Editor-in-chief of the Academy of Sciences N. M. Druzhinin, Moscow, Nauka Publishing House, 1966, 408 pp. Circulation 2 000. Price 1 rub. 65 kopecks.

In the history of Moldavia and Wallachia, a significant place is occupied by the reforms of the 20 - 30s of the XIX century, carried out with the assistance of Russia. These reforms, which marked the beginning of a new stage in the development of the Danubian principalities, are commonly referred to as the beginning of the Romanian Renaissance. This issue was covered widely and rather tendentiously. The book by V. J. Grosula is translated by-

In Soviet historiography, the author is a generalizing monographic work on the above-mentioned problem. It makes extensive use of the materials of the Central State Library, the AVPR and other archives, as well as extensive Russian pre-revolutionary, Soviet and foreign literature, primarily Romanian and French. The author was faced with the following task: research-

The article aims to study the complex issues of socio-economic and political development of Moldavia and Wallachia in the era of late feudalism and the emergence of capitalism, which, according to the general recognition of Soviet and Romanian historians, are poorly studied in the Marxist literature, to analyze Russian-Moldavian-Wallachian relations, international aspects of Russia's policy in the Danubian principalities.

One of the main advantages of the work is that the author was able to show how the external factor (the role of Russia) is refracted through the internal one (the socio-economic development of the Danube principalities). That is why the book pays so much attention to the socio-economic development of the principalities.

The paper convincingly reveals that foreign oppression caused a slow process of separating crafts from agriculture, the weakness of manufactories; the Turkish wholesale trade monopoly and the lack of protectionist policies hindered the economic development of the principalities. The author does not ignore the controversial issue in the literature about the main direction of the economy of the Danubian principalities of that time. He considers animal husbandry to be the most developed industry and cites original calculations to confirm this. Only the conclusion about a more developed level of agriculture in Moldavia in comparison with Wallachia1 can be considered debatable .

V. J. Grosul has taken a new approach to covering the little-studied issue of typology and modeling of feudalism in the Danubian principalities. Revealing the weak development of the lordly economy, and hence of the corvee, he characterized the main feature of feudalism in the Danubian principalities during the period of Turkish rule: with the relatively weak exploitation of the peasants in the patrimony, feudal-state, centralized exploitation of them developed significantly (p.106), resembling some features of state Eastern feudalism (p. 73). This approach to the problem of modeling Wallachian and Moldavian feudalism is largely new and only recently began to make its way in modern historiography. This allowed V. Ya. Grosul to take a new approach to the reforms of the 20s and 30s. He sees in Organic Regulations not only a certain stage in the transition from feudalism to capitalism, but also a very significant shift in the depths of the still dominant feudal formation, a shift that has left an indelible mark on the reforms.

In this connection, it is impossible not to recall the fair remark that historians 'efforts in studying the era of late feudalism often go in search of the" sprouts"," elements", and" structure " of capitalism, and not to study the entire thickness of feudal-serf relations, through which the sprouts of new, capitalist relations began to break through ^.2 This reproach is also true for studies on the history of the Danubian Principalities . ³ V. J. Grosul, taking into account this remark, paid more attention to the changes that took place in the depths of the feudal formation that still prevailed in the principalities.

Romanian historians have also recently drawn attention to these changes (A. Ocetea, S. Columbeanu, etc.). But they associated them with the" secondary serfdom "that allegedly took place in the principalities in the first half of the 19th century (a lively discussion developed around this problem), identifying the changes that occurred with the typical, in their opinion, picture of" second enslavement " in Central and Eastern Europe ^.4 In contrast, V. Ya. Grosul showed that the shifts that took place in the system of feudalism were not identical to the process of "second enslavement", but were associated with the predominant development from feudal-state exploitation to patrimonial-landlord exploitation. He emphasizes that the peasants of Moldavia and Wallachia after 1746-1749 were not serfs in the sense of their personal dependence on the feudal lord, and that the corvee peasants of the principalities were very much like the Russian state ones.

