Romanian audio version by: Professor, Ph.D. Valentin Negoi – Historical Research, Claudia Craiu – Story, Silva Helena Schmidt – Voice, Dragoş Muşat – Sound Direction, Dragoş Muşat and Sînziana Ionescu – Sound, Ionel Niţulescu – Media Edit, Răzvan Petre – Graphics, Apollo Kamoda – Animation, Dragoş Muşat – Producer.
English written version by Sorina Georgescu
Once upon a time […] thus could our story begin, if it were a fairy tale. Unfortunately, the story of Crăciun, a Roma child not yet in his teens, is not a fairy tale, but a reality, supported by the records of that era. The story of Crăciun actually begins like that:
Brătiani village in Ţara Românească [South Romania] in the year 1671. A cold day in early February. A profound silence covered the huts and the small wooden houses. The large icicles, entangled in the branches of the surrounding trees, appeared as ominous teeth of beasts poised to assault anyone who dared to walk beneath them. At daybreak two men dressed in warm attire, wearing fur caps, opened the little wooden door of a reed-covered hut. Inside, several children and adults were sleeping cramped together on wooden backless benches covered with straw. The sound caused by the door forcefully hitting the adobe wall abruptly awakens them. Still immersed in their dreams, the adults have a dim sight of their masters. Rafail instructs his son, Eftimie, to snatch the older boy, the one with curly hair like a stack of thistles. Eftimie removes the child from the bench, places a tattered coat, likely belonging to the child’s uncle, over the child’s shoulders, and escorts the child away from the hut as the mother cries out in despair. The father remains motionless in a corner, tears on his cheeks. He knows that if he makes one step to rescue his son from his master he will be beaten, maybe to death, this time. He tightly grinds his teeth as he watches his son being taken out of the hut without any shoes, left only in his thick woolen socks. His eyes fill with tears, salty drops as their enslaved Roma life.
Rafail and Eftimie throw Crăciun in the cart and proceed to the residence of Oancea, a man who migrated from the historic district of Iaşi to the Argeş region. Mr. Oancea was waiting for him accompanied by three other individuals. For 15 Hungarian gold coins, the masters sold Crăciun to the new owner. The witnesses for the sale were Brătian Muşat, Vasile Gheorge Postelnic, and Neagoe Postelnic. The sales agreement read: “in true faith, we hereby place our fingers below to signify belief. 7179 years since the creation of the world.”
Shivering with cold, with tears still on his cheeks, Crăciun enters Mr. Oancea’s home. An old slave woman approaches them. Upon observing the child’s feet, she nods and instructs him to approach the stove. Mr. Oancea thoroughly examined him when the former owners removed him from the cart, and since then he hasn’t looked at him again. Once in the house, Mr. Oancea examined the purchased slave without mercy. His mind was made up.
Next day, Mr. Oancea from Iaşi, willingly and without remorse, sells the slave child, Crăciun, to Vlad, the son of Neagoe from Domneşti, for the same 15 Hungarian gold coins, “to become his slave for life,” as the sale and purchase agreement states. We will never know why the child was not desired. But we know why Vlad bought Crăciun: based on the archived document, Vlad bought Crăciun precisely because he, as a serf peasant, could thus obtain his freedom. And indeed, the peasants were entitled to own Roma slaves. Vlad bought Crăciun and then donated him to the esteemed Father Superior of the Argeş Monastery, Efrem.
“Thus, I was allowed to buy myself back and gave as an exchange a Gypsy child named Crăciun, but I only bought myself back, without the land.”
We will never find out what Craciun’s life was like in the monastery. However, various historical sources reveal that the Roma community engaged in multiple rebellions against the abbots of monasteries, as recorded in the Pravilniceasca Condică, a constitution that governed the Principality in 1780. In Article 5 of this significant document, it is stated that one of the underlying reasons for the uprisings was the inhumane behavior of the masters. One example worth mentioning is the Roma community belonging to the Nucet Monastery in Dâmboviţa County. Between the years 1818 and 1822, the slaves of this monastery repeatedly voiced their grievances regarding the exploitative conditions to which they were subjected:
“Most respected Kaymakam Boyars, we humbly submit our sincere and respectful supplication. We, the 21 slaves of the holy Nucetu Monastery in Southern Dambovita, with our wives and children, who, young and old, shed bitter tears, appeal to Your Grace against Sofronie, Father Superior of the monastery. After forming an alliance with the renegades and subsequently pillaging our resources in Braşov, we believed that he would not return to rule over us once again. However, now that he has returned, he has not pursued peace, but rather embarked on a campaign of torture, false accusations, theft of our finances and livestock, and the unjustified imprisonment of our wives.”
