'Da.s.s ich die schonste Heimath hab'

In deutschen Gau'n besessen, Das macht, da.s.s ich sie bis zum Grab Nun nimmer kann vergessen.'

III.

But her Majesty, who is a Protestant, is not the only lady now living who has made her mark in Roumanian history. There is another of whom we are sure our readers will be glad to hear something, for she is an accomplished Englishwoman, and it is very questionable whether, after all, the Roumanians do not owe their independence as much to her energy and devotion as to any other cause; we mean Madame Rosetti, the wife of the Home Secretary.[195] It was mentioned in our historical summary that the patriots of 1848 made their escape to France in that year, and that they returned after the Crimean war in 1856. That is a long story told in a, couple of sentences, and but for Madame Rosetti it is probable they would never have escaped, but would have languished and died in a Turkish prison in Bosnia, whilst Roumania might have been at this day a Turkish pashalik or a Russian province. The fact is that all the leaders of the revolution, fifteen in number, were arrested and conveyed on board a Turkish man-of-war lying in the Danube; and Madame Rosetti, whose heroic adventures have formed the theme of a work by Michelet,[196] helped them to escape from their captors. As we have already said, she is an Englishwoman, whose maiden name was Grant, and she had only been married about a year when the revolution broke out.

Her first child was born a day or two before her husband and his comrades were arrested, but she at once left her bed, and, taking her infant in her arms, prepared to follow them. First she managed to obtain an interview with the patriots on board the Turkish vessel to which they had been conveyed, and there plans were formed which she skilfully and courageously executed. Disguising herself as a peasant, and carrying her child, she followed them up the Danube to Orsova, communicating with her friends from time to time by signals. At Orsova the prisoners were landed, and whilst they were on sh.o.r.e she succeeded in making their guards intoxicated, and, with the connivance of the authorities, prepared suitable conveyances, in which the patriots made their escape.

First they pa.s.sed through Servia, and reaching Vienna in safety they entered that city the day after the bombardment, and subsequently they made their way through Germany, accompanied by their deliverer, and found a hospitable asylum in Paris. Since her return Madame Rosetti has been as valuable a coadjutor to her husband in his prosperity as she was in his adversity, and she is also a useful and willing adviser to any of her countrymen who, visiting Roumania, may stand in need of her a.s.sistance.

[Footnote 195: When the above lines were penned, M. Rosetti was the Home Secretary, although he has since resigned. It was as such that we knew him, and we therefore prefer to leave our account, of him and his amiable lady as it was originally written.]

[Footnote 196: _Legendes demoeratiques du Nord_, Madame Rosetti, p. 279 _et seq._]

IV.

Her husband, his Excellency Constantin A. Rosetti, has also reaped the reward of his devotion to his country's welfare. He is of an old boyard family of Italian origin, and in his early youth he was not only a soldier in the national army, but his pen also gained for him a considerable reputation, for he composed and published many interesting Roumanian poems. At the age of about thirty-two years he married the English lady to whom he owes so much, and of his adventures in 1848 we have already twice spoken. Before he permanently took up his residence in Paris after his escape, we believe he spent some time in Constantinople. In Paris he was the companion of Michelet, Quinet, and other leading writers, and with them and his countrymen the brothers Bratiano and Golesco lie managed by his patriotic publications to keep the lamp of liberty burning in his own country. Here, too, he is said to have enjoyed the support of our own distinguished statesman, William Ewart Gladstone, who was subsequently made a Roumanian citizen by an Act of the legislature about the year 1861, and whom the Roumanians still regard with feelings of great respect and admiration. On the return of M. Rosetti to Roumania after the Crimean war he founded the 'Roma.n.a.l' a daily paper which still occupies a high position amongst the journals of the capital, and which remains his property.[197] He took a conspicuous part in the union of the Princ.i.p.alities under Prince Couza, and supported that prince whilst his proceedings were const.i.tutional, but he was one of the most active agents in his deposition, and the only serious objection that has been taken to his acts and those of his colleagues on that occasion is that he employed the army to bring about the prince's overthrow. To this matter, however, we have already referred in our historical summary. In 1866 he was one of the provisional government, and was at first by no means favourably disposed towards the present king, who was, we believe, recommended to the Roumanians by the Emperor Napoleon III. In later times, however, he became one of his Majesty's most faithful advisers.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Constantin A. Rosetti]

