Move

1846.

The revolutionary movement of 1848 extended from the Roumans ment of of Hungary and Transylvania to their kinsmen of the Transalpine regions. In Moldavia the agitation was mostly confined to the boiars, and the hospodar Michael Sturdza succeeded in arresting the ringleaders. In Walachia, however, the outbreak took a more violent form. The people assembled at Bucharest, and demanded a constitution. The prince Bibescu, after setting his signature to the constitution submitted to him, fled to Transylvania, and a provisional government was formed. The Turks, however, urged thereto by Russian diplomacy, crossed the Danube, and a joint Russo-Turkish dictatorship restored the "Organic Law." By the Balta-Liman convention of 1849 the two Governments agreed to the appointment of Barbŭ Stirbeit as prince of Walachia, and Gregoriu Ghika for Moldavia.

Russian and

On the entry of the Russian troops into the principalities in 1853, the hospodars fled to Vienna, leaving the government in Austrian the hands of their ministers. During the Danubian campaign that occupa- now ensued great suffering was inflicted on the inhabitants, but tion, in 1854 the cabinet of Vienna induced the Russians to withdraw. 1853-54. Austrian troops occupied the principalities, and the hospodars returned to their posts. Treaty of

Paris,

1856.

By the treaty of Paris in 1856 the principalities with their existing privileges were placed under the collective guarantee of the contracting powers, while remaining under the suzerainty of the Porte, the Porte on its part engaging to respect the complete independence of their internal administration. A strip of southern Bessarabia was restored to Moldavia, so as to push back the Russian frontier from the Danube mouth. The existing laws and statutes of both principalities were to be revised by a Europeau commission sitting at Bucharest, and their work was to be assisted by a Divan or national council which the Porte was to convoke ad hoc in each of the two provinces, and in which all classes of Walachian and Moldavian society were to be represented. The European com. mission, in arriving at its conclusions, was to take into consideration the opinion expressed by the representative councils; the Powers were to come to terms with the Porte as to the recommen. dations of the commission; and the final result was to be embodied in a hattisherif of the sultan, which was to lay down the definitive organization of the two principalities. In 1857 the commission arrived, and the representative councils of the two peoples were conUnion of voked. On their meeting in September they at once proceeded to the two vote with unanimity the union of the two principalities into a princi- single state under the name of Romania (Roumania), to be governed palities by a foreign prince elected from one of the reigning dynasties of Europe, and having a single representative assembly. The Powers claimed. decided to undo the work of national union. By the convention concluded by the European congress at Paris in 1858, it was Attempt decided that the principalities should continue as heretofore to be to disunite them.

pro

governed each by its own prince. Walachia and Moldavia were to have separate assemblies, but a central commission was to be established at Fokshani for the preparation of laws of common interest, which were afterwards to be submitted to the respective assemblies. In accordance with this convention the deputies of Moldavia and Walachia met in separate assemblies at Bucharest and It fails. Jassy, but the choice of both fell unanimously on Prince Alexander John Cuza, thus ensuring the personal union of the two principalities (January 1859). A new conference was now summoned to Paris to discuss the affairs of the principalities, and the election of Prince Cuza finally ratified by the Powers and the Porte. The two assemblies and the central commission were preserved till 1862, when a single assembly met at Bucharest and a single ministry was formed for the two countries. The central commission was at the

Frince

Cuza,

same time abolished, and a council of state charged with preparing bills substituted for it. In May 1864, owing to difficulties between the Government and the general assembly, the latter was dissolved, and a statute was submitted to universal suffrage giving greater authority to the prince, and creating two chambers (of senators and of deputies). The franchise was now extended to all citizens, a cumulative voting power being reserved, however, for property, and the peasantry were emancipated from forced labour. In 1865 a conflict broke out between the Government and the people in Bucharest, and in February 1866 Prince Cuza, whose personal vices had rendered him detestable, was forced to abdicate. The chambers chose first as his successor the count of Flanders, but on his declining the office proceeded to elect Prince Charles Charles of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, who was proclaimed hospodar or Domnu of Roumania April 29, 1866. A new constitution was at Hohen- the same time introduced. Its provisions secure the universal zollern. suffrage of tax-paying citizens, ministerial responsibility, trial New by jury, freedom of meeting and petition, of speech and of the press (except as regards breaches of the criminal code), gratuitous and compulsory primary education, and the right of asylum for political exiles. Legislative power is shared between the prince and chambers, but bills relating to the budget and army must originate with the chamber of deputies. There are two chambersthe senate and the chamber of deputics. Both houses are elective, and the election is carried out by means of electoral colleges classified

of

constitution.

according to property and professional qualifications. For the house of deputies each constituency is divided in this way into four colleges, each of which elects a member. The two highest of these colleges also elect the senators, each senator being elected for a term of eight years. The senate also includes ex officio certain high officials and ecclesiastics, and members for the universities. The senate consists at present of 120 members, the chamber of deputies of 178. The sovereign has a right of veto reserved to him on all measures. The judicial system is based on the Code Napoléon, with some modifications.

