CC BY
105EEK 63.3(0)4 PyM; y^K 94(498)
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 first 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 find 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 authoritative figure 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 first time: 1) the contention that the state was predominantly, if not exclusively, locally rooted, which implicitly denies any significant external influence;
2) the claim that Wallachia was, from its very beginning, a territorial, modern state; 3) the assertion 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 defined 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 dissemination, are not too difficult 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, emphasising 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. Sarbi, bulgari §i romani in Peninsula Balcanica // Studii asupra Evului Mediu romanesc / Ed. §erban Papacostea. Bucure^ti, 1984. P. 61.
2 For an English introduction into Romanian historiography see: Boia L. History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness.
Budapest, 2001.
Commentarii
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 specific, 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, difference 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 first 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 formation
A 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 polities, bearing almost no influence 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 Romanian 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 unification of these
3 There is, however, a significant 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 specific topics. For the later approach see: Pippidi A. La originile Tarii Romane^ti // Revista istorica. 2008. Vol. 19. P. 5-20; Andreescu §t. Exarhatul. Geneza institutiei in Tara Romaneasca §i Moldova // Revista istorica. 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 Salagean), or as nothing more than a region within the Hungarian kingdom (see Andras Kovacs). Nonetheless, both these theses depart from §tefan 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 in Tarile Romane pana la 1866. Bucure^ti, 1943.
6 In support of the Romanian origins of these polities, Buzescu quotes loan 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).
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 influence» 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 interpretation, such as Ioan Bogdan8, Nicolae Iorga9, Dinu C. Arion10, Constantin C. Giurescu11, as well as by those who succeeded him, such as Barbu Campina12, Andrei Otetea13, Petre P. Panaitescu14, §tefan §tefanescu15, 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 Tara Romaneasca §i Moldova tari separate? // Revista Fundatiilor Regale. 1938. Vol. 5. P. 560-577).
8 See: Bogdan I. 1) Originea voevodatului la romani. Bucure^ti, 1902; 2) Depre cnezii romani. Bucure^ti, 1903.
9 See: Iorga N. Histoire des roumains et de la romanite orientale. Vol. 3: Les Fondateurs d’etat. Bucharest, 1937.
10 See: Arion D. C. 1) Cnezii romani. Bucure^ti, 1938; 2) Incercare asupra domeniului eminent din Principatele Munteniei §i Moldovei in secolele XIV-XV // Inchinare lui Nicolae Iorga cu prilejul implinirii varstei de 60 de ani / Ed. Constantin Marinescu. Cluj, 1931. P. 12-23.
11 See: Giurescu C. C. Istoria romanilor / Ed. Dinu C. Giurescu. Bucure^ti, 2007.
12 See: Campina B. Le probleme de l’apparition des etats feodaux roumains // Nouvelles Etudes d’Histoire. 1955. Vol. 1. P. 181-207. — Although Campina fits into the same interpretative paradigm, asserting that «les etats feodaux roumains ne sont que le resultat d’une evolution organique, enfin arrivee a son terme», he essentially admits the role played by external influences on Romanian state formation, such as Russian, Bulgarian and Hungarian ones. Obviously, the emphasis put on the «beneficial» Russian influence was mostly due to the political context of the 1950’s. According to Campina’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: Otetea A. La formation des etats feodaux roumains // Nouvelles Etudes d’Histoire. 1965. Vol. 3. P. 87-104. — Otetea’s article is an overview of Romanian scholarship on medieval state formation from the 1950’s and early 1960’s. According to Otetea, 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 romane^ti. Bucure^ti, 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 (Pocz^tky panstwa Polskiego: Ksi^ga tysi^clecia. T. I-II / Red. K. Tymieniecki, G. Labuda, H. Lowmianski. Poznan, 1962), and reviewed by Panaitescu two years later in: Studii. Revista de istorie. 1964. Vol. 17. P. 177-182.
15 See: §tefanescu §t. 1) Tara Romaneasca de la Basarab I «Intemeietorul» pana la Mihai Viteazul. Bucure^ti, 1970; 2) Traditia daco-romana §i formarea statelor romane^ti de sine statatoare // Constituirea statelor feudale romane^ti / Ed. Nicolae Stoicescu. Bucure^ti, 1980. P. 9-24.
