1

DRAFT

THE ABOLITION OF STATE SLAVERY IN WALLACHIA:

UNKNOWN LAWS AND MISS-INTERPRETED EVENTS1

BOGDAN MATEESCU2

Abstract

The need to study the abolition of Wallachia`s State Slaves can be expressed

by simply looking at the dates when different historians or sources placed this event:

1831, 1837, 1838, 1843, 1847. This event is unique in Romanian historiography due to

the shallow and imprecise knowledge projected upon it, while lacking any debate over

each one of these dates. One can only look at the different moments that historians

presented over time and assume the existence of a certain fault in either perceiving the

event or in elaborating or applying the law itself. We attempt to shed light on the matter

and identify the law that would be rightfully considered the abolition law. This alone

should provide an interesting inquiry into how institutions and laws worked (or failed to

work) at that time. Secondly, since the event we`re analyzing is the abolition of slavery,

it is easy to understand the great potential it had to influence individual and family life

of the individuals in question. Our second objective was to focus on and to document

this particular impact in order to provide an image of how in this context individuals

were affected by institutional failures.

Keywords: Slavery, emancipation, Wallachia, institutions.

Modernizing Wallachia`s administration in the 1830s meant the

beginning of the first major transition towards Western inspired institutions and

rules of government. It meant that numerous laws, regulations and reforms were

issued and their application constitutes a unique research theme for historians.

We can agree that the success of any institutional change can be measured by

comparing the desired effects of its reforms to their practical results. It is well

known that most 19th century Romanian attempts to modernize State and society

at different levels took a long time to reach even a fraction of the desired

outcome, if not failed completely. Thus, the challenge of historians would rather

1 Research financed by „MINERVA - Cooperare pentru cariera de elită în cercetarea doctorală și

post-doctorală” [MINERVA - Cooperation for elite careers in doctoral and post-doctoral research] , contract code: POSDRU/159/1.5/S137832, project cofinanced by Fondul Social prin Programul Operațional Sectorial Dezvoltarea Resurselor Umane 2007-2013 [Social Fund through the Divisional Operational Program for the Development of Human Resources 2007-2013]. 2 Bogdan Mateescu: Ph.D. student at „Nicolae Iorga” History Institute in Bucharest;

bogdanmateescuup2@gmail.com.

2

be that of identifying successful attempts or studying the social and institutional

mechanisms behind the failed ones in order to determine the causes of failure.

The present study refers to what we consider as one of the failed attempts to

reform society: the emancipation of State Slaves.

The Gypsy population Wallachia was enslaved since the Middle Aged

and continued its existence after 1830 with the existence of three categories of

Slaves: State Slaves (previously called domnești – of the Prince), Church Slaves

and Slaves of the Nobility. Measures and reforms undertaken after 1830 aimed

towards their integration into the fiscal system, improving their material

condition and towards their ultimate emancipation. The abolishment of State

Slavery came as more appealing to us because of two aspects it involved, each

of them defining a particular objective in our study. First of all, the need to

study the abolition of Wallachia`s State Slaves can be expressed by simply

looking at the dates when different historians or sources placed this event: 1831,

1837, 1838, 1843, 1847. This event is unique in Romanian historiography due

to the shallow and imprecise knowledge projected upon it, while lacking any

debate over each one of these dates. One can only look at the different moments

that historians presented over time and assume the existence of a certain fault in

either perceiving the event or in elaborating or applying the law itself. We

attempt to shed light on the matter and identify the law that would be rightfully

considered the abolition law. This alone should provide an interesting inquiry

into how institutions and laws worked (or failed to work) at that time. Secondly,

since the event we`re analyzing is the abolition of slavery, it is easy to

understand the great potential it had to influence individual and family life of

the individuals in question. Our second objective was to focus on this particular

impact and to document it, in order to provide an image of how in this context

individuals were affected by institutional failures.

Our study used two kinds of sources. Basic were the judicial sources, in

which different laws and regulations were reproduced or inventoried. Created

during institutional transition and change, these sources are often incomplete,

some even bearing errors from the age (as will be shown) and using them as

instruments can sometimes be more miss-leading than helpful. A complete

image of the legal context we`re attempting to recreate had to be constructed

also using correspondence between different institutions from the age.

I. Which act abolished State Slavery? The need for reconsideration

I.a. Many options and no debate

The history of Romanian Roma population has enjoyed a strong

attention in the last two decades but somehow disproportionate to the subject`s

full historical background and potential. While most contemporary historians

are attracted to anthropological and sociological aspects of Roma communities

in recent decades, together with uncovering the circumstances of the events

3

during WWII, going back to the times of slavery has been the focus of a

relatively small number of efforts. Studying slavery today still relies a great deal

on the past works of Kogălniceanu3, Vaillant

4, Potra

5, Chelcea

6 and others or on

published documents only partially linked to slavery. The work of Grupul

pentru Cercetare a Istoriei Minorităților (The Group for Researching the

History of Minorities) constitutes an exception. Composed of researchers from

„Nicolae Iorga” History Institute in Bucharest – Viorel Achim7, Venera Achim

8,

Florina Manuela Constantin9, Petre Matei

10, Raluca Tomi

11 – studies undertaken

3 Mihail Kogălniceanu, Schiță despre țigani [Essay on Gypsies], trans. Gh. Ghibănescu, (Iași.

Tipografia „Dacia”-P. Iliescu & D. Grossu, 1900). 4 Jean-Alexandre Vaillant, Histoire vraie des vrais Bohémiens, (Paris, E. Dentu, libraire-éditeur,

1857). 5 George Potra, Contribuțiuni la istoricul țiganilor din România [Constributions to the history of

Gypsies in Romania], (București: Fundația Regelui Carol I, București 1939); Despre Țiganii

domnești, mănăstirești și boierești România [On the Gypsies of the princes, the monasteries and

the lords], (București: Imprimeria Națională, 1936). 6 Ion Chelcea, Țiganii din România. Monografie etnografică [Gypsies in Romania. An

ethnographic monography], (București: Editura Institutului Central de Statistică, 1944). 7 Viorel Achim, Țiganii în istoria României [Gypsies in the history of Romania], (București: Editura

Enciclopedică, 1998). 8 Venera Achim, “Sedentarizarea ţiganilor în documente de arhivă din anul 1863” [The settling of

Gypsies in the archival documents from 1863],: Revista Istorică, S.N., IX, 5-6 (1988): 419-423; “Locul ţiganilor (robilor) în economia Principatelor Române în perioada dezrobirii (1830-1860)” [The role of Gypsies (slaves) in the economy of the Romanian Principalities during the period of emancipation (1830-1860)]; Două secole de tranziţie românească. Studii [Two centuries of Romanian transition. Studies], ed. Maria Mureşan (Bucureşti: Editura Economică, 2003): 68-88; “Statistica ţiganilor în Principatele Române în perioada 1830¬-1860” [The statistic of Gypsy population in the Romanian Principalities during 1830-1860], Revista Istorică, S.N., XIV, 5-6 (2005): 97-122. 9 Florina Manuela Constantin, “Robii ţigani din Țara Românească în justiţie: cutume şi ipostaze

juridice. Studiu de caz (hrisovul din 21 iunie 1637)” [Gypsy slaves in Wallachia in trials: customs and judicial statutes. Study case (the charter from June 21st 1637)] Revista Istorică, S.N., XVIII, 1-2 (2007): 91-108; “Robia în pravilele româneşti ale secolului al XVII-lea. Îndreptarea Legii (1652)” [Slavery in Romanian codes of law of 17

th century. Îndreptarea Legii (1652)], Revista Istorică,

S.N., XX, 1-2 (2009): 73-100; “Modalități de transmitere a dreptului de stăpânire asupra robilor țigani. Vânzarea și schimbul (Țara Românească, secolul al XVII-lea)” [Ways of transmitting property rights over slaves. Sale and exchange (Wallachia, 17

th century)], Miscellanea historica in

honorem Professoris Marcel-Dumitru Ciucă septuagenarii (Brăila and Pitești, Editura Istros-Editura Ordessos, 2013): 313-328. 10