¹ See M. M. Alexandrescu-Dersca. Contribution a l'etude de l'approvisionnement en ble de Constantinople au XVIII-e siecle. "Studia et acta Orientalia". Vol. I. Bucuresti. 1958; M.O. Mehmet. O condica de firmane turcesti din timpul domniei lui Al. Ipsilanti in Moldova. "Studii". Bucuresti. 1962, No. 2.

² M. V. Nechkina. To the results of the discussion on the "ascending" and "descending" stages of feudalism. Voprosy Istorii, 1963, No. 12, p. 35.

³ "Yearbook on the agrarian history of Eastern Europe for 1964", Chisinau. 1966, p. 13.

⁴ Studii, 1961, No. 3, pp. 729-739; 1962, No. 3, pp. 729-737. For an analysis of this discussion in Soviet historiography, see more in the article: Ya. S. Grosul, N. A. Mokhov, P. V. Sovetov (edict. yearbook, pp. 24-29).

peasants (p. 73). However, to be more convincing, the author should have shown more clearly the elements of serfdom dependence of the peasants of the Danubian principalities on the state. After all, he himself claims that the edifice of state feudalism in the principalities was not destroyed by revolutionary means, but was reformed as a result of shifting the center of gravity in the exploitation of peasants from the state to the patrimony-the estate. In this, and not in the transition to a "second serfdom", V. Ya. Grosul quite rightly sees the main shift in the bowels of feudalism. This shift did not occur without the participation of the boyar landowners, which is why Karl Marx called the Organic Regulations the "code of corvee work" ⁵ .

V. Ya. Grosul showed the inseparable connection of the Organic Regulations with other reforms, having considered in detail the poorly lit activities of the Russian administration in the literature on the rise of agriculture, industry, trade, the organization of internal administration and the court on the European model, the regulation of finances and tax collection, the improvement of medical care, the construction of communication routes and urban improvement. He came to the important conclusion that all this contributed to the rise of production and created a certain scope for the development of capitalist relations within the framework of feudalism (p. 383). Equally important is the author's general conclusion about the objectively progressive role that Russia played in creating the prerequisites for the formation of a unified and independent Romanian state. Now, when some historians and political figures try to forget this fact in their works, the study of this issue has become particularly relevant. Far from idealizing the events and noting the subjectively self-serving goals of tsarism in relation to the Danubian principalities, V. Ya. Grosul, based on the analysis of the materials he collected, showed the socio-economic changes that were caused at that time by the activities of the local Russian administration.

It further notes the expansion of the autonomy of the Danubian Principalities as a result of the Ackermann Convention and the Peace of Adrianople, the creation of a national army, the establishment of quarantines and the restriction of the rights of foreigners who previously enjoyed great privileges. Unfortunately, the author did not show that even then Russia was already in favor of restricting the rights of foreign subjects in the principalities, but also of a certain restriction of consular jurisdiction, which was a means of constant interference by Western European states, especially Austria, in the internal affairs of the principalities.

The monograph also provides a new solution to the problem of the correlation of elements of feudal and capitalist development in the Danubian principalities. Thus, considering the main issue of Organic Regulations to be the peasant question (p. 239), V. Ya.Grosul came to the conclusion that in general it was in its spirit the Boyar constitution (p. 263). He writes very carefully about bourgeois aspects and motives. This is all the more striking because recently there has been a tendency to exaggerate bourgeois motives in the Organic Regulations. ⁶ According to V. Ya. Grosul, only by the end of the 40s-beginning of the 50s feudalism in the principalities was already historically doomed (p. 340). The author also tried to raise the difficult question of the" psychological readiness " of the population for the reforms of the 20-30s. Based on the fact that the revolution in consciousness takes place much more slowly than in the economy, V. Ya.Grosul came to the conclusion that the "moral factor" also served as a kind of brake on the development of capitalist production (p. 113).