16 See: Popa R. 1) Les recherches archeologiques dans le probleme de la formation des etats medievaux roumains // Revue Roumain d’Histoire. 1973. Vol. 12. P. 41-59; 2) Premisele cristalizarii vietii statale romane^ti // Constituirea statelor feudale romane^ti. 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 defines state formation as a gradual evolution from simple to more complex polities.
17 See: Giurescu D. C. Tara Romaneasca in secolele XIV-XV. Bucure^ti, 1973.
18 See: Stoicescu N. Descalecat §i intemeiere in istoria Tarii Romane^ti // 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 Voda 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.
Commentarii
Sergiu Iosipescu19 or §erban Papacostea20. Even those historians, such as A. D. Xenopol21 or Gheorghe Bratianu22, who credited the late tradition according to which the making of Wallachia was initiated by the Romanian Transylvanian refugee Negru voda, fit 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 influences 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 influences exerted by the Golden Horde, by the Hungarian Kingdom, by Bulgaria, by Serbia and by the Byzantine Empire are either regarded as insignificant, or viewed as disruptive interferences, aiming to hinder the state building, but sometimes having the opposite 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 Ciociltan24, 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 influenced by the polities from the first category. Thus, viewed from an anthropological perspective, the Wallachian case reveals its implausible exceptionality: a state
19 See: Iosipescu S. Romanii din Carpatii Meridionali la Dunarea de Jos de la invazia mongola (1241-1243) pana la consolidarea domniei a toata Tara Romaneasca. Razboiul victorios purtat la 1330 impotriva cotropirii ungare // Constituirea statelor feudale romane^ti. P. 41-95.
20 In his earlier contributions, §erban 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 §. Romanii in secolul al XIII-lea. Bucure^ti, 1993, or the collection of articles: Papacostea §. Geneza statului in Evul Mediu romanesc. Bucure^ti, 1999). Nonetheless, in a recent contribution, §erban 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 §. Prima unire romaneasca: Voievodatul de Arge§ §i Tara Severin // Studii §i 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 significantly devalues the thesis of the internal growth.
21 See: Xenopol A. D. Istoria romanilor din Dacia Traiana / Ed. I. Vladescu. Bucure^ti, 1925. Vol. 3. P. 11-35. — There is one paragraph where Xenopol seems to suggest that the Transylvanian elite that founded Wallachia had been influenced by the political organization of the Hungarian kingdom (see: Xenopol A. D. Istoria romanilor din Dacia Traiana. 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: Bratianu Gh. Traditia istorica despre intemeierea statelor romane^ti / Ed. Valeriu Rapeanu. Bucure^ti, 1980.
23 Dimitrie Onciul considered medieval Wallachia a successor state of the second Bulgarian Empire (see Onciul’s writings collected by Aurelian Sacerdoteanu in: Onciul D. Scrieri istorice. Bucure^ti, 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 Ciociltan’s contention is that early 14th century Wallachia was part of a political «constellation» depending on the Golden Horde (see: Ciociltan V. Mongolii §i Marea Neagra in secolele XIII-XIV. Bucure^ti, 1998). Thus, through a sound argumentation, Virgil Ciociltan substantiates an idea previously suggested by Petre P. Panaitescu, see below footnote 32.
25 On Virgil Ciociltan’s footsteps, Matei Cazacu has recently described in positive terms the role Mongols played in the making of Wallachia (see: Cazacu M. O controversa: Thocomerius — Negru Voda // Revista istorica. 2008. Vol. 19. P. 49-58).
26 The distinction between primary and secondary state formation, outlined for the first 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.
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 dominated the Romanian scholarship for more than a century due to its ideological versatility. The idea of a locally rooted state fitted 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.
Significantly, 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 pseudocomparisons 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 English 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 Alexandra 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 Campina and §tefan §tefanescu, 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 communautes 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 first 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 fiefs. 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 romane^ti // Revista istorica. 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 Voda. Bucure^ti, 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 natiunilor moderne. Bucure^ti, 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? // Inchinare lui Petre §. Nasturel la 80 de ani / Ed. Ionel Candea, Paul Cernvodeanu §i Gheorghe Lazar. Braila, 2003. P. 531-554.