Petre Matei, “Apariţia poreclei «Gaşper» pentru ţigani în spaţiul românesc” [The emergence of the nickname Gașper among Gypsies in Romanian territory], Revista Istorică, S.N., XX, 1-2 (2009): 101-113; “Adunările ţiganilor din Transilvania din anul 1919 (I)” [Gypsies Assemblies in Transylvania from the year 1919 (I)], Revista Istorică, S.N., XXI, 5-6 (2010): 467-487. 11

Raluca Tomi, “Aboliţionismul românesc la 1848. Influenţe, trăsături” [Romanian abolitionism in 1848. Influences, traits], Revista Istorică, S.N., XX, 1-2 (2009): 47-61; “Mişcarea aboliţionistă din principate şi impactul ei asupra legislaţiei de dezrobire (1849-1856)” [The abolition

4

by this group relied in a good part on archival sources or published sources from

the age and made a significant contribution in uncovering various aspects

regarding slavery. Still, Romanian historiography we think is absent of a strong

research field regarding the social history of slavery, or, in any case, historical

sources available for such a field are greatly neglected. Slavery in Romanian

history is itself an understudied field, to the extent that even major institutional

events and changes – like the one we attempt to clarify here – still need

reconsideration and strong research.

The first problem that can be addressed regarding the abolition of State

Slaves in Wallachia is: when did it actually take place and by which act?

Although the question itself is basic, addressing it holds no doubt of necessity.

There are at least 4 dates historians and administrative documents give for this

event but at the same time lacking any arguments or debate over their option. In

Romanian historiography, this event is one with a very wide span of placing in

time and it is almost shocking to see how a 19th

century event, from a period

very rich in sources, can be so relatively perceived and projected in the works of

historians or in different sources. It has been placed in (we`ve expanded on

some of these circumstances in further sections of this article):

1831: along with the establishment the Organic Regulation, seen by

some members of the Administration as the document abolishing State Slavery

(see section I.d.).

1837: the year probably with the oldest presence in historiography, due

not to Romanian historians but to two foreigners: the French Vaillant12

and the

Russian Grammont13

. They did not however specify the exact date of the event

they referred to as abolition, only referring to it as having to do with measures

taken by the Prince to permanently settle the former slaves.

1838: the Office of Prisons lead by colonel Herăscu proposes to the

Prince that Sate Slaves should be allowed to marry free people, the Prince

approves and states that these individuals should henceforth be considered free

movement in the Romanian Principalities and its impact over the abolition laws], Revista Istorică, S.N., XXI, 1-2 (2010): 57-71. 12

Vaillant, Histoire, 337-8: „C`est en considérations de toutes ces choses que le gouvernement de Valaquie prend, en 1837, la ferme résolution d`améliorer le sort de cette race infortunée. L`Ètat en possède quatre mille familles, qui rapportent quarante-cinq mille francs par an, il les affranchit et les colonise dans les villages des Boïars, à charge, par ceux-ci, de leur donner des terres de labour et de les traiter comme paysans.” 13

Louis Antoine de Grammont, De l`Adminsitration provisoire Russe en Valachie et ses résultats, (Bucharest: Imprimerie de Fréderic Walbaum, libraire de la cour, 1840): 84: „Pour les tirer de l`état d`abjection et de misère où ils sont plongés et les faire renoncer à la vie nomade et souvent de brigandage à laquelle ils s`abandonment, l`administration actuelle a pronounce, en 1837, l`emancipation de ceux qui appartiennet à l`état et a ordonné qu`il fut pourvu à leur établissement sur les terres des particuliers.”

5

people and by no means slaves. It is the only text proclaiming the emancipation

published in the official mouthpiece.

1843: the date used today by historians, referring to the act of 1843 by

which tax collecting from State slaves is being passed from the Office of

Prisons to the Finance Department. The act itself did not proclaim the

emancipation, nor reffered to the individuals as slaves, but it was amended to

the Civil Code as having abolished State Slavery.

1847: the supposed abolition of State Slavery as part of the same act

emancipating Church Slaves. This context was persistent in early Romanian

historiography on the matter, being used by Kogălniceanu14

and Potra15

, again,

without presenting any arguments towards their option.

Having presented this short inventory of the dates historians or different

sources give for this event, we will now attempt to identify a date that we

consider to be the actual moment of the abolition of State Slavery. In order to do

this, we first need to establish a theoretical frame through which we could

compare these dates and continue the discussion.

I.b. Defining slavery

One important aspect of 19th in Wallachia and Moldavia is that written

laws begin to formally regulate most aspects of social and political life. In 1782,

Wallachia gets its first civil code – Codul Callimachi – replaced in 1818 with

Codul Caragea or Legiuirea Caragea (Caragea`s Law / Code) which functioned

until after the abolition of slavery. Since 1831 the principality is governed by

the Organic Regulation, the country`s Constitution in the eyes of many

contemporaries and historians alike. At the end of 1832 an official mouthpiece

is established: Buletin – Gazetă Oficială. Slavery is of course covered by all of

these documents which should become the starting point in trying to define

abolition of slavery from a judicial point of view.

14

Mihail Kogălniceanu, Desrobirea Țiganiloru, ștergerea privilegiilor boeresci, emanciparea țeranilor. Discurs rostit în Academia Română, ședința solemnă dela 1 (13) aprilie 1891 [The emancipation of Gypsies, the removal of privileges, the emancipation of peasants. Speech held in the Romanian Academy in the solemn session of April 1st (13th) 1891], (Bucharest: Lito-tipografia Carol Göbl, 1891), 15: „Cu o mică mândrie de moldovénŭ, să-mi fie permisŭ de a spune că atâtŭ legea privitóre la emanciparea Țiganilorŭ mânăstiresci și aĭ Statuluĭ câtŭ și acea privitóre la emanciparea Țiganilorŭ particulari, s`a votatŭ mai întâĭ în Moldova; și anume cea dintâĭ în Iașĭ în 31 ianuarie 1844, iar în Bucuresci în 1847; cea de a doua în Iași la 10 Decembrie 1855 și în Bucurescĭ la 8 Februarie 1856.” [May I be permitted to add, with a small pride of a Moldavian, that the laws abolishing both Chuch and State Slaves were first voted in Moldavia; namely the first at Iași in January 31

st 1844 and at Bucharest in 1847; and the second at Iași in December 10

th

1855 and at Bucharest in February 8th

1856] 15

Potra, Contribuțiuni, 110: „...și la 1847 în Muntenia sub domnia lui Gheorghe Bibescu se hotărăște emanciparea țiganilor Statului și mănăstirești...” […and in 1847 in Wallachia during the reign of Gheorghe Bibescu it is decided the abolishment of State and Church Slaves].

6

Our first observation is that strangely enough, an actual legal definition

of slavery was not fully developed. The only formula close to a proper

definition would be the first article in the civil code chapter for Slavery. It

states:

Legiuriea Caragea, Part I, Chapter VII16

:

§1. Robi sunt câți sunt dobândă altuia.

Astfel sunt Țiganii în Țara Românească.

[Slaves are all who constitute gain to another.

Such are Gypsies in Wallachia.]

The word dobândă used here to define slavery is very ambiguous. Used

today, it would literally be translated as „interest” (as in interest rate) but in the

age its meaning would`ve been significantly shifted towards „gain”, as well as

„interest”. Our opinion is that it should be best translated into gain or property.

The document does not expand on this establishment and is not very precise

about the meaning and limits of this state of property, with the exception of

denying the master`s right over the slave`s life (§4 of the same chapter) but

granting him the right to sell or give the slaves to other masters or owners (§5).

