Between Orthodoxy & the Nation: Traditionalist Definitions Of

CEU eTD Collection Second Reader: Assistant Professor Constantin Constantin Iordachi Professor Assistant Reader: Second Supervisor: AssistantProfessor Balázs Trencsènyi BETWEEN ORTHODOXYANDBETWEEN NATION.TRADITIONALIST THE DEFINITIONS OF ROMANIANNESS DEFINITIONS OF ROMANIA IN INTERWAR ROMANIANNESS In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Central European University European Central History Department Ionu Budapest, Hungary Master of Arts Submitted to Submitted Ġ Florin Biliu 2007 By Ġă CEU eTD Collection dialogue between the promoters between dialogue promoters andthe of definitions these legacy in their Romanian culture. between “true” Romanianconditioned that its the direct Romanianness linkto with Orthodoxy distinguishingthus and “good” Romanian.that comprises traditional rural culture vortex and Orthodoxy cultural I integrative havean and a Crainic, radicalized Nichifor of one (several) One of Naetried Ionescu specificity. its in explaining to account for the lack of and (1890–1940). NaeIonescu traditionalistthe of side debateasdepictedthe in of works the Nichifor Crainic (1889–1972) on focus will thesis This Orthodoxy. institutional and spirituality Orthodox with connection in ethnicity Romanian the of character the of definition the regarding Romania interwar This paper goes between two definitions of Romanianness that introduce Orthodoxy that of definitions Romanianness between two goes This paper The aim of the present thesis is to provide an analysis of the cultural debates of Abstract CEU eTD Collection ILORPY...... 131 BIBLIOGRAPHY Finals ...... 126 Remarks 4. The debate after the debate. The Posteriority of the 1930s Generation...... 102 3. Nae Ionescu: the Radicalization of the Debate...... 75 2. Nichifor Crainic and 1. The Building of the Romanian Character. The cultural debate in ...... 16 modern Romania ...... 4 Introduction 4.4. Final Conclusions...... 123 4.3. Nichifor Crainic and Lucian Blaga after 1948. Glasul Patriei...... 117 4.2. The 1930s generation. Mircea Eliade and Emil Cioran facing the Iron Guard...... 106 ...... 102 4.1. Abstract ...... 100 3.6. Final remarks 3.5. After 1933. Nationalism and Orthodoxy in the Context ...... 96 of the Iron Guard 3.4. After 1926. The intermingle between Orthodoxy ...... 88 and nationalism 3.3. Ionescu’s Quest for Spirituality...... 85 3.2. The First Years...... 77 ...... 75 3.1. Abstract ...... 73 2.6. Final remarks 2.5. After 1934. Nichifor Crainic between Fascist ethnocracy and Anti–Semitism...... 65 Nation...... 53 2.4. 1926–1933.Nichifor Crainic between Senseof the Traditionthe and Idol of the ....46 2.3. 1921–1926.The Early forOrthodoxist Romanianness Quest of Nichifor Crainic 2.2...... 41 Gîndirea ...... 39 2.1. Abstract ..Fnlrmrs...... 35 1.5. Final remarks 1.4. Nationalism in garments. religious The autochtonist understanding of Romanianness nationalism in interwar Romania...... 25 and Liberalism ethnicity. Romanian debate” over “the great period: Theinterwar 1.3...... 18 other 1.2. Defining Romanianness in 19 the ...... 16 1.1. Abstract ...... 29 Gîndirea. Table ofContents Nationalism and Orthodoxism in interwar Romania...... 39 th century century fightingRomania. Europeanists each CEU eTD Collection creating the national identity my identity creating national bovarism” the (Sorin The“geo–cultural I construct paper. crises, the god of the Nation ruled over Eastern Europe, as well. itby influence economical seemed that of the 1930s,underthe the fasciststates: endof the international alliances. But these and politicalregional alliancesdifferent in involved and could states not put an revolutionary the endwith to the appeal partnership political of the Nation and the idol of the class, the countries from the Eastern Europe attempted to avoid a hand had a tremendous effect on Eastern facts. state of an led to explosive which eventually Europe: in the ideology conflict anti-Semite anexclusivistand for backbone werethe grounds nationalistic racial between the toprovide withjoined same nation aright–wingwhere hands of definition purpose: the the god of thefascism and anti-modernism avant-garde, artistic conservatorism, political revisionism, population insideborderlands themenacing theiror neighbors. In strong samethe time defineThe main nationhood. behindpolitical reasons were attitude this the inhomogeneous to project sponsored define engagedinanofficial regimes quest to political The nation. the buildingthe of national the instate East Central hadEurope as a principal consequence a anthropological debates shaped identity national in every country in the Afterregion. 1918 historical, cultural, The Europe. Eastern in themes political dominant most the of one This balancing is in situation also true case.AroundRomania’s this inconfrontation The rise of Soviet Russia on the one hand and fascist Italy and Germany on the other Between culturebetween and relationship 1940the 1920 and ethnicity constituted Introduction 4 CEU eTD Collection 1999). 4 interwar Romaniain already present trends and political intellectual led within Ionescu generation the by Nae with the emergingsynthesis tointegrate the which attempted camptraditionalistNichifor of Crainic and the Iron Guard. criticallyand to the contextin analyze place.which they took ZiguOrnea produced firstthe 2 Studies, 1978). Romania 1860–1940.Debate A on Development in a European Nation Romanian paradox” Alexandrescu, a Romanian scholar. Firstin an article lackingAnother scholar previousthe from text.inpublished the whosame was period Sorin a newmonograph into frameda historical traditionalist which thewhole camp context in character Romanian the debate regarding interwar on the express his insights to continued 3 roumaines offerts à Willem Noomen integrated Nichifor Crainic and Nae Ionescu, the main actors of in of abroader main the this thesis Nichifor and NaeIonescu, actors Crainic integrated monographbefield thefirst to interwarand which period intended on Romanian the in the movementfor traditionalist the framework comparative provided clearest book the 1 of group traditionalist regardingthe texts first Hitchins’s Keith of inwhich one volume first the that is context inthis It specialists. the interest the peripherybegin with Keith Hitchins. In the context of the debatesin over the role played by the centre on economic Iron the Guard inthemidhistoriographical overview 1930s.A issue concerning should this development,of movement fascist the of emergence the with connection its and it about aspects unclear still Romanian are there modernizers, and traditionalists the between nation the over debate hotly a was started to play a major andincluding religion. nation categories, of different permutations role and to the which is mainmetaphor describes the region in countries Antohi)the the of Zigu Ornea, Sorin Alexandrescu,„Junimea: discours politique et discours culturel” in I.P.Coulianu (ed.), Sorin Alexandrescu, KeithHitchins, “Gîndirea: Nationalism in aSpiritual Guise”Kenneth in Jowitt (ed.), The literature on the Romanan case is poor. Although in interwar Romanian there Romanian interwar in Although is poor. case Romanan the on literature The The Romanian Extreme Right. The Nineteen Thirties Paradoxul român 3 he had one of the first attempts to reconstruct the Romanian debates , Groningen,, 1983 [The [The Romanian Paradox] (Bucharest: Univers, 1998). 5 4 When ithas been published, Ornea’s , (Boulder: East EuropeanMonographs, 2 and then in a book, entitled “The entitled book, a in then and Gîndirea (Berkeley: Institute of International waspublished. SocialChange in Libra: Études 1 Hitchins CEU eTD Collection (Oxford: PergamonPress, 1991). 7 1918–1930 the Romanian discourse about national identity in an Orthodox key had two other reasons: other two had key Orthodox an in identity national about discourse Romanian the Writing about the traditionalist camp and, especially, about Nichifor Crainic she noticed that remained faithful to this sociological, anthropological approach of the Romanian interwar. 5 counted, aswell. political the factor Rickets Linscott Mac incultural context which influencesthe from intellectualscoming other and the relevanceof 6 1988). Romanian state came across after the unification of of 1918. unification came the after across Romanian state which the problems to different to cameasareaction nationalism factthat the account fieldthe whichinconcerningher book the emergence of nationalismRomanian tookinto in scholar first the was Livezeanu Irina particular. in nationalism Romanian of and general Eliade. Mircea of intellectual development inthe future of NaeIonescu’s thecapital presence underlined who exegetes first the He wasoneof before. asbelieved weremore complicated roots Jews. the on mainly exercised character exclusive its and Orthodoxism of ideology nationalist the between connection the itshowed because research for the present is important complementary whichsolution the problems Romania book to to struggle.LeonVolovici’s a replica was autochtonist The homogenization. achieve ethnic to wanting state a Romanian for problems became population Romanian the homogenize to administration systemsschooling, of dissimilar policiesappliedby its Romanian the through state diverse provinces, Romanian different between wealth of the distribution heterogeneous Leon Volovici, Leon Mac LinscottRicketts, Irina Livezeanu, 7 Although specialista reputed Romanian on Communism,Katherine Verdery The 1990s broughtabout asocio–historical of approach Romanianthe interwarin (New York: Cornell University Press, 1995) National Ideology & Antisemitism. TheCaseRomanian of Intellectuals 1930s in the Cultural Politics in Greater Romania. Regionalism, Nation Building, & Ethnic Struggle, Mircea Eliade.TheRomanian Roots 6 , I-II, (Boulder: East European Monographs, European East (Boulder: I-II, , 5 6 proved Eliade’s that Romanian Compact ethnic minorities, the , CEU eTD Collection 10 1999). fragmentary reference. fragmentary influenced byanintellectual which and Zigu made political context to Ornea a only much very was Eliade that demonstrated and him against laid fascism and anti–Semitism of Guard, but this revolution was not a Christian, Orthodox revolution. The latest relevant latest The revolution. Orthodox a Christian, not was revolution this but Guard, Eliadedoubt that wassupporting anationalistrevolution spiritual embodied inthe Iron The monograph of The monograph of Florin Crainic, remains a untackledtopic by books. these two ontology” of Nae Ionescuin its confessional aspect, or the Orthodoxist project of Nichifor continue chose in toenroll failed butRomanian “ethnic to the Iron the Guard, traditionalists of second generation the reason why The Crainic’s writings. to access andwith Ionescu of circle Nae from nationalist the coming intellectuals prestigious most 30s. They were the late in the movement the joined Guard, Iron the of ideology fascist the with loaded heavy Legionary movement?” or Emil Cioran, the author of “Transfiguration of Romania”, a bookPeople like likeMircea Eliade whotexts wrote “Why believedo I inthefinalvictory of the traditionalists ended up inbecoming just apuppet–tool for the Romanianmovement. fascist 9 Petreu. Marta 8 1920sandthe beginning the of 1930s. the France) handChurch andontheother that political re–enter the tried to gameinthe end of (namely, from Europe state toother its according civilization adjust hadto Latin people a as people Romanian that considered which a historical theory to hand areply one the on Marta Petreu, Marta Alexandra Laignel–Lavastine, Alexandra Florin In 2000 a wave of was feltinrevisionism historiography the on relatedthe topic. Other important contributions are authored by Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine Alexandra by authored are contributions important Other ğ urcanu, An Infamous Past. Emil Cioran and theRiseof Fascism in Romania 9 Both books show the way in which the nationalist project of the of project nationalist the which in way the show books Both Mircea Eliade. Le Prisonnier du l’Histoire 10 ğ  ğ Cioran, Eliade, Ionescu. L’oubli du fascisme urcanu’s contribution for my topic is that he proved without he proved is that mytopic for contribution urcanu’s urcanu on years accusations Eliade’s on Mircea easedupthe urcanu early 7 (Paris: Editions la Decouverte, 2003). Decouverte, la Editions (Paris: , (Paris: PUF, 2002). , (Chicago: Ivan. Dee, 8 and CEU eTD Collection in theRomanian culture] (Iassy: Polirom, 1999). 12 1934) 11 fundament Another ethnicity. Romanian of the character the about in debate Ionescu the a source of inspiration for the Romanian nationalists as especially served for Orthodoxy why Nichiforon light Crainicshed is to and Nae thesis my of aim The scholars. aforementioned with fascist Italy and Germany was compulsory. Romania in as sun the minority inwhichno had thesky” aplace and apolitical alliance “a beautiful of project a fascist embrace to traditionalists the determined characteristic had in noapplicability social theRomanian In interwarthe environment. this utopian weremeaninglessprojects becausethey nationalist these reality.surrounding Furthermore, any that nationalist had feature, namely, project a utopian no connection with the ethnical ontology. Starting from Romanian the revolution of Antohi 1848, Sorin suggests imaginalis” “Civitas by West. decadent ideal the uncorrupted for anational starving followers, Crainic’s of became categories main the Christian tradition the and Orthodoxy village, the and peasantry The state. Romanian the of realities social the an autochtonist perspective in thenation shouldwhich havebeen depicted by startingfrom offer Western alternative tried bybuilding build Crainic an rules. andBlaga to to according was definition this but definition, a national establishing towards interest certain wasa there different traditionalist of acomparison draws Vanhaelemeersch Philip journal, “Gîndirea” from currents intellectuals and establishes the originsfrom the them. Starting between differences the and connections see the debates to of this movement: after the by monograph,Vanhaelemeersch written Philip war, Sorin Antohi, Sorin Philip Vanhaelemeersch, Philip , (New, York: Columbia University Press,2006). The importance of the present topic has been partially emphasized by all the all by emphasized partially been has topic present the of importance The issue. this particular time to devoted scholar important that isAntohi another Sorin Civitas imaginalis.Istorie 12 is one of the most daring attempts to establish of Romanian is to mostattempts roots daring of the one the A generation “without Beliefs” and the Ideaof Experience in Romania (1927 - ú i utopie încultura român 8 11 , attempts a comparison between two the between acomparison , attempts ă [Civitas imaginalis. History and utopia CEU eTD Collection between Orthodoxy the between Orthodoxy nationalism 20 andthroughout in their attempts to shape a nationalist ideology. I consider this I consider ideology. shape anationalist to in attempts their Ionescu and especially CrainicNichifor wereused byboth fascistideologies and communist Orthodoxyconnected with Romanianness hadcareer which a wentafter 1940s.the Nae which view their of because them on fell choice the Also, definition. traditionalist the of aradicalization other the and debate the side of traditionalist the represented one because in grounded concept. this Orthodoxy was by used traditionalistthe intheirbuild camp attempt to anethnic definition doctrinal concepts and confessional spiritual, a with but usedinstitution, an as Church by Orthodox the Romanian the with Orthodox Church, I will attempt Afterperiod. stating thatOrthodoxy for NichiforCrainic and NaeIonescu issynonym not to see how the concept of in inter-war of the ethnicity concept of construction conceptual basis for Romanian the the the as served Orthodoxy inwhich way the show to intends paper my precisely, More nationalism Nichifor worksof NaeIonescuCrainic. expressedin and asstudied and the spirituality. and church Orthodox the of vocabulary the from borrowed Romanian of defining a secular just project not namely angle analysis, aninnovative of propose thesis ethnicity,of Orthodox spirituality andbut paper bringstradition new the historiographicalit inputto Infact, debate. can explain the relevance forrather the building of though allRomanian focusedthese scholars building on the Romanian conceptof ethnicity, present the ethnicity.a Even discussed. definitioninsufficiently been has Thenation Romanian the of presents rebirth the and Orthodoxy between connection the the subject, subjectthe abovementionedhistoriography the on of whichbeen has identity national and Orthodoxy between relationship the Although also Ionescu. Nae tookissue on the agenda of intothis paper is to answer what was Orthodoxy for Nichifor Crainicaccount and categories The main focus of my research is to explain the relationship between Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy between relationship the explain to is research my of focus main The The analysis will focus on Nae Ionescu and Nichifor Crainic Nichifor and Ionescu Nae on focus will analysis The 9 th century to be the most important most be the to century longue durée of intermingle of CEU eTD Collection and fascism (George L. Mosse, Alastair Hamilton, Richard Steigmann–Gall, James Gregor, Richard James Steigmann–Gall, Alastair L.Mosse, Hamilton, andfascism (George intellectuals between relation the with dealing studies fascist and Bauman) Zygmunt Herf, Jeffrey Woods, Roger intellectual history Stern, approaches from (Fritz useful. Different very be also will studies case two the between comparison intellectual an Subsequently, influence. and approaches Crainic’s andNichifor between Nae Ionescu’s and differences similarities the explore shall I case studies. the two of approach a comparative establish to close willattempt to scrutiny. thesis subjected beduly The history, will regarding European common (NaeIonescu), the critiqueperceptions of bitter Church” of “liberalization the the their architecture, in church art, ecclesiastical Byzantine in interest mutual Their ethnicity. imbued with references about of importance the spirituality inOrthodox Romanian defining two thinkers as expressed in their books, apersuasive context. speeches,creates letters andphilosopher. Furthermore, theirinsights upwith arebound ideathe of whichOrthodoxy articles. the of that and theologian the of Theirthat perspectives, different two from writingsshaped was ethnicity are Romanian about debate way in which the the show they because important are case studies two the thesis, present the For case. in Crainic’s absent was which method philosophical inwas interested developing anontological racialconcept of Romanian by ethnicity using a he Bucharest, University inmystory. atthe of actor andprofessor important Philosopher from of status the a cultural an language to ethnic ontology and this transformsan himinto his contribution was more consistent on this topic than Ionescu. conscious linkbetween spirituality Orthodox conceptand the of Romanian Also,ethnicity. a made and expertise theological had excellent because he of thesis the mainactor the for reason consideration into both taking andCrainic Nichifor