Land, Lordship, and the Making of Wallachia

The following ad supports maintaining our C.E.E.O.L. service

Land, lordship and the making of Wallachia

«Land, lordship and the making of Wallachia»

by Marian Coman

Source:Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana (Петербургские славянские и балканские исследования),issue: 1(11) / 2012, pages: 7994, on www.ceeol.com.

http://www.ceeol.com

792012. № 1 (11). Январь—Июнь

Com

mentarii

M. Coman

LAND, LORDSHIP, AND THE MAKING OF WALLACHIA

The new state was conceived based on an original idea, rooted only in the local tradition. This is an example of spontaneous state making. The ruler reigned over «the entire Wallachian land» and, for the fi rst time in the East, emerged a national idea similar to the Western territorial one, on which the modern states are founded [...] Thus, on the dawn of modernity, Wallachians came out with the idea of the modern state1.

One can hardly fi nd a clearer and more concise account of the making of medieval Walla-chia than the above cited description written by Nicolae Iorga, undoubtedly, the most authorita-tive fi gure in Romanian historical studies. Iorga merged in a single, articulate narrative, three different theses, some of which had already been largely accepted in the scholarship, while others were formulated for the fi rst time: 1) the contention that the state was predominantly, if not exclusively, locally rooted, which implicitly denies any signifi cant external infl uence; 2) the claim that Wallachia was, from its very beginning, a territorial, modern state; 3) the as-sertion that early Wallachia was more similar to the Western than to the Eastern polities of the same period. These three ideas are obviously correlated, shaping what arguably could be defi ned as the «dominant paradigm» of Romanian medieval studies for almost a century. The ideological grounds of this paradigm, which played a major role in its design and its dis-semination, are not too diffi cult to grasp. The paradigm of a self-made, modern, western-like, early Wallachia was very appealing to a nationally conditioned historiography, which not only emerged simultaneously with the modern Romanian state, but also played an important role in the shaping of it2. Iorga’s account reconciles both the Romanian national pride, empha-sising that the medieval state is the outcome of an internal evolution, as well as its modern westernizing aspirations. Thus, the lasting success of this interpretative paradigm is mainly

1 Iorga N. Sârbi, bulgari şi români în Peninsula Balcanică // Studii asupra Evului Mediu românesc / Ed. Şerban Papacostea. Bucureşti, 1984. P. 61.

2 For an English introduction into Romanian historiography see: Boia L. History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness. Budapest, 2001.

ББК 63.3(0)4 Рум; УДК 94(498)

80 Петербургские славянские и балканские исследования

Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana

due to its ideological seductiveness, rather than to the arguments brought to its support. As this paradigm subjugated the entire historical research, almost every newly published study endorsed it3. Nevertheless, what seemed to be a continuous multiplication of arguments was essentially an illusion, since the new studies were from the very beginning placed within the same paradigm, building on a circular line of reasoning.

My article aims to challenge the dominant paradigm on a specifi c, apparently minor, point: the claim that the making of Wallachia is the result of an internal evolution that stands out as a distinctive case of state formation in late medieval Central and Eastern Europe. My contention is that the contrast between medieval Wallachia and its non-Romanian neighbours, differ-ence emphasised by the analogies with Western European states of that period, was founded more on historians’ preconceptions than on a close analysis of the primary sources. In order to argue this point, I will structure my article into two sections. The fi rst one comprises an analysis of the analogies proposed by previous scholars between the making of Wallachia and other examples of medieval state formation. In this view, I will scrutinize both the positive comparisons, which emphasize the similarities, as well as the negative ones, which focus on the dissimilarities. The second part of the article is a brief epilogue, where I intend to suggest some new approaches on the topic, from a more meaningful comparative viewpoint, by taking into account recent scholarship on late medieval state building.

The making of Wallachia as primary state formationA scholar browsing through the Romanian historical literature would be astounded by

the over-recurring references to the autochthonous origins of the medieval states, not only of Wallachia and Moldavia, but also of Transylvania4. Thus, the medieval state is generally viewed as the outcome of a local evolution, a gradual growth from smaller to bigger poli-ties, bearing almost no infl uence from the neighbouring kingdoms and empires. An excellent example of this narrative of state formation is Alexandru Buzescu’s account from his book on the origins and development of lordship in Romania, published in 19435. Right from the introduction Buzescu asserts emphatically: «the [Wallachian] lordship has exclusively Roma-nian origins, function and destiny». Accordingly, Buzescu assumes that the foundations of the medieval state had been set on the smaller polities, named cnezate and voievodate, which, in turn, are considered to have an autochthonous, Romanian, origin, despite their Slavic name6. The next step in the evolution towards the medieval state had been the unifi cation of these

3 There is, however, a signifi cant difference between historians that explicitly supported this interpretative paradigm and those who, reluctant to reconsider the broader image, preferred to engage in narrowly approaches on specifi c topics. For the later approach see: Pippidi A. La originile Ţării Româneşti // Revista istorică. 2008. Vol. 19. P. 5–20; Andreescu Şt. Exarhatul. Geneza instituţiei în Ţara Românească şi Moldova // Revista istorică. 2008. Vol. 19. P. 21–27.

4 The identity of Transylvania within the medieval kingdom of Hungary is still a point of debate among Romanian scholars. Recent scholarship has split into two main interpretations, which view Transylvania either as a province having its own identity and, sometimes, its own political aspirations (see Tudor Sălăgean), or as nothing more than a region within the Hungarian kingdom (see András Kovács). Nonetheless, both these theses depart from Ştefan Pascu’s previous nationalistic interpretation, which considers medieval Transylvania a state in nuce, whose political development had been stopped by the Hungarian expansion.

5 See: Buzescu A. Domnia în Ţările Române până la 1866. Bucureşti, 1943.6 In support of the Romanian origins of these polities, Buzescu quotes Ioan Bogdan’s, Nicolae Iorga’s, George Fotino’s

and I. V. Gruia’s previous opinions, asserting that: «these polities have an original, autochthonous, Romanian character and their origins must be searched beyond the Romanian-Slavic contacts» (see: Buzescu A. Domnia... P. 22).

Access via CEEOL NL Germany

812012. № 1 (11). Январь—Июнь

Com

mentarii

M. Coman. Land, lordship and the making of Wallachia

smaller polities. Buzescu views this process as «natural», admitting only reluctantly that it might have been a violent one. According to his interpretation, the cnezate and the voievodate were forms of polities common to all the lands inhabited by Romanians. Nonetheless, the evolution towards state formation ended with two medieval polities, Moldavia and Wallachia, while in Transylvania the same process was obstructed by the Hungarian Kingdom7. At the end of his sketchy reconstruction, Buzescu acknowledges «a slight Byzantine infl uence» on the Wallachian lordship, transmitted through Bulgaria and Serbia. This design of the making of Wallachia is shared, with minor differences, both by the scholars that shaped Buzescu’s in-terpretation, such as Ioan Bogdan8, Nicolae Iorga9, Dinu C. Arion10, Constantin C. Giurescu11, as well as by those who succeeded him, such as Barbu Câmpina12, Andrei Oţetea13, Petre P. Panaitescu14, Ştefan Ştefănescu15, Radu Popa16, Dinu C. Giurescu17, Nicolae Stoicescu18,

7 The question that has bothered the Romanian scholarship — why Moldavia and Wallachia were two different states instead of one? — makes sense only if viewed from within this evolutionist paradigm. Thus, the «natural» political instinct would have been for all Romanian polities to be integrated into a single state. Accordingly, the existence of two medieval states was considered an anomaly due to some disturbing factors (see, for instance: Panaitescu P. P. De ce au fost Ţara Româneascǎ şi Moldova ţǎri separate? // Revista Fundaţiilor Regale. 1938. Vol. 5. P. 560–577).

8 See: Bogdan I. 1) Originea voevodatului la români. Bucureşti, 1902; 2) Depre cnezii români. Bucureşti, 1903.9 See: Iorga N. Histoire des roumains et de la romanité orientale. Vol. 3: Les Fondateurs d’état. Bucharest, 1937.10 See: Arion D. C. 1) Cnezii români. Bucureşti, 1938; 2) Încercare asupra domeniului eminent din Principatele Munteniei

şi Moldovei în secolele XIV–XV // Închinare lui Nicolae Iorga cu prilejul împlinirii vârstei de 60 de ani / Ed. Constantin Marinescu. Cluj, 1931. P. 12–23.