On important aspects like control over the slave`s labor, possessions and living

quarters, the code simply does not regulate. Most likely it would have been

understood that according to customs, the master/owner17

could freely make use

of the slave`s labor capacity and skills as well as having absolute power over his

possessions. There is however one aspect towards which the Code is less

ambiguous about: marriages. It establishes the master/owner`s acceptance and

knowledge as the sine-qua-non condition in which any slave marriage was to

take place and it also forbids marriages with free people. The code further

regulates detailed situations concerning this principles or breaching them. It is

our opinion that Romanian historians have failed to emphasize the marriage

regime of slaves as a key part of slavery itself. Most articles of the civil code

regarding slavery refer to marriage or to circumstances linked to marriage.

The chapter in Legiuirea Caragea concerning Slavery is the judicial

frame in which slavery existed in Wallachia after 1818 and we can judicially

define slavery as a condition derived from this civil regulation. Both

interpreting the above mentioned articles and looking at how slave masters and

owners behaved towards their slaves (in looking at parts the code is less clear

about), we postulate that slavery meant a state of dependency to the owner or

master, bearing the following characteristics:

16

See any Legiuirea Caragea editions cited in further footnotes. 17

We underline the following difference between master and owner: while master refers to a person, owner could refer to an institution and slave owners were very common in the age. The Orthodox Church`s establishments – monasteries, diocese, the Mitropolitanate – possessed tens of thousands of slaves.

7

1. Property over the individuals: they were owned, could be bought, sold,

given, inherited, constitute objects in legal disputes. In traditional times (pre-

1830), State Slaves belonged to the Prince.

2. Power over the individuals (less present in the code and more obvious

from other sources): the master/owner had full power to use the slave`s labor

and skills. In the case of State Slaves, the Prince mostly derived income from

them.

3. A certain marital regime applied only to slaves, following two main

principles: interdiction to marry free people and the master/owner`s will and

knowledge as the sine-qua-non condition for any slave marriage to take place.

After 1830 however, these judicial premises fully apply to Church and

Nobility slaves and only partially to State Slaves. One extremely important

aspect that Romanian historians have again failed to notice is that beginning

with the Organic Regulations State slaves cease to be at the full disposal of the

authorities. The Organic Regulation establishes that:

a. While in the past centuries State Slaves were under the control of the

Prince, who fundamentally acted like a slave master, the Organic Regulation

removes the prince`s power over these individuals:

“The Princes took upon themselves the wrongful right to give away

some of these Gypsies to private individuals but since from here forth the

income derived from these Gypsies is to belong no more of the Prince but to

the State, from this reason it is righteous that the abuse of giving away some

of them should stop.”18

18

“Domnii luaseră asupră-le n drept fără cuviință de a dărui dintr-acești țigani pe la feluri de particulari, ci fiindcă de acum înainte venitul de la aceti țigani nu are să mai fie a Domnului, ci a Statului, drept aceia să cuvine a înceta abuzul de a să mai dărui dintr-ânșii”. The cited fragment, although undoubtedly applied, is somehow controversial because of its unusual insertion in the Organic Regulation: it is practically mentioned as băgare de seamă – “to take notice” – within the organizational scheme established for all public offices. The fragment is inserted alongside the specifications for the Office of Prisons. See the organization scheme following §146. See for example the following edition: Regulamentul Organic întrupat cu legiuirile din anii 1831, 1832 și 1833, și adăogat la sfârșit cu legiuirile de la anul 1834 până acum, împărțite pe fiecare an, precum și cu o scară deslușită a materiilor; acum a doa oară tipărit cu slobozenia Înaltei Stăpâniri, în zilele Preaînălțatului Prinț și Domn Stăpânitor a toată Țara Românească, Gheorghie D. Bibescu VV. [The Organic Regulation completed with the laws of 1831, 1832 and 1833 and amended to its ending with the laws passed from 1834 until now, divided by year, also with a clear content table; now printed for the second time with permission from High Authority, in the days his Great Highness and Ruling Lord of the whole of Wallachia, Gheorghe D. Bibescu Voyvode] (Bucharest: Tipografia Curții, 1847). Note that the numbering of the articles within the Organic Regulation is consecutive from the first to the last article of the documents`s initial form, established in 1831. Only amendments were made by renewing the numbering; all articles cited here using only their number could be also found using only their number.

8

In our view it is no exaggeration to admit that the Prince now loses

practically all personal power over these individuals: he can no longer act upon

them as property, nor tax them for his personal benefit. It is now actually that

these slaves, previously known as domnești (of the Prince), start being called ai

Statului (of the State). As a result of this change:

b. State Slaves are integrated in the same fiscal system as free men.

Through the Organic Regulation and the additional fiscal regulation act of 1832-

3 (Proect pentru îndreptarea orănduelii țiganilor Statului19

) they are taxed by

the same criteria and amounts as all free subjects, with the only difference being

that different institutions were in charge with collecting their taxes. Since 1832

they started paying:

i. The head tax (bir or capitatie) – Organic Regulation §6720

and the

fiscal act of 1832-3 Section I §621

;

ii. A license for those practicing trades and commerce (tax named patentă)

– Organic Regulation §9522

and the fiscal act of 1832-3 Section I §723

;

iii. A tax equivalent to 10% of the above taxes (zeciuiala – see the above

mentioned articles each type of tax);

iv. A special tax paid by gold diggers. If the Organic Regulation initially

introduced this tax only for State Slaves (§9524

), the fiscal act of 1832-3

extended it to free people as well (Section I §525

).

19

Analele Parlamentare ale României [The Parliamentary Sessions of Romania], tom III, partea I (Bucharest: Imprimeria Statului, 1892): see the Assembly`s session from December 9

th 1832.

20 „Capitația asupra țiganilor Statului hotărâtă câte lei 50 pentru aurari și câte lei 30 pentru toți

ceilalți, fără osebire.” [The headtax upon State Slaves, established as lei 50 for gold diggers and lei 30 for all the rest, indiscriminately.]. 21

„Art. 6. Toți ceilalți țigani ai Statului de obște, sub verice altă numire se vor afla (alții decât aurarii), vor plăti de familie câte lei 30 pe an, cu zeciuială, adică câte lei treizeci și trei, precum plătesc și toți dajnicii țării, câți sânt supuși la respundere de capitație; [§6. All other State Slaves, of any denomination they found themselves of (except gold diggers), will pay lei 30 for each family per year, with tithe, meaning lei 33, as the country`s all other contributors pay, namely all those summited to headtax.]. 22

„Cât pentru ceilalți țigani ai Statului carii vor sălășlui prin orașe și vor unelti feluri de meșteșuguri și meserii, precum spre pildă: dulgherii, fiierarii și alții, se vor înscrie între corporații și vor plăti după asemănarea altor meseriiași tacsa Patentiii ce li se va da.” [As for all other State Slaves, living in towns and practicing various crafts and trades, as are for example: carpenters, blacksmiths and others, they are to be enlisted in the corporations and are to pay as well as other tradesmen the patent applied to them.]. 23

„Țiganii însă cu meșteșuguri șezători prin orașe și legați la stărostiile corporațiilor vor rămânea precum s-au așezat, fiind această legiuire asemănată și cu coprinderea paragrafului 2 din articolu 95 al Organicescului Regulament.” [However, the (State) slaves practicing trades and living in towns and bound to the leadership of their corporation, shall remain as previously settled, this regulation being alike the content of the second paragraph of §90 of the Organic Regulation.]. 24

„Un puțin număr de lăcuitori Rumâni din județul Argeșului și Vâlcea, carii plătesc dinpreună cu țiganii aurari a lor dajdie în aur sau bani, se vor osebi dintr-această orânduială și se vor înscrie

9

c. A very obscure law is issued regarding marriages. It seems that from

1832, by command of the Government, State Slaves are forbidden to marry any

other kind of slaves. We called it obscure because we did not manage to find the

actual text of the law and instead know of it through individual cases placed

under its jurisdiction (see chapter I.d.). Our current hypothesis is that is based

and the cited fragment from the Organic Regulation in which State Slaves were

not to be given away, being understood that exchanges as result of marriages

with slaves of other master/owner are forbidden as well. Thus, marriages with

other kinds of slaves are forbidden by default even if the cited fragment does not

expressively refer to marriages. No mention of marriages with free people was

found, we can only assume that these were perpetuated as forbidden, given the

fact that they were later legalized.

