Ion Luca Caragiale
Ion Luca Caragiale | |
---|---|
Died | 9 June 1912 Berlin, German Empire | (aged 60)
Pen name | Car., Ein rumänischer Patriot, Luca, i, Ion, Palicar |
Occupation |
|
Nationality | |
Subject | Everyday life, morals and manners, politics, social criticism, literary criticism, music criticism |
Literary movement | Junimism, Naturalism, Neoclassicism, Neoromanticism, Realism |
Spouse | Alexandrina Burelly |
Children | |
Signature | |
Ion Luca Caragiale (Romanian pronunciation:
Although few in number, Caragiale's plays constitute the most accomplished expression of Romanian theatre, as well as being important venues for criticism of late-19th-century Romanian society. They include the
Ion Luca Caragiale was interested in the politics of the
He was both a friend and rival to writers such as Mihai Eminescu, Titu Maiorescu, and Barbu Ștefănescu Delavrancea, while maintaining contacts with, among others, the Junimist essayist Iacob Negruzzi, the socialist philosopher Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea, the literary critic Paul Zarifopol, the poets George Coșbuc and Mite Kremnitz, the psychologist Constantin Rădulescu-Motru, and the Transylvanian poet and activist Octavian Goga. Ion Luca was the nephew of Costache and Iorgu Caragiale, who were major figures of the 19th century Romanian theatre. His sons Mateiu and Luca were both modernist writers.
Biography
Background and name
Ion Luca Caragiale was born into a family of
Ion Luca's father, who reportedly originated from the
Ion Luca's uncles, Costache and Iorgu Caragiale, managed theater troupes and were very influential figures in the development of early Romanian theatre — in Wallachia and Moldavia alike.[10][11] Luca Caragiali had himself performed with his brothers during his youth, before opting to settle down.[12] All three had stood criticism for not taking part in the Wallachian Revolution, and defended themselves through a brochure printed in 1848.[13] The Caragiali brothers had two sisters, Ecaterina and Anastasia.[14]
Especially in his old age, the writer emphasized his family's humble background and his status as a self-made man.[3][14][15] On one occasion, he defined the landscape of his youth as "the quagmires of Ploiești".[16] Although it prompted his biographer Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea to define him as "a proletarian", Caragiale's account was disputed by several other researchers, who noted that the family had a good social standing.[3]
Ion Luca Caragiale was discreet about his ethnic origin for the larger part of his life. In parallel, his foreign roots came to the attention of his adversaries, who used them as arguments in various polemics.[6][14][17][18] As his relations with Caragiale degenerated into hostility, Mihai Eminescu is known to have referred to his former friend as "that Greek swindler".[19] Aware of such treatment, the writer considered all references to his lineage to be insults.[14] On several occasions, he preferred to indicate that he was "of obscure birth".[3]
Nevertheless, as literary critic
In his main work on the history of Romanian literature, George Călinescu included Caragiale among a group of "Balkan" writers, whose middle class status and often foreign origin, he argued, set them apart irrespective of their period—others in this category were, in chronological order, Anton Pann, Tudor Arghezi, Ion Minulescu, Urmuz, Mateiu Caragiale, and Ion Barbu.[23] In contrast, critic Garabet Ibrăileanu proposed that Caragiale's Wallachian origin was of particular importance, serving to explain his political choices and alleged social bias.[24]
On one occasion, Caragiale mentioned that his paternal grandfather was "a Greek cook".
Investigations carried out by the Center of Theatric Research in
Originally, Ion Luca was known as Ioanne L. Caragiali.
Early years
Born in the village of
Caragiale completed gymnasium at the Sfinții Petru și Pavel school in the city, and never pursued any form of higher education.[36] He was probably enlisted directly in the second grade, as records do not show him to have attended or graduated the first year.[37] Notably, Caragiale was taught history by Constantin Iennescu, who was later the mayor of Ploiești.[38] The young Caragiale opted to follow in his uncles' footsteps, and was taught declamation and mimic art by Costache at the latter's theater school in Bucharest, where he was accompanied by his mother and sister.[11][39] It is also probable that he was a supernumerary actor for the National Theater Bucharest.[32] He was not able to find full employment in this field, and, around the age of 18, worked as a copyist for the Prahova County Tribunal.[40] Throughout his life, Caragiale refused to talk about his training in the theater, and hid it from the people closest to him (including his wife Alexandrina Burelly, who came from an upper middle class environment).[41]
In 1866, Caragiale witnessed Cuza's toppling by a coalition of
He returned to Bucharest later that year, after manager
Literary debut
Ion Luca made his literary debut in 1873, at the age of 21, with poems and humorous chronicles printed in
Several of his articles for Ghimpele were sarcastic in tone, and targeted various literary figures of the day. In June 1874, Caragiale amused himself at the expense of N. D. Popescu-Popnedea, the author of popular almanacs, whose taste he questioned.[14][52] Soon after, he ridiculed the rising poet Alexandru Macedonski, who had publicized his claim that he was a "Count Geniadevsky", and thus of Polish origin.[53] The article contributed by Caragiale, in which he speculated that Macedonski (referred to with the anagram Aamsky) was using the name solely because it reminded people of the word "genius",[54] was the first act in a long polemic between the two literary figures. 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".[52]
Caragiale also contributed poetry to Ghimpele: two sonnets, and a series of epigrams (one of which was another attack on Macedonski).[55] The first of these works, an 1873 sonnet dedicated to the baritone Agostino Mazzoli, is believed to have been his first contribution to the belles-lettres (as opposed to journalism).[11][56]
In 1896, Macedonski reflected with irony:
"As early as 1872, the clients of some
sophistic reasoning easily attracted attention."[54]
Over the following years, Caragiale collaborated on various mouthpieces of the newly created National Liberal Party, and, in May 1877, created the satirical magazine Claponul.[57] Later in 1877, he also translated a series of French-language plays for the National Theater: Alexandre Parodi's Rome vaincue (it was showcased in late 1877-early 1878),[58] Paul Déroulède's L'Hetman, and Eugène Scribe's Une camaraderie.[59] Together with the French republican Frédéric Damé, he also headed a short-lived journal, Națiunea Română.[60]
It was also then that he contributed a serialized overview of Romanian theater, published by the newspaper
Macedonski later alleged that, in his contributions to the liberal newspapers, the young writer had
Timpul and Claponul
The young journalist began drifting away from National Liberal politics soon after 1876, when the group came to power with
Slavici later recalled that three of them engaged in lengthy discussions at Timpul's headquarters on Calea Victoriei and in Eminescu's house on Sfinților Street, where they planned to co-author a massive work on Romanian grammar.[59] According to literary historian Tudor Vianu, the relationship between Caragiale and Eminescu partly replicated that between the latter and the Moldavian Ion Creangă.[59]
Over that period, Timpul and Eminescu were engaged in a harsh polemic with the Reds, and especially their leader Rosetti.[67] It was also then that Romania entered the Russo-Turkish War as a means to secure her complete independence from the Ottoman Empire.[67] Caragiale reportedly took little interest in editing Timpul over that period, but it is assumed that several unsigned chronicles, covering foreign events, are his contributions (as are two short story adaptations of works by the American author Edgar Allan Poe, both published by Timpul in spring-summer 1878).[64] The newspaper was actually issued as a collaborative effort, which makes it hard to identify the authors of many other articles.[68] According to Slavici, Caragiale occasionally completed unfinished contributions by Eminescu whenever the latter had to leave unexpectedly.[69]
He concentrated instead on Claponul, which he edited and wrote single-handedly for the duration of the war.
Junimea reception
It was probably through Eminescu that Ion Luca Caragiale came into contact with the Iași-based Junimea, the influential literary society which was also a center for anti-National Liberal politics.[59] Initially, Caragiale met with Junimea founder, the critic and politician Titu Maiorescu, during a visit to the house of Dr. Kremnitz, physician to the family of Domnitor Carol I.[74] The doctor's wife and Maiorescu's sister-in-law, Mite Kremnitz, was herself a writer, and later became Eminescu's lover.[19][75] During several meetings, Caragiale was asked by Maiorescu to write down a series of aphorisms in an album. His concise musings are contemplative in tone, and some of them have been construed by some present-day reviewers to contain evidence of misanthropy[76] and, to a certain degree, misogyny.[77]
In 1878, Caragiale and Maiorescu left for Iași, where they attended Junimea's 15th anniversary, and where Caragiale read his first draft of the celebrated play
Ion Luca Caragiale also associated with Junimea's mouthpiece, Convorbiri Literare, and continued to contribute there even after 1885, when the society began to decline in importance.[83] It was here that all his major comedies were first presented to the public.[11] He did not, however, join Petre P. Carp's movement, which aimed to consolidate Junimea as a third force in Romanian politics, and remained a staunch independent over the following years.[84] Caragiale was nevertheless associated with the Junimist journal Constituționalul.[85]
In early January 1879, O noapte furtunoasă was first staged by the National Theater.[86] Its production brought the first association between Caragiale and comedian Mihai Mateescu, who went on to portray some of his most popular characters. The play was a hit, and acclaim reached Caragiale despite the fact that he had refused to have his name printed on the posters.[87] Caragiale was soon outraged to discover that, by the second staging, his text had been toned down by the government-appointed Head of Theaters, the National Liberal Ion Ghica.[88] When he asked for an official explanation, O noapte furtunoasă was removed from the season's program.[89] Over the following years, independent troupes staged the play or its plagiarized versions for their own benefit. It was restored to the National Theater's repertoire in 1883, and was so successful that state theaters in cities such as Craiova and Iași made efforts to have it included in their own programs.[90]
Caragiale subsequently took part in directing his plays at the National Theater, where his main collaborator was actor and manager Constantin I. Nottara.[91] Together, they are credited with having put a stop to the techniques favored by Mihail Pascaly, replacing emphatic declamation with a more natural and studied perspective on acting.[91]
Inspector general
In 1880, he printed Conu Leonida față cu reacțiunea — a play centered on an uncultured "Red" pensioner and his naive wife, who overhear a street brawl and believe that a revolution is imminent.
