Listen to Audiobooks narrated by Razvan Vasilescu | getfoundlocally.info
surprisingly up-to-date relevance today because, despite his air of the belle acteristic of Caragiale's work is based in the evolution of Romanian literature in its .. vision, or internet, which by no means prevents the inexorable functioning of Opere. By Ion Luca Caragiale. Bucharest: Edi- tura de Stat pentru Literatura si. Caragiale Opere 7 - Free ebook download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read book online for free. Copyright: © All Rights Reserved. Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd .. Nu intalnim numai refuzul de a comunica date. In principle, these dates could mark the beginning, albeit modest, of the professionalization of history. The reality, however, was somewhat different. The theory.
In JuneCaragiale amused himself at the expense of N. Popescu-Popnedeathe author of popular almanacswhose taste he questioned. Caragiale turned Aamsky into a character on his own, envisaging his death as a result of overwork in editing magazines "for the country's political development". Indeed, this young man's appearance, his hasty gestures, his sarcastic smile [ Kremnitz, physician to the family of Domnitor Carol I.
His concise musings are contemplative in tone, and some of them constitute evidence of both misanthropy  and, to a certain degree, misogyny. Carp 's movement, which aimed to consolidate Junimea as a third force in Romanian politics, and remained a staunch independent over the following years.
A fresco of conflicting political machinesprovincial corruptionpetty ambitions, and incoherent demagogy, it was an instant hit with the public. Maiorescu was pleased by its success, and believed that it was a sign of maturity in Romanian society, which, as he put it, was "starting to laugh" at the National Liberal rhetoric.
Even patriotism, the most important sense for the citizen of a state in his actions as a citizen, has no place in art as an ad-hoc form of patriotism [ Is there a single lyric of French patriotism in Corneille? Is there any national spouting in Racine? In the middle years of the nineteenth century the term Dacia was frequently used to refer to what we know now as Romania, that is, the entire territory inhabited by Romanians.
Even somewhat later, when the term Romania had been officially adopted to designate the little Romania resulting from the union of Wallachia and Moldavia inDacia continued to serve as a name for the whole national space of the Romanians, the future Greater Romania.
The title of A. There is no doubt that the giving up of Orientalism and traditionalism in writing and clothing implied an approach towards the Western model, but the hardest step still remained to be taken.
The question was how to set in motion a patriarchal and authoritarian system, a society overwhelmingly rural, dominated by landed property, in which the modern stimulating factors of capitalism and democracy were almost completely absent. Within a short space of time, and above all between andthe young Romanian state adopted almost everything that it could borrow from the European institutional and legislative system: For almost a century, until the course of development was disrupted by communism, the great problem of Romanian society was to be the aligning of the substance with the form.
The game was half won, and half lost. Modern society is the creation of towns and of the bourgeoisie. In the Romanian case, however, the principal groups brought together and set in opposition by the dialectic of social relations were the great landowners and the peasants.
Even aroundafter a period of relative urban development, no less than This massive predominance of the rural population had important implications for a wide range of social and political projects, as well as for the various ways in which the national past, and the spirituality and destiny of the Romanians, were interpreted.
From such a perspective the town came to seem a foreign excrescence on the healthy body of rural Romania, especially as urban communities were in fact largely foreign, or at least cosmopolitan. Even Bucharest seemed a cosmopolitan city. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, out of a population of aroundpeople, 32, were of Catholic or Protestant religion and 31, were Jewish. This is without taking into consideration the towns of Transylvania, where Romanians were in the minority in relation to either Hungarians or Germans.
The refusal of modernity—in the urban and bourgeois version which was its only true manifestation—reached such an extent that in the interwar period E. Lovinescu felt obliged to fight a veritable campaign for the rehabilitation of the urban environment in literature. Historians, too, have shown much more interest in rural issues, especially agrarian property relations, than in the evolution of urban life and of the Romanian bourgeoisie.
All this suggests a traditionalist and anti-bourgeois sensibility; a mental brake that delayed, even if it could not block, the modernization of Romanian society.
The question was whether the great landed estates would win in the end, by freeing the peasants from feudal burdens without a substantial transfer of ownership, or whether Romania would move in the direction of a system of small properties. The Rural Law of was an attempt at a compromise, a partial transfer of ownership resulting in the coexistence of great estates with small properties.
Peasant unrest, culminating in the great rebellion ofrevealed how precarious the balance was. The new agrarian reform of would abolish the system of latifundia, transferring most of the land into the hands of small peasant landowners. The past was summoned to bear witness for the present and the future. Two tendencies stand out. The other, in contrast, affirmed the pre-existence and permanence of great landed properties. Rural property, whether large or small, was not at the forefront of these.
