Information AboutPhanariotes |
|
The period is not to be understood as marking the introduction into the Principalities of the Greek element, which had already established itself firmly in both provinces, to both of which Greek Princes had been appointed before the 18th Century . But whereas the Greek families of earlier introduction gradually became merged in their country of adoption, the later immigrants usually retained their separate Ethnicity . STARTING POINT While most sources would agree to 1711 being the moment where the gradual erosion of the traditional institutions had reached its ultimate stage, characteristics usually ascribed to the Phanariote era had made themselves felt long before it. The Ottoman Overlord had been enforcing its choice for hospodars throughout previous centuries (as far back as the 15th ), and foreign - usually Greek or Levant ine - Boyars had been competing with the local ones since the late 1500s . Also, Princes since Dumitraşcu Cantacuzino in Moldavia and Gheorghe Duca , a Prince of Greek origin, in Wallachia (both in 1673 ) had been forced to surrender all of their families, and not just selected members, as Hostage s in Istanbul. The clear change in policy was determined by the rise of Imperial Russia 's power under Peter The Great . Dissidence within the two Principalities became more dangerous for the Turks, who were now confronted with the attraction exercised on the population by the protection offered to them by a fellow Eastern Orthodox Empire. This became obvious with Mihai Racoviţă 's second rule in Moldavia, when the Prince plotted with Peter to have Ottoman rule removed. Incidentally, his replacement, Nicholas Mavrocordato , was also the first official Phanariote in his second reign in Moldavia (he was also to replace Ştefan Cantacuzino in Wallachia, as the first Phanariote ruler in that country). A crucial moment in the policy change was the Russo-Turkish War of 1710 - 1713 , when Dimitrie Cantemir sided with Russia and agreed to a Russian tutelage over his country. After Russia suffered a major defeat and Cantemir went into Exile , the Ottomans took charge of the succession to the throne of Moldavia, soon followed by similar measures in Wallachia. Although rarerly occurring, reigns of local Princes were not excluded on principle - for example those of the Callimachi family - nor were rules of Phanariote tradition after 1821 - an obvious one being that of Grigore IV Ghica . CHARACTERISTICS Negative perception The person raised to the princely dignity was usually the chief Dragoman of the Sublime Porte , and was consequently well versed in contemporary politics and the statecraft of the Ottoman government. The new Prince, who was compelled to purchase his elevation with a heavy Bribe (not a new requirement in itself), proceeded to the country which he was selected to govern, and of the language of which he was in nearly every case totally ignorant, accompanied by a Retinue of hangers-on and Creditors . He and his acolytes counted on recouping themselves in as short a time as possible for their initial outlay and in laying by a sufficiency to live on after the termination of the Princes' brief authority. When, owing to the numerous cases of treachery among the Princes, the choice became limited to a few families, the plan was hit upon of frequently shifting the Prince from one province to the other: the Prince of Wallachia, the richer of the two Principalities, was always ready to pay certain sums in order to avert his transfer to even paid part of Nicholas Mavrocordato's debt. In order to make the reigns lucrative while raising funds that would satisfy the needs of the Porte (increased during the Stagnation Of The Ottoman Empire ), Princes channelled their energies into spoliation, and the inhabitants, liable to every species of Tax which the ingenuity of their Greek rulers could devise, were reduced to the last stage of destitution. However, the most hated taxes identified with the Phanariotes were of relevant tradition (such as the ''văcărit'', first imposed by Iancu Sasul in the 1580s ). Positive aspects The malignant effects of many Phanariote rules should be contrasted with the achievements and projects of others, such as Alexander Ypsilanti 's. Ypsilanti tried to reform the legislation and impose Salaries for administrative offices - in an effort to halt the depletion of funds through the sums the administrators, local and Greek alike, were using for their own maintenance (it had by then become more profitable to hold office than to own land). His '' Pravilniceasca Condică '', a rather modern Legal Code , met stiff boyar resistance. In fact, the focus of such rules was many times the improvement of state structures against Conservative wishes. After the , they mostly demanded Russian supervision. Also, while they make reference to cases of Corruption and misrule, the petitions show their conservative intentions. The boyars tend to refer to specific, but fictional, '' Capitulations '' that either of the Principalities would have signed with the Ottomans - demanding that the rights guaranteed through them be restored. They also view with suspicion reform attempts on the side of Princes, claiming these were not legitimate - in alternative proposals (usually taking the form of Constitutional projects), the boyars express a wish for the establishment of an Aristocratic Republic . ENDING AND LEGACY The active part taken by the Greek Princes in revolts after 1820 (see Greek War Of Independence ), together with the chaos provoked by Philikí Etaireía occupation in Moldavia and Tudor Vladimirescu 's Wallachian Uprising , led to the disappearance of promotions from within the Phanar community. , and the subsequent period of Russian influence. Condemnation of the Phanariotes is a particular focus of ), as well as agents of brutal and opportunistic change (as illustrated by Mihai Eminescu 's '' Scrisoarea A III-a ''). LEADING PHANARIOTE FAMILIES REFERENCES
SEE ALSO |
|
|