Roumania Past and Present Part 12

About that time the tribe was broken up, and part of them wandered into Hungary, where they are said to have been guilty of great cruelties, and to have subsisted down to the fifteenth century.

During the same period also (1200) the order of _Teutonic Knights_ had lands allotted to them in Transylvania by Andreas II. of Hungary, as well as in part of Wallachia, over which he claimed the sovereignty; but they sought to free themselves from his control, and the gift was soon withdrawn, and in 1224 they were compelled to leave the territory over which they had exercised jurisdiction. About 1247--1250 the _Knights of St. John_ also enjoyed a brief authority in some parts of Transylvania and Wallachia.

The most interesting incident, of which the account has been handed down to us, in the Wallacho-Bulgarian _regime_ was the negotiation between King Joannitz, one of the first rulers (to whom reference has already been made), and Pope Innocent III. (1198-1216).

Lauriani published the whole correspondence, which is so interesting that a brief epitome of it will not be out of place here. It not only throws light upon the historical events of the period, but also gives us a glimpse of the proceedings connected with the schism in the Catholic Church. It is only necessary to premise that in the separation between the Roman and Greek Catholics which took place in the latter half of the ninth century, the Danubian provinces followed the eastern section, that the union was complete under Basilius, but that, when the brothers Asan shook off the Byzantine yoke, there was a national feeling of antagonism in religion arising out of the political rupture. Of this Innocent took advantage, and in sending a nuncio to Joannitz he wrote him that G.o.d had seen the humility with which he had deported himself towards the Roman Church, and in the turmoil and dangers of warfare He had not alone mightily protected him, but also in his mercy had greatly enlarged him (_dilatavit_). 'We, however,' he said, 'when we heard that thy forefathers sprang from the n.o.ble city of Rome, and that thou didst not only inherit the n.o.bility of their race, but also true humility towards the Apostolic chair, had contemplated ere this to address thee in writing as well as by word of mouth through our nuncios, but the cares of the Church have prevented us. .h.i.therto from carrying out our design.'

He then goes on to tell him that he has sent him 'our beloved son Dominicus,' a Greek archpriest of Brundus, and he commends his nuncio to Joannitz, requiring that he should receive him with humility, treat him kindly, and through him communicate his further submission more explicitly. Should he (the Pope) be satisfied concerning his intentions and submission, he proposes to send him higher nuncios, or rather legates, to a.s.sure him and his (subjects) in the true faith.'

Joannitz evidently did not at first receive or treat the holy emissary quite so deferentially as he might have done; but at length he answers, beginning his epistle as follows:--'To the venerable and most holy Father, highest priest, I, Johannes, Emperor of the Wallachs and Bulgarians, send thee joy and health.'[126] He acknowledges the letter, which he says is dearer to him than gold or any jewels, and thanks G.o.d for having remembered him, his race, and the Fatherland from which they originated.

Then he recites what the Holy Father said about his benevolent intentions, and adds that he, too, had attempted once, twice, and indeed three times to communicate with him, but was debarred from doing so by the number of his enemies; but now, knowing what are the Holy Father's feelings towards him, he sends, along with the nuncio whom the Pope had commissioned, also 'our pious and trusty priest Blasius,' to convey his thanks, friends.h.i.+p, and service to him, as his Holy Father and highest priest. Then, with an eye to business (which, by the way, pervades the whole correspondence), he adds that as by his sacred writing his Holiness had asked him to explain what he desired from the Holy Roman Church (which, however, was not the case), his Imperial Majesty desires of the Apostolic chair that he and his subjects should be fortified as children in the bosom of the Mother Church, and particularly he asks from the Roman Church, his mother, the crown and honour which his forefathers the old emperors received. 'One was Peter, another Samuel, and others, who preceded us in the government.' If his Holiness will do this, his every desire in regard to the demeanour of his Empire towards the Church shall be fulfilled.