Accompanied by Maiorescu, Caragiale left for
He became close to Veronica Micle, a woman writer who was also Eminescu's mistress.[95] For a while, Caragiale and Micle had a love affair, although she continued to see the poet.[19][96] This caused the friendship between Eminescu and Caragiale to sour.[19][97] The former was jealous of Cargiale's relations with Micle, while she resented the poet's affair with Mite Kremnitz.[19]
Just one year after, Caragiale was moved back to Wallachia, becoming inspector general in
In June 1883, while visiting Maiorescu's house, he received news that Eminescu had suffered the first in a series of dementia attacks (owing to a disease that was to kill him in 1889).[100] Caragiale reportedly broke into tears.[101] This succession of events also saw him becoming involved in conflicts among Junimea members: like Pogor, Caragiale objected to the style of Vasile Alecsandri, an aged Junimist poet, and was shocked to find out that he was ridiculing the much younger Eminescu.[102] He thus decided to criticize Alecsandri in public, during a March 1884 meeting of the society—Maiorescu recorded in his private notes that "[...] Caragiale [was] aggressive and rude toward Alecsandri."[103]
Caragiale's wealthy relative, Catinca Momulo Cardini (commonly known Catinca Momuloaia), who was the widow of a famous restaurateur and the cousin of his mother Ecaterina, died in 1885, and the writer had the prospect of inheriting a large fortune.[6][104] He nonetheless became involved in a trial with Momuloaia's other relatives, which prolonged itself until the early 20th century.[6][105]
First major successes
Months after this, his new comedy, O scrisoare pierdută, was first shown to the public. A fresco of conflicting political machines, provincial corruption, petty ambitions, and incoherent demagogy, it was an instant hit with the public.[106] Arguably the high point of Caragiale's career,[92] it became one of the best-known works of its kind in Romanian literature. 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.[107]
Ion Luca Caragiale was romantically involved with an unmarried young woman, Maria Constantinescu, who worked for the Bucharest Town Hall — in 1885, she gave birth to Mateiu, whom Caragiale recognized as his son.[3][108]
During the same year, Caragiale's D-ale carnavalului, a lighter satire of suburban morals and amorous misadventures, was received with booing and heckling by members of the public — critics deemed it "immoral", due to its frank depiction of adultery gone unpunished.[11][109] The controversy saw Maiorescu taking his friend's side and publishing an essay highly critical of National Liberal cultural tenets (titled Comediile domnului Caragiale, it was to be reprinted in 1889, as a preface to Caragiale's collected plays).[110] In it, the critic, who was influenced by the ideas of Arthur Schopenhauer, argued that Caragiale had not failed in uplifting the human spirit, precisely because he had risen above both didacticism and egotism (see Arthur Schopenhauer's aesthetics).[111] In reference to accusations that the play was unpatriotic, Maiorescu answered:
"[...] the present-day poems with a political intent, the odes on solemn days, the theatrical compositions for dynastic glorifications are a simulacrum of art, and not the real art. 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? Is there one in Molière? Is there one in Shakespeare? Is there one in Goethe?"[112]
The article played an essential part in reconciling the dramatist to the general public, but also led to a polemic between Maiorescu and the philosopher Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea (a Marxist who claimed that Maiorescu was contradicting himself).[113][114] Dobrogeanu-Gherea argued in favor of Caragiale's work, but considered D-ale carnavalului to be his weakest play.[115]
Theater leadership and marriage
Despite his earlier conflicts with the National Liberals, Caragiale, who still faced problems in making a living, agreed to contribute pieces for the party press, and thus briefly associated with Voința Națională (a journal issued by historian and politician
The appointment caused some controversy at the time: Ion Luca Caragiale, unlike all his predecessors (the incumbent C.I. Stăncescu included), was both a professional in the field and a person of modest origins.[6][117] As the National Liberals intensified their campaign against him,[6] the dramatist drafted an open letter for the Bucharest press, outlining his intentions and explaining the circumstances of his appointment.[120] In it, he attributed his own rise to the interest Junimea had taken in his work, while defending the literary society, which was, as he put it, "lost from the public eye at a time of political obscurity".[117] Reviewing his own merits as a writer and manager, he elaborated and later put into practice a program for state-run theaters — according to Vianu, it signified "punctuality and rigor".[121] He nonetheless resigned at the end of the season, and resumed his literary activities.[121]
In January 1889, he married Alexandrina, the daughter of architect Gaetano Burelly. She was a member of the Bucharest elite, which served to improve Ion Luca Caragiale's social standing.[3][41] They had two children of their own: Luca (known as Luky; born 1893) and Ecaterina (or Tușchi; born 1894; later married name: Logadi).[122] Several years later, the Caragiales brought Mateiu into their home, and Ion Luca enrolled him at Anghel Demetrescu's Sfântul Gheorghe College.[122]
Clash with the Academy
Early in 1890, at the same time as his volume of collected works, Caragiale published and staged his rural-themed
Both Hasdeu and Sturdza hinted at the influence exercised over Caragiale by their adversary Maiorescu, and went on to compare the dramatist with foreign writers such as Mite Kremnitz and Joseph Brociner; the latter was Jewish.[126] For the two liberal leaders, Kremnitz and Brociner, who had authored works critical of the Romanian establishment, were aiding to construct a negative image of the Romanian nation.[126] Hasdeu insisted that Caragiale was himself creating problems for the country, while Sturza, showing himself more lenient in this respect, insisted that Caragiale's plays had failed to display a love for "the truth, the beautiful and the good".[127] He stressed:
"Mr. Caragiale should learn how to respect his nation, and not mock it."[127]
Sturdza's discourse contributed to the academy's negative vote (20 votes against and 3 in favor),
"manipulated the baggage of big words with which the phony liberal school has been filling empty heads for fifty years on end".[121]
Split with Junimea
During the controversy, Caragiale published two memoirs of Eminescu—the poet had died in June 1889.[21][130] One of them was titled În Nirvana ("Into Nirvana"), and notably expanded on the early years of their friendship and on one of Eminescu's earliest amorous disappointments.[131] In an essay of the following year, he showed himself critical of a wave of Eminescu imitators, commenting: "A lot of reasonable people will walk the path and [...] of the people that know them only a few will raise their hats; whereas an insane person [...] will be followed by all the people. That is why the success of the [1890 Eminescu edition] has overcome all the editors' expectations".[132] He also reprinted his recollections from the world of theater, alongside pieces originally published in Claponul and various new satirical pieces.[21]
Although this attack owed much to Junimea's discourse, Caragiale had by then turned against Maiorescu, probably due to his perception that the society had failed to support his cause at the Academy.[133] In May 1892, he used a public conference at the Romanian Athenaeum as a venue to make known his claims against the former Minister of Education and his associates, which caused a definitive rift between the two public figures.[134] Caragiale also wrote Două note ("Two Notes"), an article accusing Maiorescu of having modified and censored some of Eminescu's poems, and of having exploited the poet for financial gain.[135] Around that time, he ceased contributing to Convorbiri Literare.[85]
Late in 1892, Caragiale published two volumes of prose, including his new novellas Păcat, O făclie de Paște and Om cu noroc.[136] The following year, he began frequenting socialist circles as an outsider to the cause, and soon became good friends with the Imperial Russian-born Marxist thinker Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea.[137] Financial constraints forced Caragiale to become an entrepreneur, and, in November of that year, opened a beer garden near Gabroveni Inn, in Bucharest's Lipscani area.[6][29][138] He probably moved on soon after, and purchased a pub on a neighboring street.[6][29] In a letter he wrote at the time, the writer showed that he was planning to move to Transylvania, and considered starting a career as a teacher.[6]
In November 1893, as a gesture of goodwill towards his adversary, Alexandru Macedonski authored an article in Literatorul, in which he asked authorities if it was normal for a former Head of Theaters not to have a stable source of income—the intended recipient did not acknowledge this offer, and the Caragiale-Macedonski conflict escalated after he continued to attack the latter in the press.[139] One year later, Caragiale leased the restaurant catering to the train station in Buzău (just like Dobrogeanu-Gherea had done in Ploiești).[6][29][140] His successive businesses were all struggling, and Caragiale was often on the verge of bankruptcy.[6][29] Although he invested time and work in the enterprise, and even affiliated with the International Association of Waiters for a short period, he eventually decided not to renew his contract upon the years' end.[29] His period in Buzău was noted for its other results: in February 1895, the press reported that Caragiale had given a public lecture on "the causes of human stupidity".[29]
Moftul Român and Vatra
Together with the socialist activist
In parallel, Cargiale resumed his contacts with Transylvanian
During the same period, Caragiale had the initiative to publish short fragments he had translated from classical pieces, leaving readers to guess who their authors were—Vianu, citing the speculations made by other critics, presumed that these were writers admired by both Caragiale and his friend, schoolteacher Anghel Demetrescu (
Radical Party
In 1895, at the age of 43, Caragiale decided to join the Radical Party, led at the time by former Junimist George Panu; one year later, he began contributing to its mouthpiece, the newspaper Ziua.[147] He was also briefly associated with the newspaper Sara, published in Iași.[148] Despite this, Caragiale was again an associate of the National Liberals later the same year, when the Conservative cabinet of Lascăr Catargiu was replaced with one led by Dimitrie Sturdza.[149] Articles he contributed to Gazeta Poporului, a National Liberal newspaper, were centered on new attacks against Junimea and were signed with the pseudonyms i and Ion.[150] In mid-November 1895, Gazeta Poporului published an unsigned article which discussed the suicide of writer Alexandru Odobescu, investigating the mundane reasons behind it—the piece is generally attributed to Caragiale.[151] The writer placed the blame for Odobescu's death on his much younger lover, Hortensia Racoviță, and hailed his wife, Sașa Odobescu, as a model of devoted womanhood.[152]
This episode of his life coincided with a period when relations between Romania and Austria-Hungary were extremely tense. Three years before, ethnic Romanian leaders in Austro-Hungarian-ruled Transylvania had signed the Transylvanian Memorandum, which inflamed passions among the Hungarians and led the authors to be indicted. Conservative Party politicians in Romania had succeeded in negotiating an amnesty, but their policies were overturned by the National Liberals, who appealed to nationalist and irredentist sentiment.[citation needed]
Thus, Sturdza offered a measure of support to
Epoca
In 1895, the writer followed the Radical group into its unusual merger with the Conservative Party.
