Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Analele Univesităţii Bucureşti - Istorie, 1993-1994 (Anul 42-43)
Analele Univesităţii Bucureşti - Istorie, 1993-1994 (Anul 42-43)
M Y TH ISTÖ R Y IN ELEM EN TA R Y SC H O O L . M IC H A E L
T H E BRAVE IN ROM ANIAN TEX TB O O K S (1830-1918)
MIRKLA-LUMINI'J'A MURCESCU
One of the main characteristics of 19th century Europe was the emergence
of nation-states and of nationalisms. This meant both the restructuring o f social
identities and the increasing political involvement o f common people. These
two aspects cannot be separated, 'flic prevalence gained by ethno-linguistic
(national) solidarities over religious and territorial (local or regional) ones implied
the rearrangement of the mental framework which shaped social idenrities1.
New symbols and myths were created, while old ones became obsolete or
got new meanings, more national than during the past. This transformation
occurcd first at the elite level, but soon intellectuals and/or politicians realised
how important it was to enforce the new „imagined community" also at mass
level. In order to achieve this goal they used a variety of means, among which
elementary school, newpapers, compulsory military service and official
ceremonies were some of the most efficient.
Romanian nationalism was no exception to these trends. Intellectuals became
soon aware that it was their mission to guide the processus of „restructuring
society, assimilating new pieces of knowledge on the surrounding world and
society, engaging in an enduring struggle for international recognition"12. One
of these means used to strengthen national feelings was the appeal to national
history, to outstanding characters who were fit to became models for
contemporaries. So, one o f the figures who became central to the new Romanian
historical conscience was the Wallachian prince Michael the Brave.
Michael the Brave has been prince o f W allachia from 1593 to 1601. In
1594 he joined Christian forces lighting the Ottoman Turks. He won several
victories, and resisted succcsfully even to a campaign conducted by the Ottoman
grand-vezir Sinan-Paşa in 1595. In 1599 he defeated the Transylvanian prince
Andrei Báthory who was favourable to the Turks, and occupied Transylvania.
One year later he marched into M oldavia and unified for a short time all three
Romanian Principalities under his rule. Michael the Brave’s success threatened
to ruin the hegcmonistic plans of all neighboring great powers, who decided
to react. Defeated in Transylvania by the Austrians and in Moldavia and Wallachia
by the Poles. Michael lost by the end of 1600 all the three Romanian Principalities.
He found refuge at the Habsburg court in Prague, where he pleaded for his
cause and managed to get renewed support from the emperor Rudolf II. Together
with the em peror’s army he won in August 1601 a new victory in Transylvania,
but when trying to get again personal control o f the principality, he was killed,
two weeks later, at imperial general Basta’s order3.
Yet, in contrast with the Moldavian Stephen the Great, whose figure was
central to the medieval chronicles and penetrated even the popular tradition,
Michael the Brave was quite peripheral in the Romanian historical conscience
of the 17th and 18th centuries. Celebrated by the Balkan folklore, he was
quite absent in the Romanian popular poetry45. His figure didn’t fare better
in the historical writings. In Moldavia he was as good as forgotten whereas
in the Wallachian chronicles he was just a name among others; only
Transylvania seems to have retained a more vivid memory of his reign, the
Romanians remembering him as a protector o f the Orthodox Church, and
the representatives of the privileged estates as a threat to the established
social order3.
After two centuries of almost total oblivion, the Romanian intellectuals
„rediscovered” the figure of Michael the Brave6. This process was gradual.
We can distinguish a first specifically Transylvanian moment, represented by
3The two classic biographies are those of: Nicolae Iorga, Istoria lui Mihai Viteazul, vol. I—II,
Bucureşti, 1935; P. P. Panaitescu, Mihai Viteazul, Bucureşti, 1936; see also Al. Randi, Pro
Republica Christiana. Die Walachei im «lángén» Türkenkrieg dér katholischen Universalmüchte
(1593-1606), München, 1964, and the studies collected in Mihai Viteazul, Bucureşti, 1975.
4Nicolae Iorga, Soarta faimei lui Mihai Viteazul, în op. cit., II, p. 183-185.
5Sec: Nicolae Edroiu, Mihai Viteazul în istoriografia română din Transilvania (părui la 1918)
în „File de Istorie", 1976, nr. 4, p. 444-451 ; idem, Mihai Viteazul în lumina cronicilor din veacurile
XVII-XVIII, „Revista de Istoric1, 30, 1977, nr. 7, p. 1257-1274.
6 For more details sec also: Dan Berindei, Mihai Viteazul în viziunea generaţiei făuritorilor
României moderne, în Mihai Viteazul, Bucureşti, 1975, p. 37-50; Alexandru Zub, A scrie ţi a face
istoria, Iaşi, 1981; Vasile Cristian, Contribuţia istoriografiei la pregătirea ideologică a revoluţiei
române de la 1848, Bucureşti, 1985; Andrei Pippidi, Mihai Viteazul în arta epocii sale.
Cluj-Napoca, 1987; Ion Aurel Pop, Michael the Brave and llis Image in Contemporary Romanian
Historiography, „RomanianCivilisation", vol. 1,1992,nr.2 ,p .42-48;Mircla-LuminiţaMurgescu,
Figura lui Mihai Viteazul în viziunea elitelor ţi în literatura didactică ( 183Û-J860), „Revista
istorică" (serie nouă), 4, 1993, nr. 5-6.
