Chronicle of Huru

The Chronicle of Huru (Romanian: Cronica lui Huru) was a forged narrative, first published in 1856–1857; it claimed to be an official chronicle of the medieval Moldavian court and to shed light on Romanian presence in Moldavia from Roman Dacia and up to the 13th century, thus offering an explanation of problematic issues relating to the origin of the Romanians and Romanian history in the Dark Ages. Publicized and endorsed by the Romantic nationalist intellectuals Gheorghe Asachi (who edited the published version)^[1]^[2] and Ion Heliade Rădulescu, it was argued to have been the work of Paharnic Constantin Sion (or another member of his family)^[2] or that of Gheorghe Săulescu, Asachi's friend and lifelong collaborator.^[1]

Content

The document claimed to be the version of a text from the 13th century, relying on information first written down by a certain Arbore the

Galician magnate".^[3]

The chronicle began by stressing the continuity between
Iaşi and voted to stand their ground and resist migratory intrusions.^[2] Consequently, they decided to organize themselves as a federal republic extending from the Carpathians in the west to the Dniester in the east.^[2]

Impact and character

The Chronicle of Huru was published during the last period of Moldavian statehood, three years before the country's
Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia, the Austrian Empire, and the Russian Empire.^[2] Following the interest stirred by the apparent breakthrough of the document, Prince Grigore Alexandru Ghica ordered the document to be evaluated by a Commission of experts^[1]^[2] (comprising Mihail Kogălniceanu, August Treboniu Laurian and Constantin Negruzzi).^[1] The latter reported that the chronicle was a forgery, while supporters of the chronicle claimed the original had been lost.^[1]

According to historiographer

Neacşu's Letter);^[1] the analysis of the language used was the main clue in uncovering the forgery.^[1]

The chronicle, still argued by many to have been authentic, was notably used as a source by Ion Heliade Rădulescu in his Elemente de istoria românilor ("Elements of Romanian History", 1860),^[2] and ultimately proven spurious by linguist Alexandru Philippide in 1882.^[2]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j (in Romanian) Gheorghe Adamescu, Istoria literaturii române. Literatura istorică ("The History of Romanian Literature. Historical Literature") Archived 2007-07-21 at the Wayback Machine
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o Lucian Boia, History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness, Central European University Press, Budapest, 2001, p.47-49
^ ^a ^b (in Romanian) Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu, Ioan Vodă cel Cumplit. După el... (27)

[adamescu-1] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j (in Romanian) Gheorghe Adamescu, Istoria literaturii române. Literatura istorică ("The History of Romanian Literature. Historical Literature") Archived 2007-07-21 at the Wayback Machine

[boia-2] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o Lucian Boia, History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness, Central European University Press, Budapest, 2001, p.47-49

[hasdeu-3] (in Romanian) Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu, Ioan Vodă cel Cumplit. După el... (27)

[1]

[2]

[3]