LAURENTIU VLAD1 

Folk culture, which was subjected to the early aggression of scholastic culture [in the dawn of the modern époque], was conceived towards the 1800s as an inferior stage in a hierarchy of the models of civilization.2  In the 18th century, the study of the primitive societies, from outside Europe, revealed the mythical image of a natural culture, of an innocent life, and of a space of genuine happiness. Gradually, the myth of the noble savage was brought on to the continent; the people, in some of its aspects, the peasant, by all means, the rural communities became the sole depository of authenticity and original freshness, revealing themselves, as Herder pointed out, to be the least corrupted part of the nation.3 

Such a folk culture, conceived in a restrictive manner, partially justified the nationalistic propaganda of the 19th century. The fervor with which the remnants of patriarchal life of the nations were gathered, marked scientific research in a profound manner [for example: the collection of folklore, the study of linguistics and history, etc.]. This served the cause of nationalistic propaganda, especially in central and southeastern Europe, where there was primarily a need for the creation of national states [this was the case with the Czechs, the Poles, the Greeks, and the Serbs] or for its re-establishment on a modern basis.4 

On the 11th of August, 1877, G. Chitu, the Minister of Public Instruction at that time, invited B. P. Hasdeu to make up a juridical questionnaire and a mythological-linguistic one "for the collection and the description of popular habits, institutions, and customs."5  The answers to those questionnaires, associated with the archaeological information gathered by Al. Odobescu from all over the country, could recreate "the national life of Romania in a synthetic manner, with its moral and historical conscience."6 

Hasdeu, as well as Odobescu, were well known at the time as some of the tireless researchers of the ‘Volksgeist’ or ‘Volkseele’ of the Romanian people. Odobescu, for example, began his study of popular songs in Eastern Europe by quoting Herder,7  while Hasdeu, approaching the same subject, quoted Gorres.8  Their critical apparatus included Fauriel, Liebrecht or Karadzic, all of whom were influenced by Herder’s writings on the legendary voices of the peoples.9  In this context, having as a starting point Herder’s philosophy, the Romanian cultural elite of the second half of the 19th century created the concept of ‘Romanian specificness’, defined as a diffuse mixture of Latinity and rurality.10  Hasdeu, following G. Vico’s idea that all human sciences find their origins in the practices of the rural world, tried to elucidate this specificness by delineating the essence of the ethno-psychological research,11  which he linked conceptually to linguistics, as was done by his contemporaries Steinthal and Lazarus. Both of them constructed comparative philology. By defining the two terms of comparative philology, the Romanian scholar reserved to ethno-psychology the realm of research of folk beliefs, especially through the study of the folk literature. In this context, he also established in the Romanian culture the term of ‘folklore’: "the most intimate beliefs of the people, its habits and customs, its joys and sorrows, everything that one may call today … with the English word folklore."12 

Hasdeu published in a short time the requested juridical questionnaire [1878]; the second one was made available to the public in 1884. As he himself confessed,13  he had as sources of inspiration the monumental work of Grimm, Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer, published in Göttingen in 1854,14  as well as V. Bogisic’s questionnaire of 1865, whose answers took the form of a very successful study published in Zagreb twice, in 1866 and 1867 [Pravni obicaji u Slovena].15  Starting from the enormous amount of information gathered from the questionnaire, Bogisic, who at the time was teaching "The History of Slavic Legislation" at Odessa University, initiated the publication of a collection of juridical customs of the southern Slavs in 1874. Last, but not least, we should mention the questionnaire of Efimenko and Matviev, which was carried out under the auspices of the Geographical Society of St. Petersburg in 1877. If Bogisic grouped the questions under the titles of Jus privatum and Jus publicum, while Efimenko and Matviev gathered them under the name of Jus civile, Hasdeu adopted a simpler classification, entirely folkish. The 400 questions of his questionnaire were divided into three groups: Village, Home, and Objects. These groups actually outlined all the relationships established between the members of a basic community outside of positive law. The classification of the questions was not made following unitary criteria, considering that some of them could as well have appeared in a different chapter; a fact which the author himself revealed in his introduction. While the questionnaire took on the formal character of some similar works in Europe, its substance was inspired by the agricultural monographies of Ion Ionescu de la Brad,16  the Cartea Romaneasca de Invatatura,17  the Legiuirea lui Caragea,18  and from the juridical documents which Hasdeu studied at the Archives of the State, which were based on the so-called "customs of the land."