3 MICHAEL THE BRAVE IN ROMANIAN TEXTBOOKS 55
Ghcorghe Şincai7, then about 1830 the moment represented by Damaschin Bojincă
and the magazine „Biblioteca Românească" (Romanian Library), when the figure
of Michael the Brave was extracted from the rather impersonal frame o f the
croniclers and integrated to a wide readership all over the Romanian
territories8. Yet, writing and publishing in Budapest, under Austrian rule and
also drawing heavily upon the historical writings of Johann Christian von Engel,
Damaschin Bojincă stressed less the ideal of Romanian unity than Michael
the Brave’s stmggle for liberty against the Turks.
It was also a Transylvanian, Aaron Florian9, professor at the ,,St. Sava"
College in Bucharest, who shaped in the 1830's the Wallachian image o f Michael
the Brave. Michael holds a central place in Aaron Florian’s main work on
W allachian history, his story filling 209 pages from the 322 o f its second
volum e101. All the key-elements to be found in the later fabric of the myth
are already present at Aaron Florian: 1. the fight for liberation from the „Turkish
despotism"; 2. the unification of Romanian territories; 3. the role played by
the Romanians in defending Christian Europe; 4. the justification o f the present
state of the Romanian by the „disasters and misfortunes" suffered by the Romanian
Lands after the hero’s death. The social aspects arc of little interest, and only
in a positive way, when Aaron Florian points out, in consonance with Damaschin
Bojincă, the support given to the common people in order to reestablish their
households affected by repeated wars11. A single reproach has the author: that
Michael „did not provide a constitution suitable for the Romanians, a legislation
with a benefic effect and some institutions to fulfil the growth of the Romanian
nation"12. As we can notice Aaron didn’t perceive the specificity o f 16th century
Romanian society in relation to that of the 19th century. He considered that
both epochs were perfectly comparable, and prescribing a modem constitution
for the time of Michael the Brave, he thought also that M ichael’s qualities
(bravery, pride and patriotism) should be a model to his contemporaries.
During the 1840’s Michael the Brave’s figure was already familiar enough
to the W allachian educated society in order to determine the political power
to take advantage o f it. Searching for legitimacy, prince Ghcorghe Bibescu
thought, that Michael the Brave was the most fit character from the Romanian
past to represent him. His option was expressed by an official pilgrimage at
the Dcalu Monastery, where Bibcscu worshipped M ichael’s grave and appeared
as a new Michael, dressed in a similar way to his m odel131415. Idle press published
several articles glorifying the military virtues o f the hero, ,,lhc revival o f the
old kingdom of Dcccbalus"14, and also the valiant successor o f Michael, the
prince Ghcorghc Bibcscu15. Although some intellectuals mocked at the excess
o f the prince’s propaganda16, these occasional publications were very effective
in imposing Michael the Brave as W allachia’s main historical hero.
This general frame influenced even a passionate political opponent of prince
Bibcscu, the young Nicolac Bălccscu. While in his early writings he discussed
rather dispassionately Michael the B rave’s impact on the military and social
history of W allachia, after 1847 he commilcd him self to the achievement of
an extended biography which aimed to glorify the hero and to serve as an
inspiring model for his contemporaries. Written mostly in exile, Bălccscu’s
Istoria Românilor sub Mihai-Vodă Viteazul (The History o f the Romanians
under Michael the Brave) was published only posthumously, first partially in
the „Romanian Review” in 1861-1863, then in a volume sponsored by
the Romanian Academy in 1877(1878)17. Only after this date it became the
standard reference book on Michael the Brave, replacing the older work of
Aaron Florian.
Although familiar to the Wallachian elite, Michael the Brave’s figure remained
in the 1840’s-1850' nevertheless one o f regional renown. In Moldavia, although
known and praised by Mihail Kogălniccanu18, he was rarely evoked and the
dom inant characters rem ained Dragoş and Stephen. In the 185()’s
when the political union of Wallachia with Moldavia became the problem of
the day, the interest for Michael the Brave increased, but specifically Moldavian
princes such as Stephen the Great, also gained sudden unifying qualities. Anyhow’,
the great unionist wave allowed Michael the Brave to be knowm also in Moldavia,
w here he was perceived as the Wallachian counterpart o f the M oldavian Stephen
the Great. Therefore, we may conclude that in the early 1860’s Michael
was already present in the historical conscience o f people from all
Romanian provinces.
13 „Vestitorul Românesc", VIII, 1844, nr. 68, p. 269-270; „Foaie pentru minte, inimii şi
literatură", VII, 1844, nr. 40, p. 318-320.
14 Frezeшаге istorică a Ţării Româneşti şi a vestitului prinţ Mihail Viteazul, „Almanah al
Statului pe anul 1844“ (supplement). Bucureşti, p. 23.
15H. V. Gaudi, Vestitele fapte şi siluita moarte a lui Mihaiu Viteazul, prinţ stăpânilor al Ţării
Româneşti, în Prescurtare istorică..., p. 52-115.
16 George Bariţ şi contemporanii săi, I, Bucureşti, 1973, p. 49.
17 The standard scientific edition is that of G. Zâne: Nicolae Bălccscu, Opere, 111,
Bucureşti, 1986.
18 Mihail Kogălniccanu, Opere, II, Bucureşti, 1976, p. 135-184, 389-390, 395,495-496.
5 MICHAEL THE BRAVE IN ROMANIAN TEXTBOOKS 57
Beginning with the 1840’s Michael the Brave’s figure inspired also an
increasing number o f literar}' creations, some o f them of an almost hagio
graphie character. To the romantic biographies of the prince and o f his kins
soon followed theater plays, many of them specially written to be acted in
schools, paintings and lithographies printed in popular editions. It was a way
the intellectuals thought to glorify the hero who reflected best their own
programme of national revival (unity, independence, European integration) and
to make common people share both their admiration for Michael and their
present aspirations.
The most efficient tool in this respect was certainly school, and especially
elementar}' school since higher education was attended only by a small fraction
o f the population. We shall therefore concentrate on the society’s educational
offer as reflected by the history textbooks used in elementary schools.
Some preliminary remarks are unavoidable: during the whole period
studied by us the formative goal of education aiming either to create „good
Christians” , „citizens” or „brave Romanians” , were prevalent over those of
giving the pupils neutral scientific information. Secondly, during this period
there existed several parallel schoolbooks, whose convergence depended heavily
on the rigidity or laxity of the authorities in enforcing the official syllabus.
.The authors had therefore the possibility to give a personal touch to the schoolbooks,
select the subjects they thought more fit, to grant them a certain number of
pages, to judge and to label historical facts and characters. This diversity forces
us to study both the common aspects and the omissions/additions and different
options of certain authors.
We must also distinguish between the periods 1830-1860 and 1860-1918.
During the first period, history had no definite place in the sylabbus of primary
schools; it was studied mainly in the secondary' cycle. Beginning with 1843
(Moldavia) and 1847 (Wallachia) it was introduced in the urban primary schools19.
For the rural primary schools the syllabus stated that history lessons should
be performed during reading lessons. The readers commonly used were spelling
books translated or abridged from French or German models. These were centered
on moral and religious education, and, either didn’t deal at all with history
subjects, or treated only Ancient history. Even if some schoolbooks had a
short history chapter, this was generally extremely brief. In the primers from
the 1830’s Michael simply isn’t mentioned even if the author devotes some
pages to national history. For example, in the schoolbook written by Grigore
Pleşoianu, widely used during the 1830’s in Wallachia, although several medieval
princes are mentioned in the chapter „Idee repede despre istoria românilor”
19V.A. Urechia, Istoria şcoalelor de la 1800-1864, II, Bucureşti, 1892, p. 263, 313.
58 MIRELA -LUMINIŢA MURGESCU 6
(Brief Survey of the History of Romanians), Michael is not one of them 20.
Another important primer was the translation of F. P. W ilm scn’s „Friend
of the youth", which knew 6 succesive editions from 1846 to 1856. W ilm sem ’s
schoolbook left a chapter at the translator’s disposal, in order to be filled with
informations regarding to the children’s country. The translator o f the first
Wallachian edition, a certain I.C. Paulescu, included a geographical description
o f Wallachia drawn mostly from the geography schoolbooks used in secondary
schools. Historical informations arc scarce and relate mostly to the Roman
heritage. Michael the Brave is mentioned once as being the founder of Monastery
at Strchaia, and not for his military or political achievements (the later important
battle of Călugitrcni isn’t mentioned)21.
Quite similar, the primers used in Moldavia, include informations only
on Ancient history, or only biographies o f specific Moldavians. A first change
occured in 1856, when Gcorgiu Mclidon, the M oldavian translator o f Wilmsen,
chose to present shortly the Romanian provinces, a fact which conducted him
to dedicate some lines also to Michael the Brave22. It was not much, but it
was a beginning.
When history began to be taught in the primary schools, since there existed
no special textbooks for this learning degree, the Schools’ Administration
recommended the same textbooks already used in secondary schools. In Wallachia
these were the schoolbooks of Aaron Florian, Textbook of history o f the Wallachian
Principality (first edition 1839) and Elements of World History (1846). The
first of these, an abridged version of his great history in three volumes, dedicates
p. 78-91 to Michael the Brave. He is presented in a classical factological manner,
without the pathos of Idee repede... Elements with a greater impact on the
pupil’s affects were: the confrontation with the executioner when the prince
Alexander the Wicked ordered that Michael should be beheaded, M ichael’s
bravery in the battle o f Călugărcni and the way Ottoman grand-vezir Sinan
Pasha lost his teeth in the battle, the Turkish arrow which Michael tcared
out from a wound inflicted to him during the fights in Bulgaria in 1598, the
union of the three Romanian Principalities and the tragic death of the hero.
Special chapters on the Wallachian Principality are also included in Aaron
Florian’s textbook of world history. Being required to present only the essential
in less than a page, Aaron Florian gives up the detailed account of M ichael’s
achievements and chooses a more syntethic and lively approach: „In this time
of sorrow and sufferings for his country, Michael the Brave ascended to the
throne in 1593. He appealed to the Romanians to take up the weapons and
to revenge their country and their faith. In his fortunate battles he defeated
20 Grigore Plcşoianu, Cele dintâi cunoştinţe, 2-nd edition, Craiova, 1833, p. 82-88.
2' Prietenul tincrimci, Bucureşti, 1846, p. 286.
