Author: Tusa Enache

Communities and Traditions at Bulgarians and Romanians in Dobrogea. Part 4

Cultural Patterns and Intercultural Influences in Dobrogea 

             As far as the aspects of Romanian culture are concerned in Dobrogea there are many origial elements of political culture, some of them representing specific political realities. In 1880, the well-known folklorist Theodor T. Burada used to pick a great number  of popular poetry from Romanian villages in Dobrogea mentioning a series of customs and behaviour sspecific for this space.
             It is remarkable the ballad of Tudor Tudoraş for the beauty of pictures, but also for its political and historical aspects that it reflects. During the Ottoman domination, Romanians form Dobrogea considered school and church as institutions meant to reunite the community to serve its interests and the entire nations. School and church have been the most important factors to spread Romanian culture in Dobrogea. Written culture, bringing religious books from Muntenia, Moldavia or Transylvania since 17th century or even earlier, proves that Romanians in Dobrogea knew and used handwriting. These were the first forms of expressing a political culture or even subordination towards existent authority in one moment r another in Dobrogea. If we took into account the high rate of illiteracy, it would be hard to establish the realtioning from the political point of view of the Dobrogea space, due to the fact that there are very few documents attesting this aspect. Yet, we have much information about a kind of political domination and subordination upon ethnicities in Dobrogea exerted by The Ottoman Empire that ruled Dobrogea until 1878 Dobrogea. The awareness of political culture of Moslem community emerged religiously (relationing to Koran) and prescribed specific norms of submission of Moslem individuals but also of the members of other ethnicities.
             Concerning the rest of ethnicities living in Dobrogea, they were submitted to some imperative of administrative order (175) not being dominated by religious spirit that motivated the Moslem population. The differences of relationing of the ethnic groups to political reality was influenced by a complex phenomenon with the following peculiarities: knowledge, religion, art, morality, laws and specific customs of every community (176).
             Thus, in the case of Christian communities, political culture had others significations as there were big differences of social and identity perception. The Ottoman Empire started to populate Dobrogea with Turkish fishermen, ethnicity that started to shape an Islamic cultural model on Razelm lake area, but did not manage, the Turkish brought other colonists, among whom Arabians, Tatars, Gipsies and Laz (177). In this kind of relationship, the Gagauz seem to be close to the Laz (178). Even within this context churches could be built but without tours and bells, for instance, at Ostrov sau Aliman (179). Despite these aspects in Dobrogea, under Ottoman domination, this process of ottomanization never functioned completely because the members of Christian communities sacredly kept their own traditions. In the 19th century, there was an attempt of modernization of Dobrogea, the Ottoman domination introducing a set of reformations (once with Medgid-Abdul’s reign), organized Dobrogea in a margin country, turning weapons towards the enemy.   After 1855 the province wa strabsformed through an experiment of modernization based on the Occidental model: railways, European Commission of the Danube, the construction of the city, the law concerning Ottoman ground property, exactly in Europe’s trends of those times. We speak, today, about an interethnic model in Dobrogea, but this model was an Ottoman inheritance. The Romanian state never had a more loyal minor ethnicity politically speaking than the Turkish and the Tatars.
             It is significant the fact that after  1878, Turkish did not send any commissioner to defend the Moslem ethnicities rights in Dobrogea, completely  trusting Romanians.  More Romanian politicians like Mihail Kogălniceanu or prefect  Remus Opreanu have been decorated with high Turkish orders for their attitude towards Turkish and Tatars in Dobrogea, under Romanian domination. The law from 1880, referring to Dobrogea administration and to its framing in Romanian constitution and in the Romanian State, shows a complete freedom and understanding of ethnic problems, the law from 1882, concerning agrarian properties and an understanding of all ethnic minorities. At the same time all cults of the ethnicities living in Dobrogea have been treated with tolerance and understanding being explained the existence of religious places represeting protestant and catholic population, churches of Bulgarian and Armenian communities, mosques  and not in the last turn, Israelite synagogues of Spanish and Occidental worship (180). After sketching this setting of the situation and ethnic realities within Dobrogea space, it is necessary to remind the fact that it did not exist a political culture, as such. The political life is absent completely right after 1878 this fact being determined by a long Ottoman administration imposing a proper political order as well as the absence of any rights for the inhabitants from Dobrogea across 31 years until 1909.  The absence of political life wa sprobably motivated by the lower level of education of the inhabitants in Dobrogea but also the fear of the Romanian State that many members of communities could politically act against Romanian spirit (181).
