Regional context
In 1818, Tsar Alexander 1 crossed the Dniester (Nistru) to visit Russia’s newly won province of Bessarabia.
Passing seemingly randomly placed huts, and mosques instead of churches, the Tsar and his retinue were amazed by what greeted their eyes.
“One had only to look at the faces and vestments of the people to realise that this is a land which although subject to Russia has nothing in common with her or any other European country.”
Bessarabia was the latest addition to New Russia (Novorossiya); a region colloquially known as “The Wild Fields”.
The Moldavian view was that this territory comprised most of Moldova de jos: the hills and plains of Moldavia. The mountainous area, remaining in Moldavia itself, was Moldova de sus. The separation was in the mind, and did not equate with the new border as set by the Prut (Pruth).
In the nearby newly created Russian port of Odessa, most of Tsar Alexander’s subjects were Moldavian. They had helped build much of Odessa and occupied the important Moldavanka district. On their small plots of land, they built houses, established vineyards and grew vegetables. About sixty Moldavian families were engaged in silk production. Generally, Moldovans way of life in Odessa was like nothing which could be found in Bessarabia until decades later.
Russians saw Moldavians and Bessarabia as quite exotic; a view which was to persist in their minds for a long time. One visiting Russian loyalist,Von Campenhausen, published in 1808 this unique view:
“Moldavians…dress is that of the 13th and 14th centuries, and is a mixture of Jewish, Chinese and Turkish costumes.”
The dress sense, apart from similarities to that of Roman times, often defied comparisons. When smartly presented, Moldavian dress often appeared as a series of intricately created, complex styles usually with an oriental flavour.
Many of the contemporary descriptions we have come from British visitors to the area. They had an open-minded approach. The main authors were: Neale 1818, MacMichael 1819, Quin 1836, Spencer 1836 and Elliott 1838. Highly educated, they included: two doctors, two Fellows of the Royal Society, and an Oxford Don. Understandably, all looking for differences to separately identify and describe the people they found in the different places they visited.
These unconnected British and other foreign travellers saw no differences between the peoples in the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. Likewise Bessarabia was seen as part of Moldavia, separated in the latest political arrangement between the Ottoman and Russian empires. Peasants in Bessarabia were just simple Moldavians.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
My description of events covers:
How and why Moldavia was divided – a smaller Moldavia and new Russian controlled Bessarabia.
Character and recent history of the area and its people within an evolving social, political and economic context. Descriptions by travelling visitors at that time.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The Russian take-over
In 1812 the Russian Army took full control of eastern Moldavia, and a large part of the population fled across the Prut. Ravaged by years of war, banditry and heavily depopulated, local people now also feared the introduction of serfdom. Up to a fifth of the remaining population had departed before the military authorities sealed the river crossings. To further discourage potential escapees the Russian authorities spread word that the plague was raging in the other (mainly Ottoman controlled) part of Moldavia.
In Budjak, the southern district of this new Russian territory, the Nogai Tatars there also fled in terror before the Russian army arrived. Expelled after over four centuries of occupation as faithful servants to the Ottoman empire. Their expulsion a requirement under the 1812 Treaty of Bucharest between the Ottoman and Russian empires.
Coupled with the departures during the 1806 – 12 war, this mass emigration represented the largest population movement in the province’s history. But if this was an aberration, persuading the local Moldavian population to return proved near impossible. While what they were immediately escaping to - Moldavia - was shockingly badly administered under a clumsy, unstable arrangement between the Ottoman and Russian empires.
Years later, many of those remaining in Bessarabia still wanted to follow family members and former neighbours over the Prut. For even if not enserfed, young men could expect to be conscripted for military service and Moldavians generally forced to pay tax after the expiry of three year exemption clauses in the 1812 treaty. Instead the peasants preferred to submit to the exorbitant taxes imposed by Scarlat Callimachi in Moldavia from the start of his rule in September 1812. Monies needed to repay the moneylenders who had financed his colossal fee (or bribe) paid to the Sultan to become hospodar.
The war of 1806 - 12 had completely devastated the region (again). In 1809, Moldavia’s income was about 2.6 million lei, of which about 1.6 million was spent on the army. It was a similar story in Wallachia. By 1811, the proportion of Moldavia’s wealth taken by the Russian army had increased even more. The authoritarian means used to obtain these resources was unsurprisingly deeply unpleasant. The lasting resentment created meant that Moldavians of all ranks distrusted, passively resisted and where they could, rejected Russian state power.
The aftermath of the war meant that Bessarabia had now lost its traditional markets in the Ottoman Empire leading to even more severe economic problems. Most boyars decided to leave. But some were forced to stay behind as a provision in the 1812 treaty set an eighteen month deadline from its ratification for the sale of properties prior to people relocating. Many landowners couldn’t sell their properties in time. Boyar landowners (involved in Moldavia’s state management) were now thrust reluctantly into participating in this new province’s governance.
Four weeks after the Treaty of Bucharest was ratified, Napoleon invaded Russia (June 24th). All Russians were far more concerned with saving mother Russia and themselves.
Admiral Chichagov had been given the task of taking over control of the Danubian army from the highly respected General Kutuzov in May/June 1812. The admiral arrived to find to his disappointment that Kutuzov had already negotiated the terms of the Treaty of Bucharest. Were these the best terms which could be achieved? Kutuzov had been very keen to conclude the treaty, so as to withdraw the army to face Napoleon; he was to be its commander-in-chief. Kutuzov’s understandable, even sensible haste was an important factor in creating Bessarabia. A state which would ultimately metamorphose into Moldova.
Summer 1812 and the march to save Russia, Count Langeron, general commanding 1st Corps of the Army of the Danube recounts:
“We left Bucharest at the end of July. Travelling very peacefully across Wallachia and Moldavia, we crossed the Sereth [Seret, Ukraine] on the 26th August… and on the following day, the Dniester.”
Some of the 38,000 troops withdrawn from Bucharest to face Napoleon’s army in Russia, carried the plague with them. The 1812 plague was one of the worst for many years. Tens of thousands died in the principalities and Bessarabia.
As Admiral Chichagov, head of the Danubian Army prepared to leave, he was also tasked with organising the civil administration in Bessarabia. In July, before he left on the 31st, he appointed his relative Scarlat Sturdza to the post of civil governor. Aged about 80, Sturdza had been governor of Soroca province, and a former treasurer and chief magistrate of Moldavia. He had subsequently retired to Russia. Now he was active again.
Scarlat Sturdza understood the Tsar wanted the province run according to local customs as an “experiment” to preserve goodwill while the situation looked so bad. Russian officials were told that these laws and customs were handed down by word of mouth in an oral tradition. They weren’t recorded but were known by Moldavian boyars…
In October 1812, Sturdza was sworn in. The position of governor concentrated great power and decision making capability exclusively in the office holder’s hands. Months later, Sturdza was struck down by a stroke which paralysed one side of his body, also paralysing the province’s governance. Official documents were signed in his name, by the Metropolitan Bishop G. Bănulescu-Bodoni and newly appointed military commander, Harting.
Major General Harting (Garting) of Dutch and Finnish origin was Scarlat Sturdza’s niece’s husband. His wife had estates around Orhei. Formerly commander of Hotin (Khotyn) fortress. Harting moved away because of the plague which Hotin just couldn’t throw off. In the summer of 1813, Harting was given the powers of acting governor, on the basis that Scarlat would sufficiently recover. Then confirmed as Governor. On his order, governing officials in Hotin were moved west to Briceni to protect their health.
In 1813 “The Temporary Rules For The Government of Bessarabia” were issued by the Russian authorities. These favoured the preservation of Moldavian customary law and practices.
Meanwhile, the military situation remained of great concern with the Russian authorities fearful of being able to hold on to the state. The Napoleonic War (Russians: Patriotic War) ended in June 1815, and Russia had suffered great losses. The army was anxiously looking around for recruits…
From May 1815, young Bessarabian men could be forced to serve in the Russian Army. It imposed upon its recruits the most brutal style of Prussian discipline. Then sent them anywhere within the large Russian Empire. A knowledge and understanding of its modus operandi had already been gained from Moldavians who had enlisted. (Some of whom had, after good service been rewarded with loans and plots of land in Odessa). The army in Bessarabia, mainly based on the Prut would grow to 100,000 strong – about a fifth the size of the civilian population – who were largely expected to support it.
However the Russian authorities avoided large scale conscription of Bessarabians into the army.
In Bessarabia’s first year of existence, Governor Scarlat Sturdza had the ear of the emperor. But from the very start, the Russian administration played a significant role which increased and developed. It reported to the Russian state council which only at its discretion would refer matters to the emperor. This system tried to operate alongside a ruling council of predominantly Moldavian boyars. In Finland (similar situation), the province’s governor was also the chairman of the boyars’ council, leading to more joined up governance there.
On Bessarabia’s ruling state council, Moldavian boyars who were in the majority, kept themselves apart from Russian boyars and acted en bloc. So there was no proper dialogue, or serious attempt by the two parties to actively engage with each other. While arguably there was a need to develop a system which could operate within the Russian administrative framework. Atmosphere and relations were not good.
