Across the Danube: Southeastern Europeans and Their Travelling Identities (17th-19th C. ) [1 ed.] 9789004335448, 9789004335431

Citation preview

Across the Danube

Studies in Global Social History VOLUME 27

Studies in Global Migration History Editor Dirk Hoerder (University of Arizona, Phoenix, ar, usa) Editorial Board Bridget Anderson (University of Oxford) Adam Hanieh (soas, University of London) Immanuel Ness (City University of New York) Jose Moya (Barnard College, Columbia University) Brenda Yeoh (National University of Singapore) Vazira Fazila-Yacoobaliis Zamindar (Brown University) Min Zhou (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore)

VOLUME 9

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/sgmh

Across the Danube Southeastern Europeans and Their Travelling Identities (17th–19th C.)

Edited by

Olga Katsiardi-Hering Maria A. Stassinopoulou

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: A pantoon bridge on the Danube in Novi Sad (Neusatz), near Belgrade. Source: Ermini, L./Kunike, A., Donau-Ansichten, Vienna 1824, fig. 173 The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov lc record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2016042757

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1874-6705 isbn 978-90-04-33543-1 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-33544-8 (e-book) Copyright 2017 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents List of Illustrations VII Introduction 1 Olga Katsiardi-Hering and Maria A. Stassinopoulou

Part 1 Routes and Spaces 1 Greek Immigrants in Central Europe: A Concise Study of Migration Routes from the Balkans to the Territories of the Hungarian Kingdom (From the Late 17th to the Early 19th Centuries) 25 Ikaros Mantouvalos 2 Migrations and the Creation of Orthodox Cultural and Artistic Networks between the Balkans and the Habsburg Lands (17th–19th Centuries) 54 Nenad Makuljević 3 Connecting Migration and Identities: Godparenthood, Surety and Greeks in the Russian Empire (18th – Early 19th Centuries) 65 Iannis Carras

Part 2 Greeks in Vienna: A Close Reading 4 Greek Migration in Vienna (18th – First Half of the 19th Century): A Success Story? 113 Vaso Seirinidou 5 Greek Presence in Habsburg Vienna: Heyday and Decline 135 Anna Ransmayr 6 Endowments as Instruments of Integration and Memory in an Urban Environment: The Panadi Building in Vienna 171 Maria A. Stassinopoulou

vi

Contents

Part 3 Old Settlements, Nation States, New Networks 7

In Search of the Promised Land. Bulgarian Settlers in the Banat (18th–19th Centuries) 193 Lyubomir Klimentov Georgiev

8

‘Chasing Away the Greeks’: The Prince-State and the Undesired Foreigners (Wallachia and Moldavia between the 16th and 18th Centuries) 215 Lidia Cotovanu

9

Foreign Migrant Communities in the Danubian Ports of Brăila and Galaţi (1829–1914) 253 Constantin Ardeleanu

10

From Tolerance to Exclusion? The Romanian Elites’ Stance towards Immigration to the Danubian Principalities (1829– 1880s) 275 Dimitrios M. Kontogeorgis Selected Bibliography 303 Index 315

List of Illustrations Illustrations 5.1 Original appearance of the church of Holy Trinity on Fleischmarkt 156 6.1 The triptych of the benefactors Magdalena and Constantin Panadi with the endowment building 183 6.2 The Panadi building around 1942 184 7.1 Diploma of Emperor Joseph ii (1787) 206 7.2 Certificate of the urban magistrates of Vinga 210

Maps 0.1 0.2 1.1 3.1 3.2 5.1 5.2

Danube: a bridge for goods and people 11 Greek Orthodox diaspora 17th–19th centuries 12 Greek Orthodox communities in Hungarian lands 16th–19th centuries 31 Balkan migration streams, 1650s–1820s 67 Port-city migration streams, 1774–19th century 68 Addresses of residence of the Greeks that were Ottoman subjects in 1808 150 Shops and offices of Greek merchants in 1816 151

Figures 1.1 The geographical origins of Greeks in the cities of Zemun (Semlin), Tokaj and Miskolc 35 1.2 Greeks in Miskolc. Age of arrival in Hungary 38 3.1 ‘Greeks’ in Moscow 1701– 1710 72 3.2 Iuri Ivanov and his mother, 1707– 1719 75 3.3 Founding members of Nezhin Brotherhood, 1696 (15 individuals) 81 3.4 Greeks in Nezhin, 1711 (322 individuals) 82 3.5 Circular migration: non-resident Brotherhood members in Nezhin, 1769 82 3.6 Greeks of Nezhin, official census 1782 84 3.7 Greek Magistracy in its institutional setting, 1791 (amount of correspondence exchanged) 90 3.8 Deaths in Odessa Holy Trinity Church 96

viii

List of Illustrations

3.9 Godparenthood and witnesses at weddings. Per cent difference from no. of deaths 98 10.1 Ethnic distribution of the population of Braila (1838) 286 10.2 Distribution of merchants of Moldavia according to legal status (1845) 289

Tables 4.1 Wealth distribution among Greeks in Vienna according to probate inventories, 1780–1850 115 10.1 Main market towns (târguri) in Moldavia established or heavily populated by Jews during the late 18th century 278 10.2 Number of Bulgarian families established in Wallachia (1815) 280 10.3 Number of Greek families established in Wallachia (1844) 287

Introduction Olga Katsiardi-Hering and Maria A. Stassinopoulou From its source in the Black Forest, the Danube flows eastwards through mountain chains, plains, valleys, through numerous port-cities such as Regensburg, Vienna, Enns, and Budapest, then to the south, reaching further fluvial ports in Bulgaria, such as Vidin, which was until the end of the 19th century an Ottoman city. Embracing a variety of landscapes and peoples, the river has connected capital cities of empires and kingdoms, and still forms a shared landmark of nation states which have otherwise followed different trajectories after 1918. It is the river celebrated by Strauss, and the Viennese and Hungarian music, depicted in works of art by many painters1 and described in novels, poems, travelogues, and films by various authors and travelers.2 It connects and divides3 nations, societies, and micro-regions of various economic, political, cultural, and religious orientations. At its branched estuary, at the Black Sea Delta, the river ends after flowing through a series of fluvial ports, which flourished from the mid-19th century and partly retain their importance. Since the Roman and Byzantine era, the Danube constituted both a possibility of entrance and a barrier for people finding their way from Asia to ­Central and Southern Europe.4 Across time it often formed the real frontier ­between the states and empires around it, but it also contributed to factors that ­provoked wars among the Ottoman, Habsburg, and Russian Empires during the period under consideration in this volume.5 The immediate aim of these antagonistic powers was to obtain crucial posts on its banks; their real goal was to control the regular conduct of the commerce, and also of other passages of people and articles and, in particular for the Ottomans, to sustain the status quo, while Habsburg Austria and the other European powers strove, especially after the end of the 18th and even more energetically in the 19th century, to force the internationalization of the river.6 It is remarkable that most of the treaties from the 17th to the middle of the 19th century, not only 1 Ermini and Kunike, Donau-Ansichten. 2 Kanitz, Donau-Bulgarien und der Balkan; Leigh Fermor, Between the Woods and the W ­ ater; Strasser, Stromlinien der Geschichte? Die Donau, Michael and Rita Schlamberger, ­Donau-­Lebensader Europas (aka Danube-Europe’s Amazon), Parts 1 and 2. 3 Roth, “Rivers as Bridges – Rivers as Boundaries”; Rauscher and Serles, “Der Donauhandel”. 4 Urbansky, Byzantium and the Danube Frontier. 5 Pickl, Die wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen der Türkenkriege; Brummett, “Ottoman Expansion in Europe”; Aksan, “War and Peace”; Aksan, Ottoman Wars 1700–1870. 6 Vodrazka, Aufsätze zur Donau. See also fn. 35.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004335448_002

2

Katsiardi-Hering and Stassinopoulou

among the Ottomans and their rivals, but also European treaties which were the outcome of other conflicts, were signed in cities directly on or near the Danube. Most of them were signed in the river span from Belgrade to its delta – Sitva Torok (Zsitvatorok) 1606, Karlowitz 1699, Passarowitz 1718, Belgrade 1739, Kucuk Kainardza 1774, Svistov 1791, and Vienna 1815 – while two were signed in the capitals of the Danubian Principalities – Jassy 1792 and Bucharest 1812.7 From the mid-16th century, after the occupation of most of Hungary by ­Suleyman the Magnificent8 and until the Treaty of Karlowitz (1699), the middle part of the Danube eastwards of Budapest belonged to the Ottomans.9 ­After the Treaty of Karlowitz and definitely after the Treaty of Belgrade the river became for a long period the closely watched frontier between the Habsburg and the Ottoman Empire.10 While the Danube from Buda to Zemun flowed now through Habsburg territories, from Belgrade to its estuaries in the Black Sea ­remained an Ottoman river. Due to the diversity of administration in the former Ottoman Hungarian territory,11 the semi-autonomous status of the Danubian Principalities of Transylvania, Wallachia, and Moldavia,12 but also because of the diversity of the productive profiles of the various districts and of the wide spectrum of merchants’ movements and orientations, it would be wrong to treat the region around the river as a single geopolitical and socialeconomic entity. The middle Danube and the vast area around it, which belonged after the Treaty of Karlowitz to the Habsburg Empire, was the fruitful part of the river, flowing more or less through fertile plains, particularly in the central Hungarian region around the Tisza tributary of the Danube and its so-called ­‘Tisza-knee’.13 The Austrian mercantilist policy in the long 18th century and more actively after the Treaty of Passarowitz was conducive to the establishment in this last

7 Katsiardi-Hering, “Greek Merchant Colonies”, p. 129. 8 Kunt and Woodhead, Süleyman the Magnificent and His Age, particularly pp. 71–90. 9 Moačanin, Town and Country on the Middle Danube; Gradeva, “Between Hinterland and Frontier”; Kostić and Todorović (eds.), Dunavom od Bezdana do Beograda. 10 Mitev et al., Empires and Peninsulas; Pedani, “The Border from the Ottoman Point of View”. 11 Koller, Eine Gesellschaft im Wandel. 12 Heppner, Österreich und die Donaufürstentümer; Köpeczi, Kurze Geschichte Siebenbürgens; Pop et al., The History of Transylvania; Abrate et al. (eds.), Handbuch der europäischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte, in particular the chapters by Knittler, “Die Donaumo­ narchie, 1648–1848” and Schaser, “Die Fürstentümer Moldau und Walachei, 1650–1850”, and Schaser, “Das Fürstentum Siebenbürgen 1650–1850”. 13 Füves, “Görög kereskedők a Dunántúlon”, particularly the map at p. 109.

Introduction

3

area of many Greek, as well as Serbian Orthodox, confraternities, ‘compagnie’,14 as discussed in several chapters in this volume. It is also this widespread area (but more precisely the southern part of the historical Hungarian territories, the Banat of Temesvar (modern Timişoara), and the eastern part of Croatia and the Voivodina)15 which, during the long 18th century, experienced the ­repopulation policy of the Habsburgs in the so-called ‘Military confine border’, with the movement and settlement there of Serbs, Wallachians (Aromanians), and Danube Swabians (Donauschwaben).16 During the long 18th century and until the early 19th century, and even more after the treaties of Adrianople17 (1829) and Paris (which ended the Crimean War in 1856),18 not only did the Austrians continue their repopulation policy, but they also made a concentrated effort, through a series of costly technical works, to transform the Danube into a ‘modern’ navigable river;19 efforts, which on the one hand led to undermining the traditional role of the Ottomans in the transport activities in the Lower Danube and on the other hand boosted the development of its fluvial city ports and the internationalization of the river, with major consequences for commercial transport and migration. The state confines between the Ottoman and the Habsburg Empires20 ­remained fluid for a long period. The emergence of the Russian Empire from the major European rivals of the Ottoman Empire, in the 18th century, led to border changes in the northern part of the Black Sea and the northeastern part of the Danube estuaries.21 Radical economic changes followed. The changes in the maritime commercial ways, particularly after the Treaty of Kucuk Kainardzha, and the special role of the Greek merchant marine are well researched, while the strengthening of the role played by the Ionian islands (under British rule) after the 1830s in the Black Sea forms the focus of an ongoing research 14

On these various forms of communal organization in the Central European Greek ­ rthodox Diaspora see Katsiardi-Hering, “Αδελφότητα, Κομπανία, Κοινότητα”; on adminO istrative policies in the Habsburg Empire and their shaping of communal identities see Katsiardi-Hering, “Grenz-, Staats- und Gemeindekonskriptionen”. 15 Portmann, “Vojvodina”. 16 Eberl et al., Die Donauschwaben; Katsiardi-Hering and Madouvalos, “The Tolerant Policy of the Habsburg Authorities”, pp. 16–17, referencing more literature on the subject. 17 Adrianople is named after the Roman Emperor Hadrian. 18 Ardeleanu, International Trade and Diplomacy in the Lower Danube. 19 Katsiardi-Hering, “Δούναβις”; Livieratos et al., “On the Digital Revival of Historic Cartography”. For a printed atlas of the region, Breu (ed.), Atlas der Donauländer. 20 Dávid and Fodor, Ottomans, Hungarians, and the Habsburgs; Ágoston, “The Ottoman Wars”; Marin, Contested Frontiers in the Balkans. 21 Tuğluca, “The Budjak Region”.

4

Katsiardi-Hering and Stassinopoulou

consortium.22 These changes forced the Ottoman Empire to readjust its Black Sea commercial policy23 and particularly the commercial routes around the Danube estuaries, and heavily influenced the migration flows and economic orientations of the states and merchants, resulting in the reorientation of the most well-known and most often used commercial routes.24 The traditional commercial roads, which since the 14th century merchants from Southeastern Europe had followed towards Central Europe,25 the Danubian Principalities, and onwards to the Ukraine and Russia, were rearranged after the Treaty of Passarowitz26 which through its privileged tariff framework benefited particularly the Greek Orthodox merchants of the Ottoman Empire. Their formative presence led Traian Stoianovich in 1960 to use the emphatic title ‘The Conquering Orthodox Balkan Merchant’ for his article on the subject.27 The next radical reorientation of the commercial routes across the Danube took place after the Treaty of Adrianople. The informal and formal realignment of the borders that occurred after the Greek and Serbian revolutions should also be taken into consideration. During the second half of the 19th century the Danube flowed not only through or between empires but also through nation states, newly formed or just emerging, all of which were regulated by newly formulated and applied commercial and population policies. Southeastern Europe, particularly its northern part, was during the late medieval time and until the mid-16th century at the center of interest of Ragusan, Venetian, Florentine, Viennese, Augsburg, and other European m ­ erchant 22 Kremmydas, Ελληνική Ναυτιλία; Harlaftis and Papakonstantinou, Η ναυτιλία των Ελλήνων; see also the interdisciplinary and inter-university project “The Black Sea and its portcities, 1774–1914. Development, convergence and linkages with the global economy”. The project is led by the Department of History of the Ionian University in Corfu, Greece (Prof. Gelina Harlaftis) in collaboration with the University of Crete, the Hellenic ­Research Foundation, the University of Thessaly, the University of the Aegean, and other collaborators from Russia, the Ukraine and other countries. See http://blacksea.gr/en/ (accessed 20 November 2015). 23 Cernovodeanu, “British Economic Interests”. The traditional Ottoman policy in the region is analyzed by Inalcik, “The Question of the Closing of the Black Sea”; see also Bilici et al., Enjeux politiques. 24 Papakonstantinou, “Trading by Land and Sea”. 25 Kellenbenz, “Fluss- und Seeschifffahrt”. 26 Ingrao, Samardžić, and Pešalj, The Peace of Passarowitz, especially the articles of M. Peters and J. Pešalj, pp. 39–51 and 141–58 respectively. 27 Stoianovich, “The Conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant”; see also the chapters of T.  Stoianovich and O. Katsiardi-Hering, in Asdrachas et al., Greek Economic History, pp. 404–83.

Introduction

5

families and networks.28 Some of them, such as the Ragusan, reached even to the Lower Danube. After Buda was captured by the Ottomans and the greatest part of the Hungarian lands became an Ottoman province (pashalik), Transylvania recognized the suzerainty of the Porte and became a self-ruling principality (1541). Therefore, Suleyman the Magnificent was the first sultan who firmly stated landlord right over Wallachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania, considering the tributary principalities as parts of the “Well-protected ­Dominions and their inhabitants as sultan’s subjects (re’aiya)”.29 Thus from an administrative and commercial point of view, Ottoman Southeastern E ­ urope was formed, with a majority of its inhabitants being Christian Orthodox. Successive ­movements of people intensified, particularly from the Epirus region, from Western Macedonia, and from Serbia towards the Danubian principalities. Their settlement in the principalities as peasants, merchants, and artisans is well researched.30 These migrants formed family, commercial, and social networks whose structures lasted for centuries. An intensifying as well as a diversification of these migratory networks took place in the long 18th ­century, due to the changes brought about by the Karlowitz and Passarowitz treaties and the new e­ conomic conditions of the 19th century. These migratory movements could be analyzed within the framework of the Ottoman ­Empire’s economic crisis and the following shift from the timariot to the çiftlik system, the steadily increasing fiscal obligations of the population – particularly in the 18th ­century – and the commercialization of the peasant production on the one hand and the way to industrialization of the Central European area on the other.31 This latter parameter caused an increase in the export of raw materials (such as wool, cotton, cotton yarn, etc.), so much needed in the newly established textile industries in Austria, Bohemia, Saxony, etc. Historical a­ nthropological aspects of family formation, kinship relations, and inheritance practices in Southeastern Europe in the longue durée under their economic and geographical environment should also be taken into consideration.32 ­Leslie Page Moch’s view on a non-sedentary Europe (especially in the 18th century) could be totally ­applicable to our Southeastern Europe as well.33 People moved for their seasonal a­ gricultural and livestock activities, or they

28 Krekić, Dubrovnik; Spisarevska, “De l’activité des associations commerciales de Raguse”. 29 Panaite, “Power Relationships in the Ottoman Empire”. 30 Cotovanu, “Migrations et mutations identitaires”, pp. 235–348, with rich bibliography. 31 Faroqhi, The Late Ottoman Empire. 32 Kaser et al., Historische Anthropologie. 33 Page Moch, Moving Europeans, p. 1.

6

Katsiardi-Hering and Stassinopoulou

ended up becoming ­bandits.34 They also moved from the mountain or peasant areas to the towns and cities, in particular those in crucial commercial crossroads or near the mercantile fairs. Distance and duration of the movements could vary considerably. In our book the Danube is the ‘bridge transporting souls and products’, the ‘border’, and the ‘space’ as perceived and settled by migrants from Southeastern Europe. The Danube, regarded for centuries as the fluvial end of Europe, served as a ‘geographical’ point of reference for the demarcation of territorial and ‘symbolic’ borders. In the 19th century Balkans, the Danube became in both a local and a national sense a basic component of evolving identities. It was then that it emerged as the ‘Dunarea noastră’ of the Romanians, or the ‘Hellenic Istros’ of the Greeks. The Danube was also a ‘bridge’. Its history is intricately connected with the complex mobility of peoples, goods, and ideas. Because of its economic potential and despite the commanding presence of nation states, Danube became one of the first representative examples of international cooperation, through the Commission Européenne du Danube whose functioning highlights the persistence of transparent borders even in the nation-state dominated 19th century. The European Danube Commission (Commission Européenne du Danube), established by the 1856 Treaty of Paris, was undoubtedly one of the most dynamic and successful European and international organizations until its ­dissolution in the early post World War ii era. Its aim was to maintain the ­international status of the river and promote free commercial transactions and riverine communication. Initially it counted among its members only the signatories of the Treaty (Habsburg Empire, Prussia, France, Great Britain, Kingdom of Sardinia, Russian Empire, Ottoman Empire), but since the 1880s it also included the main riparian states (Bulgaria and Romania). Its founding was the result of nearly 80 years of systematic efforts by the major European powers to “open” the river to navigation and commerce. While the late 18th century endeavors of the Austrian authorities ended in failure, the 1815 Treaty of Vienna promulgated, in theory, the international status of the Danube and the 1829 Treaty of Adrianople stipulated the liberalization of trade and navigation in the river. It allowed therefore the infiltration into the region of not only Greek but also Italian (mainly Genovese), British, and Ionian merchants and seafarers. These merchants succeeded in integrating the Lower Danube into the world economy, making manifest its even greater potential for the Western European markets. The jurisdiction and range of operations of the European Danube Commission grew to include policing of the river, m ­ ajor 34 Kaser, Hirten, Kämpfer, Stammeshelden.

Introduction

7

­ ydrographic and engineering works, administrating sanitary institutions, h repairing of ­vessels, etc. The European Danube Commission also developed as a focal point of contention between small and newly established Balkan nation states (­Serbia, ­Bulgaria, and Romania) and the powerful central and Western European states. The analysis of its aims and functioning may help us explain, to a degree, the ambivalence shown, at times, by modern states and their elites to the diminution of their sovereignty, due to the emergence of ‘European’ institutions.35 This collective volume aims to present a comparative discussion on the history of migration movements,36 which took place from the long 17th to the 19th century from Southeastern Europe towards Eastern-Central Europe, in particular the Habsburg lands, the Danubian Principalities, and further to Ukraine and Russia. On the one hand we focus on groups and communities of immigrants, on their commercial and social networks, the maintenance of the links with their places of origin, whereas on the other hand we address the subject of their integration as a result both of the migrants’ readiness for integration as well as of the policy of the host countries and of the attitude of local societies. Most of the chapters address the formation of new discourses on social and national identities. In the case study of the Danubian Principalities (Cotovanu) another example is analyzed, that of the strife among the local elites, a consequence of complex relations and conflicts that arose due to the various waves of the migrating groups and their contradictory interests and orientations. According to Dirk Hoerder, “interdisciplinary transcultural societal studies permit comprehensive analyses of the structures, institutions, and discursive frames of both the societies of origin and of arrival in particular local or regional variants – including industrialization, urbanization, social stratification, gender roles and family economies, demographic characteristics, political situation and developments, educational institutions, religious or other belief 35

36

For older bibliography on the international Danube agreements and the commission see Siotto-Pintor, “Le régime international”; Krause, “Die europäische Donaukommission”; a wider perspective is in Qian, Die Donau; on recent publications see only indica­ tively, Commission Européenne du Danube, La Commission Européenne du Danube; Focas, The Lower Danube River, pp. 253–422; Ardeleanu, “The European Commission of the ­Danube” The legal aspects are analyzed extensively by Stanciu, România şi Comisia Europeană a Dunării. From the rich literature on the extensive discussion about migration see Cohen, The ­Cambridge Survey of World Migration; Hoerder and Page Moch, European Migrants; ­Lucassen, J. and Lucassen, L., Migration, Migration History; Bade, Europa in Bewegung.

8

Katsiardi-Hering and Stassinopoulou

systems, ethno-cultural composition, and traditions of short- and longdistance migrations”.37 We see the texts in this volume as being embedded in this framework and ­offering both an empirical backbone and perspectives towards a further refinement of models of migration and of social interaction created through ­migratory movements. Southeastern Europe offers a paradigmatic case study for larger questions debated in global migration history. Located between Ottoman, Habsburg, and Russian empires the region constitutes historically a borderland per se.38 In Ottoman Southeastern Europe trade led to the mobilization of human ­resources, as well as to the configuration of a unified zone of transactions. From the 17th to the 19th century Greeks, Serbs, Albanians, Vlachs (Aromanians), ­Romanians and Bulgarians, mostly Christians and Jews, participated in commercial and intellectual networks and played a leading role in the perception of ­trans-imperial and later the formation of nation-state borders. Borders constitute ongoing complex processes, not to be defined as mere demarcation lines in space, but rather as socially dynamic spaces.39 The interaction of people outside the institutional and official channels of life works against the notion of the border as a boundary of demarcation. Our interest focuses on the fields of migration, population movement, and formation of networks in the context of the ‘Danubian’ border, a ‘fluid’ border that contributed to the formation of complex identities40 and conceptions, in particular among the immigrants. It also aims to study the ways in which migration affects the social relationships of the migrants and through them the socio-cultural systems in the areas of origin and destination. The cross-cultural migration movements with which we are dealing in this volume can prove the suggestion of J. Lucassen and L. Lucassen that “small groups of merchants, scholars, or technicians may have had a large and lasting influence on receiving societies”,41 rather than migration movements due to colonization policy. In our case we are in front of “migrations that cross cultural space” and of “‚cross-community migrations‛, which have different and more far-­ reaching transformative effects, for better or worse. The peaceful or 37 Hoerder, Cultures in Contact, p. 269. 38 Schmitt and Metzeltin, Das Südosteuropa der Regionen. 39 Paasi, “The Changing Discourses”. 40 For a historical and contemporary approach see Wagstaff (ed.), Border Crossings; Löwis (ed.), Phantom Borders. 41 Lucassen, J. and Lucassen, L., “The Mobility Transition”, p. 352.

Introduction

9

v­ iolent confrontation of people with different cultural baggage has the potential for cultural and social change, at the personal, organizational, and societal level.”42 The discussion regarding the role played by geographical factors in the formation of state entities in Southeastern Europe has been largely transformed since the mid-1970s.43 It was also significantly enriched by the modern and post-modern discourse on the interplay of the notions of identity and borders, be that political, natural (rivers, mountains, seas, etc.), or symbolic. In this context mobility is seen as contributing to the formation of a differentiated, ­flexible, but also complex, plural identity. In the host countries, this identity was strengthened and also simultaneously diversified by the official censuses44 and the bestowing of commercial and settlement privileges by the authorities to the newcomers. It is important to mention that tolerance45 from the part of the Habsburg authorities gave the immigrants from the South the chance to establish communities and organize their educational and cultural-religious life, aiding the creation both of networks of intellectuals and scholars and also helping the creation of a proto-public sphere for the emerging/­changing ­Balkan nations.46 Finally, it is necessary to add that the phenomena of migration, settlement, and formation of communities, especially those by the Greek Orthodox immigrants in the Habsburg Monarchy, have been extensively studied, mostly in Central European and Greek historiography. In the majority of the cases the approach is in one direction, namely on the ways in which the immigrants constituted communal institutions and commercial networks, and how they interacted with the imperial authorities in order to obtain privileges. What is still lacking is the exploration of the mental/psychological dimension of this ‘travel’, of this passage from one Empire, the Ottoman one, from its institutions, legal system, and cultural values, to another, the Habsburg, to a significantly different set of rules, laws, and concepts. This ‘passage’ entailed a complex process for the immigrants and demanded the articulation of oldestablished cultural practices and to a certain degree the formation of a new 42 43 44 45 46

Lucassen, L. and Lucassen, J., “Quantifying and Qualifying Cross-Cultural Migrations”, p. 21. See e.g. Schmitt and Metzeltin (eds.), Das Südosteuropa der Regionen. Katsiardi-Hering, “Grenz-, Staats-, Gemeinde-Konskriptionen”; Mantouvalos, “Conscriptiones Graecorum”. Katsiardi-Hering and Madouvalos, “The Tolerant Policy”. Katsiardi-Hering and Stassinopoulou, “The Long 18th Century of Greek Commerce in the Habsburg Empire”, pp. 191–96.

10

Katsiardi-Hering and Stassinopoulou

identity. Recent and current research focuses for example on donations and endowments as an instrument both of remaining connected with the homelands and integrating in the host societies.47 It also changed the host societies, in particular in the territories, which were colonized after peace treaties. The integration of this Ottoman and multi-confessional dimension into the study of the migrants’ new homelands can contribute to a wider perspective and more nuanced framework for the history of Central and Eastern Europe; for example, the meeting of Orthodox Christians with Catholics and Protestants, or of Sephardic Jews migrating to the Northeast via the Balkan routes. For the purposes of this volume we divide the Danube,48 in its flow east of Vienna, into three sections in relation to the transporting routes and the establishment of several colonies (communities) of immigrants in the lands in its northern area (Map 0.1). The first section includes the area between Vienna and Zemun (Semlin), both on the Danube, and the complex and dispersed Orthodox diasporas in Hungarian lands, especially in the so-called ‘Danube knee’. The second, the ‘middle’ Danube of our book, follows the river from Semlin to the Iron Gates, a borderline between two empires (Habsburg and Ottoman) that until the mid-19th century constituted the most vital part of the economy and the transit of people and articles. In the Hungarian plains, a great number of Orthodox companies and merchant communities were established (Kécskemet, Pest, Miskolc, Szentendre, Gyöngyös, etc. Map 0.2). It is in this vast area that a great part of the Austrian Military Borders Region (Militärgrenzgebiet) was developed, receiving numerous Serbian families according to Habsburg colonization policy. From the frontier island of Orsova, products were transported to Transylvania, and through it, to Ukraine and Russia. Thus the third part of our Danubian travel consists of the so-called Lower or Maritime Danube, most of it flowing through the Danubian Principalities. It is here that port cities on the banks of the river, such as Braila/Galatz, Giurgiu, and Constanza in the Black Sea, with a host of others flourished especially after the 1829 Treaty of Adrianople, when old commercial and migration traditions and routes merged with the acceleration of new products and movement in the 19th century, while at the same time the emergence of new borders created the necessity of new communication and network systems. (Maps 0.2, 1.1) The products which had moved through the Danube river ended in Leipzig, Frankfurt, Ukraine, and Russia. Leipzig, with its international market f­ unction, as a terminus and meeting point for merchants from the north and the south 47 48

Mantouvalos, “Έλληνες διαθέτες”; Karadima, “Διαφυλάσσοντας την περιουσία”; Seirinidou, Έλληνες στη Βιέννη. Katsiardi-Hering, “Greek Merchant Colonies”, pp. 129–31.

Map 0.1

Danube: a bridge for goods and people

Introduction

11

Katsiardi-Hering and Stassinopoulou

Map 0.2

Greek Orthodox diaspora 17th–19th centuries

12

of Europe was also the urban space of business competition and even rivalry. The character of an annual market presence was predominant, while a more permanent establishment of merchant communities from Southeastern Europe in Saxony took place only in Leipzig.49 But even there, the presence 49

Suppé, “In Sachsen auf Heimatboden. Zur Geschichte der griechischen Gemeinde in Leipzig”.

Introduction

13

of orthodox merchants from the European South did not achieve the continuity of the communities of Central Europe, discussed in this volume. One of the main reasons for this was the strong competition by merchants importing colonial products, such as cotton and raw materials for textile coloring, via the port of Hamburg and delivering them from there to the Leipzig fare. The migrant settlements in both emerging modern and old medieval cities contributed to the joint molding of new urban spaces and new forms of investment and profit. Changes in the cities were co-determined by the vibrant migrant merchant minorities. Vienna is discussed here as a case study. As the imperial capital which had functioned as the stockyard and pivotal emporium between Central and Southeastern Europe, Vienna was the center of attraction for numerous migrant, often non-Catholic, populations. The protagonists in commerce were mostly migrants, often Protestants from several countries and Orthodox from the Ottoman Empire, while the 19th century saw the rise of Jewish commerce in Vienna. Here we focus on the rise, integration and/or fall of companies of Greek Orthodox and Ottoman merchant origin and the corresponding community structures, as they struggled to survive through the 19th century. While Ransmayr addresses the communal structures developed by the migrants from the early 18th to the early 20th century and the traces left through investment in buildings during the heyday of Greek presence, ­Seirinidou shows that commerce included risks and downfalls. We also follow the memorial practices as they are reflected in urban space through endowments and donations until the end of the Habsburg Empire in 1918 through a case study, the Panadi building. Previously, in earlier research, we defined the desideratum of joint perspectives on the commercial activities and migrant settlements of Ottoman ­Sephardic Jewry and Greek Orthodox settlers in the Habsburg Empire.50 ­Despite different timelines, competitive roles, and divergent economic traditions, there seem to be parallels and connecting points in the development of family/enterprise networks on the way from the Ottoman to the Habsburg ­Empire and moments of connectivity among the diaspora communities.51 50

51

On trans-confessional transactions in the Early Modern Mediterranean see Trivellato, The Familiarity of Strangers; Katsiardi-Hering, “Christian and Jewish Ottoman Subjects”. On the Sephardi presence in Vienna see the catalog of the exhibition, Die Türken in Wien. Geschichte einer jüdischen Gemeinde. On the need for transcultural and transconfessional ­research on the migrant merchants from the Ottoman Empire see S­ tassinopoulou, “­Trading Places” pp. 170–73. On the elite representatives of Jewish migrants from the ­Balkans, e.g. the Todescos, see now the catalog, Ringstrasse. Ein jüdischer Boulevard. On divergence and parallels of endowment cultures from the 18th to the 20th century see now the proceedings of the workshop “Imperial Subjects and Social Commitment. An

14

Katsiardi-Hering and Stassinopoulou

­ ecause of the Habsburg constraints until the late 18th century on the arrival B of Jewish families to the imperial territories, and also due to the divergent ­orientation of the Jewish mercantile diaspora in the continental trade in Southeastern Europe, the Sephardic migration from the Ottoman to the Habsburg Empire remained fairly limited until the early 19th century.52 Extending our perspective to include the emergence of nation states we enter the complex nexus of tactics of feudal rule in the Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, vassal to the Ottoman Empire and the semiautonomous crossroads of Transylvania. The dynamics of local politics are also reflected in the changes in the migration paths (by land and water), in the inconsistency of attitudes towards immigrants during the centuries discussed, and in the formation of the nation state. This process leading from territories in the divided and shared space between two empires to the Romanian nation state is analyzed in the context of migration, which formed a central element of social construction. As will hopefully have become clear, this book addresses the Danube in its function of creating through the movement of migrants, goods, and ideas, an interconnected larger region, encompassing territories in two empires from the late seventeenth to the nineteenth century. It connects this region with a larger region surrounding it, reaching to the Mediterranean and the Black Sea and to the Russian Empire. The orientation of Southeastern Europe ­towards the West is inconceivable without the constant dialog throughout the ­centuries b­ etween the areas shaped by the Danube and the Mediterranean.53 ­Furthermore, the economic fate of migrants discussed in this book interconnects them with global spaces such as the ‘Empire of Cotton’,54 as many of them are involved in the production, commerce, and finance of textiles. Finally, their orthodox confession sets them, in an era of secularization and tolerance policies, in an exposed position in the large context of the re-arrangement of the co-existence of confessions. The book includes an introduction and ten chapters divided into three parts. The first part, “Routes and Spaces”, offers a general perspective on the routes and spaces of migrations and focuses on the role of the host authorities and Endowment History from 1750 to 1918” (Vienna 16–18 November 2016) (to be published); https://wienergriechen.univie.ac.at/workshop-2016/ (accessed 1 June 2016). 52 Katsiardi-Hering, “Christian and Jewish Ottoman Subjects”, pp. 424–25; Panova, Die Juden zwischen Toleranz und Völkerrecht im Osmanischen Reich. 53 Katsiardi-Hering, “L’area balcanica”, p. 615. 54 Beckert, Empire of Cotton.

Introduction

15

local populations as regards the success of the newcomers’ integration. The second, “Greeks in Vienna: a close reading”, offers a multifaceted discussion of the Greek presence in Vienna, a subject which has suffered considerably under national historiographical traditions wishing to integrate the capital of the Habsburg Empire into their national mythology. Compared to our detailed knowledge on other cities of great importance for the Southeast European migrations, like Trieste, Vienna has only recently entered the terrain of modern historiographical approaches.55 The third part, “Old settlements, nation states, new networks”, includes articles dealing with the creation of nation states, the emergence of new forms of communication, for example the intensifying of grain transfer on the Danube, and the influence of industrialization on the Danube commerce and the relation of a new diaspora to older migrant settlements and new port-cities. The ten main chapters are made up as follows. Six papers (Ardeleanu, Carras, Kontogeorgis, Mantouvalos, Ransmayr, Stassinopoulou) were presented at the European Social Science History Conference, 22–26 April 2014, in Vienna, under the network “Ethnicity and Migration”.56 Four authors were invited to contribute after the conference in order to add a focused discussion on phenomena of belonging and identity among migrants (Cotovanu on early modern Greek migrants in the Danube principalities), cultural transfer (Makuljević on the example of specific Habsburg Serbian Orthodox art and architecture forms), microsettlements with a distinct identity (Georgiev on the Bulgarians of the Banat) and finally an historiographic aperçu questioning the narratives of success of the Vienna Greeks (Seirinidou). We would like to thank our colleague Dirk Hoerder, a co-organizer of the esshc 2014 Conference in Vienna, who proposed that we include a volume with papers from our sessions in his series “Studies on Global Migration ­History”, published by Brill. Our thanks also go to Ms. Jennifer Obdam for her constant and friendly support on administrative and editorial matters. This volume could not have been envisioned and completed without the 55 Katsiardi-Hering, Η ελληνική παροικία της Τεργέστης; Seirinidou, Έλληνες στη Βιέννη; Pešalj, “The Mobility Control of the Ottoman Migrants”; Pešalj, “Habsburg Policy towards ­Ottoman Foreigners”. 56 Sessions “The Danube as ‘Bridge’ and migration frontier” (Katsiardi-Hering organizer) and “Confession, Ethnicity, and Integration in a Local Economy” (Stassinopoulou organizer), https://esshc.socialhistory.org/esshc-user/programme/2014 (accessed 8 November 2015). Olga Katsiardi-Hering would like to thank the Special Account for Research Grants of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens for supporting this research.

16

Katsiardi-Hering and Stassinopoulou

collaboration of our colleagues, who responded to our invitation to participate in a volume bringing together recent research on Southeast European migration in the areas shaped by the Danube river. Finally, we owe special thanks for the conscientious support in the layout and bibliography to Dimitris M. Kontogeorgis and Ikaros Mantouvalos. Bibliography Secondary Literature

Abrate, M., Fischer, W., Mieck, I., and Kellenbenz, H. (eds.), Handbuch der europäi­ schen Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte, vol. 4. Europäische Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte von der Mitte des 17. Jahrhunderts bis zur Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart 1993. Ágoston, G., “The Ottoman Wars and the Changing Balance of Power along the Danube in the Early Eighteenth Century”, in Ch. Ingrao, N. Samardžić, and J. Pešalj (eds.), The Peace of Passarowitz, 1718, West Laffayette 2011, pp. 93–109. Aksan, V., “War and Peace”, in S. Faroqhi (ed.), The Cambridge History of Turkey, vol. 3, The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603–1839, Cambridge 2006, pp. 51–117. Aksan, V., Ottoman Wars 1700–1870: An Empire Besieged, London/New York 2013. Ardeleanu, C., “The European Commission of the Danube and the Result of its Technical and Administrative Activity on the Safety of Navigation, 1856–1914”, International Journal of Maritime History, 23:1 (2011), pp. 73–94. Ardeleanu, C., International Trade and Diplomacy at the Lower Danube. The Sulina Question and the Economic Premises of the Crimean War (1829–1853), Braila 2014. Asdrachas, Sp., with contributions by N.E. Karapidakis, Ol. Katsiardi-Hering, Eft. Liata, A. Matthaiou, M. Sivignon, and Tr. Stoianovich., Greek Economic History, 15th–19th Centuries, translated from Greek, Athens 2007. Bade, K., Europa in Bewegung: Migration vom späten 18. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart, München 2002. Beckert, S., Empire of Cotton. A Global History, New York 2014. Bilici, F., Cândea, I., and Popescu, A. (eds.), Enjeux politiques, économiques et militaires en Mer Noire (XIVe–XXIe siècles). Études à la mémoire de Mihail Guboglu, Braila 2007. Breu, J. (ed.), Atlas der Donauländer / Atlas of the Danubian countries / Atlas des pays danubiens. Vienna 1970–1989. Brummett, P., “Ottoman Expansion in Europe, ca. 1453–1606”, in S. Faroqhi and K. Fleet (eds.), The Cambridge History of Turkey, vol. 2, The Ottoman Empire as a World Power, 1453–1603, Cambridge 2013, pp. 44–73.

Introduction

17

Carras, I., “Εμπόριο, πολιτική και αδελφότητα : Ρωμιοί στη Ρωσία 1700–1774” [Trade, Politics and Brotherhood: The Greeks in Russia 1700–1774], PhD Thesis, University of Athens 2011. Căzan, I., “Austrian Surveys at the Lower Danube and in the Pontic Basin (1768–1791). Topographic Maps and Military Clashes”, Revue Roumaine d’histoire 40/41 (2001– 2002), pp. 109–27. Cernovodeanu, P., “British Economic Interests in the Lower Danube and the Balkan Shore of the Black Sea between 1803 and 1829”, Journal of European Economic History 5/1 (1976), pp. 105–20. Cohen, R., The Cambridge Survey of World Migration, Cambridge 1995. Commission Européenne du Danube, La Commission Européenne du Danube et son œuvre de 1856 à 1931, Paris 1931. Cotovanu, L., “Migrations et mutations identitaires dans l’Europe du Sud-Est (vues de Valachie et de Moldavie, XIVe–XVIIe siècles)”, PhD Thesis, ÉHÉSS, Paris 2014. Dávid, G. and Fodor, P. (eds.), Ottomans, Hungarians, and the Habsburgs in Central Europe: The Military Confines in the Era of Ottoman Conquest, Leiden 2000. Eberl, I. (ed.), Die Donauschwaben. Deutsche Siedlung in Südosteuropa. Ausstellungskatalog, Sigmaringen 1989. Ermini, L. and Kunike, A., Donau-Ansichten vom Ursprunge bis zum Ausflusse ins Meer. Nach der Natur und auf Stein gezeichnet von Jacob Alt. Von Belgrad bis zur Mündung ins Schwarze Meer nach der Natur aufgenommen von Ludwig Ermini. Von mehreren Künstlern lythographiert und herausgegeben von Adolph Kunike. Zum Schlusse des Werkes folgt ein erklärender Text von Dr. Franz Sartori, Vienna 1824. Faroqhi, S. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Turkey, vol. 3: The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603–1839, Cambridge 2006. Focas, S.G., The Lower Danube River in the Southeastern European Political and Economic Complex from Antiquity to the Conference of Belgrade of 1948, Boulder, New York 1987. Füves, Ö., “Görög kereskedők a Dunántúlon 1754–1771 közöll” [Greek merchants in the ‘Danube knie’ 1754–1771], Különlenyomat az tanulmányok 1965, évi XII/1. Számából (Budapest 1965), pp. 106–09. Gradeva, R., “Between Hinterland and Frontier: Ottoman Vidin, Fifteenth to Eighteenth Centuries”, Proceedings of the British Academy 156 (2009), pp. 331–51. Harlaftis, G. and Papakonstantinou, K. (eds.), Η ναυτιλία των Ελλήνων, 1700–1821. Ο αιώνας της ακμής πριν από την Επανάσταση [The Shipping of the Greeks, 1700–1821. The Peak of its Development in the Century before the Revolution], Athens 2013. Heimann-Jelinek, F., Kohlbauer-Fritz, G., and Milchram, G. (eds.), Die Türken in Wien. Geschichte einer jüdischen Gemeinde (Ausstellungskatalog Jüdisches Museum), Vienna 2010.

18

Katsiardi-Hering and Stassinopoulou

Heppner, H., Österreich und die Donaufürstentümer 1774–1812. Ein Beitrag zur habsburgischen Südosteuropapolitik, Graz 1984. Hoerder, D., Cultures in Contact: World Migrations in the Second Millennium, Durham NC 2002. Hoerder, D. and Page Moch, L. (eds.), European Migrants: Global and Local Perspectives, Boston 1996. Inalcik, I., “The Question of the Closing of the Black Sea under the Ottomans”, Arheion Pontou 35 (1979), pp. 74–110. Ingrao, Ch., Samardžić, N., and Pešalj, J. (eds.), The Peace of Passarowitz, 1718, West Laffayette 2011. Kanitz, F., Donau-Bulgarien und der Balkan. Historisch-geographisch-ethnographische Reisestudien aus den Jahren 1860–1878, vols. 1–3, Leipzig 1879. Karadima, K., “Διαφυλάσσοντας την περιουσία, την τιμή και την επαγγελματική αξία για τις επόμενες γενιές : Οι διαθήκες των εμπόρων της Τεργέστης (1775–1850)” [Safeguarding the Property, the Honour and the Professional Value for the Future Generations: The Testaments of the Merchants in Trieste (1775–1850)], Master Thesis, Faculty of History and Archaeology, University of Athens, 2010. Kaser, K., Hirten, Kämpfer, Stammeshelden: Ursprünge und Gegenwart des balkanischen Patriarchats, Vienna 1992. Kaser, K., Gruber, S., and Pichler, R. (eds.), Historische Anthropologie im südöstlichen Europa. Eine Einführung, Vienna/Cologne/Weimar 2003. Katsiardi-Hering, O., Η ελληνική παροικία της Τεργέστης, 1750–1830 [The Greek Community in Trieste, 1750–1830], Athens 1986, vols. 1–2. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Αδελφότητα, Κομπανία, Κοινότητα. Για μια τυπολογία των ελληνικών κοι­νοτήτων της Κεντρικής Ευρώπης, με αφορμή το άγνωστο καταστατικό του Miskolc (1801)” [Brotherhood, Company, Community. Towards a Typology of the Greek Communities of Central Europe, on the Occasion of the Unknown Statute of Miskolc (1801)], Eoa kai Esperia 7 (2007), pp. 277–309. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Christian and Jewish Ottoman subjects: Family, Inheritance and Commercial Networks between East and West (17th–18th c.)”, in S. Cavaciocchi (ed.), La famiglia nell’economia eruropea secc. XIII–XVIII /The economic role of the family in the European economy from the 13th to the 18th centuries, Atti della “Quarantesima Settimana di Studi”, 6–10 Aprile 2008, Istituto Internazionale di Storia Economica “F. Datini”, Serie II, Atti delle “Settimane di Studi”, Florence 2009, vol. 40, pp. 409–40. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Δούναβις : ποτάμι πολέμων και ειρήνης − γέφυρα ψυχών και ειδών (18ος–19ος  αι.)” [Danube: a Bridge of Wars and Peace – a Bridge of People and ­Merchandise, (18th–19th Centuries)], in G. Tsigaras (ed.), ‘Σκεύος  εις  Τιμήν’, Festschrift for the Metropolitan of Austria and Exarchus of Hungary Michail, Athens 2011 (=2014), pp. 405–19.

Introduction

19

Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Grenz-, Staats-, Gemeinde-Konskriptionen in der Habsburgermonarchie: Identitätendiskurs bei den Menschen aus dem Süden”, in M. Oikonomou, M. Stassinopoulou, and I. Zelepos (eds.), Griechische Dimensionen südosteuropäischer Kultur seit dem 18. Jahrhundert: Verortung, Bewegung, G ­ renzüberschreitung, ­Vienna 2011, pp. 231–52. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Greek Merchant Colonies in Central and South-Eastern Europe in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries”, in V. Zakharov, G. Harlaftis, and O. Katsiardi-Hering (eds.), Merchant Colonies in the Early Modern Period, London 2012, pp. 127–39. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “L’area balcanica nei secoli XVI–XVIII”, in R. Bizzochi (ed.), Storia d’Europa e del Mediterraneo, vol. XII., Rome 2013, pp. 613–48. Katsiardi-Hering, O. and Madouvalos, I., “The Tolerant Policy of the Habsburg Authorities towards the Orthodox People from South-Eastern Europe and the Formation of National Identities (18th–early19th Century)”, Balkan Studies 49 (2014), pp. 5–34. http://www.imxa.gr/bsfiles/49/Katsiardi-Madouvalos.pdf (accessed 6 May 2016). Katsiardi-Hering, O. and Stassinopoulou, M.A., “The Long 18th Century of Greek ­Commerce in the Habsburg Empire. Social Careers”, in H. Heppner, P. Urbanitsch, and R. Zedinger (eds.), Social Change in the Habsburg Monarchy (The Eighteenth Century and the Habsburg Monarchy International Series, 3), Bochum 2011, pp. 191–213. Kellenbenz, H., “Fluss- und Seeschifffahrt im europäischen Handel (Spätmittelalter– Anfang des 19. Jahrhunderts)”, in Les grands voies maritimes dans le monde (­XVe– XIXe s.), Rapports présentés au XIIe Congrès International des Sciences Historiques par la Commission Internationale d’Histoire Maritime à l’occasion de son VIIe Colloque ­(Vienne, 28 août −5 sept. 1965), Paris 1965, pp. 65–176. Kohlbauer-Fritz, G. (ed.), Ringstrasse. Ein jüdischer Boulevard. A Jewish Boulevard. J­ üdisches Museum Wien, Vienna 2015. Koller, M., Eine Gesellschaft im Wandel. Die osmanische Herrschaft in Ungarn im 17.­ J­ ahrhundert (1606–1683) (Forschungen zur Geschichte und Kultur des östlichen ­Mitteleuropa, 37), Stuttgart 2010. Kostić, D. and Todorović, KS. (eds.), Dunavom od Bezdana do Beograda [Down the Danube from Bezdan to Belgrade], Belgrade 2012. Köpeczi, B. (ed.), Kurze Geschichte Siebenbürgens (Institut für Geschichte der ­Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Akadémiei Kiadó), Budapest 1990. Krause, H., “Die europäische Donaukommission”, Rechts- und Staatswissenschaftliche Dissertation, University of Breslau 1927. Krekić, B., Dubrovnik (Raguse) et le Levant au Moyen Age, Paris 1961. Kremmydas, V., Ελληνική Ναυτιλία: 1776–1835, τ. 1, Όψεις της μεσογειακής ναυσιπλοΐας, τ. 2,  Οι μηχανισμοί [Greek Shipping, 1776–1835: vol. 1: Aspects of the Mediterranean Navigation, vol. 1: The Mechanisms], Athens 1985–1986.

20

Katsiardi-Hering and Stassinopoulou

Kunt, M. and Woodhead, Chr. (eds.), Süleyman the Magnificent and His Age. The Ottoman Empire in the Early Modern World, New York/London 1997, 2nd ed. Leigh Fermor, P., Between the Woods and the Water: On Foot to Constantinople, from the Middle Danube to the Iron Gates, London 1986. Livieratos, Ev., Tsorlini, A., Pazarli, M., Boukoura, Chr., and Myridis, M., “On the Digital Revival of Historic Cartography: Treating two 18th Century Maps of the Danube in Association with Google-Provided Imagery”, http://icaci.org/files/documents/ICC proceedings/ICC2009/html/nonref/25_6.pdf (accessed 18 October 2015). Löwis, S. von. (ed.), Phantom Borders in the Political Geography of East-Central Europe. Sonderheft der Erdkunde 2 (2015). Lucassen, J. and Lucassen, L., Migration, Migration History, History: Old Paradigms and New Perspectives, Bern 1997. Lucassen, J. and Lucassen, L., “The Mobility Transition Revisited, 1500–1900: What the Case of Europe Can Offer to Global History”, Journal of Global History 4/4 (2009), pp. 347–77. Lucassen, L. and Lucassen, J., “Quantifying and Qualifying Cross-Cultural Migrations in Europe since 1500: A Plea for a Broader View”, in Fr. Fauri (ed.), The History of Migration in Europe: Perspectives from Economics, Politics and Sociology, Abington/ New York 2015, pp. 13–34. Mantouvalos, I., “Έλληνες διαθέτες και πρακτικές κληροδοσίας στην Τεργέστη. Μια πρώτη προσέγγιση  σε  σχέση  με  την  περίπτωση  της  Βιέννης  και  της  Πέστης  (19ος  αιώνας)” [Greek Testators and Inheritance Practices in Trieste: A First Approach with Reference to the Cases of Vienna and Pest], Mnimon 30 (2009), pp. 107–40. Mantouvalos, I., “Conscriptiones Graecorum in Eighteenth-Century Central Europe. Crossing Borders: The Sociocultural Identification of Migrants from the Balkans to Hungarian Territories”, in H. Heppner and E. Posch (eds.), Encounters in Europe’s Southeast. The Habsburg Empire and the Orthodox World in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (The Eighteenth Century and the Habsburg Monarchy. International Series, 5), Bochum 2012, pp. 121–33. Marin, I., Contested Frontiers in the Balkans. Ottoman and Habsburg Rivalries in Eastern Europe, London 2012. Mitev, P., Parvev, I., Baramova, M., and Racheva, V. (eds.), Empires and Peninsulas. Southeastern Europe between Karlowitz and the Peace of Adrianople, 1699–1829 (Geschichte, Forschung und Wissenschaft, 36), Berlin 2010. Moačanin, N., Town and Country on the Middle Danube, 1526–1690, Leiden/Boston 2006. Paasi, A., “The Changing Discourses on Political Boundaries. Mapping the Backgrounds, Contexts and Contents”, in H. van Houtum, O. Kramsch, and W. Zierhofer (eds.), Bordering Space, Aldershot 2005, pp. 17–32. Page Moch, L., Moving Europeans. Migration in Western Europe since 1650, Indiana ­University Press 1992.

Introduction

21

Panaite, V., “Power Relationships in the Ottoman Empire: The Sultans and the Tribute Paying Princes of Wallachia and Moldavia (16th–18th Centuries)”, Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes 37 (1999), pp. 47–78. Panova, S., Die Juden zwischen Toleranz und Völkerrecht im Osmanischen Reich. Die Wirtschaftstätigkeit der Juden im Osmanischen Reich (die Südosteuropaländer vom 15. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert), Frankfurt/Berlin/New York/Vienna 1997 (Peter Lang, Europäische Hochschulschriften, III/752). Papakonstantinou, K., “Trading by Land and Sea: Changing Trade Routes and the Shift of Commercial Centres from Central to Eastern Europe in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries”, in G. Harlaftis and R. Păun (eds.), Greeks in Romania in the Nineteenth Century, Athens 2013, pp. 205–25. Pedani, M.-P., “The Border from the Ottoman Point of View”, in E. Ivetic and Roksandić Dr. (eds.), Tolerance and Intolerance on the Triplex Confinium. Approaching the ‘Other’ on the Borderlands Eastern Adriatic and beyond 1500–1800 (History, Economy, 5), Padova 2007, pp. 195–214. Pešalj, J., “The Mobility Control of the Ottoman Migrants in the Habsburg Monarchy in the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century”, in H. Heppner and E. Posch (eds.), Encounters in Europe’s Southeast: The Habsburg Empire and the Orthodox World in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, (The Eighteenth Century and the Habsburg Monarchy. International Series, 5), Bochum 2012, pp. 55–64. Pešalj, J., “Habsburg Policy towards Ottoman Foreigners in the Eighteenth Century”, in M. Baramova, P. Mitev, I. Parvev, and V. Racheva (eds.), Power and Influence in SouthEastern Europe, 16–19th Century, Münster 2013, pp. 37–45. Pickl, O. (ed.), Die wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen der Türkenkriege. Die Vorträge des 1. Internationalen Grazer Symposions zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte Südosteuropas (5. bis 10. Oktober 1970), Graz 1971. Pop, I.-Au., Nägler, Th., and Magyari, A. (eds.), The History of Transylvania, vol. 2 (From 1541 to 1711), (Center for Transylvanian Studies), Cluj-Napoca 2009. Portmann, M., “Vojvodina”, in O. Schmitt and M. Metzeltin (eds.), Das Südosteuropa der  Regionen, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna 2015, pp. 313–48. Qian, K., Die Donau von 1740 bis 1875. Eine kulturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung, Berlin 2014. Rauscher, P. and Serles, A. “Der Donauhandel. Quellen zur österreichischen Wirtschaft des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts”, Frühneuzeit-Info 25 (2014), pp. 244–47. Roth, Kl., “Rivers as Bridges – Rivers as Boundaries. Some Reflections on Intercultural Exchange on the Danube”, Ethnologia Balkanica 1 (1997), pp. 20–28. Schmitt, O. and Metzeltin, M. (eds.), Das Südosteuropa der Regionen, Vienna 2015. Seirinidou, V., Έλληνες στη Βιέννη (18ος–μέσα 19ου αι.) [Greeks in Vienna, 18th–mid 19th Century], Athens 2011.

22

Katsiardi-Hering and Stassinopoulou

Siotto-Pintor, M., “Le régime international de l’Escaut”, Recueil des cours 21/I (1928), pp. 285–369. Spisarevska, I., “De l’activité des associations commerciales de Raguse (Dubrovnik) dans les terres bulgares aux XVe et XVIe siècles”, Bulgarian Historical Review 2/2 (1974), pp. 90–104. Stanciu Ş., România şi Comisia Europeană a Dunării. Diplomaţie. Suveranitate. Coo­ perare Internaţională [Romania and the European Danube Commission. Diplomacy, Sovereignty, International Cooperation], Galaţi 2002. Stassinopoulou, M.A., “Trading Places. Cultural Transfer Trajectories among Southeast European Migrants in the Habsburg Empire”, in H. Heppner and E. Posch (eds.), Encounters in Europe’s Southeast. The Habsburg Empire and the Orthodox World in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (The Eighteenth Century and the Habsburg Monarchy International Series, 3), Bochum 2012, pp. 163–74. Stoianovich, Tr., “The Conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant”, The Journal of Economic History 20 (1960), pp. 243–313. Suppé, F., “In Sachsen auf Heimatboden. Zur Geschichte der griechischen Gemeinde in Leipzig von ihren Anfängen bis nach 1945”, in G. Henrich (ed.), Evgenios Vulgaris und die neugriechische Aufklärung in Leipzig, Leipzig 2003, pp. 13–48. Trivellato, F., The Familiarity of Strangers. The Sephardic Diaspora, Livorno, and CrossCultural Trade in the Early Modern Period, New Haven and London 2009. Tuğluca, M., “The Budjak Region in the Aftermath of the Treaty of Bucharest (1812)”, Annals of the Academy of Romanian Scientists (Series on History and Archaeology) 6/2 (2014), pp. 73–88. Urbansky, A., Byzantium and the Danube Frontier. A Study of the Relations Between Byzantium, Hungary, and the Balkans During the Period of the Comneni, New York 1968. Vodrazka, K., Aufsätze zur Donau, Linz 2009. Wagstaff, P. (ed.), Border Crossings. Mapping Identities in Modern Europe, Bern 2004. Winkelbauer, E., Zur Geschichte der Donauschwaben vom 18. Jhdt. bis zur Gegenwart unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung im 20. Jhdt. (Verein zur Förderung von politischem Bewußtsein im Alltag), Vienna 1992.

Films

Schlamberger, M. and R. (Dir.), Donau-Lebensader Europas (aka Danube-Europe’s Amazon), Parts I and II, 2015. Strasser, S (Dir.)., Stromlinien der Geschichte? Die Donau, 2006.

Websites

http://diaspora.arch.uoa.gr/main/index.php?lang=en Bibliographical Database on the Greek Diaspora (accessed 13 November 2015). http://www.univie.ac.at/donauhandel/ Quellen zur Österreichischen Wirtschaftsgeschichte des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts (accessed 13 November 2015).

Part 1 Routes and Spaces

⸪

chapter 1

Greek Immigrants in Central Europe: A Concise Study of Migration Routes from the Balkans to the Territories of the Hungarian Kingdom (From the Late 17th to the Early 19th Centuries) Ikaros Mantouvalos “Go, my dear child, with God’s blessing. I embrace you one last time as your mother, because I have a feeling I’ll never see you again”. These were the last words that twelve-year-old Panagiotis Naoum remembered his mother uttering in 1822 when he left his homeland Kastoria behind to follow the road to Central Europe.1 The sentence is taken from the autobiography of this Kastorian émigré. It was written around 1871 and reflects one aspect of migration from the Ottoman-ruled Balkans to Central Europe. Owing to their rarity, autobiographical texts such as this one are normally used on the periphery of empirical research to examine various aspects of the migratory phenomenon, since their protagonists were the social subjects themselves, the migrants. The shift in viewpoint from social structures to the strategies of groups and individuals – from a simple explanatory approach in accordance with the model of push-pull factors, to concepts such as chain migration, relying on relatives, friends and social networks, information and ­solidarity links, i.e. non-financial factors – reveals aspects of geographical mobility and especially the daily experience of migration. For the peoples of Southeastern Europe, the experience of migration from the 15th to the early 19th century was part of their daily lives,2 a fact generally applicable to European societies of the early modern period, which were much less static than some people have imagined them. It is worth noting that according to Charles Tilly, as a result of a process of proletarianization in North Western Europe, capitalist societies emerged with a free labor market and geographical mobility.3 1 The difficulties and adventures faced by a Macedonian migrant to Central Europe are vividly described in the autobiography (in Greek) of Panagiotis Naoum. Moullas, “Ενας Μακεδόνας απόδημος”. 2 Regarding the migration of population groups from Southeastern Europe from the 15th to the early 19th century, see Katsiardi-Hering, “Migration von Bevölkerungsgruppen”, pp. 125–48. 3 Tilly, “Migration in Modern European History”.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004335448_003

26

Mantouvalos

The intense population movements that took place within the Ottoman Empire4 during the early centuries of Ottoman rule were supplemented by migratory outflows, initially westward and then, a little later, toward Central Europe.5 The lack of security and stability created by the expansion of the ­Ottomans into the Balkans in the 16th century, in addition to specific migrations (e.g. the exodus of Greek scholars and artists heading for the intellectual centers of the Western world), also caused the major migratory wave of the Serbs (1537) toward the territories of Croatia; their permanent ­settlement there was associated with the defense policy of Vienna.6 At the same time, the gradual incorporation of the Ottoman market into the world’s capitalist economy, through the penetration of European capital into the Eastern Mediterranean and the stable orientation of Ottoman trade in the direction of European demand, created new financial conditions and opportunities for Ottoman subjects, especially Orthodox merchants, and contributed decisively to ­ expanding their trade networks. This period of economic acceleration was decisive in their decision to move out of the Ottoman Empire. Regarding the historiography of the Greek Diaspora, it is well known that the geographical mobility of Orthodox Christians and of Jews and Armenians from Southeastern to Central Europe (16th–17th century), with a view to organizing and extending their mercantile activities northward – initially (16th century) toward the territories of Transylvania and later (17th century) toward the ­Hungarian Kingdom – was associated with the incorporation of these Central European regions into the Ottoman state between 1526 and 1699. After the battle of Mohács (1526) and especially after 1541 when Hungary was split into three political units,7 the economy of Transylvania – until its incorporation into the Habsburg Monarchy (1699) – became interwoven with the economic relations and commercial transactions of the Ottoman Empire with Central, Northern, and Western Europe. Even though commercial relations between Hungary and the Sublime Porte already existed before the political change in the Hungarian Kingdom, the expansion of the Ottomans into Central and Eastern Europe and 4 Vakalopoulos, Ιστορία της Μακεδονίας 1354–1833, pp. 139–43 and Mintsis, Εθνολογική σύνθεση, pp. 189–202. 5 Vakalopoulos, Οι Δυτικομακεδόνες απόδημοι, p. 7. 6 Kaser, Freier Bauer und Soldat. 7 Its central section was annexed to the Ottoman Empire, the northern and western scetions constituted the main body of the Hungarian Kingdom, under the Habsburgs, and ­Transylvania functioned as a semi-autonomous principality, tributary to the Sultan. See ­Sugar “The Principality of Transylvania”. About the history of Transylvania, see also Barta, et al., Kurze Geschichte Siebenbürgens.

Greek Immigrants in Central Europe

27

the placement of Transylvania under the economic ­domination of the Sultan,8 the movement of processed products (e.g. cottons and silks), luxury goods, and spices from the Balkans and the Levant into the markets of Europe became more regular and frequent after the mid-16th century. In the financial competition between the merchants of Moldavia and Wallachia with the Saxons of Transylvania,9 Greeks and Armenians endeavored to take an active part in the transit trade of products from the Levant to Transylvania,10 from which they were then dispatched to Hungary, Poland, Vienna, and the region we know today as Slovakia. At the same time, these merchants undertook to supply Ottoman markets with Western processed goods, thus controlling a significant part of its import and export trade. The gradual increase in the number of Greek Orthodox merchants in the local markets of Transylvania obviously helped to strengthen their role in the financial life of the region. Despite this, the Saxon element does not appear to have been weakened, as it maintained its leadership of the country’s internal market.11 The desire of the political authorities to monitor the activities of ‘foreign’ salesmen, thus protecting the interests of the country’s local mercantile elite, was initially mirrored in legislative interventions by the Sublime Porte. This desire was likewise registered in the issuing of decrees by local ­administrative authorities to regulate the legal framework governing Greek business activity in the cities of Braşov (Kronstadt) and Sibiu (Hermannstadt), its most important trade centers, with the medieval financial organization of an ­autonomous principality.12 To safeguard the rights of cities and the privileged position of Saxon merchants, the Diet had to take protective measures to limit free trading by ­Ottoman merchants in Transylvania, to oppose their conduct of retail trade in

8

Levantine fabrics, wood, and silk were already being imported to the Kingdom of Hungary even before the battle of Mohács, through the customs stations of Transylvanian Braşov (Brassó and Kronstadt) and Sibiu (Nagyszeben and Hermannstadt) as well as through the customs services of the cities of Nádorfehervár (Beograd) and Temesvár (Timișoara). See Pach, Hungary and the European Economy, p. 241. 9 About the Saxons in Transylvania, see Makkai, “Herausbildung der städtischen Gesellschaft (1172–1526)”, Barta, “Die Anfänge des Fürstentums und erste Krisen (1526–1606)”, and Péter, “Die Blütezeit des Fürstentums (1606–1660)”. 10 Regarding the role of Transylvanian cities in the long-distance trade between Western Europe and the Levant in the 16th century, see Pakucs-Willcocks, Sibiu – Hermannstadt, pp. 59–139. 11 Bur, “Das Raumergreifen balkanischer Kaufleute”, p. 25. 12 Ibid.

28

Mantouvalos

its ­interior, to impose price controls and to prevent the export of gold coins.13 However, in the first third of the 17th century, the need to secure additional resources for the principality’s treasury helped change the stance of the central authority, which until the early decades of the 17th century was hostile to the conduct by ‘foreigners’ of commercial activity and to their settlement there. By means of a privilege issued in 1636, the prince of Transylvania, György Rákóczi i, permitted Greek tradesmen to become incorporated as the ‘Greek Company’.14 Based on this decision, merchant companies were established in Sibiu and Braşov in 1636 and 1678, respectively. Their members originated mainly from the region of Macedonia.15 In his study “Pages from the History of the Macedonian Greeks in Hungary and Austria” in the journal Neos ­Ellinomnemon, Spyridon Lampros stressed, among other things, a significant aspect of the reasons why Balkan Orthodox subjects settled on the soil of Transylvania: the shortage of agricultural workers for the prince’s farms, which resulted in the resettlement of peasants from the broader Macedonian region.16 Also of exceptional interest is the fact that with Rákóczi’s privilege of 1636 “the general concept of the Greek merchant and the uncertain status of travelling Greek salesmen became crystallized in the concept of a community (com­ munitas) with a financial character, i.e. the incorporation of those engaged in commerce”.17 The limitation of their financial obligations to the payment of an annual amount and of customs duties at the points of entrance to and exit from the country, as well as the right to self-administration and to the exercise of religious duties, were derived from this privileged status and special legal framework regarding the prerequisites for engaging in commerce and the administrative and judicial independence of company members.18 The formation of a collective financial organization (company/compagnia), which functioned as a kind of merchant guild, with binding administrative, ­judicial, and auditing provisions, regulated the business organization of its 13 Tsourka-Papastathi, Η ελληνική εμπορική κομπανία, p. 29. 14 Bur, “Das Raumergreifen balkanischer Kaufleute”, p. 28. 15 Papacostea-Danielopolu, “L’organisation de la compagnie ‘grecque’ de Braşov (1777– 1850)”, and Karathanassis, L’hellénisme en Transylvanie. See also Tsourka-Papastathi, Η ελληνική εμπορική κομπανία, and Cicanci, “Το στάδιο της έρευνας σχετικά με την ελληνική εμπορική διασπορά”, pp. 409–10, 417–20, with indicative bibliography on the Greek presence in Braşov and Sibiu. 16 Lampros, “Σελίδες εκ της ιστορίας”, p. 265. 17 Tsourka-Papastathi, Η ελληνική εμπορική κομπανία, p. 41. 18 Documentation on the formation and function of the legal institutions in a Greek com­ munitas in Transylvania, as well as on the manner of dispensing justice, can be found in Tsourka-Papastathi, Η νομολογία του Κριτηρίου.

Greek Immigrants in Central Europe

29

members and their personal ethical behavior. These preferential policies were not independent of the socio-economic and political structures of the region, that is, the powerful local feudal system that favored such forms of incorporation.19 The change of rule in 1699 (Treaty of Karlowitz) created a new economic reality, as the annexation of Transylvania by the Habsburg Empire brought the former radically into the commercial and state economic structures of the latter in a center/periphery relationship. This change did not entail abolition of the preferential status of the Greek companies, but on the contrary, renewed and expanded their privileges. In the early 18th century, the Habsburg emperor Leopold i (1658–1705), through the charter that he issued, protected all the graecae Nationis quaestores who resided in Transylvania, or were even just passing through it, and at the same time accorded special privileges to the members of the Greek companies in the region – broader than those granted to the Greek companies in Hungary20 – permitting them to settle in Transylvania, to conduct wholesale and retail trade in merchandise of all types, to ­operate stores and to acquire ownership of urban real estate. It should be noted that the goal of Habsburg mercantile policy was to make Transylvania a new market for Austrian products and to expand the monarchy’s financial interventions in the Ottoman Empire and the Levant through the close relations of the Transylvanian economy with the Danubian ­Principalities and the Sublime Porte.21 Consequently, the Greek companies in ­Transylvania were of greater importance to Austria’s eastern economic policy than were the corresponding groups in Hungary, as we shall see below. But, by the end of the 18th century, the upgraded importance of the Black Sea and the Mediterranean to Habsburg commercial interests had a negative effect on the Greek companies in Transylvania. On 24 February 1784 – still during the war and before the final peace treaty – the Sublime Porte issued a decree (the so-called Sened Act) which, among other things, permitted Austrian subjects and vessels to ship their merchandise freely to and from Ottoman provinces by sea and river routes. Such a development paved the way for the decline of the overland trade between the Ottoman and Habsburg Empires and undermined the role of the privileged merchant companies in Transylvania.22 The Greek merchant companies that were established initially in Transylvania and expanded in the late 17th century into the royal territory of H ­ ungary 19 Katsiardi-Hering, “Αδελφότητα, Κομπανία, Κοινότητα”, p. 267. 20 Tsourka-Papastathi, Η ελληνική εμπορική κομπανία, pp. 54–55. 21 Ibid., p. 46. 22 Tsourka-Papastathis, “The Decline of the Greek ‘Companies’ in Transylvania”.

30

Mantouvalos

continued throughout the 18th century to be a strong network offering legal protection and security to their members. The new political conditions created in Central Europe after the treaties of Passarowitz (1718) and Belgrade (1739) favored the numerical increase of the mercantile settlements of Görögök (Greeks in Hungarian)23 in Hungary.24 In the 18th century, the intensification of movements, especially by Greeks and Aromanians (Vlachs)25 from Macedonia to Hungary, contributed to increasing the number of Greek merchant companies26 in the cities and towns of the Hungarian Kingdom (mainly Zemun/ Semlin, Neusatz/Újvidék/Novi Sad, Temesvár/Timişoara, Gyöngyös, Tokaj, Szegedin, Szentes, Kecskemét, Debrecen, Várad/Oradea, Vác, Gyarmat, Karcag, Kecskit, Leva, Békés, Seben, and Sopron), which were the predominant form of collectivity of Orthodox Balkan merchants in the Hungarian hinterlands (see Map 1.1).27 We should keep in mind that in Central Europe, in addition to the company, there was also another form of collective organization, the community (such as in, for example, Pest, Miskolc, and others),28 with basic administrative competencies but without the right to intervene in matters relating to its members’ financial interests. The community administration represented them before the local authorities, while at the same time managing community finances. In addition, it was responsible for maintaining the church and appointing its priests, as well as exercising welfare policy, by establishing a community school and philanthropic institutions (hospitals, poor houses, orphanages). Securing their institutional independence and taking advantage of the opportunities and new prospects opening out before them, this group of 23

The word Görögök did not refer solely to those who belonged to the group of ethnic Greeks, but also described all Balkan peoples who were members of the Eastern Orthodox Church and used Greek as their main language of communication. It also designated the merchant. Füves, Οι Έλληνες της Ουγγαρίας, pp. 7–8. 24 Regarding Greek commercial establishments in Hungary, see indicatively Füves, Οι  Έλληνες  της  Ουγγαρίας; Bur, “Handelsgesellschaften – Organisationen der Kaufleute”; Bácskai, “Gesellschaftliche Veränderungen in den Städten Mittel-und Osteuropas”; Bur, “The Greek Company in Hungary”. 25 The Aromanians (Vlachs) are a Latin-speaking ethnic group native to the southern ­Balkans. Regarding the Vlachs of Macedonia and Epirus, see indicatively Koukoudis, Οι Μη τροπόλεις και η Διασπορά των Βλάχων, as well as Weigand, Die Aromunen. 26 Füves, Οι Έλληνες της Ουγγαρίας, pp. 22–25. 27 Bácskai, “Gesellschaftliche Veränderungen in den Städten Mittel-und Osteuropas”; Bur “The Greek Company in Hungary”. 28 Füves, “Görögök Pesten”; Katsiardi-Hering, “Aδελφότητα, Koμπανία, Koινότητα”; Mantouvalos, “Mεταναστευτικές διαδρoμές”.

Map 1.1

Fiume

Pest

Hatvan

a sz

Ti

Debrecen

Gradiska

Dr áv a

Bród

Eszék

Zimony

Pétervárad Karlóca

Ujvidék

Nagyszentmiklós

Battonya Makó Pécska

Hodmezővásárhely

Borosjenő Ternova

Pancsova

Orsova

Oravica Mehadia Fehértemplom

Temesvár

Sz. Németi

Maros

Lugos

Világosvár

Lippa

Arad

Versec

Nagybecskerek Szenttamás

Szeged

Topolya

Baja Szabadka

Kalocsa

Belényes

Nagyszalonta

Székelyhid Diószeg

Nagyvárad

Nagykálló Fehértó H.Hadház H.Böszörmény

Munkács

Kolozs

Nagysínk

Nagyszeben

Fogaras

Segesvár

Marosvásárhely Erzsébetváros

Torda

Czászsebes

Szászváros Vajdahunyad

Gyulafehérvár

Nagyenyed

Kolozsvár

Bészterce

Szászrégen

Dés

Szamosujvár

Brassó

Greek Orthodox communities in Hungarian lands 16th–19th centuries Note: The Red Lines indicate the Communication Roads. Source: Based on: Ö. Füves, Έλληνες ςτην Oυγγαρία, Thessaloniki 1965, revised by O. KatsiardiHering, I. Mantouvalos, M. Nikolakainas.

Karlopago

Buda

Gyöngyös

Eger

Nagykáta H. Szoboszló Kaba Irsa Szolnok Soroksár Karcag Tétény Cegléd Sári Székesfehérvár Antonyráckeve Nagykőrös Tass Szarvas Dömsód Kecskemét Békés Csongrad Kunszentmárton Solt on Dunaföldvár t a l Szentes Gyula Ba Dunapataj

na

Dásztó Szentendre

Vác

Sajó

Tokaj

Sátoraljaujhely

Sárospatak Tarcal

Tállya

Ungvár

Szamos

Nagykanizsa

ba Rá

Du

Szikszó

Miskolc

Fülek

Jászó Rozsnyó Rimaszombat

Kassa

Eperjes

Bártfa Kisszeben

Brassó, Kronstadt (Brașov) Eger, Erlau Gyulafehérvár, Karlsburg (Alba Iulia) Nagyszeben, Hermannstadt (Sibiu) Nagyvárad, Großwardein (Oradea) Orsova, Orschowa (Orșova) Pozsony, Preßburg (Bratislava) Sopron, Ödenburg Temesvár, Temeswar (Timișoara) Ujvidék, Neusatz (Novi Sad) Ungvár, Ungwar (Uzhhorod) Vajdahunyad, Eisenmarkt (Hunedoara) Zimoni, Semlin (Zemun)

Olt

Sz áv a

Sopron

Moson

Balassagyarmat

Léva

Komárom Esztergom Acs Pomaz Tata Győr

Nagyszombat

Pozsony

Losonc

Besztercebánya Radvány

ly Ipo

Church Chapel Company School Greek Orthodox Community

Greek Immigrants in Central Europe

31

32

Mantouvalos

­ alkan merchants endeavored to fill the gap created by the lack of a dynamic B Hungarian business class. As middlemen in the commercial transactions between the hereditary lands of the Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire, the Görögök became significant factors in the Hungarian economy, regulators of the transit trade, and protagonists in the wholesale and retail commerce. It is, nevertheless, worth noting that the most common type of Greek merchant in the ­Hungarian hinterlands in the first half of the 18th century was a retailer.29 The forms of commerce they selected were mainly dependent on the specific conditions prevailing in the sectors of trade and commercial milieux. According to Füves, in the Hungarian Kingdom three basic types of Greek merchants were active: peddlers or itinerant salesmen who covered the consumer and productive needs of the agrarian population, those established in the country who opened shops to sell their merchandise, and those who transported goods.30 People active in long-distance trade were frequently organized into merchant companies, a fact that allowed them to increase the amount of capital available to them and to limit market hazards. Usually two to four people comprised the corporate core of the enterprise, by laying down capital in the form of merchandise, credit, real estate (shops, vineyards), and cash. Within the extensive commercial and financial network that extended from Southeastern Europe to the markets of the Kingdom of Hungary, family members were active either as partners and commercial agents or as middlemen in different regions, depending on the goods they were selling each time. The commercial enterprises of Pondikas,31 Sideris, Kyranis, and Tournas are just some of the Greek companies based in Pest that were organized around a family nucleus in the second half of the 18th century.32 The family structure of the corporate organization, which had been the predominant model of corporate activity in Western Europe since the early stages of its industrialization, provided stable and secure conditions for planning and conducting mercantile businesses. The relations of trust among the partners were frequently built on marital or other relations, for instance. god-parenthood, between powerful merchant families. They allowed commercial practice and information to retain bonds with local or foreign markets. There is no doubt that formalization, ritualization, and publicity of ties were used by entrepreneurs in Early 29 Füves, Οι Έλληνες της Ουγγαρίας, p. 18. 30 Ibid., pp. 14–19. 31 Regarding the Pondikas family, see Papakonstantinou, “Ελληνικές επιχειρήσεις στην Κεντρικ ή Ευρώπη”. 32 Füves, “Görögök Pesten”, p. 428.

Greek Immigrants in Central Europe

33

Modern Europe to establish trust with their business associates, for example when information was asymmetric or when institutions were perceived as inefficient in guaranteeing mutual good behavior.33 The logic of financial alliances included the marriage of Konstantinos Pop, member of the Sibiu company, to the daughter of Haji Petros Loukas, which contributed to expanding the horizons of his father-­in-law’s business (whose main field was the cattle trade) in the direction of ­general long-distance trade, and a little later, toward a type of banking activity.34 The same motives can be discerned in the marriages of Zoe Dimtsa from Miskolc to Ioannis Haji Spyros from Vienna, that of Maria Haji Georgiou from Pest to Georgios Leporas from Bratislava (Preßburg/ Pozsony), of Anastasios Pamperis from Warsaw to the daughter of Georgios Gergas from Miskolc and that of Katerina Kousorintsa from Eger to Georgios Lazarou from Miskolc. Their commercial interests were basically determined by the geographical breadth of their marriage strategy, which expanded into significant key points of the transit trade in central and northern Europe, such as Pest, Vienna, ­Miskolc, Tokaj, Eger, Bratislava, Warsaw, etc.35 Common origin in terms of place and culture ensured the same advantages as family bonds. Rallying together members of an ethnic group can be found in the merchant activity of the Macedonian Vlachs in the urban centers of the Habsburg Empire (Budapest, Vienna).36 Their marked numerical and financial presence, as well as their linguistic and progressively ethnic differentiation from the Greeks, may have contributed to the organization of the land trade on ethnic criteria, such as we see in the case of the merchant house of Manos in Pest,37 or in corporate collaborations in Miskolc (the brothers Antonios and Naum Bougias with Ladislao Demtsos, and of Konstantinos Semsis and the latter with the brothers Georgios and Naum Rozas in the merchant company Rozas and Co).38 The majority of the Greek and Macedonian Vlach merchants in Hungary could be found in provinces east and northeast of the Danube, between it and the river Tisza (Theiß) where they settled in communities with elementary market structures and local products suitable for commercial trade. Olga 33

Alfani and Gourdon, “Entrepreneurs, Formalization of Social Ties, and Trustbuilding in Europe”. 34 Diamantis, Τύποι εμπόρων και μορφές συνείδησης, pp. 73–74. 35 Dobrossy, “Family and Economic Relations”, pp. 207–11. 36 Chatziioannou, “Νέες προσεγγίσεις  στη  μελέτη  των  εμπορικών  δικτύων  της  διασποράς”, pp. 153–56. 37 Mantouvalos, “Όψεις του παροικιακού ελληνισμού”, pp. 107–19, 201. 38 Mantouvalos, “Μεταναστευτικές διαδρομές”, p. 196.

34

Mantouvalos

Katsiardi-Hering has explored and highlighted the relationship between the socio-economic movement of Balkan Orthodox people and smaller or larger commercial regions.39 Companies that were oriented mainly toward buying and selling wine flourished in cities such as Miskolc40 and Tokaj,41 which belonged to regions with significant viticulture and wine production. In the mid-18th century, the total number of their members42 operating in the towns of Tokaj, Miskolc, Gyöngyös, Eger, Diószeg, Kecskemét, and Novi Sad was 627 merchants, 163 (26 percent) of whom belonged to the company of Kecskemét, a region with a large stockbreeding output located at the crossroads of vital significance to the sale of livestock in Hungary.43 It should be noted, however, that a significant percentage of commercial activities were outside the context of united professional groups in the counties of Pest, Heves, Borsod, Bihar, Csanád, Ung, Abauj, Baranya, Bars, Vas, Komárom, Gömör, Győr, Moson, and Nitra.44 With the eventual goal of exploiting Hungary’s agricultural and stockbreeding output and supplying the Kingdom of Hungary with merchandise, Greeks and Vlachs (Aromanians) from the broader region of Macedonia, such as ­Moschopolis (Voskopolje), Kozani, Siatista, Servia, Doirani, Meleniko (­Melnik), ­Monastiri/Bitola/Vitolia, Selitsa, Grabova, Velesa/Veles, Kleisoura, Korsovo, and Naousa, chose various urban or semi-urban towns in the Hungarian Kingdom as their place of residence. The economic function of the migrants’45 place of origin and the geographical proximity of mountainous or semi-­mountainous cities in the northern Balkans to territories of the Habsburg Empire were important in determining their geographical orientations and final destinations. From the 18th-century censuses, it can be concluded that economic 39 Katsiardi-Hering, “Commerce and Merchants in Southeastern Europe, 17th–18th Centuries”. 40 Katsiardi-Hering, “Αδελφότητα,  Κομπανία,  Κοινότητα”; Mantouvalos, “Miskolc – Sátoraljaújhely – Βουδαπέστη”; Mantouvalos, “Μεταναστευτικές  διαδρομές”, in which there is a bibliography of the Greek presence and activity in Miskolc and also in the broader region of Hungary (17th–early 19th century). 41 Bur, “Handelsgesellschaften – Organisationen der Kaufleute”, pp. 273–75; Hering, “Die griechische Handelsgesellschaft in Tokaj”. 42 It should be stressed that many company members frequently worked long distances from their home: see Füves, Οι Έλληνες της Ουγγαρίας, p. 21. 43 Bur, “Handelsgesellschaften – Organisationen der Kaufleute”, pp. 271, 282–86; Bur, “The Greek Company in Hungary”, pp. 154–56. See also Hajnóczy, A kecskeméti görögség története. 44 Bur, “Das Raumergreifen balkanischer Kaufleute”, p. 48. 45 Gounaris and Koukoudis, “Από την Πίνδο ως τη Ροδόπη”; Panagiotopoulos, “Οικονομικός χώρος των Ελλήνων”.

35

Greek Immigrants in Central Europe

migrants moved and settled in a city based on the criterion of local production and functioned as attraction for further migrants from their place of origin. In 1762 the merchant companies in Tokaj had 598 members, the majority of whom originated from Kozani.46 The increased presence of salesmen from Kozani and Ioannina in the merchant companies of Sibiu and Braşov, the large number of people from Kozani in Hódmezővásárhely and Szentes, cities near Kecskemét and Pest,47 and the origin of the majority of Greeks in Kecskemét48 and in the region of Jászkunsag (Central Hungary) who were from Siatista and Kozani49 reflected both the mechanisms by which the family functioned as well as the role of the geographical factor, ethnic and cultural origin, and social networks in the subjects’ movements. This becomes even more visible after the two ­sackings of Moschopolis (1769, 1788),50 which reinforced numerically the numbers of Aromanians already settled in Greek companies in Hungary, such as the company of Miskolc, lending it a strong local ethnic and cultural character. Similar changes took place in the composition of the population of Zemun,51 as shown in Figure 1.1.

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Kosani Kastoria Melenico Veroia Servia Moschopolis Katranitsa Tokaj (1762)

Zemun (1770)

Miskolc (1770)

Blatsi Siatista Kleisoura

Figure 1.1 The geographical origins of Greeks in the cities of Zemun (Semlin), Tokaj and Miskolc Source: Papadrianos, Οι Έλληνες πάροικοι του Σεμλίνου, p. 53; ­H ering, “Die griechische Handelsgesellschaft in Tokaj”, p. 271; Mantouvalos, “Μεταναστευτικές διαδρομές”, pp. 228–30.

46 Hering, “Die griechische Handelsgesellschaft in Tokaj”, p. 271. 47 Füves, “Görögök Pesten”; Chatziioannou, “Η Κοζάνη και η περιοχή της”, pp. 164–71. 48 Laios, Η Σιάτιστα και οι εμπορικοί οίκοι, p. 63. 49 Papp, “Greek Merchants in the Eighteenth-Century Jászkunsag”, p. 269. 50 Regarding the destruction of Moschopolis, see Martinianos, Μοσχόπολις, pp. 163–98; ­Peyfuss, Die Druckerei von Moschopolis, pp. 41–46. 51 Papadrianos, Οι Έλληνες πάροικοι του Σεμλίνου, p. 53.

36

Mantouvalos

For the inhabitants of Western Macedonia, the course of the Aliakmon R ­ iver created a long narrow basin that became the natural path of their communication with the Balkan countries to the North and Central Europe.52 Also, three land arteries started out from Thessaloniki: the first through Sofia and Nissa (Niš), reached Zemun through Belgrade,53 the former being the southernmost frontier post on Habsburg territory, then entered its Hungarian section. The second passed through Serres, Meleniko, Sofia, and Vidin and ended in Orsova, another important post on the Habsburg border. And finally the third road, through Sarajevo, led to the territories of the Kingdom of Hungary.54 Securing the necessary documents – travel permit, passport, certificate of health – allowed the migrants to move legally among these territories. In a number of treaties and trade agreements (e.g. the previously mentioned Sened of 1784) between the Court in Vienna and the Sublime Porte, the framework was created for the free movement of Habsburg and Ottoman subjects between the two neighboring states. The increasing control applied by the Habsburgs in the last quarter of the 18th century, both for movements within their territory and at the frontiers of the Kingdom of Hungary with the Ottoman Empire, was associated on the one hand with state security and public health, and on the other with the country’s economic interests and balance of trade. Information about the effective surveillance of Orthodox Balkan merchants of Ottoman origin and the legality of their residence in the Hungarian hinterlands is provided by the census data compiled by the authorities for the purpose of political and health inspection.55 Crossing borders was decisive on the material and symbolic level alike. Very early in their journeys, migrants began to experience the consequences of discrimination, discovering what it meant to be a ‘foreigner’56 in a country with a different religious environment (Catholic and Protestant), submitting themselves to the social and cultural codes of the ‘Other’. Nevertheless, by transforming the temporary into the permanent, the subjects created a new basis 52 Vakalopoulos, Ιστορία της Μακεδονίας, p. 349; Chatziioannou, Η ιστορική εξέλιξη των οικισμών στην περιοχή του Αλιάκμονα, pp. 13–46. 53 Regarding the significance of Zemun as an intermediary station of Greek migrants, see Papadrianos, Οι Έλληνες πάροικοι του Σεμλίνου, p. 52. 54 Mehlan, Οι εμπορικοί δρόμοι στα Βαλκάνια, p. 376. 55 See Katsiardi-Hering, “Grenz-, Staats-und Gemeindekonskriptionen in der Habsburgermonarchie”, p, 237; Mantouvalos, “Conscriptiones Graecorum in Eighteenth-Century Central Europe”. 56 Regarding the term “foreigner”, interwoven with the Orthodox Balkan migrants in Habsburg territories, see Katsiardi-Hering, “Migration von Bevölkerungsgruppen”, pp. 132–33.

Greek Immigrants in Central Europe

37

for their gradual incorporation into the host society and their financial stabilization there. The differentiation based on the subjects’ transience or permanency of residence depended on a set of parameters, such as family status, age and stage in the family life cycle at the moment of migration. By the end of the 1760s, the majority of those who had left their towns in Macedonia with Hungary as their destination, whether permanently or ­temporarily, were men of whom most were unmarried.57 Some left their wives and children behind in Ottoman-held homelands, while not a few remarried where they had settled.58 After 1769 and especially after 1774, this picture gradually began to change. On the basis of the decree by Maria Theresa (5 April 1769), full freedom of trade for Ottoman subjects was directly linked to their permanent settlement, moving their families to Hungary and swearing the oath of allegiance, which meant that they also became subject to the Hungarian Crown.59 At the same time, they lost the privilege of exemption from customs duties enjoyed by Ottoman subjects that had been secured for them by the Treaty of Passarowitz. Only under the conditions described above would they be granted the right to pursue commercial activity and to look for a permanent residence.60 Ten years later, in 1784, a decree was issued on the basis of which every ‘foreigner’ could be regarded as a semi-local, on condition that they had lived in the Kingdom for at least ten consecutive years.61 The process of their civic incorporation undoubtedly reflected the Viennese government’s deeper intention and priority, which was none other than redrawing the lines between integration and exclusion of the ‘Other’. Among migrants to the Habsburg Empire there were also adolescents and children. For example, more than half the ‘Greeks’ living in Vienna in 1766 had migrated there as youths or children for occupational reasons.62 These movements were associated with trade and the opportunities it generated. It is also known that, throughout modern times in Europe, child labor has been directly related to structural mobility and migration. Children of the lower urban and agrarian social strata, from families of merchants and artisans, moved through the real labor market, either to learn a trade, or to join the workforce

57 Füves, “Απογραφέςτων Ελλήνων παροίκων”, p. 195. 58 Papadrianos, Οι Έλληνες πάροικοι του Σεμλίνου, p. 31. 59 Füves, Οι Έλληνες της Ουγγαρίας, p. 28. 60 Ibid., p. 17. 61 Burger, “Die Staatsbürgerschaft”, p. 98. 62 Seirinidou, Έλληνες στη Βιέννη, pp. 55–61.

38

Mantouvalos 3

4 years old

1 1

3

7 years old

5

9 years old 10 years old

4 6

11 years old 12 years old 13 years old

6

14 years old 4 3 4

5

15 years old 16 years old 17 years old 18 years old

Figure 1.2  Greeks in Miskolc. Age of arrival in Hungary Source: Mantouvalos, “Μεταναστευτικές διαδρομές”, pp. 228–30.

i­ mmediately. A number of boys between nine and eighteen years old,63 usually accompanied by experienced merchants – relatives or compatriots – headed from Macedonia to the commercial capitals of Central Europe, primarily to learn the art of doing business. According to census data from the county of Borsod in 1770,64 the majority of Greeks in Miskolc left their homeland when they were still children or adolescents. Specifically, it is reported that 45 of the 56 registered Greeks in the city, were between four and eighteen years of age when they arrived in Hungary (See figure 1.2). The desire to engage in a trade was the motivating force that drove ­people – usually youths or children – to decide to leave their homeland and seek opportunities to make money and rise socially in the urban environments of Central Europe. Initially they worked as assistants and apprentices and later as heads of businesses and partners in trading houses. Yet, among the Ottoman subjects who crossed the Habsburg borders there were also some who already held a high social position in their communities of origin, and had a significant

63 64

Füves, “Fejezetek a szentendrei görögök életéből”, pp. 119–20; Mantouvalos, “Μετανα­ στευτικές διαδρομές”, pp. 193–94, 228–30. Rita, “A Borsod vármegyei görög kereskedők ősszeirása”; Mantouvalos, “Mεταναστευτικές διαδρoμές”, pp. 228–30; Mantouvalos, “Conscriptiones Graecorum in Eighteenth-Century Central Europe”.

Greek Immigrants in Central Europe

39

f­ ortune in land and money before deciding to migrate, such as the members of the merchant families Sinas65 and Pondikas.66 Although trade was the main field of capital investment and professional activity of the economic migrants from Southeastern Europe, their participation in other sectors of the economy, to a lesser degree of course, such as ­manufacturing or the practice of various middle-class professions (lawyer, doctor, teacher, etc.)67 testifies to the scope of their incorporation into the professional and social fabric of the host society. Furthermore, the capital ­accumulated from commerce allowed its owners to orient themselves to ‘investments’ that were not necessarily intended for profit-making, such as the acquisition of titles and the purchase of real estate. The financially stronger middle class frequently sought formal equality with the aristocracy that dominated the higher ranks of the army and diplomatic corps, and held key positions in government. The granting of Hungarian nationality permitted the Greek capitalists of Aromanian and Greek descent to achieve recognition by the emperor through aristocratic titles.68 In the 18th century, the progressive incorporation of Greek landowners into the ranks of the local aristocracy was obviously associated with the mass awarding of royal offices to reward their respect of the law and in recognition of their achievements.69 Among their investment initiatives, the Greek businessmen of Hungary, as noted above, entered the real estate market (shops, warehouses, vineyards, wine cellars, farmlands, city lots, large land holdings, guest houses, and homes) either in the city or in fertile regions of Hungary, Transylvania,70 and the Banat of Temesvár.71 For example, in Tokaj, as early as the 17th century, Balkan merchants owned farmlands that were used to grow grapes.72 On the main commercial street of Miskolc there were also vineyards, pasturelands, shops, wine 65 Lampros, “Η Μοσχόπολις και η οικογένεια Σίνα”, p. 163; Laios, Σίμων Σίνας, pp. 14–15. 66 Papakonstantinou, Ελληνικές επιχειρήσεις στην Κεντρική Ευρώπη, pp. 47, 49. 67 Füves, “Görögök Pesten”, pp. 452–53, 464–67. 68 Füves, “Die bekanntesten geadelten Griechen in Ungarn”. 69 The contribution of Christophoros Nakos in developing Hungarian agriculture by introducing the cultivation of cotton into the country was recognized by Joseph ii, who honored him in 1784 with the title of Count, granting him large areas in Nagyszentmiklos in the Hungarian county of Torontál. See Lampros, “Σελίδες εκ της ιστορίας”, p. 284; Peyfuss, “Aromanian Landlords”, pp. 77–78. 70 Füves, “Görögök Pesten”, p. 463; Mantouvalos, Όψεις του παροικιακού ελληνισμού, pp. 321–23. 71 Peyfuss, “Aromanian Landlords”, p. 62; Laios, Σίμων Σίνας, pp. 79–73; Lanier, Die Geschichte des Bank-und Handelshauses Sina, pp. 116–19. 72 Bur, “Handelsgesellschaften – Organisationen der Kaufleute”, p. 274.

40

Mantouvalos

cellars, and the homes of wealthy foreigners.73 As part of the process of securing a permanent home, wealthy Greek businessmen invested in the housing market, usually within the urban core (Hung. Bélvaros, Germ. Innenstadt), which functioned as a place of social reference and confirmed their class origin. The case of Pest is characteristic, since in the late 18th century it was becoming a pole of attraction for Greek merchants who would invest capital to purchase homes in Bélvaros. The market for houses and land in the city paved the way for acquiring the right to citizenship (Bürgerrecht) which was automatically equivalent to its holder’s entry into the middle class (Bürgertum). The majority of middleclass residents (Stadtbürger) of Pest, which after 1703 became a free royal city (Liberae et Regiae Civitates), were foreigners who spoke German. Of the 2,354 people who acquired citizen’s rights in the period 1687–1700, 44 percent did not originate in Hungary, but in Austria (30 percent) and regions of Germany (14 percent).74 In the period between 1687 and 1848, civil rights were granted to 248 Greeks, when the total number of residents who held the right to citizenship numbered 8,703.75 The inclusion and gradual integration of Greeks and Vlachs into the host society, whose authorities and the majority of the population were Catholic (and to a lesser degree Protestant), was certainly associated with the policies of tolerance implemented by the Habsburg emperors during the 18th c­ entury.76 Before Joseph ii’s Edict of Tolerance (1781), which made it possible for nonCatholics to conduct their religious worship in private religious institutions, the Görögök would attend church – frequently in a climate of objections and restrictions by local ecclesiastical and secular officials – initially in ­Serbian ­Orthodox churches, but also in Catholic chapels and in private homes.77 It should be noted that recognition of the Serbian church as the organizational and administrative vehicle for all Serbian institutions in the territory of the Kingdom (through the privileges granted by Emperor Leopold in the 1690s) laid the foundation, on the one hand, for the religious organization of all 73

74 75 76

77

Dobrossy, “Die ethnographische Bedeutung der neugriechischen Diasporen des Karpatenbeckens”, p. 262; Dobrossy, “Kereskedő csoportok, családok és dinasztiák Miskolc társadalmában”. Ránki, “Die Entwicklung des ungarischen Bürgertums”, p. 231. Füves, “Οι κατάλογοι των πολιτογραφηθέντων ελλήνων παροίκων”, p. 107. Regarding the policies of tolerance practiced in the 18th century in the Habsburg Empire towards the Orthodox peoples of southeastern Europe, see Katsiardi-Hering and ­Madouvalos, “The Tolerant Policy of the Habsburg Authorities”, also: Csepregi, “Das ­königliche Ungarn im Jahrhundert vor der Toleranz (1681–1781)”. Dobrossy, “Görögkeleti (Ortodox) egyház”, p. 929.

Greek Immigrants in Central Europe

41

­ rthodox believers who moved from the Balkans to Central Europe in the 18th O century, irrespective of their ethnic origin and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the Ottoman Empire, and on the other hand for the submission of all Orthodox churches in the Kingdom to the jurisdiction of the Serbian Orthodox diocese in Karlowitz. After the Edict of 1781 the interest expressed by the Greeks in Hungary in acquiring their own place of worship was manifested more strongly, as can be concluded from the submission of relevant applications. In the late 18th and early 19th century, fifteen Orthodox churches were built with funds donated by Balkan merchants. Indicative was the construction of the church of the Dormition of the Virgin for the “Greek and Macedono-Vlach community of Pest” (1790) and the Holy Trinity church for the “Greek-Vlach community of Miskolc”, construction on which began in 1785 and was completed in 1806.78 In cases where the Greeks of the Kingdom were initially subject to the ecclesiastical community of the Illyrians (as was often the administrative nomenclature for Serbs), the conflicts between Greeks and Serbs over the issue of the language used in church services and their equal participation in the administration of the community led to the creation of separate communities (Pest, Trieste), to a compromise (Zemun), or even to the exclusion of one group from the ecclesiastical administration (Vienna).79 Despite the resolution of some differences between the Serbs and Greeks, the discord between ethnic communities did not cease. In the “Greek and Macedo-Vlach community of Pest” the language of the church service rapidly became a thorn in the flesh of ­relations between Greeks and Vlachs, whose co-existence would end a century or so later, in 1888.80 The interest of foreigners of Greek origin was also extended to matters of education and became stronger after the second half of the 18th century, through the issuing of legislative decrees regarding basic education for Habsburg subjects. In particular, influenced by the principles of the ­Enlightenment, Maria Theresa (1740–80) and then Joseph ii (1780–90) undertook to organize the state’s educational system on a new basis. As Kowalská put it, “The basic aim of the Theresian-Josephinist school reforms was to create an effective ­educational system that was able to educate all classes of the imperial subjects in accordance with their social rank”.81 Without confining themselves to their Catholic subjects, they extended the educational measures to include persons from other nations or religions who were inhabitants of the empire, with the ­prospect of 78 79 80 81

Dobrossy, “A Miskolci templom”, p. 22. Seirinidou, “Βαλκάνιοι έμποροι”, pp. 60–61. Füves, “Gründungsurkunde der griechischen Gemeinde”, p. 337. Kowalská, “School Reforms in the Habsburg Monarchy”, p. 267.

42

Mantouvalos

reducing illiteracy, encouraging trade, developing local industry, and training employees to administer the state.82 In Hungary, after the official state recognition and institution of the Orthodox Church,83 schools and Orthodox religious communities began to be established. In 1770–71, when the schools of the Hungarian region were surveyed, there were 89 Orthodox churches operating, among whom 63 were Serbian and 21 Romanian. Of these, Győr, Miskolc, and Tokaj alone ran a uniquely Greek-language school, whereas in the cities of Eger and Komárom the schools were bilingual and the children who attended them were taught their lessons in both the Serbian and Greek languages.84 Even though the wealthier members of the Greek communities in Hungary could hire private tutors to educate their children, or send their children to heterodox, mainly Catholic schools in the cities, the building of an educational system that would preserve their communities’ linguistic cultural identity was one of the main aims of the elite of the Greek Diaspora. For the Greeks of Hungary, the ultimate goal was to educate their children (boys and girls alike) in the polyglot and multi-ethnic environment of the Kingdom.85 The establishment of schools, their staffing with capable teachers,86 and the creation of libraries were key factors in the rise of social mobility across generations. This educational orientation was focused, among other things, on linguistic training, through cultivation of the Greek language but also on learning the languages of their social environment, German and Hungarian.87 It is worth noting that in Pest, the issue of the language used for teaching rapidly evolved into a field of ideological conflicts between Greeks and Vlachs, reflecting the

82 83 84 85

86

87

See Stachel, “Das österreichische Bildungssystem”. Regarding the history of the Orthodox Church in Hungary, see Berki, Η εν Ουγγαρία Ορθόδοξος Εκκλησία. Füves, “A pesti görög-román iskolák”, p. 134. Regarding multilingualism in the Kingdom of Hungary and the co-existence of many ethnic groups (such as ethnic groups from Balkans) with a different mother tongue, see  Stassinopoulou, “Βαλκανική  πολυγλωσσία  στην  αυτοκρατορία  των  Αψβούργων”, and ­Seidler, “Η ανάδυση του λόγου περί εθνικής ταυτότητας”. A fascinating world of teachers emerged among the “paroikoi” (settlers) in Hungary and many of them combined entrepreneurial activity with private tutoring and the work of a scholar. Georgios Zaviras, a scholar–merchant who authored works of his own, represents this combined professional identity. See Katsiardi-Hering and Stassinopoulou, “The Long 18th Century of Greek Commerce in the Habsburg Empire”, pp. 206–10. He offers “a dense personification of multiple functions in the complex system of micro-environments inside the boundaries of the Habsburg Empire”, as aptly pointed out by Maria A. ­Stassinopoulou in “Trading Places”, p. 164. Katsiardi-Hering, “Εκπαίδευση στη Διασπορά”, p. 155.