M. Rosetti is about sixty-seven years of age, full of life and energy.

His career of hardship has somewhat bowed his physical frame, but it has in no way interfered with his cheerful and kindly disposition. In appearance he is an Italian, has very prominent but mild eyes, and a most thoughtful, somewhat careworn countenance. He is _vif_, hot and excitable, and not unfrequently lets his voice be heard if anything is going wrong in public affairs, and something is very often going wrong in Roumania. He speaks Roumanian, French, and German, and can write English (of which he is fond of interjecting an expressive word now and then when he is speaking in French) fairly well. Unfortunately for scandal-mongers, of whom there are a good many in the capital and elsewhere, M. Rosetti lives with great simplicity on the premises of the 'Romanul,' and upon, the profits of his paper and his salary; so they are unable to charge him with peculation, which they would certainly do if he gave them the slightest justification. He is a Radical, and an uncompromising enemy of _coups d'etat_, and of despotism or unconst.i.tutional proceedings in any form, a man of unflinching honesty and the leader of political thought in his country. In fact, he is a patriot, and his countrymen know and appreciate the fact.

They usually couple his name with that of M. Bratiano, who is President of the Council and Minister of Finance, and, so far as temperament is concerned, the very opposite of his colleague. M. Bratiano is a quiet, courteous gentleman, somewhat younger than M. Rosetti. His features are regular and handsome, his beard and hair iron-grey, and his voice even and melodious. He is full of pleasant humour, and has the bearing and manner of an English gentleman; but although an excellent debater, he is not a good linguist. In Roumania they say, 'Rosetti thinks and Bratiano speaks,' but Bratiano thinks as well as speaks. So completely at one are the two statesmen that many of the uninformed poorer cla.s.ses who have not seen them believe them to be one person, whom they call 'Bratiano-Rosetti,' and whilst we were in Bucarest we saw a caricature (an art in which the Roumanians take great delight) where the two statesmen were depicted as the Siamese twins.

[Ill.u.s.tration: M. BRATIANO.]

The aim and policy of M. Bratiano are well expressed in one of his despatches on the question of the Danube, which were made public by that diplomatic phenomenon M. Callimaki-Catargi. 'Our att.i.tude,' he says, 'like the whole policy of the ministry to which I belong, has always been, and ever should be, defensive, not offensive.'[198]

Amongst the other leaders of political thought in Roumania is Prince Demeter Ghika, President of the Senate, a fine burly good-natured gentleman of the old school; Prince Jon Ghika, at present the Roumanian Amba.s.sador in London, a patriot and a savant, whose sons were educated in England; M. Statesco, the Foreign Minister, a young and promising statesman; M. Stourdza, the director of the National Credit a.s.sociation; and there are doubtless many others of whom we do not like to speak without a nearer acquaintance, or better information than we possess.

One of these is M. Cogalniceanu, a deputy, who has written a good history of Roumania, was a minister under Prince Couza, and we believe the author of the celebrated Act of 1864 which created the peasant proprietary of the country.[199]

[Footnote 197: There are daily papers in Bucarest for readers of every nationality resident there, the _Roma.n.a.l, Independance Roumaine, Bukarester Tagblatt_, &c., all of which are free to say whatever they please--_and they say it!_]

[Footnote 198: Despatch, February 1, 1880.]

[Footnote 199: Of the leaders of intellectual thought and industries in Roumania we have already spoken elsewhere.]

V.