'But,' he adds, rather significantly, 'you must not be surprised that your nuncio did not come back sooner, for we suspected him. Many persons have come and tried to mislead us, but we were proof against their machinations.' (False prophets he means.) 'But in this case, however, the praetext' (white robe) 'was convincing proof, and we were satisfied.'

(But he was _not_ satisfied.) 'But, most Holy Father, if it please thee, please send us the higher nuncios, and send this one with them, and then we shall be convinced that both the first and the second mission were from thee. May the Lord grant thee a long life!'

Then follows another letter from the Pope, which might have been drawn up by a modern conveyancer. It recites the whole of the previous correspondence, and, referring to Joannitz's request for a crown, his Holiness says he has had the registers carefully searched, and finds that it is true many kings were crowned, and, moreover, that in the time of his predecessor, Pope Nicolas, the King of the Bulgarians, who had often sought his advice, had been baptized with his whole nation.

Afterwards, he says, at the request of Michael of Bulgaria, Pope Adrian sent a subdeacon and some priests, but, in consequence of the bribes and promises of the Greeks, the Bulgarians cast them out and took Greek priests in their stead. In consequence of this 'light behaviour,'

therefore, he could not see his way clear to send any of his brothers the cardinals. Still he had decided to send his chaplain Johannes as a nuncio of the Apostolic chair, and, commending him to his good offices (in the usual terms), he wished him to understand that he was fully empowered to improve everything of a spiritual character in the realm.

He also sent by him a robe (_pallium_) for the archbishop of his country, and a bull announcing the form and nature of the invest.i.ture.

In fact this nuncio was authorised to ordain bishops and priests, and generally to subst.i.tute the Roman Catholic for the Greek faith. As to the crown there seems still to have been a hitch. The nuncio was to look up the older books and doc.u.ments and learn all about the ancient manner of proceeding, so that 'we [the Pope] may with greater celerity make the needful arrangements.' And he bids him warn his 'n.o.bles' also to treat the nuncio with proper deference.

Joannitz did his utmost to comply with the Papal behest. An archbishopric and two bishoprics were founded, and the 'Golden Bull' was promulgated, in which it was announced that Joannitz intended to receive his crown and invest.i.ture at the hands of the Universal Priest, Innocent III., and that certain ecclesiastical functionaries (naming them) had been established by the Church of Rome, and thereby received his (Joannitz's) sanction, which had previously been accorded to them by his ancestors.[127] He also sent presents to the Pope as a token of submission; and all these matters having been duly weighed and considered by his Holiness, he at length nominated Joannitz King of the Wallachs and Bulgarians, and sent him the much-coveted crown and sceptre by the hands of Leo, a cardinal of the Order of the Holy Cross, &c., who was commissioned on his behalf to perform the ceremony of coronation. Lauriani concludes the correspondence and narrative by saying that 'this Empire of the Roumanians flourished from the year of our Lord 1186, in which it was restored by the brothers Peter and Asan, under the best and bravest kings of the family of Asanidae, until the year 1285, when it was disturbed, but not destroyed, by the inroads of the Tartars. After the Turks had begun to make irruptions into the European provinces, in the fourteenth century, it was brought under the yoke by the Sultan Bajazet towards the close of that century, and wholly annihilated in the year 1392.'

Down to this period (the middle of the fourteenth century) we have been necessarily compelled to speak loosely of the territories which were overrun and held by the various barbarian races, for there is no clear information concerning the limits of their occupation; but henceforward our record will deal chiefly with Roumania as at present const.i.tuted.

The Wallacho-Bulgarian monarchy, whatever may have been its limits, was annihilated by a horde of Tartars about A.D. 1250. The same race committed great havoc in Hungary, conquered the k.u.mani, overran Moldavia, Transylvania, &c., and held their ground there until about the middle of the fourteenth century, when they were driven northward by the Hungarian, Saxon, and other settlers in Transylvania; and with their exit we have done with the barbarians.