31 See: Iosipescu S. Contributii la istoria domniei principelui Radu I §i a alcatuirii teritoriale a Tarii Romane^ti in secolul al XIV-lea // Studii §i Materiale de Istorie Medie. 2010. Vol. 28. P. 25^8.
Commentarii
the comparative framework necessary for an in-depth analysis, these rhetoric analogies had no significant 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 Arge§ 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 undeveloped 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 dominant 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 teara) 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 Bratianu 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 Bratianu, early Wallachia should be viewed as a «community of right», a terra similar to the ones existing in medieval Germany36. Bratianu’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 Bratianu’s footsteps37. Moreover,
32 See: Panaitescu P. P. Mircea l’Ancien et les Tatares // Revue Historique du Sud-Est Europeen. 1942. Vol. 19. P. 438^48. — In his last monograph, «Introducere la istoria culturii romane^ti», Panaitescu reversed his initial theory arguing that Basarab unified the Wallachian polities in a fight against the Mongols. For the scholarly disputes on this topic see the above quoted monograph by Virgin Ciociltan. However, Virgil Ciociltan’s analysis is focused on the Golden Horde and not on Wallachia, therefore the Mongol influence 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 Influences on the Steppe Frontier, 1304—1589» (Cambridge, 1998).
33 See: Iorga N. Le Caractere Commun des Institutions du Sud-Est de l’Europe. Paris, 1929.
34 This analogy suggested by Iorga is mentioned by Gheorghe Bratianu, one of his former students (see: Bratianu Gh.
Sfatul domnesc §i adunarea starilor in principatele romane. Bucure^ti, 1995).
35 Brunner O. Land und Herrschaft: Grundfragen der territorialen Verfassungsgeschichte Sudostdeutschlands im Mittelalter. Vienna, 1939.
36 See: Bratianu Gh. Sfatul domnesc... P. 24-25.
37 For instance, Valentin Georgescu quotes Otto Bauer (sic!) apud Gheorghe Bratianu, see: Georgescu V Institutiile
statelor romane^ti de-sine-statatoare // Constituirea statelor feudale romane^ti. P. 214.
Brunner’s theoretical approach was later used to reinforce the interpretation of early Wallachia as institutioneller Flachenstaat, 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 Bratianu, who actually used «Land und Herrschaft» to question the dominant interpretation of the making of Wallachia, Brezeanu’s analysis supports 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 first two types of lands, archaic and feudal, actually fit into Brunner’s pattern of terra, while the so-called «political lands», which include medieval Wallachia, are nothing but territorial states. Thus, regrettably, Gheorghe Bratianu’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 Bratianu himself, who stood out in the Romanian scholarship: highly academic, soundly argumentative and, mostly, deliberately uncontroversial. As a result, some of Bratianu’s ground-breaking ideas passed unnoticed, as it was the case with his viewpoint on a different analogy for early Wallachia, the Swiss one, firstly 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 first paper was entitled «Sempach and Posada: the fight 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 testimonies 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 Austrian, 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 defined the state as a community of peasants. He persisted in this interpretation despite the archaeological 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 §i realitate locala in intemeierile statale medievale romane^ti. Un caz: terra Bazarab // Revista de istorie. 1994. Vol. 5. P. 211-232.
39 See: Iorga N. Deux conferences en Suisse. Berne, 1930.
40 For earlier references to this analogy see: Iorga N. Evolutia ideii de libertate. Bucure^ti, 1928. P. 142-143.
41 After the archaeological discoveries from Arge§, Iorga slightly modified 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 conferences en Suisse. P. 7-8.
43 See, for instance: Minea I. Razboiul lui Basarab cel Mare cu regele Carol Robert (noiembrie 1330) // Cercetari istorice. 1929-1932. Vol. 5-7. P. 336; §tefanescu §t. Tara Romaneasca de la Basarab I «Intemeietorul» pana la Mihai Viteazul. Bucure^ti, 1970. P. 33.
