User:Dahn/Common projects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Print from an 1895 issue of the Marxist magazine Lumea Nouă Ştiinţifică şi Literară (connected with the Romanian Social-Democratic Workers' Party). The female figure is leaning on a rock marked "eight-hour day"

The history of the labor movement in Romania reaches back to the 19th century, and involves the activities of organized labor, specifically trade unions, their successive strike actions, as well as their links with political groupings, both left-wing and right-wing. It intertwines with the history of Romania, corresponding with the major developments in Romanian society.

The first labor conflict in both Wallachia and modern Romanian history is associated with the strikes at the cloth factory in Pociovalişte (presently part of Bucharest), taking part at various intervals during the 1790s. Sparked by poor relations between the over 240 employees and their state-appointed managers, they were aggravated by the fact that workers were not payed and were instead rewarded with tax exemptions, as well as receiving one week off for each one worked and being allowed additional time off (for sickness, agricultural works, and other reasons).^[1] While demanding an additional week off, the employees abandoned their stations and reportedly sent their children to work in their place.^[1] This had the potential of harming relations between Wallachia and its suzerain power, the Ottoman Empire, by cutting of the supply of cloth to the Ottoman Army.^[1] Prince Alexander Mourousis intervened, and ordered the workers to be brought back, while denying their requests.^[1]

Under the Organic Statute government, the various trades in the two Danubian Principalities were each required to elect a staroste, who represented their interests while regulating inner hierarchies.^[2]

Printing was the first local branch of modern industry to organize itself, starting in the mid-1860s, when association of compositors was formed in Bucharest.^[3] In 1865, it began issuing its own press organ, Tipograful Român, followed in 1869 by Analele Tipografice.^[3] The magazine ceased publishing by mid-1871, allegedly in protest for the crushing of the Paris Commune in May.^[3] Starting in April 1872, Analele Tipografice was again in print under the new name Uvrierul, claiming to speak for all Romanian industrial wokers, and became relatively close to liberal and radical circles.^[3] Later in the year, Uvrierul and the compositors' association, represented by the printer N. Rădulescu, were instrumental in convening a conference of groups from all branches of industry, leading to the creation of Asociaţa generală a tuturor lucrătorilor din România (the General Association of All Romanian Workers), which, alongside specific goals, advocated the endorsement of local capital.^[3] The group was no longer in existence after 1873.^[3]

Doi grevişti ("Two Workers on Strike"), painting by Nicolae Vermont. An issue of Lupta Zilnică is shown on the table

In March 1873, riots broke out in the Danube port of Giurgiu, among oxcart drivers loading and unloading ships, who objected to being required to elect and pay for a staroste to supervise their work (although the institution had been abolished during the 1850s).^[2] A series of clashes with police forces and pontoneers between March 18 and March 24 led to at least one shooting which ended with a government official being assaulted, as well as beatings and 22 arrests in reprisal.^[2] The oxcart drivers' defense was taken up by Alexandru Papiu Ilarian, who criticized General Ion Emanuel Florescu for having decorated soldiers involved in the crackdown and expressed solidarity with the inhabitants of Giurgiu.^[2] Consequently, Premier Lascăr Catargiu and Minister of Justice Christian Tell ordered Papiu Ilarian to be arrested and investigated for sedition — the case was ultimately rejected by the Court of Appeal.^[2] Papiu Ilarian went on to represent the 22 ox cart drivers in their Turnu Măgurele trial, obtaining their acquittal.^[2]

At the time, the Unitary Socialists faced accusations from the PCR of being endorsed by both Siguranţa Statului, the secret police, and Trotskyists, and of opposing the General Confederation of Labor as a means to break up worker unity.^[4] In parallel, a short-lived and openly Trotskyist group was formed in April 1935 by David Korner, opposing the PCR, the Social Democrats, as well as the Unitary Socialists (whom it accused of legalism).^[4]

Criticism of Ion Luca Caragiale

To do:

• add stuff on the PNL, Caion, and Macedonski debates from the main article, and expand here
• revisit Cioculescu, p.128-173, 186-190, 278-279, 293-311
• revisit this and this
• revisit Cazimir (1967), p.7-61, 119, 133

The first generation of critics

Caragiale's subjects, style, and portrayals all rose antagonism during his lifetime and beyond, and his maverick status meant that works by him were criticized intermittently by supporters of different cultural, philosophical and political currents. At times, these controversies blended with his political or lifestyle choices, and degenerated into sanguine comments.