The problem was how to remove Romania from the condition of a predominantly rural country, and the Romanians from their patriarchal mentality. From this point of view, communism can certainly be seen as a specific attempt at modernization.
- Similar authors to follow
- Craii de Curtea Veche (Romanian, Paperback)
Indeed, the brutality of the solutions adopted achieved a forced break from the rural past, but at the cost of upsetting all structures and knocking together a false modern society, quite outside all that modernity had come to mean by the end of the twentieth century.
The new ideas and institutions were all products of the Western laboratory. Even the national idea and the nation-state itself originated in the ideological evolution of the West. Up until the nineteenth century the Romanians were integrated in the Eastern cultural space.
Much is made of the occasional Western connections made by scholars, like the high steward Cantacuzino who studied in Padua or the Moldavian chroniclers with their studies in Poland, but these were never enough to change the general condition of a society and a culture.
It was a culture penetrated by the Orthodox idea, not the national idea. The first important break was made in the late eighteenth century in the work of the Transylvanian School, a group of Uniate intellectuals who had studied in Vienna and Rome and who were guided, sometimes to the point of obsession, by the idea of their Latin origins and the need to re-actualize them.
The work of the Transylvanian scholars was an important source for the re-orientation of the Romanian space towards the West, but the tone which they set—as the spokesmen of a peasant society under foreign domination—only began to be manifested on a larger scale once the elites of the two Romanian states decided to adopt the Western model. As long as the generally shared values were those of Orthodoxy, the Romanians could feel at home in the East European space. But once the sentiment of national identity had come to the foreground everywhere, things took a radical new turn for them.
The Russians were no longer the great liberating Orthodox brothers. Indeed, their shared religious identity seemed to pose an additional danger, threatening to facilitate the absorption and assimilation of Romania as had just happened with Bessarabia. Romanian nationalism now stood up against the nationalism of the Slav peoples and Pan-Slavism.
Once Hungary itself or that part of the Habsburg Empire dominated by the Magyar aristocracy began to emerge as a national, and thus assimilating, state, the situation of the Romanians in Transylvania became even more delicate. Whether it was a matter of Hungarians or Slavs, the Romanians were surrounded on all sides by national constructions or national projects which contradicted their own project.
In yet another dramatic and insoluble contradiction, the Romanians tried to break away from the part of Europe to which they nonetheless clearly belonged, and to set sail, in the realm of the imaginary, towards the shores of the West.
The Western model found a less than propitious ground in the rural base of Romanian society and in the rural-autochthonist mentality, which, despite being partially masked for a time by the pro-Western activity of an elite, would remain strong and ready to burst forth when the time was right.
Caragiale opere online dating, pmc tenders online dating
The tension between the Western model and indigenous cultural standards was to continue throughout the period which we are considering, and indeed is still in evidence today. This reaction of astonishment was the dominant one, especially in the first phase of contact.
So had their ancestors been before them: They had lost them, however, because they had been obliged for centuries to keep their hands on the sword rather than the pen, in order to defend Europe from the expansion of Islam. Their sacrifice had contributed to the ascent of the West. For all they were now about to receive, the Romanians had already paid in abundance. Once the Romanians were seen as different from other people the problem no longer needed to be formulated in terms of superiority or inferiority.
A discussion that took place within the Junimist circle some time in the s, between the nationalist Eminescu and the skeptic Vasile Pogor, provides a perfect illustration of the opposition between autochthonists and unconditional admirers of the Western model. A people which has no literature, art, or past civilization—such a people is not worth the attention of historians The prince, who managed for a short time — to rule the three territories that were to be united some three centuries later in modern Romania, begins to be perceived as a unifier only towards the middle of the nineteenth century.
What they emphasized, apart from the exceptional personality of Michael himself, were the idea of Christendom and his close relations with Emperor Rudolf. Bucharest Editura pentru Literatura, The idea of a single state for all Romanians had yet to be voiced, and it was still not time for the achievements of Michael the Brave to be exploited in this sense.
He was a great warrior, who fought the Turks and defeated the Transylvanians. And he took Transylvania and gave it to Emperor Rudolf In opposition to Engel, he always sets the record straight in favor of the Romanians. He is determined to defend, the personality of the voivode, whom he portrays in a morally positive light in antithesis to the defects of his adversaries.