The answers to the juridical questionnaire were published as early as the year of its distribution. The documentary material, considerably less voluminous than the one obtained from the linguistic questionnaire of 1884 [18 volumes] or than the similar inquiries of N. Densusianu between 1893 and 1895 [17 volumes], was subsequently grouped into three volumes which are to be found at the Library of the Romanian Academy19  and at the National Archives.20  The answers are from the following counties: Botosani, Buzau, Dambovita, Dolj, Falciu, Gorj, Ilfov, Mehedinti, Muscel, Prahova, Putna, Ramnicu Sarat, Roman, Romanati, Tecuci, Tutova, and Vlasca. In 1882 Hasdeu published in Columna lui Traian [nr. 1-12] the results of his inquiry in Bacau county, which are not to be found in the three above-mentioned volumes.21 

Among others, I. C. Chitimia, Ion Muslea, and Ovidiu Birlea expressed their opinions on Hasdeu’s questionnaires, the latter integrating the answers in a folkloric typology, a synthetic index of themes and legendary-mythological motifs. The researchers of the old Romanian law also mentioned in their studies the juridical inquiry that the present paper refers to.22  Lately, some approaches analyzed the domain also from the point of view of a search for an ethno-psychological identity, a necessary threshold for the modernization/Europeanization of Romania. I opted for a sociological approach, following some of the guidelines suggested by H. H. Stahl in his excellent work Contributii la studiul satelor devalmase romanesti,23  who used a part of the answers to Hasdeu’s juridical questionnaire. The perspective I opted for enabled me to describe the entire attitudinal complex specific to the basic communities, the manifestations of authority within them, either of a familial or of a communitarian type, the participatory structures and those of decisional competence singled out in different contexts. At the same time, I also managed to highlight the characteristic features of the political culture of these communities. Among the models I used, the sociological monography of Nerej Village [1939] coordinated by H. H. Stahl, as well as P. H. Stahl’s synthesis Terra societa miti nei Balcani, [1993],24  were of great help.

In the current stage of my research, I can present only a sample. Therefore, I chose the answers to Hasdeu’s juridical questionnaire received from the villages of Podgoria, Muscel County.25  The report, dated the 7th of October, 1882, was made by Judge D. Draghici, whose knowledge was combined with the information received from the following villagers: Ion Barbu from Valea Mare, 65 years old; Ion Bold, from Ciocanesti, Valeni, 70 years old; and Iancu Bold from the same hamlet, 65 years old; Ghita Craciunescu from Priboieni, 50 years old; Nita Gavan from Golesti, 40 years old; Dinu Grigore from Valeni, 60 years old; Bucur Mazilu from Beleti-Negresti, 75 years old; Petre Negulescu from Gorganu, 40 years old; Ion M. Otelescu from Stefanesti, 30 years old; Dumitru Dinu Parvu, the mayor of Priboieni, 45 years old; Sandu Scurtu from Stefanesti, 40 years old, Costache Tarziu from Vrancesti, 75 years old. The answers were grouped using as criteria the two basic communities around which the questionnaire was structured: Home, Family and Village.

Founding a Family. The answer to the question about the purpose of marriage reveals in general the pattern after which the life of the couple was organized. A mystery of God, marriage presupposed the proliferation of the people and marked the position of the partners one towards the other ["man’s need for someone to help him"], also suggesting the material ground which assured his very existence: the property, obtained from the dowry. Similar conclusions were drawn by a well-known folklorist, contemporary with Hasdeu, Simion Florea Marian, who, in the spirit of the époque, also insisted on some possible ancient roots [Greek or Latin] in the structuring of the conception of marriage for the Romanians. Otherwise, the majority of the facts related to marriage described in what follows were mentioned in his work from 1890.26 