22 Prietenul tinerimei. Iaşi, 1856, p. 209.
7 MICHAEL THE BRAVE IN ROMANIAN TEXTROt >KS 59
the Turks, freed the country and the Romanians. In order to ensure peace and
quietness to the country and to prepare a happy future to it, lie designed a
great plan to unite all Romanians from all the provinces of ancient Dacia and
to build up a great and powerful Romanian state. Indeed, he was fonunatc
to unite Transylvania and Moldavia with Wallachia, and ;callcd himself
prince of three countries. But when he was about to add also other parts of
ancient Dacia and to stregthen this new state, a treacherous death look hold
o f him"23*25.
Aaron Florian’s works were those which shaped the historical conscience
of the 1848 generation and of most educators around 1860.
After 1860 the study of history was generalized in the primary schools
and the syllabus (initially brief, detailed after 1891) is incrcsingly concrete
in fixing what should be taught. The textbooks change: first they arc narrative
and descriptive, structured on a scries of biographies, with interrogative Hashes
of the catcchctic method; alter 1891 the syllabus requested for the 1-st
cycle of the primary education (2nd and 3rd forms) the use of books o f „historical
lectures", while the biographies were taught during the 2nd cycle (the 4th
and/or 5th forms, accordingly to the rural or urban character of the schools).
The syllabuses state firmly the literary texts to be taught. At the lessons
about Michael the Brave there arc nominated following texts: Michael the Brave’s
ascension to the throne (legend including the episode with the executioner),
Preda Buzcscu (poem about M ichael's valiant captain), „The Last Night of
Michael the Brave" and „The Song of Michael the Brave", all o f them to
be studied during the 3rd form in April in the rural schools, and during the
2nd form in urban schools. In the 4th and 5th forms M ichael’s reign was
studied in more detail, the syllabus mentioning the moments „Călugăreni, the
conquest of Transylvania and Moldavia, the battles of Mirăslău and Gorăsklu,
his death"24. The literary material used in teaching history favoured a symbiosis
where the historical facts were integrated into a literary framework, dominated
by the fabulous and imaginary- rather than by reality and concreteness. Mythmaking
was conscious, an author stating quite flatly that the schoolbooks should include
only these legends and poems „which strengthen with high ideals the patriotic
feelings and mainly that feeling of national pride that we miss nowadays"25.
Of course, the concrete application of this education policy varied
according to the teachers’ abilities and dedication, but the general direction
was firmly fixed.
23 Aaron Florian, Elemente de istoria lumii, Bucureşti, 1846, p. 150.
2/1 Soc C. Lascăr, I. Bibiri, Colecţiuruta legilor, regulamentelor, programelor şi diferitelor
decisiuni şi disposiftunigenerale ale acestui departament de la IS 6 J-I9 0 I, Bucureşti, 1901, passim.
2' V. Cireş, Lege/ule şi poesii pentru învăţământul istoriei în clasa a li a şi a lll-a primară
rurală, Focşani, 1892 (preface).
60 MIRELA-LUMINIŢA MURGESCU 8
In order to test more concretely the way Michael the Brave was presented
in elementary schools, we have analyzed a sample o f 28 history schoolbooks
from 1860-1918, some of them printed in several editions, such as the textbooks
of M.C. Florcnţiu which had 23 editions between 1869 and 1892, the changes
being slight, but sometimes significative.
Among the authors there arc both well-known names of Romanian
historiography and culture (Ion Hcliade-Rădulescu, A. T. Laurian, V. A. Urechia,
Gr. Tocilcscu, A. D. Xenopol) and otherwise unknown teachers who tried to
share their day-to-day experience. Regarding the historical facts included, many
o f the textbooks for elementary schools depended heavily on textbooks written
for the secondary and sometimes also on major history works. In the case
of Michael the Brave, the most authoritative book became in the later 1870’s
Bălcescu’s History o f the Romanians under Michael the Brave, but some authors
continued to use also Aaron Florian.
In the textbooks studied by us the part dedicated to Michael the Brave
varies from 3% to 26% o f the total number o f pages with an average o f a
little more titan 8%; as such he is the first historical figure in the history
textbooks, before Stephen the Great whose part has an average of about 5%.
The historical information is generally the same in all textbooks: son of
Pătraşcu the Good, after a conflict with prince Alexander the W icked (no
textbook misses the episode with the executioner), he ascends to the throne
of Wallachia at a critical moment for the country; there follow more or less
detailed descriptions of the fights with the Turks, especially o f the battle of
Călugăreni, then M ichael’s march into Transylvania and the battle at Sibiu/
Şeiimberg, the campaign in Moldavia and the union o f the three Romanian
Principalities, the defeat at Mirăslău, the come-back at Gorăslău and M ichael’s
murder. We can notice than, compared to earlier textbooks, the battles at Chiseleşti
and Vidin with M ichael’s wounding by an Turkish arrow or spear are not
mentioned any more.
The general image is in all textbooks undoubtely positive. The result is
a mythical image of Michael the Brave, shaped by following fundamental ideas:
7. Michael as Saviour o f the Country from the Desaster caused by the
Ottoman Yoke and Previous Princes.