             The most visible individuals from the political spectrum were the Romanians, then it followed the Turkish and the Tatars and then there came the Bulgarians as an element of ethnic configuration. Another element introduced in our thesis, with the help of some theorists’ analysis (182) concerning the modernization of the state, is the cultural-institutional (183) imbalance. Actually the cultural values of individuals from a collectivity generate certain rules creating institutions meant to guide their behaviour and to strenghten these values. Thus,these institutions offer an structures and coheret order of the society where this process happens. Nevertheless, people  create institutions relying upon cultural and ideological values (values including individuals’ ideals) towards which a certain political model directs (184).
The difference between natural cultural values, natural institutions and ideological cultural values and institions created by them representing an institutional cultural imbalance. The same thing happened in Dobrogea, too due the institutional system of the Ottoman Empire where there was a patriarchal political culture dominated by Koran that did not bring the wished changes. Or using Hofstede’s terminology, tyhe difference between wished values (natural) and values to wish (created) (185). Societies had the choice between natural order and afferent rules as well as rules imposed by created institutions. This choice appears form the cultural-institutional imbalance and elements of relationing of a model imitating to define another superior model. Within this process, there appears corruption, in all its forms, situation that is given by the choice of a society, of a group that guides according to the rules of  natural institutions and according to natural order, only within the institutional frame created upon a political model (186). The group dominated from a society will impose the institutional frame according own ideological preferences like it happened in the case of Ottoman administration in Dobrogea. The model applied by those administrating the province imposed nother political orientation than the occidental model so there was a major institutional and cultural imbalance in relation to other groups from the province that had to conform to the dominant model. This way appeared corruption within the system import manifested in the Romanian politics and by extrapolation, in Dobrogea (187). It was necessary the imposing of a mechanism to eliminate corruption but this aspect has not been defined as a political priority lacking any administrative consistency for the simple reason that there were barely any clerks administrating services and not for the monitorization or the discovery of the corrupted.
             It was relevant the case from Toxof village „around 1932 when the name of the locality changed from Toxof in  Grădina the mayor was a Tatar…illiterate, with the seal of his name at his belt, applying it, whenever it was the case, where the registrar, who was Romanian showed him,being the only one literate” (188). We can deduce, after half century (1877-1932) many of the Dobrogea villages had serious problems with literacy and with learning to read although there had been done serious efforts by the Romanian state in the Dobrogean education. When there is a dominant group in a political space, this is the one deciding the imposing of some institutions that must reflect the preferences of that dominant group. Institutions face the problem of choosing a set of values to characterize them. Yet, in a multicultural space like Dobrogea we can distinguish a dominant group that, finally, will extend control upon institutions but will represent a certain type. In the meantime, the groups in society adopts rules of natural institutions and turn corrupt and corruption is generalized in the whole society (189). It is difficult how the mechanism of eliminating corruption will act, at this moment. The imposing of a set of dominant rules and eliminating the phenomenon of corruption will reflect the cultural preferences in the general institutional frame that tries this imposition.