Marriage was forbidden in some situations. The relatives, up to the third cousin including the in-laws, the godparents, the great-grandchildren and the bloodbrothers, could not marry each other. At the same time, marriage was forbidden between the adopted children and the natural children of a father, they were however allowed to marry the other relatives of their father. In the old times, the villagers confessed, marriage between Christian Romanians and people of other beliefs was also forbidden, but by 1882 this prohibition had fallen into disuse; nevertheless, the community did not seem to approve of the new practices, even though they permitted the entrance of strangers into the community. The same interdiction was valid for the gypsies; in Moldavia at the end of the 18th century, Sobornicescul Hrisov considered marriage between the free inhabitants and the gypsy slaves to be "against both justice and law" and established that "this kind of union and wedding should by all means be stopped."27  The persistence of the restrictions in regard to gypsies, even after their liberation, was generated not only by socio-economic considerations, but also by moral reasons, which were enforced by the village, still a guardian of traditional structures. Surpassing these limits was assumed to cause a degradation of the family, either in an economic, or in a moral sense, which was equivalent to challenging the rules upon which the society was founded.

The families debated the issues and agreed upon the engagement. On the eve of the marriage, two people [a man and a woman], the so-called ‘pocanzei’, came to the girl’s house and brought a gift [a fried bird, two breads (jimble), two pretzels, figs, and ginger bread]. On the morning of the wedding, two other persons brought gifts to the girl’s parents, who, in their turn, gave presents to the guests. In the evening, after the religious ceremony, which concluded the wedding, at the party table set in the boy’s house, some other pocanzei brought the gifts of the girl’s parents, consisting in money or, sometimes, in cattle. After the first night spent together by the couple, the trial of the sheets took place, a widespread custom.28  If the girl had not been a virgin, a polished apple was no longer to be offered, and her parents, when they came on the third day to the groom’s house [‘the primary path’], were served at the table only in punctured glasses and plates or with fried magpie. Sometimes, the bride was taken to her parents’ home on an upside-down sleigh, under the eyes of the villagers, this was considered to be of great shame, but eventually the parties reached an agreement after a new negotiation of the dowry. Otherwise, the bride was supposed to conform to a standard, having to do with her capacity for hard work and a record of good behavior, but, as I already mentioned, the behavior could be compensated by the dowry.

I will conclude by saying that a wedding in Muscel County, in the 70s and 80s of the 19th century cost about 500 lei. In order to have an idea of what this sum means, I should note that in 1882 the tariffs for a day’s work in the mountainous lands were of 1.00 lei for digging, 1.20 lei for hoeing, and 1.50 lei for reaping.29  Also, in 1876, 1.3 kilograms [1 oca] of meat reached the price of 1.00 lei, while the same quantity of cow milk was sold for 0.48 lei, butter for 4.00 lei, pressed cheese for 2.62 lei, green cheese for 0.73 lei, wheat flour for 0.80 lei, corn flour for 0.11 lei, white bread for 0.40 lei, dark bread for 0.30 lei, and wine for approximately 0.40 lei.30 

Kinship and Paternal Authority.31 In a marriage, the husband, who was his own master, had the duty of taking care of his wife, and was busy most of the time with the work in the fields, while the woman took care of the household, and was continually subjected to and trying to satisfy all her husband’s wishes. Sometimes conflict situations appeared, which resulted in arguments and fights, which eventually ended in a trial or temporary separation, with the parties being eventually reconciled by relatives, parents, or neighbors. A more serious case occurred if adultery or bodily weakness of one of the partners was proven, both cases would lead to final separations, which was extremely disagreeable in the eyes of the villagers.

A family was considered to be fulfilled, as I have already mentioned, if it had children. This is why a pregnant woman was well received by the community, in contrast to those who practiced abortion. If a family did not have children, they could adopt some, who were conferred the rights and the duties of natural children.32  The children were placed under their parents’ authority until they married, and some of them, if immature, even after this event. Theoretically, a hierarchy and division of authority was established, with the sons listening more to the father, and the girls to the mother.