The underpining idea is the more dramatic the background the more impressive
are the qualities o f the hero. For example, Tocilescu states: „Ascending to
the throne Michael found the country in a pitiful state: deserted by its inhabitants,
exhausted and burdened with debts, treated by the Turks worse than a pashalik.
The towns on the Danube were all under Turkish rule and armed bands raided
the country robbing and murdering without fear. Although the agreements with
the Porte prevented the establishment of the Turks in Wallachia, they settled
down acquiring real estates and built even mosques, some leased the taxes
9 MICHAEL THE RRAVE IN ROMANIAN. TEXTBOOKS 61
in the counties, others were highwaymen, others defiled the churches. There
was nothing sacred any more for these pagans, there was nothing sure any
more in the Rom anian’s home. The Sultan even began, like in the times of
Vlad the Impaler, to take each tenth young man to tum them to janissaries
in Constantinople"26. M ichael’s predecessor, Alexander 111 is presented as „a
very wicked prince nominated by the Turks", who made people believe that
„W allachia was doomed to perish"27. Under these circumstances the only hope
was Michael, who became ban (governor) of Craiova and succeeded in keeping
the Turks away, so that he was considered „like a father by the people"28.
We can notice that the whole description of the period before M ichael’s ascension
to the throne is meant to prepare the stage for the hero. Heliadc states very
clearly:" ... The Romanian people ... needed a brave man. M ichael had all
the required courage and bravery. He matched his time"29.
2. Michael as Symbol o f both Independence and National Unity.
This double value is the main element defining the myth and is cxplicitely
worshipped by the authors. Michael is seen as the prince who fought for both
these noble aims, a fact which confers him an uncqualed position in the textbooks.
The authors are unanimous in this point: „Michael deserved to be called the
Brave as well as the gratitude o f the Romanians for his deeds tending to make
the Romanians independent in relation to the Pone and to unite them in one
state as had been Trajan’s colonists"30. „He was a hero and a great patriot
for he not only wanted to rescue the Romanians from the Turkish yoke, but
also tried to unite them together, if all Romanians were as good patriots as
him. Romania would have been great since then’31. A. D. Xcnopol also insists
on M ichael’s uniqueness: „This idea (of unification) which no other Romanian
prince never had before, not even Stephen the Great, was conceived for the
first time in M ichael’s mind and, being achieved for a moment, it showed
the Romanians the goal they should strive for"32. It is noteworthy that Xenopol
expressed entirely different opinions in his great synthesis o f Romanian history:
„Michael w asn’t conscious that by conquering these countries, he unites in
a single body the Romanian People"33. This contradiction shows that even for
a distinguished historian like Xenopol writing schoolbooks was mainly a national
task, and only secondarily a scientific activity.
3. Michael the Warrior.
The romantic historiography o f the 19th century insisted on the military
virtues of its heroes. If patriotism prevails at the motivation level, when it
comes to facts M ichael’s history is a series o f battles, where the prince is
„brave and skilled in wars"34, capable o f „marvels of bravery"35, „he had fought
and won so many battles than another one couldn’t have done in 80 years"36.
M ichael’s manliness is pointed out already during the confrontation with the
executioner, presented in all textbooks in various forms, either as a story written
by the author, or as a poem o f Dimitrie Bolintineanu. These wars have to
be as many and as terrible as possible, fought against scores o f enemies. Besides
their great numbers, the enemies have also to be famous and valiant. The official
M ethodology of 1906, which is, generally speaking, a balanced book, stresses
this aspect: the children ahould be taught that „Michael was the greatest hero
o f the Romanian people. The Turks, the Hungarians, the Poles and the Tatars
were beaten to death [!] by our great M ichael"37.
Special attention is paid in this context to the battle o f Călugăreni. There
is no textbook to miss „the glorious victory, the memorable battle"38, „the
fierce battle"39 „Salamina"40 (it is noteworthy that Bălcescu’s expression „Romanian
Termopilc" didn’t enter into textbooks, perhaps because the authors knew well
that despite all heroism Termopile had been a defeat for the Greeks). The
standard description of the battle insists on the fact that M ichael’s small army
o f less than 16,000 men managed to hold back the 180,000-200,000 Turks
led by „the famous Sinan Pasha"41, „the expert in wars"42, „the fierceful Sinan
Pasha together with the best Ottoman military s ta ff’43.
No one seemed to bother that Sinan han been in fact a corrupt, inefficient
vezir, a sample of the Ottoman moral and institutional decline, nor that the
Ottoman forces were certainly less numerous than recorded in the schoolbooks.
33 A. D. Xenopol, Istoria Românilor din Dacia Traiana, Ш, Bucureşti, 1988, p. 287 (the first
edition in 1890).
34 Elefterie Ropala, Elemente de istoria Românilor pentru şcoalele primare de anbele secse.
Iaşi, 1878, p. 33.
35 G. Hrisoscoleu, op. cit., p. 81.
36 Serafim Ionescu, op. cit., p. 71.
37 Gh. Costescu, Metodica istoriei şi geografiei, Bucureşti, 1906, p. 105. *
38В. Drăgosiescu, Extractudin istoria Românilor pentru usuluscoalelor primare de ambele-
sexe, Ploesci, 1874, p. 47.
37 С. Handoca, Prescurtare de istoria Românilor pentru usul şcolelorprimare urbane şi rurale
de ambe-sexe, Galatz, 1877, p. 41.