11 See: Giurescu C. C. Istoria românilor / Ed. Dinu C. Giurescu. Bucureşti, 2007.12 See: Câmpina B. Le problème de l’apparition des états féodaux roumains // Nouvelles Études d’Histoire. 1955. Vol. 1.

P. 181–207. — Although Câmpina fi ts into the same interpretative paradigm, asserting that «les états féodaux roumains ne sont que le résultat d’une evolution organique, enfi n arrivée à son terme», he essentially admits the role played by external infl uences on Romanian state formation, such as Russian, Bulgarian and Hungarian ones. Obviously, the emphasis put on the «benefi cial» Russian infl uence was mostly due to the political context of the 1950’s. According to Câmpina’s Marxist scheme, the «feudal» conditions necessary for state formation existed already from the 10th century, but, due to the Cuman, Pecheneg and Mongol invasions, the entire process had been delayed for four centuries.

13 See: Oţetea A. La formation des états féodaux roumains // Nouvelles Études d’Histoire. 1965. Vol. 3. P. 87–104. — Oţetea’s article is an overview of Romanian scholarship on medieval state formation from the 1950’s and early 1960’s. According to Oţetea, the three main ideas shared by all scholars of this period were: 1) state formation in Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania was a single process; 2) medieval states emerged as the outcome of four century gradual growth, from the 10th to the 14th century; 3) state formation was directly determined by the feudal socio-economic relationships.

14 See: Panaitescu P. P. Introducere la istoria culturii româneşti. Bucureşti, 1969. — Although Panaitescu maintained the same views on the Wallachian state formation both before and after the Second World War, he became more rigid in applying the Marxist interpretative scheme in the 1960s. Thus, one might notice the impact that the Marxist historical literature had on Panaitescu’s writings. See, for instance, the Polish collective work on the beginnings of the Polish state published in 1962 (Początky państwa Polskiego: Księga tysiąclecia. T. I–II / Red. K. Tymieniecki, G. Labuda, H. Łowmiański. Poznań, 1962), and reviewed by Panaitescu two years later in: Studii. Revista de istorie. 1964. Vol. 17. P. 177–182.

15 See: Ştefănescu Şt. 1) Ţara Românească de la Basarab I «Întemeietorul» până la Mihai Viteazul. Bucureşti, 1970; 2) Tradiţia daco-romană şi formarea statelor româneşti de sine stătătoare // Constituirea statelor feudale româneşti / Ed. Nicolae Stoicescu. Bucureşti, 1980. P. 9–24.

16 See: Popa R. 1) Les recherchés archéologiques dans le problème de la formation des états médiévaux roumains // Revue Roumain d’Histoire. 1973. Vol. 12. P. 41–59; 2) Premisele cristalizării vieţii statale româneşti // Constituirea statelor feudale româneşti. P. 25–39. — Radu Popa, who insists on the value of archaeological sources, also underlines the necessity to analyse state formation as a lengthy process, lasting for four centuries. In both articles Radu Popa defi nes state formation as a gradual evolution from simple to more complex polities.

17 See: Giurescu D. C. Ţara Românească în secolele XIV–XV. Bucureşti, 1973. 18 See: Stoicescu N. Descălecat şi întemeiere în istoria Ţării Româneşti // Revista de istorie. 1980. Vol. 33. P. 43–61. —

Stoicescu argues against the thesis of the Transylvanian initiative in the making of Wallachia (the Negru Vodă thesis), but he is nonetheless very careful to preserve the idea of the close connections between the Romanians from Transylvania and those from Wallachia. The result is a hybrid thesis according to which Wallachia emerged as the result of an internal political development, which nonetheless had been nourished by the constant demographic movements from Transylvania.



Sergiu Iosipescu19 or Şerban Papacostea20. Even those historians, such as A. D. Xenopol21 or Gheorghe Brătianu22, who credited the late tradition according to which the making of Walla-chia was initiated by the Romanian Transylvanian refugee Negru vodă, fi t into the same pattern of internal growth. Except that instead of a local, Wallachian, development, they viewed the medieval state as the outcome of a broader, Romanian, evolution. Nevertheless, from the point of view of this analysis, the difference is irrelevant, as all these scholars underplayed the role external infl uences had on the making of Wallachia. Thus, Romanian scholarship emphasises the local roots of Wallachia, viewing the medieval state as an organically developed polity. Subsequently, the infl uences exerted by the Golden Horde, by the Hungarian Kingdom, by Bulgaria, by Serbia and by the Byzantine Empire are either regarded as insignifi cant, or viewed as disruptive interferences, aiming to hinder the state building, but sometimes having the op-posite effect of accelerating the process. There are, however, several scholars who departed, although not always explicitly, from this interpretative scheme, such as Dimitrie Onciul23 or Virgil Ciocîltan24, albeit their views have remained marginal in the scholarship25.

In the anthropological literature this kind of local, organic, political development is usually labelled as «primary state formation» and it is illustrated by extremely few cases, such as those of Mesopotamia or Ancient Egypt26. Anthropologists consider all other states as «secondary» formations, directly infl uenced by the polities from the fi rst category. Thus, viewed from an anthropological perspective, the Wallachian case reveals its implausible exceptionality: a state

19 See: Iosipescu S. Românii din Carpaţii Meridionali la Dunărea de Jos de la invazia mongolă (1241–1243) până la consolidarea domniei a toată Ţara Românească. Războiul victorios purtat la 1330 împotriva cotropirii ungare // Constituirea statelor feudale româneşti. P. 41–95.

20 In his earlier contributions, Şerban Papacostea seems to support the evolutionist interpretation, although he was more interested in the geopolitical changes of the 13th and 14th centuries that facilitated the emergence of medieval Wallachia (see the monograph: Papacostea Ş. Românii în secolul al XIII-lea. Bucureşti, 1993, or the collection of articles: Papacostea Ş. Geneza statului în Evul Mediu românesc. Bucureşti, 1999). Nonetheless, in a recent contribution, Şerban Papacostea has approached the making of Wallachia from a different angle, interpreting Basarab I’s political action as a centrifugal movement within the kingdom of Hungary (see: Papacostea Ş. Prima unire românească: Voievodatul de Argeş şi Ţara Severin // Studii şi materiale de istorie medie. 2010. Vol. 28. P. 9–24). Although the two interpretations do not formally exclude each other, I believe that viewing Basarab I as a rebellious borderland baron of the Hungarian kingdom signifi cantly devalues the thesis of the internal growth.

21 See: Xenopol A. D. Istoria românilor din Dacia Traiană / Ed. I. Vlădescu. Bucureşti, 1925. Vol. 3. P. 11–35. — There is one paragraph where Xenopol seems to suggest that the Transylvanian elite that founded Wallachia had been infl uenced by the political organization of the Hungarian kingdom (see: Xenopol A. D. Istoria românilor din Dacia Traiană. Vol. 3.P. 47). Nonetheless, in the end, Xenopol chose to emphasize the ethnical communion between the Transylvanian dominant elite and the Wallachian subjects, while he left largely unexplored the idea that the feudal foundations of the new state were of Hungarian origins.

22 See: Brătianu Gh. Tradiţia istorică despre întemeierea statelor româneşti / Ed. Valeriu Râpeanu. Bucureşti, 1980.23 Dimitrie Onciul considered medieval Wallachia a successor state of the second Bulgarian Empire (see Onciul’s

writings collected by Aurelian Sacerdoţeanu in: Onciul D. Scrieri istorice. Bucureşti, 1968). Onciul’s thesis is the only clearly articulate alternative interpretation to the dominant scholarly view on Wallachia state formation, which emphasises the local political development. Probably due to this reason, his views on Wallachia as a successor state of the Bulgarian Empire have been largely dismissed by Romanian scholars.

24 Virgil Ciocîltan’s contention is that early 14th century Wallachia was part of a political «constellation» depending on the Golden Horde (see: Ciocîltan V. Mongolii şi Marea Neagră în secolele XIII–XIV. Bucureşti, 1998). Thus, through a sound argumentation, Virgil Ciocîltan substantiates an idea previously suggested by Petre P. Panaitescu, see below footnote 32.

25 On Virgil Ciocîltan’s footsteps, Matei Cazacu has recently described in positive terms the role Mongols played in the making of Wallachia (see: Cazacu M. O controversă: Thocomerius — Negru Vodă // Revista istorică. 2008. Vol. 19. P. 49–58).