As part of the lengthy exchange of accusations involving Caragiale and the National Liberal establishment, the writer came to be accused of not representing the Romanian nation, and, in reference to his Greek origin, of having kept the outlook of a foreigner.^[5][6] His receptive position in respect to Balkan influences and his cosmopolitan views were often interpreted as a threat not just to nationalism, but to Westernization.^[6] Alluding to the Greek and Hellenized hospodars of the Danubian Principalities, Caragiale's adversaries defined him as "the last Phanariote occupier".^[7][6] Outside of its immediate context, such an accusation was also voiced by the pro-Conservative author N. Davidescu, who is known to have used the exact phrase.^[8]

His almost exclusive focus on the urban sphere made Caragiale stand alone in contrast to his generation, at a time when the poet Mihai Eminescu, novelist Ioan Slavici, and short story writers Alexandru Vlahuţă and Barbu Ştefănescu Delavrancea alike were drawing inspiration from the rural sphere.^[9] By the mid-1890s, as Caragiale began his short collaboration with Vatra magazine, his unsigned piece ridiculing the speech patterns of peasants was criticized by Vlahuţă in his journal Vieaţa: the traditionalist writer believed it to be evidence of condescendent behavior, and, using a loaded word for the boyar class, argued that the anonymous author was a "stupid ciocoi".^[10] Writing for his Moftul Român, Caragiale also parodied the archaisms favored by Ştefănescu Delavrancea.^[11] In 1912, shortly before his death, Caragiale and Vlahuţă debated the issue of writers engaging in politics — with Vlahuţă advising against any direct involvement in that field, at a time when Caragiale had rallied with the Conservative-Democrats.^[12]

Other traditionalist literary figures also showed reserves toward Caragiale. According to Slavici, Eminescu treasured Caragiale's spontaneity and considered him his friend, but disliked his humor.^[13] Historian Nicolae Iorga considered 1907, din primăvară până în toamnă to be evidence of "defeatism" — the essay, through which Caragiale had attacked both the National Liberals and Conservatives, was a response to the Peasants' Revolt, and called for a radical solution to end the two-party system.^[14]

The writer was also a target for criticism from the Left. The Marxist philosopher Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea was an admirer and promoter of his work, but was upset by the fact that Caragiale's leftist characters were caricatures — noting that this applied especially to the women of questionable morals in the comedy D-ale carnavalului (the republican Miţa Baston and the nihilist Didina Mazu).^[15] In 1895, when Caragiale was both an associate of the opposition radical George Panu and, briefly, a National Liberal associate, the paradox implied was evidenced in polemic terms by his former collaborator, the socialist Tony Bacalbaşa.^[16] Late in his life, Caragiale also entered a controversy after criticizing Poporanism, an intellectual trend which took its inspiration from Dobrogeanu-Gherea's socialism, agrarianism and traditionalism.^[17]

The Russian socialist and would-be Soviet politician Leon Trotsky shared Dobrogeanu-Gherea's praise for Caragiale, but, in his War Correspondence, criticized his association with Take Ionescu inside the Conservative-Democratic Party — he argued that it turned Caragiale into his own Nae Caţavencu, a corrupt and demagogic character from one of his own plays, O scrisoare pierdută.^[18]

Social bias and inconsistencies

A new generation of critics explored Caragiale's legacy from as early as the early 20th century (while Caragiale was still alive). Many of these researches focused on the relevancy of his work to a fully modernized Romanian society: while, from early on, the Junimist Mihail Dragomirescu believed that Caragiale's work was to be read outside of its context,^[19] other important literary historians strongly disagreed. Among them were two figures with very different views, both leaders of major currents — Garabet Ibrăileanu, a National Liberal affiliate on the Left (whose work was closely connected to both the liberal trend and Poporanism), and Eugen Lovinescu, a modernist who encouraged the avant-garde.