40 M. C. Florenjiu, Noţiuni de istoria Românilor, 6th edition, Bucureşti, 1875, p. 101.
41 Gr. Cristescu, Manual de Istoria Românilor, Iaşi, 1877, p. 96.
42 E. Ropala, op. cit., p. 34.
43 C. Gallin, op. cit., p. 111.
и MICHAEL THE BRAVE IN ROMANIAN TEXTBOOKS 63
this „doesn’t prevent us from seeing Michael as the greatest Prince o f the
Romanians”54 or to throw the blame on M ichael’s successors: „in this respect
it is good to be known that it was not Michael, but especially his successors,
who established serfdom”55. Quite ironically, when blaming M ichael’s succes
sors, the author accused especially the Phanariot princes of the 18th century,
although it was a Phanariot, Constantin Mavrocordat, who abolished serfdom
both in Moldavia and in Wallachia. Even more astonishing is M ichael’s complete
absolution by Giorgiu Melidon: „Hearing the call o f the country, the peasants
rose and having no weapons sold themselves as serfs to the landlords, keeping
only their soul for God and their life for the country. This was the beggining
of serfdom and of the corvée of the Romanian peasantry”56.
The myth was complete, and its basic lines remained the same till nowadays.
Already in the period studied by us, it was designed with the precise intention
to educate the masses, and it was used to shape the public opinion in several
ways. First, it was used to strengthen patriotism in general. The authors of
textbooks insist that M ichael’s example should convince their contemporaries
that „the Romanian must fight for his law [religion] and his Fatherland”57,
„either with weapons or with words against slanderers” 58. A more specific target
was to consolidate the new Romanian stale created through the Union o f Moldavia
and W allachia (1859) and to prepare the way for the unification of all Romanian
lands. V. A. Urechia’s catechetic questions are extremely revealing in this respect.
„W hich were M ichael’s political plans?... To build up a Greater Romania as
had been formerly Dacia. Why is such a union useful to the Romanians? Isn’t
it better that our country should be big and powerful? When we will be more
numerous and in the same country, neither the Russian nor the German or
the Turk will be able to harm us easily. So, is it a good thing that the Romanians
should wish and work for a new unification? Only he is a good Romanian
who wishes this unification and struggles for its achievement”: At the end,
Urechia adds: „Is it posible to consider consolidated a Romanian state without
Transylvania? Is it desirable for the Romanians to be once again united as
in the times of Michael the Brave?”59. After 1880 the figure of Michael the
Brave was also used to glorify the ruling king Carol I (1866-1914), whose
victories against the Turks in 1877-1878 were presented as „fulfilling the dream
of Romanian Greatness conceived by the greatest and most famous Romanian
Prince: Michael the Brave"60.
At the beginning of the 2()th century Michael the Brave was unanimously
considered the most important figure o f Romanian history. It is significant
that during World War I the authorities considered it their national
responsability to take special measures in order to save M ichael’s head
from the invading Germans and Austro-Hungarians, and after the war
a special procession was organized when bringing this national relic back
to the Dcalu Monastery.
1 Nicolae Ioncscu, Despre uciderea lui Mihai Viteazul fi despre cruzimile lui Vlad Dracul.
Două documente nouă istorice citite în Academie, în „Analele Academiei Române", seria II,
tom Vil, 1883, p. 13.
1 Relatările germane despre Vlad Ţepeş (manuscrisul de la mănăstirea St.Gali din Elveţia în
N.Ionescu, op.cil.-, Sebastian Münster, Cosmographia Universalis, Basel, 1572; Michael Beheim,
Gcdichte über Waiwoden V</lad I Drakul, Bucureşti, 1908).
3 Relatări ruseşti despre Ţepeş (Povestire despre Dracula voievod, Manuscrisul datează din
anul 1490; v. loan Bogdan, Cronicile slavo-romăne din sec. XV - XVI, Bucureşti, 1959).
4 Mihail Kogăhiiceanu, Histoire de la Valachie, de la Moldavie et des Valaques transdanu
biens, Berii-, 1837, în Opere, v.II, Ed. Academiei, Bucureşti, 1976, p. 268.
5 Dimitrie Bolintineanu, 'I'oţi suntem greşiţi, în Opere, v.10, Ed. Minerva, Bucureşti,
1988, p. 530.
‘ loan Bogdan, Vlad Ţepeş şi naraţiunile germane şi ruseşti asupra lui, Ed. Socecu et comp.,
Bucureşti, 1896, p. 14.
68 DANIELA CONSTANTINESCU 2
7 Gh. Şincai, Ilronica românilor şi a mai multor neamuri, tom. II, Ed. pentru literatură,
Bucureşti, 1969; Florian Aaron, Wee repede de istoria principalului Ţării R umâneşti, Tip. Ion Ghica,
Bucureşti, 1835; Nicolae Bălcescu, Campania românilor în contra turcilor de la 1595, în Opere
alese, Ed. de stat pentru literatură şi artă. Bucureşti, 1960; loan Heliade Rădulescu, Prescurtare la
história românilor, Tip. Statului, Bucureşti, 1861; Bogdan PetriceicuHasdeu, Filozofia portretului
lui Vlad'Ţepeş, Imprimeria Cezar Вol iac, Bucureşti, 1864; N icolae lonescu, op.cit. ; Gh. Ghibănescu,
Vlad Ţepeş, în „Arhiva", an VII, 1897, nr. 7-8; A. Lupescu, Concepţia militară a domnilor români
în secolele XIV-XVII, în „România militară', an IV, 1901,nr. 3-5: August Trcbon iu Laurian, A/ona
românilor din timpurile cele mai vechi până în zilele noastre. Ed. George Ioanide et A. Spirescu,
Bucureşti, 1873; M. C. Florenţiu,Noţiuni de istoria românilorpentruclasele 111şiIVprimare, Tip.
