanu published various reviews, some of a political, others of a more literary character, such as the Dacia literarǎ (1840) and Archiva româneasca (1845-46); he has also the great merit of having published for the first time a collection of the Moldavian chronicles. G. Asaki (1788-1871), a second Eliade, helped to inaugurate a literary reform in Moldavia; but the result was disappointing, until the literary society known as the Junimea was started, in the 'seventies, by Titu Maiorescu (b. 1839), who was then a professor at Jassy. Titu Maiorescu put a stop to the prevailing Latinism, and turned the current of Rumanian literature into a more healthy channel, by the publication of his Critice (1874).

Ioan Ghica, a contemporary of the revolutionaries of 1848, gathered his recollections of those agitated times into two volumes, Amintiri (1890) and Scrisori cǎtre V. Alecsandri (1887), which besides their historical value have become a model of Rumanian prose. Among writers of fiction three names stand out prominently: Ion Slavici (b. 1848) describes the life of the people, notably of the Transylvanian peasants, in short stories, Nuvele din popor. Barbu Stefǎnescu de la Vrancea (b. 1858) also wrote short popular stories characterized by a wealth of imagery and richness of language; but the characters are all mostly unreal and exaggerated. The best known collections are Sultǎnica (1885) and Trubadurul (1887). Ioan Caragiali (b. 1852), the most popular Rumanian dramatist of modern times, who has brought on the stage living types of the lower and middle classes, and has skilfully portrayed the effect of modern veneer on old customs, is also the author of the powerful short novel Faclia de paşte. Dobrogeanu Gherea (b. 1853) has in his Studii critice (1890 sqq.) been a ruthless but none the less judicious critic.

Curiously enough, there is not a single novel in the Rumanian literature with a sustained plot; none which presents a study of the development of human character amid the multifarious vicissitudes of life. The reason for this deficiency is perhaps the unsettled conditions of Rumanian life, and the lack of a profound and long-established civilization; or it may be found in the unstable and fickle character of the people. Whatever the cause may be, while Rumanian poetry could well compare with that of any Western nation, in the domain of prose writing, and of novels in particular, one must look to the future to fill up the gap now existing.

There existed in Rumania another set of literary monuments at least as old as any of the books hitherto enumerated, Popular literature: Folklore, Ballads, Tales. but which appealed to a wider circle. Rumanian folk-literature contains both popular written books and oral songs, ballads, &c. It is advisable to group the material in three sections: (1) the romantic and secular literature; (2) the religious literature;—both of these being written—and (3) the modern collections of ballads, songs, tales, &c.

To the first belong the oldest books, such as the History of Alexander the Great, which was known in Rumania in the 17th century. It rests mostly upon a Sloveno-Greek text and is of the utmost interest for the study of this cycle of legends. The first printed copy appeared in 1794, and has been reprinted in innumerable editions. Next comes the legend of Constantine, of his town and his exploits—a remarkable collection of purely Byzantine legends. In addition to these there is the history of St Sylvester and the conversion of Constantine, &c., all still in MS. The History of Barlaam and Ioasaf (see Barlaam and Josaphat) may also be mentioned here, for it appealed to the people not so much for its religious interest as for the romantic career of the hero. The parables and apologues contained in the legend were incorporated into the Teachings of Prince Neagoe, and were also circulated separately; they are found in many old MSS. Udrişte (Uriil) Nǎsturel translated the History from the Slavonic in 1640. One of its episodes, the farewell song of the prince departing into the forest, has since become one of the most widespread popular songs. Of similar oriental origin is the Dream of Mamer, the interpretation of which goes back to the Panchatantra, and must have reached Rumania early in the 18th century, probably in Slavonic. The history of Syntippa and the Seven Masters has also become a popular book. It was translated from the Greek version. To the same cycle of oriental tales belongs the Halima, already described, which G. Gorjeanu printed (3 vols., 1835-37) as his own work. The History of Arkir and Anadam, printed by Anton Pann from older MSS., is the now famous Old Testament apocryphon of Akyrios the Wise, mentioned in Tobit and found in many languages. In Rumanian it rests on an older Greek-Slavonic text, and owes its great popularity to the wise and witty proverbs it contains. “Esop,” whose wonderful biography (by Planudes) agrees in many points with Arkir, has also become one of the Rumanian popular books. The history of Bertoldo, which, though of Italian origin, reached Rumania through a Greek translation, belongs to the same cycle of rustic wisdom and cunning, and is the last representative of an old series of legends clustering round the figures of Solomon and Ashmodai, or Solomon and Markolph. These books are of course anonymous, most of them being translations and adaptations. One man, however, stands out prominently in this section of romantic and secular folk-literature. This was Anton Pann, who was born in 1797 at Slivden, of Bulgarian parentage, and died at Bucharest in 1854. Carried away by the Russians in his early youth, he settled in Rumania, learned Church music, and became one of its best exponents, married four times, had an adventurous life, but lived among the people for whom he wrote and composed his tunes. In about twenty years he published no less than fifty books, all of them still popular. Besides his edition of the Rumanian Church service-books with musical notation, he published a series of tales, proverbs and songs either from older texts or from oral information; and he made the first collection of popular songs, Spitalul amorului, “The Hospital of Love” (1850-53), with tunes either composed by himself or obtained from the gipsy musicians who alone performed them. Of his numerous writings two or three are of the greatest interest to folklore. His Povestea vorbii (first ed. 1 vol., 1847; 2nd ed. 3 vols., 1851-53) is a large collection of proverbs ingeniously connected with one another and leading up to or starting from a popular tale exemplifying the proverb. The Fabule şi istorioare (2 vols., 1839-41) is a collection of short popular stories in rhyme; Sezştoarea la tarǎ (1852-53) is a description of the Rumanian Spinnstube, for which the peasants gather in one of their houses on a winter's night, the girls and women spinning and working, the young men telling tales, proverbs, riddles, singing songs, &c. Pann also collected the jokes of the Turkish jester, Nasreddin, under the title of Nǎsdrǎvǎniile lui Nastratin Hogea (1853), also in rhyme. He also published a collection of Christmas carols, set to music by himself; these are still sung by boys on Christmas night.

