834707838

46 Cristina Ton 6

Nicolae Mavrocordat took the rule of Romania (...) the tree of our natio-nality had been eaten away before by the worms from Phanar” ³⁰.

A. T. Laurian, noticeably due to the large place accorded to this e-poch and its systematical treatment, seems to be a special case. Among the authors of textbooks, he is one of the few or the only one who recognizes some merits to Nicolae Mavrocordat: “he started to rule decently, to elear away the evil facts done in his previous reigns (...), built the Vacaresti mo-nastery, built schools and founded libraries; he himself was concemed with literaturę and eamed a great appreciation of the leamed Europeans” ³¹. A. T. Laurian is among the very few textbook writers who took a part of the Phanariots’ guilt and transferred it to the morę abstract “fate” (Constantin Mavrocordat was a prince “manipulated by fate”)³².

It would be interesting to see what attitude did the textbook authors adopt towards some aspects that could appear as “positive” no matter the favourable or the disadvantageous interpretations, such as the reforms of Constantin Mavrocordat and Alexandru Ipsilanti and the assassination of Grigore III Ghica by the Turks. Some textbook authors, such as Basiliu Dragosiescu or V. A. Urechia, are explicit: “Since every generał rule has its exceptions, also in the reign of the Phanariots are some exceptions. A few did also something good for the country, others showed even patriotic fe-elings, sacrificing themselves for it” ³³.

The positions with regard to the reforms enforced by Constantin Ma-vrocordat are ąuite diverse. The first attitude consists in denying any good intention: for those who think so, the reforms were only the ultimate expres-sion of the Phanariotic hypocrisy, another way of satisfying the personal inte-rest of the prince, a way of “extorting morę money from the country” (George Hrisoscoleu)³⁴. B. B. Secareanu has a similar opinion: the reform “was not dictated by the love for the country but by the personal interest, sińce he (Constantin Mavrocordat) inereased the taxes in order to get rich” ³⁵. A. D. Xenopol hesitates between approval and disapproval: “Constantin Ma-vrocordat, by supressing serfdom, did an unąuestionable good to the inha-bitants of the country, but he did not do this out of love for the country but our of interest, in order to inerease the taxes which opress the peasants” ^3fl.

A second attitude towards Constantin Mavrocordat’s reform consists in acknowledging its importance. For instance, Grigorie Cristescu thinks that “this reform honours the name of Constantin Mavrocordat” ³⁷; also E-lefterie Ropala thinks that “this reform, by liberating the peasants, redeems many of the mistakes madę by Constantin Mavrocordat” ³⁸.

³⁰ M. C. Florentiu, op. cit., p. 107—108.

⁸¹ A. T. Laurian, op. cit., 1873, p. 525.

³²    A. T. Laurian, op. cit., 1860, p. 130—131.

³³    Basiliu Dragosiescu, op. cit., p. 66.

³⁴    George Hrisoscoleu, Elcmente de istoria rom&nilor pentru clasele primare de ambe sexe, Galami, 1875, p. H9.

⁸⁶    B. B. Sec&reanu, Prescurtare din istoria Romdnilor lucratd pentru elevii scolelor primare de ambe sexe_t Bucureęti, 1883, p. 151.

⁸⁸ A. D. Xenopol, op. cit., p. 90.

⁸⁷    Grigorie Cristescu, Manuał de istoria Romdnilor, curs ufor fi metodic pentru scoalcle primare, Iaęi, 1877, p. HI.

³⁸ Elefterie Ropal&, Elemente de istoria Rom&nilor pentru scoalele primare de ambele secse, Ia$i, 1878, p. 53.