Laboratoriu Romani, Bucureşti. 1872; Grigorc Tocilescu, Manual de istoria românilor pentru
şcoalele primare şi secundare de ambele sexe, Ed. Librăriei Socecu et comp.. Bucureşti, 1896;
A. D. Xenopol, Istoria românilor din Dacia Traiană, v. II, Bucureşti, Ed. ştiinţifică şi enciclo
pedică, 1986.
8 loan Budai-Deleanu, Ţiganiada, v. I-II, Ed. de stat pentru literatură şi artă, Bucureşti, 1959;
Dimitric Bolintineanu, Legende istorice şi alte poezii, Ed. pentru literatură. Bucureşti, 1965; George
Mavrodolu, Vlad Ţepeş, Ed. Ohm, Bucureşti, 1859; Al. Lepădatu, Amor şi răzbunare, Bucureşti,
1877; Mihai Emincscu, Scrisoarea III; Duiliu Zamfirescu, In război. Editura Clemenţa,
Bucureşti, 1902.
9Vasilc Alecsandri, VladŢepeş şi stejarul, în Legende, Ed. Socecu et comp., Bucureşti, 1900,
p.96-99. Al. Maccdonski, Câteva ore la Snagov, în Scene istorice, Bucureşti, 1973.
10 Petre Ispirescu, Viaţa şi faptele lui VladŢepeş, f.e., Cernăuţi, 1937.
11Bicheman Eliza, Lucia Georgian, Istoria universală antică şi medievală (Manual pentru clasa
a V-a), Ed. Didactică şi pedagogică, Bucureşti, 1992,p.235; Hadrian Daicoviciu, Pompiliu Teodor,
Istoria românilor antică şi medievală, (Manual pentru clasa a Vll-a), Ed. didactică şi pedagogică.
Bucureşti, 1991, p. 116-118.
3 VLAD ŢEPEŞ ŞI IMAGINEA PRINŢULUI IDEAL 69
Transilvania după înfrângerea din 1462, sinuciderea soţiei lui Ţepeş, legenda
comunei Vlădaia16. Tonul egal-descriptiv şi lipsit de mesaj patriotic îl aminteşte
pe acela al cronicilor autohtone, fapt ce ar putea să indice o mai mare vechime
a lor şi o mai sigură autenticitate. In afară de aceste producţii există însă un
număr mare de legende româneşti care exploatează latura simbolică a personalităţii
lui Ţepeş17. Ele relatează episoade cunoscute deja din naraţiunile ruseşti şi germane,
îmbogăţind conţinutul acestora. Aproape întotdeauna aceste legende conţin la
sfârşit o morală care pledează pentru „dreptatea** lui Ţepeş, acest element
lipsind însă din sursele germane, fiind totuşi prezent în varianta rusească.
Popularizate de Petre Ispirescu, e posibil ca aceste legende să reprezinte o prelucrare
romantică a surselor străine despre Vlad Ţepeş18 şi să nu fie mai vechi de secolul
al XIX-lea. Că aceste povestiri nu sunt o sursă autentică o dovedeşte existenţa
unor producţii de acelaşi gen despre alte personaje ale trecutului. Astfel
personalitatea lui Ţepeş, desigur extravagantă, este acomodată modelului
„domnului de ţară** (prinţul ideal în conştiinţa românească prezentat ca luptător
împotriva străinilor invadatori şi apărător al poporului de rând în faţa celor
bogaţi). Imaginea sa filtrată prin prisma valorii „neatârnării (independenţei)
ţării** şi „demnităţii poporului** nu se deosebeşte de aceea a lui M ircea cel
Bătrân (domn al Ţării Româneşti, 1386-1418), Ştefan cel Mare, Mihai Viteazul
(domn al Ţării Româneşti 1593-1601) sau a recentului Alexandru loan Cuza
(primul prinţ al României 1859-1866)19. Cea mai surprinzătoare apropie-e realizată
de mentalul colectiv este aceea Ţepcş-Cuza. Ambii sunt depersonalizaţi, reţinuţi
doar ca simbol. Mai mult decât oricărui alt domnitor român, lui Ţepeş şi Cuza
li se exacerbează latura justiţiară a caracterului. Portretele lor populare îl amintesc
pe acela al haiducului (erou popular răzvrătit împotriva nedreptăţilor şi animat
de spirit justiţiar; el răzbună toate suferinţele poporului). Ar fi tendenţios a
susţine că un voievod din secolul al XV-lea are aceleaşi idealuri cu un prinţ
din secolul al XIX-lea şi ambii nu fac decât să reproducă mentalitatea unui
haiduc-reprezentant perfect al poporului român. Este mult mai aproape de adevăr
a considera că ne aflăm în faţa unui anumit gen de povestire tipică secolului
al XIX-lea care suprasolicitând elementele anecdotice şi dramatice din viaţa
unor personaje istorice le acomodează unei scheme arhetipale. Este în obişnuinţa
literaturii populare şi chiar culte de a se folosi de arhetipuri. în mod normal
ştiinţa istorică implică detaşarea de o astfel de interpretare. Preluarea imaginii