Commentarii
The exception is the same Gheorghe Bratianu who approached the Swiss-Wallachian analogy from a different angle: the methodological one. In his book on Wallachian and Moldavian state formation, Bratianu reopened the debate on the value of late traditions as historical sources44. As many of Bratianu’s contributions, this reinterpretation was stimulated by a recently published book on William Tell’s legend and the foundation of Switzerland45. Although Bratianu’s core argument is purely methodological — both William Tell’s and Negru Voda’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, Bratianu refutes the egalitarian, communal thesis, emphasizing instead that both medieval Wallachia and Switzerland were ruled by an upper class that fitted into the Western, feudal and knightly, pattern. Accordingly, for the Wallachian case study, Bratianu identifies a Western pattern of state formation transmitted through Hungary. Significantly, Bratianu 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’ affinities 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 reflects 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 Serbian influences on the Wallachian state formation, which can easily be traced, were constantly underplayed. For instance, although historians acknowledged the numerous Bulgarian and Serbian influences on the chancery, they nonetheless considered this institution an «original» Wallachian one48. Similarly, the Byzantine influence on the making of Wallachia was largely
44 See: Bratianu Gh. Traditia istorica...
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 // Sudost-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 Caractere Commun des Institutions du Sud-Est de l’Europe. Paris, 1929. P. 26.
48 See: Lascaris M. Influences byzantins dans la diplomatique bulgare, serbe et slavo-roumaine // Byzantinoslavica. 1931. Vol. 3. P. 500-510; Ionescu D. Contribution a la recherche des influences byzantines dans la diplomatique roumaine // Revue Historique du Sud-Est Europeen. 1934. Vol. 11. P. 128-150; Bogdan D. P. L’influence byzantine dans les textes slavo-roumains // Actes du VIe congres international d’Etudes byzantines. Paris, 1948. Vol. 1. P. 283-284; Ionescu Nigcov T. Contacts entre la diplomatique serbe et la chancellaire princiere de la Valachie pendant les XIVe et XVe siecles // Bulletin de l’Association Internationale d’Etudes du Sud-Est Europeen. 1972. Vol. 10. P. 281-284; Cazacu M. La Chancellerie des principautes valaque et moldave (XIVe-XVIIIe siecles) // Kanzleiwesen und Kanzleisprachen im ostlichen Europa / Hrsg. von Christian Hannick. Koln, 1999. S. 87-127.
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 apres Byzance, implicitly plays down any significant Byzantine influence 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 influence 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 influence on early Wallachia was mainly confined 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 question generally accepted interpretations. Thirdly, any external influence on the making of the state was minimized, as early Wallachia was viewed as an original, articulate polity, able to absorb such influences without modifying its core identity.
Epilogue. Questioning the Paradigm52
Methodologically, the analogies I have summarized in the first 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 flaws 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 find the polities from which the state progressively evolved. Archaeological findings, 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 apres Byzance. Bucharest, 1935.
50 In this regard, Valentin Georgescu’s first 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 Bizantul §i institutiile romane^ti pana la mijlocul secolului al XVIII-lea. Bucure^ti, 1980; see also Pippidi A. Traditia politica bizantina in tarile romane in secolele XVI-XVII. Bucure^ti, 2001).
51 See, for instance: Turdeanu E. La litterature bulgare du XIV siecle 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 13 th century South-Carpathian polities see the above mentioned monograph by §erban Papacostea, «Romanii in 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. Cateva consideratii // Secolul al XIII-lea pe meleagurile locuite de romani / Ed. Adrian A. Rusu. Cluj-Napoca, 2006.