The registrar Ioniţă Popescu was appointed to investigate the complaint filed by the slaves of the Nucet Monastery. He asserted that the slaves were at fault for their failure to comply with the abbot’s orders. On October 21, 1822, Father Superior Sofronie of the Nucet Monastery submitted a request to the ruler of the country, urging for compensation to be sought from the Roma people and for appropriate measures to be taken for their punishment. One year later, the abbot’s claim was upheld. The Roma slaves were obligated to provide compensation to the monastery, and those who demonstrated defiance were subjected to severe punishment. The purpose of the punishments was to enforce obedience of the slaves to their superiors, while simultaneously discouraging any future attempts of insurrection.
Strict measures were implemented to penalize the enslaved members of the monastery. Beating was the most frequent punishment. In a document dated April 12, 1781, the slaves of the Secu monastery were forced to admit that due to wickedness and sly tricks, they were punished with beating and imprisonment at the saint monastery. The Father Superior of the Nucet Monastery, in 1818, punished his slaves by fastening their hands in wooden blocks and making them genuflect 500 times each. It should not be assumed that if Crăciun had been purchased by a boyar, his treatment as a human being would have necessarily improved. According to Andrei Oişteanu, Romanian researcher and member of the Romanian Academy, certain boyars perceived slaves as comparable to livestock. Upon entering the boyar’s estate, Crăciun would have been considered as personal property and subjected to branding with a hot iron, or, as noted in historical records, “they stang the slave’s hand with a needle, and they wrote the boyars initials, and then, sprinkling gun powder on those pricks, they set it on fire, so that those initials remained there forever.”
In the medieval Romanian countries, Crăciun and all Roma slaves occupied the lowest social position among all unfree individuals. What constituted their social status was not simply the deprivation of individual liberties, but rather the absence of legal personhood. Enslaved individuals were entirely owned by their masters. The enslaved individuals were regarded as the movable assets or moving property of their owners. The master possessed the authority to dispose of his slaves at his discretion, including the ability to assign them tasks, sell or trade them for goods and services, leverage them to satisfy a debt, or pass them down as part of an inheritance. The duties of slaves differed based on the master they served. For example, boyar and monastery slaves were typically assigned to domestic tasks such as cooking, driving, caring for animals, serving, masonry and even music. Princely slaves had a certain amount of freedom. They were granted permission to travel within the country in order to perform their crafts, in consideration of paying a specified sum of money to the ruler. As an illustration, according to Dimitrie Cantemir’s records, enslaved individuals employed in gold mining were authorized to travel within the territory of the country provided that they remitted a sum of 1600 drachmas to the wife of the ruling authority. The arrival of the Phanariots in the Romanian territory prompted certain rulers to impose taxes even on their slaves. Thus, at the beginning of the 18th century, private slaves of higher means were obligated to pay a tax of two Hungarian golden coins, whereas those who were less affluent paid a lower amount. Historian Nicolae Grigoraş refers to this charge as “ţigănărit.” According to Grigoraş, Nicolae Mavrocordat, the Phanariot ruler of Moldavia, levied this tax to support the country’s requirements initially, but then temporarily suspended it. The subsequent Phanariot boyars, who assumed the throne of the nation, temporarily reinstated taxes.
“For a need back then, and then they did not eliminate the ‘ţigănărit’ fee any more, and they again put a curse not to eliminate it.”
Mihai Racoviţă, the leader of Moldavia, expressed remorse for reinstating the fee, citing the country’s unfortunate circumstances. The fee was necessary to comply with the demands of the ruling powers, specifically the Turks.
Alongside the “ţigănărit” fee, medieval records indicate that slaves were subject to various additional taxes. Unfortunately, historical studies do not provide extensive information on these taxes, including: a) a certain princely fee – the “gradiu” -, from which metropolitan church slaves and royal craftsmen slaves were exempt; b) the “desetina” – a 10% tax on products for slaves who owned beehives; c) the “gostina de mascuri” – in the Middle Ages, in Ţara Românească and Moldavia, a tax paid in sheep, pigs, or cows, for those slaves who had all such goods; d) the “olacul” – obligations during war for the slaves who had horses.