On the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish war in 1877 Roumania Roumania found herself once more between hammer and anvil. Yielding to in Russo. force majeure the Government of Prince Charles consented to the Turkish passage of Russian troops across Roumanian territory, on the under- War. standing that the scene of hostilities was as far as possible to be removed outside the limits of the principality. The Porte, however, refusing to recognize that "Roumania had acted under constraint, proclaimed the Roumanians rebels, and the prince's Government accordingly resolved to offer active assistance to the Russians. A Roumanian division of 32,000 men under General RouCernat, took part in the siege of Plevna, and the Roumanian manian soldiers distinguished themselves in the opinion of the most com- feats at petent judges alike for their heroism and endurance. The successful Plevna. assault by the Roumanian troops on the "indomitable redoubt" of Grivitza formed in fact the turning point of the siege and of the war. In the peace of St.Stefano, however, Russia insisted on the retrocession of the strip of Bessarabia that had been restored to Moldavia by the treaty of Paris, giving Roumania "in exchange" the islands of the Danubian delta, and the Dobrudja, which had been ceded by the sultan. This territorial readjustment was ratified by the treaty Berlin of Berlin (1878). The high contracting powers at the same time treaty. consented by Art. xliii. to recognize the independence of the prin cipality subject to the provision (Art. xliv.) that all the inhabitants should enjoy complete religious freedom, a clause inserted on account of the Jewish persecutions that had previously taken place, and that foreigners in the country should be treated on a footing of perfect equality. All Danubian fortresses were to be razed, and the jurisdiction of the European commission to regulate the Danubian navigation, on which Roumania now acquired the right of representation, was extended from the mouth to the Iron Gates. coping-stone to Roumanian independence was set by the proclama- Prince tion on March 26, 1881, of Prince Charles as king of Roumania, Charles and on May 22 of the same year his coronation took place with the crowned European sanction. The crown placed on King Carol's head was king. made from the captured cannon of the Plevna redoubts.

The

Authorities. As the questions regarding the first appearance of the Roumans north of the Danube are reserved for the article VLACHS, it may be sufficient here to refer the reader to the works of Roesler, especially Romänische Studien; J. Jung, Anfänge der Romänen; and Roemer und Romänen; Lad. Pič, Abstam mung der Rumänen; A. D. Xenopol, Les Roumains au Moyen Age. For the history of the principalities down to the end of the last century J. C. Engel's works, Die Geschichte der Walachet and Geschichte der Moldau, are still the most trustworthy authorities. J. A. Vaillant, La Romainie: Histoire, Langue, &c., and A. T. Laurianu, Istoria Romaniloru, &c., may be consulted for the later history, but a really critical history of the principalities has yet to be written. The materials for it are, however, being rapidly amassed-thanks to the publica. tions of the Roumanian Academy and the documents collected by native and Hasden, Publicationi istorico-filologice, &c. scholars; cf. especially Hurmuzaki, Documente privitore la Istoria Romaniter, For a useful account of the present state of Roumania, see James Samuelson, Roumania Past and Present, 1882. For views of Walachia and Moldavia, as they existed from the 15th century onwards, reference has already been made to the works of Verantius ard Del Chiaro, and Cantemir's Descriptio Moldaviæ. (A. J. E.)

ROUMANIAN LITERATURE. See VLACHS. ROUMELIA. The name of Roumili, "the land of the Romans," was applied from the 15th century downwards to all that portion of the Balkan peninsula westwards from the Black Sea which was subject to Turkey. More precisely it was the country bounded N. by Bulgaria, W. by Albania, and S. by the Morea, or in other words the ancient provinces, including Constantinople and Salonica, of Thrace, Thessaly, and Macedonia. The name was ultimately applied more especially to an eyalet or province composed of Central Albania and Western Macedonia, having Monastir for its chief town and including Kesrie (Castoria), Ocri (Ochrida), and Scodra (Scutari); and at length it disappeared altogether in the administrative alterations effected between 1870 and 1875. Eastern Roumelia was constituted an autonomous province of the Turkish empire by the Berlin treaty of 1878, to bo governed by a Christian governor-general appointed by the sultan for a term of five years. In 1879, in obedience. to an international commission, it was divided into six departments and twenty-eight cantons, the departments being Philippopolis (187,095), Tatarhazarjik (117,063),