             Practically in Dobrogea, we have according to Samuel Huntington a clash of civilizations, after  1878 there was a superposition of two political systems and of administration. A first system, as I asserted across the paperwork, it was relating to a serious rergression level and belonged to the Ottoman Empire that did not manage to reform although there had been important efforts in this respect (190). The second system participating at this clash of civilizations is the European political model, modern and secularized, functioning relying upon a superior culture and a pronounced civical contribution. It is about the French model, extremely well organized as administrative representation but which, copied by principlaities, it has not been understood by the elite with no political experience, excepting  a restraint group (191). The same French model was taken by  Al. I. Cuza was applied by Prince Carol, in Dobrogea after 1878, that was totally unprepared for such a political organization duet o the degree of cultural and institutional backwardness. Huntington’s theory show sus levels of corruption for different countries and corruption is more extended „Corruption can be extended in some cultures, towards others, but in most countries it seems to be flourishing in stages of rapid modernization” (192). Huntington claims that civilizations (or cultures) are flexible, without certain periods of beginning or ending. Even though, he admitted that the fact that borders divinding civilizations are ambiguous, they are real and important. Everuthing relates to a certain type of societal culture marking an indetity space dominated, in its turn, by a religious culture.   Here, too, this succession of models within Balkan space is maintained by S. Huntington’ theory. So, the Moslem religious culture as well as philosophy of instituions relying upon Koran are removed being replaced by Orthodox Christian culture that was assuming a territory with powerful Moslem influences and customs (193). Civilizations are not political structures in Huntington’s vision but these could represent a big number of political systems like nations or states. 
             He  sees religion as an intrinsic element, a fundamental one for human culture features and as a result, of civilizations and uses religion as a variable to define some of the most prominent civilizations (194). We could assert that Romania geberally and Dobrogea particularly integrates in this type of analysis, through the fact that the state passed through a period of modernization of the entire society, but also the helplessness to impose some strict rules to eliminate or diminish institutional corruption.  This shows the failure of political enforcement institutions which, through a discriminatory action (according to the preferences of the dominant group in that moment, in society), selects corruption and the corrupted, mostly among opponents (195). In order to attack corruption, finding economical causes was not enough, it is necessary a deep analysis, until those cultural preferences generating the choice of  those natural values of the individual (preference for natural order). Here we can include, among natural values: customs, traditions, behaviour rules, practices etc. (196). In conclusion, the way we perceive identitary culture in Dobrogea under Romanian administration is influenced by the fact that there were no specific, clearly defined practices of some institutions illustrating political dimension in Dobrogea. Everything relates to the education level of social group and of the space the group is part of  and the specific culture of ethnic and social region. In societies admitting differenciated political rights of groups  we have the clear representation in the political community not only the quality of individuals and the virtue of belonging to a certain ethnic group. The role of the political space to preserve a differenciated kind of citizenship and to provide an equal treatment of members of every ethnic group.
             In Dobrogea, there was not any Romanian political culture right after 1878 due to the fact that there were not institutions promoting and consolidating a model of cultural relationing upon the political space. Thus, we reach a traditional approach anthropologically, due to existent elements of a society with respect to clearly defined traditions. 
             Political anthropology constructs social wholeness starting form social practices and situations that it observes (197) and relying upon political culture builds a certain goverment model. The anthropological demarche involves a reassessment process and presents a structural knowledge interest (198). Any of the social groups belonging to multiethnic space is interested to keep cultural identity as well as social mechanisms they apply in their group dynamics (199). As a result in Dobrogea, there were possible only certain behaviour types defining several reporting relationships towards political authority. We could give the Bulgarians as example with political model specific to Bulgarian Principality or German groups with a stringency and a type of superior administration for other identities in Dobrogea due to german education pragmatism. Romanians that had the influence of transhumance fellowmen strictly reported to cultural model specific to older Romanian customs. Political culture imposed in 1859 to the new state founded by  Al. I. Cuza by an Occidental model was completely unknown to most Romanians who were partially illiterate, so they could not represent a model for Romanians in Dobrogea. At the beginning, Bulgarians Did not have a type of political relationing due to the fact they  had reached Dobrogea relying upon some economical considerations and only later on intereste of political aspects. The purposes of researchers in political and social anthropology took into consideration the study on the power/government relation with elementary structures (in the first place, different degrees of kinship) (200). Political anthropology shows that all societies created politics, create institutions and at the same time all are exposed to history hardships (201).
