Latent Crusaders: Narrative Strategies of Survival in Early Modern Danubian Principalities, 1550-1750

The essay concentrates on a master narrative strategy presiding over the early emergence of modernity in the area in which contemporary Romania is situated. This narrative strategy richly illustrates the neoByzantine survival strategies of the Greek elites who ruled the Danubian Principalities (Moldova and Valahia) during the earlier stages of Romanian modernization (18th century). Early modem Romanian political and intellectual elites borrowed from the post-Byzantine political theology a set of Gnostic-inflected narrative strategies to explain their subordination to alien powers (Turkish, Ottoman, Russian, Austrian, or Hungarian). These strategies operated a reversal of "real" and "unreal" or of "essential" and "fleeting" attributes of social-historical situations. The aim of these strategies was to construct the local elites as the agents of a political ideology of national redemption that will ultimately put them above their temporary masters. The paper focuses mainly on the so-called Phanariot period (17th to 18th Centuries). At the middle of the 16th century the Ottoman Empire reached its zenith spanning three continents under the rule of its most famous Sultan, Suleiman the Magnificent (15201566) (lnalcik, 2001 ). Only a few years before (1512) and after several decades of resistance and negotiations, the Romanian Principality of Moldova, a buffer state between the Ottomans, Poland, and Hungary finally accepted the Sultan as its sovereign lord (Georgescu, 1991). The process of submission was neither simple nor swift. ~tefan the Great was the first Moldovan ruler to.pay tribute to the Turks in 1483, while his son Bogdan III officially and permanently submitted to the Sultan in 1512 (Georgescu, 1991). This was not, however, the end ofMoldova's resistance to Turkish rules. Several wars of attrition under various princes stretched Moldova's resistance to Ottoman dominance for 1 The order in which the authors are listed does not reflect importance of contribution. Authors have contributed to this manuscript equally. Caius Dobrescu's contribution to the the present article was suported by the Sectorial Operational Programme Human Resources Development (SOP HRD), financed from the European Social Fund and by the Romanian Government under the contract number SOP HRD/89/ 1.5/S/59758. The authors would like to thank Marius Turda, Costica Briidatan, Michael Shafir, Vesna Goldsworthy, and Victor Roudometof, and the three anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback and advice for improving this manuscript. 32 Journal of Global Initiatives a few more decades. One of the last episodes of active opposition took place under Prince Petru Rare~ who occupied Moldova 's throne twice, between 1527-1538 and 1541-1546 (Simanschi, 1978). Although officially an Ottoman vassal, Rare~ opposed Ottoman expansionism by all means possible, from diplomacy to warfare. After losing a major battle in 1538 and three years of negotiations as a vagrant prince he bought his crown back from the Turks and became a much more, although not always, reliable ally of the Ottomans (Simanschi, 1978). The contradictory spirit of Petru Rarefs reigns is captured by the frescoes on the outer walls of several Moldavian monasteries (Probata, Moldovita, Humor) that the Moldavian Prince commissioned (Dragut, 1984; Dumitrescu, 2001 ; Mandru, 1995). The murals, which could be seen even by the occasional pilgrim, display a significant anachronism. They depict in great and vivid detail a rather obscure episode of Byzantine history. In 626 the Persians sieged both by land and by sea the Byzantine capital , Constantinople (Howard-Johnston, 2006). The attackers were, however, repulsed by Emperor Heraklius I (610-641) in a gigantic amphibious battle. At the time, the episode was interpreted as an example of divine intervention in human affairs . According to legend, Constantinople was saved by the intercession of the Virgin Mary, who showed her powers in the form of a storm that sunk the enemy fleet (Gambero, 1999). The Moldovan frescoes presented the protagonists in a different light. The attackers appear dressed in the garb and use weapons of a different battle, which took place under the same walls, but over 800 years later and with a different outcome. The besiegers wear turbans and fire cannons (Mandru, 1995). These are the Ottomans who ultimately took Constantinople, putting an end to the Eastern Orthodox Christian Empire of Byzantium in 1453 (Runciman, 1990), just a few decades before the frescos were finished. The murals dramatically reinterpret the entire history of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, turning a recent defeat into a long past victory. Furthermore, other contemporary Moldovan church frescoes (e.g., Varone!) show the recent conquerors of Constantinople at the head of a line of infidels who at Doomsday will be converted to Christianity by Moses himself (Musicescu & Ulea, 1969; Ulea, 1963). The theological message of the Moldavian frescoes and their crusading mood seems totally misplaced given the political and military reality of the time. Are these messages, as some scholars suggest (Ulea, 1963), of belligerence and active resistance? Are they signs of a resurgent crusading spirit in Moldova? While the answer could be "yes," an important caveat is necessary. A 16th century Russian theologian and traveler who lived for a while at Petru Rarefs court, Ivan Peresvetov, assigns to the Moldavian prince the belief that the fall of Constantinople was not a sign of defeat, but one of salvation (Dumitrescu, 2001 ). The Russian traveler relates in a letter dedicated to Ivan the Terrible, the Russian Tsar, that Rare~ believed that God himself delivered Constantinople to the Turks to teach Christians a lesson of humility (Cazacu, 1983). The Ottoman Sultan was in his view an instrument of Christian justice and redemption: This is what Petru Rare~ has to say about the Turkish Emperor, Mohammed: [After] the Greek [emperors and noblemen] scoffed at the Holy Cross, betrayed their people and robbed them by unjust judgments making themselves rich with treasures wrung from Christian tears and blood[ ... ] the infidel Sultan Mohamed knew God's might [and restored justice], conquering Constantinople and restoring God-