26 The distinction between primary and secondary state formation, outlined for the fi rst time by Morton Fried, has become a topos of the anthropological literature on state formation (see, for instance, Barbara Price’s or Robert Carneiro’s writings). For an introduction on this topic see: Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution / Ed. by R. Cohen. Philadelphia, 1978.

832012. № 1 (11). Январь—Июнь

Com

mentarii


emerging solely as the result of internal development, owing little if anything to the Mongol, Latin (Hungarian) and Slavic-Byzantine cultural and political models placed in its vicinity. Nonetheless, despite its implausibility, this interpretation of the making of Wallachia has domi-nated the Romanian scholarship for more than a century due to its ideological versatility. The idea of a locally rooted state fi tted both the national paradigm, which emphasized the ethnical dimension of state-building, as well as the Marxist one, which underlined the repressive nature of the state. Both nationalist and Marxist scholars, no matter if they viewed the medieval state as the political articulation of a medieval nation or as a repressive structure aiming to control the means of production, favoured the idea of the internal political growth27.

Signifi cantly, both the nationalist and the Marxist theoretical frames essentially make impossible any meaningful comparative approach, since analogies serve only to illustrate the same, irreversible, historical laws28. In consequence, the few analogies used by scholars who remained within the limits of the national paradigm or of the Marxist vulgate should be viewed rather as rhetoric devices than as analytical tools. The inventory of these pseudo-comparisons is not too extensive and the following list, although incomplete, is suggestive enough to capture the rhetorical purposes of these analogies: 1) equating the relation between the Hungarian king and the Wallachian lord with the one between the French and the Eng-lish kings aimed to enhance the prestige of medieval Wallachia and to endorse the idea of its sovereignty29; 2) arguing that the Wallachian lords acknowledged only the religious and not the political authority of Byzantium on the basis of Basil I of Muscovy’s correspondence with the Constantinopolitan patriarch played a similar role, aiming to support the sovereignty thesis30; 3) describing the meeting between Nicolae Alexandru and Louis the Great using the Western feudal phrase «hommage en marche», intended to underline the balance of power existing between the Wallachian lord and the Hungarian king31. Evidently, in the absence of

27 To the Marxist historians Barbu Câmpina and Ştefan Ştefănescu, already quoted above, one might also add Henri H. Stahl, arguably the most original Marxist Romanian sociologist and historian, and Daniel Chirot, whose book on Wallachia integrates this case study into Immanuel Wallerstein’s theoretical model (see: Stahl H. H. Les anciennes communautés villageoises roumaines. Paris, 1969; Chirot D. Social Change in a Peripheral Society. New York, 1976).

28 Obviously, I did not take into consideration the analogies between Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania. Although the national discourse highlights the similarities between these three polities, this approach is not actually a comparative one, as Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania are considered to be the result of a single historical process.

29 This analogy followed two directions. The fi rst one emphasizes the Wallachian lords’ vassalage to the Hungarian kings for the Transylvanian feuds, as the English kings had been vassals to the Capetians for the overseas fi efs. Accordingly Wallachia, as England, preserved its sovereignty as it was not part of this feudal contract (for this line of reasoning see: Iosipescu S. Despre unele controverse ale istoriei medievale româneşti // Revista istorică. 1979. Vol. 32. S. 1959–1978). Nonetheless some scholars admitted that the Hungarian king claimed sovereignty over the entire Wallachia and that the Wallachian lords had to acknowledge, at least in certain circumstances, this claim. However, these moments were considered irrelevant and different analogies had been proposed to demonstrate that such an acknowledgement did not impede on Wallachia’s sovereignty; see I. C. Filitti’s comparisons with the relationships between the king of Hungary / the German Emperor; the king of Poland / the king of Bohemia. Filitti’s closing quotation from Hugo Grotius shows his conception of sovereignty as a trans-historical idea (see: Filitti I. C. Despre Negru Vodă. Bucureşti, 1924. P. 12–13). For a reinterpretation of the relations between the Hungarian kings and the Wallachian lords see: Diaconescu M. The Political Relations between Wallachia and the Hungarian Kingdom during the Reign of the Anjou Kings // Mediaevalia Transilvanica. 1998. Vol. 2. P. 5–42.

30 For this analogy see: Pop I.-A. Geneza medievala a naţiunilor moderne. Bucureşti, 1998. P. 206. In contrast to this shallow comparison, see the insightful analogy between the Russo-Byzantine and Wallacho-Byzantine ecclesiastic relationships suggested by Lydia Cotovanu: Cotovanu L. Alexis de Kiev et de toute la Russie — Hyacinthe de toute la Hongrovalachie: Deux cas parallelles? // Închinare lui Petre Ş. Năsturel la 80 de ani / Ed. Ionel Cândea, Paul Cernvodeanu şi Gheorghe Lazăr. Brăila, 2003. P. 531–554.

31 See: Iosipescu S. Contribuţii la istoria domniei principelui Radu I şi a alcătuirii teritoriale a Ţării Româneşti în secolul al XIV-lea // Studii şi Materiale de Istorie Medie. 2010. Vol. 28. P. 25–48.



the comparative framework necessary for an in-depth analysis, these rhetoric analogies had no signifi cant impact on the understanding of the medieval Wallachian state building. A second type of analogy is the insightful parallel that might have stimulated a comparative approach, but it never went beyond the initial correlation. Although considerably more suggestive and thought provoking than the rhetoric analogies, these intuitive comparisons came to a similar ending, since they also failed to materialize into fully articulate analyses. For instance, Panaitescu’s suggestion that the Argeş voievodate gained ascendancy over the other Wallachian polities due to the Mongol protection, as it was the case of Muscovy among the Russian principalities, was not taken further and even its author later abandoned this hypothesis32. Similarly, Iorga’s unde-veloped and somehow enigmatic comparisons between the early Wallachian counties and the judicaturae from Sardinia33 or his analogy of the pair states Moldavia /Wallachia and Castile/Aragon34 have not been pursued. The third type of analogy, the genuine analytic comparison, is particularly uncommon in Romanian scholarship and, in addition, it is mostly negative. Thus, it seems to be a reverse rapport between the distance from Wallachia and the nature of the analogy, as the negative comparisons come from the immediate vicinity of Wallachia as the positive ones from more distant places. Evidently, one of the reasons for discarding regional analogies was the desire to preserve unhindered the thesis of the internal growth of the state. In consequence, even the analytic and insightful analogies had the same function, meaning to endorse the domi-nant interpretative paradigm. A concise scrutiny of these analogies, both positive and negative, will illustrate how they reinforce the idea that the making of Wallachia was the outcome of the natural, locally rooted, political evolution of the Romanian society.

The analogy that had the most enduring impact on Romanian scholarship was the parallel between land (the Slavonic zemlia and the Romanian ţeară) and the Medieval Latin notion of terra. Most scholars simply used this analogy rhetorically or intuitively, without substantiating the apparent equivalence between the two notions. There are, however, two exceptions.

Always up-to-date with the latest Western scholarship, Gheorghe Brătianu seized the importance of Otto Brunner’s book, «Land und Herrschaft» 35, shortly after it was published, and applied his analytical model to the making of Wallachia. Thus, according to Brătianu, early Wallachia should be viewed as a «community of right», a terra similar to the ones ex-isting in medieval Germany36. Brătianu’s suggestion, although still viewing the building of Wallachia in terms of land rather than lordship, had the potential to shift the analysis from the territorial to the social state formation. Unfortunately, his approach was largely disregarded, although several scholars referred to Brunner following in Brătianu’s footsteps37. Moreover,

32 See: Panaitescu P. P. Mircea l’Ancien et les Tatares // Revue Historique du Sud-Est Européen. 1942. Vol. 19. P. 438–448. — In his last monograph, «Introducere la istoria culturii româneşti», Panaitescu reversed his initial theory arguing that Basarab unifi ed the Wallachian polities in a fi ght against the Mongols. For the scholarly disputes on this topic see the above quoted monograph by Virgin Ciocîltan. However, Virgil Ciocîltan’s analysis is focused on the Golden Horde and not on Wallachia, therefore the Mongol infl uence on Wallachian state formation remains a topic to be studied. The model for such an analysis could be Donald Ostrowski’s book «Muscovy and the Mongols: Cross-Cultural Infl uences on the Steppe Frontier, 1304–1589» (Cambridge, 1998).

33 See: Iorga N. Le Caractère Commun des Institutions du Sud-Est de l’Europe. Paris, 1929.34 This analogy suggested by Iorga is mentioned by Gheorghe Brǎtianu, one of his former students (see: Brǎtianu Gh.