             Here we can fiind the preoccupations for Romanian political philosophy ordering the state at the moment when this tries to shape a territory newly acquired like it is the case with Dobrogea after 1878. Sociological studies from the interwar times define regression aspects of Romanian  and the fact that, although it has been imported a developed political system for those times, institutional culture manifested quite less and in restraint groups (202). Discussing, this opinion, it would be useful, in our analysis for us to integrate other features of Romanian societies which, have been researched in interwar period among which we can remind  sociological studies of the philosopher and sociologist Constantin Rădulescu-Motru, Henri H.Stahl’s and Dimitrie Drăghicescu’s. Studies and methdology applied by  Rădulescu-Motru is necessary to understand identity and specificity of a precarious education people duet o the fact that political ideology and Romanian social culture were dominated by influences of Occidental models (203). More, Constantin Rădulescu-Motru’s writings, from interwar times, come to remind us the period that represented the Romanian political model itself resulted from the French political system. As C.R.Motru, spiritual features of a population are conditioned by three main factors: hereditary biological background of population, geographical environment and institutional features of population during its historical evolution (204). In the biological background we can include those genetic features regulating vegetative life functions of a population. In the geographical environment we can include climate, soil type, possibility to produce/grow, kind of borders. The last factor, claims Motru, is represented by institutional characters understanding those „manifestations belonging to the historical experience of population that, through tradition, constantly  repeated during a long period of time” (205). Customs, language, legal moral customs and certain national features can be found here. Peoples reaching a certain consistency of these institutional characters, says  C.R.Motru, are capable of national culture, peoples creating soul originality in the humankind history. (206). In conclusion, there is no strong institutional character, no own spiritual finality of the society. On the other hand, at the beginning of the 20th century in 1913 „The New Romanian Journal” underwent a survey in which European intellectuals were questioned with respect to Balkan events with the wars in the background (207). For sociologist Gustave le Bon, the Balkans include barbarian peoples (he gave examples like Bulgarians and other uncivilized peoples). In Bon’s opinion, the mentality of these peoples was that of „so little civilized hordes” (208). For  Kurt Bresysig, teacher at University of Berlin, only Romanians could distinguish among all Balkan groups because „they had the advantage to possess a personality as a nation” (209). Another famous Occidental intellectual Ernest Scillere blamed Balkan peoples for having a weak participation, almost inexistent, at the general culture of mankind „in the van of which there is Europe with all its Occidental nations” (210). An antropologist, Giuseppe Sergi, thought that he faced some illiterate people and advised Romanians, Bulgarians and all Balkans tos end their kids at school asserting: „Imitate Japanese people, who sent their kids in European and American schools to bring back together with science also European civilization. And they managed to go so high that their mintal products strive those of old Europe. You are at the gates of our schools, you can easily enter them and can, this way, become equal with Occidetal Europeans. Only this way, Balkan peoples could aspire to human ideal. I ask you to forgive me for my frankness” (211). Probably, these scholars answered to this survey and spoke from a perspective full of prejudices when discussing about Orient. Probably, these individuals’ opinions started with approximate notions about the representation of Balkan space and that is why, it was necessary some oen definitions of national specificity. 
             We are particularly interested, in the Romanians (or Bulgarians)  features of „the soul” under the incidence of socio-economical life as well as institutional-political life. C.R.Motru’s scientific effort, will materialize in the comparison of national Romanian features to Occidental peoples. Among them we can count: Romanian individualism, and the main feature is the Romanian’s independence towards any other factor that could influence in a way or another being well-known the Romaninas like „being on their own” (212). If the capitalist individualism leads to the advancement of a bourgeois class with initiative and courage, with a certain political profit purpose, in the case of Romanians things were different (213). Romanian individualism never involved an initiative spirit in the economical life or equidistance and independence concerning the space of political influence. Romanian village and Romanian peasant that certain authors worship as being the keeper of traditions and the cult of work are aut of question, when we speak about national individualism (214).
