Author: TransCorr

« Activities « TransCorr Research Dissemination by Team Members

May 18, 2026

Boriana Antonova-Goleva, assistant professor at the Institute for Historical Studies of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and New Europe College researcher within TransCorr project, has initiated, consulted on, and took part in an episode dedicated to 19th-century Bulgarians (from the so-called National Revival period) and corruption on the Istoria.bg show, the most popular history TV show in Bulgaria. It was broadcast on Bulgarian National Television (BNT) on 18 May 2026, in the primetime. The other participants were her colleagues Ivelina Masheva and Hristian Atanasov, who both deal with topics related to the main theme. The episode is available here. The host of the show made two references to the TransCorr project – in the opening and closing of the episode – and Boriana’s affiliation to NEC was also indicated in the subtitles (screenshot below).

« Activities « TransCorr International Conferences « The Phanariot Past and its Multiple Afterlives, June 2026

International Conference

The Phanariot Past and its Afterlives: Historicizing “Corruption” in Central-South-East Europe (1750s–1920s)

New Europe College – Institute for Advanced Study
Bucharest, 15–16 June 2026

PARTICIPANTS: Raluca ALEXANDRESCU, Mihai-Cristian AMĂRIUȚEI, Boriana ANTONOVA-GOLEVA, Constantin ARDELEANU, Elif BAYRAKTAR TELLAN, Osman Safa BURSALI, Raymond DETREZ, Augusta DIMOU, Lucien FRARY, Simion-Alexandru GAVRIȘ, Aristides N. HATZIS, Paul KARRAS, Dimitrios M. KONTOGEORGIS, Kalliope LEIVADAROU, Myrto LAMPROU, Silvia MARTON, Nicolas NICOLAIDES, Ovidiu OLAR, Mária PAKUCS, Silvana RACHIERU, Leonidas RADOS, Andrei-Dan SORESCU, Alex R. TIPEI, Michał WASIUCIONEK

This conference is organized within the framework of “Transnational histories of ‘corruption’ in Central-South-East Europe (1750-1850).” Funded by the European Union (ERC, TransCorr, ERC-2022-ADG no. 101098095) and hosted by the New Europe College.

Monday, June 15, 2026

09h30–10h00

Welcome remarks: Valentina SANDU-DEDIU, Rector, New Europe College

Opening remarks & introduction: Silvia MARTON, Principal investigator, New Europe College

SESSION 1

The Phanariots and Their Era: Political and Social Networks

10h00–11h45

Chair and discussant: Constantin ARDELEANU, New Europe College / Institute for South-East European Studies, Bucharest

Mihai-Cristian AMĂRIUȚEI, ‘A.D. Xenopol’ Institute of History, Iași; Elif BAYRAKTAR TELLAN, History Department, Istanbul Medeniyet University; and Ovidiu OLAR, ‘Nicolae Iorga’ Institute of History, Bucharest

Short-Circuiting the Ottoman State: A Mid-Eighteenth-Century Phanariot Cartel

Paul KARRAS, Institut d’Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine, Paris

“A disgraced hospodar can be bought, along with his entire family, for a modest sum”. Phanariots and the Trans-Imperial Political Economy of Brokerage in the Long Eighteenth Century

Nicolas NICOLAIDES, Centre for Asia Minor Studies, Athens

Between Reform and Patronage: The Patriarchal Academy of Kuruçeşme (1804–1821)

11h45–12h15 Coffee break

SESSION 2

The Phanariots and Their Era: Imperial Entanglements

12h15–13h30

Chair and discussant: Andrei-Dan SORESCU, New Europe College / Maynooth University

Mária PAKUCS, ‘Nicolae Iorga’ Institute of History, Bucharest / New Europe College

The K. K. Consular Agency in Phanariot Bucharest: Imperial Entanglements and Local “Intrigues” in the Late Eighteenth Century

Lucien FRARY, Rider University / New Europe College

The Traveling Balkan Orthodox Middlemen: Russian Impressions of the Phanariots (1711–1821)

13h30–14h30 Lunch at the NEC

SESSION 3

Institutional and Political Designs Before and After 1821

14h30–17h00

Chair and discussant: Alex R. TIPEI, Université de Montréal / New Europe College

Kalliope LEIVADAROU and Aristides N. HATZIS, University of Athens

Theodoros Negris between Empire and Revolution: Phanariot Legacies and Liberal Experiments

Osman Safa BURSALI, Marmara Law School, Istanbul

A Neo-Phanariot State? The Executive Branch of the Principality of Samos and its Transformation