As for the relatives, the villagers acknowledged three distinct groups. The first one had as a reference point a type of natural legitimacy: blood relationship, in-law relationship, and christening relationship. The second group referred to the position in an imaginary genealogical tree: relatives from above, from below, and from the same level. Finally, relatives were divided into those belonging to the husband’s family and those belonging to the wife’s family, who together constituted the entire family. Male relatives were considered to be closer than female relatives. I should also mention a spiritual type of relationship, known as ‘blood brotherhood’. The structures of kinship were manifest at the moment of the transfer of wealth. For example, in the case of a land sale, the person who wanted to sell, would first have to ask his relatives or his neighbors if they wanted to buy it. If the seller did not follow this procedure, the relatives or neighbors could re-purchase the land within a year, by means of a trial. This was known as ‘preemption’, and was inherited from the Byzantine law as a method of restricting the entrance of strangers into the community.33  This practice was quite commonly encountered in the rural communities of Albania or Serbia.34  Nevertheless, the peasants from Muscel confessed that at the time of the survey, this customary rule was not commonly observed.

Property and Its Transmission.35 Family property consisted in the dowry received by a woman at the moment of her marriage [the received fortune] and of inheritance [the inherited fortune]. There was also a common wealth, realized during the marriage through purchases, exchanges, etc. As far as the agreement about the dowry is concerned, I should mention that this act was written by the priests in the presence of some witnesses [‘popular dowry act’ (foaie de zestre de popor)]. The dowry usually consisted of land, trees, cattle, clothes, sheets, tools and domestic objects, or money. The dowry was given on the day of the wedding and it was received by the groom’s parents. The father received the money and the cattle, while the mother received the sheets and the girl’s things. In the case of a separation, the dowry was given back to the woman; if she died and she did not have children, the dowry was received by her parents or her relatives.

Property Delimitation: The Rules of Sale and Loan.36 By differentiating between personal [movable] and real [immovable] property, the answers to the questionnaire also brought up the issue of whether the latter had any type of lien attached to it. Real property was limited by boundary stones, marked trees, roads, glens, rivers, or ditches. There were also some references to cases when boundaries became confused and required rectification in order to avoid litigation. Similar problems were noted in regard to personal property. For example, if on somebody’s land some animals [cattle or poultry] got lost, the authorities of the community were informed and if within six months their owner did not claim them, the animals were sold at an auction. The person who had fed the animals was given a part of the price, while the rest was included in the revenue of the community. The same was the case for the swarms of bees, except that they needed to be claimed within only three days; if nobody did, they remained the property of the landowner. In the same context, some other issues were settled: the right of the community to use fountains built outside the courtyard [as well as the duty of the entire village to maintain them in good condition], the manner in which a riverbed, a ditch, or a tree [as boundaries between two properties] were shared, the right to pick mushrooms, to go hunting on someone else’s land, or to go fishing in running waters.

The Socio-Economic Structure: Attitudes Towards Strangers and Marginals.37 In the village there were two categories of peasants: the rich and the poor. The former were considered honorable persons, and held prestige in the community ["honor and obedience were due to them"] proportional to their economic status. They stood out by their richer clothes and their higher standard of living. Some of them were called boyars, who had given up the peasant-like clothing and were older. Among the honorable persons there were also mazilii or postelnicii, terms which for the villagers meant "the honor which was given to a man by the powerful ones for his knowledge and his deeds." Priests were also granted special respect in the rural world; their wives and children benefited from their prestige.

In the villages of Podgoria, Muscel County, before the Land Reform Act of 1864 there were two types of peasants: landowners [razasii or mosnenii] and persons who did not own land [clacasii], the latter held a very low status in the community. The situation dramatically changed when land was given to the clacasii. There was no formal differentiation of status among mosneni, yet a special respect was shown to those of outstanding behavior or of an older age. What is worth mentioning is the fact that mosnenii had written genealogies, which they used as proof of their possession of the land. As H. H. Stahl pointed out in his Les anciennes communautes villageoises roumaines, the genealogies appeared at the moment of disintegration of traditional life, when property was attacked by an increasing number of competitors; the genealogies were strictly used in the conflicts generated by this competition.38 

In the villages, together with the peasants lived a great number of paid shepherds, carters, field guardians, and craftsmen [carpenters, blacksmiths, wheelmakers, joiners, shoemakers]. What is of interest is that some categories of craftsmen were considered to be specific for Romanians, while others for Gypsies. In the Moldavian villages, the division was much more complex, because Jews and Germans had be taken into account; for example, according to the answers to the above-mentioned questionnaire, the peasants from Cristesti Village, Cosula, Botosani County39  mentioned that Romanians worked in agriculture and woodcraft, Gypsies worked as blacksmiths and musicians, Jews were bartenders, clothesmakers and joiners, while the Germans also worked as blacksmiths and in woodcraft.