Greek Immigrants in Central Europe

43

context of both the Neohellenic Enlightenment and the efforts to establish a separate Vlach identity.88 In addition to the organized educational system, community authorities also endeavored to preserve social cohesion, by exercising welfare policy through poor houses, hospitals, and financial assistance to the destitute. Apart from the regular and special offerings to the community, a significant percentage of the expenditures entailed in organizing and operating philanthropic welfare institutions was likewise covered by bequests and donations from well-to-do Greeks. In this way, the latter accumulated symbolic capital and enhanced their social prestige, while at the same time creating a regulatory framework to monitor the behavior of community members. Regard for the community welfare institutions was an expression of the enclave’s solidarity. This tendency to internality was evident in the members of the financial elite as well as in the middle and lower social classes in the Greek Diaspora of Hungary. Donors came from all levels of society, although certainly not to an equal extent. Let’s also add that, according to the data, the childless and the unmarried, and those who had fallen out with their spouse or descendants, saw themselves bereft of the usual ways of distributing their estate and had special reasons to contribute to the common good. The members of the financial elite had to confront the ‘judgement’ of the community, whence they drew recognition, and adhere to the ruling principles that required them to support the poor. For instance, eminent members of the Greek-Vlach community of Pest, such as Count Christophoros Nakos, a member of the Hungarian nobility, Thomas Bokou, and Georgios Lykas, dedicated a significant portion of their fortunes to hospitals and charitable foundations. Nakos also provided a large capital infusion of 8,475 forints to the community poorhouse. Without touching this capital, the foundation trustees utilized the annual interest, which corresponded to 5 percent. The bequests of Lepora and Tsikos, as well as the Chariseion Foundation, through which they contributed, inter alia, to the Pest community’s charitable work are also considered important.89 The above initiatives were apparently in tune with the dominant bourgeois concept of 19th century Europe, which viewed society’s vulnerable members as needing charity to ameliorate their living conditions, a view formulated in the context of the need to manage, control and reform the poor.90 88 89 90

Ibid, pp. 172–77. Regarding the question of the Vlach ethnic awareness, see also Konstantakopoulou, Η ελληνική γλώσσα στα Βαλκάνια. Füves, “Görögök Pesten”, pp. 399–403. From the rich literature on philanthropy in Europe, see Prochaska, The Voluntary Impulse; Prochaska, “Philanthropy”; Adam, Philanthropy, Patronage and Civil Society; and Adam, Buying Respectability.

44

Mantouvalos

The range of the beneficence of Greek expatriates extended beyond the limits of the Greek community, since expatriate solidarity was also expressed on an intercommunal level. In the context of forging cohesive bonds between the expatriate nuclei in the monarchy, members of the Greek-Vlach community of Pest provided funds to church communities throughout Hungary (Vác, Székesfehérvár, Adony, Szentendre, Gyöngyös, Miskolc, etc.).91 Despite the closed nature of the Greek communities in Hungary, the Greeks and Aromanians of Pest left bequests not only to their own religious communities, but also to other religious communities in the city,92 as well as to state welfare institutions. As in other migrant centers of the monarchy, such as Vienna and Trieste, the charitable practices of the Greeks in Hungary were in a dialectical relationship with the objectives of state welfare, proving that the special bonds with the ­symbolic gathering points (churches, schools, hospitals) of the ­communities did not lead to the entrenchment of the minorities. The acquisition of the Hungarian subjecthood (Untertanenschaft, beginning as early as the last quarter of the 18th century) and political rights, as well as their ascension to the upper social strata of Hungary, imposed upon the devisors new behaviors and attitudes toward the state and city institutions, which were ­naturally also determined to some degree by the Habsburg civil law system (Civil Code, 1811). One of the most common expressions of the social acceptance of wealth acquired abroad was for the migrant to make donations to their community of origin.93 The building and maintenance of schools, the donation of scholarships and the purchase and dispatch of books to the Ottoman-held region of Macedonia reveal the extent of private initiatives in the field of education.94 The ratification of their social position in their country of origin, accomplished through the ideology of benefaction, caused – not always – the Greek expatriates of Pest to bequeath capital to strengthen the welfare and educational structures of their homeland. Let’s look at the following two examples that reveal aspects of self-consciousness and personal identity of the Görögök in 19th-century Hungary. In 1839, the will of Georgios Mantzos, a rich merchant from Pest, who emerged as a benefactor of the community of Bitola (Western Macedonia) sought to compensate for deficiencies in education, in the field of philanthropy, and in the social infrastructures in general by donating 1,000 forints to the community hospital. His name was entered in Bitola’s list of founders and, thus, is memorialized in the city he endowed, while a s­ ervice 91 92 93 94

Mantouvalos, “Μεταναστευτικές διαδρομές”, pp. 220. Füves, “Görögök Pesten”, p. 507. Theodorou, “Ευεργετισμός και όψεις της κοινωνικής ενσωμάτωσης”, p. 148. Mantouvalos, “Μεταναστευτικές διαδρομές”, pp. 220–22.

Greek Immigrants in Central Europe

45

took place annually in his memory.95 On the contrary, Stephanos Manos, a representative of the second generation of Pest immigrants, an important financier and businessman in Hungary, preferred, in his 1853 will, to limit his social benevolence to the level of the organization of the community of the “Greeks” in Pest and the Habsburg state. He did not, even symbolically, reconnect with the community of his place of origin, which also happened to be Bitola. His Magyarization and rise to the upper socio-economic echelons of the Hungarian state contributed to his emotional, mental, and imagined detachment from his ‘paternal hearth’, from Western Macedonia, which, until the early 20th century remained under Ottoman rule.96 With the rise of nationalism in Central Europe in the mid-19th century, the issue of shaping the national consciousness and redefining the traditional identities of Greek migrant families in Hungary was placed on a new basis. Cultural incorporation into Hungarian society, which had begun to intensify in the second half of the previous century, undermined the differences between migrants and the ethnic Hungarian population, and the transformation of the former’s national identity. Their involvement in public life, ­starting from the end of the previous century,97 and their participation in political ­developments, such as the Hungarian Revolution in 1848,98 contributed to transforming their identity. This transformation was reinforced by mixed marriages and the gradual Magyarization of the Greek community in the second half of the 19th century. Let’s not forget that assimilation or acculturation process and civil society were closely connected. According to Eva Margaret Bodnar, “Magyarization unfolded within the confines of civil society, and civil society was meant to guarantee that magyarization would leave room for cultural homogeneity”.99

95 Ibid., pp. 222. 96 Mantouvalos, Όψεις του παροικιακού ελληνισμού, p. 282. 97 Three men from western Macedonia rose to the office of first citizen of Zemun: Ioannis Kalligraphou-Kyritsas (1803), Konstantinos Athanasiou Petrovits (1872) and Panagiotis Morphis (1884). Members of eponymous families from the Greek and MacedonianVlach communities were elected to the city council of Pest, such as Michail Popovits (1767) Naum Derras (1789), Dimitrios Doumtsas (1831), Dimitrios Sakellarios (1834) and others. For 30 consecutive years the merchant and landowner of Macedonian descent Evgenios Doumtsas (1831) was elected Mayor of Szentendre. See Füves, “Görögök Pesten”, pp. ­476–78; Papadrianos, Οι Έλληνες πάροικοι του Σεμλίνου, pp. 91–98; Chotzakoglou, Ελληνικά χειρόγραφα και παλαιότυπα, pp. 25, 27. 98 Füves, “Görögök Pesten”, pp. 289–93; Papp, “The Son of a Greek Merchant in Diószeg”; Mantouvalos, “Όψεις  του  παροικιακού  ελληνισμού”, pp. 220, 222–23; Sasvári and Diószegi, A pest-buda görögök. 99 Bodnar, Making Magyars. Creating Hungary.

46

Mantouvalos

Bibliography Secondary Literature

Adam, T. (ed.), Philanthropy, Patronage and Civil Society: Experiences from Germany, Great Britain and North America, Bloomington 2004. Adam, T., Buying Respectability. Philanthropy and Urban Society in Transnational Per­ spective, 1840s to 1930s, Bloomington 2009. Alfani, G. and Gourdon V., “Entrepreneurs, Formalization of Social Ties, and Trustbuilding in Europe (Fourteenth to Twentieth Centuries)”, Economic History Review 65/3 (2012), pp. 1005–28. Bácskai, V., “Gesellschaftliche Veränderungen in den Städten Mittel-und Osteuropas zur Zeit der Entfaltung der kapitalistischen Verhältnisse”, in V. Bácskai (ed.), Bürger­ tum und bürgerliche Entwicklung in Mittel-und Osteuropa, vol. 1, Budapest 1986, pp. 143–227. Barta, G., “Die Anfänge des Fürstentums und erste Krisen (1526–1606)”, in B. Köpeczi (ed.), Kurze Geschichte Siebenbürgens, Budapest 1990, pp. 241–98. Berki, F., Η εν Ουγγαρία Ορθόδοξος Εκκλησία [History of the Orthodox Church in Hungary], Thessaloniki 1964. Bodnar, E., “Making Magyars, Creating Hungary: András Fáy, István Bezerédj and Ödön Beöthy’s Reform-era Contributions to the Development of Hungarian Civil ­Society”, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Alberta, 2011. Bur, M., “Handelsgesellschaften – Organisationen der Kaufleute der Balkanländer in Ungarn im 17. – 18. Jahrhundert”., Balkan Studies 25/2 (1984), pp. 267–307. Bur, M., “Das Raumergreifen balkanischer Kaufleute im Wirtschaftsleben der ostmitteleuropäischen Länder im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert”, in V. Bácskai (ed.), Bürgertum und bürgerliche Entwicklung in Mittel – und Osteuropa, Budapest 1986, pp. 17–88. Bur, M., “The Greek Company in Hungary in the 17–18th Centuries”, in J. Fossey (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Hellenic Diaspora from A ­ ntiquity  to Modern Times, vol. II: From 1453 to Modern Times, Amsterdam 1991, pp. 155–66. Burger, H., “Die Staatsbürgerschaft”, in W. Heindl and E. Saurer (eds.), Grenze und Staat. Passwesen, Staasbürgerschaft, Heimatrecht, und Fremdengesetzgebung in der öster­ reichischen Monarchie (1750–1867), Vienna/Cologne/Weimar 2000, pp. 88–172. Chatziioannou M.-Ch., Η ιστορική εξέλιξη των οικισμών στην περιοχή του Αλιάκμονα κατά την Τουρκοκρατία: ο κώδικας 201 τnς Mοvής Mεταμορφωσεως του Σωτήρος Zaϐóρδας [The Historical Evolution of the Settlements in the Aliakmon Region under Turkish Rule. Code No. 201 of the Monastery of the Transfiguration of the Saviour, Zavordas], Athens 2000. Chatziioannou M.-Ch., “Η  Κοζάνη  και  η  περιοχή  της κατά  την  Τουρκοκρατία” [Kozani and its Region during the Turkish Occupation], in N. Kalogeropoulos, (ed.), Κοζάνη

Greek Immigrants in Central Europe

47

και Γρε-βενά. Ο χώρος και οι άνθρωποι [Kozani and Grevena. The Area and the People], Thessaloniki 2004, pp. 164–71. Chatziioannou M.-Ch., “Νέες προσεγγίσεις στη μελέτη των εμπορικών δικτύων της διασπο­ράς. Η ελληνική κοινότητα στο Μάντσεστερ” [New Approaches to Diaspora’s Merchant Networks. The Greek Community in Manchester], in M. Stassinopoulou and ­M.-Ch. Chatziioannou (eds.), Διασπορά  −  Δίκτυα  −  Διαφωτισμός [Diaspora – Networks – Enlightenment] (Tetradia ergasias 28 – National Hellenic Research Foundation), Athens 2005, pp. 145–66. Chotzakoglou, Ch., Ελληνικά χειρόγραφα και παλαιότυπα στη Σερβική ορθόδοξη βιβλιοθήκη του  Αγίου  Ανδρέα  (Szentendre)  Βουδαπέστης [Greek Manuscripts and Old Prints Serbian Orthodox Library of Saint Andrew (Szentendre) in Budapest], (Tetradia e­ rgasias 24 – National Hellenic Research Foundation), Athens 2002. Cicanci, O., “Το στάδιο της έρευνας σχετικά με την ελληνική εμπορική διασπορά στο ρουμανικό χώρο (τον 17ο–18ο αιώνα)” [The Stage of Research on/about the Greek Trade Diaspora in Romania (17th–18th Centuries)], Eoa kai Esperia 7 (2007), pp. 409–21. Csepregi, Z., “Das königliche Ungarn im Jahrhundert vor der Toleranz (1681–1781)”, in Rudolph Leeb, Martin Scheutz, and Dietmar Weikl (eds.), Geheimprotestantismus und evangelische Kirchen in der Habsburgermonarchie und im Erzstift Salzburg (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 51), ­Vienna 2009, pp. 299–329. Diamantis A., Τύποι εμπόρων και μορφές συνείδησης στη νεώτερη Ελλάδα [Types of Traders and Forms of Consciousness in Modern Greece], Athens 2007. Dobrossy, I., “Die ethnographische Bedeutung der neugriechischen Diasporen des ­Karpatenbeckens im 17.–19. Jahrhundert”, Ethnographica et Folkloristica Carpathica 1–2 (1979–1981), pp. 259–67. Dobrossy, I., “Family and Economic Relations among the Greek Merchants of Miskolc in the Carpathian Basin”, Ethnographica et Folkloristica Carpathicα 5–6 (1988), pp. 205–12. Dobrossy, I., “Kereskedő csoportok, családok és dinasztiák Miskolc társadalmában a 18. század elejétől a 19. század elejéig” [Merchant Groups, Families and Dynasties in the Society of Miskolc from the Early 18th to the Early 19th Century], A Miskolci Herman Ottó Múzeum Közleményei 27 (1991), pp. 152–62. Dobrossy, I., “Görögkeleti (Ortodox) egyház” [Greek (Orthodox) Church], in T. Faragó (ed.), Miskolc Története 3/2. 1702–1847-ig, Miskolc 2000, pp. 928–43. Dobrossy, I., “A miskolci templom épitéstörténete. A templom, mint a hitélet központja” [The History of Miskolc Temple Building. The Temple as Centre of Cultural Life], in I. Dobrossy (ed.), A miskolci orthodox templom es sirkertje [Miskolc Orthodox Churches and Graveyards], Miskolc 2002, pp. 11–54. Füves, Ö., “Fejezetek a szentendrei görögök életéből” [Chapters from the Life of Greeks in Szentendre], Antik Tanulmányok 8/1–2 (1961), pp. 114–27.

48

Mantouvalos

Füves, Ö., “Απογραφές των Ελλήνων παροίκων του νομού της Πέστης : (Έρευνες στα αρχεία του νομού της Πέστης). Conscriptiones Graecorum in Comitatu Pest-Pilis-Solt Hungariae in saeculo XVIII peractae” [Censuses of the Greek Settlers in the County of Pest: (Research in the Archives of the Prefecture of Pest). Conscriptiones ­Graecorum in Comitatu Pest-Pilis-Solt Hungariae in saeculo XVIII peractae], Make­ donika 5 (1961–1963), pp. 194–241. Füves, Ö., “Die bekanntesten geadelten Griechen in Ungarn”, Balkan Studies 5 (1964), pp. 303–08. Füves, Ö., “Οι κατάλογοι των πολιτογραφηθέντων ελλήνων παροίκων της Πέστης και της  Βούδας στην περίοδο 1687–1848” [The Catalogues of the Naturalized Greek Migrants in Pest and Buda, in the Period 1687–1848], Makedonika 6 (1964–1965), pp. 106–19. Füves, Ö., Οι Έλληνες της Ουγγαρίας [The Greeks of Hungary], (Institute for Balkan Studies, 75), Thessaloniki 1965. Füves, Ö., “A pesti görög-román iskolák” [Pest Greek-Romanian Schools], Különlenyo­ mat a Magyar Pedagógia 1–2 (1971) pp. 134–38. Füves, Ö., “Gründungsurkunde der griechischen Gemeinde in Pest aus dem Jahre 1802”, Makedonika 11 (1971), pp. 335–41. Füves, Ö., “Görögök Pesten (1686–1931)” [Die Griechen in Pest], unpublished Habilitation, University of Budapest, Budapest 1972, (trans. Andrea Seidler into German). Gounaris, V. and Koukoudis, A., “Από την Πίνδο ως τη Ροδόπη : Αναζητώντας τις εγκαταστάσεις και την ταυτότητα των Βλάχων” [From Pindus to Rodopi: Searching for Vlach Establishments and Identity], Istor 10 (1997), pp. 91–137. Hajnóczy, I., A kecskeméti görögség története – Iστoρία τoυ ελληνισμoύ τoυ Kecskemét [History of the Hellenism of Kecskemét], Budapest 1939. Hering, G., “Die griechische Handelsgesellschaft in Tokaj. Ihre innere Ordnung und ihre  Auflösung 1801”, in G. Hering, Nostos. Gesammelte Schriften zur südosteu­ ropäischen Geschichte, ed. by M. Stassinopoulou, Frankfurt/New York/Vienna 1995, pp. 265–81. Karathanassis, A., L’hellénisme en Transylvanie: l’activité culturelle, nationale et reli­ gieuse des compagnies commerciales helléniques de Sibiu et de Brașov aux XVIIIe– XIXe siècles, Thessaloniki 1989. Kaser, K., Freier Bauer und Soldat. Die Militarisierung der agrarischen Gesellschaft in der kroatisch-slawonischen Militärgrenze (1535–1881), Graz 1997. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Εκπαίδευση στη Διασπορά. Προς μια παιδεία ελληνική ή προς ‘ θεραπεία ’ της πολυγλωσσίας;” [Education in the Diaspora: Towards a Real Schooling or About a ‘Treatment’ of the Multilingualism?], Νεοελληνική Παιδεία και Κοινωνία. Πρακτικά  Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου αφιερωμένου στη μνήμη του Κ. Θ. Δημαρά [Modern Greek Culture and Society. Proceedings of the International Congress in Memoriam of K. Th. Dimaras], Athens 1995, pp. 153–77.

Greek Immigrants in Central Europe

49

Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Migration von Bevölkerungsgruppen in Südosteuropa vom 15. Jahrhundert bis zum Beginn des 19. Jahrhundert”, Südost-Forschungen 59/60 (2001), pp. 125–48. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Αδελφότητα, Κομπανία, Κοινότητα. Για μια τυπολογία των ελληνικών  κοινοτήτων της Κεντρικής Ευρώπης, με αφορμή το άγνωστο καταστατικό του Miskolc (1801)” [Brotherhood, Company, Community. Regarding a typology of the Greek ­communities of Central Europe, on the occasion of the unknown statue of Miskolc (1801)], Eoa kai Esperia 7 (2007), pp. 247–310. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Grenz-, Staats-und Gemeindekonskriptionen in der Habsburger­monarchie: Identitätendiskurs bei den Menschen aus dem Süden”, in M. Oikonomou, M. Stassinopoulou, and I. Zelepos (eds.), Griechische Dimen­ sionen südosteuropäischer Kultur seit dem 18. Jahrhundert. Verortung, Bewegung, G ­ renzüberschreitung, ­Vienna 2011, pp. 231–51. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Commerce and Merchants in Southeastern Europe, 17th–18th Centuries: ‘Micro-districts’ and Regions”, Études Balkaniques 51/1 (Sofia 2015), pp. 19–35. Katsiardi-Hering, O. and Madouvalos, I., “The Tolerant Policy of the Habsburg Authorities towards the Orthodox People from South-Eastern Europe and the Formation  of  National Identities (18th – early 19th Century)”, Balkan Studies 49 (2014), pp. 5–34. Katsiardi-Hering, O. and Stassinopoulou M., “The Long 18th Century of Greek Commerce in the Habsburg Empire: Social Careers”, in H. Heppner, P. Urbanitsch, and R. Zedinger (eds.), Social Change in the Habsburg Monarchy (The Eighteenth Century and the Habsburg Monarchy. International Series, 3), Bochum 2011, pp. 191–213. Konstantakopoulou, A., Η ελληνική γλώσσα στα Βαλκάνια (1750–1850). Το τετράγλωσσο λεξικό του Δανιήλ Μοσχοπολίτη [The Greek Language in the Balkans (1750–1850). The ­Four-Language Dictionary of Daniel Moschopolitis], Ioannina 1988. Köpeczi, B. (ed.), in collaboration with Gábor Barta, István Bóna, László Makkai, and Zoltán Szász, Kurze Geschichte Siebenbürgens (Institut für Geschichte der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Akadémiei Kiadó), Budapest 1990. Koukoudis, A., Οι Μητροπόλεις και η Διασπορά των Βλάχων [The Metropolis and the Diaspora of the Vlachs], Thessaloniki 2000. Kowalská, E., “School Reforms in the Habsburg Monarchy: The Social Rise of Elementary School Teachers, Especially in Hungary”, in H. Heppner, P. Urbanitsch, and R. Zedinger (eds.), Social Change in the Habsburg Monarchy (The Eighteenth Century  and the Habsburg Monarchy. International Series, 3), Bochum 2011, ­ pp. 267–78. Laios, G., Σίμων Σίνας [Simon Sinas] (Viografiai Ethnikon Evergeton, 1), Athens 1972.

50

Mantouvalos

Laios, G., Η Σιάτιστα και οι εμπορικοί οίκοι Χατζημιχαήλ και Μανούση (17ος–19ος αι.) [­Siatista and the Hatzimihail and Manoussis Commercial Houses, 17th–19th century], (Makedoniki Vivliothiki, 60), Thessaloniki 1982. Lampros, S., “Σελίδες  εκ  της  ιστορίας  του  εν  Ουγγαρία  και  Αυστρία  Μακεδονικού  Ελληνισμού” [Pages from the History of the Macedonian Hellenism in Hungary and ­Austria], Neos Ellinomnimon 8/3 (1911), pp. 275–300. Lampros, S., “Η Μοσχόπολις και η οικογένεια Σίνα” [Moschopolis and the Sinas Family], Neos Ellinomnimon 21 (1927), pp. 159–64. Lanier, A., Die Geschichte des Bank-und Handelshauses Sina (Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe III, Geschichte und ihre Hilfswissenschaften, 805), Frankfurt 1998. Makkai, L., “Herausbildung der städtischen Gesellschaft (1172–1526)”, in B. Köpeczi (ed.), Kurze Geschichte Siebenbürgens, Budapest 1990, pp. 175–236. Mantouvalos, I., “Miskolc – Sátoraljaújhely – Boυδαπέστη: αναζητώντας τα ίχνη της ελληνικής εμπoρικής διασπoράς στην Oυγγαρία” [Miskolc – Sátoraljaújhely –­ Budapest: Tracing the Greek Trade Diaspora in Hungary], Eoa kai Esperia 7 (2007), pp. 335–65. Mantouvalos, I., “Όψειςτου  παροικιακού  ελληνισμού.  Από  το  Μοναστήρι  στην  Πέστη.  Επιχείρηση  και  αστική  ταυτότητα της  οικογένειας  Μάνου  (τέλη  18ου  −  19ος  αιώνας)” [Aspects of the Greek Diaspora. From Monastir to Pest. Entrepreneurship and Bourgeois Identity of the Manos family (End of 18th–Beginning of 19th century)], unpublished PhD thesis, University of Athens, 2007. Mantouvalos, I., “Μεταναστευτικές  διαδρομές  από  τον χώρο της  Μακεδονίας  στην Oυγγρική ενδοχώρα (17ος αι. − αρχές 19ου αι.)” [Migration Routes from Macedonia into the ­Hungarian Hinterlands (17th Century–the early 19th Century)], in I. Koliopoulos and I. ­Michailidis (eds.), Οι Μακεδόνες στη διασπορά, 17ος, 18ος και 19ος αιώνας [The  ­Macedonian Diaspora, 17th, 18th, and 19th Centuries], Thessaloniki 2011, pp. 178–235. Mantouvalos, I., “Conscriptiones Graecorum in Eighteenth-Century Central Europe. Crossing Borders: The Sociocultural Identification of Migrants from the Balkans to Hungarian Territories”, in H. Heppner and E. Posch (eds.), Encounters in Europe’s Southeast. The Habsburg Empire and the Orthodox World in the Eighteenth and N ­ ineteenth Centuries (The Eighteenth Century and the Habsburg Monarchy. International Series, 5), Bochum 2012, pp. 121–33. Martinianos, I., Η Μοσχόπολις, 1330–1930 [Moschopolis, 1330–1930], (Makedoniki Vivliothiki, 21), Thessaloniki 1957. Mehlan, A., Οι εμπορικοί δρόμοι στα Βαλκάνια κατά την Τουρκοκρατία [The Trade Routes in the Balkans under Turkish Rule] in S. Asdrachas (ed.), Η  οικονομική  δομή  των Βαλκανικών χωρών (15ος–19ος αιώνας) [The Economic Structure of the Balkan Countries (15th–18th Century)], Athens 1979, pp. 367–407.

Greek Immigrants in Central Europe

51

Mintsis, G., Εθνολογική  σύνθεση  της  Μακεδονίας  (Αρχαιότητα,  Μεσαίωνας,  Νέοι  Χρόνοι), [Ethnological Composition of Macedonia (Antiquity, Middle Ages, New Times)], Athens 1997. Moullas, P., “Ένας  Μακεδόνας  απόδημος  στην  Κεντρική Ευρώπη.  Η αυτοβιογραφία του Παναγιώτη Π. Ναούμ” [A Macedonian Emigrant in Central Europe. The Autobiography of Panayiotis P. Naoum], Epoches 15 (1964), pp. 83–104. Pach, P., Hungary and the European Economy in Early Modern Times, London 1994. Pakucs-Willcocks, M., Sibiu – Hermannstadt. Oriental Trade in Sixteenth Century Tran­ sylvania, Cologne/Weimar/Vienna 2007. Panagiotopoulos, V., “Οικονομικός χώρος των Ελλήνων” [Economic Area of the Greeks], in Πληθυσμοί και οικισμοί του ελληνικού χώρου. Ιστορικά Μελετήματα [Populations and Settlements in Greece. Historical Studies] (Tetradia ergasias 18 – National Hellenic Research Foundation), Athens 2003, pp. 27–47. Papacostea-Danielopolu, C., “L’organisation de la compagnie ‘grecque’ de Braşov (1777–1850)”, Balkan Studies 14/2 (1973), pp. 313–23. Papadrianos, I., Οι Έλληνες πάροικοι του Σεμλίνου (18ος − 19ος αι.). Διαμόρφωση της παροικί ας,  δημογραφικά  στοιχεία,  διοικητικό  σύστημα,  πνευματική  καιπολιτιστική  δραστηριότητα [Greek Migrants to Semlin [18th–19th century]. Shaping the Migrant Community: Demographic Data, Administration System, Cultural Activity], Thessaloniki 1988. Papakonstantinou, K., “Ελληνικές επιχειρήσεις στην Κεντρική Ευρώπη το β΄ μισό του 18ου  αιώνα. Η οικογένεια Πόνδικα” [Greek Merchant Enterprises in Central Europe in the Second Half of the 18th Century: The Pondikas Family], unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Athens, 2002. Papp, I., “Greek Merchants in the Eighteenth-Century Jászkunság”, Balkan Studies 30/2 (1989), pp. 261–89. Papp, I., “The Son of a Greek Merchant in Diószeg in the Hungarian war of Independence, Pál Kiss, honvéd-general 1809–1867”, Balkan Studies 38/1 (1997), pp. 101–22. Péter, K., “Die Blütezeit des Fürstentums (1606–1660)”, in B. Köpeczi (ed.), Kurze Geschichte Siebenbürgens, Budapest 1990, pp. 302–58. Peyfuss, M.-D., Die Druckerei von Moschopolis, 1731–1769. Buchdruck und Heiligenvereh­ rung im Erzbistum Achrida (Wiener Archiv für die Geschichte des Slawentums und Osteuropas, 13), Vienna/Cologne 1989. Peyfuss, M.-D., “Aromanian Landlords in the Banat around 1800”, Revista Istorică 14/3–4 (2003), pp. 59–82. Prochaska, F., The Voluntary Impulse: Philanthropy in Modern Britain, London 1988. Prochaska, F., “Philanthropy”, in F. Thompson (ed.), The Cambridge Social History of Britain 1750–1950, vol. 3, Cambridge 1990. Ránki, G., “Die Entwicklung des ungarischen Bürgertums vom späten 18. zum frühen 20. Jahrhundert”, in J. Kocka (ed.), Bürgertum im 19. Jahrhundert, vol. 1: Einheit und Vielfalt Europas, Göttingen 1995, pp. 230–48.

52

Mantouvalos

Rita, H., “A Borsod vármegyei görög kereskedők összeírása” [Census of the Greek Merchants of Borsod County], Levéltári évkőnyv 9 (Miskolc 1997), pp. 134–98. Sasvári, L. and Diószegi, G., A pest-budai görögök / Οι Έλληνες της Πέστης και της Βούδας [The Greeks of Pest and Buda], (Ellinika Vivlia, 6), Budapest 2010, pp. 20–23 [pp. 17–19]. Seidler, A., “Η  ανάδυση  του  λόγου  περί  εθνικής  ταυτότητας  στον  ουγγρικό  τύπο  του  18ου αιώνα” [The Formation of the Discourse on National Identity in the 18th Century ­Hungarian Press], in M.A. Stassinopoulou and M.-Ch. Chatziioannou (eds.), Διασπορά − Δίκτυα − Διαφωτισμός [Diaspora – Networks – Enlightenment], (Tetradia ergasias, 28 – National Hellenic Research Foundation), Athens 2005, pp. 33–51. Seirinidou, V., “Βαλκάνιοι έμποροι στην Αψβουργική Μοναρχία (18ος − μέσα 19ου αιώνα). Εθνοτικές ταυτότητες και ερμηνευτικές αμηχανίες” [Balkan Merchants in the Habsburg Empire (18th – mid-19th Century). Ethnic Identities and Scholarly Perplexities], in M. Stassinopoulou and M.-Ch. Chatziioannou (eds.), Διασπορά − Δίκτυα − Διαφωτισμός [Diaspora – Networks – Enlightenment], (Tetradia ergasias 28 – National Hellenic Research Foundation), Athens 2005, pp. 53–82. Seirinidou, V., Έλληνες στη Βιέννη (18ος − μέσα 19ου αιώνα) [Greeks in Vienna (18th – mid19th Century)], Athens 2011. Stachel, P., “Das österreichische Bildungssystem zwischen 1749 und 1918”, in K. Acham (ed.), Geschichte der österreichischen Humanwissenschaften, vol. 1: Historischer Kontext, wissenschaftssoziologische Befunde und methodologische Voraussetzungen, ­Vienna 1999, pp. 115–46. Stassinopoulou, M.A., “Βαλκανική πολυγλωσσία στην αυτοκρατορία των Αψβούργων τον  18ο και 19ο αιώνα. Ένα γοητευτικό φαινόμενο και οι δυσκολίες των εθνικών ιστοριογραφιών” [­Balkan Multilingualism in the Habsburg Empire in the 18th and 19th Century. The D ­ ifficulties of National Historiographies. An Enchanting Phenomenon], in M.A.  Stassinopoulou and M.-Ch. Chatziioannou (eds.), Διασπορά  −  Δίκτυα  − Διαφωτισμός [­Diaspora – Networks – Enlightenment], (Tetradia ergasias 28 – National ­Hellenic Research Foundation), Athens 2005, pp. 17–32. Stassinopoulou, M.A., “Trading Places. Cultural Transfer Trajectories among Southeast European Migrants in the Habsburg Empire”, in H. Heppner and E. Posch (eds.), Encounters in Europe’s Southeast. The Habsburg Empire and the Orthodox World in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (The Eighteenth Century and the Habsburg Monarchy. International Series, 5), Bochum 2012, pp. 163–74. Sugar, P., “The Principality of Transylvania”, in P. Sugar, P. Hanák, and T. Frank (eds.), A History of Hungary, Bloomington 1994, pp. 121–37. Theodorou, V., “Ευεργετισμός  και  όψεις  της κοινωνικής  ενσωμάτωσης  στις  παροικίες (1870–1920)” [Benefactions and Aspects of Social Incorporation in the ‘paroikies’ (­1870–1920)], Ta Historika 4/7 (1987), pp. 119–54.

Greek Immigrants in Central Europe

53

Tilly, C., “Migration in Modern European History”, in W. McNeill and R. Adams (eds.), Human Migration. Patterns and Policies, Bloomington 1978, pp. 48–72. Tsourka-Papastathi, D.-Eir., “The Decline of the Greek ‘Companies’ in Transylvania: An Aspect of Habsburg Economic Policies in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean”, in A. Vacalopoulos, K. Svolopoulos, and B. Király (eds.), Southeast European Maritime Commerce and Naval Policies from the Mid-Eighteenth Century to 1914 (East European Monographs, 266), New York 1988, pp. 213–18. Tsourka-Papastathi, D.-Eir., Η ελληνική εμπορική κομπανία του Σιμπίου Τρανσυλβανίας 1636– 1848. Οργάνωση  και  Δίκαιο [The Greek Merchant Company of Sibiu ­Transylvania, 1636–1848, Organization and Law] (Institute for Balkan Studies, 246), Thessaloniki 1994. Tsourka-Papastathi, D.-Eir., Η νομολογία του Κριτηρίου της ελληνικής ‘ Κομπανίας ’ του Σιμπίου Τρανσυλβανίας 17ος–18ος αι. : πηγές του δικαίου και των θεσμών του απόδημου ελληνισμού [The Decisions of the Tribunal of the Greek ‘Company’ of Sibiu in Transylvania 17th–18th Century: Sources of Law and Institutions of the Greek Diaspora], (Επετ ηρίς του Κέντρου Ερευνών της ιστορίας του ελληνικού δικαίου, παράρτημα10), Athens 2011. Vakalopoulos, A., Οι  Δυτικομακεδόνες  απόδημοι  επί  Τουρκοκρατίας [Western Macedonians Living Abroad during the Turkish Occupation], (Etaireia Makedonikon Spoudon, 22), Thessaloniki 1958. Vakalopoulos, A., Ιστορία της Μακεδονίας 1354–1833 [History of Macedonia 1354–1833], Thessaloniki 1969. Weigand, G., Die Aromunen: ethnographisch-philologisch-historische Untersuchungen über das Volk der sogennanten Makedo-Romanen oder Zinzaren, vol. 1, 1895, vol. 2, 1894, Leipzig 1894, 1895.

chapter 2

Migrations and the Creation of Orthodox Cultural and Artistic Networks between the Balkans and the Habsburg Lands (17th–19th Centuries) Nenad Makuljević The political and cultural history of the Balkans in the early modern times was marked by the disappearance of medieval states, Ottoman conquest, and numerous wars.1 Under such circumstances, collective and individual migrations took place from the Ottoman Empire to Habsburg lands. This mainly pertains to the Orthodox Christians, who migrated both during forced mass movements and individually for economic, religious, and political reasons.2 The most important migrations of the Serbs into the Habsburg Monarchy have been noted in historiography as the Great Migration in 1690 and the Second Migration in 1739.3 Migrations also occurred at the end of the 18th century, after the Ottoman-Habsburg wars and after the crush of the First Serbian Uprising in 1813. Apart from collective migrations, individual migrations constantly took place. They were economic in nature and therefore contributed to the numbers of the Balkan traders settled in Habsburg cities. The migrations from the Ottoman Empire into Habsburg territories might also have come as a consequence of the modification of the borders. Due to ­alternate Ottoman and Habsburg conquests of the Balkans and southern Hungary during the 17th and 18th centuries, the population changed its state without changing its place of residence. Alternate presence of different state authorities, Christian or Islamic, contributed to intense changes of cultural models in border territories. This is particularly evident in regions such as the Banat, which was under the Ottoman rule until 1716.4 The migrations of the population from the Ottoman Empire into Habsburg lands did not mark the end of communication between the old homeland and the new state or a rapid change of cultural models of the migrants’ private life.5 On the contrary, migrations contributed to the creation of unique cultural and 1 Stavrianos, The Balkans since 1453, pp. 33–412. 2 Samardžić, “Migrations in Serbian History”. 3 Veselinović, “Velika seoba 1690”; Veselinović, “Srbi pod austrijskom vlašću”, p. 160. 4 Pejin, “Banat pod turskom okupacijom”. 5 Katsiardi-Hering, “Southeastern European Migrant Groups”.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004335448_004

Migration & Creation of Orthodox Cultural & Artistic Network

55

artistic networks of the Orthodox population, which surpassed state borders and connected the Ottoman Balkans with Habsburg lands. This is evident in the constitution of the network of Orthodox parish churches and monasteries on the territory of the Habsburg Empire, the transfer of icons and sacred objects from the Balkans, and in the activity and influence of artists from Habsburg lands in the Balkans.

Migrations and the Constitution of the Orthodox Church Network in the Habsburg Monarchy

The foundation of Orthodox monasteries in Habsburg lands began in the late Middle Ages. During the 14th and 15th centuries, the first Orthodox monasteries were established in the territory of South Hungary, such as the m ­ onasteries of Kovilj6 and Krušedol, a foundation of despot Georgije Branković (Bishop Maksim).7 After the fall of the Serbian medieval state, Serbian population inhabited some Hungarian cities. Serbs lived in Buda, Győr, Esztergom, and Komárom. The Serbian part of a city was named ‘Ratzenstadt’.8 Under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, a number of churches and monasteries were established in conquered Habsburg territories. These churches were under the ­jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Peć, the Serbian church organization led by the patriarch.9 The Serbian Orthodox church parochial and monastic network was finally formed after 1690. In 1690 the so-called Great Migration took place, when a part of Serbian Orthodox population and clergy from the Patriarchate of Peć, led by the patriarch Arsenije Čarnojević (Černojević), came to the Habsburg Monarchy. Although this migration was caused by the defeat of the Habsburg army in the Austrian-Ottoman war, the Serbian migration was not chaotic. ­Patriarch Arsenije crossed into Habsburg territory only after being granted privileges that secured his position and religious rights of the Serbian population.10 Serbs mostly settled along the Habsburg–Ottoman military frontier and were thus located in the wide region from Banat to Lika.11 The patriarch spent the first few years after the migration organizing church life and was 6 Banjac, Manastir Kovilj, pp. 31–35. 7 Timotijević, Manastir Krušedol, pp. 14–22. 8 Davidov, Spomenici Budimske eparhije, pp. 43–137. 9 Petković, Zidno slikarstvo, pp. 166, 187, 191–92, 204–07. 10 Veselinović, “Velika seoba 1690”; Davidov, Srpske privilegije, pp. 14–147. 11 Veselinović, “Velika seoba 1690”.

56

Makuljević

especially active in protecting the Orthodox population from conversion into Roman Catholicism. The settlement of Szentendre testifies to the significance of the Great ­Migration for the formation of Orthodox culture in the monarchy. Szentendre is a small town close to Buda, where the patriarch and Serbian church leaders originally found shelter. After the Great Migration in 1690, seven ­Orthodox churches were erected in Szentendre by migrants coming from different regions. Thus some churches were named after the regions they came from: Belgrade, Požarevac, Chiprovtsi or Opovo.12 Although patriarch Arsenije Čarnojević came to the Habsburg Monarchy, the patriarchate of the Serbian Orthodox church remained in the Ottoman Empire near the town of Peć in the Metohija region. In 1739 the Second Migration took place, led by the patriarch Arsenije iv Jovanović Šakabenta.13 On this occasion, part of the clergy and Orthodox population also relocated. The aftermath of the migration was the division of the Serbian church organization in the Habsburg and Ottoman Empire. In the Habsburg Monarchy, the Metropolitanate of Karlovci remained active, with the seat in Sremski Karlovci (Karlowitz), while the Patriarchate of Peć survived until 1766, when it was abolished by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.14 In the revolution of 1848, the Metropolitanate of Karlovci was elevated to a patriarchate.15 The migrations of the Serbian Orthodox population led to the erection of a great number of churches and monasteries, and to the formation of an Orthodox Church culture in the territory of the Habsburg Monarchy. Habsburg authorities controlled the construction of Orthodox churches. They prescribed the appearance of church exteriors, but not their interiors. Thus the interiors of Serbian churches were organized according to the Orthodox liturgical practice.16 Some icon painters, such as Hristofor Džefarović and Janko Halkozović, came from southern Balkan areas.17 These icon painters came from Aromanian communities and honed their painting skills in southern Balkan ­regions, ­mostly in Albania, Macedonia, and Epirus. Operating in the Habsburg M ­ onarchy, they transferred Balkan Orthodox art to the north.

12 Davidov, “Srpski kulturno-istorijski”, pp. 108–48. 13 Veselinović, “Srbi pod austrijskom vlašću”, p. 160. 14 Slijepčević, Istorija srpske, vol. 1, p. 421. 15 Slijepčević, Istorija srpske, vol. 2, pp. 152–54. 16 Timotijević, Crkva Svetog Georgija. 17 Timotijević, Srpsko barokno, pp. 89–91.

Migration & Creation of Orthodox Cultural & Artistic Network

57

The work of Balkan icon painters in the Habsburg Monarchy continued throughout the 18th century. Thus icon painter Teodor Simonov from Moschopolis [Voskopolje, today in Albania] worked for Orthodox Serbs during the eighth decade of the 18th century. He painted the walls of the church in Székesfehérvár/Stolni Beograd.18 The works of Jovan Četirović Grabovan also provide an interesting example.19 This icon painter was born in Albania, but he painted in the Habsburg Monarchy. He completed part of his education in Russia, and returned to the Ottoman Empire. He finally settled in Slavonia, where he developed a rich icon-painting activity. The example of Četirević Grabovan clearly shows to what extent the Orthodox population was connected, regardless of the borders of empires. His work obviously revolved around Orthodox cultural networks and his art was one of the most representative forms of Orthodox icon painting.

Migrations and the Transfer of Icons and Relics

Great migrations included not only the movement of people from the Ottoman into the Habsburg Empire, but also the transfer of a number of relics, sacred objects, icons, and prayer books. Pious people, monks, and priests carried necessary sacred objects as well as various valuables from their homeland. The monks from particular monasteries carried the most significant relics with them during migration. The monks of the Ravanica monastery in Serbia carried with them the relics of Prince Lazar, the medieval Serbian ruler who died in the Battle of Kosovo in 1389. Prince Lazar was one of the most significant Serbian national saints, whose cult developed under Ottoman rule. He was a symbol of a holy victim in the battle against the Ottoman Empire, which was particularly highlighted in oral folk tradition.20 After the Great Migration in 1690, the relics of Prince Lazar were first brought to Szentendre21 and were subsequently placed in the Vrdnik monastery, which was named Sremska Ra­vanica. The relics of Prince Lazar were placed in a church, where a huge church celebration took place on Vidovdan, 15/28 June (St. Vitus Day, the day of the Battle of Kosovo).22 Until 1941, when the relics were transferred to Belgrade,

18 Ševo, Crkva Rodjenja, pp. 49–51. 19 Todić, Srpski slikari, pp. 281–90. 20 Popović, Vidovdan i časni krst, 1998; Mihaljčić, Lazar Hrebljanović. 21 Davidov, “Srpski kulturno-istorijski spomenici”, p. 71. 22 Makuljević, Umetnost i nacionalna ideja, pp. 309–10.

58

Makuljević

Vrdnik monastery and the relics of Prince Lazar formed one of the most significant Serbian cultural and historical centers. Before the attack of the Ottomans, Serbian Orthodox clergy also fled with venerated icons. The monks of the Rakovica monastery, nearby Belgrade, received the icons from Russia, because of the merits of a monk called Grigorije, who had helped the Russian diplomats during the negotiations with Ottomans in 1698 and 1699.23 The monks abandoned Rakovica in 1737 because of the Ottomans and settled in the Velika Remeta monastery in Fruška gora, a mountain in north Srem. They brought with them the icons from Russia, church books, and sacred objects.24 The nature of migrations is exemplified by the monks of the Rača monastery on the Drina river. In this monastery, significant transcription and literary activities developed. During the migration in 1690, the monks from Rača brought a large number of manuscripts with them. They first settled in Szentendre, but later they moved to other monasteries, where they continued the transcription of Serbian church literature.25 Their activity in the Habsburg territory contributed to the preservation and development of the Serbian Orthodox literature and culture. There is also a famous example of an Epitaphios (an icon for the Good ­Friday services) from the Mileševa monastery, near Prijepolje in southwest Serbia. This Epitaphios was a gift by prince Alexandru and princess Ruxandra Lăpușneanu from Moldavia to the monastery Mileševa in 1567. During the migration in 1688, the monks from Mileševa carried the Epitaphios to the ­Gomionica monastery in Bosnia, and later to the Pakra monastery in Slavonia, where it was revered as one of its most valuable objects.26 An example that shows the importance of the transfer of icons for the ­Orthodox culture in the Habsburg lands is an icon of the Mother of God ­Bezdinska. This icon was a copy of a famous Russian wonderworking icon of the Theotokos of Vladimir, brought from Kiev by the monk Paisius the Greek in 1727. The icon was first placed in the Orthodox Cathedral in Belgrade and subsequently in the nearby Serbian monastery of Vinča. Before the attack of the Ottomans in 1739, the monks from Vinča migrated to Banat and placed the icon there. It subsequently became one of the most revered icons believed to be wonderworking on the territory of the Metropolitanate of Karlovci.27

23 Rakić, Z., “Velikoremetske ikone”. 24 Ibid. 25 Medaković, “Izučavanje srpskih starina u Madjarskoj”, pp. 54–55. 26 Kučeković, Umetnost Pakračko-Slavonske eparhije, pp. 315–16. 27 Timotijević, “Bogorodica Bezdinska”.

Migration & Creation of Orthodox Cultural & Artistic Network



59

The Transfer of Icons from the Habsburg into the Ottoman Empire

Although the Orthodox population was divided between the Ottoman and Habsburg Empires, and therefore lived in different cultural models, strong cultural links were preserved, a fact which was confirmed by communication and the creation and acquisition of icons and liturgical vessels to Orthodox churches in the Balkans. This strong connection between Orthodox culture in the Habsburg lands and in the Ottoman Balkans is confirmed by the activity of Hristofor Džefarović, an icon painter and copperplate engraver. He came from the vicinity of Dojran and moved to the Habsburg Monarchy at the beginning of the 18th century. As an icon painter, Džefarović painted the church of Bodjani monastery in Bačka [today in Vojvodina, northern Serbia], and then dedicated himself to making engravings. He collaborated with Thomas Mesmer in Vienna, where he developed a large production of engravings.28 He produced engravings as icons, monastery representations and illustrated books for numerous Orthodox commissioners in the Habsburg Empire as well as in the Ottoman Empire.29 Džefarović worked for various ethnic groups – Serbs, Greeks, and Vlachs,30 which resulted in his flexibility in the use of Greek and Slavic language. One of the most important books that Džefarović illustrated was the ­Description of Jerusalem, which was commissioned by the archimandrite of Jerusalem Simon Simonović. It was printed in Vienna in 1748, first in Serbian, and then in Greek in 1781. The Description of Jerusalem was a guide book, used by Serbian, Greek, and Russian pilgrims to the Holy Land.31 On the territory of the Habsburg Monarchy, the production of engravings was developed for Orthodox monasteries in the Ottoman Empire. However, such production was not developed in the Balkans, most likely due to the application of copperplate-engraving technology. Therefore the engravings of some monasteries in the Balkans were printed in Vienna. In 1733 Serbian ­patriarch Arsenije iv Jovanović Šakabenta commissioned in Vienna the engraving of the Studenica monastery.32 The representation of the Dečani monastery and printed icons of St. Stefan Dečanski have been published in Vienna during the 18th and 19th centuries.33 28 Davidov, Srpska grafika, pp. 105–57. 29 Gratziou, “Searching for the public”, pp. 98–103. 30 Peyfuss, Die Druckerei von Moschopolis, with information on Djefarovic’s prints and the donors. 31 Žefarović, Opisanije Jerusalima. 32 Šakota, Studenička riznica, pp. 223–24. 33 Šakota, Dečanska riznica, pp. 315–23.

60

Makuljević

One of the important practices of the transfer of icons and iconography was developed at the border between the Habsburg and Ottoman Empire during the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century. The border was not closed, but rather enabled communication. Thus there was a notable import of icons from the Habsburg Monarchy, while some painters crossed the border and started working in Serbia. The 19th century brings an important political and cultural turn. National revolutions led to the creation of new states such as Serbia and Greece, which resulted in the need for transformation of Ottoman culture and the creation of a national visual identity. In this process, an important place was given to the artists and architects from the Habsburg territories who crossed the borders. This applies especially to the border culture of the Sava and Danube regions of Serbia.34 The example of activity and transfer of painters from the Habsburg Monarchy into the newborn state of Serbia is especially indicated by the artists from border Danube towns such as Zemun (Semlin) and Bela Crkva. Zemun painter Nikola Apostolović worked actively in Serbia – in Belgrade, in the first half of the 19th century.35 Particularly distinguished were the painters from Bela Crkva: the Jakšić family and Arsenije Petrović. Simeon, Arsenije, and Dimitrije Jakšić mainly developed church painting in northeastern Serbia,36 while Petrović explored portrait painting in the same region.37 In the mid-19th century, the restoration of the church and the rise of the civil society prompted Serbian painters, not only those from the border regions, to transfer from the Habsburg Empire to Serbia, thereby transferring the ideals of Central E ­ uropean art. This  included artists such as Dimitrije Avramović, Uroš Knežević, Pavle Simić, Jovan Popović, Katarina Ivanović, and Đura Jakšić.38 These painters worked alternately in the Habsburg Empire and in Serbia, and this led to the formation of strong cultural ties among the Serbian people despite the fact that Serbs lived in different states, and the establishment of a national artistic network/scene. Migrations also contributed to the creation of strong trade links between Orthodox people in the Habsburg and Ottoman empires. Traders brought back numerous icons from their trips and donated them to churches and monasteries. The transfer of icons is indicated by Sarajevo traders. They had a ­developed trading network that encompassed the area between the Adriatic 34 Vujović, Umetnost obnovljene Srbije, pp. 226–35. 35 Ibid., pp. 228–32. 36 Ibid., pp. 244–45. 37 Ibid., pp. 279–80. 38 Jovanović, Medju javom i med snom, pp. 76–260.

Migration & Creation of Orthodox Cultural & Artistic Network

61

Sea, the Balkans and Central Europe. One of the richest Sarajevo traders was Jovo Miletić. He donated to the Sarajevo church of the Holy Archangels, among other things, icons transported from the Habsburg Monarchy, as well as valuable embroidered curtains for the iconostasis – the so-called ‘Miletića skute’, made in Vienna in 1776.39 In the 19th century, the links between the Ottoman Balkans and the Habsburg Monarchy were very strong. Vienna became one of the most significant educational centers for students from the Balkans. Thus numerous ­architects and painters brought the experience and models of European art to the Balkan states.40 Anastas Jovanović41 is one of the most interesting examples of cultural transfer from Vienna to the Ottoman Balkans in the 19th century. He was sent by prince Miloš Obrenović to study art in Vienna. There he mastered the ­lithography technique, as well as photography, and thus became one of the first photographers in the Balkans.42 Anastas Jovanović developed a big artistic production for Serbian and Balkan society. He created a map of Serbia, a lithographic album ‘Spomenici srbski’, which represented the most significant events and characters from the Serbian history, and religious engravings.43 His lithographs were sold both in the Habsburg monarchy and in Serbia, and thus they contributed to the creation of Serbian national identity. Although they were nationally engaged, Jovanović’s engravings were not of an anti-Habsburg nature. They were being created around 1848, when the Serbian national movement was on the side of the central government in Vienna, and was opposed to Hungarian aspirations.44 The significance of Anastas Jovanović is manifold. After his stay in Vienna, Jovanović returned to Serbia, where he was hired as an administrator at Prince Mihailo Obrenović’s court between 1860 and 1868. The experience and the knowledge he had gained in Vienna must have contributed to the way he created visual programs at Serbian court, such as memorial medals on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Second Serbian ­Uprising in 1865.45 Anastas Jovanović adopted numerous forms of contemporary a­ rtistic expression in Vienna, and used that Central European experience for the ­artistic creation of the Serbian national identity. 39 Skarić, Srpski pravoslavni, pp. 47–48. 40 Jovanović, Srpsko crkveno, pp. 69–77; pp. 109–30. 41 Vasić, Anastas Jovanović (1817–1899). 42 Antić, Anastas Jovanović, pp. 7–50. 43 Vasić, Anastas Jovanović. 44 Gavrilović, Srbi u Habzburškoj monarhiji. 45 Timotijević, Takovski ustanak, pp. 215–221.

62

Makuljević

During the early modern times, there were numerous collective and individual migrations of Orthodox Christians from the region under Ottoman rule into the Habsburg lands. Migrations did not break the religious, cultural, and artistic connections, but instead contributed to the creation of a unique ­cultural network between Balkans and Habsburg lands. Bibliography Secondary Literature

Antić, R., Anastas Jovanović – prvi srpski fotograf [Anastas Jovanović – First Serbian Photographer], Belgrade 1977. Banjac, J., Manastir Kovilj [Monastery Kovilj], Novi Sad 2013. Davidov, D., Srpska grafika XVIII veka [Serbian Graphic Arts in the 18th Century], (Studije za istoriju srpske umetnosti, 8), Novi Sad 1978. Davidov, D., “Srpski kulturno-istorijski spomenici Sentandreje” [Serbian Cultural and Historical Monuments of Szentandre], in D. Medaković and D. Davidov (eds.), Sentandreja, Belgrade 1982, pp. 69–156. Davidov, D., Spomenici Budimske eparhije [Monuments of Eparchy of Buda], (Studije i monografije, 9), Belgrade 1990. Davidov, D., Srpske privilegije carskog doma Habzburškog [Serbian Privileges of Royal House of Habsburg], Novi Sad/Belgrade 1994. Gavrilović, S., “Srbi u Habzburškoj monarhiji od kraja XVIII do sredine XIX veka” [Serbs in Habsburg Monarchy from the end of the 18th to mid-19th century], in V. Čubrilović (ed.), Istorija srpskog naroda, vol. 5:2 [History of Serbian People vol. 5:2], Belgrade 1994, pp. 45–90. Gratziou, O., “Searching for the Public of Some Greek Religious Engravings in 18th Century Hungary”, Zbornik Matice srpske za likovne umetnosti 29/30 (Novi Sad ­1993–1994), pp. 93–106. Jovanović, M., Srpsko crkveno graditeljstvo i slikarstvo novijeg doba [Serbian Church ­Architecture and Painting of Early Modern Times], Belgrade/Kragujevac 1987. Jovanović, M., Medju javom i med snom: Srpsko slikarstvo 1830–1870 [Between Dreaming and Waking: Serbian Art 1830–1870], Belgrade 1992. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Southeastern European Migrant Groups between the Ottoman and the Habsburg Empires. Multilateral Social and Cultural Transfers from the Eighteenth to the Nineteenth Centuries”, in H. Heppner and E. Posch (eds.), ­Encounters in Europe’s Southeast. The Habsburg Empire and the Orthodox World in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (The Eighteenth Century and the Habsburg Monarchy. International Series, 5), Bochum 2012, pp. 135–62.

Migration & Creation of Orthodox Cultural & Artistic Network

63

Kučeković, A., Umetnost Pakračko-Slavonske eparhije u XVIII veku [Art of Pakrac Slavonian Eparchy in the 18th Century], Belgrade 2014. Makuljević, N., Umetnost i nacionalna ideja u XIX veku: sistem evropske i srpske vizuelne kulture u slubi nacije [Art and National Idea in the 19th Century: System of European and Serbian Visual Culture in the Service of Nation], Belgrade 2006. Medaković, D., “Izučavanje srpskih starina u Madjarskoj” [Research of Serbian Antiquities in Hungary], in D. Medaković and D. Davidov (eds.), Sentandreja, Belgrade 1982, pp. 17–68. Mihaljčić, R., Lazar Hrebljanović, istorija, kult i predanje [Lazar Hrebljanović, History, Cult and Legend], Belgrade 1984. Pejin, J., “Banat pod turskom okupacijom” [Banat under Ottoman Rule], in M. Maticki and V. Jović (eds.), Banat kroz vekove: slojevi kultura Banata [Banat through the Centuries: Layers of Banat Culture], Belgrade 2010, pp. 133–67. Petković, S., Zidno slikarstvo na području Pećke patrijaršije 1557–1614 [Wall Painting on the Area of Patriarchate of Peć 1557–1614], Novi Sad 1965. Peyfuss, M.-D., Die Druckerei von Moschopolis, 1731–1769. Buchdruck und Heiligenverehrung im Erzbistum Achrida (Wiener Archiv für die Geschichte des Slawentums und Osteuropas, 13), Vienna/Cologne 1989. Popović, M., Vidovdan i časni krst [Vidovdan and the Holy Cross], Belgrade 1998. Rakić, Z., “Velikoremetske ikone iz 1687. godine i njihovi autori” [Velika Remeta Icons from 1687, and their Painters], Zbornik Matice srpske za likovne umetnosti 22 (1986), pp. 127–46. Šakota, M., Dečanska riznica [Treasury of Monastery Studenica], Belgrade 1984. Šakota, M., Studenička riznica [Treasury of Monastery Dečani], Belgrade 1988. Samardžić, R., “Migrations in Serbian History (The Era of Foreign Rule)”, in I. Ninić (ed.), Migrations in Balkan History, Belgrade 1989, pp. 83–89. Ševo, L., Crkva Rodjenja Svetog Jovana Preteče u Stonom Beogradu [The Church of St. John the Forerunner’s Birth in Székesfehérvár], Banja Luka 2011. Skarić, V., Srpski pravoslavni narod i crkva u Sarajevu u 17. i 18. vijeku [Serbian Orthodox People and Church in Sarajevo in the 17th and 18th Centuries], Sarajevo 1928. Slijepčević, Dj., Istorija srpske pravoslavne crkve, vol. 1–2 [History of the Serbian Orthodox Church], Belgrade 1991. Stavrianos, L., The Balkans since 1453, New York 1958. Timotijević, M., Crkva Svetog Georgija u Temišvaru [Church of St. George in Timișoara], Novi Sad 1996. Timotijević, M., Srpsko barokno slikarstvo [Serbian Baroque Painting], Novi Sad 1996. Timotijević, M., “Bogorodica Bezdinska i versko-politički program patrijarha Arsenija IV Jovanovića” [Mother of God of Bezdin and Religious-political Program of Patriarch Arsenije IV Jovanović], Balcanica 32–33 (2003), pp. 311–39.

64

Makuljević

Timotijević, M., Manastir Krušedol [Monastery Krušedol], vol. I–II, Belgrade 2008. Timotijević, M., Takovski ustanak – srpske Cveti. O javnom zajedničkom sećanju i zaboravljanju u simboličnoj politici zvanične reprezentativne kulture [The Takovo ­Uprising – Serbian Palm Sunday. On the construction of collective memory, and its ­disremembrance, in representative culture], Belgrade 2012. Todić, B., Srpski slikari od XIV do XVIII veka [Serbian Painters from the 14th to the 18th Century], vol. I, Novi Sad 2013. Vasić, P., Anastas Jovanović, Život i delo Anastasa Jovanovića, prvog srpsog litografa [Life and Work of Anastas Jovanović, First Serbian Lithographer], Belgrade 1962. Vasić, P., Anastas Jovanović (1817–1899), katalog radova [Anastas Jovanović (1817–1899), Catalogue], Novi Sad 1964. Veselinović, R., “Srbi pod austrijskom vlašću 1718–1739” [Serbs under Austrian Rule 1718–1739], in S. Gavrilović (ed.), Istorija srpskog naroda, vol. 4:1 [History of Serbian People vol. 4:1], Belgrade 1986, pp. 106–62. Veselinović, R., “Velika seoba 1690” [Great Migration 1690], in R. Samardžić (ed.), ­Istorija srpskog naroda, vol. 3:1 [History of Serbian People, vol. 3:1] Belgrade 1993, pp. 530–42. Vujović, B., Umetnost obnovljene Srbije 1791–1848 [Art of Renewed Serbia 1791–1848], Belgrade 1986. Žefarović, Hristofor, Opisanije Jerusalima, izrezao u bakru Hristofor Žefarović, 1748 [­Description of Jerusalem, Cut in Copper by Hristofor Žefarović], edited by D. Davidov, facsimile, Novi Sad 1973.

chapter 3

Connecting Migration and Identities: Godparenthood, Surety and Greeks in the Russian Empire (18th – Early 19th Centuries)1 Iannis Carras You folk who spoke in different tongues, but worship God devoutly Adopt the Roman dialect, the Romans’ genteel conduct And you’ll do quite propitiously, your trade will greatly prosper You’ll gain from all exchanges-made, from business turn a profit.2 For You are my refuge from the tribulation which surrounds me.3 The period from the end of the 18th into the 19th century saw a wave of emigrations from the Balkans to the newly conquered Black Sea littoral regions, envisaged as a multi-national outpost of the Russian Empire. The standard picture of migration as a process of settlement and colonization, which has been described in works by Grigory Ars, Elena Druzhinina, and Roger Bartlett among

1 The research for this paper was supported through a European Union (European Social Fund – esf) and Greek national funds through the operational Programme “education and lifelong learning” of the National Strategic Reference Framework (nsrf) – Research Funding Programme: Thales, investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund. I am very grateful to Nikolaos Chrissidis, Cristian Alvarado Leyton, and Eugenii Chernukhin for their comments and suggestions. 2 The Enlightenment scholar’s Daniel Moskhopolites’ ditty from his work Eisagogike D ­ idaskalia, Constantinople 1802, an example of the advantages that accrued for Bulgarian, Wallachian, and Albanian speakers who learnt Greek. Greek text in Kitromilides, Μοισιόδαξ, footnote 12, pp. 241–43; English translation: Iannis Carras. 3 Psalm 31 (32 in the West) read during the Orthodox Baptism ceremony.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004335448_005

66

Carras

others, does not, however, capture the full range of migrations characteristic of the time.4 Charles Tilly’s typologies as modified by Leslie Page Moch provide a framework for distinguishing between different migrations from the Balkans into the Russian Empire.5 Thus the leading Enlightenment figure Eugenios Voulga­ ris, who arrived in St. Petersburg in 1771, can serve as an example of the ‘career migration’ that had already reached its apogee in the 17th century when elite figures from the Orthodox East journeyed to the Russian Empire, a story told by Ekkehard Kraft in Moskaus griechisches Jahrhundert.6 Prisoners or slaves (nevolniki) returning from Ottoman captivity serve as examples of ‘coerced migration’. Both clergy travelling in search of alms and merchants (who in the 17th and early 18th centuries were largely active in the fur trade, travelling from Constantinople to Moscow and further) are examples of ‘circular migration’ (where people return home after a specified interval). The 1740s to the late 1760s were periods of considerable growth in trade and also saw an increasing number of migrants from Southeastern Europe. The flow of urban migrants from Southeastern Europe was centred on movement through the inland port-city of Nezhin (on the borders between Little Russia and Russia proper), at the time the largest city on the Left Bank of the Dnieper, larger even than Kiev. Estimates of Nezhin’s population put it at around ten thousand individuals. Of these approximately 10 per cent were Balkan migrants. Migrants filtered through to other expanding cities, however, ­including Chernigov, Voronezh, Poltava, Kiev, Moscow, and, slightly later, Elisavetgrad, constituting an 18th-century ‘Balkan migration stream’ to the Russian Empire (Map 3.1).7 The Russian-Ottoman war of 1768–74 when the Russian fleet annexed the Aegean Archipelago before returning it to the Ottomans according to the terms of the Treaty of Kucuk Kainardzha, the annexation of Crimea in 1783, and the subsequent wars of 1787–92 and 1806–12 created the conditions for new waves of migrants. In fact, the Russian-Ottoman Treaties of 1774 and of 1792 included clauses that permitted the free migration of those who wished to do so from the Ottoman to the Russian Empire.8 4 Ars, “Grecheskaya emigratsiya v Rossiiu”; Ars, “Pereselenie Grekov v Rossiiu”; Bartlett, Human Capital; Druzhinina Severnoe Prichernomor’e. 5 Tilly, “Migration in Modern European History”, esp. p. 52; Tilly “Transplanted Networks”; Page Moch, Moving Europeans, pp. 17–20. 6 Kraft, Moskaus griechisches Jahrhundert. 7 For a more detailed analysis, see Carras, Εμπόριο και Αδελφότητα. 8 Chistovich, Protokoly Soveta, p. 375; Kerasidi and Illarioshkina, “Greeks in the Russian-Turkish War of 1768–1774”, esp. p. 39.

Connecting Migration and Identities

Map 3.1 

67

Balkan migration streams, 1650s–1820s

The discovery of the commercial importance of the Black Sea between 1772 and 1793 by the Western powers (a process charted in recent articles by the Romanian historian Constantin Ardeleanu) resulted in the incorporation of the Black Sea into the world economy as a major exporter of primary resources, above all cereals. The south of the Russian Empire was to become, by the mid19th century, one of the largest suppliers of grain to the European market.9 Whenever migrants became permanent residents – as was frequently the case in cities such as Nezhin and Moscow, or, later, in maritime port-cities such as Taganrog, Cherson, Nikolaev, Berdyaev, and Odessa – they bridged the gap that separates ‘circular’ and ‘chain migration’, thus constituting a ‘port-city migration stream’ (Map 3.2). 9 Ardeleanu, “The Discovery of the Black Sea”.

68

Carras

Map 3.2 

Port-city migration streams, 1774–19th century

Finally, imperial policies encouraged military and agricultural settlements: in the 1750s the most famous were by ‘Serbs’ (sometimes from Habsburg lands who were just as often, in fact, Moldavians, Wallachians, and other Orthodox) from the Balkans, into New and Slaviano-Serbia. Imperial manifestos of 1762– 63 and – following on from the end of a series of Russian-Ottoman wars – the settlement of ‘Greeks’, ‘Albanians’, ‘Arnaut’ (terms often used interchangeably) and others in military and agricultural colonies along the northern coast of the Black Sea littoral also constitute examples of ‘colonizing migration’. Such colonies included Aleksandrovka on the outskirts of what was to become Odessa, Kerch-Yenikale in Crimea, Taganrog on the Sea of Azov, and Balaklava in Crimea; so too, perhaps, the emigration of a large number of ‘Greeks’ and Armenians from Crimea to Mariupol and Nakhichevan on the Don in 1778. Most ‘Bulgarians’ colonized the region of Bessarabia north and west of Odessa in the period between 1812 and the 1830s. And there was a steady flow of agricultural labourers from Moldavia and Wallachia in the years between 1774 and the end of the 18th century.10 10

For migration to and the colonization of these southern regions of the Russian Empire more generally, see indicatively Derzavin, Bolgarskie kolonii v Rossii; Bartlett, Human

Connecting Migration and Identities

69

Large numbers moved – or were forced to move – in the other direction as well, particularly Tatars from Crimea to the Ottoman Empire at the end of the 18th century and various populations of Crimea and the Caucasus again to the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century.11 It is often impossible to differentiate between motives that lead to the decision to migrate: types of migration interacted with one another and overlapped. Thus there is a link between the ‘coerced migrations’ of captives and the ‘circular migrations’ of alms collectors and merchants (who were often the same people). Similarly, the members of the Nezhin Brotherhood repeatedly argued that their privileges were justifiable because they were refugees fleeing Ottoman oppression.12 Military and agricultural colonists too could come to resemble merchants in practice. Many members of the Albanian/Greek military colonies resorted to renting the land they had been allotted to others. They found it more profitable to earn a living from trade. What would appear to have been ‘coerced migration’ (given their departure from the Ottoman world following RussianOttoman conflicts) or a ‘colonizing migration’ (given their reception in Russia) ended up in many respects resembling the ‘circular’ and ‘chain migrations’ of the merchants.13 Overlaps and difficulties in categorization also hold for attempted typologies of diaspora, the focus of this latter term being not the movement of peoples but reconfigured conceptions of time, space, and memory associated with migration and displacement.14 Despite the overlaps and the difficulties in estimating the size of the migration flows (and much more work is required to quantify the flows of the peoples of the Ottoman Empire into and within the Russian Empire), typologies of migration remain useful because they permit a partial understanding of the shifts that characterize migration patterns over time.

C ­ apital, pp. 19, 57–116; Brandes, Von den Zaren adoptiert; Hellie, “Migration in Early ­Modern Russia”; Sutherland, “Empire without Imperialism?”. For the Greeks, see indicatively Seraphimov, Krymskie Khristiane; Karidis, “The Mariupol Greeks”; Araddzioni, “Emigratsiya Grekov”; Kardasis, Diaspora Merchants; Xanthopoulou-Kyriakou, “Les migrations grecques de l’Empire Ottoman”; Pryakhin, Greki v istorii Rossii xviii–xix vekov, pp. 1–82. 11 See Fisher, The Crimean Tatars. 12 Kharlampovich, Narysy z Istoryï, p. 63. 13 Beousova, “The History of Greek Settlements”, p. 68. 14 Typologies have also been suggested to distinguish diasporas; Cohen, Global Diasporas, 177–92. See also Rozen, “People of the Book, People of the Sea”, p. 81.

70

Carras

Connecting Migrations

A question that arises in the Greek, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, and Russian language historiography of these port-cities is the degree to which earlier and later developments are connected. Thus, to cite but two examples, the Bulgarian historian Roumiana Mikhneva argues that inland trading networks had already began incorporating the Ottoman and Crimean Black Sea ports in the period between 1739 and 1774. Migration was an inevitable part of this process.15 And the leading Ukrainian historian of the subject, Eugenii Chernukhin, has argued that Nezhin served as a launching pad for those migrating elsewhere in the Russian Empire, including the southern coast.16 However, economic historians such as Vassilis Kremmydas, drawing on Immanuel Wallerstein and dependency theory, have argued that post-1774 developments along the Black Sea coast were largely independent of what came before, contingent upon the expansionary impetus of the world market.17 Viewing the Treaty of Kucuk Kainardzha as a rupture in the history of Black Sea leads to similar conclusions.18 What follows constitutes an attempt to understand the interconnections between types of migration. The basic argument developed is that the institutions of patronage, surety, and godparenthood played an important role in fostering and connecting migrations. These forms of social capital should be considered constituent elements in a process contributing to the reconceptualization of migrant identities, meaning that attempts to quantify migration cannot be considered separately from shifting discourses of migrant identity.19 Three brief stories illustrate the ways in which social institutions supported migration. The first concerns patronage in Moscow from the beginning of the 18th century. It is a story of pioneers dwelling for the most part in monasteries in the city and of movement within the Balkan migration stream. The second 15 16 17 18

19

Mikhneva, “De certains problèmes de l’organisation”. Chernukhin, “Greki Nezhina”, pp. 250–52, 260. Kremmydas, “Η επικοινωνία εμπορίου με τη Ρωσία της Μαύρης Θάλασσας”; Wallerstein, The Modern World-System ii. See, for example, the periodization of developments along the Black Sea littoral in ­Druzhinina, Severnoe Prichernomor’e, p. 5, and also Druzhinina, Kiuchuk-Kainardziiskii mir 1774 goda. Social capital can be defined as the capacity of individuals to command scarce resources by virtue of their membership in networks or broader social structures. For the importance of ‘social capital’ for migration, see Faist, The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration, pp. 14–15, 96–98. Of the various discussions of social capital consulted for this chapter, I found Pierre Bourdieu’s the most rewarding: Bourdieu, “The forms of capital”.

Connecting Migration and Identities

71

concerns surety and the reworking of identities within a merchant brotherhood in Nezhin in the 1780s and early 1790s. It constitutes an example of ‘chain migration’ and of movement within the Balkan migration stream at its apex. The third examines the uses of godparenthood in the port-city of Odessa in the early 19th century. This last considers migration to an urbanized environment, and the transition from the Balkan to the port-city migration stream. All three narratives provide instances of kinship (or perhaps, with regard to surety, surrogate kinship) that go beyond consanguinity, and illustrate the importance of extending networks as a means of providing protection and eliciting trust. The aim here, however, is to go beyond an analysis of institutions that foster trust in any given location, and so to observe changes in the systems that supported movement and migration during the 18th and early 19th centuries. Establishing, reconfiguring and/or reinforcing bonds in a new environment, such systems served to construct identities. It is not the migrants’ initial identities, then, but the dynamism of identity formation as part of migration processes to which this chapter will return.

The Exchange of Household Slaves in Moscow

From the mid-17th century on, the Balkan migrants who arrived in Moscow generally rented cells in the Monastery of St. Nicholas or, alternatively, that of the Epiphany (Bogoyavlenskii), which they shared with the Armenians, with whom they frequently had close trading relations. The two monasteries were both on (or off) Nicholas’ street in Kitai Gorod. Beside the Monastery of St. Nicholas was the Greek-Slavic-Latin Academy, Moscow’s principle higher educational establishment up until Lomonosov’s time. A maze of stalls adjacent to the Academy was the place to purchase a range of products, including books. Opposite the Monastery of St. Nicholas was the Ikonnyi Ryad where a silent exchange of icons took place. It was on this street too that noble migrants from the Balkans had their homes, the most prominent in the early 18th century being the historian, composer, and prince of Moldavia Dimitri Cantemir. Peter I’s confidant, informer, and advisor on Balkan affairs Savva Raguzinsky was granted a home on the Maroseyka, about ten minutes’ walk away. A breakdown of the origins of Balkan migrants based on research in the Posolskii Prikaz, the Chancellery of Foreign Affairs, for the years 1701–10 reveals a large number of migrants who declared Constantinople as their place of origin (Figure  3.1). It is also worth noting the terms used to describe the merchants, including ‘Moldavian Greek’, ‘Wallachian Greek’, ‘Bulgarian Greek’ and,

72

Carras

45,00% 40,00% 35,00% 30,00% 25,00% 20,00% 15,00% 10,00% 5,00%

op le

nt in

sta

Ne zh in

Ot he r

Co n

ya

nd

Bu

ch ar es t

lga ria

st

Bu Ja

ss

Ea

nt ain

ia Ho

ly M

ou

ce

ac ed on

M

en i

/V

ne se

an

Io

ni

Pe lo po n

Ae ge an

0,00%

Figure 3.1 ‘Greeks’ in Moscow 1701–1710 Sources: Russkii Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Drevnikh Aktov (­r gada; Russian State Archive of Ancient Documents), f. 52 (240 ­i ndividuals). Compiled by the author based on information in sources examined in rgada, f. 52

on a few occasions, ‘Serb’. Many of these terms are used interchangeably, the term ‘Greek’ describing all Orthodox merchants from the Ottoman Empire. Those who travelled to Moscow generally maintained the city as their base over a relatively long period, though they often traded at other locations in the Russian Empire. If this is ‘circular migration’ it also, already, possesses elements of the ‘chain’ variety. St. Nicholas’ street was the commercial heart of Moscow where the goods Balkan merchants conveyed could be exchanged: luxury items to Moscow and for the most part furs from it. One good whose exchange contributed to the creation of ties between ‘pioneer migrants’ and Russia’s Court was slaves. Here I will not be dealing with Ukrainian and Russian slaves in the Ottoman Empire, a considerable number of whom were ransomed by Balkan migrants and conveyed back to Russia for a fee. My sample for this story is rather approximately forty-six household slaves owned by Balkan merchants in Moscow in the years between 1701 and 1715. The main source for household slaves are complaints by Greek merchants to the Posolskii Prikaz (the Chancellery of Foreign Affairs) about runaway slaves, and also the incomplete catalogue of Balkan merchants (or Greeks) in Moscow in 1711 (the catalogues of 1706 and 1708 providing insufficient relevant information).20 20

rgada, f. 52, op. 1, d 2, 1711, l. 1–78. See also rgada, f. 52, op. 1, d. 36, 1706; rgada, f. 52, op. 1, d. 2, 1708.

Connecting Migration and Identities

73

Any approximation of the total number of household slaves stems from difficulties in distinguishing free and slave labour, and also in determining who exactly counted as a household slave. Only those individuals whose status as slaves is clear from the sources have been included in the total of forty-six. Slaves bought in Russia and dispatched to the slave markets of Constantinople have not been added to the total, nor those marked simply as ‘Tatar’. By any count, household slaves constituted a significant but undeterminable ­percentage of the Balkan merchants in Russia in the first decades of the 18th century. As a result of the ongoing Great Northern War (1700–21), most of these slaves were recorded as Estonians (Chiukhontsy, fourteen cases), Swedes (Svedy, nine cases), Livonians or Latvians (Latyshy, four cases), terms that are often used interchangeably in the texts (three cases). Others were Cossacks (four), Arabs (three), Cherkassians (two), Poles (one), and a Tatar (one). In some instances the slave’s provenance is not stated. They had been acquired in the Russian or, on a few occasions, in the Ottoman Empire by male Balkan merchants (some twenty-seven owners are recorded, only one being a woman, who submitted a report in the absence of her husband). For the most part, they lived with their masters in the above monasteries, perhaps even sleeping in the same cells. The classic work on household slavery in a Russian context is Richard Hellie’s Slavery in Russia 1450–1725.21 As Hellie argues, Muscovite law was clear enough on who was a slave. There are examples of Balkan merchants offering letters to the Russian authorities confirming the purchase and ownership of slaves.22 Still, in practice, it is not always easy to distinguish slaves from the apprentices and helpers of Balkan merchants. The Balkan merchants used the Ukrainian word ‘cheliadnik’ or ‘man’ to describe all these categories, though ‘krepostnoi’, ‘khlopos’, ‘khlopets’, ‘doulos’, ‘sklavos’, and ‘paidi’ or ‘mali’ meaning ‘boy’ were also employed.23 As household slavery was an institution in transition, and as the merchants operated between states with different rules governing slavery, the terminology is often unclear; so too the degree of unfreedom/­freedom in each particular case. Nonetheless, bought ‘cheliadniki’ 21 Hellie, Slavery in Russia 1450–1725, pp. 30–72. See also Hellie, “The Economy, Trade and Serfdom”, p. 541. 22 rgada f. 52, op. 1, d. 16, 1710, l. 3–5. 23 For ‘paidi’ and ‘kopeli’, see rgada, f. 52, op. 1, d. 2, 1711, l. 66, 74; rgada, f. 52, op. 1, d. 12, 1700, l. 4. For ‘sklavos’, see rgada, f. 52, op. 1, d. 16, 1710, l. 7. For ‘doulos’ see rgada, f. 52, op. 1, d. 2, 1706, l. 1. For ‘krepostnoi’, see rgada, f. 52, op. 1, d. 13, 1712, l. 1. For ‘khlopos’ and ‘khlopets’, see rgada, f. 52, op. 1, d. 2, 1706, l. 1; rgada f. 158, d. 25, 1714, l. 1.

74

Carras

(kuplenoi moi c­ heliadnik) are on occasion contrasted with the salaried (naomnoi) labour of free-men.24 Despite the fact that many ‘cheliadniki’ were not declared to the Russian authorities, in a list of the Balkan merchants in Moscow in 1706 twenty-five percent are recorded as having ‘cheliadniki’ in their service. The fuller list of the Balkan merchants in Moscow from 1711 records over 40 per cent as having ‘cheliadniki’. The categories were often disputed, however, as can be seen in a statement by Balkan merchants to the Muscovite authorities where they claimed that in their reports other merchants “had not followed correct procedure” as “they were merchants (kuptsy) rather than ‘cheliadniki’”. The proportion of free labourers among the ‘cheliadniki’ remains unclear, but it probably constituted a majority.25 One household slave was a Swede or Estonian named Iuri Ivanov. He had been captured by Russian troops at Vyborg and was sold to a Greek sailor in St. Petersburg. The sailor travelled with him to Moscow and a series of ­gift-exchanges ensued (depicted on the ideogram in Figure  3.2). Iuri’s last master is reported to have beaten him repeatedly. When in 1717 Iuri tried to escape, the master appealed to the prominent merchant Paraskevas Theodorov Kapitanov. Kapitanov owned Iuri Ivanov’s mother and a considerable number of other household slaves, granting one of these, a girl named Eva, as a gift to an Armenian business associate.26 Petr Tolstoy, the Russian representative to the High Porte, had obtained two Swedish girls from Kapitanov in Constantinople, ­before granting them in turn as gifts to others.27 Paraskevas Theodorov Kapitanov was not the only one trading in slaves ­between Moscow and Constantinople. At least six Balkan merchants were engaged in this trade during the course of the first decade of the 18th century. In 1703, for example, a certain Spiridon Nikolaev conveyed both furs and ten Swedish girls for sale to the slave markets of the Ottoman Empire: Anna aged thirteen, Maria aged sixteen, another Anna aged thirteen, Irene aged twelve, Anna aged fourteen, Irina aged seventeen, Anna aged twelve, Maria 24 25

26 27

rgada f. 52, op. 1, d. 12, 1711, l. 1; rgada f. 158, d. 25, 1714, l.1. For ‘slug’, see rgada, f. 124, op. -, d. 12, 1711, l. 24. For frequent non-reporting of ‘cheliadniki’, see rgada f. 52, op. 1, d. 2, 1708, l. 39; rgada f. 52, op. 1, d. 4, 1708, l. 2 ob; rgada, f. 52, op. 1, d. 16, 1712, l. 8, 12–12 ob. For the statement concerning merchants and ‘cheliadniki’, see rgada, f. 52, op. 1, d. 2, 1708, l. 23 ob., 31 ob; rgada f. 52, op. 1, d 2, 1711, l. 1–78. rgada f. 158, op. 2, d. 3, 1710, l. 55. Petr I, Pis’ma i Bumagi Imperatora Petra Velikago, July–December 1707, l. 502.

75

Connecting Migration and Identities Mother of Iuri Ivanov

Iuri Ivanov capture capture Russian soldiers, Vyborg purchase Greek sailor, St. Petersburg gift Matthaios Maniatis Greek doctor, Moscow gift Pavel Christophorov, Greek merchant, Moscow

gift escape

return

Paraskevas Theodorov Kapetanov, Greek captain and merchant

Figure 3.2 Iuri Ivanov and his mother, 1707–1719

aged ­thirteen, Christina aged sixteen, and Anna aged eighteen.28 Such goods allowed for a useful diversification of merchants’ product mix.29 Slaves also connected the conveyers to elite buyers on either side of the Russian-Ottoman divide. One Balkan merchant sought to provide four or five Swedish slaves to the Hospodar of Wallachia. On another occasion Dositheos, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, wrote to Moscow suggesting he be granted four Swedish slaves, two male and two female.30 The patriarch changed his mind, however, and wrote a further letter to Peter I in 1706 condemning the export of human beings to the Ottoman Empire.31 In fact, from 1706 on, attempts were made by the Russian authorities to limit the export of Swedish and other slaves 28 29

30 31

rgada f. 52, op. 1, d. 24, 1703, l. 1–1 ob., 4. Nikolai Arkoudokhestis, Marko Ivanov, Iuri Kyrilov, Ivan Markov, Spyridon Nikolaev, and one unnamed merchant. See rgada f. 52, op. 1, d. 24, 1703, l. 1–1 ob., 4. N.B., “Pokupka grekami” pp. 440–41; Kapterev, Kharakter otnoshenii, pp. 304–05. For “Livonians and other subjects of the Kind of Sweden” sold in the slave markets of Constantinople, see ­Motraye, Travels through Europe, vol. 1, p. 298; also Le Brun, Voyages de Corneille le Brun, vol. 1, p. 50. rgada f. 52, op. 1, d. 2, 1706, l. 1–1 ob. rgada f. 52, op. 1, d. 1, 1706, l. 63–64 ob.

76

Carras

to the Ottoman Empire.32 Prohibition does not mean this trade in slaves ended in practice. A report by the Russian authorities refers to a ‘Greek-Bulgarian’ from Nezhin who was trading in human beings in 1734.33 Household slaves were also brought in the other direction. Two Nezhinbased Balkan (alternatively termed Greek and Serb in the sources) merchants Andrea Vasiliev and Konstantin Ianov arrived at the doors of the Monastery of the Epiphany in 1704 with three black ‘Arabs’. The merchants were high-status factors (though they are termed ‘cheliadniki’) of the Venetian, or Illyrian, or Serb, or Greek, or Constantinopolitan (all used in the sources) Savva Raguzinsky (with his home on the Maroseyka). After staying in the Monastery of the Epiphany, one of these slaves was sent to serve in the home of Petr Tolstoy and two, the brothers Ibrahim and Abdul, were conveyed to Thedor Alexeevich Golovin.34 Ibrahim was subsequently dispatched as a gift by Raguzinsky to the Tsar. In 1705 Tsar Peter I became Ibrahim’s, or rather Abraham’s, godfather (despite the fact that Ibrahim is recorded as having already been baptized). Abraham Petrovich Gannibal was sent by his godfather to receive an education in Paris. He rose through the ranks to become a major general and governor. His son with his second Swedish wife (Abraham’s first wife was Greek) was the Russian major general Ivan Gannibal, who was to spend six years fighting with the Russian fleet in the Aegean. In one respect at least Ibrahim’s fate was quite typical. In the case of male slaves of Balkan merchants where there is sufficient information, their masters served as godparents. In the meanwhile, they were trained as apprentices or used as household servants. Baptism played an important role in the social lives of formerly ­non-Orthodox household slaves. They became members of the community of Balkan merchants, and, in theory at least, no longer posed a threat as an alien element within the Russian state. Slaves took on new Orthodox Christian names, and their masters’ patronymics. In their official declarations, merchants repeatedly emphasized that their ‘cheliadniki’ were ‘newly-baptized’ and ‘Christian’, meaning, in this context, Orthodox Christian. Baptism also connected people other than the slave and his or her ­master. The slaves were incorporated into a new kinship network, with their g­ odparent/ 32 33 34

rgada, f. 158, op. 1, d. 67, 1706, l. 1 ob. For the end of household slavery in Russia, see Hellie, Slavery in Russia, pp. 695–99, 703. Arkhiv Vneshnei Politiki Rossiiskoi Imperii [avpri; Archive of the Foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire], f. 124, op. 1, d. 3, 1734, l. 1–2. rgada, f. 52, op. 1, d. 23, 1708, 1–3 ob. See Teletova, Zhizn’ Ganibala, pp. 32–38. Also “Abram Petrovich Ganibal”, in Teper et al., Istoriya Gosudarstva Rossiiskogo, pp. 39–48.

Connecting Migration and Identities

77

owner acting as a father figure (no godmothers were reported), and the priest who baptized them (sometimes the master’s confessor) as a patron and protector. Thus there were often four parties to this relationship: the giver or seller (who might have been the slave’s godfather, having already baptized him), the new owner (who was usually the slave’s godfather), the priest who baptized the slave (often the owner’s confessor) and the slave himself.35 One slave, Egor (baptized Ivan Christophorov), sought to emphasize that his owner, the Balkan merchant Christophoros Manuilov was not in fact his godfather, perhaps, though by no means certainly, because he believed this would undermine his master’s attempts to forbid him from enrolling in Peter I’s newly established Mathematical School. As Egor (Ivan) put it: The same year that he was bought by Christophoros, he baptized him in the Orthodox Christian faith and his godfather was the black [­unmarried] Greek Deacon Veniamin from the Greek Monastery of St. Nicholas, and not Christophoros himself. From that time until now Egor lived with his master Christophoros.36 The ongoing extra-ecclesiastical social and material role of the members of the clergy in this process stands out: it is this that allows some confusion as to whether the cleric was in fact a godparent. This social and material role may, I think, be explained in part by the monastic context, the built environment in which these relationships were lived out, and also in part through the fact that the owner and the godparent were one and the same person, godparenthood becoming a surrogate for fatherhood. The external euergetic (or benefactory) side of the godparent relationship was then partially transferred from the godparent himself to the member of the clergy who had ministered the b­ aptismal ritual. Interestingly, Christopher Manuilov is adamant that Ivan Christophorov (Egor) was in fact ‘his godson’ (syn’ moi krestnoi Ivan Khristoforov), the s­ tatus of godfather probably further justifying his control of Egor (Ivan) and his decisions.37 In the case of two males where information on their activities after their masters’ death is provided, the masters’ and slaves’ confessor (Father Sisinios) 35

36 37

Apart from Ibrahim, I found no obvious case of double baptism. As a result, we might perhaps very tentatively suggest that Ibrahim was from Ethiopia, with its Monophysite Coptic church, and so could be baptized anew. Nor did I find any case of a slave girl being baptized. As a result I have included no discussion of the sexual taboos of godparenthood. rgada f. 158, op. 2, d. 3, 1710, l. 51. rgada f. 52, op. 1, d. 16, 1710, l. 1–2 ob., 7. rgada f. 52, op. 1, d. 16, 1710, l. 1–2.

78

Carras

at the Monastery of St. Nicholas intervened to free them, and these former slaves continued living in one case in the Monastery and in the other in the home of another Moscow Greek. They carried on their masters’ activities as ‘cheliadniki’, one of them training to become a furrier in his own right.38 By legitimizing household slaves’ incorporation into the community of ­Balkan merchants, baptism and ‘the idiom of godparenthood’ stabilized the institution of slavery, but also placed limits on servitude.39 The fact that ‘the idiom of godparenthood’ rested “uneasily with that of slavery” offers a tantalizing explanation as to why – despite legal considerations – it is so hard to distinguish between household slaves and free labour, and why the term ‘cheliadniki’ is preferred for all.40 When Alexis, a Cossack bought in the slave markets of Constantinople, absconded from his master Stavrianos, the son of the priest Cosmas, Stavrianos claimed that he had saved Alexis from conversion to Islam. Alexis had, in the words of his owner, “been free to leave whenever he wanted”. The ungrateful Cossack must have understood his position differently. He ran away of his own accord, thus (according to Stavrianos) “robbing” and “deceiving his master”.41 Dositheos’ arguments against the export of slaves from the Ottoman Empire were based precisely on the institution of baptism. Baptized slaves could easily fall into the hands of Catholics, Calvinists, and Pagans (i.e. Muslims): “it is not just that they should come here from the holy places [i.e. from Russia]”. As patriarch he was attentive to the protection of slaves as members of the Church, adding that Peter would do well to follow his advice “as a son of the Church”.42 Even in cases where gifts of slaves were made between business partners, the spiritual dimension could lead to complications. Drawing attention to ambiguities in the conventions that governed the gift and baptism of slaves, in 1714 an Armenian factor stood accused of wanting to baptize a ‘cheliadnik’ – ­Egor/­Parthenios the Swede, whom he had been granted by his Greek business ­partner – out of the Orthodox faith and into the Armenian.43 38 39 40 41 42

43

rgada f. 52, op. 1, d. 3, 1714, l. 38. It is interesting to note that these household slaves were freed, which followed the practice of the Ottoman rather than the Russian Empire. For the religious ties of baptism reinforcing secular social bonds, see Horstmann and Kurtz, “Compadrazgo and Adaptation”, p. 362. For a discussion of the connections between godparenthood and slavery in a Latin American context, see Gudeman and Schwartz, “Cleansing Original Sin”, in particular p. 37. rgada, f. 52, op. 1, d. 26, 1705, l. 1–2 ob. rgada f. 52, op. 1, d. 1, 1706, l. 63–64 ob. There are a number of other discussions of and objections to slavery in an 18th century Orthodox context. See Carras, “Understanding God”, p. 111. rgada f. 52, op. 1, d. 21, 1714, l. 1–2.

Connecting Migration and Identities

79

The baptism of household slaves also had implications beyond the master– slave relationship. The gift of household slaves from one master to another was meant to foster trust between actors of unequal power, but (unlike, say, the gift of fur coats in the Ottoman Empire) the gift could be made either to the more powerful party in the transaction or by him. A debt of obligation or a sense of loyalty bound the parties to the transaction, the slave becoming a child with, in effect, an old and new parent. Thus while a sense of gratitude or debt reinforced patronage ties, the transaction simultaneously created a horizontal and (in the case of baptism) religiously sanctioned link between the giver and the receiver, a form of ‘compadrazgo’ to use the Latin American term (though in the Latin American case the godfather is almost always the superior/patron figure in the relationship). Their strengths united, some of the imbalances and inequalities inherent to the patronage system were overcome.44 Unsurprisingly, gifts of slaves contributed to strengthening business relation­ ships,45 and slave-owners provided surety for one another.46 The client could benefit from this trust and, when the gift was to a member of the Court, his renewed connection to Court circles could be extended to provide coverage for the movement of other Balkan merchants with fewer connections to the upper echelons of the hierarchy, a role that Savva Raguzinsky was to relish. Even the slave himself could become a party to this reciprocal relationship. Aleksander Pushkin, Abraham Petrovich Gannibal’s better known great-grandson, wrote about him in his unfinished work Arap Petra Velikovo. Appropriately enough, in this narration Gannibal returns from France to be greeted, among others, by Raguzinsky’s only son (whom Pushkin calls Gannibal’s former comrade (byvshego svoego tovarishcha)). Finally, despite the fact that household slaves’ recorded testimonies are a product of the inequalities of power, even these testimonies make clear that baptism came at the cost of erasing the slaves’ previous identities: religion, earlier ties of kinship, even their names. The aforementioned Egor reaffirmed those elements of his identity he could remember in a deposition to the Posolskii Prikaz: And in his report he stated that he was called Egor, the son of Martin, of Polish origin, whose parents were peasants. Approximately eight years

44 45 46

For patron-client relations in the Russian Empire, see Orlovsky, “Political Clientelism in Russia”, esp. pp. 177–80, and Hosking, “Patronage and the Russian State”. rgada f. 158, op. 2, d. 3, 1710, l. 55. rgada f. 52, op. 1, d. 20, 1708, l. 1.

80

Carras

previously the officer of the Muscovite military unit Dmitri Nikiphorov and his soldiers took him from Poland from his village. Following his testimony, the Russian authorities returned him, Ivan Christophorov, to his master and godfather, Christophoros Manuilov.47 In sum, the exchange of slaves was a form of reciprocity that strengthened the patron-client relationship. In the absence of real kinship between the client and his patron, there were clear advantages to creating it. The baptism of slaves served to legitimize the giving of slaves by fitting it into a church ceremony and hence according it religious significance. It also tied the giver, the receiver, the member of the clergy, and the slave into a model of spiritual (or ritual) kinship, with the respective owner cast as a father to his ‘cheliadnik’/ ‘boy’ / ‘child’. The giver, the receiver, and the member of the clergy were viewed as spiritual (or ritual) co-parents.48 In this case, the free ‘circular’ and ‘chain’ migrations of the Balkan merchants, which were supported by the institution of giving and baptizing slaves, should be contrasted to the ‘coerced’ migrations of the slaves themselves, who were incorporated into the Balkan merchants’ monastic dwelling-places by force. Power differentials and violence thus structured both movement and the narration of migrants’ respective identities.

Reworking Identities in Nezhin

The second story comes from Nezhin, a roaring depot in the borderlands off the Left Bank of the river Dnieper, which operated like one of Karl Polanyi’s classic ports-of-trade. Here, as if on an island at the edge of Empire, merchants could carry on their activities at a distance from the bureaucratic and military controls of a Kiev or a Moscow. Though Balkan merchants were present from at least 1665, a brotherhood of Balkan migrants centered on the Church, along the lines of other church brotherhoods set up in both Western and Eastern Ukraine, was established in the final years of the 17th century. This community for commerce included both incomers who moved through Nezhin at regular intervals, often renting accommodation, and residents who owned homes in the city and returned to their families at regular intervals. The community displayed its wealth through the erection of warehouses, coffee-shops, a school, a cemetery, and a plethora of two-storeyed stone residences lining relatively narrow neatly aligned 47 48

rgada f. 52, op. 1, d. 16, 1710, l. 1–2; rgada f. 158, op. 2, d. 3, 1710, l. 51. For godparenthood in Christian society, see Lynch, Godparents and kinship, pp. 4–8.

81

Connecting Migration and Identities

streets. Closely hugging a large open area (to kanoni) which remained the focus for Brotherhood activities stood the administrative centre of the Brotherhood/Greek Magistracy (Romaiko Magistrato), a bell-tower and two Brotherhood churches, the second in a breezy classical style. The Greek Magistracy, a re-organization of the Greek Brotherhood, was established by an imperial Ukaz on 1 September 1785 as part of the local government reforms of the Empress Catherine ii.49 The archives of the Brotherhood/Greek Magistracy provide information on the Balkan migration stream in its more developed phase, when the costs of migration had declined and the flows had increased (Figures 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5). Migration is mainly from Ottoman Macedonia. This conforms to our knowledge of these trading regions from the study of migration to other destinations, such as the work by Vaso Seirinidou on Balkan migration to Vienna.50 It also conforms to our understanding of the role of mountainous regions in fostering a culture of migration.51 It is however difficult to explain the differences between the data for ­Moscow and the data for Nezhin. Many Nezhinites had been displaced from Moscow due to a series of decrees of the early 18th century removing suspect 1 2

Epirus and Macedonia 1

East Constantinople Wallachia and Moldavia 11

Figure 3.3 Founding members of Nezhin Brotherhood, 1696 (15 individuals) Source: Laskarides, Το καταστατικο, pp. 14–21 49

Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii [pszri; Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire], vol. 22, no. 16250. For Nezhin, the classic work is that written almost a century ago, Kharlampovich, Narysy z istoriï. 50 Sereinidou, 'Ελληνες στη Βιέννη; Sereinidou, “The ‘Old’ Diaspora”. 51 Halpern, “Some Perspectives on Balkan Migration Patterns”, especially p. 80.

82

Carras 1

1 12

17 34

"Greek" "Greek Wallachian" "Greek Serb" "Greek Moldavian" "Greek Persian" "Greek Armenian"

257

Figure 3.4 Greeks in Nezhin, 1711 (322 individuals) Source: rgada, f. 124, op. -, d. 12, 1711, l. 1–26

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20%

in fo No

an ge Ae

ian /I on

ce ra Ve

ni ce

Th

in or M

As ia

ta nt

in

op l

e

av ia ns Co

M aa nd

W

all

ac

hi

sa nd iru Ep

ol d

lga Bu

M

ac e

do ni

a

0%

ria

10%

Figure 3.5 Circular migration: non-resident Brotherhood members in Nezhin, 1769 Source: Savva, Materialy iz arkhiva nezhinskikh grecheskikh grecheskikh bratstva

Connecting Migration and Identities

83

foreigners from the city (a case of ‘coerced migration’) and most of those trading repeatedly journeyed between Nezhin and Moscow.52 The most likely explanation for the differences in the data is not in fact substantial dissimilarities in the characteristics of the migration stream. In interviews at the Posolskii Prikaz those interested in emphasizing their prestige and connections to patronage networks linking them to Church and lay authorities within the Ottoman Empire would be far more likely to declare Constantinople as their origin. To the authorities of the Nezhin Brotherhood, however, it was links to particular micro-regions that counted for more. In short, the information recorded in the archives is the product of a relationship between migrants and the authorities. As in this case, it is more differences in the relationship, and less differences in the migration streams themselves, that affect the data.53 Like their Moscow counterparts, the members of the Nezhin Brotherhood termed themselves ‘Romioi’, which we might translate either as Romans or as Romaics.54 ‘Romioi’ was translated into Russian and other European languages as Greki or Greeks. Many documents regulating the governing of the Brotherhood distinguish between Wallachians (or Vlachs) and Greeks, while stressing the importance of the Greek language (“foreigners who speak the same language” (inozemnyi togozh yazyka)), and clarifying that Wallachian merchants would also be considered to be Greeks.55 ‘Bulgarians’ – such as Ivan Tsvetkov, his wife and three sons and daughter who were sworn in as brothers in 1781 – were consistently welcomed into the Brotherhood.56 However, it is the other distinction between those ‘incoming’ (εισερχόμενοι) and those ‘resident’ (εγκάτoικoι), which broadly corresponds to the contemporary distinction between ‘circular’ and ‘chain’ migration that is accorded much greater significance. By and large the ‘incoming’ remained Ottoman subjects whereas the ‘resident’ became subjects of the Russian Empire. From the 1730s if not earlier, the distinction between ‘incomers’ and ‘residents’ was to lead to constant disputes concerning the status of the two groups and the privileges to 52 53 54

55 56

For such decrees and their consequences, see rgada, f. 124, op. -, d. 12, 1711, l. 1–26. See Katsiardi-Hering and Madouvalos, “The Tolerant Policy of the Habsburg Authorities”, pp. 1–34. “The merchants of the Brotherhoods of the Romaics of Kazakia”, or, in the Greek, “Οι πραγματευτάδες του αδελφάτου των ρωμαίων της Καζακίας”, Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Chernigovskoi Oblasti [GAChO; State Archive of the Chernigov Region], f. 101, op. 1, d. 4272, 1773, l. 17. See also Chernukhin, “Knyha pozhertv hrec“koho”, pp. 151–52, 156, 159. From a charter of 1696 of Varlaam Yasinsky, the Metropolitan of Kiev. See Fedotov-­ Chekhovskii, Akty Grechesago Nezhinskago Bratstva, p. 14. GAChO, f. 101, o. 1, d. 1096, 1782, l. 4.

84

Carras

be accorded respectively to each one.57 Military conflict between the Russian and Ottoman Empires accelerated the move from ‘circular’ to ‘chain’ migrations by uprooting migrants and forcing them to choose between one of two worlds.58 As is evident from Figures 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5, however, it is never certain who exactly is being counted. The categories and subdivisions employed were constantly being altered, making comparison difficult. Membership of the Brotherhood was open to all the Orthodox of the Ottoman Empire willing to pay a small annual fee (even the term ‘Balkan migrant’ is misleading; a minority were not from the Balkans), but there were large numbers of these migrants in Nezhin and elsewhere who were not members of the Brotherhood. What is clear, however, is that from the 1750s on, with the number of migrants increasing substantially, the privileges accorded by the Russian state to members of the Brotherhood led to disputes with the local Ukrainian populations. These disputes reached a climax in the 1780s, following on from the census (reviziya) of 1782 (see figure 3.6).59

89

34

Greeks Vlachs, Bulgarians and Persians Baptised Turks

765

Figure 3.6 Greeks of Nezhin, official census 1782 Source: Shafonskii, Chernigovskogo namestnichestva, pp. 467–78

The Imperial decree of 1785 stated that only Greeks could be members of the Greek Magistracy.60 The local municipal authority, the Nezhin Magistracy, 57 58 59

60

For this dispute, see Laskarides, To kαταστατιkό, p. 32. Carras, “Russia’s Southern Expansion 1696–1774”. Not a few Wallachians and Bulgarians “of the Greek faith” were included in the Brotherhood at the time of the 1782 census. See GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 1096, 1782, l. 1–17. See also Chernukhin, “Greki Nezhina”, especially p. 248; also Kharlampovich, Narysy z Istoryï, pp. 55–59. pszri, vol. 22, no. 16250. See also GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 2460, 1791, l. 1; GAChO, f. 202, op. 1, d. 1173, 1800, l. 1.

Connecting Migration and Identities

85

a­ ccused the Brotherhood of accepting non-Greeks, and in particular baptized Turks, Persians, Wallachians (Vlachs, though it is unclear to what extent this term included the Vlach-speaking populations of the Balkan peninsular as a whole), and Bulgarians into their midst and asked for them to be evicted and taxed accordingly. Only ‘real Greeks (nastoyashchie Greki)’ were allowed to belong to the Greek Magistracy. They based their accusation on much more detailed investigations into the origins of migrants carried out at the time of the census.61 Forty-five Wallachian and Bulgarian male heads of households were singled out (at least thirteen of these were married with dependent children). Of the forty-five, six Wallachians and one Bulgarian were listed as servants (only one of these was married and none had children). Alongside these Wallachians and Bulgarians there were two Persian heads of households. In addition, fifteen Turks baptized “into the Greek faith (v grecheskuiu veru)” were also catalogued (the baptized Turks totalled twenty persons over the age of eighteen and fourteen under). Of the baptized Turks, eleven adults were in their late twenties or thirties, prototype Moskov-Selims captured in the R ­ ussian-Ottoman wars of the 1770s–1790s.62 Others, however, had been in the employ of Balkan merchants. One, Mikhail Bogdanov, decided to leave the Russian Empire. There were also fourteen heads of households of other religions, including other Christian confessions (inovernye). All in all, seventy-six heads of households are listed. Excluding those of other religions, the total number of adults involved seems to have approached one hundred and twenty or so, as in the census of 1782.63 The Greek Magistracy authorities did not raise any objections concerning the fourteen heads of households of other religions (inovernye). Apart from Italians, most of these seem to have been servants in the service of particular Greeks, for example in the pay of Mikhail Venetsianov from Epirus (first cousin of the artist Aleksei Gavrilovich Venetsianov). They had not been members of the ‘society of the Greeks’ and had not been counted as Greeks in the census of 1782(see fig.3.6).64 61 GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 2460, 1791, l. 1. 62 Vizyenos, Moskov Selim. 63 GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 87, 1786–1790, l. 1–124. For a Turk who had worked for a Balkan merchant as a “kredentsarskii”, from the Italian “credenza” probably meaning “advisor”, before joining the Brotherhood, see GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 1098, 1782, l. 2. 64 GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 87, 1786–1790, l. 1–124, in particular l. 18, 39–43 ob., 58–58 ob., 81. There was at least one Georgian, Danilo Ivanov, living amongst the Greeks at this time, though it is not clear whether he was a member of the Brotherhood. GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 1096, 1782, l. 10.