Ichose Ionescu. Crainic as The research will use a one–fold methodology. I will analyze the discourse of the project nationalist traditionalist the metamorphosed Ionescu Nae hand, other the On 10 CEU eTD Collection On the one hand, any debate concerning the Romanian view about ethnicity was asserted in ethnicity was asserted view Romanian the concerning about On hand,any debate one the aforementioned intellectuals. Accordingly, the chapter is builtaround two main statements. using movementIron Guardgain started asimilar ideology to the support public as traditionalists wasvoicedmainly by Nae Ionescu and Crainic.Nichifor Also, from 1927 the the of The reaction paradigm. Western by inspired the policy an integrationist advocated minorities. ideology Liberal The wereethnicstate almost population official the 30%of formed newly the In emerge. to began ethnicity Romanian around of nature the of definition culture. in Romanian important more became Liberals the idea inanewdirection, developed Maiorescu’s andRãdulescu-Motru Iorga Constantin inspiredby After village. Romanian the 1900, fades Although away. debate Nicolae Romanianbelieved startingthe that shouldfrom beethnicity constructed a national culture andhisfollowers civilization.Western of Maiorescu urban undermined importance the the involved in the debate. More precisely, in the 19 in the precisely, More debate. the in involved particular with this Nichifor MaiorescuTitu (1840–1917) and reaching (1889 –1972), Crainic chapter intends background concerning of cultural Beginning idea the intellectual ethnicity.debates of the to provide the reader with a summary of the cultural trends civilization based on Western values, the Conservatives from the from Conservatives the values, Western on based civilization by spirituality.Orthodox Against Liberal the whoopponents attempted tobuild aRomanian define the Romanian nation in relation with villagethe and the traditional values described throughframework comparison with Balkan the incountries same the period. larger framework thanmuch a into Romanian intellectuals two the will integrate to be used etc.) Zeev Sternhell, the Romanian case. The case study will also be placed in a larger After 1918 when Greater Romania was formed, problems the the Romania concerning After was Greater 1918when The thesis has four chapters. The first describes the 19 the describes The first fourhas chapters. The thesis 11 th century the century th and inter-war historical and historical inter-war and Junimea Junimea society tried to society CEU eTD Collection Another aim showis to Romanianthat didtraditionalists not have alinear trajectory in their attempts toadjust his hisbecomespeech and wish to of anideologue Romanianthe regime. andKing is Carol. Theaim underline chapter the of to thepolitical behindCrainic’s agenda whichneutrality both hadauthoritarianpolitical expectations:with factors Iron Guard the benevolent maintain to wanted Crainic which through project nationalist a in corporatism Italian and anti-Semitism totalitarianism, nationalism, with associated was Orthodoxy position his Crainic 1934andNichifor of original after ethnocratic utopia inwhich attempt to show the se he become intended to the officialideologue of shiftsthis regimepaper will andthe present as reflected movements, political these with rapprochement his of Because project. his imagined inCrainic Crainic’s speech. ininfluenced Party Maniu Peasants Guard until Iron theway which and the 1933 Iuliu of The last stage looks at Orthodoxy and Romanianness butnow his political involvementwithboth Nationalthe the inassociate continued Thesecond Crainic’sand to work projects. stage pro–Western cosmopolitan Orthodoxy other as abase national against culture for developing an original a intellectual, return heproposed spiritualityto the of village Romanian the and its rural to apolitical firststage, asan nation. the approach andOrthodoxy the Romanian regarding In ethnicity.will I suggest that are there stagesthree ofin intellectual CrainicNichifor Christian the in be whichwasconsidered shapingtradition” mainelementthe to this a “disciplineabout the relationshipincarnated into between andOrthodoxy of ethnicity was village. Crainic’s bytheNichifor Romanian discourse traditional represented civilization Romanian nationality toreconstruct which Romanian the the attempted basis of on Gîndirea debates. cultural these pointbehind political agenda the try out On hand,Iwill to other the framework. a cultural The second chapter will be a scrutiny of the intellectuals gathered around the journal around gathered intellectuals the be will scrutiny of a The secondchapter [The Thought]. Nichifor Crainic was the main spokesmen of this intellectual circle intellectual this of spokesmen main the was Crainic Nichifor Thought]. [The 12 CEU eTD Collection I will divide the chapter into two parts. The first part will focus on the case of Nae Ionescu of will case the focus on part first The parts. into two thechapter I willdivide of Iuliu Maniu,an madeattack onKing Carol’s behalf. Party Peasants – Catholic Greek the against served asaweapon but innocent, politically not was ontology Ionescu’s ethnic istoshowthat chapter aimof this Another Crainic. Nichifor into anintellectual with dialogue radical was never constructed why definition Ionescu’s earn an ally will represent introduce politics thethat Guard will the Iron Romanian Church into and so to Orthodox the targets of my chapter.sacred the politicize to his attempt and Guard Iron the fascism of the to hisconversion after The aim Ionescu Nae of of career the thisFurther, citizen. chapter non–Orthodox every to Romanianness denied is to answer Romanians and“good” Greek–Catholic arethecore Romanians of ontology this which Orthodox “true” between and hisdistinction because weareRomanians” Orthodox andwe are weareOrthodox because like“We areRomanians Statements ethnic ontology. traditionalist between Romaniannessintoan andOrthodoxy definition a connection of the of radicalization his behind reasons Ionescu’s the utters and Orthodoxy on grounded ethnic ontology deals Ionescu’s with chapter of the part last Crainic. The with indialogue a reply a capital entered in never to willbe whyIonescu profiles question, to provided order intellectual Crainic NaeIonescu’s and Nichifor between comparison adirect Furthermore, meditations and even articles in playedOrthodoxy religious not did major for a Nae Ionescu role he although wrote that show to in order Ionescu of Nae articles andthe interests intellectual present the beforefirstin 1930,Iwill part, Inthe parts. two will bestructured 1940). Thechapter another. to from a stage floated be systematic most the to seems viewwhich Crainic’s even ideology and nationalist The last chapter will survey the legacies of these two different projects. Accordingly, The third chapter deals with the other protagonist of the story, Nae Ionescu (1888– of story, NaeIonescu protagonist other dealswith The the the chapter third Gîndirea , in the magazine where Crainic used to publish.magazinein usedto where Crainic the , 13 CEU eTD Collection for being a sympathizer of the Iron Guard, a now a now from agingGuard, for Crainic Iron of beingasympathizer the ethnicity. beingsentencedby again,despite Once toyears Communists the ofimprisonment werereadagain frameda newsources RomanianDifferentand the understanding of released from prison. During the 1960s interwarthe nationalistideology was revived. preserve its feature. confessional failed to ontology ethnic NaeIonescu’s a simple why question, istoreply to subchapter this of aim The denominations. Christian other against than rather Jews, the against mainly Romanian the of people,mission messianic the fulfill to revolution spiritual this aRomanian of necessity revolution was a non about the and (1907–1986), Emil Cioran Noica (1909–1987)wrote (1911–1995) Constantin – Orthodox revolution late 1930s joinIron Guard. Mircea Eliade him generation the the inthewill from which to and thispass will ontology was ethnic aun–Orthodox of form directed the under legacy his that argue will I and influence of the Communist ideology and the hostile historical historical ideology context. hostile the and of Communist influence the although maintainedfeatures of changedinterwar period, underthe some again the narrative. The aim of this subchapter is pointto out that Crainic’s narrative from this period, traditionalist of discourse produce changed interwarthe period aCommunist to nationalist will also bring into discussion some of Lucian Blaga’s texts in order to show how the I approach, Inacomparative inRomania. Communism for anationalist in its quest regime free. sources Until of wasone 1990s, Crainic unquoted of primary the Ceausescu’s the heritage, itNichiforwas fascist– Crainic unfortunate was usedbecause unlikeNaeIonescu’s ideology of interwar the Probably,speech. nationalist Crainic’s Nichifor fell preference on Party Communist the why issue acontroversial is still It ideology. Communist an official building project on framing nation, atraditionalist for of aresurgence the spokesperson the In the second subchapter I will deal with Crainic’s career after 1962 when he was 14 Glasul Patriei became CEU eTD Collection nationalism mixed with isreligion thelast instance of my undertaking.academic named flagellum this of mutations the accurately Diagnosing contexts. political different adaptation astumblingof to capacity despite history organic continuity wasestablished, an connectioninside with Accordingly, Orthodoxy.Romanian Romanian 20 the in a strong period interwar ideology the of nationalist the cultivated andothers Codrescu again into practice. Nevertheless, different Romanian thinkers and theologians like R and Romanian theologians thinkers different practice. intoagain Nevertheless, bid itsfor total society.control Afterover the Romanian 1990,this mechanism was put Orthodoxy Also, joined more hands tosustain and nationalism once in a totalitarian regime regime. Ceausescu’s of years the over all mutations its find to only Romania Communist of It seems the interwar nationalism managed to cross the hard winter of the first years first the of winter thehard cross managed to nationalism seems interwar the It 15 th century ă zvan CEU eTD Collection Century Russia”, 13 Slavophil movement Romanian startedfor 1859 the aRomanian ethnicityunification, and being of aquest quality understanding of After identity. ethnical own their to of aware became principalities animateRomanian the dominations, the spirits puzzling from cultural events history. Romanian the After four centuries of Ottoman of the Romanian intellectuals. As the Russian interwar stage of crystallization of the Romanian ethnic definition canon there iscertain canonthere definition ethnic of Romanian the of crystallization stage interwar by improvising/ inventing a cultural identity of their own people. Slavophil the19 movement, Romanian startedforunification, aRomanian aquest understanding being of ethnicity and the quality of to animateAfter ethnicalidentity. the 1859 Romanianbecamethe their own awareof principalities the spiritspuzzling cultural in events history.Romanian After four centuries of Ottoman dominations, of the Romanian adventure by identity acultural improvising of ownpeople.their intellectuals. As the Russian Please see Andrezj Walicki, “Russian Social Thought: An Introduction to the Intellectual History of 19 1. The Building of the Romanian Character. The cultural The cultural debate on the Romanian ethnicity was one of the most interesting and interesting most the of one was ethnicity Romanian the on debate cultural The 1.1. Abstract The present chapter has two aims. First Iwill show that between the 19 and interesting most the of one was ethnicity Romanian the on debate cultural The Russian Review Russian 13 , the 19 , the debate inmodernRomania , Vol. 36, No. 1, 1977, p. 1-20. th century century intellectualsRomanian began their ethnical adventure th century Romanian intellectuals began their ethnical 16 th century and th CEU eTD Collection to come into life, political exercised that particular agebya backinto the fascination the need Crainic expressed that Church the was a of the Thefact of theologian, Romanianness. answers on why Orthodoxy began to play such a major role for Nichifor Crainic’s definition Nichifor Crainic andhis NaeIonescu.counterpart I will Atthis point some suggest possible and the traditionalists, between of Westernizers the debate the After framework shaping the of reunification 1918. this part of the chapter will focus on the traditionalists, mainly on definition over Romanian ethnicity from 19 the agenda. backed political always regarding byastrong cultural were Romanian ethnicity debates orientations autochtonistthe inRomanian cultureout that and Iwill always point politics. economic the Liberal the Romanian identity definition development, both troubled andof and acultural with Connected character. Romanian the regarding Romania modern in debate aconstant was there show that isto chapter the of Another aim period. interwar importancethe of ‘organicity’ wasstressed byboth Junimiststhe and traditionalistsin the inthe 19 of Junimists the with efforts the connected was directly from interwar character its the and ethnicity regarding Romanian the continuity. debate The beginning of 20 the andby Nicolae the reached apeakat Iorga of wascontinued andhisfollowers Maiorescu legacy meantbe positivist defineto Romanian. The national Romanian what andto culture economical andhis Maiorescu economical backwardness. institutions and was cultural trends alleviate thesolution Romanianto cultural and importing the believed whotheirLiberal generation towards different that 1848 of contempt build upaRomanian culture startingfrom socialthe realities Romanianthe villageof and The second part of my chapter investigates the traditionalist camp after the after camp the traditionalist investigates my of chapter part The second The chapter will be divided in two parts. In the first part I will deal with the early th century. 17 Junimea th century. The efforts of the Junimists to circle attempted first to create a th century. The emphasis on CEU eTD Collection (Bucharest: Humanitas, 1994), p. 68. Romanian cultural Romanian cultural canon; although Bãlcescu Nicolae in“Romînii suptMihai Voievod ethnicity Romanian the on definea perspective to whowanted intellectuals wasalso bythe Romanian speculated mainpeople the statements ordinary the for enlightenment and nationality on highlight its with atmosphere Romantic its own in order to sustainBalkans: after several foreign itcenturies defineof had oppression, to an ethnic identity of its claims for political legitimacy. Nevertheless, the post 1848 14 nationalist environment with other historical contexts and definitions of the nation. Romanian the of andconnections implications understand the better in to framework order Romanian ethnicity. implication of Church the and of differentpolitical agendas in regarding debate the possible the out point also will I nationalists. interwar the and Junimists the between link missing the itbecauserepresented important became village the villages.Secondly, from coming traditionalists major the all almost be questioned, also will village the of importance asexpressed link culture the between in The and Romanian the thevillages. Romanianess as of Orthodoxy emergence tothe contributed factors all these of archaism, stream certain Please see, Keith Hitchins, Keith see, Please After 1856, young Romania faced the terrible fate of any youthful state in youthful state fate of any the faced terribleyoung the After Romania 1856, other each fighting Europeanists 1.2. Defining Romanianness in the 19 the in Romanianness Defining 1.2. largerintoa whole putthe debate be to provided will The preliminary conclusions Rumania 1866 – 1947 (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1994); Romanian translation 18 14 . No less important was the birth of a th century Romania. century CEU eTD Collection Sign ofSign Modernity] (Bucharest: Enciclopedic român 17 Hegel în cultura român Romanticism and the Critic Romanian Culture] in Junimea in particular, please see see please particular, in Junimea 16 Eminescu, 1978) but also Keith Hitchins, history. Historically, the most importanthistory. by source Historically, quoted most the the in path was be Romanian inthe a foreigninterference to considered imports on these of any society development for“organic” agradual, Spencer whoadvocated by Herbert influenced circle were multiple. From intellectual sources of critique bitter this against from1848’s cultural imports Westthe are a sociologicalgenuine Romanianand Rather,they from discover West. the andcivilization a customs tried to import of different philosophical culture and perspective, to build anti–liberal. and was ratherconservative movement the the Romaniantheexplained. especially Created by students whostudied in intellectual Germany, the profile of representatives view about ethnicity of this on it. The the impact of the understand properly to order In Romanianess. of concept anintellectual create attempting to Romanian culture forthe ofEurope, corners from different returning students bysome Romanian Created 15 all, of First focus. build their national canon oncultural grounds. absence of Romaniana glorious history, Romanian 1866the after intellectuals started to Viteazu” tried to idealize the Romanian past because the present was too dark, in the For Herbert Spencer and Junimea, please see Alexandru Zub, Alexandru see please Junimea, and Spencer Herbert For For the impact of the German influenced elites on the Romanian intellectual life in general and about and general in life intellectual Romanian the on elites influenced German of the impact the For For Junimea, please see Zigu Ornea, Zigu see please Junimea, For ă sub semnul modernit Against 1848liberal the the spirit, The most important movementimportant The most thecanonwas whichcreated Junimea Junimea ă [Hegel’s influence inRomanian culture] (Bucharest: Editura Casei Junimea ăĠ ii [From Critic History to Criticism. The Romanian Historiography under the ù 17 movement there are two aspects on which the analysis must analysis the which on aspects two are there movement society represented the first conscious intellectual movement intellectual conscious first the represented society tefan Zeletin, “Romantismul german german “Romantismul Zeletin, tefan . Accordingly, any development of the Romanian society based had aspecific intellectual background whichneeds be to Junimea Rumania ă , 2002), p. 76. ú i junimismul Minerva , p. 68–99. , p. Junimea 19 , 1/3, 1929, p.63 – 83; Tudor Vianu, movement was preoccupied not with the with not preoccupied was movement [Junimea and the Junimism] (Bucharest: De la istorie critic 16 ú i cultura critic i cultura Junimea ă la criticism. Istoriografia Junimea ă român intellectual was intellectual ù coalelor, 1933). ă ” [The German [The ” from Ia Influen Ġ a lui ú i 15 . CEU eTD Collection [Critical Essays] (Bucharest: Minerva, 1978). 