treatment of skies with crude blues and orange, and his chiaroscuro usually is much exaggerated. On his return to Paris he soon became distinguished as a painter, and was employed by Louis XIV. to decorate the walls of his palaces at St Germain and Marly. He was soon admitted a member of the French Academy of the Fine Arts, but on the revocation of the edict of Nantes he was obliged to take refuge in Holland, and his name was struck off the Academy roll. From Holland he was invited to England by the duke of Montague, who employed him, together with other French painters, to paint the walls of his palace, Montague House.1 Rousseau was also employed to paint architectural subjects and landscapes in the palace of Hampton Court, where many of his decorative panels still exist. He spent the latter part of his life in London, where he died in 1693.

Besides being a painter in oil and fresco Rousseau was an etcher of some ability; many etchings by his hand from the works of the Caracci and from his own designs still exist; they are vigorous, though too coarse in execution.

ROUSSEAU, JEAN BAPTISTE (1670-1741), a poet of some merit and a wit of considerable dexterity, was born at Paris on the 10th April 1670; he died at Brussels on the 17th March 1741. The son of a shoemaker, he is said to have been ashamed of his parentage and relations when he acquired a certain popularity, but the abundance of literary quarrels in which he spent his life, and the malicious inventiveness of his chief enemy, Voltaire, make any such stories of small account. He was certainly well educated and early gained favour with Boileau, who did not regard many people favourably; but authentic intelligence as to his youth is very scarce. He does not seem to have attempted literature very young, and when he began he began with the theatre, for which at no part of his life does he seem to have had any aptitude. A one-act comedy, Le Café, failed in 1694, and he was not much happier with a more ambitious play, Les Flatteurs, or with the opera of Venus and Adonis. He would not take these warnings, and tried in 1700 another comedy, Le Capricieux, which had the same fate. By this time he had already (it is not quite clear how) obtained influential patrons, such as Breteuil and Tallard, had gone with Tallard as an attaché to London, and, in days when literature still led to high position, seemed likely to achieve success. To tell the whole story of his misfortunes would take far more space than can be spared him here. They began with what may be called a club squabble at a certain Café Laurent, which was much frequented by literary men, and where Rousseau indulged in lampoons on his companions. A shower of libellous and sometimes obscene verses was written by or attributed to him, and at last he was practically turned out of the café. At the same time his poems, as yet only singly printed or in manuscript, acquired him a great reputation, and not unjustly, for Rousseau is certainly the best French writer of serious lyrics between Racine and Chénier. He had in 1701 been made a member of the Académie des Inscriptions; he had been offered, though he had not accepted, profitable places in the revenue department; he had become a favourite of the libertine but not uninfluential coterie of the Temple; and in 1710 he presented himself as a candidate for the Académie Française. Then began the second chapter (the first had lasted ten years) of a history of the animosities of authors which is almost the strangest though not the most important on record. A copy of verses, more offensive than ever, was handed to the original object of Rousseau's jealousy, and, getting wind, occasioned the bastinadoing of the reputed author by a certain La Faye or La Faille, a soldier who was reflected

1 Montague House stood on the site of the British Museum.

on. Legal proceedings of various kinds followed, and Rousseau either had or thought he had ground for ascrib ing the lampoon to Joseph Saurin. More law ensued, and the end of it was that in 1712 Rousseau, not appearing, was condemned par contumace to perpetual exile. He actually suffered it, remaining for the rest of his life in foreign countries except for a short time in 1738, when he returned clandestinely to Paris to try for a recall. It should be said that he might have had this if he had not steadfastly protested his innocence and refused to accept a mere pardon. No one has ever completely cleared up the story, and it must be admitted that, except as exhibiting very strikingly the strange idiosyncrasies of the 18th century in France, and as having affected the fortunes of a man of letters of some eminence, it is not worth much attention.