86

Carras

A vast correspondence (consisting of over one hundred manuscript sides) between the Nezhin Magistracy and the local authorities in Nezhin and Chernigov dealt with the others who had been singled out as non-Greeks. In a joint letter of 1786 those to be expelled set out their position: […] the Bulgarians, Wallachians and other similar to them Greek peoples (i drugie podobnye im Grecheskie narody), that are part of the Nezhin Greek society as believing in the same faith (mezhdu grecheskim Nezhinskim obshchestvom kak edinovernye) and constitute an equal and indivisible part of the other people of their fatherland (sootechestvenniki), and in addition those Turks who embraced the Orthodox Greek faith, are considered to be true Greeks, just as the Greeks living in Macedonia, who for the most part do not know the Greek language carry out their conversations in the Turkish and Bulgarian languages […].65 An official document signed off by Greek Magistracy officials in October 1788 developed slightly different arguments for their being counted as Greeks: […] Bulgarians, Wallachians and others can be ranked as Greeks (est’ grecheskogo zvaniya). They have different names only because they come from Bulgaria, Wallachia and Moldavia and from other similarly Greek regions (v… drugikh im podobnikh grecheskikh provintsiyakh nakhodilos). In a similar way, among the members of the society (is obschestva) of the here Greeks many took as a name (prozvanie) the place of their ancestors from some city or region, for example Tirnovo, Metsovo, Arta, Anatolia and suchlike. Following appeals by the Brotherhood to the Senate in St Petersburg, the ­ overnor of Little Russia Petr Rumiantsev had to intervene in person. In fact G he repeated the Greek Magistracy’s arguments almost word for word in his report to the Senate and recommended non-expulsion.66 The Russian authorities decided to appoint a commission attached to the Greek Magistracy. The Commission dealt with each of the cases in turn, calling for witnesses/suretors (εγγυητές) and documentation that could serve as proof of origin.67 Eligibility for membership of the Brotherhood was to be 65 66 67

GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 87, 1786–1790, l. 1 ob.-2. See also l. 58–58 ob. GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 87, 1786–1790, l. 18–18 ob., 34. For suretyship in an Early-Modern Russian context, see Ransel, “Character and Style of Patron-Client Relations”.

Connecting Migration and Identities

87

d­ etermined by family ties and not language. Most of the seventy-six were poor (αθλιώτατoι kαι πτωχότατoι) and knew little or no Greek.68 In the absence of written proof, witnesses had to be summoned to take an oath attesting to their Greek origins.69 Women were classified according to the ethnic group of their husbands.70 A few examples of the process suffice. “I accept that according to the Ukaz of the Chernigov Kazennaya Palata, those existing under the jurisdiction of the Greek Magistracy named Wallachians (Vlachs) and Bulgarians, have to prove their origins (poroda), and take an oath on it”, declared Iuri Ivanov Koloti to the Nezhin Greek Magistracy in 1791. And he proceeded: […] despite the fact that at the time of the last census (imennaya reviziya) of the former Nezhin Greek Court I was counted as a Wallachian (Vlach); nonetheless I am fully certain that my grandfather Vlasii and my father Ivan Kolati were inhabitants of the Ionian city of Smyrna, from Greek ancestors. And that is where they remained and lived. And I, when I was still a child, was taken to Wallachia, and lived there a number of years, and was called a Wallach. And in the last year 1790, on 30 October, I was given a statement of confirmation (svidetel’stvo) by the Greek architect of Constantinople Zephyr Semenov who was then in Nezhin and by the Moscow merchant Ivan Kudovskii which I present as evidence. Semenov is already dead, and Kudevskii and the others are not currently in Nezhin, and as a result I can make this confirmation through a personal oath. I request that I prove my origins (rod) to the Nezhin Greek Magistracy with my oath. Iuri Koloti must have been illiterate as Ivan Stemashen wrote the statement on his behalf. The Nezhin Greek Magistracy, in turn, issued an attestation confirming Ivan Koloti’s narrative and stated that he had now been living in Nezhin for fifteen years. Four members of the Nezhin Brotherhood, including the ‘Greek architect from Constantinople’ Zafir Semenov and the ‘Macedonian

68 69 70

GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 87, 1786–1790, l. 59, 65. For witnesses, see GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 4304, 1791, l. 22 ob. “Από γένος Ρωμαίων”, GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 4304, 1791, l. 9; GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 87, 1786– 1790, l. 96–99. As seen in the case of Xenia Zapsheva, and that despite the fact that her Greek husband had absconded to Kazan and married again. Kharlampovich, Narysy z Istoryï Hrec“koï Koloniï, p. 83.

88

Carras

Greek’ Ivan Kudevskii then signed off to confirm Iuri Koloti’s origins. Needless to say, others signed on their behalf.71 Ivan Zakharev (who signed as ‘Ivan Persianin’) on the other hand had been catalogued as a ‘Persian’. He stated: I fully know that my father Zakharii, was an inhabitant of Macedonia from the city of Kastoria [uncertain reading] of Greek origins (iz prirodnykh Grekov), and as a result of the fact that my father went for his trade to the Persian city of Astrabit [Astrabad(?)], and spent a considerable amount of time there, he was called a Persian. And I was left there as a child by my father, was brought from there by Greek merchants to Russia, where I have lived more than twenty years. And he continued: Nonetheless I am unable due to the distance to present written confirmation (svidetel’stvo) of the former residence of my father, and I ask to corroborate my Greek origin (poroda) with my own oath.72 On the 17 November 1791 the oath was solemnly made in the building of the Greek Magistracy before a lieutenant (poruchik), solicitor (stryapchii), and one of the Nezhin Greek priests, Father Panagiotis. Six signatures of Greeks of Nezhin followed, including that of the Bürgermeister (Burgamistr) of the Greek Magistracy, Dimitri Morait.73 In the case of Michail Avraimov, two other Greeks testified and related the family’s story. Michael, they said, had been captured by Russian troops in the war of 1768–1774 and had been christened “into the Christian law and accepted the Greek-Russian faith”. Michael’s father Ibrahim was a Muslim resident in Moldova. Crucially, however, they added: […] we testify without doubt that […] Michail Avraimov’s grandfather was a Greek, and was a resident of Constantinople. The Turks, however, forced him to become a Moslem.

71 72 73

GAChO f. 101, op. 1, d. 1121, 1791, l. 4–5. GAChO f. 101, op. 1, d. 1121, 1791, l. 7–9 ob. GAChO f. 101, op. 1, d. 1121, 1791, l. 7–9 ob; GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 229, 1791, l. 1–15, esp. p. 11. For extensive trading by other Greeks through Astrakhan to Persia and Bukhara, see avpri, f. 2, op. 6, t. ii, d. 4082, 1754–1758, pp. 46–47, 83–83 ob.

Connecting Migration and Identities

89

The witnesses then related the family’s life story. Ibrahim and Mohammed, the grandfather’s two sons, had both been Muslim. They had migrated from Constantinople across the Danube to Moldavia. In Hotin Ibrahim married and Michail Avraimov was born. Michael was himself captured by Russian troops in the war of 1768–1774. He did not, however, wish to return to the Ottoman Empire or: […] keep his Mohamedan law, but was christened into the Christian law, and accepted the Greek-Russian faith, in which he has remained, and we confirm this.74 It is interesting to note a number of aspects repeated in the accounts. First, the desire to link the individual whose identity was called into question to major mercantile centres, be they Smyrna, Constantinople, or elsewhere. Michail Avraimov grandfather’s actual name is absent, and such a ‘Greek’ grandfather may not have existed. His father’s name is given, but not Michael’s original Muslim name. Whether true or false, such stories should be considered characteristic of the movement of peoples across borderlands and of the textured and perhaps tortured identities that result. Other documents also testify to former Muslims resident in Nezhin and living alongside Greeks.75 Second, what you see here seems to be an insistence on blood-lines or ancestry (priroda) as determinant of identity, at least on the part of the authorities, but also to a certain extent in the arguments of the merchants themselves. What we find is, however, somewhat different. ‘Greeks’ (Greki/Romioi) are confirmed as such through a web of connections and guarantees (forms of surety) provided by individual witnesses and the group as a whole, irrespective of the individuals’ linguistic and regional origins. Genealogy may well be constructed. This web of testimony is given religious grounding through oaths made before the priests of the Nezhin Greeks. It is tempting to say that individuals became ‘Greek’ through membership of the Brotherhood/Magistracy, but even such a statement would be mistaken. For if the focus of this exchange was who could legitimately be considered a Greek, the meanings of the terms used to denote a Greek cannot be considered the same before and after this particular dispute. Migration and the economic and other functions performed by the Brotherhood provided the basis for the re-formation of their identities. 74

75

GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 87, 1786–90, l. 100. To cite one final example; Paraskeva took the oath on behalf of her husband Ivan Kraevyanov, as he had been away in St. Petersburg for some time: GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 229, 1791, l. 12–13 ob. GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 87, 1786–90, l. 96–99.

90

Carras

In this case, it is not the original attributes that determine identity, however, but relationships between individuals and the interconnected narratives these give rise to within the framework of a receiving institution. The Greek Magistracy authorities protested in extensive official correspondence to the other formal institutions that, since the local government reform act of 1785, constituted a swiftly developing framework for the local governance of the Empire. Though the register of correspondence of the Greek ­Magistracy from earlier years is lost, the register of 1791 (Figure 3.7) may be considered indicative of the movement and frequency of official correspondence and external relations for the period following 1785 as a whole.76 In the meantime, following time-honoured practices, the Greek Magistracy authorities also contacted their patrons and protectors in the capital to ward off what seemed to be an existential threat, chief among them Catherine ii’s Chancellor Count Aleksandr Bezborodko (who was from Nezhin himself), the Attorney-General of the Senate Count Aleksandr Viazemsky (to whose secretary the substantial sum of three hundred roubles was dispatched), and, ­finally,

Figure 3.7 Greek Magistracy in its institutional setting, 1791 (amount of correspondence exchanged)

76

At least twelve of the entries during the course of the year deal with the issues discussed in this chapter (three in February, two in March, two in May, one in August, three in ­October, one in November): GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 4304, 1791, l. 1–30. The same also survives for 1795. GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, l. 4310, 1795, l. 1–31.

Connecting Migration and Identities

91

Catherine ii’s valet, the Greek from Taganrog Zahar Konstantinovich Zotov, who was considered one of Grigory Potemkin’s men. The Greek Magistracy’s letter to Zotov, dated to 6 November 1789, reads: Most noble sir Zakharia Konstantinovizi, though we know well that it is not proper to disturb those with whom one is familiar (τους oικείoυς), nonetheless the particular hope that we place in your good will, as a patriot (φιλόπατριν) and member of our genos (oμoγενń), gives us the courage to relate to you an issue concerning our community (της κoινότητός μας), and at the same time to ask, to the extent that this is possible, for your full defence and help (την δυνατńν αντίληψιν και ϐońθειάν σας). The Greek Magistracy then included a copy of its report on the “Wallachobulgarians and newly baptized Turks” arguing that these were in a state of extreme poverty, and thus needed the help of the Magistracy. The officials of the Greek Magistracy continue: Do there not live in all Macedonia up until the walls of Thessaloniki themselves and in all of Thrace up until the walls of the two capitals of Constantinople and Adrianople from time of old and from the beginning Hellenes, natural Romaics, who do not know how to speak any apart from the Bulgarian and the Turkish languages (εκ  πάλαι  και  εξ αρχής  Έλληνες  φυσικοί  Ρωμαίοι  μη  ειδότες  λαλείν,  εκτός  τες  Βουλγαρικές  και  τες  Τουρκικές  γλώσσες)? […] Can it possibly be a falsification, that many of these Romaics (πολλοί των Ρωμαίων), having been persecuted by the Ottoman yoke, either fled to Moldowallachia, or were forced to convert, until such time as they could escape and immediately return to their ancestral faith? As these things are agreed upon (ομολογούμενα) and cannot be doubted, these people cannot from now on be alienated (αποξενωθούν) and prohibited from using the name of Romaic (από το Ρωμαϊκόν όνομα), as they are in themselves Romaics (όντες καθ’ αυτό Ρωμαίοι), they cannot be separated from the supreme Imperial mercy. The Greek Magistracy concluded, requesting that he intervene “as a father and a saviour” to preserve the “rights” and “freedom” of these “miserable foreign members of our genos (αθλίους ξένους ομογενείς)”. Five Greek Magistracy officials signed the document.77 77

GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 87, 1786–90, l. 65–66 ob.

92

Carras

In the end the various sides to this dispute seem to have cancelled each other out. The two Tatars and one female servant, Murza Selimanova, were reported to be runaway serfs, and were expelled forthwith, but these were in any case servants.78 The Wallachians (Vlachs), Bulgarians, Persians, and baptized Turks discussed here were not expelled from the Nezhin Greek Magistracy. But when Vasilii Turk, an Ottoman soldier who had been captured by Russian forces in 1788 and baptized into the Orthodox faith, expressed a wish to join “the Greek Nezhin Brotherhood” [sic] permission was not granted. The precedent had been set.79 For our purposes, what has been described here is a relatively complex network. The Brotherhood itself constituted a cluster fashioned around particular buildings and roads. Both formal and informal, vertical and horizontal elements were activated to support the privileges of the Brotherhood/Greek Magistracy. A relatively horizontal system of surety involving “well-known (izvestnie) and up-standing (doproporyadochnie)” witnesses was essential for movement and trade and constituted a fundamental part of members’ daily interactions. Within the Brotherhood a multiplicity of members acted as sponsors and vouched for other current and future members. It is this participatory act of sponsorship that represents and engenders membership of the group. In this case the system of surety was formally sanctioned through the performance of an oath administered in the building of the Greek Magistracy, in the presence of priests, before God: I vow to our Lord God, to the All Powerful Holy Trinity, that through my ancestors (po predkam svoim) I am descended from the people of the Greeks (iz roda Grekov) in confirmation of which I kiss the word of the Gospel and the cross of my Saviour. Amen. Interestingly, a few protested, citing among other issues the fact that many witnesses were not in Nezhin but travelling elsewhere. For the non-Greek local authorities it was the oath rather the witnesses that was considered of paramount importance, however: “it is not possible to believe witnesses who have not sworn an oath”.80 78 79

80

GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 229, 1791, l. 5–6 ob. GAChO, f. 202, op. 1, d. 1173, 1800, l. 1. For a full list of new members and the question of who had the right to become subject to the Greek Magistracy in the years up to 1803, see GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 388, 1803, l. 1–23 ob. For difficulties raised concerning the oath, see GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 2460, 1791, l. 6–8. For the importance of witnesses taking the oath, see GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 229, 1791, l.

Connecting Migration and Identities

93

But this is not meant to be a circular argument with a pre-existing form of social capital simply reproducing social capital. Rather, migration to and through an inland port-city such as Nezhin with its persistent rivalries between groups and competition over privileges “intensifies the salience of ethnic boundaries”, to use Susan Olzak’s argument. Thus this system of trust based on surety was worked into an ideology focused on identity in the written protestations of the Greek Magistracy organs. And this identity was immediately connected to questions of solidarity and the giving of alms to poorer – even ‘foreign’ – ­members of the group. In short, the expansion in migrants’ horizontal ties within the context of the Brotherhood and competition with other groups provided some of the conditions for the elaboration of a distinctively ‘Romaic’ culture.81 Bureaucratic structures, however, formulated the categories and engaged in classifying the movers who arrived in the Russian Empire. The census of 1782 in combination with the change-over from Brotherhood to Greek Magistracy in 1785 signalled a transition to increased bureaucratic control, with the state determining who came under the Brotherhood/Greek Magistracy’s jurisdiction. This transition can best be viewed through the replacement of the corporate term ‘Brotherhood’ (Αδελφότητα/Βratstvo) with the Enlightenment term ‘society’ (obshchestvo) as a description for the unity of the Nezhin Greeks. Before reaching conclusions about the significance of this transition for the individuals who came under the jurisdiction of the Greek Magistracy, it is worth noting that in the Greek texts the equivalent term used in lieu of ‘obshchestvo’ is ‘κοινότητα’ or community. The transformation, such as it is, cannot be considered complete, as it is moderated in translation.82 Nevertheless, as the state sought to regulate spaces within and beyond its control the categories used could not and did not stay put. They belong less to the ethnic situation at the points of origin, and more to the relationships between migrants and bureaucrats and the refractions these gave rise to at the points of destination. Transferred in written and oral forms, protests like the Greek Magistracy’s buttress contemporary arguments for the use of a flexibly-defined ‘Orthodox 1 ob.-2, 11–12. For surety in the context of the Russian Empire, see Dewey, “Russia’s Debt to the Mongols”, Dewey and Kleimola, “From the Kinship”, and Szeftel, “The History of Suretyship”. 81 Olzak, The Dynamics of Ethnic Competition, p. 209. See also Tilly, “Transplanted Networks”, especially pp. 85, 91. For identity as a ‘production’ (continually brought into existence through actions), see Hall, “Cultural Identity and Diaspora”. 82 “εις την Ρωμαϊκήν κοινότητα”. GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 4304, 1791, l. 26. For the issue of the terms used to denote such communities in an 18th and early 19th century Greek context, see Katsiardi-Hering, “Αδελφότητα, κομπανία, κοινότητα”.

94

Carras

Commonwealth’ to describe patterns characteristic to the Ottoman Balkans of that time. But this ‘Orthodox Commonwealth’ may have been acted out for the most part at a distance, in places like Nezhin, and in the writings of peripatetic Enlightenment thinkers such as Iosipos Moisiodax (1730–1800) and Eugenios Voulgaris.83

Godparenthood in Odessa

And finally the third story. In September 1789 Russian forces captured the small Tatar village of Hadzhibei. On the site of the Ottoman fortress of Yeni Dunai the Russian conquerors began constructing a city with European mansions and broad chestnut-lined boulevards, part of a wider programme for the construction of a civilized urban system on the northern coast of the Black Sea. Through Odessa’s free port, wheat, the growth product of the Russian ­Empire’s 19th century, was to flow down and through the Bosporus. Catherine ii’s chosen name for this city – the feminine form of the ancient Greek colony of Odessa whose remains were thought to have been in the neighbourhood – was part of a cultural policy laying down Imperial claims. The financial and human capital requirements for this project of domination were enormous. And Greeks were expected to play a central role in colonizing this cosmopolitan ‘new world’. In 1795 Catherine ii issued an ukaz, immediately translated into Greek and disseminated throughout the Ottoman Empire, inviting settlers to Odessa. Permanent quarters were provided on the outskirts of Odessa for Greeks and Albanians who had supported the Russian forces (the aforementioned settlement of Aleksandrovka); Bulgarians from around Adrianople were conveyed to the port of Odessa in Russian ships, destined for agricultural colonies; and Aegean islanders were granted substantial privileges to settle in the town itself.84 A Foreign Magistracy, a watered down version of its Nezhin prototype, was established and headed by a Greek. The Neapolitan Francesco Frapolli (1770–1817) was commissioned to construct a ‘Greek market’ with elegant Doric columns, as also the Church of the Holy Trinity, where services were held in Greek. The parish registers of the Holy Trinity Church have been published in seven volumes by a team of Ukrainian and Greek historians including I. Nitochko, S. 83

84

For the use of the term ‘Orthodox commonwealth’, see Kitromilides, “Από την Ορθόδοξη  Κοινοπολιτεία”. See also Kitromilides, An Orthodox Commonwealth, and Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth. pszri, vol. 23, p. 686.

Connecting Migration and Identities

95

Paradisopoulos, and L. Belousova and they include a substantial amount of information on the origin of migration to the city. Information for the years 1799–1830 from the updated final volume that includes a large number of entries that were missing from earlier volumes has been used here.85 This was a time when the Greek-speaking population of Odessa was considerable, from 10 per cent in the 1810s falling in percentage terms to just over 5 per cent in the 1820s, though the actual number of Greeks increased substantially given the extraordinarily rapid population growth that characterized the city as a whole.86 Like all data, that of the parish register of the Holy Trinity Church has to be handled with care. Though this was the main church offering services in Greek in the city, during the 19th century there were at least three others. It is quite possible then that different ‘Greeks’ attended one or another church in greater or smaller numbers. An examination of the parish registers of the elite Sretenskaia church (or Church of the Purification), which have not been published, might alter the picture presented here. The aim is to locate information that might connect migration to O ­ dessa with the earlier Balkan migration stream through Wallachia, Moldavia, and Polish territories to Nezhin and Moscow. The nature of the data ­recorded makes comparison difficult, however. Whereas in the data from Moscow and Nezhin information on the micro-region of origin is sometimes provided, this is not the case in the Holy Trinity register. Though the relevant column is entitled ‘soslovie’ (estate) and includes such categories as ‘officer’ (of various types), ‘noble’, ‘meshanin’ (burger) and ‘serf’ (sometimes in conjunction with other ethnic distinctions, such as ‘Greek’, ‘Bulgarian’, ‘Moldavian’, ‘Wallachian’, ‘Armenian’, ‘baptized Jew’, ‘Gypsy’, and so on) the primary distinction seems to be between foreign and Russian subjects, loosely corresponding to the division between ‘incomers’ and ‘residents’ referred to for Nezhin. As can be seen from Figure 3.8 the number of Russian subjects is in a majority in the early years but they are swamped by incoming ‘Turkish subjects’ in the 1820s, a ‘coerced migration’ linked to the Greek War of Independence which involved large parts of the Balkans and particularly Moldavia and ­Wallachia. All in all some forty thousand refugees passed the Moldavian border into the Russian Empire in September 1821. James Yeames, British r­epresentative in Odessa, reported to the Foreign Office in 1821: “Numbers of fugitives continue to flock into this City, by sea from the Bosporus, and by land from the 85 86

Belousova et al., Greki Odessy. For the Greeks of Odessa, among other works, see Herlihy, “Greek Merchants in Odessa”; Herlihy, Odessa; Prousis, “Demetrios S. Inglezes”; Augetides, Οι Έλληνες της Οδησσού.

96

Carras

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

1799–1804

1805–1809

1810–1814

1815–1819

1820–1824

1825–1829

Austrian, English, Other subject

Turkish subject

Odessan merchant, Odessan

Foreign Greek

Nezhin Greek

Meshanin, inhabitant of other cities

Greek

Figure 3.8 Deaths in Odessa Holy Trinity Church Source: Belousova, Volkova, Malinova, and Kharkovenko, Greki Odessy

­neighboring provinces”.87 The flow of refugees continued from the outset of the Greek War of Independence through to the Russian-Ottoman war of 1828–29, bringing further growth to the Balkan population of this and other port-cities. It is, however, impossible to say on the basis of the register of the Holy Trinity Church whether the earlier Russian subjects are recorded as such because of longstanding links to the Russian Empire or simply because becoming aR ­ ussian subject was a simple affair in the early years of the century. Both are likely. One other subdivision is, however, particularly interesting for the purposes of this chapter: a separate category marked ‘Nezhin Greek’. Two things 87

Quoted in Karidis, “A Greek Mercantile Paroikia”, in particular p. 118. For a more detailed analysis, see Sifnaiou, “Preparing the Greek Revolution in Odessa in the 1820s”.

Connecting Migration and Identities

97

about this category should be noted. First, it is much smaller than one might have expected given the dominant role of the Greeks of Nezhin in the Balkan migration stream. Fewer than 4 per cent of those who were baptized or whose funerals were held in Greek at the Holy Trinity Church are recorded as ‘Nezhin Greeks’. Many of those characterized as ‘Odessan merchant’ were originally Nezhinites, however. In one early case of 1807 an individual’s parents are ­denoted ‘Nezhin Greeks’ whereas he is simply marked as a ‘merchant’. The archives of the Nezhin Greeks provide considerable information on Nezhin merchants’ movements and eventual migration to the sea, including, of course, to the port-city of Odessa. Examples include members of the influential Aprilov, Artyno, Bubis, Klitsa, Krommida, Kypouro, Lygda, Mela, Metsoviti, Moraiti, Moustakov, and Palaouzov families. And one of the major thoroughfares a few minutes’ walk from the Greek market – right in the centre of old Odessa – goes by the name of ‘Nezhin Street’ to this day.88 More surprising then is the second feature of note in this subdivision: the fact that with very few exceptions, all the records for ‘Nezhin Greeks’ occur relatively late. The vast majority are from the 1820s. Government decrees between 1822 and 1826 equated the position of ‘Nezhin Greeks’ with merchants of the second guild (up until then the Nezhin Greeks had operated outside the guild system), and thus it seems that the characterization ‘Nezhin Greek’ came into frequent use only after the commercial importance of belonging to the Nezhin Brotherhood had subsided.89 As with the use of ‘Constantinople’ (or ‘Venetian/ Venetzianov’ and in part even the term ‘Greek’ itself) as a marker of identity, it seems that ‘Nezhin Greek’ as used in the register of the Holy Trinity Church was primarily an indicator of prestige. These were the ‘old Greeks’ or, perhaps, the ‘higher class Greeks’ as opposed to the newly arrived migrants (often refugees) flooding Odessa and other ports in the 1820s. The very preliminary evidence for Odessa examined here suggests that though there is some overlap in the older Balkan migration stream and the more recent migration streams to Odessa, the differences should not be underestimated. Russian-Ottoman conflict and the expansion of the Russian Empire to the sea may have had a more profound effect on the nature and extent of the port-cities migration stream than pre-existing institutions regulating ­earlier migration. But that is not the end of the story. For even if the two migration streams need to be viewed separately, the newer port-city migrants sought to build links to 88 89

GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 341, 1799–1800, l. 1–4; GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 447, 1812, l. 63; GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 1331, 1814, l. 4–4 ob. Chernukhin, “Greki Nezhina i torgovle morekhodstvo”, pp. 252–53.

98

Carras

100.0% 80.0%

79.3%

60.0% 37.5%

40.0%

22.7%

20.0% 0.0% –20.0%

–16.7%

–15.8%

–40.0%

–34.5%

–60.0% –80.0%

–50.5%

–59.0% Odessan merchant

Officer, noble

Odessan Meshanin

Turkish subject

Foreign Greek

Austrian / English / other subject

Nezhin Greek

Other

Figure 3.9 Godparenthood and witnesses at weddings. Per cent difference from no. of deaths Source: Belousova, Volkova, Malinova, and Kharkovenko, Greki Odessy

earlier arrivals, to the Odessan and Nezhin Greeks. In creating such links newer migrants became integrated into the urban ethnic sub-economy. For in the swiftly growing port-cities of the Black Sea, hiring occurred primarily on the basis of kinship and ethnicity. Migrants succeeded in integrating themselves into the ethnic economy in part through the institutions of godparenthood and serving as witnesses at marriages (being an ‘ανάδοχος’ or a ‘κουμπάρος’). As seen in Figure 3.9, which charts the number of times each of the given groups served as godparents and witnesses at marriages compared to the number of their deaths, higher-class Odessan and Nezhin Greeks were highly sought after in both these roles. As would be expected given the link between godparenthood and social status, far more Odessan and Nezhin Greeks were requested to be godparents and witnesses at weddings than the other way round.90 Thus a flexible ritual-kinship connection based on religious ceremony was used, providing newer migrants access to jobs and resources through an ethnic network. These links served to connect the two migration streams discussed 90

For the cross-cultural connection between godparenthood and social status, see Gudeman and Schwartz, “Cleansing Original Sin”, especially p. 45, and also Gudeman, “Spiritual relationships”, and Leyton, Allianzbeziehungen der Patenschaft.

Connecting Migration and Identities

99

here, in other words to connect earlier migrants with access to resources and newer migrants without them. Beyond the links between godparenthood and social status, the connection with identity is evident in a report to the authorities by a thirty-six-year-old merchant turned gardener, Nikolai Grigoriev, who found himself not in Odessa, but considerably earlier and in the inland city of Kiev. His father, he claimed, had been ‘Bulgarian’, and his mother Greek, though his mother-tongue was in fact Vlach. Nikolai himself was baptized in Jassy, “in the Church of St. N ­ icholas by the priest of that Church whose name he did not remember. His godfather was the Greek of Jassy Panagiotis”. He could not remember the name of his godmother. Nikolai’s first wife, Paraksevi from Akkerman ­(Belgorod) on the coast, was a Bulgarian who, on Nikolai’s account, left him for a Muslim and converted. And now, in 1757, Nikolai declared himself to be Greek, the Church of his baptism and his godfather thus proving significant elements in his self-identification.91 As Oliver Schulz has shown, at least up until the Greek War of Independence but also for some decades thereafter, Serbian and Bulgarian merchants might continue being considered Greeks as members of the Foreign Magistracy in Odessa, and even at times call themselves Nezhin Greeks.92 In the medium term, however, the gift and baptism of household slaves in Moscow seems to have cut across the flexible conceptions of ethnic origin described to a greater extent than in Odessa. Institutions such as godparenthood as used in Odessa seem to have forged links that combined asymmetries in wealth and class with ethnic solidarity whenever the community was confronted by external threats.93

A Migrant’s New Friends

Paraskeva Anastasieva was baptized by a member of the clergy in the Church of the Holy Trinity in Odessa on 21st April 1829. Beside the priest stood her sole godparent, Pipina Mazaraki, the wife of the well-connected Spiridon ­Mazarakis, a subject of Great Britain. Paraskeva’s parents were ‘Turkish’ 91 92

93

TsGIAUK, f. 127, op. 1020, d. 3006, 1757, l. 2–2 ob. The Bulgarian Vasil Aprilov (1789–1847) was referred to as a Nezhin Greek as late as 1847. See Schulz, “Port-cities, Diaspora Communities and Emerging Nationalism”, in particular pp. 129, 142–43. Thomas C. Owen has argued that the predominately ethnic economy of the cities of the Russian Empire’s south was to prove an obstacle to the formation of class identities: Owen, “Impediments to a Bourgeois Consciousness”, especially pp. 81–83.

100

Carras

(in other words Ottoman) subjects and had probably been refugees, fleeing war in their Ottoman homeland.94 Baptism endowed Paraskeva with a set of ­social relationships that might determine much of her future. As with the household slaves who found themselves in the Monastery of St. Nicholas in Moscow against their will, Paraskeva’s identity was performed for her by the others, in her case by the adults partaking in the baptismal ritual. Subsequent re-­enactments, affirmative or challenging, constitute responses to this original act.95 Whereas the child or the slave is gifted/suffers an identity, one unconsciously, the other consciously, the migrant suffers a displacement. When migration reformulates identities this is in part a result of interaction with immigration officers at the point of reception, in other words with government bureaucracies eager to categorize and control movement both within and beyond Imperial borders. As the section on Nezhin shows, such reformulation is also a consequence of interaction with others. The migrant in a situation of uncertainty is faced with the necessity of reconfiguring and expanding kinship and friendship networks so as to include some of those who would not otherwise be included. Systems of baptism and godparenthood contribute towards this purpose, serving to enlarge and delimit contested ethnic boundaries. Surety may in this context be viewed as a similar but weaker form of these, and also as their end result at least in terms of migrants’ legal relations and interaction with official institutions. And yet, the giving of slaves, oaths corroborating identity, and godparenthood are all employed to construct forms of kinship. However fabricated, narratives of ancestry and relation are the centre of attention throughout.96 In the migrations depicted in this chapter the first stop was very rarely the last, if there was ever a first or last. Balkan migrants’ movements interacted with and were related to the movements of other peoples along the same coastal regions, be they nevolniki and slaves, nomads, raiders, pilgrims, members of the clergy, peasants and landowners, merchants, bureaucrats, or the military. Each loosely defined group had its own legally proscribed and legal or illegal patterns of movement and residence, and its own set of identities related to the significance attached to movement. Linear rationalizations 94 95 96

Belousova et al., entry 79. A suffering that comes very close to constituting the term “cultural stuff” as employed by Fredrik Barth. See Barth, “Introduction”, pp. 9–38. For this constructivist understanding of identity, see, more recently, Verdery, “Ethnicity, Nationalism and State-Making”, and Wimmer, “The Making and Unmaking of Ethnic Boundaries”.

Connecting Migration and Identities

101

of migration trends and their consequences tend to underestimate the ­importance of ­constant movement, and of the different forms of dwelling and movement that continue coexisting over long periods, despite transformations in the social and built environment. If this analysis holds, then the question of quantifying migrations should not and cannot be considered separately from the history of discourses on identity.97 The dependence of movers on networks connecting persons of unequal authority inevitably draws the historian of the 18th and early 19th centuries back to a discussion of traditional centres of power: to the patronage of Church and the Court. Certain individuals were particularly well placed to act as a bridge or lever connecting horizontal networks and centres of power, Savva Raguzinsky, Zahar Zotov, and Eugenios Voulgaris being examples mentioned here. Far from the Balkans, the diaspora Romaic identity being narrated in this chapter was to find itself in competition with another term which, though it had appeared in Russia earlier, was first used to describe the Nezhin Greeks at the Imperial Court in St. Petersburg.98 When the official organs of the Greek Magistracy employed the somewhat bewildering “from the beginning Hellenes” in their protestation to Zahar Zotov, they were following in the steps of a panegyric performed by Eugenios Voulgaris in 1773 to celebrate the wedding between the Grand Duke Paul and Natalia Alexeevna.99 Through the activities of the Philiki Hetareia (or Society of Friends), a secret society founded and to a considerable extent constituted by second rank diaspora merchants dwelling in the Greek neighbourhoods of Odessa in 1814, the contradictions between these two conceptions were to be exposed. The ultimate aim of these friends (clients, partners, creditors, witness, and also godparents), the liberation of the Orthodox Balkans or, alternatively, of the Hellenic Greeks, was precisely the point in question.100 But the overthrow of

97

The point is well made by Holm Sundhaussen. See Sundhaussen, “Southeastern Europe”, p. 166. For “travelling cultures”, to use James Clifford’s terminology, see Clifford, “Travelling Cultures”. 98 “Το δε ζήτημα των Ελλήνων” [the Greek question] is translated into Russian as “proshenie ellinov” (rgada, f. 52, op. 1, d. 15, 1704, l. 8). For contemporary discussions of the use of the term “Hellene”, see Katartzes, Δοκίμια, pp. 11, 44, and also Philippides and Konstantas, Γεωγραφία  Νεωτερική p. 120. For the different social ontologies of diaspora and the diasporic vis-à-vis a more unitary nationalism, see Kitromilides, “Diaspora, Identity, and Nation-Building”, especially pp. 323–24, 331. 99 Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique, vol. 2, nos. 782, 792, pp. 169, 175–78. 100 Prousis, Russian Society and the Greek Revolution; Jewsbury, “The Greek Question”.

102

Carras

the ‘Romaic’ by the ‘Hellenic’ in the context of the Russian Empire will be left pending, to be discussed on another occasion. Bibliography

Archival Sources



Primary Sources

AVPRI (Arkhiv Vneshnei Politiki Rossiiskoi Imperii [Archive of the Foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire]). AVPRI, f. 124, op. 1, d. 3, 1734. AVPRI, f. 2, op. 6, t. II, d. 4082, 1754–1758. GAChO (Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Chernigovskoi Oblasti [State Archive of the Chernigov Region]). GAChO, f. 101, op. 1, d. 4272, 1773; d. 1096, 1782; d. 1098, 1782; d. 87, 1786–1790; d. 229, 1791; d. 1121, 1791; d. 2460, 1791; d. 4304, 1791; d. 4310, 1795; d. 341, 1799–1800; d. 1173, 1800; d. 388, 1803; d. 447, 1812; d. 1331, 1814. RGADA (Russkii Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Drevnikh Aktov [Russian State Archive of Ancient Documents]). RGADA, f. 52, op. 1, d. 12, 1700; d. 24, 1703; d. 15, 1704; d. 26, 1705; d. 1, 1706; d. 2, 1706; d. 36, 1706; d. 2, 1708; d. 4, 1708; d. 20, 1708; d. 23, 1708; d. 16, 1710; d 2, 1711; d. 12, 1711; d. 13, 1712; d. 16, 1712, d. 3, 1714; d. 21, 1714. RGADA, f. 124, op. -, d. 12, 1711. RGADA, f. 158, op. 1, d. 67, 1706; f. 158, op. 2, d. 3, 1710; f. 158, d. 25, 1714. TsGIAUK (Tsentral’nyi Gosudarstvennyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv Ukrainy v Kieve [Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kiev]) TsGIAUK, f. 51, op. 3, d. 4938, 1734. TsGIAUK, f. 127, op. 1020, d. 3006, 1757, l. 2–2 ob.

Belousova, L., Volkova, T., Malinova, V., and Kharkovenko, G., Greki Odessy. Imennoi ukazatel’ po metricheskim knigam Odesskoi Grecheskoi Svyato-Troitskoi tserkvi. Chast’ 1. 1800–1831 [The Greeks of Odessa: Index of the metric books of the Odessa Greek Holy Trinity Church. Part i. 1800–1831], (Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Arkhiva Odesskoi Oblasti), Odessa 2000. Le Brun, C., Voyages de Corneille le Brun, vol. 1, Amsterdam 1718. Chernukhin, E., “Knyha pozhertv hrec“koho nizhynskoho bratsva 1696–1786 rr” [The Book of Donations of the Nezhin Greek Brotherhood], Zapysky Istoryko-­Philolohichnoho tovarystva Andriya Bilec“koho [Records of the Historical-­Philological Association of Andrei Biletskii, 1], Kiev 1997.

Connecting Migration and Identities

103

Chistovich, I. (ed.), Protokoly Soveta v tsarstvovanie Ekateriny II [Council Protocols in the Reign of Catherine II], Part I, St. Petersburg 1869. Fedotov-Chekhovskii, A., Akty Grechesago Nezhinskago Bratstva [Acts of the Nezhin Greek Brotherhood], Kiev 1884. Katartzes, D., Δοκίμια [Essays], edited by K. Th. Dimaras, Athens 1974. Laskarides, Ch., Το Καταστατικό της Ελληνικής Εμπορικής Κοινότητας στη Νίζνα Ουκρανίας [The Statutes of the Greek Commercial Community in Nezhin of Ukraine], ­Ioannina 1997. Motraye, A. de la, Travels through Europe, Asia, and into Part of Africa, vol. 1, London 1723. N.B., “Pokupka grekami na Ukraine ‘devok chukhonok’” [Purchase by Greek in Ukraine of ‘Young Estonian Girls’], Kievskaya Starina, year 12, 42 (1893), pp. 440–41. Petr I, Pis’ma i Bumagi Imperatora Petra Velikago [Letters and Documents of the Emperor Peter the Great], vol. 6, July–December 1707, St. Petersburg 1912. Philippides, D. and Konstantas, G., Γεωγραφία Νεωτερική [Modern Geography], edited by Ai. Koumarianou, Athens 1988. PSZRI (Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii [Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire]), vols. 22 and 23, St. Petersburg 1830. Vizyenos, G., Moskov Selim, translated by P. Mackridge, Athens 2014.



Secondary Literature

Araddzioni, M., “Emigratsiya Grekov v Ukrainu v XVI-pervoi treti XIX v.” [Emigration of the Greeks to Ukraine from the 16th to the first third of the 19th Centuries], G ­ reki i Slavyane 1000 let [Greeks and Slavs, one Thousand Years], Donetsk 1997, no. 1, pp. 77–86. Ardeleanu, C., “The Discovery of the Black Sea by the Western World: The Opening of the Euxine to International Trade and Shipping (1774–1792)”, New Europe College, Ştefan Odobleja Program Yearbook 2012–2013, 2014, pp. 21–46. Ars, G., “Grecheskaya emigratsiya v Rossiiu v kontse XVIII-nachale XIX v.”, [Greek Emigration to Russia at the End of the 18th and the Beginning of the 19th Centuries], Sovetskaya Etnographiya 3 (1969), pp. 85–95. Ars, G., “Pereselenie Grekov v Rossiiu v kontse XVIII-nachale XIX veka”, [Resettlement of Greeks to Russia at the End of the 18th and the Beginning of the 19th Centuries], in Iu. Ivanova (ed.), Greki Rossii i Ukrainy [The Greeks of Russia and Ukraine], St. Petersburg 2004, pp. 16–49. Auerbach, H., Die Besiedlung der Südukraine in den Jahren 1774–1787 (Veröffentlichungen des Osteuropa Institutes München, 25), Wiesbaden 1965. Augetides, K., Οι Έλληνες της Οδησσού και η Επανάσταση του 1821 [The Greeks of Odessa and the Revolution of 1821], Athens 1992.

104

Carras

Bade, K., Emmer, P., Lucassen, L., and Oltmer, J. (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Migration and Minorities in Europe from the 17th Century to the Present, Cambridge 2011. Barth, F. (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organisation of Culture Difference, Bergen 1969. Bartlett, R., Human Capital: The Settlement of Foreigners in Russia, 1762–1804, Cambridge 1979. Belousova, L., “The History of Greek Settlements in the Ukraine: Alexandrovka-­ Arnautovka as the First Military Village around Odessa”, in O. Katsiardi-Hering, A. Kolia-Dermitzaki, and K. Gardikas et al., (eds.), Ρωσία  και  Μεσόγειος  :  Πρακτι­ ­κά Α΄ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου (Athens, 19–22 May 2005) [Russia and the Mediterranean: ­Proceedings of the first International Conference (Athens, 19–22 May 2005)], vol. 2, pp. 65–71. Bourdieu, P., “The forms of capital”, in J. Richardson (ed.), Handbook for Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York 1986, pp. 241–58. Brandes, D., Von den Zaren adoptiert: Die deutschen Kolonisten und Balkansiedler in Neurußland und Bessarabien 1751–1914, Munich 1993. Carras, I., “Εμπόριο και Αδελφότητα : Ρομιοί στη Ρωσία, 1700–1774” [Trade and Brotherhood: the Balkan Merchants of Russia 1700–1774], unpublished PhD thesis, Athens University 2010. Carras, I., “Community for Commerce: An Introduction to the Nezhin Greek Brotherhood Focusing on its Establishment as a Formal Institution in the Years between 1692 and 1710”, in V. Zakharov, G. Harlaftis, and O. Katsiardi-Hering (eds.), Merchant Colonies in the Early Modern Period, London 2012, pp. 141–56 and 220–31. Carras, I., “Russia’s Southern Expansion 1696–1774”, unpublished talk, Freiburg, 2013. https://www.academia.edu/3791620/Patronage_and_the_Projection_of_Power ._Russia_s_Southern_Expansion_1696–1774 (accessed 31 July 2013). Carras, I., “Understanding God and Tolerating Human Kind: Eugenios Voulgaris and Platon Levshin”, in P. Kitromilides (ed.), Enlightenment and Religion: The Orthodox World, (Voltaire Foundation), Oxford 2016, pp. 73–139. Chernukhin, E., “Greki Nezhina i torgovle morekhodstvo: Postanovka problemy i istochniki” [The Nezhin Greeks and Maritime Trade: Setting the Issue and the ­Sources], in Hrec“ke pidpryyemnyctvo i torhivlya u pivnichnomu prychornomor”ï XVIII-XIX stolittya. Zbirnyk naukovyx statej [Greek Entrepreneur ship and Trade in the Northern Black Sea Littoral 18th–19th centuries], (National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Institute of Ukrainian History), Kiev 2012, pp. 245–64. Clifford, J., “Travelling Cultures”, in L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, and P. Treichler (eds.), Cultural Studies, New York 1992, pp. 96–116. Cohen, R., Global Diasporas: An Introduction, Seattle 1997. Derzavin, N., Bolgarskie kolonii v Rossii [Bulgarian colonies in Russia], Sofia, 1914. Dewey, H., “Russia’s Debt to the Mongols in Suretyship and Collective Responsibility”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 30 (1988), pp. 249–70.

Connecting Migration and Identities

105

Dewey, H. and Kleimola, A., “From the Kinship Group to Every Man His Brother’s Keeper: Collective Responsibility in Pre-Petrine Russia”, Jahrbücher für Osteuropäische Geschichte 30 (1982), pp. 321–35. Druzhinina, E., Kiuchuk-Kainardziiskii mir 1774 goda (ego podgotovka i zakliuchenie) [The Peace of Kucuk Kainardzha of 1774 (its Preparation and Conclusion)], Moscow 1955. Druzhinina, E., Severnoe Prichernomor’e v 1775–1804 g. [The Northern Black Sea Littoral, 1775–1804], Moscow 1959. Faist, T., The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social Spaces, Oxford 2000. Fisher, A., The Crimean Tatars, Stanford 1978. Gudeman, S., “Spiritual relationships and selecting a godparent”, Man 10 (1975), pp. 221–37. Gudeman, S. and Schwartz, S., “Cleansing Original Sin: Godparenthood and the Baptism of Slaves in Eighteenth-Century Bahia”, in R. Smith (ed.), Kinship Ideology and Practice in Latin America, Chapel Hill 1984, pp. 35–58. Hall, S., “Cultural Identity and Diaspora”, in J. Rutherford (ed.), Identity, Community, Culture, Difference, London 1991. Halpern, J., “Some Perspectives on Balkan Migration Patterns (with Particular Reference to Yugoslavia)”, in B. Du Toit and H. Safa (eds.), Migration and Urbanization. Models and Adaptive Strategies, The Hague 1975, pp. 77–116. Haarland, G., “Economic Determinants in Ethnic Processes”, in F. Barth (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organisation of Culture Difference, Bergen 1969, pp. 58–73. Hellie, R., Slavery in Russia 1450–1725, Chicago 1982. Hellie, R., “Migration in early Modern Russia, 1480s–1780s”, in D. Eltis (ed.), Coerced and Free Migration. Global Perspectives, Stanford 2002, pp. 292–323. Hellie, R., “The Economy, Trade and Serfdom”, in M. Perrie (ed.), The Cambridge History of Russia, vol. I, From Early Rus’ to 1689, Cambridge 2006, pp. 539–58. Herlihy, P., “Greek Merchants in Odessa in the Nineteenth Century”, Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 3–4 (1979–1980), pp. 399–420. Herlihy, P., Odessa: A History, 1794–1914, Cambridge, MA, 1986. Horstmann, C. and Kurtz, D., “Compadrazgo and Adaptation in Sixteenth Century Central Mexico”, Journal of Anthropological Research 35 (1979), pp. 361–72. Hosking, G., “Patronage and the Russian State”, The Slavonic and East European Review, 78/2, (2000), pp. 301–20. Jewsbury, G., “The Greek Question: The View from Odessa, 1815–1822”, Cahiers du Monde Russe 40, 4 (1999), pp. 751–62. Kapterev, N., Kharakter otnoshenii Rossii k pravoslavnomu Vostoku v XVI i XVII stoletiyakh [Nature of Relations between Russia and the Orthodox East during the 16th and 17th Centuries], Sergiev Posad 1914.

106

Carras

Kardasis, V., Diaspora Merchants in the Black Sea. The Greeks in Southern Russia, 1775–1861, Lanham MD 2001. Karidis, V., “A Greek Mercantile Paroikia: Odessa 1774–1829”, in R. Clogg (ed.), Balkan Society in the Age of Greek Independence, London 1981, pp. 111–36. Karidis, V., “The Mariupol Greeks: Tsarist Treatment of an Ethnic Minority ca. 1778–1859”, Journal of Modern Hellenism 3 (1986), pp. 57–74. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Αδελφότητα, Κομπανία, Κοινότητα. Για μια τυπολογία των ελληνικών κοινοτήτων της κεντρικής Ευρώπης, με αφορμή το άγνωστο καταστατικό του Miskolc (1801)” [Brotherhood, ‘Company’, Community. Towards a Typology of the Greek Communities in Central Europe, on the Occasion of the Unknown Statute of Miskolc (1801)], Eoa kai Esperia 7 (2007), pp. 247–311. Katsiardi-Hering/ Madouvalos, “The Tolerant Policy of the Habsburg Authorities towards the Orthodox People from South-Eastern Europe and the Formation of ­National Identities (18th–early 19th Century)”, Balkan Studies 49 (2014), pp. 5–34. Kerasidi, N. and Illarioshkina, Y., “Greeks in the Russian-Turkish War of 1768–1774”, in O. Katsiardi-Hering, A. Kolia-Dermitzaki, and K. Gardikas et al., (eds.), Ρωσία  και  Μεσόγειος : Πρακτικά Α΄ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου (Athens, 19–22 May 2005) [Russia and the Mediterranean: Proceedings of the first International Conference (Athens, 19–22 May 2005)], Athens 2011 vol. 2, pp. 33–43. Kharlampovich, K., Narysy z Istoryï Hrec“koï Koloniï v Nizheni (XVII-XVIII st.) [Essays on the History of the Greek Settlement at Nezhin], Zapysky istoryko philolohiskoho viddilu [Records of the Historical-Philological Department], (All Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, 24), Kiev 1929. Kharlampovich, K., Narysy z istoriï hrec“koï koloniï v Nizhyni (XVII-XVIII st.). Do istoriï nacional”nyx menshostej v Ukraïni [Essays on the History of the Greek Settlement of Nezhin (17th and 18th Centuries). On the history of national minorities in Ukraine], (Gogol Nezhin State University Museum, Nezhin Museum of Rare Books, Nezhin Urban Fellowship of Greek by the Name of the Brothers Zosimas), Nezhin 2011 [1929]. Kitromilides, P., Ιώσηπος Μοισιόδαξ : Οι συντεταγμένες της Βαλκανικής σκέψης του 18ου αιώνα [Iosipos Moisiodax: The Coordinates of Balkan Thought of the 18th Century], Athens 1985. Kitromilides, P., “Από την ορθόδοξη κοινοπολιτεία στις εθνικές κοινότητες : το πολιτικό περιεχόμενο  των  ελληνορωσικών  πνευματικών  σχέσεων  κατά  την  τουρκοκρατία” [From the Orthodox Commonwealth to National Communities: Greek-Russian Cultural Ties during the Turkish Yoke], in Χίλια Χρόνια Ελληνισμού − Ρωσίας [Thousand Years of Relations between the Hellenism and Russia], (International Chamber of Commerce), Athens 1994, pp. 139–65. Kitromilides, P., An Orthodox Commonwealth: Symbolic Legacies and Cultural Encounters in Southeastern Europe, Farnham 2007.

Connecting Migration and Identities

107

Kitromilides, P., “Diaspora, Identity, and Nation-Building”, in M. Rozen (ed.), Homelands and Diasporas: Greeks, Jews and their Migrations (International Library of ­Migration Studies, 2), London 2008, pp. 323–31. Kraft, E., Moskaus griechisches Jahrhundert, Russisch-griechische Beziehungen und metabyzantinischer Einfluss 1619–1694, Stuttgart 1995. Kremmydas, V., “Η επικοινωνία εμπορίου με τη Ρωσία της Μαύρης Θάλασσας (τέλος 18ου– αρχές 19ου αι.)” [The Correspondence of Trade with Russia of the Black Sea (End of the 18th–Beginning of the 19th Centuries)], Eranistis 25 (2005), pp. 157–61. Legrand, E., Bibliographie hellénique ou description raisonnée des ouvrages publiés par des Grecs au dix-huitième siècle, vol. 2, Paris, 1928. Leyton, C., Allianzbeziehungen der Patenschaft. Zur zentralen Machttechnik verwandtschaftlich gestalteter Patronage von Eliten kapitalistischer Verhältnisse, Interethnische Beziehungen und Kulturwandel, 59, Hamburg 2006. Lynch, J., Godparents and Kinship in early Medieval Europe, Princeton 1986. Macrides, R., “The Byzantine Godfather”, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 11 (1987), pp. 139–62. Mikhneva, R., “De certains problèmes de l’organisation du commerce entre la Russie et l’Empire Ottoman pendant la première moitié du XVIIIe siècle et des commerçants des pays balkaniques”, in Relations et influences réciproques entre Grecs et Bulgares XVIIIe-XXe siècles, art et littérature, linguistique, idées politiques et structures sociales, Cinquième colloque organisé par l’institut d’études Balkaniques de l’Académie Bulgare des Sciences à Thessaloniki et Jannina, 27–31 Mars, 1988, Thessaloniki 1991, pp. 331–41. Obolensky, D., The Byzantine Commonwealth, London 1971. Olzak, S., The Dynamics of Ethnic Competition and Conflict, Stanford 1992. Orlovsky, D., “Political Clientelism in Russia: The Historical Perspective”, in T. Rigby and B. Harasymiw (eds.), Leadership Selection and Patron-Client Relations in the USSR and Yugoslavia, London 1983, pp. 174–99. Owen, T., “Impediments to a Bourgeois Consciousness in Russia 1880–1905: The Estate Structure, Ethnic Diversity and Economic Regionalism”, in E. Clowes, S. Kassow, and J. West (eds.), Between Tsar and People: Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia, Princeton 1991, pp. 75–89. Page Moch, L., Moving Europeans. Migration in Western Europe since 1650, Bloomington 1992. Prousis, T., “Demetrios S. Inglezes: Greek Merchant and City Leader in Odessa”, Slavic Review 50, 3 (1991), pp. 672–79. Prousis, T., Russian Society and the Greek Revolution, DeKalb 1994. Pryakhin, Iu., Greki v istorii Rossii XVIII–XIX vekov: Istoricheski ocherki [Greeks in the History of Russia, 18th and 19th Centuries], St. Petersburg 2008. .

108

Carras

Ransel, D., “Character and Style of Patron-Client Relations in Russia”, in A. Maczak (ed.), Klientelsysteme im Europa der Frühen Neuzeit, Munich 1988, pp. 211–31. Rozen, M., “People of the Book, People of the Sea: Mirror Images of the Soul”, in M. Rozen (ed.), Homelands and Diasporas: Greeks, Jews and their Migrations (International Library of Migration Studies, 2), London 2008, pp. 35–81. Savva, V., Materialy iz arkhiva nezhinskikh grecheskikh bratstva i magistrata [Material from the Archive of the Nezhin Greek Brotherhood and Magistracy], Nezhin 1908. Schulz, O., “Port-cities, Diaspora Communities and Emerging Nationalism in the Ottoman Empire: Balkan Merchants in Odessa and their Network in the Early Nineteenth Century”, in A. Jarvis and R. Lee (eds.), Trade, Migration and Urban Networks in Port Cities, c. 1640–1940 (International Maritime Economic History Association), London 2008, pp. 127–48. Seraphimov, E., Krymskie Khristiane (Greki) na severnykh beregakh Azovskogo morya [Crimean Christians (Greeks) along the Northern Coasts of the Sea of Azov], Ekaterinoslav 1901. Sereinidou, V., “The ‘Old’ Diaspora, the ‘New’ Diaspora, and the Greek Diaspora in the Eighteenth through Nineteenth Centuries Vienna”, in M. Rozen (ed.), Homelands and Diasporas: Greeks, Jews and their Migrations (International Library of Migration Studies, 2), London 2008, pp. 155–59. Sereinidou, V., Έλληνες στη Βιέννη (18ος − μέσα 19ου αι.) [Greeks in Vienna (18th–mid 19th Centuries)], Athens 2011. Shafonskii, A., Chernigovskogo namestnichestva topographicheskoe opisanie s kratkim geographicheskim i istoricheskim opisaniem Malyya Rossii [Topographical Record of the Region of Chernigov with a Brief Geographical and Historical Description of Little Russia], Kiev 1851. Sifnaiou, E., “Preparing the Greek Revolution in Odessa in the 1820s: Tastes, Markets and Political Liberalism”, The Historical Review/La Revue Historique 11 (2014), pp. 139–70. Sundhaussen, H., “Southeastern Europe”, in Kl. Bade, P. Emmer, L. Lucassen, and J. Oltmer, The Encyclopedia of Migration and Minorities in Europe from the 17th ­Century to the Present, Cambridge, 2011, pp. 163–80. Sutherland, W., “Empire without Imperialism? Ambiguities of Colonization in Tsarist Russia”, Ab Imperio 2 (2003), pp. 101–15. Szeftel, M., “The History of Suretyship in Old Russian Law”, Receuils de la Société Jean Bodin pour l’Histoire Comparative des Institutions, 29 (1971), pp. 841–66. Teletova, N., Zhizn’ Ganibala – pradeda Pushkina [The Life of Hannibal, Great-­ Grandfather to Pushkin], (Rossiiskaya Akademiya Nauk), St. Petersburg 2004. Teper, E., Shvetsov A., Singubov S., and Raskin A., Istoriya Gosudarstva Rossiiskogo, Zhizneopisaniya XVIII vek [History of the Russian State, Biographies of the 18th Century], Moscow 1996, pp. 39–48.

Connecting Migration and Identities

109

Tilly, C., “Migration in Modern European History”, in M. McNeill and R. Adams (eds.), Human Migration. Patterns and Policies, Bloomington 1978, pp. 48–74. Tilly, C., “Transplanted Networks”, in V. Yans-McLaughlin (ed.), Immigration Reconsidered: History, Sociology, and Politics, Oxford 1990, pp. 79–95. Tucker, R. (ed.), The Marx-Engels Reader, New York 1978. Verdery, K., “Ethnicity, Nationalism and State-Making: Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: Past and Future” in H. Vermeulen and C. Govers (eds.), The Anthropology of Ethnicity: Beyond ‘Ethnic Groups and Boundaries’, Amsterdam 1994, pp. 33–58. Wallerstein, I., The Modern World-System II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600–1750, New York 1980. Wimmer, A., “The Making and Unmaking of Ethnic Boundaries: A Multilevel Process Theory”, American Journal of Sociology 113/4 (2008), pp. 970–1022. Xanthopoulou-Kyriakou, A., “Les migrations grecques de l’Empire Ottoman vers l’Empire russe (XVe-XIXe siècle)”, in M. Bruneau, I. Hassiotis, M. Hovanessian, and C. Mouradian (eds.), Arméniens et Grecs en diaspora: approches comparatives, ­Athens 2007, pp. 181–88.

Part 2 Greeks in Vienna: A Close Reading

⸪

chapter 4

Greek Migration in Vienna (18th – First Half of the 19th Century): A Success Story? Vaso Seirinidou Why do people migrate? According to neoclassical economics theory, which enjoyed great popularity in the international migration scholarship of the 20th century, rational individuals decide to move on the basis of a cost – benefit calculation; they migrate to where economic prospects are best.1 Rational choice, full access to information, and the motivating force of utility maximization are here presumed to be at the heart of modern migratory movements. Neoclassical migration theory and popular push-pull models have been seriously undermined by structuralist and post-structuralist historical approaches and are now considered as simplistic and reductionist.2 Moreover, the thousands of migrants drowned in the Mediterranean waters over the past few years make mathematical models of cost – benefit calculation seem tragically superficial. On the other hand, the association between migration and economic and social mobility that these models assume is hardly to be denied. While the direction of this mobility is not monolinear and stands as an issue under consideration for the social sciences, the account of migration as a success story is a common feature of many individual and collective narratives. The idea of the American ‘melting-pot’ embodies the paradigm par excellence of such a narrative of success being a constitutive part of the national ideology. Also, the ideotype of the successful migrant occupies a central role in the national self-images of the sending countries and the diaspora nations, despite the overall negative or even traumatic connotation migration bears. The case I am considering in this chapter is traditionally embedded in a historical narrative of success. The migration to Vienna during the 18th and the first decades of the 19th century occupies a salient position in the Greek migration history. As part of the Greek entrepreneurial diaspora movement that spread throughout Central Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea in the course of the 18th and the 19th century,3 it puts on display ­remarkable 1 For an overview, see Arango, “Theories of International Migration”. 2 See, for instance, Potts, The World Labour Market; Sassen, Globalization and its Discontents; Morawska, “Structuring Migration”. 3 See the bibliographical data base on the history of the Greek diaspora from the 15th to the early 19th centuries: http://diaspora.arch.uoa.gr/main/index.php?lang=en (accessed 30 April 2015).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004335448_006

114

Seirinidou

achievements in the economic and social field. The treaties of Karlowitz (1699) and Passarowitz (1718) that sanctioned free trade by land and sea between the Ottoman and Habsburg Empires and ensured tax and tariff reductions for the subjects of both, along with the right to settle and trade on the other’s territories, constitute the conventional starting point for the history of the Greek migration to Vienna. Granting privileges of settlement and trade to Ottoman merchants, the Habsburg authorities aimed at the reinforcement of their external trade as well as their economic penetration to the Southeastern Mediterranean region, where maritime European states had already extended footholds.4 Those who benefited by the economic and political conjuncture were Orthodox merchants from Macedonia, Epirus, and Thessaly. Having knowledge of the merchant profession and of the trade routes of the Balkan Peninsula, they became the exclusive agents of Habsburg trade with the East. This trade included the import and transfer of raw materials (cotton, cotton threads, leather, wool, silk, saffron, pigs, cattle, etc.) to the Habsburg lands, and to a lesser extent the export of Austrian and Bohemian manufactured goods (fabrics, ironware, porcelains, glassware, mirrors, embroideries) to the Balkan markets. To control the flow of products from the staple markets up to the place of distribution, Greek merchants formed during the 18th century an extended network of settlements along the trade arteries that connected the Balkans to Central Europe. In the turn of the 18th to the 19th century, the Habsburg capital became the biggest depot and redistribution centre of Levantine cotton in Europe as well as the headquarters for most of the Greek merchant houses outside the Ottoman Empire.5 Greek migrants in Vienna distinguished themselves in the financial life of the city and attained high positions in the social scale; they became wealthy merchants, bankers, owners of real estate, industrialists, higher public officials, and were awarded titles of nobility. They also displayed impressive achievements in the intellectual field and in the promotion of the Greek national awareness, since the Habsburg capital was one of the preferred destinations for Greek traveling scholars. Some of the most representative works of the Greek Enlightenment were published in the city.6 For all these reasons the migration 4 See Herzfeld, “Zur Orienthandelspolitik Österreichs”; Landau, Die Entwicklung des Warenhandels in Österreich. 5 On the history of the Greek entrepreneurial activity in Vienna, see Seirinidou, Έλληνες στη  Βιέννη. 6 This important aspect of the history of the Greek diaspora in Vienna is not examined here. For an overview of the Greek intellectual activity in the Habsburg capital from the turn of the 18th to the 19th century, see Turczynski, Die deutsch-griechischen Kulturbeziehungen,

115

Greek Migration in Vienna

to Vienna has been conceived rather as an expression of the dynamism of the Greek merchant capital than as an act of escaping from the Ottoman yoke.7 Undoubtedly, wealth was a recognizable characteristic of the Greek entrepreneurial community in Vienna. An indicative view offers a sample of probate inventories of 176 Greeks who died in Vienna between 1780 and 1850. According to this, 49 (28 per cent) had personal wealth that exceeded 10,000 forints, while 7 (4 per cent) had wealth that exceeded 100,000 forints (see Table 4.1). The relative high representation of the upper wealth status categories in the sample was not typical of the wealth distribution among Vienna’s population in the first half of the 19th century. As several studies on city’s social history have revealed, dispossession was the dominant element of Vienna’s socioeconomic landscape, especially in the crisis decades of 1810 and 1840 where the Table 4.1

Wealth in forints

Wealth distribution among Greeks in Vienna according to probate inventories, 1780–1850

1780– 1790

0–100

4 (36.4%) 101–1,000 3 (27.3%) 1.001–10,000 1 (9%) 10.001–100,000 3 (27.3%) >100.000 – Total

11

1791– 1800

1801– 1810

1811– 1820

1821– 1830

1831– 1840

1841– 1850

Total

15 (48.4%) 7 (22.6%) 1 (3.2%) 6 (19.4%) 2 (6.4%) 31

4 (18.2%) 4 (18.2%) 4 (18.2%) 10 (45.4%) –

21 (46.7%) 7 (15.5%) 10 (22.2%) 4 (8.9%) 3 (6.7%) 45

7 (43.8%) 2 (12.5%) 3 (18.75%) 3 (18.75%) 1 (6.2%) 16

12 (40%) 5 (16.6%) 5 (16.6%) 7 (23.4%) 1 (3.4%) 30

6 (28.6%) 4 (19%) 2 (9.5%) 9 (42.9%) –

69 (39.2%) 32 (18.3%) 26 (14.7%) 42 (24%) 7 (4%) 176

22

21

Source: Seirinidou, Έλληνες στη Βιέννη, p. 213, based on material found in Wiener Stadt-und Landesarchiv, Zivilgericht, Fasz. 2, Verlassenschaftsabhandlungen (1780–1850)

pp. 139–244; Laios, “Die griechischen Zeitungen und Zeitschriften (1784–1821)”; Koumarianou, Die griechische vorrevolutionäre Presse; Staikos, Die in Wien gedruckten griechischen Bücher; Stassinopoulou, Weltgeschichte im Denken eines griechischen Aufklärers; Seirinidou, To εργαστήριo τoυ λoγίoυ. 7 See the indicative title of the classical article by Stoianovich, “The Conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant”.

116

Seirinidou

gap between poverty and wealth reached its peak.8 Characteristically, only 127 (2.7 per cent) and 9 (0.2 per cent) of 4,695 individuals who died in Vienna in the year 1840 had personal wealth that exceeded 10,000 and 100,000 forints, respectively. The vast majority of the enlisted cases (85 per cent) is concentrated in the lowest wealth status category of 0–100 forints.9 Although the gap between the lowest and the upper wealth status categories is substantially lesser than the city’s average, dispossession seems to be a reality among the Greeks too, as Table 4.1 indicates. Moreover, cases of ­failures, bankruptcies, imprisonment for dept, and impoverishment have been reported in the literature on the Thessalian cotton yard trade in Vienna.10 Similar cases are to be found in the Viennese mercantile court documents next to the distinguished Greek merchant houses of the city.11 In sum, instead of a homogenous picture of success the research has revealed a palette of uneven entrepreneurial and social careers. The objective of this chapter is not to bring into question the ‘successfulness’ of this migration, as the title might provocatively imply; it is rather to examine what opportunities for upward mobility the migration in Vienna offered to its agents and how Greeks as a migrant group responded to the opportunities arising in their new place of settlement. To answer the first question, we need first to find out who had migrated to Vienna. As far as their places of origin are concerned, we are in a position to know with certainty that they came from mountainous or semi-mountainous settlements of Macedonia, Epirus, and Thessaly with commerce- and manufacture-oriented activities and with a population experienced in short- and long-distance trade migrations.12 Since the early 17th century, merchants from western Macedonia associated in commercial corporations (companies) had settled in the Transylvanian towns of Sibiu and Braşov, while in the course of the same century they expanded their network of settlements in the Hungarian mainland.13 Their trade was mostly retail, composed of manufactured goods from the Orient and other markets, destined to satisfy the consumer needs of the local population. Gradually the immigrant merchants started to 8

See, for instance, the edited volume by Banik-Schweizer, Wien imVormärz, especially the contributions by Sandgruber, “Indikatoren des Lebenstandards” and by Banik-Schweizer and Pircher, “Zur Wohnsituation der Massen in Wien”. 9 Silber, “Beiträge zur Sozialstruktur Wiens”, pp. 143–44. 10 See Georgiou, Νεώτερα στοιχεία, p. 13; Stamatoyannopoulos, “Société rurale”, pp. 343–48; Nikolopoulos, Κοινωνικοοικονομικές δομές, pp. 247–50; Katsiardi-Hering, Τεχνίτες και τεχνικές  βαφής, pp. 234, 316. 11 Seirinidou, Έλληνες στη Βιέννη, pp. 132, 173, 212–13, 216. 12 See indicatively Rokou, Ορεινές κοινωνίες κατά την περίοδο τηςοθωμανικής κυριαρχίας. 13 See Mantouvalos in this volume.

Greek Migration in Vienna

117

penetrate the domestic economy, offering credit to the locals and dominating the commercial exploitation of rural production.14 The treaties of Karlowitz and Passarowitz gave new impetus to migrations from the Balkans. Unlike the Greek commerce of the preceding century in Transylvania and in Hungary, this trade was exclusively wholesale.15 The migration to Vienna was a process linked to the development of the ‘wholesalers’ diaspora’ that operated within the institutional frame of the Karlowitz and Passarowitz treaties. In the economically and socially diversified homeland societies in Macedonia, Epirus, and Thessaly it was the wealthier social groups that constituted the ‘engine’ of the migration. Some of the wealthiest Greek families in Vienna, such as the Sinas, the Dumbas, and the Hadzimichail had accumulated capital through a wide range of transactions in the Ottoman Empire and elsewhere before their members set out for Central Europe.16 It is also characteristic that after the 1760s sacking of Moschopolis by Albanian bands the wealthiest of its inhabitants fled to the Habsburg Empire.17 This does not imply that less prosperous or poor people did not participate in these developments. Nevertheless, it was the representatives of the wealthier social strata that acted as the main agents of the migration and as the impetus for the participation of broader segments of the societies of origin. Beyond the assumption on the socially diversified character of the Greek migration to Vienna, information on the socioeconomic profile of the migrants at the time of their departure is scanty. Some enlightening data can be drawn from the 1766–67 census of the Ottoman merchants in Vienna, which is unique in its genre.18 According to this, about two thirds of the (82 in total) censused 14

For the Greek merchant diaspora in Transylvania and Hungary, see Füves, Οι Έλληνες της  Ουγγαρίας; Papacostea-Danielopolu, “L’organisation de la compagnie ‘grecque’ de Braşov”; Cicanci, “Les statuts et les règlements de fonctionnement des Compagnies grecques”; Bur, “Handelsgesellschaften – Organisationen der Kaufleute”; Bur, “Das Raumergreifen balkanischer Kaufleute”; Hering, “Die griechische Handelsgesellschaft in Tokaj”; Papp, “Greek Merchants in the Eighteenth-Century Jászkunság”; Tsourka-Papastathi, Η ελληνική εμπορική κομπανία του Σιμπίου Τρανσυλβανίας. 15 See Seirinidou, “Peddlers and Wholesalers”. 16 Laios, Η Σιάτιστα και οι εμπορικοί οίκοι Χατζημιχαήλ και Μανούση, p. 103; Laois, Σίμων Σίνας, pp. 14–16; Peyfuss and Konecny, “Der Weg der Familie Dumba”, p. 316; Lanier, Die Geschichte des Bank- und Handelshauses Sina, p. 7. 17 On the history of Moschopolis, see Peyfuss, Die Druckerei von Moschopolis, and also Koukoudis, Οι μητροπόλεις και η διασπορά των Βλάχων, pp. 347–60. 18 The census (Konskription) comprised 134 individuals, of which 82 were Greek-Orthodox, 21 Armenians, 18 Jews and 13 Muslims. The source was first presented by Popović, “Les marchands ottomans à Vienne en 1767”, who published a list of merchants’ names. A part

118

Seirinidou

Greek-Orthodox merchants crossed the Habsburg borders for the first time when they were between 11 and 25 years old. The general assumption that young single men historically were more likely to take the road19 is also confirmed in the case of the Greek migration in Vienna. The migration to the Habsburg capital at this young age seems to mark the beginning of an ambitious merchant career. The 12 out the 32 merchants mentioned in the census that declared an annual trade value of between 20,000 and 50,000 forints had crossed the borders for the first time at the age between 11 and 20 years old, and the same holds true for three out of the eight merchants with annual trade value of over 50,000 forints. Young boys departed along with their relatives and countrymen to Vienna, where they entered into apprenticeships in the Greek merchant houses. Nevertheless, the achievement of professional emancipation through the acquisition of their own business, or through the participation in a firm as equal partners, was not predestined. The prospects were definitely better for the young offspring of merchant of the census, which included the 82 Greek-Orthodox merchants, was published in 1959 by Enepekides, Griechische Handelsgesellschaften. Georgios Laios pointed out the incomplete character of this publication in his review in Deltion tis Istorikis kai Ethonologikis Etaireias tis Ellados 14 (1960), pp. 615–17. As a census, the Konskription captures only the moment when it was conducted and some fragments of the previous period and does not offer enough material for generalizing assumptions. Thus its recent use by David Do Paço as the main source in his PhD Thesis, “L’Orient à Vienne, 1739–1792”, published in 2015 under the title L’Orient à Vienne au dix-huitième siècle is quite problematic. Do Paço proposes a reading of the Konskription that puts emphasis not on the internal ethno-religious divisions of the enlisted merchants, but on the common institutional/legal frame of their existence in Vienna as Ottoman subjects. Based on this reading, Do Paço unfolds his argument about the existence of an ‘Orient’ in Vienna. The search for alternative contexts to study the migration to Vienna is a challenging and certainly a welcomed enterprise. Nevertheless, Do Paço’s attempt remains incomplete and his work is methodologically problematic. Undoubtedly, legal and administrative categories are means of identification of the migrants by the authorities that can produce new sets of self-identification. However, categories of legal/administrative identification, subjecthood in this case, are too narrow to encompass the plurality and complexity of migrants’ experiences and, at any rate, insufficient for establishing an argument about the ‘Orient’ in Vienna. Do Paço’s subjects are conceived exclusively in terms imposed by the authorities; these remain administrative abstractions. The plurality of individual negotiations that take place even within the rigorous frame of the legal structures is completely missing in his analysis. In Vienna particularly, Greek merchants formed separate communities according to their legal status as Ottoman or Habsburg subjects. See on this Seirinidou, “When the Turk is a Greek Orthodox and the Vlach a Native Austrian”. 19 Page-Moch, Moving Europeans, p. 13.

Greek Migration in Vienna

119

f­amilies that took over the management of the family enterprise, though not always without supervision by elder relatives. Nikolaos Damtzios, for instance, became a partner in his father’s firm at the age of 22, after four years of service as an apprentice and employee. At the age of 26 he inherited the share of his father; ten years later Damtzios’ firm appears in the mercantile court’s lists as bankrupt.20 The withdrawal of the firm founder from business did not necessary imply the professional emancipation of the young successors. In the strongly personalized, paternalistic world of Greek trade and entrepreneurship the father’s name did not lose its validity as bond even after his death. For Ioannis Nikolides, for instance, who took over the family business at the age of 24, the continuation of the firm under the name of his deceased father was a necessary condition, since, as he stated, it’s very difficult, especially in the Levantine trade, to gain trust under a new name … After two years of conducting business under my own name, and despite my diligence and honesty, I did not manage to expand my business beyond the point he left it.21 In the same vein, Demetrios Tirkas, who after the death of his uncle took over the business, submitted to the mercantile court the request “that the firm remain under my uncle’s name because the latter had gained many friends and I’m not sure that these are going to trust me alike”.22 For those deprived of family capital the road to emancipation was much more strenuous. The merchant Georg Patzanis represents a successful example of a self-made entrepreneur. After having apprenticed and worked as accountant for 12 years at the merchant house of his countrymen Mammara brothers in Vienna, he entered as partner in the firm Kotsikopoulos and company with a capital of 15,000 forints. After the dissolution of the partnership (in 1799) he found himself with a capital of 25,677 forints. Patzanis continued the business alone under his own name and within the first decade of the 19th century he doubled his capital and he entered into Vienna’s wholesalers’ association.23 A less successful example is represented by Simeon Laskos from Serres in Macedonia, who started as apprentice at the age of six at the Sinas house in Vienna and needed no fewer than 41 years to acquire his own firm.24 For most 20 21 22 23 24

Wiener Stadt- und Landesarchiv, Merkantil- und Wechselgericht, A3, D/T 57. Ibid. B/P 637. Ibid. D/T 285, f. 39r. Ibid., B/P 139. Ibid., A5–10, L 9.

120

Seirinidou

young apprentices without family capital, however, the career as employees in a Greek merchant house of the city was the most likely perspective. The paternalistic nature of the Greek-Orthodox diaspora trade that was organized on hierarchical family and social ties did not leave much space for social mobility. In this context pre-existing economic and social inequalities were rather reproduced than transformed. In the achievement of professional emancipation, it was not only the social organization of the Greek trade that played a decisive role. Of similar importance were the opportunity structures of Vienna and the way Greeks responded to them; and this brings us to the second introductory question. Greeks arrived in Vienna in a period during which the city’s economy underwent a process of commerce- and industry-oriented transformation accompanied by the emergence of a new bourgeois society. The contribution of ethno-religious ­minorities to the entrepreneurial revitalization and the formation of the early bourgeoisie in the Habsburg lands, and especially in Vienna, has been thoroughly documented by the relevant historiography.25 In order to boost the ­domestic economy, the Habsburg authorities granted privileges to foreign entrepreneurs to operate their business in the monarchy. It was in this context that the first tolerated (toleriert) Jewish families settled in Vienna. Another wave of migrants composed of technicians and merchants – among them ­English engineers, Swiss and other Protestant entrepreneurs in commerce, banking, and manufacture, and certainly our Greek merchants – occurred in the second half of the 18th century.26 Within the ethno-religious division that developed in Vienna at the turn of the 18th to the 19th century, Greeks promoted themselves to indisputable agents of the Habsburg monarchy’s commercial communication with the Balkans and the Levant. Regulated as mentioned before by the terms of the Treaty of Passarowitz this exchange involved import and export trade of Ottoman and Habsburg goods, respectively, in a balance that tilted in favour of the former. The most active phase of the Greek trade in Vienna coincided with the last quarter of the 18th and the first twenty years of the 19th century: the period of the Napoleonic wars constituted its ‘golden age’. The increase in demand and price of the Macedonian cotton due to the conjunction of the war and the wider economic situation offered opportunities for fast-track business 25 See Matis, “Der österreichische Unternehmer”; Mentschl, “Unternehmertypen des ­Merkantilzeitalters”; Bruckmüller, “Herkunft und Selbstverständnis bürgerlicher Gruppierungen”; Mittenzwei, Zwischen Gestern und Morgen. 26 Mikoletzky, “Schweizer Händler und Bankiers in Österreich”; Otruba, “Englische Fabrikanten und Maschinisten”.

Greek Migration in Vienna

121

in ­Vienna and permitted even modest actors to participate in the sharing. ­Between 1800 and 1815, 154 newly established Greek firms were registered in the Viennese mercantile court, while in the next 15 years their number dropped to 52.27 The end of the Napoleonic wars afflicted especially the Thessalian cotton yarn trade that could not withstand the competition of the mechanized British production. By the mid-1820s no trace of the Thessalian red cotton yarn trade companies that had prospered in the preceding period was left in Vienna.28 On the other hand, the import of Macedonian cotton remained high during the 1820s;29 instead of a decline of the Greek trade, we could assume a capital concentration in fewer hands. The negative balance of the eastern trade constituted a constant problem for the Habsburg mercantilist policy that attempted to confront it through a series of prohibitions and restrictions that constrained the Greek merchant activity in the monarchy.30 The Habsburg naturalization of Ottoman subjects, a measure applied from the 1770s on, was made with a view to keeping the profits from the Levantine trade within the empire. In Hungary (1774) and Transylvania (1777) the acquisition of the Habsburg naturalization and the move of their families and wealth from the Ottoman Empire to their new places of residence was introduced as prerequisite of trade for the Ottoman merchants. In Vienna and Trieste, a series of limitations imposed on Ottoman merchants oriented a number towards choosing Habsburg naturalization.31 In doing so, they may have forfeited the privileges stemming from the Treaty of Passarowitz, but gained all the rights enjoyed by native merchants. The terms of the Habsburg authorities on naturalization granting became more rigorous with the progress of time. While initially the resettlement of the claimant’s family and property was a sufficient condition, in 1784 the prerequisite of having completed a ten-year residence in Habsburg territory, or, later, as an alternative option the possessing a capital of 20,000 forints, was

27 Seirinidou, Έλληνες στη Βιέννη, Appendix v, pp. 392–404. 28 Katsiardi-Hering, Τεχνίτες και τεχνικές βαφής νημάτων, pp. 270–73. 29 In 1800 the value of cotton imported in German Hereditary Lands, except Trieste and Tirol, amounted 2,759,072 forints. In 1823 this amounted 3,604,832 forints and in 1829 it reached 7,601,876 forints. Otruba, Der Aussenhandel Österreichs, pp. 43–47. Although no indication of imports’ origin exists and processed cotton is counted in, we know from other sources that in the 1820s the Macedonian cotton was in wide use by the Austrian yarn industry and was not threatened by the American or Indian cotton. Keeß, Darstellung, vol. i, p. 116. 30 Herzfeld, “Zur Orienthandelspolitik Österreichs”. 31 Katsiardi-Hering, Η ελληνική παροικία της Τεργέστης, pp. 375–80.

122

Seirinidou

i­ntroduced. The available data32 on the financial status of Greeks in Vienna allow us to identify a correspondence between subjecthood, property condition, and provenance. Almost all Greeks who had made a name for themselves in Vienna’s economic and social life were naturalized Habsburg subjects. Although the equation of the status of neo-Habsburgs to that of native merchants was only theoretical and the former were often subject to discrimination, the acquisition of the Habsburg subjecthood offered access to new fields of entrepreneurial opportunities from which Ottoman subjects were barred. A highly profitable option for naturalized Habsburg merchants was the participation in the trade between Austria and Hungary. In the second half of the 18th century, Hungary was the major commercial partner of Austria as supplier of cattle and grain and a consumer of manufactured goods. The exclusion of Hungary from the Customs Union of 1775, which included Upper and Lower Austria, Carinthia, Styria, Bohemia, Moravia, and Carniola made it increasingly dependent upon Vienna for its external trade, for it was through this city that most products were moved to and from Hungarian markets.33 Favoured by the network of relatives and countrymen who had settled in Hungary and Transylvania in the preceding period, Greek merchants in Vienna took over the trade between the western and eastern parts of the Habsburg Empire. Some of Vienna’s best known Macedonian and Epirote merchant families, including the Sinas, Nako, Nikolits, Hatzimichail, Bekella, and Derra families, made their fortunes primarily as middlemen in Hungary’s Austrian trade – and especially in the trade in Hungarian cereals and beef which was so central to the Austrian capital’s supplies of foodstuffs – rather than by trading between the Ottoman and Habsburg Empires. All of them were landowners in the Banat granary and were invested with titles of Hungarian nobility.34 In their petitions for obtaining nobility titles the representatives of these families accentuated their achievements in the domestic Habsburg trade and landownership and 32

Such as probate inventories, Viennese mercantile court records, documents of the St. George community of the Greek merchants who were Ottoman subjects, published by Efstratiadis, Ο εν Βιέννη ναός του Αγίου Γεωργίου, and various references in the secondary literature. 33 Hassinger, “Der Aussenhandel der Habsburgermonarchie”, p. 85; Good, The Economic Rise of the Habsburg Empire, 1750–1914, pp. 29–32. The exclusion of Hungary from the Customs Union of 1775 was a concession to the autonomy demands of the Hungarian nobility that deepened the unequal economic relation between Austria and Hungary, since Austrian export goods were subjected to higher tariffs than Hungarian agricultural commodities. On the unequal regional development in the Habsburg Empire, see especially Komlosy, Grenze und ungleiche regionale Entwicklung. 34 Seirinidou, Έλληνες στη Βιέννη, pp. 120–22.

Greek Migration in Vienna

123

not in the leading domain of the Greek diaspora in Vienna, namely in the trade with the Ottoman Empire.35 Certainly, Hungary seems to have been a primary economic space for some of the prominent Greek families in Vienna and the place where their most entrepreneurial imprints were left. It is also the place where their historiographical imprint is stronger. Beginning in the 1930s with the contributions of Iván Hajnóczy and continuing into the 1960s with the extended research agenda by Ödön Füves and more recent scholars the history of Greek diaspora has attracted the interest of Hungarian historians.36 What is highlighted is the contribution of Greeks to the marketization of the Hungarian hinterland and the formation of the local bourgeois society.37 On the other hand, Greeks appear occasionally in Austrian economic histories in their traditional role as Ottoman traders who supplied the Austrian and Bohemian textile industries with raw materials from the Orient.38 In her thorough study on Vienna’s multiethnic early bourgeoisie, Ingrid Mittenzwei excluded Greek (Ottoman) merchants from her sample with the justification that these, although wholesalers, had restricted trading rights and did not need large capital to conduct their business as opposed to Habsburg merchants, who in order to acquire the wholesaler’s right (k.k. priv. Großhändler) ought to possess a capital of 30,000 forints, which had reached 50,000 forints after the first decade of the 19th century. She includes only a handful of wealthy naturalized Habsburg Greeks, among them Georgios Sinas, enlisting them in the category of ‘Others’ next to these of Catholics, Protestants, and Jews.39 If we consider the wholesalers’ association (Großhandlungsgremium) as the representative institute of the city’s early bourgeoise, then the Greek presence in it was limited compared to that of other religious minorities. Between 1780 35

See, for instance, the petition by Pavlos and Ioannis Hatzimichail in Laios, Η Σιάτιστα και  οι εμπορικοί οίκοι, pp. 119–24. 36 Hajnóczy, A kecskeméti görögség története; Füves, Oι Έλληνες της Oυγγαρίας; Bur, “Handelsgesellschaften – Organisationen der Kaufleute”; Bur, “Das Raumergreifen balkanischer Kaufleute”. For extensive literature, see the bibliographical database on the history of the Greek diaspora from the 15th to the early 19th centuries: http://diaspora.arch.uoa .gr/main/searchresults.php?subject=9&author (accessed 30 April 2015). 37 Schäfer, A görökök vezető szerepe Magyarországon a korai kapitalizmus kialakulásában; Füves, “Characteristics of the Greeks in Hungary”, p. 146; Bur, “Das Raumergreifen balkanischer Kaufleute”; Ács, “Les marchands grecs en Hongrie”, p. 44. 38 Landau, Die Entwicklung des Warenhandels in Österreich, pp. 69–70; Herzfeld, “Zur Orienthandelspolitik Österreichs”; Tremel, “Die Griechenkolonie in Wien”; Chaloupek et al., Wien. Wirtschaftsgeschichte 1740–1938, vol. ii, pp. 1014–15. 39 Mittenzwei, Zwishen Gestern und Morgen, pp. 32–33.

124

Seirinidou

and 1850 twenty-one Greek (naturalized Habsburg) firm owners obtained the wholesaler’s right and entered the association, while in Mittenzwei’s sample that includes the period around the turn of the 19th century the respective number is 84 for Catholics, 78 for Protestants, and 40 for Jews.40 Yet the proportion of wholesalers’ association members among the Greek (naturalized Habsburg) firm owners in Vienna was not insignificant. Characteristically, in 1815 thirteen out of the 56 firms owned by naturalized Habsburg Greeks were invested with the wholesaler’s right.41 On the other hand, the ‘extraction’ of the most emblematic figure of the Greek diaspora in Vienna from its Greek context, as Mittenzwei’s assumption suggests, may seem even scandalous for the traditional narrative of the history of Greek diaspora. Nevertheless, regarding his entrepreneurial practices, Sinas is far from representing the typical Greek businessman in Vienna. He presents us with a wide range of activities, such as wholesale trade, stock exchange, bonds, investments in industry and infrastructures, real estate, and purchase of titles of nobility.42 These activities were not exceptional among Greeks who traded in Vienna. Stock and bond selling was conjoined to wholesale trade, while quite a few Greeks had invested in real estate and small-scale manufacture.43 However, the ascent from 1820s onwards of the Sinas house to one of the most prominent banking houses in the Habsburg Empire indicates an entrepreneurial career that diverged from the typical business path of Greeks in Vienna. The diversification of the business scope beyond wholesale trade and stock exchange and the participation in corporations along with investments in real estate during the Habsburg state bankruptcy of 1811 (Staatsbankrott) let the Sinas house go unscathed by the crisis that struck many Greek merchant houses after the end of Napoleonic wars. In 1802, the founder of the firm, Simon Sinas, was among the first shareholders of the Pottendorf yarn manufacturing company (k.k. priviliegierte Garnmanufakturgesellschaft), which was the first mechanized yarn industry in Austria.44 George Sinas took over the shares of his father and in 1831 was promoted to the biggest shareholder and industry director. Simon Sinas, again, participated in 1816 in the foundation of the first shareholding bank with 40 Ibid., p. 68. 41 Seirinidou, Έλληνες στη Βιέννη, p. 125. 42 See Laios, Σίμων Σίνας, pp. 14–16; Lanier, Die Geschichte des Bank- und Handelshauses Sina; Goudas, Βίοι παράλληλοι, pp. 1–51. 43 For investments in real estate, see Seirinidou, Έλληνες στη Βιέννη, pp. 157–61 and Appendix i, pp. 373–78. For Greek-owned cotton-yarn dye manufactures in Vienna, see KatsiardiHering, Τεχνίτες και τεχνικές βαφής νημάτων. 44 Slokar, Geschichte der österreichischen Industrie, p. 280.

Greek Migration in Vienna

125

s­ ystematic operation (privilegirte Nazionalbank).45 In 1825, his son George was among the ten biggest shareholder-directors of the bank and in 1849 he occupied the position of vice-governor.46 The bankruptcy of banking house Fries in 1826 paved the way for Sinas to begin his financial transactions with the Habsburg court and to become, along with Salomon Rothschild, its exclusive creditor until the 1850s. Competing with Rothschild, Sinas turned to investments in transport infrastructure. On the initiative of the Sinas, the Stametz and the Arnstein and Eskeles houses was founded in 1826 the first railway company in the monarchy (k.k. privilegirte erste Eisenbahngesellschaft), which undertook the construction of the railway connection between Linz and Budweis. In 1838, George Sinas received the imperial privilege to construct the railroad from Vienna to Raab in Hungary, with the prospect of extending it towards Trieste. Due to the competition of Rothschild the project was not completed and Sinas was forced to settle for the connection between Vienna and Cloggnitz. In 1854, he undertook anew the railway connection between Vienna and Trieste as well as the construction of railroads in Hungary, where he financed various infrastructure projects, among them the construction of the chain bridge that connected Buda with Pest.47 The Sinas house, finally, did not abandon his trading activity. Sensing the crisis of the Macedonian cotton export trade after the end of the Continental Blockade (1811), George Sinas started importing Indian cotton into Central Europe. Between 1809 and 1811 he imported French wines, while from 1829 until his death (in 1856) he participated in the profitable trade of Hungarian tobacco.48 The granting of the title of Hungarian baron to Simon Sinas and of Austrian baron to his sons, George and Ioannis, confirmed the entry of Sinas family into the Habsburg financial aristocracy (Wirtschaftsadel) and its integration into Vienna’s high society. The case of the Sinas family is exemplary of what Ingrid Mittenzwei described as ‘multi-potential’ businessmen (MultipotenteUnternehmer), namely of those who combined trade and finance with investments in industry and transport infrastructure and constituted the most entrepreneurially advanced segment of the Viennese bourgeoisie.49 The range and the volume of Sinas’ transactions as well as its entrepreneurial practices and authority do not have their 45

On the banking system in 19th-century Vienna, see Eigner et al., “Finanzplatz: Wien als Geld- und Kapitalmarkt”. See also Štefanova-Cerman, Adelige als Bankiers in der Epoche der Aufklärung. 46 Laios, Σίμων Σίνας, p. 75. 47 Ibid, pp. 80–85; Lanier, Die Geschichte des Bank- und Handelshauses Sina, pp. 110–12. 48 Lanier, Die Geschichte des Bank- und Handelshauses Sina, pp. 43–59. 49 Mittenzwei, Zwischen Gestern und Morgen, p. 25.

126

Seirinidou

equivalent within the Greek merchant community in Vienna. With the exception of some notable cases who joined the ‘multi-potential’ entrepreneurial model, such as Zenobius Pop,50 or the Dumba family,51 the majority of Greeks, whether Ottoman or Habsburg subjects, did not supersede their traditional economic roles in wholesale trade and stock exchange. Commenting, however, on the responsiveness of the Greeks to the model of ‘multi-potential’ entrepreneur, we have to take into account two parameters. Firstly, that the establishment of the ‘multipotential’ model occurred after the 1820s, namely in a period when the Greek presence in the city had declined in number. And secondly, that this model – at least during the first half of the 19th century – did not become dominant in Vienna’s business surroundings. By the turn of the 18th century the higher percentage of ‘multipotential’ businessmen was to be found among Protestants. From the third decade of the same century this entrepreneurial type became less attached to a religious minority; however, the capital concentration in few banking houses – Sinas’ included – left limited space for other actors. According to Kostas Raptis’ account, one third of the ninety individuals who participated in the wholesalers’ association of Vienna in 1848 were owners or shareholders of industrial enterprises.52 Two out of the total of five Greek members of the association in the same year invested in trade, finance, industry, and transport sector (George Sinas and Zenobius Pop).53 However minuscule this number might seem, the proportional impact of the ‘multipotential’ paradigm among the Greeks and among the total of the business community does not present any noticeable difference. On the other hand, remarkable divergences exist between the overall entrepreneurial pattern of Greeks in Vienna and that of other segments of the Greek maritime diaspora. While concentration in traditional fields of business operation and the attachment to stable ownership schemes, with the sole proprietorship to constitute the main form of firm organization,54 delineate the 50

Zenobius Pop was since 1836 a member of wholesalers’ association (Großhandlungsgremium). As a mentor of George Sinas’ son, Simon, he was a shareholder in the former’s transport infrastructure companies. In 1843 he became director, next to George Sinas, of Pottendorf yarn manufacturing company. See Laios, Σίμων Σίνας, p. 77, 84; Seirinidou, Έλληνες στη Βιέννη, pp. 140–41. 51 The merchant house M. Dumba brothers was among the wealthiest and longest living Greek merchant houses in Vienna. Theodor Dumbas owned since the 1850s two yarn industries, in Günseldorf and Tattendorf. See Peyfuss and Konecny, “Der Weg der Familie Dumba” and Konecny, Die Familie Dumba. 52 Raptis, Kaufleute im alten Österreich, p. 130. 53 Seirinidou, Έλληνες τη Βιέννη, p. 140. 54 Ibid., pp. 176–81.

Greek Migration in Vienna

127

entrepreneurial attitude of the former, diversification and preference for partnerships and for flexible and transient associations were risk-reducing strategies in the uncertain environment of maritime trade.55 In the second decade of the 19th century, businessmen from the island of Chios (in north-east Aegean), who were the most internationalized section of the Greek diaspora,56 founded branch offices in Vienna. In the Habsburg capital the idiosyncratic Chiot method57 of horizontal expansion, capital diversification, and flexible business associations within the limits of the ethno-local group was unfolded only in its third facet. None of the international Chiot trading houses in Vienna took part in the ‘multipotential’ project. It is very likely that for the masters of the maritime networks continental Vienna was of marginal importance. It should not be forgotten that the ‘incomplete’ unfolding of the Chiot method had to do with the restrictive Viennese surroundings for entrepreneurial ventures and with the competition of the Macedonian and Epirot merchants, who had been already established in the city. Was, after all, the history of the Greek migration in Vienna one of success? The purpose of this chapter was partly to put the case under scrutiny and to a certain extent to question the validity of the question. The migration to Vienna offered opportunities for individuals and families to gain wealth and status, individuals and families who already enjoyed financial capacity and prominent positions in their local societies. The socially diversified character of the migratory wave was rather reproduced than transformed in the host society, since the social and cultural organization of the Greek trade did not foster individual social mobility. On the other hand, administrative restrictions and institutional barriers constrained the operational scope of Greek merchants. Despite the acknowledged contribution of ethno-religious minorities to the modernization process of the Habsburg economy, Vienna’s entrepreneurial milieu was far from being inclusive. In the case of Greeks, the highly selective award of Habsburg naturalization became a prerequisite of economic and social mobility. Almost all of the Greeks that made a name for themselves in Vienna’s economic and social life as wholesalers, bank owners, or barons were 55

56 57

For an overview of the entrepreneurial activities of the Greek maritime diaspora, see Harlaftis, “The ‘Eastern Invasion’”. For the ownership forms of Greek firms in Trieste and Livorno, see Katsiardi-Hering, Η ελληνική παροικία της Τεργέστης, pp. 579–87 and Vlami, Το φιορίνι, το σιτάρι και η οδός του Κήπου, pp. 187–90. See the representative cases of Gerousi family and Rallis brothers in Chatziioannou, “Mediterranean Pathways of Greek Merchants to Victorian England”, pp. 223–27. See Harlaftis, “Εμπόριο και ναυτιλία τον 19ο αιώνα”; Frangakis-Syrett, Οι Χιώτες έμποροι στις διεθνείς συναλλαγές, 1750–1850; Pepelasis-Minoglou, “The Greek Merchant House of the Russian Black Sea”, pp. 92–95.

128

Seirinidou

naturalized Habsburg subjects. In this respect, the migration reproduced preexisting economic and social inequalities in Vienna. Also, in this chapter we have linked the question of success with the investigation of the responsiveness of Greeks to the entrepreneurial opportunities of Vienna. The treatment of Sinas’ case as exceptional within the Greek business community of the city could be conceived as an argument against the rhetoric of success. Nevertheless, Sinas’ entrepreneurial profile was not representative of Vienna’s business world either. The Greeks did not supersede their traditional economic roles in trade and finance, while many of their entrepreneurial interests were located in Hungary and elsewhere. More than a field of economic operation, the capital of the Habsburg Empire was the place where financial capacity was translated into social status and symbolic capital. Wealthy Greeks participated in the public institutions of the Viennese entrepreneurial class and shared its cultural patterns and social norms.58 They became members of the multi-ethnic bourgeois society. They were usually the same persons that obtained the leading positions in the Greek communal institutions of the city;59 and it was, indeed, their success stories that left their imprint in the history of the Greek migration to Vienna. Bibliography

Archival Sources



Primary Sources

Wiener Stadt-und Landesarchiv, Merkantilgericht, Griechen, A6-3 (= Nr. 1–3) (1789–1827). Wiener Stadt-und Landesarchiv, Merkantil- und Wechselgericht, A3; A5–10 (= Nr. 1–10) (Türkische Untertanen, 1815–1863).

Efstratiadis, S., Ο εν Βιέννη ναός του Αγίου Γεωργίου και η κοινότης των οθωμανών υπηκόων [The Church of St. George in Vienna and the Community of the Ottoman Subjects], reproduction of the Alexandria 1912 edition, edited by C. Chotzakoglou, Athens 1997. 58 59

See Seirinidou, Έλληνες  στη  Βιέννη, pp. 164–66, 278–80; Seirinidou, “Griechen in Wien”, pp. 15–18. On the communal organization of Greeks in Vienna, see Eftstratiadis, Ο εν Βιέννη ναός του  Αγίου Γεωργίου; Loukatos, “Ο πολιτικός βίος”; Peyfuss, “Balkanorthodoxe Kaufleute in Wien”. For a typology of the Greek communal organization in Central Europe, see Katsiardi-­ Hering, “Αδελφότητα, κομπανία, κοινότητα”.

Greek Migration in Vienna

129

Enepekides, P., Griechische Handelsgesellschaften und Kaufleute in Wien aus dem Jahre 1766. (Ein Konskriptionsbuch). Aus den Beständen des Wiener Haus-, Hof-, und S­ taatsarchivs, (Institute for Balkan Studies, 27), Thessaloniki 1959. Georgiou, E., Νεώτερα στοιχεία περί της ιστορίας και συντροφίας των Αμπελακίων εξ ανεκδότου  αρχείου [New Documents on the History and the Company of Ambelakia, on the Basis of an Unedited Archive], Athens 1950. Keeß, S., Darstellung des Fabriks- und Gewerbswesens im Österreichischen Kaiserstaate. Vorzüglich in technologischer Beziehung, vol. I–II, Vienna 1823. Laios, G., “Die griechischen Zeitungen und Zeitschriften (1784–1821). Quellenmaterial, hauptsächlich aus den österreichischen Staatsarchiven gesammelt und zusammengestellt”, in J. Irmscher and M. Mineemi (eds.), Probleme der neugriechischen Literatur (Berliner byzantinische Arbeiten, 15), Berlin 1960, pp.110–95. Otruba, G., Der Aussenhandel Österreichs unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Niederösterreichs nach der älterer amtlichen Handelsstatistik, (Der Niederösterreichische Arbeiter. Studien zur Sozial- und Wirtschaftstruktur Niederösterreichs in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, 1), Vienna 1950.



Secondary Literature

Ács, Z., “Les marchands grecs en Hongrie aux XVIIe–XVIIIe s”. in Études Historiques Hongroises, 2: Ethnicity and Society in Hungary, Budapest 1990, pp. 41–58. Arango, J., “Theories of International Migration”, in D. Joly (ed.), International Migration in the New Millennium, Aldershot 2004, pp. 15–36. Banik-Schweizer, R. (ed.), Wien im Vormärz, Vienna 1980. Bruckmüller, E., “Herkunft und Selbstverständnis bürgerlicher Gruppierungen in der Habsburgermonarchie. Eine Einführung”, in E. Bruckmüller, U. Döcker, H. Stekl, and P. Urbanitsch (eds.), Bürgertum in der Habsburgermonarchie, Vienna/Cologne 1990, pp. 13–20. Bur, M., “Handelsgesellschaften – Organisationen der Kaufleute der Balkanländer in Ungarn im 17.–18. Jahrhundert”, Balkan Studies 25 (1984), pp. 267–307. Bur, M., “Das Raumergreifen balkanischer Kaufleute im Wirtschaftsleben der ostmitteleuropäischen Länder im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert”, in V. Bácskai (ed.), Bürgertum und bürgerliche Entwicklung in Mittel- und Osteuropa, Budapest 1986, vol. I, pp. 17–88. Chaloupek, G., Eigner P., and Wagner M. (eds.), Wien. Wirtschaftsgeschichte 1740–1938, vol. 2, Vienna 1991. Chatziioannou, M.-Ch., “Mediterranean Pathways of Greek Merchants to Victorian England”, The Historical Review 7 (2010), pp. 213–37. Cicanci, O., “Les statuts et les règlements de fonctionnement des Compagnies grecques de Transylvanie (1636–1736) – la Compagnie de Sibiu”, Revue des Études Sud-Est E­ uropéennes 14/3 (1976), pp. 477–96.