Sfatul domnesc şi adunarea stărilor în principatele române. Bucureşti, 1995).35 Brunner O. Land und Herrschaft: Grundfragen der territorialen Verfassungsgeschichte Südostdeutschlands im

Mittelalter. Vienna, 1939.36 See: Brătianu Gh. Sfatul domnesc... P. 24–25.37 For instance, Valentin Georgescu quotes Otto Bauer (sic!) apud Gheorghe Brătianu, see: Georgescu V. Instituţiile

statelor româneşti de-sine-stătătoare // Constituirea statelor feudale româneşti. P. 214.

852012. № 1 (11). Январь—Июнь

Com

mentarii


Brunner’s theoretical approach was later used to reinforce the interpretation of early Walla-chia as institutioneller Flächenstaat, and not as Personenverbandsstaat. Thus, in the 1990’s Stelian Brezeanu suggested a different analysis of the Wallachian case through the lenses of Brunner’s theory38. In contrast to Brătianu, who actually used «Land und Herrschaft» to question the dominant interpretation of the making of Wallachia, Brezeanu’s analysis sup-ports it. Thus, Brezeanu proposes a typology that distinguishes the «archaic lands», which existed from the fourth to the 9th century, from the «feudal lands», which lasted from the 9th to the 14th century, and from the «political lands» that emerged in the 14th century. Only the fi rst two types of lands, archaic and feudal, actually fi t into Brunner’s pattern of terra, while the so-called «political lands», which include medieval Wallachia, are nothing but territorial states. Thus, regrettably, Gheorghe Brătianu’s attempt to exploit Otto Brunner’s book in order to open a debate in the Romanian scholarship on the making of Wallachia failed. Part of this failure might be due to Brătianu himself, who stood out in the Romanian scholarship: highly academic, soundly argumentative and, mostly, deliberately uncontroversial. As a result, some of Brătianu’s ground-breaking ideas passed unnoticed, as it was the case with his viewpoint on a different analogy for early Wallachia, the Swiss one, fi rstly proposed by his magister, Nicolae Iorga.

In 1930 Nicolae Iorga gave two lectures at the University of Berne exploring the analogies between the Romanian and the Swiss history39. The fi rst paper was entitled «Sempach and Posada: the fi ght for liberty of the fourteenth century peasantry» and explored an idea Iorga had already referred to in other contexts40. Thus, Iorga interprets the two founding moments of the Swiss and the Wallachian state building, the battles of Sempach and Posada, as tes-timonies of the innate strength of the medieval peasantry. The common feature both battles shared was the same result of the confrontation between a feudal army, Hungarian and Aus-trian, and a communal militia of peasants, Wallachian and Swiss. Moreover, Iorga integrates the comparison between the two battles into a broader analogy between medieval Wallachia and Switzerland, both viewed as communal polities of peasants. By placing peasantry at the foundations of Wallachia, Iorga was entirely consistent, since he constantly defi ned the state as a community of peasants. He persisted in this interpretation despite the archaeologi-cal discovery of Basarab’s tomb in the 1920s, which revealed a sumptuous, knightly lord41. Nonetheless, Iorga continued to argue that «although Basarab’s sepulchre resembles the tomb of a crowned Western knight, it is, despite all these, the tomb of a ruler of peasants»42. Iorga’s analogy had a large echo and the Sempach/Posada parallel became a topos in the Romanian scholarship43. However, with one, noteworthy exception, none of the scholars that referred to this analogy went beyond Iorga’s suggestions.

38 See: Brezeanu St. Model european şi realitate locală în întemeierile statale medievale româneşti. Un caz: terra Bazarab // Revista de istorie. 1994. Vol. 5. P. 211–232.

39 See: Iorga N. Deux conférences en Suisse. Berne, 1930. 40 For earlier references to this analogy see: Iorga N. Evoluţia ideii de libertate. Bucureşti, 1928. P. 142–143. 41 After the archaeological discoveries from Argeş, Iorga slightly modifi ed his interpretation accepting that the Wallachian

lords were rather similar to the Latin nobility than to Romanian peasantry (see: Iorga N. Histoire des roumains. Vol. 3. P. 220–221). Nonetheless, with regard to state formation and to the nature of early Wallachia, Iorga maintained his previous interpretations.

42 See: Iorga N. Deux conférences en Suisse. P. 7–8.43 See, for instance: Minea I. Războiul lui Basarab cel Mare cu regele Carol Robert (noiembrie 1330) // Cercetări istorice.

1929–1932. Vol. 5–7. P. 336; Ştefănescu Şt. Ţara Românească de la Basarab I «Intemeietorul» până la Mihai Viteazul. Bucureşti, 1970. P. 33.



The exception is the same Gheorghe Brătianu who approached the Swiss-Wallachian analogy from a different angle: the methodological one. In his book on Wallachian and Moldavian state formation, Brătianu reopened the debate on the value of late traditions as historical sources44. As many of Brătianu’s contributions, this reinterpretation was stimulated by a recently published book on William Tell’s legend and the foundation of Switzerland45. Although Brătianu’s core argument is purely methodological — both William Tell’s and Negru Vodă’s legends should be considered valid historical sources on the beginnings of the two medieval states — he also delves into the analogy between the two societies. However, in contrast to Iorga, Brătianu refutes the egalitarian, communal thesis, emphasizing instead that both medieval Wallachia and Switzerland were ruled by an upper class that fi tted into the Western, feudal and knightly, pattern. Accord-ingly, for the Wallachian case study, Brătianu identifi es a Western pattern of state formation transmitted through Hungary. Signifi cantly, Brătianu makes no reference to Iorga’s previous article on Sempach/Posada, avoiding thus to challenge explicitly his professor’s views. Thus, his analytic suggestions, which could have stirred a debate on the widely shared interpretation on the making of Wallachia, were largely overshadowed by Iorga’s views.

The idea of an organically developed territorial state had such an enduring success as it makes use of an important topos of Romanian historical literature: the sense of isolation. Thus, for most of their history, Romanians’ affi nities seem to have lain outside the region they belonged to geographically. To give only one example, for a long period the Romanians of the early middle ages were viewed as an island of Latinity encircled by a sea of Slavs46. This sense of geographical misplacement visibly refl ects the modernizing aspirations shared by most Romanian scholars in the 19th and the 20th century. Iorga’s claim that early Wallachia was unlike any of its neighbouring states, resembling instead to the Western polities from the same period, is just another illustration of this topos. The key argument in Iorga’s thesis was the twofold difference that set apart medieval Wallachia from the Byzantine-Slavic states, such as Bulgaria or Serbia. According to Iorga’s views Wallachia was a territorial and national state, while medieval Bulgaria and Serbia were lordships with imperial aspirations47. Thus, following in Iorga’s footsteps, most Romanian scholars underlined this double distinction that differentiated Wallachia from its southern neighbours. In consequence, the Bulgarian and Ser-bian infl uences on the Wallachian state formation, which can easily be traced, were constantly underplayed. For instance, although historians acknowledged the numerous Bulgarian and Serbian infl uences on the chancery, they nonetheless considered this institution an «original» Wallachian one48. Similarly, the Byzantine infl uence on the making of Wallachia was largely

44 See: Brătianu Gh. Tradiţia istorică...

45 Naef H. Guillaume Tell et les trois Suisses. Lausanne, 1942.46 For the ideologically conditioned (re)interpretations of the relationship between Romanians and early Slavs in the

Romanian scholarship see: Curta F. The Changing Image of the Early Slavs in the Romanian Historiography // Südost-Forschungen. 1994. Bd. 53. S. 235–276.

47 This thesis is mentioned by several of Iorga’s writings, but the most explicit development can be found in: Iorga N. Le Caractère Commun des Institutions du Sud-Est de l’Europe. Paris, 1929. P. 26.

48 See: Lascaris M. Infl uences byzantins dans la diplomatique bulgare, serbe et slavo-roumaine // Byzantinoslavica. 1931. Vol. 3. P. 500–510; Ionescu D. Contribution à la recherche des infl uences byzantines dans la diplomatique roumaine // Revue Historique du Sud-Est Européen. 1934. Vol. 11. P. 128–150; Bogdan D. P. L’infl uence byzantine dans les textes slavo-roumains // Actes du VIe congrès international d’Etudes byzantines. Paris, 1948. Vol. 1. P. 283–284; Ionescu Nişcov T. Contacts entre la diplomatique serbe et la chancellaire princière de la Valachie pendant les XIVe et XVe siècles // Bulletin de l’Association Internationale d’Études du Sud-Est Européen. 1972. Vol. 10. P. 281–284; Cazacu M. La Chancellerie des principautés valaque et moldave (XIVe–XVIIIe siécles) // Kanzleiwesen und Kanzleisprachen im östlichen Europa / Hrsg. von Christian Hannick. Köln, 1999. S. 87–127.