Commentarii
this research effort, the entire argument is undermined by the missing of a crucial link. None of the identified І3* century polities can be directly associated with any of the political actors that shaped І4* and І5* century Wallachia. Thus, the Basarabs, the dynasty that built Wallachia, suddenly emerged in sources in the second decade of the І4* century. Traditionally, Basarab is considered to be Seneslau’s descendant, a І3* 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 find a connection between Seneslau and Basarab. Unfortunately, the archaeologists, the same as the historians, took for granted the idea of the continuity between І3* century polities and the І4* 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 findings 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 reconsidering: І) state building loses ground during periods of conflict; 2) the evolution of state power is linear, although it alternates periods of ascends, with phases of descends or stagnation;
З) 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 paradigm. Thus, due to the numerous conflicts caused by the Ottoman pressure and by the internal struggles for throne, the period post4420 has commonly been considered a period of decay in the history of Wallachia. Accordingly, the golden age of state power was placed at the beginnings of the Wallachian state. Certainly, the image of an already consolidated state suddenly emerging in the І4* 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 conflicts 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 Arge§, Basarab’s first documented court. Although Nicolae Constantinescu claims a direct continuity throughout the І3Л and the І4^ centuries, thus linking directly Basarab to Seneslau, he actually fails to provide a conclusive material evidence for the existence of a thirteenth century laic edifice at Arge§. Therefore, the connections between the І3Л century church and the fourteenth century church and princely court has yet to be elucidated (see: Constantinescu N. 1) La residence d’Arge§ des voivodes roumains des XHIe et XlVe siecles. Problemes de chronologie Э. la lumiere des recentes recherches archeologiques // Revue des etudes sud-est europeennes. 1970. Vol. 8. P. 5-31; 2) Curtea de Arge§ 1200-1400. Asupra inceputurilor Tarii Romane^ti. Bucure^ti, І984). It is worth noting that although in his previous articles, Constatinescu explicitly referred to a Seneslau phase at Arge§, in his final monograph he reluctantly admitted that he was unable to find the remains of the І3Л 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 І0^ 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. І62-І80). A similar scenario for Wallachia seems to me far more plausible than the widely accepted evolutionist thesis.
in his recent book on late medieval polities56. Therefore, if we reconsider 15th and 16th century conflicts, including the Ottoman pressure, from the viewpoint of state building, we might arrive to an entirely different conclusion. Thus, even though conflicts 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 significantly 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 considerably 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 finally elude the national and Marxist paradigms to which the subject of the making of Wallachia was confined for more than a century. As a result, avoiding both the illusion of exceptionality and the historicism chimera, Wallachia could find its appropriate place in the larger scholarship of late medieval state formation.
Резюме
Едва ли можно отыскать более ясное и четкое объяснение возникновения средневекового Валашского государства, чем то, что принадлежит перу Николае Йорги, без сомнения, самой авторитетной фигуры румынской исторической науки. В одном стройном изложении Н. Йорга соединил воедино три тезиса, частично уже широко распространившихся 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 основания 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 findings usually neglected as they did not fit 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 identified.
Commentarii
БШсИа Б1т1аа в1 Ба1сатаа Рв^ороШапа
государства, типологически близкого государствам Западной Европы, была весьма соблазнительной 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 результатом 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 аргументами, 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 начала оказывались в рамках заранее заданной парадигмы, основываясь на шедшей по кругу аргументации.
Цель нашей статьи заключается в том, чтобы поставить под сомнение данную парадигму в отдельной, возможно, не самой значительной, точке — в утверждении, что Валахия является результатом внутренней эволюции, выделяясь как особый случай формирования 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 исследователями. 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 государственности. 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 исследования в области изучения формирования позднесредневековой государственности. 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 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-
вано в румынской науке, они имплицитно присутствовали в основах доминирующей интерпретационной парадигмы.
Так, ввиду многочисленных конфликтов, вызванных османским давлением и внутренней 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 предшествовавшем 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, последние почти определенно наращивали свою власть в том, что касалось инфраструктуры 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, обратив вместо этого наше внимание на внутренних соперников Басарабов. Очевидно, что предлагаемый подход подразумевает пересмотр истории Валахии не только в XIV столетии, 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 статье
Статья 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, commarian@gmail.com
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 утверждении, 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 историков, 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, предлагавшихся 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 сложившаяся 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
Commentarii
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, сравнительный подход
Information about the article
This 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, commarian@gmail.com
Title: Land, Lordship and the Making of Wallachia
Summary: The present article aims to question the dominant paradigm of Wallachian state making in Romanian scholarship on a specific 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 first 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 influence was minimized, as early Wallachia was viewed as an original, articulate polity, able to absorb such influences 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 conflict; 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
References
Andreescu, §tefan. Exarhatul. Geneza institutiei in Tara Romaneasca §i Moldova, in Revista istorica. 2008. Vol. 19. P. 21-27.
