User:Dahn/Common projects

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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

Alexander Mourousis intervened, and ordered the workers to be brought back, while denying their requests.[1]

Under the

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

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:

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

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

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.

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

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

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,

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.

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

  1. ^
    Humanitas
    , Bucharest, 1995, p.190
  2. ^ a b c d e f Corneliu Albu, "Al. Papiu Ilarian, avocatul căruţaşilor «bivolari» din Giurgiu" ("Al. Papiu Ilarian, the Advocate of Oxcart-Drivers in Giurgiu"), in Magazin Istoric, March 1973, p.14-16
  3. ^ a b c d e f N. Copoiu, "100 ani de la crearea Asociaţiei generale a tuturor lucrătorilor din România. «...Sub un stindard care să reprezinte unirea şi înfrăţirea tuturor lucrătorilor» ("100 Years Since the Creation of the General Association of All Romanian Workers. «...Under a Flag that Would Represent the Union and Brotherhood of All Workers»"), in Magazin Istoric, October 1972, p.52-55
  4. ^ a b How the Bolshevik-Leninist Group of Romania was Founded (with introduction), at the Marxists Internet Archive; retrieved July 19, 2007
  5. ^ Cioculescu, p.124-125
  6. ^ a b c Sorin Antohi, "Romania and the Balkans. From Geocultural Bovarism to Ethnic Ontology", in Tr@nsit online, Nr. 21/2002, Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen; retrieved August 16, 2007
  7. ^ Cioculescu, p.125
  8. ^ Cioculescu, p.125
  9. ^ Vianu, Vol.I, p.312; Vol. II, p.199
  10. ^ Vianu, Vol. II, p.184
  11. ^ Cioculescu, p.41-43; Vianu, Vol. II, p.185
  12. ^ Vianu, Vol. III, p.26-27
  13. ^ Cioculescu, p.6
  14. ^ Cioculescu, p.28, 305
  15. ^ Cioculescu, p.81, 105
  16. ^ Cioculescu, p.23
  17. ^ Cioculescu, p.43, 67
  18. ISBN 0909196087
  19. ^ Cazimir (1967), p.36-38; Cioculescu, p.16; Vianu, Vol. II, p.65
  20. ^ Cioculescu, p.16-17, 38-40
  21. ^ a b c d (in Romanian) Garabet Ibrăileanu, Spiritul critic în cultura românească: Spiritul critic în Muntenia - Critica socială extremă: Caragiale (wikisource)
  22. ^ Cioculescu, p.17, 39-40
  23. ^ Ornea, p.201, 221
  24. ^ Ornea, p.201-202, 209, 226-229
  25. ^ Ornea, p.209
  26. ^ Ornea, p.221
  27. ^ Cioculescu, p.16
  28. ^ Cioculescu, p.34-35; Ornea, p.274
  29. ^ Cioculescu, p.34-35
  30. ^ Ornea, p.274
  31. ^ Cioculescu, p.35-37
  32. ^ Cioculescu, p.38, 40
  33. ^ a b c (in Romanian) Paul Zarifopol, Introduceri la ediţia critică I.L. Caragiale, opere (wikisource)
  34. ^ a b c d e f (in Romanian) Paul Zarifopol, Artişti şi idei literare române: Publicul şi arta lui Caragiale (wikisource)
  35. ^ Cioculescu, p.7
  36. ^ Cioculescu, p.63
  37. ^ Cioculescu, p.63
  38. ^ Ornea, p.216
  39. ^ Cioculescu, p.37
  40. ^ Cioculescu, p.37
  41. ^ Cioculescu, p.93-110; Vianu, Vol. II, p.198-199
  42. ^ Cioculescu, p.93
  43. ^ Cioculescu, p.94-95
  44. ^ Cioculescu, p.96, 107-110
  45. ^ Cioculescu, p.96-97
  46. ^ Cioculescu, p.97
  47. ^ Vianu, Vol. II, p.198
  48. ^ Vianu, Vol. II, p.198
  49. ^ Cioculescu, p.96; Vianu, Vol. II, p.198
  50. ^ Cioculescu, p.98-105
  51. ^ Cioculescu, p.103
  52. ^ Cioculescu, p.110
  53. ^ Vianu, Vol. II, p.202
  54. ^ Vianu, Vol. II, p.203
  55. ^ Cioculescu, p.107-108

References

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dahn/Common_projects&oldid=944702786"