The Phanariote Rule of the Romanian Principalities

The 18th Century is known in Romania as the “Phanariote Century. The name comes from Phanar, one of Constantinoples districts, the home of prominent Greek families who occupied important positions in the Ottoman Empire

Steliu Lambru, 16.07.2018, 12:00

Members of these families were to become rulers of the Romanian Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. Romanticism has presented the Phanariote century as fraught with corruption and decadence, but historians nowadays believe the period was a cultural one mainly characterized by searches and quests.

The Phanariotes were members of rich families belonging to the Greek aristocracy in Istanbul. The Phanariotes used to control the Ecumenical Patriarchate also serving mainly as translators in the higher Ottoman administration. From a cultural point of view the Phanariote rule was the period during which the Oriental lifestyle and its mores entered the regions inhabited by the Romanians concurrently with the consolidation of the Orthodox Christianity. The Phanariote epoch starts in mid-17th century and some historians have described it as an Oriental correspondent of the Baroque.

The Phanariotes officially appeared in Romanias history in 1711 after Moldavias ruler, prince Dimitrie Cantemir had taken refuge in Russia. Another Romanian principality, Wallachia got its Phanariote ruler five years later, in 1716. The Phanariotes ruled the two Romanian principalities for more than 100 years.

Romanticism has blamed the absence of political reforms in the Romanian society and the lack of economic progress on the Phanariote rule. However, the new national elites were recruited from among the Phanariotes. These elites would soon play a key role in the modernization and emancipation of the Romanian society. Historian Georgeta Penelea-Filiti has more on the peoples perceptions of the Phanariote legacy, which officially disappeared after Tudor Vladimirescus Revolution of 1821.

Georgeta Penelea-Filiti: “Unpublished surveys on Romanias history have revealed peoples great interest in two epochs. One is the ancient time, when these territories were part of the Roman Empire and inhabited by two peoples, the Dacians and the Romans. Next in importance is the Phanariote period. The ancient history is seen as a glorious one, whereas the time when the Romanian Principalities were under the Phanariote rule has been sharply criticised. The evils of the Romanian society are seemingly rooted in the Phanariote period. Of course its human nature to blame it on the other guy. People often need a scapegoat, someone to hold responsible for what is happening and find excuses for what they actually do. But this negative image isnt something new, it appeared back in the time of the Romantic historiography promoted by Balcescu and Kogalniceanu and there were even Greek historians who also laid the blame on the Phanariotes. And thats how we got a completely negative picture. In late 19th Century though, the outstanding historian Nicolae Iorga made an attempt to explain how things actually were.

The capital cities of the two principalities, Bucharest and Iasi respectively, were two oriental capitals typical of that time. The few iconographic sources dating back to the 18th Century describe them as boasting mostly small-size houses and a number of churches, stretching on the banks of rivers of little importance. In the following century the two capitals acquired more of an urban identity, while Bucharests importance as a city started to grow. Wallachias capital is representative of that time as it was the biggest city in the area and an economic centre of the region. After 1800, Bucharest was the place where the political interests of European powers such as France and England met. The early 19-Century Bucharest was a mixture of ethnicities, social categories, reforms, institutions in the making and also an increasingly important economic centre. The elites were trying to agree on a form of state and to win the support of the Great Powers. The city of Iasi, Moldavias capital, was, to a large extent, similar to Bucharest.

The Romanian historiography, in the 200 years that we refer to, generally had negative interpretations of the Phanariote rulers and their history. In the last few years, however, some authors have revised this attitude and have looked at that period more objectively.

Georgeta Penelea Filiti believes its time we reconsidered the Romanian 18th Century history: “Tudor Dinu does not plan to either praise or criticize the Phanariote rulers, but simply present all aspects of Bucharests history. When you analyze the 18-Century Phanariote period of Bucharest, you acknowledge the presence, influence, and contribution of those Greeks. Why is that? Because there was a number of dynamic elements in the Romanian space, such as the Greeks, the Jews and the Armenians. Of them, Romanians were closest to the Greeks. This strong connection between Romanians and Greeks was consolidated during that time. Merchants, trade, Bucharests market were some of the meeting points of some unexpected currents of thought. Above all these, there were the Phanariote rulers. This is a balanced and fair picture of that period, which is new for a lot of people.

Romania got separated from Phanar almost two centuries ago. Its heritage is still under scrutiny and the various opinions on it are nothing but a sign of maturity and detachment.