Arion, Dinu C. Cnejii (chinejii) romani: Contributii la studiul lor. Bucure§ti: Tipografia Revista Geniului, 1938. 245 p.
Arion, Dinu C. Incercare asupra domeniului eminent din Principatele Munteniei §i Moldovei in secolele XIV-XV, in Marinescu, Constantin (ed.). Inchinare lui Nicolae Iorga cuprilejul implinirii varstei de 60 de ani. Cluj: Editura Institutului de Istorie Universala, 1931. P. 12-23.
Bogdan, Damian P. L’influence byzantine dans les textes slavo-roumains, in Actes du VIe congres international d’Etudes byzantines. Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes, 1948. Vol. 1. P. 283-284.
Bogdan, Ioan. Depre cnezii romani. Bucure§ti: Carol Gobl, 1903. 32 p.
Bogdan, Ioan. Originea voevodatului la romani. Bucure§ti: Carol Gobl, 1902. 17 p.
Boia, Lucian. History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2001. 285 p.
Bratianu, Gheorghe. Traditia istorica despre intemeierea statelor romane^ti / Ed. Rapeanu, Valeriu. Bucure§ti: Editura Eminescu, 1980. 295 p.
Bratianu, Gheorghe. Sfatul domnesc §i adunarea starilor in principatele romane. Bucure§ti: Editura Enciclopedica, 1995. 328 p.
Brezeanu, Stelian. Model european §i realitate locala in intemeierile statale medievale romane§ti. Un caz: terra Bazarab, in Revista de istorie. 1994. Vol. 5. P. 211-232.
Brunner, Otto. Land und Herrschaft; Grundfragen der territorialen Verfassungsgeschichte Sudostdeut-schlands im Mittelalter. Vienna: Baden, І939. 5І2 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. І62-І80.
Buzescu, Alexandra. Domnia in Tarile Romdnepdna la 1866. Bucure§ti: Cartea Romaneasca, І943. 333 p.
Campina, Barbu. Le probteme de l’apparition des ёtats fёodaux roumains, in Nouvelles Etudes d’Histoire. І955. Vol. І. P. І8І-207.
Cazacu, Matei. O controversa: Thocomerius — Negru Voda, in Revista istorica. 2008. Vol. І9. P. 49-58.
Cazacu, Matei. La Chancellerie des principaOss valaque et moldave (XIVe- XVIIIe siёcles), in Han-nick, Christian (ed.). Kanzleiwesen undKanzleisprachen im ostlichen Europa. Koln: Bohlau Verlag, І999. S. 87-І27.
Chirot, Daniel. Social Change in a Peripheral Society. New York: Academic Press, І976. І79 p.
Ciociltan, Virgil. Mongolii §i Marea Neagra in secolele XIII-XIV. Bucure§ti: Editura Enciclopedica, І998. 299 p.
Cohen, Ronald (ed.). Origins of the State; The Anthropology of Political Evolution. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, І978. 233 p.
Constantinesfu, Nicolae. La residence d’Arge§ des voivodes roumains des XHIe et XIVe siecles. Problemes de chronologie a. la lumiere des recentes recherches archeologiques, in Revue des etudes sud-est europeennes. 1970. Vol. 8. P. 5-31.
Constatinescu, Nicolae. Curtea de Arge§ 1200-1400. Asupra inceputurilor Tarii Romdne^ti. Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei, І984. І70 p.
Cotovanu, Lydia. Alexis de Kiev et de toute la Russie — Hyacinthe de toute la Hongrovalachie: deux cas parallelles?, in Candea, Ionel; Cernvodeanu, Paul; Lazar, Gheorghe (ed.). Inchinare lui Petre §. Nasturel la 80 de ani. Braila: Editura Istros, 2003. P. 53І-554.