Simion-Alexandru GAVRIȘ, ‘A.D. Xenopol’ Institute of History, Iași

Bureaucracy after Byzantium: “Phanariot” Public Servants in Moldavia at the Beginning of the Organic Statute Regime

18h30 Dinner

Tuesday, June 16, 2026

SESSION 4

Phanariot Past and Post-Phanariot Present: Early (Re)Interpretations of Phanariot Rule

10h00–11h45

Chair and discussant: Augusta DIMOU, University of Leipzig / New Europe College

Dimitrios M. KONTOGEORGIS, University of Cyprus

“Enlightened” or “Despotic”? The Image of the Phanariot Princes in Greek and Romanian Historiography (c. 1770–1821)

Myrto LAMPROU, Hellenic Open University

Phanariotism, Corruption, and Political Identity: the Soutzos Brothers in Early Greek State Formation

Raluca ALEXANDRESCU, University of Bucharest

Inventing “Phanariotism”: Nationalistic Narratives, Political Polemics and the Populist Uses of a Corrupt “Ancien Régime” in Early Modern Romanian Discourse

11h45–12h15 Coffee break

12h15–13h00

From Istanbul to Bucharest: Court Music in the Early Nineteenth Century

Concert by
Nicolae GHEORGHIȚĂ, National University of Music Bucharest
Cătălin CERNĂTESCU, National University of Music Bucharest

13h00–14h00 Lunch at the NEC

SESSION 5

Corruption, Clerical Polemics, and Nation-Building

14h00–15h15

Chair and discussant: Andrei-Dan SORESCU, New Europe College / Maynooth University

Michał WASIUCIONEK, ‘Nicolae Iorga’ Institute of History, Bucharest / New Europe College

Corrupting Hierarchies: The “Phanariot Rule” in the Former Patriarchate of Peć and the Discourse of Corruption in the First Decades of the Nineteenth Century

Raymond DETREZ, University of Ghent

How – and Why – Was Corruption in the Orthodox Church Fought in the Ottoman Empire?

15h15–15h45 Coffee break

SESSION 6

(Corrupt) Phanariots Afterlives: National(ist) Narratives, Political Polemics

15h45–17h30

Chair and discussant: Silvia MARTON, New Europe College / University of Bucharest

Boriana ANTONOVA-GOLEVA, New Europe College / Institute for Historical Studies, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences

The ‘Phanariotism’ in the Bulgarian Public Discourse after the Crimean War: Texts, Contexts, and Concepts

Leonidas RADOS, ‘A.D. Xenopol’ Institute of History, Iași

Casting the Perfect Villain: Phanariot Regime, Stereotypes, and Mid-Nineteenth-Century Romanian Nation-Building

Silvana RACHIERU, University of Bucharest

Post-Phanariot Relationship of Ottoman Rums and Romanians at the End of the Nineteenth Century: Cultural Interactions and Regional Networks

Concluding Remarks and Key Points

17h30–18h00

Silvia MARTON, Andrei-Dan SORESCU, Alex R. TIPEI

19h00 Dinner

« Activities « TransCorr Research Dissemination by Team Members

4–6 June 2026

Participation of Constantin Ardeleanu, TransCorr team member, at the Annual Conference of the “A.D. Xenopol” History Institute in Iași with a paper that examines the rule of Gheorghe Bibescu in Wallachia, specifically analyzing the allegations of “corruption” leveled against him in both contemporary and historiographical contexts, alongside the subsequent efforts by his descendants to contest these narratives.

Gheorghe Bibescu, opoziția parlamentară și discursuri asupra „corupției” în spațiul românesc

Constantin ARDELEANU
Colegiul Noua Europă / Institutul de Studii Sud-Est Europene, București

În martie 1843, antreprenorul rus Alexander Trandafilov a solicitat guvernului Valahiei permisiunea de a explora Munții Carpați, în vederea exploitării resurselor subsolului. Proiectul s-a bucurat de sprijinul domnitorului Gheorghe Bibescu și al Sfatului Administrativ Extraordinar, dispuși să acorde o concesiune pe 12 ani. Obșteasca Adunare s-a opus vehement, invocând prevederile Regulamentului Organic care garantau dreptul proprietarilor de a-și exploata minele personal sau de a le arenda după propria voință. Dincolo de argumentele juridice, dezbaterea a fost alimentată de teama unei „năvăliri muscălești”, concesiunea fiind percepută ca un paravan pentru interesele politice rusești.

