Alexandru Coconul

Biography

Origins and early life

Coconul was active at a time when the twin principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia were experiencing direct submission to the Ottoman Empire, with their rulers (also known collectively as voivodes or hospodars) directly appointed by the Sublime Porte from various qualified families. Alexandru's father Radu Mihnea was the illegitimate son of Prince Mihnea Turcitul. The latter had reigned twice in Wallachia before 1591, afterwards embracing Islam. Turcitul and his progeny formed a separate branch of the Drăculești clan, which had divided itself into competing factions; all three figures were occasionally known as the Mihnești, which honored their 15th-century ancestor, Mihnea cel Rău, who was himself born out of wedlock to Vlad the Impaler. When addressing Catholic foreigners, Turcitul and his descendants occasionally styled themselves as "Corvin"—stating a claim of descent from the Hunyadi family, and thus favoring a (since debunked) theory that all of the Impaler's descendants were blood relatives of John "Corvinus".

The princelet was most likely born in 1611, when Radu Mihnea was on his second stint as a Wallachian ruler. Historian Nicolae Iorga believes that he was named after his great-grandfather Alexander II Mircea, while his sister, Ecaterina, was a namesake of her great-grandmother, Catherine Salvaresso. Through Salvaresso, the two children were already descendants of Venetian nobility, an Italian connection that was reinforced by their father's marriage. Coconul and Ecaterina's mother was Lady Arghira, whom genealogist Constantin Gane tentatively identified as a Greek. Other scholars, who have recovered her original surname, "Minetti", describe her as an Italo-Levantine with Venetian roots. The more detailed documents on her life report that she was residing at Pera and was financially destitute before marrying Radu, who was at the time in his Ottoman exile.

Radu Mihnea's legitimate children were the recipients of at least some Western education: Ecaterina could at least sign her name, while Alexandru could write in Venetian (though, as Iorga notes, his style was ungrammatical). Venetian sources nevertheless suggest that he could not speak the language, and had to use gestures to make himself understood. They had a half-brother, born from Radu Mihnea's affair with a slave-girl, and thus half-Romani. He is identified by Iorga as Mihnea Radu, himself a future Prince of Wallachia. This view is challenged by another historian, Andrei Pippidi, since the obscure second son was only known in records as "Nicolachi", and could not have had the same age as Mihnea Radu. Another scholar, Constantin Rezachevici, argues that Radu Mihnea had yet another legitimate daughter, whose name is unknown, and who was married to Constantine Vevelli in 1630. A second or third "youngest daughter" is described by Gane, though Rezachevici identifies her with Ecaterina.

Wallachian coronation and marriage

Alexandru was formally assigned the Wallachian throne on 14/24 August 1623. When he began his reign in September, he effectively sealed a dynastic union of the two principalities. Specifically, Radu Mihnea asked and obtained that he himself be moved to Iași, while his son remained in Bucharest with Arghira as regent; in this arrangement, Gane sees evidence that Wallachia was in reality governed from Iași. According to cultural historian Răzvan Theodorescu, the quasi-unification, one of several such projects effected at various intervals by Drăculești princes, was a "testament to the surpassing of medievalness" by political strategists in both countries. His coronation was regarded as a personal triumph by his father, who, according to notes kept by Krzysztof Zbaraski, personally attended the ceremony—and thus delayed his own coronation at Iași. The two courts remained in near-permanent contact, exchanging officials: in 1625, Alexandru's scribe Udriște Năsturel was dispatched to Hârlău, in what may have been an effort to create a Latin school for the local boyardom. At that stage of his reign, Radu Mihnea was probably hoping that the Ottoman Empire would eventually crumble through the efforts of Catholic powers; while his son was just taking the Wallachian throne, he himself was sending money for safekeeping in the Republic of Venice, and, according to Bonici, was preparing his own self-exile in the Papal States.

Coconul's Wallachian reign had its artistic achievements centered on Bucharest, where he ordered Greek painters to complete work at the monumental Radu Vodă Monastery, which had been erected by his father. In 1625, he awarded its Orthodox monks a portion of his own princely estate, comprising several mills along the Dâmbovița. In early 1626, he donated Saint Nicolas Church (located somewhere in Bucharest) as a metochion of Radu Vodă. He was the first monarch to be entirely focused on Bucharest. Also in 1625, he made it a permanent capital, citing it as a favorite city of his ancestors; Târgoviște was abandoned by the court, and experienced an economic slump as a result. His own character was regarded by his contemporaries as failing: Moldavian chronicler Miron Costin dismisses Alexandru as a "weakling in both body and spirit". This verdict is shared by other contemporaries, with an avviso from the Dutch Republic (May 1630) declaring him as "unfit to rule". The entirety of Coconul's term was marked by his conflicts with the courtiers, including the powerful Vistier Necula Catargiu—who supported the rival pretender, Alexandru Iliaș, to the point of instigating a peasant revolt against the Mihnești. Whether or not related to Catargiu's intrigues, other groups also rebelled against Coconul. One uprising was registered by the rural cavalry units in Mănești-Prahova, but it was quashed by the loyalist boyars and the bulk of the Wallachian military forces; in another incident, Oltenian "thieves" proclaimed an obscure figure, known as Paisie, as the legitimate ruler, only to be hunted down and decimated by local troops.