Caragiale also became a collaborator on Filipescu's journal Epoca and editor of its literary supplement.[160] A chronicle he contributed at the time discussed the philosophical writings of Dobrogeanu-Gherea: while sympathetic to his conclusions, Caragiale made a clear statement that he was not interested in the socialist doctrine or any other ideology ("Any idea, opinion or system is absolutely irrelevant to me, in the most absolute sense").[161] He also published an article criticizing Dimitrie Sturdza; its title, O lichea (roughly: "A Scoundrel"), was reluctantly accepted by Epoca, and only after Caragiale claimed that it reflected the original meaning of the word lichea ("stain"), explaining that it referred to Sturdza's unusual persistence in politics.[162]
When answering to one of Epoca's inquiries, he showed that he had yet again come to reevaluate Junimea, and found it to be an essential institution in Romanian culture.
Universul
Around that time, Caragiale began collaborating with the formerly Junimist figure
At the same time, Caragiale was contributing to Luigi Cazzavillan's newly founded daily, Universul, where he was assigned the column "Notițe critice" ("Critical Notes").[168] This material formed the bulk of his collected short prose volume, Momente și schițe, and notably comprised satirical pieces ridiculing the Romanian press' reaction to the activities of Boris Sarafov, a Macedonian-Bulgarian revolutionary who had attempted to set up a base in Romania.[21]
He continued to pursue a business career, and, in 1901, inaugurated his own company, Berăria cooperativă, which took over the Gambrinus pub in front of the National Theater.[6][138] It soon became the site of a literary circle, which included, among others, Tony Bacalbașa and Ion Brezeanu, the satirist Dumitru Constantinescu-Teleormăneanu (known as Teleor), and the academic I. Suchianu.[143] At the time, the Caragiales rented a house in Bucharest, near the present-day Bulevardul Magheru.[29]
In early 1901, as Ion Luca Caragiale entered his 25th year in literature, his friends offered him a banquet at Gambrinus, where speeches were given by Barbu Ștefănescu Delavrancea and the Conservative politician Take Ionescu,[169] and where a special single-issue magazine, Caragiale, was circulated among the guests.[170] Hasdeu put aside his differences in opinion and sent in a congratulatory letter.[171] In it, he deemed the dramatist "Romania's Molière".[172] Nevertheless, on 23 March 1902, the National Liberal majority in the Romanian Academy, headed by Sturdza, refused to consider Momente și schițe for the Năsturel Herăscu Award[6][173] — despite a favorable report from Dimitrie C. Ollănescu-Ascanio.[21][174]
Caion scandal
Soon after, Caragiale became involved in a major literary scandal.
Macedonski supported the lost cause until the very end, and refused to distance himself from Caion even as the latter admitted to the court that he had invented the story.[180] His magazine also accused Caragiale of having copied Victorien Sardou's Rabagas for his O scrisoare pierdută, as well as Henri Chivot and Alfred Duru's Le Carnaval d'un Merle Blanc in D-ale carnavalului.[181] In one memorable incident of 14 February 1902, while he was hosting a literary festivity at the Bucharest Athenaeum, Macedonski was heckled[182] and responded by blowing a whistle.[183] Forța Morală was shut down soon after this episode.[183] In parallel, the National Theater offered Caragiale a degree of satisfaction, when it decided to showcase Rabagas, leaving the public to see that it was only remotely similar to his play.[184]
In the wake of the scandal, Caragiale attempted to resume contacts with Maiorescu, and visited him several times. His former mentor was reticent, and finally rejected the offer for reconciliation – writing in his diary, he defined Caragiale's attempts as "apple-polishings" and paradări ("affectations").[85]
Move to Berlin
Having gained access to the Momulo Cardini inheritance, Caragiale became a rather wealthy man.[6][11][185] According to Șerban Cioculescu, the writer soon lost most of the funds earned, transferring them to Mateiu Caragiale and his mother, but was again made rich by the death of his sister Lenci in autumn 1905—she left him the administrator of 160,000 lei.[186] The latter event caused tensions between Mateiu and his father—Caragiale-son believed that he had been cheated out of the inheritance, and was angered by Ion Luca's decision to stop subsidizing him after he failed to complete his studies.[187]
He was by then enchanted with the idea of moving into a
In 1903–1904, the Caragiales traveled through various European countries, while the dramatist again considered establishing his residence in Transylvania.[6][190] They eventually moved to Berlin, the Imperial German capital, settling down in spring 1905.[11][191] The choice was considered unusual, since the writer knew only some basic German expressions.[192] This has led some commentators to speculate that the move was politically motivated. Mihail Dragomirescu believed that Caragiale was living at the expense of the German state.[190][192] Cioculescu rejected this assessment, arguing that it relied on hearsay and pointing out that the chronological order provided by Dragomirescu was inaccurate.[193] In 1992, historian Georgeta Ene proposed that Caragiale was acting as a spy for Romania in Germany.[6][192]
The family lived in an apartment in Wilmersdorf and later at a villa in Schöneberg.[192] Paraphrasing a Romanian proverb which speaks of "the black bread of exile", the dramatist jokingly referred to his relocation as "the white loaf" (franzela albă a surghiunului).[194] He did not however isolate himself completely, becoming very close to the group of Romanian students attending the University of Berlin and to other young people: among them were poet and essayist Panait Cerna, sociologist Dimitrie Gusti, musician Florica Musicescu, and Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea's son-in-law, the literary critic Paul Zarifopol.[192][195] Caragiale was also close to the linguist Gustav Weigand.[196] He frequently traveled to Leipzig, where he would meet with Zarifopol, as well as vacationing in Travemünde.[192][197] In 1906, together with Zarifopol, he visited Beethoven's house in Bonn.[198] He was close to the dramatist Ronetti Roman, and, in 1908, confessed that he was devastated by news of his death.[199]
Caragiale was also visited by
He also traveled back into Romania for intervals—when in Iași, he associated with the maverick Conservative Alexandru Bădărău and his journal Opinia.[21][200] He had closely followed Bădărău's career up to that point, and, in July 1906, authored an epigram on his ousting from the Gheorghe Grigore Cantacuzino Conservative cabinet—comparing Bădărău to Jonah and the Conservatives to a great fish that spat him out.[201] A poem he published during the same year ridicules King Carol I on the occasion of his fortieth year in power, while parodying the style of republican poet N. T. Orășanu; without making direct references to the monarch, it features the lyrics Ca rol fu mare, mititelul ("Taking in view his role, he was grand, the little one"), with "ca" and "rol" spelling out his name (and thus allowing the poem to read "Carol was grand, the little one").[202] He continued to publish various works in several other newspapers and magazines, including various Tranylvanian papers and the Iași-based Viața Românească.[21]
His subsequent work comprised mostly correspondence with other literary figures, such as Dobrogeanu-Gherea, Mihail Dragomirescu,
1907
In 1907, Caragiale was shaken by the outbreak and violent repression of the
The essay, written in harsh tones, listed what Caragiale saw as the major social problems tolerated by Romanian administrations: he discussed the landowning class, successor to the
1907, din primăvară până în toamnă, first published in
The brochure attracted instantaneous attention in his native country, and its success was notable: it sold around 13,000 copies.[215] There were notable differences between the two versions, which were the result of Caragiale's answer to criticism and suggestions from Christian Rakovsky, a prominent internationalist socialist who had been expelled from Romania early in the year.[216] Caragiale elaborated on some of the essay's themes in a series of fables he published soon after.[217]
This chain of events prompted
In December 1907, after Opinia became a mouthpiece of Ionescu's party, Caragiale received news that its headquarters had been vandalized by
Final years
Beginning in 1909, Caragiale resumed his contributions to
His last collection of writings, titled Schițe nouă ("New Sketches") saw print in 1910.
By that time, Ion Luca Caragiale became remarkably close to a new generation of ethnic Romanian intellectuals in
Caragiale also contributed to the
He died suddenly at his home in Berlin, very soon after returning from his trip.[238] The cause of death was indicated as myocardial infarction.[229] His son Luca recounted that, on that very night, Caragiale-father was rereading William Shakespeare's Macbeth, which he found to be a moving narrative.[20]
Caragiale's body was transported to Bucharest in a freight train, which lost its way on the tracks and arrived with a major delay.