             An ethnologic study would contradict what we mentioned above, with respect to the fact that „the Romanian village community did its best to honour the sense of duty, of responsibility, respect towards work, hierarchy of values” (215). Despite the sense of duty and a respect towards work, Romanian peasant has not been motivated, duet o a strict hierarchy within rural community and due to  conformation „with the world next to him”, in everything that he was doing, to develop any form of individualism.  Romanian peasant lived rather all his life in a group whose norms he could not break and this type of relating manifested in villages colonized with Romanians in Dobrogea. The  Dobrogean space colonized with traditional Romanian elements acquired an aspect from a vast rural area with customs and traditions that Romanian peasant respect sacredly (216). The profound rural aspect of Dobrogea was also given by the fact that during the long Ottoman domination,  many settlements looked like some poor villages and the so-called urban centers had the aspect of some province boroughs (217). Somehow, the same thing can be said about the Romanian living in urban areas, but the townsman loses some of these traditions, unlike the peasant, that never abandons collective tradition. This is the reason, C.R.Motru says, why the Romanian is a gregarious soul, gregarism being an imposed state of situations and tradition (218). If  this gregarism helped us in the past, by mentioning the unity of language and church, it does not represent actuality in the interwar times. Living in groups, blindly obbeying to group requests, obliteration of real personality and the impossibility of expressing any individualism, all represent features that Romanians were accused of in the past (219). This thing was being done to fade personality exhibition or any other form of individualism. Another valid remark, quoting witnesses of foreign travellers in Romanian counties, about four centuries ago, ist hat Romanians lack any verticality and cannot maintain a clear objective of the their actions, this thing appearing because of the lack of being used to work „projecting the reality of the object before its real existence” (220). This way, it appears an aggressive ans spontaneous individualism, representing the desperate effort of the individual to become visible and to be recognized for his skills (221). The conclusion is that this kind of individualism, specific to Romanian society „lacks durable motivation, in his efforts, whose apparent active implication is immediately eliminated by the passive and meditative nature of the one that burns with a single glimpse, one unique performance” (222). Or how C.R.Motru would assert „Romanian individualism is a simple subjective reaction, an egocentrism, under the influence of innate biologic factor” (223). Although theree were not the premises to creating a multinational structure in Europe in the years '30 (only revengeful passions and expansion desires),  C.R.Motru senses to what this ideal of social solidarity refers to, for România. It is related to „harmonization of individual souls in a soul of entire society, to the rise of group interests upon purely personal ones” (224). Other shortcomings of Romanian people would be non-perseverance, lack of discipline, a disorganized order, lack of merchandising spirit, with positive features, too like hospitality, tolerance, spirit for justice and also religiosity (225). In in Occident, as a model, people turn passionate about their work and finally it turns into a calling and a purpose as such, Romanian stays optimistic, only improvising, according to the saying „leave it and things will solve somehow”. The cause of this non-perseverance is  „lack of will, materialized as an insufficient self-encouragement in moments of drowsiness, of carelessness” (226). A counter-example charaterizing the rural world even today, in certain regions of the country, is represented by  „the cult of working the land”. I think it is among the few examples of perseverance, even if agriculture is practiced with rudimental tools. We do not negate the existence of other exemples, but this is the most obvious. We could assert that not the labour cult stimulate them to work, but the inpoverishing situation (poverty). Constantin Rădulescu Motru sees non-perseverance in working appeared in 19th century, together with the renewal of Romanian state organization. 
             This way, the road is open for a multitude of politicians and jobs offered by the state (227). These people found a justification for their activity through imitation, from foreigners through an import model. Here too, there is identified another passion of Romanians, politics. Constantin Rădulescu-Motru shows what this passion means and that politics represents for Romanians a sort of „magic wand that can transform everything from the people’s happiness to personal happiness” that politics could bring (228). What we have seen mentioned above, it is the Romanian’s addiction of power, the fact that uncertainty hovers upon the future of the country politics and economics and Romanians did not have a coherent mechanism to reduce it, because there was not a general consensus concerning a national plan of development.
             The conclusion of  C. R. Motru is that  „Romanian, through its inherent nature, is tenacious when working, also patient, conservative, traditionalist, but this innate nature has been perverted by a wrong institutional life, imitating foreigners” (229). The non-perseverance of Romanian is manifest in his reduce education and in school abandonment specific to interwar times.  According to this model the analysis can extrapolate in the Dobrogea space where it is completely valid. The validity of political recipe that was taken to Dobrogea and brought specific institutional vices of Romanians in the reminded space (230). Gaps in the Romanian political system overlap over specific customs of the region and gave a corrupt administration that did not have, at least for the beginning, the institutional necessary force to reform the new  space acquired by Romanian State after 1878. One of the main Romanian politicians of the times,  Mihail Kogălniceanu, alleging historical, geographical and ethnographical motivatios, expressed the conviction that the acquisition of a new territory by Romania was to bring a new political model in Dobrogea (231). An important contribution to the study of national specificity is brought by Dimitrie Drăghicescu, concerning social determinism and its relation to the theory of national specificity (232). In this study I have tried to display some peculiarities of Romanian and Bulgarian ethnic communities that cohabited and influenced each other within the Dobrogea region. We think that this scientific demarche can represent a starting point for other studies preoccupied by interethnic and identity peculiarities.