872012. № 1 (11). Январь—Июнь

Com

mentarii


underestimated, as the setting of the metropolitan seat and the presence of the Byzantine high clergy in Wallachia were simply viewed as the acknowledgment of an already established state. Iorga’s captivating formula, Byzance après Byzance, implicitly plays down any signifi cant Byz-antine infl uence on Wallachia, throughout the 14th and the 15th centuries, the period of the state formation49. Again, Iorga’s impact on the scholarship was considerable, and the historians who studied the Byzantine infl uence on Wallachia, such as Valentin Georgescu or Andrei Pippidi, focused their analysis primarily on the post-Byzantine period50. As a consequence, the study of Byzantine-Slavic infl uence on early Wallachia was mainly confi ned to art or literature51, while its impact on political thought and state institutions was mostly overlooked.

In conclusion of this brief scrutiny of the analogies proposed by previous scholars in order to explore the making of Wallachia, I would like to highlight three ideas. Firstly, the analogies are extremely few, implicitly reinforcing the thesis of medieval Wallachia as the outcome of local political development, a case of primary state formation. Secondly, the comparisons were generally used to close arguments, not to initiate debates. Thus, Romanian scholars turned to analogies in order to corroborate already established conclusions, rather than ques-tion generally accepted interpretations. Thirdly, any external infl uence on the making of the state was minimized, as early Wallachia was viewed as an original, articulate polity, able to absorb such infl uences without modifying its core identity.

Epilogue. Questioning the Paradigm52 Methodologically, the analogies I have summarized in the fi rst part of the article have

two major shortcomings: they never actually examined the implicit grounds of the dominant scholarly paradigm and they did not place Wallachia in a broader comparative view. In this brief epilogue, I aim to address these two fl aws by suggesting some new lines of inquiry on the making of Wallachia. The starting points of my critique are some recent contributions to the late medieval state formation, such as those of Hendrik Spruyt, John Watts and Andrzej Buko, as well as the theoretical framework outlined by the sociologist Michael Mann.

Since the making of Wallachia was viewed as a gradual growth, from lower to higher forms of political organization, scholars vigilantly scrutinized the primary sources in order to fi nd the polities from which the state progressively evolved. Archaeological fi ndings, Hungarian charters, papal documents and even German poems were brought into play in order to map the political grounds in which Wallachia was rooted53. Nonetheless, despite the positive results of

49 See: Iorga N. Byzance après Byzance. Bucharest, 1935.50 In this regard, Valentin Georgescu’s fi rst phrase of the chapter studying the Byzantine impact on early Wallachian

lordship is suggestive: «From a political viewpoint, neither Wallachia, nor Moldavia, were states of a Byzantine design». The chapter, otherwise very well written, ends with an emphasis on the political originality of the Wallachian state, which shaped the Byzantine model into a profoundly innovative way (see: Georgescu V. Bizanţul şi instituţiile româneşti până la mijlocul secolului al XVIII-lea. Bucureşti, 1980; see also Pippidi A. Tradiţia politică bizantină în ţǎrile române în secolele XVI–XVII. Bucureşti, 2001).

51 See, for instance: Turdeanu E. La littérature bulgare du XIV siècle et sa diffusion dans les pays roumains. Paris, 1947.52 Most of the ideas I have included in this epilogue had been developed and argued in my PhD thesis, «The Medieval

Frontiers of Wallachia», supervised by Professor Andrei Pippidi, which I successfully defended at the University of Bucharest, in March 2012.

53 For the 13th century South-Carpathian polities see the above mentioned monograph by Şerban Papacostea, «Românii în secolul al XIII-lea». For the debate on Ottokar of Styria’s poem mentioning an allegedly Wallachian lord, see: Cristea O. Captivitatea lui Otto de Bavaria. Câteva consideraţii // Secolul al XIII-lea pe meleagurile locuite de români / Ed. Adrian A. Rusu. Cluj-Napoca, 2006.



this research effort, the entire argument is undermined by the missing of a crucial link. None of the identifi ed 13th century polities can be directly associated with any of the political actors that shaped 14th and 15th century Wallachia. Thus, the Basarabs, the dynasty that built Wallachia, suddenly emerged in sources in the second decade of the 14th century. Traditionally, Basarab is considered to be Seneslau’s descendant, a 13th century Wallachian local lord attested by a Hungarian charter. However, no written evidence substantiates this hypothesis. Considering the scarcity of written sources on early Wallachia, one might turn to archaeology to fi nd a connection between Seneslau and Basarab. Unfortunately, the archaeologists, the same as the historians, took for granted the idea of the continuity between 13th century polities and the 14th century Wallachian state. Hence, their interpretations are not always to be relied on, as some of their conclusions are based on unsubstantiated premises54. Therefore, a re-evaluation of the archaeological fi ndings might shed some light on early Wallachia, as it was the case with the recent shifting on the formation of medieval Poland suggested by Andrzej Buko55. Nonetheless, in order to effectively contribute to a better understanding of the Wallachian state formation, archaeology must renounce to a rigid pre-conceived interpretative framework.

Historians, in their turn, should question the assumptions on which previous interpretations had been grounded, by framing the Wallachian case in a broader comparative perspective on late medieval state building. In this regard, I consider the next three premises worth reconsider-ing: 1) state building loses ground during periods of confl ict; 2) the evolution of state power is linear, although it alternates periods of ascends, with phases of descends or stagnation; 3) late medieval and early modern success of the sovereign state over competing polities was inevitable. Although none of these premises had been explicitly formulated in the Romanian scholarship, they are implicitly laid at the foundations of the dominant interpretative para-digm. Thus, due to the numerous confl icts caused by the Ottoman pressure and by the internal struggles for throne, the period post-1420 has commonly been considered a period of decay in the history of Wallachia. Accordingly, the golden age of state power was placed at the begin-nings of the Wallachian state. Certainly, the image of an already consolidated state suddenly emerging in the 14th century fostered the thesis of a long period of previous, imperceptible, gradual growth. Nevertheless, what if the premise of this line of reasoning is false? What if state building and confl icts can actually coexist? This is precisely John Watts’ main contention

54 See, for instance, the intricate interpretation advanced by the archaeologist Nicolae Constantinescu with regard to Argeş, Basarab’s fi rst documented court. Although Nicolae Constantinescu claims a direct continuity throughout the 13th and the 14th centuries, thus linking directly Basarab to Seneslau, he actually fails to provide a conclusive material evidence for the existence of a thirteenth century laic edifi ce at Argeş. Therefore, the connections between the 13th century church and the fourteenth century church and princely court has yet to be elucidated (see: Constantinescu N. 1) La residence d’Argeş des voivodes roumains des XIIIe et XIVe siècles. Problèmes de chronologie la lumière des récentes recherchés archéologiques // Revue des études sud-est européennes. 1970. Vol. 8. P. 5–31; 2) Curtea de Argeş 1200–1400. Asupra începuturilor Ţării Româneşti. Bucureşti, 1984). It is worth noting that although in his previous articles, Constatinescu explicitly referred to a Seneslau phase at Argeş, in his fi nal monograph he reluctantly admitted that he was unable to fi nd the remains of the 13th century court, but nonetheless he continued to postulate its existence. Constantinescu’s frail argument is that a church was necessarily placed nearby a laic structure.

55 According to the traditional interpretation, Poland was the outcome of a gradual process of political consolidation that lasted from the 7th to the 9th century, a period in which the ancestors of the early Piasts rulers slowly increased their authority in the detriment of the regional tribal communities. However, using more precise dating techniques such as dendrochronology, Andrzej Buko convincingly challenged this view, arguing that the tribal strongholds were built considerably later and, thus, instead of pre-dating by several generations they are almost contemporary to the rise of the Piasts. Therefore, Buko’s scenario of the making of Poland replaces the previous two-century long, gradual development with the image of an abrupt growth at the beginning of the 10th century (see: Buko A. Unknown Revolution: Archaeology and the Beginnings of the Polish State // East Central and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages / Ed. by Florin Curta. Ann Arbor, 2005. P. 162–180). A similar scenario for Wallachia seems to me far more plausible than the widely accepted evolutionist thesis.