Style and cultural tenets
According to Tudor Vianu, Caragiale's writings signify "the highest expression" of Romanian theatre, mirroring and complimenting the contribution Mihai Eminescu had to Romanian-language poetry.[240] Vianu nonetheless pointed out the immense difference in style and approach between the Eminescu and Caragiale, noting that, to Eminescu's metaphysical interests and "Romantic genius", the dramatist opposed his "great classical and realist endowment, a social, voluble and epicurean nature".[240]
Critics and historians place Caragiale's style midway between the delayed
His role in the Romanian context was likened to those of Honoré de Balzac in France, Charles Dickens in the United Kingdom, and Nikolai Gogol in the Russian Empire.[22][245] Literary critic Pompiliu Constantinescu credited Caragiale's sense of irony with having corrected the tendencies of his day, and, through this, with helping create an urban literature.[246] Caragiale's interest in Realism was however denied by some of his Junimist advocates, who attempted to link his entire work with Maiorescu's guidelines: on the basis of Schopenhauerian aesthetics, critic Mihail Dragomirescu postulated that his humor was pure, and did not draw on any special circumstance or context.[247]
Through many of his traits, Caragiale was connected to a
Largely reflecting his primordial study of
Caragiale arguably won as much acclaim for his rigorous approach to playwriting as for his accomplished style. With Alexandru Vlahuță, George Coșbuc and others, he belonged to the first generation of Romanian authors to take a noted interest in imposing professionalism.[253] He was specific about this requirement—on one occasion, he used sarcasm to overturn a common misconception, saying: "Literature is an art that needs not be learned; whoever knows how to turn letters into syllables and the latter into words has had sufficient preparation to engage in literature."[252] Commenting on this, Vianu stressed: "[...] even under the appearance of ease, [Caragiale] lets us catch sight of the severe law of his art"[254] (adding elsewhere that "[Caragiale] was a scrupulous and tormented artist").[255]
Caragiale compared writers who could not dissimulate their intent and generate a good story with "a cross-eyed who tells you which way to go: one doesn't known if he is to go down the road he points to, or down the road he is looking at".[21] Speaking in the late 1890s, he also likened writing for the stage with architecture:
"In truth, just as much as the architect's plan is not yet the final accomplishment of his intent—that is to say, the monument—but only its conventional recording [...], so too is the dramaturg's writing not yet the accomplishment of his intent — that is to say, the comedy — but the conventional recording, to which will be added the personal elements, in order to depict a development of human circumstances and deeds. In short: just as an architect's plan bears little resemblance to a painting, so does drama bear little resemblance to a poem."[256]
Political and social vision
Liberalism and republicanism
His interest in first-hand investigation of the human nature was accompanied, at least after he reached maturity, by a distaste for generous and
His almost lifelong critique of the liberal current, marked by his conflicts with Dimitrie Sturdza and Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu, was partly inspired by the Junimea guidelines — in line with the Junimists, Caragiale perceived liberals as agents of Populism, popular Romanticism, and Idealism, as tenets prevalent in the literature of his day.[262] For Caragiale, the resulting liberal-inspired literary works were spanac ("spinach").[263] The writer thus identified late 19th-century Romanian liberalism "empty talk", and his attacks on demagogy partly mirrored Maiorescu's views about the National Liberals' "inebriation with words".[264]
Caragiale centered some of his first attacks on the "Reds" and their leader
The republican agitation is no longer emphasized in Caragiale's later works, as republicanism slowly faded out of the mainstream liberal discourse.[268] Noting this, several critics believe that, in his O scrisoare pierdută, which depicts the battle between two unnamed political camps, the dramatist alluded to the conflict between Brătianu's moderates and Rosetti's extremists (as indicated by the fact that all the main characters attend the same rallies).[24][269] This view was disputed by Zarifopol, who argued that the more pragmatic grouping stands for the Conservatives, and the demagogic one for the National Liberals as a whole.[270]
Nationalism
Ion Luca Caragiale was a vocal critic of
His criticism of both the nationalist discourse and liberal-inspired education generated subjects for several of his shorter satirical writings. Caragiale thus authored a mock-pamphlet advertising the program of a new cultural society, Românii Verzi (the "Green Romanians"), who took its racialist proposals to the point of arguing that "[...] a nation must always fear other nations".[272] Like Junimea, he was entirely opposed to the group of August Treboniu Laurian and other Transylvanian intellectuals, who attempted to reform the Romanian language by introducing new forms of speech and writing that aimed to return it closer to its Latin roots. In his stories, Caragiale created the teacher Marius Chicoș Rostogan, a caricature of both the liberal educators and the Transylvanian "Latinists".[273] While in Berlin, the writer also persiflaged some of Vasile Alecsandri's liberal and patriotic writings—he completed Alecsandri's nationalist poem Tricolorul with sarcastic verses that were meant to enhance its xenophobic feel (showing the Romanians ready to do battle against all their perceived enemies in Eastern Europe).[274]
Nevertheless, various authors believe that a young Caragiale did indeed support nationalist liberal policies, and presume that he was behind a series of anti-Jewish columns, published by Voința Națională during the early 1880s.[262] This was for long disputed: rabbi and literary historian Moses Gaster attributed the pieces to Nicolae Xenopol, while researcher Șerban Cioculescu, who originally doubted them, eventually agreed that they formed an integral part of Caragiale's work.[84]
Conservatism and traditionalism
In some of his early articles, and again as he distanced himself from Junimea, the writer showed himself to be a vocal critic of the Conservative doctrine and its Junimist representatives. This is especially evident in his 1907 essay and in some of his stories.
Despite his brief association with the mainstream Conservatives, Caragiale was probably never their partisan, and only hoped that the party could open the way for the reforms advertised by
Caragiale contrasted the other major writers of his generation, including his friends Mihai Eminescu, Ioan Slavici, Barbu Ștefănescu Delavrancea, and Sămănătorul journal founder Alexandru Vlahuță, all of whom were advocating a return to the rural sphere and peasant traditionalism.[281] In Moftul Român, he parodied the archaisms favored by Ștefănescu Delavrancea;[282] during his final years, he also questioned the aesthetic value of Ștefănescu Delavrancea's medieval-themed play Apus de soare.[283] Prominent nationalists and traditionalists tended to be reserved in their assessment of Caragiale's literary contributions—they include his friend Eminescu[41] and historian Nicolae Iorga.[284]
Nonetheless, Ion Luca Caragiale was, according to Zarifopol, a passionate advocate of tradition in front of innovation, and "a defender of the well-established truths".[21] Tudor Vianu also evidenced that Caragiale treasured his Orthodox identity, frequently appealing to God and the saints in both his private life and his writings.[16] According to Ioan Slavici, Caragiale defined himself as "a right-believing Christian", and disagreed with Eminescu on the nature of religion (at a time when the poet was a passionate student of Buddhism).[16] Cioculescu called this trait "primitive religiosity".[285] The writer is also known to have convinced that luck and destiny manifested themselves in life,[286] and his Cănuță om sucit, a short story about a proverbially unlucky fellow, is thought to have referred to its author.[287] His superstitions were accompanied by a series of phobias, particularly pyrophobia and nosophobia.[285]
Caragiale and the modernists
Ion Luca Caragiale was mostly critical of literary experiments and the newer stages of Modernism. On this basis, he persistently ridiculed Alexandru Macedonski's style, especially after the latter adopted Symbolism. Much of his own poetry, especially pieces published in Moftul Român after 1901, parodied the Romanian Symbolist clubs and the Parnassianism of Macedonski's Literatorul[288] (among the best-known of these targets was poet Cincinat Pavelescu, who was coeditor at Literatorul).[289]
As editor of Epoca's literary supplement, Caragiale refused to publish a descriptive poem by the young Gala Galaction, claiming that it was not poetry (when Nicolae Filipescu asked him to reconsider, he threatened to quit).[290] Late in his life, he reserved explicit criticism for the new generation of Symbolists, whose work, he argued, belonged to "the church" of Belgian poet Maurice Maeterlinck.[291] Zarifopol also noted that, for as long as he lived, the writer derided the innovative works of Henrik Ibsen and August Strindberg, but pointed out that Caragiale had never actually read or seen their plays.[21]
Nevertheless, Caragiale was not entirely opposed to newer trends in poetry and art. Literary critic
Caragiale and the Left
Moving toward the Left during the final decades of his life, the writer maintained connection with the socialists, but was nonetheless ambivalent to their goals. As Cioculescu noted, he welcomed the Bucharest celebration of May Day in one of his Moftul Român pieces,[277] and probably agreed to lecture for the Workers' Club in the capital.[24][277] Some of his writings were hosted by the socialist journal România Muncitoare.[295] According to Garabet Ibrăileanu, himself a socialist at the time, "sometime after 1890, Caragiale briefly flirted with socialism."[24]
However, over the same period, Caragiale ridiculed several socialist militants, referring to one of their leaders with the derisive nickname Edgard Spanachidi (itself a derivative of "spinach").