Cristea, Ovidiu. Captivitatea lui Otto de Bavaria. Cateva consideratii, in Rusu, Adrian A. (ed.). Secolul al XIII-leape meleagurile locuite de romdni. Cluj-Napoca: Mega, 2006. P. 6І-76.
Curta, Florin. The Changing Image of the Early Slavs in the Romanian Historiography, in Sudost-Forsc-hungen. І994. 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. І998. Vol. 2. P. 5-42.
Filitti, Ioan C. Despre Negru Voda. Bucure§ti: Cultura Nationala, І924. 39 p.
Georgescu, Valentin. Bizantul §i institutiile romdnegti pdna la mijlocul secolului al XVIII-lea. Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei, І980. 296 p.
Georgescu, Valentin. Institutiile statelor romane§ti de-sine-statatoare, in Stoicescu, Nicolae (ed.). Consti-tuirea statelor feudale romdne$ti. Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei, І980. P. 209-250.
Giurescu, Constantin C. Istoria romdnilor I Ed. Giurescu, Dinu C. Vol. І. Bucure§ti: Editura All, 2007. 454 p.
Giurescu, Dinu C. TaraRomdneasca in secoleleXIV-XV. Bucure§ti: Editura §tiintifica, І973. 496 p.
Ionescu Ni§cov, Traian. Contacts entre la diplomatique serbe et la chancellaire ртшмёге de la Valachie pendant les XIVe et XVe siёcles, in Bulletin de l’Association Internationale d’Etudes du Sud-Est Europeen. І972. Vol. І0. P. 28І-284.
Ionescu, Dёmёtre. Contribution a la recherche des influences byzantines dans la diplomatique roumaine, in Revue Historique du Sud-Est Europeen. І934. Vol. ІІ. P. І28-І50
Iorga, Nicolae. Evolutia ideii de libertate. Bucure§ti: Ministerul de Instructie, І928. 290 p.
Iorga, Nicolae. Le Caractёre Commun des Institutions du Sud-Est de l’Europe. Paris: J. Gamber, І929. І38 p.
Iorga, Nicolae. Deux conferences en Suisse. Berne: [s. n.], І930. 24 p.
Iorga, Nicolae. Byzance aprёs Byzance. Bucure§ti: Institute d^tudes byzantines, І935. 272 p.
Iorga, Nicolae. Histoire des roumains et de la romanite orientale. Vol. 3. Les Fondateurs d’etat. Bucure§ti: Academia Romana, І937. 424 p.
Iorga, Nicolae. Studii asupra Evului Mediu romdnesc I Ed. Papacostea, §erban. Bucure§ti: Ed. §tiintifica §i Enciclopedica, І984. 459 p.
Iosipescu, Sergiu. Contributii la istoria domniei principelui Radu I §i a alcatuirii teritoriale a Tarii Romane§ti in secolul al XIV-lea, in Studii §i Materiale de Istorie Medie. 20І0. Vol. 28. P. 25-48.
Iosipescu, Sergiu. Despre unele controverse ale istoriei medievale romane§ti, in Revista istorica. І979. Vol. 32. P. І959-І978.
Commentarii
Iosipescu, Sergiu. Romanii din Carpatii Meridionali la Dunarea de Jos de la invazia mongola (І24І-І243) pana la consolidarea domniei a toata Tara Romaneasca. Razboiul victorios purtat la І330 impotriva cotropirii ungare, in Stoicescu Nicolae (ed.). Constituirea statelor feudale romdne^ti. Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei, І980. P. 4І-95.
Lascaris, Michael. Influences byzantins dans la diplomatique bulgare, serbe et slavo-roumaine, in Byzan-tinoslavica. І93І. Vol. 3. P. 500-5І0.
Mann, Michael. The Sources of Social Power. Volume 1. A History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1760. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, І986. 549 p.
Minea, Ilie. Razboiul lui Basarab cel Mare cu regele Carol Robert (noiembrie І330), in Cercetari istorice. І929-І932. Vol. 5-7. P. 32І-34І.
Naef, Henri. Guillaume Tell et les trois Suisses. Lausanne: Spes, І942. І23 p.