130

Seirinidou

Do Paço, D., “L’Orient à Vienne, 1739–1792. L’intégration des marchands et diplomats ottomans dans la ville et la Résidence impériale”, PhD Thesis, University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris 2012. Do Paço, D., L’Orient à Vienne au dix-huitième siècle (Oxford University Studies in the Enlightenment, 5), Oxford 2015. Eigner, P., Wagner, M., and Weigl, A., “Finanzplatz: Wien als Geld- und Kapitalmarkt”, in G. Chaloupek, P. Eigner, and M. Wagner (eds.), Wien. Wirtschaftsgeschichte ­1740–1938, vol. 2, Vienna 1991, pp. 909–97. Frangakis-Syrett, H., Οι  Χιώτες  έμποροι  στις  διεθνείς  συναλλαγές, 1750–1850 [Chiot ­Merchants in International Business, 1750–1850], Athens 1995. Füves, Ö., Οι  Έλληνες  της  Ουγγαρίας [The Greeks of Hungary], Institute for Balkan ­Studies, 75, Thessaloniki 1965. Füves, Ö., “Characteristics of the Greeks in Hungary (1550–1850)”, in J. Fossey (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Hellenic Diaspora from Antiquity to Modern Times, Amsterdam, 1991, vol. 2, pp. 141–53. Good, D., The Economic Rise of the Habsburg Empire, 1750–1914, Berkeley/London 1984. Goudas, A., Βίοι παράλληλοι των εκ της αναγεννήσεως της Ελλάδος διαπρεψάντων ανδρών [Parallel Lives of Distinguished Men since the Rebirth of Greece], vol. 3, Athens 1871. Hajnóczy, I., A Kecskeméti görögség története [The History of Greeks in Kecskemét], Budapest 1939. Harlaftis, G., “Εμπόριο και ναυτιλία τον 19ο αιώνα. Το επιχειρηματικό δίκτυο των Ελλήνων  της διασποράς. Η ‘ χιώτικη ’ φάση 1830–1860” [Commerce and Shipping in the 19th ­Century. The Entrepreneurial Network of Diaspora Greeks. The Chiot Phase 1830– 1860], Mnemon 15 (1993), pp. 69–127. Harlaftis, G., “The ‘Eastern Invasion’. Greeks in the Mediterranean Trade and Shipping in the Eighteenth and early Nineteenth Centuries”, in M. Fusaro, C. Heywood, and M.S. Omri (eds.), Trade and Cultural Exchange in the Early Modern Mediterranean: Braudel’s Maritime Legacy, London 2009, pp. 223–52. Hassinger, H., “Der Aussenhandel der Habsburgermonarchie in der zweiten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts”, in F. Lütge (ed.), Die wirtschaftliche Situation in Deutschland und Österreich um die Wende vom 18. zum 19. Jahrhundert, Stuttgart 1964, pp. 61–98. Hering, G., “Die griechische Handelsgesellschaft in Tokaj. Ihre innere Ordnung und ihre Auflösung 1801”, Südost-Forschungen 46 (1987), pp. 79–93. Herzfeld, M., “Zur Orienthandelspolitik Österreichs unter Maria Theresia in der Zeit von 1740–1771”, Archiv für österreichische Geschichte 108 (1919), pp. 215–343. Katsiardi-Hering, O., Η ελληνική παροικία της Τεργέστης (1751–1830) [Greek Community in Trieste (1751–1830)], Athens 1986. Katsiardi-Hering, O., Τεχνίτες και τεχνικές βαφής νημάτων. Από τη Θεσσαλία στην Κεντρική  Ευρώπη (18ος–αρχές 19ου αι.).  Επίμετρο : Η Αμπελακιώτικη Συντροφιά (1805) [Artisans and Cotton-Yarn Dying Methods. From Thessaly to Central Europe (18th to the

Greek Migration in Vienna

131

b­ eginning of the 19th Century). Addendum: The ‘Company’ of Ambelakia (1805)], Athens/Ambelakia 2003. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Αδελφότητα, κομπανία, κοινότητα. Για μια τυπολογία των ελληνικών  κοινοτήτων της Κεντρικής Ευρώπης, με αφορμή το άγνωστο καταστατικό του Miskolc, 1801” [Brotherhood, Compania, Community. Towards a Typology of the Greek Communities in Central Europe, on the Occasion of the Unknown Statute of Miskolc, 1801], Eoa kai Esperia 7 (2007), pp. 247–310. Komlosy, A., Grenze und ungleiche regionale Entwicklung. Binnenmarkt und Migration in der Habsburgermonarchie, Vienna 2003. Konecny, E., “Die Familie Dumba und ihre Bedeutung für Wien und Österreich”, Dissertationen der Universität Wien, 179, Vienna 1986. Koukoudis, A., Oι μητρoπόλεις και η διασπoρά των Bλάχων [The Metropolis and the Diaspora of the Vlachs], Thessaloniki 2000. Koumarianou, Aik., Die griechische vorrevolutionäre Presse. Wien-Paris (1784–1821), ­Athens 1995. Laios, G., Σίμων Σίνας [Simon Sinas], (Viografiai Ethnikon Evergeton, 1), Athens 1972. Laios, G., Η Σιάτιστα και οι εμπορικοί οίκοι Χατζημιχαήλ και Μανούση (17ος–19ος αι.) [Siatista and the Merchant Houses of Hatzimichail and Manousis, 17th–19th Century], (Makedoniki Vivliothiki, 60), Thessaloniki 1982. Landau, H., Die Entwicklung des Warenhandels in Österreich, Vienna/Leipzig 1906. Lanier, A., Die Geschichte des Bank-und Handelshauses Sina (Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe III, Geschichte und ihre Hilfswissenschaften, 805), Frankfurt 1998. Loukatos, Sp., “Ο πολιτικός βίος των Ελλήνων της Βιέννης κατά την Τουρκοκρατίαν και τα  αυτοκρατορικά προς αυτούς προνόμια” [The Political Life of Greeks in Vienna during the Period of Turkish Rule and the Imperial Privileges towards them], Deltion tis Istorikis kai Ethonologikis Etaireias tis Ellados 15 (1961), pp. 287–350. Matis, H. “Der österreichische Unternehmer. Erscheinungsbild und Repräsentanten”, in K.-H. Manegold (ed.), Wissenschaft-Wirtschaft-Technik. Studien zur Geschichte, Munich 1969, pp. 286–98. Mentschl, J., “Unternehmertypen des Merkantilzeitalters”, in H. Matis (ed.), Von der Glückseligkeit des Staates. Staat, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in Österreich im Zeitalter des aufgeklärten Absolutismus, Berlin 1981, pp. 341–54. Mittenzwei, I., Zwischen Gestern und Morgen. Wiens frühe Bourgeoisie an der Wende vom 18. zum 19. Jahrhundert (Bürgertum in der Habsburgermonarchie, 7) Vienna/ Cologne 1998. Mikoletzky, H.-L., “Schweizer Händler und Bankiers in Österreich vom 17. bis zur Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts”, in Österreich und Europa. Festgabe für Hugo Hantsch zum 70. Geburtstag, Graz/Vienna 1965, pp. 149–81. Morawska, E., “Structuring Migration: The Case of Polish Income-Seeking Travellers to the West”, Theory and Society 30/1 (2001), pp. 47–80.

132

Seirinidou

Nikolopoulos, E., Κοινωνικοοικονομικές δομές και πολιτικοί θεσμοί στην τουρκοκρατία. Τα θεσσαλικά  Αμπελάκια, 1770–1820 [Socioeconomic Structures and Political Institutions during the Ottoman Rule. The Thessalian Ambelakia, 1770–1820], Athens 1988. Otruba, J., “Englische Fabrikanten und Maschinisten zur Zeit Maria Theresias und ­ Josephs II in Österreich”, Tradition. Zeitschrift für Firmengeschichte und Unternehmerbiographie 12 (1967), pp. 365–77. Page-Moch, L., Moving Europeans. Migration in Western Europe since 1650, Bloomington 1992. Papacostea-Danielopolu, C., “L’organisation de la compagnie ‘grecque’ de Braşov (1777–1850)”, Balkan Studies 14/2 (1973), pp. 313–23. Papp, I., “Greek Merchants in the Eighteenth-Century Jászkunság”, Balkan Studies 30/2 (1989), pp. 261–89. Pepelasis-Minoglou, I., “The Greek Merchant House of the Russian Black Sea: A Nineteenth Century Example of a Trader’s Coalition”, International Journal of Maritime History 10/1 (1998), pp. 61–104. Peyfuss M.-D., “Balkanorthodoxe Kaufleute in Wien. Soziale und nationale Differenzierung im Spiegel der Privilegien für die griechisch-orthodoxe Kirche zur heiligen Dreifaltigkeit”, Österreichische Osthefte 17 (1975), pp. 258–68. Peyfuss M.-D., Die Druckerei von Moschopolis 1731–1769. Buchdruck und Heiligenverehrung im Erzbistum Achrida, Vienna/Cologne 1989. Peyfuss M.-D. and Konecny, E., “Der Weg der Familie Dumba von Mazedonien nach Wien”, Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 58 (1980), pp. 313–27. Popović, V., “Les marchands ottomans à Vienne en 1767”, Revue Historique du Sud-­ EstEuropéen 17 (1940), pp. 166–87. Potts, L., The World Labour Market. A History of Migration, London 1990. Raptis, K., “Kaufleute im alten Österreich 1848–1900. Ihre Beziehungen zur Verwaltung und ihre Stellung in Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft und öffentlichem Leben”, Dissertationen der Universität Wien, 27, Vienna 1996. Rokou, V., Ορεινές κοινωνίες κατά την περίοδο της οθωμανικής κυριαρχίας στα Βαλκάνια. Το  Μέτσοβο  της  κτηνοτροφίας  από  τον  17ο  έως  τον  20ό  αιώνα [Mountain Societies in the ­Balkans in the Period of Ottoman Domination. The Metsovo of Stock-farming from the 17th to the 20th Century], Athens 2007. Sassen, S., Globalization and its Discontents. Essays on the Mobility of People and Money, New York 1998. Schäfer, L., A görökök vezető szerepe Magyarországon a korai kapitalizmus kialakulásában [A Decisive Role of the Greeks in the Emergence of Early Capitalism in Hungary], Budapest 1930. Seirinidou, V., “Griechen in Wien im 18. Jahrhundert. Soziale Identitäten im Alltag”, Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert und Österreich 12 (1997), pp. 7–18.

Greek Migration in Vienna

133

Seirinidou, V., “Peddlers and Wholesalers, Ottomans and Habsburgs, ‘Strangers’ and ‘Our Own’. The Greek Trade Diaspora in Central Europe (17th–19th Century)”, in S. Faroqhi and G. Veinstein (eds.), Merchants in the Ottoman Empire [=Turcica XV], Paris 2008, pp. 81–95. Seirinidou, V., “When the Turk is a Greek Orthodox and the Vlach a Native Austrian. Greek Tourkomerites and Entopioi in 18th–19th Century Vienna”, in M. Efthymiou (ed.), La société grecque sous la domination ottomane. Économie, identité, structure sociale et conflits, Athens 2010, pp. 79–91. Seirinidou, V., Έλληνες  στη  Βιέννη  (18ος–μέσα  19ου  αι.) [Greeks in Vienna, 18th – mid 19th Cent.], Athens 2011. Seirinidou, V., Το εργαστήριο του λογίου. Αναγνώσεις, λόγια παραγωγή και επικοινωνία την εποχή  του  διαφωτισμού  μέσα  από  την  ιστορία  της  βιβλιοθήκης  του  Δημητρίου  Ν.  Δάρβαρη (1757–1823) [The Scholar’s Laboratory: Readings, Scholarly Production and Communication in the Age of the Enlightenment through the History of Dimitrios Darvaris’ Private Library (1757–1823)], (National Hellenic Reseach Foundation – Institute for Historical Research – Section of Neohellenic Research, 132), Athens 2013. Silber, E., “Beiträge zur Sozialstruktur Wiens im Vormärz. Eine sozial-und wirtschaftsgeschichtliche Arbeit aufgrund der magistratischen Verlassenschaftsakten des ­Jahres 1840”, unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Vienna, 1977. Slokar, J., Geschichte der österreichischen Industrie und ihrer Förderung unter Kaiser Franz I, Vienna 1914. Staikos, K., Die in Wien gedruckten griechischen Bücher, 1749–1800, Athens 1995. Stamatoyannopoulos, M., “Société rurale et industrie textile: les cas d’Ayia en Thessalie Ottoman (1780–1810)”, unpublished PhD Thesis, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris 1984. Stassinopoulou, M., Weltgeschichte im Denken eines griechischen Aufklärers. Konstantinos Michail Koumas als Historiograph, (Studien zur Geschichte Südosteuropas, 9), Frankfurt 1992. Štefanova-Cerman, D., “Adelige als Bankiers in der Epoche der Aufklärung. Eine Studie zur Wiener ‘K.K. Oktroyirten Kommerzial-, Leih- und Wechselbank, 1787–1830’”, unpublished Habilitation Thesis, University of Vienna, 2008. Stoianovich, Tr., “The Conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant”, The Journal of Economic History 20/2 (1960), pp. 234–313. Tremel, F., “Die Griechenkolonie in Wien im Zeitalter Maria Theresias. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der österreichisch-türkischen Handelsbeziehungen”, Vierteljahresschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 51 (1964), pp. 108–15. Tsourka-Papastathi, D.-Eir., Η  ελληνική  εμπορική  κομπανία  του  Σιμπίου  Τρανσυλβανίας 1636–1848. Οργάνωση και Δίκαιο [The Greek Merchant Company of Sibiu Transylvania, 1636–1848, Organization and Law], (Institute for Balkan Studies, 246), Thessaloniki 1994.

134

Seirinidou

Turczynski, E., Die deutsch-griechischen Kulturbeziehungen bis zur Berufung König Ottos, (Südosteuropäische Arbeiten, 48), Munich 1959. Vlami, D., Το φιορίνι, το σιτάρι και η οδός του Κήπου. Έλληνες έμποροι στο Λιβόρνο, 1750–1868 [The Forint, the Wheat, and the Garden Street. Greek Merchants in Livorno, 1750– 1868], Athens 2000.

chapter 5

Greek Presence in Habsburg Vienna: Heyday and Decline* Anna Ransmayr At the beginning of the 19th century Greek merchants played an important role in the Viennese market. The most successful among them, wholesalers and merchant-bankers, had achieved considerable wealth.1 They had two churches (one with a bell tower despite the fact that this was ordinarily not permitted for churches of non-Catholic denominations2) and owned a growing number of houses in the city centre. Therefore the number of Greeks present in Vienna at the time tends to be overestimated.3 Greek is used here in the sense it was used in Habsburg authorities’ documentation, that is, individuals of Greek-Orthodox faith originally from the realm of the Sultan, later also subjects of the Emperor.4 Research on Viennese Greeks has been subject to different interpretations depending on the background of the scholars.5 In fact, the Austrian authorities were less interested in ethnic affiliation and more in the question of whether these people were subjects of the Sublime Porte or the Roman Emperor. This chapter aims to give an overview of the Greek presence in Vienna6 from the 18th century to 1918 in terms of demographic quantity, and to examine the * The material for this chapter is based on that gathered for my dissertation, “Untertanen des Sultans oder des Kaisers”. Struktur und Organisationsformen der beiden Wiener griechischen Gemeinden von den Anfängen im 18. Jahrhundert bis 1918. 1 About the unequal economic success of the Greek merchants see Seirinidou, this volume. 2 On Austrian tolerance policy towards Orthodox believers see Katsiardi-Hering and Madouvalos, “The Tolerant Policy”. 3 The often-quoted number of 4,000 persons originates from Walsh, Narrative of a Journey, p. 420: “I passed a short time at Vienna […]. This is one of the places where the Greeks have formed a large community and established a respectable commerce. They amount to four thousand persons, and have four large churches”. 4 Only a few of them were later citizens of the Greek state, as the regions of origin of the Viennese Greeks also remained part of the Ottoman Empire during the 19th century. See below. 5 The older Greek bibliography, for example, tends to stress the contribution of the Greeks in Vienna to the formation of a Greek national movement. See indicatively Loukatos, “Ο πολιτικός βίος”. The study of Plöchl, Die Wiener orthodoxen Griechen on the contrary often shows a tendency towards a monarchistic, legitimistic attitude. 6 For an introduction to Greek presence in Vienna since the 18th century until the present day and further references see Stassinopoulou, “Griechen in Wien”. For a history of Greeks in Vienna from the late 18th to the mid-19th century see Seirinidou, “Έλληνες στη Βιέννη”. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004335448_007

136

Ransmayr

spatial dimension of the Greek presence in the city7 – the formation of a Greek quarter in the north-eastern part of Vienna. 1

The Demographic Dimension8

The presence of a Greek population in Vienna dates back to the beginning of the 18th century, when negotiated trade agreements, together with the peace treaties of Sremski Karlovci (Karlowitz) (1699) and Požarevac (Passarowitz) (1718) between the Austrian and Ottoman Empires, opened the way for Christian merchants from the Ottoman Empire, who came mainly from the Balkan parts of the empire, to trade across Austrian borders.9 Already in the 1720s a number of immigrants were allowed free exercise of their religion in a chapel that was dedicated to St. George.10 We know about the existence of this chapel because of a conflict that emerged between the Greek merchants (who were Ottoman subjects and considered the Patriarch of Constantinople their religious authority) and the Serbian Metropolitan of Karlowitz, who was the highest authority of the Orthodox Church in the Habsburg Empire.11 During the following decades the number of Greek merchants in Vienna seems to have remained small. It started to rise around 1750 when the newly established Austrian textile industry had a growing demand of raw cotton and wool that was imported to Vienna by Greek merchants from ­Macedonia, Epirus, and Thessaly.12 The first source that gives precise evidence of the number of Greek merchants in Vienna is the so-called ‘Conscription13 of Turkish subjects in ­Vienna’14 7 8 9 10

11 12 13

14

On cultural exchange in European cities, the role of strangers and urban space in general cf. Calabi and Christensen, Cities and Cultural Exchange. Demographics have been discussed by Schmidtbauer, “Zur Familienstruktur”; Stassinopoulou, “Griechen in Wien”; and Seirinidou, “Έλληνες στη Βιέννη”, pp. 235–60. Stoianovich, “The Conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant”. For the history of the brotherhood and later community of St. George and its chapel see Efstratiadis, Ο εν Βιέννη ναός του Αγίου Γεωργίου and Tsigaras, Ο ναός του αγίου Γεωργίου Βιέννης, pp. 31–48. Papastathis, “Un document inédit”. Stoianovich, “The Conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant”, p. 260. On conscriptions see: Tantner, Ordnung der Häuser; Katsiardi-Hering, “Grenz-, Staatsund Gemeindekonskriptionen”; Mantouvalos, “Conscriptiones Graecorum in EighteenthCentury Central Europe”. Österreichisches Staatsarchiv [=OeStA], Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv [=HHStA] StAbt Türkei V 27–6, Konskription der ‘türkischen’ Untertanen in Wien. Although there are

Greek Presence in Habsburg Vienna

137

from 1766–67.15 Out of the 134 registered Ottoman subjects present in Vienna, 82 were registered as Greeks (Griechen), while the rest was made up by 13 Muslim Turks, 18 Jews, and 21 Armenians. It should be noted that unlike our modern ethnic concept the term ‘Greek’ in 18th and 19th century Austrian sources had an ambiguous meaning.16 It referred to Christian merchants coming from the Ottoman Empire and speaking Greek either as their mother tongue or as the lingua franca of the Balkan trade.17 Mostly the term is used referring to Orthodox Christians as members of the ‘Greek non-united church’, but sometimes it is just a synonym for ‘merchant’. Finally, it also occurs in an ethnic sense to distinguish Greeks from Slavs or Vlachs (Aromanians), all of them belonging to the Orthodox Church. Among the Greek merchants of Vienna a high percentage was of Aromanian origin. Almost all of the Greeks in the conscription (75 of 82) were merchants (dealing mostly with wool, cotton, and ‘Turkish’ red yarn), most of them coming from the regions of Macedonia, Epirus, and Thessaly. So we can assert a very homogeneous social structure of the group.18 In 1766–67 only five of them

15

16 17 18

various publications that edited the document partially, a complete scholarly edition of the document as a whole remains a desideratum. The Serbian historian Vasilj Popovic published a French summary of it in 1940 (Popovic, “Les marchands ottomans”). In 1959 the Greek historian Polychronis Enepekides published an edition, but omitted the part on the Turkish (i.e. Muslim), Jewish, and Armenian merchants as correctly criticized by Laios in his review in Deltion tis Istorikis kai Ethnologikis Etaireias tis Ellados 14 (1960), pp. 615–17 (Enepekides, Griechische Handelsgesellschaften). Laios himself quoted parts of it in his study on merchants from Siatista. Laios, Η Σιάτιστα και οι εμπορικοί οίκοι, pp. 73–84. Finally, in the annex of his dissertation Do Paço reproduced the text of the conscription, but with many reading mistakes (Do Paço, L’Orient à Vienne, 1739–1792, pp. 494–536). From the beginning of the 20th century up to the present day this document has been subject to various interpretations depending on the scholarly or ethnic backgrounds of the author. Herzfeld first used it for her 1919 study on Maria Theresa’s oriental trade policy (Herzfeld, Zur Orienthandelspolitik Österreichs). Schmidtbauer used it for his work on the social structure of the Viennese Greeks (Schmidtbauer, “Zur Familienstruktur”). Seirinidou has elaborated the same material in her studies on Viennese Greeks (Seirinidou, “Griechen in Wien”, p. 12; Seirinidou,“Έλληνες στη Βιέννη”, pp. 236–60). Recently it was revisited in an exhibition catalogue about Sephardic Jewry in Vienna where an image of it was also reproduced (Heimann-Jelinek, Die Türken in Wien, pp. 84–85). See Seirinidou, “Βαλκάνιοι έμποροι”. Stoianovich, “The Conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant”, p. 290. The following works have used the conscription as a source for analyses of the social and demographic structure of the Ottoman merchants: Schmidtbauer, “Zur Familienstruktur”; Stassinopoulou, “Griechen in Wien”; Seirinidou, “Griechen in Wien”; Do Paço, “Institutionaliser la coexistence religieuse?”; Seirinidou, “Έλληνες στη Βιέννη”, pp. 236–60; Do Paço, “Le marchand grec”.

138

Ransmayr

had their wives with them in Vienna, while the majority were unmarried (37) or had wife and children in their hometowns in the Ottoman Empire (32).19 Two had married native Catholic women and declared their intention to settle down in Vienna permanently as they had not crossed the border to the Ottoman Empire for many years. They are the first examples of a group that began to steadily grow in the following years: merchants that became wealthy mainly through trade inside the Habsburg Empire and subsequently deciding to become the Emperor’s subjects. This development led later to the formation of two separate Greek communities of the Ottoman and Austrian subjects in Vienna: while the Greek brotherhood (later also community) of St. George of the Ottoman subjects had existed since the beginning of the 18th century, in 1787 a second Greek community, the community of the Holy Trinity for the Austrian subjects, was founded. The existence of two separate Greek communities, defined by the criteria of Ottoman or Austrian subjecthood, is a unique case in the Habsburg Monarchy and has been subject to various interpretations.20 This administrative separation between Ottoman and Austrian subjects was followed and taken seriously until the end of the 19th century. In the archive of the Greek community of St. George I was able to locate a source, similar to the ‘Conscription’, called the ‘register of the names of all Greeks residing here that are Turkish subjects’21 from the year 1808.22 This register records the names of 300 Christian Ottoman subjects (wives and children included), their profession, their birthplaces, their age and marital status and their address of residence in Vienna. It registers a substantial rise in the number of Greeks in Vienna compared to the conscription of 1766–67. 19

Do Paço’s calculation of a presence of over 700 Ottoman subjects is a misinterpretation of the information given by the conscription regarding the family members. Most merchants declared their wife to be “allda” (“there”, i.e. in their hometown) and only five said to have their family “allhier” (“here”, i.e. in Vienna). Do Paço, L’Orient à Vienne, 1739–1792, pp. 113. 20 Loukatos, “Ο  πολιτικός  βίος”, pp. 306–08; Plöchl, Die Wiener orthodoxen Griechen, pp. 40–41; Katsiardi-Hering, “Greeks in the Habsburg Lands”, p. 150; Seirinidou, “When the Turk is a Greek Orthodox and the Vlach a Native Austrian”, pp. 87–89; Seirinidou, “Έλληνες στη Βιέννη”, pp. 300–04. 21 Archiv der Griechischen Gemeinde zum Hl. Georg in Wien [=AHG], G 7, Fasz. 18: “Register der Namen aller hier befindlichen Griechen, welche türkische Unterthanen sind”. 22 The document is undated, but thanks to the correspondence of Konstantinos Koumas, who is registered in the list as residing in Vienna at the time, I was able to date it quite precisely to the year 1808. See Ransmayr, “Υγίαινε φίλον ήτορ !”, pp. 154–56. About Koumas’ first stay in Vienna (1804–1809), see Stassinopoulou, Weltgeschichte im Denken eines griechischen Aufklärers, pp. 28–40.

Greek Presence in Habsburg Vienna

139

It must be considered that Greeks that had already become subjects of the Emperor were not included. In terms of profession the social structure had remained unchanged: 210 of the 300 were engaged in trade (either as owners of companies or as company staff), while only 38 had other occupations (mainly students).23 The 52 remaining persons were family members of the merchants. The fact that now 19 Ottoman subjects had their wives (nine of them Catholic) with them in Vienna shows not only the growth of the number of Greeks in Vienna compared to 1766–67 but also the ongoing process towards a permanent settlement of the merchants in the Habsburg territory. The places of origin on the other hand had not changed:24 83 declared to have come from Thessaly, 79 from Macedonia, and 38 from Epirus; hence these three regions were the homelands of two-thirds of the registered persons.25 Comparing the two conscriptions of Ottoman subjects in Vienna from 1766– 67 and 1808 we can conclude that the Greek presence in Vienna had considerably increased, while the homogeneous social structure of the group in terms of profession as well as their regions of origin remained largely unchanged. Another source that allows the drawing of conclusions about the number of Greek merchants present in Vienna are printed merchant directories.26 They list the names of all companies of Greek merchants located in Vienna. While the number of companies of Austrian subjects remained relatively stable from 1790 to 1816 (c. 30–40 companies), it seems that Ottoman subjects greatly profited from the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars. During the time of the continental blockade (1806–14) and especially after the Austrian state bankruptcy in 1811, the number of companies of Ottoman subjects rapidly increased.27 It reached its peak in the years between 1811 and 1816, with over 200 listed companies. Apparently many Greek merchants got into finance business in these years in expectation of quick profit. Foreign merchants could profit 23 24 25 26

27

The 38 in non-trading occupations were 23 students, one priest, five teachers, four doctors of medicine, two ‘Greek barbers’, a church singer, and two sacristans. About the places of origin of the Greeks in Vienna in 1766/67 see Seirinidou, “Έλληνες στη  Βιέννη”, p. 32. The other regions as named in the source are Albania, Archipelagus, Bulgaria, Ionia, Moldova, Morea, Anatolia, Austria, Krain, Bohemia, Styria, Serbia, Thrace, and Hungary. I made a systematic survey of the Österreichisches Staatshandbuch (merchant lists are to be found in the part Auskunftsbuch), digitized by the Austrian National Library (http://alex.onb.ac.at/shb.htm) and the merchant directories (Handelsschematismen) digitized by the Vienna City Library (http://www.digital.wienbibliothek.at/nav/classification/427591) from 1791 to 1881. This is also confirmed by the numbers in Seirinidou, “Έλληνες στη Βιέννη”, p. 180, who used the Handelskalender as basis for her data.

140

Ransmayr

from the exchange rates to other currencies, because they were able to realize their gains abroad.28 To confront galloping inflation the Austrian ­government in 1811 released a decree that enforced a currency devaluation at a ratio of 1:5, but it could not slow down inflation. In 1816 a second devaluation became necessary, but was concealed by the foundation of the Austrian National Bank.29 In these years the Viennese market was extremely overheated and the highly fluctuating exchange rates stimulated money speculation. The number of wholesalers in general increased rapidly.30 After 1816 the Austrian economy experienced a deep crisis caused by a combination of a bad harvest year and the stabilization of the currency, as well as the fact that the Congress of Vienna in 1815 ended the Napoleonic Wars and the continental blockade that had protected the Austrian market from foreign competitors. The sudden competition of British products badly affected the Lower Austrian textile industry.31 The development of the number of companies of the Ottoman subjects in Vienna32 parallels these events in Austrian economic history. By 1819 twothirds of the Ottoman companies which had been located in Vienna in 1816 had left the city.33 It seems that there were two reasons for their decision to leave Vienna. After 1816 money speculation was no longer a source of profit, and the demand for cotton dropped due to the crisis of the Austrian textile industry. So the number of merchants that were Ottoman subjects consolidated on the level it had had before these years of heyday (approximately 70 companies) and remained relatively stable during the following decades. But after 1816 the number of merchants that were Austrian subjects constantly declined (from 22 companies in 1818 to 11 companies in 1828). It seems that this reflected the fact that Austrian subjects more and more changed their fields of activity from trade to other sectors of business (e.g. banking, industry). In the 1860s the trade of Greek merchants in Vienna came to a halt34 and Greek merchants are no longer listed in the directories. The changes in A ­ ustria’s 28 Betrachtungen über das Patent, pp. 22–23. 29 Brandt, “Der österreichische ‘Staatsbankrott’”. 30 Chaloupek et al., Wien Wirtschaftsgeschichte, vol. 2, p. 1013. 31 Sandgruber, Ökonomie und Politik, p. 178. 32 For a list of Greek companies (Ottoman and Austrian subjects) from 1780–1850 see Seirinidou, “Έλληνες στη Βιέννη”, pp. 387–406. 33 Redl’s merchant directory of the years 1817–19 even lists “Greek merchants and Turkish subjects that are absent and have not liquidated their companies”: see Redl, Handlungs Gremien. 34 According to Bidermann, “Die Griechisch-Gläubigen”, pp. 406–07; during these years there is a reduction of Greek merchants in the entire territory of the Habsburg Monarchy.

Greek Presence in Habsburg Vienna

141

transport infrastructure (construction of railways) and the development of maritime trade had harmed intermediary trade.35 Further, the Austrian cotton industry greatly suffered from the cotton crisis caused by the American Civil War in 1861.36 Although the export of Macedonian cotton in general benefitted from the crisis,37 in the 1860s the import of Macedonian cotton to Vienna stopped completely.38 After 1860 only a few Greeks were still engaged in trade. The history of the two Greek communities of Vienna39 also reflects Greek presence in the city and the changes it underwent during the course of the 19th century. In 1776 the brotherhood of St. George that existed since the 1720s had finally secured its contested legal status and received a privilege by Maria Theresa.40 The privilege only dealt with the brotherhood in its role as administrators of the chapel (later church) of St. George, but the brotherhood also acted as an association of the Greek merchants. Membership was organized by company and each company had to pay 0.1 per cent of its transaction volume as a contribution to the chapel.41 In 1787 the Greek-Vlach community of the Holy Trinity was founded by 30 men that had obtained Austrian subjecthood. This community was organized differently.42 It did not fulfil the tasks of a merchant association but acted solely as an Orthodox parish. Thus membership was individual. The social structure of the two communities differed due to the fact that Ottoman subjects in most of the cases did not have their families with them, while Austrian subjects had brought their families to Vienna or had even married native Catholic women. In spite of this difference it can be generally stated that in the 18th and beginning of the 19th century the group of people represented by the two Greek communities of the Ottoman and the Austrian subjects (members and their families and servants) was to a high degree identical with the members of the Greek merchant diaspora in Vienna and the Orthodox population of the city. Exceptions were the intellectuals that came to Vienna, which was a centre

35 Peez, “Die Griechischen Kaufleute”, p. 15; Stassinopoulou, “Diplomatischer Alltag”, p. 630. 36 Sandgruber, Ökonomie und Politik, p. 243. 37 Kurmuş, “The cotton famine”, pp. 165–66. 38 Peez, “Die Griechischen Kaufleute”, p. 6. 39 Thanks to the initiative of Professor Maria A. Stassinopoulou (Institut für Byzantinistik und Neogräzistik, University of Vienna) and the deceased Metropolitan of Austria, Michael Staikos, the archives of the two communities have been reorganized by archivists in 2007 and 2009 and are now open for researchers; see Stassinopoulou, “Αρχειακές πηγές”. 40 The text of the privilege is edited in Plöchl, Die Wiener orthodoxen Griechen, pp. 133–36. 41 Efstratiadis, Ο εν Βιέννη ναός του Αγίου Γεωργίου, p. 197. 42 Seirinidou, “Έλληνες στη Βιέννη”, pp. 292–97.

142

Ransmayr

of Greek book printing at the time,43 to study, teach, publish their books, or act as priests of the churches. They were not members of the brotherhood of St. George. Some of them (e.g. Konstantinos Koumas, Stefanos Kommitas, Petros Ipitis) were nevertheless registered in the conscription of 1808. A combination of both religious affiliation and profession defined the members of the group. This led the community of the Holy Trinity that officially only had the status of an Orthodox Christian parish to be sometimes mistaken for a professional representation organ of the Greek merchants by the Austrian authorities as well as by its own members.44 Ethnic categories at this time played only a marginal role, a fact that underwent a radical change during the course of the 19th century. Even though the percentage of merchants among the Greeks remained above average,45 profession at the end of the 19th century played a less crucial role for the decision of membership, while the role of ethnic affiliation became increasingly more important. Still, Orthodox confession remained the key feature for perceiving oneself as Greek. While the descendants of the Balkan merchants that had converted to Catholicism would cease to feel that they were Greek, Greek-Orthodox Christians in the third generation that had perfectly integrated into the Viennese bourgeoisie still called themselves Greek. When Balkan trade came to a halt at the end of the 19th century, because of the economic developments mentioned above, both communities faced crises brought about by lack of members. Due to their legal status as communities of either Austrian or Ottoman subjects, they encountered different problems that in the end led to an existential rivalry between them on the eve of World War i. The community of the Holy Trinity that had been founded by 30 merchants had grown in the following decades to around 70–80 members. In 1804 the community listed 80 members,46 while 65 members contributed in 1833 to the renovation of the church.47 In the 1860s the chairman of the community Theodor von Karajan observed difficulties in community administration due 43 44 45 46

47

See indicatively Staikos, Die in Wien gedruckten griechischen Bücher; Katsiardi-Hering/ Stassinopoulou, “The long 18th century”, pp. 203–12. For example in the case of obligatory war loans in 1805: Archiv der Griechischen Gemeinde zur Hl. Dreifaltigkeit in Wien [=AHD], G 1, Fasz. 1. Schmidtbauer, “Zur Familienstruktur”, p. 153. Society for Macedonian Studies (Thessaloniki), Bequest of Georgios Kioutoutskas, Πρακτικά Κοινότητος Βιέννης ii etc., photocopy of the protocol book of the community of the Holy Trinity 1786–1823, p. 57: 17 January 1804, list of members (classification of the members into five categories for the contributions to the community). Unfortunately for unknown reasons the original Greek protocol books Kioutoutskas used are no longer in the archive of the community of the Holy Trinity. ahd, G 47, Fasz. 1.

Greek Presence in Habsburg Vienna

143

to the lack of members. He therefore initiated an appeal to potential members and even considered the publication of a newspaper advertisement “to get to know fellow Orthodox believers that domicile in Vienna”.48 The community also provided itself with a register of all Orthodox Christians living in Vienna that had been compiled by the Statistical Bureau based on data of the 1864 census.49 Although the register contained the names of 1,075 persons it turned out of no use for the intended purpose. The problem was not, as one might have assumed, an alienation of the Greeks from the community, but rather that the Orthodox population of the city no longer consisted mainly of Greek merchants and their families.50 In the second half of the 19th century Vienna became a quickly growing metropolis51 and among the poor immigrants that sought their fortune in the capital there was also an increasing number of Orthodox immigrants from other regions of the monarchy (e.g. Galicia, Bukovina). The community of the Holy Trinity, as the only parish for Orthodox Austrian subjects in Vienna, was the competent parish for these immigrants as well. The growing number of these people that worked mostly as servants can be verified by the parish registers of the community of the Holy Trinity. Nevertheless, they were excluded from membership in the community as this was related to higher social status. In 1862 the community determined four criteria in order to become a member: (a) Greek non-united confession, (b) age of majority, (c) obtained independence in regard to the civil status, and (d) residence in Vienna.52 Interestingly ethnic affiliation still was not an issue. Although in 1860 the Serbian community of St. Sava had been formally founded53 (it was actually established only in 1893),54 the community of the Holy Trinity in 1863 accepted Milosius Illitsch from Baja (a gold- and silversmith in Vienna) as its member because he fulfilled the criterion of independence in regard to the civil status.55 This case also raises the question of whether, in the community of former Balkan 48 49

ahd, G 6, Fasz. 28. ahd, G 108, book “Übersicht jener Individuen, welche auf Grundlage der Volkszählung im Jahre 1864 zur griechisch-orientalischen Religion gehören”. 50 Unlike, for instance, the case of Trieste, the Serbian population in Vienna during the 18th century was small and increased only in the course of the 19th century. Therefore the ­Serbian community of St. Sava was formally established only in 1860 (actual establishment in 1893); Medaković, Serben in Wien, pp. 20–21; Katsiardi-Hering, Η ελληνική παροικία, vol. 1, p. 41. 51 Csendes and Opll, Wien, vol. 3, pp. 15–18. 52 ahd, G 6, Fasz. 28, N 207 (13 April 1862). 53 Pantovic, Die Wiener Orthodoxen Serben, p. 42. 54 Medaković, Serben in Wien, p. 87. 55 ahd, G 6, Fasz. 28, ad N 207.

144

Ransmayr

­merchants, new members coming from the same regions continued to be welcome while immigrants from Galicia and Bukovina were not. However, arrivals of new members were rare and the community now consisted mainly of few families that were the descendants of the wealthy Balkan merchants that had successfully established themselves in Vienna. Although the community members considered themselves as ‘Greeks’, it seems that ethnic affiliation really became an issue only after the community was threatened by Romanian claims.56 This happened after the change in church jurisdiction that followed the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 (Ausgleich). The nominal ecclesiastic authority of the otherwise autonomous communities, instead of being the hitherto competent Metropolitan of Karlowitz, now became the Metropolitan of Chernivtsi (Czernowitz).57 The ­Metropolitanate of Czernowitz wanted to seize control of the community of the Holy Trinity, which administrated large financial funds. The Metropolitanate argued that the community could as well be called ‘Romanian’ since many of its founders were Aromanians, which was also reflected in its denomination as ‘Greek-Vlach community’. Until the end of the Habsburg Monarchy the community of the Holy Trinity struggled to defend itself against these claims. They not only argued that the community had been autonomous by means of the imperial privileges for over a century, but also stressed its ethnic Greek nature and underlined the difference between Macedonian Aromanians that were assimilated to Greek language and culture (so-called ‘Macedo-Vlachs’) and Romanians.58 The community council also stated that there was a difference between community membership that was declared as restricted to Greeks, and the parish,59 which remained competent for Orthodox believers of other ethnicities.60 When in 1912 twenty-three Romanians, who could all be considered as belonging to the bourgeoisie, sought to be accepted as 56

About the Greek-Romanian conflict regarding the community of the Holy Trinity, see Plöchl, Die Wiener orthodoxen Griechen, pp. 87–107, although he does not go into detail. 57 The assignment of the two Greek-orthodox communities of Vienna to the Metropolitanate of Czernowitz was promulgated by decree of the ministry of religion (Ministerium für Kultus und Unterricht) on 29 May 1883: see Németh, “Autonome orthodoxe Gemeinden”, p. 88. 58 A prominent advocate of this position was the then-chairman of the community Nikolaus Dumba, himself descendant of an Aromanian family who had ties to both Romania and Greece. See Konecny, Die Familie Dumba and Stassinopoulou, “Diplomatischer Alltag”, p. 631. 59 Plöchl, Die Wiener orthodoxen Griechen, p. 102. 60 After the definite establishment of the Serbian community of St. Sava in 1893 the parish of the Holy Trinity was competent for all Orthodox believers in Vienna “that were not ­Turkish subjects and not Slavs” (“Verordnung des k.k. Statthalters”).

Greek Presence in Habsburg Vienna

145

c­ ommunity members, this was refused with the explanation that they were not ‘of Greek or Macedo-Vlach nationality’ (Nationalität).61 In fact the acceptance of twenty-three new members would have overturned the balance of power inside the community that in 1897 had consisted of 33 members (plus 50 family members).62 Although the number of Orthodox Romanians in Vienna was by now purportedly higher63 than the number of the remaining Greek members of the community of the Holy Trinity, the latter managed to exclude the Romanians from administration until 1918 (and also afterwards). But, despite the fact that this threat could be successfully repulsed, the community was steadily shrinking as the number of new Greek immigrants with an imperial subjecthood to Vienna was negligible. In 1915 (after the establishment of a Romanian chapel in 190664) the community reported to be competent for only 108 people in the parish.65 On the other hand the community of St. George had different problems. Due to the fact that its members were Ottoman subjects it had a higher fluctuation of members and was even more negatively influenced by the economic upheavals of the 1860s. Already in 1845 the community of St. George asserted that “our community has diminished very much” (εσμικρύνθη  τόσον) and thus decided that in the future the community should be administrated by a council of six (Exas / Εξάς) instead of twelve members (Dodekas / Δωδεκάς).66 ­Furthermore at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century geopolitical developments threatened the status of the community as a whole. The community of St. George was officially defined as the community of the Greeks that were Ottoman subjects. The continuous shrinkage of Ottoman territory resulted in the fact that many members were no longer Ottoman subjects. In 1881 Thessaly was annexed to the Greek state and in 1913 Macedonia and Epirus followed. This meant that the three main home regions of the ­Viennese Greeks were no longer under Ottoman rule. The number of members had diminished dramatically. In 1900 instead of the Exas the administrative body of the ­Dodekas (now called ekklitos / έκκλητος) was reintroduced, so that all of the r­ emaining 61 62 63

ahd, G 11, Fasz. 3, 15 June 1912: letter to Sterjo N. Ciurcu. ahd, G 9, Fasz. 20. In 1913 the executive committee (Vorstand) of the association for the foundation of a Romanian church community in Vienna (rumänisch-griechisch-orientalischer Kaiser Jubiläums Kirchenbau- und Kirchengemeindegründungsverein in Wien) estimated the number of Romanians residing in Vienna at 1,200. ahd, G 11, Fasz. 3, 14 March 1913: letter of the Viennese municipality (Magistrat) to the community of the Holy Trinity. 64 Dura, Kirche in Bewegung, pp. 126–30. 65 ahd, G 10, Fasz. 17. 66 Efstratiadis, Ο εν Βιέννη ναός του Αγίου Γεωργίου, pp. 213–14.

146

Ransmayr

members of the community became part of it and no one was excluded.67 The community of St. George confronted these problems by enacting for the first time in its history internal rules of order (1907)68 that contained some crucial changes in the definition of membership as it was no longer restricted to ­Ottoman subjects. Existing members that obtained ­Austrian citizenship should now be allowed to remain members of the community of St. George. Subsequently in 1910 the community made an official request for the deletion of the specification ‘Ottoman subjects’ from the name of the community at the Lower Austrian Government.69 This led to open conflict with the community of the Holy Trinity, who – in view of the ongoing geopolitical developments that threatened the Ottoman Empire – generally challenged the right of ­existence of the community of St. George.70 Three years after Macedonia and Epirus had become parts of the Greek state the situation of the community of St. George became even more critical. This is confirmed by Efstratiadis who wrote in 1912: “In a few years the community in Vienna will remain orphaned and deserted due to the lack of members”.71 It seems the community of the Holy Trinity speculated on the possibility that the two communities could merge into one.72 This would have helped the community of the Holy Trinity, whose financial situation at this time seems not to have been very good.73 The few remaining Viennese Greeks were now claimed as members by both communities, thus ending the long tradition of a clear separation of Ottoman and Austrian subjects. The two communities were still fighting their conflicts before the Austrian authorities when the World War caused the collapse of the Habsburg Monarchy74 and the imperial privileges on which both ­communities 67 68 69

Ibid., pp. 69–70 and 219. ahg, G 10, Fasz. 24. Plöchl, Die Wiener orthodoxen Griechen, pp. 147–52. ahd, G 10, Fasz. 17, 6. October 1910: duplicate of a letter of the Greek community of St. George in Vienna to the Lower Austrian government (k.k. niederösterreichische Statthalterei). 70 ahd, G 13, Nathaniel Thumim, “Gutachten über den gegenwärtigen rechtlichen Zustand der griechisch-orientalischen Kirchengemeinde ‘zur heiligen Dreifaltigkeit’, und die Möglichkeiten der Abänderung desselben” (c. 1908–9). Thumim was the advocate of the community of the Holy Trinity. 71 Efstratiadis, Ο εν Βιέννη ναός του Αγίου Γεωργίου, p. 70. He also mentions that the community committee was seriously considering donating the church to the Greek government. 72 This possibility was expressed by the head of the Greek National School Eugen Zomarides in his manuscript Die griechisch-orientalische Gemeinde zur heiligen Dreifaltigkeit in Wien: ahd, S 8, Fasz. 3. On Zomarides see Stassinopoulou, “Habe nun Philologie studiert”. 73 Plöchl, Die Wiener orthodoxen Griechen, p. 74. 74 Ibid, pp. 80–86. Unfortunately Plöchl’s study, which deals mainly with the aspect of ecclesiastical law, does not go into detail and often confuses the chronological order of the events; this sometimes leads him to historical anachronisms.

Greek Presence in Habsburg Vienna

147

had based their autonomous existence for a century and a half were no longer of any validity. The end of the monarchy meant a pivotal break for the history of the communities, but it should not be overlooked that they had already experienced existential crises in the years before. The communities of the Greek Balkan merchants had already started to slowly die out as a result of the economic changes in the second half of the 19th century. Therefore the Greek presence in Vienna in the interwar period75 and the Nazi era can be seen only to a very limited extent as the continuation of Vienna’s Greek society under the Habsburg rule. After 1945 Vienna (unlike German cities) was not a destination for Greek migrant labourers (Gastarbeiter), but became attractive for Greek students, especially in the technical disciplines.76 Furthermore, with the foundation of the Metropolitanate of Austria in 1963, Vienna became the centre of the ecclesiastical life of the Greek-Orthodox in Central Europe.77 To sum up: Greek presence in Vienna that was rather marginal in the first half of the 18th century was an important factor in Vienna’s Balkan trade in the period c. 1750–1850.78 It experienced its heyday in the years of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1792–1815). Even so, to say that the number of Greeks in Vienna at this time was 4,000 is a considerable exaggeration. At the time when it was largest, the Greek settlement in Vienna can be estimated at 1,500 persons at the most. In the years before and after this period of heyday the number of Greeks in Vienna was probably around 500 persons. From the 1860s the Greek presence in Vienna declined considerably and at the beginning of the 20th century it consisted only of a few families of the descendants of the former flourishing collective of Balkan merchants. 2

The Spatial Dimension

Regarding its spatial dimension79 Greek presence in Vienna was (and still is) almost exclusively confined to an area that can be precisely defined.80 Even 75

Little research has been done on this interesting but difficult topic. Gonsa, “Die griechische Diaspora”; Schneider, Griechische Vereine, pp. 35–53, 127; Plöchl, Die Wiener orthodoxen Griechen, pp. 108–19; and Staikos, Γερμανός Καραβαγγέλης deal mainly with the aspect of ecclesiastical law and church history. 76 Stassinopoulou, “Griechen in Wien”; Stassinopoulou, “Aυστρία”. 77 Plöchl, Die Wiener orthodoxen Griechen, p. 127. 78 Seirinidou, “Έλληνες στη Βιέννη”, pp. 125–234, 371–414. 79 For an overview of recent research on urban history and space see Pauly and Scheutz, “Der Raum und die Geschichte”. 80 About the Greek neighbourhood see Seirinidou, “Griechen in Wien”, pp. 20–21; Seirinidou, “Έλληνες στη Βιέννη”, pp. 269–80.

148

Ransmayr

t­ oday the area around the street Fleischmarkt in Vienna’s first district is called the ‘Greek quarter’, a reminder of the fact that for some decades it was dominated by Greek merchants. Today passers-by can recognise this only because the two Greek-Orthodox churches of the city are located close together here. The reason why Greeks gathered here has to do with their profession as merchants. The north-eastern part of the city was an area where foreign wholesalers and merchants traditionally had their shops81 because this part of the town had the best connection to the two important transportation routes, the ­Danube Canal and the road leading eastwards to Hungary (starting from the city gate Stubentor). It was the heart of Vienna’s economic city. Already in the conscription of 1766–67 at least 69 of the 82 Greek merchants reported to be living in houses that were located in this area.82 So it is not surprising that the two Greek churches were also built there. The chapel of St. George was located for many years in the Steyrerhof,83 a place where many Greek merchants lived or had their shops. When the Greeks who had become Austrian subjects decided to build their own church, they initially wanted to buy the church of the abolished monastery84 of St. Laurence on Fleischmarkt.85 As this building was already destined for other use by the Austrian state, the Greeks were offered another church of another abolished monastery, St. Jacob Auf der Hülben.86 During the negotiations concerning a possible adaptation of this church to become a Greek church, the Greeks emphasized how important it was that the church was near this area, because otherwise they would lose precious business time. They also mentioned that their fellow Orthodox merchants, who came to visit the three fairs in Vienna to sell their goods there, stayed in this area as well.87 Maybe the fact that, although the church of St. Jacob was not far away, it lay outside the Greek quarter, played a role in the final decision of the community of the Holy Trinity not to buy this church but 81 Lichtenberger, Die Wiener Altstadt, pp. 70–72. 82 Four were living in the suburb Leopoldstadt. The location of the rest of the houses I could not identify. 83 Kisch, Die alten Strassen und Plaetze Wien’s, vol.1, p. 538; Czeike, Wien. Innere Stadt, p. 183. 84 That is, that the monastery was no longer used for worshipping, but the building remained and was used for something else. 85 Czeike, Historisches Lexikon Wien, vol. 3, pp. 693–94. 86 Winner, Die Klosteraufhebungen, pp. 186–89. 87 Niederösterreichisches Landesarchiv [=nöla], Nö. Reg, C-Akten C 33 (de 1786), Karton 311, Nr. 11445, March 1786, letter of the community of the Greeks and Vlachs of Greek non-united religion that are resident in Vienna and have settled here from Turkey (“in Wien ansässige und unterthänige Gemeinde der k.k. aus der Türkey hier angesiedelten Griechen und Wallachen griechischer nicht unirter Religion”) to Joseph ii.

Greek Presence in Habsburg Vienna

149

to erect a completely new church on Fleischmarkt, right in the centre of the Greek quarter. In 1803 the brotherhood of St. George was also given the chance to build a church instead of the chapel in rented rooms.88 The church was built on Hafnersteig, only a few steps away from the church of the Holy Trinity that had been built in 1787–88. The Greeks built their churches here because it was the centre of an area where they formed a compact neighbourhood. This can be demonstrated visually by using the ‘register of the names of all Greeks residing here that are Turkish subjects’ from 1808. As it gives us the exact addresses of residence of the registered persons it is possible to mark these addresses in an early 19th century city map of Vienna89 and to produce a visualization of Vienna’s Greek neighbourhood (see Map 5.1).90 As can be seen on Map 5.1, this area is confined by the city walls in its northern and eastern parts, the axis from Haarmarkt to the city gate of Rotenturm (today’s Rotenturmstraße) in the north–west and the axis from Wollzeile to the city gate Stubentor in the very south–west. The few people who lived outside of this area mostly belonged to groups that were not merchants (students, doctors, etc.). This fits into the pattern that the formation of a compact neighbourhood is related to the homogenous social structure of the Greek settlement as a community of merchants. That the businesses of the Greeks were concentrated in this area as well can be visualized by marking the addresses of the shops of the Greek merchants given in printed merchant directories (Handelsschematismen). I marked the addresses of the shops/offices of the Greek merchants by using a directory from 181691 and the resulting picture is almost identical (see Map 5.2).92 Of course the area was far from being exclusively Greek. Greeks in Vienna, even at the peak of their presence around 1814, according to my estimation made up no more than 1,500 persons when the total population of Vienna (inside the city walls, i.e. today’s first district) reached around 100,000 persons.93 Still, the Greeks felt that this area belonged to them. When they met up with other merchants from the Ottoman Empire in the ‘Greek coffee house’ 88 Tsigaras, Ο ναός του αγίου Γεωργίου Βιέννης, p. 44. 89 It is important to use an appropriate city map of that era because the houses in the city of Vienna were renumbered several times (Tantner, Ordnung der Häuser, p. 207). I used the map Zürner, Plan der K.K. Haupt- und Residenzstadt Wien from 1809. 90 It should also be noted that only 20 of the 300 registered persons in 1808 did not reside in the city but in the suburbs (“Vorstädte”). 91 Redl, Handlungs Gremien. 92 Of 126 addresses only four were outside the city walls, so this again is a negligible quantity. 93 Csendes and Opll, Wien, vol. 3, p. 18.

Map 5.1 Marked red: addresses of residence of the Greeks that were Ottoman subjects in 1808. (See Appendix 5.1 for detail.) Source: based on Zürner, Plan der K.K. Haupt- und Residenzstadt Wien and ahg, G 7, Fasz. 18: “Register der Namen aller hier befindlichen Griechen, welche türkische Unterthanen sind”

150 Ransmayr

Map 5.2 Marked red: shops and offices of Greek merchants in 1816. Marked green: Shops and offices in houses that belonged to Greeks who were Austrian subjects. (See Appendix 5.2 for detail.) Source: based on Zürner, Plan der k.k. Haupt- und Residenzstadt Wien; Redl, A., Handlungs Gremien 1816; and Gutjahr, Vollständiges Verzeichniβ.]

Greek Presence in Habsburg Vienna

151

152

Ransmayr

on Fleischmarkt94 they were the dominating group, as we learn from a police report that deals with a fight that occurred in the Greek coffee-house in 1810. The police officer in charge states that the Muslim Albanians, who were the opponents in the scuffle and whose background seems to have been religious, did not really have a chance given ‘the majority of the Greeks’.95 When given the opportunity Greeks also started to systematically acquire buildings in the neighbourhood.96 The acquisition of real estate was only allowed to Greeks that were Austrian subjects. The right to the possession of real estate was given to them by Joseph ii’s tolerance edict of 1781 for Protestants and Orthodox Greeks.97 As real estate in Vienna was probably the most important foundation of wealth,98 this was a major motivation for Greek merchants to obtain Austrian subjecthood. In the year 1786 for the first time we find Greeks among the homeowners of Vienna. The first two buildings owned by Greeks were house No. 762 (Untere Bäckerstraße), bought by Constantin Damscho and house No. 702 (Fleischmarkt) where the Greek-Vlach community of the Holy Trinity built its church. Subsequently the number of houses in the city owned by Greeks increased steadily (from eight houses in 1800, fifteen in 1808 to thirty-six in 1816).99 Christoph von Nako even placed an inscription on his house on Fleischmarkt that he purchased in 1789 to show his thankfulness for the tolerance edict towards the Emperor: “Vergänglich ist dies Haus, doch Josephs Nachruhm nie, er gab uns Toleranz, Unsterblichkeit gab sie”.100 Particularly in the turbulent years after the enforced currency devaluation of 1811 there was a significant rise in the number of houses with Greek 94

For many years the favourite coffee-house of the Greeks was the Gasthaus “Zum weißen Ochsen” on Fleischmarkt. It was located first in house No. 685 (currently Café as) and from 1829 in house No. 693 (currently Café-Restaurant Vienne). For a precise and humorous account of the society meeting in the Greek coffee house see: Peyfuss, “Eine griechische Kaffeehausrunde”. 95 OeStA, ava Inneres Polizei PHSt 56 (1811). 96 See also Seirinidou, “Έλληνες στη Βιέννη”, pp. 157–61. 97 Paragraph 7 of the tolerance edict of Joseph ii (1781). For an edition see Barton, “Das ­Toleranzpatent von 1781”. 98 Sandgruber, Ökonomie und Politik, p. 211; Mittenzwei, Zwischen Gestern und Morgen, pp. 29–31. 99 I compiled the available data about Greek homeowners in the Staatshandbuch (accessible through: http://alex.onb.ac.at/shb.htm) as well as the house directories and address tables digitized by the Vienna City Library in: http://www.digital.wienbibliothek.at/nav/ classification/425705. 100 “This house is temporary, but not Joseph’s posthumous fame, he gave us tolerance, it gave immortality”. (Translation: A. Ransmayr).

Greek Presence in Habsburg Vienna

153

­owners101 – not only of houses in the city but also in the neighbouring suburbs of Leopoldstadt, Jägerzeil, and Landstraße. In a period of galloping inflation investments in real estate were the best option to secure money. At the same time this also offered the opportunity to become rich through speculation. The activities of the Greeks on the real estate market did not remain unnoticed by the Austrian authorities in Metternich’s police state. On the 2nd November 1810102 an Austrian police agent reported: “Die Sage, deren ich in einem meiner früheren Berichte Erwähnung machte, daß nemlich eine Gesellschaft von Griechen einen Fond von mehreren Millionen blos zum Ankauf von Häusern in der Stadt, zusammengelegt habe, scheint sich durch den Verkauf des Baron Fellnerischen Hauses auf dem hohen Markt für 1 Million f m B.Z. zu 500 Holländer Dukaten an einen Griechen, umso mehr zu bestätigen, als mehrere Hauseigenthümer versichern Anträge zum Häuserverkauf von Griechen erhalten zu haben.”103 The house in question was bought by Georg Sina104 who – though at the time not yet being an Austrian subject105 – managed to buy it a few weeks before the devaluation of the currency at the rate of 1:5 and so made a good bargain with this deal. One year later Georg Sina already owned twelve houses in the city. The accumulation of real estate by Sina106 was so striking that he was even made responsible for the increase of rents during these years.107 The fact that his father Simon Sina (the elder) already in 1805 appears as the owner of house No. 43 in the suburb Landstraße,108 although he obtained Austrian subjecthood only in 1818,109 shows that also Ottoman subjects had their ways 101 Seirinidou, “Έλληνες στη Βιέννη”, pp. 373–78, also gives a list of buildings owned by Greeks in Vienna until 1851, on the basis of testaments and property inventories from the Wiener Stadt- und Landesarchiv. 102 OeStA, ava Inneres Polizei PHSt 79 (1811), 2. November 1810, Nr. 47. 103 “The saying I already mentioned in one of my previous reports namely that a group of Greeks has pooled funds of several millions with the sole purpose of acquiring houses in the city seems to be confirmed by the sale of the house of Baron Fellner on Hoher Markt for 1 million florins (with Bancozettel to 500 Dutch ducats) to a Greek even more as several homeowners assert to have received offers for house sales by Greeks” (Translation: A. Ransmayr). 104 The house was later rebuilt as the family’s palais. See Laios, Σίμων Σίνας, p. 33. 105 He applied to become an Austrian subject on 9 March 1811. Laios, Σίμων Σίνας, p. 33. 106 In 1814 he also bought the palace of Baron Lose, which he assigned to a low price together with the donation of 20.000 florin for the establishment of the Polytechnical Institute of Vienna (today’s Technical University) in 1815. See Laios, Σίμων Σίνας, p. 40. 107 Beidtel, Geschichte der österreichischen Staatsverwaltung, vol. 2, p. 312, fn. 3. 108 Grosbauer, Vollständiges Verzeichniß 1805, p. 78. 109 Lanier, Die Geschichte des Bank- und Handelshauses Sina, p. 27.

154

Ransmayr

to avoid the prohibition to buy immovable property,110 often with the help of their fellow-Greeks with Austrian citizenship. Even though Vienna’s Greeks were formally split up into the two communities of Ottoman and Austrian subjects, there was still a high level of professional as well as familial interdependence between them. The ‘register of the Turkish subjects’ of 1808 shows that in this year 18 per cent of the Ottoman subjects lived in eleven apartment buildings (Zinshäuser) that were owned by Greeks with Austrian citizenship.111 The merchant directories also show that many Greek merchants had their shops and stores in buildings that were owned by other Greeks112 (marked green on Map 5.2). It then becomes clear that the area around Fleischmarkt was denominated quite rightly as the Greek quarter.113 In this context the two churches served as landmarks that defined what was ‘their space’.114 This is especially true for the church of the Holy Trinity that already upon its construction in 1787 was allowed by Joseph ii to have a bell tower.115 This was contrary to the ­regulations of the tolerance edict that explicitly said that Protestant and Orthodox churches could not have a bell tower116 or an entrance portal from the street. The fact that the community of the Holy Trinity as the only non-Catholic community in Vienna was granted this privilege shows that at this particular moment the wealthy Greek merchants were considered as even more important for the 110 See also Laios, Σίμων Σίνας, pp. 27–28 and 33. 111 Grosbauer, Vollständiges Verzeichniß 1808. 112 Gutjahr, Vollständiges Verzeichniß. 113 Thus I cannot share the opinion of Do Paço who questions the existence of a Greek neighbourhood (Do Paço, “Le marchand grec”, p. 63; Do Paço, “Identité politique”). He confuses the term ‘Greek quarter’ with the notion of a ghetto, but of course it was not one. Apart from Greek merchants, Muslim and Jewish merchants from the Ottoman Empire also settled down here, as it was the merchant quarter. Still, Christians made up by far the biggest part of them. Furthermore, Do Paço ignores the fact that Greek merchants that were not Ottoman but Austrian subjects also lived and worked here. 114 Cf. Conforti and Sánchez de Madariaga, “Churches and confraternities”. 115 nöla, Nö. Reg, C-Akten C 33 (de 1787), Karton 340, Nro 21088 ad Nro 3425, 5 October 1787. The erection of a bell tower had been already allowed in 1787, not in 1796 as Seirinidou, “Έλληνες στη Βιέννη”, p. 278; writes. The permission for an entrance from the street on the contrary (ibid., p. 278) that had already been promised by Leopold ii., was not given by his successor Francis ii. nöla, Nö. Reg, C-Akten C 33 (de 1794), Karton 407, Nro 3238, 26 April 1792. 116 The tolerance edict gave non catholic confessions the freedom of public worship which they didn’t have before, but with restrictions, like for example not allowing the use of bells.

Greek Presence in Habsburg Vienna

155

Austrian economy as the Viennese Protestants.117 By favouring the community of the Holy Trinity, Joseph ii sought to further encourage merchants from the Ottoman Empire to become Austrian subjects.118 According to his utilitarian concept they were regarded as “very useful citizens”119 in that by means of their commerce and their endowments120 they brought an accrual of wealth to the Austrian state.121 The church of Holy Trinity for many decades remained the only non-Catholic church in Vienna with a bell tower and thus served as a visual representation of Greek presence in public space. The symbolic significance of the bell tower was noticed and understood by the spectators. So for example a guidebook of Vienna from 1797 emphasizes the fact that this church has a bell tower while the two Protestant churches do not.122 The initial appearance of the church that was renovated in 1833123 and reconstructed in 1858– 59 is depicted on the cover image of the printed edition of the privileges for the community of the Holy Trinity from 1822 (see Illustration 5.1).124 When the church of the Holy Trinity was reconstructed in 1858–59125 by the famous architect Theophil Hansen it acquired an even more representative appearance126 with its characteristic neo-Byzantine and orientalising style in

117 When the Lutheran church of Vienna was established in the abolished ­Königinnenkloster, the bell towers had to be demolished, because it was not allowed for non-Catholic ­churches to have bell towers. See Stökl, Der Protestantismus in Wien, pp. 45–47 and ­Mittenzwei, Zwischen Gestern und Morgen, pp. 82–88. 118 Cf. Katsiardi-Hering and Madouvalos, “The Tolerant Policy”, pp. 20–21. 119 nöla, Nö. Reg, C-Akten, C 21 (de 1796), note of the k.k. court agent Joseph Hartl concerning the validation of the privilege for the Greek non-united community of the Holy Trinity. 120 A research project begun in 2012 (FWF-Projekt AP2714021: Soziales Engagement in den Wiener griechischen Gemeinden (18. – 20. Jh)) on social commitment in the two Greek Communities of Vienna is being led by Prof. Maria A. Stassinopoulou at the Institut für Byzantinistik und Neogräzistik (University of Vienna). 121 nöla, Nö. Reg, C-Akten, C 21 (de 1796), note of the k.k. court agent Joseph Hartl concerning the validation of the privilege for the Greek non-united community of the Holy Trinity. 122 Sicheres Addreß- und Kundschaftsbuch, p. 140. 123 Eggert, “Die griechisch-orientalische Kathedrale”, p. 62. 124 Von Seiner Majestät Kaiser Franz. 125 Eggert, “Die griechisch-orientalische Kathedrale”. 126 This becomes obvious when the appearance of the church of Holy Trinity is compared to the Serbian-Orthodox church of St. Sava (completed in 1893) in the third district with its relatively unremarkable façade.

156

Ransmayr

Illustration 5.1 Original appearance of the church of Holy Trinity on Fleischmarkt. Cover image of the edition of the privileges for the community of the Holy Trinity, Vienna 1822 Source: Von Seiner Majestät Kaiser Franz des Zweyten, huldreichst verliehene Privilegien, denen in der k.k. Haupt- und Residenz-Stadt Wien ansässigen Griechen und Wallachen von der orientalischen Religion, k.k. Unterthanen, in Betreff ihres Gottesdienstes in der Pfarrkirche zur heiligen Dreyfaltigkeit am alten Fleischmarkt, Vienna 1822

Greek Presence in Habsburg Vienna

157

red and gold.127 It is mainly because of this church that the notion of Fleischmarkt as an “oriental corner in the middle of Vienna” continued even after the traces of the Greek merchants around it had vanished. Even today it is popular with sightseers and its picture is used to illustrate Vienna’s multiculturalism.128 The church of St. George was renovated in 1898 by the architect Ludwig Tischler.129 A bell tower was constructed and the church was redesigned in a neo-classical style with one façade imitating a Greek temple. At a time when the Greek community of St. George had lost almost all of its members the renovation of the church with significant financial support by Nikolaus Dumba – one of the richest men of Vienna130 and a famous patron of art131 – marked Greek presence in the city for a last time. In summary, Greek presence was visible in Vienna’s north-eastern part from the middle of the 18th century through the presence of the Balkan merchants who lived and worked there, and it remained visible after the decline of the Balkan trade through the two Greek-Orthodox churches that had been constructed in this area. Appendix Appendix 5.1

Addresses of residence of the Greeks that were Ottoman subjects in 1808

House no. Resident Greeks that were Ottoman subjects in 1808a 144 210 431 432 472 507 512

Constantin Philitti, Scarlato Philitti Michael Isaurides Demeter Lotta Cocalar Theochar Nettari Stamatti Rodocanachi Michael Nanno Demeter Paschiota, Georg Mezewir

127 Hansen, “Die Umgestaltung des Pfarr-und Schulgebäudes”; contains images of the appearance of the church before and after its reconstruction. 128 A recent example is the cover of Vocelka, Multikonfessionelles Österreich. 129 Tsigaras, Ο ναός του αγίου Γεωργίου Βιέννης, pp. 45–48. 130 In 1910 his daughter and heir Irene was placed no. 102 of the 929 richest Viennese. There were also three other members of the family in the list. See Sandgruber, Traumzeit für Millionäre, p. 331. 131 Konecny, Die Familie Dumba.

158

Ransmayr

Appendix 5.1 Addresses of residence of the Greeks that were Ottoman subjects in 1808 (cont.)

House no. Resident Greeks that were Ottoman subjects in 1808a 517

518 527 549 560 608 616 622 627 632 664 686 690 699 703 704 705 706 707 717 719 721 722 724 725

Demeter Gallati, Nicolaus Lasar, Demeter Haggi Georg, Nicolaus Haggi Georg, Theodossio Georgiades, Kyriak Zerzuli, Theophilus Zerzuli, Demeter Margaritti, Sergius Gallati, Petrus Ipitti Alexander Manziarli Demeter Manziarli Dem. Pap. J. Arseni Emanel Grigorastto Michael Georg, Michael Zeleppo Constantin Ziagi Constantin Mauromatti Nicolaus Kosbagà Johann Chronia, Athanas Mezevir, Chronia Drossino, Georg Auxentiades, Demeter Auxentiades Zacharias Maurodis Sophia Bassili, Epaminonda Alexander, Sophie Alexander, Stephanus Schenas, Constantin Costunachi, Alexander Bassili Nicolaus Emmanuel Michael G. Blastò, Elias Johann, Johann Elia Emanuel Mannifico, Johann Riso Joh. Ath. Bozopulo, Theochar Weltary Panajotti Johann, Georg Panajotti, Dem. Jo. Sosmanoglu, Johann Malesco Georg Theodor, Theodor Haggi Stojan, Georg Theodor Stojan, Georg Haggi Lasco, Haggi Georg Pilla, Sterio Argirò Angelos Constantin, Nicola Maringo Georg Sabachtani, Georg Pappanaum, Johann Angeli, Malzo Stanco, Emanuel Demeter, Michael Drago, Sotira Sabachtani Theodor Bacaloglu, Athanas Guzella, Theodor Koccalos Johann Korkireas, Athanas Constantà, Johann Carsi Georg Duxa, Apostolo Bora, Barbara Bora, Georg Bora, Adam Nicorussi Anastas Georgiades Constantin Buri, Theresia Buri, Georg Buri, Sofie Buri, Demeter Buri, Alexander Buri, Lascar Lambro, Constantin Goga, Athanasi Berovali Dem. Nicolau Tusi, Peter N. Wulco

Greek Presence in Habsburg Vienna

159

House no. Resident Greeks that were Ottoman subjects in 1808a 726 728

730 731 738 739 740 741 742 743 744

746

748 749 750 753 756 757

758 761

766

Demeter Betly Johann Sotilizi, Sissi N. Leporitzo, Sterio N. Leporitzo, Angelica Sissi, Chiretta Sissi, Eleni Sissi, Georg Sissi, Erini Sissi, Maria Sissi, Elisabetha Sissi, Paul Zioziapò Michele Joh. Zigari, Demeter Pappà, Sterio Johann, Panajotti D. Diamanti Simon Georg Sinna, Georg Sinna, Maria Sinna Constantin Tanzuli Demeter Wassili, Sussanna Drosel, Panajotti Ziguri Demeter Alexandrides, Anastas P. Daniel Nicarussi, Anast. W. Nicarussi, Adam D. Nicarussi, Apostolus Athanas, Michael H Sotto Sterius Mantschola. Georg Marg. Towitza, Christo Manno Sterio Trantaphil, Tradt. Sterio Sachly, Alexander H. Eustathio, Theochar Christodul, Constantin Kukugello, Theochar Christodul Staico Haggi Kalojani, Apostoli Sterio, Georg Stauro Zissi Katzuki, Athanas Diagonià, Demeter Alexander, Vagelina Demeter, Philipp H. Michael, Christo Haggi Philipp Demetro, Johann Wulcowitz, Theodor Theodosi Georg Raicowitz, Juliana Raicowitz, Maria Raicowitz, Johann Raicowitz, Alexander Raicowitz, Sari Sterio, Anastasia Sari, Sterio Sari, Nicolaus Constantin, Georg C. Betly, Juliana Betly, Constantin Betly, Andreas Betly Constantin N. Duca, Constantin Nioplu, Johann Nicolaus Georg Chrst. Nisly, Georg Frangopulo Johann Tunusli, Paulo Theochar, Johann Calussio Theochar Christodulos Emmanuel Constantin, Constantin Statanu Nicolaus J.H. Radochna, Consta Anastassie, Anastas Demeter, Demeter Sissi Dimo, Antonia Dimo, Athanas Steau, Michael Staeau, Athanasius Dada, Constantin Dada, Michael Nitta, Georg Nemson Demeter Bey, Nicolaus Bey, Marianna Bey Georg Argenti, E.K. Elaion, Anastas H. Sotira, Anastas Betani, Andrea Constantin, Georg Weliowitz, Nicolaus Weliowitz, Joh. Dem. Calabaki, Diamanti Michael, Bassilus Lizzi, Demeter Haggi Maliozoglu, Anton Guzella, Demeter Haggi Sotira Nicolaus D. Wlastò, Johann Scandali, Theodor Foro, Petro Stojanovich, Mattio Petrowitz

160

Ransmayr

Appendix 5.1 Addresses of residence of the Greeks that were Ottoman subjects in 1808 (cont.)

House no. Resident Greeks that were Ottoman subjects in 1808a 768 769 771 772 773

Anastas Demeter, Anton Malesco Constantin Sioli Pandia Raly, Haggi Johann Emanuel Hayduli Werussi, Theresia Werussy Theodosio H. Trantaphil, Johann B. Pontichi, Georg Pappa Poliso, Constantin Malio, Constantin Zeggo, Johann Sotiricus 775 Wioleta Manoli, Nicolaus Demeter 776 Aleki Wesiruli, Georg Wassilicopulo, Spiro Wassilicopulo, Demeter Theodor, Demeter Solomon, Constantin Athanas Deli, Athanas ­Stagiritti, Georg Colopiglu 782 Rafael Mich. Duba 785 Nicolaus Gyka 789 Stefan Riso, Stefan Margaritti, Johann Zaphiri, Steffan Riso 791 Demeter Lotta Cocalar, Constantin Zirigotti, Wretta Zechani, Demeter Zuppan, Georg Zechani, Simon Zechani, Peter Ath. Lasso, Georg Misdeni, Nicolaus Lascar 814 Georg Kyritzi 827 Stefanos Comità, Thomas Diamandides 831 Sterio Kyriak Zieco, Nicolaus Rogotti, Zoi Rogotti, Demeter Machi 875 Thomas Milanowitz 876 Nicolaus Polianki 880 Constantin Philitti 911 Johann Scantrases 915 Stauro Johann, Georg Stauro, Zoi Charami, Constantin Charami, Christo Pesodromo, Theodor Tuna 975 Georg Johann, Parascheva Zellio, Wassilaki Par. Zellio. Anastas P. Zellio, Theresie Zellio, Spiridion P. Zellio, Josephine Spirid Zellio, Elisabetta Zezio 1152 Eustathio Panajotti 1264 Constantinos Kuma, Steffan Oeconomus Steyerhof Georg Steffano, Maria Panussi, Elena Panussia a The names are quoted as they are written in the source: ahg, G 7, Fasz. 18: “Register der ­Namen aller hier befindlichen Griechen, welche türkische Unterthanen sind”

161

Greek Presence in Habsburg Vienna Appendix 5.2

Shops and offices of Greek merchants in 1816

House no. Comptoirs of the merchants in 1816a

152 467 478 514 515 517 540 565 618 619 620 625 629 686 689

Georg Dumo Gebr. Sussmanoglu Gebrüder Manziarli Konstantin Barba Emanuel Werussy, Kiriak Kirioglu Joseph Vernazza Emanuel Gligorachi Demeter Papa Arseni Nikola Emanuel Proi Söhne M. Oeconomo Georg Manuel d’Isay Matheo Mavrogordato Sterio Haggi Georg Postolaca, Giovanni Patricussi Demeter Constantin Tombacachi Dem. und Nic. Postolaca

695 699

Constantin Tsatsapa Anastas Zappu, Stephan Stojanovitz, Georg Bojnovich, Sizi Kutzuky, Gebrüder Mezevier Hadschi Radusis, Haggi Nedelko und Gebrüder Hadschi Andrea Banajoti Johann Weldary, Georg Nik. Adam Athanas Alex. Berovali Michael Nikolaus Germann, Dem Nikolaus Goe, Athanas Dada Johann Referendar Theodor Bacaloglu Constantin D. Durtza Adam Nicorussi, Gebrüd. D. Diamanty Kyro Nicolitz, Constantin Bellio, Demeter Cazano, Athanas und Naum Lasar, Stammaty Radoconachi Michael Demeter Curti, Theochari Christodulo, Emanuel Magnifico

703 704 706 707 717 719 721 723 724 731

734

Georg Papa

Greek house owners in 1816b

Alexander Patrino

Georg Sina

Kira Nikolitzsch Michael Costa Curtische Erben

162

Ransmayr

Appendix 5.2

Shops and offices of Greek merchants in 1816 (cont.)

House no. Comptoirs of the merchants in 1816a

735

742

Joh. Georg Lazar, Alexander Galatti, Anastas Nic. Nicarussi, G. Neopolo und Mich. Ziguri Georg Simon Sinna, Simon Georg Sina Padia Ralli Nicolo Chrisoho Kyriacus Zerzuli, Michael von Kassanzi, Haggi Constantin Popp Stephan Constantinowich, Charisius Oeconomus (wholesaler), Haggi Naum und Gebr., Kyro Christodulos, Christo Manno Wreta Zechani, Manega und Tunusly

743

Staiko Haggi Calojano

744

Dem. Michael Laso, Peter Wassili, Const. Coscoruli

746

Constantin Conccinoglo, Costa Demeter, Gebr. G. Karsia Demeter Betly, Mich. Adam Mamo Nikolaus Dimo Dora Chiriak Faranga A. und C. Martyrt, Dino Georg Naschy Gebr. Zeggo, Johan Toskoglu Gantzo, Demeter Marcopulo

736 737 739 740 741

750 751 753 756 757

758

Georg Nemson, Georg S. Sabachtani

761

Athanas Abramiades, Demeter Anastasi, Demeter Sissy Dimo, Gabriel Jasmagy, Gebr. Calabachi, Comino Drosso, Basil Nic. Nenovits, Panajottu Nanno, Johann Salomon und Georg Drosino Salomon, Drosso Haggi Saphiridi

Greek house owners in 1816b

Simon Sinna

Charis. Oekonomus Johann Darwarische Erb. Stephan Constantinowitz Johann Georg von Carajanische Erben Peter Darwar

Der griechi­ schen Gemeinde gehörig Der griechischen Gemeinde gehörig

163

Greek Presence in Habsburg Vienna House no. Comptoirs of the merchants in 1816a

762 765 769

Theodor Sturti, Athanas Stamatachi Gebr. Zumetiko, Poliso Rogotti, Panajotti Paguno Constantin di Nicolo

772 773

808

Haduli Werussi, Paraskewa Papa Sakelar Isaak Joh. Adam von Gyra, Sissi Nicola Leporitzo, Thomas Simich Andrä Pignatelli Constantin Marcus Georg Anastas von Gyra Demeter Pamphili Parisi Lambro Lascar Alexander Basili Negroponte und Georgussopulo, Dem. Kapolia, Constantin Wesiruli Emanuel Charisi, Argirius Haggi Demeter Terpko

818 821 828

Nic. M. Giovitza Castori und Kapuda Johann Stavro, Zanni Riso

830 834

Trantaphil Haggi Sterio Sterius Georg Sissanopel, Joh. und Basilio Riso

837 911 913 975 1133 1255 1262

Anagnoste Papa Theo Nikolus Bekella, Andrä Lagonico Demeter Johann Spiridon P. Zellio Joh. d’Isay Deno Joh. Weldari Const. Cochinacky

775 776 784 788 791 793 794

Greek house owners in 1816b

Johann Darwarische Erben Simon Sinna

Maria von Gira

Konstantin von Gyka

Magdalena Pazany Sterio Sißanopel

a The names are quoted as they are written in the source: Redl, Handlungs Gremien 1816 b The names are quoted as they are written in the source: Gutjahr, Vollständiges Verzeichniß

164

Ransmayr

Bibliography

Archival sources



Primary Sources

Archiv der Griechischen Gemeinde zum Hl. Georg in Wien [=AHG], G 7, Fasz. 18; G 10, Fasz. 24. Archiv der Griechischen Gemeinde zur Hl. Dreifaltigkeit in Wien [=AHD], G 1, Fasz. 1; G 6, Fasz. 28; G 10, Fasz. 17; G 11, Fasz. 3; G 13; G 47, Fasz. 1; G 108; S 8, Fasz. 3. Niederösterreichisches Landesarchiv [=NÖLA], Nö. Reg, C-Akten C 33 (de 1786), Karton 311, Nr. 11445; C 33 (de 1787), Karton 340, Nr 21088 ad Nr 3425; C 33 (de 1794), Karton 407, Nr 3238 and C 21 (de 1796), Karton 424, Nr. 3431 ad Nr. 2031. Österreichisches Staatsarchiv [=OeStA], Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv [=HHStA] StAbt Türkei V 27–6, Konskription der ‘türkischen’ Untertanen in Wien. OeStA, Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv [=AVA] Inneres Polizei PHSt 56 (1811) and 79 (1811). Society for Macedonian Studies (Thessaloniki), Bequest of Georgios Kioutoutskas, Πρακτικά Κοινότητος Βιέννης II etc. [Protocols of the Community of Vienna II etc.], photocopy of the protocol book of the community of the Holy Trinity 1786–1823.

Betrachtungen über das Patent vom 20. Februar 1811, Vienna [1811]. Efstratiadis, S., Ο εν Βιέννη ναός του Αγίου Γεωργίου και η κοινότης των οθωμανών υπηκόων [The Church of St. George in Vienna and the Community of the Ottoman Subjects], repr. of the ed. Alexandria 1912, ed. by C. Chotzakoglou, Athens 1997. Enepekides, P., Griechische Handelsgesellschaften und Kaufleute in Wien aus dem Jahre 1766. (Ein Konskriptionsbuch). Aus den Beständen des Wiener Haus-, Hof-, und Staatsarchivs, (Institute for Balkan Studies, 27), Thessaloniki 1959. Grosbauer, J., Vollständiges Verzeichniß aller in der kaiserlichen auch k. k. Haupt- und Residenz-Stadt Wien inner denen Linien befindlichen numerirten Häuser deren Eigenthümer, Strassen, Gässen, Plätze und Schilder nebst genauer Anzeige der Grundbücher und Pfarren zu denen jedes Haus gehört, und einem sehr wichtigen Anhange, Vienna 1805. Grosbauer, J., Vollständiges Verzeichniß aller in der k.k. Haupt- und Residenz-Stadt Wien inner denen Linien befindlichen numerirten Häuser deren Eigenthümer, Strassen, Gässen, Plätze, und Schilder, Vienna 1808. Gutjahr, M., Vollständiges Verzeichniß aller in der k.k. Haupt- und Residenz-Stadt Wien und ihren Vorstädten befindlichen Straßen, Gassen, Plätzen und Häusern, dann derselben Schilde und Eigenthümer, Vienna 1816. Hansen, Th., “Die Umgestaltung des Pfarr-und Schulgebäudes der nichtunirten Griechen in Wien”, Allgemeine Bauzeitung (1861), pp. 164–65, fol. 418–24.

Greek Presence in Habsburg Vienna

165

Häuserschematismen und Straßenverzeichnisse 1786–1908: http://www.digital.wienbibliothek.at/nav/classification/425705 (accessed 06 June 2016). Österreichisches Staatshandbuch 1791–1881: http://alex.onb.ac.at/shb.htm (accessed 06 June 2016). Papastathis, C., “Un document inédit de 1726–1727 sur le conflit hellèno-serbe concernant la chapelle grecque à Vienne”, Balkan Studies 24 (1983), pp. 581–607. Peez, A., “Die Griechischen Kaufleute in Wien. Separat-Abdruck aus der ‘Neuen Freien Presse’”, Vienna 1888. Popovic, V., “Les marchands ottomans à Vienne en 1767”, in Révue historique du Sud-Est Européen 17 (1940), pp. 166–87 Redl, A., Handlungs Gremien und Fabricken Adressen Buch […] für das Jahr […], Vienna 1812–1822. Sicheres Addreß- und Kundschaftsbuch für Einheimische und Fremde, welche vorläufige Kenntniß von der Haupt- und Residenzstadt Wien haben wollen, Vienna 1797. “Verordnung des k.k. Statthalters im Erzherzogthume Österreich unter der Enns vom 1. Mai 1893, Z. 27055, betreffend die Bestimmung der Zugehörigkeit der Bekenner des griechisch-orientalischen Religionsbekenntnisses zu den in Wien bestehenden drei griechisch nichtunirten Kirchengemeinden”, Landes-Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt für das Erzherzogtum Österreich unter der Enns VII, 19 (1893), p. 22. Von Seiner Majestät Kaiser Franz des Zweyten, huldreichst verliehene Privilegien, denen in der k.k. Haupt- und Residenz-Stadt Wien ansässigen Griechen und Wallachen von der orientalischen Religion, k.k. Unterthanen, in Betreff ihres Gottesdienstes in der Pfarrkirche zur heiligen Dreyfaltigkeit am alten Fleischmarkt, Vienna 1822. Walsh, R., Narrative of a Journey from Constantinople to England, London 1828. Wiener Adressbücher 1791–1881: (http://www.digital.wienbibliothek.at/nav/classification/ 427591) (accessed 06 June 2016). Zürner, G., Plan der K.K. Haupt- und Residenzstadt Wien mit Bemerkung der HausNummern und Gassen der K.K. und Staats-Gebäuden, der Fürst- und Graflichen Häuser, auch Sonst Sehenswürdigen Gegenständen Samt Anzeige der Eintrittstaegen – abgetheilt in die Viertel zur Bequemlichkeit für Inn- und Ausländer, Vienna c. 1809. (Digitized by the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze, URL: http://teca.bncf. firenze.sbn.it/ImageViewer/servlet/ImageViewer?idr=BNCF0003495837) (accessed 17 December 2015).



Secondary Literature

Barton, P., “Das Toleranzpatent von 1781. Edition der wichtigsten Fassungen”, in Barton, P. (ed.), Im Zeichen der Toleranz. Aufsätze zur Toleranzgesetzgebung des 18. Jahrhunderts in den Reichen Joseph II., ihren Voraussetzungen und ihren Folgen. Eine Festschrift, Vienna 1981, pp. 152–202.

166

Ransmayr

Beidtel, I., Geschichte der österreichischen Staatsverwaltung 1740–1848, 2 vols., ­Innsbruck 1896–98. Bidermann, H., “Die Griechisch-Gläubigen und ihr Kirchenwesen in Oesterreich-­ Ungarn”, Statistische Monatsschrift 10 (1884), pp. 381–413. Brandt, H.-H., “Der österreichische ‘Staatsbankrott’ von 1811. Rechtliche Problematik und politische Konsequenzen”, in G. Lingelbach (ed.), Staatsfinanzen—Staatsverschuldung – Staatsbankrotte in der europäischen Staaten- und Rechtsgeschichte, ­Cologne 2000, pp. 55–65. Calabi, D. and S.T. Christensen (eds.), Cultural Exchange in Early Modern Europe, vol. 2: Cities and Cultural Exchange in Europe, 1400–1700, Cambridge 2007. Chaloupek, G., Eigner, P., and Wagner, M. (eds.), Wien Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 2 vols., Vienna 1991. Conforti, C. and Sánchez de Madariaga, E., “Churches and confraternities”, in D. Calabi and S.T. Christensen (eds.), Cultural Exchange in Early Modern Europe, vol. 2: Cities and Cultural Exchange in Europe, 1400–1700, Cambridge 2007, pp. 349–60. Csendes, P. and Opll, F. (eds.), Wien. Geschichte einer Stadt, vol. 3: Von 1790 bis zur G ­ egenwart, Vienna 2006. Czeike, F., Wien. Innere Stadt. Kunst- und Kulturführer, Vienna 1993. Czeike, F., Historisches Lexikon Wien (6 vols.), Vienna 2004. Do Paço, D., “Institutionaliser la coexistence religieuse? ‘Turcs et sujets turcs de Vienne’, dans la seconde moitié du XVIIIe siècle”, in D. Do Paço, M. Monge, and L. Tatarenko (eds.), Des religions dans la ville. Ressorts et stratégies de coexistence dans l’Europe des XVIe–XVIIIe siècles, Rennes 2010, pp. 143–64. Do Paço, D., “Le marchand grec existe-t-il? Remarques sur les représentations collectives et les identités des métiers viennois dans le Kaufruf de Johann Christian Brand de 1775”, in C. Lebeau and W. Schmale (eds.), Images en capitale: Vienne, fin XVIIe– début XIXe siècles, Bochum 2011, pp. 53–72. Do Paço, D., “L’Orient à Vienne, 1739–1792. L’intégration des marchands et des diplomates ottomans dans la ville et la Résidence impériale”, PhD Thesis, University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris 2012. Do Paço, D., “Identité politique et grand commerce des marchands ottomans à Vienne, 1739–1792”, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome – Italie et Méditerranée modernes et contemporaines 125 (2013), available at http://mefrim.revues.org/1258 (accessed 24 May 2016). Do Paço, D., L’Orient à Vienne au dix-huitième siècle (Oxford University Studies in the Enlightenment, 5), Oxford 2015. Dura, N., Kirche in Bewegung. Das religiöse Leben der Rumänen in Österreich, Vienna 2007. Eggert, K., “Die griechisch-orientalische Kathedrale am Fleischmarkt in Wien”, Stachys 4–5 (1966), pp. 61–83.

Greek Presence in Habsburg Vienna

167

Gonsa, Ch., “Die griechische Diaspora in Österreich 1944–1947”, in A. Argyriou, K.A. Dimadis, and A.D. Lazaridou (eds.), Ο  ελληνικός  κόσμος  ανάμεσα  στην  Ανατολή  και τη Δύση  1453–1981.  Πρακτικά του Α΄ Ευρωπαϊκού Συνεδρίου Νεοελληνικών Σπουδών,  Βερολίνο, 2–4 Οκτωβρίου 1998 [The Greek World between the East and the West 1453– 1981. Proceedings of the 1. European Congress of Modern Greek Studies, Berlin, 2–4 October 1998], vol. 2, Athens 1999, pp. 321–29.­ Heimann-Jelinek, F. (ed.), Die Türken in Wien. Geschichte einer jüdischen Gemeinde, ­Vienna 2010. Herzfeld, M., “Zur Orienthandelspolitik Österreichs unter Maria Theresia in der Zeit von 1740–1771”, Archiv für österreichische Geschichte 108 (1919), pp. 215–343. Katsiardi-Hering, O., Η ελληνική παροικία της Τεργέστης (1751–1830) [The Greek Community in Trieste (1751–1830)] (Vivliothiki Sofias N. Saripolou, 52), Athens 1986. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Greeks in the Habsburg Lands (17th–19th Centuries): Expectations, Realities, Nostalgias”, in H. Kröll (ed.), Austrian-Greek Encounters over the Centuries. History, Diplomacy, Politics, Arts, Economics, Innsbruck 2007, pp. 147–57. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Grenz-, Staats- und Gemeindekonskriptionen in der ­Habsburgermonarchie: Identitätendiskurs bei den Menschen aus dem Süden”, in M. Oikonomou, M.A. Stassinopoulou, and I. Zelepos (eds.), Griechische Dimensionen südosteuropäischer Kultur seit dem 18. Jahrhundert. Verortung, Bewegung, Grenzüberschreitung (Studien zur Geschichte Südosteuropas, 17), Frankfurt am Main 2011, pp. 231–51. Katsiardi-Hering, O. and Madouvalos, I., “The Tolerant Policy of the Habsburg Authorities towards the Orthodox People from South-Eastern Europe and the Formation of National Identities (18th – early 19th Century)”, Balkan Studies 49 (2014), pp. 5–34. Katsiardi-Hering, O. and Stassinopoulou, M., “The long 18th Century of Greek Commerce in the Habsburg Empire. Social careers”, in H. Heppner, P. Urbanitsch, and R. Zedlinger (eds.), Social Change in the Habsburg Monarchy (Das achtzehnte ­Jahrhundert und Österreich: Internationale Beihefte, 3), Bochum 2011, pp. 191–213. Kisch, W., Die alten Strassen und Plaetze Wien’s und ihre historisch interessanten H ­ äuser. Ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte Wien’s mit Rücksicht auf vaterländische Kunst, ­Architektur, Musik und Literatur, 2 vols., Vienna 1883–95. Konecny, E., “Die Familie Dumba und ihre Bedeutung für Wien und Österreich”, ­Dissertationen der Universität Wien, 179, Vienna 1986. Kurmuş, O., “The Cotton Famine and its Effects on the Ottoman Empire”, in H. İslamoğlu-İnan (ed.), The Ottoman Empire and the World-Economy (Studies in ­Modern Capitalism), Cambridge 1987, pp. 160–69. Laios, G., “Review of Enepekides, P.K., Griechische Handelsgesellschaften und Kaufleute in Wien aus dem Jahre 1766 (ein Konskriptionsbuch)”, Deltion tis Istorikis kai ­Ethnologikis Etaireias tis Ellados 14 (1960), pp. 615–17. Laios, G., Σίμων Σίνας [Simon Sinas] (Viografiai Ethnikon Evergeton, 1), Athens 1972.

168

Ransmayr

Laios, G., Η Σιάτιστα και οι εμπορικοί οίκοι Χατζημιχαήλ και Μανούση (17ος–19ος αι.) [Siatista and the Hatzimihail and Manoussis Commercial Houses, 17th–19th cent.], Makedoniki Vivliothiki, 60, Thessaloniki 1982. Lanier, A., Die Geschichte des Bank- und Handelshauses Sina (Europäische Hochschul­ schriften, Series 3, Geschichte und ihre Hilfswissenschaften, 805), Frankfurt 1998. Lichtenberger, E., Die Wiener Altstadt. Von der mittelalterlichen Bürgerstadt zur City, 2 vols., Vienna 1977. Loukatos, Sp., “Ο πολιτικός βίος των Ελλήνων της Βιέννης κατά την τουρκοκρατίαν και τα αυτοκρατορικά προς αυτούς προνόμια” [The Cultural Life of the Greeks of Vienna d­ uring Turkish Reign and the Imperial Privileges for them], Deltion tis Istorikis kai Ethnologikis Etaireias tis Ellados 15 (1961), pp. 287–350. Mantouvalos, I., “Conscriptiones Graecorum in Eighteenth-Century Central Europe. Crossing Borders: The Sociocultural Identification of Migrants from the Balkans to Hungarian Territories”, in H. Heppner and E. Posch (eds.), Encounters in Europe’s Southeast. The Habsburg Empire and the Orthodox World in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (The Eighteenth Century and the Habsburg Monarchy. ­International Series, 5), Bochum 2012, pp. 121–33. Medaković, D., Serben in Wien, Novi Sad 2001. Mittenzwei, I., Zwischen Gestern und Morgen. Wiens frühe Bourgeoisie an der Wende vom 18. zum 19. Jahrhundert, Bürgertum in der Habsburgermonarchie, 7, Vienna 1998. Németh, Th., “Autonome orthodoxe Gemeinden in Cisleithanien”, Kanon 21 (2010), pp. 82–102. Pantovic, L., “Die Wiener Orthodoxen Serben”, unpublished PhD, University of Vienna, Vienna 2004. Pauly, M. and Scheutz, M., “Der Raum und die Geschichte am Beispiel der Stadtgeschichtsforschung”, in M. Pauly and M. Scheutz (eds.), Cities and their Spaces. Concepts and their Use in Europe, Städteforschung, Reihe A, Darstellungen, 88, ­Cologne 2014, pp. 1–14. Peyfuss, M., “Eine griechische Kaffeehausrunde in Wien im Jahre 1837”, in G. Hering (ed.), Dimensionen griechischer Literatur und Geschichte. Festschrift für Pavlos Tzermias zum 65. Geburtstag (Studien zur Geschichte Südosteuropas, 10), Frankfurt am Main 1993, pp. 161–75. Plöchl, W., Die Wiener orthodoxen Griechen. Eine Studie zur Rechts- und Kulturgeschichte der Kirchengemeinden zum Hl. Georg und zur Hl. Dreifaltigkeit und zur ­Errichtung der Metropolis von Austria (Kirche und Recht, 16), Vienna 1983. Ransmayr, A., “Υγίαινε φίλον ήτορ !”, Stilistische Untersuchungen zur neugriechischen Epistolographie anhand der Briefe von Konstantinos M. Koumas, diploma thesis, University of Vienna, Vienna 2008. Sandgruber, R., Ökonomie und Politik. Österreichische Wirtschaftsgeschichte vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart (Themenband Österreichische Geschichte), Vienna 1995.

Greek Presence in Habsburg Vienna

169

Sandgruber, R., Traumzeit für Millionäre. Die 929 reichsten Wienerinnen und Wiener im Jahr 1910, Vienna 2013. Schmidtbauer, P., “Zur Familienstruktur der Griechen in Wien”, Wiener Geschichtsblätter 35 (1980), pp. 150–60. Schneider, M., Griechische Vereine in Österreich 1918–1974, diploma thesis, University of Vienna, Vienna 2013. Seirinidou, V., “Griechen in Wien im 18. Jahrhundert. Soziale Identitäten im Alltag”, Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert und Österreich 12 (1997), pp. 7–18. Seirinidou, V., “Έλληνες στη Βιέννη”, 1780–1850 [Greeks in Vienna, 1780–1850], PhD Thesis, University of Athens, Athens 2002. Seirinidou, V., “Βαλκάνιοι  έμποροι  στην  Αψβουργική  Μοναρχία  (18ος–μέσα  19ου αιώνα.  Εθνοτικές ταυτότητες και ερευνητικές αμηχανίες” [Balkan Merchants in the Habsburg Monarchy (18th – mid-19th Century). Ethnic Identities and Research Embarrassment], in M. Stassinopoulou and M.-Ch. Chatziioannou (eds.), Διασπορά, Δίκτυα,  Διαφωτισμός [Diaspora, Networks, Enlightenment] (Tetradia ergasias, 28), Athens 2005, pp. 53–82. Seirinidou, V., “When the Turk is a Greek Orthodox and the Vlach a native Austrian. Greek Tourkomerites and Entopioi in 18th–19th Century Vienna”, in M. Efthymiou (ed.), La société grecque sous la domination ottomane. Économie, identité, structure sociale et conflits, Athens 2010, pp. 79–91. Seirinidou, V., Έλληνες στη Βιέννη (18ος–μέσα 19ου αιώνα) [Greeks in Vienna (18th – mid19th century)], Athens 2011. Staikos, K., Die in Wien gedruckten griechischen Bücher 1749–1800 / Τα τυπωμένα στη Βιέννη  ελληνικά βιβλία 1749–1800, Athens 1995. Staikos, M., Γερμανός  Καραβαγγέλης  Μητροπολίτης  Αμάσειας  και  Έξαρχος  Κεντρώας  Ευρώπης (1924–1935) [Germanos Karavangelis Metropolitan of Amaseia and Exarchos of Central Europe (1924–1935)], Thessaloniki 1998. Stassinopoulou, M.A., Weltgeschichte im Denken eines griechischen Aufklärers. Konstantinos Michail Koumas als Historiograph (Studien zur Geschichte Südosteuropas, 9), Frankfurt am Main 1992. Stassinopoulou, M.A., “Griechen in Wien”, in Wir. Zur Geschichte und Gegenwart der Zuwanderung nach Wien. 217. Sonderausstellung des Historischen Museums der Stadt Wien, 19. September bis 29. Dezember 1996, Vienna 1996, pp. 39–43. Stassinopoulou, M.A., “Αυστρία” [Austria], in I. Hassiotis, O. Katsiardi-Hering, and E. Ambatzi (eds.), Οι Έλληνες στη Διασπορά 15ος − 21oς αι. [The Greeks in the Diaspora 15th–21th Century], Athens 2006, pp. 168–73. Stassinopoulou, M.A. “Αρχειακές  πηγές  για  την  ιστορία της  κοινότητας  της  Αγίας  Τριάδας  της Βιέννης. Νέες προοπτικές” [Archival Sources on the History of the Community of the Holy Trinity in Vienna. New Perspectives], Eoa kai esperia 7 (2007), pp. 401–08. Stassinopoulou, M.A., “Diplomatischer Alltag im 19. Jahrhundert: Markos Dragoumis und Ioannis Gennadios in Wien”, in K. Belke, E. Kislinger, A. Külzer, and

170

Ransmayr

M.A. Stassinopoulou (eds.), Byzantina Mediterranea. Festschrift für Johannes Koder zum 65. Geburtstag, Vienna 2007, pp. 617–31. Stassinopoulou, M.A., “Habe nun Philologie studiert, und dann? Philologische Karrieren und Diaspora-Schulen am Beispiel des Eugen Zomarides”, in Σκεύoς εις τιμήν. Festschrift zum 25-jährigen Jubiläum der Bischofsweihe und 20-jährigen Jubiläum der Inthronisation zum Metropoliten von Austria und Exarchen von Ungarn und Mitteleuropa Dr. Michael Staikos, Athens 2011, pp. 787–94. Stoianovich, Tr., “The Conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant”, The Journal of Economic History 20/2 (1960), pp. 234–313. Stökl, E., “Der Protestantismus in Wien während der Toleranzzeit von 1781–1848”, unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Vienna, Vienna 1949. Tantner, A., Ordnung der Häuser, Beschreibung der Seelen. Hausnummerierung und Seelenkonskription in der Habsburgermonarchie (Wiener Schriften zur Geschichte der Neuzeit, 4), Innsbruck 2007. Tsigaras, G., Ο ναός του αγίου Γεωργίου Βιέννης. Ιστορία και τέχνη / Die Kirche zum Heiligen Georg in Wien. Geschichte und Kunst, Thessaloniki 2005. Vocelka, K., Multikonfessionelles Österreich. Religionen in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Vienna 2013. Winner, G., Die Klosteraufhebungen in Niederösterreich und Wien (Forschungen zur Kirchengeschichte Österreichs, 3), Vienna 1967.

chapter 6

Endowments as Instruments of Integration and Memory in an Urban Environment: The Panadi Building in Vienna Maria A. Stassinopoulou The administration of endowments of Greek Orthodox persons living in the territories of the Habsburg Empire belonged to the central functions of the Greek Orthodox communities of St. George and of the Holy Trinity in Vienna. From the 1770s until the end of the empire in 1918 approximately one hundred and forty men and women included in their wills provisions for endowments and legacies, often more than one per donor.1 The testators regularly bestowed sums on one or both the communities and mostly also on one or both of the churches associated to the communities, and on the school, which had been founded in 1801. Benefactors provided further, sometimes with substantial ­donations, for welfare institutions outside the community, in Vienna and in other cities of the Habsburg Empire. They also supported with legacies communities in the territories of origin of their families, mostly in the Ottoman ­Empire (later forming part of nation-states in the Balkans). Donations, legacies, and endowments were administered by specified executors, often jointly with the members of the board of the communities or the bequeathed institutions, depending on the provisions of the donor. Most of the endowments sought to alleviate pain and sickness among the aged and impaired, for ­example by p ­ roviding for hospital beds, or enabled schooling for the young with direct ­endowments for schools or with scholarships for individuals. Endowments2 to the direct benefit of the communities came to form the backbone of their income, in particular as regards the sustainment of the school, but also of both church buildings. They also provided for the lodgings 1 An early version of this chapter was presented in April 2014 at the esshc Conference in ­Vienna (see Introduction). In June 2014 the Austrian Research Fund (fwf) approved a ­research project on ‘Social Commitment in the Greek Communities of Vienna (18th-20th century)’, P 27140-G16, under my supervision. My thanks for reading and commenting the present version go to the project’s main researchers Stefano Saracino and Nathalie Patricia Soursos; I have collaborated closely and fruitfully in the past few years with Anna Ransmayr on questions regarding the Greeks of Vienna and thank her for her useful comments. 2 Endowments have received in the past three decades a mounting interest both as an investment trend and as the object of historical research: see indicatively Borgolte, Stiftung und

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004335448_008

172

Stassinopoulou

and wages for the school and church personnel of both communities. Legacies could be relatively small and of an exclusively self-memorial character, for example a sum yielding interest to be used to cover the costs of providing and maintaining a grave and/or of an annual memorial church service. It appears that in order to simplify auditing and control as well as money transfers and investment decisions, the community of the Holy Trinity bundled revenues from individual endowments together into administrative groups: the funds for the poor (Armenfonds), the funds for the school (Schulfonds), and the funds for the church (Kirchenfonds).3 Mentions of the more substantial endowments, particularly those related to the school, can be found in local journals as early as the first half of the 19th century.4 During the 19th century selected data on larger legacies and on their administration were published in the form of the accounting statements of the communities.5 In the early 20th century the then priest of the church of St.  George, Sofronios Efstratiadis, one of several Greek Orthodox priests in Vienna who were also avid scholars, published a series of articles in the learned journal of the patriarchate of Alexandria, Ecclesiastical Beacon (Εκκλησιαστικός Φάρος). A collection of the articles appeared in book form in 1912 with a supplement of selected documents. Despite its flaws, the book still forms the core of published knowledge about the community of St. George and includes excerpts of original documents pertaining to both communities. In it Efstratiadis includes lists of donors to the community of St. George. The administration of the endowments for both communities was subjected to regular and rigid control by state authorities. Therefore materials exist in several archives, mainly the Austrian State Archive, the Lower Austrian Archive,

Memoria; Borgolte et al., Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens; von Reden, Stiftungen zwischen Politik und Wirtschaft; Adam, Buying Respectability. 3 In using those categories, the provisions seem to have corresponded to general legal provisions, which set mandatory sums to be taxed from inheritances and paid to the state; see Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch 1811 §651 and 694; and later in the mid-nineteenth century Miller, Neuer Universal-Briefsteller, p. 315; Winiwarter, Handbuch der Justiz- und politischen Gesetze, ii, p. 238; Ditscheiner, Neuestes …Universal-Geschäfts-Handbuch, ii, p. 659. 4 Oesterreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichts- und Staatskunde, 22 November 1837, pp. 370–71. 5 The team of the project ‘Social Commitment in the Greek Communities of Vienna’ has ­located an almost complete series of printed accounting statements (Rechenschaftsberichte) for the yearly assembly from 1862 to 1926 in the archive of the Holy Trinity (Archiv der Griechischen Gemeinde zur Hl. Dreifaltigkeit in Wien [=ahd]); see Soursos, “Financial Management of Donations”, on the accounting system of the community of the Holy Trinity.