In one of his articles, Ion Luca Caragiale commented with irony on the Marxist views of his friend Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea: he compared the latter's way of dining on a leg of veal, laboriously carving it into sections, to his philosophical approach. Caragiale thus noted that philosophical skepticism was equivalent to stripping the bone of its flesh piece by piece, and then throwing it to the dogs—without having been able to fully document the leg of veal or its substance.[299] Nevertheless, as Tudor Vianu indicated, although Caragiale preferred observation and spontaneity to speculation, he was not averse to pure philosophical analysis, and frequently quoted the classics in defense of his aesthetic guidelines.[300] Late in his life, Caragiale also sparked debates after deriding the emerging Poporanism, a school of thought which took its inspiration from socialism, agrarianism and traditionalism.[301] He is also known to have been amused by the German election of 1907 and the resulting defeat registered by the Social Democratic Party.[302]
Caragiale maintained a friendship with Dobrogeanu-Gherea for much of his life. He was especially interested in news of Dobrogeanu-Gherea having become involved in the 1905 Russian battleship Potemkin scandal, after the aging socialist decided to offer his help to the refugee sailors as they arrived in Constanța.[303] During his time in Berlin, he repeatedly tried to convince the Dobrogeanu-Ghereas to leave their home in Romania and join him abroad.[304] Nonetheless, he criticized the philosopher when the latter refused to be decorated by King Carol I (1909).[305] Around 1907, the dramatist was also interested in the activities of Christian Rakovsky, who was trying to make his way back into Romania, and closely followed news of street clashes between his supporters and the authorities.[306]
Settings
The writer had an unprecedented familiarity with the social environments, traits, opinions, manners of speech, means of expression and lifestyle choices of his day — from the rural atmosphere of his early childhood, going through his vast experience as a journalist, to the high spheres of politics (National Liberal as well as Conservative, Junimist as well as socialist).[307] An incessant traveler, Caragiale carefully investigated everyday life in most areas of the Romanian Old Kingdom and Transylvania.[308] He was an unusually sociable man:[22][309] in one of his letters from Berlin, he asked Alceu Urechia to send his regards to over 40 of his acquaintances in Sinaia (from Austro-Hungarian diplomats to street vendors or beggars).[310]
Several of his major works have a rural setting—they include Năpasta, În vreme de război, La hanul lui Mânjoală, Calul dracului, Păcat, and O făclie de Paște, as well as fragments of the pseudo-fairy tales he authored late in life.[311] Nevertheless, Caragiale is foremost known and acclaimed for his urban themes, which form the background to the vast majority of his most accomplished writings.[24][312]
The author depicted the city in all stages of its development and in all its atmospheres — from nightlife to Căldură mare's midday torpor, from noisy
Tudor Vianu also noted that, among cities and towns, Caragiale preferred Bucharest and those provincial centers most exposed to Central European influences (specifically, the summer retreats in the Prahova Valley and other Wallachian stations on the way to Transylvania).[316] The enclosed world of the Romanian Railways also appealed to the writer, and an impressive number of his sketches relate to it in various ways.[21][316]
Collective characters
Confessing at some point that "the world was my school", Caragiale dissimulated his background and critical eye as a means to blend into each environment he encountered, and even adopted the manners and speech patterns he later recorded in his literary work.[317] He thus encouraged familiarity, allowing people to reveal their histories, motivations, and culture.[20] Vianu recounted: "The man was a consummate actor and a pince-sans-rire, an ironist [...] to the point where his partners of dialog were never sure if they were spoken to 'seriously' [...]."[318] In one of his pieces from 1899, he welcomed the famous actors Eleonora Duse and Jean Mounet-Sully to Bucharest, imitating the exaggerated style of other theater chroniclers—the article ended with Caragiale confessing that he had not actually seen the two perform.[318] In one other instance, as a means to comment on plagiarism, the author also parodied his own O făclie de Paște—which he turned into the sketch, Noaptea Învierii.[252]
In 1907, din primăvară până în toamnă, his late and disillusioned work, Caragiale lashed out at the traditional class of political clients, with an indictment which, Tudor Vianu believed, also served to identify the main focus of his other writings:
"plebs incapable of work and lacking employment, impoverished suburban small traders and street vendors, petty dangerous agitators of the villages and of the areas adjacent to towns, bullying election agents; and then the hybrid product of all levels of schooling, semi-cultured intellectuals, lawyers and lawyerlings, professors, teachers and teacherlings, semi-illiterate and unfrocked priests, illiterate schoolteachers—all of them beer garden theorists; next come the great functionaries and the little clerks, most of them removable from office."[319]
Direct criticism was nonetheless rare in Caragiale's fiction: Vianu believed to have found traces of it in O scrisoare pierdută ("the most cruel [of his satires]") and in Grand Hotel "Victoria română" ("the most bitter").[320] On several occasions, Caragiale showed or even defined himself as a sentimental, and his modesty was acknowledged by several of his friends.[321] Vianu noted that, alongside his Christian ethos, this contributed to his distant, calm and often sympathetic overall take on society.[322] In his words:
"A wave of charm, of reconciliation with life passes above all [his characters], one which, if it only assumes light and superficial shapes, experienced by naive people with harmless manias, is a sign that the collective existence is taking place in shelter from the great trials."[323]
In contrast with this, Poporanist critic Garabet Ibrăileanu argued that Caragiale actually hated the people who inspired his works, and claimed that the writer had made this clear during one of their conversations.[324] His account was considered doubtful by researcher Ștefan Cazimir, who believed that Ibrăileanu was using it to back a polemic and singular overview of Caragiale's work.[324]
According to Vianu, there is a manifest difference between Ion Luca Caragiale's comedies and his
Types
Theoretical aspects
The form of Realism favored by Caragiale placed types of characters at the center of literary creativity, owing to the influence of Classicism.[320] Several critics have credited Momente și schițe, as well as all his dramas, with providing some of the first truly believable portrayals in local literature.[21][328] Vianu stressed that Classicist borrowings in Caragiale's writings were limited, indicating that Caragiale parted with the notion of "generic types" to look for the "social" ones.[320] In parallel, literary critic George Călinescu argued that "[t]he typological structure is present in Caragiale's work as a supporting structure, without being essential."[329]
In Vianu's assessment, the universal human nature was important to Caragiale, but not made instantly obvious (as opposed to the immediate importance his characters were meant to have in the eyes of his public).
In Vianu's view, Momente și schițe was more vague in this respect, giving little insight into morals and states of mind, whereas the other, longer, novellas did depict feelings and occasionally provided additional details such as physiology or cenesthesia.[331] Also according to Vianu, Ion Luca Caragiale, unlike the Naturalists, was generally not interested in offering the reader access to his characters' psychological background—aside from his Năpasta and Păcat, and O făclie de Paște, he only adopted the psychological technique in satirical contexts, as a means to parody its use.[333] A similar view was expressed by Vianu's predecessor, Silvian Iosifescu, who also stressed that Caragiale always avoided applying the Naturalist technique to its fullest,[334] while George Călinescu himself believed that the characters' motivations in O făclie de Paște are actually physiological and ethnological.[335]
Maiorescu was especially fond of the way in which Caragiale balanced his personal perspective and the generic traits he emphasized: speaking of Leiba Zibal, the Jewish character in O făclie de Paște who defends himself out of fear, he drew a comparison with Shakespeare's Shylock. He thus noted that, for all the differences in style between the two authors, both their characters stood for the Jewish people as a whole.[21][336] This assessment was backed by Maiorescu's adversary, Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea.[114] George Călinescu also believed that, aside from his individual nature, Zibal provided readers with an accurate insight into Jewish reactions to systemic persecution and death threats.[335] Such assessments were rejected by Paul Zarifopol, who opposed generalizations and commented that the work only referred to "[t]he ingenious cruelty of a man maddened by fear".[21]
Allegories
One of Caragiale's main and earliest types is that of the young man gripped by love, expressing himself through emphatic and Romantic clichés—its main representative is
With Venturiano, Caragiale also introduces criticism of the liberal journalist and lawyers. A law school student, Venturiano contributes long and exaggerated articles to the republican press, which recall those authored by
Written between the two other comedies, Conu Leonida față cu reacțiunea depicts the long-term effects of republican discourse on its fascinated audience, through the sayings and actions of Leonida. The latter, whose source of income is a state pension, notably supports the notion that the "Red" republic will provide each clerk with a salary, a pension, as well as a debt moratorium[347]—Șerban Cioculescu noted that this request had already been voiced in real life, and issued as a political program by an obscure Utopian socialist named Pițurcă.[348] Eventually, Leonida is convinced that revolution cannot be on the rise, since the authorities have banned the firing of weapons within city limits.[349] Similar fallacies are uttered by one of the secondary characters in D-ale carnavalului, known to the other protagonists as Catindatul, who has a vague familiarity with both subjective idealist and materialist tenets, the sources for his absurd theories about suggestibility and "magnetism"—two processes in which he sees the universal source for all discomfort or disease.[350] In parallel, Zarifopol argued, the writer had even allowed ironic reflections on the impact of various theories to seep into a more serious work, O făclie de Paște, where two students terrify the innkeeper Zibal by casually discussing anthropological criminology.[21]
Several other of Caragiale's characters have traditionally been considered allegories of social classes and even regional identities. One of the most famous ones is Mitică, a recurring character who stands for ordinary Bucharesters, Wallachians or Muntenians in general.[11][227] A hypocritical and seemingly superficial man, Mitică expresses himself through either platitudes or clichés he believes are clever,[11] and, illustrating a tendency Caragiale first recorded in his Moftul Român, quickly dismisses all important things he is confronted with.[227] Similarly, the teacher Marius Chicoș Rostogan, who is present or named in several sketches, stands for those Transylvanian expatriates in Romania whose sympathies went to the liberal current.[273] His discourse, through which Caragiale sarcastically illustrates liberal tenets in respect to Romanian education, is centered on a disregard for content and a rigor for memorizing irrelevant details.[21][273] It has been proposed that Rostogan is at least partly based on Vasile Grigore Borgovan, a Transylvanian-born educator and resident of Turnu Severin.[351]
Cetățeanul turmentat, an unnamed inebriated man who makes brief but relevant appearances in O scrisoare pierdută, is thought to symbolize simple townsfolk, utterly confused by the political battle going on around them, and ignored by all the notabilities.
