Foreign travellers and border symbolism

The accounts of 37 travellers passing through the Romanian space have been preserved from the period under review. If we take nation as a criterion for comparison, the following situation results: 10 of the travellers are French, 5 are German, 6 British, 4 Russians, 2 Austrians, 2 Spanish, 1 Hungarian, 1 Scottish, 1 Danish, 1 Italian, 1 Armenian, 1 Polish, and two of them are of an uncertain origin: Greek or Levantine, Hungarian or Austrian. Although the origin of those crossing the Romanian space is not always relevant, on top of the list we note the presence of travellers of French origin. France was still the major power in Europe at the turn of the 18^th and 19^th centuries. The French are followed by Germans and British, important powers and with major interests in the Orient.

There are also three Russian travellers, but their number is not relevant as Russia also had other ways by which its representatives could reach Istanbul.

With regard to their professions, the following order results: 13 are high officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: consuls, commercial affairs commissioners, diplomats, 14 of them are officers or are connected with the army, 1 archaeologist, 1 explorer, 1 geologist, 1 collectioner of antiques, 1 teacher, 1 statistician, 1 monk, 1 minister, 1 merchant, 1 archduke. As it can be seen, the vast majority of the travellers have higher education. The travellers‟ professional structure leads us to the following assertion, namely that the civilian and military representatives of the great powers were present in the Romanian space or just crossed it. Only eight of the travellers have liberal professions and are animated only by scientific and professional curiosity. This shows that the reasons for travelling were connected to the States sending them and to the interests of the latter. Hence the prevailing political and economic interests at the expense of scientific ones and of personal knowledge. The great professional training routes were still inside the Western part of Europe¹⁷. Political interests are, however, linked with Turkey and Russia, located on the Eastern border of Europe, between the Occident and the Orient.

As for the place where their journey began, the direction from where they entered the Romanian countries, 20 travellers entered from Central Europe, 12 from Istanbul and 5 from the Tsarist Empire. The result reflects the power dynamics and the interest for the Romanian space at the beginning of the 19^th century. Although we are dealing with an equal ration of the travellers arriving from the West with those arriving from the East and South, the majority are those coming from Western Europe. The report can also serve as a mark of Western and Central European states‟ interest in the Romanian space¹⁸. But the direction

17 Gilles Bertrand, op. cit., p. 247.

18 Andrei Oţetea, Scrieri istorice alese, prefaţă de acad. David Prodan, ediţie şi studiu introductiv de Florin Constantiniu şi Şerban Papacostea, Cluj-Napoca, 1980, pp. 69-176. Vlad Georgescu, Mémoires et projets de réforme dans les Principautés roumaines, 1769–1830, Bucureşti, 1970. Pompiliu Eliade, op.

cit., pp. 176-198; Jean Nouzille, „La diplomatie française et les Principautés au début du XIXe siècle“, in Revue Roumaine d‟Histoire, tome XXXVIII, nos 1-4, janvier-décembre 1999, pp. 3-36.

The Image of Europe at the Eastern Border of Europe

the Romanian countries are entered from is also relevant for us. The travellers‟

accounts and their moods while crossing the border will also be influenced by this small detail.

On their way to their destinations, the travellers cross borders between smaller, less important states and Empires in different stages of development, with different borders and political systems. As we have seen in the time span analyzed, most travellers enter from Central Europe. Consequently, they crossed Austria, Hungary and went further on, either on the routes through Transylvania, or on those through Banat towards Wallachia. Entering Wallachia from the Ottoman Empire, for example, did not cause important changes in the travellers‟ perception.

Crossing the territory of Wallachia mostly makes them happy to get closer to the border with Banat, Transylvania or Bukovina. Their perception of the Romanian space, of the frontiers they cross gives the travellers the opportunity to make scholarly comments, geopolitical considerations, and also to express many personal opinions coming from their personal experiences. The border is a space that separates countries, and crossing it causes the travellers to have different frames of mind, depending on the places they are leaving and the country they are entering. The roads towards and through the Romanian countries require the travellers to choose the direction of travel, to cross borders between states, watercourses, mountain chains or endless stretches of plains. Consequently, routes are for the authors an occasion for numerous comments and considerations. The travellers writing in their diaries records of experiences lived in the Romanian space also give pieces of information on crossing the borders between the states.