892012. № 1 (11). Январь—Июнь

Com

mentarii


in his recent book on late medieval polities56. Therefore, if we reconsider 15th and 16th century confl icts, including the Ottoman pressure, from the viewpoint of state building, we might ar-rive to an entirely different conclusion. Thus, even though confl icts undoubtedly weakened the Wallachian lords’ despotic power, they almost certainly increased their infrastructural power. This distinction within the concept of power, suggested by Michael Mann57, helps us to escape the linear pattern of state evolution. Although 16th century Wallachian lords’ decision power was signifi cantly more restricted than that of their 14th century predecessors, their implemen-tal power was considerably improved. Finally, following in Hendrik Spruyt’s footsteps, we might also attempt to avoid interpreting 14th century Wallachia from the sole perspective of the sovereign state, turning instead our attention to the Basarabs’ internal competitors58.

Evidently, these research suggestions imply a reassessment not only of the history of the 14th century Wallachia, but of the 15th and early 16th century as well. The core contention of my argument is precisely that Wallachian state formation was not a 13th – early 14th century process, but a phenomenon that began in the 14th century and continued until the mid-sixteenth century, when it entered a different phase. Such an analytic shift will also extend consider-ably the documentary base for the analysis of the Wallachian state formation. As a result, the hypotheses and the assumptions on which the dominant interpretative paradigm is grounded might be replaced with argumentative constructions. But, most importantly, this new approach could fi nally elude the national and Marxist paradigms to which the subject of the making of Wallachia was confi ned for more than a century. As a result, avoiding both the illusion of exceptionality and the historicism chimera, Wallachia could fi nd its appropriate place in the larger scholarship of late medieval state formation.

РезюмеЕдва ли можно отыскать более ясное и четкое объяснение возникновения средне-

векового Валашского государства, чем то, что принадлежит перу Николае Йорги, без сомнения, самой авторитетной фигуры румынской исторической науки. В одном строй-ном изложении Н. Йорга соединил воедино три тезиса, частично уже широко распро-странившихся в науке, частично сформулированных впервые: 1) Валашское государство имело по преимуществу, если не исключительно, местные истоки — тезис, имплицитно отвергавший сколько-нибудь значительное внешнее влияние; 2) Валахия с самого начала являлась территориальным государством нового типа; 3) первоначальное Валашское государство имело больше сходства с западными, нежели с восточными политическими образованиями современной ему эпохи. Как видно, эти три идеи кореллировали друг с другом, формируя то, что, пожалуй, можно было бы назвать «доминирующей парадигмой» румынской медиевистики в течение почти столетнего периода. Идеологические основа-ния этой парадигмы, сыгравшие основную роль в ее оформлении и распространении, распознать нетрудно. Модель самостоятельно сформировавшегося, развитого Валашского

56 See: Watts J. The Making of Polities. Europe, 1300–1500. Cambridge, 2009.57 See: Mann M. The Sources of Social Power. Vol. I. A History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1760. Cambridge, 1986.58 See: Spruyt H. The Sovereign State and its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change. Princeton, 1994. — Although

Spruy’s analysis is focused on the Western competitors to late medieval sovereign states, such as urban leagues and independent communes, I think his overall argument against the view of the territorial state as an inevitable outcome of historical development is also valid for Wallachia. Thus, by carefully inquiring into 15th century charters and by interpreting archaeological fi ndings usually neglected as they did not fi t into the established narrative (as the impressive 14th century noble court from Polata, Gorj), at least some of the Wallachian rivals to the Basarabs’ state structure could be identifi ed.



государства, типологически близкого государствам Западной Европы, была весьма со-блазнительной для национально-ориентированной историографии, которая не только возникла одновременно с современным Румынским государством, но и играла важную роль в его оформлении. Нарисованная Н. Йоргой картина подкрепляла как румынскую национальную гордость, подчеркивая, что средневековое государство было результа-том внутреннего развития, так и современные устремления к вестернизации. Таким образом, продолжительный успех этой интерпретационной парадигмы был в большей степени обеспечен ее идеологической привлекательностью, нежели научными аргу-ментами, выдвигавшимися в ее поддержку. Так как эта парадигма подчинила себе весь ход исторических разысканий, то почти каждое вновь появлявшееся исследование служило ей подтверждением. Однако казавшееся постоянным умножение аргументов в ее пользу было в сущности иллюзорным, так как новые исследования с самого на-чала оказывались в рамках заранее заданной парадигмы, основываясь на шедшей по кругу аргументации.

Цель нашей статьи заключается в том, чтобы поставить под сомнение данную пара-дигму в отдельной, возможно, не самой значительной, точке — в утверждении, что Ва-лахия является результатом внутренней эволюции, выделяясь как особый случай форми-рования государственности в позднесредневековой Центральной и Восточной Европе. Мы убеждены в том, что различие между средневековой Валахией и ее не-румынскими соседями, различие, подчеркиваемое аналогиями с западноевропейскими государствами той эпохи, базировалось в большей степени на предвзятых мнениях историков, нежели на непосредственном анализе первоисточников. Чтобы обосновать данный тезис, мы структурировали нашу статью в виде двух разделов. В первом разделе содержится анализ аналогий между формированием Валахии и другими примерами формирования средневековой государственности, предлагавшихся предшествующими исследователя-ми. При этом мы рассматриваем как те сравнения, которые подчеркивали сходства, так и те, которые, напротив, были сфокусированы на расхождениях. В результате мы могли убедиться в том, что, во-первых, круг аналогий был чрезвычайно ограничен. Тем самым имплицитно усиливался тезис о средневековом Валашском государстве как о результате локального политического развития, случае первичного формирования государственно-сти. Во-вторых, сравнения обычно использовались для того, чтобы закрывать полемику, а не инициировать ее. Таким образом, румынские ученые обращались к аналогиям, чтобы подкрепить уже полученные выводы, а не для того, чтобы подвергнуть сомнению общепринятые интерпретации. В-третьих, любое внешнее влияние на формирование государства минимизировалось, так как первоначальная Валахия рассматривалась как оригинальная, уже сложившаяся полития, способная абсорбировать внешние влияния, не меняя при этом свою коренную идентичность.

Вторая часть статьи представляет собой краткий эпилог, в котором мы намереваемся предложить некоторые новые подходы к данной теме, приняв во внимание новейшие ис-следования в области изучения формирования позднесредневековой государственности. В этом отношении мы считаем заслуживающими пересмотра следующие три положе-ния: 1) государственное строительство теряет почву в периоды конфликтов; 2) эволюция государственной мощи является линейной, хотя и чередует периоды подъема с фазами упадка или стагнации; 3) победа монархического государства, сложившегося в позднее Средневековье и раннее Новое время, над конкурирующими политическими формами была неизбежна. Хотя ни одно из этих положений не было эксплицитно сформулиро-

912012. № 1 (11). Январь—Июнь

Com

mentarii


вано в румынской науке, они имплицитно присутствовали в основах доминирующей интерпретационной парадигмы.

Так, ввиду многочисленных конфликтов, вызванных османским давлением и внутрен-ней борьбой за трон, период после 1420 г. обычно рассматривался в истории Валахии как период упадка. Соответственно золотым веком государственности считалась ранняя история Валашского государства. Конечно, представление об уже консолидированном государстве, быстро заявившем о себе в XIV столетии, благоприятствовало тезису о пред-шествовавшем длительном периоде его постепенного незаметного роста. Однако, что если предпосылка, лежавшая в основе данного хода рассуждений, ошибочна? Что если в действительности государственное строительство и конфликты могли сосуществовать?

Пересмотрев конфликты XV–XVI вв., включая османское давление, с точки зрения государственного строительства, можно прийти к совершенно иным выводам. Хотя конфликты, несомненно, ослабляли деспотическую власть валашских господарей, по-следние почти определенно наращивали свою власть в том, что касалось инфраструк-туры управления. Это различие в концепции власти, предложенное Майклом Манном, помогает нам уйти от линейной модели развития государственности. Хотя власть валашских господарей XVI в. в области принятия решений была значительно более ограниченной, чем власть их предшественников в XIV в., их исполнительная власть значительно усилилась. Наконец, мы могли бы также попытаться уйти от интерпретации Валахии XIV в. исключительно с точки зрения развития монархической власти, обра-тив вместо этого наше внимание на внутренних соперников Басарабов. Очевидно, что предлагаемый подход подразумевает пересмотр истории Валахии не только в XIV сто-летии, но и в XV – начале XVI в. Суть нашего рассуждения заключается как раз в том, что формирование валашской государственности случилось не в XIII – начале XIV в., а являло собой процесс, начавшийся в XIV в. и продолжавшийся до середины XVI в., когда он вступил в другую фазу.