20 19 implications] (Ia he says: 18 direc “În contra texts his renowned Inone of for them. prepared not were people Romanian the Romanianthe Heused spirit. callto “forms withoutthem content” because,in his opinion, Sonderweg Maiorescu aninterestingdeveloped theory inof Romanian the path history (a critical asimportsdepicted without aspecific social backgroundand cultural address institutions towardsRomania’sliberal used by a critique to thinkers Junimistthe reality was with present the disagreement Schopenhauer’s view overreality; pessimistic important Another source wasSchopenhauer andhis states. influence onthe European historian, English the Buckle, Henry in Romanian figureintellectual history.culture and Theleading of the Titu Maiorescu, “În contra direc contra “În Maiorescu, Titu Keith Hitchins, For Buckle, please see Alexandru Zub, Alexandru see please Buckle, For Ġ iunii iunii de ast These sources were used especially by wereused tocriticizemomentTheseespecially the 1848 Maiorescu sources Titu Theatre and we have despised and falsified all these forms of culture. before we had asinglevaluable Arts; foundedwe have play,dramatic theRomanianNational of School the created have we painter, talented a even had we before Music; of Conservatoire the create wehave artists, required had we even Before ideas. Academy’s the falsified we and Academic Society… the Romanian created societies.atheneesRomanian built have we bench, school’s the over burst to a culture had we Before and literary andwehave reviews falsified andwedespisedjournalism Before as such. cultural we hadlonging for science, who needs different readings, we created political journalseven and societiesBefore we had a political party which has need for an a organ of its own and a singlepublic and shadow we have ofdespised scientific the spirit activity of the weliterary have ?)by suggesting that all political the cultural and afterimports 1848werealien to ú i: Junimea, 1976), p. 34. Rumania, ă zi a culturei române” [Against today’s direction in the Romanian culture] in Romanian the today’s direction zi [Against române” a culturei p.70. Ġ iunii de ast de iunii Junimea: Implica 18 ă who criticized firmly the French Revolution and its and Revolution French the firmly criticized who zi a culturei române”, p. 133-134 in Titu Maiorescu, Titu in 133-134 p. române”, culturei zi a 20 Ġ ii istoriografice [Junimea: Historiographical 19 . Junimea 20 movement, Critice I CEU eTD Collection Tauris Academic Studies, 2006) p.135 –142; 176 – 195. The Making of Modern Romanian Culture.Literacy and the Development ofa National Identity 21 enough good for giving birth a nationalto literature and this had been already seen by the toproduceorder an from literature. Translation languageoriginal another longer no was in literature writing of principles esthetic the only borrowed Maiorescu realities, Romanian to concepts adapting theoretical these but literature, western and aesthetics from German an Inspiring writing literature. for Maiorescu himself proposed esthetic alternative original forerunners,hand,made. despite his1840’sLiberal are twostatements Ontheone to be see Romania. To wayinthe intended which Maiorescu build to theRomanian culture there from an autochtonist perspective which had to take into account the social realities of Heliade–R Ioan build culture. to aRomanian attempted Adrianople Peacetreaty from (1829) the after based on imports, but also Simion B Simion also but imports, on based 5ă and behind such abold political tradition attempt Heliade– wasmissing.Therefore, cultural the environments, political Romanian in the values political liberal implement to liberals andwanted wereall convinced they although dilemma: a delicate They werefacing does not matter how bad by Romanian literature simply literarytranslating different from works literature. “Itforeign you write, just write!” was the slogan of this intellectual circle. West. and,in view Maiorescu’s they responsible irrationalthe were for imports from cultural the Romanianintellectuals society. These involved in were from revolutionary the 1848 events the backwardness of surpass political in to Westthe from order the political trends For 1848 generation in the Romanian culture and the critique of Maiorescu, please see Alex Drace–Francis, Alex see please ofMaiorescu, critique the and culture Romanian the in generation 1848 For dulescu andhisfollowers triedtoborrow institutionsthe and the main cultural and 21 Maiorescu’s critique is aimed against a direction of isa direction of Maiorescu’s which Romanian critique aimedagainst culture the In order tochallengeIn order Heliade–R ă dulescu and his intellectual andhisintellectual dulescu circle todevelop intended this canon from a shaping ă rnu ă dulescu’s initiative for building initiative aRomanian fordulescu’s canon Ġ iu’s school of Latinists, Maiorescu chose to start to chose Maiorescu Latinists, of school iu’s 21 (London: CEU eTD Collection român 26 25 24 and ideal. the material conditions: the have must this two beimportant, for certain to poetry that stressed writing Forexample,literature. writing when pieceshespoke of about original poetry, he for guide a theoretical generation his offered who critic as aliterary act to he started and understandMaiorescu first wasthe needfor to the aRomanian literature of understanding folklore and to excavate the vestiges of the Romanian historical excavate thevestigesfolklore and of historical past. to Romanian the embodied inhisdirect encouragement theRomanian towards todiscoverwriters Romanian Romanticthe tradition represented by Bolintineanu andAlecsandri. Thiscompromise was against Romantic values offeeling andthehistorical Maiorescu cut hadpast, adeal to with toestablishreason and wanted based on anewaesthetics was apositivist thinker who poetry. out Orneapointed AsZigu poet has to achieve an original poetry: literary use comparison. correct of andthe personifications use linguisticenrich to and style, the to use poetical in message, epithets order to with two requirements: to choose the less abstract words in order to convey the poetic 23 Beginnings of Romanianthe Novel] (Bucharest: Minerva, 1962), p. 12–41. 22 literar “Dacia inthe articles 1848 generation Please see Keith Hitchins, Keith see Please Zigu Ornea, Titu Maiorescu, “Poezia român “Poezia Maiorescu, Titu Titu Maiorescu, “Poezia român “Poezia Maiorescu, Titu Vîrgolici, Teodor see please articles of these impact the For But writing an original poetry did not mean that Junimist poets were writing a Romanian fast growing afinal development towards happy towards acatastrophe.”end or andhighlight anew view of thingsthe under impression the feelingof andpassion.O 3. least at a or ideas.2.Anexaggeration the poetical imagination inof 1. Agreatspeed The ideal condition poetry the of be reducedtothreemaincan which to principles the ă sub semnul modernit Junimea 23 For the material condition of the poetry to be perfect, the poet had to comply , p. 26. Rumania ăĠ ii , p.117. ă ă . Cercetare critic . Cercetare . Cercetare critic . Cercetare , p. 257 & Alexandru Zub, 25 , Maiorescu was playing a dangerous game: he, Maiorescu wasplaying although adangerous ă ă ” in ” [Romanian poetry. Critical survey] in survey] Critical poetry. ” [Romanian ă 22 ” [Literary magazine. Dacia] ” [Literary Critice I Începuturile romanului românesc De la istorie critic , p.39. ă la criticism. Istoriografia 22 26 Critice I In this context, Accordingly, [The 24 , p. 17. CEU eTD Collection 30 politique dans la Roumaniemoderne. Le Stigmate etl’utopie 29 was praised even by was even praised Maiorescu. literature Romanian ancient and folklore in interest his poet, Romantic last the as labeled was although Eminescu was heterogeneous: Maiorescu’s project that canunderstand one literare” [Literary talks], the journal of journal the talks], [Literary literare” were (1834-1895) Odobescu only few of whopublishstarted writers the to in“Convorbiri Maiorescu’s buildattempt to theRomanianliterary canon is politicalthe background behind thenationalideal. for forceprimary of struggle the and reason the discovered has Revolution, French the of because roots his lost who man a depicted from taken character a utopia pustiu”Asgenius]. G.C [Empty place the have from bravestattempt The where they of novel“Geniu left. wasthe Eminescu livesyouth forgetting spend indecadenceandso–called erudition theirwho to preferred “Ai no nation. In Romanian the of decadence andagainstthe category asa parasite were depicted who foreigners against ethnicity Romanian the of spokesman the became he in which I] 28 27 andwriters Mihai poets. (1850–1889),Ion Eminescu Creang toflourish.” national character the will allow principles of aesthetic the application impartial betrue: only be to the said Infact reverse could the aesthetic judgment. determining criterion principle the at this stage, least for him,at represent not does character norms: national be againstEuropeans for judged Maiorescu to “artand were learning out, bases. AsAlex Drace–Francis on literature Maiorescu’s pointed theoretical Romanian Junimea For this utopic characterof Eminescu’s hero, please see Sorin Antohi, Zigu Ornea, Alex Francis–Drace, Alex Opera lui Mihai Eminescu 1 Eminescu Mihai lui Opera Maiorescu tried to create the Romanian cultural canon by directly different promoting bydirectly canon cultural Romanian create the to tried Maiorescu ú tri tineri la înva Paris tri tineri was found as a literary circle which had as an intricate task to promote an authentic Junimea The Making of Modern Romanian Culture ú i junimismul , (Bucharest: Minerva, 1976), p. 252–256. Ġă 29 , p. 479. 28 , Toma Nour is a complex character in which Eminescu in which character complex is a Nour Toma , ”, Eminescu addressed a sharp critique to the Romanian the to critique asharp addressed ”, Eminescu The most interesting of his poetries is hispoetries of interesting most The ă linescu used to say, the hero of say,novel, linescu although heroof a the this to used Junimea 23 . For example, when it comes to Eminescu, to comes it when example, For . , (Paris:, L’Harmattan, 1999), p. 111. , p. 178. Imaginaire culturel et réalité 30 ă (d. in Alexandru (d. 1889), What has to be added to Scrisoarea I Scrisoarea 27 [Letter CEU eTD Collection roumaines offerts à Willem Noomen 34 33 32 and Conservatorism. Essay on Eminescu’s political Imaginary] (Bucharest: Nemira, 2000), p.17 – 53. their own view” own their political imports, the Liberals considered that an adequate Romanian culture behind the Romanian an culture adequate that considered Liberals the imports, political and cultural Western the with discontented were they Although politics. in as continuity understandand use in a Romanian culture (arural tomaintainone) order in culture thesame 31 idea. famous Rousseau’s Jean–Jacques following state” “contractual a Liberal wasagainst Eminescu Party, Conservative of Romanian the leaders Eminescu andMaiorescu. for inspiration of and sources theywerethe Europe across party all of Conservative moreEdmund nothing than or Burkewere Buckles, Spencer,Tönnies mainspokesmen the canon. Conservative the canon, political strong a behind has canon literary Romanian Eminescu inhisit.has dedicatedto showed AsIoan monograph accurately Stanomir companions disagree to seems Drace–Francis Alex Although canon. political a by directly with is conditioned canon this political influence Revolution. French overRomanian Liberalthe Party which was depicted nationalistas the incarnation of the disruptive spiritincarnation of enemy: dangerous most the of 1848 spirit which the was considered their the project againstthe andEminescu byMaiorescu represented conservatives Romanian the critique of of acid an of favor in reason more Maiorescuone is This state. Romanian young the from realities social and his which developitself for hadfrom a“natural” oran“organic”stood present state to the Sorin Alexandrescu,„Junimea: discours politique et discours culturel” in I.P.Coulianu (ed.), Alex Drace–Francis, Alex Keith Hitchins, IoanStanomir, As Maiorescu, who together with Petre Carp became after 1866 one of the young This is one of the most interesting particularities of cultural of case:the Romanian the is particularities most interesting This one of the 33 , the 19 , the Rumania Reac 34 Ġ The Making of Modern Romanian Culture The Conservatives built their own ethnical canon by starting to starting by canon ethnical own their built Conservatives The iune th , p. 263. century ú i conservatorism. Eseuasupra imaginarului politic eminescian , Groningen,, 1983,p.48. Junimists “acted both “actedboth and politically impose culturally to 24 , p. 180. 32 The Romanian TheRomanian conservatives [Reactionarism Libra: Études 31 CEU eTD Collection 1998). and Stephenand Fischer–Gala 36 York: Cornell University Press,1995), p.29–48. Cultural Politics in Greater Romania. Regionalism,Nation Building, & Ethnic Struggle, 1918 – 1930 was notRomanian. its own country given the argue whetherspeakRomanianit in about was possible wascontested this to ethnicity when fact that in the new provincesOne can situation. thiswith come complicated had terms State to to andthe etc.) Gypsies, the economical and Ukrainians, ethnic Jews, (Hungarians, by Germans, minorities was represented different cultural elite 35 laws introduced concerning administration Certain homogeneous were public education and from minorities Romanianize new ethnic the the centralizedand to provinces. mechanism all atencouraging. were not that realities social Romanianess: the price Romania had payto was high and the new state had to confront with fulfillmentsense of Romanian to the elites. Butitnationalistalso questioned the senseof unification with Romanianthe inprovinces the Russian and Austrian empires broughta different. create itwere to they understood Although the goal of the parties two was the same, the origins and the means through which society. Romanian of the backwardness political and social the overlap to in order West the from institutionsby borrowing and concepts must behelped concept of ethnicity Romanian Please see Stephen Fischer–Gala For the historical context after 1918, please see Keith Hitchins, Keith see please 1918, after context historical the For The Romanian State engagedin The Romanian State of a a process of unification into newprovinces the Romania.to changeinwasthan The the thingsGreater After started what 1918, Romania interwar in andnationalism Liberalism ethnicity. overRomanian debate” great “the period: interwar 1.3. The 36 Ġ i (eds.), Romania. AHistorical Perspective Ġ i „The interwar period: Greater Romania”, p.293–295 in Dinu C. Giurescu 25 35 Around 30 % of Around 30%of Romanianthe population Rumania , (Boulder: East European Monographs, , p.320–332 and Irina Livezeanu, , (New CEU eTD Collection 1934) 39 38 37 financed thestate Because sphere. historical and inthecultural consequences direct andState the main parties political enflamed adifferentnationalist which discourse had building was process afinished considered business after triumph the 1918. However, the of ethnical the perspective, a political From historical. and cultural political, dimensions: least fundamental at three building and at understanding of ethnic renegotiation the constant Romaniannessthe was defined onlyincultural terms, ininterwar Romania isa there ethnicity. encouragea definition of Romanian the the building wasable of Romanian state to began canon. a newethnical cultural wantedto state which Romanian the waythrough accessible most the archaeology was out, has pointed Vanhaelemeersch As Philip excavations. archaeological of this result directthe named“Getika” was book (1925) andhis archaeologist knowRomanian became themost Pîrvan Vasile thecountry. allacross people Romanian the of homogeny archaeological the prove to in order provinces Romanian the in all initiated were campaigns archaeological large Accordingly, territories. acquired new the over claims Romanian the of justification State. practice by Romanian put into the unification primary againstschool’s the protested in Bessarabia Ghibu Onisifor like people example, For welcomed. always not were centre the from coming initiatives these Nevertheless, population. Romanian the of scale from these 1921, all initiatives unificationthe political targeted on a social ethnical and of inhabitants the new the provinces. united by squarely measures harsh werereceived sometimes achievethese to although thesegoals, Philiph Vanhaelemeersch, Philiph Onisifor Ghibu, Onisifor Please see Irina Livezeanu, Irina see Please , (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), p. 23. At this point a certain remark must be made.At mustthis before 1918,when a certain Unlikethe pointbe period remark embarkedlarge intohistorical of The cultural and alsoa State Romanian campaign Considera A generation “without Beliefs” and the Idea of Experience in Romania (1927 - Ġ Cultural Politics in Greater Romania ii , p. 4 in Irina Livezeanu, Irina 4 in p. , 39 Starting from from Starting archaeological evidences, the 37 26 Together with the electoral and land reforms CulturalPolitics in Greater Romania , p. 92. , p. 55. 