But before discussing the symbolism of the political border and the travellers‟

mood, let‟s see which were the main roads crossing the Romanian countries, the entrance and exit routes towards Europe and towards the Orient. The most usual route on the way to Istanbul, crossing Transylvania and Wallachia, passed through the towns of Cluj – Alba-Iulia – Sibiu, where it divided into two roads to Bucharest.

One crossed the Carpathians through the gorge of Turnu Roşu, going down to the capital by Râmnicu Vâlcea and Piteşti, and the other passed through Braşov – Rucăr pass – Câineni – Câmpulung – Târgovişte, or along Valea Prahovei through Ploieşti, both routes passing through Bucharest¹⁹. If the travellers came from Banat, then they followed the itinerary Timişoara – Lugoj – Hunedoara – Alba Iulia – Sibiu, and from there on, along the usual way towards the capital of Wallachia, or they descended from Timişoara towards Cerneţi on the Danube, and then through Craiova – Slatina – Piteşti towards Bucharest. The peregrines crossing Moldavia descending towards the Black Sea took the route Chernivtsi – Siret – Suceava (through Bukovina occupied by Austrians) – Iaşi – Fălciu – Galaţi,

19 Călători străini despre Ţările Române. Serie nouă, vol. I (1801-1821), volum îngrijit de Georgeta Filitti, Beatrice Marinescu, Şerban Rădulescu-Zoner, Maria Stroia (secretar de volum).

Redactor-responsabil Paul Cernovodeanu, Editura Academiei Române, Bucureşti, 2004, p. 16.

then following the Danube to its mouth; when travelling towards Wallachia they used the route Iaşi – Roman – Bacău – Adjud – Focşani, and towards Transylvania they crossed the Carpathians through the passes of Oituz and Bârgău, to Târgu Secuiesc, Braşov or Bistriţa; towards Russia they took the road Iaşi – Ungheni – Chişinău. The travellers who used the Danube route, embarking on steam ships either in Vienna, or in Pest, were transshipped at Porţile de Fier, then went on to Cerneţi – Calafat – Corabia, where they followed the river to Giurgiu (from there to Bucharest) or continued their journey to Galaţi (for Moldavia) or passed through the Delta (through Sulina branch) towards Odessa or Istanbul. The same routes were also used by travellers returning from Turkey and heading for Central Europe towards Vienna or for Russia²⁰.

Returning from Istanbul, Daniel Clarke perceived the passage from the Ottoman Empire towards Wallachia, a province under the domination of the Porte, in relation to a certain kind of comfort offered by carriage travel and, obviously, to a certain type of mentality.

“On April 16”,– writes Daniel Clarke – “we crossed the Danube. On the other bank, the carriages of Wallachia‟s ruler. [...] Some of the Turks had never before sat in a wheeled vehicle and when the carriages set in motion they stuck their bearded heads out the windows throwing the most pitiful looks one can imagine. [...] For us the change wasn‟t less memorable either, as one year and a half had passed since we had left Russia and we had spent the entire time travelling without once having at our disposal a wheeled carriage”²¹.

Crossing the Danube, the British traveller on his way to England was entering Wallachia. But most travellers did not feel that as there was no militarized border with the Ottoman Empire. Wallachia had been for a few centuries under the domination of the Ottoman Porte, and in the 18^th century the Ottoman Empire increased its presence in the Romanian space. In time, the Turks managed to occupy the towns on the Danube, and directly controlled the territories around the fortifications by organizing the rayas and the Pashaliks²². The ruler was appointed directly by the Sultan, and the institutions of the country were effectively controlled by the Porte²³. Even if the country had maintained a

20 Ibidem, pp. 16-17.

21 Edward Daniel Clarke, Relaţia călătoriei de-a lungul coastei dobrogene, in Călători străini despre Ţările Române, Serie nouă, vol. I (1801-1821), volum îngrijit de Georgeta Filitti, Beatrice Marinescu, Şerban Rădulescu-Zoner, Maria Stroia (secretar de volum), redactor-responsabil Paul Cernovodeanu, Editura Academiei Române, Bucureşti, 2004, p. 56.

22 Istoria românilor. Vol. IV. De la universalitatea creştină către Europa „patriilor“. Comitetul de redacţie al volumului: acad. Ştefan Ştefănescu şi acad. Camil Mureşanu, redactori responsabili, prof. univ. dr. Tudor Teoteoi, secretar, Bucureşti, 2001, pp. 572-575.