arhetipale a lui Ţepeş în istoriografia romantică şi ideologizarea acesteia este
35 Ibidem, p. 14.
36 Ibidem, p. 42.
37 Ibidem, p. 55-56.
9 VLAD ŢEPEŞ ŞI IMAGINEA PRINŢULUI IDEAL 75
fac baza unui veritabil program liber de critică a esenţei principiului m onarhic38.
Prinţul este văzut ca o sursă de contaminare a societăţii. Partida liberală, formată
din tineri boieri educaţi în spirit occidental, este cea caic şi-a raliat poporul
împotriva unei puteri corupte. încălcarea legalităţii de către însuşi cel ce trebuia
s-o garanteze, justifică revoluţia prin care poporul suveran încearcă să-şi impună
propriile dorinţe: constituţia ca lege fundamentală, putere reprezentativă, reforme
economico-sociale.
în secolul al XIX -lca, anul 1848 este momentul unei depline opţiuni pentru
un regim politic democratic. Eşecul revoluţiei determină însă conştientizarea
imposibilităţii atingerii practice a idealurilor sale. Involuţia de la idealul politic
democratic la ţelul realizării unui cadru politic legal garantând minimul de
libertăţi, dă specificul mentalităţii româneşti după 1848. De la ideea republicii
democratice39 preconizată de Nicolac Bălcescu în Manualul bunului român,
după înfrângerea revoluţiei şi exilarea celor ce o susţinuseră, se ajunge la punerea
„chestiei naţionale" inai presus de libertate: „Mă mulţumesc - spunea Bălcescu
- cu o constituţie cât mai strânsă(...), numai să ne dea mijloace de a da ţării
legalitatea"40. Ceea ce afirma Bălcescu tinde să se transfonnc într-o stare de
spirit a societăţii româneşti. Pe tărâm politic, condiţia României în a doua jumătate
a secolului trecut devine pendularea între radicalism programatic şi moderaţie
practică. în acest context trebuie înţeleasă şi alternativa prinţului străin. Organizarea
României ca monarhie constituţională creditară era desigur o garanţie a stabilităţii
politice. Foştii revoluţionari de la 1848 au înţeles acest lucru, dar fei.omenul
nu a reuşit să nu le procure sentimentul eşecului. în conştiinţa unora dintre
ei (loan Heliade Rădulescu, loan Lccca, Nicolae Ionescu, Simion Bămuţiu)
alternativa prinţului străin este o soluţie limită ulterioară anului 1848 şi
acceptată de societatea românească doar pentru a depăşi criza de identitate pe
care o parcurgea41.
România optase pentru monarhia ereditară constituţională centrată pe ideea
aducerii în ţară a unui principe străin ca pentru o garanţie a legalităţii. Se
pare că a fost o soluţie insuficientă. Şi după 186642, ca şi înainte43, necesitatea
respectării legalităţii este mereu invocată. Criza soluţiilor politice şi după 1866,
compromiterea guvernanţilor, sunt chestiuni de natură să compromită însăşi
receptarea principiilor liberale de către popor. Dimitrie Bolintincanu atrăgea
38 Cornelia Bodea, Românii la 1848, vol. I, Ed. ştiinţifică şi enciclopedică, 1982, p. 622-623.
39 Nicolae Bălcescu, op. cit., p. 325.
40 Apud Simion Mehedinţi, Ofensiva naţională, Tip. Cooperativa, Bucureşti, 1913, p. 14.
81 Domnia regelui Carol 1. Fapte. Cuvântări. Documente, Adnotate de A. Sturdza, Tomul I,
1866-1876, Bucureşti, 1909, p. 216-218.
42 D.Bolintineanu, Opere, voi. 10, Ed. Minerva, Bucureşti, p. 336, 338, 528.
43Cornelia Bodea, op.cit., p. 623.
76 DANIELA CONSTANTINESCU 10
Résumé
Peu présent avant 1800 dans l’historiographie et la mémoire collective roumaines, Vlad
l’Empaleur, prince de Valachie (1456-1462), devint au XIX* siècle non seulement le prototype
de Dracula mais aussi un personnage central du Panthéon national. Loin de lui nuire, sa
réputation de cruauté (symbolisée par le pieu, son instrument de justice préféré) contribua
à la cristallisation du mythe. Sa justice implacable s ’exerçait envers les ennemis du peuple
roumain: les boyards promoteurs de l’anarchie, les envahisseurs turcs, et généralement tous
ceux qui attentaient aux principes éthiques et à l'ordre établi. Les difficultés engendrées depuis
deux siècles par le processus de modernisation de la société roumaine ont abouti au paradoxe
de la quête d’un régime de libertés garanti par une autorité exacerbée. Le mythe de Vlad
l’Empaleur donne la mesure de la tentation autoritaire ressentie dans l’histoire roumaine aux
XIX* et XX* siècle.