From men to measures is a natural transition in politics. Although we have endeavoured to show, and do not hesitate to repeat here, that some of the great principles laid down in the Const.i.tution of Roumania are only beginning to be carried out in practice, it is but just to add that the vigour and energy with which the party of progress has of late years developed the resources of the country is a matter of surprise and admiration even to foreigners resident there who are acquainted with our Western methods. The present _regime_ began, as we have already said, in 1875, and since that time the foreign policy of the party in power first liberated the nation from the last vestige of foreign despotism; then firmly established it as a European kingdom. That they occasionally make mistakes no one can deny. For example, the recent announcement in the speech from the throne, that Roumania was prepared in the present and future for every sacrifice which it might be necessary to make to ensure in all respects absolute facility of navigation of the Danube, appears to an outsider to have been an error in judgment, if the government were not prepared to hear with equanimity of the threatened departure of the amba.s.sador of a neighbouring State which had put the cap upon its head, and against whose unwarrantable pretensions the remark was directed. But it is easy to be wise after the event, and we admit that it is presumptuous for anyone to criticise hastily any matter that is being tossed about on the troubled sea of Oriental politics.

Living as we do on a seagirt isle which is practically unapproachable to an external foe, and having for centuries enjoyed the blessings of freedom, we can have no conception of the difficult cards which Roumanian statesmen have to play in the political game in which they are often compelled, much against their desire, to partic.i.p.ate. From time to time they hear great international theories propounded for the benefit of their powerful neighbours, to which they are compelled to close their ears, however nearly those principles may apply to their own condition.

Suppose, for example, some European Power claims new territory on the ground of geographical position. Why, ask the Roumanians, should we be hemmed in as we are on every side? Why should not the plains on both sides of the Danube guarded by the Balkans and the Carpathians const.i.tute a strong realm, one and indivisible, with the great river flowing as an artery through its centre? The answer is, Russia! If an v of the Great Powers had insisted upon such a readjustment in the East, she would have opposed it, for is not Bulgaria her last stepping-stone to Constantinople? 'Skobeleff the First, King of Bulgaria' would suit her aims far better. This reminds one of 'Panslavism.' Who will deny the right of adjacent branches of the same race to live under one government? Admitted; but then why not also Panroumanism? In that case considerable portions of Austro-Hungary, Bessarabia, Bulgaria, Servia, would have to be added to the present dominions of King Charles of Roumania; for there are almost as many Roumanians in those countries as there are within the present boundaries of the kingdom.[200]

But if Roumanian statesmen are permitted to enjoy their _reflections_ on these interesting political topics, they know that it would be unsafe to publish them, for, as we have seen, if they venture even, to cry too loudly 'Roumania for the Roumanians,' some hectoring neighbour instantly takes the alarm and threatens to withdraw its amba.s.sador; and in case of a fracas between any two such neighbouring States, even the rights which she at present enjoys would hardly be respected. Her policy is therefore tolerably well defined, and it was ably set forth in the royal speech which contained that dangerous reference to Austrian pretensions. Peace is requisite for her, in order that her Parliament may occupy itself in developing the riches of the soil and the economic interests of the country; but the organisation of a strong defensive army is equally necessary to protect those interests from grasping and despotic States in her vicinity, and because, 'by the development of all the forces of the nation, Roumania will become an element of order, peace, and progress in Eastern Europe.' In fact, she must make herself, by peaceful measures, what Michael the Brave succeeded for a very short time, and from motives of personal ambition, in making her by the sword in his day, the arbiter of surrounding nations, the Belgium of the East, which no aggressive despot would dare to a.s.sail; and she must become sufficiently strong to resist not only inimical but friendly foreign occupations, which have such a demoralising effect upon her people.

On this undertaking her Government has already for some years past been embarked. It has secured railway property for the State which was in the hands of aliens, has begun to improve watercourses, created national credit inst.i.tutions, reduced the interest upon the national debt, increased the value of Roumanian securities, and has generally followed, as it still pursues, the ways of 'peace, retrenchment, and reform.'[201]

We have no wish to patronise Roumania even in words, for her best friend is he who tells her to depend entirely on her own resources and develop those herself; to carve her fortunes, and to shape her ends. But when we look upon her sufferings, reflecting how for ages she has lain beneath the claws of savage enemies, quailed under despots who sucked the lifeblood of the nation, and then compare her const.i.tutional democracy with ours--nay, if alone from a material point of view we weigh the interest we have in her prosperity, we cannot fail to see that in the East is rising up a Power, in part of our creation, young and weak as yet, but full of hope and promise; and therefore, in concluding this imperfect record of her 'past and present,' we heartily commend her future to the earnest watchfulness of every English friend of liberty.