These changes have gone mostly unnoticed or un-emphasized by

Romanian historians who generally focused on aspects like the effort of the

administration to settle these individuals (is well known that a great part of State

Slaves were nomads). They are however fundamental in understanding how

State Slavery evolved and can be seen as the first actual step towards there

emancipation. We can admit that, as a result of these changes, the only legal

aspect of State Slavery still in power in Wallachia after 1831 was that of their

specific marriage regime: they could not marry nor free people, nor other

slaves, but only within their own category. Otherwise, these individuals are no

longer at the disposal of the Prince, nor do they become obliged to the

Government more than free people were. The institution responsible with their

tax collection – the Office of Prisons – can only do just that and nothing more,

according the Organic Regulation and the 1832-3 fiscal act (cited above) both

documents regulating its attributions.

In our inventory of dates proposed as moments for the abolition of State

Slavery, we included the reform of 1838, of legalizing marriages between State

Slaves and freemen. Having concluded that by 1838 marriage came to be the

între birniciii satelor unde lăcuesc.” [A few number of Romanian inhabitants from the districts of Argeș and Vâlcea paying their tax among side (slave) gold diggers, in gold or money, shall be parted from this custom and enlisted among the headtax payers of the villages where they live.]. 25

„Daca din rumânii aurari ce au fost mai nainte, sau și alții ar voi și ei să să îndeletnicească întru vânare de aur, nu vor putea într-alt chip decât numai luând patentă de al ciniclea clasă, nu să vor înscrie însă în condica șnuruită de la Vornicia Temnițelor ci închipuind o ramură de îndustrie să vor lega de starostia orașului întru a căruia județ îș<i> vor avea lăcuința și vor plăti acolo tacsa patentei a cincilea, câte lei 55 adică 50 pă seama Vistieri<i>i și cinci în folosul acelui oraș.” [If some among Romanian gold diggers, as there once were, or among others, would also like to skill themselves into gold digging, they shall not be able to do it in any way than by paying the 5

th

class patent, but they will not be enlisted in the records of the Office of Prisons but by forming a separate branch of industry and bounding themselves to the government of the capital-city of the district they live in; and shall pay the tax according to the 5

th patent, lei 55, meaning 50 to

the Finance Department and 5 in the benefit of that town.].

10

only thing linking State Slaves with traditional Slavery, we should logically

assume that abolishing this regime and granting full rights to marriage should

mean the abolition of State Slavery. We not only agree with this judgment but

also wish to emphasize the very words of Prince Alexandru Dimitrie Ghica in

his resolution to the project of this act:

“The Department of Interior shall closely take into consideration the

wise judgment that the Chief of the Office of Prisons adds to his praised

works and, collaborating with the Administration of the Holy

Metropolitanate, will take the proper actions, publishing that those subjects

are considered as and are free as those of the villages and are not in any

way in the category of those who find themselves Gypsy Slaves of

private owners.”26

The 1838 reform doesn`t just appear as the logical step that abolished

slavery but is also the only act that we could identify that contains an actual

proclamation of liberty for the individuals in question.

I.c. A judicial system that does not record its own laws

Trying to explain why the 1838 act sank into obscurity while so far

being the only known law actually proclaiming liberty, we shall look towards

the 1843 act and see how it, in turn, became famous as the first abolition act in

the history of both Moldavia and Wallachia. We shall overlook the other options

as being clear confusions made by either historians or State employees. Instead,

the act of 1843 is in fact the only act amended to the civil code (Legiuirea

Caragea) as abolition and it is from here that we believe it established itself in

historiography and contemporary common knowledge. In what follows we

attempt to explain why, in our opinion, this amendment was established as a

simple error and lack of knowledge.

Wallachia`s lawmaking system did not function organically. There were

several institutions with the power to initiate laws and even to regulate by

themselves without sometimes communicating with others: the Country`s

Assembly, the Prince, the Government. Both marriage acts for State Slaves (of

1832 and 1838) were emitted without debate in the Assembly. This detail,

suggested to us by Professor Alin Ciupală, is probably one of the causes for

which the act came to have poor visibility. In fact, neither the 1832 and the 1838

act were amended to the civil code, although they regarded not only marriage(a

26

See the official mouthpiece (Buletin – Gazetă Oficială) for September 16th

: “Departamentul Dinlăuntru va lua în deaproape îngrijire înțeleapta chibzuire prin care îndăplinitoriul Dvornici(i)i Temneților prisosește întru ale sale lăudate lucrări și, înțelegăndu-să că Otcărmuirea Sfint(ii) Mitropolii, va face cuvenita punere la cale, publicuindu-să ca acei dajnici să socotescu și sănt slobozi ca și ceilalți ai satel(o)r și nu sănt nicicum în categoria cel(o)r ce să află pă la particulari robi țigani.”

11

preeminent aspect covered by the Wallachian civil code) but slave marriage in

particular (we underlined earlier that marriage was in fact the best regulated

aspect of slavery within the civil code).The fragment from the Organic

Regulation denying the Prince further control over State Slaves is also absent

from any edition of the civil code, although articles regarding slavery refer to

Slaves of the Prince and to how slaves could be given away. The fact that these

three crucial slavery laws were not recorded in the civil code can only be

interpreted as a sign of a dysfunctional judicial system that does not keep track

of all laws coming into power. Between 1831 and 1864, when Legiuirea

Caragea was replaced by a version inspired from the Napoleonic civil code,

we`ve managed to trace the following editions of Legiuirea Caragea: 183827

,

184528

and 185429

. The later one is most interesting because it is the first one to

be amended with any laws regarding slavery issued after 1818: the abolition of

Church slaves act of 1847 and the 1843 act, towards which the editor (Nicolae

Brăiloiu) gives the following statement:

27

Legiuire a Mări(i)i Sale fostului Domnu Ioan Gheorghie Caragea, tipărită acum a doă oară în

zilele Preaînălțatului Domnu a toată Țara Rumânească, Alexandru D. Ghica, prin înaltă

slobozenie și adăogată: 1-iu cu pitacul răposatului întru fericire Domnu GRIGORIE DIMITRIE

GHICA asupra căderii de protimisis la vânzarea celor nemișcătoare; și al 2-lea cu jurnalul

C(institului) Sfat Administrativ Estraordinar și cu domneasca întărire a Preaînălțatului nostru

Domnu tot asupra aceștii pricini; cu stăruirea și cheltuiala D(umnealui) Sărd(arului) S.

Marcovici [Code of law of His Highness the former Prince Ioan Gheorghe Caragea, now printed

for the second time, in the days of his Great Highness of the whole of Wallachia, Alexandru D.