Aggravating the governance situation were serious problems caused by the attitude and behaviour of Russian officials. These officials operated an undeveloped, highly dysfunctional and corrupt administration. (But typical of bureaucratic systems found elsewhere in Russia then and later). They had been hastily appointed in the 1812 panic to defend Russia from Napoleon. The Tsar himself described them as: “dissatisfied civil servants, unwanted Russians, conscripted…in a rush.”
In this difficult situation, governor Harting changed the intended direction of policy. In his own country (of main origin), Finland, the authorities were successfully integrating Russian policy following its take-over in 1809. Implemented in a clever way that preserved Finnish identity in a path towards independence. (How much this influenced Harting we don’t know). Anyway, Harting tried to replace Moldavian customary law and traditions with Russian law and methods. He recruited additional civil servants but they turned out to be similarly ineffective.
Harting quarrelled bitterly with his wife, her family and other nobles who petitioned the Tsar and others against him. After a series of long running battles, the Tsar dismissed him as civil governor in 1816, but retained him in his military position. Most of the civil servants were dismissed. Harting’s actions had largely run counter to the intentions of his master: “Alexander The Good”.
In 1816, the Tsar stated: “I am most sad to be informed that all my intentions have not been put into effect and that irregularities have accumulated to a peak”.
In Bessarabia, governance operated on sometimes conflicting parallel tracks. Two main tracks were the drive for autonomy and the need for military defence. Represented in the Tsar’s own upbringing and education through two tutors: one taught him the ideals of the enlightenment, the other military matters. He embraced each gladly.
Into the 1816 power vacuum stepped Count Langeron and General Kiselev.
Count Langeron, a Frenchman and recently appointed governor of the neighbouring Kherson province (which included Odessa) offered his advice. The count, a general who had served in Moldavia during the 1806 – 12 war advised that the existing Bessarabian administration, with its Ottoman empire basis was too irregular and too corrupt to continue unreformed. He recommended its inclusion within an empire-wide scheme of viceroyship (namestnichestvo) developed by great Russian statesman, Speransky. The viceroy would report through a locally based state council to the emperor. While devolving power, the arrangement also provided a more direct and improved form of accountability and control – from a Russian perspective. That year, 1816, Bessarabia was incorporated within the new scheme.
Major General Kiselev, aide-de-camp to the Tsar had been assigned to the military General Staff in Kherson and Bessarabia and performed an inspection for the Tsar of the Bessarabian administration. His report was very critical and the main cause of Harting’s loss of office. Kiselev proposed that Bakmetiev, the military governor of Podolia be appointed viceroy.
In 1816 Bakmetiev was appointed viceroy with phanariot Constantine Catacazi as his civil governor.
Route map to autonomy within the Sphere of Influence
Tsar Alexander remained as sincere about devolving powers to Bessarabia as he was to Finland, taken over by Russia in 1809. Similar, even parallel measures were taken in each country for promoting autonomy. For example, taxes collected in each country were spent there. But Finland, mainly because of its geographical position, was perceived as being under much less of a threat.
Compared to Finland, Bessarabia and Moldavia had no strong political traditions. In 1809 in Finland, the Tsar had met and confirmed the rights and privileges of its four estates: clergy, nobility, burghers and peasants. It had Swedish laws and institutions. Moldavia lacked the formality of stable, respected institutional structures. Furthermore, scholars, officials and others coming into contact with Moldavian nobles were treated like lowly servants. Boyars had little sense of respect for others whatever their positions, status, achievements or capabilities; they respected raw power only. Their denial of the proper roles and responsibilities of office in the formalised Russian state could only result in the denial of their own power and positions.
Finland and Bessarabia were to be used as examples to other countries of the advantages of coming within the Russian sphere of influence - potential future allies in Russia’s campaign against the Ottoman Empire. An approach pursued by Capo d’Istria (Kapodistrias), Bessarabia’s State Secretary and Russian foreign minister 1816 – 1822.
Capo d’Istria as unofficial Russian ambassador to Switzerland in 1813 had played a leading role in helping the Swiss to regain their independence from Napoleon and develop a constitution which unified their 19 cantons. He, like the Tsar, believed that each nation should largely determine its own destiny. (The Tsar absorbed Rousseau’s humanist and enlightenment ideas from his Swiss tutor Frédéric-César de La Harpe). Capo d’Istria said:
“We have to offer to the inhabitants of Bessarabia the advantages of a wise and paternal governance and in that way draw to the region the attention of the neighbouring peoples… Moldavians, Wallachians, Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs.”
The message delivered to Admiral Chicagov, who had passed it on to Scarlat Sturdza. In practice though, (the occupation of) Bessarabia would hardly be mentioned as a good example to others.
The Tsar decided that a new constitution should be framed for Bessarabia by boyars and Russian officials (placing it ahead of Finland in a potential path to independence). A constitutional committee of twenty-eight experts and boyars was set up. The constitution they devised was in sympathy with Moldavian customs and practices, When completed in 1818, Tsar Alexander was keen to visit Bessarabia with the intention of ratifying it promptly.
Describing the Tsar’s visit, Xavier and Adele Hommaire de Hell provide the following account in 1847:
“Alexander visited Bessarabia in 1818, and was welcomed with the most cordial gladness, and the most sumptuous rejoicings. He received from the province a national present of 5,000 horses, and was quite amazed at the prosperity and the inexhaustible resources of his new conquest.”
The Statute for the establishment of the Bessarabian Oblast was enacted without the Tsar’s signature on April 29th 1818. It was the day the Tsar’s son, the future Alexander II was born.
But there were also some adverse consequences for Moldavian boyars. The 1818 statute abolished the special privileges of scutelnic (scutnic) who were senior servants of boyars (and monasteries). Scutelnic had been exempt from state taxes and military service. Meanwhile in Moldavia, Hospodar Scarlat Callimachi (Sept 1812 – June 1819) cut taxes for the boyars (while increasing taxes for peasants).
Some nobles had lands on both sides of the Prut and hid or disguised their holdings. The Russian authorities caught up with them forcing them to choose which state they wanted to live in. Leaving Bessarabia meant surrendering (with no compensation) all those holdings (east of the Prut). On the other side, the Sultan kept to the 1812 treaty’s eighteenth month timescale for boyars to choose their country and empire. These developments tested Bessarabian based boyars’ loyalty and commitment further. Following a petition, in 1816, the Russian authorities abandoned this requirement.
Governance at that time was described by Davide Zaffi as follows:
“The local nobility, [a] thin but omnipotent class was ready to accept the new sovereignty provided there would be no infringements on its privileges. The autonomy was thus offered as a pact between the Court and the Bessarabian boyars. As a consequence, autonomy came to mean less the self-government of the country [but more a] continuation of the oppressive ruling of the Moldavian noblemen [over] their fellow citizens especially the peasants.”
As civil governor (under viceroy Bakmetiev), Constantine Catacazi was largely ineffectual. But on a visit by Alexander and Nicholas Ypsilanti to the governor in Chişinău (Kishinev) in 1818, Constantine’s brother Gabriel would fatefully inspire their guests to lead a major Greek rebellion in Moldavia in 1821. Part of the opening chapter of the Greek War of Independence 1821 – 26. A political casualty of this war would be in 1822 Russia’s influential (Greek) foreign minister, Capo d’Istria. Thus Bessarabia lost one of its most powerful advocates and a strong promoter of its fullest autonomy.
Bessarabia’s boyars handled the state’s government with a lack of formality and protocol. For example, Russian officials were shocked to find that when left to their own devices, ruling council meetings consisted solely of the Chairman and Secretary.
Russian boyars and officials were sceptical about boyars’ oral tradition of maintaining Moldavian law. Russians in authority wanted these laws and customs recorded and handed over.
After a delay, Moldavians produced a written record of their laws and customs. This included feudal consuetudinary (community) law plus Justinian’s laws, Basilica law, Armenopolus church regulations, Basil the Wolf’s laws and written charters of the Moldavian rulers. Unfortunately these didn’t amount to a legal code, and there were plenty of gaps.
With far fewer boyars in southern Bessarabia, there was a clear north-south divide in the available apparatus for governance. The Budjak region had been occupied and controlled (rather than governed) by its Ottoman masters. With Tatars in the majority, forces of the Ottoman empire in Bender and the Budjak would raid nearby localities in eastern Moldavia itself. So it was difficult for Moldavians to maintain a settled, ordered existence in southern areas. The area was depopulated and there were few boyars. Addressing this problem formed part of the 1830 reforms (below).
Before 1812, many Bessarabian landowners were current or former servants of the nobility. Senior employees who had personally gained by exploiting the peasants both directly and as a reward from their masters. From 1812, when much of the nobility moved to Moldavia province, these servants acquired more property in Bessarabia. Additionally new landlords arrived from outside Bessarabia seeing an opportunity to be exploited. New owners who needed to project the status necessary to be fully recognised in their new positions.
In Bessarabia, the allocation of land and the rights over it was often chaotic; its division described by local estate names; often informal and not properly documented. Landlords operated in a social system which equated position with wealth so the display of possessions was important. They would (as usual) exploit the local peasantry in order to establish themselves. In the churn of changing faces and requirements, peasants were more likely to leave, while they felt they had the chance.