[Footnote 200: According to some, there are more.]

[Footnote 201: Although we have endeavoured as much as possible to avoid burdening this popular treatise with statistics, one set of figures which have been kindly supplied to us by friends at Bucarest and in London is so significant, and indeed of such general interest, that we must claim the reader's indulgence for giving it _in extenso_. It comprises the values of Russian, Turkish, and Roumanian securities from 1870 to 1880, which are as follows:--

TURKISH.

RUSSIAN. General Five per Cent. ROUMANIAN.

Six per Cents. Debt. Oppenheim.

1870 83-1/2 to 94-1/2 45 to 51 75 to 98 1871 88 " 97 44-1/2 " 52-1/2 86 " 96-1/2 1872 95 " 100 46-1/2 " 55 91 " 104 1873 96 " 100-1/2 45 " 47 98 " 104 1874 97 " 103 45 " 46-1/2 98 " 108 1875 95 " 104-1/2 23 " 45 100 " 109 1876 74 " 100-1/2 11-1/2 " 23 74 " 106 1877* 71 " 93 6-1/2 " 11-1/2 58 " 91 1878* 74 " 91 8-1/2 " 12 87 " 105 1879 84 " 93 10-1/2 " 12 93 " 110 1880 85 " 96 10 " 12-1/2 102 " 112

And in 1881 the prices of the Oppenheim loan ranged from 105 to 116.

From these eloquent figures it will be seen that whilst Russia has been stationary, and Turkey has fallen 75 per cent, the condition and security of Roumania has risen, roughly speaking, 25 per cent, in the eslimation of the financial world during the last ten years. The two years marked with an asterisk were years of war.]

APPENDICES.

APPENDIX I.

_Table of Movements and Settlements of various Nationalities and Tribes in the Provinces bordering on the Lower Danube between the Getic period and about the end of the Thirteenth Century, A.D., compiled by the Author, and corrected from the Ancient Historians (Tacitus, Dion Ca.s.sius, Eutropius) and the works of Gibbon, Smith, Lesage, Engel, Lauriani, Neigebaur, Henke, Wilkinson, Merivale, Freeman, Dierauer, Roesler, Pic, and others._