Orphaned outcast

The Mihnești were indebted to the Beglitzi family and their various associates, for which reason Scarlatos' other son-in-law, Costandin Celebiul Asanis, always held parasitical offices at Coconul's court. This situation was complicated by Radu Mihnea's failing health. His debilitating diseases having returned, he died on his Moldavian throne on 13/23 January 1626. He probably appointed a boyar, Miron Barnovschi-Movilă, as his immediate successor. Coconul received his father's remains in Bucharest, and had them buried at Radu Vodă, also commissioning an ornate tombstone. By May, he had also lost Lady Arghira, complining about his loneliness in a letter to de Harlay. Barnovschi was by then set to marry one of the Mihnești girls, and was thus perceived as Coconul's brother-in-law. There is disagreement as to which princess this was—either Ecaterina or her unnamed sister. Ecaterina is known to have been disgraced by a scandal: in what may have been Moldavia's first documented romantic entanglement, she had tried to elope with a house servant, whom Radu Mihnea had to capture and put to death. It remains unclear whether the royal wedding ever took place, since, according to a 1629 letter by de Harlay, Barnovschi had actually wed a Polish lady from Kamieniec.

Scholar Ștefan Andreescu suggests that Barnovschi did not initially break with the Mihnești policies, and that he may have recognized the orphaned Wallachian ruler as a subordinate ally. In contrast, Bethlen was now actively opposed to Coconul, since he supported another member of the Movilești family, Gabriel, for the Wallachian throne. Alexandru was also beset by financial troubles, with one of his writs containing a unique statement about his taking pity on the Khanate-raided villages, from which he felt he could no longer collect taxes such as the haraç. In April 1626, both he and Barnovschi paid ransom to Mehmed III Giray, in exchange for a Crimean pledge not to raid either country. Coconul tried to solve the deepening crisis by eliminating fiscal privileges for newly settled villages (slobozii), and also by convening the estates of the realm; as a result, he obtained a budget of 1 million akçeler, which he then spent on efforts to preserve the princely office. He was faced with an exodus of taxpayers, and, in May 1627, wrote off the debts owed by the Aromanian and Serb colonists, provided they returned to their assigned homes in Marotin. Also then, he wrote to the monks at Radu Vodă, expressing thanks for the sacrifices they and the country at large had endured.

Coconul's main rival was by then Alexandru Iliaș—secretly assisted by Coconul's former father-in-law, who had grown resentful of the Mihnești, he also obtained sizable boyar support. In December 1626, the Transylvanian resident in Budin Eyalet, Tamás Borsos, wrote about the "insane [and] treasonous Wallachian nation", whose representatives were trying to convince Bethlen that he should give recognition to Iliaș. Meanwhile, Coconul's delays in paying up the haraç angered the Ottoman Sultan, Murad IV: in July 1627, the latter ordered his vassal to send all the money he still owed, including sums borrowed from the Ottoman treasury, to Murad's Crimean representatives at Vozia; Coconul showed up at that place, but could not provide the money, and instead helped to fortify Vozia as a service to his liege. In September, Murad was more lenient, issuing a firman by which Moldavia's boyars were required to pay back all the sums they had "squandered" from Coconul's inheritance, and confirming that he still trusted the boy-prince.

Moldavian reign and final years

In July 1629, partly acting on Bethlen's intrigues against Barnovschi, the Porte dismissed the latter and sent Coconul to occupy the Moldavian throne. Alexandru owed this appointment to Curt Celebi (son of Celibiul Asanis), who bribed Murad and the Grand Vizier, Hüsrev Pasha, with gifts amounting to 14,000 écus or 100,000 ducats. Alexandru himself had contracted large debts with various Italian bankers, and had assured Bailo Venier that he intended to follow the republic's guidance while on the throne. He also benefited from Barnovschi's political mistakes, since the latter had come to be perceived by the Ottomans as a secret ally of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. His arrival was welcomed by some of his subjects, with the Orthodox monks of Putna writing to those of Bistrița of their hopes that Alexandru would bring with him "some peace for this land." The prince was however open toward Catholic proselytism, and was initially set to ride into Moldavia alongside Guglielmo Foca, the apostolic prefect; Foca's mission was vetoed by the Bailo, adding to the many conflicts which plagued and weakened the Moldavian Catholic communities.