Ghica, with high permisission and added: first with the decree of late Prince Grigorie Dimitrie

Ghica concerning the removal of protimisis right in selling imoble wealth; and second with the

log of the Honorable Extraordinary Government and the enforcement of His Great Highness the

Prince upon this matter; with the effort and expense of serdar S. Marcovici] (Bucharest:

Tipografia lui I. Eliad, 1838). 28

Legiurire a Prințipatului Țării Românești întocmită supt fostul Domnu Ioan Gheorghie

Caragia, acum a treia oară tipărită, cu înalta slobozenie, în zilele Mări(i)i Sale Prea-Înălțatului

nostru Domnu, Gheorghie Dimitrie Bibescu și adnotată la sfârșit cu toate legiuirile privitoare la

pricini civile, de D(umnealui) Cluceru Simeon Marcovici [Code of law of the Principality of

Wallachia compiled under the former Prince Ioan Gheorghie Caragea, now for the third time

printed with high permission, in the days of his Greatness and his Highness, our Lord, Gheorghiie

Dimitrie Bibescu; amended in its ending with all laws regarding civil issues, by clucer Simeon

Marcovici], (București: În privileghiata Tipografie a Curții, 1845). 29

Legiuirile Civile ale Țării Românești coprinzând Legiuirea Domnului I.G. Caragea cu

dispozițiile civile ale Regulamentului Organic, cu legiuirile mai nuoi, cu ofisurile domnești și cu

țircularele Departamentului Dreptății, prin care s-a complectat, s-a îndreptat și s-a deslușit,

adunate pentru întiia oară și clasificate de Cluceru K.N.Brailoiu, judecătorul la Curtea

Criminală din București [The civil codes of law of Wallachia, containing the code of Prince I.G.

Caragea along with the civil dispositions of the Organic Regulation, with the newer laws, decrees

of the Prince and orders of the Department of Justice with wich it was supplemented, amended

and clarified; now for the first time compiled and classified, by clucer C.N. Brailoiu, Judge of the

Criminal Tribunal of Bucharest](București, La Librăria lui Adolf Ulrich, calea Mogoșoaii peste

drumu de biserica Crețulescu, 1854).

12

“By the law of 22nd March 1843, all subjects under the administration of

the Department of Interior (State Gypsies/Slaves) were passed directly under

the administration of the Prefectures, measure through which they were

liberated, added to Romanian tax payers.”30

We emphasize the word statement when introducing the above quote for

it really was the editor`s own statement and the key of understanding how the

1843 act became known as an abolition. There is not a single document known

to us and related to the drafting and passing of this act that referred to it as

abolition. The draft proposed by the Finance Minister to the Prince, the Prince`s

address the Assembly asking for the passing of the act, the text read and the text

voted and passed in the Assembly31

, the document published in both the official

mouthpiece32

and the 1847 edition of the Organic Regulation33

; none of these

documents directly related to the law itself make any reference to the

individuals as slaves, nor proclaim any liberation. Our conclusion is that the

insertion quoted and amended to the civil code in 1854 is simply the editor`s

own opinion and statement, it was certainly not extracted from an 1843

document. This detail is even clearer when looking at post 1856 editions, where

all three abolition acts are cited: the so called abolition of State Slavery in 1843,

the emancipation of Church Slaves in 1847 and that of those belonging to

nobles in 1856. The 1843 act is the only act cited without providing a quote

from the actual law itself, as it simply did not contain any fragment in which the

emancipation was proclaimed. Moreover, the absence of the 1838 act from the

1854 edition of the civil code would suggest that the editor was not aware of the

existence of this law, law that did in fact proclaim the liberation. Editions of

Legiuirea Caragea were compiled even after 1864 as instruments in law

practice and law and history studies. Some of them are more complete than

others, conceived with appendices in which the editors reproduced the texts of

30

Legiuirea Caragea, a-doa edtiune complectată cu legile ce aŭ modificat-o, și alte disposiții legislative, decrete domnesci, și circulare ministeriale, in soțită și cu Codulu Politicu alu Principatelor-Unite-Romane [Legiuirea Caragea, the second edition, completed with the laws amending the code as well as with other legal dispositions, decrees of the Prince and governmental orders; accompanied also by the civil code of the United Romanian Principalities] (Bucharest: Typographia Natională a lui Stephan Rassidescu, 1865): 220. The text is the same as that from the 1854 edition, the only difference being that the 1865 edition is the first we know to be edited in latin letters (as opposed to the Cyrilic alphabet previously used): “Prin legiuirea din annu-lŭ 1843 Martie 22, toțǐ dajnicǐ de sub administrația Vornicieǐ Temniților (țigani Statuluǐ) s`au trecutŭ sub d`a-dreptul administrație a cărmuirilor de județe, cu quare acèastă mĕsură s`au desrobitŭ puindu-se în rŭndulŭ birnicilor rumănǐ.” 31

See Analele Parlamentare ale României [The parliamentary sessions of Romania], tom XIII partea I (Bucharest, Imprimeria Statului, 1902): 301-305. 32

See the official mouthpiece (Buletin – Gazetă Oficială) for April 16th 1843. 33

See the chapter Legiuri din anul 1843, part III from the 1847 edition of the Organic Regulation.

13

various laws, either omitted or only cited in pre-1864 versions. Most of post-

1864 versions will however maintain the same pattern as the 1854 edition: the

absence of the 1838 act while citing the 1843 act as the abolition law of State

slavery, some editions using the original statement of Brăiloiu, word for word. It

is only a century later, in 1955, that a new edition of laws from the age is

compiled and the editors insert both acts (1838 and 1843) are included as

appendices related to Legiuirea Caragea. Even now however the editors are still

ambiguous in indicating an exact date for the abolition. While not failing to

reproduce Prince`s resolution from 1838, the editors also referred to the 1843

act as having abolished the category of State Gypsies. This expression is

ambiguous as it does not offer a clear interpretation of the phrase State Gypsies.

It could mean Slaves but it the same time it could just refer to the income branch

known as State Gypsies that existed all throughout the 1830s and 1840s,

including after 1843. Fiscal records in the age (regarding both tax collecting

from the individuals and income flow to the State budget) were based on

different population categories. Even though they were taxed exactly like free

men and women, State Gypsies constituted a different branch of income and had

separate tax collecting records. Even after responsibility for their tax collection

was passed from the Office of Prisons to the Interior, the records still remained

the same, just held by different institutions. So either way we chose to interpret

the phrase used by the 1955 editors regarding the 1843 act, it would still be

found wrong.

Regarding the date of the emancipation of State Slaves, we see

justified to consider marriage act of 1838 as the actual law defining this

event, as it both cancelled the legal remnant of State slavery (the marriage

regime) and literally proclaimed the freedom of the individuals it was

issued upon. One reason for which members of the administration, jurists and

historians alike simply failed to noticed it was its absence from judicial

repertories as a result of the system`s poorly coordinated lawmaking

institutions.

This case is interesting also because of how the 1843 act became to be

considered an abolition act. For what we can tell so far, not only the civil code`s

editor shared this opinion but also members of the administration, even high

officials. In what follows, we try to explore, strictly from the point of view of

State slavery, a judicial system absent of rigor.

I.d. A judicial system marked by confusion

Abolition of State Slavery offers a marvelous example not only of how

a modern age event could be so easily confused and miss-interpreted but also of

how difficult modernization made its way in Wallachia`s institutions. Even at a

first view, what stagers is the extreme relativity with which lawmakers and

bureaucrat situated themselves when referring to laws and statutes. In the 1838

vs. 1843 debate that proposed, one main cause certainly seems to be the simple

14

error of not knowing about the law of 1838. The absence of knowledge is in our

view only part of the problem, which, if it`s to be understood as a whole, needs

a wider look on Wallachia`s administration. Our research suggests that since

1830, the status of State Slaves was almost never defined or clarified in

administrative practice and was marked by a relative and shallow view towards

the laws that applied to it: the Organic Regulation, the 1832 and 1843 fiscal

regulation acts and the 1832 and 1838 marriage acts.

The years 1831 and 1832 see State Slaves integrated in most

administrative regulations applied to free people. Personal authority of the

prince is removed from them, they are taxed as free people are and they can no

longer marry other category of slaves. Somewhere along the line of these

changes, the idea that they are in fact free people is born and can be documented

into some extent. We`ve mentioned earlier that the marriage act of 1832 became

known to us due not the actual text of the law but from cases in which it was

applied. Documents from an individual case in 1835 show us the request of a

small noble (Marin Ștoroceanu) from Dolj district, addressed to the Prince, for

permission to marry his women slave to one of the State Slaves leaving nearby.