38 CEU eTD Collection 42 Identities. Romanian andHungarian Case Studies Petrescu, Cristina Petrescu, Constantin Iordachi, Zolt Iordachi, Constantin Petrescu, Cristina Petrescu, Modernity, Liberalism, and Nationalism in the Thought of For 2005). Nemira, (Bucharest: 41 Institutul Cultural Român, 1998). state protected capitalism under the leadership of a Romanian bourgeoisie to carry out its carry out ato bourgeoisie Romanian capitalism leadership of the protected under state stimulated,organized, state and building towards astate looked Party Liberal “the National noticed Kiel J. Thomas As Party. Liberal National the of ideology political in the embodied expression of city financialindustrial bourgeois the and and of development Romaniathe (1923 -1928). wasin power West, the with relationship of upthe main advocate tiding Liberal the Party, publish factthe whenLovinescuto the that Zeletin Romanianstarted and mainworks their explanations behindthis cultural firstpolarization I thinkexplanation the that to was related Although areseveral there intellectuals. number by largeRomanian of adopted a industrialized West.” and urbanized the by taken already development social and economic of path the follow Romania sheof “treated to as a of Europe and insisted that hadnochoice but this trend part 1848 generation and of the of 1848 generation and the both of continuators the were They West. the from customs and institutions the adapting considered thatRomanian cultural andbe social destiny had fulfilled to byborrowing and 40 hand,one thinkersby the inspired like Mircea Western the Lovinescu House. theRoyal or Liberal Party National bythe patronized project nationalist tothe expertise their academic subordinate and to hands State join the with decided to intellectuals some projects, nationalist different Keith Hitchins, Please see Please Burghezia român Furthermore, their goal was to establish a nationalist cultural nationalist betheestablishwhich cultural will Furthermore, their a goal to was In the interwar period there were two main understandings of Romanianness. Onthe Romanianness. of main understandings two were there period interwar In the Istoria civiliza Rumania 1866 – 1947 ă : Originea 42 Ġ It is interesting to question why this path towards the West was iei române moderne ù ú i rolul ei istoric Junimists tefan Zeletin please see Balázs Trencsènyi, “The ‘Münchansenian Moment’: ‘Münchansenian “The Trencsènyi, Balázs see please Zeletin tefan (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), p.292. from Ia from [ [The RomanianBourgeoisie: Its origins and historical role], The History of theRomanian Modern Civilazation (Iassy: Polirom,2001), p. 61–80. á 27 n K ú i. As Keith HitchinsAs Keith sympathizers i. argued, the á ù ntor (eds.), ntor tefanZeletin” in Balázs Trencsènyi, Drago Nation–Building and Contested 40 and ù tefan Zeletin tefan ], (Ia ú ú i: 41 CEU eTD Collection the modernthe capital Romanian the town, schools heavyindustry,of the good andthe political adjust wanted Western Romania Privileging to ideology that standards.echoed apolitical to developed the hegemony during Liberal of andideas Romanian the (1922–1928) these Party political project namely Romanianthe Liberal LovinescuParty. and Zeletin’sideas were character. Behind thisbe developed agenuine Romanian culture which was supposedtodefine the Romanian intellectual project of building the nationalistintegration of different borrowings coming from the West. canon therebe of period 1918hadto byacertain followed 1848until the assimilation from period is also a after the that believed He society. Romanian the needsof the to be according carried on to 46 Hitchins, according to Western customs to according itselfadjust was called to society models theRomanian and Western from constructed between Romanian and Western culture ideology of Romanian the Liberal Lovinescu’s theory government. about synchronismthe After 1918,he became one intellectualsof firstthe supporting nationalist the official “Romanian” by ethnicity.” were who bourgeoisie the of the of portion that especially small, remained bourgeoisie 43 Despite the economic growth of the late success 19depended onit beingactively inbuilding alargerengaged bourgeoisie in Romania. its own political that realized Party Liberal National The agenda. modernization economic 45 Development in a European Nation, (ed.), Jowitt, Kenneth in Aestheticism” Western vs. Lovinescu Doctrine: of Aesthetic Functions Socio-political “Variable Nemoianu, seeVirgil please canon, 44 p. 113 Keith Hitchins, Thomas J. Kiel, For ashort usage’s description of Lovinescu’s the For the best description of this concept in the Romanianculture and its relationwith building the national Lovinescu wasconvinced that theafter unification the from 1918 the time cameto Eugen Lovinescu (1881-1943) was mostthe influential literary ofhiscritic time. Rumania Rumania , p. 334 – 335. Romania’s Tortured Road towards Modernity , p.293. 43 (Berkeley: of Institute International Studies, 1978), p. 174-207. 45 , but, despite the 19 , but, Social Change inRomania,1860-1940: ADebate on synchronism th 44 28 century century and early 20 suggested thatRomanianness suggested be had to th century Europeanists, this process had this process Europeanists, century (Boulder: East EuropeanMonographs, 2006) in Romanian society, please see Keith see please society, Romanian in 46 th century, the Romanian CEU eTD Collection the new acquired provinces, Irina Livezeanu’s explanation of the direct allegiance between allegiance direct of the explanation Livezeanu’s Irina provinces, newthe acquired developedin toachieve homogenization order acertain minoritiesthe livinginethnical of in obvious Romania thatinterwar the Livezeanu) was an (Irina “integral nationalism” it iskey numberAlthough Orthodox and wasembracedbysuchalarge intellectuals. of character. Romanian national the of economical compounds have a clear agenda on their minds. Their efforts transcended the cultural, political or cultural canon. Despite Liberal likethinkers Lovinescu, Romanian the traditionalists didnot Romanian real the building start to wanted they which from place the became folklore its and village culture init. TheRomanian with village and thespirituality encapsulated Romanian the on focus to began traditionalists the culture, Romanian in the present already Perspectives”, 47 archaicculture itson emphasize with avant-gardism together Mixing home. at canon national the of premises the for search to preferred they borrowings, Western from starting character define the Romanian wantedto Europeanists the canon by shifting theirviews in direction thefrom opposite intellectuals. pro–Liberal the If andbackwardness of young political the Romanian State. social the overlap to values inorder Western from these be starting build hadto character Romanian the Accordingly, Europeanists. the of concern social main the was parties For avant-garde, please see Norbert Bandier, “Avant–gardes in the First Half of the Twentieth Century: New Century: Twentieth ofthe Half First the in “Avant–gardes Bandier, Norbert see please avant-garde, For One hastoquestion why in the interwar Romaniain nationalism an emerged The autochtonists tried to respond to this attempt of building the Romanian national Romanian the building of attempt this to respond to tried autochtonists The Romanianness of understanding autochtonist The garments. religious in 1.4. Nationalism Contemporary European History 14/3 (2005), p.393. 29 47 with a Romantic a with Volkgeist CEU eTD Collection (Bucharest: Christiana, 2003), p.48–66. cetei sale.” Pentru o teologie a neamului 52 Christianity,1919 – 1945 contribution of Dietrich Eckart, please see Richard Steigmann–Gall, 51 50 exegesis.” theological Romanian in unprecedented aggressiveness, polemical his was new was what means; byany new not were arguments His for advocating the fight against Judaism and eliminationof Jews from Romania’s social and intellectual life.(Oxford: PergamonPress, 1991), p.97 – 98:”Nichifor Crainic found in Christian theology mainhis argument 49 48 assimilated into Romanianitwas Rather, nationalism. of acreation not was “Anti–Semitism that noticed truthfully nationalism as one of its key elements. The modern purposes rather justother than tackling aJewishminority. Romanian for usedOrthodoxy nationalism Romanian accurately quite that demonstrates anti–Christian bitter attack on Alfred Rosenberg’s Germanic ideology which was both anti-Semite divine. and and human both was founder its because religion aJewish as labeled be a called Crainic in“Racetext wrote he which Christianity Religion” and that claimed cannot has been describedalso extensively by Volovici.Leon misleading. is Orthodoxy and nationalism in the Romanian againsttraditionalism Jewish astrong minority Reich Arguing theology Third texts. the Aryan the of againstCrainic’s most by poignant of one background of Bibleintoframe Christian the isorder anationalist contradicted Orthodoxy Jewish the eradicate Crainic to intended that Stating nationalism. ideology of an incoherent as anti-Semitism dismissed Crainic career, his of beginning At the period. fascist his from However, the text quoteditself.” the Bible and of Jesus ‘de–Judaization’ was the objective “hisfirst that states by Leon Volovici is rather a later text of Nichifor Crainic, one Nichifor Crainic, “Ras For the de–Judazation of the Bible/ Christ in the Third Reich done by the Nazi by the done Reich Third the in Christ Bible/ of the de–Judazation the For LeonVolovici, LeonVolovici, Irina Livezeanu, Irina 51 Rather, against both Livezeanu and Volovici, one has to argue as Thomas J. Kiel which tended toexclude any Jewish influence from Christian theology and Bible, 48 National Ideology and &Antisemitism National Ideology and &Antisemitism.The Case of Romanian Intellectuals in the 1930s Orthodox Christianity depicted as a genuine cure against the Jew minority Jew the against cure a genuine as depicted Christianity Orthodox Cultural Politics in Greater Romania ăú , (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003),p. 13 and passim. i Religiune” [Race and Religion] in R [“Everyone in his own troop.” For a theology of the people] the of a theology For troop.” own his in [“Everyone 30 , p. 98. , p. 12–13. ă zvan Condrescu (ed.), 49 When he speaks about Crainic, he Crainic, about he speaks When The Holy Reich. Nazi Conceptions of Landskirche “Fiecare înrândul and the 52 Crainic’s , 50 CEU eTD Collection &Katherine Verdery (eds.), 55 and Religion proclaimed Romanian and,therefore, the Orthodox became independentChurch completely church” of the Romanian people, especially after 1925 when the Romanian Patriarchate was “national the as itself defining by debate political the of scene main in the role major nation Romanian the building scene of national building process and attempted to institutionalize the on actor its important own an projectbecame of itself Church Orthodox the also but Christianity, Eastern principles of define tothe intellectuals nation according Romanian to the the just tried Hungarian monarchy and Ottoman monarchies. Haven: Yale Center forInternational and Area Studies, 1995). 19 the since Balkans the in Religion Nationsbildung 53 innew the19 Church. Orthodox the of tradition the with history Romanian in the continuity organic identifyto development inan uninterrupted Romanianthe history. They have identified this had they nation, and state Romanian the of development organic an for claims their sustain sphere of Christian important most the indenomination Romania. to in Culturally, order can be labeled as an Orthodox political and cultural reaction to the exclusion from the public autochtonists Romanian of the writings the characterize seemsto stream which Orthodox the mainlyformed National Party the by Greek–Catholics was Peasant Transylvanian and mostly atheist Liberals were fact that given the From perspective, a political manifold. be are reasons explanatory discourse? The nationalist the for in interwar period the concepts people.” Romanian nationalist projectstruggled with ‘origins’the of and identity the to appropriate the 54 Katherine Verdery, “National Ideology and National Character in interwar in Romania”, p. 105 in Ivo Banac Thomas J. Kiel, Please see Emanuel Turczysky, Emanuel see Please On the other hand, the connection between confession and nationality was nothing was nationality and confession between connection the hand, other the On crucial such became spirituality and Orthodoxy why arises: question Another (Aldershot:Ashgate, 1999). (Dusseldorf: Schwamm, 1976), p. 7 and passim but also Peter F. Sugar, „Nationalism and th century forBalkan peoples the toAustro– century especially region, subjected Romania’s Tortured Road towards Modernity 53 National Character and National Ideology in Interwar Eastern Europe Konfession und Nation.Zur Frühgeschichte der serbischen rumänischen th 55 Century”, p.11 in Peter F. Sugar, . It is known that after 1918 the Church wanted to play a 31 54 In the case of Romanian Orthodoxy, not , p. 127. East European Nationalism, Politics (New CEU eTD Collection 58 [The History of Romanianthe Orthodox Church] Vol. 3(Bucharest: IBMBOR, 1981), p. 401– 405. 57 84 and “Românism Church. and Nae Ionescu’spromulgation of it as a personal articles triumph dissolution of of Romanian the character Greek–Catholicsthe whoconsideredthe can be seen with a clear eyeand in Nichifor wounded pride. Therelating disappointment approval the and to of the Concordat the there Crainic’s is a concordat, directthis wasadoptedby Parliamentthe andleft Churchthe with feelingthe of a consequence of their support for the Romanian nation. Romanian the of development the to contribute to able church only the as Orthodoxy defined Metropolite Nicolae B Nicolae Metropolite ChurchOrthodox responded in Parliament Romanian the through voicethe of the the government, Liberal the by Church Catholic Roman the to granted subventions financial landand of large properties amounts of andthe Vatican. Because the State Romanian the between concordat the of promulgation the of occasion the on in 1927 manifest also Church. between mutual intellectuals traditionalistand Romanianthe Orthodox dialogue the 56 in published nationalism and Orthodoxy between interdependence a direct developing articles develop to started Church the hand other the on but State the of itsdiscourse nationalist the embraced own nationalist propaganda. speech. nationalist State the of actors supportive most the of one became Church The case the apparatus andschools its clerical Through in Constantinople. from Patriarchate the of Fr. Dumitru Stãniloae’s inflammatory Zigu Ornea, Fore more details about this struggle please see Fr. Mircea P Mircea Fr. see please struggle this about details more Fore Most interesting are “Ortodoxie “Ortodoxie are interesting Most Gîndirea However, the Church chose to play a double role: on the one hand, the Church the hand, one the on role: adouble play to chose Church the However, 58 56 The association between nationality and confession in became confession and case Romanian nationality the between The association conducted by Nichifor Crainic is another proof there was factthat proof a of is the another Crainic byNichifor conducted The Romanian Extreme Right. The Nineteen Thirties ú i Ortodoxie” [Romanianness and Orthodoxy] in 57 Although the Orthodox Church protested vehemently against the against vehemently protested Church Orthodox the Although ă lan who in a speech named “The national Church and its Rights” its and Church “Thein named national a speech lan who ú i na i Ġ iune” [Orthodoxy and the Nation] in Nation] the and [Orthodoxy iune” 32 ă curariu, (Colorado: Boulder, 1999), p. 79. Gîndirea Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române Gîndirea XV/8 (1936), p. 400-409. XIV/2 (1935), p.76 – CEU eTD Collection citizens rather than ethnic Romanians.” ethnic than rather citizens Romania to be a ‘unified and indivisible national state’. At least it spoke of the population asindividual Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), p. 91: “Article 1 [of the RomanianLiberal Constitutionfrom 1923] proclaimed 63 62 61 60 culture,and politics in Weimar and the Third Reich sociological reality: populationRomanian lived 72%of inrural areas a was spirituality Romanian the matrix of as depicted the village the cultural discourse in assimilate their to traditionalists led the which factor important another Furthermore, problem was one of the most problematic issues of the modern Romanian state. Romanian intellectuals: influential cultureforexistentialism,major weredeeply the in these European changes the bourgeois unconsciousness city, focus on Freudian the the andon Heidegger’s death the spirituality inof any of front industrial mechanizedthe environment from the 59 was directed. project building nationalist the electorate this to especially the peasant problem caught the attention of different Romanian parties and governments and which the pessimism ofwhich they have developed theirinsights about tradition and spirituality.in Living an Oswaldage in Spengler’s in context by cultural intellectual the wasprovided statementsforattitude of this kind explanations the towards the One of stake. theissueat key remains by inspired a traditionalist anational building creed Western culture Please see John R. Lampe, R. John see Please Henry L. Roberts, For a complete statistic please see Irina Livezeanu, Irina see please statistic complete a For Keith Hitchins, For Oswald Spengler’s critique of modernity, please see Jeffrey Herf, Why intellectuals like Nichifor Crainic and Nae Ionescu started their claims for claims their started Ionescu Nae and Crainic Nichifor like intellectuals Why profound influenceprofound on Romanian thought. expounded by Fathersthe of Church,the and Kierkeegard Berdyaev exercised a Europe, too. Alongside Buddhism and Christian Yoga, mysticaland philosophy, as from but India, especially Asia, from came They life. intellectual Rumanian across break to ideas seemed mystical and irrationalism of wave Averitable Eastern. In new fortheirsearch valuesthey traditionalists] eagerly embraced [the all things Rumania Rumania.Political Problems of an Agrarian State , p.299. Balkans into Southeastern Europe. ACentury ofWar and Transition , (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 49. Cultural PoliticsinGreater Romania 33 60 (Yale: AnchorBooks, 1969),p. 89. Reactionary modernism. Technology, 61 and the peasant the and , p. 36. 63 TheWestern 62 After 1918 (New York: 59 and CEU eTD Collection Blaga was sonthe of an Orthodox priest from the village Lancr Crainic, Nichifor 66 65 Romanian society. As Andrew C. Janos has pointed out, terms was based on an two the between conflict bigcity.of The society the mechanized economical villageoverthe certain reality which community described asaspiritual andtraditionrelationship between all of inhabitants the a was a paradoxically consequence of the 64 named by written Ferdinand book Tönnies hadthe autochtonists on both and Junimists the the meaningA impact peasantry. the deep majority population realities Romanian the of the of Romaniabe Romanian had shapedaccording and theethnicity social to to and cultural be from rejected andfuture imports theWesthadto that which project building considered andnational of state idea Romanian the development ofan“organic” century Junimist positivistthe andmechanized traditionalists West,the paradoxically embraced 19 the absence of a political party which defended theirnational identity. offer a cultural discourse which reflected the majority of the Romanian population in the Romaniawhich of assured to an the status undeveloped country. in from peasantsits hadtorelieve backwardness peasantry order illiterate the educated be mechanized andthe Romanian villagehadto that considered minded intellectuals representatives the traditionalist yoke were coming from villages from the coming yoke were thetraditionalist representatives Party. Peasants revival of Romanian the peasantry which eventuallyturned its hopesin Maniu’s National encourage aneconomical had succeededto not 1923 and1928the Liberal government For example, Crainic came from a small village called Bulbucata (Vla Bulbucata called village asmall from came Crainic example, For Henry Roberts, L. Henry For Romania backwardness, please see Keith Hitchins, Keith see please backwardness, Romania For experience of the market economy. There the ‘masses’ were wage earners and small and earners wage were ‘masses’ There the economy. market of the experience by the Gemeinschaft traditional norms the of from the detached been hadalready who masses of awareness public rising the implied mobilization social West, the In I willargue have to comingthat from a rural andenvironment criticizingvehemently Gemeinschaft undGesellschaft Gemeinschaft Zile albe. Zile negre 65 op. cit op. Alongside the nationalist discourse of the State, the most important ., p.108 [Good days. Bad days], (Bucharest: Gîndirea, 1991), p. 1. Also, Lucian (1887)which emphasized importance of the the 34 Rumania ă m (Alba county). , p. 342. ú ca county); for this please see please this for county); ca 64 Nevertheless, between Nevertheless, 66 and they wanted to th CEU eTD Collection 101. DebateA onDevelopment inaEuropean Nation, Historical Perspective: The Case of Romania” inKenneth Jowitt (ed.), 67 history. First of all, Iwill have to conclude that between traditionalists from the 19 in Balkan’s the historical important bephenomenon the oneof most the to considered spirituality. Romanian of the guarantee as a andOrthodoxy character Romanian between was in time intersection the same the thevillagewas nexustraditionalists