That was before proper large scale colonisation took place - it would mainly be conducted in a formal manner. In part necessary, because early experience with Bulgarian colonists had highlighted problems. In Moldavia itself, the Russian authorities had allowed settlement 1806 – 12, by Bulgarians. But Bulgarians returned home when mistreated by Moldavian officials. From 1812, Bulgarians’ occupation of land in the Budjak was often very disorderly leading to clashes with local Moldavian landlords and boyars. The Russian authorities tried to support both parties. The Bulgarians were aggressive and united in promoting their self defence; requesting the right to form militias. Although difficult to deal with, the Russian authorities could see them as a valuable ally. While in the early years, protecting the rights of (genuine) boyars was also a priority.
The man who addressed these difficult issues well was Russian Napoleonic war hero, Lieutenant-General Inzov who from 1818 – 1820 was chairman of the Committee of the Southern Colonists.
Foreign colonists arrived, in small numbers at first, mainly in the very north and south of Bessarabia. These new arrivals were commonly granted freedom from taxation and military service for many years. General Inzov would actively pursue his passion for promoting the interests of colonists for the rest of his life.
In the summer of 1820 Inzov became the new (Russian) governor of Bessarabia. Ably supported by influential senior civil servant F.F.Vigel, (a friend of Pushkin there). Filipp Vigel, famous diarist was a Russian noble of Swedish extraction heavily critical of Bessarabian nobles and the project to make Bessarabia semi-independent. Vigel drew unfavourable comparisons with Finland’s and Poland’s quests towards independence. He questioned the hereditary status of senior Moldavians whom he saw as mainly former servants whose power and position were based on rank and office, rather than birth. A style of governance which he noted was a feature of the Ottoman empire - further emphasised by phanariot reforms of recent decades. Phanariot rulers had sought to curtail the abuses of boyars by passing laws. But also to make them more directly accountable to the hospodar (or prince).
In 1780 in Wallachia, Prince Alexander Ypsilanti had introduced his “Code of Byzantine Customary Laws”, which he would later try and implement as prince of Moldavia 1786-88. Ypsilanti, (not to be confused with his grandson of the same name above) introduced a set of reforms which at face value should have had a genuinely reforming effect.
The code attempted to correct legal flaws and address administrative failings. The Wallachian model imposed a civil court in each county of Wallachia. Salaries were paid for public offices (intended to replace corrupt money raising practices). Land ownership became a much less important requirement for office holders.
In practice, the granting of offices by the hospodar took power away from the boyar legislative assembly. The hospodars of Wallachia and Moldavia gained almost total power over the nobles. Rank and position increased further in importance compared to power bestowed by hereditary status.
On arrival, governor Inzov sought to clarify and regularise the position regarding the rights and status of individual Bessarabian boyars. In the Russian empire, the department of heraldry played a significant role in determining the all important “table of ranks”. A formal assessment of nobility operating on lines close to Western European standards.
In the Ottoman empire, status was more frequently gained through informal client networks; a style compatible with Romanian culture and thinking.
In Iaşi (Yassy), Macmichael (1818) was told a story about a Polish businessman who pawned a ring for a fortune. By a series of fortunate moves (probably gambling which was endemic there), he “amassed a large property”. The ring it transpired however was “of small value”. Since the princes and boyars of Moldavia were often themselves foreign adventurers or descended from them, it would not be difficult for this businessman to buy noble status.
Inzov’s 1820 inquiry revealed that many of the claims of nobility were fraudulent. This lead to a drastic reduction in the number of Moldavian boyars. Their places were of course taken by Russian boyars who became the majority occupying seats of power in the administration. Vigel for instance became vice-governor and a permanent member of the Bessarabian supreme court.
At the end of 1820, Governor Inzov was advised by foreign minister, Capo d’Istria to take on Dr Petr Manega to undertake the longterm exercise of drawing up a constitution for Bessarabia. Petr (or Peter) Manega was a Moldovan scholar educated in Paris His task was (intended to be) the formal legal codification of Moldavian law based on its customary laws and practices.
In July 1822, Inzov assumed the role of temporary governor for the whole of Novorossiya or New Russia (of which Bessarabia was but a small part). Replaced in May 1823 by Count Vorontsov (Woronzow) who took over as governor of Novorossiya and viceroy of Bessarabia. Inzov and Vorontsov (each genuine war heroes), were highly professional, even colossal figures of their era. But aggravating the handover was some residual disagreement between the two men over the treatment of Alexander Pushkin, the poet, (see below), whose supervision had passed between them. Inzov had applied a paternalistic style by which he now strongly recommended Peter Manega for promotion to a senior position to continue his important work. But Vorontsov rejected this proposal, while he (with his liberal style) retained Manega in his existing role.
Shortly after this (still in 1823), Inzov left to take up his new role as governor of the adjoining Kherson province (in New Russia under Vorontsov’s overlordship).
Inzov had admitted to Vorontsov that there were serious flaws with policing and the governance and administration of the province. In July and August 1823, Vorontsov toured the frontier and inspected the administration; he was appalled by what he found. The confusion and dysfunctionality was “too great to be credible” he noted. Summoning the chief boyars, Vorontsov expressed in the strongest terms the need for good governance, and the rewards and penalties for compliance or continued failure.
In 1823 & 1824, both men faced the challenge of plagues of locusts devastating large parts of New Russia. The Russian orchestrated response further strengthened their authority and control over the region. The calamity devastated many new colonists establishing themselves and must have encouraged Moldavians to flee the famine conditions in Bessarabia.
Inzov’s lasting legacy is the marvellous Nativity Cathedral commissioned with Bănulescu-Bodoni and a number of other famous buildings, many still standing in Chişinău. Additionally, Inzov founded the city of Bolgrad in the Budjak region, to be interred there with great honour in a marble monument by very grateful Bulgarian colonists.
Count Vorontsov, Inzov’s successor and superior was one of the most intellectually capable of all Russia’s leaders. He had been well educated in England and knew many of the most powerful and influential figures there. Contemporaries described him as an often English thinker in his style. From 1815 to 1818, the Count was commander of the Russian forces in the Duke of Wellington's allied army, stationed in France. Philipp Vigel who served Vorontsov there, described his impressive leadership in the most glowing terms. The two of them would work together in Chişinău.
Vorontsov’s rule would have a dramatic impact on Bessarabia and its future direction. His style was very hands-on. He toured hospitals and prisons, investigated the finances making reforms and improvements wherever he went.
Count Vorontsov investigated and examined the status and work of Peter Manega, He found that Manega had gained a licentiate in Paris, but not a doctorate. Manega was at least in part a fraud. The Count who was relatively friendly and approachable disliked Manega’s conceited manner. The Count had spent time in France during the Napoleonic War and examined the three volumes produced by Manega recorded in French. (Manega knew no Russian). The proposed constitution was heavily based on the Napoleonic Code, the legal system of Russia’s recent great adversary. But how fit for purpose was this methodology, and Manega’s work itself?
In the principalities, hospodars Ion Caragea of Wallachia (1812 – 1818) and Scarlat Callimachi (1812 – 1819) had developed new codes of law. Typically using their phanariot style methodology, they based their codes on Byzantine law and tradition with some modern European legal input. But as before these mainly served to strengthen the authority of the prince. Callimachi’s successor Mihai Sutu, the last ever phanariot prince (serving until 1821) maintained the same tradition in Moldavia.
In 1825, the Russian senate addressed the customary law issue and formally requested from the Supreme Council of Bessarabia for Judiciary, information about law applied in Bessarabia. The response covering traditional Moldavian law was three different sets of law from those submitted years before. Much of this was in ancient Greek which was difficult to translate into modern Greek. The result: a myriad of contradictory interpretations prior to Russian translation.
In November 1825 Tsar Alexander 1 died. In his final years he had become less enthusiastic about decentralising power within the empire. Vorontsov too, liberal minded aristocrat (not a democrat) was becoming disillusioned with the project for Bessarabia’s autonomy. Early on he had outlined the importance of the local nobility in taking and shaping the administration in line with local laws and traditions. They were: “that class which both by our laws and the nature of things plays such an important part in internal administration.” But he had threatened them if they couldn’t deliver…
Tsar Alexander was succeeded by Tsar Nicholas 1, one of the most reactionary Tsars in Russian history. His centralising tendencies led to Poland losing its autonomy in 1830 and Bessarabia suffered a new imposed constitution in 1828 - the latter designed by Count Vorontsov.
As for Manega’s legal codification project, Vorontsov allowed the work continue until 1830, but by then the work had been superceded by his own major reforms in 1828. Manega was retained as librarian at Chişinău library. His work handed to Speransky’s codification commission in St Petersburg.
A major opportunity for progress towards national self-determination had been lost.
By comparison, Finland taken over by Russia in 1809 would eventually become and remain a nation state. But Finland was two parts united (new and old Finland); Moldavia was a province torn apart.
Bessarabia would remain a vassal state and see the increasing predominance of Russian law and administrative practice in the decades ahead.