Simultan, Bibescu a inițiat modificarea Codului Caragea, susținând că legislația înv echită era „lipsită de rânduială” și dăunătoare economiei. Vizată era, în special, „chestiunea dotală”: practica unor boieri de a-și proteja averile de creditori prin trecerea lor fictivă sub formă de zestre a soțiilor. Proiectul propunea înregistrarea riguroasă a actelor dotale pentru a permite urmărirea bunurilor zălogite. Reforma părea în să să ascundă și un interes personal: Bibescu a inclus principii care i-ar fi facilitat accesul la averea soției sale, de care intenționa să divorțeze. Opoziția parlamentară a atacat dur proiectul, denunțând modul în care domnitorul instrumentaliza legea în folos propriu.

„Chestiunea minelor” și „chestiunea dotală” au devenit astfel pilonii unui conflict politic major. Ambele tabere au făcut acuzații grave de „corupție” sau de trădare a „interesului național”. Utilizând surse inedite din arhive interne și internaționale, studiul meu analizează dinamica acestor dispute și modul în care discursurile asupra „corupției” au fost politizate strategic atât de domnitor, cât și de opoziție.

Ecourile acestor evenimente au persistat mult timp în istoriografia românească. În a doua jumătate a secolului al XIX-lea, istorici precum George Tocilescu au interpretat episoadele din 1843–1844 ca dovezi ale „abuzului de putere” și ale încercării lui Bibescu de a „vinde” țara influenței rusești. Aceste perspective au fost combătute de prințul George Bibescu, fiul domnitorului, ceea ce permite o reevaluare a narațiunilor despre „corupție” în contextul politic de la finele secolului al XIX-lea. Lucrarea de față examinează și aceste polemici, urmărind evoluția conceptuală a noțiunii de „corupție” în spațiul românesc.

« Activities « Research Seminars

Date: 23 January 2026, 3 p.m. – 5 p.m. EET/ Location: NEC

On-site participants: Silvia Marton, Constantin Ardeleanu, Augusta Dimou, Mária Pakucs, Michał Wasiucionek

Online participants: Lucien Frary, Boriana Antonova-Goleva, Andrei Sorescu

Chair of the meeting: Silvia Marton, TransCorr P.I.

This working group within the TransCorr project focuses on the political, economic and social activities of the Serbian prince Miloš Obrenović whose influence in the Balkans region was tremendous at the beginning of the 19^th century, bridging Istanbul, Bucharest, Belgrade and Vienna. This topic will be a section in the second TransCorr volume: Old Practices, New Interactions? Favoritism, Interests, Patronage in Central-South-East Europe (1750-1850), Silvia Marton and Constantin Ardeleanu (eds.)

Each team member presented the current stage of their work and proposed future research directions that were discussed together.

Michał Wasiucionek will include a historiographical overview on Obrenović.

Lucien Frary will detail the connections between the Russian and the Serbian states, with a focus on Obrenović’s relationship with Baron Grigorii A. Stroganov, the Russian ambassador to Serbia at that time.

Constantin Ardeleanu, whose chapter is already drafted, analyzed the salt trade and the route of money, during Obrenović’s reign. The prince was a genuine capitalist and entrepreneur, becoming one of the wealthiest persons in the Balkans.

Mária Pakucs will approach the topic from the Hungarian and Habsburg angles, digging into the relation with Széchenyi István and the Sina family network (notably Sina György Simon).

Augusta Dimou will write about Gligorije M. Jeftanović, as a case of entrepreneurship and community building among Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The volume will depict how these leaders operated, the motivations behind their actions and in what way they were transnational.

« Activities « Research Seminars

23 February 2026, 16.00-18.00 (Bucharest time)
Oana SORESCU-IUDEAN, TransCorr team member; Researcher at
the Centre for Population Studies of the Babeș-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca; Postdoctoral Researcher

The present paper examines how Transylvanian elite actors navigated and described networks and practices of network building at several levels, between roughly the early 1750s and the end of the 18th century. The enquiry is framed by two major collections of correspondence stemming from two Transylvanian Saxon elite families, whose scions effectively and deftly negotiated positions within the estate-level, the ‘national’ and the imperial administrations over the course of the second half of the century. It surveys and catalogues a medley of actors and groups holding varied agendas, arguing that despite differences in backgrounds or confessional allegiances, these nevertheless operated in similar fashions across the political scene of the Habsburg Monarchy’s peripheral provinces. Based on this exploration, it argues on the one hand that the emergence of a provincial-level civil service in Transylvania shifted the landscape of patronage by introducing new criteria of allegiance and novel nodes of power. On the other hand, this process likewise worked to formalize interactions between estates, individuals, and the government, which in turn paved the way for the construction of a ‘gray area’ within this realm of mediation that would eventually be assimilated to corruption during the 19th century.