Endowments as Instruments of Integration AND Memory

173

and the Vienna Archive. Vaso Seirinidou has used testaments and legacies from 1780 to 1850 housed in the Vienna Archive.6 In this chapter I focus on a single case, the Constantin Panadi testament and endowment, and particularly on the building, which was endowed to the Institute for the Blind in Vienna. The guiding hypothesis is that endowments and in particular those based on immovable property served their purpose to perpetuate the memory of the benefactors usque ad aeternitatem more successfully than other legacies.7 As a stable type of investment they survived financial crises such as the Austrian sovereign default of 1811, the crash of 1873, which hit Austrian economy and particularly the banking system hard, and even the end of the Habsburg Empire in 1918. This became apparent in 1919, when the community of the Holy Trinity decided to discontinue the operation of the National School, a private bilingual school (German and Greek), organized according to the system of Austro-Hungarian elementary public schools and funded by the communities. The school had been accorded public school status in 1804. It was a grammar school (Elementar-Schule) controlled by the state, offering teaching in German as opposed to Latin (Lateinische Schule) and enabling teaching in a further language, if so wished by the school founders (if this was a privately funded school), in this case in Greek.8 Despite the pleas of the school director, Eugen Zomarides, the community elders were too shocked by the effects of the war and its aftermath to consider continuation of the school. In his letters Zomarides reminded them of the unwise decision to sell in 1908 the so called Schulstiftshaus Nr. 748, the building at the corner of the Untere Bäckerstrasse and Schönlaterngasse, neighboring the old University of Vienna (until 1884).9 This endowment, together with later endowments based on buildings, like the one by Anna Alexander in 1844, but also numerous 6 See Seirinidou, Έλληνες στη Βιέννη. See now a first evaluation of archival findings of “Social Commitment in the Greek Communities of Vienna”, available at https://wienergriechen .­univie.ac.at (accessed 23 May 2016). 7 For a general introduction to Greek beneficence and the importance of diaspora communities in the 19th century see Theodorou, “Oeuvres de bienfaisance”; also Arvanitakis, Το  φαινόμενο  του  ευεργετισμού. On urban wealth and its observation through legacies and ­inventories in further Greek diaspora communities of the Habsburg Empire, see Mantouvalos, “Έλληνες  διαθέτες” and Karadima, “Διαφυλάσσοντας  την  περιουσία”. For further reading on Ottoman inventories as indicators of urban wealth see Kotzageorgis and Papastamatiou “Wealth accumulation” and Davidova, Wealth in the Ottoman and Post-Ottoman Balkans. 8 Röskau-Rydel, Kultur an der Peripherie des Habsburger Reiches, pp. 64–65. The ‘Natio­ nalschulen’ can be followed through the printing of grammars and primaries in German for schools of different ethnic and linguistic communities. 9 ahd, G30, F1 (2).

174

Stassinopoulou

legacies in obligations, had covered the costs of the school throughout the 19th century. As Zomarides pointed out, stocks had failed the community.10 Of course, the endowment buildings themselves incurred costs for maintenance, which was necessary for the continuation of profit yielding. These costs were a recurring subject of discussion in the board meetings of the communities, but selling could not be considered, as most legacies included provisions that prohibited the administering community or the executors from selling the buildings. It was only after the withering away of the communities and the ­reduction of member numbers in the early 20th century11 that selling became an option. An endowment based on a building thus ensured remembrance both among the community members and among the people benefiting from it in a more permanent way; the building also secured the memorial function in the wider urban context. It is in this context that this chapter follows a building’s history. It proposes to look at the changing fates of Viennese lieux de mémoire in a rapidly expanding metropolis, and focuses on an area of the city connected closely with the Balkan Orthodox migrants during the heyday of their activities in Vienna, the so-called Greek neighborhood. It thus attempts to bring closer migration history and urban history and to underline the flexible identity and network systems of the members of these merchant communities. As the will of testators was often to transcend ethnic and confessional boundaries, looking into endowments also leads us to question the boundaries between fields according to ethnic or confessional identities, which often form our perspective in migration history. In the case of the migrants from the Ottoman Empire to Vienna, Greek ­Orthodox and Jewish (largely Sephardic) trade networks are usually discussed separately, despite the fact that the involved persons were active in the same trade and finance systems, followed similar patterns of arrival, organized family and company networks in a comparable manner, and followed similar strategies of integration in the capital of the Habsburg Empire.12 Information on Jewish merchants, who were Ottoman subjects and were often in Vienna, and on their trade activity was to be found in 1795 at the Alter Fleischmarkt, the neighborhood of the Greek Orthodox merchants, and not for 10 11 12

Stassinopoulou, “Habe nun Philologie studiert”, p. 794, fn. 32. See Ransmayr, “Untertanen des Sultans oder des Kaisers”. On the subject of common traits and different characteristics between the two groups see Katsiardi-Hering, “Christian and Jewish Ottoman Subjects”; on modes of expanding trade outside the “confining limitations […] of ethnic economic networks” among early modern Jewish merchants in the Mediterranean see Trivellato, Familiarity, quote on p. 272 and passim.

Endowments as Instruments of Integration AND Memory

175

example at the offices of their fellow Jewish merchants, who were subjects of the ­Austrian emperor.13 Thus the unifying element was in this case citizenship (or subjecthood).14 The joint location of trade activities of Jewish and Greek Orthodox merchants from the Ottoman Empire is documented by the sharing of trade offices. On the ground floor of the school fund building at the Untere Bäckerstrasse already mentioned above, one could find in 1833 the company office of the Ottoman Sephardic Jewish family of Benvenisti.15 In the Panadi building, on which I ­focus in the present chapter, ground floor stores were rented to an Ottoman Jew, Salomon Elias, at least until 1834.16 It is highly questionable whether these networks survived the massive changes in the structure of the Jewish population of Vienna after the 1840s (which coincided with the decline of the Greek presence) as a distinct group with a migrant background. From the point of view of urban habitats, it is interesting that of the remaining Balkan Orthodox migrants, only one family chose to invest in the Ringstrasse, the Dumba.17 By the time the private residences on the Ringstrasse were being built, the economic heyday of the Greek Orthodox investors of Vienna was long past and the high risk of this investment did not attract the other Greek Orthodox wealthy few, who seem to have preferred to remain in their traditional locations in the first district (­Innere Stadt), or in the second and third district (Leopoldstadt and Landstrasse) close to the Danube arm, or to move away to suburban residential areas. At the same time the once potent and rather small group of the Sephardic Jews with its particular p ­ rivileges of the 18th century was also losing its leading position ­inside the continuously growing Jewish community of Vienna, while simultaneously trying to keep a separate identity.18 As late as the last third of the 19th century, members of the Sephardic community would send their children to the ‘National School’ at the Fleischmarkt, where they took all courses, with the exception of religion, which they were taught at the Sephardic temple in the Zirkusgasse.19 13

The inventory “Jüdische Handelsleute, welche türkische Unterthanen sind, sich meistens in Wien aufhalten und auf dem alten Fleischmarkt zu erfragen sind” includes among ­others Amar, Benvenisti, and Saltiel, see: Hof- und Staats-schematismus […] der Stadt Wien 1795, p. 40. 14 See Ransmayr, “Untertanen des Sultans oder des Kaisers”. 15 Haller, Allgemeiner Handlungs-Almanach, p. 195 (Israelitisch-Türkische Handelsleute). 16 Wiener Zeitung, 22 May 1834, p. 516. 17 Konecny, Die Familie Dumba; Klee, “Nicolaus Dumba”. 18 Stassinopoulou, “Trading Places”, p. 171. 19 Stassinopoulou, “Habe nun Philologie”, p. 793.

176

Stassinopoulou

As regards endowment practices, the stronger segregation of the Jewish population compared to the non-Catholic Christian confessions (Akatholiken) seems to have led to welfare policies almost exclusively inside the community,20 with the exception of wealthy maecenas.21 Greek Orthodox donors on the other hand seem to have spread their legacies widely, both geographically and outside their own confession, to include Catholic recipients (as is also the case with Panadi). It is Dumba, again, whom we find transcending religious boundaries in a welfare project. Dumba, who would in 1893 be named an honorary member of the Viennese Society against Antisemitism (Verein zur Abwehr gegen Antisemitismus [Abwehrverein]), founded in 1873 together with Josephine von Wertheimstein (née Gomperz), the sister of ­Sophie von Todesco, an inter-religious asylum for children in Zillingdorf, not far from his estate in Tattendorf.22 But in this case, it is rather the political ­liberalism of the ­Wertheimsteins and Dumba, their specific profile as maecenas, and the function of their salons, which connected them as members of the Viennese elites, more than their religious or ethnic identity and their older partly common mercantile networks.23

The Panadi Testament and Endowments

The Panadi building, at 716 Laurenzerberg Street, close to the loading point of the Danube arm and at the edge of the ‘Greek neighborhood’, formed the core of the endowment of Constantin Panadi, son of Constantin.24 Panadi bought the building both as a place of residence and as an investment at some time between 1821 and 1824.25 With his will of May 21/June 2 1851 he endowed the building to the Institute for the Blind (Blindeninstitut). The institution was 20 Duizend-Jensen, Jüdische Gemeinden. 21 For a recent discussion of Jewish patronage of the arts in fin de siécle Vienna see Shapira, Style and Seduction. 22 Koslik, Geschichte des Kinder-Asyls; Giacon, “Hugo von Hofmannsthal – Yella, Felix und Mysa Oppenheimer”, p. 28. 23 Kobau, Rastlos zieht die Flucht der Jahre, p. 297 points out that the Werthheimsteins are not to be found in projects for the poor Jews, mostly from Galicia, and that they preferred to support projects independently of their confessional identity. 24 In official documents and in newspaper articles the name including the patronymic ­appears as Constantin Constantin Panadi or Constantin C. Panadi. 25 The building belonged in 1816 to Georg Hart. See Gutjahr, Vollständiges Verzeichniß, p. 28; in 1821 to Magdalena Hart, Gutjahr, Vollständiges Verzeichniß, p. 33; and in 1824 to ­Constantin and Magdalena Panadi, Hormayr, Wien, ii/1, Urkundenbuch p. cli.

Endowments as Instruments of Integration AND Memory

177

r­ esponsible both for the school for poor blind children, supported mainly by the state, and the Society for the Accomodation and Employment of Adult Blind Persons (Verein zur Versorgung und Beschäftigung Erwachsener Blinder), which was largely supported by endowments. Since its founding in the late 1820s the Institute for the Blind had been continually expanding and appeared more and more in testaments and legacies and in philanthropic events of the Viennese upper classes.26 With his substantial endowment Panadi was thus in accordance with the trends of his time in the capital of the Habsburg Empire. Panadi also made minor donations towards conservative causes expressing loyalty to the Emperor; this is at least suggested by his donation to the ­Freywilligen-Corps fighting against the 1848 uprising in Lombardy.27 As is usual with larger and more complex endowments, it took some time to regulate details of the execution, gain approval of the authorities, and complete the application procedures. Nevertheless, in the late 1850s the endowment must have been already in place, but not well known. Already in ­November 1860 the community sought to correct the low demand by issuing a public printed announcement of the available openings, published in the four languages sometimes used in its official printed material during this period— that is, in German, Greek, Romanian (in Cyrillic Alphabet) and literary Serbian (Slaveno-Serbisch). A copy of the letter of endowment (Stiftbrief), held in the Archive of the Holy Trinity (ahd), dates from 1866 and mentions a set of decisions through the state authorities that had to do with liabilities of the testator and relevant legal provisions.28 But it appears that by 1862 nine persons had already received grants from the Constantin Panadi endowment.29 In his testament Panadi gave precise directions as to his funeral (it should be magnificent) and his grave monument (a pyramid out of granite with a wreath).30 The grave, more of an obelisk, still exists in the old cemetery of 26

27 28

29 30

Newspapers regularly reported on the progress of the institution, see for example Österreichischer Beobachter 14 October 1843, pp. 1135–6; as an example of the philanthropic events see the announcement of a bal masqué to benefit the institution in the Wiener Zeitung, 26 January 1853, p. 83. Wiener Zeitung, 7. April 1848, p. 3. Panadi appears with minor donations also in other lists of donors, see for example Institut der barmherzigen Schwestern, p. 44. Endowment Letter (Stiftbrief) dated August 20, 1866 and regulating the role of the Holy Trinity signed by the elders of the community: two copies exist, one at the Lower Austrian Archive (nöla), Landesfürstliche u. staatliche Verwaltung, Selekte, Stiftbriefsammlung, Geistliche Stiftbriefsammlung, Karton 95: Dreifaltigkeitskirche Wien, P-Z, and one in the community archive ahd, G41, F3, 2. Österreichisches Pädagogisches Wochenblatt, 19 March1862, p. 189. Testament Panadi, ahd, G41, F2, 2 (N151); see also Havlik, “Der Sankt Marxer Friedhof”.

178

Stassinopoulou

­ ienna at St. Marx. Due to the fact that the community and the Institute for the V Blind were bound by the legacies of the donor, it is also in a fairly good condition, as opposed to most other monuments of the Greek section of the cemetery, which are slowly withering away; the Panadi grave was renovated in 1902, probably in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the donor’s death. The careful design and choice of material is a further reminder of Panadi’s urge to be perceived even posthumously as a member of the upper middle class, embedded in the habitus of this group, in this case the renewed interest in obelisks and pyramids as monuments (part of the widespread Egyptomania of the era), rapidly gaining in popularity in mid-19th-century Vienna.31 According to the grave inscription and the parish books of the Holy Trinity, Panadi was born in 1774 in Craiova, an important commercial and administrative center west of Bucharest on the river Jiu (German Schil, Hungarian Zsil), a tributary to the Danube, and thus on the commercial routes from the ­Ottoman Empire. Due to its strategic position the city repeatedly suffered ­during the wars of the 18th and 19th centuries. It was burnt down in 1800, during the third campaign of the Sultan against the pasha (by then vizier) of ­Vidin, Pazvantoğlu. The district around Craiova belonged to the districts, which s­ upported the uprising under Tudor Vladimirescu in 1821 and was once more partly destroyed. Apart from some information provided by Panadi himself on his life before arriving to Vienna, we do not know much about him; from the 1860s the name appears in Chios and Constantinople, but if and how it is related to the Vienna Panadi is not clear. The provenance of his fortune is also not clear; there is no mention of a specific commercial activity. As Craiova was the second most important city in the Walachian administration, Panadi might have been a member of this administration. The fact that he acquired the building in Vienna at some point between 1821 and 1824 would suggest that he decided to leave Craiova after the events of 1821. But he did not sever connections with his hometown. When his brother, Eustatius, was declared mentally ill in June 1843, Constantin sent him to live with relatives in their hometown.32 31 Kitlitschka, Grabkult und Grabskulptur in Wien; on funerary architecture after the Napoleonic campaigns, see among others Curl, The Egyptian Revival, 281–310. 32 Constantin Panadi declared by public announcement on 30 November 1843, that he was not liable for his brother’s debts, and that the latter had by that time left Craiova again. The announcement was published repeatedly: Erklärung, Wiener Zeitung, Allgemeines I­ ntelligenzblatt, 6, 9, and 12 December1843. As late as 1852 Panadi made a small d­ onation to the Society for the support of the convalescent mentally ill (Unterstützungsverein für aus der hießigen k.k. Irrenheil-Anstalt geheilt entlassene Personen), Wiener Zeitung, 30 March 1852.

Endowments as Instruments of Integration AND Memory

179

Alongside the endowment for the Institute for the Blind, Panadi’s testament also included legacies for the personnel of both Greek Orthodox churches in Vienna (but not for the school). It also provided for a Greek Orthodox church in Sibiu/ Hermannstadt. Panadi does not mention the patron saint, but speaks of a church in the ‘Vorstadt Hermannstadt’, probably a misunderstanding of the person writing down the testament. He mentions the parents of the ­appointed executor of the testament, Zenobius Popp, as patrons of the church (“wovon [Zenobius Popp] das Patronatsrecht von den Eltern besitzt”).33 Hatzikonstantinos Pop34 had been one of the main donors of the new building of the main Orthodox church of the Holy Transfiguration (1797–1800), which would be demolished in 1902 to give place to the (still standing) Orthodox ­metropolitan church of the city. At the same time he had been the main donor for the ­reconstruction after an earthquake in 1802 of the church of the Annunciation with its adjacent cemetery in Groapă (am Graben) in the Josefi­ nian suburb (Josefstadt) of Sibiu.35 This must have been the church that Panadi bequeathed with his donation. As opposed to the churches of St. George and of the Holy Trinity of Vienna, which Panadi named repeatedly throughout his testament as the churches of the Orthodox Christians with no ethnic specification (“der orthodoxen Christen”), he left the Sibiu legacy explicitly for a church of the Orthodox Christian Romanians (“für die Kirche der orthodoxen christlichen Romanen”). A further legacy in the testament provided for the orphans of Bucharest. The testament of the year 1851 also left sums in cash and mostly in bonds and obligations for individuals in Vienna, in Sibiu/Hermannstadt, in Craiova, and in Bucharest. The specified caretaker of the endowments in Sibiu/ Hermannstadt was the member of the board and central figure of the community life in the mid-19th century, Zenobius Constantine Popp von Böhmstetten.36 Not only was Popp 33

Testament Panadi, ahd, G 41, F2, 2. On the strong economic connection of the family to Hermannstadt still in the19th century see Oettinger, Wegweiser, 573–74; on the church before 1797 see Cicanci, Companile Grecești din Transilvania, pp. 159–63. 34 On Hatzikonstantinos Pop see Papacostea-Danielopolu, “Organizarea”; Diamantis, Τύποι εμπόρων, pp. 71–75. 35 Karathanassis, L’Hellénisme en Transylvanie, pp. 97–103; on the donations for the church of the Holy Transfiguration; for a photograph before its demolition in 1902 see http://www .cultura.sibiu.ro/istoria/cronologie/P70; on the church of the Annunciation at the Groapă in Hermannstadt see https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biserica_din_Groapă_din_Sibiu and http://www.cultura.sibiu.ro/biserici/biserica_din_groapa (accessed 3June 2016). 36 Pop(p), a student of Lambros Fotiadis at the princely academy of Bucharest, is known also for a treatise on metrics, published in 1803 in Vienna; see Camariano-Cioran, Les académies princières and Oikonomidis, “Λάμπρος  Φωτιάδης”. On his commercial and

180

Stassinopoulou

(a member of the imperial Transylvanian-Hungarian aristocracy since 1844)37 involved in commerce and banking in Vienna, but also his family was one of the most prominent of the Greek merchant community of Sibiu. The legacies for Vienna were to be administered by the board of the Holy Trinity, to which Popp also belonged at the time. Despite the fact that Panadi did not have his origins in the main group behind the community of the Holy Trinity during the mid-19th century – that is, the second and third generation of the successful merchant families, now also members of the Habsburg civil service and investment elites – he did not entrust the administration of the central endowment exclusively to the institution benefiting from it, but also to the community of his fellow confessionals, which was also endorsed with the task of administrating the whole of his legacies. The endowment letter38 reproduces the relevant parts of the testament and of the specific clause which requested that an annual sum of 1,000 guilders (Conventionsmünze) from the income provided by the building’s revenues was to be reserved for the community of the Holy Trinity. This in its turn was obliged to use it for gifts for church personnel, the caretaking of the grave in the cemetery of St. Marx, and memorial services on the name day of Panadi, the 21st of May, feast of Saints Constantine and Helena. The community’s ­elders were explicitly nominated as the authority administrating most legacies mentioned in the testament.39 From the point of view of the community the most important paragraphs of the letter of endowment were those declaring that the building was never to be sold, that no change in the use of the revenues could be made, and that no decision about the endowment recipients (poor blind youth) could be taken without involving the community. This means that despite the fact that the central beneficent was the Institute for the Blind, the community of the Holy Trinity had to be consulted on any decision concerning selling or demolishing the building. This was formulated in the cadastral as a constraint prohibiting any transaction without the consent of the community.40 Through the printed annual reports of the Society for the Blind, the announcements for stipends,

37 38 39 40

banking career in Vienna, see Seirinidou, ΄Ελληνες στη Βιέννη, pp. 140–41 and Ransmayr, “­Untertanen des Sultans oder des Kaisers”. Wiener Zeitung, 9 January 1844, p. 1. Stiftbrief Panadi, ahd, G 41, F 3, p. 1. Kundmachung, dated 1 November 1860, ahd, G41, F 4; first bibliographical mention ­Pidonia, Ελληνικά Παλαιότυπα. Letter from the legal advisor of the community of the Holy Trinity, 7 May 1947, ahd G41, F6.

Endowments as Instruments of Integration AND Memory

181

and the reports in the Archive of the Holy Trinity we can follow the uses of the revenues. In his provisions, Panadi, an Orthodox Christian from Wallachia, follows a pattern known from earlier periods and different types of transactions among the migrant merchants and entrepreneurs: when it came to matters of property transfer and will drawing, the testators preferred to entrust persons with a similar confessional background (it seems with no ethnic preference) even if, as in the case of Constantin Panadi, their marriage had introduced them to a Catholic family and its social networks. In his testament Panadi applied through his legacies a principle of benign equanimity, at least as regards religious beliefs and ethnicity. He bestowed sums to the nephews of his deceased wife Magdalena, née Zwickelsdorf, and to her parish, the Catholic church of St. Aegyd in Oberlaa, in Lower Austria in the vicinity of Vienna, for which Magdalena had already provided in her own testament. He also made clear that his endowment for the Institute for the Blind should benefit applicants independently of their religion. Should blind persons present themselves to the Exas, the board of the Holy Trinity, Panadi specified, the Institute for the Blind was obliged to accept them without any objection or exception, be they Catholics, or from the Greek Orthodox confession, or from any other religious belief (“oder von einem anderen Glauben”). The interpretation of this clause by the state authorities in 1854 explicitly included all Christian confessions, while ­implicitly excluding other religious beliefs.41 Applications were therefore considered independently of the ethnic or confessional identity of the candidates; the majority of the blind persons admitted with a Panadi grant at the Institute for the Blind did not belong to the Greek ­Orthodox confession (probably also as a direct effect of the d­ emographic ­presence of the latter in the general population).42 While the endowment administration followed this provision, at the turn of the century, as questions of ethnicity and nationality became pertinent in the discussions about the communities and their churches, different readings made their appearance. A grantee from Constantinople, who had been supported for several years through the Panadi endowment in Vienna, Spyridon Panagoulopoulos, ­requested an additional stipend to cover the costs of a person to accompany him to the church of the Holy Trinity on Sundays. One of his arguments to 41

42

According to the announcement of the year 1860, the bestowed institution was obliged to accept every blind person of the Christian religion: “jeden Blinden christlichen Glaubens und zwar zu Folge Bewilligung des hohen k.k. Unterrichts-Ministeriums vom 25. Jänner 1854, Z. 1057, ohne Unterschied der Confession und der Nationalität”. ahd, G41 and G42, files on applicants and stipend holders.

182

Stassinopoulou

request additional support was that as “the sole Orthodox from Greece”, he deserved particular attention from the Panadi endowment.43 While this is just the argument of an individual trying to make his case, it does form part of a changing thought pattern which emerged through territorial changes in the Balkans and would become even more politically charged after 1913, as former cities which were the recipients of endowments now belonged to different nation-states.

The Panadi Building

Panadi obviously had a clear sense of the importance of visual memory. He specified that a triptych in a brass frame, featuring in the middle the bestowed building and to the left and right himself and his wife, should hang in the meeting room of the benefiting Institute for the Blind. Portraits of his wife and himself (most probably the paintings, which had been reproduced in the triptych) were to hang in the meeting room of the community of the Holy Trinity. The triptych hung in the “Beschäftigungsanstalt für erwachsene Blinde”, which remained in the old location at the eighth district in Vienna, until the building was sold and demolished in the 1980s. Today the triptych can be seen at the Museum des Blindenwesens (see Illustration 6.1) of the Austrian Federal Institute for the Blind (Bundes-Blindenerziehungsinstitut).44 Constantin Panadi’s portrait hangs in the official meeting room of the community of the Holy Trinity to this day. Even by the 1860s, after the tearing down of the city walls in the area of the Danube arm was completed, the building was already clearly designated with a large inscription between the ground and first floor as the “Constantin C. Panadi’sches Stiftungshaus”. The building, situated in one of the entrance points into the first district (Innere Stadt) and to the Greek quarter,45 thereby held the memory of the endowment visible, both for the insider group of the parishioners of the two Greek Orthodox churches and for other residents of the area and passers-by.

43 ahd, G42, F2 (Korrespondenz Panagoulopoulos). 44 I thank Ms Brigitte Andre-Schellner of the Museum des Blindenwesens for this information. 45 On the structure of the Greek neighborhood in Vienna see Seirinidou, “Griechen in Wien”; Pampas, “Οι τόποι εγκαθίδρυσης και λειτουργίας των τυπογραφείων”, and Ransmayr, “Greek Presence” in this volume.

Endowments as Instruments of Integration AND Memory

183

Illustration 6.1 The triptych of the benefactors Magdalena and Constantin Panadi with the endowment building (painter unknown) Source: Museum des Blindenwesens, Vienna 2015 (photograph Stefano Saracino).

The Panadi building featured both private apartments and offices. By the end of the century it had become the seat of state-controlled offices, such as the committee on the regulation of the Danube (Donau-Regulierungs-­Commission in Wien), the committee for traffic facilities (Commission für Verkehrsanlagen in Wien) and the committee for the revision of real estate tax (Commission für die Revision des Grundsteuerkatasters). In the 1890s, during the massive urbanistic changes after the Danube regulation and the expansion of the city train (Wiener Stadtbahn) along the quai, official interest for the area led to the decision of radically renovating the Panadi building, which had been affected by tram and other traffic changes in the vicinity. The renovation led in 1896 to a larger and higher building (that included two neighboring smaller buildings, which had been bought out) with an impressive façade (with a new inscription; see Illustration 6.2) and a modern interior featuring complete electrification and modern bath facilities as well as a passenger and freight elevator. The Lower Austrian governement (k.k. niederösterreichische Statthalterei), which was the controlling organ of the Panadi endowment for the Institute for the Blind, entrusted the architect Sylvester Tomssa with the project; his assistant Oswald Richter wrote a detailed article about its ­realization.46 According to

46

Richter, “Das Constantin C. Panadi’sche Stiftungshaus”. I would like to express my thanks to the Library of the Technical University of Vienna (ubtu) for providing me with a scan

184

Stassinopoulou

Illustration 6.2 The Panadi building around 1942 Source: Austrian National Library (Önb), Bildarchiv, cl 334, 3 (12848581).

Endowments as Instruments of Integration AND Memory

185

the article the now substantially larger building provided even more revenue for the good cause.47 The building was almost completely destroyed during the Battle of Vienna in April 1945. The tenants and the state put pressure on the community of the Holy Trinity not to adhere rigidly to the endowment conditions, so that the building might be demolished and a new one built in its place. As with other private societies and religious institutions the assets of the community of the Holy Trinity had been controlled between 1938 and 1945 by the Stillhaltekommissar. The restitution of these assets after the end of the war was slow and the outcome of the legal conflicts usually did not benefit the deprived institutions.48 As the legal consultant informed the community of the Holy Trinity in 1947, the restriction in the cadastral defining that no decision could be taken without the consent of the community had been changed in 1939. After several years of legal correspondence the community decided in 1957 to accept a buy-out offer of the Austrian Ministry of Schools (für Unterricht) and the Institute for the Blind and to enable further handling, thus ending its involvement in the endowment after more than one hundred years.49 The building was completely demolished in 1959 and replaced in 1961 by a modern building still standing at the corner of Laurenzerberg to Schwedenplatz.50 With the demolition of the building both the careful design of the endowment by its founder and the memory of the benefactor disappeared. The ­endowment still exists under the name Konstantin C. Panadi’sche Stiftung für Augenkranke und Blinde and is administered by the Lower Austrian E ­ ndowment Administration (Niederösterreich, Abteilung Stiftungsverwaltung). It supports exclusively Austrian citizens, preferably from Vienna and Lower Austria. Having arrived to Vienna with a substantial amount of money to invest, ­Constantin Panadi, son of Constantin, from Craiova strived to achieve full integration as a citizen of the imperial capital and member of the bourgeoisie, while at the same time remaining close to the traditional patterns of settlement of Greek diaspora communities, as his immediate acquisition of immovable property in the Greek neighborhood of Vienna shows. His marriage outside his confessional group was not the norm; yet at that time it was no longer considered exceptional. As a potent financier he sought to partake

47 48 49 50

of the article. On Toms(s)a see Architektenlexikon Wien 1770–1945, available at http:// www.architektenlexikon.at/de/649.htm. (accessed 16 December 2015). Richter, “Das Constantin C. Panadi’sche Stiftungshaus”, p. 251. Pawlowsky, Leisch-Prost, and Klösch, Vereine im Nationalsozialismus, pp. 335–38. ahd G41, F6; nÖla, Allg. Stiftbriefsammlung f4-st-17/18–96. The architects were Eugen Wörle and Bruno Doskar, Architektenlexikon Wien 1770–1945, available at http://www.architektenlexikon.at/de/704.htm (accessed 16 December 2015).

186

Stassinopoulou

of the life of the wealthy of Vienna, but he does not seem to have left traces other than his testament and legacies. With the construction of a system of donations and endowments he sought to secure remembrance, among his fellow ­Orthodox through annual memorial services and a well-kept grave in Vienna, and among his e­ thnic community through donations to Bucharest, his hometown of C ­ raiova, and Sibiu/Hermannstadt. But the most generous donation was the endowment for the Institute for the Blind in the imperial capital with no confessional binding. The memory of the benefactor was secured in the perception of a general public by the inscription on the building itself, by reports about the endowment in newspapers, and through the regular announcement well into the 20th ­century of apartments to let in the Panadi building, as it was ­always referred to. Despite the fact that the endowment still exists today and the good deed is still fulfilled, albeit under different provisions than in the original d­ esign, the powerful memorial function disappeared with the destruction of the building in 1945 and its replacement with a new ­building in 1961. Bibliography Archival Sources

Archive of the Community of the Holy Trinity (Archiv der Gemeinde zur Heiligen Dreifaltigkeit, AHD). Lower Austrian Archive (Niederösterreichisches Landesarchiv NÖLA), Landesfürstliche u. staatliche Verwaltung (Princely and State Administration).

Primary Sources

Ditscheiner, J. A., Neuestes, umfassendes und gründlich unterrichtendes Universal-­ Geschäfts-Handbuch für den praktischen Lebensverkehr, Vienna 1843. Dorffinger, J. v., Wegweiser für Fremde und Einheimische durch Pesth, s.l. 1827. Gutjahr, M., Vollständiges Verzeichniß aller in der k.k. Haupt- und Residenzstadt Wien und ihren Vorstädten befindlichen Straßen, Vienna 1816. Gutjahr, M., Vollständiges Verzeichniß aller in der k.k. Haupt- und Residenzstadt Wien und ihren Vorstädten befindlichen Straßen, Vienna 1821. Haller, F., Allgemeiner Handlungs-Almanach für den bürgerlichen Handelsstand in der k.k. Haupt-und Residenzstadt Wien, Vienna 1833. Hof- und Staats-Schematismus der röm. kaiserl. auch kaiserl. königl. und erzherzoglichen Haupt- und Residenz-Stadt Wien […], Vienna 1795. Hormayr, J., Wien, seine Geschichte und seine Denkwürdigkeiten vol. II/1, Urkundenbuch, Vienna 1824.

Endowments as Instruments of Integration AND Memory

187

Institut der barmherzigen Schwestern, Wien 1844. Miller, J.F., Neuer Universal-Briefsteller, Vienna 1824. Winiwarter, J., Handbuch der Justiz- und politischen Gesetze und Verordnungen, Vienna 1835.



Secondary Literature

Adam, Th., Buying Respectability: Philanthropy and Urban Society in Transnational ­Perspective, 1840s to 1930s, Bloomington 2009. Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch für die gesamten Deutschen Erbländer der ­Österreichischen Monarchie (ABGB), s.l. 1811. Arvanitakis, D. (ed.), Το φαινόμενο του ευεργετισμού στη νεότερη Ελλάδα [The Phaenomenon of Charity in Modern Greece], Athens 2006. Borgolte, M., Stiftung und Memoria, edited by T. Lohse, Berlin 2012. Borgolte, M., Chitwood Z., Kozma, E., Lohse, T., Sánchez, I., and Schmiedchen A., ­Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesellschaften. Vol. 2: Das soziale System Stiftung. Berlin/Boston 2016. Camariano-Cioran, A., Les académies princières de Bucarest et de Jassy et leurs professeurs (Institute for Balkan Studies, 142), Thessaloniki 1974. Cicanci, O., Companile Grecești din Transilvania și comerțul European în anii 1636–1746 [The Greek Companies in Transilvania and the European Commerce in the Years 1636–1746], Bucharest 1981. Curl, J.S., The Egyptian Revival: Ancient Egypt as the Inspiration for Design Motifs in the West, Routledge 2005. Davidova E. (ed.), Wealth in the Ottoman and Post-Ottoman Balkans: A Socio-economic History. London 2016. Diamantis A., Τύποι εμπόρων και μορφές συνείδησης στη νεώτερη Ελλάδα [Types of Traders and Forms of Consciousness in Modern Greece], Athens 2007. Duizend-Jensen, S., Jüdische Gemeinden, Vereine, Stiftungen und Fonds: “Arisierung” und Restitution [Veröffentlichungen der Österreichischen Historikerkommission 21/2], Vienna-Munich 2007. Giacon, N. (ed.), “Hugo von Hofmannsthal – Yella, Felix und Mysa Oppenheimer Briefwechsel. Teil I: 1891–1905”, Hofmannsthal-Jahrbuch zur europäischen Moderne 7 (1999), pp. 7–100. Havlik, M.M., “Der Sankt Marxer Friedhof. Die griechisch-orthodoxe Abteilung”, ­unpublished Diploma Thesis, University of Vienna, 2006, available at http:// www.byzneo.univie.ac.at/ fileadmin/user_upload/inst_byzantinistik/Download/ Diplomarbeit_Havlik_Margit._Der_Sankt_Marxer_Friedhof..pdf (accessed 24 May 2016). Heimann-Jelinek, F. (ed.), Die Türken in Wien. Geschichte einer jüdischen Gemeinde, ­Vienna 2010.

188

Stassinopoulou

Karadima, K., “Διαφυλάσσοντας την περιουσία, την τιμή και την επαγγελματική αξία για  τις επόμενες γενιές : Οι διαθήκες των εμπόρων της Τεργέστης (1775–1850)” [Safeguarding the Property, the Honour and the Professional Value for the Future Generations: The Testaments of the Merchants in Trieste (1775–1850)], unpublished Master’s Thesis, Faculty of History and Archaeology, University of Athens, 2010. Karathanassis, A., L’Hellénisme en Transylvanie. L’activité culturelle, nationale et religieuse des compagnies commerciales helléniques de Sibiu et de Brașov aux XVIII–XIX siècles [Institute for Balkan Studies, 205], Thessaloniki 1989. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Christian and Jewish Ottoman Subjects: Family, Inheritance and Commercial Networks between East and West (17th–18th Century)”, in S. Cavaciocchi (ed.), The Economic Role of the Family in the European Economy from the 13th to the 18th centuries (Istituto Internazionale di Storia Economica F. Datini, Serie II, Atti delle ‘Settimane di Studi’, vol. 40), Florence 2009, pp. 409–40. Kitlitschka, W., Grabkult und Grabskulptur in Wien und Niederösterreich, St. Pölten 1987, available at http://www.viennatouristguide.at/Allerlei/Buecher /B_buecher/z_allg _grabskulptur.pdf (accessed 24 May 2016). Klee, A., “Nicolaus Dumba. Philanthropist, patron of the arts and cultural politician”, in A. Husslein-Arco and A. Klee (eds), Klimt und die Ringstraße, Vienna 2015. Kobau, E., Rastlos zieht die Flucht der Jahre… Josefine und Franziska von Wertheimstein und Ferdinand von Saar, Vienna 1997. Kohlbauer-Fritz G. (ed.), Ringstraße. A Jewish Boulevard, Vienna 2015, pp. 111–120. Konecny, E., “Die Familie Dumba und ihre Bedeutung für Wien und Österreich”, (­Dissertationen der Universität Wien, 179), Vienna 1986. Koslik, A., Geschichte des vom Vereine von Kinderfreunden in Wien im Jahre 1873 gegründeten Kinder-Asyls in Zillingdorf bei Wr. Neustadt, Vienna 1898. Kotzageorgis, Ph. and Papastamatiou, D., “Wealth accumulation in an Urban Context. The Profile of the Muslim Rich of Thessaloniki in the Eighteenth Century on the Basis of Probate Inventories”, Turkish Historical Review 5 (2014), pp. 155–99 Mantouvalos, I., “Έλληνες διαθέτες και πρακτικές κληροδοσίας στην Τεργέστη. Μια πρώτη  προσέγγιση  σε  σχέση  με  την  περίπτωση  της  Βιέννης  και  της  Πέστης(19ος  αιώνας)” [Greek Testators and Inheritance Practices in Trieste: A First Approach with Reference to the Cases of Vienna and Pest], Mnimon 30 (2009), pp. 107–40. Oikonomidis, D., “Λάμπρος Φωτιάδης, 1752–1805” [Lampros Fotiadis, 1752–1805], Epetiris tou Mesaionikou Arheiou tis Akadimias Athinon 3 (1950), pp. 106–40. Pampas, Th., “Οι τόποι εγκαθίδρυσης και λειτουργίας των τυπογραφείων Μπαουμάιστερ/  Μαρκίδων  Πούλιου  και  Βεντότη  στη  Βιέννη” [The Places of Founding and Activity of the Printing Presses of Baumeister/Markides Pouliou and Ventoti in Vienna] in Οι πρωτοπόροι ΄Ελληνες δημοσιογράφοι Μαρκίδες Πούλιου [The Pioneer Greek Journalists Markides Pouliou], Thessaloniki 2008, pp. 162–89.

Endowments as Instruments of Integration AND Memory

189

Papacostea-Danielopolu, C., “Organizarea şi viaţa culturală a companiei ‘Greceşti’ din Braşov (sfârsitul secolului al XVIII-Lea şi prima jumătate a secolului al XIX-Lea)” [The Organization and the Cultural Life of the Braşov ‘Greek’ company (end of the 18th century and first half of the 19th century)], in E. Stănescu (ed.), Studii Istorice Sud-Est Europene, vol. I, Bucharest 1974, pp. 159–212. Pawlowsky, V., Leisch-Prost, E., and Klösch, C. (eds.), Vereine im Nationalsozialismus: Vermögensentzug durch den Stillhaltekommissar für Vereine, Organisationen und Verbände und Aspekte der Restitution in Österreich nach 1945 (Veröffentlichungen der Österreichischen Historikerkommission, 21/1), Vienna 2004. Pidonia, K., Ελληνικά  παλαιότυπα  της  Βιέννης [old Greek printed books at Vienna], (­Tetradia ergasias 13 – National Hellenic Research Foundation), Athens 1987. Ransmayr, A., “‘Untertanen des Sultans oder des Kaisers’. Struktur und Organisationsformen der beiden Wiener griechischen Gemeinden von den Anfängen im 18. Jahrhundert bis 1918”, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Vienna, 2016. Reden, Sitta von, Stiftungen zwischen Politik und Wirtschaft. Geschichte und Gegenwart im Dialog (Historische Zeitschrift/ Beihefte 66). Berlin/ Boston 2015. Richter, O., “Das Constantin C. Panadi’sche Stiftungshaus in Wien”, Österreichische Monatsschrift für den Öffentlichen Baudienst 2 (1896), pp. 249–51. Röskau-Rydel, I., Kultur an der Peripherie des Habsburger Reiches. Die Geschichte des Bildungswesens und der kulturellen Einrichtungen in Lemberg von 1772 bis 1848 (Studien der Forschungsstelle Ostmitteleuropa an der Universität Dortmund, 15), Wiesbaden 1993. Seirinidou, V., “Griechen in Wien im 18. Jahrhundert. Soziale Identitäten im Alltag”, Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert und Österreich 12 (1997), pp. 7–18. Seirinidou, V., “H ελληνική εγκατάσταση στη Bιέννη” [The Greek settlement in Vienna], unpublished Master’s thesis. University of Athens 1998. Seirinidou, V., Έλληνες στη Βιέννη (18ος − μέσα 19ου αι.) [Greeks in Vienna, 18th – mid 19th Century], Athens 2011. Shapira, E., Style and Seduction. Jewish Patrons, Architecture, and Design in Fin de Siècle Vienna, Brandeis UP, Lebanon NH 2016. Soursos, N.P., “Financial management of donations, foundations and endowments in the Greek Communities in Vienna (1850–1918)”, paper presented at the Workshop “Imperial Subjects and Social Commitment: An Endowment History from 1750 to 1918”, Vienna 2016. Stassinopoulou, M.A, “Habe nun Philologie studiert, und dann? Philologische Karrieren und Diaspora-Schulen am Beispiel des Eugen Zomarides”, in Σκεύος εις τιμήν. Festschrift zum 25-jährigen Jubiläum der Bischofsweihe und 20-jährigen Jubiläum der Inthronisation zum Metropoliten von Austria und Exarchen von Ungarn und Mitteleuropa Dr. Michael Staikos, Athens 2011 [2014], pp. 787–94.

190

Stassinopoulou

Stassinopoulou, M.A, “Trading Places. Cultural Transfer Trajectories among Southeast European Migrants in the Habsburg Empire”, in H. Heppner and E. Posch (eds.), Encounters in Europe’s Southeast. The Habsburg Empire and the Orthodox World in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (The Eighteenth Century and the Habsburg Monarchy International Series, 3), Bochum 2012, pp. 163–74. Theodorou, V., “Oeuvres de bienfaisance en Grèce (1870–1920): profil et attitudes des donateurs”, unpublished Thèse de Doctorat en Histore, Paris 1, 1988. Trivellato, F., The Familiarity of Strangers. The Sephardic Diaspora, Livorno, and CrossCultural Trade in the Early Modern Period, New Haven and London 2009.

Part 3 Old Settlements, Nation States, New Networks

⸪

chapter 7

In Search of the Promised Land. Bulgarian Settlers in the Banat (18th–19th Centuries) Lyubomir Klimentov Georgiev

The Policy of the Habsburgs towards the Province of Temeswar (Timişoara/Temesvár) – Conquest, Colonization, Europeanization

The Banat is a historic district in Southeastern Europe. In shape it is like a d­ iamond with sides: the river Mureș to the north, the river Tisza to the west, the river Danube to the south. The eastern border of the Banat reaches the Carpathians. The total area of the district is 28,523 square kilometers. The western part is topographically related to the Hungarian plain, while the ­eastern part goes through hilly land into wooded mountains.1 The main city of the district is Timişoara (Temeswar/Temesvár). The larger part of the Banat, i­ncluding Timişoara,2 is now located in Romania, and the smaller part in Serbia. The Habsburg Empire gave to the area the name Temeswarer Banat, after its annexation from the Ottoman Empire under the Treaty of Passarowitz (1718). In the second decade of the 18th century the ‘knowledgeable’ Francesco Griselini painted a picture of the region as being in a desperate state. Not only was the Banat deserted, he thought, but it was also run down under tyrannical Turkish rule. Numbers of stagnant waters and swamps increased, according to Griselini; the power of the water was not used, and dikes were not built. The swamps were impassable for humans and animals; the air was heavy, humid, and very unhealthy. The area abounded with epidemic fevers of all kinds, as well as with huge swarms of insects. Instead of the poetic voice of the nightingale one could only hear the cawing of crows and the sad song of night owls and owlets. Even the agriculture declined in this area, whose fertility surpassed every European country. The main occupations were hunting and cattle-breeding and the people had, as Griselini put it, typical traits of tribes, considered by him to include a penchant for robbery and treason.3 The locals

1 Schimscha, Technik und Methoden, p. 32. 2 Therefore Temeswar, being the most common term of the era, is used hereafter. 3 Griselini, Versuch, pp. 148–52.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004335448_009

194

Georgiev

lived in ignorant poverty, as indeed did all people under “the yoke of the arbitrary government”.4 This tragic scene was used by Griselini to underline the contrast with what he called the wise management of the enlightened Christian monarchy after the liberation from the Ottomans. However, the author does not hide the fact that, even under the shadow of the Cross, the region remained an inhospitable place. He mentions, for example, that the Biscayans, who colonized the Banat and founded New Barcelona there,5could not live in the local climate and died or emigrated. Here is a description, by an Austrian author of an almanac from the middle of the nineteenth century, of the ‘South-Hungarian’ lands, full of loyalty to the Habsburg Empire: Banat is not a distinct part of Hungary, as some foreigners suggest, nor, as gullible locals believe, a desert steppe, filled with swamps and seat of terrible and devastating diseases, in a word – Austrian Siberia! On the contrary – the whole so-called Banat is among the most fertile lands in Europe.6 It seems that the term ‘Austrian Siberia’, rejected with indignation by the author, quite rightly identifies the country in which Bulgarian Catholics lived. The Banat, like Siberia, was a wet, wild, desolate, and remote area, but provided to the hard-working Bulgarian peasants a very fertile land, natural resources, and – last but not least – a greater freedom. Bulgarian Paulicians from the region of Nikopol knew how to survive in the Danube basin. These skills helped them to overcome the difficulties after the migration and successfully take advantage of those dangerous and rich Banat lands, where they permanently settled. The civilization of the Banat under the shadow of the Habsburg double-headed eagle was “the most beautiful phenomenon that occurred in this regard in that century – the century when reason and love for man spread their kingdom so extensively, when Kings considered their most glorious title to be ‘fathers of their nations’”.7 The personality of the first military governor, Count Florimond de Mercy,8 left a deep imprint on the modernization of the Banat. The first step of 4 Griselini, Versuch, p. 152: “So lange der Raub der Barbarn, sah man unter dem Joch einer willkürlichen Regierung die Menschheit bloß zu den tierischen Bedürfnissen herabgewürdiget – seelenlose Maschinen, nichts besser, als man neben Ihnen in Waeldern wohnte”. 5 On the place of the current town of Zrenjanin, in the Serbian Vojvodina. 6 Raffelsperger, Allgemeines, pp. 222–24. 7 Griselini, Versuch, p. 194. 8 Count Claudius Florimond de Mercy (1666, Longwy in Lorraine, now in France – 1734, ­Parma) was a Habsburg field marshal. De Mercy displayed great daring in the Spanish Succession War. His leadership was conspicuous in the war against the Ottomans, at the Battle

Bulgarian Settlers in the Banat

195

the new governor in the transformation of the country was the organization of the post and the military barracks; the second was to turn the mosques in Temeswar into churches. One of them received the Jesuits, the other monks from the Bosnian Franciscan province. Beneficiaries were also their “brothers in the order” of the Franciscan Province of Bulgaria. The reformer Empress Maria Theresa (1740–80) enjoyed great popularity among her subjects. Even the Hungarians, who rarely showed sympathy for the rulers of the Habsburg dynasty, were not an exception. The annexation in 1779 of the Banat to the Hungarian Kingdom within the Habsburg Empire could be considered to be a result of these unusually good relations between Vienna and the Hungarians.9

The Colonization of the Banat by Bulgarian Catholics

The Origin of the Bulgarian Catholics The relations between the Roman Catholic Church and Bulgaria started in the middle of the 9th century by the initial conversion of Prince Boris i (853–889) and the ‘nation, given to him by God’ to Christianity. In the course of this conversion the relations with the papacy received a prominent place. The union with the papacy, concluded by Tsar Kaloyan (1197–1207) in 1204 and ­denounced by Tsar Ivan Asen ii in 1235 in the city Lampsakos (Lampsak), turned into the longest period of symbiosis between the Bulgarian kingdom and the Roman Church. At the time of Tsar Ivan Alexander (1331–71) there was a strong Catholic influence on the royal family. The king’s mother joined Catholicism; an attempt was also made to ‘papalize’ his son, Tsar Ivan Sratsimir (1356–96). Catholic monks (Dominicans and Franciscans) were free to move across the country and preach. At that time Catholic churches existed in Tarnovo, Varna, Vidin, Sofia, and Nikopol.10 During the Hungarian occupation (1365–69) of the Vidin kingdom, the conquerors attempted to attract their new subjects to Catholicism. Blasius Kleiner

9

10

of P ­ eterwardein (1716) and at the Battle of Belgrade (1717). He was made the commander of the Banat of Temeswar. One can talk about a purposeful policy of Magyarization only after the creation of the Dual monarchy in 1867. The Hungarian government was never a threat to or a significant problem for the Banat Bulgarians. Not surprisingly, most of them, for example colonel Dr. Stefan ­Dunyov, who supported the Hungarian revolution of 1848–49, or later, between the world wars of the 20th century, were involved in the Hungarian minority movement in the region, like Telbizov, About Dunyov see Kamenova-Borin and Donchev (eds.), ­Lichnost, narod, istoriya. Gyuzelev, “Kratŭk ocherk”, pp. 71–83; Gyuzelev, “Religiozna tŭrpimost”, pp. 50–65.

196

Georgiev

wrote that eight Franciscans were able to convert more than 200,000 people to Catholicism in 50 days. The Franciscans chose the city Chiprovtsi for their center and built the monastery of the Virgin Mary.11The conversion to Catholicism in Vidin was sometimes accompanied with violence, and this religious coercion in turn sometimes created the need for revenge. When in 1369 the ­Orthodox squads entered Vidin, “the five Minorite monks, found there, ­became martyrs because of their apostolic zeal”.12 Perhaps, however, Catholicism was adopted voluntarily by the heretical part of the Bulgarian population (Bogomils, Paulicians, and Manichaeans). The conversion to the Latin religion ultimately led to the formation of ‘Custodia Bulgaria’ within the Bosnian Vicariate.13 The Paulicians played a major role in the shaping of the Bulgarian Catholic emigration. In the period discussed in this chapter they remained the foundation of the oldest, largest, and most sustainable community of Catholics in Bulgaria. Over time the Paulicians ­supported the structure of the Catholic Church in the Bulgarian lands.14 The Catholics from Chiprovtsi There are different hypotheses about the dissemination of Catholicism among the residents of the Chiprovtsi region. The attempt mentioned above to convert the residents of northwestern Bulgaria to the Catholic Church with the help of the Franciscan Order during the Hungarian domination over the Kingdom of Vidin (1365–69) is at the core of one of the hypotheses. Another hypothesis focuses on the miners – Saxons who came from Transylvania in the 13th and14th centuries and became promoters of the Catholic faith in this region, which is rich in ore deposits.15 There is information that some Paulicians were among the residents of Chiprovtsi and the neighboring villages, Zhelezna and Klissura. The Catholics of the Chiprovtsi region, however, were always differentiated from the Christianized Paulicians, because of their separate experience in faith, politics, ­lifestyle, and customs, and even of their personal names.16 Another hypothesis is that the Catholic faith in the Chiprovtsi region was a result of the settlement there of followers of Prince Fruzhin, the son of Tsar 11 Kleiner, Istoriya, p. 460. These numbers cites also Engel, Geschichte, p. 460. 12 Engel, Geschichte, p. 463. 13 Gyuzelev, “Religiozna tŭrpimost”, pp. 50–65. 14 Elenkov, Katolicheskata tsŭrkva. 15 Istoriya na Bulgaria, p. 203; Sotirov expresses disagreement in Sotirov “Za sŭzdavaneto”, pp. 30–41. 16 Iovkov, Pavlikyani, p. 35.

Bulgarian Settlers in the Banat

197

Ivan Shishman (1371–95) and the successor to the Bulgarian throne. They immigrated to Hungary and adopted Catholicism during the Ottoman conquest. Tired of exile and having lost their faith in the recent liberation of Bulgaria, the brothers-in-arms of Fruzhin returned to northwestern Bulgaria and were included in the Ottoman state structure.17 There is also an idea that Catholicism was spread by the political immigrants from Bosnia who settled in Bulgaria in the 1350s. Their leaders were the families Parchevich, Peyachevich, Knezevic, and Tomagyonovich.18 Count Julian Peyachevich expressed an interesting opinion. He said that the family Knezevic is “one of the oldest Bulgarian-Bosnian dynastic families”, and described Stefan Kotromanic as the ancestor of the family Knezevic. Kotromanic, a German commander in the service of the Hungarian King Bela iv, founded the city Vrhbosna (Sarajevo).19 The Bosnian factor is important for Bulgarian C ­ atholicism. The Bosnian nobles and miners who settled in Chiprovtsi; the eight Franciscans from Bosnia, missionaries during the Hungarian domination; the Franciscan Peter Solinatus from the town Tuzla, with whose work is associated the revival of Catholicism in Bulgaria at the end of the 16th century; Franciscan Custodia Bulgaria, which originally belonged to the Vicariate ­Bosnia; even the interest of Eusebius Fermendzhin, who after ‘Acta Bulgaria ecclesiastica’ wrote also ‘Acta Bosnae potissimum ecclesiastica’ – all these ­factors confirm this importance. The Catholic influence in the Bulgarian lands began its new upswing after the Council of Trent (1545–63), namely in 1595, by the mission of the Bosnian Franciscan Peter Solinatus. The 17th century was the ‘golden age’ for the ­Bulgarian Catholics. The activists of the Catholic propaganda were “Bulgarians, who received their education in the West, mastered several languages, had a broad view of things, and were attached to their homeland, although the religion connected them to Rome”.20 But the defeat of the Chiprovtsi uprising (1688)21 put an end to the rise of Catholicism in Bulgaria. The Arrival of the Bulgarians in the Banat The Empire of the Habsburgs, whose eastern borders were depopulated by the wars against the Ottomans, made its first attempts to attract as colonists the industrious and docile Paulicians even before the Chiprovtsi uprising. The 17 Dimitrov, Minaloto, pp. 53–54. 18 Sotirov, “Za sŭzdavaneto”, pp. 41–50. 19 Pejacsevich, Peter Freiherr von Parchevich, pp. 129–300. 20 Sotirov, “Za sŭzdavaneto”, p. 152. 21 Neshev et al. (eds.), Chiprovtsi 1688–1988; Paskaleva (ed.) 300 godini; Spisarevska, Chiprovskoto vŭstanie; Schwarcz et al., Hoffnung; Pŭrvev, Balkanite.

198

Georgiev

Bishop of Nikopol, Anton Stefanov, tried to organize the exodus of his flock in the late 1670s.22 The first two colonies of Banat Bulgarians were Beshenov, where in March 1738 most Catholics settled, and Vinga (Theresiopel), in which part of the citizens of Chiprovtsi and the Paulicians settled three years later.23 These two settlements remain up to the present day the main centers of the Banat Bulgarians. Originally, Vienna sent to the Banat criminals who were condemned to ­exile. It was as late as 1735 when voluntary settlers – Spaniards – appeared for the first time in the area. Half of them died of diseases caused by cold and humidity, and the other half emigrated from the Banat. In this way the Bulgarian Catholics became the first significant group of settlers in the Banat, after them came the Germans from Swabia, Vlachs, and Serbs.24 In 1753 and 1777 new groups of Bulgarian settlers from Nikopol and Svishtov, totalling up to a hundred people, moved to Beshenov.25 There is a further mention of another settlement in the Banat by Bulgarians in 1806–12.26 The increased number of Bulgarian villages in the Banat in the second half of the 18th century and later, however, is primarily due to internal migration. The hunger for land was the main factor contributing to the settling in different places of the people of Beshenov. The emigration took place periodically every ten to twenty years. The internal colonization (within the region of Temeswar) of Banat Bulgarians was most intense in the first half of the 19th century. The largest Bulgarian village in the Serbian Banat – Ivanovo – was founded only in 1867. The settlements are located at great distance from one another. The distance between Beshenov and Ivanovo is nearly 200 kilometers. Even the road from Beshenov to Vinga is more than 100 kilometers long. The distances were ­serious obstacles for the contacts in the Bulgarian community: marriages, v­ isits, ­cooperation, and trade. In most villages Bulgarians were a minority among the other nationalities – Hungarians, Germans, Romanians, and Serbs – a fact that contributed to their assimilation. The Bulgarian colonists have been assimilated mainly by the Hungarian and German population.27

22 Iovkov, Pavlikyani, p. 54. 23 Nyagulov, Banatskite bŭlgari, pp. 19–20. 24 Telbizov, “Obshtinskoto upravlenie”, pp. 20–21. 25 Istoriya na Bulgaria, vol. iv, p. 249. 26 Iovkov, Pavlikyani, p. 54. 27 Telbizov and Vekova-Telbizova, Traditsionen bit, pp. 6–7.

Bulgarian Settlers in the Banat

199

The territory belonging to Vinga is hilly. The other Bulgarian villages are l­ocated in the plain: most of them are close to rivers and marshes. The Banat ­Bulgarians were farmers. Their villages had extensive, well-cultivated territories and had a rustic look – even Vinga, which was a privileged city.28 The Number of Banat Bulgarians During the years 1726–30 about 300 families from Paulician villages along the Danube, such as Oresh, Belene, Tranchevitsa, and others, passed to Wallachia, from where they then continued their journey to the Banat. The first wave of Bulgarian settlers in the region numbered 4,600, according to the Banat historian canon Sentklarai. In 1776, 60 Paulician families headed by the priest Michael Mirkovic crossed the Danube and settled in the Banat village of Lovrin.29 The ethnic picture of the Banat in 1780 was as follows: 181,639 Vlachs, 78,780 ‘Rascians’ (Serbs), 8,683 Bulgarians,30 5,272 Gypsies, 43,201 German, Italian, and French farmers, 353 Jews. The Banat Bulgarians numbered 12,000 in 1840.31 A little later, in 1851, they were estimated at 22,780 people.32 This would mean that the Banat Bulgarians increased in ten years by 10,780 people or 47 per cent! Such a sharp increase seems incredible and it is more likely that the statistics are inaccurate. To some extent, however, these data could be regarded as an indicator of the ascending demographic development of the Banat Bulgarians in those years. In the second half of the 19th century various authors listed between 18,298 and 35,000 Banat Bulgarians.33 “In the colorful kaleidoscope, similar to the south Hungarian mix of nations, the Hungarian Bulgarians are undoubtedly an essential element. They are talented, sensible, practical, and religious people”.34 “Their diligence protected them from pauperization – the biggest enemy of the national independence; their deep religiosity protected them from assimilation by the Orthodox Romanians and Serbians; and finally the ethnological originality of the Bulgarian spirit – from Germanisation”.35 The result is that their community survives to this day. 28 29 30

Ibid., pp. 18–22. Ibid., p. 4. The same number is indicated in the statistics of the Comte de Clari of 1770 – see Telbizov and Vekova-Telbizova, Traditsionen bit, p. 5. 31 Petersen and Schell, Handwörterbuch, p. 213. 32 Czoernig, Ethnographie, pp. 73–80. 33 Nyagulov, Banatskite bŭlgari, pp. 22–23. 34 Die Österreichisch-Ungarische Monarchie, p. 531. 35 Tsirbus, “Yuzhnoungarskite bŭlgare”, p. 254.

200

Georgiev

The Other Bulgarians in the Banat

The Catholics from Chiprovtsi and the Danube region found other Bulgarians in the province of Temeswar, such as the Krashovani (native Bulgarian ­Catholics) and the Ismaelites (Bulgarian Muslims). The Krashovani – The Native Bulgarian Catholics The Krashovani were members of the Roman Catholic Church and inhabited seven villages in the center of the Romanian Banat – in the region of the town of Reşiţa, in the forest lands next to the city of Caransebeș. This ethnonym came from their biggest village Caraşova on the river Karaš. Their other big ­village was Lupac. Besides the Krashovani the Svinichani, called after the name of the village of Sviniƫa, must also be mentioned. They lived in southern Banat, on the bank of the Danube. There are hypotheses that the Krashovani originated from the northwestern Bulgarian lands or from the region near to the city of Vidin. The ancestors of Krashovani immigrated to the Banat in the second half of the 14th century and the ancestors of Svinichani in the middle of the 15th century. The linguists P. Šafárik and Fr. Miklosisch also defined them as Bulgarians.36 Schwicker ­argued definitively that the Krashovani were Banat Bulgarians and listed name by name their six villages. According to the author, Caraşova became inhabited at the epoch of King Lajos i the Great (1342–82), as the settlement of Krashovani in ‘the mining district’ continued until 1740. The Krashovani differed from ‘their brothers in the plain’ – the other Bulgarian Catholics – primarily because of the influence of the Romanian language on them.37 Miletich, ­however, accepted that the Krashovani were Croatians under a strong Romanian influence and had nothing to do with the Banat Bulgarians.38 They should not be confused with Banat Bulgarians, not only because they were not of Bulgarian ethnicity, but also because their arrival dated from an older time.39 He mentioned, however, that they usually had teachers and priests who were Banat Bulgarians.40 A contradiction about the Krashovani exists in the work of Carol and Maria Telbizov: they call them ‘Krashovani Bulgarians’, but on the other hand they say that they have become a separate Slavic national group:

36 Nyagulov, Banatskite bŭlgari, p. 9; Miletich, Izsledvaniya, pp. 63–64. 37 Schwicker, Geschichte, pp. 85–89. 38 Miletich, Izsledvaniya, p. 64. 39 Ibid, p. 308. 40 Ibid, p. 486.

Bulgarian Settlers in the Banat

201

The Krashovani who live in the eastern part of the Banat, who are also Catholics and write in Latin letters, are not Banat Bulgarians, but became a separate Slavic national group as a result of prolonged Croatian cultural influence exerted by the church.41 This assessment is not convincing and it is not grounded consistently. The ­Telbizovs considered as essential three criteria to be considered Banat Bulgarians – Bulgarian origin, Catholicism, and Latin alphabet. All three attributes in that definition are valid for the Krashovani. The prolonged Croatian ­cultural influence had impact on all Banat Bulgarians, not only on the Krashovani. N ­ evertheless, the Telbizovs did categorically hold the opinion that the ­Krashovani could not be numbered among the Banat Bulgarians. Blasius Kleiner noted the names of some Bulgarian Franciscans, leaders of the parish in Caraşova before 1721 – Franciscus Chiprovets, Seraphimus and Georgius Kopilovchanin, Luca Babic, and Antonius Lekic.42 A publisher of Kleiner’s history, the Hungarian Istvan Magyar, said that the Krashovani were Bulgarian Catholics settled in the vicinity of Caraşova and Severin after the expulsion of the Hungarians from the Bulgarian Northwest.43 Blagovest Nyagulov also assumed that the new Catholic converts during the Hungarian occupation in 1365–69 migrated north of the Danube and made the beginning of the first Catholic community of Bulgarian origin in the region of the Banat – the Krashovani.44 The author writes that the scientific term “Banat Bulgarians” does not refer to the Krashovani because their public activities on Bulgarian ethnic ground are not known.45 The Bulgarian Muslims – The Ishmaelites When the historian J. Schwicker listed the nationalities inhabiting the Banat he mentioned the ‘Saracens or Ishmaelites (Bulgarian Mohamedans)’.46 Czoernig also wrote about Bulgarian Ishmaelites, also known as Bashkirs, who lived in Hungary and were privileged, and at first were given the fortress Pest.47 It is possible that Bulgarians influenced by the Manichaean sect of Muslims – the

41 Telbizov and Vekova-Telbizova, Traditsionen bit, p. 3. 42 Kleiner, Hronika, p. 11. 43 Kleiner, Hronika, p. 66. 44 Nyagulov, Banatskite bŭlgari, p. 14. 45 Ibid., p. 9. 46 Schwicker, Geschichte, p. 463. 47 Czoernig, Ethnographie, vol. iii, pp. 101–02.

202

Georgiev

so-called Ishmaelites – immigrated to the Banat.48 Other authors also equate the Bulgarians – Ishmaelites to Bashkirs. That points to their eventual ProtoBulgarian origin and emphasizes their difference from their Slavicized ­compatriots in Danubian Bulgaria. Engle hypothesized that “the Ishmaelites are undoubtedly Bulgarians, but not Europeans, but Asiatic” and that they were descendants of the Volga Bulgarians.49 Under the walls of their capital Vidin in 1365 ‘Jász – Ishmaelites’ entered into battle against the mighty army of the Hungarian conquerors.50 It could be assumed that some of these brave subjects of the Vidin Kingdom were annexed to Hungary, where they were used as military population and were endowed with the appropriate privileges. The city of Izmail (now in Ukraine), located on the Danube Delta, is perhaps where that ‘Bulgarian’ community originated. Bulgarian folklore includes the pejorative names ‘Ishmaelites’ and ‘Hagarenes’. The Christians referred to the Muslims in that way to emphasize their origin from a slave – Hagar the Egyptian, who bore to Abraham his first son Ishmael. The word ‘Ishmaelites’ is not always perceived as shameful, however.

The Main Bulgarian Communities in the Habsburg Monarchy

For a long time it was the municipal self-government that was the biggest contributor to the preservation of the Bulgarian national consciousness in the Banat for such a long historical period. The Village Beshenov Etymologically, ‘Beshenov’ comes from ‘Pechenegs’, the name of a tribe in the Hungarian language.51 O-Bessenyö could be translated literally as ‘the old ­village of Pechenegs’.52 The root of this word has proved to be extremely productive in the toponymy of Central Europe. The name Bessenyö was given at least to ten villages in the Habsburg monarchy, eight in Hungary, and two in Transylvania. It is very easy to confuse it with the Banat German village Neu Bessenova (Uj Bessenova), which also had a large Catholic parish. Moreover, there are settlements Beshenovo (two in Slavonia), Besnyö, Bessanya,­ 48

The Ishmaelites are a sect of Muslims Shia, supporters of the sixth imam, Ismail. See Kyurkchieva,I., Svetŭt, p. 180. 49 Engel, Geschichte, pp. 253–54. 50 Gyuzelev, “Iz istoriyata”, p. 108. 51 Nyagulov, Banatskite bŭlgari, p. 20. 52 Telbizov, “Oshte edna istoriya”, p. 25.

Bulgarian Settlers in the Banat

203

Bessendorf (two in Transylvania and one in Carinthia), and Besseno, Bessenovo, B ­ essenyod, and Besshenova as well. The great Bulgarian center is called also Star Beshenov, Bessenova, Vetero Bessenyö, Bulgaricum Bessenyö, Bishnov, Stár Bišnov, Óbesenyő, and Altbeschenowa. In the Romanian language the village was o­ riginally called Besenova-Veche and after World War ii was renamed to Dudeştii Vechi. Here the toponym Beshenov is used because it gained popularity in that form. The village is located about 195 kilometers southeast of Budapest, 40 kilometers southeast of Szeged, 65 kilometers east of Szabadka (its German name was Maria-Theresiopel, known today as Subotica), 28 ­kilometers northwest of Nova Kikinda, 38 kilometers northeast of Zenta and 35 ­kilometers from Chanad. The village lies on the river Aranca, a tributary of the river Tisza.53 The chronicle of Beshenov testifies that because of the tragic military adventure of Vienna against the Ottomans, one hundred and twenty Bulgarian families consisting of a total of 4,600 people escaped from Wallachia to the Banat, abandoning their property.54 In the early spring of 1738 they settled in ‘oppidum O-Bessenyö’, led by Nicholaus Stanislavich, the Bishop of Nikopol, and by the missionary Blasius Christophor Milli. They established the municipality and the parish simultaneously with their settlement. The plague struck down 294 new residents of Beshenov in that year. In 1742, 172 heads of families were recorded by name in the list of parish by the priest Blasius Milli.55 The two excellent sources for Beshenov stored in the Bulgarian Historical Archives in the National Library – the cited chronicle and the protocol book of the parish56 – were primarily related to the history of the church in that village. We will now turn to another archive, namely Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv in Vienna, which also has information about Beshenov. In a document from 1763 Beshenov is placed in the column of ‘enlarged villages’ with 104 families of new colonists.57 Interesting names of people and places, and information about the economic activity of Bulgarians are included in the “Certificate of plowed grassland in the Banat of Temeswar”. The names are often of Slavic origin, sometimes accompanied by the title ‘Knez’. For example, Sztanica 53 Andrees, Neuer allgemeiner, p. 50. 54 Telbizov, “Oshte edna istoriya”, p. 33. This number is questionable because it implies 38 people per family. 55 St. St. Cyril and Methodius National Library–Bulgarian Historical Archives–Sofia [=NBKM-BIA/CMNL-BHA], col. 68, a. u. 9, f. 9–12, 21 etc. 56 Ibid, col. 68, a. u. 5. 57 Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv–Wien [=HHStA], HHStA, Kabinettsarchiv, XI–10 i, Nachlass Zinzendorf, Kart. 6, Banat, F., p. 101.

204

Georgiev

J­ vanov and Nicola Gerba from Beshenov ploughed 1652 ‘yokes’ (Joch) of land in the area Nevolin Mick. Peter Tudor and his company from the same village plowed 3160 ‘yokes’ of land in the area Chervena Media in 1770 and 1773. Interestingly, further in the document we find a Bulgarian name: a certain Istvan from Macedonia.58 In 1779 the Banat region, including Beshenov, went out of the direct control of the imperial administration and fell under the authority of the Hungarian Kingdom within the boundaries of the Danube monarchy. Now it is appropriate to summarize ‘the Austrian period’ of the village. Beshenov became a fiscal municipality governed by the Court Chamber (Hofkammer). The municipal taxes were intended directly for the Treasury. The central government cared primarily for the payment of taxes, the implementation of corvées and order. The municipality retained its traditional autonomy. The villagers elected a mayor called a ‘judge’, whose duties included tax collection and the carrying out of police functions. Counselors were elected, who cared for the municipal properties. Income from these properties was used for the maintenance of the church, school, cemetery, municipal roads, and municipal public works, as well as helping the poor, widows, and orphans. According to the jurist Telbizov’s formal opinion, in this period the Beshenov municipality was disadvantaged in comparison with the rural communities in Bulgaria, and its population did not live better than compatriots across the Danube.59 He was undoubtedly ­correct. But why then did the emigrants not go back to their homelands in the state of the sultan, but rather continue to migrate to the north? For the Bulgarians, the Banat was a desirable place to be. This is clear even from the fact that even inhabitants of the privileged cities Alvinz and Deva emigrated there from Transylvania. The Paulicians sharply improved their status in the Banat. From a marginal and discriminated religious minority they became a part of the dominant confession. The abundance of fertile land, which the s­ettlers ­acquired, must also be taken into account. The fiscal municipality Beshenov was transformed into a large rural municipality, a transition that took place under the authority of the ‘crown of St. ­Stephen’. This passage was a gain – Beshenov became free from the management of the Fisc and got the right to be governed by its own local authorities. That improvement is largely due to the deep traditions in the local ­government, typical for the Hungarian State.60 58 59 60

Ibid, pp. 170–73. Telbizov, “Obshtinskoto upravlenie”, pp. 21–22, 26–27. Ibid, p. 53. Writing about the “flourishing villages” of the Bulgarians who enjoy “immemorial being” under Hungarian government, Telbizov gives the impression of a certain

Bulgarian Settlers in the Banat

205

The privileges granted to Beshenov is another subject which should be addressed. The privileges given to the town of Vinga in the Banat by the diploma from 1744 were valid only for Bulgarians residents of Vinga. When in the spring of the next year Catholics from Beshenov tried to immigrate to that city, they were stopped and returned by hussars and infantry. The administration of the Banat managed to prevent those hard-working farmers from escaping its tax control.61 The diploma of Emperor Joseph ii from June 21, 1787 (Illustration 7.1) was the first to include the Bulgarians in Breshenov in its privileges. This important certificate has recently entered into scientific circulation. The copy of the diploma62 preserved in the Bulgarian historical archives is in Latin and the ­Hungarian language and is sealed by a wax seal. It is 21 by 34 cm in size. It seems the copy was made much later than in 1787, although there is no other date given in it. By the diploma the ‘place’ (locus) Beshenov was given the right “forever in all time to enjoy the name of town (oppidum)”. The prerogatives to organize biannual fairs (duplicis Ordinis Annuales Nundinae seu Fora annualia libera) were explicitly recognized to that ‘town’. The first of the fairs was held on 26 May, the second on 15 October. To this were added weekly markets every Sunday. The markets in Beshenov received all freedoms and prerogatives of free imperial cities, towns, and villages. In this diploma the nature of the concept of ‘oppidum’ becomes clear. The oppidum was located between ­Civitas – big city, the capital, as used in the previous document (in civitate nostra Vienna) – and Villa, which in this case means village. In the ‘History of Beshenov’ this village is also named Oppidum. Further, in that diploma Emperor Joseph ii explicitly appealed to “all of you separately – traders (mercatores), retailers (institores), traveling traders (viatores) and all other market people (forenseshomines)”. The emperor took under his defense the merchants, their property, and their ­emotional attachment to Hungary. His political activity began in the youth organization of the Hungarian party in the Banat. The predilection for Hungary is indeed quite common among the Bulgarian Catholics. The Transylvanian Bulgarians were assimilated especially among Hungarians; Stefan Dunjov fought for Hungarian Revolution 1848–49. Joseph Rill, the creator of the norms of the language of Banat Bulgarians, stated the desire of the community to be pure Bulgarians and because they live in Magyar land to also be good Magyar compatriots (Miletich, Izsledvaniya, p. 504). In the second half of the nineteenth century the Banat Bulgarians had the idea that they were residents of ‘Pladnemadzharsko’ [South Hungary]. 61 Miletich, Izsledvaniya, p. 289. 62 NBKM-BIA//CMNL-BHA, col. 68, a.u.16–19. A copy of this diploma can be found at the ­Archives of the Institute for Historical Studies at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences–­ Sofia [aiii – ban], col. i, Inv. 90, № 292.

206

Georgiev

Illustration 7.1 Diploma of Emperor Joseph II (1787) Source: NBKM-BIA, col. 68, a. u. 1, f. 16, June 21,1787, Vienna. Diploma, copy, Latin language from Emperor Josephus II about the rise of the place Vetero--Bessenyova to the rank of town and about the privileges of the town to conduct markets.

Bulgarian Settlers in the Banat

207

craft. The address of the “Roman Emperor elected in God’s will” (DEI GRATIA ELECTUS ROMANORUM IMPERATOR) to the traders is a shining example of the efficiency of the ideas of mercantilism in the Habsburg monarchy at the end of the eighteenth century. The diploma of 1787 changed the traditional idea that Beshenov was occupied by typical peasants who subsisted solely by farming, and that only the Chiprovtsians in Transylvania and in Vinga were skilled traders. The trade seems to have been an important livelihood for all Bulgarians Catholics, subjects to the Emperor at Vienna. The conditions in the village on Aranca River proved favorable for the Paulicians. Beshenov witnessed a lasting demographic growth. At the time of the initial settlement 1689 people lived there; by 1802 the number had jumped to 4,176 people (500 families) and by 1869 to 7,529 people.63 This happened even though the village sent out colonists, who built about ten villages in the Banat, not counting the migration towards different cities in the Habsburg Empire. ­Although after the liberation of Bulgaria (1878) many Banat Bulgarians ­returned to the ‘mother country’, Beshenov nevertheless remained the biggest Bulgarian village in the Banat. In the middle of the 19th century Beshenov administratively belonged to the district Nagy Saint Miklos, and it is appropriate to mention the association with the famous treasure from Nagy St. Miklos: in the land of that village, not far from Beshenov, the Bulgarian gold vessels from the 9th century were found, which are kept today at the Museum of Art History in Vienna. In the 1850s Beshenov was defined as a royal cameral marketplace. A weekly market was conducted there. The residents who formed the so-called ‘Bulgarian colony’ (probably the village ‘Colonia Bulgara’) had their own parish.64 Beshenov remains the strongest pillar of Bulgarians in the Banat: as the saying goes, “Aku želiš da ni se lutaš, ud Bišnova nide da ne butaš”.65 The City of Vinga The toponym Vinga probably originated from Vinculum (Lat. shackles or fortress), or is connected with wine, Vinnitsa. The first mention of Vinga was in 1214.66 Vinga was named Theresiopolis in 1744. The toponym occurs also in forms such as Theresienfeld and Theresienstadt. The name of the Empress 63 Telbizov and Vekova-Telbizova, Traditsionen bit, pp. 10–11. 64 Raffelsperger, Allgemeines, vol.1, pp. 345–46. 65 In the Banat Bulgarian language – “If you do not want to wander in the dark, do not go anywhere from Beshenov”, in Ivancov and Ivancov, Banatsci, p. 11. 66 Rankov, Vinga, p. 10. Chronicles about the past of Theresiopel from the Archival Inventory of Leopold Kosilkov mention that Vinga was founded in the first half of the 18th century

208

Georgiev

Maria Theresa is an integral part of the names of at least 25 settlements. For example, Theresin (known in the 20th century because of its concentration camp), situated on the Czech-German border and Maria-Theresiopel, which today is called Subotica, on the Serbian-Hungarian border. There are four settlements named Theresiendorf and three Theresienstadt. Vinga lies about 20 kilometers southeast of the town Arad, 30 kilometers north of Temeswar, and 55 kilometers east of Nagy Saint Miklos.67 The settlement, an important link between the regional center Temeswar and the cities Arad and Lipa,68 is located in the higher part of the plain of the river Tisza and has an average altitude of 130 meters.69 In the autumn of 1741 different groups of Bulgarians from Wallachia and Transylvania (emigrants from Chiprovtsi, Paulicians; Bulgarized descendants of Albanians from Kopilovtsi; Lutherans from Cserged; and Orthodox Bulgarians) emigrated together to Vinga.70 A good picture of that diversity is given in a 1756 inventory of the city’s population, according to which there were living in Theresiopel at that time 70 ‘Bulgarian’ families, 74 ‘Paulician’, ten Orthodox (Bulgarians and Vlachs), three Bulgarian from Cserged and two German.71 The number of Paulicians in Vinga increased and they became richer compared to the citizens from Chiprovtsi. The Paulicians benefited from the climate. They came from the Danube valley and knew how to live off the land agriculturally there. The ‘Bulgarians’, however, came from the mountains, were herdsman, and were disadvantaged by the boggy land. In 1758 the Bulgarians from Vinga sent a request to the Empress to give them a permission to emigrate elsewhere. Not only did many people perish each year due to the bad climate, but also the cattle died because of some ineradicable poisonous grass on the land. The ‘Bulgarians’ claimed in the supplication that they had not the skills to make a living in agriculture, so trade and cattle were their only professions.72 Undoubtedly, the problem affected primarily the Chiprovtsians – t­ raditionally traders and pastoralists, while the farmers from the Nikopol region were ­extremely favored by the vast land of the municipality. The Chiprovtsians, however, remained the group that managed the self-­ government of the municipality73 and they gave to Vinga its urban appearance, by the Count Nicholas Ugorin (Ugrin, Ugron), the brother of the Archbishop of the capital Esztergom. See nbkm-bia, f. 579, a.u.6, f. 16–19. 67 Andrees, Neuer, S. 50. 68 Lipsky, Post- und Generalkarte. 69 Vinga, p. 10. 70 Miletich, Izsledvaniya, p. 275. 71 Ibid., p. 294. 72 Ibid., pp. 449–50. 73 Ibid., p. 298.

Bulgarian Settlers in the Banat

209

which strongly distinguished it from Beshenov. While Beshenov witnessed a continuous demographic growth and sent colonists across the Banat, Theresiopel increased its population only slowly. A report from the visitation of 14 April 1766 about the situation of the faith (Status Religionis) in Theresiopel noted that in 1750 the city’s population was 1,360, while by 1765 it had increased to 1,632.74 In 1828 some 3,128 people lived in the city, while by 1836 their n ­ umber had increased to 3,611.75 By the middle of the 19th century Vinga had 645 houses and between 3,891 and 4,790 people – Bulgarians, Hungarians, and Germans.76 A trade fair was organized yearly. It had an imperial high school, a post office, a Franciscan Monastery, and an Orthodox Church. Unlike Beshenov, which had an exclusively Bulgarian population, Vinga’s population included other nationalities. The residents of the city at the end of the 19th century numbered 4,796 – Bulgarians and some Germans, Vlachs, and Hungarians.77 Moreover, Vinga did not send colonists to other settlements of the Banat. In contrast, however, more clerics and teachers were born and raised in the city of Vinga than in Beshenov and all its colonies combined. It is not a coincidence that the first Bulgarian member of the Academy Eusebius Fermendzin came from Vinga. The Empress Maria Theresa, who was venerated by the Banat Bulgarians, donated privileges to Vinga by a diploma dated August 1 1744.78 The citizens of Vinga received the right to choose from among themselves a judge and six jurors, always of Catholic religion, who had to solve the ordinary civil and penal disputes according to the folk customs. The Bulgarians acquired permission to build Catholic churches and schools and to supervise them, to produce and sell alcoholic beverages, to trade anywhere in the country, and to hold three annual trade fairs in their city. As requested by the people of Vinga, permission to name their city Theresiopel was included at the end of the diploma for privileges.79 The privileged city also acquired a coat of arms. One half of this emblem represented the name Theresiopel with crowned letters on a red field, and the other half a tower on a rock on a blue field, “which means that the dispersed nation of Bulgarians would find protection and shelter in Austria” (Illustration 7.2).80 74

Hofkammerarchiv, Banater Akten, roten Nr: 138, Fasz. 31, 1757–1767, Katholischer Klerus, 1765, F. 310–319. 75 Telbizov and Vekova-Telbizova, Traditsionen bit, p. 16. 76 Raffelsperger, Allgemeines, p. 135 accepts a lesser number, while Czoernig, Ethnographie, vol. iii., p. 265 the greater. 77 Die Österreichisch-Ungarische Monarchie, pp. 531–32. 78 Central State Archives–Sofia [=cda], kmf 11, № 865/3, nim № 33489. 79 Miletic, Izsledvaniya, pp. 287, 430–35. 80 Die Österreichisch-Ungarische Monarchie, pp. 531–32.

210

Georgiev

Illustration 7.2 Certificate of the urban magistrates of Vinga Source: NBKM-BIA, col. 68, a. u. 1, f. 20. October 15, 1835, ­T heresiopolis. Certificate, Latin language, from the urban ­m agistrates stating that Marcus Kalikin is a true citizen of the privileged imperial city Theresiopolis.

Bulgarian Settlers in the Banat

211

The course of history does not run smoothly and sooner or later the old values, achieved at the cost of hard work and sacrifices, became annoying burdens and anachronisms. In 1882, the citizens of Vinga sent a collective letter to the Minister of Internal Affairs in which they renounced their urban status and privileges, because they no longer corresponded to the real situation in the municipality and the citizens of Vinga were overburdened by taxes. The petitioners asked for Vinga to be transformed into a village community.81 Ten years later the market right of the municipality was also sold.82 Here is the right place to put an end to the story about the privileges of the Bulgarian Catholics in Transylvania and the Banat. A new and different period in their history began whose study goes beyond our topic. Different groups of immigrants, related to Bulgaria, lived in the Banat in the 18th and 19th centuries. The older Catholics (‘Bulgarians’ from the region of Chiprovtsi), and the newer Catholics (‘Paulicians’ from the region of Nikopol), met the ‘Krashovani’ (the native Catholics from the region of Temeswar) and the ‘Ishmaelites’ (probably Bulgarian Muslims) in the province of Temeswar. Comparing these minorities with each other and, in the larger context, with the other ethnical and confessional identities in the variegated Banat, could be a fruitful study not only for the history of Bulgaria and of the Banat, but also for the migrations and relations across the Danube. Bibliography Archival Sources

Archives of the Institute for Historical Studies at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences – Sofia [AIII-BAN], col. I, Inv. 90, № 292. Central State Archives – Sofia [CDA], KMF 11, № 865/3. Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv – Wien [HHStA], Kabinettsarchiv, XI-10 i, Nachlass Zinzendorf. Hofkammerarchiv – Wien [HKA], Camerale Ungarn und Siebenbürgen, Banater Akten. National Historical Museum – Sofia [NIM], № 33489. St. St. Cyril and Methodius National Library – Bulgarian Historical Archives – ­Sofia  [NBKM-BIA/CMNL-BHA], col. 68 (Bulgarian Catholics in Transylvania and Banat).

81 82

Archives of the Institute for Historical Studies at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, col. i, inv. 90, № 440. Ibid, inv. 90, № 449.

212

Georgiev

Secondary Literature

Andrees, R., Neuer allgemeiner Österreich – Ungarischer Handatlas, Vienna 1904. Czoernig, K., Ethnographie der Österreichischen Monarchie, Vienna 1857, vol. I. Dimitrov, B., Minaloto na grad Rakovski [The past of the town of Rakovsky], Sofia 1989. Elenkov, Iv., Katolicheskata tsŭrkva v Bŭlgariya I obshtnostnite identichnosti na prinadlezhashtite kŭm neya verni prez XIX v. i pŭrvata polovina na XX v. [The Catholic Church in Bulgaria and the Community Identities of the Faithful who Belonged to it in the 19th Century and the First Half of the 20th Century], http://www.catholic-bg. org/?act=content&rec=101 (accessed 24.03.2015). Engel, J., Geschichte des Ungarischen Reichs und seiner Nebenländer. Erster Theil. Geschichte des alten Pannoniens und der Bulgarey, nebst einer allgemeinen Einleitung in die Ungarische und Illyrische Geschichte, Halle 1797. Fermendžin, E., “Acta Bulgariae ecclesiastica ab a. 1565 usque ad a. 1799”, in Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum Meridionalium, vol. XVIII, Zagreb 1887. Fermendžin, E., “Acta Bosnae potissimum ecclesiastica ab a. 925 ad a. 1752”, in Monumenta spectantia Slavorum meridionalium, vol. 18, Zagreb 1892. Georgiev, L., Bulgarite catolici v Transylvania i Banat (XVIII – parvata polovina na XIX v.) [The Bulgarian Catholics in Transylvania and Banat (18th – the First Half of the 19th Century)], Sofia 2010. Griselini, Fr., Versuch einer politischen und natürlichen Geschichte des temeswarer Banats in Briefen an Standespersonen und Gelehrte, Erster Teil, Vienna 1780. Gyuzelev, V., “Iz istoriyata na Bŭlgariya prez 1358 i 1365 g”. [From the History of Bulgaria in 1358 and 1365], Istoricheski pregled 3 (1975), pp. 102–10. Gyuzelev, V., “Kratŭk ocherk vŭrkhu otnosheniyata mezhdu Rimskata tsŭrkva I Bŭlgarskoto tsarstvo prez Srednovekovieto (IX–XIV v.)” [A Short Essay on the Relationship between the Roman Church and the Bulgarian Kingdom in the Middle Ages (9th–14th Century)], in Katolicheskata dukhovna kultura i neĭnoto prisŭstvie i vliyanie v Bŭlgariya, Sofia 1992, pp. 71–83. Gyuzelev, V., “Religiozna tŭrpimost i nesŭvmestimost v otnosheniyata mezhdu gŭrtsi i bŭlgari, mezhdu pravoslavni i katolitsi v istoriyata na Bŭlgariya prez XIII–sredata na XIV v”. [Religious Tolerance and Incompatibility in the Relations between Greeks and Bulgarians, between Orthodox and Catholics in the History of Bulgaria during 13th-Mid 14th Century], Palaeobulgarica / Starobŭlgaristika 3 (1999), pp. 50–65. Iovkov, M., Pavlikyani i pavlikyanski selishta v bŭlgarskite zemi XV–XVII v. [Paulicians and Paulician Settlements in the Bulgarian Lands 15th–17th Century], Sofia 1991. Istoriya na Bulgaria [History of Bulgaria], vol. IV, Sofia 1983. Ivancov, K. and Ivancov, A., Banatsci balgarski folklor. II Tom: Paremiologija – poslovici i pogovorki [Banat Bulgarian Folklore – Proverbs and Sayings], Timişoara 2004. Jnez Galvez, F., Blasii Kleiner Archivum Tripartitum Inclytae Provinciae Bulgariae. Nueva Roma, vol. 4, Madrid 1997.

Bulgarian Settlers in the Banat

213

Kamenova-Borin, A. and Donchev, T. (eds.), Lichnost, narod, istoriya. Natsionalnoosvoboditelnite borbi prez perioda XV–XIX v. [Person, People, History. The Struggles for the National Liberation during 15th–19th Century], Sofia 2014. Kleiner, Bl., Istoriya na Bŭlgariya ot Blasius Kleiner, sŭstavena v 1761 g. [History of Bulgaria by Blasius Kleiner, written in 1761], edited by Iv. Duychev and K. Telbizov, Sofia 1977. Kleiner, Bl., Hronika na bŭlgarskoto frantsiskanstvo (XIV–XVIII v.), sŭstavena prez 1775 g. v gr. Alvints ot Blazius Klaĭner (Archivium tripartitum – III), [Chronicle of the Bulgarian Franciscans (14th–18th Century), Written in 1775 in the Town of Alvintz by Blasius Kleiner (Archivium tripartitum – III)], edited by I. Magdyar, translated by E. Markovska, Sofia 1999. Kyurkchieva, I., Svetŭt na bŭlgarite myusyulmani v Tetevensko. Prehod kŭm modernost [The World of the Bulgarian Muslims in Teteven Region. Transition to Modernity], Sofia 2004. Lipsky, J., Post- und Generalkarte des Königreiches Ungarn, Vienna 1851. Miletich, L., Izsledvaniya za bŭlgarite v Sedmigradsko i Banat [Studies on Bulgarians in Transylvania and Banat], edited by S. Damianov, Sofia 1987. Milev, N., Katoliskata propaganda v Bulgaria prez XII vek. [The Catholic Propaganda in Bulgaria in the 17th Century], Sofia 1914. Neshev, G., I. Ivanov, and R. Trendafilova (eds.), Chiprovtsi 1688–1988: Sbornik, posveten na 300 godishninata o tChiprovskoto vŭstanie [Chiprovtsi 1688–1988. Collection Dedicated to the 300 Anniversary of the Chiprovtsi Uprising], Sofia 1989. Nyagulov, Bl., Banatskite bŭlgari. Istoriyata na edna maltsinstvena obshtnost vŭv vremeto na natsionalnite dŭrzhavi [Banat Bulgarians. The History of a Minority C ­ ommunity in the Epoch of the National States], Sofia 1999. Die Österreichisch-Ungarische Monarchie in Wort und Bild, vol. 2: Ungarn, Vienna 1891. Paskaleva, V. (ed.), 300 godini Chiprovsko vŭstanie (Prinos kŭm istoriyata na bŭlgarite prez XVII v.) [300 Years since the Chiprovtsi Uprising (Contribution to the History of the Bulgarians in the 17th Century)], Sofia 1988. Pejacsevich, J., Peter Freiherr von Parchevich, Erzbischof von Martianopel. Apostolischer Vicar und Administrator der Moldau, Bulgarischer Internuntius am Kaiserlichen Hofe und Kaiserlicher Gesandter bei dem Kosaken – Hetman Bogdan Chmelnizki (­ 1612–1674), Vienna 1880. Petersen, C. and Schell, O. Handwörterbuch des Grenz- und Auslandsdeutschtums, ­Breslau 1933, vol. I. Pŭrvev, Iv., Balkanite mezhdu dve imperii [The Balkans between Two Empires], Sofia 1997. Raffelsperger, Fr., Allgemeines geographisch-statistisches Lexikon aller Österreichischen Staaten nach amtlichen Quellen, den besten vaterländischen Hilfswerken und

214

Georgiev

­Original-Manuscripten, von einer Gesellschaft Geographen, Postmännern und Staatsbeamten, Vienna, vol. 1, 1845, vol. 2, 1846, vol. 6, 1853. Rankov, P., Vinga 1741–1991, Arad 1991. Schimscha, E., Technik und Methoden der Theresianischen Besiedlung des Banats (Veröffentlichungen des Wiener Hofkammerarchivs, 4), Baden bei Wien 1939. Schwarcz, I., Spevak, St., and Veceva, E., Hoffnung auf Befreiung. Dokumente aus österreichischen Archiven zur Geschichte Bulgariens (1687–1690) (Miscellanea Bulgarica, 15), Vienna 2004. Schwicker, J., Geschichte des Temeser Banats. Historische Bilder und Skizzen, Grosz-­ Becskerek 1861. Sotirov, Iv., “Za sŭzdavaneto na Chiprovtsi i pronikvaneto na katolitsizma v Severozapadna Bŭlgariya” [About the Founding of Chiprovtsi and the Penetration of ­Catholicism in Northwestern Bulgaria], in G. Neshev, I. Ivanov, and R. Trendafilova (eds.), Chiprovtsi 1688–1988. Sbornik, posveten na 300-godishninata ot Chiprovskoto vŭstanie [Chiprovtsi 1688–1988. Collection Dedicated to the 300 Anniversary of the Chiprovtsi Uprising], Sofia 1989, pp. 30–41. Spisarevska, I., Chiprovskoto vŭstanie i evropeiiskiyat svyat [The Chiprovtsi Uprising and the European World], Sofia 1988. Telbizov, K., “Obshtinskoto upravlenie na banatskite bŭlgarski obshtini pod avstriĭska i ungarska vlast” [The Municipal Management of the Banat Bulgarian Municipalities under Austrian and Hungarian Authorities], Godishnik na Vissheto uchilishte za stopanski i sotsialni nauki “Sv. Kiril Slavyanobŭlgarski”, 18 (1945), pp. 1–57. Telbizov, K., “Oshte edna istoriya na Bŭlgariya ot sredata na XVIII vek” [Another ­History of Bulgaria from the Middle of the 18th Century], Vekove 6 (1978), pp. 24–35. Telbizov, K., and Vekova-Telbizova, M., Traditsionen bit i kultura na banatskite bŭlgari [Traditional Customs and Culture of the Banat Bulgarians], (Sbornik za narodni umotvoreniya i narodopis, 51), Sofia 1963. Tsirbus, G., “Yuzhnoungarskite bŭlgare” [The Bulgarians from Southern Hungary], Periodichesko spisanie na Bŭlgarskoto knizhovno druzhestvo v Sredets 14 (1885), pp. 230–55. Vinga – 250 gudini. Kasa monográfija pusvėtena za jubilėja ud nasėlvanjetu sas balgarepalućenė na tuj mestu ud Banáta [Vinga – 250 Years. A Short Monograph about the Anniversary of the Settlement of this Place by the Bulgarian Paulicians], Timişoara 1991.

chapter 8

‘Chasing Away the Greeks’: The Prince-State and the Undesired Foreigners (Wallachia and Moldavia between the 16th and 18th Centuries) Lidia Cotovanu The 17th-century Wallachian and Moldavian intellectuals record the remote remembrance of the fact that at the beginning of the political existence of the Danubian Principalities people came from everywhere and settled there.1 ­Recent studies have confirmed these testimonies, and traces of these early ­migratory flows have been found at the princely Court, in the monasteries, in the urban commercial life, and in the countryside. It was an immigration from neighbouring areas, originating in regions inhabited by a large Orthodox population: Ruthenia, north-east of Moldavia, controlled by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth; Transylvania, in the west of Wallachia, a part of the Hungarian Kingdom; and especially the southern Slavic regions where the Bulgarian and Serbian States lived their last days before surrendering to new Ottoman masters.2 These flows of individuals or collective movements grew relentlessly as the Ottoman Empire spread towards the Danube and even further (from the 14th up to the first half of the 16th century).3 Linked with this immigration from neighbouring areas, mostly connected with the Orthodoxy of Slavic origins – although the Armenians, the Jews, the Hungarians, and the Catholic Germans were also represented4 – one finds, starting with the second half of 14th ­century, traces of migrants originating from regions attached to the Greek Orthodoxy. Apart from the high prelates designated by the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate as leaders of local Churches, and apart from the early signs of 1 Giurescu, Letopiseţul, pp. 7, 15; Costin, Opere, p. 233; Grecescu and Simonescu, Istoria, p. 2. 2 For these first waves of immigration towards the Principalities, the reader will find complete references in Cotovanu, Migrations et mutations, 1st part. 3 Wallachia became a tributary State to the Porte in 1417, Moldavia in 1456. In exchange for an annual payment, the two countries kept their political, administrative and judicial autonomy: see Gorovei, “Moldova în ‘Casa păcii’”, Guboglu, “Le tribut”, and Panaite, Pace, război şi comerţ. 4 For the role of the Armenians, Hungarians, and Germans in the development of the commerce and of the first towns in the Principalities, see Iorga, “Istoria evreilor”; Iorga, “Armenii”; Siruni, “Armenii”; Rădvan, “Consideraţii”; Rădvan, “Considerations”.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004335448_010

216

Cotovanu

­monastic life spread by Greek-speaking monks,5 one finds in the Princely Council and in the princely Court people bearing Geek or Albanian names adapted to the Romanian phonetics, very rare in the Principalities: Andronic, Filos, Caloian, Ghinea, Golin, Deadiul, Duca, Manoil, Pahulea, Piper, Polivar, Sinadino, Sarandino, Sarul, Spanopula, Uranie, etc. Their numbers grew stronger during the 15th century,6 and exploded in the middle of the 16th century, for reasons that will be presented in the following pages.7 All fields of local life were accessible. One recognizes them in the Wallachian and Moldavian sources – written in Slavonic and, starting from the end of the 16th century, also in Romanian – especially by their names, their stated place of origin, the collective name ‘the Greek’ (‘grecul’) or ‘the Albanian’ (‘arbănaşul’) assigned individually,8 the signs of using the Greek writing (private documents, autograph signatures, votive inscriptions) and, in specific cases, religious donations towards the native regions. A complete inventory of such indicators for the long period of time stretching from the 14th to the 17th centuries showed a strong concentration of places of origins of these Greek-speaking migrants in the Balkan dioceses of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate, especially in Epirus, Thessaly, and Western Macedonia. Less significantly, others arrived from Constantinople, often in the entourage of the Princes named by the Sultan and from the isles of the Levant.9 The incessant movement of these peoples towards Wallachia and Moldavia does not represent a secondary phenomenon. On the contrary, it is an element shaping both public and social space. These migratory flows have 5 Barbu, “O mărturie”; Solomon, “Mitropoliţii greci”; Cotovanu, “Alexis de Kiev”. The first large monasteries of Wallachia were founded by monk Nicodim, who arrived from Serbia, a man close to the Patriarchate of Constantinople: see Lăzărescu, “Nicodim” and Nastase, “Le Mont Athos”. 6 For certain cases of officials, merchants and painters coming from Constantinople, ­Macedonia, Epirus, or Thessaly, and who established themselves successfully in the Principalities (end 14th century – 15th century) see Năsturel, “Sur quelques boyards”, Cazacu, “Venise et la Moldavie”, Ganchou, “La fraterna societas”, and Cotovanu, “Une donation inconnue”, pp. 352–53. For the impact of the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople on the movement of the Christian subjects towards the Principalities, see Iorga, Byzance, and Năsturel, “Urmările”. 7 For the increasing bibliography of the subject, see the more or less recent studies by Cama­riano-Cioran, L’Épire; Caproşu, O istorie a Moldovei; Chelcu, “Implicarea elementului ­grecesc”; Păun, Pouvoirs, offices; Păun, “Les grands officiers”; Lazăr, Les marchands; Falangas, “Μορφές”; Falangas, Présences grecques; Luca, “The Rise of the Greek”; Cotovanu, “Le diocèse de Dryinoupolis”; Cotovanu, “Despre ctitorii arbănaşi” ; Cotovanu, “À la recherche de nouveaux contribuables”. 8 I intend to put the collective nouns into quotation marks, because they are used out of their context. I will return later on their multiple meanings. 9 Cotovanu, “L’émigration”.