betweenan spirituality which Romanian unaltered be the For from builtsocial had to Romanianorganically. ethnicity which reality the villagenot wasdownplayed asamark spirituality of Romanian ethnicity,or butbasic asa Romanian culture which perfectly inwould havefitted the universal culture of his The time. toengineer a Maiorescu wanted andhis followers factthat laysinautochtonists the On the economical consequences of this attitude please see Andrew C. Janos, “Modernization and Decay in Decay and “Modernization C.Janos, Andrew see please attitude this of consequences economical Onthe The Romanian debates over the understandings of Romanian ethnical canon can be can canon ethnical Romanian of understandings the over debates Romanian The remarks 1.5. Final community) morallook for of continued the and household,kinship, emotional support to and (in politically modern became Romania of those thatpolitically, and socially both modern they to a couldform of had through been transmitted medium the vicariousof education, and hencehadbeen reduced formulate experience of markethadthe The images lacking. largely been of modern worldthe experience. acculturating the Romania, In stage… political the onto entering before Gesellschaft and Thus articulate while modern of the norms tothe impersonal acculturated been theyhave mobilized; the lowerextended families. In words, other massesthe hadbeen rationalized before being classes demands) themselves theemotional without support of communities, kinshipthe groups, of and the West whoproducers had learned tolivewere in a world of give–and–take and tofend for but not socially (for they The difference between 19 the between The difference 67 . (Berkeley: Instituteof International Studies, 1978), p. 100– th century intellectuals century and the 20 35 Social Change in Romania, 1860-1940: th th century and 20 th CEU eTD Collection 68 always tended to be influence. his of because moremovement fascist this joined intellectuals Romanian constant movements. After became 1933,NaeGuard’smain theIron Ionescu andmany ideologue than the nationalists;20 the case, As Serbian inthe Balkans. the across disseminated was a phenomenon perspective the a cultural from traditionalists canon national Romanian the for struggle The Conservatives. Romanian great emphasisspirituality in onOrthodox wasneverminds which present the of the issued two wasa there fact that casewasthe Russian the caseand theRomanian between difference ethnicity is 19 the is of Romanian feature acertain village secondRomanianthe debateoverethnicity. in the represented was it as spirituality Christian and Orthodoxy from canon national the building interest towards the period, interwar In the thinkers. were secularized intellectuals 19 the feature, is acommon village Romanian the of importance andthe 1920’s. Secondly,although is obvious that both canons are based on the concept of tradition from land the reforms after disappeared Party Conservative becausethe canon political 20 between 19 differences great The signature. national canon a their bygenerating under capital social and political Romanian landowners, namelythe class asocial Representing connection. adirectbe traced century cannot the Conservatives of Titu Maiorescu were defending their own building a national defineSlavophiles intellectuals whoattempted were Germany to Russiannessby trained canon based on the Russian spirituality and Russian village. Janko Lavrin, “Kiriensky and the Problem of Culture”, Problem the and “Kiriensky Lavrin, Janko th th century Romanian traditionalists became deeply involved in different fascist in different involved deeply became traditionalists Romanian century century Nae Ionescu and Nichifor Crainic were not representatives of a Conservative From a personal point of view, the topic in itself is paradoxical. The Liberals who Liberals The is paradoxical. itself in topic the view, of point apersonal From In the Balkan’s context the closest case study to the Romanian debates about th century Russian case. As the Romanian Junimists, the Russian th and 20 and th century traditionalist intellectuals are the fact that in the that fact the are intellectuals traditionalist century 36 Russian Review , Vol. 20, No. 2, 1961, p. 112. th century 68 The CEU eTD Collection Romania” in Romania” 69 Christian. be to had universalies” (Sorin Antohi)which through any category beingof had tobe Romanian and Eliade whodeveloped a much their into ontology ethnical “indigenizationChristian of the traditional approachmovements from Romania, namely Guard and Iron the the Romanian Fascia.Also, this of the reality began Romanian inspirationended upasasource ethnicity right–wing forof the radical to be critically the of definition grounded Christian a offer to attempt approached traditionalist this that fact is the especially byminds of those who arefocusedMircea on this issue. Again, what wouldbe very useful pointto out always committed Christiannot were traditionalists factthat the out bemust stressed there Guard, Iron the of column believers. Lucianbecame fifth the toradicalize and started which movement traditionalist the spearheads of Blaga is only onedefining the Romanian Although ethnicity.Nae Ionescu andNichifor Crainic werethe example that crosses political any theiragainst the against right–wingweapon Liberal claim forand other the the traditionalists theirideological foundation which was later transformed into an efficient which was used as the perfect enemy against the Liberal town–based cultural discourse. not matters inrural itself, withbutbecause itChristianity was connected a village’s tradition mythical mannerandwas deprived of connectionany concrete them,For with city.the only Romanian of definition ethnicity needs some scrutiny. further Christianity was in depicted a of the approach andsecular religious between the Again, distinction the necessary. regarding the building of Romanianthe ethnic definition in manner traditionalistthe are investigations further Some definitive. be considered cannot canon ethnic Romanian the about discourse interwar the and ethnicity Romanian the of expressions different “Nationalism versus Internationalism: The Roles of Political and Cultural Elites in interwar and Communist I have to agree withI have Korkuk to Umut Nationalities Papers 34 , No. 2, 2006, p. 135. 69 that Christianity for and Orthodoxy represented 37 CEU eTD Collection but not a notbut definition.mutual accepted otherminoritiesthe andradicalization of violent termsthe usedforRomanianness, defining view Romanianautochthonous only the which brought regarding ethnicity towards derision Instead of defining Romanian the ethnicity, an traditionalist the exclusivist produced creed. nationalist the of goal initial the of failure a total to led haseventually between This marriage creed. nationalist their of incarnation political thatthis direct wasthe thought they because movement fascist Romanian the with directly collaborate to started movement speech was borroweddefinition the Romanianto ethnicity neverfullywas finished. traditionalist After 1927,the by the Iron Guard and some of the leaders of the traditionalist As afinal would I remark, likesay to thethat cultural of process constructing a 38 CEU eTD Collection traditionalists. People like Nichifor Crainic from Crainic Nichifor like People traditionalists. developed ever.between two-folded andthe A strong debate Westernizers the Crainic there were strong political sympathies. political strong were there Crainic isduring the interwar nationalist a period behindthe that ofNichiforproof Orthodoxism dramatically changed nation the and village the Orthodoxy, between relation the about speech Nichifor Crainic’s that Thefact andOrthodoxy. Romanianess between relation the traditionalist by have asrepresented camp CrainicNichifor not did aunitary about discourse definition of the Romanianin Nichifor Crainic’s conception nationalismof providing background aspiritual for any nation. Another aim of nationalistthis discourse of Nichifor Crainic. I will point out that Orthodoxychapter playedmajor a role is to prove that Romanian birth of the Romanian culture in the category of Orthodox spirituality. was the project that and project nationalist new a framed Crainic Nichifor village, from the emphasizing startingRomanianproject an culture organic culture.the Junimist Continuing in toshape order a traditionalistregarding original view the characterof any future village specificity,and Orthodoxy the Romanian between Romanian relation the the culture, than more became thestruggle ethnicity bitter define After 1918, Romanian the to 2.1. Abstract The aim of The aim chapterthis isof present topresent wayin the which backed the Orthodoxy 2. Nichifor Crainic and Orthodoxism in interwar Romania Gîndirea. 39 Gîndirea started to publish to on extensively started Nationalism and CEU eTD Collection after 1940. after coincidence, his view willbecome utopian inthegovernment reality General Antonescu, of As of a challenginga stumbling Romanian view regardingfuture the mixed into the state. which Orthodoxy, Italian corporatism, anti–Semitism, nationalist authoritarianism and were official he ideologue, come had his to up with personal named in utopia political ethnocracy interwar After period. 1934,disappointed by regimesthe for which he wantedtobecome an Orthodox spirituality Romanianthe of village. towards youththe and they theneedpopularized for aspiritual in grounded revolution the foundation of of chapter will focus on the early years of Crainic’s career in career Crainic’s of years early focus onthe will of chapter section second The many contributors. the oneof as Crainic Nichifor agendawith eclectic behind stage cultural agendathe fascist movement, the Iron Guard. His articles from articles His Iron Guard. the movement, fascist ideologue of in but failing Romanian the Peasantism, the he towards Romanian orientated tobecome by his the discourse focusing Romanian Hewanted on the peasantry. attention of the National Peasants Romanianthe peasantry, especiallybetween 1926 and 1929.In context the of emergencethe Party of Iuliu Maniu, Orthodoxist his claimson after emphasis the 1926andtheradicalization discourse with of Nichifor Crainic calibrated once moreinvolvement and he kepthismind on culturalthe hismatter atstake. spirituality as inreflected Romanianthe village, Crainic away stood from any political Although he advocated for a national shapehis particular1926 and took already period. inthis Orthodoxist claims which culture built on the basis of the Romanian Orthodox The fourth section of this chapter looks at the last stage in Crainic’s career in the The chapter will be dividedfourinto parts.In firstthe part Iwilllook on the The third section of the chapter deals with what happened with happened deals with Crainic’s Nichifor chapter whatThe third with section the of Gîndirea in 1921 and its originality and I will prove that in that particular Gîndirea was not nationalist at all, but rather a cultural 40 Gîndirea and Gîndirea Calendarul between between 1921and were directed were CEU eTD Collection Studies, 1978), p. 140. Romania 1860–1940. A Debate onDevelopment in a European Nation 71 12. directors of publication, of the directors quoting Ashas one ofthe first out, Petrescu. Dumitrupointed Micu CezarPetrescu, Maniu, GibAdrian Blaga, Lucian like Cluj–Napoca I. of city Transylvanian Mih the from coming intellectuals 70 nationalsustaining a culture cultural marketto Hungarianthe and Saxon cultural publication with a long in tradition nation. Romanian the with Orthodoxy associating was which traditionalist Romanian the of version themostcoherent expressed in Crainic his writings, reflected leading of founders Romanian elite attemptedsuperior cultures like the Saxons and the Hungarians with along printingto press tradition, the frame a nationalistwhich Romanianthe nationality should beproclaimed,it was obvious thatconfronted with cultural speech. The words of one of the forefront of thea greatdebate over the nature of Romanian ethnicity and culture.” prophetic traditions in Romanianthe andthought who, consequently,found themselves in sociologists, literary critics, theologians, and poets who carried on the speculative and Keith Hitchins, “Gîndirea: Nationalism in a Spiritual Guise” in Kenneth Jowitt (ed.), Dumitru Micu, Dumitru Gîndirea 2.2. Gîndirea was which opportunism political his despite that fact the tell will conclusion The Although purpose the of journalthe declared was not as a nationalist from rostrum Gîndirea was first issued on May 1 ă iescu, Emil Isac, Radu Dragnea, D. Tomescu, D. I. Cucu and Cezar Gîndirea ú i gîndirismul Gîndirea are enough proof areenoughproof for previous the thecountry statements: 70 . As out,“ithas KeithHitchinslargely pointed was [The Thought and the thoughtism] (Bucharest: Minerva, 1975), p. was supposed tobecome responseonthe was aRomanian 41 st 1921by ofyounga group Romanian (Berkeley: Institute of International SocialChange in 71 CEU eTD Collection 7/ 5 76 75 trends of the age. As one of the contributors pointed out, pointed contributors the of As one age. the of trends isjournal missinginsuredeliberatively larger inorderto a representation of all literary the good as in the times of foreign oppression.” ministers, and others do notwrite itis a induty anew Romania totry publishto areview as tradition and prophesied its diminishment autochthon the to contrary spirit” “modernist the inhedefied which texts Nicolae Iorga’s collaborators from lack of a unitary Romanianthe nation, Romanian the for culture hardships the of end the meant unification and that literaturethought who seemed to be the main focus and of 1918 success by total the of assatisfied depicted union the completed generation that the early national the Despite based grounds. common of cultureold Romanian on a unitary build andto a concept homogenization national ethnic of paradigm existing an into already 74 73 Luceaf 72 of lightthe needs [Transylvania]” Nicolae Iorga, „Elementele culturii române culturii „Elementele Iorga, Nicolae Dumitru Micu, Dumitru “Cronica m “Cronica Keith Hitchins, “Gîndirea: Nationalism in a Spiritual Guise”, p. 147. AdrianManiu, “Cuvinte pentru drum” [Words for the Road], th December1923,p. 145 - 147. As Dumitru Micu has shown, the trends in the reviewis place only for publications. eclectic there movement literary undeveloped our wereIn journal. poor our of covers the almost contradictorythe widely open will we columns future the to point particular that from maybe and then Until forthat. all the writerstrend. We waitand for or a alla current want torepresent not theirwe did that eager ones the enlighten Once more we the crystallization talents whoaround would us or around feel others, comfortable we will see about under On a larger scale, the first efforts of the people gathered around this journal were to fit wereto journal this around gathered people ofthe efforts first scale, the On alarger ă rul [Vesper]…because some of the messengers of messengers the of some [Vesper]…because ă runt Gîndirea ă ” [Finely Chronicle], ” [Finely Gîndirea ú i gîndirismul 73 . Accordingly, the literary program of the contributors of the , p. 18. Gîndirea 74 Gîndirea ú ti” [The Elements of the Romanian culture] in culture] Romanian ofthe Elements [The ti” I, nr.2/ 15 72 76 as it needed at one time the comforter of the 42 , Pamfil th of May 1921, p. 38. Gîndirea ù eicaru’s Luceaf I, no. 1/ 1921, p. 3. neosem ă rul have died, others are others have died, ăQă torist Gîndirea approach III, no. III, 75 : CEU eTD Collection 80 79 78 1922, p. 383. worse that could happen to the Romanian people Romanian the happen couldto that worse dismantle the wish of the Romanian culture towards the Western culture depicted as the Darurile p volumepoetry Crainiccalled in 1920another of war, After the published into war. the personality of Nicolae Iorga which was one of the main artisans of the Romanian entrance fighting intheWWI and this during he period became evenmoreinfluenced by the natale Bucharest(1912–1916). In 1916 hepublishedfirst his volume of namedpoetries be continuedDobre his years during tointense in of studentship attheFaculty of Theology overyoungNicolae of the from Iorga Ioan France. Theinfluence especially countries, closely the 19 followed which discourse nationalistic andits Bucharest of University atthe professor history neo–conservator, aRomanian byNicolaeIorga, influenced he especially period was Bucharest hoping thathe could fulfill hisfamily ambitions andDuring become apriest. this (Vlacalled Bulbucata key. Orthodox 77 of contribution praise the tradition to in direct which tended Iorga’s Petrescu. the editorial board of one.” Christian – the G. M.Ivanov namely fora“thirddictatorship”,who “the preached onlypossible democracy NichiforCrainic, G. M. Ivanov, “A treia dictatur “A treia M. Ivanov, G. “Literatura neînsufle “Literatura “Pe marginea unui volum omagial” [Regarding an Aniversary Tome] , Tome] Aniversary an [Regarding omagial” volum unui “Pemarginea Ioan Dobre a.k.a. Nichifor Crainic was born on December 24 on December born was Crainic Nichifor a.k.a. Dobre Ioan Nichifor Crainic was one of the first non – Transylvanian intellectuals invited to join to invited intellectuals –Transylvanian non first the of one was Crainic Nichifor (Native fields). Between 1916 and1918hewasconcentrated on Romanian the army 80 ă Also, he will prove the most important theoretician of traditionalism in an mîntului th century aversion of the Junimists against the cultural imports from Western Zile albe. Zile negre Ġ it [The Gifts of [TheGifts year,following in of Land]and the Blaga’s same the Lucian 79 ă ” [Inanimate Literature], ” [Inanimate ú ca). Between 1908 and 1912 he studied at the Central Seminary from he Central Between atthe studied 1908 and1912 Seminary ca). Gîndirea ă ” [The Third Dictatorship], Third [The ” by some ofhis bysome LucianBlaga acquaintances, and Cezar , p. 171. Gîndirea 43 78 II, no. 9/ 5 , and the anti – Catholic contributions of contributions Catholic – anti the and , Gîndirea III, 14/nr. 5 th of December1922, p. 73–74. Gîndirea th I,no.20/ 15 1889in a small village th Sem of April 1924, p. 341. ăQă torul th ofJanuary 77 and to ù esuri CEU eTD Collection governmental culture. patronizedgovernmental pro–Western Drago Center forInternational and Area Studies, 1995), p. 154. spirituality spirituality and Orthodoxy and people behind in Crainic’s both of nationalismunderstanding Romanian andits connection with Katherine Verdery 81 in Crainic’s Nichifor stage second by journal. elites principles stated A the initialthe tothe according the of program eclectic of for adiscourse exploration larger scale for a is It aperiod was possible. and autochthon genuine was which aRomanian culture authentic theme. How abroader with preoccupied seemed Crainic period from Cluj.this board In editorial the with of cope demands the in not of charge heBecause was had position amoderate relationshipthe towards nationalism between and Orthodoxy. Gîndirea with tocollaborate study VienaAfterto he 1921hestarted advice to Philosophy. went started to develop into a politicized intellectual. a politicized developinto to started all motifs for a renegotiation were Vatican the and state Romanian the between Concordat the of elite relating affair