His request is redirected to the Office of Prisons where it is rejected, the official

response justifying its decision both on the 1832 marriage act but also on the

simple fact that State Slaves were considered free!

“...his request is against the log of the Honorable Extraordinary Council

sent to this Office (of Prisons) attached to the order of the Department (of

Interior) no. 9146 per 1832, in which, in order to halt the many abuses

caused by the freedom (of the Prince) known in previous times for such

exchanges, it is stated to cease marriages of State Slaves with those of

private persons. Furthermore, separate from this issue, even if such an

interdiction would still not prevent his request, again it would still be without

ease to meet, as a forced action, for never would a State Gypsy (which are

considered free) would willingly accept to become a slave...”34

The Office`s answer is an example of how bad slave regulation were

known in the administration itself. State Slaves were not fully free yet and the

Office`s judgment is also wrong in its assessment that the State Gypsy

34

The National Archives of Romania, The Historical Central National Archives, București (Henceforth ANIC București), fund Vornicia Temnițelor, file 71/1835, page 3: “...cererea numitului este înpotriva jurnalului Cinsti<tului> Sfat Administrativ Ecstraordinar trimiși aceștii Dvorn<ni>cii pă lăng<ă> porunca Cinsti<tului> Departament supt No. 9146 din an <1>832 în care spre precurmarea a multor abuzuri întămplate din slobozeniea ce erea pe vremea trecut<ă> p<en>tru asemenea schimburi, să coprinde a înceta de a să mai cununa țigani de ai Statului cu de ai particularil<o>r. Apoi osebit de aceasta, deși nu ar fi o asemenea stavilă la cererea sa, iarăș cu înlesnire nu s-ar putea aduce la îndeplinire ca o urmare silnică căci niciodată țigani de ai Stat<u>l<u>i (ce să cred slobozi) nu ar priimi de bună voie să fie rob<i>...”

15

(supposed free man) would be enslaved as a result of marrying a slave. The civil

code made it clear that the consequence of such a marriage would be the

emancipation of the slave partner, and not in any way the enslavement of the

free one. Another case from 1837 sees a similar request and the same negative

reply from the Office, the same belief that State Slaves were free people. But

this time with a completely different justification: it is said that the individuals

were free as a result of the Organic Regulation35

.

The changes occurred in 1831-32 saw State slaves partially adapted to

society and this might be one of the reasons these individuals were seen as free.

Even in 1838 when they gain full rights, it is only in the Prince`s resolution that

we first find the literal expression of their liberation. The law`s text, drafted by

the Minister of Prisons, does not expressively refer to their liberation but instead

puts emphasis on the importance that mixed marriages would have in

integrating and culturally assimilating the individuals. This desired effect of the

measure also stands out in the administrative correspondence that took to

implement the measure. The general idea is that during the 1830s, no one in

Wallachia`s administration had any exact clue of their exact judicial status and

even in 1838 the fact that they`ve then had officially become free rarely

transpires.

As compared to the marriage regime, fiscality also generates confusion

and shows imprecision when assessing laws and statutes. We can only look at

Nicolaie Brăiloiu`s passage from the 1854 edition of Legiuirea Caragea and

notice that the editor wrongfully enounces that in 1843 the supposed former

slaves were added to Romanian tax payers (head tax payers). We can interpret

this formulation in the same two ways as for the 1955 edition. The editor could

have meant either that the former slaves had then become head tax payers, either

that they were previously tax payers and in 1843 added to the same fiscal

records as free head tax payers (were counted alongside Romanian tax payers).

Either way this enouncement is wrong: State Slaves become regular tax payers

along with the Organic Regulation and the fiscal regulation act of 1832-3 but

they remain in separate fiscal records (in terms of tax collecting and income

flow to the State Treasury) even well after 1843 (see the transcripts of the

Assembly`s session – Analele Parlamentare – all throughout the 1830s and

1840s their taxes constitute a different branch of State income; also the draft

tables and instruction for the fiscal census of 1844, where they are recorded

separately from the regular population)36

. On another hand however, it might

not the individual`s fiscal status that makes the 1843 act interesting but rather

one might be inclined to see this act as abolition due to the institution it refers

to: the Office of Prisons (Vornicia Temnițelor). The apparatus under its

35

ANIC București, fund Vornicia Temnițelor, file 88/1837. 36

ANIC București, fund Vornicia Dinlăuntru, file 77/1844, vol. I.

16

command that collected the taxes of individuals is now abolished and we might

speculate that it can be seen (and could have been seen by contemporaries) as

the last institutional remnant of State Slaver. Towards this judgment we oppose

the fact that this institution was not in any way attached to slavery: personal

dependency of State Slavery and personal control over them was abolished by

the Organic Regulation by removing the power of the Prince over them. The

Prince`s personal control over them was not replaced by the jurisdiction of any

institution, not even that of the Government and certainly not by the

administration of Vornicia Temnitelor, officially responsible only for their tax

collection [see the Organic Regulation, chapter Legiuiri îndeplinitoare pentru

cap VII, anexul 3 (Întocmirea Vornici(i)) Temniților)] and nothing more.

Vornicia Temnițelor did not act as a Slave owner or as instrument of slave

ownership but as a simple tax collecting apparatus. In order to further express

this point of view we also attempt to ask this very legitimate question: why

weren`t State slaves simply put under the regular administration? We haven`t

managed to find direct testimonies of the reasons proposed when choosing a

different apparatus for State Slaves so the next logical step was to compare the

how the regular system worked as opposed to that of the Office of Prisons. One

of two main differences between the two systems is that the territorial divisions

of the later covers much more than the territory assigned to one Prefecture

(Ocârmuire). Vornicia Temnițelor had 5 territorial divisions in charge with tax

collection, as opposed to 93 Sub-Prefectures (Subocârmuiri), meaning that each

territorial division (or Subocârmuire de Țigani ai Statului) covered in average

the equivalent of 17 Sub-Districts (plase). Also, tax collection was not

performed by villages but by vătășii and this is where lays the key to understand

this system. Unlike villages, vătășii were not specific to a certain land or estate.

They were a group of slaves lead and represented by a vătaf, group that could

migrate from one place to another. In fact, it is very well known that State

Slaves were not settled but migrated from village to village, seeking to gain

money by using their skills and trades sometimes rare among the rest of the

population (Gypsies were renowned in certain crafts). In opposition, regular

fiscal administration relied on a very rigid procedure based on permanent

settlement and by collecting taxes per settlement and not per individual. Here is

how the system worked: every 7 years there would be a fiscal census made in all

of the country. Based on the population of each village, a sum was calculated

that had to be paid for by each settlement every year, in four installments. This

sum remained fixed until the next fiscal census, it neither grew or shrank, not

even if the number of tax payers varied in this time span. If, for example, this

number shrank (if tax payers died or ran away, or where excluded from taxation

due to physical disabilities), money owed by the absentees was extracted from

the local budget (cutia satelor, a fund where a local tax, zeciuiala – the

equivalent of 10% of the any Government tax – was stored). If the number of

17

tax payers grew (mostly as a result of new households being formed), sums paid

by new tax payers were directed not the State Treasury but to the local budget.

Between two fiscal censuses the total sum due by each settlement to the State

Treasury remained constant. The only recalculations were possible only if the

local budget could not sustain payments because of too many absentees – if, as

the Organic Regulation gives as example, the village was decimated by an

epidemic. We consider it more than obvious why State Slaves could not fit in

this rigid fiscal landscape migrations and why their taxes needed to be collected

by vătășii and not by settlements, and by employees responsible with a much

wider territory as compared to regular fiscal administration. Otherwise, from tax

collectors upwards, the fiscal system activated by the Office of Prisons

functioned as the regular one: with 7 years fiscal census, tax collection records,

quarterly collection and flow to the State Treasury.