(175) These necessities involved: obbeying political dogms that Ottoman laws prescribed; the paying of taxes, faith and submission towards the Sultan.
(176) Gilles FERREOL, Guy JUCQUOIS, op.cit., p.181.
(177) Ottomans translated the ancient names in Turkish, whether giving new Turkish-Tatars names or keeping the older one, anyway they changed the toponymy in Dobrogea in the detriment of the Romanian names, that remain however predominant.
(178) Ion NEICU, The Country between the Danube and the Black Sea, 1878- 1928.Thoughts for Future. Sketching of a monography of human geography at the semicentenary of Dobrogea annexations, Institute of Graphic Arts, Constantza, 1928, p.20.
(179) Ibidem. p. 22.
(180) Adrian RĂDULESCU, Ion BITOLEANU, op. cit., p.361.
(181) Georges G. ANGELESCO, Etude sur La Dobrogea au point de vue de L`organization des pouvoirs publics, Paris, Editeur Arthur Rousseau, 1907, p.156.
(182) It is the special contribution of the authors mentioned in the paperwork within anterior chapters that participated at the conference that made possible the issue of the paperwork Origin of Regression in East Europe coordinated by Daniel Chirot.
(183) Daniel CHIROT, Change in a Peripheric Society, Corint Publishing House,
(184) Ibidem
(185) Geert HOFSTEDE, Culture's Consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations, Second Edition, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, London- New Delhi, 2001, p.21.
(186) Ibidem, p. 26.
(187) For this aspect to revise Peter Gunst in Daniel CHIROT, Origins of Regression in East Europe, Corint Publishing House, București, 2004, chapter: Agrarian Systems of East and Central Europe, pp. 78-81.
(188) Argentina BĂRBULESCU, Rural settlements, in, Maria Magiru, op.cit., p. 24
(189) Ibidem
(190) For this issue to be revised, Stevan PAVLOWITCH, op.cit., mostly the subchapter , Tanzimat and Revolution in Empires, relevant for the way it analyses failures of the reformations meant to modernize Ottoman Empire, pp. 68-74.
(191) Vlad GEORGESCU, History of Romanian Political Ideas, (1369-1878) Munchen, 1987, p.150.
(192) Samuel HUNGTINGTON, Clash of Civilization and Reinstallation of World Order, translation by Radu Carp, Antet Publishing House, Bucureşti, 1998, p. 181.
(193) ELIADE Pompiliu, French Influence upon Public Spirit in Romania. Origins. Study upon Romanian Society Condition during Phanariot Reigns, București, 1982, p. 201.
(194) Samuel HUNGTINGTON, op. cit. , p.203.
(195) Tulcea County Department of National Archives, fond – Tulcea Prefecture, Administrative Section, files nr. 408/1928, file 3și 4, file 543/1930, page 47 și 592/ 1932, page 1.
(196) For this relevant aspect is Kenneth JOWITT’s study , The Sociocultural Bases of National Dependency in Peasant Countries, în, Kenneth Jowitt (editor) Social Change in Romania,1860-1940, Berkeley University, California, 1978, pp. 22-27.
(197) Georges BALANDIER, Political Anthropology , Amarcord Publishing House , Timișoara , 1994, p.14
(198) Claude LEVI-STRAUSS, Structural Anthropology, Political Publishing House, București, 1987, p. 76.
(199) Anton CARPINSCHI, op.cit. , p.37.
(200) Georges BALANDIER , op.cit., p.18.
(201) Ibidem, p.88.