[Footnote 126: He calls himself 'Calojohannes Imperator Blacorum et Bulgarorum,' which Lauriani translates 'Kaiser der _Romanen_ und Bulgaren,' Emperor of the Roumanians, &c. In this and the preceding letter the reader has ill.u.s.trations of the bias which weakens the evidence of alleged facts in Roumanian history. Those writers who are unwilling to concede Roman descent to the people make no mention of such expressions as that used by Innocent concerning their ancestry, whilst the patriotic native historians use license in translation in order to improve their position.]

[Footnote 127: In the Bull they are called 'Imperatores totius Bulgariae,' which Lauriani (p. 56) unfairly translates 'Die Kaiser von ganz Bulgarien und Romanien' (Emperors of all Bulgaria _and Roumania!_).]

CHAPTER XI.

FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE PRINc.i.p.aLITIES, BETWEEN THE MIDDLE OF THE THIRTEENTH AND OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURIES TO THE ACCESSION OF MICHAEL THE BRAVE, A.D. 1593.

State of the country at, the close of the barbarian era--Foundation of the Princ.i.p.alities of Wallachia and Moldavia--Traditions of Radu Negru and Bogdan Dragosch--Historical evidence--Description of the various rulers.h.i.+ps in Wallachia in the thirteenth century--The clans Liteanu and Ba.s.sarab--Mircea the Old--His history--The First Capitulation (1393)--Character of Mircea--- Verses in his memory by Bolentineanu (1826-1872)--John Corvin von Hunniad, Prince of Transylvania--His history, character, and exploits--Vlad 'the Impaler'--His cruelties--Capitulates to the Turks (1460 A.D.)--Moldavia--Its founders--Obscurity of records--Stephen the Great--His history--His flight to Niamtz--Verses by Bolentineanu--Recommends his son to capitulate to the Turks--His character--Neagu Ba.s.sarab, founder of the Cathedral of Curtea d'Ardges--His peaceful reign and works--- Radul d'Affumati completes the cathedral--His death--Turkish encroachments--Michael the Brave.

I.

When the t.i.tle of barbarian immigration was ebbing in the Danubian Princ.i.p.alities, it is natural to suppose that there must have remained a very mixed population; and that, owing to the necessity for defence against such ruthless invaders as we have described in our last chapter, the inhabitants would congregate in various places under their ablest leaders, and would fortify themselves in the best manner possible. This was indeed the case, but until recently the historians of Roumania have had little to guide them concerning the events of the period beyond traditions which, though very interesting, are now gradually giving place to recorded and authenticated facts.

Almost any history of the country which it is possible to find to-day, narrates the rise of the Princ.i.p.alities after the following fas.h.i.+on: The Daco-Roman colonists, historians say, fled into the Carpathian mountains before the Goths and Huns, and for nearly a thousand years they retained their nationality, from time to time making descents into the plains from one or other colony which they had established, always, however, to find new hordes of barbarians in possession. At length, when the great wave of barbarism had subsided, one Radu Negru, whose name is translated Rudolph the Black, the chief of the Daco-Roman colony of Fogaras in the Carpathians, descended into the plains with his followers, according to some writers in 1240 A.D., whilst others say in 1290, and, first fixing his capital at Campu-Lung, and then moving it to Curtea d'Ardges, where he built a beautiful cathedral, drove out the barbarians who remained in Wallachia, and became the first Voivode of that province. This is the tradition of the foundation of Wallachia.

About the same time, we are told, there dwelt in another part of the mountains, to the west of Fogaras, a colony of Daco-Roman descendants, namely, that of Marmaros or Maramurish, ruled over by one Bogdan, or Dragosch. This chief, as the story runs, was once out hunting the aurochs with a large following, accompanied by his dog Molda, and being arrived in a beautiful country through which flowed a pretty stream, he determined to settle there, called the river the Moldava, built a city which he named Roman, reduced the inhabitants and their chiefs to submission, and became the first Voivode of Moldavia.