Far larger than the secular is the religious popular literature; it comprises many apocryphal tales from the Old and the New Testaments, and not a few of the heretical tales circulated by the various sects of Asia Minor and Thracia, which percolated into Rumania through the medium of Slavonic. A brief enumeration of the chief tales must suffice. Only a few of them have hitherto been published. They exist in numerous MSS. which testify to their great popularity; in the popular songs one finds many traces of their influence upon the people's imagination. They include the History of Adam and Eve, the Legend of the Cross, The Apocalypse of Abraham, the History of the Sibyl, the Legends of Solomon; numerous New Testament apocryphal tales, starting with legends of St John the Baptist; a very remarkable version of the Gospel of Nicodemus; and the Epistle of Pilate. Printed in tens of thousands of copies are certain apocalyptic legends dealing with eschatological problems. The ancient Apocalypse of Peter appears here under the name of Paul, then there is an Apocalypse of the Virgin Mary, who, like Peter, is carried by the Archangel through the torments of Hell and the bliss of Paradise, and through whose intervention sufferers are granted pardon on certain days of the year. Combined with these is the Sunday Epistle, sent from Heaven, enjoining strict observance, not only of Sunday, but also of Friday and Wednesday, as holy days. Most of these texts date in their Rumanian form from the 16th and 17th centuries; the Sunday Epistle is well known in connexion with the Flagellants. In the same pamphlet as the Sunday Epistle was published the legend of St Sisoe and sometimes that of Avestitza,—the former saved the children of his sister from the attacks of the devil, who had devoured them and had to restore them alive; the latter is the female child-stealing demon, who is prevented by an angel from carrying out her evil design. In both cases the repetition of the legend and the recitation of a string of mystical names serve, like some other tales, apocryphal and otherwise, as amulets, sufficient to protect from the devil. Upon the recitation of some of these texts rest many popular charms and incantations. Therein lies the importance of this written literature, for it gives us the clue to much that now lives in the mouths of the people, and is by some considered to be of immemorial antiquity. A number of astrological calendars and prognostica are among the best known and most widely circulated popular books, and the lives of St Alexius, Xenophon, &c. have become chapbooks.