(202) Dimitrie DRĂGHICESC From Romanian’s People Psychology: Introduction, Albatros Publishing House, Bucureşti, 1996, pp.81-84.
(203) Constantin RĂDULESCU-MOTRU, Romanian Culture and Politics, in, Political Writings, Nemira Publishing House, Bucureşti, 1998, pp. 71-75.
(204) Constantin RĂDULESCU-MOTRU, Psychology of Romanian People and Other Studies of Social Psychology, Paideia, Bucureşti, 1999, p.11
(205) Constantin RĂDULESCU-MOTRU, Political Writings , Nemira Publishing House, București, 1998, p.79.
(206) Ibidem, p.80.
(207) Ion BULEI, When the century is born..., Eminescu Publishing House, București,1990, p.13
(208) Ibidem.
(209) New Romanian Journal, year XIV, no. 11, from September, 1st, 1913.
(210) Ion BULEI, op.cit., p. 13.
(211) Ibidem.
(212) Constantin RĂDULESCU-MOTRU, Political Writings, p.151-152.
(213) Ștefan ZELETIN, Romanian Bourgeoisie:Origins and its Historical Role, București, National Culture Publishing House, 1925, p.62, where the author analysis the way in which Romanian bourgeois nucleus appeared.
(214) Anton GOLOPENȚIA, Mihail GEORGESCU, 60 Romanian Villages, București, Institute of Social Sciences, 1941, p.81; the same issue is approached by Traian HERSENI, Problems of Bucolic Sociology, București, Institute of Social Sciences,1941, p.88.
(215) Gheorghe IORDACHE, Romanian between Ideal and Compromise: Ethnological Essays, Dacia, Cluj-Napoca, 1995, p. 12.
(216) For this aspect and for the difficulties created by hardships that Romania had to pass through as far as integration in modern worlds concerning integration in modern European world duet o the existence of a serious peasant problems, Henry L. ROBERTS, Rumania. Political Problems of an Agrarian State, New Heaven, 1951.
(217) Stevan K. PAWLOVITCH, History of the Balkans -1804-1945, Polirom Publishing House, Iași, 2004, pp.89-91.
(218) Constantin RĂDULESCU-MOTRU, The Soul of Our Nation: strenghts and weakpoints, Anima, Bucureşti, 1990, p. 12
(219) Henri H. STAHL, Studies of Historical Sociology, București, Scientifical Publishing House, 1972, pp.71-75; for the same aspects one can revise Henri H. STAHL, Controversies of Romanian Social History, București, Scientifical Publishing House, 1969, pp.88-94.
(220) Mihaela CZOBOR-LUPP Ființa The Romanian Moral Being between Passions and Reason in Daniel BARBU, Romanians Nature, Nemira Publishing House, Bucureşti, 2004, pp.146-152.
(221) Ibidem, p.153.
(222) Ibidem, p.155.
(223) Constantin RĂDULESCU-MOTRU, Psychology of Romanian People…., p. 17
(224) Constantin RĂDULESCU-MOTRU, The Soul of Our Nation…, p. 11
(225) Constantin RĂDULESCU-MOTRU, Psychology of Romanian People…., pp. 24-27
(226) Gheorghe IORDACHE, op. cit., p. 21.
(227) In this respect, Motru claims that the elite of Romanian society used to learn a foreign language and improve their behaviour with foreign, European manners, Constantin RĂDULESCU-MOTRU, Romanian Culture and Politics, in, Political Writings , Nemira Publishing House, București, 1998, p. 83.
(228) Ibidem…, p. 91.
(229) Constantin RĂDULESCU-MOTRU, Psychology of Romanian People…., p. 20
(230) Adrian RĂDULESCU, Ion BITOLEANU, op.cit., p.372.
(231) Dumitru VITCU, Recovery and integration of Dobrogea in România in Mihail Kogălniceanu’s political vision, in Mihai LUPU (Coord.) Dobrogea – historical highlights , Europolis Publishing House, Constantza 2000, p.80.
(232) Dimirtrie DRĂGHICESCU, From Romanian People’s Psychology, 1907.

Comments: 0

To add a comment, you must log in with your account. You can do so by