23 Leonid Boicu, Principatele Române în raporturile politice internaţionale (1792-1821). Ediţie de Victor Spinei, Iaşi, 2001, p. 38.

The Image of Europe at the Eastern Border of Europe

certain autonomy, there were few elements informing the travellers that the Danube was the border between two states and that, crossing it, they entered another country. Even the presence of the carriages sent by the ruler for the delegation coming from Istanbul could be a clue of the relations between the Sultan and the ruler of the country.

However, for the beginning of the 19^th century travellers, the carriage was synonymous with civilization and a certain way of life. It could protect them against the weather conditions, offering comfort for long and tiresome journeys.

The carriage made the Turks accompanying the ambassador to Vienna feel uneasy, even apprehensive. Eduard Daniel Clarke, who had been for several years in Russia and Turkey where he had not used carriages any longer, experienced the same feelings. The British traveller‟s account suggested the readers, somewhat indirectly, that in the North of the Danube one was closer to the normality specific to the European world, unlike in the lands situated South of the Danube.

For Eduard Daniel Clarke, the true border of the Ottoman Empire was more to the North, on the Carpathians. On his way to his homeland, the traveller crossed Wallachia and entered the great Principality of Transylvania. Getting closer to Transylvania stirred into the traveller states of mind, emotions that he recorded in his travel notes. Proximity to the border is marked by several elements, which we have named border “witnesses” and which are recorded by other travellers as well. Thus, the watch posts where there were guards on both sides of the border, the table with the imperial emblem, the quarantine were some of the elements marking the border. Along with these elements, one can identify more others belonging to the category of elements that symbolically mark the passage from one world to another.

“We crossed a very impetuous river towards Câineni”, – wrote the British author –“the last possession of Wallachia‟s ruler. Soon after leaving Câineni, a peasant‟s <presence>, posted as a sentry in front of a roadside shack, indicates the border of the principality; a small torrent flowing through a hollow between the mountains and streaming into Olt river forms the border between this part of Wallachia and Transylvania. The imperial emblem, painted on a small table, placed on the side of a mountain, overlooking this torrent, gave us the good news that, after crossing a small bridge which stood before us, we will have left the Ottoman Empire. On the Transylvanian side of the same torrent, another peasant, standing before another shack, was also posted as a sentinel”.²⁴

The British official‟s account records the first signs they were getting near the border announced by a waterway flowing very impetuously and by a place, Câineni, which was the last possession of Wallachia‟s ruler. As they approached

24 Edward Daniel Clarke, op. cit., p. 67.

the border, the traveller also saw other elements, such as the sentinel, in this case a peasant, and the shack, situated on the roadside, all indicating proximity to the border of the principality. The British official did not hide his joy for leaving Wallachia and entering the Habsburg Empire. The sight of the imperial emblem made him feel safe and consider with optimism the journey, obviously in opposition to the experiences endured in Wallachia.

Christine Reinhard was also marked by crossing the border; the sight of the imperial emblem stirred in her a different state of mind, as her journey, unlike Eduard Daniel Clarke‟s, was in the opposite sense. She came from Hamburg, where her husband had been accredited to the Hanseatic cities and lower Saxony, and accompanied him in his new mission, that of a resident and general commissioner for trade relations in the Romanian Principalities²⁵. Although difficult, the route of Transylvania made her endure stoically all the difficulties encountered. The great unknown proves to be the crossing into Wallachia. “We leave Sibiu” – wrote Christine Reinhard –“early in the morning on a wonderful weather and we quickly reach Turnu Roşu where Prince Ipsilanti‟s representative and a part of the escort of honour have come to meet us. I was looking at the tower and at the gorge that dominates it while the Wallachian emissaries conveyed the prince‟s greetings to my husband. This building preserved and painted in red, wrote the traveller, has nothing interesting, yet for me it had a special meaning and represented the barrier separating me from all I cared about”²⁶. Christine Reinhard felt that one fine day in the summer of 1806 she was heading for another world, the building in Turnu Roşu symbolically separating a world she knew from another, unknown one, which seemed to her to be far from her expectations. The building had nothing spectacular but was of a great importance for our traveller, it was the boundary stone marking the known from the unknown, safety from uncertainty.

Vince Batthyány, a Hungarian nobleman, an Aulic Advisor, also had such experiences. His two trips, in 1801 and 1805, are from the Habsburg Empire to Wallachia and to Moldavia. On his way back during the second trip, Vince Batthyány wrote some of his impressions on the border between Moldavia and the Habsburg Empire.