Перевод с английского Д. Е. Алимова

Данные о статьеСтатья написана при поддержке Румынского национального исследовательского совета

(CNCS-UEFISCDI, IDEI, номер проекта PN-II-ID PCE-2011-3-0309).Автор: Коман, Мариан, доктор истории, научный сотрудник Института истории имени Н. Йорги

Румынской академии наук, Бухарест, Румыния, [email protected]Название: Land, Lordship and the Making of Wallachia [Земля, власть и образование Валахии]Резюме: Цель статьи заключается в том, чтобы поставить под сомнение доминирующую парадигму

формирования валашской государственности в румынской науке в отдельном пункте — в утвержде-нии, что Валахия является результатом исключительно внутренней эволюции, выделяясь как особый случай формирования государственности в позднесредневековой Центральной и Восточной Европе. Данный тезис об исключительности базировался в большей степени на предвзятых мнениях истори-ков, нежели на непосредственном анализе первоисточников. Первый раздел статьи содержит анализ аналогий, предлагавшихся предшествующими исследователями, тогда как вторая часть является кратким эпилогом, где предлагаются некоторые новые подходы к теме. Круг аналогий, предлагав-шихся исследователями к валашскому случаю, крайне ограничен, чем имплицитно усиливался тезис о средневековой Валахии как о результате локального политического развития. Кроме того, сравнения обычно использовались для того, чтобы закрывать полемику, а не инициировать ее, а любое внешнее влияние минимизировалось, так как первоначальная Валахия рассматривалась как оригинальная сло-жившаяся полития, способная абсорбировать внешние влияния, не изменяя при этом свою коренную идентичность. Во второй части статьи мы предлагаем некоторые новые подходы к теме, с точки зрения более осмысленного сопоставления. В этом отношении мы считаем заслуживающими пересмотра



следующие три положения: 1) государственное строительство теряет почву в периоды конфликтов; 2) эволюция государственной мощи является линейной, хотя и чередует периоды подъема с фазами упадка или стагнации; 3) победа нового типа государства, сложившегося в позднее Средневековье и раннее Новое время, над конкурирующими политическими формами была неизбежна. Формирование валашской государственности случилось не в XIII – начале XIV в., а являло собой процесс, начавшийся в XIV в. и продолжавшийся до середины XVI в., когда он вступил в другую фазу.

Ключевые слова: политогенез, средневековая Валахия, XIV век, династия Басарабов, сравни-тельный подход

Information about the articleThis article was written with the support of the Romanian National Research Council (CNCS-UEFISCDI,

IDEI, project number PN-II-ID PCE-2011-3-0309).Author: Coman, Marian; Ph. D. in History, «Nicolae Iorga» Institute of History of the Romanian Academy,

Bucharest, Romania, [email protected]: Land, Lordship and the Making of WallachiaSummary: The present article aims to question the dominant paradigm of Wallachian state making in

Romanian scholarship on a specifi c point: the claim that the state was the result of an exclusively internal evolution that stands out as a distinctive case of state formation in late medieval Central and Eastern Europe. This exceptionality thesis was founded more on historians’ preconceptions than on a close analysis of the primary sources. The fi rst section of the article comprises an analysis of the analogies proposed by previous scholars, while the second part is a brief epilogue, where I suggest some new approaches on the topic. The analogies that scholars have proposed for the Wallachian case are extremely few, implicitly reinforcing the thesis of medieval Wallachia as the outcome of local political development. In addition, the comparisons were generally used to close arguments, not to initiate debates and any external infl uence was minimized, as early Wallachia was viewed as an original, articulate polity, able to absorb such infl uences without modifying its core identity. In the second part of the article I suggest some new approaches on the topic, from a more meaningful comparative viewpoint. In this regard, I consider the next three premises worth reconsidering: 1) state building loses ground during periods of confl ict; 2) the evolution of state power is linear, although it alternates periods of ascends, with phases of descends or stagnation; 3) late medieval and early modern success of the sovereign state over competing polities was inevitable. Wallachian state formation was not a 13th – early 14th century process, but a phenomenon that began in the 14th century and continued until the mid-sixteenth century, when it entered a different phase.

Key words: state making, medieval Wallachia, 14th century, Basarab dinasty, comparative approach

ReferencesAndreescu, Ştefan. Exarhatul. Geneza instituţiei în Ţara Românească şi Moldova, in Revista istorică.

2008. Vol. 19. P. 21–27. Arion, Dinu C. Cnejii (chinejii) români: Contribuţii la studiul lor. Bucureşti: Tipografi a Revista Geniului,

1938. 245 p.Arion, Dinu C. Încercare asupra domeniului eminent din Principatele Munteniei şi Moldovei în secolele

XIV–XV, in Marinescu, Constantin (ed.). Închinare lui Nicolae Iorga cu prilejul împlinirii vârstei de 60 de ani. Cluj: Editura Institutului de Istorie Universală, 1931. P. 12–23.

Bogdan, Damian P. L’infl uence byzantine dans les textes slavo-roumains, in Actes du VIe congrès inter-national d’Etudes byzantines. Paris: École des Hautes Études, 1948. Vol. 1. P. 283–284.

Bogdan, Ioan. Depre cnezii români. Bucureşti: Carol Göbl, 1903. 32 p.Bogdan, Ioan. Originea voevodatului la români. Bucureşti: Carol Göbl, 1902. 17 p. Boia, Lucian. History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness. Budapest: Central European University

Press, 2001. 285 p. Brătianu, Gheorghe. Tradiţia istorică despre întemeierea statelor româneşti / Ed. Râpeanu, Valeriu.

Bucureşti: Editura Eminescu, 1980. 295 p. Brǎtianu, Gheorghe. Sfatul domnesc şi adunarea stărilor în principatele române. Bucureşti: Editura

Enciclopedică, 1995. 328 p.Brezeanu, Stelian. Model european şi realitate locală în întemeierile statale medievale româneşti. Un caz:

terra Bazarab, in Revista de istorie. 1994. Vol. 5. P. 211–232.

932012. № 1 (11). Январь—Июнь

Com

mentarii


Brunner, Otto. Land und Herrschaft: Grundfragen der territorialen Verfassungsgeschichte Südostdeut-schlands im Mittelalter. Vienna: Baden, 1939. 512 s.

Buko, Andrzej. Unknown Revolution: Archaeology and the Beginnings of the Polish State, in Curta, Florin (ed.). East Central and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2005. P. 162–180.

Buzescu, Alexandru. Domnia în Ţările Române până la 1866. Bucureşti: Cartea Românească, 1943. 333 p.Câmpina, Barbu. Le problème de l’apparition des états féodaux roumains, in Nouvelles Études d’Histoire.

1955. Vol. 1. P. 181–207. Cazacu, Matei. O controversă: Thocomerius — Negru Vodă, in Revista istorică. 2008. Vol. 19. P. 49–58.Cazacu, Matei. La Chancellerie des principautés valaque et moldave (XIVe– XVIIIe siécles), in Han-

nick, Christian (ed.). Kanzleiwesen und Kanzleisprachen im östlichen Europa. Köln: Böhlau Verlag, 1999. S. 87–127.

Chirot, Daniel. Social Change in a Peripheral Society. New York: Academic Press, 1976. 179 p.Ciocîltan, Virgil. Mongolii şi Marea Neagră în secolele XIII–XIV. Bucureşti: Editura Enciclopedică,

1998. 299 p.Cohen, Ronald (ed.). Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution. Philadelphia: Institute

for the Study of Human Issues, 1978. 233 p. Constantinescu, Nicolae. La residence d’Argeş des voivodes roumains des XIIIe et XIVe siècles. Problèmes

de chronologie la lumière des récentes recherchés archéologiques, in Revue des études sud-est européennes. 1970. Vol. 8. P. 5–31.

Constatinescu, Nicolae. Curtea de Argeş 1200–1400. Asupra începuturilor Ţării Româneşti. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei, 1984. 170 p.

Cotovanu, Lydia. Alexis de Kiev et de toute la Russie — Hyacinthe de toute la Hongrovalachie: deux cas parallelles?, in Cândea, Ionel; Cernvodeanu, Paul; Lazăr, Gheorghe (ed.). Închinare lui Petre Ş. Năsturel la 80 de ani. Brăila: Editura Istros, 2003. P. 531–554.