the support, Greek–Catholic strong a with Party Peasants National the of scene political Romanian the on existence into coming the government, Liberal official the of ideology nationalist cultural visibility, the and journal of the director sole the became the emergence of rightist movements and the obvious failure of the in Nichifor Crainic’s activity in activity Crainic’s in Nichifor of development stages are three there context cultural and historical of because the publish, Keith Hitchins, „Orthodoxism: Polemics overEthnicity and Religion in interwar Romania” in Ivo Banac & I will argue in this chapter that, although he was one of the firstintellectuals invited to ú Protopopescu became the leading voices of a young generation revolted againstthe revolted voices a young became generation of the leading Protopopescu . National CharacterNational and National Ideology inInterwar Eastern Europe Gîndirea Gîndirea Gîndirea gîndirism . In the first stage, between . Inthefirst 1921 and1926Crainic ’s cultural Thereisenvironment. ’s cultural obvious shiftan , but only one of its main contributors, he had to he had contributors, main its of one only but , 44 was between was 1926 and 1933. In 1926 he 81 Gîndirea Fr. Dumitru St Gîndirea because inthis Crainicperiod moved to Bucharest. A Bucharest. greater moved to ă niloae, Vasile B (New Haven: Yale Haven: (New ă ncil ă or CEU eTD Collection Gîndirea director of the is puzzling most is they that were hired and by trained Crainic inthe whenheperiod was dissimilar with the ones produced by the intellectual sympathizers of the Iron Guard model of corporatism,he is shaping a genuine Orthodox definition of fascism quite Etnocra Monographs, 1990), p. 57–59. was by influentialrepresented ofhismost publication the called book framing a different project of building a Romanian nation and culture. The Gordian knot 85 Codreanu. politicalthe and electoral the of progress fascistthe Iron Guard led byCorneliu Zelea became life, of openly principles, Romanianpolitical the censor supported the Crainic and orientated nationalism Western– the to alternative anti–modern asan itself only andpresented wasmoderate texts of the State. In the legionaryofficial supporter of the State’spublications, national building process, the tone of Nichifor Crainic’s according to his “racist” 84 wrote in wrote whenhe texts: in Crainic’s discourse parallel isanoticeable thatthere ageIargue particular with in journals pro–fascistpublished others like thisitFor wouldperiod compare bealsochallenging of to the texts Crainic from 83 R. Oldenburg Verlag, 1986), Romanian edition (Bucharest: Humanitas, 1999), p. 173. Bewegung und Politische Organisation. Ein Beitrag zum Problem des internationalen Faschismus 82 “Sensul tradi hismost text programmatic is that wonder nation. It no Romanian aboutthe discourse Radu Ioanid, NichiforCrainic, For the significance of this date please see Dumitru Micu, Dumitru see please date ofthis significance the For For this aspect, please see Armin Heinen, Armin see please aspect, this For After 1934 As for he Crainic, button started to detailshisup the whole ethno–theological of Ġ ie and from one the Gîndirea 82 84 [Orthodoxy [Orthodoxy fascistand Ethnocracy] (1936)inwhich,following Italianthe Ġ The Sword ofthe Archangel. Fascist Ideology in Romania iei” [The Meaning of Tradition] was written in this particular period of in written thisparticular of time. iei” Meaningperiod Tradition]of [The was Calendarul Ortodoxie , generously sponsored by , generously Romanian Foundation Royal and the an thus 83 , although , although he continued topublish extensively in ú i Etnocra journal. A direct comparison on the one between Crainic from Crainic one between the on comparison Adirect journal. Orthodoxie Ġ ie , (Bucharest: Albatros, 1997). Die Legionen“Erzengel Michael” in Rumänien, Soziale ú i Ethnocra 45 Gîndirea Calendarul Ġ ie and on the other hand between the between hand other the on and ú i gîndirismul ( Boulder: East European East Boulder: ( and Sfarm , p. 30. Gîndirea ă –Piatr Ortodoxie Ortodoxie , Crainic is Crainic , ă , (München: . For this For . Gîndirea 85 . What ú i CEU eTD Collection influence of Orthodoxy and spirituality preserved in the Romanian village and patriarchal and village Romanian in the preserved spirituality and Orthodoxy of influence Nichifor Dumitru Crainic, St new realities coming from the West but not always in a critical understanding. different with tackling and genres literary new exploring towards more opened were also similar with their pro–Western opponents from opponents pro–Western their with similar a secularbut one village, Romanian from the of spirituality starting the cultural alternative Blaga, Cezar Petrescu, or Gib I. Mih Gib or I. Blaga, CezarPetrescu, are two orientations within the within orientations two are make alongin career hispersonal Whatisconvictions. in this specific is there period that would his scale which ideasandconcepts amoderate to readeralready the on proposed Crainic in which period this from articles major three on focus will I culture. Romanian transforming ininvolved many of and during administrative which the tasks of process the cultural arose of Transylvanianjournal.the in hisbeing during Despite Viena 1920–1922,he was challenging. fascistview of Crainic the and discourse of ideologues fascist Romanian other be will On the other hand, there was the right wing direction in direction wing right the was there hand, other the On In the first period of of NichiforCrainic forRomanianness Quest Orthodoxist Early The 2.3. 1921–1926. Gîndirea from a provincial cultural journal into the mainstream voice of voice mainstream the into journal cultural aprovincial from Gîndirea ă Gîndirea niloae or Radu Dragnea which underlined the capital RaduDragnea whichunderlined the niloae or Nichifor Crainic was a regular contributor in the pages ă iescu which were advocating for traditionalism and a for traditionalism wereadvocating iescu which contributors: a left wing gathered around Lucian 46 Zbur ă torul and Via Gîndirea Ġ a Româneasc represented by represented ă . They CEU eTD Collection (Bucharest: IBMBOR,2006), p.92. Na teaching activities by the ecclesiastical hierarchy for divorcing his first wife shortly the after shortly wife his first divorcing for hierarchy by ecclesiastical the activities teaching by offered personal for and from different Church religious the rejected reasons: priesthood one the for alternative a competing as nationality Romanian of approach Orthodoxist andtaxes salaries the which of State waspaying the ideology project and embracedthe andpolitical interests itsRomanian ethnicalspecificity,Church behaved Romanian the Orthodox to according particular period; being involved directly in State’s the patronized process of defining the Romania, please see Fr. Alexandru Moraru, Alexandru Fr. see please Romania, 91 Orthodoxy] 90 89 88 87 friendship], “Începuturile called Blaga Lucian 86 ages. society during the texts are “Isustexts în The approach. hisethno–theological for thelaterbase which constitute texts will important ideologues. amongheone Nevertheless, three of haspublished its inthisperiod other most move For thedetails regarding the humiliating positionof Romanianthe Orthodox Church inthe interwar Dumitru Micu, Dumitru Please see Dumitru Micu, Dumitru see Please Gîndirea Gîndirea Gîndirea Ġ iune, Cultur I argue hypothetically that Crainic presented nointerest Church inthis Crainic for the I arguehypothetically presented that journal of the Holy Synod’ ‘This opinion. review – writes Crainic ina polemical from observation 1928 –is official not officialthe ecclesiastical the with ideas contrary expressing even sometimes and years the its program in applied from over independence atotal Holy the Sinod, different than AgainstOrthodoxy. the publication Eugen hasLovinescu… elaborated from from must beginningitthe be said the that Orthodoxism from Gîndirea , 8–10/ 1924, p. 181–186. 5/ 1924, p. 77–83. 11–12/, 1923, p. 117–120. Gîndirea 88 ă and Parsifal [The Romanian Orthodox Church between 1885 and 2000. Church, Nation, Culture] Vol. 3, I 3, Vol. Culture] Nation, Church, 2000. and 1885 between Church Orthodox Romanian [The Gîndirea from Cluj to Bucharest and to insure a minimal economic stability, he is just is he stability, economic minimal a insure to and Bucharest to Cluj from , XIX, no. 4/ 1940, p. 226. Ġ 91 ara mea” inmyara [Jesus country] . On the other hand, I will suggest that Crainic hand,. On suggestthat other the Iwill isshaping this ú i gîndirismul Gîndirea 86 89 In this particular although period Crainicinfluence usedhis to . As Dumitru Micu accurately pointed out, ú i cadrele unei prietenii” [The beginnings and the framework of a framework the and beginnings [The prietenii” unei cadrele i ú 90 i gîndirismul . , p. 60–61. Biserica Ortodox , p. 39: practically, Dumitru Micu is using an article of 47 ă 87 Român , “Politic , ă intre anii 1885 ú ă i Ortodoxie” [Politics and [Politics i Ortodoxie” Gîndirea ú i 2000. Biseric was something was ă , CEU eTD Collection 95 94 93 of the failure of the Romanian culture in becoming original. In Crainic’s view, “the view, Crainic’s In original. becoming in culture Romanian the of failure the of bared thatFrench imports and fault Iorga imperialism cultural and unbalanced the Nicolae in generation matter and atstake. Crainicnot endreachedthe the think did astheJunimists againsta generalized “Latininto the launched attack by tribe” idolized Romanian 1848 the in critiquesimports Nicolae against the Romanian culture, French Crainic Iorga the ina and way. wasinterpreted Romanian constructed history Christianity spirituality Christmas ages carolsand Jesusbyimplyingthatduringof Romanian the the of 92 mission” national “its fulfill to Church Orthodox Romanian the of unworthiness the deplored published in isnationalism nothingmore than a continuation his of pre warintellectual project. and Orthodoxy between fusion in the interest his circles, intellectual in the circulating because butalso ideas earn the his nationalist of order past, his living.Becauseof to in career journalist and literary in a engage to but option other no had Crainic WWI, of end Nichifor Crainic, “Isus în Nichifor Crainic, “Isus în NichiforCrainic,”Isus în „Isus în „Isus Accordingly,laying himselfin with aclose the connection 19 crops. the prodigally tofecundate power the here without there and Romanianthe intellectuality of struggles itin the appeared In circumstances, these thought. religious our fertilized have would thought religious the which from fountain the been have would It had. of resistance, stability,neithercontinuity and politics, culturewhich neither our our and people enlightenedby fire the evangelicalthe of wouldtruth have innergrounds provided our Romanian the of reality psychological the in strongly rooted Orthodoxy The first of his programmatic texts “Iisus în “Iisus texts his programmatic of The first Ġ 94 ara mea”, ara as opposed to the rural Christianity characterized by rural as characterized Christianity to the opposed Gîndirea 95 Gîndirea Ġ Ġ Ġ ara mea”, p. 117 – 118. . ara mea”, p. 119. ara mea”, p. 118. 92 II, 11–12/nr. 1923, p.117 and passim. From From Crainic beginning,the drawsaparallel between the 48 Ġ ara mea” [Jesus in my country] was mea”[Jesusinmycountry] ara th century Junimists and Junimists century 93 After that Crainic that After CEU eTD Collection 99 98 commitment to moral values and its affinity with the faith of the Eastern Christianity. As Keith has Hitchins noticed,poignantly Christianity. Eastern the of faith the with affinity its and values moral to commitment its innocenceof to by istraditional forCrainic the village the described areturn arguing Party: by Peasants andespecially the etc) Conservatorism, Liberalism, (Bolshevism, age his of ideologies political all almost by disregarded was which establishedfora principle anypolitical of approach aprinciple Romanian the government, 97 96 “Politic Romanianness. and Orthodoxy between religious spirituality kept inside the popular culture, in legends and carols.” of vitality inspirenew deposits the Orthodoxy usageof the through a had to could and Keith Hitchins, „Gîndirea:Nationalism in Spiritual Guise”, p. 149–150. Nichifor Crainic, “Politic NichiforCrainic, “Politica Dumitru Micu, Dumitru Against anyState-controlled political or of process defining Romanian the ethnicity, majority. agrarian the of deposits traditional the from inspiration itsdraw must themselves exclude internationalism for economical tempted minorities thisfrom national aspecificindustrial social culture Therefore, reality. which the economical view of point butalso cultural and national mustconsideration take into socialorthodoxy. Anyintendsdefine doctrine which political to the needs cardinal this of class Romanianthe population, than Romanian is,orthodoxy by all means, peasant and quarters of three peasants represent if peoples.And arereligious the Agrarian peoples a politics which tends to turn to account not only political and Nichifor Crainic became even more abouttherelation became inhis following radical texts even Nichifor Crainic would end with the establishment of the Kingdom of God on Earth. that process Jesus Christ-a of theintermediary through increation place his to original man restore to plan divine the of unfolding the as history saw Crainic Berdyaev, such modernSerghei theologians asVladimirBulgakov, andNikolai Soloviev, upon a Christian history. philosophy Drawingof upon Fathersthe of Churchand the Crainic’s assessment of Romanian culture and his hopes for its development rested Gîndirea ăú ú i gîndirismul ú i Ortodoxie”, p. 78. i Ortodoxie”, , p. 64. Gîndirea 5/1924, p.77–83. 49 ăú i Ortodoxie” 97 [Politics and Orthodoxy] 98 99 96 CEU eTD Collection 101 100 wasdepicted from butthistraditional a secularperspective: return society, Romanian to the return for the which wereadvocating Iorga followertheir Nicolae bythe19 foldrepresented traditionalist other him between and the consideration. takeinto had to Romanianthe soul and thefocal from point any which to buildattempt aRomanian culture as awhole. Orthodoxy Eastern of preservation and culture Romanian a of creation the namely people, mission of Romanian the messianic in of national as the past receptacle the the depicted 1848 legacy and its malefic influence over Romanian the Church Orthodox which was people and other peoples.” people other and its bosom in history; of troubles the by forced was which to formalism burnsconservative the on exclusively deep the latermissionary developments of his view between nationalism and Orthodoxy: “Orthodoxy do not rely his anticipated already Nichifor Crainic of answer The Romanianness? expression the of forces for theparticular period: why is issueOrthodoxy a key for building national aRomanian culture as inner renaissance this from articles in the arose which capital questions themost of one to in hisarticle of Romanianthe definition of ethnicity.At this point of the aforementioned article, CrainicRomanian replied regimes from playing its seminal role in the formation of a Romanian culture and a was first proposed in“Isus în proposed was first NichiforCrainic,”Politic Nichifor Crainic, “Politic themselves around otherwise Crainic which of spirit who of had grouped writers example,national hethe For spokeadmiringly approved. Romanian the of manifestations those The unfortunate effects of the laicization of the Romanian society could be found in Also, Crainic proposed the rural Orthodoxy in order to establish a difference a completethe into assault against Crainic engaged perspective, Accordingthis to 100 Inhis from opinion, 1848 the Church by was secular different prevented ăú ăú i Ortodoxie”, p. 82. i Ortodoxie”, p. 78. 101 Sem In other words, Crainic emphasized the revolutionary idea that Ġ ara mea”, namely that rural Orthodoxy was the expression of theexpression was Orthodoxy rural that mea”, namely ara ăQă torul and especially of their leader Iorga. Crainic praised 50 th century Junimists and Junimists century CEU eTD Collection [Decline of had[Decline in West]which the an of excellent press from Oswald Spengler’s revolutionary insights from the from insights revolutionary Spengler’s Oswald from was a directblow againstin modernistthe the Romanian trend himself culture. Inspiring trendsother in Romanianthe culture. Itisless surprising thatarticle, hisfuture “Parsifal” from innovative approach hisall delimit had Crainic achieve visibility,to programmatically a to Crainic In new Romaniancultural order forthe proposed alternative environment. sources inspiration beforeimportant of World the War I. in life in his most the rural he wassacrificing oneof form the Eastern Christianity,the of rationalistfor being too of“metaphysical deprived and whichlight” obviously presentwas movement literary Iorga’s dismissed Crainic When village. Romanian the of realities the on based literature aRomanian asense by encouraging of cultivate Romanian nationality the attacking Romanian one supporters of mostthe prestigious nationalism,attempted to who hehand, was career.Ontheone Crainic’s of Nichifor of one radical decisions most the 103 102 Copernicus of history] in 105 1866–1947 1996), p. 49 - 69; for the impact of Spengler in the Romanian culture, please Technology,see culture, and Keithpolitics inHitchins, Weimar and the Third Reich 104 NichiforCrainic, “Parsifal”, Keith Hitchins, „Gîndirea: Nationalism in aSpiritual Guise”,p. 152 – 153. The book was reviewed by Lucian Blaga in his article “Spengler, un Copernic al istoriei” [Spengler a [Spengler istoriei” al Copernic un “Spengler, article inhis Blaga Lucian by reviewed was book The Herf, Jeffrey see please culture, German on book of the impact the For On the other hand, by mixing Orthodoxy On hand, other bymixingnationalismthe Orthodoxy inatraditionalistand view, version nationalism was of exhausted, metaphysical–free Iorga’s The chargeagainst peasantry. the of consciousness Crainic to was what the mostimportant entirely ignored it aspect forces’; of the rural elemental of life: the ‘irruption profound an as merely [Orthodox]him religious erred inwanting. It maninplacing the of centre rural the world andin portraying World War I. Yet, in the final analysis, he found the Sem rallying behind the nation the goal of politicalthe unification in decadebeforethe ‘nationalthe they tendency’ represented andin of approved particular intheir part (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), p. 299. Gîndirea Gîndirea 1/ 1921, p. 6. 8–10/ 1924,p. 181–186. 102 51 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, University Cambridge (Cambridge: Gîndirea Der der Untergang Abendlandes Reactionary Modernism. 