In a number of his short stories and sketches, Caragiale makes use of another particularly Junimist theme, and investigates the glamorous but superficial impact of
Other traits and characters
Anxieties take the central stage in several of Caragiale's writings. From early on, Caragiale's minute analysis of mounting terror in O făclie de Paște won the praise of Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea.[360] In several of his sketches and stories, characters are driven to despair by their inability to cope with real or presumed changes in their environment.[8][361] This is shown to have happened to characters such as Leiba Zibal, Stavrache—the pub owner in În vreme de război—, as well as Anghelache (the suicide victim in Inspecțiune..., part of Momente și schițe).[362] Șerban Cioculescu referred to the latter three as "great neurotics",[361] while Iosifescu defined Zibal and Stavrache as "demented".[334] Among the group of insane characters in Caragiale's work, Călinescu counted those of sketches and stories like 1 Aprilie ("1st of April"), where an April Fool ends with a murder, and Două loturi, where the clerk Lefter Popescu goes through the tribulations of having lost his winning ticket.[363]
Anxiety over imminent events grips the main characters in Conu Leonida față cu reacțiunea, and plays a part in female behavior as depicted in all his other comedies.[364] A special kind of fear animates the main protagonists of D-ale carnavalului, whose jealousy leads them to act irrationally.[365] Thus, Iancu Pampon, an assistant-barber and former police officer, and his female counterpart, the republican suburbanite Mița Baston, are determined to uncover their partners' amorous escapades, and their hectic inquiry combines real clues with figments of imagination, fits of passionate rage with moments of sad meditation, and violent threats with periods of resignation.[366] Glimpses into this type of behavior have been noted in other plays by Caragiale: Cazimir placed emphasis on the fact that Farfuridi is shown to be extremely cautious towards all unplanned changes, and consumes much of his energy in preserving a largely pointless daily routine.[367]
Many of Caragiale's writings reproduce discussions between clerks on their time off, which usually take the shape of generic and awkward forays into culture or politics. Several of the characters in his sketches spuriously claim to be personal friends of major political figures of the day, or to have access to the back-rooms of politics and journalism.
Caragiale's persona is placed in numerous of his works. Aside from deduced self-portraits in Cănuță om sucit and elsewhere, he created the famous background character Nenea Iancu ("Uncle Iancu"), building on his colloquial name and his status as a regular client of the beer gardens.[371] He introduces several of his Momente și schițe characters as personal friends, and garnishes the stories with intimate details.[372] Late in his life, he even confessed that the affair involving Venturiano, Dumitrache, and Dumitrache's wife Veta was partly based on an amorous misadventure he experienced as a young man.[373]
Literary influences
Aside from the many authors whose works he quoted, translated or parodied, Ion Luca Caragiale built on a vast literary legacy. According to literary historian Ștefan Cazimir: "No writer ever had as large a number of precursors [as Caragiale], just as no other artistic synthesis was ever more organic and more spontaneous."[374]
A man of the theater first and foremost, Caragiale was well-acquainted with the work of his predecessors, from
The writer himself cited
Caragiale is believed to have used and developed several themes already present in Romanian theatre. One such precursor is the author of comedies Teodor Myller, especially through his play Fata lui Chir Troancă ("Kir Troancă's Daughter").[380] The writer was most likely very familiar with the comedies authored by his two uncles, Costache and Iorgu Caragiale, which have been shown to develop themes he later explored in depth. Among the minor 19th century dramatists whose comedic works were familiar to Caragiale, and in many ways similar to his, own was Costache Halepliu.[381] Another often-cited influence is his predecessor and adversary Vasile Alecsandri, whose Coana Chirița plays are an early critique of Westernization.[24][382] The two authors nonetheless differ in many ways, with Caragiale assuming a more complex role, and observing a more complex society.[18][21][24][383]
Ion Luca Caragiale is known to have been amused by the stock character Robert Macaire, at a time when the latter had been turned into a comedic character by Frédérick Lemaître.[384] While in Berlin, he purchased the cartoons of French artists Honoré Daumier and Paul Gavarni (although it is not known if their separate portrayals of Macaire were familiar to him)[385] — among these drawings was one showing notabilities embracing one another while picking each other's pockets, which shows similarities with Caragiale's own take on society. According to Cazimir, it is possible that he knew Daumier's work from early on, as several other subjects caricatured by the French artist bear a remarkable resemblance to his texts.[385]
Ion Luca Caragiale was also keenly aware and receptive of his contemporaries' works and of fin de siècle innovations. The literary creations of Émile Zola were a noted source of inspiration, and the parallel led George Călinescu to propose him and Barbu Ștefănescu Delavrancea as the main representatives of Zola's style in local literature.[335] At the same time, Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea believed that both Năpasta and O făclie de Paște showed the "obvious enough influence" of Fyodor Dostoevsky.[386] Late in his life, Caragiale discovered the literature of Anatole France — according to Paul Zarifopol, France's Humanist themes served as a model for some of Caragiale's fantasy writings.[20][21]
Discussing the latter works, Vianu noted that they reminded one of Shakespeare's late romances,[252] while Șerban Cioculescu believed them to have been indirectly inspired by the works of Edgar Allan Poe.[146] In his report for the academy, Dimitrie C. Ollănescu-Ascanio also drew a parallel between Poe's works and La hanul lui Mânjoală, but this hypothesis was rejected by Zarifopol.[21] In addition, Kir Ianulea, partly using Niccolò Machiavelli's novel as a source, was held as evidence of Caragiale's interest in Renaissance literature.[387]
Cultural legacy
The writer's investigations into Romanian culture also resulted in an accurate record of the Romanian language as it was spoken during his day, sampling dialects, jargon, slang, verbal tics, as well as illustrating the experiments undertaken by conflicting schools of linguistics during the 19th and early 20th century, as well as the traces they left on the Romanian lexis.[388] In Tudor Vianu's opinion, this was partly owed to his keen musical ear.[389]
Caragiale was an enduring influence on both
In parallel, Caragiale's techniques have influenced 20th century dramatists such as
Several authors have left memoirs of Ion Luca Caragiale. They include Octavian Goga and Ioan Slavici,[396] I. Suchianu, Luca Caragiale, Ecaterina Logadi-Caragiale,[397] and Cincinat Pavelescu.[164] Among his later biographers was Octav Minar, who stood accused of having forged certain details for commercial gain.[398] Direct or covert depictions of Caragiale are also present in several fiction works, starting with a revue first shown during his lifetime,[399] and including novels by Goga, Slavici, N. Petrașcu, Emanoil Bucuța, Eugen Lovinescu, Constantin Stere, as well as a play by Camil Petrescu.[400] In 1939, B. Jordan and Lucian Predescu, published a common signature novel on the writer, which was criticized for its style, tone, and inaccuracies.[401] The short story writer Brătescu-Voinești proposed that Ion Luca Caragiale's love affair with Veronica Micle and Eminescu's anger provide the key to Eminescu's poem Luceafărul, but his theory remains controversial.[402] Caragiale is also probably present in his son Mateiu's work Craii de Curtea-Veche, where his lifestyle and contribution to literature appear to be the subjects of derision.[403]
The writer was elected to the
The Bucharest National Theater is currently known in full as "Ion Luca Caragiale" National Theater. Several educational institutions were named in his, including the Theater and Film Academy and the Ion Luca Caragiale National College in Bucharest, the national college in Ploiești, and a high school in Moreni. Among the statues raised in his honor are Constantin Baraschi's Bucharest monument, and busts in the capital's Cișmigiu Gardens and in Ploiești. He was the subject of portraits and caricatures by various artists, and, in 2007, upon the completion of a five-year project involving cartoonists inside and outside Romania, he was designated "the most portrayed writer" by the Guinness Book of Records (with over 1,500 individual drawings in a single exhibit).[405][406]
In 1962, a house in Ploiești has been turned into a museum honoring Caragiale (the Dobrescu House).[29][407] His native home in Haimanale was opened for the public in 1979.[408] Memorial plaques have also been set up in Buzău[29] and on Schöneberg's Hohenzollerndamm.[192] His name was given to streets, avenues, parks or quarters in many Romanian cities—such landmarks include the Bucharest street he lived on around 1900, a street in Ploiești, a quarter in Brașov, and a park in Cluj-Napoca. A street in Chișinău also bears the name Caragiale.
The novel The Republic by the Romanian-American novelist Bogdan Suceavă (Polirom Press, 2018) has as main character a 17-year old Ion Luca Caragiale, and depicts his involvement with the coup d'état attempt from 8 August 1870, in Ploiești.
Notes
- ^ According to his birth certificate, published and discussed by Constantin Popescu-Cadem in Manuscriptum, Vol. VIII, Nr. 2, 1977, pp. 179–184
- ^ a b c (in Romanian) Rosana Heinisch, "Grecii, mai interesaţi de opera lui I.L.Caragiale decit conaţionalii săi" Archived 27 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine, in Evenimentul, 8 June 2002
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j (in Romanian) Lucian Nastasă, Genealogia între ştiinţă, mitologie şi monomanie, p. 18, at the Romanian Academy's George Bariţ Institute of History, Cluj-Napoca. Retrieved 3 July 2007.
- ^ Mîndra, pp. 5–6, 272; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 176
- ^ a b Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 176
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab (in Romanian) Georgeta Ene,""Caragiale la Berlin: Exil voluntar sau "misiune sub acoperire"? (I)"". Archived from the original on 7 October 2007. Retrieved 7 December 2008.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) , in Magazin Istoric, January 2002, pp. 12–17 - ^ Mîndra, pp. 6, 272
- ^ a b c d e (in Romanian) Ioan Holban, "I.L. Caragiale, fiul unui emigrant din Cefallonia (III)", in Evenimentul, 25 May 2002.