Rousseau's good and ill luck did not cease with his exile. First Prince Eugene and then other persons of distinction took him under their protection, and he printed at Soleure the first edition of his poetical works. But by fault or misfortune he still continued to quarrel. Voltaire and he met at Brussels in 1722, and, though Voltaire had hitherto pretended or felt a great admiration for him, something happened which turned this admiration into hatred. Voltaire's Le Pour et Le Contre is said to have shocked Rousseau, who expressed his sentiments freely. At any rate the latter had thenceforward no fiercer enemy than Voltaire. Rousseau, however, was not much affected by Voltaire's enmity, and pursued for nearly twenty years a life of literary work, of courtiership, and of rather obscure speculation and business. Although he never made his fortune, it does not seem that he was ever in want. When he died his death had the singular result of eliciting from a poetaster, Lefranc de Pompignan, an ode of real excellence and perhaps better than anything of Rousseau's own work. That work, however, has high merits, and is divided, roughly speaking, into two strangely contrasted divisions. One consists of formal and partly sacred odes and cantates of the stiffest character, the other of brief epigrams, sometimes licentious and always or almost always ill-natured. In the latter class of work Rousseau is only inferior to his friend Piron. In the former he stands almost alone. The frigidity of conventional diction and the disuse of all really lyrical rhythm which characterize his period do not prevent his odes and cantates from showing true poetical faculty, grievously cramped no doubt, but still existing.

Besides the Soleure edition mentioned above, Rousseau published (visiting England for the purpose) another issue of his work at London in 1723. The chief edition since is that of Amar in 1820. M. A. de Latour has published (Paris, Garnier, 1869) a useful though not complete edition, with notes of merit and a biographical introduction which would have been better if the facts had been more punctually and precisely stated.

ROUSSEAU, JEAN JACQUES (1712-1778), was born at Geneva on the 28th June 1712. His family had established themselves in that city at the time of the religious father Isaac was a watchmaker; his mother, Suzanne wars, but they were of pure French origin. Rousseau's Bernard, was the daughter of a minister, she died in childbirth, and Rousseau, who was the second son, was brought up in a very haphazard fashion, his father being a

dissipated, violent-tempered, and foolish person. He, however, taught him to read early, and seems to have laid the foundation of the flighty sentimentalism in morals and politics which Rousseau afterwards illustrated with his entangled in a disgraceful brawl and fled from Geneva, genius. When the boy was ten years old his father got apparently without troubling himself about Jean Jacques.

The father and son had little more to do with each other and rarely met. Rousseau was. however. taken charge of

which has been questioned) five children were born to them, who were all consigned to the foundling hospital. This disregard of responsibility was partly punished by the use his critics made of it when he became celebrated as a writer on education and a preacher of the domestic affections. Diderot, with whom he became more and more familiar, admitted him as a contributor to the Encyclopédie. He formed new musical projects, and he was introduced by degrees to many people of rank and influence, among whom his warmest patron for a time was Madame d'Épinay. It was not, however, till 1749 that Rousseau made his mark. The academy of Dijon offered a prize for an essay on the effect of the progress of civilization on morals. Rousseau took up the subject, developed his famous paradox of the superiority of the savage state, won the prize, and, publishing his essay next year, became famous. The anecdotage as to the origin of this famous essay is voluminous.. It is agreed that the idea was suggested when Rousseau went to pay a visit to Diderot, who was in prison at Vincennes for his Lettre sur les Aveugles. Rousseau says he thought of the paradox on his way down; Morellet and others say that he thought of treating the subject in the ordinary fashion and was laughed at by Diderot, who showed him the advantages of the less obvious treatment. Diderot himself, who in such matters is almost absolutely trustworthy, does not claim the suggestion, but uses words which imply that it was at least partly his. It is very like him. The essay, however, took the artificial and crotchety society of the day by storm. Francueil gave Rousseau a valuable post as cashier in the receiver general's office. But he resigned it either from conscientiousness, or crotchet, or nervousness at responsibility, or indolence, or more probably from a mixture of all four. He went back to his music copying, but the salons of the day were determined to have his society, and for a time they had it. In 1752 he brought out at Fontainebleau an operetta, the Devin du Village, which was very successful. He received a hundred louis for it, and he was ordered to come to court next day. This meant the certainty of a pension. But Rousseau's shyness or his perversity (as before, probably both) made him disobey the command. His comedy Narcisse, written long before, was also acted, but unsuccessfully. In the same year, however, a letter Sur la Musique Française again had a great vogue.1 Finally, for this was an important