Princes, boyars, peasants, slaves and gypsies: nation status, religion, identity, rebellion and disorder
For centuries, war and conflict had forced ethnic Romanians and their neighbours to move home every few years. Sometimes they covered long distances, sometimes they left the former Dacian province altogether. One archaeological historian has expressed frustration trying to find evidence of continued uninterrupted settlement. So in a sense the whole region was theirs. The region also contained numbers of gypsies and slaves, the latter often being former prisoners of war who would be traded and moved around.
William Wilkinson, acting British Consul-General in Bucharest, 1813 opined that the peasants of Wallachia and Moldavia were possibly the most oppressed in the world.
In a strict legal sense, people living in the former Dacian territories were well protected by the treaties of 1460 and 1634. These carried many rights and protections governing the liberties of citizens of the principalities. But the occupying empires disregarded these laws.
Foreign observers contrasted the mainly simple, decent behaviour of the peasants with the greedy, cunning and brutal behaviour of most boyars.
Serfdom had been abolished in Moldavia in 1749 (following Wallachia in 1746). By decree, peasants were declared personally free from landlords and their relationships were to be regulated on the basis of personal contracts. However… in return for their personal freedom, the peasants lost any title to their lands and had to labour for the landlord for a certain number of days. The amount of daily work was predetermined by the Hospodar and almost impossible to complete in a day. In 1777 this requirement had been increased to a nominal 28 days in Moldavia.
Bessarabia was the only Russian province where serfdom wasn’t applied…except for gypsies from 1828.
Boyars and landlords found other ways to exploit the peasantry. One example was provided later by Prince Urusov, governor of Bessarabia in 1903 relating to an ancient Moldavian custom. This was the landlord’s right to impose duties on any goods brought onto their lands. “The tax was collected by a special guard”. The Russian senate and the prince helped to abolish this pernicious practice.
Peasants did try to resist unfair demands on them but were usually held down to subsistence levels. They were: “rural cultivators whose surpluses are transferred to a dominant group of rulers.” - Eric Wolf, anthropologist. Studies of serfs and state peasants in Russia found it hard to differentiate between those two groups. Russian state peasants had restricted freedom of movement as did other people. For example in 1862 in Dubossary, “Transnistria”, 205 “absence” passports were given to 3 merchants and 171 town-dwellers.
Moldavians valued the freedoms they had, and were well aware of and most determined to escape Russian state restrictions. Many of them liked (the ability) to travel around. This appears to be the main reason why so many left or tried to leave Bessarabia in 1812 and afterwards.
Here’s an 1836 extract from Englishman Michael Quin, travelling in Wallachia, when his party met a Moldavian poet there.
“The poet now joined the circle, and having ordered his bottle of wine, made himself as much as home amongst his new acquaintances as if he had known them a hundred years. He treated the company to a history of his travels, which extended on this occasion to Grand Cairo…[A little later] the governor shouted with excessive mirth, and ordered another bottle, which he compelled the poet to drink in addition to his own.”
In Moldavia (& Wallachia), there was an important class structure in which boyars were given different ranks. At the top was the hospodar. In the Ottoman Empire, this office holder was usually just seen as the governor (of a province). To everyone else, he was the prince.
For much of the eighteenth century until 1821, the office was mainly held by (Greek) phanariots. As a small group of privileged families, they had long before established their subservience to the Sultan.
These princes however were often despised by their masters and had a short-lived existence. Also, they weren’t always loyal to the Sultan. Here’s what happened to Gregory Ghica, prince from 1774-77. Now believed to be of Romanian (rather than Albanian) descent. He opposed Bukovina’s separation from northern Moldavia to become a new separate state within the Austrian empire. Quote from Von Campenhausen, 1808.
“The Turk soon returned and presented it [a snuff box] to Ghicca, and at the same time drew out a poignard with which he stabbed him twice in the breast. Ghicca, who was strong and active, made an effort to leap out of the window, but several Turks rushed into the room at this moment, and dispatched him. His head was cut off, sent to Constantinople, and exposed, according to custom, for three days at the gate of the seraglio. His body was given to his family, and his property was seized by the Sultan.”
In such a treacherous environment, the phanariot princes were concerned to ensure loyalty to their rule. So they introduced a system by which boyars had to demonstrate good service to the prince as office holders to keep their positions. This removed boyars’ rights as pure landowners and drew them in more closely to the double-dealing, corrupt world of Ottoman empire politics.
The boyars’ ties to their peasants were thereby weakened. From 1749, Moldavian peasants were now no longer serfs tied to the land. So each party was more like a tenant or sub tenant. They were less tied to their country and to each other. Their relationships had become more contractual, time limited and less directly personal. Loyalties were becoming more negotiable.
A strict class structure defined a person’s place in society. But it was possible in the loose systems in the principalities to change your name to a famous or well respected one, and fabricate your lineage. This happened… It was necessary however to secure the funds to achieve this. One way to do that, was to win at the gambling tables which were a common sight especially in Iaşi. People had everything to play for…
These possibilities, these opportunities were not available to illiterate peasants.
In 1812, Moldavian peasants had centuries of experience of being robbed and abused. The safest strategy was to appear and perhaps be wretchedly poor. One of their greatest dangers was from invading armies. Apart from stealing all their food and anything of value, they would often blame the peasants for supporting (and benefiting from) the former enemy occupiers…as if they had any choice!
Another real risk was forced conscription into the Ottoman armed forces. Author, Ion Creangă born in 1837 in a north Moldavian village, described how pressgangs would lasso people off the street. That is how their popular school teacher was taken from them. Others just disappeared; their mothers despairing for them; as commonly they never saw or heard from their sons again.
Security, trust and stability are so valuable. Creangă’s north Moldavian village was near to Bukovina where in 1812 taxes were set at 30% and the peasants, treated better, were happier and more productive. They knew where they stood, even if sometimes treated roughly by the occupying army. That was the hallmark of the Austrian empire there. A situation described in 1855 by an English visitor:
“Previous to the year 1777 the Buckowina formed part of the principality of Moldavia, since which time it has been incorporated within the kingdom of Galicia. The inhabitants with the exception of a few hundred German colonists, are the same race as those of Moldo-Wallachia, speak a dialect of the same language, and are quite as primitive in their habits and manners. Still, even among these, the reclaiming hand of the German ruler is everywhere visible in the neatness of their villages, and the tidiness you perceive about the huts and agricultural fields.”
Turkey, Russia, The Black Sea & Circassia by Captain Edmund Spencer, 1855
In Moldavia and Bessarabia, villages were often located away from the main routes to avoid falling prey to Ottoman, Tatar or Cossack raids. In areas under Ottoman control, Tatars and some Cossack groups were allies of the Sultan. Some villages appear to have consisted of huts hidden underground. In such an environment, a police force was a near irrelevance and the absence of police in the Moldavian countryside resulted in much general banditry.
The only alternative was to be well armed, as Englishman Edmund Spencer recounts on his earlier visit to the same area in 1836:
“Notwithstanding the unfavourable accounts given us of the insecurity of travelling in Moldavia, we arrived safely…in the Austrian Buckowina, without molestation. We had however taken good care to present a most formidable front, being every one of us armed to the teeth; and only once, on passing through the thick forest which separates Moldavia from the Buckowina, did the horizon seem even clouded with danger, as we there met with half-a-dozen most bandit looking fellows on horse-back; they passed on, however, and did not attempt to interrupt us.”
So wherever possible peasants would avoid travelling. They often preferred to be near forests or mountains where they could flee with their movable possessions ready to hand. The hills and plains to the south, Moldova de jos were more exposed, more dangerous than the mountainous area to the north: Moldova de sus.
The roads and main tracks were often so clear that foreign visitors reported travelling for many miles without seeing anyone. Mr Elliott, the vicar of Godalming noted the position was worse in Bessarabia where he travelled long distances past fertile, uncultivated fields.
Many peasants did not feel safe and secure enough to put down roots. They were shepherds in a tradition which dated back to Roman times or before.
Gypsies in Moldavia were commonly enslaved but when free were better dressed, their women often wore trinkets on their faces or headgear. Gypsies, deemed to be uncontrollable, travelled across borders freely without visas, passports or complications. Sometimes political refugees would hide amongst them.
In 1821, Pushkin hitched a ride with a gypsy caravan from Chişinău into the Budjak Steppe. A political outcast himself like the ancient Roman Ovid whose footsteps he was determined to follow into the Budjak. There Pushkin had an affair with a gypsy woman, Zemfira.
Alexander Pushkin had been exiled to Bessarabia in 1820 for attacking serfdom and censorship, with some critical words for the emperor himself. Pushkin ended up in the one Russian province where serfdom wasn’t a policy. He hated Chişinău but enjoyed a number of affairs with local women and was friends with Filipp Vigel (above). Despite his bad behaviour, Pushkin lodged with governor Inzov and retained a state salary. In 1825, Pushkin was transferred to Odessa to stay with Count Vorontsov, one of Russia’s greatest war heroes, who from 1823 had become governor-general of new Russia and viceroy of Bessarabia. There, Pushkin conducted an affair with the count’s wife and was thrown out. Nine months later, Countess Vorontsov gave birth. These events produced some of the finest poetry in the Russian language.