The ingredients of the myth are there, but the myth itself is still absent. He reproaches Michael only for the fact that he was not able to give the unified Romanian territories an appropriate constitution. Only thus might a new era have begun, in which the Romanians would have been able to evolve, united, alongside the other nations of Europe. Historie de la Valachie, de la Moldavie et des Valaques transdanubiens Hist The man who was later to be the great artisan of the union of the principalities gives no signs in his youthful writing that he was at all sensitive to the national potential of the Mchael the Brave episode.
There is not the slightest hint of a project of national unity: It is an ascent in which he appears in two different lights, sometimes contradictory but potentially complementary, as both the glorious ruler of Wallachia and the unifier of the Romanians.
The former aspect is highlighted by Gheorghe Bibescu, himself a ruler of Wallachiawho liked to present himself as the worthy successor of the great voivode and orchestrated insistent propaganda along these lines.
Now Michael was presented as the one who had united the separate parts of ancient Dacia. The evolution in relation to his earlier essays is pronounced, as far as the national idea is concerned.
For the first time the medieval history of the Romanians, of the three Romanian lands, was explicidy treated as national history, as the history of a national desideratum which had never ceased to be manifested throughout the centuries, the history of an ideal Romanian state, complete and unitary.
The influence of the work on Romanian national consciousness was considerable, despite the delay in its publication a partial edition infollowed by the first of many full editions in Together, Michael and Stephen came to symbolize the separate yet shared history, which had led in any case towards unity, of the two Romanian sister lands.
Chapter one. History, Ideology, Mythology
From being a warrior and Christian hero he becomes a symbol of Romanian unity. These are the years when the ideal of union in a Romanian state, an ideal Romania prefigured in consciousness, came to be projected onto the historical past.
This national, political, and historical orientation belongs essentially to a single generation, the generation that carried out the revolution and later achieved the union of the principalities and the foundation of modem Romania. We have seen also how Dacia is frequently invoked in this same period as the expression of the primordial unity of the Romanian land.
The two symbols point towards a great aspiration: If the national project was broadly similar for all Romanians—a single nation in the homeland of ancient Dacia—the transformations which were thought necessary to propel Romanian society into the modern age naturally reflected ideological divergences and the specific interests of social groups. Compared with the relative homogeneity of the national discourse, when we turn our attention to the great problem of reform, and especially to the question of property, the historical evocations become contradictory.
Towards the middle of the nineteenth century the past was restructured according to three distinct political-historical sensibilities: Romanian society was originally, and had long remained, a society of landowning freemen. The usurpation had come later, after the foundation of the principalities. This unhappy evolution brought with it the decline of the Romanian lands.
Only the emancipation of the peasants and their endowment with property could remedy the situation. Otherwise, the very existence of the Romanian nation was under threat. If the national revolution was to be victorious, it had to be sustained by a social revolution. Carried to its full consequences, the transposition of his historical demonstration into social reform would have meant the restructuring of Romanian society as a society exclusively of small properties. Clearly, things could not go quite so far.
It was also he who upheld the notion of universal suffrage. The Romanian boyars had even anticipated, and in a much more reasonable way, the democracy of the French Revolution: Romanian history proved to be profoundly democratic: He, too, set out to de-dramatize the situation by improving the image of the boyars and restoring the legality of the great estates.
The system was only established in the West, as a result of Germanic conquest. This was why revolutions had been necessary in the western part of Europe, to remedy what had been a usurpation there. Here, however, the Roman colonists had remained masters of their own land. There was no usurpation of any kind, he tells us. The present owners hold the land by inheritance from the earliest times the Roman periodor have bought it with all tide deeds in order.
Thus the great estates are fully justified historically, not to mention their economic justification. Discursuri parlamentare — Parliamentary speeches, — While offering a necessary sacrifice to the game of history he insistendy draws attention to the fact that what counts in the end is not the past, but the present.
The skepticism which he manifests as far as historical models, more or less imaginary, are concerned deserves to be noted.
However, that is not how things generally are in fact. The past is more often invoked, and invoked in the most imperative terms, by those who want to break away from it. The logic of the imaginary has its own rules.
The French revolutionaries invoked Sparta and republican Rome. Any project or ideology needs models. Even when it is the future that is at stake, the models are taken from the past. Ultimately there is no other reality than the past. The more transforming an ideology aspires to be, the more radical the project, the more it appeals to the past: The boyars, too, could invoke history, and they did not hesitate to do so, but the existing state of things both in fact and in law was on their side anyway.
It was those who sought to modify this state of things who were compelled to appeal to history, to a history that could set an idealized past against the corrupt present. The road to the future presupposed a re-actualization of origins. What could be more modern than liberalism? However, its references to the past, to a clearly oudined historical model, are extremely frequent and significant.