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 18, 308
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 73–76; Cioculescu, pp. 6–7; Mîndra, pp. 5–6; Perpessicius, pg. 237; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 176
- ^ ISBN 2-8041-3161-0
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 300–301; Mîndra, pp. 5–6; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 176
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 300–301
- ^ a b c d e f g (in Romanian) Doina Tudorovici "Caragiale: 'ai avesi, tomnilor, cu numele meu?'", in Ziarul Financiar, 5 July 2000.
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 14, 29; Mîndra, pg. 5; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 197–198; Vol. III, pg. 74
- ^ a b c Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 197
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 124–125
- ^ Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen
- ^ a b c d e Cristea-Enache, chapter "Corespondenţa inedită Mihai Eminescu – Veronica Micle. Filigranul geniului"
- ^ a b c d Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 195
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai (in Romanian) Paul Zarifopol, Introduceri la ediţia critică I.L. Caragiale, opere (wikisource)
- ^ a b c d e f (in Romanian) Paul Zarifopol, Artiști și idei literare române: Publicul și arta lui Caragiale (wikisource)
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 53–54
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q (in Romanian) Garabet Ibrăileanu, Spiritul critic în cultura românească: Spiritul critic în Muntenia – Critica socială extremă: Caragiale (wikisource)
- ^ Vianu, Vol. I, pg. 308
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 204–205
- ^ David Binder, "Vlachs: a Peaceful Balkan People", in Mediterranean Quarterly, Volume 15, Number 4, Fall 2004.
- ^ Mîndra, pg. 7
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j (in Romanian) "Casele lui Caragiale" Archived 12 March 2008 at the Wayback Machine, in Adevărul, 30 January 2002.
- ^ Mîndra, pg. 6
- Vatra, 3-4/2005, pg. 2
- ^ a b Mîndra, p. 272
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 126; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 176
- ^ a b c Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 192
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 126
- ^ Mîndra, pg. 272; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 176
- ^ Mîndra, pp. 6–8, 272
- ^ a b Mîndra, pg. 9
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 6–7; Mîndra, pp. 8, 272; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 176
- ^ Mîndra, pp. 8, 272; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 177
- ^ a b c Cioculescu, pg. 6
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 55; Ornea, pg. 213
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 8, 18–19, 270–271; Mîndra, pg. 8; Ornea, pg. 216
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pg. 128; Cioculescu, pp. 18–19, 270–271; Ornea, pp. 215–216
- ^ Mîndra, pp. 9, 272; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 177
- ^ Perpessicius, pp. 150, 190, 235–236, 290–291; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 176–77.
- ^ Mîndra, pp. 9, 272
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 60
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 18, 60; Mîndra, pg. 9
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 19–21; Ornea, pp. 205–206, 209–217
- ^ a b Mîndra, pg. 273
- ^ a b Cioculescu, pg. 52
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 52–53; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 177.
- ^ a b Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 177
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 60–61
- ^ Perpessicius, pg. 50
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 17–21; Mîndra, pp. 9, 273; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 177–178
- ^ Mîndra, pp. 10, 273; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 178
- ^ a b c d Vianu, Vol. II, p. 178
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 186–187; Mîndra, p. 9
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 92; Perpessicius, pp. 238–239; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 178
- ^ Perpessicius, pp. 238–239
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 18–19, 59–60, 59–60
- ^ a b Cioculescu, p. 20
- ^ Mîndra, p. 273; Ornea, p. 200; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 147, 178, 224–225
- ^ a b Ornea, p. 246
- ^ a b Vianu, Vol. II, p. 147
- ^ Ornea, pp. 246–247
- ^ Ornea, p. 247
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 53
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 53–54
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 62
- ^ Mîndra, p. 10
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 178–179
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 66, 150
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 75; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 178–179
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 76
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 9, 179
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 61, 179–180
- ^ Vianu, Vol. I, pp. 397–398; Vol. II, pp. 9, 110, 136–137
- ^ Ornea, pp. 151–258; Vianu, Vol. I, pp. 305, 398; Vol. II, pp. 9, 136–137, 221
- ^ Ornea, pp. 151–258; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 19
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 10, 61
- ^ a b c Cioculescu, p. 21
- ^ a b c Ornea, pg. 200
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 184–186; Mîndra, pg. 273; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 180
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 184–186
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 180, 186, 190
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 190–191; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 180, 186
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 186, 190–194.
- ^ a b c Cioculescu, pg. 323
- ^ a b c d e Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 180
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 5–6; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 82, 117, 180
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 115
- ^ Ciupală, pg. 25; Perpessicius, pg. 277; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 180
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 313; Ciupală, pg. 25; Perpessicius, pp. 277, 290
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 313
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 149–150
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pg. 150
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 150–152
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 280; Perpessicius, pg. 148; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 150
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 278–79, 280
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 280
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 308, 362; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 188
- ^ a b c Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 188
- ^ Ornea, pp. 227–228; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 180
- ^ Ornea, pg. 228
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 359, 366, 375
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 27–28; Ornea, pg. 24; Vianu, Vol. I, pp. 335–336, 401, 409; Vol. II, pp. 61, 180
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 28–29; Ornea, pp. 9, 20, 24; Vianu, Vol. I, pp. 334, 335–336, 401; Vol. II, pp. 61–62, 180
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 28–29; Ornea, pp. 20, 24, 39; Vianu, Vol. I, pp. 332, 409; Vol. II, pp. 61–62, 64, 69
- ^ Ornea, pp. 31–32
- ^ Ornea, pp. 319–320; Vianu, Vol. I, pp. 334, 335–336, 401, 409–410
- ^ a b (in Romanian) Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea, Asupra esteticii metafizice şi ştiinţifice (wikisource)
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 29–33
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 21; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 180–181
- ^ a b c d Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 181
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 136; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 181
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 136
- ^ Perpessicius, pg. 239; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 181
- ^ a b c d Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 182
- ^ a b Cioculescu, pg. 367
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 124, 129–132; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 182
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 130
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 124, 130–131; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 182
- ^ a b Cioculescu, pp. 130–131
- ^ a b c Cioculescu, p. 131
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 124, 131
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 124; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 182
- ^ Perpessicius, p. 190
- ^ Perpessicius, pp. 190, 191, 194, 235, 290, 300
- ^ Perpessicius, p. 138
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 182–183
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 21; Mîndra, p. 274; Ornea, p. 200; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 183
- ^ Ornea, p. 200; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 183
- ^ a b c d e Vianu, Vol. II, p. 183
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 22; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 183, 184
- ^ a b Mîndra, p. 274; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 184
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 135
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 23; Mîndra, p. 274; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 184
- ^ Mîndra, pp. 10–11, 274; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 183
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 183–184
- ^ a b c Vianu, Vol. II, p. 184
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 40–41; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 185
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 185
- ^ a b Cioculescu, pg. 38
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 23–24; Ornea, pp. 207–208; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 185
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 10, 27
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 23–24
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 23
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 23–24; Ciupală, pp. 104–105
- ^ Ciupală, pp. 104–105
- ^ a b c Cioculescu, pg. 24
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 24–25; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 185
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 126; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 187
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 125–126
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 25–26; Ornea, pg. 208; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 185
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 25–27
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 26
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 25–28, 271; Mîndra, pg. 274; Ornea, pp. 203–204; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 185–186; Vol. III, pg. 281
- ^ a b c d Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 186
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 27
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 63, 84–85
- ^ a b (in Romanian) Cincinat Pavelescu, Amintiri literare (Ion Luca Caragiale) (wikisource)
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 93, 293–311
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 10; Ornea, pg. 208; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 187
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 10; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 187
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 187
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 28; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 187–188
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 187–188
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 8; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 187
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 8, 88–89, 141
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 124; Mîndra, pg. 274
- ^ a b Cioculescu, pg. 124
- ^ a b Cioculescu, pp. 132–133; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 188, 373
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 133–140; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 188, 373–374, 387
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 133; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 188, 373
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 124, 133; Mîndra, pp. 16, 274; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 188
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 133
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 133–140; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 374
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 100–101; Cioculescu, pp. 136–137
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 137; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 374
- ^ a b Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 374
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 137–138
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 308; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 188
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 308, 362
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 352, 357–358, 360–362, 363–364
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 188, 198–199
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 222–231; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 203
- ^ a b Cioculescu, p. 308
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 308; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 188, 198
- ^ România Liberă, 12 March 2007
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 308–309
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 122, 209, 217; Perpessicius, p. 442
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 120, 122–123, 250, 262; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 188