As part of his justifications, Coconul began spreading rumors that Radu Mihnea had died from being poisoned by Barnovschi. The latter did not immediately relinquish power, and instead took control of Khotin Fortress, with some help from the Crimeans and from the Polish squadron in Kamieniec. His refusal was dealt with by the Ottoman Army: in August, troops were dispatched to ensure that Coconul could safely reach Iași. The Barnovschi threat was neutralized by October, when the Crimeans agreed to leave Moldavia. On his first mission, Coconul was dispatched with the Moldavian military forces to Vozia, strengthening the defense of Yedisan against Cossack raids. He himself dated his enthronement to 22 September/2 October, in a letter that he wrote just days after, wherein he praised Bethlen and informed him on the Moldavian affairs He boasted his having successfully thwarted a Cossack intrusion and having isolated Barnovschi at Khotin. The latter allegedly informed Moldavians that he did not intend to fight "his Lord's son", and that he intended to leave Moldavia once the Khanate will have withdrawn its troops into Poland. In tandem, Barnovschi was also in talks with Tomasz Zamoyski, the Polish Vice-Chancellor, hoping to obtain his support for a mercenary incursion in Moldavia.

In November, Coconul heard of Bethlen's sudden death. With the prospect of Transylvania being dragged back into the Thirty Years' War that was ravaging Central Europe, Murad ordered all his regional vassals, including Coconul, to assist the Transylvanians at a moment's notice; effectively, Coconul was thus subordinated to the Transylvanian Princess, Catherine of Brandenburg. The Mihnești ascendancy signaled another defeat for Catargiu, who was forced out of his Moldavian office; instead, Alexandru promoted a local ally, Vasile Lupu, even though Lupu had been an enemy of Radu Mihnea's. His Boyars' Divan was staffed by foreigners by early 1630. Curt Celebi, who was Alexandru's permanent envoy to the Porte, or Kehaya, uniquely appeared as the presiding officeholder. He seems to have been supplanted as Kehaya by an obscure Ahmet, who was the only Muslim to hold that office, and who may have been one of Coconul's relatives from the Turcitul branch. Lesser offices went to Greeks and other foreigners, possibly including Ragusans; Minetti was left out of the Divan, but apparently continued to assist from abroad.

Legacy

For a while in the 1630s, Celebi tried to obtain political and financial support for Coconul's two surviving siblings—the supposed half-brother, Mihnea Radu, eventually sat on the Wallachian throne in 1658–1659. The latter's claim to legitimacy is discounted by various historians, who suggest that Coconul was the last regnant member of the Drăculești. Both heirs, alongside Bartolommeo Minetti and the various Italian creditors, faced each other in a legal battle over Alexandru's remaining assets; the trial was held in Ottoman courts, and, as Gane notes, only ended up enriching the presiding qadis. Some of the princelet's relatives were able to recover parts of the Zecca deposit, despite opposition from Minio. According to Gane, Coconul's other sister, who was widowed by Barnovschi's execution in 1633, spent her later life at a Movilești estate in Poland; this is contradicted by later scholarship, which sees Barnovschi's wife as unrelated to the Mihnești.

In parallel to the inheritance dispute, Curt Celebi continued to involve himself in intrigues as the nominal Kehaya, favoring various pretenders in both principalities. He was chased out of Wallachia in 1634, when Matei Basarab inaugurated his anti-Greek regime; Celebi enraged Lupu, who had taken the throne in Iași, and who obtained his killing by the Ottomans and then the exile of his entire family. Lady Ruxandra, still regarded as Coconul's widow, went on to marry into the Mavrokordatos family; her new husband, Nikolaos, was an impoverished silk merchant, whom she fell in love with after Alexandru's death. Her transfer of wealth of influence contributed to the Mavrokordatos ascendancy at the Porte, as well as in both principalities—though she herself was disgraced after a clampdown that followed the losing battle of Vienna, and died, after a brief imprisonment, in 1648.

In addition to his serving his father as a proxy, and lasting allegations about his own relative incompetence, Coconul was remembered for his connection to several enduring landmarks and art projects. The works he commissioned at Radu Vodă Monastery included paintings of the Mihnești clan, which are mentioned in a 1650s travel account by Paul of Aleppo. These may have included his own portrait, now lost; the current church murals were done c. 1979 by Sofian Boghiu and Vasile Caraman. The "tall mound" erected on the site of his 1625 wedding was still visible in the 1640s, when the Polish diplomat Wojciech Miaskowski was crossing the Siret valley. In 1631, Apostol Tzigara dedicated Alexandru a manuscript of Pseudo-Dorotheos; this act recognized Coconul as a great-grandson of Peter the Lame, at whose court the Tzigaras had served. The late-17th-century Wallachian chronicle, Letopisețul Cantacuzinesc, preserves a positive image of him, since, due to his "being very young", he relied on "very faithful boyars" and, as such, enforced the laws rather than ruling as a despot. Alexandru had been largely forgotten by the 18th century, when scholar Dimitrie Cantemir mistakenly argued that Ruxandra's first husband had been Matei Basarab—his false deduction was replicated in works by Jean-Louis Carra and Gheorghe Șincai. In the 19th century, following scholarly research into early modern Romania, some historians were thrown off by the similarity of names between Coconul and Iliaș, reading the two Alexandrus, who were real-life enemies, as one and the same figure. As Gane notes, this "bewildering confusion" was created by Alexandru D. Xenopol, and perpetuated by some other period researchers.