As I have already pointed out, in Muscel strangers were rejected by the community, as they were considered to be speculators and cheaters. Nevertheless, the villagers still preserved their tradition of hospitality towards guests and travelers, a fact noticed as early as the 17th century by some foreign travelers through the Romanian Principalities – for example, Nicolo Barsi, who was traveling through Moldavia in 1632.40  By the term ‘stranger’ [strain], the villagers understood a person who could not be assimilated by the community, who was excluded by it, and who was generally looked at with mistrust. Anyway, he was addressed in quite rude terms: leafta straina, letin, and cataonu. We can see that there was no precise criterion for the delimitation of the strangers, as their religious identity was often mixed with their ethic identity, a fact which can also be remarked in the answers to N. Densusianu’s questionnaire [see, for example, the case of Epureni, Falciu, where the term ‘pagan’ could as well refer to the Germans or the Russians].41  Nevertheless, there were some certitude for the peasants from Muscel: the Turks were ‘pagans’, while the Germans and the Hungarians were ‘beggars’. Together with the Germans, the Hungarians, and the Turks, the term ‘pagan’ was also used for the Busnecs, the Bulgarians, the Serbs, and especially for the Armenians, mistrusted because of their religion. The villagers also mistrusted the Jews who, as well as the Gypsies,42  were labeled thieves and cheaters. Some Romanians from beyond the mountains also appeared in the community; they were the so-called Hungarians [ungureni], towards whom the villagers did not show an obvious mistrust, although in the neighboring areas very many conflicts took place between the community of the mosneni [the town-dwellers from Campulung] and the Hungarians.

Orphan children enjoyed a special status; after their parents’ deaths, they were taken care of either by guardians or by their closest relatives. At the end of the 18th century, the relationships between the orphans and the guardians was settled. The latter were not paid for their services, but they benefited from the interest resulting from the children’s fortune, being strictly forbidden to sell any of the orphans’ immovable goods.43  The orphans without a fortune were taken in by a villager to work for him. The context is similar to the moral obligation of the brother to provide for his sister’s dowry if their parents died. Thus, one can detect in the late 19th century villages of Muscel very powerful family and/or community solidarities that proceeded from customary law, which had already been included in positive law.44 

The Trial and the Confession.45 A conflict situation between the members of a rural community was carefully worked out within its boundaries. The first to get involved were the so-called mediators [mijlocitori], who would attempt to resolve the dispute. The parties in conflict had to bring evidence to support their point of view, the most frequent types of evidence being confessions, documents, and oaths. Only respectable people were admitted as witnesses; it was preferable that they were of an older age, that they did not have hidden vices [such as drunkenness or thievery], that they had never been convicted, and that they systematically paid their taxes. Women were not allowed to testify, which clearly reflected their inferior position within the community. As for the oaths, the villagers showed that they were made during a ceremony, in the presence of the priest, invoking the children, fortune, cattle, etc.

The Authority of the Community.46 The rural community of the people living in Podgoria knew two structures of organization. The first one was represented by the village itself,47  more precisely by the meeting of all the villagers, an organism which is also recognizable in the case of other rural communities from south-eastern Europe.48  The villagers met in the church or at the town hall and discussed the potential problems related generally to the trials in the village. The meeting could not be attended by children or by those considered to be suspect [thieves, easy women, etc.]. If an act was concluded, all the participants signed it. The persons chosen by the community, who satisfied the conditions of experience, prestige, fortune, carried out the decisions of the meeting, acting at the same time as mediators [mijlocitori or impaciuitori] in the case of conflicts between villages. The community was also subjected to the direct authority of the state, through the modern local administration, which had been introduced in the Principalities in the second half of the 19th century. Initially, the ‘Organic Rules’ allowed the representatives of the villagers to have the financial competence imposed by the new organization, but eventually they were totally replaced by the clerks of the state.49  The villagers often accused this administration of corruption. Otherwise, any dissent against the authorities [communal or civil] was generated only by the abusive treatment [fiscal and/or corporal] given to the peasants.