To conclude, the fiscal act of 1843 should not be considered abolition

because the system it abolished was simply not attached to slavery. The

lawmakers themselves did not see the act as abolition, as no mention of slavery

abolition or slaves at all can be found in the documents related to the drafting

and passing of this act. We`re certain for now that it came to be considered an

abolition firstly by neglecting the 1838 marriage act and secondly by over-rating

the importance of a fiscal system that by all probability was not conceived and

certainly had nothing to do with slavery-like control of individuals, but was

actually charged with collecting the same taxes that ordinary administration

collected from free people.

II. The Church Administration: a dysfunctional agent of reforms

One of the proposed objectives for this study was to try to clarify the

exact moment when State Slavery was abolished and to try to understand the

institutional dysfunctionalities behind the confusions made over time. We think

we have succeeded in showing how such an important law, of liberating

individuals from an inhumane and anachronistic system of control over them,

sank into obscurity and was last track of even by jurists and Government

officials, not to say the least by historians, who practically perpetuated the

original errors made jurists from the age. The institutional landscape we`ve

analyzed so far is one partially absent of coherence, in which statutes are not

clearly defined. Another objective was to see if the reform was applied

successfully and if not, to answer why. Because the subject is linked

indiscriminately to marriages, it must also be approached from the point of the

Church. In the age, marriages were regulated both by church and civil law (the

civil code, being itself based on canonic law, covered marriage in detail) but it

was solely the Church in power to officiate them. Canceling out the marriage

regime for State Slaves in 1838 meant that the individuals were free to marry as

free people and we can agree that implementing this reform was the equivalent

18

of simply publishing the decision, making it known to the population and clergy

alike.

Studying how this process took place is very difficult due to the lack of

archival material on this subject. Strangely enough, we did not succeed in

finding correspondence in the former archives of the main State institutions

involved: the Office of Prisons (who proposed the reform to the Prince) and the

Department of Interior (who, we are told in the Prince`s resolution, was to

publish the decision). Instead we were able to find a very important

correspondence file in the former archive of the Church Administration. The

institution can be found in the age under the names Iconomia / Ocârmuirea /

Ierarhia / Casa Mitropoliei and is one of the central institutions of the

Wallachian Orthodox Church, functioning in Bucharest, alongside the Church

Tribunal and the Metropolite`s chancellery. It was responsible with

administrating the Church`s properties (including the Church`s own slaves),

while mediating the relation between Church and State (role partly shared with

Logofeția Pricinilor Bisericești/Departamentul Credinței – the Department of

Church Affaires). The former archives of this institution can be found today at

Bucharest Municipal Archives, under the fund name Mitropolia Ungrovlahiei.

The fund contains an precious file under no. 1144/1838, of correspondence

between the Church and State administration regarding the matter of publishing

the Prince`s resolution to the project proposed by the Chief of the Office of

Prisons. The events reflected in these documents follow a basic chain of

operations: after the positive resolution is given by the Prince, the project is

redirected towards the Department of Interior which in turn forwards it, as

ordered, to the Church Administration, with specification to publish the law to

the entire clergy of Wallachia. Meanwhile, the Department of Interior, we are

told, is to simultaneously publish the law downwards into its own

administration (to the prefects and sub-prefects). File 1144 contains a short

exchange of addresses covering this cooperation but a great number of

addresses related to a third institution which came into role: the Office of

Prisons. Tending to his duty of assuring a good integration into society of the

individuals under its fiscal administration, the chief of this office verifies if the

new reform was functioning and what he found came as a great surprise. On

March16th 1839, half a year since the law was published in the official

mouthpiece, he reports to the Church Administration that during a conversation

with the bishop of Râmnic he was told news of the reform hadn`t reached the

diocese:

“What implementing action would have been undertaken both by the

Honorable Department (of Interior) and the Administration of the Holy

Metropolitanate is not only unknown to the office (of Prisons), but

fortunately I, the Chief of the Office (of Prisons), meeting the God loving

bishop of Râmnic, Neofit of Râmnicu Vâlcea, I over-expected, (and found

19

him) saying that he knows nothing about this, nor of the good will of His

Highness, nor of whatever actions were taken.” (page 37 of the file).37

The context becomes clearer when analyzing other documents from the

same file. Nine days before the above mentioned notification, on March 7th, the

Church Administration receives an address from the Bishop of Râmnic himself,

informing that:

“…from 2 reports that I`ve received from the pious archpriest of

Romanați under no. 68 from last year and no. 9 from current year, I`ve been

informed: first of all that the local prefecture, from order of the Honorable

Department of Interior, would had published that the State Gypsies settled in

the district`s villages would to be considered free and would to marry by

religious ceremony Romanian women, as Romanian inhabitants Gypsy

women, removing the obstruction and interdiction followed until now…”38

(page 39).

The answer of the Church Administration to both the Chief of

Department and the bishop reveals why the law remained unknown in that part

of the country. Blame is cast on the Department of Interior who supposedly took

upon itself the task of publishing the law to the dioceses of Râmnic, Argeș and

Buzău (see appendix), leaving the Church Administration to inform only the

parishes under its direct control: the parishes from the archiepiscopate of

Bucharest, in central Wallachia. Although we haven`t managed to trace this

supposed commitment of the Department of Interior, file 1144 was found to

contain the order to all archpriests of the Archiepiscopate of Bucharest, but not

to the other three dioceses. We can surely assume that months after the law

came into power, priests from half of Wallachia either knew nothing of it, or

occasionally found out from than State administration. Even if we were to place

the fault on the Department of Interior (which for now is doubtful), future

events still see the Church Administration encountering serious problems in

making orders circulate.

37

“Ce punere în lucrare să va fi făc<u>t din partia Cinst<itu>lui Departament cât și din partia

Ocârmuiri<i> ace<i> Sf<inte> Mitropolii întru aciasta, Dvornici<i>i nu numai <că> nu-i este încă

cunoscut dar, din norocire, văzând eu, Șeful Vornici<i>i, pe iubitorul de Dumnezeu Părintele

Episcopu <de> Râmnicu, chir Neofit la Râmnicul Vâlci<i>, am păzit peste nădejde, să zică că nu

cunoaște despre aciasta, nici buna voința Mări<i>i Sale, nici ce punere la cale să va fi făc<u>t.” 38

“…din 2 raporturi ce am priimit de la cuc<e>rnicu protopop din sud Romanați supt No. 68 din

anul trecut, și altul supt No. 9 din următorul an, m-am înștiințat, întâiu că Ocârmuirea locală după

porunca Cinst<itu>l<u>i Departament Dinlăuntru ar fi publicuit pentru țigani<i> Statului

sălășluiți prin satele acelui județ ca să s<ă> cunoască de acum înainte slobozi și a să căsători prin

cununie bisericească cu rumânce, precum și lăcuitori<i> rumâni cu țigance, luând piedica și

poprirea ce să urma pănă acum…”

20

In the same scenario as before, the Chief of the Office of Prisons again

addresses the Church Administration, informing that the marriage was still not

fully implemented. This happens on February 15th 1840 a year and a half after

the law came into power!