105 , Crainic applied to the to applied Crainic , ăQă toristmovement Rumania, 104 103 CEU eTD Collection 109 108 107 Conservative Revolution in the Weimar Republic 106 Romanian people.the of theoriginsparticular timeabout character andthe tradition wasanotherside in Romanianthe an of ongoing debatehistory culture and at that Crainic’s insistenceCrainic identified with Orthodoxy preserved by spirituality.rural on the relevance whichfor culture cut millenary to flow of off this threatened the culture of a Western ofconfounded itself with the Eastern EasternOrthodoxy. Therefore, according tohim, any interference Orthodoxy as a cultural and spiritual writings: in his later appear will which Orientalism modernity, path towards inintroduced Crainic text ametaphor the of blessedthe Orthodox soul.” peasant simple, the of orthodoxy “the Crainic for is which Dostoievski” of “Christianity the any metaphysics”and by “amanwithout of andbuilt as“centers depicted death” New York byhuge moribundbetween likeBerlin Western represented cities a mechanized, culture and antithesis acultural sets Crainic statements, from Spengler’s uncritically and extensively Western that civilization with its world city a sign was decayingthe of Westand quoting culture and setby Romanian caseantinomy between civilization Spengler the Modernity For a complete summary of the debate, please see Thomas J. Kiel, Thomas see please debate, the of summary complete a For NichiforCrainic, “Parsifal”, p. 185. NichiforCrainic, “Parsifal”, p. 184. Woods, Roger see please culture, and civilization between antinomy Spengler about explanation an For 107 In the context of the quest for defining the character which inEurope tradition Eastern a cultural Crainic of existence the established of the Romanianresists the currents of European civilization, so fresh in their historical origin. which patriarchalour mentality, native our genius,differentiates itself from and nation, [Orthodoxy] people’sof part forms yet thus our and by constitutes wealth apower whichimport, forces.intothat in reservoir primitive the developed of time our Byzantium Kiev and took their tool as itpassed by,flowed underneath Orthodoxy – people’s in riverbedour A soul. of river orientalism,flowed the of great then, By stating that the resistance of Russia against the Western culture was the right (Boulder: EuropeanEast Monographs, 2006), p.128–129. , (London: Macmillan, 1996), p.49. 52 Romania’s Tortured Road towards 109 As Katherine 106 . Arguing . 108 The CEU eTD Collection 1999), p. 22. from this journal, of the leading editors of the hewasjustone this date Ifbefore Bucharest. 111 Haven: Yale Center forInternational and Area Studies, 1995), p. 111–112. Katherine Verdery (eds.), 110 nation. Romanian the of project modernist the pro–Western to alternative asareactionary was shaped traditionalism from toolbox the Romanianthe of Crainic’s government. Orthodoxy appeal to and rural lacking was character theRomanian of definition because a be assimilated provinces could acquired newly from the minorities the all in which frame ethnical have acoherent not did state because Romanian the open remained overethnicity it, debate demonstrating the like French. Latin toother the peoples according theiradjust civilization it ifmeanta Latin they hadpeople, that were Romanian Eugen Lovinescu, people to the to inthecultural anotherdilemma according realms: brought archeological theories these for theorigins people. of provide ahistorical Romanian explanation the to attempting – theories Roman Daco- and Roman the Daco-Thracian, – the developed were historical three theories both and ethnical a historical perspective, from territories Romanian the legitimacy1918 annexed that whichcontested and over largeterritories after which from regimes the from coming claims revisionist the of front in states, Verdery Zigu Ornea, Katherine Verdery, “National Ideology and National Character in interwar in Romania” in Ivo Banac & After 1926,Nichifor became Crainic the director of sole Nation ofthe Idol and Tradition ofthe Sense the between Crainic Nichifor 2.4. 1926–1933. wasIf onhistorical by closed grounds debate and the third forthe opting theory The Romanian Extreme Right. The Nineteen Thirties National Character and National Ideology in Interwar Eastern Europe 53 (Boulder: East European Monographs, Gîndirea 111 110 Nevertheless, journal in journal (New CEU eTD Collection 1994), p. 28–30. the Fascist Ideology.From Cultural Rebellion to Political Revolution 116 of the interwar period: the intellectual serving the political regime. Heidegger’s regime. political the serving intellectual the period: interwar the of party. fascist inMussolini’s circle avant–gardist placetook in period andsodid ideological particular this the involvementMarinetti’s of in the particular period. Heidegger’s or Carl Schmitt’s rapprochements with the Nazi regime This wascommon idea ideologue. become wanted to regime’s apolitical who an intellectual assured himself leadingposition the as main of the ideologue Orthodoxism had commitmentto from Crainic tremendous moment, this consequences: Crainic’s Nichifor and people new of infusion The permanent. became option his traditionalism. OrthodoxismAlthough Crainic before even supported this 1926,after year journal. The shift was a direct result of the radicalization of Nichifor Crainic’s Vasile B Vasile toyoung Lucianetc.) Alexandru likeMirceaPetrescu, Eliade, Blaga, Busuioceanu, people Gîndirea board of theeditorial factthat tothe year relates particular consideration this into for tacking 115 culture. Western the and Romania between synchronism cultural the on theory his launched faction, intellectual Eugen Lovinescu from pro–Western the Modern Civilization]. Coming 113 114 Lovinescu, p. VI. 112 his masterpiece lastvolume of the Lovinescu in was yearpublished fact Eugen that the date this particular for reason selecting this Another thestaff. editorial he behind year became main figure the For Marrineti intellectual impact, please see Zeev Sternhell, Mario Sznajder & Maia Asheri, & Maia Sznajder Mario ZeevSternhell, see please impact, intellectual Marrineti For Dumitru Micu, Dumitru For details about this theory please see Keith Hitchins, Keith see please theory this about details For Dumitru Micu, Dumitru Eugen Lovinescu, Why Crainic began to radicalize his Orthodoxist view lies on the fact that Crainic is Crainic that fact the on lies view Orthodoxist his radicalize to began Crainic Why From From 1926–1928 there is shiftan (Cezarfrom theformerobvious contributors 113 ă started tochangeitsstarted contributors. ncil This was one of in points turning the wasoneof This ă , Radu Dragnea or even Nae Ionescu who began to write in the pages of of in this write pages the to whobegan evenNaeIonescu or Dragnea , Radu Gîndirea Gîndirea Istoria Civiliza Istoria Civiliza ú ú i gîndirismul i gîndirismul Ġ iei Române Moderne Ġ iei RomâneModerne ., p. 98. , p. 76. 54 116 Rumania , (Bucharest: Minerva,1997). Gîndirea These are the sign of an intellectual trend 112 , p., 293 and Zigu Ornea „Introduction” to (Princeton: Princeton University Press, University Princeton (Princeton: ’s development. ’s [The History of the Romanian Gîndirea. 115 114 Another reason The Birth of Birth The Introduction CEU eTD Collection 119 instability. wing of Partythe was highly populist and its political opportunism in the interwar period proved political their minorities had to be subjects to a rightist wing adopted a proto – fascist and highly nationalistic discourse in which all the Jews majoritythe and of theRomanian populationalien andcorporatist ideas inspired by the Italian Fascism.Vaida–Voievod’s mixing populist ideas coming from the Left in the garments of Peasantism which was obviously addressed to 118 dominated by a subordinate position towards Nazism. Cambridge University Press, 1997) which tends to consider theentire philosophical work of Heidegger kind of by politics of turn the decade.the Nevertheless beforeI arguethat 1926,Crainic is Orthodoxism.Atthis stage their option aestheticwas purely and they not involve did inany 117 behind agenda traditionalist the likepeople Mircea Drago Eliade, mustit that review, the beargued sense to of rolecohesion acertain inthe journal offered 1927 1921 by to economical of RomanianLiberal initiatives the the governments from between neglected Romanian economy, of the apeasantry management problematic by caused economical unevenness to subjected peasantry, Romanian the addressed to to Metaphysics traditionalist welcomed the National Peasants Party’s eclectic ideology Party’seclectic Peasants National the welcomed traditionalist Orthodoxist legitimizethe his of understanding andto zeal his programmatic efforts politicsits andof in importance cultural nationalistthe and Ithink hiseditorialagenda. that withoutdemonstrates doubtsomething that has changed inNichifor Crainic’s perception of politics in 1921–1926tohisthe election as ina deputy Romanianthe in Parliament 1927 in from disinterested His a intellectual condition of the shiftEurope. from Western the in countries other the already present tendency intellectual yet, reflects this sympathizer regimes. totalitarian in the intellectuals the of functionality Giovanni Gentile’s major political role in Fascist Italy are enough proof of the formative Henry L. Roberts, The National Peasants Party’s ideology never presented itself in a unitary key: Maniu’s centrists were centrists Maniu’s key: a unitary in itself presented never ideology Party’s Peasants National The For a commentary on Heidegger, please see Julian Young, Julian see please Heidegger, on commentary a For Although by Nichifor that Crainic Micuconsiders Dumitru assuming the leading Crainic makes no exception and his career after 1926, although not a Fascist not 1926,although no andhiscareerafter exception makes Crainic 117 in which the intellectuals had as a task the “guidance of the leader” or leader” of the “guidance a task the had as intellectuals in the which Rumania.Political Problems of an Agrarian State numerus clausus ú Gîndirea Protopopescu, or Lucian or supported Protopopescu, Blaga although they in the Romanian administration and schools. The leftist cannot be labeled as exponents of Crainic’s 55 Heidegger, Philosophy, Nazism , p. 112. 118 (Cambridge: which was 119 . CEU eTD Collection from the 19Romanian understandingethnicity. of future careerof andthe Orthodoxism this its impact text only toprove comes the over the Tradition] which best reflects Crainic’s crystallization of the traditionalist ideology as Central andCentral Eastern Europe Sythesis professed by professed Sythesis 125 1996), p.123 and passim. 124 122 121 123 Organisation Gala 120 in by Crainic ever of written pieces text in trueRomaniantraditionalistshaping the culture One of culture. mostcharismatic the Eugen Lovinescu addressed to on the electoral lists of the National Peasants Party confirms this hypothesis as well. bea coincidence just and Crainic’s in election as 1927 deputy in the Romanian Parliament peasantry. the towards directed with offer an electoral Liberal government hegemony the of year Iuliu Maniu andhis followers from the National Peasants Party challenged the political ininnocent; that not was discourse cultural and type of This culture. state of Romanian the future development in Romanianpeasantry the tothe role reserved relevance future the and Church. Orthodox Romanian the of Synod circle gathered EugenLovinescu, around disapprove or theofficialto of politics Holythe intellectual the namely his, than different was which culture Romanian the from direction cultural a criticize to content is simply He in politics. involvement in all at interested not Nicoleta S Nicoleta Published initally in Armin Heinen, Although I think it is to much to claim that Maniu and the Peasantist ideology were traditional at all. “A doua neatîrnare” [The Second Independece], Second [The neatîrnare” doua “A Gala – Fisher Stephen Ġ i, Romania. AHistorical perspective Therefore, the texts of Nichifor Crainic from this period are either bitter criticism After 1926 Crainic calibrated his articles on a political agenda focused on the 120 , p. 168. ă lcudeanu, „Present Day Reverberations of the Traditionalist–Nationalism–Orthodoxism ofthe Day Reverberations „Present lcudeanu, The ideological consanguinity between the two discourses two the between Theideological consanguinity th and 20 Die Legionen “Erzengel Michael” in Rumänien, Soziale Bewegung undPolitische Gîndirea Gîndirea Ġ i, “The Interwar period: Greater Romania” in Dinu C. Giurescu & Stephen Fischer- & Stephen C. Giurescu Dinu in Romania” Greater period: Interwar i, “The th (Cluj–Napoca: Cluj University Press, 1995), p. 338–344. centuries for fabricating centuries aRomanian culture deprived of any Magazine” in Maria Cr Maria in Magazine” 4/ 1927. I will use the text from 123 (Boulder, East EuropeanMonographs, 1998), p. 302. , either programmatic texts about the role of the of role the about texts programmatic either , 125 By criticizing bitterly the European intellectuals By bitterly European the criticizing Gîndirea Gîndirea 56 ă ciun & Ovidiu Ghita, &Ovidiu ciun is “Sensul Tradi “Sensul is V, no. 11/ 1926. Puncte Cardinale în Haos Ethnicity and Religion in Ġ iei” 124 121 [The Meaning of isevident too to , (Ia , ú i: Timpul, 122 CEU eTD Collection International and Area Studies, 1995), p. 112. National Character and National Ideology in Interwar Eastern Europe “National Ideology Nationaland Character ininterwar inRomania” in Ivo &KatherineBanac Verdery (eds.), account into the nationalidea future had totake discussion the thatany culture Junimistthe againin features an and brought that Practically,culture. created original autochthon Crainic from features some imported cultural Westhaveassimilated tradition the although which, account intonot cultural the take aninorganicmeaningdid process becausethis which was 128 synchronism. Lovinescu’s to associated closely be very can West ofthe assimilation cultural 127 126 West of the assimilation cultural only as culturespirituality of consummation of the French culture neglecting the possibility of a Nichifor Crainic, “Sensul Tradi Nichifor Crainic, ”Sensul Tradi ”Sensul Crainic, Nichifor NichiforCrainic, “Sensul Tradi What Crainic meant was that Western imports in the Romanian culture had no had culture Romanian the in imports Western that was meant Crainic What accept and of destiny the dead. born to a people in toRomanians,to negateadestiny negate culture, aRomanian principle, proper Europeanizing means nihilism the negation creativeof our potential. means This to orientalness; our of negation the means Westernization ourselves… is Orient toward that the toward than orientation other no be can there world, eastern the the of to hold truths religion, Orthodox the through who, and Orient the in geographically ourselves find who us, for And East. the from comes light is said it Everywhere face hearth icons the us of Orient, face the Altars toward Orient. the with in accord Orient, from contains withinitself notion the of ‘Orient’ andmeans directing ourselvesthe toward the Orient;recommends an orientation towards the West speaks nonsense. ‘Orientalism’ image and likeness,the this implies also how its of thispeasant orientation depths in the lies which life must permanent be of people.resolved. substance the of Whoever revelations historical them in sees Traditionalism If creation. who autochthon themonumental the and culture missionkneels us under appeartoassimilation both foreign aspects ofvastNicolaeof Iorga the of thein Romanian the field people isfaces to create thea culture Orient. after its Bogdan–Petriceicu Ha the higher target isA aMihailKog Bãlcescu, creation. higherNicolae the national target assimilation, beyond this But assimilation. cultural of process a naturally to reduce with West many which bothers andso Romanian the intellectuals disorientates relationship orthe Westernization issue of everlasting the the traditionalists, For 126 , Crainic argued against this trend that they had shaped the Romanian culture Romanian hadshaped the they that trend against this , Crainic argued Ġ Ġ Ġ iei”, p. 126 - 127. The translation of the text iei”, p. 126. This principle I have to argue that Crainic’s understanding of understanding Crainic’s that argue to I have principle This 126. p. iei”, iei”, p. 123–125. ú deu, a Mihai Co aGeorge deu, aMihai Eminescu, 127 . 57 128 (New Haven: Yale Center for Center Yale Haven: (New apud ú buc, aVasile Pîrvan, or Katherine Verdery ă lniceanu, a CEU eTD Collection Verdery, “National Ideology and National Character in interwar in Romania”, p. 111. p. Romania”, in interwar in Character National and Ideology “National Verdery, 130 Studies, 1978), p.153 – 154. Romania, 1860-1940: DebateA onDevelopment in a European Nation, Orthodoxy Orthodoxy together with traditionalthe reality of villagethe from which any cultural 129 because Bolshevikthe of among phobiawhichcirculated Romanians. Orthodox horizon which inwas presented anOriental maximum moderationkey with futurethe untouched. Romanian culture which organicityhave keptthe would between the andpast, the present, authentic an building in factor a decisive as Orthodoxy the of relevance the consideration into took he Junimists, the unlike novelty: of element and achievement main Crainic’s Oriental is themixturebetweencivilization that Orthodoxy andis the rural culture andthis intoa futureaccount processof hadthat take rural the to culturecreating an original he understood Accordingly, tradition. autochtonist Christian the with associated intimately beforehim. continuity He namedthis presumedcultural was and this tradition that tradition privilege ofhaving anintellectual legacy becamewhich normative for the Romanian culture own contribution. If and his he idea brought hadCrainic reinterpreted this But culture. presence of Romanian the for Junimists national culture was only an ideal, Crainic enjoyed the For the relationbetween Bolshevism and traditionalist orientalism in Romania, please see Katherine KeithHitchins, „Gîndirea: Nationalism inSpiritual Guise”Kenneth in Jowitt (ed.), Crainic considered that anyimitation. of sterility the future ofculturedemonstrate nature and organic the to attempted of Crainic style, cultural RomanianWesternizers like Eugen Lovinescu with hisof theory synchronism. Using the theory by newuniformity upon whichwas being generation the civilization of pressed culturelevelingcleavetradition Romania and toavoidhavewords, the to wouldand other In culture. folk the of layers deeper in the those and Church was Orthodox Eastern relatedhigher of cultivation the to itself commit would it if spiritual ruin the avoid could Romania but to valuesa Christian – namely those set forth in the gospel for theWest: hope little foresaw Keith Crainic to Hitchins According as interpreted by the 129 58 (Berkeley: of Institute International 130 Social Change in Nevertheless, CEU eTD Collection democracy.” as the materializationof the “twofold ideal: reunited nationality [na 135 341 and passim. 134 133 (Bucharest: Eminescu, 1980), p.25. fit infit Crainic’s traditionalist and pattern.Orthodoxist and as of traditionalis,precursors Iorga althoughOrthodox B B both articles dedicated two Crainic wrote text, this programmatic after Nevertheless, andculture. character Romanian %ă of Nicolae of Romanianness prophets the presence among is the reader surprise the frontof a generation supportersintellectualsof which of were not idea.this Whatcould in spirituality Romanian authentic an of expression ultimate the as tradition rural Christian, intention, Junimistthe has nothing incommon.Again, theconcept Crainic applied a of with comparison in which, culture rural Romanian in the disseminated tradition Christian mindintendedachieve. andwhat CrainicFirst to of for “organic” Crainicall, means a organic characterof Romanianthe which culture about spoke before him Junimists. the sawthe Crainic in culture which andtradition toanuncorrupted for areturn advocated 132 about the relation betweenblood and ethnicity were at that time were proved wrong by biologists. 