Ibrăileanu, whose contributions included the first thesis on Caragiale's social role, believed that the older writer focused his criticism on the liberals to the advantage of other political trends. He concluded that Caragiale almost exclusively stood for the peasantry^[20][21] — this view was later debated by fellow literary historian Şerban Cioculescu.^[22] Additionally, Garabet Ibrăileanu argued that, despite Caragiale's post-1890 conflicts with Junimea, his entire work was a staple of Junimist concepts.^[21][23] He proposed that Caragiale was a "reactionary", who criticized the liberal trend because his social position, as well as his upbringing in the socially-mobile region of Wallachia, allowed him to focus on its shortcomings.^[21] Ibrăileanu also believed that this type of criticism established a connection between Caragiale and Eminescu, who represented the "extreme critics" of Romanian liberalism and its middle class electorate.^[21]

Writing during the 1970s, the literary critic Z. Ornea agreed that Caragiale was connected with Junimea through the very nature of his writing, but stressed that he had not entirely been a Junimist.^[24] He also believed the writer to have been one of the main representatives of the middle class.^[25] Paul Zarifopol, Caragiale's friend and commentator, argued instead that, in selecting the topics of his criticism, the dramatist had mostly illustrated the interests of boyars (that is, the wealthy landowners of his day).^[26] In marked contrast with Ibrăileanu, Eugen Lovinescu listed Ion Luca Caragiale among the pure reactionaries in his large-scale analytical work, History of the Modern Romanian Civilization, published during the interwar period.^[27]

Several critics argued that, in his few fictional works with rural settings, Caragiale was unable to accurately portray the unfamiliar environment, resulting in artificiality.^[28] This was stated first and foremost in reference to his tragedy Năpasta, which was nonetheless defended by the otherwise critical traditionalist Nicolae Iorga.^[29] In 1895, the writer Duiliu Zamfirescu, a former Junimist who had come to clash with Maiorescu, argued that its characters, together with those in Slavici's novels, were

"peasants of the carnival or hysterical and non-Romanian beings".^[30]

Writing decades later, Cioculescu argued that this point stood for Năpasta, whereas one of his novellas, Păcat, was the most accurate in this respect.^[31] As part of his disagreement with Ibrăileanu, he also noted that most of the rural characters in Caragiale's work are not peasants, but rather notabilities or entrepreneurs living in the countryside.^[32]

Various authors criticized the way in which the writer had employed writing techniques. Two of Caragiale's friends and collaborators, George Panu and Iacob Negruzzi, believed that his collection of sketch stories, Momente şi schiţe, was of little value in comparison with his earliest plays.^[33] In Zarifopol's view, the narrative in Caragiale's somber novella O făclie de Paşte was spoiled by the ending, which, he argued, was melodramatic.^[33] He also believed that Păcat featured needlessly parodic text and superfluous neologisms, both of which contrasted with the work's background.^[33][34] For similar reasons, he concluded that Năpasta was "a regrettable melodrama".^[34] Zarifopol reserved criticism for other writings, where, he claimed, Caragiale had persistently introduced elements of jargon — specifically, "the journalistic jargon of the time".^[34]

Şerban Cioculescu valued Caragiale's contribution to tragedy less than his comedies, arguing that "the tragic note did not «suit» him".^[35] He also contended that the dramatist's poetic works, most of all his early attempts, show him to be "lacking in originality and force".^[36] When reviewing his irony aimed at the Symbolists, he contended that they showed his "opacity in relation to the lyrical phenomenon".^[37]