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 250, 262
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 209–210, 231–236, 259; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 189, 198
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 281
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 241–242
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 12–16
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 259
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 68
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 94–95, 117–119, 120, 122–123, 208–311; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 189
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 96–97; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 192
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 80, 260, 278, 279, 297, 301–302, 364; Ornea, p. 228
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 28–29, 119–124; Ornea, p. 228; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 189
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, p. 189
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 28–29, 121, 123, 268–271; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 189–190
- ^ Ornea, p. 228; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 190
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 301; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 190–191
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 28–29, 121, 127, 268; Mîndra, p. 275; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 189
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 28, 121, 268
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 28; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 189
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 123–124
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 28, 260–261, 301
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 28, 46
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 28, 47–48, 268
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 304; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 191
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 27–28, 29–30; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 191
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 29–30, 271–273; Ornea, p. 208; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 191
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 272–273; Ornea, p. 208; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 191, 192
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 365, 368
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 14–16
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, p. 191
- ^ Vianu, Vol. I, p. 313; Vol. II, pp. 191, 205
- ^ Călinescu, pp. 181–182; Cioculescu, pp. 203–207, 262; Vianu, Vol. I, p. 313
- ^ a b c Călinescu, p. 181
- ^ Vianu, Vol. I, pp. 313–314; Vol. II, p. 205
- ^ a b c Mîndra, p. 25
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 126–127; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 192
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 250; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 191
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 191–192
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, p. 192; Vol. III, pp. 74, 75–77
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 31; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 192
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 31
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 69; Mîndra, p. 25; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 192
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 267–268; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 192
- ^ Mîndra, p. 25; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 192–193
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, p. 375
- ^ a b Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 175
- ^ Călinescu, pg. 179; Cazimir (1967), pp. 45–46, 49, 58; Cioculescu, pp. 5, 10, 93, 96, 107–110; Vianu, Vol. I, p. 310; Vol. II, pp. 201–202, 203–204
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 45–46
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 96, 109–110
- ^ a b Vianu, Vol. I, pg. 310
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 107–108; Vianu, Vol. I, pg. 310
- ^ Mîndra, pg. 269
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 36–38; Cioculescu, pg. 16; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 65
- ^ Călinescu, pg. 181; Vianu, Vol. I, pp. 307–308; Vol. II, pg. 195
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 46–48
- ^ Vianu, Vol. I, pg. 311; Vol. II, pg. 204
- ^ Mîndra, pg. 270; Vianu, Vol. I, pg. 311; Vol. II, pp. 203–204
- ^ a b c d Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 205
- ^ Vianu, Vol. III, pg. 14
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 206
- ^ Vianu, Vol. I, pg. 314
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 187
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 9; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 193–194, 196
- ^ Ornea, pp. 202–204, 228
- ^ Ornea, pg. 203
- ^ Ornea, pp. 202–203
- ^ Vianu, Vol. I, pp. 167, 308–309
- ^ a b Cioculescu, pg. 9
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 9, 264
- ^ Ornea, pp. 205, 211, 291
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 179–180; Ornea, pp. 209–217
- ^ Ornea, pp. 211–213
- ^ Ornea, pp. 210–217
- ^ Ornea, pg. 212
- ^ Ornea, pp. 217–218
- ^ Ornea, pg. 217
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 30–31
- ^ Ornea, p. 224
- ^ a b c Ornea, p. 226
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 68, 216, 252–253
- ^ Ornea, pp. 228–229
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 22–23, 29, 121, 304
- ^ a b c Cioculescu, p. 22
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 269, 271; Ornea, pp. 206–209
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 271–273; Ornea, p. 208
- ^ Cazimir (1967), p. 54
- ^ Vianu, Vol. I, p. 312; Vol. II, pp. 184, 199
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 41–43; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 185
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 253
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 28, 305
- ^ a b Cioculescu, pg. 7
- ^ Călinescu, pg. 180; Cioculescu, pg. 7; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 204
- ^ Călinescu, pg. 180; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 204
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 63–64, 67, 134
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 134
- ^ Vianu, Vol. III, pg. 281
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 67
- ^ OCLC 6434366
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 66
- OCLC 32599658
- ^ Mîndra, p. 11
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 22, 64
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 23, 46–47; Ornea, pp. 208–209
- ^ Ornea, p. 209
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, p. 194
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 194–195
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 43, 67
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 271
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 243–246
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 240
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 245–246
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 246–248
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 6, 7–8; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 193
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 193
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 118
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 118–119
- ^ Vianu, Vol. I, pp. 312, 313–314; Vol. II, pp. 198, 205
- ^ Ornea, pp. 64, 221–223, 229; Vianu, Vol. I, pp. 312–313; Vol. II, pp. 198–200
- ^ Ornea, pp. 221–223; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 199–200
- ^ Ornea, pg. 229
- ^ Cioculescu, pg. 71
- ^ a b Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 199
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 6–7; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 195
- ^ a b Vianu, Vol. II, p. 196
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, p. 190
- ^ a b c Vianu, Vol. II, p. 201
- ^ Vianu, Vol. I, p. 314; Vol. II, pp. 197–198; Vol. III, pp. 74, 75–76
- ^ Vianu, Vol. I, p. 314; Vol. II, pp. 200–201
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, p. 200
- ^ a b Cazimir (1967), p. 44
- ^ Vianu, Vol. I, pp. 309–310; Vol. II, pp. 200–201
- ^ Vianu, Vol. I, pp. 309–310; Vol. II, p. 200
- ^ Ornea, p. 221
- ^ Mîndra, pp. 269–270
- ^ Călinescu, p. 183
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 201–202
- ^ a b Vianu, Vol. II, p. 202
- ^ Cazimir (1967), p. 143; Ornea, p. 221; Vianu, Vol. II, p. 202
- ^ Vianu, Vol. I, p. 312
- ^ a b Mîndra, p. 271
- ^ a b c Călinescu, p. 179
- ^ Ornea, p. 50
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 454–455
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 55–56; Cioculescu, pp. 56–59, 83–84, 85–88, 113
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 55, 112–119; Cioculescu, pp. 83–84
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 55, 133–134; Cioculescu, pp. 85–88
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 179–180, 183–184; Ornea, pp. 210–211
- ^ Ornea, pp. 217–221
- ^ Ornea, pp. 217–219
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 143–144; Ornea, pp. 220–221
- ^ Cazimir (1967), p. 144
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 136–137
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 334; Ornea, p. 215
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 334
- ^ Cazimir (1967), p. 129; Cioculescu, p. 337
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 155–157
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 254
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 80; Vianu, Vol. I, p. 309; Vol. II, p. 201
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 143–149
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 80–81
- ^ Cazimir (1967), p. 55
- ^ Cazimir (1967), p. 146
- ^ Ornea, pp. 222–224
- ^ Ornea, pp. 222–223
- ^ Ornea, p. 223
- ^ Mîndra, p. 267
- ^ a b Cioculescu, p. 89
- ^ Călinescu, p. 180; Cioculescu, p. 89
- ^ Călinescu, pp. 179–180; Cazimir (1967), p. 56
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 83–88, 89–92
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 149–157; Cioculescu, pp. 89–92
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 149–155
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 137–138
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 113, 114
- ^ Ornea, pp. 223–224
- ^ a b Cioculescu, p. 114
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, p. 204
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 56–57
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 279
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 63–64
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 96–101; Vianu, Vol. I, pp. 310–311, 314
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pg. 98
- ^ a b Cazimir (1967), pg. 62
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 82–89
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 89–93; Vianu, Vol. II, pg. 88
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 181–182
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 73–76, 79
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 70–72
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pg. 72; Mîndra, pg. 32
- ^ Cazimir (1967), pp. 102–103
- ^ a b Cazimir (1967), pp. 103–105
- ^ (in Romanian) Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea, Dl Panu asupra criticii și literaturii (wikisource)
- ^ Vianu, Vol. I, pp. 313–14.
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 203–204, 240–241; Vol. III, p. 246
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, p. 203
- ^ ISBN 1-86189-103-2
- ^ Mîndra, p. 33
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 325–342
- ^ Cioculescu, p. 172
- ^ Cristea-Enache, chapters "Filo-logia şi alte iubiri", "Dumitru Radu Popa. American Dream", "Mircea Cărtărescu. Levantul pe orizontală", "Ioan Lăcustă. Un prozator profund", "Horia Gârbea. Un computer cu talent"
- ISBN 0-521-44654-6
- ^ Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 178, 197; Vol. III, pp. 75, 137
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 28, 70–71, 111, 121–122, 367, 368; Vianu, Vol. II, pp. 184, 195
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 314, 315
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 321–323
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 43, 198, 277, 316
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 312–316
- ^ Perpessicius, pp. 277, 290
- ^ Cioculescu, pp. 351, 358–359
- ^ a b (in Romanian) "Anul Caragiale", at the Romanian Academy site. Retrieved 26 September 2007.
- Antena 3, 11 September 2007. Retrieved 26 September 2007.
- Romanian Televisionsite. Retrieved 26 September 2007.
- ^ (in Romanian) Muzeul Memorial I. L. Caragiale Archived 29 January 2009 at the Wayback Machine at Muzee din regiunile României Archived 19 October 2008 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 25 September 2007.
- ^ The Memorial House "Ion Luca Caragiale" Archived 9 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine, at Museums of Dâmbovița Archived 11 December 2008 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 25 September 2007.
References
- George Călinescu, Istoria literaturii române. Compendiu, Editura Minerva, Bucharest, 1983
- Ștefan Cazimir,
- OCLC 6890267
- Alin Ciupală, Femeia în societatea românească a secolului al XIX-lea, ISBN 973-33-0481-6
- ISBN 973-8475-67-8
- Vicu Mîndra, in I.L. Caragiale, Nuvele şi povestiri, OCLC 42663344:
- "Prefaţă", p. 5–33
- "Aprecieri critice", p. 267–271
- "Tablou biobibliografic", p. 272–275
- ISBN 973-21-0562-3
- ISBN 973-8031-34-6
- OCLC 7431692
- ISBN 978-973-37-2177-2
External links
- Works by Ion Luca Caragiale at Project Gutenberg
- Works by or about Ion Luca Caragiale at Internet Archive
- Works by Ion Luca Caragiale at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)
- Ion Luca Caragiale (official Facebook page)
- National Theater Bucharest Archived 4 October 2022 at the Wayback Machine (official site)
- The Nenea Iancu Festival in Chișinău Archived 7 June 2009 at the Wayback Machine (official site)
- Collection of Caragiale's caricatures, at Caricatura.ro
- Ion Luca Caragiale at IMDb