+--------------+--------------------------------------------+------------------+ | | _APPROXIMATE DATES OF_ | | |_NATIONALITY +-----------+-----------+----------+---------+ | |or TRIBE, with|_First | |_By whom |_Final | _Remarks_ | |supposed |appearance |_Term of |and when |Disappea-| | |Subdivisions_ |in Danubian|Domination_|Conquered_|rance_ | | | |Provinces_ | | | | | +--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+------------------+ | | | | | |Believed to be of | |GETae--Getae | 335 B.C. | ? | ? | ? |Thracian origin; | |and _Dacians_ | | | | |not clearly | | | | | | |traceable. | +--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+------------------+ | | | | | |The Dacians rose | | |(Successors| | | |against the Romans| | |of or | |Romans | |under Ant. Pius | | DACIANS |contempo- | ? B.C. to |(Trajan), | See |and at other | | |rary with | A.D. 106 |A.D. 106 | Remarks |times, but were | | |Getae) | | | |probably fused | | | | | | |with the Romans | | | | | | |and the barbarians| | | | | | |who followed them.| +--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+------------------+ | | | | | |A considerable | | | | | | |proportion of the | | | | |Withdrew | |Roman and Daco- | | ROMANS |1st century|106 A.D. to|before the| ? |Roman descendants | | |B.C. |274 A.D. |Goths | |fused with | | | | |about 274 | |succeeding tribes,| | | | |A.D. | |and their descen- | | | | | | |dants survive in | | | | | | |Roumania to-day. | +--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+------------------+ | | | | | |About 376 A.D. | | | | | | |they crossed the | | | | | | |Danube, driven | |GOTHS-- | | | | |before the Huns, | |Ostrogoths, | 250 A.D. |274 to 375 |Huns, 375 | 378 A.D.|and were allowed | |Visigoths, | |A.D. |A.D. | |to settle with | |_Gepidae_ | | | | |other tribes in | | | | | | |Msia. Sometimes | | | | | | |the Goths and Huns| | | | | | |were allied. | +--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+------------------+ |Sarmatians, | | | | |The Sarmatians | |Quadi, | | | | |fought against the| |Marcomanni | | | | |Romans at various | |invaded Dacia | |282 to 375 |Romans, | |periods, but were | |at various | |A.D. |375 A.D. | |conquered by | |times; | | | | |Valentinian, 375 | |_Sarmatians_ | | | | |A.D. | |settled. | | | | | | +--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+------------------+ | | | | | |The Huns were | | | | | | |driven eastward, | | | | | | |but returned a few| |HUNS (and |370 to 375 |375 A.D. to|Gepidae, | 460 A.D.|years afterwards, | |Alani) |A.D. |about 453 |453 A.D. | |overran Italy, and| | | | | | |are mentioned as | | | | | | |being in Dacia | | | | | | |about 564 A.D. | +--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+------------------+ | |See above |453 to |Lombards | | | | GEPIDae |(Goths) |550-564 |and Avari,| 568 A.D.| | | | |A.D. |550 A.D. | | | +--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+------------------+ | | | | | |The Lombards, | | | | | | |allied to the | | | | | | |Avari, overran a | | | | | | |great part of | | LOMBARDS | 550 A.D. | 561 to ? |Joined the| |Dacia and | | | | |Byzantines| |Pannonia, and, | | | | | | |entering the army | | | | | | |of Justinian, left| | | | | | |their possessions | | | | | | |to the Avari. | +--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+------------------+ | | | |Dispersed.| |The Avari were | | | |564 to |Part anni-|End |alternately | | AVARI | 550 A.D. |616-640 |hilated by|seventh |masters and | | | |(intermit- |Heraclius |century |va.s.sals of other | | | |tently) |(610-640) | |tribes. | +--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+------------------+ | | | | | |The Bulgari were | | | | | | |of Scythian | | | |634 (with | | |origin, and many | | | |Slaves) |Byzantines| |tribes have been | | BULGARI |493 to 499 |679 (alone)|(Basilius)|See |included in them | | |A.D. |to |1014-1019 |Remarks |by different | | | |1014-1019 | | |authors. Amongst | | | | | | |them, the | | | | | | |Wallachs, Croats, | | | | | | |Moravians | | | | | | |(Lesage). | +--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+------------------+ | | | | | |The Slaves settled| | | | | | |in detachments in | | | | | | |various parts, | | | | | | |from the Euxine to| | | | | | |the Adriatic Sea, | | SLAVES |493 to 527 |See Remarks|See | |and, allied with | | | | |Remarks | |one or more | | | | | | |tribes, fought the| | | | | | |Byzantines. Many | | | | | | |merged into the | | | | | | |general | | | | | | |population. | +--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+------------------+ | | | | | |For some time | | | | | | |Dacia was | |BYZANTINE | | 1014 to ? | | |nominally | |EMPIRE | | | | |incorporated with | | | | | | |the Empire. | +--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+------------------+ | | | |Stephen | | | |UNGRI-- | |Powerful in|(about | |Transylvania was | |Hungarians or |824 to 839 |Dacia Tra- |997) foun-| |annexed to Hungary| |Magyars |A.D. |jana tenth |ded Hunga-| |either 1002 or | | | |century |rian King-| |1070 A.D. | | | | |dom | | | +--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+------------------+ | | | | |Disappea-|The Patzinakitai, | |PATZINAKITAI |End of |Powerful | |red in |settled chiefly in| |(probably |ninth |tenth |Came under|Hungary |the Carpathians, | |mixed race) |century |century |k.u.mani &c.|about |are a.s.sociated | | | | | |1275 |with Wallachs and | | | | | | |k.u.mani as va.s.sals.| +--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+------------------+ | | | | | |The k.u.mani | |k.u.mANI |1047 A.D. |Powerful |Settled | |dominated over and| |(and |(with |1083 to |and | |absorbed other | |Chazars) |Chazars) |1220 |baptised | |tribes on the | | | | |1220 A.D. | |Carpathians. | +--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+------------------+ | | | | | |The Wallachs were | | | | | | |a race of | |WALLACHO- | | | | |shepherds; | |BULGARIAN | | | | |considered by some| |EMPIRE-- |Wallachs, |1199 to |Tartars, | |an independent | |(Wallachs, |976-1037 |1246-1285 |about | |tribe (see above | |called also | | |1246-1285 | |remarks on | |Romani, | | | | |Bulgari), by | |Blachi, &c.) | | | | |others descendants| | | | | | |of the Daco-Roman | | | | | | |colonists. | +--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+------------------+ | | | | | |The King of | | | | | | |Hungary, as | | | | | | |suzerain of | |TEUTONIC | |Teut. Knts.| | |Transylvania and | |KNIGHTS and | |1200 to | | |part of | |KNIGHTS OF ST.| |1223; Knts.| | |Wallachia, gave | |JOHN | |St. John | | |the government of | | | |1249 to ? | | |certain districts | | | | | | |to the Teutonic | | | | | | |Knights in 1200, | | | | | | |but withdrew it in| | | | | | |1223 A.D. | +--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+------------------+ | | |Made in- | | | | | | |roads into | | | | | | |'Moldavia' | | | | | | |and Walla- |Retired | |At the same time | |TARTARS (or |About 1240 |chia 13th |northward | |there were smaller| |Mongols) | |century. |to Russia.| |voivodeships, | | | |Ruled in |Founded | |banates, and | | | |Moldavia |the Tartar| |khanates north of | | | |13th and |Dynasty. | |the Danube. | | | |first half | | | | | | |of 14th | | | | | | |century. | | | | +--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------+------------------+