In 1828, Vorontsov oversaw a package of significant constitutional changes in Bessarabia. One of these was to make gypsies become serfs. In the succeeding years, further measures were enacted to fully rob gypsies of their independent roving status.
Politically, things were relatively quiet in the former Dacian territories. Its people had a mainly agrarian outlook and were naturally conservative. Socialising was mainly family based and constrained by the religious values of their conservative church.
In 1812, the Christian faith was represented in Moldavia by the Eastern Orthodox faith. This was the Greek church based in Constantinople. Led by the Patriarch of Constantinople it was of course directly accountable to the Sultan. In the principalities, Russian influence was used to favour the preservation of this arrangement due to the greater fear of allowing an ethnically Romanian nationalistic church to be created.
Russia had important historical links with Christianity based in Byzantium (Constantinople or Istanbul). Its longterm objective was to secure control over this Orthodox Christian administration and its worldwide believers. This could entail conquering Constantinople itself. The principalities were a soft target on the way to achieving this, but there was the very likely threat of intervention by European powers to prevent this happening. Alexander 1 (unlike his grandmother, Catherine The Great) was less wary of this reaction. But the aftermath of 1812 reduced his ambitions.
The Treaty of 1812 stipulated that the Holy Synod (in St Petersburg) would appoint an exarch to Bessarabia - the religious leader of the province (as a separate administrative entity). In 1812, Gavril (or Gabriel) Bănulescu-Bodoni became the Metropolitan of Chişinău: head of the church in Bessarabia. Originally from Transylvania from a family with roots in Bukovina, Bănulescu-Bodoni had held many senior positions including Metropolitan of Moldavia, and Kherson and the Crimea. In 1813, Tsar Alexander accepted his proposal to set up the new Archbishopric of Chişinău and Hotin which incorporated a large part of the southern Ukraine. This was partly to receive and manage new Christian colonists. Bănulescu-Bodoni was a successful moderating force between the boyars and the Imperial authorities until his death in 1821.
In 1835 in Bessarabia, there were 853 churches, of which 134 were made of stone. Plus 16 chapels, 22 monasteries and convents. The majority fell under the Chişinău Eparchy of the Russian Orthodox Church. The others were within the new colonist settlements such as those of the Germans and Bulgarians who built their own churches.
By the mid nineteenth century, Europe was ablaze with rebellion. 1848 was The Year of Revolution. In Moldavia, the rebellion was a small scale affair led by intellectuals and easily suppressed.
Slavery was abolished in Moldavia in 1855. In Bessarabia it existed for slaves transferred from Moldavia province. In 1861 the 11,000 Roma slaves there were freed.
In 1859, Romanians in Wallachia and Moldavia were able to choose their rulers and quickly chose one ethnic Romanian ruler, Alexander Cuza to reunite their provinces. Unification was the Romanians overwhelming priority. And as they all hoped for, the two principalities were united as simply as fading a line on a map. (Merging the administrations took a while to complete).
At the end of the nineteenth century many east European countries were defining their nationalism for the first time. Peoples of mainly one ethnicity identifying with one another wanting to live in a nation state based on their values and beliefs within their region.
In the new Romania, education in Romanian language and history became an important issue at the end of the nineteenth century, where it was strongly promoted. But in Bessarabia its teaching was (by that time) strictly forbidden. This affected and divided Moldavians’ understanding of themselves.
At the end of the nineteenth century, there was an “absence of a well defined collective identity in the ranks of the Bessarabian Moldovans” says Cusco. People there used many names to describe or identify themselves. He adds: “the name of ‘Romanian’ (român/rumân) did not, probably, bear any ethnic connotation for the Bessarabian peasants”. Instead it meant peasant or serf. An unchanged identity that people saw themselves defined by: the social class they were forcibly held down to. Cusco pursues the concept of their “reactive identity” in relation to the Russian occupation. So by the end of the nineteenth century, how Moldavian were these people?
In 1828, Finnish officer Frederik Nyberg, writing from Hotin had recorded: “All over Bessarabia, the people speak Moldavian”.
Seventy years later, Moldavians remained in the majority in Bessarabia speaking Moldavian (or Romanian), the dominant language of everyday speech there. Moldavians have always heavily predominated in the central country regions of eastern Moldavia / Bessarabia / Moldova.
The post 1812 colonisation mainly took place mainly in the very north and south of Bessarabia. As the decades passed, it would accelerate in all major towns and cities.
So many different ethnic groups with so many different languages and beliefs settled in Bessarabia in the decades after 1812. Their ideas and descriptions adding to Bessarabians’ vocabulary (just as later, adopted Soviet technical terms would be claimed as part “proof” of “Moldovan”, the separate language). Much of the “peasant language” [Language History page] probably dates from the decades after 1812.
Jews had been an important ethnic minority present in Bessarabia for centuries, representing about 8 - 10% of the Bessarabian population in the first half of the nineteenth century. They settled easily in the new Bessarabia within their established sixteen colonies, of which nine were in Soroca with a further three in the north. Their main language was German (the language of business), with Russian as a common second. Many of the new immigrants came from the Ukraine, but as shrewd observer Annette Meakin stated on her visit to Chisinau in 1905:
“…English people are apt to forget that there are as many classes of society among the Jews, as many degrees in the social scale, as there are amongst ourselves in Great Britain; and they also forget that even in Russia, the Jews, though all of one race, are of many different nationalities".
Many of Bessarabia’s colonists were Slavs, now simply called Ukrainians (largely thanks to Soviet policy) but containing “Little Russians”, “Ruthenians” and “Rusyns”, with their often different languages, customs and even ethnicity. This diversity is often under estimated. The Romanian state would at times identify some of these people as (former) Romanians who had adopted or married into Slavic culture. (Romania now recognises Rusyns as a separate ethnic group).
Colonisation and “russification” (mainly of Moldavians) caused differences to lessen between the peoples of Bessarabia and the Ukraine especially after about 1830. Regions of the Ukraine bordering Bessarabia comprised the province of Kherson, running north to Dubossary, and Podolia which ran south to Ribnitsa. Both covered “Transnistria”.
There were many ethnic Romanians in the Ukraine. The new Romanian state liked to think of Romanians in the Ukraine as belonging to Romania, presented as:
“…[a] great mass of Roumanians who live the other side of the Dniester, in the rich black earth regions of Podolia and Cherson. According to the Russian census of 1897 the number of persons speaking exclusively Roumanian in these districts was about 225,000.”
Source: Charles Upson Clark, professor of history at Columbia University invited in as a guest of the Romanian government in 1919, and strongly pro-Romania.
Despite similarities between the peoples of these adjoining parts of the empire, the Russian authorities continued to accept that Bessarabia required exceptional treatment.
“Unlike the serfs in other parts of Russia, the peasants are at liberty to dwell where they please, and they are not compelled to furnish recruits.”
English visitor, C.B. Elliott, publishing in 1838.
Some of the credit for this sensible approach must go to Count Vorontsov, governor from 1823. With his heavily dominating English education and background, he appears to have disliked serfdom and been unhappy with aspects of the Russian system of military conscription and discipline.
Ninety years after the Russian occupation of 1812, the early years of the twentieth century saw limited rebellions and hostile action by peasants against the boyars and town authorities in Bessarabia. Set of course against the dramatic backdrop of social revolution sweeping Europe.
As always, Moldavian and Bessarabian peasants just wanted to settle down and farm a decent amount of land they could call their own. To maintain their local culture, language and customs without abusive treatment and heavy taxes.
Character, appearance and lifestyle
We know Moldavians have a reputation for great hospitality especially to travellers. They have been (unwilling) travellers themselves. Moldavians, Romanians generally have a great curiosity about foreigners. In nineteenth century Bessarabia we see communities absorb foreigners well, especially those escaping persecution. Intermarriage with Slavs may also bring out that tendency to help the most needy.
Foreign observers were full of praise for simple Moldavian peasants’ trustworthiness and high standard of moral conduct in dealings with others. They were less impressed with the male work ethic but attributed this mainly to their mistreatment by boyars, and the effect of working within the ethos of the Ottoman empire. The women were hard working home-makers.
Morals in marriage and conduct between men and women were however criticised. But under the Ottoman administration, the peasants could pay officials to buy their way out of any situation e.g quickly ending a marriage. The orthodox churches governing the principalities and Russia would allow up to three marriages. There were many legitimate causes for divorce: violence, infidelity, gambling, drunkenness, misuse of bodily functions (polite description).
In a seemingly Dacian tradition, women often had more power in marriage. They had the right to protect their dowry. It was the custom to exclude dowered daughters from any inheritance. So they were expected and needed to protect their interests. For example at the end of the eighteenth century, Scarlat Sturdza’s wife owned the fortress at Soroca. Overall, these measures tended to promote women and children’s interests in the family unit. The church played a part in this as women were often its most active members; for example promoting observance of the many saints’ days and their accompanying rituals.
The Sultan was largely indifferent to the well being of his subjects (in the principalities); he just wanted as much wealth as possible, result: economic oppression. To increase the princes’ scope to maximise income, the Porte’s supervision was largely “hands off”. So the flip side of the coin was greater social freedom and an often very enlightened social policy compared to other countries including Britain. It’s another reason why so many Moldavians fled Bessarabia in 1812, after an oppressive five and a half year Russian military occupation.