‘Chasing Away the Greeks’

217

brought new men, with aims and habits often incompatible with the customs of the autochthons. The whole process of adaptation, from both sides, was not deprived of tensions. The confessional difference was often a factor of individual or collective exclusion in the Principalities, which might seem normal in these ‘Prince-States’10 with Orthodoxy as official religion.11 On the contrary, in these States, where legitimate power streams from God and not from the ‘sovereign people’, it is more difficult to identify the reasons behind the discursive exclusion and the physical persecutions directed against the ‘Greeks’, a group sharing the official religious orientation of the Principalities, and which was not only present but also useful in their development. The aim of this chapter is to throw some new light on this period in the history of Balkan emigration ­towards the Romanian Principalities, a period less known outside of Romanian historiography. An entire array of Wallachian and Moldavian narrative, juridical, and diplomatic sources, dating from the 16th up to the 18th century, show that ‘the Greeks’ were not liked in the two countries. They were accused of breaking the local ‘good customs’, inventing new taxes for the local subjects, yet avoiding the payment of their own fiscal obligations, selling monasteries and disposing of their goods as they wished, and savagely exploiting the peasants. The chroniclers even chose to overlook the involvement of the ‘Greek’ element ­during the institutional establishment of the Principalities, by keeping silent on the subject.12 Some Princes even issued laws against ‘the Greeks that devour the country’, as we shall see later on. For more than a century, the overthrow of the contested Princes by their political adversaries was sometimes accompanied by rebellions and street massacres, which led to the death of many ­dignitaries and merchants, as we will see later. During this period of ­Ottoman ­domination, which was marked by the immigration to the Principalities of an e­ ver- ­increasing number of Christian-orthodox subjects of the Sultan, ‘the Greeks’ became, in the social imaginary of the two countries, synonymous with the unwanted ‘foreigners’ (Rom. ‘străini’).13 10 11

12 13

I have borrowed the expression ‘Prince-State’, used in the title of this chapter, from Păun, “La circulation des pouvoirs”. Cazacu, “La tolérance”. For the specific case of Muslim Ottoman subjects, who were ­forbidden to take residence in the Principalities, see Mehmet, “Despre dreptul de proprietate”, Georgescu and Strihan, Judecata domnească vol. 1/1, pp. 57–61, vol. 1/2, pp. 53–58, and Alexandrescu-Dersca Bulgaru, “Sur le régime”. This specific issue concerning the anti-Greek attitude in the Principalities was studied by Falangas, Présences grecques and “On Greek-Romanian Antagonism”, pp. 91–107. For the period under scrutiny here, the Romanian term ‘foreigners’, applied also to the specific case of immigrants sharing the official confession of Wallachia/Moldavia, stood both for those conceived as ‘foreigners’ because of their language / culture and place of

218

Cotovanu

The subject of the Greeks stigmatization,14 the state’s legal measures against them, and the anti-Greek revolts which tormented the public and social life of the Principalities for more than a century has not been studied adequately hitherto; the motivation, the purpose, and the objectives of the verbal exclusion and of the physical persecutions have also been misinterpreted.15 We still do not know why exactly ‘the Greeks’ were the subject of debate, and not the Ottoman subjects in general, who settled in the Principalities and infiltrated all local fields of activity (administration, diplomacy, arts, finances, commerce, army, churches and monasteries, agriculture) from the second half of the 14th century and throughout the 15th century.16 ‘The Greeks’ (Rom. ‘greci’, Gr. ‘Ρωμαίοι’) were not the only Orthodox ‘foreigners’ attested by the local sources; one distinguished clearly ‘Albanians’ (‘arbănaşi’), ‘Serbians’ (‘sârbi’), and ‘Bulgarians’ (‘bulgari’ or ‘şchei’ < Lat. sclavus = Slave), not to mention the Balkan ‘Wallachians’ (Aromanians) and especially those from Greek- speaking areas that abounded in the local political and economic life, but their presence was not attested in terms of distinct groups; other indicators allow us to grasp their consistent establishment in the Danubian Principalities.17 Therefore, against origin, and those were subjects of a different ruler. Therefore, the Orthodox migrants who from a juridical point of view became subjects of the Danubian Princes still remained ‘foreigners’ from the other points of view, the cultural and geographical-spatial ones. In every day usage the ‘foreigner’ is the person coming from afar, ‘from another country’ (Rom. ‘din altă ţară’). 14 The term stigmatisation refers to the degrading of an individual or a group, by the use of a defamatory discourse, because they do not meet the expectations of the dominant cultural / ideological system: Goffman, Stigmate. In this study, the ‘Greeks’ were stigmatized not because they were Greeks, but because they ‘undermined the good customs’: we will return to this later. Their ‘Greekness’ served just as the common denominator of a group that was to be targeted. 15 Among the few studies that attempted to ‘decipher’ the issue of the anti-Greek attitude prevailing in the Principalities, we mention Stănescu in Gregorian, Cronicari munteni, vol.  1, pp. lxix–lxxv; Stănescu, “Préphanariotes”; Şerban, “Les préliminaires”; Rezachevici, “Fenomene de criză (i)”; Rezachevici, “Fenomene de criză (ii)”; Păun, P­ ouvoirs, offices, pp. 522–24; Rizescu, Avant l’‘État-juge’, pp. 158–59; Falangas, “On G ­ reek-Romanian Antagonism”. 16 Cotovanu, Migrations et mutations, 1st part, with sources and bibliography. 17 The fact that the ‘Wallachians’/‘Aromanians’ were not mentioned, as a group, in the Principalities’ private or official sources could be explained by the name they used which was common with that of the ‘Wallachians’/‘Romanians’ inhabitants of the two countries; they were both called ‘Wallachians’ from the others and called themselves ‘Aromanians’/‘Romanians’, according to the phonetically varying versions of the term in each area (‘români’, ‘rumâni’, ‘armâni’). Moreover, the fact that they used

‘Chasing Away the Greeks’

219

current opinion, the collective noun ‘Greeks’ did not account always just for the Orthodox confession of the group: it accounted for other criteria of collective identification.18 Moreover, it should be added that the Sultan’s ­Orthodox subjects took residence, north of the Danube, in an Orthodox milieu, which made their confession irrelevant for a collective definition. One still has to see – and clarification of this is one of the aims of the present chapter – what ‘Greeks’ meant in the public and social space of the Principalities. It is ­precisely by means of the multiple representations of ‘being Greek’ that one can decipher the challenges of the anti-Greek attitude which dominated the political and social life of the Principalities in the 17th century and afterwards. The less discussed question was why ‘the Greeks’, who constituted a specific group inside the pool of Orthodox migrants, were never discarded from power, nor were they forbidden to gain power, to rule monasteries, to buy land or to hold offices, despite the general animosity against them, and even given the fact that several public measures were taken against them. On the contrary, as we shall see, the specific anthroponym and other externals signs of the Greekness (place of origin, Greek writing, the name ‘Greek’) were characteristics of individuals who were among the propagators and instigators of ‘anti-Greek’ discourses and revolts.19 Then, among the persecuted ‘Greeks’, one might find ‘Albanians’, and undoubtedly ‘Wallachians’, attached to their ‘Roman’, that is ‘Greek’ belonging.20 Historians have often noticed ‘the paradox’, yet they have failed to explain it. I shall try to prove that in fact there is nothing paradoxical about it. There is also nothing paradoxical about the fact that for more than a century (from the 16th up to the 18th century) dominated by stigmatization and persecution of those perceived as ‘Greeks’, there was no real collective ­exclusion of the contested group. The immigration from the grecophone regions continued, in ever- increasing numbers, and proved useful in all local

18 19

20

­ on-standardised eastern-romance dialects permitted them to adapt easily, linguistically, n to the local society. In the 14th–17th centuries the sources mention only one individual ‘Wallahian’/‘Aromanian’,: Iane ‘the Kutsovlach’ (see Cotovanu, “L’émigration”, note 45). The same conclusion, based on Ottoman sources, was drawn by Ivanova, “Το καθεστώς”, pp. 21–22. The Kantakouzenoi, who were accused of being ‘Constantinopolitan Greeks’, made use of the anti-Greek argument and imposed four members of the family as Princes of the Principalities (until 1716). See the example of the ‘Albanian’ Stradioti on Charles’ V payroll (early 16th century), who claimed a ‘Roman’, and therefore ‘Greek’ belonging, invoking their collective link to the Macedonian Alexander the Great: Falangas, “Μορφές”, note 99, pp. 424–26; Falangas, Présences grecques, pp. 288–89, 291–93. I shall refer later to the case of the Moldavian Prince Vasile Lupu, ‘Albanian’ for some, ‘Greek’ for others.

220

Cotovanu

fields of activity. The financial power, the influence at the Ottoman Court, and the specialized competences of the migrants were in high demand.21 The reasons for this historiographical unease surrounding the subject concern especially the use of analytical tools unsuitable for that time, for that type of state and society. Enclosed in an ethnical representation of collective differences, specific to the ‘world-system’ (I. Wallerstein) of the Nation-States and of the nationalisms,22 the historians who have dealt with the subject have fallen into the trap of antinomic and anachronistic approaches. First of all, these researchers took the liberty of labelling as ethnically ‘Greeks’ all individuals originating from the provinces of the Ecumenical (Greek- Orthodox) Patriarchate, including the ‘Albanian’ and ‘Wallachian’ (Aromanians).23 This explains their difficulty in addressing the paradoxical conflict opposing ‘Greeks’ to other ‘Greeks’. Deceived by their own conception of Greekness as being hereditary and exclusive, some historians24 have thought that the Greekness was only a pretext for conflicting political and ideological options expressed by the individuals under scrutiny. As a consequence, all problems connected with ‘­being Greek’ were relegated to the field of ideology and political confrontations, which offered an explanation to the fact that there were ‘Greeks’ on both sides of the conflict. Sometimes the same historians, tricked by the same ethnic perspective on the notion of ‘being Greek’, have used antinomies such as:25 21 22

23

24 25

For areas of competence of those who were seen as ‘Greeks’, see Păun, “Les grands officiers”. Ethnicity as essentialist representation of categorial differences and instrument of contemporary practice appeared as a result of the emergence of the first Nation-States in Europe (French and later German, especially) and of the gradual dissemination of their model in the areas of ideological, economical, or other influence. As a consequence, ethnicity is as unique as the national belonging which served as its model; ethnicity is also hereditary and therefore exclusive. I take the liberty to recommend to the reader my own researches on the topic, as well as on the manner in which the national/ethnic imaginary has left a mark on the historians dealing with pre-national periods and on their methodological instruments: Cotovanu, Migrations et mutations, pp. 10–55. The contemporary representation of ‘Greekness’, which is based on the belonging to the Greek nation (at the same time political, juridical, cultural, and organic: Delannoi, Sociologie), and which excludes other forms of belonging, should not be confounded with the ‘Greekness’ that the 16th–17th centuries individuals could easily display, choosing it from their multiple social acquired belongings. I will return later to the second point. Stănescu in Gregorian, Cronicari munteni, vol. 1, pp. lxix–lxxv; Stănescu, “Préphanariotes”, pp. 347–53; Păun, Pouvoirs, offices, pp. 523, 524. Stănescu in Gregorian, Cronicari munteni, vol. 1, p. lxxv; Stănescu, “Préphanariotes”, p. 352; Constantiniu, “Politica externă”, pp. 119, 122, 133; Georgescu, “Hrisovul”, p. 1019; Rezachevici, “Fenomene de criză (i)”, pp. 72, 73; Rezachevici, “Fenomene de criză (ii)”,

‘Chasing Away the Greeks’

221

• naturalized Greeks (anachronistic term26) / foreign Greeks (expression mixing the cultural belonging to the political and juridical belonging, according to a Nation-State conception); • Greeks of the country / Greeks of the court (also an arbitrary distinction because the Greeks of the court were also Greeks of the country, being great landowners and, from a juridical point of view, both were subjects of the local Princes); • Constantinopolitan Greeks / Ottoman Greeks (‘the Greeks’ of the Capital city of the Ottoman Empire were still mostly natives of other regions of the Empire in the 17th century). In all these cases, the historians oppose ‘the Greeks’ to ‘the Romanians’, according to their ethnic-nationalistic representation of the two groups: thus, the individuals and their supposedly unique Greek or Romanian belonging formed the focus of the analysis. Nevertheless, in order to move beyond these confusions, so as to understand what ‘Greeks’ meant in 16th–17th century Wallachia and Moldavia, and in order to understand why certain ‘Greeks’ fought with other ‘Greeks’ and why it was impossible and even undesirable to chase away the unwelcome ‘Greeks’ or to isolate them through the establishment of a specific collective status, one should take into consideration four characteristics of the regions discussed here:27 (1) As we have said before, the immigrants and the host societies shared the same Orthodox confession. As a consequence, we should discard from our analysis the confessional meaning of the term ‘Greek’ (which was ­instead relevant in multi-confessional settings). (2) The collective noun ‘Greeks’ had several different meanings inside the Orthodox community, because ‘being Greek’ was defined by means of many other categories: language (with several levels of use, such as the

26

27

pp.  105, 107; Stoicescu, Matei Basarab, pp. 11–25; Păun, Pouvoirs, offices, p. 522; Rizescu, Avant l’“État-juge”, pp. 158–59, 161. It is in contemporary times that the juridical act of naturalization transforms ‘the Greek’ into ‘Romanian’. For the ‘naturalization’ as a contemporary juridical principle for the ­integration of an individual in a Nation-State, see Weil, Qu’est-ce qu’un Français ?. For the naturalization as an analytical term inappropriate for the study of the South­eastern ­European socio-political region, see Cotovanu, Migrations et mutations, pp. 25–29, 408–09. These characteristics are presented in full detail in Cotovanu, Migrations et mutations, 2nd part.

222

Cotovanu

learned Greek language and the vernacular un-standardized dialects); place of origin, invoked in the Wallachian / Moldavian sources as ‘Greek Country’ (Rom. ‘Ţara Grecească’), with reference to the Greek liturgical / vernacular-speaking western part of the Ottoman Empire under Constantinopolitan ecclesiastic jurisdiction, corresponding to the Ottoman administrative term Rumeli, derived in its turn from the name of the ‘roman’ population (‘ρωμαϊκός’) living there. The ‘Greek’ world in itself had therefore several limits: cultural, with regards to the Byzantine GreekOrthodox heritage, and jurisdictional, with regards to the jurisdiction of the ‘Greek’ Patriarchate, different then from that of the ‘Serbian’ Patriarchate of Peć (restored in 1557). Therefore, there were several ways to be ‘Greek’: linguistically, juridically, administratively, and geographically. (3) As regards the migrants’ places of origin, concentrated in the western part of the Ottoman Empire, we deal with plurilingual worlds and with crossed spatial limits (cultural, jurisdictional, ecclesiastical, juridical, administrative, communal) which conferred to the individuals multiple collective belongings,28 be they of a common reference level (the language, for example), or of different reference levels (language/place of origin). Therefore, at an individual level, being ‘Greek’ from the perspective of a collective definition did not exclude being in some cases also ‘Albanian’ or ‘Wallachian’ (Aromanian) from yet another perspective. Everything depended on the individual initiating the process of identification, based on their own provenance and connections, the message someone wanted to convey, cognitive horizon, etc. Precise examples will soon follow. (4) In the case of the Danubian Principalities, we are dealing with regions where sovereignty was of divine provenance (the sovereign is its sole depository), different from the national States (where sovereignty proceeds from the natural law of the people to govern themselves). As a consequence, the collective belongings of categorial type (geographical and spatial, linguistic, and cultural in the more general sense)29 acquired by 28

29

The analytical concepts of belonging (‘appartenance’) and multiple collective belongings (referring to the fact that an individual might present specific traits of several groups at the same time, although to different degrees) will be preferred to the concepts of identity and multiple identity, which are rather a tool of contemporary practice: see Avanza and Laferté, “Dépasser”, pp. 144–46 and passim; Brubaker, “Au-delà de l’identité”. We borrow from Brubaker, “Au-delà de l’identité”, p. 75 the distinction between the collective identification on the basis of categorial attributes (race, language, nationality, citizenship) and that based on the relational attributes (kinship, friendship, links of the type patron / client or professor / pupil). We are interested here in the first cas de figure. We speak thus about groups, collective belongings or differences of a categorial type.

‘Chasing Away the Greeks’

223

i­ ndividuals during their socialization have a different status in the eyes of the public authorities. More precisely, in accordance with a political principle of Byzantine origin and of Old Testament inspiration, also implemented in the Principalities,30 the power emanates from God, and therefore from outside the social body it governs. The sovereign of Wallachia / Moldavia is delegated by God to administer the land / the country received as heritage from the crowned forefathers, but belonging to the Creator, and to govern the people who live and work it, his subjects. The power is therefore invested only in the person of the sovereign, who can delegate it to chosen subjects that share the same faith and are summoned to administer the country as officers and / or owners of (secular and ecclesiastical) land estates. Their services are recompensed by means of title deeds, donations in land belonging to the public reserve, offices in the public government apparatus (for the laics), financial exemptions, and judicial prerogatives. All those lacking title deeds had to work on someone else’s estates; this was the case with the merchants and with the heterodox communities which received, usually, urban spaces and other public lands, and the peasants, whose juridical status varied from period to period. Due to the structure of power and of the public space, it was customary to consider as subject any individual residing permanently in the country and compelled to pay taxes in exchange for the use of the land. In other words, a subject acquires status by establishing their tax residency on the land under princely jurisdiction ­(expressed in the Romanian language by the word ‘pământean’).31 Financial obligations are imposed ­according to the type of relationship with the land (owners / users), professional activity (rural / urban), confession (legal / tolerated), and involvement in the administration (servants subject to taxes / dignitaries exempted from taxes). As a result, the collective belongings of categorial type previously invoked do not cross over the juridical bond between the subject and its sovereign. The latter is not interested in the classification of his subjects along the lines of language and of place of origin; there existed therefore no need to establish generally accepted identification criteria for the ‘Greek’, ‘Albanian’, ‘Serbian’, ‘Romanian’, or ‘Moldavian’. And this all the more so, as the public authorities did not dispose of independent bureaucratic instruments for the identification of a person; the procedures for the identification of a person had to do with the social origin, the lineage, and the community that encompassed the 30 31

Georgescu, “La structuration du pouvoir”; Păun, “La circulation des pouvoirs”, pp. 263–72 and passim. Sachelarie and Stoicescu, Instituţii, pp. 354–55, s.v. ‘pământean’.

224

Cotovanu

­individual, the institution of the witnesses – in short, the face- to- face relationships.32 As a result, the public authorities did not have either a direct hold of33 or control over the individual representations of the categorial collective differences, once individuals were free to choose from their multiple belongings acquired by means of socialization and retain the most convenient one. Given the above-mentioned considerations, which will serve as methodological foundation, we shall keep in mind that the ‘Greeks’ could be ‘Greeks’ in different ways, that not everybody understood the name in the same way, that the public opinion on ‘being Greek’ could differ from the opinion of the representatives of the social body, who were attached to a plethora of languages and geographical origins. As a consequence, when one deals with the stigmatization of the ‘Greeks’ and the politics of their exclusion, one should see better who promotes the discourse and / or takes action, in which context, and why, and how a collective name is assigned (individually or collectively); one should then decipher the meaning of the assigned collective name and of the practical impact of the discourse of exclusion. This is what I will try to explore in the following pages. The first judgemental discourses directed against the ‘Greeks’ that abounded at the Court of the Wallachian Princes date from the 1560s and 1570s. In 1564 the Prince of Transylvania John Sigismund Zápolya accused Princess Chiajna, widow of Mircea Ciobanul (1545–59, with interruptions), she “used Greek advisors in every transaction, who governed the country according to their own will and were destroying it in a miserable way” [quae in omnibus sive negotijs utitur exteris consiliariys Graecis, qui prouinciam pro suo arbitratu gubernant et miserabiliter perdunt].34 The Venetian Bailo in Constantinople, Giovanni 32

With regards to the social and bureaucratic procedures of personal identification, which have rarely been studied in South-Eastern Europe, see, as bibliographical guidelines, the studies collected in Noiriel, L’identification. See also Katsiardi-Hering, “Grenz-, Staats- und Gemeinde-konskriptionen”; Mantouvalos, “Conscriptiones Graecorum”. 33 The State contributes indirectly to the shaping of collective representations and identifications by means of institutions and the common law system, which structure them as areas of common destiny. The resulting area of sovereignty tends in its turn to became a common geo-spatial and jurisdictional reference for the residents, be they natives or foreign-born. The State takes thus part in the dissemination of the name of the country contained in the intitulation of the sovereign (“voivode of the Country of Moldavia”, for example) throughout the social body (the subjects are perceived or develop themselves a feeling of “Moldavian” belonging). For the manner in which the State, structured around a power of divine right located in the sovereign’s person, serves as common identity framework for its subjects, see Biliarsky, Word and Power. 34 Hurmuzaki, Documente, vol. 2/1, No 469, p. 510.

‘Chasing Away the Greeks’

225

Correr, also stated, with regards to the high dignitaries of Alexandru ii Mircea (1568–74, 1574–77): “those were not real Wallachians, but people recently installed in the country” [quelli non erano veramente Vallachi, ma gente che habita da novo nel paese]; he meant ‘the Greeks’.35 According to the Catholic observer Giovanni di Marini Poli (1595), “all high dignitaries are foreigners and most of them perfidious Greeks” [Hoggidi li officiali maggiori sono forestieri e maggior parte grecci perfidi].36 From this era dates the first mention of some ‘Constantinopolitan Greeks’ in Wallachia. The Diptych of the princely monastery of Argeş includes a list of such high dignitaries, only one of them being a Kantakouzenos – of the Constantinopolitan circle – the others originating mainly from Epirus.37 This local testimony indicates that in Wallachia of the 1560s and of the 1570s a certain discourse concerning the category of ‘Constantinopolitan Greeks’ was already circulating, and it became a cliché for the 17th century internal and foreign policy, as we shall see. If one analyses the composition of the Princely Councils of 1560–95, one realizes that an increasing number of dignitaries originating from regions attached to the Greek Orthodoxy, especially from Epirus and from the neighbouring lands, but also from Constantinople, occupied important positions.38 Still, the fact that the first critical opinions concerning ‘the Greeks’ of Wallachia came from outside the country seems to indicate that these opinions have a larger signification and were connected with a new political order.39 The increased number of ‘Greeks’ in the Princely Council of Wallachia (the situation in Moldavia was similar) could only be the consequence of a series of more profound changes. The discourses of the Principalities’ political actors from the last decade of the 16th century that I will quote confirm this hypothesis and, in addition, allow us to delineate the first layer of representing ‘Greekness’ in the local public space. Yet before that, let us take a quick look at the geopolitical landscape of the region in the first half of the 16th century, in order 35 36 37 38 39

Ibid, vol. 4/2, No 3, p. 95. Ibid, vol. 3/1, No 189, pp. 196–97. Sacerdoţeanu, “Pomelnicul mănăstirii Argeşului”, p. 313. For a complete list of dignitaries of foreign origin and of their offspring, see Cotovanu, Migrations et mutations, Annexe 4, pp. 966–84. One could presume that similar criticism had been aired/expressed during the same period, also by members of the Wallachian and Moldavian elites, since they already ­distinguished the group of ‘Constantinopolitan Greeks’. Moreover, the non-native observers were not totally excluded from the local power circles, as the case of the Ragusan Giovanni di Marini Poli (who was a high official in the courts of Mihnea the Turk (1577– 83, 1585–91) and Michael the Brave (1593–1601) of Wallachia) indicates. See Hurmuzaki, D ­ ocumente, vol. 11, No 448, pp. 318–19; Ghinea, “La famille”, pp. 395–96.

226

Cotovanu

to better underline what made the ‘Greeks’ more present in the Principalities at the end of this period. The establishment of the Ottoman power on the shores of Bosporus and the recognition of the patriarch of Constantinople as leader of the Orthodox community under Ottoman administration and, in a broader sense, under ­Ottoman influence led to significant changes in the social, political, and economic life of the Danubian Principalities. Let us note first that the Sultan confirmed the dependency of the local Churches from the Ecumenical Patriarchate (1483, 1525);40 this decision allowed and encouraged the patriarchs and their representatives to visit the two countries for political and economic reasons.41 Following the fall into the hands of the Ottomans of the ports of Kiliya (Chilia) and Akkerman (1484), situated at the confluence of the Danube and Dniester rivers, as well as of other strategic points controlling the Lower Danube, ­Central European merchants were forced to cede to the Sultan’s subjects a part of the trade taking place between their cities and the regions ­situated south of the river, through the Principalities.42 In the first half of the 16th ­century, the ­Orthodox merchants who tried to integrate into the new secular Orthodox elite had established a part of their commercial networks in the two countries. They established their tax residency in the Principalities, took control over the ­local markets and of the transit trade, invested a part of their profit in land and, ultimately, they or their descendants permeated the local power apparatus.43 However, the turning point occurred after the advancement of the ­Ottomans towards Buda (1529–41). Wallachia and Moldavia found themselves surrounded by vassal areas (Transylvania) or by areas directly administered by the O ­ ttomans (Budjak, Dobruja/Dobrogea, the crossing points on the Danube). The two countries accepted a regime of more stringent domination (in comparison to the regime established during the 15th century), as in addition to the yearly tribute, the confirmation, and sometimes the nomination of their Princes was made by the Sultan, who could choose from a large number of pretenders in Constantinople.44 40 Zachariadou, Δέκα τουρκικά έγγραφα, pp. 118, 152, No 1, p. 157, No 7, p. 174. 41 Popescu, Patriarhii Ţarigradului; Reinsch, “Die Macht des Gesetzbuches”, pp. 307–23; Konortas, “Les contributions”, pp. 220, 239–40; Teoteoi, “O misiune”, pp. 295–319. 42 Pakucz-Willcocks, “‘Greek’ Merchants”. 43 Cotovanu, Migrations et mutations, pp. 251–53, 259–79. 44 The Sultan now had the possibility of choosing the Princes from the princely sons held hostages by the Porte. For this institution of Byzantine origin, see Mureşan, “Princes”, pp. 145–53.

‘Chasing Away the Greeks’

227

The reaction of the high nobility was immediate,45 and led to its division as a political class; part of the political elite looked towards Constantinople, but another part remained attached to the customary form of government, according to which the ruling Prince had to be chosen by them from the candidates belonging to local dynasties, and not by the Porte. The boyars who chose this second way intended to rely upon the neighbouring Christian powers in order to diminish, if not discard, the Ottoman suzerainty: the Habsburgs, in the case of Wallachia; Poland and later Russia, in the case of Moldavia. In fact, the transformation that occurred in the middle of the 16th century brought above all an institutional shift with regard to the relationship between the Principalities and Constantinople, which was the seat of the secular and ecclesiastic leaders of the Ottoman Empire and of the Orthodox Christian community. The confirmation, and later the actual nomination of the Prince in Constantinople, led to the emergence on the political scene of ‘the foreign Prince’, in the institutional sense of the word. We are dealing with an institution – the sovereign, ‘chosen by the grace of God’ and acquiesced by ‘the country’ – which was no longer controlled by the local elites. It should be underlined, moreover, that the Prince remained, in spite of his election in ­Constantinople, the key element of the local power apparatus structure, ‘sovereign in his kingdom’, supreme judge and last court of appeal, since the absolute character of his power remained intact within the limits of his jurisdiction, due to the preservation of the Principalities’ internal autonomy. It was still the Prince who would distribute the offices, control the paths to power and above all the taxation system as source of wealth. Connected to the Ottoman capital because of his confirmation / election, but also by means of his network of knowledge and kinship, the Prince became the public institution that allowed the Christian elites of Constantinople to seep into the country.46 This transformation brought confusion to the field of political and ecclesiastical jurisdictions. The subjects of the Danubian Princes were at the same time the Sultan’s servants, subject to taxation within the framework of a ­regime of collective responsibility guaranteed by the Prince; the Prince was thus identified, outside his own jurisdiction, to a high imperial officer.47 As for the local 45

The Prince of Moldavia Ştefan ‘Locust’, named personally by the Sultan, was assassinated, two years after his election, by the boyars, who considered him as a ‘Turk’: Rezachevici, Cronologia, pp. 572–73. 46 For the institution of the autocrat prince as entrance of Ottoman subjects in the power apparatus of the Principalities, see Păun, “La circulation des pouvoirs” and Păun, Pouvoirs, offices, 1st part. 47 Rizescu, Avant l’‘État-juge’, pp. 398–411; Păun, “La circulation des pouvoirs”, pp. 278–80.

228

Cotovanu

Churches, they remained under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and were visited more and more often by the patriarchs and by their representatives. In short, the political autonomy of the Principalities recouped the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate, which reached out on both shores of the Danube. This was one of the factors that led to the emergence, around 1564–70, of the phenomenon of granting Danubian monasteries as Metochia (μετόχιον, a place of worship dependent on and administered by a richer and more powerful monastery) to the Orthodox Holy Places: Patriarchates, Holy Mountains, patriarchal (stavropegial) monasteries and others.48 The submission of Wallachia and Moldavia to the Porte also had significant social consequences. As we have said before, for a long time the local elites included several Balkan elements. Before 1538–45, we are dealing with a modest Greek-speaking immigration, mainly from Constantinople, the islands of the Aegean Sea, and the Balkan provinces/eparchies of the Ecumenical ­Patriarchate. Afterwards, one notes a considerable increase in numbers of the immigration of Ottoman subjects from the Balkan dioceses of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and also from Constantinople, in particular in the immediate clientele/circle of the Prince. The princely court, the monasteries, the commerce, and other local fields of activity were increasingly connected to the Greek-speaking Orthodox regions by means of social networks created by the migrants.49 A new framework for the circulation of people, power, and goods across the Danube emerged, under the cover of the Ottoman domination and through the implementation of Byzantine law (ecclesiastical and partly secular); it weakened the acknowledged autonomy of the Principalities, the public institutions, and the ‘good customs’ (‘obiceiurile bune’). In the context of these geopolitical, institutional, and social changes and as reaction to them, the first critical judgements towards ‘the Greeks’ of the Wallachian Court were advanced, in the years 1560–95. These critical judgements did not aim at ‘the Greeks’ as individuals, but as a power group embodying institutional changes harmful to the “good customs”. Prince Michael the Brave’s (1593–1601) anti-Ottoman policy aptly illustrates what could be regarded as the dominance of Greeks in the new order of things, and it was not by chance that

48

49

The practice gave the patriarchs and their clergy access to constant revenues and ­places of residence in the principalities. See Cotovanu, “Aux débuts de la dédicace”, with bibliography. For the contribution of the migrants, especially from Epirus, to the phenomenon of ­dedicating Wallachian and Moldavian monasteries to the Holy Places, see Cotovanu, “Aux débuts de la dédicace”.

‘Chasing Away the Greeks’

229

it was during that period that the first signs of public discontent by representatives of local elites were formulated. Michael the Brave was the first Prince that thought himself capable of liberating Wallachia, Moldavia, and even Transylvania from Ottoman vassalage, with the help of the Habsburgs, although he depended on troops recruited south of the Danube.50 In May 1595, the Prince sent a delegation consisting of the metropolitan, two bishops, and the twelve members of the Princely Council to the Prince of Transylvania Sigismund Bathory, in order to convince him to join the anti-Ottoman campaign initiated by the Christian League. In exchange for the Transylvanian intervention, the Wallachian delegation had to acknowledge Prince Bathory’s suzerainty. Signed on May 20 1595,51 the treaty was actually a project for the better functioning of the government of Wallachia within the new framework of Transylvanian suzerainty. According to the treaty, the country was to be governed by a voivode, elected by the local boyars and confirmed in office by the suzerain Prince of Transylvania. The voivode would be the lord of our language [i.e. nation] and of the tradition of our country, governing according to the customs and judging with justice and with respect to the law, according to the ancient liberties and the written laws of the country and according to the present agreement.52 The respect for tradition, ancient liberties, customs, and written laws of the country were at the core of this article. Judging the 1595 treaty as a whole, one understands that it aimed to a) ­preserve the administrative and judicial autonomy of Wallachia, as the signatory boyars attempted to b) diminish the absolute character of their Prince’s power. These two stipulations allow us to understand better another request of the delegates that: that among the 12 sworn boyars, none should belong to the Greek nation and that they [i.e. ‘the Greeks’] should be prevented from obtaining an ­office or a rank connected with the country’s government; that they should nonetheless be free to trade.53

50 51 52 53

See note 56. Ardeleanu e.a (eds.), Mihai Viteazul în conştiinţa europeană, vol. 1, No 14, pp. 87–97. Ibid., No 14, p. 89 (Latin text), p. 94 (Romanian translation). Ibid., No 14, p. 91 (Latin text), p. 96 (Romanian translation).

230

Cotovanu

In other words, the ‘incriminated Greeks’ were directly linked to the political dependence of Wallachia on the Porte and, as a consequence, on the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as well as to the Wallachian sovereign’s person who, since 1545, ruled with the Sultan’s consent. Those were the two main gateways to the higher echelons of the Wallachian government for the Christian subjects of the Porte and for the elites around the Ecumenical Patriarchate. For the Christian immigrants, due to this double domination of the country, remained Sultan’s subjects and faithful to the patriarch, in spite of the fact that they had become subjects of the Wallachian princes. Discarding ‘the Greeks’ from power meant discarding the interference of the Porte and of the Patriarchate in local domestic affairs. This was not possible, according to the signatories of the treaty, unless the Ottoman sovereignty and the autocratic power of their own Prince were abolished.54 The ‘Greeks’ were seen as representatives of foreign agendas (Ottoman and of the Constantinople Patriarchate) in Wallachia and Moldavia. The 1595 treaty does not give details on how the clause would have been implemented, given the common confession of the immigrants and of the hosts, the juridical integration on the basis of a sole tax residency, and the increasing presence of Greek-speaking migrants within the political and administrative local structures. And this all the more so as the treaty allowed the Ottoman subjects to trade in the Principalities. Besides, their access to inferior positions was not obstructed, as the treaty prohibited only the access of ‘the Greeks’ to the twelve seats of the Princely Council. All of sudden, it becomes clear that it was not that difficult to control the access to those twelve seats, as long as their distribution depended on the Prince of Transylvania and not on the Wallachian Prince. Therefore, the power of decision had to be immediately transferred from Constantinople and from the hands of the ‘foreign Princes’ to the Transylvanian sovereign. The latter decided arbitrarily who was ‘Greek’, that is, an agent of the Ottoman interests; he elected the twelve councillors of Wallachia from the faithful subjects of the Transylvanian crown. As a consequence, ‘the Greeks’ were mistrusted as an interest group, ­proponents of Constantinopolitan political domination in the Principalities. From this point of view, being ‘Greek’ was rather a status streaming from formal power relationships and personified by individuals who, in fact, shared multiple collective belongings. This explains the presence among the Wallachian representatives sent by Michael the Brave, in 1595, to the Transylvanian 54

In 1601, the King of Poland recommended in his turn the nomination as Prince of ­ allachia of “a man of Greek rite, but not of Greek nation”: Corfus, Corespondenţă inedită, W p. 61.

‘Chasing Away the Greeks’

231

Prince Bathory of bishop Luke of Buzău, a native of Cyprus,55 and other foreigners; they fought against a political regime represented by people similar to them. This also explains why Michael the Brave surrounded himself with many high councillors, military commanders, and soldiers of a south-slavonic or epirote origin,56 but also by several members of the ancient Constantinopolitan ­Orthodox elite and by members of the high clergy that had opted for an alliance with the Christian powers.57 Hoping to discard the Ottoman suzerainty and to control the access to local power of the Christian subjects of the Sultan, the political elite of the Principalities tended for the entire 17th century to target the small group of ‘Constantinopolitan Greeks’ by means of an anti-Greek discourse. The fact that the target of the anti-Greek discourse was restricted to the small group of ‘Constantinopolitan Greeks’ was certainly beneficial for the migrants from other areas of the Balkan peninsula who had settled in the Principalities; they had multiple collective belongings. The 1595 treaty never became effective.58 The ambitions of the Prince to conquer Transylvania (which ran counter to Habsburg policy) cost him his life (in 1601) and, afterwards, Wallachia and Moldavia resumed their political status as vassals to the Porte.59 The Princes were confirmed and often elected in Constantinople; they remained the channels of direct access to local power for their Constantinopolitan clients, and the arrival of migrants from areas under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate continued. Judging by the diplomatic sources dating until the beginning of the 18th century, some Wallachian Princes followed the line traced by Michael the Brave’s decisions with regard to the foreign affairs. They wanted to replace the Ottoman suzerainty with the ‘protection’ of another powerful state, preserving 55

Luc the Cypriot remained faithful to his political choices, and in 1615 he refused to pay the peskesh demanded by the Constantinople Patriarchate: Hurmuzaki, Documente, xiv/1, No 212, p. 112, No 213, p. 113. 56 Falangas, Présences grecques, pp. 265–81; Cotovanu, “Ctitorii arbănaşi”. Some of these functionaries, such as the Epirote treasurer Stavrinos, have praised the endeavours of Michael the Brave, to whom they dedicated long poems in Greek verses: see Vincent, “From Life to Legend”; Dinu, Mihai Viteazul. Andronikos Falangas has also showed that Stavrinos himself and the ‘Macedonian Romans’ he praised for their courage must have actually been Albanians from Epirus attached to the Greek Orthodoxy and connected by their ‘Roman’, that is, ‘Greek’ belonging: Falangas, “Μορφές”, note 99, pp. 424–26; Falangas, Présences grecques, pp. 288–89, 291–93. 57 Cazacu, “Stratégies matrimoniales”; Katsiardi-Hering, “Από τις εξεγέρσεις”, pp. 603–06 and passim; Păun, “Enemies within”, pp. 228–35, 247–48. 58 Stănescu in Oţetea, Istoria României, vol. 2, pp. 960–73. 59 See Cernovodeanu and Rezachevici, Mihai Viteazul.

232

Cotovanu

simultaneously the political autonomy of the Principalities and then eliminating the interference of the ‘foreigners’, that is, ‘Greeks’, within the local government. Several other treaties and requests addressed by the local rulers to neighbouring sovereigns confirm this hypothesis. In 1656, Prince Gheorghe Ştefan sent a delegation to the Russian Tsar to sign an accord concerning the placement of Moldavia under Russian protection. The request was accepted by the Tsar in June 1656, yet the treaty was never implemented. Still, it is important to note that one meets again in the text the accusations against the ‘Constantinopolitan Greeks’ and their status as clients of the ‘foreign Princes’ and as auxiliaries of the Porte, accusations which had been formulated as early as the 1590s: • Respect for the customs of the country, as they were prior to the Ottoman conquest (1538, 1545), a demand justified also by the fact that the Sultan himself, in exchange for a yearly tribute, had kept the integrity of the princely institution and the local customs; • Life tenure reign for the Prince; • The successor to the throne shall be a native, according to the custom, and not a foreigner belonging to another nation.60 These demands were advanced also by Princes Gregory Ghica of Wallachia and Ştefan Petriceicu of Moldavia during the negotiations with Poland ­(August 1673), by the Wallachian boyars in favour of Muscovy (August 1674), and by Constantin Cantemir of Moldavia, during the peace discussions with the Habsburgs (February 1690).61 In the request addressed to the Habsburgs (1690), the Wallachian boyars – rivals of Constantin Brâncoveanu – unearthed the ancient argument pertaining to the demise of the Ottoman domination: “these foreigners, Constantinopolitan Greeks […] have broken all the customs and practices of our country ever since they arrived here”, “they kill the boyars

60

61

Ionescu, “Tratatul”, pp. 234–47. The treaty was composed in Greek in Moscow by the f­ uture Metropolitan Dionysios Iviritis (1672) – a ‘Macedo-Wallachian’ (“μακεδοβλαχιώτου”), ­according to a contemporary source – a sign of the prominent role played in the affair by several high ‘Greek’ prelates of anti-Ottoman tendencies: see Teoteoi, “Mitropolitul Dionisie”, Teoteoi, “Semnificaţiile”, and Tchentsova, “Podlinnik pisjma”. For the Russian translations and the bibliography concerning the treatise, see Tchentsova, “Dionysios Iviritis”, p. 582. Giurescu, “Tratatul”, pp. 274–90; Hudiţă, Recueil de documents, pp. 195–98; Ionescu-Nişcov, “Memoriul din 1674”, pp. 213–25; Constantiniu, “Politica externă”, pp. 121–22, 129, 132–33.

‘Chasing Away the Greeks’

233

without judgement”, and impose people on the Wallachian throne “without consultation and contentment of the country and of the boyars”.62 Years later, Dimitrie Cantemir confirmed that in reply to Petriceicu’s alliance with Poland, the Sultan decided not to choose a Prince form the local candidates, but instead to impose “a Greek, whose house and parents are in Constantinople”.63 Prince Cantemir, who also tried to bring Moldavia under Russian suzerainty (1711), under conditions similar to those expressed by Gheorghe Ştefan half a century earlier,64 anticipated the restoration of the ‘Phanariot’ rule, which would allow the strengthening of the status quo of the Principalities as vassals to the Porte. It would mean that once more the Ottoman dominion was implemented through Christian subjects installed in the two countries. ‘The Greek’ as auxiliary of the central Ottoman institutions (secular and ecclesiastic) of Constantinople was therefore attacked in order to preserve the autonomy of Wallachia and Moldavia under the control of a Christian power. For the chronicler Ion Neculce (a fervent sympathiser of the Tsar), “when by God’s will there will be no more Turks in Constantinople […], maybe then there will not be a single Greek left in Moldavia and Wallachia”.65 Those were the words of the son of a woman of Moldavian birth from the Kantakouzenos family and of a man from ‘Rumeli’ who were both close to Prince Vasile Lupu (1634–53).66 In the Wallachian / Moldavian 17th century diplomatic language, the collective noun ‘Greeks’ was used as a personification of the political domination sprung from Constantinopolitan institutions and brought to the Principalities by individuals – ‘Greeks’ according to different criteria of collective identification (linguistic, cultural, or geographical) – connected with the power networks of the Ottoman capital. This is the first layer, both institutional and political, of representing ‘Greekness’ that we may decipher when reading the discourses 62 Iorga, Scrisori de boieri, No 65, pp. 92–94. The sources at our disposal do not allow us to determine the validity of the ‘anti-Greek’ accusations. The propagators of the ‘anti-Greek’ discourse never made reference to specific cases and names. This strengthens my interpretation, that the ‘Greeks’ were evoked as a ‘metaphor’ of ‘foreign’ / Constantinopolitan domination in the Principalities and also as an argument in favour of ‘native’ candidates for the throne (see also Cotovanu, “La ‘réforme’”). Specific names are targeted only when the anti-Greek discourse permeated personal rivalries. 63 Cantemir, Viaţa lui Constantin Cantemir, p. 21; Constantiniu, “Politica externă”, p. 130. 64 Neculce, Letopiseţul, p. 265; Pippidi, “Politique et histoire”, pp. 187–214. 65 Neculce, Letopiseţul, p. 171. 66 We are talking about Catrina, daughter of the grand treasurer Iordache Kantakouzenos and of the treasurer Enache Neculce: Iorga, Studii şi documente, vol. 3, pp. 31–32; S­ toicescu, Dicţionar, p. 363.

234

Cotovanu

concerning the foreign policy formulated by the Danubian elites. This explains the tendency towards (unjustly) blaming the ‘Constantinopolitan Greeks’ for all the evils inflicted upon the Principalities. Yet discourse aside, it was not the moment for realizing how to individually discard ‘the Greeks’ from the local government, given the fact that they were allowed to trade. Undoubtedly, there was still interest in recruiting a military workforce (the Epirote ‘Albanians’ were the most sought after) and an agricultural workforce (including ‘Greek’ peasants) from the Southern Danubian regions, as was the case even before the submission of the Principalities to the Ottoman Porte (1538, 1545). In addition to the (failed) foreign policy project aiming to block the access of ‘the Greeks’ to government positions and as an effort to preserve or enhance the autonomy of the Principalities vis-à-vis the Porte, the available sources account for a set of legislative measures taken to limit the access of the ‘Greeks’ to other local fields of activity or, at least, to make them obey the ‘ancient customs’ of the country. None of these measures could be actually implemented, for reasons that I will try to explain by taking into account the number of different ways that Greekness could be represented in the Principalities and of the different methods of public and social identification of individuals ­supposed to be ‘Greeks’. To historians the best known set of measures was taken by Leon Tomşa (1629–32),67 in July 1631. In the autumn of the previous year, more than a dozen boyars fled to Transylvania and prepared an invasion destined to depose him. The insurgent’s leader was Matthew (Matei) aga of Brâncoveni (the future Prince ­Matthew Basarab), a remote and collateral descendant of Prince Neagoe Basarab (1512–21); therefore, Matthew not only had ancient local roots,68 but he was also of ‘princely blood’, and thus entitled to the Wallachian throne. Leon Tomşa tried several times to convince the insurgents to come back; he failed. A request for help addressed by the fugitives to the authorities of the city of Braşov mirrors their intentions: “take back our country and chase away the Greeks and the enemies that have destroyed our houses”.69 The episode is also described by the Chronicle of the Kantakouzenoi (written around the 1690s); the author based his allegations on a lost official Chronicle of Matthew

67

According to the contemporaries, he was a ‘Greek’ merchant: Rezachevici, Cronologia, p. 73. 68 Matthew Basarab was also a descendant, through his maternal side, of the grand logothete Harvat (The Croat) and of the grand doorkeeper Peia, a ‘Serbian’: Stoicescu, Dicţionar, pp. 49–50, 63, 78–79, 208–09. 69 Stoicescu, Matei Basarab, pp. 11–17.

‘Chasing Away the Greeks’

235

Basarab (1632–54).70 According to this text, by ignoring the Sultan’s decision to impose Radu Iliaş instead of Leon Tomşa, the fugitive boyars proclaimed as Prince their own candidate, Matthew aga; they decided that “the country is destroyed and afflicted by foreigners, especially by Greeks, and therefore they will not wait for Prince Radu”.71 It took more than a year for Matthew Basarab to take the throne. Meanwhile, Leon Tomşa tried everything to keep himself in power. As the negotiations with the fugitives proved fruitless, the Prince took legislative measures to counter the accusations made by the insurgents and by the country. On July 15 1631, Leon Tomşa issued a kind of ‘Charter of Liberties’ (Val. Al. Georgescu). The document starts by identifying the causes of the evils afflicting the country which were in perfect agreement with the accusations made by the insurgents: It was established and confirmed that all the evils as well as the poverty of the country are caused by the foreign Greeks that conspire against the princely governments and sell the country unmercifully and trade it by means of heavy loans. And when they come here in the country, they have no intention to obey the law of the country but destroy the good things and impose bad and abusive laws, and they have increased the taxes beyond any limit, so that they can pay their loans and enrich their houses.72 As a consequence, by common decision and pushed by the country, the Prince decided to uproot all evil: […] we have discarded and condemned these bad habits and chased away the foreign Greeks from the country as enemies. My Lordship has also taken other good and useful measures for the country, similar to the laws and good customs established in the past by the ancient Princes, who have reached happiness and can be recognized by means of their doings useful for the country.73 The decisions follow: some of them concerned ‘the Greeks’ residing in the country, while others concerned the ‘liberties’ reinstated for the profit of the 70 Grecescu and Simonescu, Istoria, pp. 98–99. 71 Ibid., p. 100. 72 Documenta Romaniae Historica, B, vol. 23, No 255, pp. 406–07 (Romanian original). 73 Ibid.

236

Cotovanu

local nobility. With regards to ‘the Greeks’, the aim was not to chase them unconditionally from the country but to make them respect the ‘good customs’: paying taxes (or being expelled from the country and having their goods confiscated), and respecting the good government of the country (or being ­executed). A special clause concerned ‘the Greek’ monks that had bought the monasteries in order to transform them in Metochia and steal their profits, as well as the silver objects and the land, and take the profit out of the country. The Prince thus decided that these monks must leave their monasteries and be replaced with ‘Romanian monks’, “as it was always the case”. Another clause concerned especially the election procedures of the local high clergymen. The Prince decided to put a stop to the elections based on bribery and to leave them in the hands of the local ecclesiastical councils. More importantly, the patriarch of Constantinople was no longer allowed to send Metropolitans, bishops, and monastic superiors (hegumens) of his choosing; he could only confirm the candidate chosen “by the country and by the Council”.74 The other ‘good customs’ to be reinstated concerned the country’s nobility, denigrated insofar by the ‘foreign Princes’. The boyars were exempt from some taxes. The goods of the deceased were no longer confiscated by the Prince; instead, they were given to the rightful successors. The boyars were no longer troubled by the county judges; no one could be condemned to die without prior judgement; the written law, not the bribes, were to be of significance during the trials concerning land; the servants of the Prince could not collect the taxes, as this prerogative belonged to the ‘peoples of the country’ (an allusion to the fact that the collectors named by the princely Court were often the ­migrant clients of the sovereign).75 Veritable ‘constitutional law’ according to some historians,76 the charter of Leon Tomşa tried to put some order in two fundamental aspects: the role of ‘the Greeks’ in the internal affairs of the country and the liberties of the nobility, despised up to that moment by ‘the foreign Princes’, accompanied by ‘Greeks’. One must note, however, that the 1631 charter did not seek to expel ‘the Greeks’ unconditionally. On the contrary, the purpose was to make them part of the financial system and to make them respect the local customs,77 be they merchants, boyars, monks, or high prelates; no field of activity was forbidden to ‘the Greeks’. If they refused, they risked being expelled from the country.

74 Ibid., pp. 407–08. 75 Ibid. 76 Barbu, O arheologie constituţională; Rizescu, Avant l’‘État-juge’, p. 161. 77 Rizescu, Avant l’‘État-juge’, p. 168.

‘Chasing Away the Greeks’

237

Still, how exactly did Leon Tomşa and the signatory boyars want to apply this charter, which exposed the ‘foreign Greeks’ of Wallachia? We do know now that the public authorities had no bureaucratic ways of identifying the Orthodox ‘foreigners’ based on their collective belonging (linguistic and ­geo-spatial), because it played no role in establishing the juridical dependence. We also know that the control of migrant juridical integration, based on fiscal solidarity, was in fact the responsibility of lineages and local communities. The members of these communities cared for the primal collective belonging of the newcomers only as long as it served to identify them; the collective belonging was only one of one’s personal distinctive elements.78 The result was the arbitrary attribution of collective nouns to the ‘foreigners’. What was ‘Greek’ for some was not ‘Greek’ for others, or it was ‘Greek’ but in a different manner. Everything indicates that Leon Tomşa, and the other signatories of the charter, issued it in full awareness of the impossibility of applying it. In fact, in spite of its renewal in December 1668/69,79 the charter had no ‘history’. All the problems it should have resolved persisted until the 19th century; ‘the Greeks’ were never expelled and their access to the country was never banned.80 Even Matthew Basarab, who in order to replace Leon Tomşa claimed that he wanted to “chase away the Greeks”, addresses the ‘Greek’ issue only on an ad hoc basis after his coronation, and only in the framework of existing legislature.81 He had many foreign advisers, the most important being the grand chamberlain Constantine Kantakouzenos.82 All evidence leads us to believe that both the claimant to the throne Matthew Basarab and the ruling Prince Leon Tomşa used a discourse pertaining to foreign affairs issues based, as we have seen, on the institutional dependence of the Principalities on Constantinople in the middle of the 16th century and the fact that this dependence was accompanied by a strong immigration from the areas under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Constantinople, globally designated as ‘Greek’ in the diplomatic language. Fighting ‘the Greeks’ had become a stereotype, imported from the diplomatic language into the internal affairs and especially into local disputes for power. The migrants themselves, be they from Constantinople or from Epirus, fit in perfectly, playing the card 78

Two neighbours called ‘George the merchant’ (identified from a social point of view based on the name and the job) are distinguished in their parish by the fact that one of them is ‘Greek’ (‘George the Greek merchant’), while the other is not (‘George the merchant’). 79 Laurian and Bălcescu (eds.), Magazin istoric pentru Dacia 1 (1845), pp. 131–34. 80 Georgescu, “Hrisovul”, pp. 1022–25; Rezachevici, “Fenomene de criză (i)”, p. 75. 81 Cotovanu, “La ‘réforme’ monastique”. 82 Stoicescu, Dicţionar, pp. 135–36.

238

Cotovanu

of their multiple collective belongings. Indeed, Matthew Basarab was not the only one to use the anti-Greek stereotype to impose his candidacy. As it was impossible to block the access to power of the incoming migrants, the antiGreek discourse was retrieved by several political factions, closely knit by kinship, and transformed into an instrument for deposing the unwanted Princes and their faithful servants. As a consequence, the public interest aiming to discard the Ottoman dependence or at least to conserve the autonomy of the Principalities and the local customs intermingled with the ambition of rival clans to gain control over the institution of the Prince and the throne. The narrative sources are clear in this respect: 1611, 11 May – 16 June: Radu Şerban, discarded from the Wallachian throne and retired in Moldavia, sends his soldiers to chase away Radu Mihnea, newly appointed by the Porte. The military unleash themselves upon ‘the Greeks’ they meet on their way (including monks and merchants), claiming that these ‘Greeks’ had brought Radu Mihnea to the throne.83 1611, September: the grand cupbearer Bărcan and several other accomplices mount a plot against the same Prince Radu Mihnea and against ‘the Greeks’ from his entourage.84 1617: the grand palatine Cârstea Ghenovici from Rumeli organizes a plot against the Prince of Wallachia Alexandru Iliaş and ‘the Greeks’ from his entourage.85 1618: the grand cupbearer Lupu Mehedinţeanu carries on the fight against Alexandru Iliaş and ‘the Greeks’ that accompanied him.86 1618, June: the Wallachian model is duplicated in Moldavia, where a plot is directed against Radu Mihnea.87 1630–31: a coup d’État is organized by Matthew aga of Brâncoveni (­Matthew Basarab) against Leon Tomşa and ‘the Constantinopolitan Greeks’ of his Court. 1633, April: the grand palatine of Moldavia Vasile Lupu rises against Prince Alexandru Iliaş, instigating persecution of ‘the Greeks’ in the capital; the Cretan Batişte Vevelli grand cupbearer, the closest collaborator of the deposed Prince, is massacred by the mob.88 83 Falangas, “Invazia lui Gabriel Báthory”, p. 59. 84 Matthew of Myra, Ἑτέρα Ἱστορία, p. 245; Iorga, “Manuscripte”, p. 15. 85 Matthew of Myra, Ἑτέρα Ἱστορία, p. 261. 86 Ibid., p. 267. 87 Caproşu, “Despre politica internă”, pp. 81–104. 88 Costin, Opere, pp. 96–9; Golimaş, “Diplomatul Constantin Batişte Vevelli”, pp. 1–19.

‘Chasing Away the Greeks’

239

1653: the grand logothete Gheorghe Ştefan dethrones Vasile Lupu and takes power, accompanying his gesture by violent persecutions against ‘the Greeks’, merchants included.89 1669: the Kantakouzenoi boyars of Wallachia mount a coup d’État against Radu Leon, claiming that he is a ‘foreign’ Prince and that he protects ‘the Greeks’. Radu Leon is replaced by the pretender wanted by the conspirators, Antonie of Popeşti, himself the son of the merchant Mihai ‘the Greek’ (‘grecul’) of Târgşor.90 1671, Dec.-1672, Feb.: the Moldavian boyars Mihalcea Hâncu, ancient grand serdar and Apostol Durac, ancient grand medelnicer, partisans of the future Prince Ştefan Petriceicu (close to the Polish), rise against the ruling Prince Gheorghe Duca, native of Epirus, directing their actions also against ‘the Constantinopolitan Greeks’ of Jassy.91 1678: the same Kantakouzenoi conspires against the Wallachian Prince Gheorghe Duca, pushing ‘the country’ to rise against the ‘Greeks’ from his entourage.92 1678: the Moldavian Prince Antonie Ruset, a ‘Greek from Constantinople’, leaves and is replaced by Gheorghe Duca; on this occasion, ‘the Greeks’ from the princely Court are victims to mob violence.93 1685: the Sturdza boyars of Moldavia, with the help of the Wallachian Prince Şerban Kantakouzenos, manage to depose Prince Dumitraşco Kantakouzenos and to replace him with Constantine Cantemir. In return, Cantemir promises to kill two ‘Greek boyars’, Iordachi and Manolachi Ruset, faithful to the deposed Prince. The departure of Dumitraşco Kantakouzenos is accompanied by the uprising of the Moldavian capital against ‘the Greeks’.94 These attempts (successful or failed) to replace a Prince accused of being ­surrounded by ‘Greeks’ and of acting in their interest with another Prince, ‘a man of the country’ and with a wide knowledge of the local customs, have three things in common: a) all perpetrators have tried to rally ‘the country’ 89

Alexandrescu-Dersca Bulgaru and Mehmet, Călători străini, vol. 6, pp. 91–101; Zahariuc, Ţara Moldovei, pp. 113–17, 160, 187, 196–97. 90 Grecescu and Simonescu, Istoria, pp. 160–63; Ionaşcu, “Din politica internă”, pp. 7–19. 91 Neculce, Letopiseţul, p. 130; Stoide, “Un episod”, pp. 56–80. 92 Popescu, Istoriile domnilor Ţării Româneşti, p. 170. 93 Neculce, Letopiseţul, p. 171. 94 Dumitaşco was the cousin of the Wallachian Kantakouzenoi who, under the cover of their own birth in the country, treated him as ‘Constantinopolitan Greek’: Neculce, Letopiseţul, pp. 166–71.

240

Cotovanu

(‘ţara’) around their project – that is, military officers and princely servants, as well as the population of the Capital and sometimes even the peasants from the neighbouring areas; b) step by step, all plots were accompanied by persecutions and sometimes even by massacres of ‘the Greeks’; c) in many of the above-mentioned cases, the new Princes and the instigators of the revolts were local subjects with immigrant origins, of which some showed signs of Greek belonging. The aim was that the new candidate should please ‘the country’ in all its social diversity, be in agreement with the customary principle so strongly ­defended that required a local Prince, familiar with the local customs, to be elected by the local boyars and wanted by his future subjects. ‘The mob’ (Rom. ‘gloata’), consisting of a confused multitude of peasants, the urban underclasses, the soldiers, and the servants of the Wallachian boyars,95 represented a force and it was better not to attract its fury. Or, it was said that the mob hated ‘the Greeks’; “although the Moldavians are of Greek rite, they hate the Greeks, for they advise their Prince to extort money from them”.96 One cannot be certain that the author of the above affirmation refers to the large strata of the Moldavian population. Nevertheless, Metropolitan Matthew of Myra speaks explicitly when addressing ‘the Greek archontes’ and all those residing and trading in the Wallachian cities: “do not importune the Wallachians with your avarice and do not be insatiable at the cost of the poor”.97 The Saxon chronicler Simon Massa also testifies that ‘the Greeks’ were hated especially by the poor, because they “oppress them beyond any limit”.98 The petty nobility and the military officers did not like ‘the Greeks’ either. Narrating the exploits of Michael the Brave, the treasurer Stavrinos says that the ‘Roman’ (‘Ρωμαίοί’) stradioti undertook the most dangerous assignments, because the ‘Wallachians’ wanted to exterminate them;99 this happened a few years before the peak of the first massacres of ‘the Greeks’, in 1611. Stavrinos seems puzzled by the fact that he and his ‘Albanian’ / ‘Macedonian’ companions, attached to their ‘Roman’ / ‘Greek’ belonging,100 were the object of ‘Wallachian’ hatred, in spite of the common anti-Ottoman efforts. The reason was that the ‘Wallachian’ soldiers confounded several criteria that defined r­ epresenting 95

According Costin, Opere, p. 98, the mob is “not only the Court servants, but also the peasants”. 96 Holban et al., Călători străini, vol. 3, p. 205. 97 Matthew of Myra, Ἑτέρα Ἱστορία, p. 246. 98 Stoicescu, Matei Basarab, note 2, p. 11. 99 Stavrinos, Ἀνδραγαθίαις, p. 38. 100 See note 56.

‘Chasing Away the Greeks’

241

‘the Greeks’. They were confounding the political aims of the fight against ‘the Greeks’ representing the Constantinopolitan domination (an abstract group which melted into the social imaginary), and against specific individuals showing signs of a Greek belonging, encountered in the everyday life, to whom they forcibly applied the cliché of the undesired ‘Greek’. These few testimonies show that the mob was not the object of mere political manipulations, turned unwillingly against ‘the Greeks’. It had its own ­motivations, drawn from daily social contacts. However, the mob was also manipulated, for one counted on the wrath of the poor – incited against ‘the Greeks’ they encountered on a daily basis – in order to fight those labelled ‘Greeks’ of the princely Court, protected by the ‘foreign Princes’ that had to be dethroned. The manipulation was based on the collective noun ‘Greeks’, which designated both the ‘oppressors’ of the poor and the carriers of the political dependence of the Principalities towards Constantinople. Not ­everybody was fighting the same enemy, but this enemy was ‘Greek’ in the eyes of all the dissatisfied. ­Everybody interpreted the Greekness of the undesired foreigner ­according to his own allegiances and, of course, his own interests. The mob ­targeted all those who spoke Greek, for this was an element that set them apart.101 As for the representatives of official authority, they targeted specific individuals when they chased personal enemies or when they had to find a scapegoat in order to make the enemy visible. These cases are less attested by the sources, because usually the rulers attacked metaphorical ‘Greeks’, ‘Constantinopolitan Greeks’ that had become in their political imaginary a synonym for Ottoman suzerainty. The anecdote told by Miron Costin with regard to the future Prince of ­Moldavia Vasile Lupu Coci exemplifies the multiple degrees of perception of stigmatized Greekness. The grand palatine Lupu Coci, an ‘Albanian’ according to some contemporaries, was a victim of his own conspiracy against ‘the Greeks’ of Alexandru Iliaş (1633). The mob took him as a ‘Greek’ and for a long time he wore the scars to his head inflicted by a peasant.102 In another representative case, the seneschal Constantine Kantakouzenos, who was born in Wallachia, declared while registering to the University of Padua that he was a 101 The linguistic derision is attested in the case of ‘the Greek’ Mavrodin cupbearer, caught up in the turmoil of the uprising ignited at the Moldavian Court during the deposition of Dumitraşco Kantakouzenos (1685) and humiliated for his ‘foreign’ way of speaking the Romanian local dialect: Neculce, Letopiseţul, pp. 170–71. 102 Costin, Opere, p. 98. For the Epirote origin of Vasile Lupu’s kin, see Cotovanu, “Le diocèse de Dryinoupolis”, pp. 240–57, with sources and bibliography.

242

Cotovanu

‘Cantacuzenus Constantinopolitanus’.103 On the contrary, in Wallachia, where the enemies accused him and his brothers of their Greekness,104 they insisted on the Wallachian subjecthood of their father, acquired by means of juridical integration into the local sphere of sovereignty. “For he also was an autochthon [Rom. ‘moşnean’], having houses and proprieties here, as the other boyars had”, says the seneschal according to the family’s chronicle.105 In a time when the public authorities were not concerned for their subjects’ language or place of origin, because their collective belonging of a categorial type played no role in the official definition of the power, there was no reason to publicly identify ‘the Greeks’ and to chase them away as unwanted ‘foreigners’ from Wallachia and Moldavia. They were the subjects of the local sovereigns and moreover the newcomers could not be banned, for the Sultan would not have allowed such behaviour; they were his subjects too, and had the right to travel across the Danube. One could not prohibit them from establishing their tax residence there, because the fiscal integration of the individual was largely decided by the communities of kinship, goods, and financial liabilities. In addition, albeit it was undesirable for the political discourse, ‘the Greeks’ remained indispensable when it came to several local fields of activity, where they had proven their specialized skills from the time of the foundation of the Principalities. They were not yet expendable. Bibliography Primary Sources

Alexandrescu-Dersca Bulgaru, M. and Mehmet, M. (eds.), Călători străini despre Ţările române [Foreign Travellers on the Romanian Countries], vol. 6, Bucharest 1976. Ardeleanu, I., Arimia, V., Bondoc, GH., Musat, M., Mihai Viteazul în conştiinţa europeană, vol. 1: Documente externe [Mihai the Brave in European Consciousness, vol. 1: ­Foreign Documents], Bucharest 1982. Cantemir, D., Viaţa lui Constantin Cantemir [The Life of Constantin Cantemir], ed. Gh. Guţu, Bucharest 1960. Corfus, I. (ed.), Corespondenţă inedită asupra relaţiunilor între Mihai Viteazul şi Polonia [Unpublished Correspondence concerning the Relationship of Michael the Brave with Poland], Cernauti 1935.

103 Rosetti, “Constantin Cantacuzino”, p. 148. 104 Iorga, Scrisori de boieri, No 45, pp. 92–94. 105 Grecescu and Simonescu, Istoria, p. 146.

‘Chasing Away the Greeks’

243

Costin, M., Opere [Works], P. Panaitescu (ed.), Bucharest 1958. Documenta Romaniae Historica, B, Ţara Românească, vol. 23 (1630–1632), ed. D. Mioc, Bucharest 1969. Documenta Romaniae Historica, B, Ţara Românească, vol. 24 (1633–1634), eds. D. Mioc, S. Caracaş, and C. Bălan, Bucharest 1974. Giurescu, C. (ed.), Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei până la Aron Vodă (1359–1595), întocmit după Grigorie Ureche vornicul, Istratie logofătul şi alţii de Simion Dascalul [The Chronography of Moldavia until Prince Aron (1359–1595), written according to Vornic Grigorie Ureche, Logothete Istratie and others by Simeon the Teacher], Bucharest 1916. Grecescu, C. and Simonescu, D. (eds.), Istoria Ţării Româneşti (1290–1690). Letopiseţul Cantacuzinesc [The History of Wallachia (1290–1690). The Chronicle of the Kanta­ kouzenoi], Bucharest 1960. Gregorian, M. (ed.), Cronicari munteni [Wallachian Chroniclers], vol. 1, Bucharest 1961. Holban, M., Alexandrescu-Dersca Bulgaru, M. and Cernovodeanu, P. (eds.), Călători străini despre Ţările române [Foreign Travellers on the Romanian Countries], vol. 3, Bucharest 1971. Hudiţă, I., (ed.), Recueil de documents concernant l’histoire des Pays roumains, Jassy 1929. Hurmuzaki, E. de, (ed.), Documente privitoare la Istoria Românilor [Documents concerning the History of the Romanians], vol. 3/1, Bucharest 1880. Hurmuzaki, E. de, (ed.), Documente privitoare la Istoria Românilor [Documents concerning the History of the Romanians], vol. 4/2, Bucharest 1884. Hurmuzaki, E. de, Documente privitoare la Istoria Românilor [Documents concerning the History of the Romanians], vol. 2/1, Bucharest 1891. Hurmuzaki, E. de, (ed.), Documente privitoare la Istoria Românilor [Documents concerning the History of the Romanians], vol. 11, Bucharest 1900. Iorga, N., Studii şi documente cu privire la Istoria Românilor [Studies and Documents Concerning the History of the Romanians], vol. 3, Bucharest 1901. Iorga, N. (ed.), Scrisori de boieri, scrisori de domni [Letters of Boyars, Letters of Princes], 3rd edition, Bucharest 1932. Matthew of Myra (Mατθαίoς Mυραίων), Ἑτέρα Ἱστορία τῶν κατὰ τὴν Οὐγγροβλαχίαν τελεσθέντων, ἀρξαμένη ἀπὸ Σερμπάνου Βοηβόνδα μέχρι Γαβριήλ Βοηβόνδα… [History of the Events that happened in Ungrowallachia from Prince Şerban to Prince Gavril…], in E. Legrand (ed.), Bibliothèque grecque vulgaire, vol. 2, Paris 1881, pp. 231–333. Neculce, I., Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei şi O samă de cuvinte [The Chronicle of the Country of Moldavia and Some Words], ed. I. Iordan, Bucharest 1955. Popescu, R., Istoriile domnilor Ţării Româneşti [The Histories of Wallachia], ed. C. Grecescu, Bucharest 1963.

244

Cotovanu

Stavrinos (Σταυρινός), Ἀνδραγαθίαις τοῦ εὐσεβεστάτου καὶ ἀδρειοτάτου Μιχαὴλ Βοεβόδα ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὰ ὅσα ἐσυνέβησαν εἰς τὴν Οὐγκροβλαχίαν ἀπὸ τὸν καιρὸν ὁποῦ ἀφέντεψεν ὁ Σερμπάνος Βοεβόδας ἕως Γαβριὴλ Μογύλα Βοεβόδα… [The Endeavours of the very Noble and very Courageous Prince Michel and the Events that Happened in Hungrowallachia during the Reigns of Prince Şerban and of Prince Gavril Movilă…], in Legrand, E. (ed.), Recueil de poèmes historiques en grec vulgaire relatifs à la Turquie et aux Principautés Danubiennes, Paris 1877, pp. 16–127.



Secondary Literature

Alexandrescu-Dersca Bulgaru, M.-M., “Sur le régime des ressortissants ottomans en ­Moldavie (1711–1829)”, in B. Alexandrescu-Dersca Bulgaru, Seldjoukides, Ottomans et l’espace roumain, ed. Cr. Feneşan, (Analecta Isisiana, 87), Istanbul 2006, pp. 439–80. Andreescu, Şt., “La politique de Mircea le Pâtre”, Revue des études sud-est européennes 10/1 (1972), pp. 115–22. Avanza, M. and Laferté, G., “Dépasser la ‘construction des identités’ ? Identification, image sociale, appartenance”, Genèse 61 (2005), pp. 134–52. Barbu, D., “O mărturie a relaţiilor artistice româno-greceşti: Corbii-de-Piatră (datare şi încadrare stilistică)” [A Testimony of the Romanian-Greek artistic Relations: Corbii-de-Piatră (Date and Style)], Cercetări de istorie şi civilizaţie sud-est europeană 4 (1987), pp. 113–23. Barbu, D., O arheologie constituţională românească. Studii şi documente [A Romanian Constitutional Archaeology. Studies and Documents], Bucharest 2000. Biliarsky, I., Word and Power in Medieval Bulgaria, Leiden/ Boston 2011. Brubaker, R., “Au de-là de l’‘identité’”, in Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales. L’exception américaine 139 (2001), pp. 66–85. Camariano-Cioran, A., L’Épire et les Pays roumains, Ioannina 1984. Caproşu, I., “Despre politica internă a lui Radu Mihnea şi răscoalele ţărăneşti din prima lui domnie în Moldova” [On the Internal Politics of Radu Mihnea and the Peasant Revolts during his first Moldavian Rule], Studii şi cercetări ştiinţifice 13/1 (1962), pp. 81–104. Caproşu, I., O istorie a Moldovei prin relaţiile de credit până la mijl. sec. XVIII [A History of Moldavia by means of Credit Relations until the Middle of the 18th Century], Jassy 1989. Cazacu, M., “Stratégies matrimoniales et politiques des Cantacuzène de la Turcocratie (XVe–XVIe siècles)”, Revue des études roumaines 19–20 (1995–96), pp. 157–81. Cazacu, M., “La tolérance religieuse en Valachie et en Moldavie depuis le XIVe ­siècle”, in Ch. Delsol and M. Maslowski (eds.), Histoire des idées politiques de l’Europe ­Centrale, Paris 1998, pp. 109–25. Cazacu, M., “Venise et la Moldavie au début du XVe siècle”, Studii şi materiale de istorie medie 21 (2003), pp. 131–38.

‘Chasing Away the Greeks’

245

Cernovodeanu, P. and Rezachevici, C. (eds.), Mihai Viteazul. Culegere de studii, ­Bucharest 1975. Chelcu, C., “Implicarea elementului grecesc în economia Moldovei în vremea lui Petru Şchiopul” [The Involvement of the Greek Element in the Moldovan Economy in the Time of Peter the Lame], in L. Rados (ed.), Interferenţe româno-elene (secolele XV– XX) [Romanian-Greek Interferences (15th–20th Centuries)], Jassy 2003, pp. 49–60. Constantiniu, Fl., “Politica externă a lui Dimitrie Cantemir. Analiza unei decizii” [The Foreign Policy of Dimitrie Cantemir. Analysis of a Decision], Revista Română de Studii Internaţionale 7/3 (1975), pp. 117–26. Cotovanu, L., “‘Alexis de Kiev et de toute la Russie’ – ‘Hyacinthe de toute la Hongrovalachie’: deux cas parallèles ? Quelques précisions autour des relations ecclésiastiques des Russes et des Roumains avec Byzance crépusculaire (XIVe siècle)”, in I. Cândea, P. Cernovodeanu, and Gh. Lazăr (eds.), Închinare lui Petre Ş. Năsturel la 80 de ani, Braila 2003, pp. 531–54. Cotovanu, L., “Le diocèse de Dryinoupolis et ses bienfaiteurs de Valachie et de Moldavie. Solidarités de famille et traits identitaires multiples (XVIe–XVIIe siècles)”, in P. Zahariuc (ed.), Contribuţii privitoare la istoria relaţiilor dintre Ţările Române şi Bisericile Răsăritene în secolele XIV–XIX [Contributions to the History of the Relations between the Romanian Lands and the Eastern Churches during the 14th–19th Centuries], Jassy 2009, pp. 219–360. Cotovanu, L., “Une donation inconnue au monastère Sainte-Anastasia-Pharmakolytria de Chalcidique (XVIIe siècle)”, Études byzantines et post-byzantines 6 (2011), pp. 347–63. Cotovanu, L., “Despre ctitorii arbănaşi ai bisericii Adormirea Maicii Domnului din Călineştii Prahovei (1646)” [On the Albanian Founders of the Dormition Church of Călineşti, Prahova (1646)], in Mihai D. Sturdza la 80 de ani. Omagiu, Jassy 2014, pp. 659–701. Cotovanu, L., “L’émigration sud-danubienne vers la Valachie et la Moldavie et sa géo­ graphie (XVe–XVIIe siècles): la potentialité heuristique d’un sujet peu connu”, Cahiers balkaniques, INALCO, Paris, 42 (2014), URL: http://ceb.revues.org/4772 (­accessed 17 April 2016). Cotovanu, L., “Migrations et mutations identitaires dans l’Europe du Sud-Est (vues de Valachie et de Moldavie, XIVe–XVIIe siècles)”, PhD Thesis, EHESS, Paris 2014. Cotovanu, L., “À la recherche de nouveaux contribuables: politiques publiques de colonisation rurale avec des ‘étrangers’ (Valachie et Moldavie, XVe–XVIIe siècles)”, Revue des études sud-est européennes 53/1–4 (2015), pp. 33–69. Cotovanu, L., “Aux débuts de la dédicace des lieux de culte ‘roumains’ envers le MontAthos (seconde moitié du XVIe siècle): entreprise publique ou privée?” in Θ΄ Διε­ θνές  Επιστημονικό  Συνέδριο  “  Η  εξακτίνωση  του  Αγίου  Όρους  στον  Ορθόδοξο  κόσμο  :  τα  μετόχια  ”.  Πρακτικά συνεδρίου,  Θεσσαλονίκη,  21–23  Νοεμβρίου 2014 [The 9th Scientific

246

Cotovanu

Congress “The Echo of Mount Athos in the Orthodox World: the Metochia”, Thessaloniki, 21–23 November 2014], Thessaloniki 2015, pp. 191–215. Cotovanu, L., “La ‘réforme’ de Matei Basarab de Valachie (1632–1654) concernant les monastères dédiés aux Lieux Saints de l’Orthodoxie”, in Ι΄ Διεθνές Επιστημο νικό Συνέδριο “Το Άγιον Όρος κατά τον 17ο και 18ο αιώνα. Από τους μεταβυζαντινούς στους  νεότερους χρόνους”. Πρακτικά συνεδρίου, Θεσσαλονίκη, 9–10 Οκτωβρίου 2015 [The 10th Scientific ­Congress “Mount Athos in the 17th and 18th Centuries. From PostByzantine to Modern Times”, Thessaloniki, 9–10 October 2015], Thessaloniki 2016, forthcoming. Delannoi, G., Sociologie de la nation. Fondements théoriques et expériences théoriques, Paris 1999. Dinu, T., Mihai Viteazul erou al eposului grecesc [Michael the Brave, Hero of the Greek Epos], Bucharest 2008. Falangas, A., “Invazia lui Gabriel Báthory în Ţara Românească şi antagonismul dintre Radu Şerban şi Radu Mihnea în lumina unui izvor grecesc necunoscut” [The Invasion of Gabriel Báthory in Wallachia and the Antagonism between Radu Şerban and Radu Mihnea in the Light of an Unknown Greek Source], Studii şi materiale de istorie medie 20 (2002), pp. 53–61. Falangas, A., “Μορφές  Ηπειρωτών  στις  ρουμανικές  χώρες  κατά  τον  ύστερο  Βαλκανικό  Μεσαίωνα” [Personalities of Epirots in the Romanian Lands during the Later Balkan Middle Ages], Δωδώνη. Ιστορία και Αρχαιολογία 33 (2004), pp. 383–448. Falangas, A., Présences grecques dans les Pays roumains (XIVe–XVIe siècles). Le témoignage des sources narratives roumaines, Bucharest 2009, pp. 158–87. Falangas, A., “On Greek-Romanian Antagonism during the First Half of the 17th Century”, Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 28–29 (2012–13), pp. 91–107. Frank, G., “Grecii din Moldova între integrare şi asimilare (sfârşitul secolului XVI–­ prima jumătate a secolului XVII). Modele de ascensiune socială” [The Greeks in Moldavia between Integration and Assimilation (the End of the 16th – First Half of the 17th Century). Models of Social Ascension], in I. Toderaşcu (ed.), Etnie şi confesiune în Moldova medievală [Ethnicity and Religion in medieval Moldavia], Jassy 2006, pp. 179–265. Ganchou, Th., “La fraterna societas des crétois Nikolaos et Géôrgios Polos (Polo), entre Constantinople et Moncastro: affaires, dévotion et humanisme”, Θησαυρίσματα 39– 40 (2009–10), pp. 111–28. Gemil, T., Românii şi otomanii în secolele XIV–XVI [Romanians and Ottomans in the 14th–16th Centuries], Bucharest 1991. Georgescu, V., “La structuration du pouvoir d’état dans les Principautés roumaines (XIVe et XVe siècles). Son originalité. Le rôle des modèles byzantins”, Bulletin de l’Association Internationale d’Études du Sud-Est Européen 11 (1973), pp. 103–24. Georgescu, V., “Hrisovul din 15 iulie 1631 al lui Leon Tomşa în Ţara Românească şi ­problema ‘Cărţilor de libertăţi’” [The 15th July 1631 Chrysobull of Leon Tomşa in

‘Chasing Away the Greeks’

247

Wallachia and the Issue of “the Charters of Liberties”], Revista de istorie 29/7 (1976), pp. 1103–30. Georgescu, V. and Strihan, P., Judecata domnească în Ţara Românească şi Moldova (­1611–1831). Partea I. Organisarea judecătorească, I (1611–1740) [Princely Justice in Wallachia and Moldavia (1611–1831). 1st Part. The judicial Organization, vol. 1 (1611–1740)], Bucarest 1979. Georgescu, V. and Strihan, P., Judecata domnească în Ţara Românească şi Moldova (1611–1831). Partea I. Organisarea judecătorească, II (1611–1831) [Princely Justice in Wallachia and Moldavia (1611–1831). 1st Part. The Judicial Organization, vol. 2 (1611–1831)], Bucharest 1981. Ghinea, N., “La famille de la Princesse Catherine Salvaressa. Contribution à la connaissance des relations roumano-italiennes au XVIe siècle”, Revue Roumaine d’Histoire 22/4 (1983), pp. 395–96. Giurescu, C., “Tratatul lui Constantin Cantemir cu austriecii (1690)” [The Treaty of Constantin Cantemir with the Austrians (1690)], Convorbiri Literare 46/1 (1910), pp. 274–90. Goffman, E., Stigmate. Les Usages sociaux des handicaps, Paris 1975. Golimaş, A., “Diplomatul Constantin Batişte Vevelli Rettimiotul şi revoluţia Moldovei din primăvara anului 1633” [The Diplomat Constantin Batişte Vevelli of Rethymnon and the Revolution of Moldavia from the Spring of 1633], Studii şi cercetări istorice 1 (1943), pp. 1–19. Gorovei, Şt., “Moldova în ‘Casa păcii’. Pe marginea izvoarelor privind primul secol de relaţii moldo-otomane” [Moldavia in the “House of Peace”. Notes Concerning the Sources of the 1st Century of Moldavian-Ottoman Relations], Anuarul Institututlui de Istorie ‘Al. Xenopol’, Iaşi 17 (1980), pp. 329–67. Guboglu, M., “Le tribut payé par les Principautés roumaines à la Porte jusqu’au début du XVIe siècle”, Revue des études islamiques 1 (1969), pp. 49–80. Ionaşcu, I., “Din politica internă şi externă a Ţării Româneşti în domnia lui Antonie vodă din Popeşti (1669–1672)” [Aspects of the Internal and Foreign Policy of ­Wallachia during the Reign of prince Antonie from Popeşti (1669–1672)], in N. Simache (ed.), Pagini din trecutul istoric al judeţului Prahova, Ploieşti 1971, pp. 7–19. Ionescu, Gh., “Tratatul încheiat de Gheorghe Ştefan cu ruşii în 1656. Contribuţii la cunoaşterea legăturilor noastre politice cu Rusia” [The Treaty Concluded by Ghe­ orghe Ştefan with the Russians in 1656. Contributions to the Knowledge of Our Political Relations with Russia], Revista istorică română 3 (1933), pp. 234–47. Ionescu-Nişcov, Tr., “Memoriul din 1674 al boierilor munteni către ţarul Rusiei” [The 1674 Memorandum of the Wallachian Boyars to the Russian Tsar], Revista Arhivelor 3/2 (1960), pp. 213–25. Iorga, N., “Contribuţiuni la istoria Munteniei în a doua jumătate a secolului al XVI-lea” [Contributions to the History of Wallachia in the Second Half of the 14th Century], Analele Academiei Române. Memoriile Secţiunii Istorice 17 (1895–1896), pp. 1–112.

248

Cotovanu

Iorga, N., “Manuscripte din biblioteci străine relative la istoria românilor” [Manuscripts from Foreign Libraries Concerning the History of the Romanians], Analele Academiei Române. Memoriile Secţiunii Istorice 21 (1898–1899), pp. 7–27. Iorga, N., “Istoria evreilor în ţările noastre” [The History of Jews in Our Countries], Analele Academiei Române. Memoriile Secţiunii Istorice 36 (1913–1914), pp. 165–205. Iorga, N., “Armenii şi Românii: o paralelă istorică” [The Armenians and the Romanians: a Historical Parallel], Analele Academiei Române. Memoriile Secţiunii Istorice 36 (1913–1914), pp. 1–38. Iorga, N., Byzance après Byzance. Continuation de l’histoire byzantine, 2nd edition, Paris 1992. Ivanova, S., “Το καθεστώς των Ελλήνων εμπόρων στη Ρωμυλία τον 170 και τον 18ο αιώνα” [The Status of the Greek Merchants in Romylia in the 17th and 18th Centuries], in A.  Lyberatos (ed.), Τα  Βαλκάνια.  Εκσυγχρονισμός, ταυτότητες,  ιδέες.  Συλλογή  κειμένων  προς  τιμήν  της  καθηγήτριας  Νάντιας  Ντάνοβα [The Balkans. Modernization, Identities, Ideas. Text Collection in Honor of Professor Nadia Danova], Herakleio 2014, pp. 19–44. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Grenz-, Staats- und Gemeindekonskriptionen in der Habsburgermonarchie: Identitätendiskurs bei den Menschen aus dem Süden”, in M. Oikonomou, M. Stassinopoulou, and I. Zelepos (eds.), Griechische Dimensionen südosteuropäischer Kultur seit dem 18. Jahrhundert. Verortung, Bewegung, Grenzüberschreitung, Frankfurt am Main 2011, pp. 231–51. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Από τις εξεγέρσεις στις επαναστάσεις των χριστιανών υποτελών της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας στη Νοτιοανατολική Ευρώπη (περ. 1530–1821). Μια απόπειρα τυπολογίας” [From Uprisings to the Revolutions of Christian Subjects of the Ottoman Empire in Southeast Europe (c. 1530–1821). An Attempt at Typology], in A. L­ yberatos (ed.), Τα  Βαλκάνια.  Εκσυγχρονισμός,  ταυτότητες,  ιδέες.  Συλλογή  κειμένων  προς  τιμήν  καθηγήτριας  Νάντιας  Ντάνοβα [The Balkans. Modernization, Identities, Ideas. Text Collection in Honor of Professor Nadia Danova], Herakleio 2014, pp. 575–618. Konortas, P., “Les contributions ecclésiastiques ‘Patriarchikè zèteia’ et ‘Patriarchikon charatzion’. Contribution à l’histoire économique du Patriarcat œcuménique aux XVe et XVIe siècles”, in Actes du IIe Colloque International d’histoire (Athènes, 18–25 septembre 1983). Économies méditerranéennes: équilibres et intercommunications, XIIIe–XIXe siècles, vol. 3, Athens 1986, pp. 217–55. Laurian, A. and Balcescu, N. (eds.) Magazin istoric pentru Dacia 1 (1845). Lazăr, Gh., Les marchands en Valachie, XVIIe–XVIIIe siècles, Bucharest 2006. Lăzărescu, E., “Nicodim de la Tismana şi rolul său în cultura veche românească, I (pînă la 1385)” [Nicodim of Tismana and his Role in the ancient Romanian Culture, 1 (­until 1385)], Romanoslavica 11 (1963), pp. 237–85.

‘Chasing Away the Greeks’

249

Luca, Cr., “The Rise of the Greek ‘Conquering Merchant’ in the Trade between the ­Eastern Mediterranean and the Romanian Principalities in the 16th and 17th Centuries”, Journal of Mediterranean Studies 19/2 (2010), pp. 311–34. Mantouvalos, I., “Circonscriptiones Graecorum in Eighteenth-Century Central Europe. Crossing Borders: The Sociocultural Identification of Migrants from the Balkans to Hungarian Territories”, in H. Heppner and E. Posch (eds.), Encounters in Europe’s Southeast. The Habsburg Empire and the Orthodox World in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, Bochum 2012, pp. 121–33. Maxim, M., Ţările române şi Înalta Poartă. Cadrul juridic al relaţiilor româno-otomane în Evul Mediu [The Romanian Principalities and the Sublime Porte. The Judicial Framework of the Romanian-Ottoman Relations in the Middle Ages], Bucharest 1993. Mehmet, M., “Despre dreptul de proprietate al supuşilor otomani în Moldova şi Ţara Românească în secolele XV–XVIII” [On the Propriety Right of the Ottoman Subjects in Moldavia and Wallachia in the 15th–18th Centuries], Cercetări istorice 3 (1972), pp. 65–81. Mureşan, D., “Princes du Sud-Est Européen otages à Constantinople (Xe–XVe siècles)”, in V. Sârbu and Cr. Luca (eds.), Miscellanea Historica et Archaeologica in Honorem Professoris Ionel Cândea, Braila 2008, pp. 145–53. Nastase, D., “Le Mont Athos et la politique du Patriarcat de Constantinople, de 1355 à 1375”, Σύμμεικτα 3 (1979), pp. 121–77. Năsturel, P., “Urmările căderii Ţarigradului pentru Biserica românească” [The Consequences of the Fall of Constantinople for the Romanian Church], Mitropolia Olteniei 11/1–2 (1959), pp. 45–73. Năsturel, P., “Sur quelques boyards roumains d’origine grecque aux XIVe–XVe siècles”, Revue des études byzantines 25 (1967), pp. 107–11. Noiriel, G. (ed.), L’identification. Genèse d’un travail d’État, Paris 2007. Oţetea, A. (ed.), Istoria României [History of Romania], vol. 2, Bucharest 1962. Pakucz-Willcocks, M., “‘Greek’ Merchants in the Transylvanian Saxon Town in the Later Middle Age and the Early Modern Times”, Historical Yearbook 2 (2005), pp. 107–16. Panaite, P., Pace, război şi comerţ în Islam. Ţările române şi dreptul otoman al popoarelor, secolele XV–XVI [Peace, War and Commerce in Islam. The Romanian Principalities and the Ottoman Nation Law, 15th–16th Centuries], 1st edition, Bucharest 1997. Păun, R., “La circulation des pouvoirs dans les Pays Roumains au XVIIe siècle. Repères pour un modèle théorique”, NEC Yearbook, 1998–99, Bucharest 2001, pp. 263–311. Păun, R., “Pouvoirs, offices et patronage dans la Principauté de Moldavie au XVIIe siècle. L’aristocratie roumaine et la pénétration gréco-levantine”, PhD Thesis, EHESS, Paris 2003.

250

Cotovanu

Păun, R., “Les grands officiers d’origine gréco-levantine en Moldavie au XVIIe siècle. Offices, carrières et stratégies de pouvoir”, Revue des études sud-est européennes 45 (2007), pp. 153–95. Păun, R., “Enemies Within: Networks of Influence and the Military Revolts against the Ottoman Power (Moldavia and Wallachia, 16th–17th Centuries)”, in G. Karaman and L. Kuncević (eds.), The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the 16th and 17th Centuries, Leiden/Boston 2013, pp. 209–37. Pippidi, A., “Politique et histoire dans la proclamation de 1711”, in A. Pippidi, Hommes et idées du Sud-Est européen à l’aube de l’âge moderne, Bucharest/Paris 1980, pp. 187–214. Popescu, N., Patriarhii Ţarigradului prin Ţările române (veacul XVI) [Patriarchs of Constantinople in the Rumanian Principalities (16th Century)], Bucharest 1914. Rădvan, L., “Consideraţii privitoare la administraţia orăşenească din Ţara Românească (sec. XIV–XVI)” [Considerations Regarding the Urban Administration in Wallachia (14th–16th Centuries], Historia Urbana 7/1–2 (1999), pp. 131–43. Rădvan, L., “Considerations Regarding the Social and Ethnic Structures in Medieval Moldavian Towns”, in Cr. Luca and I. Cândea (eds.), Studia Varia in Honorem Professoris Ştefan Ştefănescu Octogenarii, Bucharest/Braila 2009, pp. 301–10. Reinsch, D., “Die Macht des Gesetzbuches. Eine Mission des Megas Rhetor Antonios Karmalikes in der Walachei”, Rechtshistoriches Journal 6 (1987), pp. 307–23. Rezachevici, C., “Fenomene de criză social-politică în Ţara Românească în veacul al XVII-lea. Partea I: Prima jumătate a secolului al XVII-lea” [Phenomena of Social and Political Crisis in 17th Century Wallachia. 1st Part, The First Half of the 17th Century], Studii şi materiale de istorie medie 9 (1978), pp. 58–84. Rezachevici, C., “Fenomene de criză social-politică în Ţara Românească în veacul al XVII-lea. Partea a II-a: A doua jumătate a secolului al XVII-lea” [Phenomena of Social and Political Crisis in 17th Century Wallachia. 2nd Part, The Second Half of 17th Century], Studii şi materiale de istorie medie 14 (1996), pp. 85–117. Rezachevici, C., Cronologia domnilor din Ţara Românească şi Moldova (a. 1324–1881), vol. 1: (sec. XIV–XVI) [The Chronology of the Wallachian and Moldavian Princes (c.1324–1881), vol. 1: (14th–16th Centuries)], Bucharest 2001. Rizescu, O., Avant l’‘État-juge’: Pratique juridique et construction politique en Valachie au XVIIe siècle, Bucharest 2008. Rosetti, L., “Constantin Cantacuzino, studente romeno a Padova”, Quaderni per la storia dell’Università di Padova 1 (1968), pp. 147–56. Sacerdoţeanu, A., “Pomelnicul mănăstirii Argeşului” [The Diptych of Argeş Monastery], Biserica Ortodoxă Română 83/3–4 (1965), pp. 297–330. Sachelarie, O. and Stoicescu, N. (eds.), Instituţii feudale din Ţările române. Dicţionar [Feudal Institutions in the Romanian Countries], Bucharest 1988.

‘Chasing Away the Greeks’

251

Şerban, C., “Les préliminaires de l’époque phanariote”, in Symposium “L’époque phanariote”, 21–25 octobre 1970. À la mémoire de Cléobule Tsourkas, Thessaloniki 1974, pp. 29–39. Siruni, H., “Armenii în viaţa economică a Ţărilor române” [The Armenians in the ­Economic Life of the Romanian Principalities], Balcania 2–3 (1939–40), pp. 107–97. Solomon, F., “Mitropoliţii Greci ai Moldovlahiei şi tentativele de unire a Bisericilor în prima jumătate a secolului XV” [The Greek Metropolitans of Moldovlahia and the Attempts at Church Union in the first Half of the 15th Century], in L. Rados (ed.), Interferenţe româno-elene (secolele XV–XX) [Romanian-Greek Interferences (15th–20th Centuries)], Jassy 2003, pp. 11–22. Stănescu, E., “Préphanariotes et Phanariotes dans la vision de la société roumaine des XVIIe–XVIIIe siècles”, in Symposium “L’époque phanariote”, 21–25 octobre 1970. À la mémoire de Cléobule Tsourkas, Thessaloniki 1974, pp. 347–58. Stoicescu, N., Dicţionar al marilor dregători din Ţara Românească şi Moldova, sec. ­XIV– XVII [Dictionary of the High State Officials of Wallachia and Moldavia, 14th–17th Centuries], Bucharest 1971. Stoicescu, N., Matei Basarab, Bucharest 1988. Stoide, C., “Un episod din domnia lui Gheorghe Duca. Răscoala lui Hâncu şi Durac din 1671–1672” [An Episode from the Reign of Gheorghe Duca. The Rebellion of Hâncu and Durac of 1671–1672], Arhiva 43/1–2 (1936), pp. 56–80. Tchentsova, V., “Dionysios Iviritis et les pourparlers entre la Moldavie et la Russie en 1656”, in I. Cândea, P. Cernovodeanu, and Gh. Lazăr (eds.), Închinare lui Petre Ş. Năsturel la 80 de ani, Braila 2003, pp. 581–603. Tchentsova, V., “Podlinnik ‘pisjma moldavskich poslov’ 1656 goda i ego sozdateli” [The Original of the “Letters of Moldovan Ambassadors” from 1656 and its Authors], in Tchelovek v prostranstve i vremeni cul’tury [The Man in the Space and the Time of the Culture], Moscow 2008, pp. 398–412. Teoteoi, T., “Mitropolitul Dionisie al Ungrovlahiei (1672) şi originea sa aromânească” [Metropolitan Dionysios of Wallachia (1672) and his Aromanian Origin], in T. Teoteoi, Byzantina et Daco-romana. Studii de istorie şi civilizaţie bizantină şi românească medievală, Bucharest 2008, pp. 353–70. Teoteoi, T., “O misiune a patriarhiei ecumenice la Bucureşti, în vremea domniei lui Vlad Vintilă din Slatina” [A Mission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Bucharest, during the Reign of Vlad Vintilă from Slatina], in T. Teoteoi, Byzantina et Dacoromana. Studii de istorie şi civilizaţie bizantină şi românească medievală, Bucharest 2008, pp. 295–319. Teoteoi, T., “Semnificaţiile activităţii desfăşurate în Rusia (1655–1669) de viitorul mitropolit Dionisie al Ungrovlahiei (1672)” [The Meanings of the Work Conducted in Russia (1655–1669) by the Future Metropolitan of Wallachia Dionysios (1672)],

252

Cotovanu

in R. Păun and O. Cristea (eds.), Istoria: utopie, amintire şi proiect de viitor. Studii de ­istorie oferite Profesorului Andrei Pippidi la împlinirea a 65 de ani, Jassy 2013, pp. 93–116. Tofan, C., “Dregători ai Ţării Moldovei în Evul Mediu. Vameşii (secolele XIV–XVII)” [State Officials of Moldavia in the Middle Ages. The Customs Officers (14th–17th Centuries)], Memoria Antiquitatis 22 (2001), pp. 511–29. Vincent, A., “From Life to Legend: The Chronicles of Stavrinos and Palamidis on ­Michael the Brave”, Θησαυρίσματα 25 (1995), pp. 165–238. Weil, P., Qu’est-ce qu’un Français? Histoire de la nationalité française depuis la Révolution, édition revue et augmentée, 4th edition, Paris 2009. Zachariadou, E., Δέκα τουρκικά έγγραφα για την Μεγάλη Εκκλησία (1483–1567) [Ten Turkish Documents about the Great Church (1483–1567)], Athens 1996. Zahariuc, P., Ţara Moldovei în vremea lui Gheorghe Ştefan voievod (1653–1658) [Moldavia in the Times of Prince Gheorghe Ştefan (1653–1658)], (Historia, 30), Jassy 2003.

chapter 9

Foreign Migrant Communities in the Danubian Ports of Brăila and Galaţi (1829–1914) Constantin Ardeleanu

Brăila and Galaţi during the 19th Century

Situated on the ‘maritime Danube’, the 100-mile long section of the river accessible to sea-going vessels, the Danubian port-cities of Brăila (Braila) and Galaţi (Galatz) played an important part in modern Romania’s economic history. Braila was Wallachia’s prosperous commercial outlet from the middle of the 14th century until it was conquered by the Ottomans and turned into a stronghold that dominated the entire Lower Danubian area (1538–40). For almost three centuries, the new citadel served as a bridgehead for Ottoman armies, and its commercial function was completely subordinated to its military role. As a key position in the Empire’s defensive system along the Lower Danube, Brăila was often besieged and looted during the Russian military campaigns of the 18th and early 19th centuries. With this shift in Braila’s main function, the trade of the Lower Danube moved about 15 miles downstream, towards the southern Moldavian port-city of Galatz. This settlement grew from a small fishermen’s village to become the veritable core of the principalities’ foreign trade. With access in the Black Sea made more difficult for foreign trade and shipping, Galatz became the loading port for the increasing variety of supplies that the two provinces had to provide to their suzerain power. A relative commercial ‘monopoly’ of the Porte compelled Wallachia and Moldavia to supply large stores of grain, livestock, animal products, timber, etc. either free or at fixed prices much under the real value of the merchandise. However, besides this restrictive trade, the principalities were also engaged in continuously increasing free commercial exchanges with the Ottoman Empire and other European partners, as the Black Sea gradually opened its resources to foreign traders and ship-owners. The Russian-Ottoman Treaty of Adrianople (2–14 September 1829) marked a decisive turning point in the history of the Danubian outlets of Braila and Galatz, as the Romanian Principalities were to enjoy ‘full liberty of commerce’, meaning the abolishment of the Porte’s former mercantile privileges. In this new economic context, the Danubian port-cities witnessed a rapid growth, nourished by the flourishing trade in the rich agricultural and pastoral

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004335448_011

254

Ardeleanu

r­ esources of Moldavia and Wallachia. Commerce was completely dominated by foreign merchants, Greeks and Italians in the initial phase, middlemen organized in commercial houses with excellent connections in the largest Mediterranean and Western European deposit ports.1 In terms of population, Moldavia’s emporium numbered about 8,000 inhabitants in the early 1830s, plus a seasonal population of more than 1,000 persons who resided in Galatz during the grain trade season. According to another census, population reached about 20,000 individuals in 1845, a growth related to domestic and foreign migration. Demographic data for this period is rather inconsistent, but it is evident that several hundred families of small merchants, craftsmen, and laborers came from neighboring villages and settled in the Danubian outlet. The number of foreign immigrants was as large, though it is difficult to give exact figures, as local authorities generally recorded the ‘citizenship’ or protection of inhabitants, not their ethnicity. Nevertheless, foreigners represented at least a third of the population. In 1845, 1,430 of the 4,698 heads of family recorded by the fiscal authorities were foreign subjects, not including 243 Jewish heads of family and an unstated number of Armenians. During the 1850s, the total population can be estimated at about 25,000–30,000 inhabitants.2 At Braila, the Ottoman citadel was dismantled during the war of 1828–29 and the modern city was erected from scratch after Wallachia received, by the Treaty of Adrianople, full control over the left bank of the Danube. According to a census, there were 591 families or about 3,000 people living in Braila in 1828, including 25 Armenian and 21 Jewish families. After the foundation of the new settlement, population reached 6,000 people in 1834, 14,000 in 1843 and about 20,000 before the Crimean War.3 More than a third of the inhabitants were foreigners, the same mixture of races and religions that populated all commercial ports of the Levant. In 1838, for example, among the 6,387 inhabitants recorded by an official census there were 2,381 Wallachians (37 per cent), 1,455 Greeks (22 per cent), 1,429 Serbians (22 per cent), 302 Bulgarians, 271 Lipovans, 1 For details on the Danubian Principalities’ economy and the foreign trade of Braila and Galatz during the first quarter of the century after 1829 see my latest book – Ardeleanu, International Trade and Diplomacy at the Lower Danube, pp. 51–129. 2 For these data on the population of Galatz see Păltănea, Istoria oraşului Galaţi, vol. i, pp. ­338–42 and vol. ii, pp. 54–56. 3 For demographic details, with different figures, see Popescu, “Catagrafia locuitorilor”; Mihăilescu, “Populaţia Brăilei”; Vârtosu, “Trei catagrafii”; Giurescu, Istoricul oraşului Brăila, p. 198; Buşe and Penelea, “Structure démographique”, p. 93; Stoica, Brăila. Memoria oraşului, pp. 10–13, 21.

Foreign Migrant Communities in the Danubian Ports

255

188 Jews, 92 Russians, 79 Armenians, etc.4 This Danubian cosmopolitism was readily noticed by foreign travelers who considered Galatz a “strange Babel of a place always crowded by the people of half a dozen nations”, with Jews, Turks, infidels, heretics, and heathens filling “the muddy sloughs of streets”.5 In the exchange room of Brăila another visitor noticed Jews, Turks, Armenians, Greeks, and a variety of Western Europeans, “making up an assemblage rarely equaled”.6 The prosperity of the two port-cities completely depended on the grain trade, which nourished a veritable commercial revolution in the Danubian Principalities. In 1836–37 the princes in Bucharest and Iaşi (Jassy) endowed Braila and Galatz with a free port privilege and by a favorable customs policy they were turned into the emporia of the abundant agro-pastoral production of the vast Romanian plains. This commercial wealth paid for the development of the two settlements whose modernization was accomplished through a fruitful cooperation between public investments and private enterprise. In 1838, for example, the local community in Galatz set up an embellishment commission, with members elected by local merchants, which proposed measures for improving the city and its harbor.7 A similar institution existed at Braila, the mercantile deputation, made up of five elected members plus the governor and the president of the local tribunal.8 The cosmopolitan character of these committees is demonstrated by the fact that the first members elected in Braila’s deputation were, in a majority, ‘foreigners’: three Greeks, a Wallachian, and a Turkish merchant.9 The modernization of Braila and Galatz can be viewed in the cities themselves and in their harbors. At Galatz, the ‘upper town’ was erected in the early 1830s by consuls, local officials, and well-off merchants, who built stone houses on a hill dominating the ‘old Turkish town’. This new quarter was systematically built according to rules of urban development, with straight streets, aligned houses, public parks, etc. By the 1850s it started “to exhibit symptoms of the improvement to be expected from its active commerce”, with buildings “bearing a European aspect and giving promise of what Galatz is likely to be in future”.10

4 Cristocea, Oraşul Brăila în catagrafia din anul 1838, p. 9. 5 Thornbury, Turkish Life, vol. ii, pp. 251–52. 6 Terry, Scenes and Thoughts, p. 280. 7 Păltănea, Istoria oraşului Galaţi, vol. ii, pp. 17–18. 8 Marinescu, Documente, vol. i, pp. 34–40. 9 Giurescu, Istoricul oraşului Brăila, p. 154; Mocanu, Portul Brăila, p. 134. 10 Quotations from Smyth, A Year, p. 32 and A Handbook for Travellers, p. 537.

256

Ardeleanu

Similar progress was visible at Braila, erected from scratch with stone taken from the walls of the old Ottoman citadel. It was a complete metamorphosis in which a military stronghold made room for a commercial city. Urban development followed a systematic plan, imposing a radial concentric structure, with regular, straight, and paved streets, having the Danube as the diameter of the new settlement.11 In both port-cities the authorities started to pave the main streets and introduce modern regulations,12 but the most important public works were those meant to improve the harbors, the source of their prosperity. Wooden private and public storehouses for depositing grain were built, followed by the consolidation of the river bank and the construction of stone quays. Embankments, pontoons, and floating bridges for ships, as well as modern quarantine establishments for passengers and goods, were also arranged. As important was the completion of access roads to the harbors, so as to bring grain carts to the loading posts without crowding the residential areas. A new phase in the evolution of Braila and Galatz began after the Crimean War and the birth of modern Romania, by the union of the two principalities (1859–62). Population continuously increased, with Galatz numbering 26,050 inhabitants in 1859, 40,022 in 1881, 59,143 in 1899 and 71,641 in 1913,13 and Braila growing from 15,787 inhabitants in 1859 to 46,715 in 1891 and 65,711 people in 1912.14 The same ethnic mixture was preserved, with more than a third of the population represented by foreigners (Jews, Greeks, Bulgarians, Westerners, etc.). Trade remained the main economic activity, although industry gradually developed (mainly at Galatz) following the efforts and the encouragements of the central government to diminish imports and to build a ‘national’ industry. The cheap agro-pastoral resources of the Romanian plains provided excellent raw material for the foundation of the food industry, just as the supply of good timber brought from the Carpathian forests downstream the Sireth River ­secured good contracts for local shipyards.15 An event with significant economic consequences was the building of ­railroads, and in early 1870s a line linked the two port-cities to Romania’s 11 Giurescu, Istoricul oraşului Brăila, pp. 166–67; a description in Stoica, Brăila. Memoria oraşului, pp. 14–28. 12 For Galatz, some measures are detailed in Guziec, “Însemnări”, pp. 143–45. 13 Păltănea, Istoria oraşului Galaţi, vol. ii, pp. 54–56, 138–39, 210. 14 Giurescu, Istoricul oraşului Brăila, p. 231; other details in Mihăilescu, “Populaţia”, pp. 125– 32, and more recently in Kontogeorgis, Η ελληνική διασπορά στη Ρουμανία. 15 On the evolution of the industry in Galatz, see, besides the seminal work of Păltănea, Codreanu, Monografia fabricilor, the papers of E. and S. Mihály quoted in the bibliography and the literary monograph of Tatu, Istoria trudită.