“It was dusk when we crossed the Prut river”, – wrote the Aulic Advisor – “which in this part forms our border and this far it got dark. However, the governors of the border finished with us quickly and politely. We had to spend the night in the bad tavern, as intruders had occupied the room held ready for us by the quarantine inspector”²⁷.

25 Călători străini despre Ţările Române. Serie nouă, vol. I (1801-1821), p. 239, (În continuare Călători străini...).

26 Christine Reinhard, Scrisori, în Călători străini..., p. 283.

27 Vince Batthyány, Călătoria prin Ţara Românească, Scrisoarea a douăsprăzecea, in Călători străini..., pp. 107-108.

The Image of Europe at the Eastern Border of Europe

Besides the concept of border, marked in this case by the Prut river, the traveller also brings into discussion the border officials and the place of accommodation for the travellers surprised by nightfall near the border. The author feels firsthand the difference between the accommodation in the quarantine room and that in the tavern near the border.

William Wittman, a military doctor on his way from Constantinople to England, who crossed Wallachia, Moldavia, Bukovina, Galicia and Silezia, reaching on a first step of the journey to Vienna²⁸, remarked the following elements while crossing from Moldavia into Bukovina: “After a short stop, we left Dorohoi heading for Herţa and then to the post station near Chernivtsi, where the quarantine director lives. Here is the quarantine where the foreigners‟ passports and luggage are inspected before they enter the “German Empire”²⁹. This time, besides the already known elements marking the border, namely the quarantine and the post station close to Chernivtsi, two new elements appear: passport and luggage control.

Adam Neale, a military doctor of Scottish origin passing through Moldavia in 1805³⁰, made the following record: “The territory of Moldavia starts at Ţureni, a hamlet of a few houses, where there are both post stations, the Austrian and the Moldavian one, and some Greek and Austrian commissars for controlling and stamping the passports³¹. In this account, the delimitation of the border runs along a locality, Ţureni, where both post stations, Austrian and Moldavian, operated and where the Greek and Austrian officials were also present to control and stamp the passports. The novelty in this case is given by delimiting the border between two states through a locality and the information the author gives us that the passports are stamped as proof of crossing the frontier. The passport, the signature and the stamp in the passport were identification elements in the new country, inside the border. The passage from one country to another left traces such as the stamp and the signature applied on the passport.

In his turn, Joseph Rohrer, a statistician visiting Bukovina and Moldavia in 1802, in an extended journey also including Galicia, Silesia and Moravia, on his way back from Moldavia to Bukovina³², noted the following:

“During the last night I slept on the divan of a Moldavian Boyar, who was kind enough to ask his Arnaut, a man armed with pistols and a Turkish yataghan, with a terrifying look but, as it seems, with a good heart, to prepare my pillows and bring me a blanket. How strange it will seem to me today to

28 William Wittman, in Călători străini..., p. 129.

29 William Wittman, in Călători străini..., p. 136.

30 Adam Neale (m. 1832), in Călători străini..., p. 172.

31 Adam Neale, Relaţia călătoriei prin Moldova (1805), in Călători străini..., p. 173.

32 Joseph Rohrer (1769-1828), in Călători străini..., p. 152.

find again in the inn where I stopped the first time a regular wood bed on which lay a sack of straws”³³.

In this case, although there is no explicit talk of the border, a number of elements appear which we would include into the second group of indicators defining and marking the border. From the Austrian traveller‟s account, the second category of elements marking the Moldavian border would be the Boyar house, the divan, the Arnaut, the Turkish yataghan, and, on the other side of the border, in the Empire, the inn, the wood bed, the sack of straws.

The British Lord William Cavendish Bentinck, who left Istanbul on November 25, 1801, heading for London, passing through Dobrogea, Wallachia, Transylvania and Banat³⁴, recorded crossing the border from Wallachia to Transylvania in only one paragraph: “Saturday, December 5. At 12 o‟clock we arrived at Curtea de Argeş. The four post stations between Curtea de Argeş and

The British Lord William Cavendish Bentinck, who left Istanbul on November 25, 1801, heading for London, passing through Dobrogea, Wallachia, Transylvania and Banat³⁴, recorded crossing the border from Wallachia to Transylvania in only one paragraph: “Saturday, December 5. At 12 o‟clock we arrived at Curtea de Argeş. The four post stations between Curtea de Argeş and