But we still need a clearer visual picture of what these people were like. The following is how our nineteenth century English travellers described the Moldavians.
The men often wore long sleeved white shirts in a course material with trousers and a wide sash around their waists for a belt. Often in the summer they’d be bare chested. They also had sheepskin coats with the fur turned inwards. According to some sources, boyars had found it fashionable to turn the sheepskin inwards and the peasants copied them. The peasant’s hat where worn was sheepskin with the fur facing outwards. The women also wore white shirts and a skirt, or a dress often with an apron (front or front and back), sometimes with a thin sash for a belt. It was common for both sexes to walk barefoot, especially in the summer. Sandals were a common form of footwear.
Boyars would wear loosely flowing robes, and fur coats. In Moldavia province the more wealthy might wear jewels and the distinctive Moldavian cap. This was a hat in an enormous balloon shape made of pasteboard and covered with grey fur. Boyars often wore oriental clothing, especially so when Ottoman control in Moldavia was in the ascendancy. In early nineteenth century Moldavia, boyars who had held high office were allowed to wear beards, whereas in Bessarabia this was a feature of the very poorest.
The very poor especially slaves were often hardly dressed or in rags.
Foreign visitors gained a sense of these people’s Roman origins, for example in their dress styles. The origins of the Romanian language date from shepherds who spoke Latin in Roman times and retained it as a base which was added to with hundreds of Slavonic words, plus many additions from Greek, Italian, Armenian and other languages. Macmichael (1819) listed some of the many “corrupt Latin words” he and his fellow travellers overheard in Chişinău; largely the same as modern Romanian.
Many Moldavians proudly asserted their Roman heritage. American agricultural expert, Louis Michael who worked with people in Bessarabia, 1910 - 1917 described how their method of ploughing was identical to that used in the Roman empire. (He described the many other simple ploughing techniques used by other cultures). Moldavian peasants were reluctant to experiment or change. These ancient customs formed part of their identity; preserving their sense of authenticity; their rightful inheritance; to farm the land of their forefathers.
There were many shepherds and an historically important cattle trade route ran north into central Europe. But shepherds (and peasants) faced regular perils on their travels. Edmund Spencer, the author mentioned above returned to Moldavia many years later. Now as Captain Spencer (1854), his travels took him back to a place where (described above) he had passed years before.
“…arriving at the vast forest that separates Buckowina from Moldavia, we were overtaken by one of those sudden snow storms so fatal to the traveller in this wild inhospitable district. Happily our postilion, prognosticating from the lowering aspect of the heavens the danger that threatened us, galloped madly forward to a ruined chalet, the usual resting place of such caravans as journey in this direction.”
He then described a desperate night-time struggle between fellow travellers including a shepherd (and his flock of sheep) with a large pack of wolves of whom eight or nine were killed.
All routine events for Moldavians, whose lives and travel had changed little in thousands of years.
Two of our learned English visitors traced the origins of Moldavians to the Venedi tribes who lived by rivers and streams they could dam and turn into lakes and small islands. There they could fish and kill and eat the water-fowl which were attracted to those places. Such fertile and productive areas also grew fruit, supplied trees and plants and even mud for housebuilding. Our travellers noted a lack of formality about how these dwellings were arranged.
The geographical pattern of development of people who inhabited Moldavia was heavily concentrated in marshy areas. The same was partly true of the Ukraine and other places in eastern Europe.
Marshes, disease, trade, quarantine and developing a new border
“On opening the door, we found ourselves enveloped in a thick mist; the Pruth flowed under the wall of the hut, and the eye could not penetrate the dense vapour which arose from its surface.”
C.B. Elliott, vicar of Godalming (1838)
The marshes around the Prut (Pruth) have a special resonance for Russians. On the Iaşi (Yassy) side of the Prut in 1711, Peter The Great, one of Russia’s greatest Tsars and brilliant military commander became “entangled amongst the marshes of the Pruth”: Neale. Completely surrounded by large Turkish and Tatar forces, he successfully repelled two large scale assaults inflicting massive Turkish and Tatar casualties. However his time was running out… Fortunately for Peter, the Grand Vizier was over fearful of Peter’s great military reputation, and peace terms were quickly agreed. These were very advantageous to the Ottoman Empire.
Marshy areas attracted malarial mosquitoes and propagated other diseases. This significant fact had an important impact on the human story of peoples living and travelling across Russia and eastern Europe. It also played a major role in the unfolding political drama of the period.
Iaşi especially had regular annual plague outbreaks. There in January 1770 the Russian Army was struck by the plague. General von Stoffeln in charge coerced army doctors to conceal the outbreak. It was made public when Finnish surgeon, Gustav Orreus, appointed Russia’s first ever doctor of medicine by Catherine The Great examined the situation and enforced quarantine measures. Von Stoffeln resisted, refusing to evacuate the infected towns. His opposition ended when he fell victim to the plague himself in May 1770.
But it was too late - the devastating plague spread across eastern Europe and ultimately to Moscow where it caused a large number of deaths. There Doctor Orreus was employed to apply epidemiological control measures to eradicate that epidemic.
The eighteenth century dramas described above seemed to play heavily on ordinary Russian officials’ minds. Travellers to Bessarabia describe the harsh quarantine measures they were subjected to on arrival in the territory. Commonly this was a fourteen day detention. It could however often be reduced to four days on payment of a bribe.
The name Bessarabia was historically applied to the southern or Budjak region possibly denoting its watery nature: rivers, lakes and marshes. One nineteenth century traveller explaining that’s where the “Bess” comes from; “Arabia” being derived from the Budjak’s arid and often barren conditions.
Or Bessarabia may mean “free of Arabs”. However the name is more likely originally derived from the medieval Basarab family. Based in Wallachia, in the fourteenth century this term was applied to the coastal area north of the Danube. Especially that part which later contained Turkish towns. The association with muslims was then transferred to cover the Nogai Tatars in the coastal region of the Budjak. Areas which were simply adjoining zones in the Ottoman province of Silistria. Later the Nogai expanded further inland. There is evidence however that the term “Bessarabia” was applied (loosely) pre-1812 to cover more or all of eastern Moldavia. One unusual example follows from author Jacques Peuchet in 1808.
“…Bessarabia and Boudziack, two vast countries between the Dniester and the Pruth, the Danube and the Black Sea, formerly inhabited by numerous tribes of Tartars, partly wanderers, and Moldavians, who were cultivators."
From 1812 we clearly see “Bessarabia” expanding northwards. And the Prut became a new Russian border incorporated in a system of European borders with quarantine, customs and passport checkpoints. As well as keeping out disease, border controls were developed to restrict and control movements. But the Cossacks who patrolled the border couldn’t completely seal it. For example in 1819 a plague in Moldavia spread into Bessarabia.
In 1821, a large number of Greeks travelled to Moldavia from Bessarabia to play their part in the Greek War of Independence, part of which was fought out on Moldavian soil. Details of the departees were taken by the Russian authorities who monitored their numbers. The Moldavian military campaign was a disaster. There had been 12,000 Greeks in Chişinău. Three months later, there were 50,000. (Ultimately the Greeks secured their independence from the Ottoman Empire after the war of 1821-26). They and other Moldavians created a serious refugee problem in Bessarabia.
The Russian authorities did not feel they were in sufficient control of their border. This wasn’t just a question of people travelling across it freely. In the 1821 uprising, its main leader (of phanariot stock), Major-General Alexander Ypsilanti, former aide de camp to the Tsar, crossed the Prut wearing his uniform. His claim to have the support of the Tsar for this invasion meant people flocked to his cause.
The Tsar then disowned the insurrection. Eventually, the Russian military moved into Moldavia in a show of force against it. Implicated in the plot, Prince Mihail Sutu, the (last ever phanariot) governor of Moldavia fled with his family into Bessarabia. A final heroic stand by four hundred Greeks on the Prut was watched by a large immobile Russian army on the other side. After the Greeks had inflicted massive casualties on waves of assaulting Turks by skilful use of cannon, the remaining Greeks swam across the Prut. Only those who’d been in Russian service were punished.
In 1812, the idea of clearly defined and policed borders was relatively new to this part of the world. The Ottomans controlled roughly known areas by influence over nomadic warriors whose areas of control and influence shifted year by year in an indefinable manner. Now, frontiers were becoming clearly defined: nearly impassable borders to certain movements of people, ideas, communication and loyalty.
Held at the Prut, Mr Elliott, our English vicar (publishing in 1838), found great difficulty entering Bessarabia to travel to Odessa to take the steamship to Constantinople (Istanbul). The growing use of border controls was leading to abuses of power and process.