Coming back to the story of Crăciun, a Roma slave child brought up on the Brătiani estate, it is worth mentioning that on occasion, when he eluded his domestic responsibilities, he engaged in the role of outlaws alongside the son of a peasant residing in the nearby village. The boy and his family, like all the peasants known by Crăciun, were serfs, meaning they were dependent peasants. Crăciun was a slave, and there were big differences between a serf and a slave. Serfdom was exclusively passed down from fathers, whereas slavery was inherited from both mothers and fathers. What does this mean? The wives of the serfs did not share the same fate as their husbands since they were not considered serfs themselves. For instance, an exemption from serfdom was granted to a serf, if he could provide evidence proving that his mother was unmarried during the time of his birth. Then he was a free man. This argument was put forth by Tudor, a resident of the village Găvănestii de Sus in Buzău county, to support his claim during his request to be released from the claims to serfdom made by the Buzău Bishopric over the entire village. Whether we are talking about gaining freedom from serfdom (“eliberare” or “slobozire”), or about enacting the status of a serf, all these matters only concerned the male side. For instance, when Stanciu and Dumitru from Baia decided to release Oprea and Ivan, they only meant the male members of their family, as “they and their sons, as many as God will give them.” The same occurred when Şerban from Slănic decided to sell himself into serfdom to Treasurer Stroie: “for everybody to know that I have sold myself to him, myself and my sons, as many as we have and as many as God will give us.”
When discussing Roma slavery, it is important to note that this practice was also perpetuated amongst women who were both single and with their husbands during the process of sale or donation, as indicated by the relevant documents.
“Once again, my lord Pătraşcu, the cupbearer, and his brother Jura, the chancellor, have acquired the services of a Roma woman, named Stana, from Tudosie, the son of Stoica from Ohaba, for the sum of 18 Hungarian gold coins.”
The Roma woman was required to engage in either independent or collaborative work with her husband for the master. Regrettably, the responsibilities that Roma women held towards their masters extended beyond the confines of domestic tasks. One of the privileges that the nobility held over their female slaves included those of a sexual nature. In one of his academic studies, Andrei Oişteanu sheds light on the sexual exploitation of Roma slaves by boyars.
“Private Gypsies knew no other law than the whims of their master, who did not shrink from tearing the wife away from her husband, from taking the mother away from her children and from taking advantage of the young girl, when his interest and his debauchery so dictated him.” There is substantial evidence indicating multiple instances of rape among the wives of serfs, too. The difference was that for the Roma women rape had become so normal in the collective mentality, that Roma believed it was only natural for the boyar to take advantage of the girls in their families. Even the captain of the Gypsies was taken aback by the nobility’s display of restraint, as evidenced by “Why are you a boyar if you do not use your sexual privileges?”.
Do you remember Vlad, the serf who secured his own emancipation by selling Crăciun to the abbot of the Argeş Monastery? One of the most noteworthy differentiations between serfdom in Wallachia or in Moldavia, and slavery, lay precisely in the right of ownership that one individual had over another. Serfs were granted permission to own slaves; whereas, it was not permissible for slaves to own serfs. Romanian serfs were able to obtain their freedom by providing a slave in exchange, whereas Roma slaves were unable to secure their freedom by offering a Romanian serf in return. On August 7, 1645, Popa Şerban of Drăgoieşti, Ilfov County, secured the emancipation of himself and his sons from the Snagov Monastery’s serfdom system by offering two Roma slaves as payment. And Mihai, son of Radu from Sîrbi, emancipated himself from serfdom at the Câmpu-Lung Monastery by offering a Roma slave woman, Ana, as compensation.