Several authors argued that Caragiale had many times failed to portray individuals accurately or completely — Dobrogeanu-Gherea and Ibrăileanu were among the first to argue in favor of this view.^[34] Zarifopol was similar to Dobrogeanu-Gherea in observing that characters such as Miţa Baston are artificial — nevertheless, he concluded that this was not a negative trait, since it showed the writer's talent at combining believable and the exaggerated characteristics into a plausible vision.^[38][34] He replied to Dobrogeanu-Gherea and Garabet Ibrăileanu by stating that Caragiale's refusal to provide more psychological insight was due not just to his style, but also to the nature of his works, indicating that, in many cases, doing so would have ruined the comedic effect.^[34] Cioculescu also contended that Ion Luca Caragiale had a distorted perspective on women, a notion based on his perception that female portraits in his works tend to be sketches or mere caricatures.^[39] He stressed that the female inn-keeper in the La hanul lui Mânjoală novella was the only character to be excepted from this rule.^[40]

Lack of a feeling for nature

A prolonged discussion took part among modern critics, who noted that Ion Luca Caragiale's focus on urban life and human interactions had engendered a lack of interest in the natural environment.^[41] Lovinescu was among the first in his generation to discuss this trait, criticizing it from an Impressionist perspective at a time when Caragiale was still alive.^[42]

Caragiale replied to the various critics, indicating that he had never seen a use for landscapes in his art.^[43] Disliking Romantic subjectivism, he believed that genres needed to be kept separate.^[44] at one point, his friend, the psychologist Constantin Rădulescu-Motru, recorded with amazement that, as the two of them were walking on Bucharest's Şoseaua Kiseleff, the aged Caragiale, reacting to the sunny weather, spontaneously broke into an elaborate dance.^[45] He wrote:

"Never before did I read so deeply into Caragiale's soul [...]. Our dramatist was a lover of expressive life. He was interested in its dynamic moment. He was interested in differences, not similitudes."^[46]

Literary critic Tudor Vianu also commented that certain biographical details, such as those provided by Slavici, show that Caragiale systematically avoided isolating himself in natural settings.^[47] In one of his letters from his period in Berlin, Caragiale even confessed to Zarifopol that he had a certain inability to enjoy such an atmosphere: "[From Travemünde], I travel back home to Wilmersdorf, all fed up with the beauties of nature, whose charms I cannot comprehend, but whose celestial tears have reached down to the marrow of my bones".^[48] He later jokingly indicated that his favorite German landscape was the Stammtisch (that is, a tertulia).^[49] Nevertheless, concise depictions of nature, both exact and meditative, are distributed over many of his works.^[50] The longest such fragment is believed to be the first paragraph in his sketch O zi solemnă: in it, Caragiale describes the small town of Mizil and its immediate surroundings.^[51] Another mention of this sort is rendered, indirectly and lyrically, in Năpasta, where the troubled Ion character describes being fascinated by the actions of a squirrel.^[52]

Tudor Vianu argued that this lack of focus extended to Caragiale's treatment of the characters' physical traits,^[53] as well as to their immediate surroundings and costumes: "a world without objects, void".^[54] Nevertheless, the concise indications he left in respect to such aspects have won acclaim for their exactitude and power of suggestion.^[55]

Notes

References

• Ştefan Cazimir,
  • Caragiale: universul comic, Editura pentru Literatură, Bucharest, 1967. OCLC 7287882
  • I.L. Caragiale faţă cu kitschul, Cartea Românească, Bucharest, 1988. OCLC 21523836
• Şerban Cioculescu, Caragialiana, Editura Eminescu, Bucharest, 1974. OCLC 6890267
• Z. Ornea, Junimea şi junimismul, Vol. II, Editura Minerva, Bucharest, 1998. ISBN 973-21-0562-3
• Tudor Vianu, Scriitori români, Vol. I-III, Editura Minerva, Bucharest, 1970-1971. OCLC 7431692