Onciul, Dimitrie. Scrieri istorice. Ed. Aurelian Sacerdoteanu. Bucure§ti: Editura §tiintifica, І968. Vol. І. 720 p. Vol. 2. 560 p.
Ostrowski, Donald. Muscovy and the Mongols; Cross-Cultural Influences on the Steppe Frontier, 13041589. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, І998. 329 p.
Otetea, Andrei. La formation des ёtats fёodaux roumains, in Nouvelles Etudes d’Histoire. І965. Vol. 3. P. 87-І04.
Panaitescu, Petre P. De ce au fost Tara Romaneasca §i Moldova tari separate?, in Revista Fundatiilor Regale. І938. Vol. 5. P. 560-577.
Panaitescu, Petre P. Introducere la istoria culturii romdne^ti. Bucure§ti: Editura §tiintifica, І969. 397 p. Panaitescu, Petre P. Mircea l’Ancien et les Tatares, in Revue Historique du Sud-Est Europeen. І942. Vol. І9. P. 438-448.
Panaitescu, Petre P. Recenzie la «Pocz^tky panstwa Polskiego: Ksi^ga tysi^clecia», in Studii. Revista de istorie. І964. Vol. І7. P. І77-І82. Papacostea, §erban. Romdnii in secolul alXIII-lea. Bucure§ti: Editura Enciclopedica, І993. І88 p.
Papacostea, §erban. Geneza statului in Evul Mediu romdnesc. Bucure§ti: Editura Corint, І999. 294 p. Papacostea, §erban. Prima unire romaneasca: voievodatul de Arge§ §i Tara Severin, in Studii §i materiale de istorie medie. 20І0. Vol. 28. P. 9-24.
Pippidi, Andrei. La originile Tarii Romane§ti, in Revista istorica. 2008. Vol. І9. P. 5-20.
Pippidi, Andrei. Traditia politica bizantina in tarile romdne in secolele XVI-XVII. Bucure§ti: Corint, 200І. 393 p.
Pop, Ioan Aurel. Geneza medievala a natiunilor moderne. Bucure§ti: Editura Fundatiei Culturale Romane, І998. 230 p.
Popa, Radu. Les recherchёs archёologiques dans le probteme de la formation des ёtats mёdiёvaux roumains, in Revue Roumain d’Histoire. І973. Vol. І2. P. 4І-59.
Popa, Radu. Premisele cristalizarii vietii statale romane§ti, in Stoicescu, Nicolae (ed.). Constituirea statelor feudale romdne^ti. Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei, І980. p. 25-39.
Spruyt, Hendrik. The Sovereign State and its Competitors; An Analysis of Systems Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press, І994. 288 p.
Stahl, Henri H. Les anciennes communautes villageoises roumaines. Paris: C.N.R.S., І969. 254 p. §tefanescu, §tefan. Tara Romdneasca de la Basarab I «Intemeietorul» pdna la Mihai Viteazul. Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei, І970. І76 p.
§tefanescu, §tefan. Traditia daco-romana §i formarea statelor romane§ti de sine statatoare, in Stoicescu, Nicolae (ed.). Constituirea statelor feudale romdne^ti. Bucure§ti: Editura Academiei, І980. P. 9-24.
Stoicescu, Nicolae. Descalecat §i intemeiere in istoria Tarii Romane§ti, in Revista de istorie. І980. Vol. 33. P. 43-6І.
Turdeanu, Emil. La litterature bulgare du XIVsiёcle et sa diffusion dans les pays roumains. Paris: Librairie Droz, І947. І88 p.
Tymieniecki, Kazimierz; Labuda, Gerard; Lowmianski, Henryk (ed.). Poczqtky panstwa Polskiego; Ksiqga tysiqclecia. Poznan: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, І962. T. I: Organizacja polityczna. 428 s.; T. II: Spoleczenstwo i kultura. 368 s.
Watts, John. The Making of Polities. Europe, 1300-1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 466 p.
Xenopol, Alexandra Dimitrie. Istoria romdnilor din Dacia Traiana I Ed. Vladescu, Ion. Vol. 3. Bucure§ti: Cartea Romaneasca, І925. 236 p.