The whole of this popular literature belongs to what may be called the cycle of the Balkan nations, in every one of which exact parallels are to be found. Not that there was any direct, deliberate borrowing by one nation from the other, but all of them seem to have stood for a long time under identical psychological influences and to have developed on similar lines. The superstitions of one are often found to be those of the others, and in such a form that they could not have been taken over independently from a third source; they show too much family likeness. Thus also the popular songs of Rumania, the “doine,” the “hora,” the “cǎntece,” “colinde,” “legende,” i.e. the love songs, the heroic ballads, legends, songs at the ring-dance, hymns and carols, though instinct with a charm of their own, find their counterparts in many a song, ballad, &c. of the Balkan nations. The heroes are often the same: Serbs, Bulgars and Rumanians sing the heroic deeds of Baba Novak and recite the legend of the Monastery of Argesh, or the ballad of Iorgovan, found in the Malorussian Byliny. One of the first to collect these treasures of Rumanian poetry was V. Alecsandri (1852-1866), who, however, retained only their poetical beauty and did not reproduce them with that strict accuracy which modern study of folklore demands. A. M. Marienescu collected those of Transylvania (1859); S. F. Marian, those of the Bukovina (1873); T. T. Burada, those of the Dobrudja (1880); but the most complete collection is that of G. Dem. Teodprescu, Poesii populare române (Bucharest, 1885). The collection of fairy tales started later than that of the ballads. The first collection is the German translation of tales heard by the Brothers Schott (1845). The most important collections, now deservedly considered as classical from every point of view, are the successive publications of P. Ispirescu. The collected tales of the Moldavian Ion Creanga (1837-89) appeared in his Opere complecte (1908). Excellent collections are those of D. Stancescu, Basme (1885-1893), I. G. Sbiera, Basme (1886), Frǎncu şi Candrea (1888). Kutzo-Vlach tales and folklore will be found in G. Weigand, Die Aromunen, vol. ii. The only review devoted to the study of folklore is the Şazatoare, founded in 1892.

In recent times a kind of stagnation seems to have overtaken Rumania, and although attempts have been made to place the intellectual life of the nation on a sounder basis, the work of transition from the past to the present has hitherto absorbed more energy than appears necessary. Whatever the causes may have been, the fact remains, that now there is a great dearth of talent and great poverty in output.

Bibliography.—M. Gaster, Chrestomathie roumaine (2 vols., Leipzig, 1891); id., Literatura popularǎ româna (Bucharest, 1883); id., “Geschichte der rumanischen Litteratur,” in Gröber, Grundriss der romanischen Philologie, ii. pp. 264-428; L. Şǎineanu, Autorii români moderni (Bucharest, 1891). (M. G.)


  1. In 1904, in a lecture read before the Rumanian Geographical Society, M. A. Sturdza showed that Rumania should not be included in the Balkan Peninsula, where it is placed by many writers and cartographers. This view was accepted by the Society, and a copy of the lecture was forwarded to all similar associations in Europe. See A. Sturdza, La Roumanie n'appartient pas à la peninsule balkanique (Bucharest, 1904).
  2. I.e. Cauldron.
  3. See L. Teisseyre and L. Mrazec, Aperçu géologique sur les formations salifères et les gisements de sel en Roumanie, Moniteur des intérêts pétrolifères roumains (1902), pp. 3-51; S. Stefanescu, Étude sur les terrains tertiaires de Roumanie (1897); J. Bergeron, “Observations relatives à la structure de la haute vallée de la Jalomita (Roumanie) et des Carpathes roumaines,” Bull. Soc. Géol. France, ser. 4, vol. iv. (1904), pp. 54-77.
  4. The relative importance of Rumania was afterwards lessened by the development of wheat-culture in Canada, Argentina and elsewhere.
  5. i.e. Walachia east of the Olt, not to be confused with the Μεγάλη Βλαχία in southern Macedonia (see Balkan Peninsula).
  6. In later Rumanian history there arose a class who obtained their rank by merit or favour, and did not necessarily bequeath it to their heirs. But the hereditary aristocracy also survived, and feudalism remained characteristic of Rumanian society up to 1860.
  7. A. Sturdza gives a genealogical table, showing that Radu belonged to the great native dynasty of Bassarab (q.v.) or Bassaraba, which continued, though not in unbroken succession, to rule in Walachia until 1658, and in Moldavia until 1669.
  8. One of these, with the legend “CONSTANTINVS BASSARABA DE BRANCOVAN D.G. VOEVODA ET PRINCEPS VALACHIAE TRANSALPINAE,” and having on the reverse the crowned shield of Walachia containing a raven holding a cross in its beak between a moon and a star, is engraved by Del Chiaro. They were of 2, 3 and 10 ducats weight.
  9. For biographical details, see Charles, king of Rumania; and Elizabeth, queen of Rumania.
  10. i.e. the so-called Daco-Rumanian, spoken by the vast majority of Rumans over the whole of Rumania, in Transylvania, Bukovina, the Banat, Bessarabia, and some districts of Servia and Bulgaria bordering on the Danube. The two most important dialects are the Istro-Rumanian, spoken in part of Istria but rapidly becoming extinct, and the Macedo-Rumanian, spoken by the Kutzo-Vlachs (see Vlachs). The Istro-Rumanian forms, as it were, a link now completely severed between the Romance of the Balkans and the Romance of the West. In the Macedo-Rumanian there are no Magyar loan-words, but there is a large Albanian element, and Greek loan-words are more numerous than Slavonic.
  11. Apart from certain instances in which the Latin form has been artificially restored in comparatively modern times. (See under Literature.)