If, upon listening to the story of Crăciun, you have asked yourself: “Since when have the Roma people been inhabiting these lands? Have they always been slaves?” Then, allow us to recount the first documentary evidence of the Roma people in Wallachia. In a historical record dating back to 1385, it is documented that Ruler Dan I granted 40 Roma dwellings to the Tismana Monastery. Formerly, these were under the ownership of the Vodiţa Monastery. After having been donated to this monastery by Vladislav I in the years 1370-1371. In Moldavia, the Roma people were alluded to indirectly, first, in 1414, when the Moldavian ruler Alexandru cel Bun (the Good) bestowed three villages upon the boyar Toader Pitic and his brother, including the village of Ţigăneşti, on August 2nd. The first documented and explicit reference to the Roma community in Moldavia dates back to July 8, 1428, when the same Moldavian ruler granted 31 Roma dwellings to the Bistrița Monastery. In Transylvania, the situation appears less clear since the Roma are first mentioned in an undated document owned by Mircea the Elder. The ruler awarded boyar Costea 17 Roma tents, among various other items, in Ţara Făgăraşului.
With respect to the manner and time of the Roma’s arrival in the territories of the Romanian countries, there are various theories. One contention, posited by certain historians including Nicolae Iorga, asserts that the Tartars transported them to this area during the Golden Horde’s 1241-42 incursion.
“Entire groups of people were forced by the sword to become part of political constructions which were not of their interest or concern. Anyone with authority became the leader. Anyone who possessed a contingent of paid soldiers available, capable of deployment for combat at a moment’s notice.”
But historian Viorel Achim challenges Iorga. Achim recognizes the potential presence of Roma communities within the Tartar groups to the west, as the Tartar encampments were known to include talented craftsmen, notably blacksmiths and farriers. However, according to Viorel Achim, the medieval history of the Roma in neighboring countries of Eastern Europe, close to the Golden Horde, contradicts the hypothesis that the Tartars transported the Roma to this region, since no country that had contact with the Tartars, such as Poland, Lithuania, or Russia, can account for their presence. In fact, the Roma population in Russia can be traced back to to the Romanian Principalities. Achim posits that the Roma population migrated into the Romanian territories via the Southern Danube during the rule of Vladislav I. This claim is corroborated by the occurrences that transpired in 1369 in Vidin, whereby Vladislav I was compelled to transfer the inhabitants from the right bank to the left bank of the Danube. Amidst the population displacement, the Roma were transferred to the ownership of the Voivode, who subsequently bestowed them upon the Vodiţa Monastery. Achim holds the belief that the year 1370 marks the placement of Roma on the Wallachian territory.
Not all researchers agree with the theory put forth by historian Viorel Achim. Roma historian Petre Petcut contradicts him. In one of his works, he asserts that no document discovered to date attests to a large-scale migration of Roma people from the Bulgarian coastline to Wallachia. In addition, various demographic groups were affected by a range of factors such as climate, economic, political and sanitary conditions, which adversely impacted their ability to move. The frequent mobility of human groups during this period was largely due to conflicts, epidemics, and onerous taxation.
Until researchers clarify the exact manner and date of the Roma arrival in the Danubian-Pontic region, let us refocus our attention on the narrative of Crăciun. The selling of slave children was forbidden sometime later. Unfortunately, there is no information available about the year and context in which this decision was made in Wallachia. What we know is, that had Crăciun been born in Moldavia post 1766, he would have been reared in the company of his parents and siblings. In that year, the ruler Grigore Ghica enacted legislation concerning this matter:
“Since when Gypsies were distributed there was a lot of unjust mixing up and children were separated from their parents, knowing this to be bitter and more terrifying even than the foreign enemies’ slavery, separating father from son and brother from brother, because even if they are called Gypsies, they are still God’s creation, they cannot be distributed as beasts, to cut off this impious deed, which is completely unjust, from now on, there shall be no Gypsy children distribution.”
Crăciun is among the multitude of Roma slaves who were owned by monasteries, boyars, or rulers for a period of five centuries, perhaps numbering in the tens or even hundreds of thousands. Like other children, he was removed from the care of his family, and sold. For 500 years, Roma slaves were forced to hard labor, many of them were beaten, tortured, branded. Some of them were even killed by their masters, who faced no consequences for these acts of violence. For example, in 1634, Lady Marica was responsible for the deaths of two Roma children. The action incited the Ruler’s wrath, leading to her trial. However, Marica was acquitted.
For 500 years, the Roma people in the Romanian Principalities, with few exceptions, were treated worse than animals. Inarguably, the endeavors they have undertaken, both in the past and present, have substantially contributed to the economic expansion and progress of Romania.
Home | Discussing Slavery: Conferences, articles, book reviews 
Leave a comment