Of late years these traditions have been subjected to the searching light of criticism, sharpened in some cases by national or political tendencies, and whilst the story of Radu Negru has fallen into discredit, that of Bogdan has undergone considerable modification. The very names of the heroes have been canva.s.sed, and Radu, instead of Rudolph, has been shown to mean 'joy' (as Bogdan Dragosch was the G.o.d-given'), so that, instead of Radu Negru, we now sometimes meet with the name of Negru Voda, or 'the Black Prince,' who, according to the traditions of some parts of the country, is still believed to have descended from the Carpathians, and to have freed the land from the Tartar hordes.

II.

Thus far tradition. Roumania possesses no historical records of the period, but the discovery of ma.n.u.scripts in Hungary, Poland, and elsewhere, has established certain facts that are beginning to serve as a solid foundation upon which the early history of the country is being based.

First, it is admitted that the plains and the slopes of the Carpathians were inhabited by communities ruled over by chieftains of varying power and influence. Some were banates, as that of Craiova, which long remained a semi-independent State; then there were petty voivodes or princes, as the Princes of Zevrin or Severin, Farcas, Seneslas, &c.; and besides these there were khanates, called in French _kinezats_, and in German _knesenschaften_ (from the Slav. _kniaz_, a prince), some of which were petty princ.i.p.alities, whilst others were merely the governors.h.i.+ps of villages or groups of them. These are only a few of the small rulers.h.i.+ps, which are every day multiplied as the State records of the neighbouring countries are being more and more carefully investigated.

The names of prominent chieftains, too, are becoming clearer in the obscurity of the period. In or about 1285 a Prince Liteanu conquered and united three Wallachian princ.i.p.alities, and declared himself independent of the crown of Hungary, which claimed suzerainty over the western part of Wallachia. He was attacked by the Magyars under George Sowar, and slain in battle, while his brother was taken prisoner and executed. Some of the successors of this prince were more fortunate, and one of them, Tugomir, succeeded for a time in securing his independence. The clan _Ba.s.sarab_ was mentioned at even an earlier period, a ban of that name having resisted the Tartars. Much confusion exists as to the origin of this clan, and whilst some writers call Tugomir (just referred to) by that name, others confound him with the Negru Voda of tradition.

Whatever may be the obscurity, however, in which their rise is buried, it is certain that the Ba.s.sarab family gave many princes and rulers to Wallachia, and, after intermarrying with other members of the ruling cla.s.ses, only became extinct about the year 1685.

In the mountains the state of affairs was somewhat different. There, no doubt from their greater proximity to the centre of Magyar rule, the tie between the petty princes and the Hungarian crown seems to have been closer, and whilst some writers affirm that the Wallachs (or Roumanians, as their countrymen like to call them) enjoyed privileges amounting to a quasi-independence, the Austrian chroniclers maintain that they were mere va.s.sal retainers of the Court of Hungary. So, for example, they say that Bogdan, ruler of Marmaros, broke his allegiance to the King Louis of Hungary, and about 1359 descended, with a largo body of Wallachian followers, amongst whom were his sons, into the lower lands of what was already called Moldavia, and took possession of the country.[128]

Shaking ourselves free as far as possible from controversial questions, we may state with safety, in regard to Wallachia, that for more than a century after the wave of barbarian immigration had ceased to flow over it, it resembled the condition of Independent Tartary of to-day; that the number of its petty princes gradually diminished, one of them, Vladislav Ba.s.sarab, having at length secured a great portion of the country under his rule, and almost, if not completely, shaken off the Hungarian yoke (1350-1376), until, under the reign of Mircea the Old (1386-1418), a new enemy, the Turks, so far obtained the ascendency over the country as to acquire permanent rights of suzerainty.

[Footnote 128: For the details of this controversy the reader is referred to the recently published pages of Roesler and Pic, the first an Austrian and the second a Slav writer.]

III.