Cristea, Ovidiu. Captivitatea lui Otto de Bavaria. Câteva consideraţii, in Rusu, Adrian A. (ed.). Secolul al XIII-lea pe meleagurile locuite de români. Cluj-Napoca: Mega, 2006. P. 61–76.

Curta, Florin. The Changing Image of the Early Slavs in the Romanian Historiography, in Südost-Forsc-hungen. 1994. Bd. 53. S. 235–276.

Diaconescu, Marius. The Political Relations between Wallachia and the Hungarian Kingdom during the Reign of the Anjou Kings, in Mediaevalia Transilvanica. 1998. Vol. 2. P. 5–42.

Filitti, Ioan C. Despre Negru Vodă. Bucureşti: Cultura Naţională, 1924. 39 p.Georgescu, Valentin. Bizanţul şi instituţiile româneşti până la mijlocul secolului al XVIII-lea. Bucureşti:

Editura Academiei, 1980. 296 p.Georgescu, Valentin. Instituţiile statelor româneşti de-sine-stătătoare, in Stoicescu, Nicolae (ed.). Consti-

tuirea statelor feudale româneşti. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei, 1980. P. 209–250.Giurescu, Constantin C. Istoria românilor / Ed. Giurescu, Dinu C. Vol. 1. Bucureşti: Editura All, 2007. 454 p.Giurescu, Dinu C. Ţara Românească în secolele XIV–XV. Bucureşti: Editura Ştiinţifi că, 1973. 496 p.Ionescu Nişcov, Traian. Contacts entre la diplomatique serbe et la chancellaire princière de la Valachie

pendant les XIVe et XVe siècles, in Bulletin de l’Association Internationale d’Études du Sud-Est Européen. 1972. Vol. 10. P. 281–284.

Ionescu, Démètre. Contribution à la recherche des infl uences byzantines dans la diplomatique roumaine, in Revue Historique du Sud-Est Européen. 1934. Vol. 11. P. 128–150

Iorga, Nicolae. Evoluţia ideii de libertate. Bucureşti: Ministerul de Instrucţie, 1928. 290 p. Iorga, Nicolae. Le Caractère Commun des Institutions du Sud-Est de l’Europe. Paris: J. Gamber, 1929. 138 p.Iorga, Nicolae. Deux conférences en Suisse. Berne: [s. n.], 1930. 24 p.Iorga, Nicolae. Byzance après Byzance. Bucureşti: Institute d’études byzantines, 1935. 272 p.Iorga, Nicolae. Histoire des roumains et de la romanité orientale. Vol. 3. Les Fondateurs d’état. Bucureşti:

Academia Românǎ, 1937. 424 p.Iorga, Nicolae. Studii asupra Evului Mediu românesc / Ed. Papacostea, Şerban. Bucureşti: Ed. Ştiinţifi că

şi Enciclopedică, 1984. 459 p.Iosipescu, Sergiu. Contribuţii la istoria domniei principelui Radu I şi a alcătuirii teritoriale a Ţării

Româneşti în secolul al XIV-lea, in Studii şi Materiale de Istorie Medie. 2010. Vol. 28. P. 25–48.Iosipescu, Sergiu. Despre unele controverse ale istoriei medievale româneşti, in Revista istorică. 1979.

Vol. 32. P. 1959–1978.



Iosipescu, Sergiu. Românii din Carpaţii Meridionali la Dunărea de Jos de la invazia mongolă (1241–1243) până la consolidarea domniei a toată Ţara Românească. Războiul victorios purtat la 1330 împotriva cotropirii ungare, in Stoicescu Nicolae (ed.). Constituirea statelor feudale româneşti. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei, 1980. P. 41–95.

Lascaris, Michael. Infl uences byzantins dans la diplomatique bulgare, serbe et slavo-roumaine, in Byzan-tinoslavica. 1931. Vol. 3. P. 500–510.

Mann, Michael. The Sources of Social Power. Volume 1. A History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1760. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. 549 p.

Minea, Ilie. Războiul lui Basarab cel Mare cu regele Carol Robert (noiembrie 1330), in Cercetări istorice. 1929–1932. Vol. 5–7. P. 321–341.

Naef, Henri. Guillaume Tell et les trois Suisses. Lausanne: Spes, 1942. 123 p.Onciul, Dimitrie. Scrieri istorice. Ed. Aurelian Sacerdoţeanu. Bucureşti: Editura Ştiinţifi că, 1968. Vol. 1.

720 p. Vol. 2. 560 p.Ostrowski, Donald. Muscovy and the Mongols: Cross-Cultural Infl uences on the Steppe Frontier, 1304–

1589. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 329 p.Oţetea, Andrei. La formation des états féodaux roumains, in Nouvelles Études d’Histoire. 1965. Vol. 3.

P. 87–104.Panaitescu, Petre P. De ce au fost Ţara Româneascǎ şi Moldova ţǎri separate?, in Revista Fundaţiilor

Regale. 1938. Vol. 5. P. 560–577. Panaitescu, Petre P. Introducere la istoria culturii româneşti. Bucureşti: Editura Ştiinţifi că, 1969. 397 p. Panaitescu, Petre P. Mircea l’Ancien et les Tatares, in Revue Historique du Sud-Est Européen. 1942. Vol.

19. P. 438–448. Panaitescu, Petre P. Recenzie la «Początky państwa Polskiego: Księga tysiąclecia», in Studii. Revista de

istorie. 1964. Vol. 17. P. 177–182. Papacostea, Şerban. Românii în secolul al XIII-lea. Bucureşti: Editura Enciclopedică, 1993. 188 p.

Papacostea, Şerban. Geneza statului în Evul Mediu românesc. Bucureşti: Editura Corint, 1999. 294 p.Papacostea, Şerban. Prima unire românească: voievodatul de Argeş şi Ţara Severin, in Studii şi materiale

de istorie medie. 2010. Vol. 28. P. 9–24. Pippidi, Andrei. La originile Ţării Româneşti, in Revista istorică. 2008. Vol. 19. P. 5–20.Pippidi, Andrei. Tradiţia politică bizantină în ţǎrile române în secolele XVI–XVII. Bucureşti: Corint,

2001. 393 p.Pop, Ioan Aurel. Geneza medievală a naţiunilor moderne. Bucureşti: Editura Fundaţiei Culturale Române,

1998. 230 p.Popa, Radu. Les recherchés archéologiques dans le problème de la formation des états médiévaux rou-

mains, in Revue Roumain d’Histoire. 1973. Vol. 12. P. 41–59. Popa, Radu. Premisele cristalizării vieţii statale româneşti, in Stoicescu, Nicolae (ed.). Constituirea statelor

feudale româneşti. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei, 1980. p. 25-39. Spruyt, Hendrik. The Sovereign State and its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change. Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1994. 288 p.Stahl, Henri H. Les anciennes communautés villageoises roumaines. Paris: C.N.R.S., 1969. 254 p. Ştefănescu, Ştefan. Ţara Românească de la Basarab I «Intemeietorul» până la Mihai Viteazul. Bucureşti:

Editura Academiei, 1970. 176 p.Ştefănescu, Ştefan. Tradiţia daco-romană şi formarea statelor româneşti de sine stătătoare, in Stoicescu,

Nicolae (ed.). Constituirea statelor feudale româneşti. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei, 1980. P. 9–24.Stoicescu, Nicolae. Descălecat şi întemeiere în istoria Ţării Româneşti, in Revista de istorie. 1980. Vol. 33.

P. 43–61.Turdeanu, Emil. La littérature bulgare du XIV siècle et sa diffusion dans les pays roumains. Paris: Librairie

Droz, 1947. 188 p. Tymieniecki, Kazimierz; Labuda, Gerard; Łowmiański, Henryk (ed.). Początky państwa Polskiego:

Księga tysiąclecia. Poznań: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1962. T. I: Organizacja polityczna. 428 s.; T. II: Społeczeństwo i kultura. 368 s.

Watts, John. The Making of Polities. Europe, 1300–1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 466 p.

Xenopol, Alexandru Dimitrie. Istoria românilor din Dacia Traiană / Ed. Vlădescu, Ion. Vol. 3. Bucureşti: Cartea Românească, 1925. 236 p.

Land, Lordship, and the Making of Wallachia

Documents

Transcript of Land, Lordship, and the Making of Wallachia