Grosula's book allows us to conclude that it was in the course of the activities of the Russian administration that state bodies were modernized in Moldavia and Wallachia at that time and progressive changes took place in the cultural life of the principalities: the first Moldavian-Wallachian newspapers were published, state archives were opened, and the first scientific societies were founded. Even the French language and literature largely penetrated the principalities through the Russian administration, and the propagators of advanced ideas were revolutionary Russian officers who stayed there during the numerous Russo-Turkish wars (p.124).

The paper presents new data on the course of military operations in the territory of the Knya-

⁵ K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. T., 23, p. 249.

⁶ S. Columbeanu. Evolufia raporturilor agrare din Tara Romineasca dupa rascoala lui Tudor Vladimirescu pina la regulamentul Organic. "Studii si materiale de istorie moderna". Vol. II. Bucuresti, 1960, p, .67.

during the Russo-Turkish war of 1828-1829, about the formation of detachments of Pandurs and volunteers from the local population and their participation together with the Russian army in the struggle against the Sultan's troops, and finally, about the significant assistance that Russia provided in the formation of the national army of the principalities. It seems that V. Ya. Grosul did not sufficiently take into account the inconsistency of the policy of Russian tsarism in attracting local residents to volunteer and pandur detachments, which was connected with the international situation at that time.

Tsardom was afraid not only of the development of a broad liberation movement in the Balkans, but also of the fact that the involvement of the Balkan peoples in military operations against the Ottoman Empire would cause sharp opposition from England and Austria. After all, the Austrian government was ready to move troops to the Danubian principalities, and the English cabinet in a memorandum dated February 24, 1828, stated that it considered it unacceptable to unleash a "religious war" in the Balkans.

In some places, V. J. Grosul needlessly does not comment on the expressions of documents. Thus, we read that the Russian administration set itself the goal of ensuring "the welfare of the inhabitants of the principalities" (p. 154, 157, etc.) and that the general periodic assembly, provided for by A. Sturdza's Fundamental Regulations, was to resolve the issue of skutelniki, breslashes, and servitors in such a way that "the outcome corresponded to the interests of the people" (p. 189At the same time, the author repeatedly writes that the actions of the Russian administration and various projects (A. Sturdza, D. Dashkov) were put forward primarily in the interests not of the masses, but of the big boyars (pp. 155, 167, 169, 195). One more point. On page 207, it is stated that a general medical examination was conducted in the principalities, and a few lines below it is noted that the only doctor who was in the county at that time could do little.

The reviewed monograph is one of those books that, based on a rich source material, reveal general patterns and specific features of the historical process. Its author has done a great and useful work, and we have no doubt that this work will deservedly occupy a prominent place not only in the historiography of the problem posed by V. Ya. Grosul, but also in our national historiography as a whole.

Похожие публикации: L^{Украина} L^World Y G

Публикатор:

Petro Semidolya → Контакты и другие материалы (статьи, фото, файлы и пр.)

Официальная страница автора на Либмонстре: https://elibrary.com.ua/Petro

Искать материалы публикатора в системах: Либмонстр (весь мир) • Google • Yandex

Постоянная ссылка для научных работ (для цитирования):

P. V. SOVETOV, E. E. CHERTAN, Reviews by V. Ya. GROSUL. REFORMS IN THE DANUBIAN PRINCIPALITIES AND RUSSIA (20-30S OF THE XIX CENTURY) // Киев: Библиотека Украины (ELIBRARY.COM.UA). Дата обновления: 19.06.2023. URL: https://elibrary.com.ua/m/articles/view/Reviews-by-V-Ya-GROSUL-REFORMS-IN-THE-DANUBIAN-PRINCIPALITIES-AND-RUSSIA-20-30S-OF-THE-XIX-CENTURY (дата обращения: 18.06.2026).

Найденный поисковым роботом источник:

Автор(ы) публикации - P. V. SOVETOV, E. E. CHERTAN:

P. V. SOVETOV, E. E. CHERTAN → другие работы, поиск: Либмонстр - Украина • Либмонстр - мир • Google • Yandex

Комментарии: