Between their first documentary attestation at the end of 14th century, and until the middle of the 19th century, Roma people in Romanian Principalities had a well-defined status, that of slaves. Under this condition, Roma slaves were forced to work the mighty members of the society who actually use to own for generations. Moreover, although the owners did not have the right of life and death over them, the Roma slaves were entirely at the will of the owner, who could sell them, exchange, donate, bequeath, give dowry, or pawn them. Depending on the owner, the Roma slaves were divided into three categories: crown’s slaves, monastic slaves and boyars’ slaves. The slaves of the crown meant those who were belonging to the state and were under princely administration. The monastic slaves (owned by monasteries and other religious institutions) mostly came from the donations made by the princes and boyars. The last category, that of boyars (local nobles), was generally made up of slaves received from princes as donations, but also of those who were conquered in wars, inherited or bought.
The sources selected in this section are documents that capture aspects describing one of the most complicated issues of the Roma slaves, namely marriage. Before the 18th century, documents do not provide much information on this aspect or are evasive. From the beginning of this century, one might observe a slight tendency to elaborate on the issues contained in the documents. During the mid-18th century, legislation was passed that had a significant impact on enslaved people, as reflected in the historical documents of the time. The documentary sources on which this section is based are of two types: laws and extracts of laws from the 18th and 19th centuries regulating the marriage of Roma until the abolition of slavery. In the absence of registries of births, deaths and marriages, the second type of documents are property deeds of the masters of the Roma slaves. This type of document reflects how the legislation adopted at that time was implemented. All these documentary sources capture the situation in both Romanian territories outside the Carpathian arc, Moldavia and Wallachia, where the condition of the Roma in terms of marriage is very similar, despite some minor differences.
The documents chosen to illustrate these issues give hints towards aspects of Roma’s life during slavery, especially their spiritual life. The social practice of marriage also involves a religious aspect, as evident in the procession itself and the celebration of the sacrament of marriage by a Church representative. Thus, the Roma slaves were no strangers to it. Even if it is challenging to examine the degree of religiosity of the Roma slaves, the selected sources show that they chose to marry or were already married in the Orthodox rite. Despite poor descriptions, the sources suggest that formal marriage was more common among the settled Roma than among the nomad ones. The settled Roma, living close to their masters, were influenced by them and encouraged to practice customs associated with Orthodox marriage. If they were owned by monasteries and lived on Monastery property, they were all the more influenced to observe the canons of the Orthodox Church (Fr. Grisellini, apud in Potra, 1939, p. 98). It was impossible for Roma living in a community not to obey the same rules as the majority, as the community sanctioned any non-compliance or deviation from the norm in order to maintain social order. However, documents from that time do not record much information on the religious aspect, except for the celebration of marriages.
The religious union of Roma slaves is recorded in the documents of the time by words that can be interpreted in this sense. The linguistic notions which emphasize or suggest the legal/religious character of the marriages of the Roma slaves are part of the marital linguistic field. Thus, there are formulas such as “got married,” “have wed,” or “wedding,” emphasizing the spiritual union between the two spouses. Otherwise, if the two do not have official recognition of their cohabitation, the documents describe this state of affairs in other terms. In this context, the expressions most often used are: “a Gypsy took her,” “the Gypsy woman went after the Gypsy man,” “they got together,” and “they have an understanding” (Constantin, 2007, pp. 126–127). All these notions give hints to the ways in which the couple was formed and that it has not yet been officially recognized. The marriage sacraments were performed by Church representatives, either the parish priest or monks from monasteries that had Roma slaves on their domain. Thus, the sources selected in this section reveal the involvement of the religious actor in the Roma marriage ritual. It is not to be understood that all Roma were in a position where they could benefit from a religious marriage ceremony. This situation used to occur more frequently in cases involving those with permanent residence. Even in this context, the lack of civil status documents raises certain doubts. With the adoption of the Wallachian and Moldavian Organic Regulation (Regulamentele Organice ale Valahiei și Moldovei, 1944, p. 257), in the case of nomad slaves, the rites of passage officiated by the Church (baptism, marriage, burial) are required for nomad slaves. They are also imposed on the clerics who are thus charged with the mission of “moral improvement” of the former. Before the adoption of these legislative regulations in Wallachia, there had been an attempt to Christianize the nomad slaves. In August 1786, the ruler Nicolae Mavrogheni sent two priests to preach among the nomad slaves owned by boyars. The lack of further information regarding this measure leads us to believe that there were not many consequences of the ruler’s decision (Achim, 2022, p. 128).
The Organic Regulations specified that Roma, who wished to marry, had to pay a marriage tax, which in Moldavia amounted to one leu and, in Wallachia, one thaler. This money had to be given to the priests for the marriage certificate (Regulamentele Organice ale Valahiei și Moldovei, 1944, p. 208; Analele Parlamentare ale României, Vol. II/1, 1892, p. 654). The lack of sources prevents us from verifying whether the same amount was also demanded before 1831–1832 from the Roma slaves. Many of the Roma did not earn enough money from their itinerant activities to afford to pay taxes to their master, support their daily subsistence, and purchase a marriage certificate. Thus, we have strong reasons to believe that the financial aspect significantly influenced the Roma’s choice for a religious marriage ceremony.
Before the 19th century, the Orthodox Church did not have a systematic policy of Christianization or religious inclusion of Roma slaves. Officiating marriages was a natural act, serving as a method to prevent the two members of the couple from living in sin. As the priests were part of the communities they were preaching in and were often born and raised within the same communities (Zahariuc, 2016, p. 67), they were more interested in preserving social stability and tranquillity. This situation, for example, explains why Church law was disregarded in Vaslui County (Moldavia) by priests in the context of officiating mixed marriages between Roma and Moldavians 15 years after the adoption of the 1766 laws issued by the ruler of Moldavia. Under a new threat of being excommunicated and transferred to the ranks of the taxpayers, the priests in the villages, market towns, and monasteries of that county had to sign letters stating that they had acknowledged the order of the ruler Constantin Dimitrie Moruzi (see the document ANI, Documents, 417/182). The same commandment would be repeated four years later in the new law concerning the marriage of slaves, called Sobornicescul Hrisov.
For a marriage to be religiously officiated, the couple had to meet certain conditions. On the one hand, the canons of the Orthodox Church had to be respected, namely that the bride and groom had to give their consent (which remained, of course, theoretical), that they were not blood relatives, that they had not been previously married more than three times and that they were of “the right age.” On the other hand, something else was needed, something that weighed more than the above conditions and that could influence the legality or illegality of the marriage, i.e., obtaining the consent of the master(s) (Achim, 2004, p. 38). Until the masters gave their consent, the couple could be formed in various ways: free consent (in which the two spouses took each other willingly), an agreement between the future husband and the girl’s parents or even the abduction of the girl and subsequent marriage. At the same time, there were also situations in which the owners of the slaves intervened in the constitution of a couple, thus forcing slaves into marriages (Mateescu, 2014, pp. 52–54).
Returning to the need for approval of marriage on behalf of the master(s)’, this stemmed from the very condition of being dependent people. In this respect, we consider that two primary factors were at play in this situation. Firstly, we can discuss paternalism and infantilization, and secondly, property, or rather, the right of ownership. Why do we choose to talk about paternalism? Because this type of master is “inclined to offer more generous care and treatment to those who depend on them,” of course, “expecting in return gratitude, obedience, docility, even love” (Shell, 1994, p. XXVII). These deeply subjective motives also led to the infantilization of slaves. Through this method, they “exercised their power over them,” thus associating them with “children who represent vulnerability, dependence, submissiveness, and inferiority” (Duane, 2010, pp. 10, 15). Thus, the slave owners granted themselves the right to decide on the marriage of their slaves by considering themselves as the good parents of their own, not biological, children, placed in their care and who were unable to make right decisions on their own.
The other aspect that interferes with marriage is the right of ownership. The historian Bogdan Mateescu assessed marriage as “the means by which the master’s authority inserted itself into the private and intimate life of the slaves” (Mateescu, 2014, p. 19), and we, in turn, believe that protecting the right of ownership over the servants was as important as imposing authority. The right of ownership becomes more complicated when slaves owned by different masters decide to marry. For centuries, it had been customary for the family to be separated and the children divided between the two masters. From the 18th century onwards, the first revisions of this inhumane approach appeared. Thus, in 1743, the ruler Constantin Mavrocordat decided that the official marriage of slaves was indissoluble, regardless of the conditions under which it took place. As an alternative, a compensatory exchange was proposed, while the division of children remained legal (Codrescu, 1857, pp. 403–404).
The compensatory exchange was not a new practice, but after this new law was passed in Moldavia, acts of exchange or agreements for subsequent exchange became increasingly numerous. In Wallachia, the first legislation to include provisions on the marriage of slaves with different masters were not formulated until 1780, when the Pravilniceasca Condică was issued. The part relating to the marriage of slaves was inspired by the 1766 laws issued by the boyars of Moldavia. From all these texts, we learn that it was the woman who was subject to the exchange because “the Gypsy woman followed her husband according to the old custom” (Pravilniceasca Condică -1780, crtical edition by Andrei Rădulescu et alii., 1957). Of course, there was also the option of exchanging husbands when it was not possible to exchange women or of selling them in return for money. At the same time, masters also paid attention to the situation in which slaves forming a couple, subject to exchange or sale, knew a craft. In this way, they could gain one more person in exchange for the one they were renouncing of or an additional sum.
Regarding editing document editions on the topic of the marriage of slaves, there are few examples in this sense. A first attempt to shed light on the subject is the doctoral dissertation by Boris Th. Scurtulencu in 1938, on the “legal and economic situation of the Gypsies in the Romanian Principalities” [Situația juridico-economică a țiganilor în Principatele Române]. In the appendices, the author published, among topic of other interest, some of the marriage laws enacted in the two Principalities over time, up to the Sobornicescul Hrisov of 1785. In the following year, in 1939, a new work, Contribuţiuni la istoricul ţiganilor [Contributions to the history of the Gypsies], signed by George Potra, was published, in which some internal documents referring to the marriages of the slaves are included. Having a general approach, the documents relevant to this issue are relatively few. For a long time, documentary sources on this topic were not published, until 2014 when historian Bogdan Mateescu published the work Căsătoria robilor: între alegerea cuplului și voința stăpânului: Studiu și documente de arhivă despre căsătoriile robilor în Țara Românească după 1830 [The marriage of slaves: between the couple’s choice and the will of the lord]. Considerations and archive documents regarding the slaves’ marriages in Wallachia after 1830]. There are 50 published files and documents that concern, as the title suggests, the marriages of slaves only from Wallachia and after 1830, following the adoption of the Organic Regulation (1831). In the following year, 2015, the same author published the volume Familia în timpul robiei – o perspectivă demografică: Studiu și liste de populație din arhive [Family during the time of the slavery – a demographic perspective: considerations and lists of population from the archives]. The documents used for this volume include the 1836 Census of the Cozia Monastery, the 1838 General Census for the village of Sadova, Dumbrava Plasă, Dolj County, the 1843 Oltenia Census of the slaves of the Sadova Monastery, and the 1847 lists of the freed slaves previously owned by the Metropolitan.
Taking into account the existing imbalance in the volumes of documents dealing with the subject of the marriage of slaves published so far, we consider it useful for the present-day historiography, but also as a research resource, that the legislation of both Romanian Principalities adopted over time, as well as documents that depict the practice influenced by the written legislative norms to be published in a volume. For this purpose, we have also selected documents of the Monastery of Arnota (Wallachia), in addition to the laws adopted in Moldavia and Wallachia from 1743 until the dissolution of slavery. This selection was crucial to align with the PARI project’s central topic, which focuses on the counties of Sibiu and Vâlcea, as the Monastery was under the jurisdiction of the Bishopric of Râmnic, part of Vâlcea County. Furthermore, we have also included some documents referring to the Moldavian slaves, kept at the Iași County Service of the National Archives and the Library of the Romanian Academy. These documents are relevant because they present some special situations regarding the marriage of slaves. The decision to incorporate documentary sources alongside the legislation is motivated by the intention of highlighting the reality in which the respective slaves lived, which was far more complex than the ideal presented in the normative texts. These sources contain information about the life experiences and/or the voices of social actors who are of little importance to the society in which they live and who appear in the archives for the first time, only to disappear without leaving any further traces for posterity (Rossum, 2020, p. 13). We have made this choice because the legal-administrative documents, which have been preserved in the form of property deeds, whether sales-purchases or exchange deeds, only “partially and indirectly respond to the details of individual or family life” of the Roma slaves (Barbu, 2005, p. 102).
The legislation is issued, enforced, strengthened, and reinforced more than once precisely due to the fact that, through its conservative nature, it lacked the power to produce significant changes in the pre-modern Romanian society. It thus did not bring any change, whereas the custom, known as the “custom of the land,” is the one to carry on and to which slave masters resorted to.
The documentary sources selected for publication belong exclusively to the slave masters, so they are written and speak only from the perspective of the powerful. Nevertheless, they remain the only testimonies that record the state of slavery of a community that remained silent for a very long time. We, therefore, subscribe to the idea that Ann Laura Stoler proposes, namely to use these materials as “sources for the production of knowledge” and to think, when writing the history of the little ones, about “what could have been written, what stories could and could not be told, and what could and could not be said” (Smallwood, 2016, p. 124; Stoler, 2009, pp. 17–22).
At the same time, these sources help to reconstruct the family history of the Roma slaves in the context of legislation that was issued both to help those who owned them and to protect the family members. Thus, the laws are a tool for the slave masters to use in order to reach a consensus among themselves and to prevent legal problems resulting from the ownership of some of the members of the Roma slave couple. Alternatively, the advantage of issuing the law on compensatory exchanges for married slaves who had different masters was precisely what the 1766 code of laws had stated, that of no longer separating “father from son and brother from brother” because even if they were slaves, they were still “God’s creation” and it was considered abnormal to separate them as if they were “cattle.” However, as far as mixed marriages were concerned, the laws in force prohibited such marriages in order to preserve a social balance. It was expected that by forbidding mixed marriages, there would be no children who would become slaves, even though they were half-free. The historical documents attached to this section demonstrate that life situations and people’s actions often led to the law being ignored or even broken. Therefore, the historical sources in the section can be a starting point for reconstructing issues such as the role of clerics in the marriage of Roma slaves, the involvement of masters, the issues which arose in the case of marriage between slaves of different masters and especially mixed marriages. Another equally important aspect is to highlight the various instances of decision-making authorities available to people with limited rights yet who have found the power to act according to their wishes.
The documents of the Monastery of Arnota included in this volume were transcribed from the registers of the Monastery, which is kept at the Library of the Romanian Academy in Bucharest, in the Historical Documents Fund, Package CMXIV. The documents are presented in the form of a copy, with the original documents stored at the National Historical Archives in the Arnota Monastery fund, inventory number 10. On the contrary, the historical documents referring to the situation in Moldavia are originals, written on paper, and, like the other documents, are in Cyrillic characters in a language specific to the period. For the sake of readability, the documents have been transcribed according to current spelling and punctuation rules, and the complete form has been reproduced for the words written in abbreviated form.
Documents
Documents depicting the issue of marriage between Roma slaves dated back to the time of slavery.
Document no. 1
By means of the Așezământul Țării Moldovei the ruler of Moldavia, Constantin Mavrocordat, decides upon the indissolubility of marriage and lays down rules regarding the mixed marriage between Roma slaves and Moldavian people (1743).
No one has the right to separate a Gypsy man and a Gypsy woman who belong to two different masters. The masters of those Gypsies may, however, divide their children or receive a certain amount for the Gypsies and their children.
No one has the right to enslave a Moldavian man who has taken a Gypsy woman or a Gypsy who has taken a Moldavian woman, nor their children. But for this, heavy payment must be made, as shown below. The Moldavian man or Moldavian woman and their children shall remain free, but the Gypsy man or the Gypsy woman shall remain enslaved until their death.
Payment is made to the Gypsy owner. The Moldavian man who marries the Gypsy woman will pay 70 lei to the master as compensation for the slave children he loses, 50 lei to the priest who will marry them and 30 lei to the godfather.
And the Gypsy who will marry a Moldavian woman, since some of them are rich and so that their offspring would not be encouraged to leave the slavery condition, they should pay double. That is, only the Gypsy with the Moldavian woman 300 lei which is done with the priest’s and godfather’s fine 380 lei. And this was done to suppress the usual illegalities and to restrain themselves. Neither Moldavian with Gypsy to mix, nor priests, godfathers to no longer marry them.
Source
Th. Codrescu, Uricariul, IV, 403–404.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase în rândul romilor din România, (eds.) Manuela Marin, Marian Zăloagă, Daniela Popescu, Cristina Mocanu, Bogdan Andriescu, Cluj‑Napoca: Editura MEGA, 2024, pp. 30–31 (Henceforth: Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase. …).
Comment
Constantin Mavrocordat declares the indissolubility of marriage regardless of the conditions under which it took place. In the case of mixed marriages, each spouse retained their social status prior to the marriage. However, for this to be possible, substantial sums of money had to be paid for the couple’s future children, which the masters considered as their loss. The sums were so high also in order to discourage the formation of such marriages.
Cristina Mocanu
Document no. 2
The great boyars and clergymen of Moldavia decide in a 10-point Anaphora upon a procedure to be followed in the case of marriage between slaves of different lords and prohibit mixed marriages (January 22, 1766).
BAR, CCLXVI/18
We, Grigorie Alexandru Ghica voevoda Boji(o) milostie G(o)sp(o)dar zemli Moldavscoi
Through the choices that are made in front of all the priests in the Metropolitan of the country and other hierarchs and abbots, separations of Gypsies have been made and many injustices and children have been taken away from their parents. For this purpose, ten points have been written in the following, showing how to proceed in each case. Seeing that it has been written in detail and with justice, my lordship will also follow these points in every instance. Concerning those who were half-breed, that is to say, a Moldavian who took a Gypsy woman or a Gypsy who took a Moldavian woman, who were slaves, my lordship decides as follows: the Moldavian side shall remain free, and the Gypsy side shall be called freed, but they shall remain in the service of their masters. If they decide to displace, their masters can bring them back. By working for their masters, they will redeem the freedom of their children, those up to the age of seven, or those who will be born from now on, being free like any Moldavian and allowed to go wherever they wish. Their children over seven years of age will remain bounded all their lives and will be in the service of their masters. Also, as has been said for their parents, they too must be hindered from marrying Gypsies. As stated in point eight, Moldovans and their children are free to go wherever they wish. The matters of the half-breed shall be judged only on the father’s and mother’s side. My lordship decides that their matters shall not be tried taking into account their ancestry as well. We enforce this anaphora with our signature and seal.
January 26th, 1766
Signed by ourself, Grigori(e) Ghica voivode
Lascăr Roset, first of the Logothetes
Your highness, our lord
By order of your Highness, we have all gathered here at the Holy Metropolitan Seat to determine how to divide the Gypsies, because the decisions regarding their separation were not written down anywhere until now, only the testimonies of the judges remained in this regard.
Some of them receive gifts and confess wrongly [in regard to the ownership of Gypsies]. Afterward, those who have to receive or give away Gypsies want to make it right by oath and curse books. For this, a true Christian should consider his perdition and not swear an oath in such a matter. For a Christian to take a soul servant with a crooked oath makes the judge also to swear crookedly, and to commit sin himself also, having no other righteousness or proof.
Because those who owned Gypsies by inherited property title were to remain only with the property title after the separation and their Gypsies were to go to foreign masters or receive other people’s Gypsies only because the female part of the Gypsy was taken by the foreign Gypsy, which is an ungodly thing and an action abhorred to God and human nature. Her master would be wronged by her service and must wait until she has children and then again, they too would have to be shared. This is even more terrible than the slavery by foreign masters, that is, to separate parents from their children and siblings from one another, even if they are called Gypsies, for they are still God’s creation, and cannot be divided like animals. Therefore, your Lordship commanded us to come to the Metropolitan Seat to decide how to stop the separation of children among Gypsies. Thus, we have investigated and we have decided that from now on the separation of children of Gypsies should cease and that it should be done as follows.
1. The master of a Gypsy who will take a Gypsy woman from another master will have to give another Gypsy woman in exchange, and if he does not have one, he will have to give a Gypsy man in exchange. And if he doesn’t have a Gypsy man, he must pay 30 lei for the Gypsy woman. If he won’t pay for the Gypsy woman, then the master of the Gypsy woman will have to pay 40 lei for the price of the Gypsy man. Whichever side will make the sale or exchange, the buyer will also receive a receipt.
2. If it happens that the Gypsy, either the man or the woman, has a craft and their masters don’t agree on where to keep the couple, then they will go to court and it will be decided there which of them will pay to keep the couple and the benefit from the craft.
3. If a Gypsy man, owned by the Crown, by a boyar or by whomever it might be, takes a Gypsy woman and her master is not known or vice versa and years have passed since they got together and they will have children, then, if the woman’s master is known, then the Gypsy man’s master will pay 30 lei for her and for each child under 16 years of age: 20 lei for each boy and 15 lei for each girl. For children over 16, the owner will pay 40 lei for a Gypsy man and 30 lei for a Gypsy woman. And if the owner of the Gypsy man does not want to return the price of the woman, the owner of the Gypsy woman shall return it according to the decision shown above.
4. A Gypsy man, owned by the Crown, by a boyar or by whomever it might be is not allowed to marry a Gypsy woman owned by a Monastery and no Gypsy man owned by a Monastery is allowed to marry a Gypsy woman owned by a lord, by a boyar or by whomever. If such a thing should happen by guile, without the masters’ knowledge, then the master of the Gypsy must give a Gypsy woman in exchange for the one taken, regardless if the Gypsy is owned by a Monastery or a boyar. On the other hand, it is not allowed to make a bargain for payment, and if an abbot were to do so, the bargain would be invalid. He who gives the money will remain without the amount spent and will still be considered in debt, and the Monastery will have to take back the Gypsy woman. Let it be known for all the priests not to marry a Gypsy man and a Gypsy woman under these conditions, and if a priest does so, he will pay a fine to the Monastery equal to the Gypsy woman price.
5. Let the Gypsy judges oversee that no Gypsy who roams the country in his carriage steals Gypsy girls or Gypsy women and lives with them out of wedlock, lying that they are married. If this should happen, let the judge and the Gypsy be punished. The Gypsy woman shall be returned to her master with her children.
6. If a master of a Gypsy encourages his Gypsy to steal a Gypsy woman from the house of a boyar, of a Monastery, or of any man, and if they marry, the Gypsy will pass into the possession of the master of the Gypsy woman, and the latter shall receive a charter of possession. If a Gypsy does this without the knowledge of his master, the Divan [the Prince’s council] will determine his punishment, and the master of the Gypsy woman will lose his possession.
7. A Gypsy who has been taken into his master’s house as a child, and who serves his master faithfully and justly, will be released from slavery when he comes of age and shall receive from his master a signed paper to prove that he was freed. He shall be free, and so shall his children, grandchildren, and any other relatives. And so shall any Gypsy woman.
8. Until now, if a Gypsy married a Moldavian woman or a Moldavian woman married a Gypsy man, their children would have been treated very unfairly, because they would remain slaves. Because neither Church law nor state law can punish children for their parents’ mistake, we have decided that from now on no Moldavian man shall marry a Gypsy woman and no Moldavian woman shall marry a Gypsy man. And the priests of the Metropolitan diocese and the bishopric dioceses of Moldavia shall not violate this commandment and shall not perform forbidden marriages, for these priests will be defrocked and will become tax payers.
9. If a priest were to marry a Gypsy to a Moldavian woman or a Moldavian woman to a Gypsy by deception, without knowing so, and years will pass, and the two will have children, when the truth will be found out, the marriage will be dissolved. The children will remain with the Moldavian parent, and the Moldavian side will ransom the Gypsy side as follows: a Moldovan man who had four children with a Gypsy woman will keep two of them and buy back the other two. He will pay 80 lei for male children of work age, 60 lei for female children working-age. For children younger than 15 years, he will pay the half price. And when they will not have with what to ransom, the Moldavian part of the parent shall serve the master in exchange for the ransom of his children together with those children of his that are of work age and they will receive 12 lei per year, until the ransom price will be fulfilled, or shall be able to give a written guarantee for this future payment.
10. If a Moldavian man has already taken a Gypsy woman or a Moldavian woman has already taken a Gypsy man, despite the rule that the Moldavian part will be taken into slavery it shall all remain the same, according to the old rules. And all of the above is to remain as such and to be followed forever, a law for all Gypsy women, Gypsy men, for those to be freed from slavery and those Moldavians to wed Gypsy women, except for those separations which already took place.
Your Highness, this is how we have thought to find a just and rightful way, that is to be followed by all and remain as such.
January 22nd, 1766
Yours truly servants of God: Gavriil, Metropolitan Bishop of Moldavia, Ioanichie, Bishop of Roman, Dorotheiu, Bishop of Rădăuț, Inochentie, Bishop of Huși, Sinaid, Ioanichi, Ghidion Barnovschie, Egumen Golia, Stefan, Sofronie.
Yours truly servants: Ștefan Ruset, Logothete, Mihalache Conachi, Logothete, Ioan Paladi, Vornic, Enache Catargiu, Treasurer, Andronache, Vornic, Ioan Canta, Hatman, Vasile Roset, Hatman, Vasile Razu, Hatman, Ilie Costachi, Treasurer, Iordachi Costachi, Treasurer, Iordachi Hrisoscoleu, Ban, Vasile Costachi, Ban, Arghire, Ban.
Written by Iordache, II Logothete.
Source
The Library of the Romanian Academy. Documente Istorice, CCLXVI/18. Editions: A. Papiu Ilarianu, Tesaura de monumente istorice pentru România, vol. III, București, 1864, pp. 193–196.; Boris Th. Scurtulencu, Situația juridico-economică a țiganilor în Principatele române, Iaşi, 1938, pp. II–VII.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, pp. 31–37.
Comment
This document is an unabridged copy from the Romanian Academy Library. The law is important not for the changes it produced (as it was not widely applied) but because it served as the basis for the future legislative act Sobornicescul Hrisov, adopted in 1785. With several changes, this remained in effect until the abolition of slavery and was also applied in Wallachia, in the Code of Laws Pravilniceasca Condică, where it had a broader application. This copy contains the names of the personalities who contributed to its writing, including the Metropolitan, the Bishops of Roman, Huși, and Rădăuți, and other priests from the Churches in Iași, as well as boyars holding positions within the ruler’s council. The identification of individuals requires a critical analysis, as there may be errors in transcribing signatures from the original document.
Cristina Mocanu
Document no. 3
The ruler of Moldavia, Alexandru Ioan Mavrocordat, issues a law establishing rules to be followed in the context of marriages between slaves owned by different masters. Regarding the mixed marriage, the ruler decides to forbid and annul it by separating the family (December 28, 1785).