A Danubian steamship service was available from 1834 to travel all the way from Presburg (Bratislava) to Constantinople. But citing rights under the 1829 Treaty of Adrianople, its passage was blocked at the mouth of the Danube by Russia imposing an illegal toll (the view of other countries). This is was what caused Mr Elliott’s diversion and stopped Mr Quin travelling to the Bosphorus. Russia also allowed channels of the Danube to silt up and restricted access from The Black Sea. Actions designed to prefer Odessa as a port. Twenty years later the matter would be resolved by force…
Divisions and separations affected agriculture and trade. Moldavia east of the Prut had been involved with the central European cattle trade. This northern route through Bukovina was now taxed more heavily. But Wallachia, (largely dedicated to sheep herding) was supplied with cattle which would graze there in the summer months before sale. Cattle rearing in Bessarabia was steadily expanded some years after 1812. The export of horses continued; thousands of horses ran wild in Bessarabia, especially in the north of the Budjak. The Austrian cavalry took delivery of 12,000 to 15,000 each year until the 1830s. Likewise until that time, wool from the Zigai sheep predominating in the Budjak was exported largely to the East and to England. The (forced) introduction of (Spanish) Merino sheep in the 1830s created a lot of changing circumstances. This included a shift in focus to supplying Russia’s own clothing industry.
In Bessarabia, peasants could grow wheat for their own use for the first time. In the Danubian principalities, wheat was grown for export; for the use of the Turks. Quotas were set across the Ottoman empire. Ports such as Galaţi in Moldavia had export quotas. Transport and storage was rigorously supervised by the authorities in Istanbul. It was often an offence for a Moldavian or Wallachian peasant to eat wheat (even if he grew it). From the sixteenth century, peasants could grow corn, which originated in the Americas. That is the origin of the famous mamaliga dish. Potatoes were introduced into Moldavia by its hospodar, Scarlat Callimachi, 1812 – 19.
New trade opened up, much of it within Russia for which Ismail and Reni were developed as ports. After 1830 those ports fell into decline as sanitary cordon restrictions were eased and Odessa took over. Odessa had become a free port in 1819. Bessarabia exported wines, ox hides, sheepskins, wool, wax and tallow, maize, fish and salt. Industry was slowly but progressively developed.
Bessarabia was developing a separate identity within the Russian state. Boyars there were who had estates in Moldavia province were expected to take sides. Imperial Russia inherited a series of ferry crossings and rickety, dangerous bridges across the Prut. A century later, travellers were amazed to find these river crossings had hardly been improved.
Dividing Moldavia caused Romanian attitudes to the Prut to become derogatory. At times it’s “the accursed Prut”, “dirty Prut” etc. But of course it’s also the origin of much Moldavian colonisation and civilisation.
History, nature and causes of Bessarabia’s creation
Pre-1812, the Turkish view of “Bessarabia” was as a foreign description for part of the ancient Ottoman empire province of Silistria. The long coastal province of Silistria once extended from present day Bulgaria north to beyond Odessa. Odessa itself was captured by Russian forces in 1792. Successive Russian conquests then reduced Silistria province greatly, especially during the 1806-12 Russian-Turkish war. In 1810 the Russian Army assaulted the town of Silistria itself, (now in present-day Bulgaria).
The Treaty of Bucharest 1812, created a newly defined province.
The new Bessarabia to be, was the joining of eastern Moldavia and a district of Silistria between the Prut and the Dniester (Nistru). Most of this part of Silistria from the Black Sea is the Budjak, (Budjak Steppe).
The line between these two (Ottoman) administrative regions was close to an ancient set of ramparts and wall by a road (via Trajana) constructed after the Roman conquest. This ran from Leova in south-west Bessarabia (still in Moldova) to Copanca (Kopanka), just south of Bender. (Copanca is now a disputed village on the Transnistria/PMR border). From around and to the north of the administrative line, villages were mainly populated by Moldavians.
Bender / Bendery meaning “gate” was the Turkish name of this well known fortress city, (Romanian: Tighina), just within Silistria (but outside the Budjak).
Here’s an interesting 1783 quote from the Philological Society (of Great Britain):
“Bessarabia is part of the original dominions of the Turks, lying to the east of Moldavia, and abutting north upon the country of the Crim Tartars, to which rude people the inhabitants seem nearly allied. The city of Bender in this province…”
South, into the Budjak proper, the Nogai Tatars predominated until 1770 – 1812. They were vassals of the (Khanate of) Crimean Tatars.
In 1769, these Tatars as part of Ottoman empire forces of 200,000 troops in three armies, invaded “New Russia” (substantially the Ukraine). But they had met their match in the Russian army. After a series of military actions, by 1770, the Tatars, perhaps then the finest light cavalry in the world, had suffered very heavily. With some irony, their greatest losses were on the Prut, near to where Peter The Great had been fatefully surrounded in 1711. Now a spent force, the Tatars fate was sealed and the province of Silistria’s days were numbered.
In the Russian – Turkish conflicts of the 1770s, 1780s and in 1807, Catherine The Great resettled tens of thousands of Nogai Tatars into the Caucasus. An important milestone was the Treaty of Yassy, (Iaşi) 1792 in which the Ottoman empire ceded the region between the Dniester and Dnieper rivers: east of Moldavia, the Budjak, and south of Podolia. The Turks called the region Yedistan. It was part of Silistria, and contained many Nogai Tatars who were then deported. (Moldavians who had been employed or detained to build a coastal fort near Odessa were happily re-employed to help build Odessa).
Then in 1812 due to a provision in the Treaty of Bucharest, the rest of the Nogai fled - before they were expelled. An eyewitness reported:
"Their towns perished with them. On their departure, they pulled down many of their houses; those that remained untouched, melted away of themselves, being built of adobe. After a month, not a trace could be seen of the multitude of villages with which they had covered the Budjak, except that the grass was thicker and of a deeper green in the courtyards of the former Tartar 'auls.' The Tartars left all their domestic animals abandoned in their villages, most of them starving to death. When you came near an abandoned house, you heard their cries and howls, and a crowd of cats, chickens, turkeys, geese and ducks rushed out to seek aid of man, their natural protector. For a long time the Cossack and Russian soldiers lived on nothing but poultry."
In 1830, an imperial decree recognised the boundaries of this former part of Silistria in Bessarabia as a special administrative area. Leova was upgraded to the status of a city. (Much later, the Soviets attached the Budjak region itself to the Ukraine).
From a Moldavian point of view, the part of Moldavia east of the Prut was just part of Moldavia. Moldavia was a vassal of the Ottoman Empire which by legally binding treaties (1460, 1634) was to be protected from foreign invasion and foreign interference. This was the protest Moldavian boyars made to their Turkish masters. It was a position they continued to maintain after 1812.
The rationale for creating the new Bessarabia was both short-term political opportunism and administrative convenience. It’s likely the new state of Bessarabia would never have come into being but for the outcomes of the power politics of 1812.
In 1812, Russia awaited Napoleon’s expected invasion with dread and the Turkish Sultan awaited it with enthusiasm. The Russians and the Turks were engaged in extended negotiations which as ever included the Danubian principalities and a wide range of issues outside of them. In 1810 Russia had demanded both principalities. In 1811 it reduced this demand to Moldavia. The Porte countered with an offer which included Moldavian lands between the Prut and Dniester. But now the expected invasion by Napoleon changed everything.
At that point, in a daring move, the Tsar invaded Bulgaria and simply demanded the territory proposed by the Porte months before: the new Bessarabia to be. Intelligence obtained by foreign embassies suggested that this latest demand was negotiable. But the Sultan capitulated. The Treaty of Bucharest was concluded on May 28th 1812. In June, Napoleon invaded Russia and the Tsar was able to use his Danube based forces to confront this threat.
Imperial Russia’s ambitions extended well beyond the principalities but were never fulfilled. The Prut river remained one of the frontiers of the Russian empire.
The wider European context
European powers saw the principalities (Wallachia & Moldavia) as a neglected, under-developed, irreligious region misused by its Ottoman masters. European in this context included most of Russia.
The principalities contained the most fertile and productive land in Europe, often set against the most beautiful landscapes. Depopulation in Moldavia and Bessarabia was assessed at being four or five times the people who now remained. In Bessarabia the population had fallen to roughly half a million during 1812, whereas on its northern border smaller Podolia had a population of 1.3 million in 1811. After the plague of 1812 and more emigration through the semi-porous border, the census of 1817 recorded Bessarabia’s population at 483,000. In 1819, another plague spread from Moldavia into Bessarabia. The departed population needed to be replaced.
The policy of colonisation in “New Russia” matched the requirement of replacing unruly elements in what made up most of this territory – today’s Ukraine. New Russia’s other name: “The Wild Fields” wasn’t really a romantic notion. The Ukraine saw continuous small scale rebellions. Mainly, hundreds of attacks on landlords. Largely the result of the imposition of serfdom by Catherine The Great on very proud, independent Cossacks.
In 1769, Cossack leaders had made a secret pact with the Sultan to allow a massive Ottoman invasion force to travel through their territory unhindered. In 1775 Catherine the Great gave the order to attack and destroy the Zaporozhian Sich. Some Cossacks escaped to form the Danubian Sich which owed its loyalty to the Sultan. It became a thorn in the Russians’ side.
1812 marked the start of the heroic Ukrainian rebel leader, Ustyma Karmelyuka’s twenty-three year epic career. Cossacks wouldn’t gladly submit to the horrible fate in store for them as serfs. So massive social upheaval resulted. In 1816 in the region of Kiev for example, there were 25,000 peasants on the run. Many of the escaping peasants headed into the more peaceable, less regulated southern Ukraine, and sometimes into Bessarabia, adding to the banditry there.