Mircea, one of the heroes of Roumanian history, not only secured the independent sovereignty, and called himself Voivode of Wallachia 'by the grace of G.o.d,' but in 1389 he formed an alliance with Poland, and a.s.sumed other t.i.tles by the right of conquest.[129] This alliance was offensive and defensive with Vladislav Jagello, the reigning king, and had for its objects the extension of his dominions, as well as protection against Hungary on the one hand, and the Ottoman power on the other; for the Turks, who during the fourteenth century had been waging war with varying success against the Eastern Empire, were now rapidly approaching Wallachian territory. Although Constantinople did not come into their possession until the following century, Adrianople had already fallen, the Turkish armies had overrun Bulgaria, and about the year 1391 they first made their appearance north of the Danube.

At first the bravery of Mircea was successful in stemming the tide of invasion. The reigning Sultan was Amaruth II., who sent an army against him under the command of Sisman, Prince of Bulgaria, a renegade who had married the daughter of the Sultan, and had taken the offensive against the Christians; but he was signally defeated, and for a brief period Wallachia continued to enjoy her independence. A year or two afterwards Bajazet II., the successor of Amaruth, resumed the offensive, and this time, finding himself between two powerful enemies, the King of Hungary and the Sultan, Mircea elected to form an alliance with the latter, and concluded a treaty with him at Nicopolis (1393), known as the 'First Capitulation,' by which Wallachia retained its autonomy, but agreed to pay an annual tribute and to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Sultan.[130] This treaty is dated 1392; but according to several historians Mircea did not adhere to it long, for he is said to have been in command of a contingent in the army of the crusaders, and to have been present at the battle of Nicopolis (1396), in which the flower of the French n.o.bility fell, and, when he found their cause to be hopeless, once more to have deserted them and joined the victorious arms of Bajazet.

Of the continued wars and dissensions in Wallachia, during the reign of Mircea it is unnecessary to speak. He ruled with varying fortunes until 1418 A.D., and there is no doubt that the State was much better organised for defence, although his wars entailed great misery upon the peasantry. It is clear, not only from the Treaty of Nicopolis, but from other records, that the general condition of the country somewhat resembled that of England in the Saxon period. The prince was elected by the boyards,[131] or barons spiritual and temporal, and by the nation (probably through representatives), and there was a general Council of State. There were probably freemen and serfs, although some writers maintain that there was perfect equality until after Mircea's wars commenced; then it is universally admitted that absolute slavery existed.

It has been said that Mircea kept a standing army of about 18,000 foot and 17,000 cavalry; but whether that was so or not, he certainly maintained a force sufficiently well organised to cope with his powerful adversaries the Turks and the Hungarians.[132] That these latter were still a fierce and untamed race is very probable, as were, no doubt, the followers of Mircea, and they committed ravages by their inroads, which have caused modern writers to cla.s.s them with the barbarians whose rule had ceased. Whatever may have been his faults and vices (and his desertion of the Christians at Nicopolis, and the number of illegitimate children left by him, prove that he had both), his patriotism and courage endeared him to posterity, and his deeds are commemorated in the national poems of the present century. Here is a graphic picture of

MIRCEA IN BATTLE.

By D. BOLENTINEANU (1826-1872).

Countless hosts of Magyars desolate the lands, E'en the sun in terror sees their roving bands;

But the aged Mircea, firm and undismayed, With his braves, a handful, meets the furious raid.

Knows, full well, to save the homestead's all but vain, Calmly still determines duty to maintain.

Ah! the days of heroes surely now are fled, When, at duty's summons, Roumains n.o.bly bled!

Speaks the h.o.a.ry chieftain: 'Hearken, brothers all, 'Tis the will of G.o.d, as Roumain I should fall.'

Dedicate thy life-blood, saviour of a nation; 'Tis a puny flamelet in a conflagration.

What is one poor lifetime in th' eternal day?

'Tis a single blossom in a gorgeous May.

Ere the n.o.ble falcon to the Jager yields, Casts he nest and offspring down into the fields.

Ere our arms or ankles should be locked in chains, Lot us fall as heroes, die as free Roumains.