“…(the Office of Prisons) was notified with a report from the Sub-

prefect of District 1 under this administration, from Small Wallachia,

(showing that) priests do not know having received such an order for such a

circumstance and the tax payers (former Slaves) encounter their obstructions

when they and Romanian women decide upon marriage, (obstructions) also

when issuing baptism certificates for their children; while the Office is aware

that according to the High permission given by His Highness the Prince

through which He shed his mercy upon this kind of people, such orders are

issued for the whole of the Principality.”39

(page 44)

The Church Administration gives new orders, both in the

Archiepiscopate of Bucharest and to the dioceses and it is now that the Church`s

administrative dysfunctionalities fully come into light. While some (not all)

archpriests confirm receiving and implementing the order and one archpriest

from Teleorman District even adding that the law had been published according

to the first order (from 1838), the report of the archpriest of Ialomița shows a

certain level of administrative incompetence among archpriests, a factor that

surely played a role in the slow implementation of the marriage act of 1838:

“…we inform that on one hand we`ve ordered to priests from this unit

not to show any further opposition when tax payers from under the Office of

Prisons agree with Romanian locals upon marriage and also to record them

into civil state documents, providing baptism and marriage certificates; and

on the other hand, questioning them how was that they acted against the

initial order, they replied that no such knowledge was provided to them by

the former archpriest. Asking him to present to us both the current order and

the previous ones, implemented or not, he opposed, saying that he could not

handle them.”40

(page 34)

39

“…(Vornicia Temnitelor) s-au întâmpinat cu un raport din partea Suptocărmuitor<u>l<u>i de

1ia De<spărțire> supt aceast<ă> administrațiie, din Valahia Mică, că preoții n<u> cunosc că li s-au

obștit vreo poruncă cu <în>datorire pentru un asemenea sfărșit și cearcă dajnici<i> înpiiedicări

din parte-le, atât cănd să învoescu cu rumânce de a să luoa întru căsătoriie căt și asupra

sloboziri<i> bileturilor pentru botezul copiilor lor, în vreme cănd Vorniciia cunoaște că după

Înalta slobozeniie ce este dată din partea Mări<i>i Sale l<u>i Vodă prin care au revârsat mila

asupra unor asemenea rănd de oameni, sânt obștite porunci în tot Prințipat<u>l.” 40

“…să face cunoscut că pe de o parte am strășnicit preoții din acest ocol a nu să mai arăta

stăvilitori cănd dajnici<i>Vornici<i>i Temniții să învoescu a să lua în căsătorie cu rumânii

pămănteni, cum și a-i trece în condicile acturil<o>r sivile, dăndu-le bileturi de botez și cununie;

iar pă de alta cerăndu-le a s<ă> da cuvănt cum de au urmat înpotriva celii dintăi porunci, și ei me-

21

File 1144 is so far the only file we`ve managed to find that contains

correspondence between central institutions, while at the same time offering us

important evidence from local authorities, both State and Church institutions. It

is more than clear from the content of this file that it took more than a year and a

half to simply make the law public and known in the whole of Wallachia. Even

if the initial cause would apparently be the fact that the Department of Interior

failed to notify the episcopates – which has yet to transpire from anything else

than the explanation of the Church Administration – it is more than obvious

than even in the territories for which initial orders were indeed past along, the

law still remained unknown. The Orthodox Church of Wallachia could still not

function properly as an administrative chain. It meant that issued orders did not

reach their destination and that parish priests were simply not aware of laws and

regulations issued by either secular or religious authorities. The individuals

affected most by the indiscipline were the parishioners themselves. Former State

Slaves were free to marry Romanians from 1838 in even in 1840 mixed couples

still had difficulty in marrying because priests simply refused to perform the

ceremony, considering it against secular laws. And this was only added to other

problems as well:

“The Sub-Prefect of District 441

informed the Office (of Prisons) that

some lads of the tax payers under this administration from that district, after

agreeing upon marriage with the parents of the girls, arriving with their

marriage passes42

to the mentioned priests: Daniil from Bărbulești and

Neagul Duhovnicu from Burdușani, district Ialomița43

, not in any way would

they have them married, asking them for money, reason for which they were

forced to turn back with the girls right from the church`s door.”44

(page 41;

an address from the Office of Prisons to the Church Administration).

au răspunsu că nu li s-au dat această știință de fostul protopop, căruia cerăndu-i a-m<i> da atăt

această poruncă căt și pă cele ce le va fi avănd priimite și puse sau nepuse în lucrare, s-au

înpotrivit supt cuvănt că nu le știe de căpătăi.” The ending expression from this fragment – nu le

știe de căpătăi – can also be translated as „lost track/record of them”, or simply „not understands

them/their role”. 41

One of the five fiscal districts of the Office of Prisons (not to be confused with Wallachia`s administrative districts – see appendix. B).. 42

Most likely refers to written authorisation to marry given by the archpriest, whose duty was to verrify that their marriage did not came againts church laws. 43

Regular administrative district (see appendix B). 44

“Suptocărmuit<o>r<ul> Des<părțirii> 4lea au făcut cunoscut Vornici<i>i că unii din feciori<i>

dajnicil<o>r supuși aceștii administrații din acea despărțire, după ce s-au învoit cu părinți<i>

fetilor spre a să căsători, apoi fiind cu bileturile de cununie la însemnații preoți, anume Daniil ot

Bărbulești și Neagul Duhovnicu ot Burdușani din sud Ialomiță nicicum n-au voit ca să-i cunune,

făcându-le cerere de bani, din care pricină au fost siliți a să întoarce cu numitele înnapoi chiar de

la ușa biser<i>cii.”

22

Such a circumstance however was something often experienced in the

age by free people as well. Gypsies, either slaves or emancipated, encountered a

particular problem in being provided with certificates of baptism and marriage.

The Organic Regulation establishes the obligation of the priests to issue

certificates for all people but for reason which are unclear, priests simply refuse

to issue them for Gypsies. This circumstance appears even in above reproduced

fragments but its timespan was much wider. The earlier related documents

we’ve came across are from 183445

and the later one are from 184546

. Almost a

decade and a half after the establishment of the Organic Regulations, priests still

did not respect this regulation. The same period sees State authorities attempting

to use the Church in implementing some reforms, attempt inevitable in some

cases such as the one we looked upon, since the Church is the only authority

performing marriages. From simple tasks like emitting certificates to major

events such as the very emancipation of State Slaves, the Church did not prove

to be a reliable agent of reform.

Conclusions

The abolition of State Slavery in Wallachia is a fine example illustrating

the flaws of a system in course of adapting to modern principles of government.

The exact status of State Slaves (either slaves or free people) throughout 1830s

and 1840s was something familiar only to a small part of both State and Church

administration. After having the control of the Prince removed from them by a

phrase in the Organic Regulation that one might be tempted to view as a draft

rather than an article, they are seen as free people immediately after 1831, while

still bearing a mark of slavery: the interdiction to marry free people. The law

lifting this interdiction in 1838, although stating their full freedom as a

consequence and although published in the official mouthpiece, will go

unnoticed by judicial experts and will not be amended to the civil code. Lost

from memory, the marriage act of 1838 will be replaced in the eyes of law

experts and the administration by the fiscal act of 1843, a measure that neither

operated on the civil rights of individuals, neither had anything do with slavery

at all, it did not proclaim and did not dealt with its institutional remnant. The

fiscal apparatus under the Office of Prisons, eliminated in 1843, was by all we

can tell an adaptation of the regular fiscal system to the nomad behavior of State

Slaves. Rather than constituting an instrument of ownership and slavery-like

control, to the contrary, it was designed and acted to cope with the fact that

those individuals were from 1831-1833 free to travel and to practice any trades,

45

The National Archives of Romania, The Branch of București City, București, fund Mitropolia Ungrovlahiei, file 1137/1834. 46

The National Archives of Romania, The Branch of Dolj District, Craiova, fund Protoeria Dolj, file 3/1845.

23

paying the same taxes and following the same fiscal criteria as free people. This

aspect itself escaped the attention of law experts and historians who wrongly

attributed this change to the fiscal act of 1843.

At the same time, the 1838 act remained not only omitted from the civil

code but also only partially implemented. From the bishop of Râmnic who first

found out about the law indirectly from local State officials, to the archpriest of

Ialomița who could not keep track of received orders, the Church administration

clearly lacks the discipline it required to act as an agent of reform, as the State

would have it act like. From the marriage act to civil record keeping, orders

simply fail to reach parish priests and the ones who lose the most in this

institutional landscape are the parishioners themselves. The failure to implement

the marriage act of 1838 is a fine example of how individual and family life are

affected by the administrative dysfunctionality of an institution whose role was,

ironicaly, to unite man and women before men and God.

Appendix

24

25