,,Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University, Iaşi Faculty of History GRIGORE III ALEXANDRU GHICA – Abstract– COORDINATER: PH.D. CANDIDATE: PROF. IOAN CAPROŞU MIHAI-CRISTIAN AMĂRIUŢEI IAŞI, 2012 1 Foreword The 18th century is asserted in european historiography as ,,the great century”, placed under the sign of Reason and Enlightenment, the century which was starting under the seal of ,,the great crisis of conscience” (Paul Hazard) and finalized by crystalizing all the elements composing the paradigm of modernity: literature in the national language, replacement of the scholastic order, the reason of state, ,,the questioning of policy and religion, the history entry in the forefront of knowledge, the autonomy and devouring primacy of science, the progress of acculturation in traditional societies, a new religious sensibility”. We agree with Pierre Chaunu about the fact that the reality of the 18th century is the existence of two european regions, separated by a line connecting Hamburg to Trieste: ,,one the one hand, stability, experience, sustained, fast and always controlled development; on the other hand, movements, sometimes disorderly, of a fluid East, where the boundaries move easier”. However, let's note that the Principalities there were very close to this imaginary line, a position that involves a development in agreement with the directions on the continent, and while retaining enough elements of originality. However, for reasons of historical stages through which the Romanian people has gone to national construction, the 18th century, also called ,,Phanariot”, known the nuanced approaches in Romanian historiography and culture, from total rejection by the romantic generation to the nuances of critical historiography and the contemporary recovery efforts. We note that this period remains one roundabout of ,,chance”: the historical works about the 18th century were produced somewhat at random, out of a clearly program in historiography; the working tools are poorly organized (there are missing collections of special sources and when the sources are edited, they appear in various publications, often with limited circulation). The solution may be monographic treatment (by area of interest or figures of phanariots princes), allowing subsequent crystallization of a global vision, defining the Phanariot century, likely to describe its distinctive features as objective and its real profile in all aspects. But the fact remains that before any premature generalizations, damaging by their sterile character, the work of the historian of this period must be reflected in detailed studies – such as to provide critical explanations of events and evolutionary processes – as well as monographs aimed at outline an accurate picture of the moments and personalities of the time. This implies a familiarity with the subject, a critical exercise and perspective on it. 2 Consequently, the starting point in this direction is the evaluation of all aspects of the historiographical construction so far, compulsory exercise for understanding what has been done and what remains to be done further. From the methodological standpoint, we note from the outset that we opted for an approach equally diachronic and synchronic, on the one hand, and comparative, on the other. Thus, we consider the historical writing of the time, integrating narrative sources of the time in the historiography of the time, then stop at the romantic historiography of the 19th century, followed by the contributions of the critical school and new historical school reaction, and finally to analyze the successes and shortcomings of postwar Romanian historiography. Each of these chronological levels will insist on the directions of the historical thought at the time and its transpose into practice, i.e. to explore the historiographical context. Regarding the comparative method, we intend to use it inside a segment analyzed chronologically and in terms of developments and accumulations of each period. In analyzing the historiographical contributions concerning the personality of Grigore Ghica we have included several history textbooks written before World War II. Textbooks in the second half of the 19th century, with a character and a specific destination, do not align, at least not immediately, to the trends in the historiography regarding the characterizations of the Phanariot century. Textbooks generally remain dichotomous in evaluations, the 18th century is blamed in totality and in all it's aspects. Ghica is remarked by the authors of such books, almost exclusively, by the connection is made with Bukovina. Grigore III Alexandru Ghica is one of the controversial characters of the phanariot princes gallery, who wasn't studied before in a work especially devoted. The testimonies of his era and the historiographical subsequent references, more or less occasional, are contradictory (to the extent that ,,contradictory” is the word that seems to define the best references to phanariot century). This paper intends to explore some of the aspects of Grigore III Ghica's activity in what it could be called as a monograph. The form that we intend to give this paper is not a ,,classical” one, structured in chapters reserved to domestic policy, foreign policy and so on. The explanation consists in the fact that this model seems to us to be counterproductive for a period relatively little known in her intimate resorts, and the person that occupies this time one of the thrones of Principalities can be perceived correctly only by understanding his century, as more that the age is easily perceived knowing the prince, together with the other phanariots. Then phanariots, more than others, lend themselves to biographies, to linear ,,narrations” of facts and events in the hubbub that they are trying to ,,navigate”. On the other 3 hand, we believe that the age of Grigore Ghica attaches best to the european historiography tendency to rediscover biography (which is permanent marking the future actions, being nothing else but a way to problematize history) and the pure narration of events. ,,Return of the event” was proclaimed as a triumph of historical common sense in relation to the abstract forms that tended to alienate spirit and taking it away from reality. We could say that the revitalized interest in sources is also a consequence of abuse of prefabricated formulas (,,concepts réifiés” to Duroselle), beyond which no man can find himself that a concrete human being. Historical research involves two basic levels (1. reconstruction of the facts; 2. discovering causal links), so the proposed structure for work conforms to this binomial epistemology. ,,Eighteenth century historical works were produced at random by concerns more or less occasional of the interested historians, outside of a historiographical program, systematic and sustained”, while the historical sources concerning this period are rich and varied (new categories of sources appear, such as statistical sources – censuses, sămi (financial registers of treasury),whith a great wealth of information – newspapers, literature). Under the circumstances, we operate a first selection of edited documents. Thus, we did not consider those documents came out of the office of the prince pertaining to ordinary daily administration (reinforcement of landed property, voyvode's commands of all kinds, court decisions for small matters etc.), especially if the people benefiting from these types of acts and the facts presented do not have relevance in terms of the requirements of this research. If the documents have been known several editions, I preferred, most times, the last one, usually being the critical edition; the references to previous editions were made only in case of doubt concerning, for example, the dating or possible transcription errors. We conclude this presentation by showing intentions and personal motivation of our approach, namely that ,,each century has reason to be interesting, not secret to anyone that historians choose their subject according to their preferences and anxieties [...]”. Chapter I In this first chapter we propose to sketch the lines of force of what might be called ,,historical scene” on which Grigore III Alexandru Ghica has evolved, aiming to highlight the international framework, with its constant changes in the relations between major countries of the time, also the general characteristics of the society in the Principalities. This approach is 4 more necessary because in the ,,phanariot” century there are still plenty of issues on which researchers come not far from a consensus. If European history knows in the 18th century a turning phase, its separate physiognomy being beyond doubt, we could still ask if there is a ,,Romanian eighteenth- century” and what are its defining coordinates and its own individuality, and how it integrates to the general European developments of that time. The answer is not so easy to give, for various reasons. Obviously, we don't refer to the chronological aspect of the problem, but to the political, economic and social elements, or to the history of ideas etc., which, on the one hand, give a uniform profile of the century (we used to define this age, especially politically, as one who has seen a ,,phanariot regime”), on the other hand split this period between medieval and modern eras. From this perspective, how the ,,historian often needs to define his territory to be able to probe in depth, before pronounces judgemetns with general value”, the eighteenth century is indeed ,,a working sample