1. If a Gypsy of the Crown, of a boyar, of a Monastery, or of anyone, takes a Gypsy woman belonging to the Crown, a boyar, a Monastery, or to whomever, the master of the Gypsy man shall be bound to give another Gypsy woman in exchange, so that the whole household may remain in his possession and the children may not be separated from their parents. If the master of the Gypsy man has no Gypsy woman to give in exchange, the master of the Gypsy woman shall give Gypsy man for Gypsy man and take the whole household. And if this is not possible either, then the master of the Gypsy man shall pay 50 lei for the price of the Gypsy woman, or the master of the Gypsy woman shall pay 70 lei for the price of the Gypsy man. The one who will receive the slave will receive legal papers from the seller.
2. If the Gypsy man or Gypsy woman are craftspeople, and their masters cannot agree how to barter on account of their craftsmanship, then let them go to the court, and the court shall determine what price to be paid by the one to whom the household shall remain. For the craftsmanship of musicians or lutes no price is to be determined, nor shall any special price be paid.
3. If a Gypsy man takes a Gypsy woman or a Gypsy woman takes a Gypsy with an unknown master, and years later, after they have had children, it is found out who the master of the Gypsy woman or man was, then the master of the Gypsy man should give another Gypsy woman in exchange, and the master of the Gypsy woman should give a Gypsy man in return, so that the household is not separated. So that the children are not separated from their parents, to be paid, payments are to be made. For boys under 16, 35 lei, and for girls under 16, 25 lei. For children from 16 years and over, the full price will be 70 lei for the Gypsy boy and 50 lei for the girl. And if the one who should receive the money does not want to, the one who has to pay will exchange souls, in the form of whole households, and if the souls of the household to be given are less, he will pay the difference so that the settlements are not divided.
4. Let there be told in the country about the law as forbidding any provost or priest from marrying a Gypsy man and a Gypsy woman without the knowledge of their masters, without receiving letters of agreement from them. And if the Gypsy man and the Gypsy woman have different masters, then let their masters give their permission for it. After marrying them, the priests must keep the letters, lest they be accused of any unlawfulness afterward. And if a priest should violate the commandment and marry a Gypsy man to a Gypsy woman without the master’s knowledge and permission, then the priest will be punished by the Church ordinance and will have to pay the price of the Gypsy man or Gypsy woman to the master who did not know of the marriage. Likewise, those who own Gypsies, if they will allow their Gypsy man to marry a Gypsy woman without the master’s knowledge, then he will have to pay the due price.
5. If a Gypsy of the Crown, of a boyar, of a Monastery, or of anyone who roam around with a chariot will steal Gypsy girls or women and keep them out of wedlock, lying that they are married, let the Gypsy judges be commanded that this not to be permitted. And if such a thing is found out, both the Gypsy judge of the Gypsy band and the Gypsy man shall be severely punished, and the Gypsy woman and all her children shall be given to her master.
6. If a master of a Gypsy encourages his Gypsy to steal a Gypsy woman from the house of a boyar, of a Monastery, or of any man, and if they marry, the Gypsy will pass into the ownership of the master of the Gypsy woman, and the latter shall receive a charter of ownership. If a Gypsy does this without the knowledge of his master, the Divan will determine his punishment, and the master of the Gypsy woman will lose his possession.
7. If a Gypsy enters the service of his master since childhood, and serves him faithfully, when he comes of age, the master will free him of his slavery and give him a paper signed by himself, according to which he has manumitted him. Such a Gypsy would be free from slavery for the rest of his life and no one could ever take him into slavery again. The same could happen to a Gypsy woman. But neither the Gypsy man nor the Gypsy woman who has been freed from slavery is not allowed to marry a Moldavian. Their children will also be free.
8. From now on it was decided that a Moldavian man shall not marry a Gypsy woman and a Gypsy man shall not marry a Moldavian woman. This has happened until now, and the one who was free went into slavery. But such marriages are from now on stopped, and if they still happen by mistake or ignorance, they must be dissolved. It is decreed as such also in the Armenopolu register, fourth book, title 12, page 341: “If the wedding happens to take place and one of the spouses is a slave, they will be separated as if they had died.” To this end let a commandment be given to the priests in all the cities and villages, that they should not marry such. If a priest will perform such a marriage, he will be banished and will have to pay a tax to the treasury of the voivode. If a Moldavian man gets involved with a Gypsy woman or a Moldavian woman with a Gypsy man, and they wish to get married, it is possible that they convince the master of the slave to allow them to cross to another country, get married there and then return to their place; when they are found, they will be separated and the children will stay on the Gypsy side. When the master of a Gypsy man or a Gypsy woman will allow them to marry a Moldovan man or woman out of greed, they will be separated and their children will remain on the Gypsy side. The master of the Gypsy side will be left without his slave who will be sold together with all the children. The money will be used to rebuild the bridges. The priest who performed the marriage, if he had knowledge about the fraud, will be defrocked.
9. The separation of Gypsies that was made until now, according to the old custom, as well as the marriages between Gypsies and Moldavians, are to be enforced as follows: a Moldavian man if he married a Gypsy woman or a Moldavian woman if she married a Gypsy man according to the old law, will remain separated as it was decided until this ruling. From now on, everyone should take care to follow the above laws.
Source
Sobornicescul Hrisov, critical edition by Andrei Rădulescu et al., Bucharest, Publishing House of the Romanian Academy, 1958.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, pp. 37–41.
Comment
The 1785 Sobornicescul Hrisov of Alexandru Mavrocordat was inspired by the 1766 Anaforaua. The nine-article act retained most of the provisions of the 1766 Anaforaua, with minor changes: the prices to be paid as compensation, the occupations that were not considered crafts, the interdiction of marriage between people who were freed from slavery and free people, but only their children having the right of marring to free people; a letter of approval from the masters in order for a priest to lawfully officiate the marriage. As for point 8 in the 1766 Anafora, which referred to paying back the masters for the Gypsy they were losing by the Moldavian part, this part is no longer mentioned in the 1785 law. Nor is the amendment made to the last article, by means of the ruler’s reinforcement given by Grigore Alexandru Ghica.
Cristina Mocanu
Document no. 4
The code of laws of Wallachia. Pravilniceasca Condică sets out, in 9 articles, the procedure to be followed for the marriages of slaves in Wallachia (1780).
For Gypsies
1. Whoever marries a foreign Gypsy man or a foreign Gypsy woman without the knowledge of his or her master will lose the Gypsy whom he has married to the foreigner and both will pass into the possession of the master who did not know of the marriage.
2. In order to prevent conflicts between the masters of Gypsies who have married without their knowledge, priests should be careful not to wed Gypsies who have different masters without a written approval signed by each of them. If a priest breaks this commandment, he will be punished by the Church. If a boyar or an abbot keeps a foreign Gypsy man or a foreign Gypsy woman, without the master’s knowledge, he shall pay master for his loss.
3. If one knows the master of the Gypsy man or Gypsy woman who got married, the master can ask for his Gypsy man or Gypsy woman and then there will be an exchange, the Gypsy woman going after the Gypsy man, according to the old custom.
4. If the Gypsy man or Gypsy woman requested by his master also knows a craft, then the judge will decide on the exchange, either to give exchange per exchange or as many Gypsies for as many crafts the Gypsy man or Gypsy woman knows.
5. Whoever will take a foreign Gypsy and allow someone else to marry him to a Gypsy of his own, the one who kept the foreign Gypsy will be punished and will give his master another Gypsy in exchange. And if the Gypsy also knows a craftsmanship, his master must be compensated for those crafts. But the punishment should not be inherited by his heirs, as sometimes Gypsies run away to another master because of the cruelty of their own masters.
6. The foreign Gypsies who count themselves among those owned by the Prince will need a certificate from the vel armaș [chief of police] when they get married. If the master of the foreign Gypsy is later found, the exchange will be made according to the law. But before the vel armaș approves the marriage, he has to check whether or not he has a master and not be allowed to marry.
7. Any Gypsy who marries a free woman, who is not a Gypsy, must separate from her immediately and be punished. Any children he has with her shall be free. If it should be proved that the master of the Gypsy gave permission for the Gypsy to marry knowing that the woman was free, he shall lose his Gypsy, who shall be owned by the prince. The priest who marries them will be punished by the Church.
8. The Gypsies born out of wedlock, will follow their mother.
9. When Gypsies are sold, should be granted the right of first refusal (protimisis) for purchasing them to the relatives of those Gypsies’ master. However, the term of preemption (protimisis) shall be fifty days for those who are not present, and thirty days and no more for those who are present. This is not to say that they didn’t have the opportunity to buy them, nor that they didn’t know of the sale. The contract of sale is to be signed by all the relatives and to be signed by the lord of the lands where they are all living. However, ownership rights over purchased Gypsies will only be valid when there are no dowry claims (pretenderimă) pending. And after the aforesaid days have passed, let the sale not be prolonged, and let the Gypsies not remain unsold, being subjected to death, which comes without as it wishes, unexpected. And the sale shall be as aforesaid.
Source
Pravilniceasca Condică 1780, ed. Critical edition by Andrei Rădulescu et al., Bucharest, Publishing House of the Romanian Academy, 1957.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, pp. 41–43.
Comment
Within the framework of the law, a special chapter is dedicated to the Roma, comprising nine articles. Although the rulings are not different from those in Moldavia, there are still some differences: a) priests officiating the marriage of slaves with different masters were required to ask for written certificates from both masters; b) it was decided that even when the master of one of the slaves was unknown, the woman would follow her husband and another slave would be given in exchange when the master was found out; c) the ruler’s slaves who wanted to marry had to have a certificate of approval from the vel armaș; d) in the case of a marriage with a free person, the marriage was annulled, but the children were considered free; e) it was decided that in the case of children resulting from an illegitimate relationship, they were to have the social status of their mother.
Cristina Mocanu
Document no. 5
Legiuirea lui Caragea includes provisions on the situation of Roma slaves in Wallachia and issues related to their marriage (1818).
Chapter 7
For slaves, and Gypsies.
Slaves are those who are the property of another.
This is how Gypsies are in Wallachia.
All born of slave parents, are slaves as well.
All those whose only mother is a slave, are slaves as well.
The master of the Gypsy has no power over the Gypsy’s life.
The master of the Gypsy is free to sell and give away the Gypsy.
All Gypsies in Wallachia, who don’t have a master with written proof of ownership, belong to the Crown.
Whoever will knowingly keep a foreign Gypsy or a foreign Gypsy woman, will have to give them back to the master (paying 40 thalers per year for the Gypsy with a craft, and 20 thalers for the one without craftsmanship, 30 thalers for the Gypsy woman with a craft, and 15 thalers for the one without craftsmanship). He who will keep a foreign Gypsy without knowing, will not have to give him back.
Whoever will marry his Gypsy man or woman to a foreign Gypsy man or woman without consent or without the knowledge of her master, will lose the Gypsy man or Gypsy woman with their children and all will pass into the ownership of the aggrieved master.
And if he weds them unknowingly, then an exchange is to be made, the Gypsy woman always following the Gypsy man.
If the foreign Gypsy, man or woman, has a craft as well, the exchange is to be made according to the craft. If such exchange is not possible, the craft is to be paid accordingly.
If Gypsies come together without the master’s knowledge and have children as well, the male children belong to the owner of the Gypsy man, and the female children belong to the owner of the Gypsy woman.
The foreign Gypsies among those owned by the prince, who wed according to the law and are later to be requested by their lawful owners, are to be exchanged, the woman following the man, as it was said above.
If a Gypsy marries a free woman, or a free man marries a Gypsy woman without the knowledge of their master, these are to be separated.
However, if it shall be proven that their master had given their consent, they shall remain together, both of them free and paid for by their owner.
Source
Legiuirea Caragea, ed. Dem. D. Stoienescu, Craiova, 1905.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, pp. 43–44.
Document no. 6
The Calimach Code includes provisions regarding the situation of Roma slaves in Moldavia and aspects related to their marriage (1817).
The law of marriage
154. A lawful companionship cannot exist between free people and slaves.
155. If a free man has married a slave, let their companionship remain so. If the free man will be able to pay the price of this marriage, let him pay the price of slave to her master within 30 years. The same will be done if a free woman marries a slave.
156. The master of such a slave does not have the right to ask compensation for the toil he lost.
157. If a free man has knowingly married a slave, they must be separated and he has to a sum of money equal to her price to the poor box. The slave will remain with her master unless he is willing to set her free or unless he receives her price from the free man to whom she has married. The same will happen if a free woman marries a slave.
158. If a master has allowed his slave to marry a free woman, or his slave woman to marry a free man, if they have planned or concealed it together, knowingly, then he will lose the slave man or woman, and they will remain free and undivided.
159. If a priest has knowingly dared to wed a free man to a slave woman, or a free woman to a slave man, then he will pay the price of the slave. If the priest has performed the marriage with the knowledge of the master, then the priest shall pay nothing, and the slaves shall remain free and the marriage undissolved.
160. Children born of such a companionship remain forever free, regardless of whether their father or mother is free or whether the union was done without the knowledge of the owner or that of their father or mother. In such a case, freedom is forever, and the love of man is stronger, according to the law of the Church and the law of man.
161. Slaves from foreign places, who belong to the Crown, will become free if they marry free people, whether by knowledge or ignorance. Their marriage shall remain undissolved, and none shall offend them.
162. The companionship of slaves is not to be permitted if it happens without the consent of their owners.
163. Priests are not allowed to marry slaves without the written approval of the protopresbyter, and the written certificate from the master. The latter must certify in writing that the servant belongs to him and gives him willingly the right to marry.
164. If the slave man and the slave woman belong to two different masters, the priests must take written approval from both masters, register them in their records and keep them in case of a future dispute between the masters of these servants.
165. If a priest knowingly marries a slave man to a slave woman, these belonging to two different masters having only with the approval of one of them, the latter will be deprived of his slave man or woman according to the rule no. 168 and the priest will have to pay the price of the slave man or slave woman whose master did not give his approval to the poor box (174).
166. If the priest has married two slaves without the knowledge and without the will of both their masters, then the priest will pay the price of both slaves to the mercy box, and the masters will proceed according to the rulings 170 to 175.
167. If a protopresbyter has knowingly allowed a priest to marry a slave man to a slave woman belonging to two different masters without the knowledge or will of the masters, then the protopresbyter shall pay their price in place of the priest, as stipulated above.
168. A master who marries his slave to someone else’s slave woman without the knowledge or will of the masters, will lose the slave. The same will happen if a master marries his slave woman to another master’s slave, and the slave man, or woman and their children will pass into the possession of the deceived master.
169. If someone took someone else’s slave and allowed him to marry the slave woman of another master, then the true master will receive his servant back along with his woman and their children, without exchange and without payment. He who took the slave man and gave him to another shall repay the master of the slave woman according to the following paragraphs. The same shall also be done if anyone takes a foreign slave woman and marries her to another master’s slave.
170. If a slave man and slave woman of two different masters have wed without their will and knowledge, the master of the slave man shall give the one with the slave woman another woman instead, of marriage age. If they also have children, the master of the slave man will give other servants in exchange, so that the parents are not separated from the children.
171. If the master of the slave man has no slave woman to give in exchange, then he shall give another slave of marriage age for his slave man, and other slaves also for the children.
172. If the master of the slave woman has no slave to give in exchange for the slave man and their children, then the owner of the slave man shall pay the price of the slave woman and that of the children.
173. If the master of the slave man does not have the money to pay, then the master of the slave woman will pay for the slave man and their children.
174. The price of the slaves is to be established according to their age, their work and their craftsmanship.
175. If the lăieși [nomad] slaves belonging to the Crown, spoon craftsmen, bear tamers, lăieșii would pair with slaves owned by boyars or monasteries or if the slaves of boyars and monasteries are to get together, with or without their masters consent, then it shall be judged according the rules from no. 170–174.
176. If someone has a concubine slave woman and has not freed her, so she shall be liberated and if her owner had children with her these are also to be freed.
177. The bastard children of a slave woman will have the same faith as her according to the law.
178. The masters of slaves and their rightful heirs are entitled, as it is the rule of the land, to ask their slaves who ran away or those taken by other, for this is a crime that is not time-barred.
179. The slaves, men or women, who were granted their freedom are allowed to marry people free from birth, with the exception of a woman from his former master’s family or a woman from a noble family.
Source
Codul Calimach, ed. Critical edition by Andrei Rădulescu et al., Bucharest, Publishing House of the Romanian Academy, 1958.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, pp. 44–47.
Comment
The laws issued at the beginning of the 19th century, the Caragea Legislation in Wallachia and the Calimach Code in Moldavia, do not bring different provisions from those set out in the normative acts mentioned above. Analyzing the texts of the laws of the two countries, they are restating the old custom of the land to which some novel elements were added in order to change the custom. However, it can be observed that its use did not cease even after the adoption of the new regulations. This is evidenced by the fact that it was stated within the laws that certain decisions were “to be followed according to custom”.
Cristina Mocanu
Document no. 7
Regulamentul Organic al Moldovei and its Annex G provide for new regulations in the field of slave marriage and the authorities’ intention to have them settled down and to make them accept Christianity through the intervention of clerics (1832).
Annex, letter A
For the clergy all across the country settlement.
The articles below are designed to follow the law: (…)
Art. 8. Every inhabitant is to pay 5 lei for the marriage certificates and the Gypsies are to pay 1 leu.
Annex, letter G
Regulation for the settlement of Gypsies
Reforms were carried out with the aim of improving the condition of all Moldavian inhabitants. Thus, the government also turned its attention to those Gypsies who by their fickleness do not improve their moral or material condition, but are a burden to the other inhabitants of the country.
In order to fulfil this philanthropic purpose, which is also useful to the state, a committee has been set up to develop a project to improve the faith of the Gypsies. The committee has seen fit to present to the state the ideas developed in connection with the settlement of state-owned Gypsies. (…)
Art. 13. Bearing in mind that the Gypsies’ alienation from the dogmas of our Holy religion is one of the causes of their savagery and lawlessness acts, the Metropolitan and the Bishops will instruct parish priests in order to help the Gypsies save their souls and fulfill their duties towards their neighbors.
Art. 14. Respecting these Holy dogmas, the Gypsies will be required to accept the sacraments of baptism, marriage and burial, so that the parish priests will open a register section dedicated to them in the village records. There, the parish priests will write down whenever someone is born, will write down the names of those who marry and those who die. These records will be considered official documents of the state-owned Gypsies, so that these Gypsies are not to be mistaken to boyar― or Monastery― owned slaves.
Source
Regulamentele Organice ale Valahiei și Moldovei [The Organic Regulations of Wallachia and Moldavia], Vol. I, critical edition by Paul Negulescu, George Alexianu, Bucharest, 1944, pp. 257–160.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, pp. 47–49.
Comment
The Organic Regulations focus on the slaves of the state, who were under the administration of the Prince until the new acts were adopted. Moreover, an attempt was also made to settle down the nomad slaves through the Church, which thus had the role of Christianizing them and keeping records of those who were baptized, married and deceased. These records were called mitrici (parish registers).
Cristina Mocanu
Documents from the Monastery of Arnota (Monastery under the Bishopric of Râmnic Subordination)
Document no. 8
The testimony of Stoica, the bailiff of Gypsies, regarding the exchange of Gypsy women slaves that were to be made with Pahomie, the Abbot of the Monastery of Arnota (June 15, 1677).
I, Stoica, the bailiff of the gold washer slaves, testify these in good faith with this letter of mine given to Father Pahomie, the Abbot of the Monastery of Arnota. Let it be known that the gold washer Gypsy Buclea took a Gypsy woman named Ivana, daughter of Radu, a Gypsy at the Arnota Monastery. I have agreed with his holiness that from now until St. Elijah’s day I will give him a Gypsy woman in exchange, as is customary. If I do not do as such, any expenses will be mine and he’ll get his Gypsy woman back. For this I have marked with my finger below.
This agreement was signed in the presence of Nicola, the commissioner of the Salt Mine.
June 15, 7185 (1677)
I, Stoica, master of the gold washer Gypsies.
Source
The Library of the Romanian Academy. Documente Istorice [Historical Documents], 313/CMXIV.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, p. 49.
Document no. 9
Agreement between Ghioca Slăvitescu and Iosif, the Abbot of the Monastery of Arnota, regarding an exchange of Gypsy slave women caused by marriage between the slaves of the two masters. Since one of the women was a seamstress, a half-year-old child was to be added to the exchange (January 27, 1689).
I, Ghioca Slăvitescul, testify these in good faith with this letter of mine given to Father Iosif, the Abbot of the Monastery of Arnota. Let it be known that a Gypsy owned by the Monastery has taken one of my Gypsy women, named Ioana, whom I myself have bought from the boyar Dumitrașco Căzănescu. This Gypsy woman is a seamstress and therefore, I have had several quarrels with father Iosif, the Abbot, because he did not have any Gypsy to give in exchange. The Monastery has a worse Gypsy, named Sima, who also has a daughter, one and a half years old, named Ilina. Thus, Father Iosif has given me both Sima and her daughter so that the Monastery can keep Ioana. For this I have marked with my finger below.
January 27, 7197 (1689)
I, Ghioca Slăvitescu (signature)
Source
The Library of the Romanian Academy. Documente Istorice[Historical Documents], 314/CMXIV.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, p. 50.
Document no. 10
Constantin Brâncoveanu, the Prince of Wallachia, orders the commissioners of the salt mines to proceed with the exchanges of those slaves married to Gypsy slave women belonging to the Monastery of Arnota (April 25, 1712).
Milostio bojio Io Costandin voievod i gospodar, I am writing to my servants, the commissioners of the Ocna Mare about the fact that the Abbot of the Arnota Monastery has told me that he has some Gypsy women married with the salt cutters from there and they do not wish to give other Gypsy women in exchange. Therefore, I, My Lordship, command you to seek to obtain from those salt diggers with written documents to provide compensation for the Gypsy women so that the monastery does not suffer losses, and to resolve the matter there so they do not complain to me again that you have not completed the task. For otherwise it shall not be honorable if it be any other way.
April 25, 7220 (1712)
Source
The Library of the Romanian Academy. Documente Istorice [Historical Documents], 320/CMXIV.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, pp. 50–51.
Document no. 11
Letter of exchange regarding the Gypsy slave women owned by the monasteries of Hurezu and Arnota (January 9, 1724).
Ioan, the Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Hurezu, together with all priests of the Holy Monastery, have written this deed and give it to the Holy Monastery of Arnota and to father Abbot Serafim to be known that a Gypsy man of the Monastery of Arnota, called Radu, has taken a girl from our Monastery, a daughter of Lungu the Gypsy, called Neacșa. We have received another Gypsy from the Monastery of Arnota for which we are writing and signing this letter.
January 9, 7232 (1724)
Source
The Library of the Romanian Academy. Documente Istorice [Historical Documents], 323/CMXIV.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, p. 51.
Document no. 12
Pârvu, a slave owned by the Crown, makes an agreement with the Monastery of Arnota for an exchange of Gypsy slave women because he has married a slave of the Monastery. Pârvu promises that the exchange will be carried out by the commissioner from the salt mine (December 10, 1741).
I, Pârvul, a Gypsy of the Crown from Corșoră, give this document to the Holy Monastery of Arnota, because I took a Gypsy woman of the Monastery, namely Floarea and so I have to give in exchange another Gypsy woman from the salt mine. Because I am a Gypsy of the Crown, I give the tax to the salt mine commissioner. For this I bring you this document, so that the tax collector of the Monastery will come with me and we’ll go to the salt mine commissioner to give a Gypsy woman in exchange. If that doesn’t happen, the Monastery will take my Gypsy woman with the girls.
December 10, 1741.
I, Pârvul, who has taken a Gypsy woman of the Monastery.
Source
The Library of the Romanian Academy. Documente Istorice [Historical Documents], 325/CMXIV.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, p. 52.
Document no. 13
Constantin, the Logothete of the Monastery of Arnota, writes to Tudor, the bailiff, regarding the abusive separation of the slave, Pearbul, from his wife, who were legally married, asking the bailiff to let them live together because the exchange of slaves will take place at a later date (December 9, 1750).
We salute you, bailiff Tudor and we wish for God to send you all the best. We are writing this letter to you about a Gypsy, namely Pearbul the blind, who is a Gypsy of the Crown. He came to us and told us that he had taken a Gypsy of the Holy Monastery of Arnota, and they were married according to the law and her wishes. When he came to you for his clothes, you beat him, took the veil and the woman. Give him back everything you took from him, and send the woman to his house. When the judge will return from Craiova, he’ll talk to the Abbot and give a Gypsy woman in exchange, as written in the letter of our Prince, his Highness. His household must not be separated, for there are numerous Gypsy women to exchange. Give him back his own so he won’t come here to bother us again. You order Tanase, the tax collector, to give him the Gypsy woman back, and if you don’t, the representatives of our ruler will come and fine you. That was it and we wish you good health.
December 9, 1750.
Yours, well-wisher Constandin Logothete of the Monastery of Arnota. (signature)
Source
The Library of the Romanian Academy. Documente Istorice [Historical Documents], 324/CMXIV.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, pp. 52–53.
Document no. 14
The letter of the priest Filip Bârsescu in which, together with the Abbot Ștefan of the Monastery of Arnota, he makes an exchange for marriage, but receives two women because the exchange was not fulfilled in time and his former slave had given birth to a child (January 5, 1764).
I hand this letter to his holiness, Stephen, the Abbot of Arnota. Let it be known that a Gypsy of the Monastery of Arnota has taken a Gypsy woman named Stanca. Three years have passed since then and they are at the Monastery, where they have a daughter, Tudora. The Monastery didn’t give an exchange for the Gypsy woman. Let it be known by this document, that I have come to an agreement with his holiness now and I received two Gypsies in exchange, Ioana and Ilinca, the daughters of Oprea, a Gypsy of the Monastery, who lived with the Gypsy Preda, owned by the judge Șerban. From now on, the Monastery will be at peace with us and with all my kind, because we have come to an agreement of our own free will.
January 5, 1764.
Father Filip Bârsescul. (signature)
Source
The Library of the Romanian Academy. Documente Istorice [Historical Documents], 326/ CMXIV.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, pp. 53–54.
Document no. 15
Slave exchange between Dumitru and Radu Măldărescu and Filaret, the Abbot of the Monastery of Arnota (March 29, 1777).
We, who will sign below, have written this document to the Holy Monastery of Arnota and entrusted it to the Abbot Filaret, so that it may be known that we received three Gypsy women from the Monastery in exchange for other three Gypsy woman who married Gypsy men owned by the Monastery. May they live in peace, for we and our kind are in agreement.
March 29, 1777
Captain Dumitru Măldrescul (siganture) Radul Măldrescu. (signature)
Source
The Library of the Romanian Academy. Documente Istorice [Historical Documents], 327/CMXIV.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, p. 54.
Document no. 16
The document written by Constantin Măldărescu regarding a mixed marriage and the trials that took place in order to free the children of the couple that contracted the mixed marriage (April 15, 1784).
I, Constantin, son of Ștefan Măldrescu, give this document to the Holy Monastery of Arnota and to the Abbot Filaret, so that it may be known that one of our Gypsies married a Romanian woman named Tomița and had four daughters with her. Three of the girls married Gypsies from the Monastery of Arnota and one married a Gypsy from the Monastery of Bistrița. Because we considered them ours, we received in exchange two Gypsy women from the Monastery of Arnota and one from the Monastery of Bistrița. But we first consulted with Zamfirache, the bailiff, the priest Dima Bogdănescu and Ion, the girls’ uncle. Then we went to the judges in Bucharest. So, it was decided to give back the exchanges to the monasteries and let the Romanian women be free. To the Monastery of Arnota we gave only one of the two exchanges and we are constrained to give another one back. We asked the Abbot of Arnota to wait 7 months to buy back the Gypsy we have already sold and give it to the Monastery or to buy another Gypsy to pay off our debt. If we do not pay, the Abbot has this document on my behalf and the right to take my share of the Măldrești estate. Let this be my covenant made before the cupbearer Zamfirache, the bailiff of Vâlcea county, and other honorable men, who also signed their testimony. The child of the house, Radu, was also present, with orders from our Prince to carry out the exchanges.
In true faith I have signed below and placed my seal upon it.
April 15, 1784
Seal Constandin Măldrescu
Ștefan Măldrescu
Constandin Sococuză
Rafail, Abbot of Hurezu, witness
Pahomie, Abbot at Polubați Mare, witness
Father Ioan, provost, testify to it
Ioan Măldrescu
Written by myself, Nițu Copăceanu, Logothet, according to those said by the members of the Măldrești family, for all of which I am also a witness.
This agreement has been carried out in front of me, for which I testify with my signature
April 15, 1784
Zamfirache, Cupbearer
(signature)
Source
The Library of the Romanian Academy. Documente Istorice [Historical Documents], 328/ CMXIV.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, pp. 54–56.
Document no. 17
Letter regarding the exchange of Gypsy slave women between Filaret, the Abbot of the Monastery of Arnota and Ioan Marin (October 11, 1785).
I am entrusting this letter to the Holy Monastery of Arnota and to the Abbot Filaret to let it be known that a Gypsy woman of mine, named Dumitra, whom I received as dowry from the late Gheorghe Golfin, my father-in-law, was taken in marriage by a Gypsy man of the Monastery, named Petru Capră. Since then, 6 years have passed and from the Abbot, I received in exchange the Gypsy woman Ioana, daughter of Preda Melezchiții. This document proves our agreement. I signed it in the presence of my wife Hrisanta and all my sons, as well as in the presence of other honest men, who were my witnesses.
October 11, 1785
Ioan Marin, testify to it
Source
The Library of the Romanian Academy. Documente Istorice [Historical Documents], 329/CMXIV.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, p. 56.
Document no. 18
The document written by Gheorghe the Logothete regarding a slave exchange that followed a marriage. The Logothete approves the marriage between the two slaves, fearing that they might run away if their marriage is not approved. He thus accepts a compromise and receives a young girl, at that point unfit to work (10 June 1794).
I entrust this document to the Abbot Cozma from the Monastery of Arnota. Let it be known that a Gypsy man of the Monastery of Arnota fell in love with a Gypsy woman of mine, named Maria and asked to marry her. I fear that they will run away, if they do not receive my and the Monastery’s approval to wed, and we shall all be at a loss. So, I made an agreement with the Abbot to allow the Gypsy woman to marry and remain at the Monastery. In exchange, the Abbot gave me a Gypsy girl from the Monastery, Maria, the daughter of Marin Cernii and Stanca. The exchange was not suitable, as the girl was younger than my Gypsy, but the Abbot told me that he didn’t have another one and I received her, without asking anything more from the Abbot. For this, let the Monastery keep my Gypsy woman in peace, and I will keep the one I received in exchange. But let it be known that the Gypsy I gave to the Monastery was bought from Ionita Roșianu and his wife, Marica. From them I received a document for the payment of 140 talers, which I signed with faith.
June 10, 1794
Gheorghe, Logothete
Source
The Library of the Romanian Academy. Documente Istorice [Historical Documents], 331/CMXIV.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, pp. 57–58.
Comment
The documents from the Monastery of Arnota, dated between 1677 and 1794, capture aspects related to marriage between Roma slaves owned by this Monastery. They are of the most diverse kind, including documents of exchange, agreements upon exchange and division of slaves. These documents contain information regarding religiously officiated marriages and those that were not approved.
Cristina Mocanu
Documents from Moldavia
Document no. 19
The testimony of Dumitraș Neculaiescu and Ioan Râe from the village of Frătăuți regarding some slaves owned by the Monastery of Putna, Ștefanos and his sons, his sons-in-law and his brothers who married Moldavian women and were requesting to be considered Moldavian since they had paid taxes together with the villagers of Frătăuți up until the rule of Constantin Mavrocordat (March 1, 1768).
I, Dumitraș Neculaiescu, and I, Ioan Râe, give this testimony written by Father Pahomie, the Abbot, before the priests of the Holy Monastery Putna, to acknowledge that in the village of Frătăuți some Gypsies are living with us: Ștefanos, son of Precopius the Gypsy, together with his sons, his sons-in-law and his brothers. These Gypsies have always paid taxes because they are only considered Gypsy, even if they had married Moldavian women. They paid this tax until the rule of the Prince Constandin Mavrocordat. Then it was decided that only Romanians should no longer be tied to the land, and Gypsies were separated from the Romanians, and then they stopped paying the tax. Thus, all the Gypsies remained in such a situation. And now, during the rule of the Prince Grigore Ghica, they want to become Moldavians, because they have Moldavian wives. Because they went to the Divan in Jassy, the Prince asked us to testify whether they were Gypsies or Moldavians. He didn’t ask anything else, only if they had paid tax with us. We said that they had paid tax with us until the reign of the Prince Constandin Mavrocordat. Their cattle taxes were higher. On the sly, they wanted to erase their Gypsy origin, but we were glad that they were paying tax, because we weren’t paying that much. In the village of Frătăuți their tax was raised to two and a half galbeni and they fled. Thus, their tax had to be paid by us. We confess now that they are also Gypsies of the Holy Monastery of Putna, except that their women were Moldavians.
This we know and testify.
For our faith we also marked with our finger
March 1st, 1768
I, Ion Râe of Frătăuți
I, Dumitrașco Neculăescul
On their part, Abbot Gavril of Frătăuți testified with his soul that all the above, all are true.
Dorithei, the Bishop of Rădăuți
Source
The Library of the Romanian Academy. Documente Istorice [Historical Documents], 202/LXXXII.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, pp. 58–59.
Document no. 20
The testimony of several people from Frătăuți and Vicovul de Jos regarding the slaves owned by the Monastery of Putna, Ștefanos and his sons, his sons-in-law and his brothers who married Moldavian women and paid taxes together with the villagers up until the Prince Constantin Mavrocordat decided to limit de marriages between slaves and Moldavians (March 1, 1768).
We, the people of Frătăuți and Vicovul de Gios, Suceava county, on the estates of Putna Monastery, have signed this testimony, written by the hand of Father Pahomie, the Abbot of the Monastery and before all the priests. Let it be known that in our village Frătăuți are living some Gypsies of the Monastery, a certain Ioanos, tailor, Precop, son of Ioanos the tailor, and Ștefanos, son of Precop, tailor and Ioanos, brother of Ștefanos, also a son of Precop, and Grigore, their brother. These we know from our grandparents and parents that they are Gypsies of the Holy Monastery and did all the tasks of the Monastery together with the other Gypsies of the Monastery.
Until the rule of his Highness, Constandin Mavrocordat, they insisted on paying the tax together with us. They even paid more than other people, just so they wouldn’t be regarded as Gypsies. They paid more, especially the cattle taxes. Since the rule of Constandin Mavrocordat, it was decided that Romanians should no longer be tied to the land, and so the Gypsies decided to stop paying the tax, unlike the other Gypsies who paid the same as before. They even paid the tax that they used to pay with us in times of war and famine only because they were ashamed in front of their Moldavian wives for being regarded as Gypsies. As we have known from our ancestors, this Gypsies were owned by the Monastery of Putna. As we know, so we confess with our souls. For faith we also marked with our finger.
March 1st, 1768
I, priest Ioan of Frătăuți, of old age.
Gavril, deacon of Frătăuți
Sofronie, deacon
+I, Vasile Savul, Dvornic of Vicovul de Gios
I, Petre Gălan, also from Vivovul de Gios
I, Toader Gălan, also from Vicovul de Gios
I, Andrei Păntescul from Frătăuți, of old age
I, Ursul Bogheanul, samewise tij I, Irimie Ștreanga, samewise
I, Vasile Hârjeui samewise I, Georghiță Hurjui, samewise
I, Simion Coneac
And we, all villagers from Frătăuți and Vicovul de Gios
Deacon Gavril of Frătăuți was sent on behalf of all the people of the village of Frătăuți and Vicovul de Gios to entrust us with this testimony. Thus, he entrusted with his soul that all who have signed, as well as others who have not signed, bear witness with their souls.