Managing this problem placed Bessarabia in an important military context, especially while fears of an Ottoman invasion persisted.
In 1828, Cossacks of the Danubian Sich reached an agreement to disband the Sich and move it to Russia following an agreement with Tsar Nicholas. But serious social upheaval continued (in what is now the Ukraine) until serfdom was abolished in 1861.
The law and order and governance issues raised by these threats led naturally to a desire to attract the right kind of “civilised” people to “New Russia”. Colonists who could also help defend it as well as its values in the future.
European powers agreed with this view while strongly disliking Imperial Russia’s authoritarian approach. They mainly accepted that some colonisation of former Dacia was necessary. The Austrian empire had learned lessons from applying colonisation within its own territories: some settlers were better than others. The purpose of colonisation was to develop lands agriculturally, develop industry where appropriate and increase trade. A driving aim was to increase taxation by increasing wealth creation. Capable German agricultural settlers were highly sought after. Russian state officials observed well and were great learners. And they believed that by bringing in capable colonists, local people would copy their productive methods.
“New Russia” needed to replace the Tatars it had expelled and resettled. These included the Crimean Tatars and their vassals, the Nogai Tatars in the Budjak. In centuries before, these peoples had invaded Muscovy. They represented part of the nomadic peoples who were both agents of the Ottoman empire and unruly elements who would not submit to a settled, well ordered, law abiding existence.
As slave traders, the Nogai would abduct people. With reference to this and their forced resettlement, bizarrely in the Caucasus were found in the 1920s “Romanian villages there where the peasants… talk just as they do in Bessarabia” - Charles Upson Clark. Moldavians inhabited higher ground in the Budjak where they probably had to defend themselves.
Russia saw itself as a European power. So much so that many of its officials were western European. That included most of its generals. Additionally until the 1830s, alongside other western powers, notably Austria, Russia afforded some foreigners its protection in the principalities from the local judiciary, and immunity from taxes. (Called suditi meaning foreign subjects). These western European officials and associates saw Russia as conducting a civilising mission. Removing the unchristian, pernicious, barbaric influence of the Ottoman empire in the Danubian principalities and elsewhere.
Russia’s control of the principalities would provide it with increased control over the Black Sea, further its trading opportunities through the Danube Delta, and provide the first steps towards access to the Mediterranean. But how would Russia manage Wallachia and Moldavia provinces?
The Russians themselves regarded the local boyars as being by nature most possibly treacherous. This was something more than their submitting to Phanariot influence and being too closely connected to the Ottoman empire. Again we have to look back to the fateful events surrounding Peter The Great’s entanglement in the Prut marshes. The great Tsar had been promised important assistance from the prince of Wallachia who then provided no support. The betrayal cost Russia dearly and they saw it as having set back the course of Russia’s civilising efforts for generations. As for ordinary Moldavians, they were just seen as being currently lazy and ineffective.
Russians usually looked more gladly on their fellow Slavs, the Bulgarians and Serbs. With their help, ethnic Romanians could be conquered, controlled and set on the right path…
As the nineteenth century progressed, western European powers became increasingly keen to curtail Russia’s ambitions as part of the well known “balance of power” political orthodoxy. In Britain and France, the Austrian empire (Austro-Hungarian empire from 1867) was already seen as powerful enough. So as part of the balance, more and more, Britain and France wanted to see the Danubian principalities assert their independence.
Wallachia and Moldavia were important trading partners with western Europe, supplying grain and importing manufactured goods; a trade with much scope for development.
In western Europe there was an increasing affection for these mainly ethnic Romanian people and a desire to see these peoples uplift themselves through their own efforts. To see them improve their economic and social conditions as they asserted their own identity and independence…
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Main Recommended Sources
Nearly all content above is available in/from multiple sources.
Best internet links provided where known, available and easily accessible without restriction – poor quality, non pdf versions can also be found - it always pays to look around. Only download when it’s clear what you are downloading…
I would like to thank the people and organisations that have made such valuable information freely available.
The following list of sources is not exhaustive.
Wikipedia
Google Books (including some of the following)
The Moldovans: Romania, Russia, and the Politics of Culture by Charles King, 2000
Moldavian – Russian Political Relations in Recent History by Davide Zaffi, 2002
http://www.csseo.org/Papers/MoldovaDZ.pdf
Russia On The Danube: Imperial Expansion And Political Reform In Moldavia and Wallachia, 1812-1834 by Victor Taki
www.etd.ceu.hu/2007/hphtav01.pdf
Russian and Romanian competing visions of Bessarabia in the second half of the 19th and early 20th century by Cusco
http://www.etd.ceu.hu/2008/hphcua01.pdf
Attitude of local Romanian population of Bessarabia towards the Russian authorities and…“reactive identity” by Cusco
http://www.istorie.ugal.ro/anale/1/106%20CUSCO.pdf
Preliminaries of Romanian-Finnish relations before 1914 by Silviu Miloiu
http://arsbn.ro/user/image/the-preliminaries-of-the-romanian-finnish-relations.pdf
Considerations concerning the functionality of Bessarabia’s provisional administration…1812 – 1816 by Sergiu Cornea.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/40424800/ANALE-2008
Modern Byzantine Law in the judicial practice of Bessarabia (1812 – 1917) by Anton Rudokvas & Andrej Novikov
http://www.dirittoestoria.it/8/Note&Rassegne/Rudokvas-Novikov-Judicial-practice-Bessarabia.htm
Russia and the Formation of the Romanian National State, 1821-1878 by Barbara Jelavich
Archival Sources for Genealogy of Jewish Colonists in 19th C. Southern Russia by Dimitry Feldman, 1999.
http://www.shtetlinks.jewishgen.org/Colonies_of_Ukraine/archival_sources_for_the_genealo.htm
The Unification of The Romanian Lands, University of Washington
http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/nistor/nistor.html
The present state of Turkey…together with the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia by Thomas Thornton, 1807
http://www.archive.org/details/presentstateoftu00thor
Travels Through…Bessarabia, Moldavia, Wallachia… by Pierce Balthasar Campenhausen (Freiherr von), 1808
Campaigns of the armies of France, in Prussia, Saxony, and Poland, Volumes 3-4 by Jacques Peuchet, 1808.
Travels Through Some Parts of Germany, Poland, Moldavia & Turkey by Adam Neale M.D., 1818
http://www.archive.org/stream/travelsthroughs01nealgoog/travelsthroughs01nealgoog_djvu.txt
Journey from Moscow to Constantinople: in the years 1817,1818 by William MacMichael M.D. F.R.S, 1819
A Steam Voyage Down The Danube: with sketches of Hungary, Wallachia, Servia, Turkey by Michael J. Quin, 1836
Travels In The Western Caucasus Vol. II by Edmund Spencer, 1836
http://www.archive.org/details/travelsinwester01spengoog
Travels In The Three Great Empires of Austria, Russia & Turkey by C.B. Elliott M.A., F.RS, 1838
http://www.archive.org/details/travelsinthreegr02elliiala
Penny cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, Volumes 3-4, 1835
Commerce of the Ports of New Russia, Moldavia, Wallachia, report to the Russian Government, 1835 by J. Hagemeister
Travels in the steppes of the Caspian Sea: the Crimea, the Caucasus by Xavier & Adèle Hommaire de Hell, 1847
Turkey, Russia, The Black Sea by Captain Edmund Spencer, 1854
www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1854moldavia.html
Prisoner of Russia: Alexander Pushkin and the political uses of nationalism by Iurii Druzhnikov
Memories of my Boyhood (Childhood Memories) by Ion Creangă, 1888.
http://www.tkinter.smig.net/Romania/Creanga/Foreword.htm
Memoirs of A Russian Governor by Prince Urusov, 1908
http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/urussov/u_mrg000.shtml
More Corn For Bessarabia: Russian Experience, 1910 – 1917 by Louis Guy Michael
British Cabinet Papers 1918 from National Archive
Bessarabia: Russia and Roumania on the Black Sea by Charles Upson Clark, 1927
depts.washington.edu/cartah/text.../clark/meta_pag.shtml
Prince Michael Vorontsov: Viceroy to the Tsar by Anthony Laurens Hamilton Rhinelander, 1990
From grand duchy to modern state: a political history of Finland since 1809 by Jussila, Hentila, Nevakivi
Southeastern Europe under Ottoman rule, 1354 – 1804 by Peter F. Sugar, 1977
Odessa, A History 1794 – 1914 by Patricia Herlihy, 1991
A history of the gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia by David M. Crowe, 1996
Biosketches Of Scientists…in the Evolution of Tsarist Russia’s Anti-plague system by Center For Non Proliferation Studies
cns.miis.edu/antiplague/pdfs/list.pdf
Germans in Bessarabia, around the Black Sea and the Volga Region, Die Gerufenen
http://www.ausstellung-diegerufenen.de/index.php?id=44&L=2
Germans In Bessarabia: Historical Background and Present Day Relations by Ute Schmidt
http://www.boeckler.de/pdf/seer_2008_3_schmidt.pdf
Unofficial Website of the President of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic
http://presidentpmr.org/category/73.html