Foreign Migrant Communities in the Danubian Ports

257

­agricultural districts, an accomplishment that was to contribute to their prosperity, as land transportation along the primitive local roads accounted for a large part of the grain market price. However, this railway was completely disadvantageous for Galatz, as it got to its harbor only after a long detour. A ­further problem for the Moldavian port was caused by Russia’s 1878 re-annexation of southern Bessarabia, a rich district that exported its production via Galatz. At the same time, Romania’s central government, trying to promote the nascent national industry, introduced a more protectionist customs policy, so that in 1883 the free port regime was abolished. To support the trade of the two outlets, modern docks and bonded warehouses were completed in the following decade, securing for each harbor a large storing capacity for grain, general cargo, timber, and even oil. By the end of the 19th century, the trade of Galatz visibly suffered, but Braila remained the core of the grain trade, with crops brought for re-exportation from both banks of the Danube. Increasing competition for Danubian outlets came from the Black Sea port-city of Constantza (Constanţa), which Romania was granted in 1878 together with the province of Dobrudja. The Romanian state bought the Danube – Black Sea railway, completed in 1860 by a British company, and after inaugurating a bridge over the Danube in 1895 and investing massively in the construction of a modern harbor, the country’s foreign trade gradually rerouted towards the ‘national’ ­port-city of Constantza.16 Industry developed in the last decades of the 19th century and the industrial census of 1901–02 proves that Braila and Galatz were among the most industrialized urban centers in Romania. In 1902, for example, there were recorded 60 factories at Galatz, among which 38 establishments were included in the ‘large industry’ category (14 belonged to the food industry, eight to the metal industry, seven to the chemical industry, two to the wood industry, etc.), ­employing a total of 2,386 workers.17 Urban modernization continued with the paving of streets and the introduction of modern facilities such as a sewage system, ­water supply, electricity, public transport, etc. At the same time, the port-cities enjoyed an active cultural life, with the establishment of private and public schools and the inauguration of theatres, cultural associations, libraries, and museums. An important role in the development of the two Danubian outlets belongs to the foreign migrant communities that settled at Braila and Galatz after 1829. There were several phases of migration, which were generally not the result of an official, state-controlled colonization policy, but the consequence of how 16 17

See Iordachi, Citizenship, Nation and State-Building. Anuar Statistic al României 1904, p. 527.

258

Ardeleanu

the different ethnic, religious, or cultural communities responded to the attractive economic, social, and cultural-national opportunities provided in the two port-cities. In fact, these immigrants filled the available empty spots of a society that lacked a national bourgeoisie and where the social and cultural background of local population did not allow it to fulfill the economic and social roles imposed by the fast transition towards a capitalist economy.

The ‘Maritime and Western Phases’ – In Search of Economic Opportunities

After 1829, favorable conditions caused the increase of the Greek emigration to the Romanian Principalities. The first major actors in the Danubian grain trade were the Ionian Greeks (under British protection), already powerful at Braila and Galatz since the previous century. According to British Consul E.L. Blutte, in October 1830 there were in Wallachia 103 British subjects, 80 of whom were Ionians, and 34 of them had settled at Braila. In 1831, 83 British subjects, mostly Ionians, were recorded in Galatz, but the new commercial freedom ­instituted in 1829 acted as the catalyst for a further immigration.18 In 1835 there were registered 184 Ionians at Galatz and 77 at Braila, more than in the capital cities of the two states. Two decades later, in April 1859, another census shows the evolution of the local Ionian community. There were recorded 237 British subjects, 190 of them Ionians, of whom 133 came from Cephalonia and 33 from Ithaca.19 Other immigrants from continental Greece also settled at the Lower Danube under Greek or foreign consular protection, so that the Hellenic diaspora increased at Braila from 469 families (about 2,500 people) in 1838 to 4,238 persons in 1891 and 4,929 in 1899.20 At Galatz there were 4,196 Greeks recorded in 1890.21 During the first three decades after 1829, most of the prominent local Greeks were involved in grain trading and their contribution was decisive in securing the access of Danubian cereals to the world markets. Members or agents of influential Greek entrepreneurial families of the mid-19th century (­Argentis, Chrissoveloni, Nicolopoulo, Negroponte, Ralli, Sechiari, Vouro, Pana, Xenos 18 19

More details in Cernovodeanu, “L’activité des maisons”, pp. 91–105. The National Archives of the United Kingdom, Public Record Office, Foreign Office, fo 78 (Turkey), File 265, fols. 213–21 and file 644, fols. 580–94. 20 Mihăilescu, “Populaţia”, pp. 118–19. For more details see also Kontogeorgis, Η ελληνική δια­ σπορά στη Ρουμανία, pp. 297–317. 21 Pacu, Cartea judeţului Covurlui, p. 109.

Foreign Migrant Communities in the Danubian Ports

259

etc.), had excellent connections in Mediterranean and Western European ports.22 Even stronger was their position in fluvial and maritime shipping along the Lower Danube. Stephanos Xenos, the Theophilatou brothers, Negropontes, Lambrinidis, and Avasiotis invested in building fluvial lighters that carried grain from inner ports upstream the Danube, a flourishing trade that brought them huge profits. By the end of the 19th century, the biggest shipowners on the Danube were the Stathatos, Theophilatos, Chrissoveloni, Kouklelis & ­Michaelides, A.P. Maroulis, A. Embiricos, X. Karuso, and G.A. Karavias, some of them also large grain merchants.23 The Greeks invested in the development of the local industry as well. In 1863 there were at Braila five small grain mills, and their number increased to seven in 1882. By the early 20th century Greek entrepreneurs owned some of the largest and technologically advanced flour mills in Romania: Violatos, Lykiardopulos, Galiaţatos, Melissaratos, Milas, etc. The Galiaţatos flour mill, for instance, with a capacity of ten wagonloads per day, was the largest flour mill in Romania in terms of production capacity and horsepower.24 The local Greek communities were established in 1863–64.25 According to the charter of the Galatz community, it aimed to preserve and promote Orthodox religious values, to provide education for the young generation, to found a philanthropic society for helping poor and suffering people, “all these for the social, cultural, and moral progress of the Greek inhabitants”.26 Church, school, and philanthropic associations were the three pillars on which the communities were based. ‘Annunciation’ church was erected in Braila starting from 1863, and in Galatz ‘Metamorphosis’ church was founded in 1866 and consecrated in 1872.27 Both churches acted as the centers of the religious and social life of the local Hellenic diaspora, and coordinated the confessional schools and charitable activities for the poorer members of the congregation. Besides these confessional schools, several private educational institutions were also created in both cities. By the mid-19th century sources mention the schools established in Galatz by Coumbaris, Tetzis, and Mitropoulos. The 22 Details in Ardeleanu, “Aspecte cantitative şi calitative”. 23 For the Greek shipowners see Kontogeorgis, Η ελληνική διασπορά στη Ρουμανία, pp. 432–71. 24 Kontogeorgis, “The Greek Dimension”. 25 Filip, Comunitatea greacă, pp. 9–25. For more details see Kontogeorgis, Η ελληνική διασπο­ ρά στη Ρουμανία, pp. 111–23. 26 Pohrib, “Statutele comunităţii elene”. For the statutes of Braila’s Greek Community see Kontogeorgis, Η ελληνική διασπορά στη Ρουμανία, pp. 136–60. 27 Stoica, Brăila. Memoria oraşului, pp. 212–14; Kontogeorgis, Η ελληνική διασπορά στη Ρουμανία, pp. 124–35.

260

Ardeleanu

­ enieris Institute was founded in 1857, a Greek Commercial Institute opened a V year later, and a high school for girls was established in 1887 under the ­direction of Maria Volos.28 These schools were highly popular on the local educational market, and the Venieris Institute was attended during its first quarter-­century of activity by 4,358 pupils: 2,743 were Greeks, 693 Jews, 647 Romanians, 96 Bulgarians, 44 Germans, 36 French, 25 Serbians, 20 Armenians, 19 Russians, 14 Hungarians, eight Englishmen, seven Italians, four Bohemians, and two Danish children,29 a clear display of Danubian ethnic diversity. The communities in the Danubian port-cities worked in close cooperation with the Greek consuls, who acted as mediators both with the Romanian authorities and with the Fatherland. Greeks in Romania supported the national cause during the Cretan Revolt (1866–69) and the anti-Ottoman war of 1895, and celebrated the national holidays and accomplishments. At the same time, they received the financial support of several Greek patriotic associations, which assisted local schools, churches, and cultural initiatives. Despite the ­political disputes between Romania and Greece in late 19th and early 20th ­centuries, their relations with local authorities were generally good, with the community in Braila contributing financially to Romania’s War of Independence in 1877–78 and celebrating the coronation of Charles i as King of ­Romania in 1881.30 The two cities were important centers of Greek culture. Eleven Greek periodical publications were printed at Braila and only two in Galatz31 during this period, their content varying from politics and commerce to literary and cultural topics. Local theatres were also visited by Greek troupes, such as those of Emanoil Lorasidis, Sofocles Tassoglu, Evanghelia Paraskevopoulou, and ­Aikaterini Veroni.32 The main competitors of the Greeks on the Danubian grain market during the first quarter-century after 1829 were the Italian tradesmen. This diaspora was smaller numerically (20 heads of family mentioned in Galatz during the 1830s, 385 persons in 1890),33 but its members were extremely dynamic economically and culturally. The Pedemonte brothers, Fanciotti, Lamberti, Biga, and Cordiglia were commissioners who traded large amounts of grain and 28 Papacostea-Danielopolu, Comunităţile greceşti, pp. 87–89; Scalcău, Grecii, pp. 238–39. 29 Pacu, Cartea judeţului Covurlui, pp. 183–84. 30 Filip, Comunitatea greacă, p. 121. 31 Rados, Şcolile greceşti, p. 202. For a preliminary list see Kontogeorgis, Η ελληνική διασπορά στη Ρουμανία, pp. 519–20. 32 Păltănea, Istoria oraşului Galaţi, vol. ii, p. 361. 33 Tomi, “Imigraţia italiană: Brăila”, and “Imigraţia italiană: Galaţi şi Ismail”.

Foreign Migrant Communities in the Danubian Ports

261

other agro-pastoral goods to the largest ports of the Mediterranean.34 Besides Italian architects, doctors, and teachers, another remarkable character who settled in Galaţi was Mario Pietro Cugino, the editor of the first local commercial newspaper, Il Danubio, giornale di navigazione e commercio, published in bilingual editions between 1846 and 1850.35 The Italians also created the first local theatre in the late 1840s, and the contemporary theatre in Galatz bears the name of an Italian artist, Fani Tardini. The Italians provide an interesting example of a community shifting from religious to national bonds. As the Catholic house of God had burned down, during the 1830s the erection of a new church was greatly supported by the consuls of Sardinia, Austria, and France. In 1838 an administrative committee, presided alternately by Sardinian and Austrian diplomatic representatives, negotiated with the local and central authorities for an estate to build a Catholic church. The headstone was placed in July 1839 and with donations from benefactors throughout Europe the church was inaugurated in 1844, in the presence of the Catholic bishop of Moldavia, on the name day of Sardinia’s king Charles Albert. The church soon became a place of conflict between Italian patriots and Austrian supporters, as the former used it for presenting the national aspirations of the Italian people.36 During the next decades, the strength of the ‘Catholic community’ diminished, as its members switched towards their organization in national associations. Local Protestants numbered 72 in 1859 and almost 500 in 1890.37 The community dates back to the early 1840s when, with the support of the Prussian and English consuls at Galatz, the Protestants requested an estate for a ­cemetery from the local authorities. A committee was established in 1843, and the graveyard was ready two years later. In 1853 the community also got a plot of land for building a small church,38 completed a decade later after receiving consistent public donations. The community founded and supported a confessional school, later called the ‘German School’, an appropriate name, as by 1884 the community numbered 459 persons, of whom 277 were Germans and the remainder comprised 82 Austrians, 39 Swiss, 26 Englishmen, 16 Russians, seven Frenchmen, five Dutch, five Danes, and two Romanians.39 34 35

Tomi, “L’histoire”. Bodin, “Din viaţa şi faptele căminarului”; Macovei, “Ştiri referitoare la primul ziar comercial”. 36 Bodin, “Carlo Alberto”, p. 32; Docea, “Un fel aparte”. 37 Pacu, Cartea judeţului Covurlui, p. 107; Docea, “Un fel aparte”, p. 123. 38 Pacu, Cartea judeţului Covurlui, pp. 140–49. 39 Docea, “Un fel aparte”, p. 151.

262

Ardeleanu

The Northern Phase – Religious Intolerance and Economic Integration

Sephardic Jews lived in the Lower Danubian ports from medieval times. In 1821–22 four Jewish families were settled at Braila and the 1828 census mention 21 heads of family, mostly craftsmen and tradesmen.40 In Galatz, a synagogue, a ritual bathhouse, and a cemetery were established in the late 18th century, and an organized Jewish community was in place by the early 19th century. Despite increasing discrimination against Jews after the introduction of the Organic Statutes, which were modern constitutional regulations applied in 1831–32, the number of Jews who migrated to Braila and Galatz continuously grew. In the former port there were recorded 72 Jewish families in 1837, 760 persons in 1853, 6,752 in 1890, 9,830 in 1899 and 11,165 in 1914.41 At Galatz, there were 72 Jewish tax payers in 1803, several thousand in 1841, 13,066 persons in 1890, 13,992 in 1899 and about 12,000 in 1910.42 Most of them came from Austria and Russia and despite official religious, economic, and political intolerance they managed to thrive in the Romanian society by means of their remarkable adaptability. Until the creation of modern Romania and the preservation of foreign jurisdiction, it was customary for Jews to buy foreign protection from the numerous consular agencies established throughout the principalities. ­Entrusted with foreign protection, they were secured against the abuses of the local military and civil servants, and they also enjoyed economic, juridical, and personal advantages, according to the capitulations concluded between the Porte and the European powers. The first form of communal organization was the creation of Jewish craftsmen guilds, followed by the foundation of Jewish communities officially recognized by the local authorities. At Galatz, the ‘Chevra Kadisha’ was created in 1805 for dealing with the ritual burial of Jews, and in 1812 the congregation was officially constituted when about 20 Jews decided to lease the meat tax.43 As the number of Jewish settlers spiked, the diverse origin of immigrants and their various professions and economic interests made the Danubian diaspora highly fragmented; hence a large number of synagogues were established 40 Ursulescu, Valori, p. 15. 41 Ibid., pp. 33–36. 42 “Galati, Romania”, in Ancel, J. et al., Encyclopedia of Jewish Communities in Romania, vol. i, online at http://www.jewishgen. org/yizkor/pinkas_romania/rom1_00090.html (accessed 15 March 2015). 43 See Monografia comunităţei israelite din Galaţi and Lazăr and Weinberg, “Din istoria”, pp. 12–13.

Foreign Migrant Communities in the Danubian Ports

263

by both religious entities and professional societies. Serious disputes divided the Jewish population of Braila, and by early 20th century the leaders of the ‘Chevra Kadisha’ refused to recognize the leadership of the communal organization, and 70 per cent of its members were not affiliated to the official community and did not pay its taxes. The conflict was resolved in 1909, but the local diaspora remained heterogeneous and divided in its pursuits.44 Despite these disputes, the trusteeships of the Jewish communities in Braila and Galatz managed to cope with regulating the three main aspects that secured the survival of the congregation: religious establishments, schools, and hospitals. From 1893 the Jewish community of Galatz was led by J.B. Brociner, E. Dinerman, and Josef Abeles, and in 1896 the community decided to organize a central committee of communal leadership, called the ‘Gathering of the Representatives of the Jewish Community in Galatz’. The regulation stated that for securing the existence of the community’s committee and of its religious, charity, and educational institutions a leadership made up of delegates from different synagogues and Jewish philanthropic societies in Galatz should be instituted. In the plenary meeting, held in May 1896, it was decided that every Jewish society or synagogue with at least 50 members had the right to appoint a representative in the community’s councils. According to these rules the leadership of the community were elected as follows: president E. Dinerman, M.H. Schein as vice-president, and Moritz Schwartz and M. Allerhand as secretaries.45 The chief rabbi of the community was a respected personality, Jacob Margulies.46 During the 19th century there were two Jewish cemeteries in Braila and as many as 14 temples. A synagogue, the ‘Franckische Schule’, existed from Ottoman times, followed by a Sephardic temple built in 1830, besides a mikva (ritual bath) in its courtyard. Other synagogues were established in the following decades, including those built by professional associations (tailors, carpenters, tradesmen). In Galatz too, many religious institutions existed that were founded by professional organizations (tailors, ironsmiths, millers, ­carters, craftsmen etc.) or by different generous benefactors. The most representative synagogues were the coral temples, that of Braila built in 1863 and that of Galatz completed in 1885. Both communities opened confessional schools for the children of poor families, but these institutions were often affected by financial shortages or ­inner conflicts within the congregation. A school for boys was founded at 44

“Brăila, Romania”, in Ancel, J. et al., Encyclopedia of Jewish Communities, online at http:// www.jewishgen. org/yizkor/pinkas_romania/rom1_00078.html (accessed 15 March 2015). 45 Lazăr and Weinberg, “Din istoria”, pp. 23–24. 46 Iordache, Albumul Galaţilor, p. 40.

264

Ardeleanu

Galatz in 1860, but it was closed two years later, faced with the opposition of Orthodox Jews. It was re-established in 1865, and during the following two decades its existence was discontinuous. In 1886 it reopened as a ‘Talmud Torah’ school, with more consistent private funding, and by 1890 it had 160 pupils. A second school for boys was established in 1894, followed by a commercial school where students also studied Hebrew and Jewish history. A primary school for girls, named ‘Clara, Baroness of Hirsch’, was finally inaugurated in 1899, with the support of the ‘Maimonides’ philanthropic society. In 1901, the congregation also founded a professional school where girls were educated for household activities. At Braila, the confessional school for poor children faced similar financial and communal problems and was often closed. A primary school was opened by the local Zion office in 1875, followed in 1893 by a second school called ‘Chovevei Sfat Kodesh’ (Lovers of Hebrew Language); eventually the two institutions merged in 1896. A year later the Zion office opened a school for girls, with funding from Baroness of Hirsch, and in 1907 a ‘Talmud Torah’ school was also established at Braila. Another primary school (‘Al-Yesodi’) was established in 1912, and together with private schools provided education to local Jewish children. Needless to say, they functioned in the framework of Romania’s educational laws, which encouraged national education and ­discriminated against foreign private institutions.47 The creation of Jewish hospitals was another priority for communal committees. In 1834, the congregation in Galatz established a shelter house (‘Hekdeş’), and in 1846 Prince Mihail Sturdza of Moldavia accepted to allow the community to impose a tax of 0.1 per cent on the import–export trade of Jewish merchants, the revenues being employed to fund the Jewish hospital.48 Its existence was discontinued due to financial problems; in 1885 a committee collected the contributions necessary for supporting the institution, which reopened in 1889. A new building with modern facilities was completed in 1903; by 1907 it had 38 beds. A Jewish hospital also existed at Braila, together with dozens of other charitable institutions that aimed to support and assist ­widows, orphans, old, and poor people.49 In terms of economic activities, the Jews were initially mostly occupied as craftsmen, but they gradually started to invest in the grain trade, in industry, and in banking. By the second half of the 19th century entrepreneurs such as L. Löbel, B. Mendl, G. Mendl, and M. Cohen and commissioners such as 47 48 49

Lazăr and Weinberg, “Din istoria”, pp. 23–24 and “Galaţi, Romania”, in Ancel, J. et al., E­ ncyclopedia of Jewish Communities. Lazăr and Weinberg, “Din istoria”, pp. 13–14. Lascu, “Evreii din Brăila”, p. 301.

Foreign Migrant Communities in the Danubian Ports

265

M. ­Cohen, M. Griman, G. Goldstein, and M. Silberstein were great agents of Romania’s grain exports. Among Danubian Jews there were those with substantial interests in ship ownership, such as, such as the companies of Löbl & Co, L. Mendl & Co, and Mendl B. Fratelli. Not the least of their activities is that they invested large capitals in building factories, mainly in the fields of chemical and metallic industries. With so many anti-Semitic prejudices in the Romanian society conflicts ­between Christians and Jews were often, some of them with an economic background. Fierce persecutions took place in Galatz in 1842, 1846, 1850 and 1853, when Jewish houses were destroyed and synagogues were looted, violence that was usually received with indifference by the local authorities, but with the protest of foreign consuls. New incidents were recorded in 1859, when the accusation that the Jews ritually murdered a Christian boy resulted in a brutal anti-Jewish riot, with several Jews severely wounded by their Christian economic rivals.50 In 1867, following a more discriminatory policy of the Romanian authorities, ‘vagabond’ Jews were expelled from Galatz and several of them drowned in the Danube when both Romanian and Ottoman authorities refused to allow them to step on either of the two river banks.51 Other incidents followed throughout this period. The large number of Jews in the two Danubian port-cities also contributed to their political organization. In 1881, Samuel Pineles founded the group of ‘The Settlement of Eretz Israel’, and initiated the first Zionist congress in the Moldavian town of Focşani. In 1882 a Youth Zionist association was established in Galatz, and they supported Jewish emigration to Israel, with the first vessel of colonists leaving Galatz in the summer of that year. In 1892 local Jewish leaders founded a movement called ‘Chovevei Zion’ (The Lovers of Zion), which adopted the Basel declaration regarding their support for Jewish emigration to Palestine. Until the early 20th century Galatz remained the center of the Jewish and Zionist press in Romania. Many local Jews also migrated to the United States (439 Jews from Braila in 1903).52 To this northern phase of migration we should also add the Lipovans or old believers. Their history starts in the second half of the 17th century, when they fled Russia due to religious persecutions. A group of Lipovans settled in a ­village close to Braila in the 1820s, who lived by working the land and fishing the Danube. New immigrants poured in as persecutions continued in Russia 50 Ardeleanu, “‘Masacrul din Galaţi’”. 51 Iancu, Evreii din România, pp. 79–80. 52 “Galaţi, Romania” and “Brăila, Romania”, in Ancel, J. et al., Encyclopedia of Jewish Communities.

266

Ardeleanu

throughout the 19th century. Their village became a district of Braila when the city extended, and the Lipovans represented a respected community. The largest religious establishment was the ‘Assumption’, and in Galatz they built the ‘St. Nicholas’ church. The activity of these communities was much hindered by the Russian consuls. For example, the Lipovan publication ‘Slavo Pravda’, edited by Teodor Efimov, was suspended in 1899 following the intervention of the Russian government.53

The Balkan Phases – Economic Opportunities and National Struggles

Bulgarians immigrated to Wallachia as a result of the economic and sociopolitical conditions in Ottoman Bulgaria. The first migrants, almost 200 from Kotel and Sliven, came to Braila in 1830. They were welcomed by the Russian military authorities, received tax discounts for ten years, and were allowed to buy cheap homes in the new city. A census from 1838 mentions 412 Bulgarian families, and their number reached 800 families in 1872.54 The community was organized in 1858 and it revolved around the church, a Bulgarian house of God, ‘The Ascension’, built in 1868–82. In Galatz, ‘St. Pentelimon’ was completed and inaugurated in 1887. Braila was a large center of ­Bulgarian culture, with many newspapers, magazines, and books published in local printing houses. The most important publication was Periodicesko Spisanie (Periodical Magazine; 1870–76), edited by the Literary Society, which included articles on Bulgarian literature, history, and culture. This first national scientific society was founded in 1869 and formed the basis of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.55 We have no information regarding the organization of the Bulgarian community as a juridical entity, according to Romanian law, before the interwar period. The Bulgarian Community of Galatz was recognized in 1924, when it aimed to preserve and to develop religious beliefs among its members, to educate and to cultivate the young representatives of the Bulgarian 53 54 55

Antipov, “Monografia lipovenilor”, and Mirea, “Monografia satului Pisc”. Velichi, “Aşezămintele coloniştilor bulgari”; Velichi, România, pp. 51–53; Jelev, “Colonia emigranţilor bulgari”. Semilian, “Emigranţii şi revoluţionarii bulgari”; Diancov and Semilian, “Începuturile Şcoalei Bulgare”; Velichi, România, pp. 281–82.

Foreign Migrant Communities in the Danubian Ports

267

­ opulation in the city of Galatz and the county of Covurlui, to provide p for the good and regular functioning of the school and church, to employ the entire didactical, religious or miscellaneous staff for the good activity of the community.56 The community was led by the General Assembly, which met in full session once a year, and the current administration was entrusted to a committee of ‘epitropes’, made up of seven to eleven members, elected for a term of four years.57 Several Balkan immigrants were large grain merchants, for example Dobrovici, Simov, Minovici, Milanovici, Kanovici, and Bakaloglu; their prosperity was also used to support the fight for national movement in their country. In 1841 Vasili Ceardakliev of Kotel (known as Captain Vâlcov) launched an antiOttoman insurrection, related to the actions of Miloş Obrenovici, which enjoyed the support of the Russian consuls in the principalities. The Wallachian authorities prevented the Bulgarian band from crossing the Danube, and new attempts of revolt were also hindered in 1842 and 1843, when the leaders of the insurrection were arrested, but treated with much indulgence.58 Braila and Galatz remained important centers of anti-Ottoman action during the 1860s and 1870s, with the national cause supported by symbolic figures such as Hristo Botev. The Armenians were among the oldest settlers in Galatz and they had ­already constructed a church and possibly had a local bishop by the 17th century. This church or another built on the same site in the late 18th century, when it received a donation. In 1808 there were 30 Armenian houses in the neighborhood, gathered around the Armenian Church, which was burned in 1821 during the Ottoman intervention after the Greek and Romanian insurrections of that year.59 The number of believers remained rather constant throughout the 19th century, totaling 254 persons in 1882 and 265 in 1890, but we have no information regarding their organization as a juridical community. Most Armenians were involved in trade and other economic ventures. The community remained gathered around the church, which was rebuilt in wood and modernized in 1850.60 An Armenian school existed in 1839, and another

56 Pohrib, “Actul”, pp. 223–29. 57 Ibid. 58 Velichi, România, pp. 89–100; more in Velichi, Mişcările revoluţionare. 59 Păltănea, Istoria oraşului Galaţi, vol. i, p. 128. 60 Anton, Istoria comunităţii armene, pp. 12–13.

268

Ardeleanu

primary school was functional in 1851.61 During the period 1889–1906 an Armenian printing press was functional at Galatz, thanks to the efforts of the priest Leon Papazian.62 Conclusions At the end of this extremely factual presentation of historical realities little known in Western languages, several concluding remarks are necessary. During the 19th century, the status of a ‘foreigner’ was a complicated issue in the two Danubian principalities and then in modern Romania. In a territory where more than 90 per cent of the population was Romanian ethnically and Orthodox religiously (92.1 and 91.5 per cent respectively at the census of 1899)63 it was not very difficult to distinguish ‘alien’ elements, although some of them had settled in the Romanian lands for several centuries. Due to the rapidly changing historical, juridical, and political context, the boundaries between concepts such as ethnicity, nationality, and citizenship were more fluid than in other European societies. As Christian provinces of the Ottoman Porte endowed with a large autonomy, Moldavia and Wallachia had never obeyed the Muslim law, which stood at the basis of the capitulatory regime in the Ottoman Empire. However, since the last two decades of the 18th century, with the rapid developments of the Eastern Question, ­European powers appointed consuls at Bucharest and Jassy; these agents managed to impose the validity of the capitulations in the Danubian Principalities as a means of protecting their own subjects. Thus the ‘sudit’ was a foreign subject who enjoyed the protection of a consulate on Moldavian and Wallachian territory. There were two types of protected individuals: the ‘sudit’ proper, that is, a foreign national under the jurisdiction of her or his country’s own consul, and ‘protégées’, foreigners of other nationalities who put themselves under the protection of the consul of another state. Very often local inhabitants from the Moldavian and Wallachian majority of the population, but also autochthonous minorities (Armenians, Jews, Greeks, etc.) applied for foreign protection, which was sought and bought in order to secure their economic investments. All these ‘sudits’ enjoyed special privileges, which, according to the c­ apitulatory regime, fell into three categories – economic, juridical, and personal.64 61 Păltănea, Istoria oraşului Galaţi, vol. i, p. 408. 62 Sirouni, “Tipăriturile armeneşti”, p. 167. 63 Hitchins, Rumania, p. 164. 64 Ardeleanu, International Trade and Diplomacy, pp. 73–78.

Foreign Migrant Communities in the Danubian Ports

269

Despite the attempts of the two states to diminish this phenomenon, it continued to flourish during the following decades, as the development of the ­economic life in the two cities attracted more foreigners to Braila and Galatz. This system also makes it difficult to refer to the ethnicity, nationality, or protection of these individuals, as they were often overlapping and confusing in official demographic sources. This situation remained in place until the creation of modern Romania under Prince Cuza, but it was only after the ­country’s independence was recognized by all European powers in 1880 that foreign jurisdiction was fully abolished. During the first half of the 19th century these foreigners were organized in de facto religious and ethnic associations made up for the preservation of that community’s religious and/or national identity. The religious component was extremely important especially for the non-Christian Orthodox cults that gathered around their own places of worship. However, the national component was also activated with the increase of patriotic feelings in Europe, and the Greeks, Bulgarians, and Italians were in close contact with the national struggle in their respective Fatherlands. Their political support came to have a very explicit and bellicose form, with for example the Bulgarians from Braila involved in military revolts aiming to start national insurrections in the Bulgarian lands across the Danube. Under the protection of their own consuls or of the diplomatic representatives of the great powers (in the case of the foreigners without the backing of a nation-state – Jews, Armenians, Bulgarians), these communities centered their activity on providing religious and educational assistance to their members. Economic prosperity was important for preserving the common identity, and most of the communities’ funding came from merchants and industrialists, who derived huge profits from the grain trade and the other speculative business afforded by the coming of capitalism to the Danubian port-cities. In the second half of the 19th century, as Romania struggled to eliminate foreign jurisdiction, religious-ethnic communities began to organize themselves as legal entities, with well-defined statutes and with representatives who served as relays between those associations and the Romanian public institutions. This was extremely important for religious services, given the secularization of church properties and the compulsory use of Romanian in state churches. The new arrangements enabled the communities, backed by their consuls, to settle the oraganization and subordination of these ‘foreign’ churches with the Romanian authorities.. The same impositions were valid in relation to the existence of communal schools, which had to obey Romanian educational laws. Faced with the increasing pressure of the Romanian nationstate, foreign c­ ommunities were forced to adapt their activity to these new

270

Ardeleanu

challenges and to strengthen the ties within their own religious and ethnic associations. Bibliography Archival Sources

The National Archives of the United Kingdom (TNA), Public Record Office, Foreign Office, FO 78 (Turkey), Files 265 and 644.

Primary Sources

A Handbook for Travellers in Southern Germany: being a Guide to Würtemberg, Bavaria, Austria, Tyrol, Salzburg, Styria &c, the Austrian and Bavarian Alps, and the Danube from Ulm to the Black Sea, London 1858. Anuar Statistic al României 1904 [Statistical Yearbook of Romania], Bucharest 1904. Bodin, D., “Carlo Alberto preamărit de contemporanii din Galaţi şi Brăila” [Charles Albert Glorified by His Contemporaries in Galaţi and Brăila], Revista istorică română 13:1 (1943), pp. 29–54. Cristocea, S., Oraşul Brăila în catagrafia din anul 1838 [The City of Brăila at the Census of 1838], Brăila 2012. Marinescu, G. (ed.), Documente privitoare la Brăila [Documents regarding Brăila], vol. I, Brăila 1929. Smyth, W., A Year with the Turks or Sketches of Travel in the European and Asiatic Dominions of the Sultan, New York 1854. Terry, C., Scenes and Thoughts in Foreign Lands, London 1848. Thornbury, W., Turkish Life and Character, vol. II, London 1860.

Secondary Literature

Ancel, J., Lavi, T., Broshi, A., and Shal. Z., Encyclopedia of Jewish Communities in Romania, vol. I, available at http://www.jewishgen.org/Yizkor/pinkas_romania/pinkas _romania1.html (accessed 15 March 2015). Antipov, A., “Monografia lipovenilor (staro-obreadţilor) din oraşul şi judeţul Brăila” [A Monograph of the Lipovans in the City and County of Brăila], Analele Brăilei 1/1 (1929), pp. 19–22. Anton, F., Istoria comunităţii armene din Galaţi [The History of the Armenian Community of Galaţi], Bucharest 2005. Ardeleanu, C., “‘Masacrul din Galaţi’ (aprilie 1859) – un episod din istoria comunităţii evreieşti de la Galaţi” [‘The Massacre of Galaţi’ (April 1859) – an Episode in the History of the Jewish Community of Galaţi], Analele Universităţii Dunărea de Jos din Galaţi. History 8 (2008), pp. 129–46.

Foreign Migrant Communities in the Danubian Ports

271

Ardeleanu, C., “Aspecte cantitative şi calitative privind rolul economic al grecilor cu protecţie britanică din portul Galaţi în primii ani după Războiul Crimeii” [Quantitative and Qualitative Aspects Regarding the Economic Role of the Greeks with British Protection in Galaţi in the First Years after the Crimean War], in V. Achim and V. Achim (eds.), Minorităţile etnice în România în secolul al XIX-lea [The Ethnic Minorities from Romania in the 19th Century], Bucharest 2010, pp. 27–38. Ardeleanu, C., International Trade and Diplomacy at the Lower Danube. The Sulina Question and the Economic Premises of the Crimean War (1829–1853), Braila 2014. Bodin, D., “Din viaţa şi faptele căminarului Mario Pietro Cugino” [From the Life and ­Activity of Caminar Mario Pietro Cugino], Revista istorică română 7 (1937), pp. 38–71. Buşe, C. and Penelea, G., “Structure démographique, sociale et économique des ports danubiens de Braila et Galatzi au milieu du XIXe siècle”, Analele Universiăţii Bucureşti, Istorie 29 (1980), Études et communications présentées au XVe Congrès International des Sciences Historiques (Bucarest, 10–17 Août 1980), pp. 91–98. Cernovodeanu, P., “L’activité des maisons de commerce et de négociants ioniens du Bas-Danube durant l’intervalle 1829–1853”, in Actes de IIe Colloque International d’Histoire, vol. I, Athens 1985, pp. 91–105. Codreanu, G., Monografia fabricilor din Galaţi [A Monograph of the Factories of Galaţi], Galatz 1908. Diancov, A. and Semilian, S., “Începuturile Şcoalei Bulgare la Brăila” [The Beginnings of the Bulgarian School of Brăila], Analele Brăilei 6/1 (1934), pp. 29–32. Docea, V., “Un fel aparte de toleranţă (organizarea comunităţilor catolică şi evanghelică din Galaţi)” [A Special Kind of Tolerance (the Organization of the Catholic and Evangelic Communities of Galaţi)], in V. Docea, Străinii de-alături. Explorări în ­istoria minorităţilor şi a comunicării interculturale [The Foreigners Next to Us. ­Explorations in the History of the Minorities and of the Intercultural Communication], Timişoara 2006, pp. 126–35. Filip, C., Comunitatea greacă de la Brăila (1864–1900) [The Greek Community of Brăila (1864–1900)], Braila 2004. Giurescu, C.C., Istoricul oraşului Brăila din cele mai vechi timpuri până astăzi [The ­History of the City of Brăila from the Earliest Times to the Present], Bucharest 1968. Gottesmann, B., Pinesles, S., Lovensohn, M., Monografia comunităţei israelite din Galaţi. Din cele mai vechi timpuri până în preƶent [A Monograph of the Israelite Community of Galaţi. From the Earliest Times to the Present], Galatz 1906. Guziec, M., “Însemnări privind modernizarea oraşului Galaţi în secolul al XIX-lea” [Notes on the Modernization of Galaţi during the 19th Century], Danubius 11–12 (1984–1985), pp. 143–50. Hitchins, K., Rumania, 1866–1947, Oxford 1994. Iancu, C., Evreii din România (1866–1919). From Exclusion to Emancipation, Bucharest 1996.

272

Ardeleanu

Iordache, T., Albumul Galaţilor [The Album of Galaţi], Galatz 1935–1936. Iordachi, C., Citizenship, Nation and State-Building: The Integration of Northern Dobrogea into Romania, 1878–1913, Pittsburgh, 2002. Jelev, N., “Colonia emigranţilor bulgari la Brăila şi activitatea ei social-culturală în epoca renaşterii (până în 1878)” [The Colony of the Bulgarian Emigrants from Brăila and Its Socio-Cultural Activity in the Period of the National Revival (Until 1878)], Analele Brăilei 2/2 (1996) (new series), pp. 265–69. Kontogeorgis, D., “Η ελληνική διασπορά στη Ρουμανία. Η περίπτωση της ελληνικής παροικίας της Βραΐλας  (αρχές  19ου αι.–1914)”, [Greek Diaspora in Romania. The Case of the Greek ‘Paroikia’ (Community) of Braila (Beginning of the 19th Century – 1914)], unpublished PhD, University of Athens, Athens 2012. Kontogeorgis, D., “The Greek Dimension of the Romanian Flour Industry in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries”, in G. Harlaftis and R. Păun (eds.), Greeks in Romania in the Nineteenth Century, Athens 2013, pp. 261–82. Lascu, S., “Evreii din Brăila în lumina unui document comentat şi adnotat, din anul 1915” [The Jews of Brăila in the Light of a Commented and Annotated Document from 1915], Analele Brăilei 4/4 (2001) (new series), pp. 301–14. Lazăr, O. and Weinberg, S., “Din istoria comunităţii evreilor din Galaţi” [From the History of the Jewish Community of Galaţi], Studia et Acta Historiae Iudaeorum Romaniae 6 (2001), pp. 11–27. Macovei, A., “Ştiri referitoare la primul ziar comercial moldovenesc, Dunărea” [Information on the First Commercial Newspaper in Moldavia, Dunărea], Danubius 2–3 (1969), pp. 111–20. Mihăilescu, G., “Populaţia Brăilei – studiu de demografie dinamică şi statică” [The Population of Brăila – A Study of Dynamic and Static Demography], Analele Brăilei 4/2–3 (1932), pp. 106–37. Mihály, E. and Mihály, S., “Dezvoltarea industriei oraşului Galaţi în perioada 1859–1878” [The Development of the Industry of Galaţi during the Period 1859–1878], Studii şi articole de istorie 9 (1967), pp. 124–38. Mihály, E. and Mihály, S., “Din istoria industriei alimentare din Galaţi în a doua jumătate a secolului al XIX-lea” [From the History of the Food Industry at Galaţi during the Second Half of the 19th Century], Danubius 1 (1967), pp. 227–43. Mihály, E. and Mihály, S., “Contribuţii la istoria meşteşugurilor din Galaţi in a doua  jumătate a secolului al XIX-lea” [Contributions to the History of Handicrafts at Galaţi during the Second Half of the 19th Century], Danubius 2–3 (1969), pp. 149–67. Mihály, E. and Mihály, S., “Dezvoltarea industriei alimentare în oraşul Galaţi la începutul secolului al XX-lea” [The Development of the Food Industry at Galaţi at the ­Beginning of the 20th Century], Danubius 11–12 (1984–1985), pp. 193–206.

Foreign Migrant Communities in the Danubian Ports

273

Mihály, E. and Mihály, S., “Dezvoltarea industriei morăritului şi panificaţiei în oraşul Galaţi la începutul secolului al XX-lea” [The Development of the Milling and Bread Making Industry at Galaţi at the Beginning of the 20th Century], Analele Universităţii Galaţi. Ştiinţe sociale si umaniste 3/1 (1985), pp. 18–21. Mirea, I., “Monografia satului (lipovenesc) Pisc. Importanţa acestei monografii” [The Monograph of the Lipovan Village of Pisc. The Importance of This Monograph], Analele Brăilei, 11/1 (1939), pp. 25–28. Mocanu, E.-O., Portul Brăila de la regimul de porto franco la primul război mondial (1836–1914) [The Port of Brăila from the Free Port Regime to World War I], Braila 2013. Pacu, M., Cartea judeţului Covurlui. Note geografice, istorice şi în deosebi statistice [The Book of Covurlui County. Geographical, Historical and Mainly Statistical Notes], Bucharest 1891. Păltănea, P., Istoria oraşului Galaţi de la origini până la 1918 [The History of the City of Galaţi from Its Origins to 1918], 2nd edition, edited by Eugen Drăgoi, Galaţi 2008. Papacostea-Danielopolu, C., Comunităţile greceşti din România în secolul al XIX-lea [The Greek Communities from Romania in the 19th Century], Bucharest 1996. Pohrib, M., “Statutele comunităţii elene din Galaţi adoptate în anii 1899 şi 1924” [The Statutes of the Greek Community of Galaţi Adopted in 1899 and 1924], Danubius 27 (2009), pp. 127–48. Pohrib, M., “Actul constitutiv şi statutele comunităţii bulgare din Galaţi (1930)” [The Constitutive Act and the Statutes of the Bulgarian Community from Galaţi (1930)], Danubius 29 (2011), pp. 219–36. Popescu, M., “Catagrafia locuitorilor şi a venitului din judeţul Brăila în 1828” [The Census of the Habitants and the Income of Brăila County in 1828], Analele Brăilei 4/2–3 (1932), pp. 59–82. Rados, L., Şcolile greceşti din România (1857–1905) [The Greek Schools in Romania (1857–1905)], Bucharest 2006. Scalcău, P., Grecii din România [The Greeks from Romania], 2nd edition, Bucharest 2005. Semilian, S., “Emigranţii şi revoluţionarii bulgari din Brăila. Rolul Brăilei în renaşterea naţională şi culturală bulgară” [The Bulgarian Emigrants and Revolutionaries in Brăila. The Role of Brăila in the Bulgarian National and Cultural Revival], Analele Brăilei 1/1 (1929), pp. 23–28. Sirouni, H., “Tipăriturile armeneşti din România” [The Armenian Printings in Romania], Revista istorică 17/7–9 (1931), pp. 163–68. Stoica, M., Brăila. Memoria oraşului. Imaginea unui oraş românesc din secolul al ­XIX-lea [Brăila. The Memory of the City. The Image of a Romanian City during the 19th Century], Braila 2009.

274

Ardeleanu

Tatu, T., Istoria trudită a fabricilor uitate [The Weary History of Forgotten Factories], Galatz 2008. Tomi, R., “L’histoire de la Maison de Commerce Pedemonte et Fils”, Historical Yearbook 3 (2006), pp. 111–22. Tomi, R., “Imigraţia italiană în spaţiul românesc: italienii din Brăila (1834–1876)” [The Italian Immigration in the Romanian Territory: the Italians from Brăila (1834–1876)], Revista istorică 18/5–6 (2007) (new series), pp. 497–517. Tomi, R., “Imigraţia italiană în spaţiul românesc: italienii din Galaţi şi Ismail (1834– 1876)” [The Italian Immigration in the Romanian Territory: the Italians from Galaţi and Ismail (1834–1876)], Revista istorică 19/3–4 (2008) (new series), pp. 215–38. Ursulescu, I., Valori ale patrimoniului evreiesc la Brăila [Values of the Jewish Patrimony at Brăila], Braila 1998. Vârtosu, I., “Trei catagrafii pentru Brăila anului 1837” [Three Censuses for Brăila in 1837], Analele Brăilei 11/2–3 (1939), pp. 17–56. Velichi, C.N., “Aşezămintele coloniştilor bulgari din 1830” [The 1830 Settlements of the Bulgarian Colonists], Romanoslavica 3 (1958), pp. 117–35. Velichi, C.N., Mişcările revoluţionare de la Brăila din 1841–1843 [The Revolutionary Movements from Brăila in 1841–1843], Bucharest 1958. Velichi, C.N., România şi renaşterea bulgară [Romania and the Bulgarian Revival], ­Bucharest 1980.

chapter 10

From Tolerance to Exclusion? The Romanian Elites’ Stance towards Immigration to the Danubian Principalities (1829–188os) Dimitrios M. Kontogeorgis In a letter to his brother, dated 27 June 1848, Dimitrie G. Golescu, the Wallachian governor of Braila (Brăila),1 the Principality’s main port, underscored the main characteristic of the city, namely its ‘foreignness’: “Braila est une ville étrangère, une colonie (… ) dans la Principauté” as its great majority was composed of foreign subjects.2 Despite Golescu’s regard of Braila as somewhat of an exception in the Principality, European visitors to the Danubian region during the 1830s and 1840s testified to the numerically strong and economically leading position of the non-native merchants and artisans in the urban centers, mostly Greeks, Italians, and Bulgarians in Wallachia and Jews in Moldavia. Edouard Thouvenel, a French traveler to Wallachia in 1839, observed that in the Bucharest (Bucureşti) theatre one could meet apart from Romanians, many Greeks, Armenians, and Bulgarians, while at Galatz (Galaţi) one witnessed the predominance of Greek, Italian, and Jewish merchants.3 The increase of the foreign element in the Principalities was intimately connected with the dawn of a new economic era in the area after the signing of the Treaty of Adrianople (1829),4 with the growth of commerce and navigation, and with the strengthening of the economic and cultural relations of the Principalities with Central and Western Europe.5 What has been, relatively, insufficiently studied was the 1 The place names are given in their most common English form. At first instance, the Romanian form is also mentioned. 2 Anul 1848 în Principatele Române, ii, pp. 147–48. 3 Thouvenel, La Hongrie et la Valachie, pp. 175, 269. 4 The Treaty of Adrianople, which concluded the Russo-Ottoman War of 1828–29, not only strengthened the autonomy of Wallachia, to which it accorded the ports of Braila, Giurgiu, and Turnu, and of Moldavia vis à vis the Ottoman Empire, but also stipulated that the latter could no longer control the external trade of the Danubian Principalities. Moreover, all kind of restrictions were abolished as the commerce of cereals was liberalized and the entry of foreign vessels in the Danubian ports was not subject to any limitations. See Focas, The Lower Danube River, pp. 101–06. 5 The development of trade and navigation in the second quarter of the 19th century has been extensively analyzed by Cernovodeanu, Relaţiile comerciale româno-engleze, pp. 51–160 and Ardeleanu, International Trade and Diplomacy at the Lower Danube, pp. 17–130. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004335448_012

276

Kontogeorgis

stance and the policies of the local elites towards immigration. At times the Principalities have been characterized as a haven for Bulgarians, persecuted by the Ottomans, and for the Jews, neglected by the Russian or Habsburg authorities, while for the Greek and Italian traders they were a ‘New California’ – a land full of promise. Yet the Principalities had been rebuked by contemporaries (journalists, foreign travelers, and diplomats) for the systematic marginalization, even persecution, of the immigrants, especially the Jews, and for its periodic oppressive assimilation-policy towards its Balkan Orthodox population. In light of the above, this chapter aims to explore the attitude of the political and intellectual elites of the Romanian Principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia)6 towards immigration as it evolved in the second and third quarter of the 19th century.7 The ‘immigration’ policy, formulated and enforced by the local authorities, though fraught with contradictions and dissension, allows us to delineate several ‘key’ phases in its evolution. Specifically, it will be argued that both the Russians, who controlled the Danubian Principalities (1828–34), and the local governments in the 1830s and 1840s followed a fairly systematic strategy of luring immigrants, granting them substantial privileges, and creating a propitious institutional and legal framework for settling. But in comparison with the past, their policy was accompanied by a stricter definition of the term ‘foreigner’, in particular with respect to the Jews. By the late 1850s, in the context of the strengthening of Romanian nationalism and more wide-ranging ‘state-building’ efforts, central as well as local authorities undertook a series of measures to undermine the privileged position of the permanently established Balkan Orthodox and Western European merchants. Further, they halted measures designed to promote the fuller integration of the Jewish population into the local society. The discrepancy of the migration policy of these two phases reveals the clash between the ­inherited ‘old’ imperial traditions of the multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire and the 6 The term ‘elites’ is of course elusive and hard to define. In the context of the 19th century Principalities it is meant to include mainly the local politicians, almost exclusively of boyar origin, who usually owned large or medium sized landholdings. Moreover, since the role of several intellectuals (poets, historians, economists, and critics), in the formulation of the Romanian nationalistic ideology, was seminal, it is necessary to address their contribution. For a penetrating approach to the history of the boyars and the higher bourgeois strata see Platon and Platon, Boierimea din Moldova în secolul al XIX-lea, and Platon, Geneza burgheziei în Principatele Române. 7 This chapter describes part of a more comprehensive research, tentatively titled: Migration and Urbanization in 19th century Romania. It should be noted that the bibliography on migration and population movements in the Principalities, albeit rich in specialized and welldocumented studies devoted to one ethnic group, still lacks a more wide-ranging approach.

Romanian Elites’ Stance towards Immigration

277

rising Romanian ethnic nationalism. This clash was further complicated by the need for ‘openness’ towards the ‘foreign’, which was propagated by economic liberalism, an ideology supported by the great majority of the local political and economic elites. The various reforms undertaken by the Russian administration and the Wallachian and Moldavian princes during the early 1830s have been construed as an attempt, successful to a large degree, to further a system of ‘orderly and efficient government’, in contrast to the Phanariot era rule.8 The favorable government approach towards migration has been seen as the outcome of a sustained effort to promote the economic rebirth of the land, devastated, by successive wars and famines. The consistency of this policy indicates coherent and acute planning, which, however, ought not to let us deprecate the efforts of the ­previous Phanariot regime to cope with the scarcity of population in several regions, and the inadequate number of cities and markets. Thus, in Moldavia, efforts had been made to boost the urban and semi-­urban communities through immigration. In 1736 and 1739, and also in 1746, decrees by the princes Grigorie Ghica and Constantin Mavrocordat, respectively, encouraged the settlement of ‘Polish (Ashkenazi) Jews’ in small market towns (târg).9 After the partitions of the Polish Commonwealth (1772, 1793 and 1795) and the major changes in the legal status and internal organization of the Jewish Eastern European communities,10 the number of Jews settling in Moldavia increased substantially from c.12,000 in 1803 to 37,000 in 1830.11 In fact a whole series of târguri (Table 10.1) had been founded or repopulated by Jews, after an agreement with the local boyar which was sanctioned by the Prince. The new settlers were granted land to build houses, a synagogue, and a cemetery, and were relieved from taxes, usually for the first three years.12 They worked as tavern keepers, peddlars, and small-scale merchants and acted as intermediaries between the boyars and the peasants.13 8 Turczynski, Von der Aufklärung zum Frühliberalismus, pp. 112–29 and Hitchins, The Romanians, pp. 161–66. 9 See Iancu, Les Juifs en Roumanie, p. 43 and Negruţi, “The Role of Jews in Founding Towns”, pp. 119–20. 10 Bartal, The Jews of Eastern Europe, pp. 23–37. 11 Hitchins, The Romanians, p. 71. There is further information on demographic data in Ivănescu, “Populația evreiască, 1774–1832”. 12 Iancu, Les Juifs en Roumanie, p. 43; Negruţi, “The Role of Jews in Founding Towns”, pp. 120– 21. Cf. Iorga, Istoria evreilor, p. 22. 13 For detailed information on the Jews of Moldavia see Iorga, Istoria evreilor, pp. 14–29 and Cernovodeanu, “O minoritate dinamică în Moldova”.

278

Kontogeorgis

Table 10.1 Main market towns (târguri) in Moldavia established or heavily populated by Jews during the late 18th century

Town (târg)

County (judeţ)

Year of establishment/ repopulation

Fălticeni Moineşti Trifeşti Burdujeni Mihăileni Adjudul Nou Negreşti

Suceava Bacău Neamţ Suceava Dorohoi Vrancea Vaslui

1778/1780a 1781 1790 1786/1792a 1792 1794 1796

Source: Iancu, Les Juifs en Roumanie, p. 43; Negruţi, “The Role of Jews in Founding Towns”, pp. 114–15. Note a For the foundation of Fălticeni and Burdujeni two different years are indicated in the sources.

The Jewish immigration was mainly confined to Moldavia. In Wallachia the situation was different as the Jewish presence consisted of smaller, earlier established, and much better integrated communities, of Sephardi origin.14 In general Wallachia, in particular Bucharest, Buzau (Buzău), and the cities of Oltenia (e.g. Craiova), were magnets for Greeks (Greci in the local sources), usually from Epirus, Macedonia, and Thrace,15 and also for Bulgarians (mentioned as Bulgari or Sârbi in the documents). A great part of these migrants were engaged in commerce and land-leasing, forging close relationships with the church leadership and the local monasteries in Wallachia, while others were employed as artisans. A substantial number of the Bulgarians worked on the land and were subject to a special, privileged, fiscal status.16 14 15

16

Denize, “Evrei sefarzi din Ţara Românească şi Moldova”. The economic, social, and demographic parameters of the Greek presence in Wallachia during the 18th century have not been yet adequately studied. See, nevertheless, ­Camariano-Cioran, L’Épire et les pays Roumains, pp. 11–143; Lazăr, Les marchands en V ­ alachie, pp. 105–16. For a characteristic case of a Greek merchant in Oltenia see Camariano, “Quelques renseignements sur la vie”. The Bulgarian migration to the Romanian Principalities has been the subject of several studies. For the pre-1829 period see Velichi, La contribution de l’émigration bulgare

Romanian Elites’ Stance towards Immigration

279

Much more massive was the immigration of approximately 20,000 families of Bulgarians and other Ottoman Orthodox Christians to Wallachia, during the Russo-Ottoman war of 1806–12 and the occupation of the Principalities by the Russian army.17 This influx of immigrants came about because of two factors: the dislocations caused by the war itself and the deterioration of the living standards and of security in northern Bulgaria and in Thrace. The latter was the outcome of the strengthening of local warlords and notables, since the 1790s, and their ongoing conflict with the Porte.18 The emigration of Bulgarians during a Russo-Ottoman war was not a novel phenomenon, as thousands Bulgarians had fled to Wallachia under similar conditions, in the 1730s, early 1770s and in 1794.19 Their efforts to exploit ‘creatively’ the migrant waves in the region notwithstanding, both the Russians and the Wallachian authorities did not yet have an effective scheme to attract immigrants.20 Nevertheless, it would be inaccurate to assume that they had not grasped the major demographic challenges facing the Principalities. The worsening conditions in the countryside, together with the various epidemics and losses caused by the many wars of the first quarter of the 19th century, had created need for agricultural hands, in particular in the regions near the Danube River.21 With a few notable exceptions, mainly the cities of Bucharest and Craiova, the majority of the immigrants settled in the Danubian Judeţe (Districts) of the Principality (Table 10.2). After 1812, the Danubian Principalities appear to have entered into a phase of relatively steady economic and demographic growth. However, de ­Valachie, pp. 19–39, 72–82, 93–133 and Trajikov and Žečev, Bălgarskata emigracijia v Rumănija, pp. 50–73. 17 Velichi, “Emigrarea bulgarilor în Ţara Românească” (for the number of families see pp. 54–55) and Velichi , La contribution de l’émigration Bulgare de la Valachie, pp. 27–39. 18 In the relevant bibliography this era is named ‘Kŭrdjaliĭstvo’. See the succinct presentation by Crampton, Bulgaria, pp. 32–35 and also Lyberatos, Οικονομία, πολιτική και εθνική ιδ εολογία, pp. 47–57. 19 Velichi, La contribution de l’émigration bulgare de Valachie, pp. 21–26 and Crampton, B ­ ulgaria, p. 36. 20 Plans for a special statute for the Bulgarian immigrants were mainly drafted by the Bulgarian bishop Sophronius of Vratsa, an influential cleric and writer residing in Bucharest. See Maragos, Παΐσιος Χιλανδαρινός και Σωφρόνιος Βράτσης, pp. 231–32. In general for Sophronius’ activity during the Russo-Ottoman War (1806–1812) see Velichi, La contribution de l’émigration bulgare de Valachie, pp. 101–11. 21 See Roman, “Démographie et société aux pays roumains” and the comments by Hitchins, The Romanians, pp. 59–60. For an assessment by a contemporary of Wallachia’s demographic situation see Karakassis, Τοπογραφία της Βλαχίας, especially pp. 125–31.

280

Kontogeorgis

Table 10.2 Number of Bulgarian families established in Wallachia (1815)

District

Location

Number of families

Râmnic Sărat Buzău Saac Prahova Dâmboviţa Muscel Argeş Ialomiţa Ilfov Vlaşca Teleorman Olt Vâlcea Gorj Romanaţi Dolj Mehedinţi

Muntenia (Mountainous) Muntenia Muntenia Central (Muntenia) Central (Muntenia) Central (Muntenia) Central (Muntenia) Danubian Central-Danubian (Muntenia) Danubian Danubian Oltenia Oltenia (mountainous) Oltenia (mountainous) Danubian Danubian Danubian

81 24 No data 264 No data No data No data 899 2,232 372 927 No data 222 768 717 921 372

Source: Foteinos, Iστoρία της Πάλαι Δαkίας, pp. 196, 201, 210, 216, 223, 230, 238, 244, 257, 262, 267, 273, 280, 288, 293, 302, 314.

the ­Moldo-Wallachian educated elites remained poignantly aware of the backwardness of the region compared to Central and Western Europe.22 ‘­Enlightened’ boyars and some clerics and ‘intellectuals’ were searching for ways to overcome  this inferiority and stimulate the institutional, economic, and cultural progress of the Principalities.23 Special consideration was ­accorded to the growth of commerce and navigation and the unhindered development of the economic links with Western and Central Europe. The free settlement of foreigners, particularly of Christian religion, was encouraged, at least in theory.24 22

See the comments by Janos, “Modernization and Decay in Historical Perspective”, pp. 77–78. 23 See mainly Georgescu, Ideile politice şi iluminismul în Principatele Române, and the edition of sources by Georgescu, Mémoires et projets de réforme. 24 Georgescu, Mémoires et projets de réforme, p. 119.

Romanian Elites’ Stance towards Immigration

281

It was, nevertheless, after the Russo-Ottoman War of 1828–29 and the Treaty of Adrianople (1829) that circumstances compelled a closer cooperation between the local elites and the Russian authorities for the promotion of a comprehensive immigration policy. Two factors rendered such a policy a necessity. The annexation of the former Ottoman provinces (reaya) of Turnu, Giurgiu, and Braila gave Wallachia regions that were of considerable agricultural potential but were extremely underdeveloped and almost depopulated.25 Their numerous Muslim inhabitants had already fled to the Ottoman Empire, while various epidemics, despite the abortive efforts of the Russians to control them,26 threatened to deepen further the demographic vacuum in both Principalities, but especially in Wallachia. To cope with the scarcity of agricultural population, the authorities had been welcoming for more than two years a massive flow of Bulgarians caused by the Russo-Ottoman war in 1828 and then by the fear of retaliations after the Russians’ departure from Bulgaria and Thrace in 1829. Hence a considerable number of Bulgarians from cities such as Sliven, Iambol, and Kotel, and also from villages near the Danube and from eastern Bulgaria, settled in the ­central Wallachian provinces, mainly in the districts of Prahova and Ilfov.27 The authorities of Wallachia exempted the Bulgarian immigrants (băjenari) from taxes initially for eight months and soon for a three-year period, after which they paid only half their fiscal obligations towards the state for a sevenyear period. In some cases they were even allotted land.28 It should be stressed, however, that the settlement process was two-way. The Bulgarian immigrants themselves had already since the summer of 1828 appealed for tax exemptions, establishment of their own law courts, and other privileges.29 In June and August 1830 comprehensive statutes (aşezămintele) were promulgated for the Bulgarians of Moldavia and Wallachia respectively. These statutes were deemed necessary by the Russian governor Kiselev to stem the repatriation of 25

The scarcity of population in the Danubian counties is mentioned by native and ­foreign sources. See Karakassis, Τοπογραφία της Βλαχίας, pp. 420–24. In particular for Braila see Mihăilescu, “Populația Brăilei”, pp. 108–10 and Popescu, “Contribuțiuni noui la cunoaşterea oraşului şi raielei Brăila”, pp. 32–35. 26 Olson, P.D. Kiselev and the Rumanian Peasantry, pp. 67–100 and Turczynski, Von der Aufklärung zum Frühliberalismus, pp. 205–06. 27 Velichi, La contribution de l’émigration bulgare de Valachie, pp. 40–57, 84–89; Trajikov and Žečev, Bălgarskata emigracijia v Rumănija, pp. 74–117. 28 Velichi, La contribution de l’émigration bulgare de Valachie, pp. 43–44, 58–59 and Velichi, “Aşezămintele coloniştilor bulgari din 1830”. 29 Velichi, “Aşezămintele coloniştilor bulgari”, pp. 118–19; Trajikov and Žečev, Bălgarskata emigracijia v Rumănija, pp. 104–05.

282

Kontogeorgis

the Bulgarians, who were disappointed by what they considered as lukewarm, until then, response of the local authorities to their demands.30 The number of the băjenari, who included not just Bulgarian-speaking ­immigrants but also Greeks from Varna and Burgas, and Romanians from the northern Ottoman provinces, cannot be ascertained easily. It has been estimated that approximately 100,000 people moved, mainly to Wallachia and to a lesser degree to Moldavia, although an undetermined number returned to Bulgaria up until the late 1830s.31 These immigrants were supposed to settle in villages, and thus the privileges were conferred, in theory, only to those who were ‘workers of the land’ (lucrători de pamânt), that is, peasants, and not to merchants or artisans. The great landowners were invited to send their agents to the borders so as to ‘hire’ and transport Bulgarians to their lands.32 The policy of the Principalities’ elites towards the immigrants was undoubtedly positive, but its ultimate goal seemed to have been the settlement of the Bulgarians as peasants of the great landowners while the migrants themselves mainly wanted to retain their status as free small-landholders. It is probable that the landowners were ­attempting through the settlement of Bulgarians to ‘compensate’ themselves for the steady flight of peasants, which had plagued their lands during the late Phanariot era.33 Moreover, they wanted to enhance the productive potential of their domains, and thus take advantage of the new favorable economic conditions which the Treaty of Adrianople had augured. While we still lack adequate knowledge of the great landowners’ strategies, it is, however, certain that their efforts met the resistance of the newcomers, and led to frequent conflicts with the authorities, in particular after the tax-exemption period expired. As a consequence many migrants preferred to return to their provinces of origin.34 30

Velichi, “Aşezămintele coloniştilor bulgari”, pp. 119–29 and Velichi, La contribution de l’émigration bulgare de Valachie, pp. 58–60. 31 Velichi, La contribution de l’émigration bulgare de Valachie, pp. 51–52, 55–57; Traikov, “Les aspects socio-economiques de l’émigration bulgare”, pp. 34–35 and Traikov, “Emigraţia bulgară în România”, p. 257. For the massive migration of Romanians from Silistra, Rahova (Oryahovo), Vidin, and other Bulgarian towns to Wallachia see Velichi, La contribution de l’émigration bulgare de Valachie, pp. 42, 44, 47–51. 32 Velichi, La contribution de l’émigration bulgare de Valachie, p. 53. Cf. also Velichi, “­Emigrarea bulgarilor din Sliven”, pp. 296–97, for the efforts of the landowner Ştefan Moscu to lure Bulgarian migrants to his lands. 33 See Iscru, “Fuga ţăranilor”. 34 Velichi, “Aşezămintele coloniştilor bulgari”, p. 119; Velichi, La contribution de l’émigration bulgare de Valachie, pp. 60–71; Kosev et al., “Despre situaţia şi activitatea economică a imigraţie bulgare”, pp. 296–302.

Romanian Elites’ Stance towards Immigration

283

Although the settlement of thousands of Bulgarians and other băjenari to the villages was fundamental to the development of agriculture and the revitalization of many rural communities, the pressing problem of the weak urbanization at the Romanian Danubian coast was still outstanding. The need for experienced traders, seafarers, and artisans was obvious, especially in the former reaya of Giurgiu and Braila,35 urging both Kiselev and the Prince of Wallachia Alexandru D. Ghica (1834–42) to pay attention to the problems of the cities36 and adopt, with some reservations, a pro-immigrant policy. This policy was combined with an assiduous endeavor to establish new ­urban centers, which would be ‘European’ in character and could become magnets for Greek, Slavs (Bulgarians, Dalmatians), Italians, and other merchants. Thus, many cities were founded, in particular by the central authorities, or drastically rebuilt, such as Alexandria and Turnu-Măgurele in the district of Teleorman,37 Turnu-Severin in Mehedinţi, and Giurgiu in Vlaşca.38 The ‘showpiece’ of the government’s interest for the development and modernization of the cities was Braila since its planning was carefully designed and promoted, special regulations delineated its expansion, and some public buildings were constructed.39 The Wallachian authorities went to considerable length to promote the Principality’s urban development but they were not, at the beginning, ready to accord special privileges to foreign urban settlers. The recent Greek and Bulgarian migrants who had settled in the cities were exempted from the taxes only for a period of eight months, and they were not included into the general privileged category of băjenari, nor were they granted other rights.40 It is 35

36 37 38

39

40

For the low density in the Danubian districts and the lack of cities see Vailliant, La R ­ omanie, iii, pp. 27–28; Analele Brăilei, 2:1 (1930), pp. 56–57 and the data of the Sardinian consul at Galatz (24 May 1838) in Bodin, Documente privitoare la legăturile economice, p. 28. See Hurmuzaki, Documente privitoare la Istoria Românilor, pp. 361–63, 435–40. Alexandria, founded in 1834, was named after the Wallachian prince. See Cătălină, Oraşul Alexandria, pp. 9–37. Turnu Măgurele was established as the district’s capital in 1839. The urban renewal in Wallachia has not yet been studied extensively. See, nevertheless, Filitti, Domniile Române, pp. 25–26 and Corfuş, “Oraşele”, pp. 984–85. See also Pajură and Giurescu, Istoricul oraşului Turnu-Severin, pp. 49–68 and Boldescu, Monografia oraşului Giurgiu, pp. 95–103. Perianu, “Planul oraşului Brăila”, pp. 387–390; Giurescu, Istoricul oraşului Brăila, pp. 165– 66 and Stoica, Brăila. Memoria oraşului, pp. 21–24. See also Direcţia Judeţeană a Arhivelor Naţionale Brăila [djan Brăila]/fond Primăria oraşului Brăila, dos. 18/1833–1837; dos. 10/1834–1839. Cf. Popescu, “Contribuțiuni noui la cunoaşterea oraşului şi raielei Brăila”, pp. 24–26.

284

Kontogeorgis

i­ nteresting, though, that in this the Moldavian authorities followed a different policy, since they were willing to encourage more energetically the settlement of Bulgarian and Greek merchants and artisans in the cities, by granting some privileges to urban dwellers.41 The Wallachian administration was, nevertheless, soon forced to reconsider this policy, since many Bulgarians and Greeks who had established themselves in the cities were threatening to abandon the Principality if they were not accorded the same privileges as other băjenari.42 Thus, in January 1832 fiscal exemptions were granted to foreigners who had settled in Braila, Turnu, and Giurgiu, and one month later a three-year exemption from taxes was promulgated for the non-native merchants and artisans in general, regardless of where they had settled.43 The Wallachian authorities had also supported, initially, the foundation of New Sliven, a Bulgarian city in the district of Prahova,44 and encouraged the establishment, mainly by Bulgarians from the little town of Mavrodin, of the new city of Alexandria in Teleorman.45 However, the government’s efforts to promote New Sliven or Alexandria pale in comparison with the comprehensive policy vis à vis Braila. Since the authorities aimed to transform this port into the major export trade center of Wallachia, they did not spare any effort whatsoever to further this goal. The old Turkish houses were sold at very low prices, while in 1831 foreigners were allowed to lease plots on which to build lodges and warehouses.46 In May 1836 the foreign merchants obtained the right to own plots of land, houses, or o­ ther buildings in the city.47 The Prince also met with the representatives of the 41 42

Velichi, “Aşezămintele coloniştilor bulgari”, pp. 120, 126–34. Kosev et al., “Despre situaţia şi activitatea economică a imigraţie bulgare”, p. 298. For a related case see djan Brăila/fond Primăria oraşului Brăila, dos. 18/1834–1836, ff. 1r–9r. 43 Velichi, “Aşezămintele coloniştilor bulgari”, pp. 120, 126–34; Velichi, La contribution de l’émigration bulgare de Valachie, pp. 60–61; Kosev et al., “Despre situaţia şi activitatea economică a imigraţie bulgare”, pp. 285–88. 44 The plan to build the city failed due to the denial by the local landowner (Hristoforos Sakellarios) to recognize the Bulgarians full ownership of the land they cultivated. See details in Velichi, “Emigrarea bulgarilor din Sliven”, pp. 302–14. 45 See Cătălină, Oraşul Alexandria, pp. 9–15. 46 Giurescu, Istoricul oraşului Brăila, pp. 166–67; Stoica, Brăila. Memoria oraşului, pp. 21–22. See also the Bucharest newspaper Curierul Românesc 2 (1830), pp. 112, 114, 177 and djan Brăila/fond Primăria oraşului Brăila, dos. 5/1833; dos. 5/1834; dos. 1/1835; dos. 1/1837. 47 See the ofis (decree) of prince Alexandru D. Ghica in Analele Brăilei 4:1 (1931), p. 46. See also Filitti, Domniile Române, p. 222 and the documents in djan Brăila/fond Primăria oraşului Brăila, dos. 1/1840; dos. 7/1841; dos. 8/1842–1851. More detail in Kontogeorgis, Η ελ­ ληνική διασπορά στη Ρουμανία, pp. 29–34.

Romanian Elites’ Stance towards Immigration

285

l­ocal mercantile community, composed almost exclusively of foreigners, and consented to many of their demands, for example by declaring Braila a porto franco in 1836.48 These measures, in conjunction with the rising importance of Braila in the trade of the Principalities, facilitated the increase of the city’s population in general and of the number of foreigners in particular. It is indicative that the population rose from c.3,000 inhabitants in 1828 to 8,700 in 1838 and approximately 14,000 in 1843.49 Non-Wallachian subjects constituted, in 1837, about 45 per cent of the population.50 The majority of them were Greeks and the rest mainly Italian and Dalmatian traders, seafarers, and artisans. The predominantly ‘foreign’ character of Braila can also be deduced by the 1838 official census (catagrafia).51 Only 37 per cent of the city’s inhabitants were ethnically Romanian, while Bulgarians/Serbs (Bulgari/Sârbi) and Greeks (Greci) comprised 27 and 23 per cent of the population respectively (Figure 10.1).52 An indirect but we may surmise powerful stimulus for the settlement of foreigners in the newly established Danubian ports was the political rights accorded to them. In November 1832 an addendum to the Law on Municipalities stipulated that since in Braila and Giurgiu the number of natives was very small, the foreign immigrants who met the property qualifications had the right to vote in the local elections and to stand for the office of mayor.53 A characteristic case was that of the Greek merchant Panait Rubini, who was also a Russian subject. Rubini was mayor of Braila during 1831–34 and member 48

See Istoriko kai Diplomatiko Arheio Ypourgeiou Eksoterikon Ellados [aye], folder 36.5/1835, General Consulate in Bucharest (Konstantinos Sakellarios), nr. 16, 2/14 August 1835, to Ministry of Foreign Affairs, regarding the meeting of prince Ghica with the foreign merchants of Braila. For relevant cases cf. djan Brăila/fond Primăria oraşului Brăila, dos. 17/1834. For the porto franco status see Mocanu, Portul Brăila, pp. 24–27. The main port of Moldavia, Galatz, was also declared free port, see Buşe, Comerţul prin Galaţi, pp. 30–36. 49 Mihăilescu, “Populația Brăilei”, pp. 114–20; Giurescu, Istoricul oraşului Brăila, p. 158; ­Mocioiu, “Brăila în primii ani de la eliberare”, p. 64. 50 Giurescu, Istoricul oraşului Brăila, pp. 161–63. The 1837 catagrafia is analyzed in Kontogeorgis, Η ελληνική διασπορά στη Ρουμανία, pp. 301–05. 51 The census ‘counted’ the ethnic origin of each inhabitant, not their citizenship. 52 During that era the ethnonym ‘Serb’ was used in the Principalities for every southern-slav migrant. The great majority of these migrants came from Bulgarian and Thracian provinces. For the Bulgarians see Žečev, Braila i bălgarskoto kulturno-natsionalno Văzraždane, pp. 11–28. 53 Filitti, “Primii ani de organizare ai Brăilei”, pp. 16–17; Iavorschi, “Începuturile instituţiei Primăria Municipiului Brăila”, pp. 9–11.

286

Kontogeorgis

Romanians Bulgarians/Serbs Greeks Lipovans/Eastern Slavs Jews Other

Figure 10.1

Ethnic distribution of the population of Braila (1838) Source: Cristocea, Oraşul Brăila în catagrafia din anul 1838.

of various committees, while from the 1830s till the 1850s many mayors of the city were Russian, Greek, or Austrian subjects.54 The role of the foreigners in the Danubian ports was further institutionalized through the establishment of voluntary merchants’ organizations. One characteristic case was the Mercantile Association of Braila (Deputaţia Mercantilă din Brăila/Emporiki Antiprosopeia). It was founded in 1838, thanks to an initiative by the local wholesale traders, mainly Greek, and was promptly recognized by the Wallachian government. Its autonomy guaranteed that it worked closely with the local and central authorities to further the economic development of the city, ameliorate its port facilities, and promote commercial education and the teaching of foreign languages.55 Another organization with similar goals had been founded in Galatz.56 While the Bulgarian migration had a profound impact on the agricultural regions of the Principalities, the ‘new Greek diaspora’57 was mainly an urban phenomenon. Although the statistical data are insufficient for a comprehensive overview, it is certain that the majority of the Greeks in Wallachia had settled in Danubian districts, mainly in the ports and their hinterland. According to an 1844 census (Table 10.3) nearly 22 per cent of the Greek families who had migrated to Wallachia were living in Braila, while in general c.50 per cent had 54

Iavorschi, “Începuturile instituţiei Primăria Municipiului Brăila”, pp. 13–15. See also ­ ârtosu, “Trei catagrafii pentru Brăila anului 1837”, p. 40. V 55 Kontogeorgis, Η  ελληνική  διασπορά  στη Ρουμανία, pp. 38–43 and Mocanu, Portul Brăila, pp. 44–45, 50, 58–59. 56 Buşe, Comerţul prin Galaţi, p. 82. 57 For the 19th-century Greek diaspora in Romania see, among many, Petrescu, Οι Έλληνες  ως ‘ άλλοι ’ στη Ρουμανία. For the most important Greek paroikia (Braila) see Kontogeorgis, Η ελληνική διασπορά στη Ρουμανία.

287

Romanian Elites’ Stance towards Immigration Table 10.3 Number of Greek families established in Wallachia (1844)

Districts

Location

Number of families

Braila Vlaşca Teleorman Dolj Ialomiţa Romanaţi Mehedinţi Ilfov Argeş Prahova Dâmboviţa Muscel Saac Buzău Slam Râmnic Olt Vâlcea Bucharest Total

Danubian Danubian Danubian Danubian Danubian Danubian Danubian Central-Danubian (Muntenia) Central (Muntenia) Central (Muntenia) Central (Muntenia) Central (Muntenia) Muntenia Muntenia Muntenia Oltenia Oltenia

402 104 84 64 48 27 15 88 98 68 60 12 31 61 17 29 18 565 1791

Source: Genika Arheia tou Kratous (=GAK)/Ypourgeion Eksoterikon, folder 90: “Nombre des sujets Helléniques établis dans la Principauté de Valachie depuis le récencement fait en 1844 et en viguer le 1er Janvier 1845”.

settled near the Danube. The other great concentration of the Greek migrants was at the Principality’s capital, Bucharest.58 In general the second quarter of the 19th century was a ‘golden era’ for the Orthodox Christian foreigners, Greeks and Bulgarians alike. Many, like Evanghelos Zappas or the Mustakov family, succeeded in establishing themselves as great landowners or lease-holders (arendaşi), while others, mostly Greeks, were dominating external trade, in particular with the Mediterannean and Western European countries. Families of Bulgarian origin (e.g. the Gheorghiev brothers) were also extremely active in the internal commerce of Wallachia. Moreover, for those migrants who held Greek or any other foreign protection, 58

The census refers only to families of Greek citizenship.

288

Kontogeorgis

their privileged position was safeguarded by the rigorous implementation of the Capitulations in the Principalities.59 Despite the fact that Wallachia and Moldavia were moving to the direction of becoming nation-states, it could be argued that the ‘imperial’ traditions of the Ottoman Empire were still powerful in the region. The 1830s–1840s also witnessed steady Jewish immigration, especially to Moldavia. The Jewish settlement followed the pattern of the Phanariot era, founding and repopulating market towns (târguri).60 During the years 1831–38 more than 20 târguri, each of a population of between 1500 and 3000 inhabitants, were established or repopulated to a large degree by Jews. This immigration was promoted assiduously by Prince Mihai Sturdza (1834–49) and several large landowners, eager to settle merchants and artisans in their domains and take advantage of the growth of trade after the Treaty of Adrianople. The development of the town markets had a great input in the internal trade as well, thanks to their weekly or yearly markets and fairs, which linked the larger urban centers with the more isolated village communities of the Principality.61 The traditional Jewish presence in the major cities of the Principality such as Jassy (Iaşi) and Galatz was also substantially strengthened. In the Moldavian capital the Jews predominated both in commerce and handicrafts, as well as in numbers, being in 1859 the largest ethnic group, c.46 per cent of the total population.62 Although the statistical data are imprecise it is evident that the number of the Moldavian Jews rose considerably from about 55,000 in 1838 to a little less than 120,000 in 1860.63 The economic repercussions of this wave of Jewish immigration were keenly felt during the second quarter of the 19th century, when the Jews ­succeeded in supplanting the Greek and Armenian merchants in the Moldavian market, with the significant exception of Galatz. There the influx of Greeks, especially from Chios and the Ionian Islands, was paramount.64 In 1845 the Jews 59

On the legal status of the foreign merchants see among many the succinct presentation by Ardeleanu, International Trade and Diplomacy at the Lower Danube, pp. 73–78. 60 The classic study of the Jewish târguri is the work of Schwartzfeld, Din Istoria Evreilor. See also Negruţi, “The Role of Jews in Founding Towns”. 61 Hitchins, The Romanians, p. 174; Negruţi, “The Role of Jews in Founding Towns”, pp. 114–18. Cf. Iorga, Istoria evreilor, pp. 33–34. Already in 1792 Mihai Sturdza had founded a târg, Mihăileni, populated mainly by Jews. 62 Ivănescu, “Populaţia evreiască a oraşului Iaşi”, pp. 28–50. 63 For the Jewish population of Moldavia see Ivănescu, “Populaţia evreiască, 1774–1832”, pp. 59–67 and Ivănescu, “Populaţia evreiască, 1832–1859”, pp. 116–27. 64 For the foreign merchants in Galatz see Buşe, Comerţul prin Galaţi, pp. 71–75 and ­Ardeleanu, International Trade, pp. 79–83.

289

Romanian Elites’ Stance towards Immigration

­constituted c.55 per cent of Moldavia’s merchants, while natives (pământeni) accounted for only 35 per cent (Figure 10.2). The situation in the small industry was similar: c. 47 per cent of the artisans was Jewish. It is noteworthy that the increase of the Jewish immigration went along with the deterioration of their legal status. Thus, in the Organic Regulations of the Principalities (1831–32),65 it was stipulated that the Jews, not only ­recently arrived Askhenazi but also established Sephardi, were officially foreigners. Therefore the legal category of the evrei pământeni (native Jews), which existed during the Phanariot era and accounted for a significant percentage of the Jewish community, was abolished, as civil and even more political rights could be accorded only to non-natives of Christian faith. Other laws and ­administrative measures aimed to marginalize the position of the Jewish ­immigrants were promulgated and sometimes enforced. Jewish institutions (e.g. the hahambaşia), established during the Phanariot era, were either dissolved or downgraded.66 It is open to doubt, nevertheless, to what degree this policy was implemented. Although from time to time ‘vagabond’ Jews were expelled, the refusal of the Moldavian government to adopt, in 1844, proposals against the economic influence of the Jews67 and the growing penetration of the latter in the countryside suggest a more complicated picture. It is, however, certain that during the 1830s and 1840s the elaboration of a modern Romanian national ideology,

Natives Jews Sudiţi (foreign subjects)

Figure 10.2

65

Distribution of the merchants of Moldavia according to legal status (1845) Source: Hitchins, The Romanians, p. 176.

The statutes of the Principalities drafted by local boyars and Russian officials and a­ pproved by the Russian Tsar. 66 Iancu, Les Juifs en Roumanie, pp. 44–49 and Păun, “Reglementări privind statutul juridic”, pp. 161–67. 67 See Hitchins, The Romanians, p. 178; Negruţi, “The Role of Jews in Founding Towns”, pp. 118–19.

290

Kontogeorgis

mainly under the influence of French and German romantic nationalism, was accompanied by a new, often more stringent, view of the ‘stranger’ (non-native). At least in Moldavia, Jews were depicted as the ‘plague’ that threatened the traditional society of the village, and as a foreign element in the cities, hindering the rise of a local bourgeoisie. Even writers associated with the politically liberal opposition, such as Vasile Alecsandri (1821–90), were hostile or at best lukewarm about any amelioration in the legal position of the Jews.68 This stance towards the Jews illuminates the differing policies of the ­Wallachian and Moldavian liberals during the 1848 revolution. Whereas the liberals in Bucharest proclaimed the political emancipation of the relatively few local Jews, cooperated fruitfully with eminent Bucharest Jews, and included several in their ranks, their Moldavian counterparts proposed the gradual and only subject to conditions extension of political rights to the ‘Romanians of the Mosaic faith’.69 It was likely easier for the Wallachian revolutionaries to proclaim such an inclusive policy, since the traditionally rich, well integrated, and established Jews of Wallachia could be much more rapidly assimilated into the emerging Romanian nation than could the more numerous, relatively recent, and ‘foreign’ in way of life and language Ashkenazi Jews of Moldavia. On the other hand, the relations of the Wallachian revolutionary government with the powerful Greek merchants of Braila were characterized by antagonism and hostility. This was due to several factors, from the opposition of the Greek bourgeoisie, to certain governmental reforms, to deeper ideological developments. The identification, cultivated by the liberal intelligentsia during the 1830s–1840s, of the Greeks with the ‘despotic’ and ‘Turcophile’ Phanariots had opened up splits between the locals and the Greeks, while the awareness that the rise of a native mercantile stratum was hindered by the legal position of the foreign merchants impelled the elites, as early as the mid-1840s, to restrict, but without much success, the privileges of the non-natives.70 The failure of the 1848 revolutions in the Principalities led to the restoration of the former status quo, including the position of foreigners. This status quo was to be altered fundamentally during the third quarter of the 19th century. The Crimean War (1853–56) constituted the pivotal factor.71 The occupation of 68

For a thorough presentation of the image of the Jew in Romanian culture see Oişteanu, Inventing the Jew. 69 Iancu, Les Juifs en Roumanie, pp. 50–54; Berindei, “Les Juifs dans les Principautés Unies”, pp. 133–36. 70 See Kontogeorgis, Η ελληνική διασπορά στη Ρουμανία, pp. 77–85 and Petrescu, Οι Έλληνες ως  ‘ άλλοι ’ στη Ρουμανία, pp. 39–43, 189–93. 71 Among the many studies devoted to the Crimean War see Goldfrank, The Origins of the Crimean War, and Badem, The Ottoman Crimean War.

Romanian Elites’ Stance towards Immigration

291

Moldavia and Wallachia by the Russian Army (July 1853 – September 1854) revealed the diverging loyalties of the region’s Orthodox Christians. While Greeks and Bulgarians, of whatever citizenship, supported the Russians, by forming military units and collecting donations,72 the Romanian politically conscious elites, in particular the more liberal ones, were manifestly hostile towards the occupation authorities. After the Russian withdrawal, the Austrian occupation (August 1854 – March 1857)73 allowed a part at least of the local administration to follow a more nationalistic agenda, attempting to undermine the privileged position of the foreigners. Braila constituted a characteristic case, as the local Romanian governor, Dimitrie Polizu, apart from arresting a few Greek notables implicated in the formation of pro-Russian military units, also placed all the Greek citizens under Wallachian jurisdiction and did not recognize their special status or fiscal/judicial privileges.74 This effort was stillborn, as both the Austrians and the Moldo-Wallachian Princes were not prone to ‘experiments’ and soon returned to the status quo, but in retrospect it seems that the Crimean War and its aftermath was a milestone. The Greek and Bulgarian migrants in the Principalities were branded as ‘Russophile traitors’,75 always ready to cooperate with the Tsar, the main enemy, in the eyes of the local elites, of their political aspirations. It is revealing that nearly two decades later, in 1875, the major Romanian newspaper of Braila considered it necessary to remind its readers, how ‘easily’ the local Greeks and Bulgarians became ‘tools’ of the ‘Muscovites’ (muscali) during the Crimean War.76 In the following years the Romanian nationalistic movement concentrated on establishing a Romanian nation-state.77 In the 1850s and 1860s, this polity was ready to accept, but without endorsing their corporate privileges, those Orthodox Christian Greeks and Bulgarians who were willing to be ­assimilated into the Romanian nation. The exclusion of the Greeks and Bulgarians of 72

See Velichi, La Roumanie et le mouvement révolutionnaire bulgare, pp. 16–25; Todorova, “The Greek Volunteers in the Crimean War”; Kontogeorgis, Η ελληνική διασπορά στη Ρουμα­ νία, pp. 87–91. In general for the Russian occupation see Nistor, “Principatele Române sub ocupația rusească”. 73 For the administration of the Habsburg occupation authorities see Boicu, Austria şi Principatele Române. 74 See Kontogeorgis, Η ελληνική διασπορά στη Ρουμανία, pp. 91–93; Petrescu, Οι Έλληνες ως ‘ άλ­ λοι ’ στη Ρουμανία, pp. 193–96. 75 See aye, folder 36.5/1855, General Consulate in Bucharest (Konstantinos Fostiropoulos), nr. 299, 31 March 1855, to Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 76 Libertatea, 21 (18 December 1875), p. 1. 77 The emergence of the Romanian unitary state has been addressed in many monographs. See the recent presentation by Michelson, Romanian politics, which contains also a very rich bibliography.

292

Kontogeorgis

Braila and Giurgiu from the 1857 assembly elections was a first breach of the special laws regulating the foreigners’ rights.78 In the mid-1860s, public institutions, where the foreigners predominated, such as the Merchants’ Association (Deputaţia Mercantilă) of Braila and Galatz, were dissolved. The state policy towards the Deputaţia is revealing of the shift in the governmental attitude vis à vis institutions controlled by foreign citizens. The once-welcomed involvement of the foreigners in public affairs, at least at a local level, was viewed in the mid-1860s with suspicion or even with hostility. As the minister for interior informed the Municipality of Braila, the wide jurisdiction of the Deputaţia had transformed it into a second Municipality, and this should not continue (nu pot esista două case municipale).79 Indeed, the governments of the United Romanian Principalities, under Alexandru Ioan Cuza (1859–66) were wholeheartedly committed to ‘nationalizing’ public life.80 The exclusion of non-natives, who were the majority of the wholesale merchants in the Danubian ports, from the Chambers of Commerce was indicative of their intentions.81 It was, however, the abolition of the Capitulations in the late 1860s – early 1870s, an unavoidable step in the course of the Romanian state-building, that sealed the end of an important era in the history of migration to Romania.82 The Romanian authorities were neither obstinate nor inflexible in their efforts to check the power of the foreign communities. At that stage their main aim was to avert foreign control of public/state institutions. They did not envisage getting involved, still less undermining, the life of the communities. This is the reason why in the mid-1860s they allowed Greeks and Bulgarians to found self-governing communities, build imposing churches, and establish a significant network of community educational institutions for boys and girls.83 In any case, from the standpoint of the Orthodox immigrants, especially the 78

Berindei et al., Documente privind Unirea Principatelor, pp. 323–24, 332–34, 444–45, 452– 53, 456–58, 463–65. 79 Kontogeorgis, Η  ελληνική  διασπορά  στη Ρουμανία, pp. 97–98. See also djan Brăila/fond Primăria, dos. 2/1864, f. 2r–3r. 80 For Cuza see Giurescu, Viaţa şi opera lui Cuza Vodă’. 81 See Ionescu, “La fin des corporations”, pp. 898–99 and Kontogeorgis, Η ελληνική διασπορά  στη Ρουμανία, p. 98. See also djan Brăila/fond Prefectura Judeţului Brăila, dos. 110/1865. 82 Kontogeorgis, Η ελληνική διασπορά στη Ρουμανία, pp. 98–102; Petrescu, Οι Έλληνες ως ‘ άλλοι ’  στη Ρουμανία, pp. 103–18. Cf. Maliţa, “A Century of Political and Diplomatic Action”, pp. 596–604. 83 For the Greeks see Kontogeorgis, Η ελληνική διασπορά στη Ρουμανία, pp. 111–35, 193–254 and Petrescu, Οι Έλληνες ως ‘ άλλοι ’ στη Ρουμανία, pp. 263–66. The Bulgarian case is presented in Žečev, Braila i bălgarskoto kulturno-natsionalno Văzraždane, pp. 38–97.

Romanian Elites’ Stance towards Immigration

293

a­ ffluent ones, exclusion from the local affairs did not preclude them from yielding substantial informal influence and maintaining close relations with the most important families of the local society.84 The stance of the Romanian elites towards the Jews was also ambivalent. Several politicians, in particular among the Wallachian 1848 revolutionaries were in principle, albeit not really devoted to, in favor of granting full civil and political rights to the Jews. Nevertheless the majority of the politically conscious ones, especially the Moldavians, were very apprehensive that political emancipation would consolidate the Jewish hold of the economy both in the urban centers and in the countryside.85 It is important to stress that in particular in the third quarter of the 19th century, the major factor behind this hostility towards the Jews was not a ‘religious’ anti-Judaic animosity, but a very ‘modern’ argument in favor of a nationalistically colored economic policy. One of the most eloquent proponents of this view was Dionisie Pop-Marţian (1829– 65), a Transylvanian Romanian economist and statistician who had studied at Vienna, and considered the Jews as foreign speculators, harsh moneylenders, dangerous for the ‘simple Romanian peasant’.86 It is interesting that PopMarţian had also adamantly opposed, during the late 1850s, various plans for the settlement of German and Swiss peasants in Wallachia, since he feared that this would dilute the ‘Romanian’ character of the provinces.87 Although the language of Pop-Marţian and also of other writers, journalists, politicians, and intellectuals of the late 1850s – early 1860s,88 was indeed virulent, it should not be assumed that they represented the whole spectrum of the attitude of the Romanian elites towards the Jews. In fact it seems that during the Cuza era (1859–66) the authorities promoted their gradual integration into Romanian society by supporting the foundation and development of modern Romanian-Jewish schools,89 abolishing several restrictions, and most importantly making efforts to marginalize, in cooperation with Jewish modernizers such as the circle around the physician Iuliu Barasch, the traditionalistic leadership of many communities. The Law on Municipalities and the new Civil Code (1864–65) epitomized their effort, paving the way to the gradual political 84

Cf. Petrescu, Οι Έλληνες ως ‘ άλλοι ’ στη Ρουμανία, pp. 241–42 for the characteristic case of the Hrissoveloni family. 85 Berindei, “Les Juifs dans les Principautés Unies”, pp. 136–40. 86 Iancu, Les Juifs en Roumanie, pp. 60–61. 87 Slăvescu, “O autobiografie lui Dionisie Pop Marţian”, pp. 97, 102. See also Pop Marțian, Opere economice. 88 See the comments by Iancu, Les Juifs en Roumanie, pp. 60, 281–82. 89 For the subject see Rotman, Şcoala, pp. 109–15.

294

Kontogeorgis

emancipation of the Jews.90 Integration of at least a part of the Jewish population was facilitated and immigration of Russian, ‘Polish’, Jews to Moldavia was boosted.91 The Cuza era was but a short ‘Indian summer’. The drafting of the 1866 constitution, following the fall of Prince Cuza (February 1866),92 revealed the deep roots and the power of local nationalistic anti-Semitism,93 fatally undermining the previous efforts to promote a more civic and less ethnic-centered definition of citizenship. The 1866 constitution, which created the legal framework for the country’s political life until the inter-war period, had on the whole a pronounced liberal character. It guaranteed the fundamental human and civil rights, allowing for example the circulation of a free press, and prohibited any discrimination based on race or religion. Nevertheless, the intention of the government to allow native Jews to become, under certain preconditions, ­Romanian citizens caused uproar both inside and outside the parliament. Thus, after a series of violent and rowdy demonstrations organized by the fringe radical liberal group of the poet and former revolutionary Cezar Bolliac and the even more popular ‘Free and Independent Fraction’ in Moldavia, the liberals under Ion C. Brătianu included in the constitution Article 7 which stipulated that “only foreigners of the Christian rite could be naturalized”.94 The fact that the Wallachian liberals, until then consistent advocators of the political emancipation of the Jews, backed away, did not go unnoticed and has generated ever since a growing discussion. By shifting to a more ‘hostile’ stance towards the Jews, the liberals could use the ‘popular’ weapon of anti-Semitism to consolidate their presence in the mostly conservative region of Moldavia. Political expediency aside, they seemed also to have been genuinely alarmed by the increasing Jewish immigration and the weakness of the ethnic Romanian middle strata in Moldavian cities.95 The individuals or parties propagating a more ‘open’ policy towards the Jews, such as the ‘Junimea’ conservative group, were mostly at the fringes of national political life and their efforts to press the matter further were ­generally 90 Iancu, Les Juifs en Roumanie, pp. 59–62; Berindei, “Les Juifs dans les Principautés Unies”, pp. 140–49. 91 A characteristic indicator of integration was the edition of Romanian-Jewish newspapers. See Iancu, Les Juifs en Roumanie, pp. 148–49. 92 For the coup against Cuza see Michelson, Romanian politics, pp. 142–50. 93 For a general overview with emphasis on the late 19th century see Oldson, A Providential Anti-Semitism. 94 Iancu, Les Juifs en Roumanie, pp. 63–68; Turliuc, Organizarea României moderne, pp. 35–40. 95 Among the many studies which deal with this problem see Binder-Iijima, “Das Erbe der Union”, pp. 75–81 and Silvestru, “Opportunistic politicking”.

Romanian Elites’ Stance towards Immigration

295

lukewarm.96 The efforts of international Jewish organizations and of the foreign powers, mostly of France and the United Kingdom, to oblige Romania to grant political rights to the Jews, succeeded only in provoking vehement responses by the Romanian government and public, who considered these endeavors as intrusions to internal matters.97 The concern of the Romanian elites, in particular of the Moldavians, with the Jewish immigration, which had not abated despite the deterioration of the Jews’ legal status, was tragically revealed in the 1867 expulsions of ‘vagabond’, poor, and probably itinerant Jews, which, in some cases, resulted in deaths and led also to pogroms.98 The 1866 constitution was also a milestone in another domain. The Romanian parliament included provisions for discouraging the immigration of foreigners, even those of Orthodox faith. Despite the ineffectiveness of this clause – the settlement of Greeks, Bulgarians, and other foreigners increased in the Danubian ports – it certainly signified that the earlier ‘golden era’ for immigrants had come to an end. The hardening of the Romanian elites’ stance towards immigration and foreigners was further unveiled in the late 1870s, after the recognition of Romanian independence at the Berlin Congress (1878). Although the Romanian government accepted, in theory, the demand of the Great Powers to grant political rights also to the Jewish inhabitants of the country, it did not in fact implement this obligation.99 Furthermore, the same treaty led to the de jure abolition of the Capitulations and thus of the last privileges of non-natives. The Greeks and Bulgarians of the Danubian cities and Bucharest were now mainly concerned not with the maintenance of their obsolete privileges but with the ongoing challenge of their foreign citizenship by the Romanians. Indicative were the constant conflicts of the consuls with the local authorities over the drafting of young Greeks and Bulgarians to the Romanian army. After 1878 the number of Greek and Bulgarian immigrants or of their descendants who opted for the Romanian citizenship increased, though we still do not have accurate statistical data on that. It is probable that some wealthy Greeks and Bulgarians, in particular those who owned land, wanted to secure their property, since Romanian law hindered the possession of agricultural land by foreigners, but it could not be denied that intermarriages, knowledge 96

See nevertheless Balan, “‘La question juive’ dans la gazette ‘Terra’”, pp. 63–76. For the J­ unimea group in general see the penetrating studies by Zigu Ornea. 97 Iancu, Les Juifs en Roumanie, pp. 74–118. For earlier efforts see Feldman, “The Question of Jewish Emancipation”, pp. 46–64. 98 Many details in Iancu, Les Juifs en Roumanie, pp. 69–74. 99 See Berceanu, “Modificarea din 1879 a articolului 7”, and Iancu, Les Juifs en Roumanie, pp. 186–89.

296

Kontogeorgis

of the local language, and close relations with natives considerably facilitated this process. The integration of the Jews into Romanian society also continued, as exemplified by the large number of Jewish-Romanian schools and the spread of the Romanian language among the former mono-lingual, Yiddish speaking Askenazim. In general, though, the 1880s signified the final consolidation of the Romanian national state and the virtual abandonment of any effort by the Romanian elites to promote immigration. Bibliography Archival Sources

Direcţia Judeţeană a Arhivelor Naţionale Brăila [Braila County Archives=DJAN Brăila]/fond Primăria oraşului Brăila [Municipality of the City of Braila]. Direcţia Judeţeană a Arhivelor Naţionale Brăila [Braila County Archives=DJAN Brăila]/fond Prefectura Judeţului Brăila [Prefecture of Braila]. Genika Arheia tou Kratous tis Ellados [State Archives of Greece=GAK]/ Ypourgeion Eksoterikon [Ministry of Foreign Affairs]. Istoriko kai Diplomatiko Arheio Ypourgeiou Eksoterikon Ellados [Historical and Diplomatic Archives of the Greek Ministry for Foreign Affairs=AYE].

Primary Sources

Anul 1848 în Principatele Române. Acte şi Documente publicate cu ajutorul Comitetului pentru ridicarea monumentului lui Ioan C. Brătianu [The Year 1848 in the Romanian Principalities. Acts and Documents Published with the Aid of the Commission for the Erection of the Ioan C. Bratianu Monument], vol. 2, Bucharest 1902. Berindei, D., Stan, A., Selea, T., and E. Alexiu (eds.), Documente privind Unirea Principatelor, vol. I: Documente Interne (1854–1857) [Documents on the Union of the ­Principalities, vol. I: Internal Documents (1854–1857)], Bucharest 1961. Bodin, D. (ed.), Documente privitoare la legăturile economice dintre Principatele Române şi Regatul Sardiniei [Documents on the Economic Relations between the Romanian Principalities and the Kingdom of Sardinia], Bucharest 1941. Cristocea, S., Oraşul Brăila în catagrafia din anul 1838 [The City of Braila in the 1838 Census], Braila 2012. Foteinos, D., Ιστορία της Πάλαι Δακίας [History of Old Dacia], vol. 3, Vienna 1818. Georgescu, V. (ed.), Mémoires et projets de réforme dans les principautés Roumaines 1769–1830, répertoire et textes inédits, Bucharest 1970. Hurmuzaki, Eu. de (ed.), Documente privitoare la Istoria Românilor, 1802–1849 [­Documents on the History of Romanians, 1802–1849], vol. IV/ Suplementul 1, Bucharest 1891.

Romanian Elites’ Stance towards Immigration

297

Karakassis, K., Τοπογραφία της Βλαχίας και ανθρωπολογικαί παρατηρήσεις αναφορικώς προς  την υγείαν και νόσους των κατοίκων αυτής [Topography of Wallachia and Anthropological Observations Relative to the Sanitary Condition of its Population], Bucharest 1830. Pop Marțian, D., Opere economice [Economic Works], edited by N. Marcu şi Z. Ornea, Bucharest 1961. Thouvenel, E., La Hongrie et la Valachie, Paris 1840. Vailliant, I.A., La Romanie ou histoire, langue, litterature, orographie, statistique des R ­ omans, Paris 1844, vol. 3. Vârtosu, I., “Trei catagrafii pentru Brăila anului 1837” [Three 1837 Braila Censuses], Analele Brăilei, 11/2–3 (1939), pp. 17–56.

Secondary Literature

Ardeleanu, C., “Aspecte calitative şi cantitative privind rolul economic al Grecilor cu protecţie britanică din portul Galaţii în primii ani după războiul Crimei” [Qualitative and Quantitive Aspects of the Economic Role of the Galatz Greeks, British Subjects, During the First Years After the Crimean War], in Ven. Achim and V. Achim (eds.), Minorităţile etnice în România în secolul al XIX-lea [Ethnic Minorities in 20th Century Romania], Bucharest 2010, pp. 27–38. Ardeleanu, C., International Trade and Diplomacy at the Lower Danube. The Sulina Question and the Economic Premises of the Crimean War (1829–1853), Braila 2014. Badem, C., The Ottoman Crimean War 1853–1856 (The Ottoman Empire and its Heritage, Politics, Society and Economy, 44), Leiden-Boston 2010. Balan, D., “La question juive” dans la première partie de l’ année 1868. Une perspective conservatrice: La gazette “Terra”, Codru Cosminului 14 (2008), pp. 63–76. Bartal, I., The Jews of Eastern Europe, 1772–1881, translated by Chaya Naor, Philadephia 2005. Berceanu, B., “Modificarea din 1879 a articolului 7 din constituţie” [The 1879 Modification of the Constitution’s Article 7], Studii şi Materiale de Istorie Modernă 6 (1979), pp. 67–89. Berindei, D., “Les Juifs dans les Principautés Unies (1859–1865)”, Shvut-Jewish Problems in the USSR and Eastern Europe 16 (1993), pp. 133–49. Binder-Iijima, E., “Das Erbe der Union: vom Moldauer antijüdischen Liberalismus zum rumänischen Antisemitismus 1866–1879”, in K. Bochmann and V. Dumbrava (eds.), Das Regionale in der rumänischen Kultur, Leipzig 2005, pp. 75–85. Boicu, L., Austria şi Principatele Române în vremea războiului Crimeii 1853–1856 [Austria and the Romanian Principalities in the Crimean War Era, 1853–1856], (Biblioteca Istorică, 33), Bucharest 1972. Boldescu, I., Monografia oraşului Giurgiu [A Monograph on the City of Giurgiu], Giurgiu 1912.

298

Kontogeorgis

Buşe, C., Comerţul prin Galaţi sub regimul de port franc (1838–1883) [The Commerce of Galatz during the Porto-franco Regime (1838–1883)], Bucharest 1976. Camariano-Cioran, A., L’Épire et les pays Roumains, Jannina 1984. Camariano, N., “Quelques renseignements sur la vie et l’activité commerciale de l’épirote Consta Petru en Oltenie, Valachie”, Balkan Studies 19/2 (1978), pp. 313–26. Cătălină, I.I., Oraşul Alexandria ( judeţul Teleorman), 1834–1934 [The City of Alexandria (County Teleorman), 1834–1934], Bucharest 1934. Cernovodeanu, P., Relaţiile comerciale româno-engleze în contextul politicii orientale a Marii Britanii (1803–1878) [Romanian-English Commercial Relations in the Context of Great Britain’s Oriental Policy (1803–1878)], Cluj-Napoca 1986. Cernovodeanu, P., “O minoritate dinamică în Moldova secolului al XVIII-lea: evrei aşkhenazi” [A Dynamic Minority in 18th century Moldavia: Ashkenazi Jews], R ­ evista Istorică 16/3–4 (2005), pp. 5–32. Corfus, I., “Oraşele” [Cities], in A. Oţetea (ed.), Istoria României [History of Romania], vol. 3, Bucharest 1964, pp. 982–87. Crampton, R., Bulgaria, Oxford 2007. Denize, E., “Evrei sefarzi din Ţara Românească şi Moldova până la începutul secolului al XIX-lea” [Sephardi Jews of Wallachia and Moldavia Until the Beginning of the 19th Century], Revista Istorică 11/5–6 (2000), pp. 377–93. Feldman, E., “The Question of Jewish Emancipation in the Ottoman Empire and the Danubian Principalities after the Crimean War”, Jewish Social Studies 41/1 (1979), pp. 41–74. Filitti, I.C., Domniile Române sub Regulamentul Organic, 1834–1848 [The Romanian Principalities under the Organic Regulations], Bucharest 1915. Filitti, I.C., “Primii ani de organizare ai Brăilei după eliberarea de sub Turci. Sub ocupația rusă dela 1828 la 1834” [The First Years of Braila’s Organization after its Liberation from the Turkish Rule. Under Russian Occupation from 1827 until 1834], Analele Brăilei 2/1 (1930), pp. 3–24. Focas, S., The Lower Danube River in the Southeastern European Political and Economic Complex from Antiquity to the Conference of Belgrade of 1948, (East European Monographs, 227), New York 1987. Georgescu, V., Ideile politice şi iluminismul în Principatele Române, 1750–1831 [Political Ideas and the Enlightenment in the Romanian Principalities, 1750–1831], Bucharest 1972. Giurescu, C., Viaţa şi opera lui Cuza Vodă [The Life and Work of Prince Cuza], Bucharest 1966. Giurescu, C., Istoricul oraşului Brăila din cele mai vechi timpuri pînă astăzi [The History of the City of Braila from the earlier Ages until Today], Bucharest 1968. Goldfrank, D., The Origins of the Crimean War, London/New York 1994.