As deacon Gavril himself testifies that those people are Gypsies of the Monastery.
Doritei, Bishop of Rădăuți
Source
The Library of the Romanian Academy. Documente Istorice [Historical Documents], 203/LXXXII.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, pp. 59–61.
Document no. 21
The order of Prince Constantin Dimitrie Moruzi issued for Iordache Roset, the Ispravnik (county administrator) of Vaslui County, in order to stop any marriages between slaves and Moldavians (1781).
Io Costantin Dimitrie Moruz voievod bojio milostio gospodar zemli Moldavscoi.
(I, Constantin Dimitrie Moruz, Prince of the Country of Moldavia)
To my faithful Iordache Roset, ispravnik of Vaslui! The complaint that reached us, helped my Lordship observe the evil and reckless deed taking place in your county, and to annul marriages between Gypsy man who married Moldavian women and Moldavian men who married Gypsy women. This is totally against the Christian dogma because the Moldavian side is bound for life and their children remain in slavery. I have researched and found out that such marriages are forbidden and priests are not allowed to perform them. Priests who perform such a marriage are to become tax payers to the ruler’s treasury. Such a deed is an abomination in the sight of God and mankind. Therefore, in my Lordship’s time, we must beware of such violations. However, I write to the Holy fathers of the dioceses of this country that they have the priestly duty to stop such a marriage between Gypsies and Moldavians. I myself see it my duty to remove this evil and this should be known to all priests and lay people.
Thus, we decided that priests who officiate weddings disregarding the legal biding terms should be excommunicated. Also, those who have dared to be married, are to be separated. For this reason, we write to your Lordship, to have this letter read in the market towns and in the villages, as well as in the monasteries, so that everyone may hear, so that this decision may be fully understood. And the priests of the market towns, villages, and monasteries, in their turn, should write letters confirming that they have heard my lordship’s command. If your Lordship will find that they have dared to marry Moldavians and Gypsies, you must inform us immediately. If you will cover up such an evil deed, you will give account before God for this sin. And if we find out, you will suffer. Let it be known that all those who, after January 1766, that is during these last 15 years, has and will come to complain that Moldavian men have married Gypsy women, or Moldavian women have married Gypsy men, will have justice brought to them. This is our writ.
At Stemnic Iordache Roset, cup-bearer, 1781.
Source
Jassy County Service of the National Archives. Colecția Documente [Documents Collection], 417/182. Editions: Buletinul Muzeului Municipal din Iași „Ioan Neculce”, An 1, Fascicola I, 1921, pp. 119–120.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, pp. 61–63.
Document no. 22
The letter of the Moldavian Metropolitan, Gavril Calimachi, addressed to Ghenadie, the Abbot of the Monastery of Slatina, regarding the revocation of a marriage (February 26, 1778).
Venerable Ghenadie, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Bistrița, may you be healthy and blessed. A certain Pintilie, a Gypsy of the Monastery, came and complained that you had commanded one of his daughters to marry a Gypsy man named Costandin. He is old and sick and is also somewhat of a relative of theirs, and Pintilie does not agree to marry his daughter to him. That’s why the girl ran away from the wedding. That being the case, so that the girl won’t run away elsewhere, you shouldn’t force her to marry against her will. For that Gypsy man, find another Gypsy woman. And to this Gypsy woman, the daughter of Pintilie, let another man be given who pleases her, so that she does not run away. This we write.
February 26th, 1778
Gavril, Metropolitan Father
Source
The Library of the Romanian Academy. Documente Istorice [Historical Documents], 221/CLXXXVI.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, p. 63.
Document no. 23
The letter of Gheorghe in which he confesses to have married for a second time to Maria, a slave owned by the Monastery of Bistrița. They married at Church and were to remain slaves of the Monastery (August 29, 1789).
With this testimony, written by the hand of father archimandrite of the Monastery of Bistrița, I, Gheorghe, attest that I came as a small child to this Holy Monastery and I served several years for the household of Ilie Țiganu, a slave of the Monastery of Bistrița. Then I married one of his daughters and together we welcomed a daughter named Catrina. The daughter of Ilie Țiganu died, and I was promised as a slave of the Bistrița Monastery. But I wanted to marry Maria, the daughter of the widow Porfira. I asked the Abbot of Bistrița to marry her in the Monastery Church. We both married willingly and remained slaves of the Monastery. Because Maria’s father was a Gypsy man named Stavi (Bistrița), her mother first husband, she was also a slave of the Monastery. And both were to remain slaves of the Monastery on my own free will. Those who were present and other monks of the Monastery will sign below.
I, Ilie Țiganu, witness [slave] of the Monastery of Bistrița
I, Adam Mihailă, Gypsy witness [slave] of the Monastery of Bistrița
I, Rafail, monk of the Monastery of Bistrița, have signed under those said by Gheorghe and am a witness to his testimony.
I, Gheorghe, marked with my finger by my own will
August 29th, 1789
Source
Iaşi County Service of the National Archives. Mănăstirea Sfântul Sava–Iași [the Monastery of St. Sava in Jassy], 35/44.
Prepared for publication by Cristina Mocanu.
First published in Religie, actori religioși și practici religioase…, pp. 63–65.
Comment
The documents from Moldavia depict various marriage situations of Roma slaves, both the ritual in the Church, the preparation for a second marriage, forcing or annulling a marriage, and the resistance of one of the members of the couple by running away from the wedding, as well as the effects of mixed marriage. Moreover, one can observe the consequences of laws aimed at reducing and eventually prohibiting mixed marriages. Moreover, it is worth noting the intervention of Church representatives in the marriages of Roma slaves, both from the position of slave masters and as institutions with authority over marriage.
Cristina Mocanu
Bibliography
Achim, Viorel (2004), The Roma in Romanian History, (translated by Richard Davies), (Budapest & New York: Central European University Press).
Achim, Viorel (2022), “The Orthodox Church and the Emancipation of Gypsy Slaves in the Romanian Principalities in the 19th Century,” in Slavery in the Black Sea Region, c. 900–1900. Forms of Unfreedom at the Intersection between Christianity and Islam, (ed.) Felicia Roșu, (Leiden- Boston: Brill).
Barbu, Violeta (2005), “Pagini din istoria căsătoriei în țările române. Căsătoria ca sacrament (secolul al XVII-lea)”, Studii și Materiale de Istorie Medie, vol. XXIII, 2005, pp. 101–116.
Codrescu, Theodor, Uricariul, vol. IV, Iași, 1857.
Codul Calimach (1958), critical edition by Andrei Rădulescu et alii., (București: Editura Academiei Române).
Constantin, Florina Manuela (2007), “Legături de sânge și legături sociale: structuri de rudenie la robii țigani din Țara Românească (1601–1650),” in De la comunitate la societate. Studii de istoria familiei din Țara Românească sub Vechiul Regim, (eds.) Violeta Barbu et alii, (București: Institutul Cultural Român).
Duane, Anna Mae (2010), Suffering Childhood in Early America: Violence, Race, and the Making of the Child Victim, (Athens: The University of Georgia Press).
Legiuirea Caragea, (ed.) Dem. D. Stoienescu, Craiova, 1905.
Mateescu, Bogdan (2014), Căsătoria robilor: între alegerea cuplului și voința stăpânului- Studiu și documente de arhivă desăre căsătoriile robilor în Țara Românească după 1830 (Brașov: Etnous).
Mateescu, Bogdan (2015), Familia în timpul robiei – o perspectivă demografică: Studiu și liste de populație din arhive, (Iași: Editura Universității “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iași).
Potra, George (1939), Contribuţiuni la istoricul ţiganilor, (Bucureşti).
Pravilniceasca Condică 1780 (1957) critical edition by Andrei Rădulescu et alii., (București: Editura Academiei Române).
Regulamentele Organice ale Valahiei și Moldovei vol. I, (1944) critical edition by Paul Negulescu, George Alexianu, (București).
Rossum, Matthias van, et alii. (2022), Testimonies of Enslavement: Sources on Slavery from the Indian Ocean World, (London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc,).
Scurtulencu, Boris Th. (1938), Situația juridico-economică a țiganilor în Principatele Române, (Iași).
Shell, Robert C, -H (1994), Children of Bondage: A Social History of the Slave Society at the Cape of Good Hope, 1652–1838, (Hanover: University Press of New England).
Smallwood, Stephanie E. (2016), “The Politics of the Archive and History’s Accountability to the Enslaved,” History of the Present: A Journal of Critical History, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Fall), pp. 117–132.
Sobornicescul Hrisov (1958), critical edition by Andrei Rădulescu et alii., (București: Editura Academiei Române).
Stoler, Ann Laura (2009), Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense, (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Zahariuc, Petronel (2016), “Câteva considerații despre preoțimea ortodoxă și moravurile credincioșilor din Moldova (mijlocul secolului al XVIII-lea și începutul secolului al XIX-lea),” in Sexualitate și discurs politico-religios în societatea românească premodernă, (ed.) Constanța Vintilă Ghițulescu, (Iași: Editura Universității “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iași), pp. 65–81.