« Activities « Research Seminars

22 January 2026, 16.00-18.00 (Bucharest time)
Augusta DIMOU, TransCorr team member; PhD. Privatdozentin,
Institute of Cultural Studies, Chair of Comparative European History, University of Leipzig

Gligorije Jeftanović (1840–1927) was indisputably a leading, if not the leading figure in the Movement for Church and School Autonomy among the Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the last decades of the 19 th century. As a rule, he is commemorated as a larger than life personality, an ardent patriot, an adept and devoted national leader. In the aftermath of the recent Yugoslav wars and due to the subsequent hardening of historiographic fronts, Jeftanović has been portrayed as a forerunner of Serbian unity and territorial consolidation, and has acquired almost hagiographic traits for having led the Serbian peoples’ strivings for freedom, emancipation and statehood.

Consequently, his biographers focus predominantly on his political role in the Serbian national movement and understate other important aspects of his multifaceted personality such as that of a skilled entrepreneur with diversified business activities in commerce, the hotel industry and service sector, land ownership and industrial manufacture. In fact, his economic success often appears almost detached from his successful political career within the Bosnian Serbian orthodox community. His accomplishments, however, cannot be thought independently of the good business relations he entertained with the Provisional Government in Sarajevo and his far-reaching networks both to the Ottoman and the Habsburg empires. In my presentation, I will revisit his biography aiming at a recontextualization of G. Jeftanović as part of the Serbian commercial elite of Sarajevo, situating him within the broader socioeconomic development of new entrepreneurial elites in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Habsburg period.

« Activities « Research Seminars

26 March 2026, 16.00-18.00 (Bucharest time)
Lucien FRARY, TransCorr team member; PhD Professor of history
at Rider University

Drawing on Russian foreign ministry records, this paper examines the extension of Russian patronage and influence in the Ottoman Balkans through human webs. It charts the development of Russia’s consular network through the activity of its ambassadors and their use of unofficial and official Eastern Orthodox agents. By 1774, Russia’s practice of using Eastern Orthodox clients with linguistic capacities relevant to the region became a potent device to assert tsarist prerogatives.

The paper focuses on the participation of Russia’s diplomatic and intelligence agents in Serbia’s journey toward independence. Under Ambassador Grigorii A. Stroganov (1816–21), the tsarist government aimed to ensure the autonomy and privileges granted to the pashalik according to the Bucharest Treaty by intervening in the system of government and by pressuring the Sublime Porte to comply with its obligations. Russian consulates in Bucharest (Aleksandr A. Pini) and Iași (Andrei Pisani) served as relay points for Russian action in Belgrade, where St. Petersburg pursued well-defined objectives: to increase Serbian autonomy without making it appear that Russia was interfering in Serbian affairs, and to extend Russian influence among the primates and merchants of the region.

Connections with the Supreme Knez (Prince) Miloš Obrenović and the Serbian elite were quintessential to the success of Stroganov’s mission. The chapter spotlights the activity of Mihailo Todorović-German, an adventurer from Macedonia (Razlog) who spent years wandering in Italy and the Ottoman and Austrian empires before becoming a confidant of Obrenović as well as a loyal servant of the tsar. The chapter features the secret Stroganov–Obrenović correspondence to reveal how favoritism and personal intervention proved significant in determining domestic affairs in Belgrade. Written in Russian and Serbian, in cipher, and conducted via the intermediary German, the correspondence blossomed into full-fledged plans for the pashalik’s future. The intervention of the Russian embassy in Istanbul and its consular network produced an accretion of advantages for the pashalik of Belgrade until the outbreak of the Eastern Crisis in 1821 ended the Russian mission. The chapter demonstrates how the Russian state extended its patronage and influence through consular webs in fledgling states like Serbia, setting the groundwork for the next century of intervention.

Lastly, the activity of low-level Russian agents in the Ottoman Empire represents an underappreciated aspect of the transformation of foreign policy institutions over the nineteenth century. Russia’s consular officers and offices in the Ottoman Balkans formulated, bent, and broke common rules of foreign policy execution by intervening with the regional elite in the areas under their jurisdiction. These agents represented new states like Serbia, Greece, and Romania to the outside world, making them a special channel and source for domestic and foreign policy aspirations.