Andrei Pleșu: 1871-2019 – immortal Romanian traditions

Who says that Romania does not respect its traditions sins through excessive critical spirit. We have traditions! We know what "continuity" means! It is true, questionable continuities are more visible and more stable than the founding ones... It would seem that we are more attached to the "specificity" of our shadowy customs than to the effort of self-overcoming. The need to preserve is stronger than the need for reform. Do you remember? Perhaps this is the secret of our survival. We prefer stagnation, with all its deviations, rather than the risk of renewing agitation... This is proven by all sorts of "historical" circumstances, struck by the fatality of a "present" that does not want to pass. While browsing old papers, I found a multitude of examples. I apologize for citing one. But there is no tradition without repetition. Here it is:

In January 1871, a newspaper from Germany (Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung) published a letter from King Carol I, which the Romanian newspapers and parliamentarians turned into a scandal. After almost five years of reign, the king complains to a friend about the "little use" he has been able to bring to "this beautiful country." "Whose fault is it?" asks Carol. "Neither mine, nor that of the people in its entirety" sounds the answer. Then whose? Quickly systematizing what in the royal text submits to the epistolary rhetoric of the moment, we will find three possible explanations for the failure:

1) A global psychological characteristic: Romanians are a people "that does not want to be led and yet is not able to lead itself." Arrogance, lack of internal discipline, chaos. We are poorly endowed with the "hegemonicon"! We live "in the land" in all its ambiguity: on one hand, independent spirit, on the other, ungovernable volatility.

2) A historical and social characteristic: between elites and masses there is an unhealable fracture. The elites are emancipated, "branched out," ready to adopt the latest trendy utopia, while the masses are of a stubborn conservatism. In other words, the elites suffer from inadequacy, do not take into account the spirit of the place, while the masses behave reticently, resentfully, impulsively. The result is that the ruling elites force the country "to suddenly and without mediation transition from a despotic regime to the most liberal Constitution, as no other people in Europe has." The masses, however, "cannot boast of the civic virtues required for a quasi-republican form of state."

3) A political characteristic: the inflation of "party intrigues." (No comments...)

It is noteworthy that, in his effort to diagnose the national crisis, King Carol I does not look for external causes. He does not seek anti-Romanian conspiracies, geopolitical misfortunes, historical fatalities. The sore is, for him, internal and will never heal if we contemplate it mioritic, with the self-pity of a professional victim. It is also noteworthy that those whom the king fears the most are the "ultra-nationalists," always ready to judge him as "lacking love for the country." It is also noteworthy, in conclusion, that the sovereign's letter irritated public opinion. In the Chamber, Nicolae Blaremberg commented on it aggressively, proposing a motion that many supported. The newspaper Românul (obviously!) provocatively ranted on the topic of "the gentleman trampling the Constitution" and "squandering public wealth." (See Titu Maiorescu's account in "The Political History of Romania under the Reign of Carol I.") This type of reaction adds to the three explanations of the local failure mentioned above a fourth: lack of character, coupled with the demagoguery of virtue and patriotism.

Are we not, after all, still in the moment of "Carol I"? In 1871? And, alas, without Carol I, without Brătienii, without Titu Maiorescu. Who is to blame?

*

Let us also recall some of the "melancholies" of uncle Iancu (apud Dan C. Mihăilescu, I.L. Caragiale about the world, art and the Romanian nation, Humanitas, 1994):

"We, the Romanians, are a world in which, if not much is done or thought, we can at least be proud that there is a lot of discussion." (p. 80)

"Political parties, in the European sense of the word, that is, based on tradition, on old or new class interests and, therefore, on programs of principles and ideas, do not exist in Romania." (p. 95)

"In a country like ours, where when you assert something you are not asked for evidence, where public spirit has no serious element of control especially over the struggles that arise in the field of state science, bad faith is often a good foundation for building a beautiful reputation. To pass for the purest, you only need to slander others without right; to be seen as an honest and hardworking man, you only need to vilify and denounce the behavior of others, even if they have good behavior, especially in this case. If you want to deceive the world, said a philosopher, deceive it thickly, for subtlety does not catch you. It is much only to make a beautiful reputation, and in the end, you can without worries save yourself from the sins you once denounced on other good innocents." (p. 81)

"The elements of success: flattering all popular ideas and formulas, which anyone applauds automatically, or by imitation, such as: Romanian youth, Romanian economy, Romanian woman, Romanian peasant, Romanian worker, Romanian kingdom, etc. – in general, a hollow phrase, charlatanistic declamation, patriotic, national, Romanian barking – in a word, a whim..." (p. 96)

https://www.dilema.ro/situatiunea/1871-2019-traditii-romanesti-nemuritoare