It may well be imagined that the humiliating defeats inflicted by Michael upon the Turkish armies would not tend to mollify the severity of their subsequent rule, and that the chief aim of the Porte would be to extort as large a revenue as possible from the conquered provinces, without regard to the sufferings of any class, This was effected by taking advantage of the jealousies and intrigues of the boyards who aspired to the rulership to obtain an increase of the tribute, and bribes; and a reference to the records of the time shows that whilst in Wallachia the rule of only three voivodes, and in Moldavia that of two only, exceeded five years, there were often two new princes appointed in the same year.[145] A noteworthy circumstance in connection with these voivodes is their gradual transition from native to Greek families.  Here and there we have an Italian appellative, such as Quatiani or Rosetti, but in the main there is a change from the Bassarabs, the Bogdans, and the Radus, to the Ghikas, Cantacuzenes, Brancovanos, and eventually to the Mavrocordatos.[146] The explanation of this change will be given presently, but amongst the native rulers we may select two or three for brief comment.  Between 1627 or 1633 and 1654 Matthew Baasarab ruled over Wallachia to the advantage of the nation.  He drove out the Tartars who had overrun the country, and afterwards devoted himself to the welfare of his subjects.  Bucarest was not yet the acknowledged capital, but he established a printing-press there, and also reformed the administration of justice.  At the same time Basilius (known as Basil the Wolf), Prince of Moldavia, between whom and Matthew there had been great jealousy, followed his example in his own country, and a criminal code was introduced into both principalities, which, amongst its other provisions, legalised slavery in some of its most iniquitous forms.  A few extracts from this code may be of interest, as showing the condition of the people at that time.

     Anyone guilty of arson was burned alive.

     Anyone harbouring a fugitive serf was liable to a fine of twelve
     silver lions into court and twenty-four to the seigneur.[147]

If the gipsy of a boyard or his children stole some such trifle as a chicken or an egg twice or three times, he was to be pardoned, but if he stole anything more considerable he should be punished as a thief.  If he committed a theft to ward off starvation, he was pardoned, and also if he stole from the enemy.

     A treasure discovered by means of sorcery became the property of
     the prince.

Besides the very severe punishments directed against other forms of murder, poisoning, which must therefore have been frequent, has two clauses provided for it.  One is that, in addition to the punishment of a murderer, his children shall be declared infamous.

     If a man gave another a box on the ear, and was stabbed in return,
     no punishment was inflicted, even if death ensued; and the whole
     code of honour is of a like savage nature.