32
Article 46 of the Paris Convention dealt with
the Jewish situation in the
Principalities: all Moldavians and Wallachians were to be equal before the law
and equal with regard to taxation and admission to public employment.
Moldavians and Wallachians of the Christian faith were to enjoy political rights,
which
could later be extended to persons of other religions. This meant that civil
rights were guaranteed to all inhabitants, but political rights only to the
Christians.
6
It had been the original intention of the Powers to emancipate the
Romanian Jews gradually through Romanian legislation. However, the
Romanians planned nothing of the sort. On the contrary, the situation of the
Jews worsened in the second half of the 19th century.
Prince Alexandru Ion Cuza, after having been
elected as prince both in
Moldavia and Wallachia (resulting in a personal union of the Principalities
7
),
made some promises to the Jewish population on the improvement of their
legal status. The Civil Code of 1865 implied that there was to be gradual
emancipation in accordance with the Convention of Paris and gave Jews the
possibility to acquire citizen’s status.
8
However, the Civil Code was of no consequence, as Cuza was overthrown
and a new prince, Carol I, was elected in 1866. Carol I (or Charles I), from the
German house of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen,
was the Prince of Romania
between 1866 and 1881, and the King of Romania between 1881 and 1914.
9
At
the beginning of Carol’s rule, in 1866, a new Constitution was passed. The
constitution took a firm stand: it stated bluntly that only Christians could
become Romanian citizens.
10
As a rule, accounts and interpretations of the incidents of the 1860s and
1870s either tend to emphasise the anti-Semitism of the Romanian government
or, at the other extreme, attempt to explain the government activities as self-
preservation and ‘normal’ measures against vagabond aliens. The situation was
inflammable between 1866 and 1877; this was a period of frenzied action
around the Jewish question. The Romanian public engaged in occasional small-
scale anti-Jewish disturbances, while the Romanian government passed anti-
Jewish legislation. Western Jews hurried to
help their fellow believers, and the
United States and West European Powers protested against the treatment of
Romanian Jews.
11
Among the most well-known episodes of the era were the notorious
Brătianu circulars of 1867 which ordered the expulsion of vagabond Jews, the
6
Rey 1903, 464; Fink 2004, 11.
7
Prior to the Crimean War, the name
Danubian Principalities was generally used. Then,
in the Convention of Paris 1858, the name
United Principalities of Moldavia and
Wallachia was adopted into international usage. In 1859, the Romanians themselves
introduced the name
Romania in the domestic context, although this name was
notrecognised internationally. The international community as a whole adopted the
name only after the Congress of Berlin in 1878.
8
Wolloch 1988, 53-57.
9
For a short overview on this period, see Butnaru 1992, 14-16.
10
Wolloch 1988, 57.
11
For a standard Western overview on Romanian history during this period, see, for
example, Durandin 1995, 176-182.
33
drowning of some expelled Jews in the Danube in 1867, and a series of pogroms
and arrests of Jews following a theft of church valuables in Southern
Bessarabia
12
in 1872.
13
Adding to the controversy, the United States government
sent Benjamin F. Peixotto,
a Jew himself, to Bucharest as an American consul.
During his time in Romania, 1870-1876, Peixotto acted vigorously on behalf of
Romanian Jews.
14
What were the reasons for the emergence of the Romanian Jewish
question in the international arena? Lloyd A. Cohen has tried to produce an
answer. It would seem that the Jewish question should have been of minor
importance in the era of Romanian nation building. However, according to
Cohen, it grew out of proportion for three main reasons. The first was the
frequently mentioned massive influx of Jews to Moldavia. The second
component was the inability of any Romanian government to find a solution to
the Jewish question. Finally, the interference of
the international Jewry and
foreign governments complicated the issue.
15
On the other hand, it was
precisely because of the newly emerged national framework that the Jewish
presence seemed more disturbing.
The Jewish question was hence extended from a purely domestic issue to
an international problem, which further complicated matters. Now, it was not
only a question of finding a compromise solution within Romania, but also of
reconciling the outside forces. The Romanian Jews, or
rather a vocal minority of
them, believed that the intervention of their Western coreligionists would be an
answer to their problems. This led to protests from foreign Jews, who first tried
to receive assurances from the Romanian leaders. However, the attempts of
Jewish organisations failed, and they began to request action from their
respective governments. The Western Jewry indeed managed to persuade the
governments of their home countries to intervene in the Romanian situation.
The motivations of the Western governments included, on one hand,
genuine
humanitarian concern and questions of conscience, due to their treatment of
Jews in their own countries, and, on the other hand, willingness to use the
Jewish question as a tool to meddle in Balkan affairs.
16
These motives were to be
apparent in the early twentieth century as well.
Although Cohen’s observations appear to be accurate for the most part,
the process of internationalisation was not quite as straightforward as he claims.
12
Southern Bessarabia, acquired in 1856, was ceded to Russia again in 1878. The matter
caused some friction between Russia and Romania.
13
A separate
British State Papers volume,
Correspondence Respecting the Condition and
Treatment of the Jews in Servia and Roumania, 1867-1876, discusses the issue from the
British viewpoint. For a detailed description of the era and for the French viewpoint,
see Iancu 1978 and Iancu 1980. On the role of the Alliance Israélite Universelle, albeit
very briefly, there is Chouraqui 1965, 87-100. On the Brătianu circulars, see also Stan
& Ioşa, 129-133, for a Romanian interpretation. The Romanian Prime Minister was
Ion C. Brătianu (1821-1891), not to be confused with his son Ion I. C. Brătianu (1864-
1927), also a Romanian politician.
14
Kohler and Wolf 1916, 12-24. On the Peixotto episode, there is also Gartner 1974.
15
L. Cohen 1982, 195, 197.
16
L. Cohen 1982, 200-202.