The second form of organization of the villagers was the common property association. It was a well-structured organism, which consisted of four to five persons [sometimes up to 100]. It had very old members, the oldest of whom were the association head [capul neamului] and the founder [known as ‘the old one’ (mos)]. However, there were also more recent migrants to the community in this association. The questionnaire indicated that a strategy for the greater acceptance of outsiders was to marry into the community.50  The community, being a secular institution, justified its communal property through privileges and royal confirmations, which were kept by the oldest and the most honorable peasant, who owned the largest share in the community.

The members elected their leaders from among themselves. These leaders were supposed to have certain qualities: bravery, intelligence, and wealth. They represented the community’s interest in a trial [which meant the testimony on the behalf of the community or the refusal to alienate the land]51  and at the conclusion of the contracts. The leaders did not have any authority over the community’s wealth. Any abuse of their authority led to their dismissal from the leadership. In case of death, the widow of a head of the community could not succeed him; just as any other woman could not be elected to the leadership.

The leadership was not to make any decision without consulting the entire community. In order to discuss the problems related to trials, the administration of the community property, or redistribution of this property, a council was convoked [where women were also admitted]. The decisions were made by unanimous or majority vote. Due to their prestige, the most respectable members of the council could sway the general vote. They could also have a decisive vote by comparison with the ordinary members of the community,52  due to a voting system based on wealth.53  The right to vote in the council was limited to men over the age of 25 years [with the exception of younger males, who were married and therefore the heads of households].

At the end of the 19th century, the traditional communities still preserved their vigor, but the mass culture and the structures of the open society were increasingly penetrating them. What I aimed to achieve with this essay was to describe some of the natural links, which closely tied people together within organic solidarities54  at the end of the 19th century.55 

Within the context of this essay, we can conclude that the peasant family of Muscel County reproduced a model in which paternal authority was obvious, as well as the inferior position which women occupied. Last, but not least, I should note the egalitarian manner in which inherited property was transmitted. Thus, there were obviously relationships here of an authoritarian nature, established between parents and children, but within which some breaches had occurred [for example, the disregard of the parents’ wishes in the case of marriage, specifically marriage to persons from outside the community or outside the Orthodox religion]. The socialization of the children in such an environment led hypothetically to giving shape to a political culture in which participation and competence reached very low levels;56  any individual or collective initiative needing the endorsement of a moral authority, such as the Church [establishing family relationships, setting the calendar of the daily life, and the agora of the village], and a temporal authority [the council of the community]. The forms of communitarian organization which continued and completed the socialization started within the family, and which had as their ground precisely the authoritarian structure of the family, made necessary, nevertheless, a series of participatory principles and a competence in an environment which seemed to be self-sufficient, although there were obvious references to positive norms. From this perspective, we should underline the exclusive character of the group solidarity, such as the mistrust of the community towards strangers, the status of women and of deviants, which would generally outline a model of a political culture of a parochial-dependent type.

 1Laurentiu Vlad, New Europe College Alumnus, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Political Science, University of Bucharest.

 2Consider the thought of Edmund Burke.

 3Cocchiara, Storia del folklore in Europa, Torino, Boringhieri, 1971, see also Colovic, 192.

 4Alexandru Dutu, Principatele Romane, p. 1; Alexandru Dutu, Imperiul Otoman, p. 2.

  5B. P. Hasdeu, p. 1.

  6Ibid, p. 3.

 7Odobescu, p. 4.

 8B.P. Hasdeu, pp. 2 and 12.

 9This formula belongs to Al. Odobescu.

  10Dutu, supra note 3, pp. 2 and 7.

  11This is the translation of a term of German origin.

  12Etymologicum Magnum Romaniae, vol. 1, Bucharest, 1893; see also Birlea and Muslea, infra, note 20, p. 18.

  13B.P. Hasdeu, pp. 1 and 7-11.