Romanian Elites’ Stance towards Immigration

299

Hitchins, K., The Romanians, 1774–1866, Oxford 1996. Iancu, C., Les Juifs en Roumanie (1866–1919). De l’exclusion à l’émancipation, Aix-enProvence 1978. Iavorschi, G., “Începuturile instituţiei Primăria Municipiului Brăila (Maghistratul Oraşului) în perioada 1831–1864, reflectate în documente de arhivă” [The Beginning of Braila’s Municipality during the Years 1831–1864, as it is Reflected in Archival Documents], Analele Brăilei, n.s. 8 (2007), pp. 9–23. Ionescu, M., “La fin des corporations et les débuts des chambres de Commerce et d’Industrie”, Revue Roumaine d’Histoire 6/6 (1967), pp. 881–905. Iorga, N., Istoria evreilor în ţerile noastre [History of the Jews in our Lands], Bucharest 1913. Iscru, G., “Fuga ţăranilor-forma principală de luptă împotriva exploatării în veacul al XVIII-lea în Ţara Românească” [The Flight of the Peasants – Main Form of the Fight against Exploitation in the 18th Century Wallachia], Studii: Revista de Istorie 18/1 (1965), pp. 125–46. Ivănescu, D., “Populaţia evreiască a oraşului Iaşi în perioada 1755–1860” [The Jewish Population of Jassy in the period 1755–1860], Studia et Acta Historiae Iudaeorum Romaniae 1 (1996), pp. 28–50. Ivănescu, D., “Populația evreiască din oraşele şi târgurile Moldovei între 1774–1832” [The Jewish Population of the Moldavian Cities and Towns in the Years 1774–1832], Studia et Acta Historiae Iudaeorum Romaniae 2 (1997), pp. 59–67. Ivănescu, D., “Populaţia evreiască din oraşele şi târgurile Moldovei între 1832–1859” [The Jewish Population of the Moldavian Cities and Towns in the Years 1832–1859], Studia et Acta Historiae Iudaeorum Romaniae 5 (2000), pp. 116–27. Janos, A., “Modernization and Decay in Historical Perspective: the case of Romania”, in K. Jowitt (ed.), Social Change in Romania, 1860–1940, a Debate on Development in a European Nation, Berkeley 1978, pp. 72–116. Kontogeorgis, D., “Η ελληνική διασπορά στη Ρουμανία. Η περίπτωση της ελληνικής παροικίας της Βραΐλας (περ. 1820–1914)” [Greek Diaspora in Romania. The Case of the Greek “Paroikia” (Community) of Braila (c. 1820–1914)], unpublished PhD, University of Athens, Athens 2012. Kosev, D., Paskaleva, V., and Diculescu V., “Despre situaţia şi activitatea economică a imigraţie bulgare în Muntenia şi Oltenia în secolul al XIX-lea (până la războiul ruso-turc din 1877–1878)” [The Economic Activity of the Bulgarian Immigration in Muntenia and Oltenia during the 19th Century (until the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877–1878)], in Relaţii Româno-Bulgare de a lungul veacurilor sec. XII–XIX, Studii [Romanian-Bulgarian Relations, 13th–19th centuries, Studies], vol. I, Bucharest 1971, pp. 283–367. Lazăr, G., Les marchands en Valachie, XVIIe–XVIIIe siècles, Bucharest 2006.

300

Kontogeorgis

Lyberatos, A., Οικονομία, πολιτική και εθνική ιδεολογία. Η διαμόρφωση των εθνικών κομμά­ των στη Φιλιππούπολη του 19ου αιώνα [Economy, Politics and National Ideology. The Formation of the National Parties in 19th Century Plovdiv], Herakleion 2009. Maliţa, M., “A Century of Political and Diplomatic Action for the Abolition of the Consular Jurisdiction in Romania”, Revue Roumaine d’Histoire 6/4 (1965), pp. 587–604. Maragos, V., Παḯσιος Χιλανδαρινός και Σωφρόνιος Βράτσης από την Ορθόδοξη ιδεολογία στη  διάπλαση της βουλγαρικής ταυτότητας [Paisius of Hilandar and Sophronius Bishop of Vratsa. From the Orthodox Ideology to the Formation of the Bulgarian Identity], Athens 2009. Michelson, P., Romanian Politics 1859–1871. From Prince Cuza to Prince Carol, Jassy/­ Oxford 1998. Mihăilescu, G., “Populația Brăilei. Studiu de demografie dinamică şi statică” [The Population of Braila. A Study of Dynamic and Static Demography], Analele Brăilei 4/2–3 (1932), pp. 106–37. Mocanu, E., Portul Brăila de la regimul de porto-franco la primul război mondial (1836– 1914) [The Port of Braila from the Porto-Franco Regime until the First World War (1836–1914)], Braila 2012. Mocioiu, N., “Brăila în primii ani de la eliberare de sub turci” [Braila in the Years after its Liberation from the Turks], in Monografia judeţului Brăila, Braila 1971, pp. 60–66. Negruţi, E., “The Role of Jews in Founding Towns in Moldavia during the First Half of the Nineteenth Century”, Studia et Acta Historiae Iudaeorum Romaniae 1 (1996), pp. 113–24. Nistor, I., “Principatele Române sub ocupația rusească 1 Iulie 1853–17 Septembrie 1854” [The Romanian Principalities under Russian Occupation, 1 July 1853–17 September 1854], Analele Academiei Română Memoriile Secțiunii Istorice s. III/ vol. 20 (1938), pp. 221–53. Oişteanu, A., Inventing the Jew. Antisemitic Stereotypes in Romanian and other CentralEast European Cultures, Lincoln 2009. Oldson, W., A Providential Anti-Semitism: Nationalism and Polity in Nineteenth Century Romania, Philadelphia 1991. Olson, L., “P.D. Kiselev and the Rumanian Peasantry: The Influence of the Russian ­Occupation on Agrarian Relations in the Danubian Principalities, 1828–1834”, PhD Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana 1975. Pajură, C. and Giurescu D., Istoricul oraşului Turnu-Severin (1833–1933) [History of the City Turnu-Severin (1833–1933)], Bucharest 1933. Păun, E., “Reglementări privind statutul juridic şi fiscal al evreilor în Ţara Românească, 1774–1921” [Regulations of the Legal and Fiscal Status of the Jews in Wallachia, 1774– 1921], Analele Universităţii din Craiova-serie Istorie 17/2–22 (2012), pp. 161–72. Perianu, R., “Planul oraşului Brăila din 10 Mai 1830” [The City Plan of Braila (10 May 1830)], offprint from În amintirea lui Constantin Giurescu [Constantin Giurescu – In Memoriam], Bucharest 1944.

Romanian Elites’ Stance towards Immigration

301

Petrescu, Ş., Οι Έλληνες ως ‘ άλλοι ’ στη Ρουμανία. Η εσωτερική οικοδόμηση του ρουμανικού  έθνους − κράτους κατά τον δέκατο ένατο αιώνα και οι Έλληνες [The Greeks as ‘Other’ in Romania. The Internal Formation of the Romanian Nation-state during the 19th Century and the Greeks], Thessaloniki 2014. Platon, A.-F., Geneza burgheziei în Principatele Române (a doua jumătate a secolului al XVIII-lea-prima jumătate a secolului al XIX-lea): Preliminariile unei istorii [The ­Emergence of Bourgeoisie in the Romanian Principalities (Second Half of the 18th Century – First Half of the 19th Century): The Beginning of a History], Jassy 1997. Platon, G. and Platon A.-F., Boierimea din Moldova în secolul al XIX-lea. Context european, evoluţie socială şi politică [The Boyars of Moldavia in the 19th Century. European Context, Social and Political Evolution], Bucharest 1995. Popescu, M., “Contribuțiuni noui la cunoaşterea oraşului şi raielei Brăila, după 1829” [New Contributions to the History of the City and Reaya of Braila after 1829], Analele Brăilei 10/1 (1938), pp. 23–35. Roman, L., “Démographie et société aux pays roumains (XVIe–XIXe siècles)”, Nouvelles études d’histoire 6/1 (1980), pp. 283–95. Rotman, L., Şcoala israelito-română (1851–1914) [Jewish-Romanian School (1851–1914)], Bucharest 1999. Schwartzfeld, E., Din Istoria Evreilor. Impopularea reîmpopularea şi întemeierea tîrguşoarelor în Moldova [From the History of the Jews. Settlement, Repopulation and Establishement of Towns in Moldavia], Bucharest 1914. Silvestru, O., “Opportunistic Politicking versus Liberalism in Romania. The Governmental Anti-Semitic Policies between 1866 and 1868”, Studia Universitatis Petru Maior-Series Historia 8 (2008), pp. 103–26. Slăvescu, V., “O autobiografie lui Dionisie Pop Marţian” [An Autobiography of Dionisie Pop Marțian], Analele Academiei Română Memoriile Secțiunii Istorice s. III/ vol. 23 (1940–1941), pp. 95–102. Stoica, M., Brăila. Memoria oraşului-Imaginea unui oraş românesc din secolul al XIX-lea [Braila. The Memory of the City-The Image of a Romanian 19th Century City], Braila 2009. Todorova, M., “The Greek Volunteers in the Crimean War”, Balkan Studies 25/2 (1984), pp. 539–64. Traikov, V., “Les aspects socio-economiques de l’émigration bulgare en Valachie après la guerre Russo-turque de 1828–1820”, Études Balkaniques 4 (Sofia 1983), pp. 32–48. Traikov, V., “Emigraţia bulgară în România” [Bulgarian Emigration to Romania], Analele Brăilei, seria nouă 4 (2001), pp. 253–59. Trajikov V. and Žečev, N., Bălgarskata emigracijia v Rumănija, XIV vek – 1878 g. i učastieto i v stopanskija obštestveno-političeskija i kulturnija život na rumănskia narod [Bulgarian Emigration to Romania, 14th Century – 1878 and its Economic, Political and Cultural life], Sofia 1986.

302

Kontogeorgis

Turczynski E., Von der Aufklärung zum Frühliberalismus. Politische Trägergruppen und deren Forderungskatalog in Rumänien (Südosteuropäische Arbeiten, 81), Munich 1985. Turliuc, C., Organizarea României moderne. Statutul naţionalităţilor (1866–1918), vol. 2 [The Organization of Modern Romania. The Status of the Nationalities (1866–1918)], Jassy 2004. Velichi, C., “Aşezămintele coloniştilor bulgari din 1830” [The 1830 Statutes of the Bulgarian Colonists], Romanoslavica 3 (1958), pp. 117–35. Velichi, C., “Emigrarea bulgarilor în Ţara Românească în timpul războiului ruso-turc din 1806–1812” [The Emigration of Bulgarians to Wallachia during the Russo-Turkish War of 1806–1812], Romanoslavica 8 (1963), pp. 27–58. Velichi, C., “Emigrarea bulgarilor din Sliven în Ţara românească în anul 1830” [The Emigration of the Bulgarians from Sliven to Wallachia in 1830], Romanoslavica 10 (1964), pp. 289–314. Velichi, C., La contribution de l’émigration bulgare de Valachie à la renaissance politique et culturelle du peuple bulgare 1762–1850 (Bibliotheca Historica Romaniae, 28), ­Bucharest 1970. Velichi, C., La Roumanie et le mouvement révolutionnaire bulgare 1850–1878 (Bibliotheca Historica Romaniae, 60), Bucharest 1979. Velichi, C., România şi Renaşterea Bulgară [Romania and the Bulgarian Revival], ­Bucharest 1980. Žečev, N., Braila i bălgarskoto kulturno-natsionalno Văzraždane [Braila and the Bulgarian Cultural-National Revival], Sofia 1970.

Selected Bibliography http://diaspora.arch.uoa.gr/main/index.php?lang=en Bibliographical Database on the Greek Diaspora (accessed 13 November 2015). Achim, V. and Achim, V. (eds.), Minorităţile etnice în România în secolul al XIX-lea [The Ethnic Minorities from Romania in the 19th Century], Bucharest 2010. Aksan, V., Ottoman Wars 1700–1870: An Empire Besieged, London/New York 2013. Andreescu, Şt., “La politique de Mircea le Pâtre”, Revue des études sud-est européennes 10/1 (1972), pp. 115–22. Antić, R., Anastas Jovanović – prvi srpski fotograf [Anastas Jovanović – First Serbian Photographer], Belgrade 1977. Ardeleanu, C., International Trade and Diplomacy at the Lower Danube. The Sulina Question and the Economic Premises of the Crimean War (1829–1853), Braila 2014. Ars, G., “Pereselenie Grekov v Rossiiu v kontse XVIII-nachale XIX veka [Resettlement of Greeks to Russia at the End of the 18th and the Beginning of the 19th Centuries]”, in Iu. Ivanova (ed.), Greki Rossii i Ukrainy [The Greeks of Russia and Ukraine], St. ­Petersburg 2004, pp. 16–49. Asdrachas, Sp. with contributions by N.E. Karapidakis, O. Katsiardi-Hering, Eft. Liata, A. Matthaiou, M. Sivignon, and Tr. Stoianovich, Greek Economic History, 15th–19th Centuries, translated from Greek, Athens 2007. Auerbach, H., Die Besiedlung der Südukraine in den Jahren 1774–1787 (Veröffentlichungen des Osteuropa Institutes München, 25), Wiesbaden 1965. Bácskai, V., “Gesellschaftliche Veränderungen in den Städten Mittel-und Osteuropas zur Zeit der Entfaltung der kapitalistischen Verhältnisse”, in V. Bácskai (ed.), Bürgertum und bürgerliche Entwicklung in Mittel-und Osteuropa, vol. 1, Budapest 1986, pp. 143–227. Bade, Kl., Europa in Bewegung: Migration vom späten 18. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart, München 2002. Bartlett, R., Human Capital: The Settlement of Foreigners in Russia, 1762–1804, Cambridge 1979. Batalden, S., Catherine II’s Greek Prelate: Eugenios Voulgaris in Russia, 1771–1806 (East European Monographs, 115), New York 1982. Berindei, D., “Les Juifs dans les Principautés Unies (1859–1865)”, Shvut-Jewish Problems in the USSR and Eastern Europe 16 (1993), pp. 133–49. Bilici, F., Cândea, I., and Popescu, A. (eds.), Enjeux politiques, économiques et militaires en Mer Noire (XIVe–XXIe siècles). Études à la mémoire de Mihail Guboglu, Braila 2007. Binder-Iijima, E., “Das Erbe der Union: vom Moldauer antijüdischen Liberalismus zum rumänischen Antisemitismus 1866–1879”, in K. Bochmann and V. Dumbrava (eds.), Das Regionale in der rumänischen Kultur, Leipzig 2005, pp. 75–85.

304

Selected Bibliography

Borgolte, M., Stiftung und Memoria, edited by T. Lohse, Berlin 2012. Bur, M., “Handelsgesellschaften – Organisationen der Kaufleute der Balkanländer in Ungarn im 17.–18. Jahrhundert”, Balkan Studies 25 (1984), pp. 267–307. Cohen, R., The Cambridge Survey of World Migration, Cambridge 1995. Cotovanu, L., “L’émigration sud-danubienne vers la Valachie et la Moldavie et sa géo­ graphie (XVe–XVIIe siècles): la potentialité heuristique d’un sujet peu connu”, Cahiers balkaniques, INALCO, Paris, 42 (2014), URL: http://ceb.revues.org/4772 (­accessed 17 April 2016). Cotovanu, L., “Migrations et mutations identitaires dans l’Europe du Sud-Est (vues de Valachie et de Moldavie, XIVe–XVIIe siècles)”, PhD Thesis, EHESS, Paris 2014. Cotovanu, L., “Aux débuts de la dédicace des lieux de culte ‘roumains’ envers le Mont-Athos (seconde moitié du XVIe siècle): entreprise publique ou privée ?”, in Θ΄ Διε­θνές Επιστημονικό Συνέδριο “ Η εξακτίνωση του Αγίου Όρους στον Ορθόδοξο κόσμο :  τα μετό­χια ”. Πρακτικά συνεδρίου, Θεσσαλονίκη, 21–23 Νοεμβρίου 2014 [The Acts of the 9th Scientific Congress “The Echo of Mount Athos in the Orthodox World: the Metochia”, Thessaloniki, 21–23 November 2014], Thessaloniki 2015, pp. 191–215. Dávid, G. and Fodor, P. (eds.), Ottomans, Hungarians, and the Habsburgs in Central Europe: The Military Confines in the Era of Ottoman Conquest, Leiden 2000. Davidov, D., Srpska grafika XVIII veka [Serbian Graphic Arts in the 18th Century], (Studije za istoriju srpske umetnosti, 8], Novi Sad 1978. Davidov, D., Spomenici Budimske eparhije [Monuments of Eparchy of Buda], (Studije i monografije, 9), Belgrade 1990. Davidov, D., Srpske privilegije carskog doma Habzburškog [Serbian Privileges of Royal House of Habsburg], Novi Sad/Belgrade 1994. Dobrossy, I., “Die ethnographische Bedeutung der neugriechischen Diasporen des Karpatenbeckens im 17.–19. Jahrhundert”, Ethnographica et Folkloristica Carpathica 1–2 (1979–1981), pp. 259–67. Docea, V., Străinii de-alături. Explorări în istoria minorităţilor şi a comunicării interculturale [The Foreigners Next to Us. Explorations in the History of the Minorities and of the Intercultural Communication], Timişoara 2006. Do Paço, D., L’Orient à Vienne au dix-huitième siècle (Oxford University Studies in the Enlightenment, 5), Oxford 2015. Druzhinina, E., Severnoe Prichernomor’e v 1775–1804 g. [The Northern Black Sea Littoral, 1775–1804], Moscow 1959. Eberl, I. (ed.), Die Donauschwaben. Deutsche Siedlung in Südosteuropa. Ausstellungskatalog, Sigmaringen 1989. Efstratiadis, S., Ο εν Βιέννη ναός του Αγίου Γεωργίου και η κοινότης των οθωμανών υπηκόων [The Church of St. George in Vienna and the Community of the Ottoman Subjects], reproduction of the Alexandria 1912 edition, edited by C. Chotzakoglou, Athens 1997.

Selected Bibliography

305

Enepekides, P., Griechische Handelsgesellschaften und Kaufleute in Wien aus dem Jahre 1766. (Ein Konskriptionsbuch). Aus den Beständen des Wiener Haus-, Hof- und Staats­ archivs, (Institute for Balkan Studies, 27), Thessaloniki 1959. Faist, T., The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social Spaces, Oxford 2000. Falangas, A., “Invazia lui Gabriel Báthory în Ţara Românească şi antagonismul dintre Radu Şerban şi Radu Mihnea în lumina unui izvor grecesc necunoscut” [The Invasion of Gabriel Báthory in Wallachia and the Antagonism between Radu Şerban and Radu Mihnea in the Light of an Unknown Greek Source], Studii şi materiale de istorie medie 20 (2002), pp. 53–61. Falangas, A., Présences grecques dans les Pays roumains (XIVe–XVIe siècles). Le témoignage des sources narratives roumaines, Bucharest 2009, pp. 158–87. Fermendžin, E., “Acta Bulgariae ecclesiastica ab a. 1565 usque ad a. 1799”, in Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum Meridionalium, vol. XVIII, Zagreb 1887. Fermendžin, E., “Acta Bosnae potissimum ecclesiastica…ab a. 925 ad a. 1752”, in Monumenta spectantia Slavorum meridionalium, vol. 18, Zagreb 1892. Filip, C., Comunitatea greacă de la Brăila (1864–1900) [The Greek Community of Brăila (1864–1900)], Braila 2004. Füves, Ö., Οι Έλληνες της Ουγγαρίας [The Greeks of Hungary], (Institute for Balkan Studies, 75), Thessaloniki 1965. Füves, Ö., “Görögök Pesten (1686–1931)” [Die Griechen in Pest], unpublished Habilitation, University of Budapest, Budapest 1972 (translated by Andrea Seidler into German). Giurescu, C., Istoricul oraşului Brăila din cele mai vechi timpuri până astăzi [The History of the City of Brăila from the Earliest Times to the Present], Bucharest 1968. Georgescu, V., “Hrisovul din 15 iulie 1631 al lui Leon Tomşa în Ţara Românească şi problema ‘Cărţilor de libertăţi’” [The 15th July 1631 Chrysobull of Leon Tomşa in ­Wallachia and the Issue of ‘the Charters of Liberties’], Revista de istorie 29/7 (1976), pp. 1103–30. Georgiev, L., Bulgarite catolici v Transylvania i Banat (XVIII – parvata polovina na XIX v.) [The Bulgarian Catholics in Transylvania and Banat (18th – the First Half of 19th Century)], Sofia 2010. Gottesman, B., Pinesles, S., Lovensohn, M., Monografia comunităţei israelite din Galaţi. Din cele mai vechi timpuri până în prezent [A Monograph of the Israelite Community of Galaţi. From the Earliest Times to the Present], Galatz 1906. Grecescu, C. and Simonescu, D. (eds.), Istoria Ţării Româneşti (1290–1690). Letopiseţul Cantacuzinesc [The History of Wallachia (1290–1690). The Chronicle of the Kanta­ kouzenoi], Bucharest 1960. Griselini, Fr., Versuch einer politischen und natürlichen Geschichte des temeswarer Banats in Briefen an Standespersonen und Gelehrte, Erster Teil, Vienna 1780.

306

Selected Bibliography

Gyuzelev, V., “Kratŭk ocherk vŭrkhu otnosheniyata mezhdu Rimskata tsŭrkva i Bŭlgarskoto tsarstvo prez Srednovekovieto (IX–XIV v.)” [A Short Essay on the ­Relationship between the Roman Church and the Bulgarian Kingdom in the Middle Ages (9th–14th Century)], in Katolicheskata dukhovna kultura i neĭnoto prisŭstvie i vliyanie v Bŭlgariya, Sofia 1992, pp. 71–83. Harlaftis, G. and Păun, P. (eds.), Greeks in Romania in the Nineteenth Century, Athens 2013. Heimann-Jelinek, F., Kohlbauer-Fritz, G., and Milchram, G. (eds.), Die Türken in Wien. Geschichte einer jüdischen Gemeinde (Ausstellungskatalog Jüdisches Museum), ­Vienna 2010. Hellie, R., Slavery in Russia 1450–1725, Chicago 1982. Heppner, H. and Posch, E. (eds.), Encounters in Europe’s Southeast. The Habsburg Empire and the Orthodox World in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (The Eighteenth Century and the Habsburg Monarchy. International Series, 5), Bochum 2012. Hering, G., “Die griechische Handelsgesellschaft in Tokaj. Ihre innere Ordnung und ihre Auflösung 1801”, in G. Hering, Nostos. Gesammelte Schriften zur südosteuropäischen Geschichte, edited by M.A. Stassinopoulou, Frankfurt/ New York/ Vienna 1995, pp. 265–81. Herlihy, P., Odessa: A History, 1794–1914, Cambridge, MA, 1986. Herzfeld, M., “Zur Orienthandelspolitik Österreichs unter Maria Theresia in der Zeit von 1740–1771”, Archiv für österreichische Geschichte 108 (1919), pp. 215–343. Hoerder, D., Cultures in Contact: World Migrations in the Second Millennium, Durham NC 2002. Hoerder, D. and Page Moch, L. (eds.), European Migrants: Global and Local Perspectives, Boston 1996. Iancu, C., Les Juifs en Roumanie (1866–1919). De l’exclusion à l’émancipation, Aix-­enProvence 1978. Iavorschi, G., “Începuturile instituţiei Primăria Municipiului Brăila (Maghistratul Oraşului) în perioada 1831–1864, reflectate în documente de arhivă” [The Beginning of Braila’s Municipality during the Years 1831–1864, as it is Reflected in Archival Documents], Analele Brăilei, n.s. 8 (2007), pp. 9–23. Inalcik, I., “The Question of the Closing of the Black Sea under the Ottomans”, Arheion Pontou 35 (1979), pp. 74–110. Ingrao, Ch., Samardžić, N., and Pešalj, J. (eds.) The Peace of Passarowitz, 1718, West ­Laffayette 2011. Ionescu, Gh., “Tratatul încheiat de Gheorghe Ştefan cu ruşii în 1656. Contribuţii la cunoaşterea legăturilor noastre politice cu Rusia” [The Treaty Concluded by Gheorghe Ştefan with the Russians in 1656. Contributions to the Knowledge of Our ­Political Relations with Russia], Revista istorică română 3 (1933), pp. 234–47.

Selected Bibliography

307

Ionescu-Nişcov, Tr., “Memoriul din 1674 al boierilor munteni către ţarul Rusiei” [The 1674 Memorandum of the Wallachian Boyars to the Russian Tsar], Revista Arhivelor 3/2 (1960), pp. 213–25. Juez Galvez, F.J., Blasii Kleiner Archivum Tripartitum Inclytae Provinciae Bulgariae. N ­ ueva Roma, vol. 4, Madrid 1997. Kardasis, V., Diaspora Merchants in the Black Sea. The Greeks in Southern Russia, 1775– 1861, Lanham MD 2001. Kaser, K., Gruber, S., and Pichler, R. (eds.), Historische Anthropologie im südöstlichen Europa. Eine Einführung, Vienna/Cologne/Weimar 2003. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Migration von Bevölkerungsgruppen in Südosteuropa vom 15. Jahrhundert bis zum Beginn des 19. Jahrhundert”, Südost-Forschungen 59/60 (2001), pp. 125–48. Katsiardi-Hering, O., Τεχνίτες και τεχνικές βαφής νημάτων. Από τη Θεσσαλία στην Κεντρι­ κή Ευρώπη (18ος – αρχές 19ου αι.). Επίμετρο : Η Αμπελακιώτικη Συντροφιά (1805) [Artisans and Cotton-Yarn Dying Methods. From Thessaly to Central Europe (18th to the beginning of the 19th Century). Addendum: The ‘Company’ of Ambelakia (1805)], Athens/ Ambelakia 2003. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Αδελφότητα, Κομπανία, Κοινότητα. Για μια τυπολογία των ελληνικών  κοινοτήτων της Κεντρικής Ευρώπης, με αφορμή το άγνωστο καταστατικό του Miskolc (1801)” [Brotherhood, Company, Community. Towards a Typology of the Greek Communities of Central Europe, on the Occasion of the Unknown Statute of Miskolc (1801)], Eoa kai Esperia 7 (2007), pp. 277–309. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Greeks in the Habsburg Lands (17th–19th Centuries): Expectations, Realities, Nostalgias”, in H. Kröll (ed.), Austrian – Greek Encounters over the Centuries. History, Diplomacy, Politics, Arts, Economics, Innsbruck 2007, pp. 147–57. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Christian and Jewish Ottoman Subjects: Family, Inheritance and Commercial Networks between East and West (17th–18th Century)”, in S. Cavaciocchi (ed.), The Economic Role of the Family in the European Economy from the 13th to the 18th centuries (Istituto Internazionale di Storia Economica F. Datini, Serie II, Atti delle ‘Settimane di Studi’, vol. 40), Florence 2009, pp. 409–40. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Δούναβις : ποτάμι πολέμων και ειρήνης − γέφυρα ψυχών και ειδών (18ος–19ος αι.)” [Danube: a Bridge of Wars and Peace – a Bridge of People and Merchandise, (18th–19th Century), in G. Tsigaras (ed.), ‘Σκεύος εις Τιμήν’, Festschrift for the Metropolitan of Austria and Exarchus of Hungary Michail, Athens 2011 (=2014), pp. 405–19. Katsiardi-Hering, O., “Greek Merchant Colonies in Central and South-Eastern Europe in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries”, in V. Zakharov, G. Harlaftis, and O. Katsiardi-Hering (eds.), Merchant Colonies in the Early Modern Period, London 2012, pp. 127–39.

308

Selected Bibliography

Katsiardi-Hering, O., Kolia-Dermitzaki, A., and Gardikas, K. (eds.), Ρωσία και Μεσόγειος:  Πρακτικά Α΄Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου (Athens, 19–22 May 2005) [Russia and the Mediterranean: Proceedings of the first International Conference (Athens, 19–33 May 2005)], vol. 1–2, Athens 2011. Katsiardi-Hering, O. and Stassinopoulou M.A., “The Long 18th Century of Greek Commerce in the Habsburg Empire: Social Careers”, in H. Heppner, P. Urbanitsch, and R. Zedinger (eds.), Social Change in the Habsburg Monarchy (The ­Eighteenth Century  and the Habsburg Monarchy. International Series, 3), Bochum 2011, ­ pp. 191–213. Katsiardi-Hering, O. and Madouvalos, I., “The Tolerant Policy of the Habsburg Authorities towards the Orthodox People from South-Eastern Europe and the Formation of National Identities (18th – early 19th Century)”, Balkan Studies 49 (2014), pp. 5–34. Kellenbenz, H., “Fluss- und Seeschifffahrt im europäischen Handel (Spätmittelalter – Anfang des 19. Jahrhunderts)”, in Les grands voies maritimes dans le monde (XVe– XIXe s.), Rapports présentés au XIIe Congrès International des Sciences Historiques par la Commission Internationale d’Histoire Maritime à l’occasion de son VIIe Colloque (­Vienne, 28 août – 5 sept. 1965), Paris 1965, pp. 65–176. Kharlampovich, K., Narysy z istoriï hrec “koï koloniï v Nizhyni (XVII–XVIII st.). Do istoriï nacional” nyx menshostej v Ukraïni [Essays on the History of the Greek Settlement of Nezhin (17th and 18th Centuries). On the history of national minorities in Ukraine], (Gogol Nezhin State University Museum, Nezhin Museum of Rare Books, Nezhin Urban Fellowship of Greek by the Name of the Brothers Zosimas], Nezhin 2011 [1929]. Kleiner, Bl., Istoriya na Bŭlgariya ot Blasius Kleiner, sŭstavena v 1761 g. [History of ­Bulgaria by Blasius Kleiner, written in 1761], edited by Iv. Duychev and K. Telbizov, Sofia 1977. Kleiner, Bl., Hronika na bŭlgarskoto frantsiskanstvo (XIV–XVIII v.), sŭstavena prez 1775 g. v gr. Alvints ot Blazius Klaĭner (Archivium tripartitum – III), [Chronicle of the Bulgarian Franciscans (14th–18th Century), Written in 1775 in the Town of Alvintz by Blasius Kleiner (Archivium tripartitum – III)], edited by I. Magdyar, translated by E. Markovska, Sofia 1999. Kohlbauer-Fritz, G. (ed.), “Ringstrasse. Ein jüdischer Boulevard. A Jewish Boulevard. Jüdisches Museum Wien, Vienna 2015. Konecny, E., Die Familie Dumba und ihre Bedeutung für Wien und Österreich”, (Dissertationen der Universität Wien, 179), Vienna 1986. Kontogeorgis, D., “Η ελληνική διασπορά στη Ρουμανία. Η περίπτωση της ελληνικής παροικίας της Βραΐλας (αρχές 19ου αι.–1914)”, [Greek Diaspora in Romania. The Case of the Greek ‘Paroikia’ (Community) of Braila (Beginning of the 19th Century – 1914)], ­unpublished PhD, University of Athens, Athens 2012.

Selected Bibliography

309

Kučeković, A., Umetnost Pakračko-Slavonske eparhije u XVIII veku [Art of Pakrac ­Slavonian Eparchy in the 18th Century], Belgrade 2014. Laios, G., Σίμων Σίνας [Simon Sinas] (Viografiai Ethnikon Evergeton, 1), Athens 1972. Laios, G., Η Σιάτιστα και οι εμπορικοί οίκοι Χατζημιχαήλ και Μανούση (17ος–19ος αι.) [­Siatista and the Merchant Houses of Hatzimichail and Manousis, 17th–19th Century], (Makedoniki Vivliothiki, 60), Thessaloniki 1982. Lucassen, J. and Lucassen, L., Migration, Migration History, History: Old Paradigms and New Perspectives, Bern 1997. Lucassen, J. and Lucassen, L., “The Mobility Transition Revisited, 1500–1900: What the Case of Europe Can Offer to Global History”, Journal of Global History 4/4 (2009), pp. 347–77. Mantouvalos, I., “Έλληνες διαθέτες και πρακτικές κληροδοσίας στην Τεργέστη. Μια πρώτη  προσέγγιση  σε  σχέση  με  την  περίπτωση  της  Βιέννης  και  της  Πέστης  (19ος  αιώνας)” [Greek ­Testators and Inheritance Practices in Trieste: A First Approach with Reference to the Cases of Vienna and Pest (19th Century)], Mnimon 30 (2009), pp. 107–40. Mantouvalos, I., “Conscriptiones Graecorum in Eighteenth-Century Central Europe. Crossing Borders: The Sociocultural Identification of Migrants from the Balkans to Hungarian Territories”, in H. Heppner and E. Posch (eds.), Encounters in Europe’s Southeast. The Habsburg Empire and the Orthodox World in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (The Eighteenth Century and the Habsburg Monarchy. International Series, 5), Bochum 2012, pp. 121–33. Makuljević, N., Umetnost i nacionalna ideja u XIX veku: sistem evropske i srpske vizuelne kulture u slubi nacije [Art and National Idea in the 19th Century: System of European and Serbian Visual Culture in the Service of Nation], Belgrade 2006. Marin, I., Contested Frontiers in the Balkans. Ottoman and Habsburg Rivalries in Eastern Europe, London 2012. Medaković, D., Serben in Wien, Novi Sad 2001. Miletich, L., Izsledvaniya za bŭlgarite v Sedmigradsko i Banat [Studies on Bulgarians in Transylvania and Banat], edited by S. Damianov, Sofia 1987. Milev, N., Katoliskata propaganda v Bulgaria prez XII vek. [The Catholic Propaganda in Bulgaria in the 17th Century], Sofia 1914. Mittenzwei, I., Zwischen Gestern und Morgen. Wiens frühe Bourgeoisie an der Wende vom 18. zum 19. Jahrhundert (Bürgertum in der Habsburgermonarchie, 7) Vienna/ Cologne 1998. Mocanu, E., Portul Brăila de la regimul de porto franco la primul război mondial (­ 1836–1914) [The Port of Brăila from the Free Port Regime to World War I], Braila 2013. Negruţi, E., “The Role of Jews in Founding Towns in Moldavia during the First Half of the Nineteenth Century”, Studia et Acta Historiae Iudaeorum Romaniae 1 (1996), pp. 113–24.

310

Selected Bibliography

Nyagulov, Bl., Banatskite bŭlgari. Istoriyata na edna maltsinstvena obshtnost vŭv vremeto na natsionalnite dŭrzhavi [Banat Bulgarians. The History of a Minority Community in the Epoch of the National States], Sofia 1999. Oişteanu, A., Inventing the Jew. Antisemitic Stereotypes in Romanian and other CentralEast European Cultures, Lincoln 2009. Page Moch, L., Moving Europeans. Migration in Western Europe since 1650, Indiana ­University Press 1992. Păltănea, P., Istoria oraşului Galaţi de la origini până la 1918 [The History of the City of  Galaţi from Its Origins to 1918], 2nd edition, edited by Eugen Drăgoi, Galatz 2008. Panaite, P., Pace, război şi comerţ în Islam. Ţările române şi dreptul otoman al opoarelor, secolele XV–XVI [Peace, War and Commerce in Islam. The Romanian Principalities and the Ottoman Nation Law, 15th–16th Centuries], 1st edition, Bucharest 1997. Papacostea-Danielopolu, C., “L’organisation de la compagnie ‘grecque’ de Braşov (1777–1850)”, Balkan Studies 14/2 (1973), pp. 313–23. Papacostea-Danielopolu, C., Comunităţile greceşti din România în secolul al XIX-lea [The Greek Communities in Romania in the 19th Century], Bucharest 1996. Papastathis, C., “Un document inédit de 1726–1727 sur le conflit helléno-serbe concernant la chapelle grecque à Vienne”, Balkan Studies 24 (1983), pp. 581–607. Paskaleva, V. (ed.), 300 godini Chiprovsko vŭstanie (Prinos kŭm istoriyata na bŭlgarite prez XVII v.) [300 Years since the Chiprovtsi Uprising (Contribution to the History of the Bulgarians in the 17th Century)], Sofia 1988. Păun, R., “La circulation des pouvoirs dans les Pays Roumains au XVIIe siècle. Repères pour un modèle théorique”, New Europe College Yearbook, 1998–99, Bucharest 2001, pp. 263–311. Păun, R., “Pouvoirs, offices et patronage dans la Principauté de Moldavie au XVIIe siècle. L’aristocratie roumaine et la pénétration gréco-levantine”, PhD Thesis, EHESS, Paris 2003. Pawlowsky V., Leisch-Prost E., and Klösch C. (eds.), Vereine im Nationalsozialismus: Vermögensentzug durch den Stillhaltekommissar für Vereine, Organisationen und Verbände und Aspekte der Restitution in Österreich nach 1945 [Veröffentlichungen der Österreichischen Historikerkommission, 21/1], Vienna 2004. Peez, A., “Die Griechischen Kaufleute in Wien. Separat-Abdruck aus der ‚Neuen Freien Presse’”, Vienna 1888. Petković, S., Zidno slikarstvo na području Pećke patrijaršije 1557–1614 [Wall Painting on the Area of Patriarchate of Peć 1557–1614], Novi Sad 1965. Petrescu, Ş., Οι Έλληνεςως  ‘  άλλοι  ’  στη Ρουμανία.  Η εσωτερική οικοδόμηση του ρουμανικού  έθνους − κράτους κατά τον δέκατο ένατο αιώνα και οι Έλληνες [The Greeks as ‘Other’ in

Selected Bibliography

311

Romania. The Internal Formation of the Romanian Nation-state during the 19th Century and the Greeks], Thessaloniki 2014. Peyfuss M.-D. and Konecny, E., “Der Weg der Familie Dumba von Mazedonien nach Wien”, Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 58 (1980), pp. 313–27. Popescu, N., Patriarhii Ţarigradului prin Ţările române (veacul XVI) [Patriarchs of ­Constantinople in the Rumanian Principalities (16th Century)], Bucharest 1914. Prousis, T., Russian Society and the Greek Revolution, DeKalb 1994. Rados, L., Şcolile greceşti din România (1857–1905) [The Greek Schools in Romania (1857–1905)], Bucharest 2006. Raffelsperger, Fr., Allgemeines geographisch-statistisches Lexikon aller Österreichi­ schen Staaten nach amtlichen Quellen, den besten vaterländischen Hilfswerken und ­Original-Manuscripten, von einer Gesellschaft Geographen, Postmännern und Staatsbeamten, Vienna, vol. 1, 1845, vol. 2, 1846, vol. 6, 1853. Ransmayr, A., “Struktur und Organisationsformen der Wiener griechischen Gemeinden (1723–1918)”, PhD Thesis, University of Vienna. Rezachevici, C., “Fenomene de criză social-politică în Ţara Românească în veacul al XVII-lea. Partea I: Prima jumătate a secolului al XVII-lea” [Phenomena of Social and Political Crisis in 17th Century Wallachia. 1st Part, The First Half of the 17th Century], Studii şi materiale de istorie medie 9 (1978), pp. 58–84. Rezachevici, C., “Fenomene de criză social-politică în Ţara Românească în veacul al XVII-lea. Partea a II-a: A doua jumătate a secolului al XVII-lea” [Phenomena of Social and Political Crisis in 17th Century Wallachia. 2nd Part, The Second Half of the 17th Century], Studii şi materiale de istorie medie 14 (1996), pp. 85–117. Richter, O., “Das Constantin C. Panadi’sche Stiftungshaus in Wien”, Österreichische Monatsschrift für den Öffentlichen Baudienst 2 (1896), pp. 249–51. Rotman, L., Şcoala israelito-română (1851–1914) [Jewish – Romanian School (1851– 1914)], Bucharest 1999. Rozen, M., “People of the Book, People of the Sea: Mirror Images of the Soul”, in M. Rozen (ed.), Homelands and Diasporas: Greeks, Jews and their Migrations (International Library of Migration Studies, 2), London 2008, pp. 35–81. Schimscha, E., Technik und Methoden der Theresianischen Besiedlung des Banats (Veröffentlichungen des Wiener Hofkammerarchivs, 4), Baden bei Wien 1939. Schulz, O., “Port-cities, Diaspora Communities and Emerging Nationalism in the ­Ottoman Empire: Balkan Merchants in Odessa and their Network in the Early Nineteenth Century”, in A. Jarvis and R. Lee (eds.), Trade, Migration and Urban Networks in Port Cities, c. 1640–1940 (International Maritime Economic History Association), London 2008, pp. 127–48.

312

Selected Bibliography

Schwarcz, I., Spevak, St., and Veceva, E., Hoffnung auf Befreiung. Dokumente aus österreichischen Archiven zur Geschichte Bulgariens (1687–1690) (Miscellanea Bulgarica, 15), Vienna 2004. Seirinidou, V., “Βαλκάνιοι  έμποροι  στην  Αψβουργική  Μοναρχία  (18ος–μέσα 19ου  αιώνα). Εθνοτικές  ταυτότητες  και ερμηνευτικές  αμηχανίες” [Balkan Merchants in the Habsburg Empire (18th – mid 19th Century). Ethnic Identities and Scholarly Perplexities], in M.A. Stassinopoulou and M.-Ch. Chatziioannou (eds.), Διασπορά – Δίκτυα – Διαφωτισμός [Diaspora – Networks – Enlightenment], (Tetradia ergasias 28 – National Hellenic Research Foundation), Athens 2005, pp. 53–82. Seirinidou, V., “Griechischer Handelsmann: Anatomizing a Collective Subject”, in H.  Kröll (ed.), Austrian – Greek Encounters over the Centuries, Vienna 2007, pp. 129–37. Seirinidou, V., “Peddlers and Wholesalers, Ottomans and Habsburgs, ‘Strangers’ and ‘Our Own’. The Greek Trade Diaspora in Central Europe (17th–19th Century)”, in S. Faroqhi and G. Veinstein (eds.), Merchants in the Ottoman Empire [Turcica XV], Paris 2008, pp. 81–95. Seirinidou, V., Έλληνες στη Βιέννη (18ος–μέσα 19ου αι.) [Greeks in Vienna, 18th – mid 19th Century], Athens 2011. Sifnaiou, E., “Preparing the Greek Revolution in Odessa in the 1820s: Tastes, Markets and Political Liberalism”, The Historical Review/La Revue Historique 11 (2014), pp. 139–70. Silvestru, O., “Opportunistic Politicking versus Liberalism in Romania. The Governmental Anti-Semitic Policies between 1866 and 1868”, Studia Universitatis Petru Maior-Series Historia 8 (2008), pp. 103–26. Skarić, V., Srpski pravoslavni narod i crkva u Sarajevu u 17. I 18. vijeku [Serbian Orthodox People and Church in Sarajevo in the 17th and 18th Centuries], Sarajevo 1928. Slijepčević, Dj., Istorija srpske pravoslavne crkve, vol. 1–2 [History of the Serbian Orthodox Church], Belgrade 1991. Stassinopoulou, M.A., “Griechen in Wien”, in Wir. Zur Geschichte und Gegenwart der Zuwanderung nach Wien. 217. Sonderausstellung des Historischen Museums der Stadt Wien, 19. September bis 29. Dezember 1996, Vienna 1996, pp. 39–43. Stassinopoulou, M.A., “Habe nun Philologie studiert, und dann? Philologische Karrieren und Diaspora – Schule am Beispiel des Eugen Zomarides”, in Σκεύoς εις τιμήν. Festschrift Michael Staikos, Athens 2011 (=2014), pp. 787–94. Stassinopoulou, M.A., “Trading Places. Cultural Transfer Trajectories among Southeast European Migrants in the Habsburg Empire”, in H. Heppner and E. Posch (eds.), Encounters in Europe’s Southeast. The Habsburg Empire and the Orthodox World in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (The Eighteenth Century and the Habsburg Monarchy International Series, 3), Bochum 2012, pp. 163–74.

Selected Bibliography

313

Stassinopoulou, M.A. and Chatziioannou, M.-Ch. (eds.), Διασπορά, Δίκτυα, Διαφωτισμός [Diaspora, Networks, Enlightenment], (Tetradia ergasias 28 – National Hellenic Research Foundation), Athens 2005. Stavrianos, L., The Balkans since 1453, New York 1958. Stoianovich, Tr., “The Conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant”, The Journal of Eco­ nomic History 20/2 (1960), pp. 234–313. Telbizov, K., “Obshtinskoto upravlenie na banatskite bŭlgarski obshtini pod avstriĭska i ungarska vlast” [The Municipal Management of the Banat Bulgarian Municipalities under Austrian and Hungarian Authorities], Godishnik na Vissheto uchilishte za stopanski i sotsialni nauki “Sv. Kiril Slavyanobŭlgarski” 18 (1945), pp. 1–57. Telbizov, K., “Oshte edna istoriya na Bŭlgariya ot sredata na XVIII vek” [Another History of Bulgaria from the Middle of the 18th Century], Vekove 6 (1978), pp. 24–35. Telbizov, K. and Vekova-Telbizova, M., Traditsionen bit i kultura na banatskite bŭlgari [Traditional Customs and Culture of the Banat Bulgarians], (Sbornik za narodni umotvoreniya i narodopis, 51), Sofia 1963. Timotijević, M., Crkva Svetog Georgija u Temišvaru [Church of St. George in Timișoara], Novi Sad 1996. Timotijević, M., Srpsko barokno slikarstvo [Serbian Baroque Painting], Novi Sad 1996. Timotijević, M., Manastir Krušedol [Monastery Krušedol], vol. I–II, Belgrade 2008. Trajikov V. and Žečev, N., Bălgarskata emigracijia v Rumănija, XIV vek – 1878 g. i učastieto i v stopanskija obštestveno-političeskija i kulturnija život na rumănskia narod [Bul­ garian Emigration to Romania, 14th Century – 1878 and its Economic, Political and Cultural life], Sofia 1986. Trivellato, F., The Familiarity of Strangers. The Sephardic Diaspora, Livorno, and CrossCultural Trade in the Early Modern Period, New Haven and London 2009. Tsourka-Papastathi, D.-Eir., “The Decline of the Greek ‘Companies’ in Transylvania: An Aspect of Habsburg Economic Policies in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean”, in A. Vacalopoulos, K. Svolopoulos, and B. Király (eds.), Southeast European Maritime Commerce and Naval Policies from the Mid-Eighteenth Century to 1914 (East European Monographs, 266), New York 1988, pp. 213–18. Tsourka-Papastathi, D.-Eir., Η  ελληνική εμπορική  κομπανία  του  Σιμπίου  Τρανσυλβανίας 1636–1848. Οργάνωση και Δίκαιο [The Greek Merchant Company of Sibiu Transylvania, 1636–1848, Organization and Law], (Institute for Balkan Studies, 246), Thessaloniki 1994. Turczynski, E., Die deutsch-griechischen Kulturbeziehungen bis zur Berufung König O ­ ttos (Südosteuropäische Arbeiten, 48), Munich 1959. Turliuc, C., Organizarea României moderne. Statutul naţionalităţilor (1866–1918), vol. 2 [The Organization of Modern Romania. The Status of the Nationalities (1866–1918)], Jassy 2004.

314

Selected Bibliography

Ursulescu, I., Valori ale patrimoniului evreiesc la Brăila [Values of the Jewish Patrimony at Brăila], Braila 1998. Vasić, P., Anastas Jovanović, Život i delo Anastasa Jovanovića, prvog srpsog litografa [Life and Work of Anastas Jovanović, First Serbian Lithographer], Belgrade 1962. Velichi, C.N., “Aşezămintele coloniştilor bulgari din 1830” [The 1830 Statutes of the Bulgarian Colonists], Romanoslavica 3 (1958), pp. 117–35. Velichi, C.N., La contribution de l’émigration bulgare de Valachie à la renaissance politique et culturelle du peuple bulgare 1762–1850 (Bibliotheca Historica Romaniae, 28), Bucharest 1970. Velichi, C.N., România şi renaşterea bulgară [Romania and the Bulgarian Revival], ­Bucharest 1980. Vujović, B., Umetnost obnovljene Srbije 1791–1848 [Art of Renewed Serbia 1791–1848], Belgrade 1986. Wagstaff, P. (ed.), Border Crossings. Mapping Identities in Modern Europe, Bern 2004. Winkelbauer, E., Zur Geschichte der Donauschwaben vom 18. Jhdt. bis zur Gegenwart unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung im 20. Jhdt. (Verein zur Förderung von politischem Bewußtsein im Alltag), Vienna 1992. Žečev, N., Braila i bălgarskoto kulturno-natsionalno Văzraždane [Braila and the ­Bulgarian Cultural-National Revival], Sofia 1970.

Index The index includes names, places, and a selection of terms. Terms appearing throughout the book, e.g. Ottoman, Habsburg, Central/Southeastern Europe, Danube, diaspora, market, ­merchant, commerce, migration (migrant), nation, nation-state, trade, trade migration have not been indexed. Abauj 34 Abeles, Josef 263 Adjudul Nou 278 Adony 44 Adrianople 3 n. 17, 91, 94; see also Treaty of Adrianople Adriatic Sea 60–61 Aegean/Aegean Sea 4 n. 22, 66, 72, 76, 82, 94, 127, 228; see also Archipelagus Akatholiken 176 Akkerman 99, 226; see also Belgorod Albania 56–57, 139 n. 25 Albanian/Albanians 8, 65 n. 2, 68–69, 94, 117, 152, 208, 216, 218–220, 222–223, 231 n. 56, 234, 240–241; see also Arnaut Alecsandri, Vasile 290 Aleksandrovka 68, 94 Alexander, Anna 173 Alexander the Great 219 n. 20 Alexandria (Romania) 283–284 Alexandria, Patriarchate of 172 Alexandru ii Mircea, prince (Wallachia) 225 Alexandru Iliaş, prince (Wallachia and ­Moldavia) 238, 241 Aliakmon River 36 Allerhand, M. 263 Alvinz 204 Anastasieva, Paraskeva 99 Anatolia 86, 139 n. 25; see also Asia Minor anti-Greek attitude/discourse 217 n. 12, 219, 231, 233 n. 62, 238 anti-Greek revolts 218–219 antisemitism 176, 288–290, 293–296 Antonie of Popeşti, prince (Wallachia) 239 Apostolović, Nikola 60 Aprilov, Vasil 97, 99 n. 92 Aranca River 203, 207 Arab/Arabs 73, 76 Arap Petra Velikovo 79

Archipelagus 139 n. 25; see also Aegean Ardeleanu, Constantin 67 Argentis 258 Argeş 225, 280, 287 Armenian, Armenians 26–27, 68, 71, 74, 78, 82, 95, 117 n. 18, 137, 215, 254–255, 260, 267–269, 275, 288 Arnaut 68; see also Albanian/Albanians Arnstein 125 Aromanians 3, 8, 30, 34–35, 44, 56, 137, 144, 218, 219 n. 17, 220, 222; see also Vlachs, Wallachians Ars, Grigory 65 Arta 86 Artyno 97 Ashkenazi Jews (Ashkenazim) 277, 290; see also Jews Asia 1 Asia Minor 82; see also Anatolia assimilation 45, 144, 198–199, 205 n. 60, 276, 290–291 Astrabit [Astrabad(?)] 88 Astrakhan 88 n. 73 Augsburg 4 Austria 1, 5, 28–29, 40, 122, 124, 139 n. 25, 140, 141 n. 39, 147, 181, 185, 209, 261–262 Austrian Federal Institute for the Blind 182 Austrian Military Borders Region 10; see also Militärgrenzgebiet, military confine border Austrian/Austrians 2–3, 6, 10, 29, 96, 98, 114, 121–123, 125, 135–143, 146, 148, 151–155, 171–173, 175, 177, 182–183, 185, 194, 204, 261, 286, 291 Avasiotis 259 Avraimov, Michail 88–89 Avramović, Dimitrije 60 Azov Sea 68

316 Babic, Luca 201 Bacău 278 Bačka 59 Baja 143 Bakaloglu 267 Balaklava 68 Balkan migration stream 66–67, 70–71, 81, 95, 97 Banat /Banat of Temesvár 3, 15, 39, 54–55, 58, 122, 193–211; see also Temeswarer Banat bandits 6, 279 baptism 65 n. 3, 76–80, 99–100 Baranya 34 Barasch, Iuliu 293 Bărcan, grand cupbearer 238 Bars 34 Bartlett, Roger 65 Basel declaration 265 Bathory, Sigismund, prince (Transylvania) 229, 231 Bekella family 122 Békés 30 Bela iv, king (Hungary) 197 Bela Crkva 60 Belene 199 Belgorod 99; see also Akkerman Belgrade 2, 36, 56–58, 60, 195 n. 8; see also Beograd, Nádorfehervár, Treaty of Belgrade Belousova, L. 95 benefaction, donation 10, 13, 43–44, 153 n. 106, 171–172, 177–179, 186, 216, 223, 261, 267, 291 benefactor, benefactors 44, 171, 173, 183, 185–186, 261, 263 Beograd 27 n. 8; see also Belgrade, Nádorfehervár Berdyaev 67 Berlin Congress 295 Beschäftigungsanstalt für erwachsene Blinde, Vienna 182 Beshenov 198, 202–205, 207, 209; see also Vetero Bessenyö Beshenovo 202 Besnyö 202 Bessanya 202 Bessarabia 68, 257 Bessendorf 203

Index Besseno 203 Bessenovo 203 Bessenyod 203 Besshenova 203 Bezborodko, Aleksandr 90 Biga 260 Bihar 34 Bitola 34, 44–45; see also Monastiri, Vitolia Black Forest 1 Black Sea 1–4, 10, 14, 29, 65, 67–68, 70, 94, 98, 113, 253, 257 Blockade Continental 125, 139–140 Blutte, E.L. 258 Bodjani monastery 59 Bodnar, Eva Margaret 45 Bogdanov, Mikhail 85 Bohemia 5, 122, 139 n. 25 Bohemian, Bohemians 114, 123, 260 Bokou, Thomas 43 Bolliac, Cezar 294 border/boundary (see also frontier) 3–10, 36–38, 54–55, 57, 60, 66, 80, 89, 95, 100, 118, 136, 138, 193, 197, 208, 282 Borsod 34, 38 Bosnia 58, 197 Bosnian 195–197 Bosporus 94–95, 226 Botev, Hristo 267 Bougias, Antonios 33 Bougias, Naum 33 bourgeoisie early Vienna’s 120, 123, 125, 142, 145, 185 Braila 10, 253–260, 262–267, 269, 275, 281, 283–287, 290–292; see also Brăila Brăila 253, 255, 275; see also Braila Brâncoveanu, Constantin, prince (Wallachia) 232 Brâncoveni 234, 238 Branković, Georgije / bishop Maksim 55 Braşov 27–28, 35, 116, 234; see also Kronstadt Brătianu, Ion C. 294 Bratislava 33; see also Pozsony, Preßburg British 6, 95, 121, 140, 257–258 British rule 3 Brociner, J.B. 263 Bubis 97

Index Bucharest 2, 72, 178–179, 186, 255, 268, 275, 278–279, 284 n. 46, 285 n. 48, 287, 290, 295; see also Bucureşti Bucureşti 275; see also Bucharest, Treaty of Bucharest Buda 2, 5, 55–56, 125, 226; see also Budapest, Pest Budapest 1–2, 33, 203; see also Buda, Pest Budjak 226 Budweis 125 Bukhara 88 n. 73 Bukovina 143–144 Bulgaria 1, 6–7, 72, 82, 86, 139 n. 25, 195–197, 202, 204, 207–208, 211, 266, 279–282 Bulgarian, Bulgarians (Bulgari) 8, 15, 65 n. 2, 68, 70–71, 76, 83, 84 n. 59, 85–87, 91–92, 94, 95, 99, 193–205, 207, 208, 209, 211, 215, 218, 254, 256, 260, 266, 267, 269, 275–276, 278, 279, 281–292, 295 Burdujeni 278 Burgas 282 Bürgermeister 88 Buzau, Buzău 231, 278, 280, 287 Calvinists 78 Cantemir, Constantin, prince (­Moldavia) 232, 239 Cantemir, Dimitri(e), prince (Moldavia) 71, 233 Caransebeș 200 Caraşova 200–201 Carinthia 122, 203 Carniola 122 Čarnojević/Černojević, Arsenije 55–56 Carpathians 193 Catherine ii, empress (Russia) 81, 90–91, 94 Catholic, Catholics 10, 36, 40–42, 56, 78, 123–124, 138–139, 141–142, 181, 194–198, 200–201, 205, 207, 209, 211, 215, 225, 261 Catrina, daughter of the grand treasurer ­Iordache Kantakouzenos 233 n. 66 Caucasus 69 Ceardakliev, Vasili 267; see also Vâlkov

317 census 9, 34, 36–38, 84–85, 87, 93, 117–118, 143, 254, 257–258, 262, 266, 268, 285–286, 287 n. 58 Cephalonia 258 Četirović, Grabovan Jovan 57 Chanad 203 Chancellery of Foreign Affairs 71–72; see also Posolski Prikaz Charles Albert, king (Sardinia) 261 Charles I, king (Romania) 260 Charles V, emperor (Habsburg) 219 n. 20 Cherkassian, Cherkassians 73 Chernigov 66, 86–87 Chernivtsi 144; see also Czernowitz Chernukhin, Eugenii 65 n. 1, 70 Cherson 67 Chiajna, princess (Wallachia) 224 child labor 37–38 Chilia (see also Kiliya) 226 Chios 127, 178, 288 Chiprovtsi 56, 196–198, 200, 207–208, 211 Chrissoveloni 258–259 Christians 8, 154 n. 113, 202, 265 Christian Orthodox 10, 26, 54, 62, 137, 142–143, 179, 279, 291 Church of Annunciation, Sibiu 179 çiftlik system 5 citizenship 39–40, 146, 154, 175, 222 n. 29, 254, 268, 285 n. 51, 287 n. 58, 291, 294–295; see also subjecthood Clara, Baroness of Hirsch 264 Cloggnitz 125 Cohen, M. 264–265 collective identification 219, 222, 233 Colonia Bulgara 207 colonization 8, 10, 65, 68 n. 10, 193, 195, 198, 257 colony 94, 207; see also community Commission Européenne du Danube (see also Donau-Regulierungs-Kommission) 6–7 community (communitas) 8, 13, 28, 30, 41–45, 76, 78, 80, 91, 93, 99, 115, 122 n. 32, 126, 128, 135 n. 3, 136 n. 10, 138, 141–146, 148–149, 152, 154–157, 171–180, 182, 185–186, 196, 198–199, 201–202, 205 n. 60, 211, 221, 223, 226–227, 255, 258–264, 266–267, 269, 285, 289, 292; see also colony, compagnie

318 Community of St. George, Vienna 122 n. 32, 136 n. 10, 138, 141–142, 145–146, 149, 157, 171–172 Community of the Holy Trinity, Vienna 138, 141–146, 148, 152, 154–156, 172–173, 180, 182, 185 compadrazgo 79 compagnie 3, 27–29; see also community company (compagnia) 28–34 confessor, confession 14, 77, 85, 142–143, 154 n. 116, 176, 181, 204, 217 n. 13, 219, 221, 223, 230 confraternity 3 Constanţa, Constantza 257 Constantinople 66, 71–74, 75 n. 29, 78, 81–83, 87–89, 91, 97, 136, 178, 181, 216 Constantinopolitan Greeks 219 n. 19, 221, 225, 231–232, 234, 238–239, 241 Constantinople, Patriarchate of 56, 216 n. 5, 226, 228, 230–231 consuls 255, 258, 260–262, 265–269, 283 n. 35, 295 Cordiglia 260 Corfu 4 n. 22 Correr, Giovanni 224–225 Cossack 73, 78 Costin, Miron 241 cotton 5, 13–14, 27, 39 n. 69, 114, 116, 120–121, 124–125, 136–137, 140–141; see also raw materials Coumbaris 259 Covurlui 267 Craiova 178–179, 185–186, 278–279 Cretan 238, 260 Crete 4 n. 22 Crimea 66, 68–70; see also Crimean War Crimean War 3, 254, 256, 290–291; see also Crimea Croatia 3, 26 Croatian, Croatians 200–201; see also Krashovani Csanád 34 Cugino, Mario Pietro 261 cultural transfer 15, 61 Cuza, Alexandru Ioan 269, 292–294 Cyprus 231 Czernowitz 144; see also Chernivtsi Czoernig, Karl von 201

Index Dalmatian/Dalmatians 283, 285 Dâmboviţa 280, 287 Damscho, Constantin 152 Damtzios, Nikolaos 119 Danube Arm, Vienna 175–176, 182, 184 Danube, Lower 3, 5–6, 226, 253, 258–259 Danube Swabians 3; see also Donauschwaben Danubian Principalities 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 14, 29, 215, 218, 222, 226, 254 n. 1, 255, 268, 275–276, 279 dependency theory 70; see also Wallerstein, Immanuel Debrecen 30 Demtsos, Ladislaos 33 Derras, Naum 45 n. 97 Derra family 122 Deva 204 Dimtsa, Zoe 33 Dinerman, E. 263 Dnieper River 66, 80 Dionysios Iviritis 232 n. 60 Diószeg 34 discursive exclusion 217 Dniester River 226 Dobrogea 226; see also Dobrudja, Dobruja Dobrovici 267 Dobrudja, Dobruja 226, 257; see also Dobrogea Doirani, Dojran 34, 59 Dolj 280, 287 Donau-Regulierungs-Kommission 183 Donauschwaben 3; see also Danube Swabians donor 43, 59 n. 30, 171–172, 176–179 Dorohoi 278 Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem 75, 78 Doskar, Bruno 185 n. 49 Doumtsas, Dimitrios 45 n. 97 Doumtsas, Evgenios 45 n. 97 Druzhinina, Elena 65 Duca, Gheorghe, prince (Wallachia and Moldavia) 239 Dumba, Irene 157 n. 130 Dumba, Nikolaus 144 n. 58, 157, 175–176 Dumbas family 117, 126, 175

Index Durac, Apostol ancient grand medelnicer 239 Džefarović, Hristofor 56, 59 Eastern Europe 10, 26 Eastern European 277 Eastern Question 268 Eastern Slavs 286; see also Russians, Ukrainians education 7, 9, 41–44, 57, 61, 71, 76, 197, 259–261, 263–264, 269, 286, 292; see also Grammar School/ National School, ­Community of the Holy Trinity, Vienna Efimov, Teodor 266 Efstratiadis, Sofronios 146, 172 Eger 33–34, 42 Egor (baptized Ivan Christophorov) 77, 79–80 Egor/Parthenios the Swede 78 Egyptomania 178 Elisavetgrad 66 Embiricos, A. 259 endowment, letter of (Stiftsbrief) 10, 13–14, 155, 171–174, 176–177, 179–183, 185–186 engravings 59, 61 Enlightenment 41, 194, 280 Enlightenment Greek 43, 65–66, 93–94, 114 Enns 1 Epiphany (Bogoyavlenskii), Monastery of the, Moscow 71, 76 Epirus 5, 30 n. 25, 56, 81–82, 85, 114, 116–117, 136–137, 139, 145–146, 216, 225, 228 n. 49, 231 n. 56, 237, 239, 278 Eskeles 125 Estonian (Chiukhonets) 73–74 Esztergom 55, 208 n. 66 European powers 1, 6, 262, 268, 269 Eva 74 Exas, Vienna 145–146, 181 fair 6, 148, 205, 209, 288 Fălticeni 278 family 5, 7–8, 13, 32–38, 45, 60, 80, 87–89, 97, 117–123, 125–127, 138 n. 19, 139, 141, 143–145, 147, 153 n. 104, 157 n. 130, 171, 174–175, 179 n. 33, 180–181, 195, 197, 199, 203, 207–208, 219 n. 19, 233, 242,

319 254, 258, 260, 262–263, 266, 279–280, 286–287, 293 Fanciotti 260 Fermendzhin, Eusebius 197 Fleischmarkt 148–149, 152, 154, 156–157, 174–175 Florentine 4 fluvial ports 1; see also Braila, Galatz Focşani 265 foreign jurisdiction 262, 269 France 6, 79, 194 n. 8, 261, 295 Francis ii, emperor (Austria) 154 n. 115 Frankfurt 10 Frapolli, Francesco 94 free port 94, 255, 257, 285 n. 48 French 125, 139, 147, 199, 220 n. 22, 260–261, 275, 290 Fries 125 frontier 1–2, 10, 15, 56, 36–37, 55; see also border, boundary Fruška gora 58 Fruzhin, prince (Bulgaria) 196–197 fur, fur trade 66, 72, 74, 78–79 Füves, Ödön 32, 123 Galaţi 253, 261, 275; see also Galatz Galatz 10, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 275, 283 n. 35, 285 n. 48, 286, 288, 292; see also Galaţi Galiaţatos 259 Galicia 143–144, 176 n. 23 Gannibal, Abraham Petrovich 76, 79 Gannibal, Ivan 76 Genovese 6 Georgian, Georgians 85 n. 64 Gergas, Georgios 33 German, Germans 40, 42, 121 n. 29, 147, 161, 173, 177–178, 197–199, 202, 203, 208–209, 215, 220 n. 22, 260–261, 290, 293 Ghenovici, Cârstea, grand palatine 238 Gheorghe Ştefan, grand logothete, prince (Moldavia) 232–233, 239 Gheorghiev brothers 287 Ghica, Alexandru D. prince (Wallachia) 283–285 Ghica, Gregory prince (Wallachia) 232

320 Ghica, Grigorie, prince (Moldavia) 277 Giurgiu 10, 275 n. 4, 281, 283–285, 292 Godparent, Godparenthood 65, 70, 71, 76, 77, 78, 80 n. 48, 94, 98, 99, 100, 101 Goldstein, G. 265 Golescu, Dimitrie G. 275 Golovin, Thedor Alexeevich 76 Gomionica monastery 58 Gömör 34 Gorj 280 Görögök 30, 32, 40, 44; see also Greeks Grabova 34 grain 15, 67, 122, 253–261, 264–265, 267, 269 Grammar School/National School, ­Community of the Holy Trinity, ­Vienna 146 n. 72, 173, 175 Great Britain 6, 99 Great Northern War 73 Greece 4 n. 22, 60, 144 n. 58, 182, 258, 260 Greek, Greeks, Greci 3, 6, 8–9, 13–14, 25 n. 1, 25–45, 58–59, 65, 68–72, 74–78, 81–99, 111, 113–124, 126–128, 135–163, 171–182, 185, 215–242, 254–256, 258–260, 267–269, 275–276, 278, 282–288, 290–292, 295; see also Görögök Greek Country 222 Greek, Greek-Orthodox Diaspora 3 n. 14, 10, 26, 42, 43, 113 n. 3, 114 n. 6, 120, 123, 124, 127, 173 n. 7, 185, 286 Greek merchant marine 3 Greek merchant, Greek merchant ­companies 13, 29–30, 32, 39, 72, 75, 88, 114–127, 135–142, 148–149, 151–154, 157, 161–163, 180, 234 n. 67, 237 n. 78, 258–259, 276, 278 n. 15, 284, 290 Greekness 218 n. 14, 219–220, 225, 233–234, 241–242 Greek non-united church/confession 137, 143, 148 n. 87 Greek neighborhood/Greek quarter, Vienna 136, 148–149, 154, 174, 176, 182, 185 Greek-Orthodox 3 n. 14, 4, 9, 13, 26–27, 31, 117 n. 18, 118, 120, 135, 138 n. 20, 142, 144 n. 57, 147, 148, 157, 171–172, 174–176, 179, 181–182, 220, 222 Greek Revolution 4; see also Greek War of Independence Greek-Russian Faith 88–89

Index Greek-Slavic-Latin Academy 71 Greek War of Independence 95–96, 99; see also Greek Revolution Grigoriev, Nikolai 99 Grigorije, monk 58 Griman, M. 265 Groapă/Vorstadt/ Josefstadt, Sibiu 179 Gyarmat 30 Gyöngyös 10, 30, 34, 44 Györ 34, 42, 55 Gypsy 95 Hadrian, emperor (Rome) 3n. 17 Hadzhibei 94 Hadzimichail family 117 Haji Georgiou, Maria 33 Haji Petros, Loukas 33 Haji Spyros, Ioannis 33 Hajnóczy, Iván 123 Halkozović, Janko 56 Hamburg 13 Hâncu, Mihalcea, grand serdar 239 Hansen, Theophil von 155 Harlaftis, Gelina 4 n. 22 Hartl, Joseph 155 n. 119 Hellene, Hellenes 91, 101 Hellie, Richard 73 Hermannstadt 27, 179, 186; see also Nagyszeben, Sibiu Heves 34 Hódmezővásárhely 35 Holy Land, Holy Places 59, 228 Holy Trinity, Church of the, Odessa 94–99 Hotin 89 Hungarian, Hungarians 1, 2, 30, 32, 35–37, 39, 41, 42–45, 55, 61, 116, 122, 123, 125, 144, 173, 178, 180, 193, 195–199, 201, 202, 204–205, 208, 209, 215, 260 Hungarian Kingdom 25–26, 30, 32, 34, 195, 204, 215; see also Hungary Hungarian lands/territories 3, 5, 10, 31, 194 Hungarian plain 10, 193 Hungarian Revolution 45, 195 n. 9, 205 n. 60 Hungary 2, 25–30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 54, 55, 117, 121, 122, 123, 125, 128, 139 n. 25, 148, 194, 197, 201, 202, 205 n. 60 Hungary, Central 35

Index Ialomiţa 280, 287 Iambol 281 Iane ‘the Kutsovlach’ 219 n. 17 Ianov, Konstantin 76 Iaşi 255, 288; see also Jassy icons 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 71 identity 3 n. 14, 6–10, 14, 42, 44–45, 60, 61, 65, 67, 70–71, 79, 80, 89–90, 93, 97, 99–101, 174, 175, 176, 181, 211, 222 n. 28, 224 n. 33, 269 Ikonnyi Ryad 71 Ilfov 280–281, 287 Illitsch, Milosius 143 Illyrian, Illyrians 41, 76 industrialization 5, 7, 14, 32, 257 inheritance 5, 172 n. 3 Innere Stadt, Vienna 175, 182 Institute for the Blind (Blindeninstitut), Vienna 173, 176–183, 185–186 Ioannina 35 Ionia 87, 139 n. 25 Ionian, Ionians 6, 72, 82, 258 Ionian Islands 3, 288 Iron Gates 10; see also Turnu Severin Istros 6 Italian, Italians 6, 85, 199, 254, 260–261, 269, 275–276, 283, 285 Ithaca 258 Ivan Shishman, tsar (Bulgaria) 196–197 Ivan Sratsimir, tsar (Bulgaria) 195 Ivanov, Danilo 85 n. 64 Ivanov, Iuri 74–75 Ivanović, Katarina 60 Ivanovo 198 Izmail 202 Jägerzeil 153 Jakšić 60 Jakšić, Arsenije 60 Jakšić, Dimitrije 60 Jakšić, Đura 60 Jakšić, Simeon 60 Jászkunsag 35 Jassy 2, 72, 99, 239, 255, 268, 288; see also Iaşi, Treaty of Jassy Jerusalem 59, 75 Jewish 13–14, 120, 154 n. 113, 174, 175, 176, 254, 262, 263, 264, 265, 275, 277, 278, 288, 289, 293, 294, 295, 296

321 Jewry 13, 137 n. 15 Jews 8, 10, 26, 95, 123, 124, 137, 175, 199, 215, 255, 256, 260, 262, 264, 265, 268, 269, 275, 276, 277, 278, 286, 288, 289, 290, 293, 294, 295, 296 Jiu River (Shil/Zsil) 178 Joseph ii, emperor 39 n. 69, 40–41, 148 n. 87, 152, 154, 155, 205, 206 Jovanović, Anastas 61 Jovanović, Šakabenta Arsenije iv 56, 59 Kalikin, Marcus 210 Kalligraphou-Kyritsas, Ioannis 45 n. 97 Kanovici 267 Kantakouzenos family 219 n. 19, 225, 233–234, 239 Kantakouzenos Constantine, grand chamberlain 237, 241 Kantakouzenos Dumitraşco, prince (Moldavia) 241 n. 101 Kantakouzenos, Iordache grand treasurer 233, n. 66 Kantakouzenos Şerban, prince (Wallachia) 239 Kapitanov, Paraskevas Theodorov 74–75 Karajan, Theodor von 142 Karaš River 200 Karavias, G.A. 259 Karcag 30 Karlowitz 2, 41, 56, 136, 144; see also Sremski Karlovci, Treaty of Karlowitz Karuso, X. 259 Kastoria 25, 35, 88 Katsiardi-Hering, Olga 15 n. 56, 33–34 Kazan 87 n. 70 Kecskemét 10, 30, 34–35 Kerch-Yenikale 68 Kiev 58, 66, 80, 83 n. 55, 99 Kiliya (see also Chilia) 226 kinship 5, 71, 76, 79, 80, 98, 100, 222 n. 29, 227, 238, 242 Kiselev, P.D. 281–283 Kitai Gorod, Moscow 71 Kleiner, Blasius 195–196, 201 Kleisoura 34–35 Klissura 196 Klitsas 97 Knežević 197 Knežević, Uroš 60

322 Kolati, Ivan 87 Kolati, Vlasii 87 Koloti, Iuri 87–88 Komárom 34, 42, 55 Korsovo 34 Kotel 266–267, 281 Kotromanic, Stefan 197 Kotsikopoulos 119 Kouklelis & Michaelides 259 Kousorintsa, Katerina 33 Kowalská, Eva 41 Kovilj monastery 55 Kozani 34 Krain 139 n. 25 Kraevyanova, Paraskeva 89 n. 74 Kraevyanov, Ivan 89 n. 74 Kraft, Ekkehard 66 Krashovani 200–201, 211; see also Croatians Kremmydas, Vassilis 70 Kronstadt 27; see also Braşov Krušedol monastery 55 Kucuk Kainardza 2, 3, 66, 70; see also Treaty of Kucuk Kainardzha Kudovskii, Kudevskii, Ivan 87–88 Kypouro 97 Kyranis 32 Lajos I the Great, king (Hungary) 200 Lamberti 260 Lambrinidis 259 Lampros, Spyridon 28 Lampsakos 195 Landstraße, Vienna 153, 175 language 30 n. 23, 41–42, 59, 70, 83, 86–87, 91, 144, 173, 177, 197, 200, 202–203, 205, 206, 207 n. 65, 210, 217 n. 13, 221–224, 229, 233, 237, 242, 264, 268, 286, 290, 293, 296 Lăpușneanu, Alexandru, prince (Moldavia) 58 Lăpușneanu, Ruxandra, princess (Moldavia) 58 Laskos, Simeon 119 Latin American 78 n. 40, 79 Laurenzerberg Str., Vienna 176, 185 law 9, 32, 39, 44, 73, 88, 89, 146 n. 74, 147 n. 75, 217, 222, 224 n. 32, 228, 229, 235, 236, 264, 266, 268, 269, 281, 285, 289, 292, 293, 295

Index Lazar prince, Hrebeljanović 57–58 Lazarou, Georgios 33 legacy 179 Leipzig 10, 12 Lekic, Antonius 201 Leon Tomşa, prince (Wallachia) 234–238 Leopold I, emperor (Habsburg) 29, 40 Leopold ii, emperor (Habsburg) 154 n. 115 Leopoldstadt, Vienna 148 n. 82, 153, 175 Lepora 43 Leporas, Georgios 33 Leva 30 Levant 27, 29, 120, 216, 254 lieux de mémoire 174; see also memory, memorial Lika 55 Linz 125 Lipovan, Lipovans 254, 265–266, 286 Livonians, Latvians (Latysh) 73, 75 n. 29 Löbel, L. 264 local government reform of Catherine ii 81, 90 Lomonosov 71 Lorasidis, Emanoil 260 Lose (Baron) 153 n. 106 Lovrin 199 Lucassen, J. 8 Lucassen, L. 8 Luc the Cypriot 231 n. 55 Lupac 200 Lupu, Coci grand palatine 238, 241; see also Vasile Lupu Lupu, Mehedinţeanu grand cupbearer 238 Lygda 97 Lykas, Georgios 43 Lykiardopulos 259 Macedonia 5, 28, 30, 34–38, 44–45, 56, 72, 81, 82, 86, 88, 91, 114, 116, 117, 119, 136, 137, 139, 145, 146, 204, 216, 278 Macedonian Greeks 25 n. 1, 28, 87–88, 122, 127, 240 Maecena 176 Magyar, Istvan 201 Magyarization 45, 195 n. 9 Mammara brothers 119 Manos 33

Index Manos, Stephanos 45 Mantzos, Georgios 44 Manuilov, Christophoros (Christopher) 77, 80 Maria Theresa, empress (Habsburg) 37, 41, 137 n. 15, 141, 195, 208–209 Maria-Theresiopel 203, 208; see also Subotica, Szabadka Margulies, Jacob 263 Marini Poli, Giovanni di 225 Mariupol 68 Maroseyka 71, 76 Maroulis, A.P. 259 Massa, Simon 240 Matthew aga of Brâncoveni 234, 238; see also Matthew Bassarab Matthew Basarab prince (Wallachia)  234–235, 237–238; see also Matthew aga of Brâncoveni Matthew of Myra 240 Mavrocordat, Constantin, prince (Moldavia) 277 Mavrodin 284 Mavrodin cupbearer 241 n. 101 Mazaraki, Pipina 99 Mazarakis, Spiridon 99 Mediterranean, Eastern 26, 114 Mediterranean, Mediterranean Sea 13, 26, 29, 113–114, 174 n. 12, 254, 259, 261 Mehedinţi 280, 283, 287 Mela(s) 97 Meleniko (see also Melnik) 34–36 Melissaratos 259 Melnik (see also Meleniko) 34 memory, memorial 13, 45, 61, 69, 171–174, 180, 182, 185–186; see also lieux de mémoire Mendl, B. 264 Mendl, Fratelli 265 Mendl, G. 264 Mendl, L. 265 mercantilist 2, 121 Mesmer, Thomas 59 Metohija 56 Metropolitanate of Karlovci/ Karlowitz 56, 58 Metropolitan Church of the Holy Transfiguration, Sibiu 179

323 Metsovitis 97 Metsovo 86 Michael the Brave, prince (Wallachia) 225 n. 39, 228–231, 240 micro-region 1, 83, 95 Mihai ‘the Greek’ of Târgşor 239 Mihăileni 278, 288 n. 61 Mihnea the Turk, prince (Wallachia) 225 n. 39 Mikhneva, Roumiana 70 Milanovici 267 Milas 259 Mileševa monastery 58 Miletić, Jovo 61 Militärgrenzgebiet 10; see also Austrian Military Borders Region, military confine border military confine border 3; see also Austrian Military Borders Region, Militärgrenzgebiet Miletich, Lyubomir 200 Milli, Blasius 203 Minovici 267 Mircea Ciobanul, prince (Wallachia) 224 Mirkovic, Michael 199 Miskolc 10, 30, 33–35, 38–39, 41–44 Mitropoulos 259 Mittenzwei, Ingrid 123–125 Mohács 26, 27 n. 8 Moineşti 278 Moisiodax, Iosipos 94 Moldavia 2, 5, 14, 27, 58, 68, 71, 81–82, 86, 89, 95, 215–216, 221, 223, 225–233, 238–239, 241–242, 253–254, 261, 264, 268, 275– 278, 281–282, 285 n. 48, 288–291, 294 Moldavian, Moldavians 68, 71, 82, 95, 215– 217, 219 n. 20, 222–223, 224 n. 33, 225 n. 39, 228 n. 49, 233, 239, 240, 253, 257, 265, 268, 277, 284, 288–290, 293–295 Moldova 88, 139 n. 25; see also Bessarabia Monastiri 34; see also Bitola, Vitolia Morait, Dimitri 88 Moraitis 97 Moravia 122 Morea 139 n. 25; see also Pelloponese Morphis, Panagiotis 45 n. 97 Moschopolis 34–35, 57, 117; see also Voskopolje Moscu, Ştefan 282 n. 32

324 Moscow 66–67, 70–72, 74–75, 78, 80–81, 83, 87, 95, 99–100, 232 n. 60 Moskhopolites, Daniel 65 n. 2 Moskov-Selim 85 Moson 34 multi-confessional 10, 221 multiple collective belongings 222–223, 230–231, 237–238, 242 Muntenia 280, 287 Mureș River 193 Muscel 280, 287 Muscovy 232 Mustakov 287 Nádorfehervár 27 n. 8; see also Belgrade, Beograd Nagy St. Miklos 207; see also Nagyszentmiklós Nagyszeben 27 n. 8; see also Hermannstadt, Sibiu Nagyszentmiklós 39 n. 69; see also Nagy St. Miklos Nakhichevan 68 Nakos Christophoros/Nako, Christoph von 39 n. 69, 43, 152 Nako family 122 Naoum, Panagiotis 25 Naousa 34 Napoleonic Wars 120–121, 124, 139–140, 147, 178 n. 31 Natalia Alexeevna 101 nationalism 45, 220, 275–276, 290–296 Neagoe Basarab, prince (Wallachia) 234 Neamţ 278 Neculce, Enache 233 n. 66 Neculce, Ion 233 Negreşti 278 Negroponte(s) 258–259 network/networks 5, 7–10, 13–15, 25–26, 30, 32, 35, 54–55, 57, 59–60, 62, 70–71, 76, 83, 92, 98, 100–101, 114, 116, 122, 127, 174–176, 181, 191, 226–228, 233, 292 networks commercial, entrepreneurial, trade 5, 7–9, 13, 26, 29–30, 32, 60, 70–71, 114, 127, 174–176, 226 Neu Bessenova 202; see also Uj Bessenova Neusatz 30; see also Novi Sad, Újvidék New and Slaviano-Serbia 68

Index New Barcelona 194 New California 276 New Sliven 284 Nezhin 66–67, 69–72, 76, 80–101 Nezhin Brotherhood, Nezhin Greek Magistracy 69, 80–93, 101 Nezhin Street, Odessa 97 Nicholas, Monastery of St., Moscow 71, 77–78, 100 Nicholas’ Street, Moscow 71–72 Nicodim 216 n. 5 Nicolopoulo 258 Nikiphorov, Dmitri 80 Nikolaev 67 Nikolaev, Spiridon 74, 75 n. 29 Nikolides, Ioannis 119 Nikolits family 122 Nikopol 194–195, 198, 203, 208, 211 Niš, Nissa 36 Nitochko, I. 94 Nitra 34 North Western Europe 25 Northern Europe 33 Nova Kikinda 203 Novi Sad 30, 34; see also Neusatz, Újvidék Nyagulov, Blagovest 201 Oberlaa, church of St. Aegyd 181 Obrenović, Mihailo 61 Obrenović, Miloš/Obrenovici, Miloş 61, 267 Odessa 67–68, 71, 94–99, 101 Olt 280, 287 Oltenia 278, 280, 287 Olzak, Susan 93 Opovo 56 Oradea 30; see also Várad Oresh 199 Orient 116, 118 n. 18, 123, 137, 157 Orsova 11, 35 Orthodox 3–4, 9–10, 13–14, 26, 28, 30–31, 34, 36, 40–42, 55–59, 66, 76–78, 86, 92, 93–94, 101, 120, 135–137, 141–142, 144 n. 57, 148, 154, 157, 172, 174, 179, 181–182, 209, 215, 217, 219–222, 225–226, 228, 259, 264, 268–269, 295; see also Orthodox Christians

Index Orthodox Balkan/Ottoman merchants 4, 12, 26–27, 30, 32–33, 36, 72, 114, 118, 148, 174–175, 226 Orthodox Christians 5, 10, 26, 40 n. 76, 54–60, 62, 68, 76, 84, 117, 137, 141–145, 147, 152, 171–172, 175–176, 179, 181, 186, 196, 199, 208, 215, 217–219, 226–227, 231, 237, 276, 279, 287, 291–292; see also Orthodox Orthodox Commonwealth 94 Ottoman Sephardic Jewish merchants in Vienna 174–175; see also Sephardi(c) Jess Paço Do, David 118, 137–138, 154 Padua University of 241 Pagans (i.e. Muslims) 78 Page Moch, Leslie 5, 66 painter, painters 1, 56–57, 59–61, 183, 216 n. 6 Paisius the Greek 58 Pakra monastery 58 Palestine 265 Pamperis, Anastasios 33 Pana 258 Panadi 12, 171, 175, 178, 182–186 Panadi, Constantine 173, 175–186 Panadi, Eustatius 178 Panagiotis, Father 88 Panagiotis, Greek of Jassy 99 Panagoulopoulos, Spyridon 181 Papazian, Leon 268 Paradisopoulos, S. 95 Paraskevopoulou, Evanghelia 260 Paris 3, 6, 76; see also Treaty of Paris pashalik 5 Passarowitz 2, 136; see also Požarevac, Treaty of Passarowitz patronage 70, 79, 83, 101, 176 n. 21 Paul, Grand Duke (Russia) 101 Paulicians 194, 196, 198, 204, 207–208, 211 Pazvantoğlu, pasha of Vidin 178 Peć 56 Peć, Patriarchate of 55–56, 222 Pedemonte brothers 260 Pelloponese 72; see also Morea Persianin, Ivan 88; see also Zakharev, Ivan Pest 11, 30, 32–35, 39–44, 45 n. 97, 125, 201; see also Buda, Budapest Peter I, emperor (Russia) 71, 75–78

325 Petersburg, St. 66, 74, 75, 86, 89 n. 74, 101 Petrović, Arsenije 60 Petrovits, Konstantinos Athanasiou 45 n. 97 Peyachevich, Julian 197 Phanariot 233, 277, 282, 288–290 Philiki Hetereia (Society of Friends) 101 Pineles, Samuel 265 Poland 27, 80, 227, 230 n. 54, 232–233; see also Polish Commonwealth, PolishLithuanian Commonwealth, Polish territories Polanyi, Karl 80 Pole, Polish 73, 79, 239, 277, 294 Polish Commonwealth, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 215, 277; see also Poland, Polish territories Polish territories 95; see also Poland, Polish Commonwealth, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Polizu, Dimitrie 291 Poltava 66 Pondikas 32, 39 Pop, Hatzikonstantinos/Konstantinos 33, 179 Pop-Marţian, Dionisie 293 Popp, Zenobius Constantine von Böhmstetten 179–180; see also Pop, Zenobius Pop, Zenobius 126; see also Popp, Zenobius Constantine von Böhmstetten Popović, Jovan 60 Popovits, Michail 45 n. 97 population 4–5, 8, 13–15, 25 n. 2, 26, 32, 35, 40, 45, 54–57, 59, 66, 69, 84–85, 95–96, 115–116, 136, 141, 143, 149, 175–176, 181, 196, 198, 202, 204, 208–209, 215, 222, 240, 254, 256, 258, 263, 267–268, 276–278, 281, 285–286, 288, 294 port-city 66–68, 71, 93, 97, 253, 257 Porte, Ottoman 5, 26–27, 29, 36, 74, 135, 215 n. 3, 226 n. 44, 227–228, 230–234, 237–238, 253, 262, 268, 279 Posolski Prikaz 71–72, 79, 83; see also Chancellery of Foreign Affairs Potemkin, Grigory 91 Požarevac 56, 136; see also Passarowitz, Treaty of Passarowitz Pozsony 33; see also Bratislava, Preßburg

326 Prahova 280–281, 284, 287 Preßburg 33; see also Bratislava, Pozsony Prijepolje 58 privileges 9, 29, 40, 55, 69, 83–84, 92–94, 114, 120–121, 144, 146, 155–156, 175, 202, 205–206, 209, 211, 253, 268, 276, 281–284, 290–291, 295 Protestants 10, 13, 123–124, 126, 152, 155, 261 Prussia 6 Prussian 261 Pushkin, Aleksander 79 Raab 125 Rača monastery 58 Radu Iliaş, prince (Wallachia) 235 Radu Leon, prince (Wallachia) 239 Radu Mihnea, prince (Moldavia and Wallachia) 238 Radu Şerban, prince (Wallachia) 238 Ragusan 4–5, 225 n. 39 Raguzinsky, Savva 71, 76, 79, 101 Rahova (Oryahovo) 282 n. 31 Rákóczi, György I, prince (Transylvania) 28 Rakovica monastery 58 Ralli 127 n. 56, 258 Râmnic Sărat 280 Raptis, Kostas 126 Ravanica monastery 57 raw materials 5, 13, 114, 123; see also cotton, wool re'aiya 5 Regensburg 1 relics 57–58 repopulation 3–4, 278–285 Richter, Oswald 183 Ringstraße, Vienna 175 Roman, Romaic 1, 65, 83, 91, 93, 101, 219, 222, 231 n. 56, 240 Romanaţi 280, 287 Romania, Romanian Principalities 6, 7, 14, 144 n. 58, 193, 217, 253, 256–260, 262, 264–265, 269–269, 276, 278 n. 16, 292, 295 Romanian, Romanians 6, 8, 42, 67, 144–145, 177, 179, 198–200, 203, 216–217, 218 n. 17, 221, 223, 236, 241 n. 101, 253, 255–257, 260–262, 265–269, 275–277, 282–283, 285–286, 289–296

Index Rothschild, Salomon 125 Rozas 33 Rozas, Georgios 33 Rozas, Naum 33 Rubini, Panait 285 Rumeli 222, 233, 238 Rumiantsev, Petr 86 Ruset Antonie, prince (Moldavia) 239 Ruset, Iordachi 239 Ruset, Manolachi 239 Russian, Russians 58, 59, 66, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73–76, 80, 83, 85, 86, 88–89, 92, 94–97, 101, 232, 233, 253, 255, 260–262, 266– 267, 276–277, 279, 281, 285–286, 289 n. 65, 291, 294; see also Eastern Slavs Russia, Russian Empire 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 10, 14, 57, 58, 65–70, 72, 73, 76, 78, 79 n. 44, 83, 85, 86, 88, 93–97, 99 n. 93, 101, 227, 257, 265 Russo-Ottoman War 1828–1829 275 n. 4, 281; see also Treaty of Adrianople Ruthenia 215 Saac 280, 287 Šafárik, Pavel 200 Sakellarios, Dimitrios 45 n. 97 Sakellarios, Hristoforos 284 n. 44 Salomon, Elias 175 Sarajevo 36, 60–61, 197; see also Vrhbosna Sardinia, Kingdom of 6, 261 Sardinian 261, 283 n. 35 Sava 60 Saxon, Saxons 27, 196, 240 Saxony 5, 12 Schein, M.H. 263 Schulz, Oliver 99 Schwartz, Moritz 263 Schwedenplatz, Vienna 185 Schwicker, Johann Heinrich 200–201 Seben 30 Sechiari 258 Seirinidou, Vaso 81, 135 n. 1, 137 n. 15, 173 Selimanova, Murza 92 Selitsa 34 Semenov, Zephyr (Zafir) 87 Semlin 10, 30, 35, 60; see also Zemun Semsis, Konstantinos 33 Senate (St. Petersburg) 86, 90

Index Sened (1784) 29, 36 Sentklarai 199 Sephardi(c) Jews 10, 13–14, 137 n. 15, 174–175, 262–262, 278, 289; see also Ottoman Sephardic Jewish merchants in Vienna Serb/Serbs, Serbian/Serbians 3–4, 8, 10, 15, 26, 40–42, 54–61, 99, 136, 137 n. 14, 143, 144 n. 60, 155 n. 126, 177, 194 n. 4, 198–199, 208 Serbia 5, 7, 57–61, 139 n. 25, 193, 216 Serbian Orthodox Church 40, 55–56, 155 n. 126 Serbian Revolution 4 Serres 36, 119 Servia 34–35 Severin 201 Siatista 34–35 Siberia 194 Sibiu 27–28, 33, 35, 116, 179–180, 186; see also Hermannstadt, Nagyszeben Sideris 32 Silberstein, M. 265 Silistra 282 n. 31 Simić, Pavle 60 Simonov, Teodor 57 Simonović, Simon 59 Simov 267 Sinas 39, 117, 119, 122–126, 128 Sinas, Georgios/ Sina, Georg 123–126 Sinas, Simon/ Sina, Simon 123–126 Sireth River 256 Sisinios, Father 77 Sitva Torok 2; see also Zsitvatorok Slam Râmnic 287 Slav, Slavs 137, 144 n. 60, 283, 285 n. 52, 286 slave, slaves 66, 71–80, 99–100, 202, 218 Slavonia 57–58, 202 Sliven 266, 281 Slovakia 27 Smyrna 87, 89 social capital 70, 93 society (obshchestvo) 86, 93 Society against Antisemitism (Verein zur Abwehr gegen Antisemitismus [Abwehrverein], Vienna 176 Society for the Accommodation and Employment of Adult Blind Persons, Vienna 177

327 Sofia 36, 195 Solinatus, Peter 197 Sophronius of Vratsa 279 n. 20 Sopron 30 soslovie (estate) 95 space 6, 8, 12–14, 69, 93, 120, 123, 126, 136 n. 7, 147 n. 79, 154–155, 216, 219, 223, 225 Srem 58 Sremska Ravanica monastery 57 Sremski Karlovci 56, 136; see also Karlowitz Sretenskaia Church (of the Purification), Odessa 95 Stametz 125 Stassinopoulou, Maria 141 n. 39, 155 n. 120 state-building 276, 292 Stathatos 259 Stavrianos, son of the priest Cosmas 78 Stavrinos treasurer 231 n. 56, 240–241 Stefan, Dečanski 59 Ştefan ‘Locust’, prince (Moldavia) 227 n. 45 Stefanov, Anton 198 Ştefan Petriceicu, prince (Moldavia) 232, 239 Stemashen, Ivan 87 stigmatization 218–219, 224 Stillhaltekommissar, Vienna 185 Stoianovich, Traian 4 Stolni Beograd 57; see also Székesfehérvár Strauss 1 Studenica monastery 59 Sturdza 239 Sturdza, Mihai(l) 264, 288–289 Styria 122, 139 n. 25 subjecthood 44, 118 n. 18, 122, 138, 141, 145, 152–153, 175, 242; see also citizenship Subotica 203, 208; see also Maria-Theresiopel, Szabadka Suceava 278 Suleyman the Magnificent 2, 5 surety 65, 70–71, 79, 86 n. 67, 89, 92–93, 100 Svinița 200 Svishtov 198; see also Treaty of Svistov Swede, Swedes 73–74, 75 n. 29, 78 Swiss 120, 261, 293 Szabadka 203; see also Maria-Theresiopel, Subotica Szeged, Szegedin 203, 30

328 Székesfehérvár 44, 57; see also Stolni Beograd Szentendre 10, 44, 45 n. 97, 56–58 Szentes 30, 35 Taganrog 67–68, 91 Tardini, Fani 261 Târgşor 239 târguri (market towns) 277–278, 288 Tarnovo 195 Tassoglu, Sofocles 260 Tatar 69, 73, 92, 94 Tattendorf 126 n. 51, 176 Telbizov, Carol 195 n. 9, 200–201, 204 Telbizov, Maria 200–201 Teleorman 280, 283–284, 287 Temesvár 27 n. 8, 30, 193; see also Temeswar, Timișoara Temeswar 193, 195, 208; see also Temesvár, Timișoara territory 2, 29, 35–36, 40, 55–56, 58–59, 121, 139, 140 n. 34, 145, 199, 268 Tetzis 259 textile 13–14, 123 textile industry 5, 136, 140 Theiß River 33; see also Tisza River Theophilatos, Theophilatou brothers 259 Theresienfeld 207; see also Vinga Theresienstadt 207–208; see also Vinga Theresin 208 Theresiopolis 207, 210; see also Vinga Thessaloniki 36, 91 Thessaly 114, 116–117, 136–137, 139, 145, 216 Thouvenel, Edouard 275 Thrace 82, 91, 139 n. 25, 278–279, 281 Tilly, Charles 25, 66 timariot system 5 Timișoara 3, 27 n. 8, 30, 193; see also Temesvár, Temeswar Tirkas, Demetrios 119 Tirnovo 86 Tischler, Ludwig 157 Tisza River 2, 33, 193, 203, 208; see also Theiß River Todescos 13 n. 50 Todesco, Sophie von 176 Tokaj 30, 33–35, 39, 42

Index tolerance 9, 14, 40, 135, 275–276, 287–296; see also tolerance edict of 1781 tolerance edict of 1781 40, 152, 154; see also tolerance Tolstoy, Petr 74, 76 Tomssa, Sylvester 183 Torontál 39 n. 69 Tournas 32 Tranchevitsa 199 Transylvania 2, 5, 10, 14, 26–29, 39, 117, 121–122, 196, 202–204, 207–208, 211, 215, 224, 226, 229–231, 234 Transylvanian/Transylvanians 116, 180, 205 n. 60, 230, 293 treaties Treaty of Adrianople (1829) 3–4, 6, 10, 253–254, 275, 281–282, 288 Treaty of Belgrade (1739) 2, 30 Treaty of Jassy (1792) 2 Treaty of Karlowitz (1699) 2, 5, 29, 114, 117, 136 Treaty of Kucuk Kainardzha 3, 66, 70 Treaty of Passarowitz (1718) 2, 4–5, 30, 37, 114, 117, 120–121, 136, 193 Treaty of Paris (1856) 3, 6 Treaty of Sitva Torok (1606) 2 Treaty of Svistov (1791) 2 Trieste 15, 41, 44, 121, 125, 127 n. 55, 143 n. 50 Trifeşti 278 Tsikos 43 Tsvetkov, Ivan 83 Turk/Turks 84–86, 88, 91–92, 95–96, 98–99, 136–138, 149, 154, 193, 227 n. 45, 233, 255, 284 Turk, Vasilii 92 Turnu/Turnu-Măgurele 275 n. 4, 281, 283–284 Turnu Severin 283; see also Iron Gates Uj Bessenova 202 Újvidék 30; see also Neusatz, Novi Sad Ukraine 4, 7, 10, 80, 202 Ukrainian 70, 72–73, 84, 94; see also Eastern Slavs Ung 34 United Kingdom 295 United States 265 Untere Bäckerstraße, Vienna 152

329

Index urban history 147 n. 79, 174 urbanization 7, 276 n. 7, 282–287, 289, 293 Vác 44 Vâlcea 280, 287 Vâlkov 267; see also Ceardakliev, Vasili Várad 30; see also Oradea Varna 195, 282 Vas 34 Vasile Lupu, prince (Moldavia) 233, 238–239, 241; see also Lupu, Coci grand palatine Vasiliev, Andreas 76 Vaslui 278 Vevelli, Batişte, grand cupbearer 238 Veles, Velesa 34 Velika Remeta monastery 58 Venetian 4, 76, 97, 224 Venetsianov, Aleksei Gavrilovich 85 Venetsianov, Mikhail 85 Veniamin, Deacon 77 Venice 72, 82 Venieris Institute 260 Veroni, Aikaterini 260 Vetero Bessenyö 203, 206; see also Beshenov Viazemsky, Aleksandr 90 Vidin 1, 36, 178, 195–196, 200, 202, 282 n. 31 Vidin Kingdom 195–196, 202 Vienna 1–2, 6, 10, 13–15, 26–27, 33, 36–37, 41, 44, 59, 61, 81, 111, 113–128, 135–141, 143–149, 152, 153 n. 101, 154–157, 171–175, 176 n. 21, 178–183, 185–186, 195, 198, 203, 205–207, 293 Viennese 1, 4, 37, 116, 121, 122 n. 32, 125, 127–128, 135, 137 n. 15, 140, 142, 145–146, 155, 157 n. 130, 174, 176–177 Vinča monastery 58 Vinga 198–199, 205, 207–211; see also Theresienfeld, Theresienstadt, Theresiopolis Violatos 259 Vitolia 34; see also Bitola, Monastiri Vlach/Vlachs 8, 30, 33–34, 40–43, 45 n. 97, 59, 83–85, 87, 92, 99, 118 n. 18, 137, 138 n. 20, 141, 144–145, 148 n. 87, 152, 198–199, 208–209; see also Aromanians, Wallachians Vladimirescu, Tudor 178 Vlaşca 280, 283, 287

Voivodina,Vojvodina 3, 59, 194 n. 5 Volos, Maria 260 Voronezh 66 Voskopolje 34, 57; see also Moschopolis Voulgaris, Eugenios 66, 94, 101 Vouro 258 Vrancea 278 Vratsa 279 n. 20 Vrdnik monastery 57–58 Vrhbosna 197; see also Sarajevo Vyborg 74–75 Wallachia 2, 5, 14, 27, 68, 75, 81–82, 91, 95, 181, 199, 203, 208, 215–242, 253–255, 258, 266–268, 275–288, 290–294 Wallachian, Wallachians 3, 65 n. 2, 85, 218, 220; see also Aromanians Wallachian (Wallach), Wallachians 3, 68, 71, 82–83, 84 n. 59, 85–87, 92, 95, 215–242, 275–288, 290–294 Wallerstein, Immanuel 70, 220; see also dependency theory Warsaw 33 Wertheimstein, Josephine von (née Gompertz) 176 Western Europe 6–7, 25–26, 27 n. 10, 32, 254–255, 259, 275–276, 280, 287 Western Macedonia 5, 36, 44–45, 116, 216 wheat 94; see also grain witness (‘ανάδoχoς’ and ‘κoυμπάρoς’) 86–89, 92, 98, 101, 224 wool 5, 114, 136–137; see also raw materials Wörle, Eugen 185 n. 49 Xenos 258 Xenos, Stephanos 259 yarn 5, 121, 124, 126 n. 50, 137 Yasinsky, Varlaam 83 n. 55 Yeames, James 95 Yeni Dunai 94 Yenikale 68 Zakharev, Ivan 88; see also Persianin, Ivan Zápolya, John Sigismund, prince 224 Zappas, Evanghelos 287 Zapsheva, Xenia 87 n. 70

330 Zaviras, Georgios 42 n. 86 Zemun 2, 10, 30, 35–36, 41, 45 n. 97, 60; see also Semlin Zenta 203 Zhelezna 196 Zillingdorf, asylum for children 176 Zirkusgasse, Vienna 175

Index Zomarides, Eugen 146 n. 72, 173–174 Zotov, Zahar Konstantinovich 91, 101 Zsitvatorok 2; see also Sitva Torok, Treaty of Sitva Torok Zwickelsdorf, Magdalena (wife of Constantine Panadi) 176 n. 25, 181, 183