1 Rousseau's influence on French music was greater than might have been expected from his very imperfect education; in truth, he was a musician by natural instinct only, but his feeling for art was very strong, and, though capricious, based upon true perceptions of the good and beautiful. The system of notation (by figures) concerning which he read a paper before the Académie des Sciences, August 22, 1742, was ingenious, but practically worse than useless, and failed to attract attention, though the paper was published in 1743 under the title of Dissertation sur la musique moderne. In the famous " guerre des buffons," he took the part of the "buffonists," so named in consequence of their attachment to the Italian "opera buffa," as opposed to the true French opera; and, in his Lettre sur la musique Française, published in 1753, he indulged in a violent tirade against French music, which he declared to be so contemptible as to lead to the conclusion "that the French neither have, nor ever will have, any music of their own, or at least that, if they ever do have any, it will be so much the worse for them." This silly libel so enraged the performers at the Opera that they hanged and burned its author in effigy. Rousseau revenged himself by printing his clever satire entitled Lettre d'un symphoniste de l'Académie Royale de Musique à ses camarades de l'orchestre. His Lettre à M. Burney is of a very different type, and does full justice to the genius of Gluck. His articles on music in the Encyclopédie deal very superficially with the subject; and his Dictionnaire de Musique (Geneva, 1767), though admirably written, is not trustworthy, either as a record of facts or as a collection of critical essays. In all these works the imperfection of his musical education is painfully apparent, and his compositions betray an equal lack of knowledge, though his refined taste is as clearly displayed there as is his literary power in the Letters and Dicticmary. His first overa. Les Muses Galantes, privately prepared at

| year with him, the Dijon academy, which had founded his fame, announced the subject of "The Origin of Inequality," on which he wrote a discourse which was unsuccessful, but at least equal to the former in merit. During a visit to Geneva in 1754 Rousseau saw his old friend and love Madame de Warens (now reduced in circumstances and having lost all her charms), while after abjuring his abjuration of Protestantism he was enabled to take up his freedom as citizen of Geneva, to which his birth entitled him and of which he was proud. Some time afterwards, returning to Paris, he accepted a cottage near Montmorency (the celebrated Hermitage) which Madame d'Épinay had fitted up for him, and established himself there in April 1756. He spent little more than a year there, but it was a very important year. Here he wrote La Nouvelle Héloïse; here he indulged in the passion which that novel partly represents, his love for Madame d'Houdetot, sister-in-law of Madame d'Épinay, a lady still young and extremely amiable but very plain, who had a husband and a lover (St Lambert), and whom Rousseau's burning devotion seems to have partly pleased and partly annoyed. Here too arose the incomprehensible triangular quarrel between Diderot, Rousseau, and Grimm which ended Rousseau's sojourn at the Hermitage. It is impossible to discuss this at length here. The supposition least favourable to Rousseau is that it was due to one of his numerous fits of half-insane petulance and indignation at the obligations which he was nevertheless always ready to incur. That most favourable to him is that he was expected to lend himself in a more or less complaisant manner to assist and cover Madame d'Épinay's adulterous affection for Grimm. It need only be said that Madame d'Épinay's morals and Rousseau's temper are equally indefensible by anyone who knows anything about either, but that the evidence as to the exact influence of both on this particular transaction is hopelessly inconclusive. Diderot seems to have been guilty of nothing but thoughtlessness (if of that) in lending himself to a scheme of the Le Vasseurs, mother and daughter, for getting Rousseau out of the solitude of the Hermitage. At any rate Rousseau quitted the Hermitage in the winter, and established himself at Montlouis in the neighbourhood.

Hitherto Rousseau's behaviour had frequently ade him enemies, but his writings had for the most part made him friends. The quarrel with Madame d'Épinay, with Diderot, and through them with the philosophe party reversed this. In 1758 appeared his Lettre à d'Alembert contre les Spectacles, written in the winter of the previous year at Montlouis. This was at once an attack on Voltaire, who was giving theatrical representations at Les Délices, on D'Alembert, who had condemned the prejudice against the stage in the Encyclopédie, and on one of the favourite amusements of the society of the day. Diderot personally would have been forgiving enough. But Voltaire's strong point was not forgiveness, and, though Rousseau no doubt exaggerated the efforts of his "enemies," he was certainly henceforward as obnoxious to the philo

the house of La Popelinière, attracted very little attention; but Le Devin du Village, given at Fontainebleau in 1752, and at the Académie in 1753, achieved a great and well-deserved success. Though very unequal, and exceedingly simple both in style and construction, it contains some charming melodies, and is written throughout in the most refined taste. His Pygmalion (1775) is a melodrama without singing. Some posthumous fragments of another opera, Daphnis et Chloé, were printed in 1780; and in 1781 appeared Les Consolations des Misères de ma Vie, a collection of about one hundred songs and other fugitive pieces of very unequal merit. The popular air known as Rousseau's Dream is not contained in this collection, and cannot be traced back farther than J. B. Cramer's celebrated "Variations." M. Castil-Blaze has accused Rousseau of extensive plagiarisms (or worse) in Le Devin du Village and Pygmalion, but apparently without sufficient cause. (W. S. R.)