APPENDIX II.

THE 'CAPITULATIONS.'

The original 'Capitulation' of Mircea I. of Wallachia to the Sultan Bajazid I. at Nicopolis, 1393 A.D., is contained in a 'Hatthoumaioun' of the latter, said to have been preserved in Constantinople, and there seen by a Roumanian called Kitzorano, who was attached to the Wallachian Emba.s.sy, and who took a copy of it (along with others), which he sent to the Great Ban Takanitza Vacaresco. The Greek historian, Dionysius Photino, also saw it at the Porte, and published a copy of it in his 'History of Dacia,' vol. ii. cap. v. p.

369, a work which the reader will find in the British Museum. This runs as follows:--

'We order, in our great condescension, that the country of Wallachia, which has lately submitted to our invincible arms, shall be governed by its own laws, and that the Voivode shall have the power of making war and peace with his neighbours and of life and death over his subjects.

All Christians belonging to the countries subject to our rule who would emigrate to Wallachia shall be allowed the free exercise of their religion. All Wallachians visiting our empire on business shall be allowed to do so without interference in the same or in their garments.

The Christian voivodes to be elected by the metropolitan and the boyards. In return for our great condescension in having accepted this rayah (the Voivode of Wallachia) amongst the other subjects of our empire, he will be bound to pay into our treasury, every year, the sum of 6,000 red piastres of the country.'

Translations of this capitulation are to be found in the French histories of Roumania, but they are not always trustworthy; for example, Beaure and Math.o.r.el (Appendix, p. 203) profess to give a verbatim copy, in which the last article declares that the Sultan promises never to deliver a firman to a Wallachian subject, nor to summon him to _Constantinople_. A moment's reflection would have shown the inaccuracy of this statement, for Constantinople was at that time still the capital of the Eastern Empire, and only fell into the Ottoman power in 1453. The stipulation in question is the last in the treaty with Vlad (V.?), 1460.

The 'Capitulation' of Bogdan of Moldavia to Selim I., 1513, was in some respects more favourable to the va.s.sal State. Amongst other stipulations, it provided for the residence in Constantinople of a Moldavian envoy, and permitted a Christian church to be erected there.

The annual tribute was, however, raised and consisted of 11,000 piastres, forty falcons, and forty mares in foal, 'all by way of present.' In both countries, after each war or insurrection fresh stipulations, including a constantly increasing tribute, were added.