  14Grimm, Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer, Göttingen, 1854.

 15Pravni obicaji u Slovena, A study published in Zagreb twice, in 1866 and 1867.

  16The agricultural monographies of Ion Ionescu de la Brad: Dorohoi County, Bucharest, 1866; Mehedinti County, Bucharest, 1868; and Putna County, Bucharest, 1870.

 17Cartea Romaneasca de Invatatura, Iasi, 1646.

 18Legiuirea lui Caragea.

 19Library of the Romanian Academy, mss. rom. 3437, 3438.

  20Romanian National Archives, mss. rom. 1492.

 21Ion Muslea and Ovidiu Birlea, Their work on Hasdeu’s questionnaires, p. 68.

  22Georgescu, 372.

  23H. H. Stahl, Contributii la studiul satelor devalmase romanesti.

  24P. H. Stahl, Terra societa miti nei Balcani, 1993.

 25B. P. Hasdeu’s juridical questionnaire received from Muscel County, Podgoria Village, B.A.R., mss. rom. 3438, pp. 71-106.

 26Simion Florea Marian, His work on Romanian Folklore, 1890, pp. 15-16, 17-20, 21-28, 87-101, 519-521.

  27see also Lenny, p. 84.

  28See, for example, Erasmus Weismantel, Confession, [He was in the army of King Charles XII of Sweden which was stationed in Moldavia between 1710-1714]; see also Cernovodeanu Simionescu, pp. 382-383.

  29G. D. Creanga, Cresterea arenzii pamantului in bani si in dijma, a pasunatului si a preturilor muncilor agricole de la 1870 la 1906, Bucharest, 1908, see also Iacob, I, p. 187.

 30Dan Berindei, Societatea romaneasca in vremea lui Carol I, 1866-1914, Bucharest, 1992, see also Iacob, I, p. 198.

  31B.A.R., mss. rom. 3438, pp. 90-95.

  32Stahl, P. H., supra, note 23, p. 125.

  33Panaitescu, pp. 142-147, Georgescu, p. 372, Hanga, pp. 73-74.

 34Stahl, P. H., supra, note 23, pp. 52, 92, 201-204.

 35B.A.R., mss. Rom. 3438, pp. 88-95.

 36Ibid, pp.78-84, 98-105.

 37Ibid, pp. 74-84.

 38Stahl, H. H., Les anciennes communautes villageoises roumaines, pp. 3 and 59.

 39mss. rom. 3437, p. 6 v.

 40see also Cernovodeanu Simionescu, pp. 378.

 41B.A.R., mss. rom. 4552, p. 457 r.

 42In 1856 in Podgoria there were 141 Gypsies, in Aricescu there were 167.

 43Livada–Cadeschi, pp. 49-51.

 44Pravilniceasca Condica, 1780; Regulamentele Organice, 1831-1832; Codul Civil, 1865.

 45B.A.R., mss. rom. 3438, pp. 80 v.-84 r.

 46B.A.R., mss. Rom. 3437, pp. 78-84.

 47cf. Stahl, H. H. 1, p. 123.

 48see, for example, the Albanians or the southern Slavs; cf. Stahl P. H., supra, note 23, pp. 50-53, 89-92.

 49cf. Stahl, H. H. 2, II, 28; 39-44.

 50Local customs continually manifested a pattern of excluding outsiders and such laws were even codified: Pravilniceasca Condica of 1780; Sobornicescul Hrisov of 1785, 1835 and 1839; Stahl, P. H., supra, note 23, p. 151.

 51cf. Panaitescu, pp. 194-199.

 52cf. Arhivele Nationale, filiala Pitesti, fond Obstea mosnenilor campulungeni, files 6/1846, 1/1856, 5/1861, 4/1892, 4/1905, etc.

 53see also Indrumator in Arhivele Statului. Arges department, p. 217.

 54The term belongs to Al. Dutu, Dutu, supra note 3, pp. 1 and 171.

 55The current project will be extended in the future by inserting into my analysis all of the answers received to B. P. Hasdeu’s juridical questionnaire and by comparing them with the answers received to the similar inquiry of N. Densusianu.

 56Almond, Verba, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, pp. 283-320.