131 out As pointed culture. Ornea of Zigu Romanian the idea character ontheJunimist organic languageconcept of tradition, andblood, aforementioned intellectuals. By elementsprivileging throughwhich two he could the frame the Romanian an return had of future presentexpression to development culture already to Romanian of character which was depicted at its best by a generation of the For example, in „Nicolae B „Nicolae in example, For Iorga], Nicolae of Aesthetics [The Iorga” Nicolae lui “Estetica Crainic, Nichifor B “Nicolae Zigu Ornea, Although as Zigu Ornea had pointed in lcescu and Nicolae Iorga whichfamous theirboth for views regarding lcescu Iorga secular were andNicolae 132 , there was a huge difference between traditionalism as a cultural which trend asa cultural traditionalism between wasahugedifference , there However, there are certain point of departure between what the Junimists had in had Junimists the what between of departure certain point are there However, ă lcescu”, Tradi Ġ ionalism Gîndirea ă lcescu”, ú i modernitate în deceniul al treilea 12/ 1927, p. 340–347. ă lcescu op. cit. The Romanian Extreme Right 133 , p. 340, Crainic described the 1848 revolutionary and historian and revolutionary 1848 the described Crainic 340, p. , and Iorga 131 59 Crainic proposed an interwar variant of the of variant interwar an proposed Crainic 134 135 in which he presented both Bãlcescu both presented he which in [Tradition and modernity the in 1930s] Ġ ionalitate reîntregit , p.94–95 that Gobineau’s theories ă lcescu, forlcescu, example,not did Gîndirea ă ] and demophil 6 –7–8/ 1931, p. CEU eTD Collection 136 Romanian young generation was “Spiritualitate” tothe was consecrated of which firsttext Crainic in end The Romania. at the 1920s of appear especially to young began which the elite histo propose ethnotheology to He started determined by emergencethe of a generation of young Romanian intellectuals: theyouth. of 1848generationthe and Junimists, the interpreted both in a traditionalist Orthodoxist key. itwas acultural ideologicaland paradox,Crainic was reframinghimself as continuator the Iorga before World War Iassuredhima inplace Crainic’s intellectual tradition. tough Thus, of impact nationalist the and generation Crainic’s and Junimists the between linkage the represented Iorga Nicolae then. addressing was which Crainic to ageneration generation, for young the characteristic feature messianic historian a 1848 sawin because Crainic the Romanian historians whoadvocated openly for ethnical the unity all of and Romanians B preferred Crainic’s culture, traditional Orthodox he that heavily incriticized his forciblyfortexts previous EuropeanizingOriental/ an B Although Nicolae character. proposing an alternative features, lacked namelywhich fundamental its one itsof “organic” from movementIa Junimist the Iorga, (Maiorescu, contesters which were quoting in importanttheir defense Crainic’sreferences most in which he failed to become a leading ideologue in the absence of a political radicalization of a political in absence the ideologue becomeleading a to failed he in which ideological program has as main cause of Crainic’s depart from the National Peasants Party manifold; nevertheless, period this inCrainic’s writing, the conclusion after his of I will suggestmotives the the Crainic’s towards that interest youth Romanian of are of turn the decades. the speechat Crainic’s evolution Nichifor future of the for paradigmatic NichiforCrainic, „Spirituailitate” [Spirituality] in In 1929, Crainic added to his anotherIn 1929,Crainic whosepresence feature previous discourse addedto was his an for fabricated names with intellectual appealing Crainic Therefore, tradition ă lcescu was a representative of generation 1848secular the of wasarepresentative lcescu Gîndirea 60 ă , No.8–9/ 1929, p.307–310. 136 lcescu because he was one of the first oneof the because hewas lcescu ú [Spirituality] and this text became i) to demonstrate that Crainic Crainic was that demonstrate i) to CEU eTD Collection the compass in Chaos]. Crainic returns to his around compass inCrainicthe initial Chaos]. to which gravitates returns preoccupation egoism.” historical “the political subjection Romanianof the limitationculture andits strict thearound ethnical, and spirit” [secular] “positivist the was this for reasons main the and Theology of Faculty Bucharestbefore beginning the World of WarI,including and in Iorga his professors the among the young late generation of 1920s. ideology traditionalist his advertise to intentions Crainic’s about sign is another supervision publish in one of prestigious most the cultural journals in Romania under Crainic’s mission of the young generation in another article “Puncte cardinale în haos” în cardinale “Puncte article in another generation of young mission the traditionalism wants… the alliance of our ephemerity with eternity.” identifiedsoul ancestors tothereturn people’s which soul,our that with Our religion… 139 138 137 B Vasile like Eliade, Mircea intellectuals young anumberthat of generation. Thefact of young ideologue in Romanian the foremost the young elite tohis Orthodoxistideology and, accordingly, totransform, as Iorga before him, Romanian the adhesion the of attract to attempted Crainic Rather, Iron Guard sympathies. claimfarin go that that theendof Crainic asto had anypro– 1920s particularthis period, especially with Guard’s Iron the from electoral offer beginningof the not 1930s.Iwill the intellectualsof of whom ideologue Crainic hoped to into. turn anewof ofhis ideology transfer Iuliuand the Maniu’spolitical generation interesttowards NichiforCrainic, NichiforCrainic, „Spiritualitate”, p. 310. NichiforCrainic, „Spiritualitate”, p. 309. Crainic continued his meditations about nationality, Orthodoxy, traditionalism and the and traditionalism Orthodoxy, nationality, about meditations his continued Crainic In “Spiritualitate” Crainic started with a dismissal of the secular academic life from life academic secular the of dismissal a with started Crainic “Spiritualitate” In The feeling of young, revolutionary generation was close with Fascist ideology, Fascist with close was generation revolutionary young, of feeling The Puncte cardinale în Haos 137 The only escape for the present generation, argued Crainic, was “to was Crainic, argued generation, present for the escape Theonly , (Ia ú i: Timpul, 1996). 61 ă ncil ă or Drago or ú Protopopescu started to started Protopopescu 138 139 [Points of CEU eTD Collection (eds.), coronation he started to encourage financially the Iron Guard hoping that hecould Iron that Guard hoping the encourage financially to he started coronation Carol II. King of instigations the under wings indifferent Party Peasants National the of dissipation the with also but inRomania, crisis economic and democracy of collapse the to was related from speech itcontributors of forhis newspaper.In was 1932 this Crainic everyone plain that changed 142 141 rights and 140 of ideologueGuard anddirector of Iron the later the Polihroniade, Vl Toma like figures new also but Dragnea, Codreanu. Many youngthe of from contributors first daily advocating openlyin favor of Legionthe of Archangel Michael led byZelea of conceptthe demophily the new generation. He became director of director became He new generation. the in involvement his regarding discourse ideological Crainic’s in shift is another there 1932, he After eye couldcatch newthe that the hoped – Crainic newgeneration. the of generation and II the Carol King both – fronts double on Fighting career. interwar Crainic’s Nichifor of Orthodoxy: to leads which nationalism of definition aRomanian summarizes Please see Stephen Fischer–Gala seeStephen Please NichiforCrainic, “Puncte cardinale în haos”, p.26. The concept was created by putting togheter two Greek words: Greek two togheter by putting created was concept The The new nationalist catechism of the Romanian young generation represents thepeak represents generation young Romanian the of catechism nationalist The new acquirekeenness and to blazingform the of culture. scholarly the by reflected be to wait only They nature. of form in form, in instinctive spiritualism, the of elements the alive exist live soul his in idealist; or materialist Becausenot which ourpeople is about. have about spoke of I spiritualism the demophilthe feelingis one methodsthrough the of which the thinkingwe can reach to Romania. AHistorical Perspective 142 phile The affinity between fascism and the Romanian King and the fact that after his after that fact the and King Romanian the and fascism between affinity The which is a synonym forlove. Gîndirea for a more fascist focalized discourse and the reason for this attitude reason andthe focalizeddiscourse fascist amore for 140 Ġ . In both texts, Crainic made use of this concept which i, “The interwar Period” in Dinu C. Giurescu and Stephen Fischer–Gala Stephen and Giurescu C. Dinu in Period” interwar “The i, , (Boulder: East EuropeanMonographs, 1998), p. 307. Calendarul 62 ă descu, Vasile Vojen, Emil Cioran, or Mihail or Cioran, Emil Vojen, Vasile descu, Gîndirea newspaper, recognized as one of newspaper,the oneof recognized as demos 141 like Drago which meant people with political ú Protoponescu, Radu Protoponescu, Axa werethe main Ġ i CEU eTD Collection through young the unblemished and generation, thoughthose who the grew profoundup in repugnance for theneighbor” love justice and of social imperative of the property”against Liberal Communist which or view on property hea “Christianto opposed function that is “ themodel fascist Italian tothe according for economical corporatism which headvocated allotmentin articles first his in clearly convictions political his he expressed rather but nationalist, of the wealth atstake for any matter was the culture framing Romanian aauthentic that considered has to be changed accordingetc.) from Calendarul chose to join tothe Iron Guard in the lastmonths of the 1932. that some that (Toma ofhis collaborators Vl intellectuals toearn livingtheir agriculture. through redemptive young generation Guard Romanian of the Iron 147 and Calendar) 146 Calendarul 176/ 1932,p. 1. 143 from reframehe tideto the Consequently,that commenced hadturn. hisintellectual discourse scene political much Romanian on the firstimpactand although electoral without parliament this success, regime. any of ideologue political official the as Crainic institutionalize failed to Party II Carol and Peasants National understand Kingsympathy hisgamblingtowards Crainicto that last Carol,on determined subordinate the movement to his authoritarian purposes together with Nichifor Crainic’s 145 Organisation 144 Organisation “Alte m „Drama propriet Armin Heinen, “De la con la “De Heinen, Armin In In 1932 the fact that the Iron Guard succeeded to secure two seats in secure two Romanian the Iron Guard succeededto the fact that In 1932the Gîndirea Calendarul, ăú , p. 173. , p. 161. ti–aceea ú 143 tiin Sfarm Die Legionen “Erzengel Michael” in Rumänien, Soziale Bewegung undPolitische to a more fascist influenced speech in journals like journals in speech influenced fascist more a to ăĠ DieLegionen “ErzengelMichael” in Rumänien, Soziale Bewegung undPolitische , together with Hitler’s political rise in feeling Crainicthe Germany with Hitler’s political , together gave rise Ġ ii” [The tragedy of property], a profesional a ú i fa ă –Piatr Crainiclonger isno the apolitical intellectual which up to1926 Ġă ” [Other masks – the same face]: „Romania’s redemptioncannot come only ă ă la corporatism” [From professional consciousness to corporatism], to consciousness professional [From corporatism” la . To the fascist adhesion of Crainic contributed also the fact the also contributed of Crainic adhesion fascistTo the . ă descu, MihailPolihroniade,descu, Drago Calendarul 63 148 177/ 1932, p.1. 146 , by advertising indirectly for the for indirectly by advertising , 147 , by sending Romanianthe Calendarul ú Protopopescu, 144 (The 145 , CEU eTD Collection journalistic ethnocratic his inquisitorial and of own politicalthe approach stanceand and of for Crainicideologue by amore ideal wasabandoned by the aesthetical dominated an discourse of Crainic which in which Crainic of discourse generation fascist sympathizingideology with the of Iron the Guard. Theintellectual theyoung towards wasdirected which corporatistBolshevik, discourse pro–ethnocratic and 151 its idea with heavenly andessence.” its Christian earthly the with substance its“From because beginnings built is ideas:Romania national great on ideathese thetwo dogma of race’s purity and proclaims theabsolute of religiousthe not faith do wander” in the whobelieves young“a generation young by generation: the into account was taken project his that noticed already he has but generation, young the for alternative a Christian What was different from was different What people” “theabout spiritual createdby assets artistic,the reasoning, andscientific of elites this and the onlyinitiative he had on subjectthis wasan article from in1932 which he spoke Orthodoxy often spoke about by implications,and its political Crainic culture wasneglected he Although region. the from states the of politics” –Orthodox a “pan of platform” political from Balkans“Orthodoxy the civilization and itsfor ideal universal harmony are the thesocieties for the ideaa Balkan that, in supported Crainic Epilogue which conference] to 150 149 back to plug],the Calendarul 193/ 1932, p. 1. 148 side of country this to the other by the ruthless revenges of the club’s bandits.” Calendarul 182/ 1932, p. 1. ownflesh and nerves the afflictions of this politicianism throughwhich some have beenmartyrized from one towards the politician regime [ politicianismului] thievishand destructive, throughthose who endured intheir “Spre noul noul “Spre Bizan “Congresul studen „Fali get intellectuals The phenomenon. Canadian [The plug” la se reîntorc Intelectualii canadian. „Fenomenul Calendarul In this from period Another issue of interest on Nichifor Crainic’s agenda was the young generation. young the was agenda Crainic’s Nichifor on interest of issue Another One of his most penetrating texts of Nichifor Crainic from Calendarul be to from of Onemostseemed Crainic Calendarul his penetrating of Nichifor texts Ġ ii 150 ú i senatul cultural” [The Bankcrupts and the cultural Senate] in Senate] cultural the and Bankcrupts [The cultural” i senatul shouldhave keptalive the national culture. 202/ 1932, p.1 Ġ Ġ esc” [The Students Congress] in . Epilog la conferin o . Epilog Gîndirea Calendarul lies on the fact that in Gîndirea Crainic’s shifted towards an shifted towards Crainic’s anti–democratic andanti– Ġă balcanic was ideologically traditionalist and highly and traditionalist ideologically was 64 Calendarul ă ” 230/ 1932, p.1. 149 Calendarul [Towards the new Byzantium]. new the [Towards Calendaru Crainic did not propose not did Crainic l 330/ 1932, p. 1. 151 CEU eTD Collection Codreanu on Codreanu on 29 Codreanu. politicalembrace the to II and Carol King the of coronation the after seclusion leaveto hispolitical ideology hedecided hand, on theother of but, ideologue Orthodoxism the himself asthe undisputed of Calendarul, Crainic played hiscards double–handed: on onehand,the he maintained the young generation: the movement led by Corneliu Zelea – released afterwards. Accordingly, his first article after his imprisonment is a return to his to isreturn a imprisonment his after article first his Accordingly, afterwards. released Crainic was imprisoned for a few days without Nichifor Guard. More, Iron Fascist propagandapublishing on the for accusation the of trial for his pro–Fascist articles and he was oblivion obscurity and to destined project idealist backwhich upapoliticalideology hiswithout have would remainedonly Orthodoxism an 152 of director the form. uncomplicated in foraudience intellectual werepresented Crainic’s ideas which a more abridged and broader a consequence a as had choice This Romania. interwar the of context social Romanian Parliament on the electoral lists of the Iron Guard. Iron of the lists electoral onthe Parliament Romanian Zigu Ornea, From From a angle,different although Crainic hada ideology cultural behind hisstatements, After the assassination of Prime Minister I. G. Duca by three legionaries of legionaries by three Duca G. I. Minister of Prime assassination After the Anti–Semitism and ethnocracy Fascist between Crainic Nichifor 1934. 2.5. After The Romanian Extreme Right Gîndirea th of December 1933, both of Calendarul andDecember 1933,both chose to become also director at , p. 29 confirms that Crainic was offered a place for the 65 152 . By conducting the editorial efforts of Calendarul Gîndirea because hewantedto because were from prohibit CEU eTD Collection 158 157 156 Nichols, 1972), p. 159. The information is from George Lichtheim, George from is information The bedesirable.” alone let exist, can values spiritual or human no State the outside and all–embracing, is State of the conception fascist The plutocracy… ofdemocracy, antithesis categoric and final, the clear, the world, apparently by GentileGiovanni for the 155 154 existence” the 1924andthe 1934young generations of Iron the heGuard, although wasnotsupporting him. with locked text from together imitating framed Codreanu’s Crainic alinkbetween By whowere of Guard’s leaders Iron the account ahagiographic framed which he practically inparagraph from verdant eloquentisIron GuardCrainic another the and samethe text political speech of Guard. Romanian the Iron in the and ideology incipient in the present already elements all are positivism academic introduction of the Christian elementin the University as a reply both to Judaic element and which is about to come abyssreference Romanianbetween youth, tothe to “old the world”and “new the this text is the first sign of his adherence towards the Romanian Iron Guard. By making 153 of the youth.” age the is age ”our author: the of intentions real the about doubt no leaves which statement aclear with started in prison spent days the after article first Crainic’s Christianity], a public produced Guard as defence of Iron well.the Crainic defence, public his writing After sympathies. fascist his for “irresponsible” ethnic whoaccused Nicolae Orthodoxism Crainicand being areply Iorga to of For this please see, “Tinerii Nichifor Crainic, “Tineretul Nichifor Crainic, “Tineretul This was a metaphordear to Benito Mussolini who in an article about “the world to come” written Nichifor Crainic, „Tineretul Nichifor Crainic, „Tineretul „Tineretul Crainic, Nichifor What confirms in my view the suspicions about a certain remaining affinity between affinity remaining a certain about suspicions the my view in confirms What Entitled programmatically “Tineretul “Tineretul programmatically Entitled 157 , anti–Semitism, the new “Romanian Christian Students Association”, the Association”, Students Christian “Romanian new the anti–Semitism, , 154 Crainic changed again his political agenda and I would dare to argue Crainichis that agenda and changedagain political dareto Iwould 155 ú ú ú ú ú i cre i cre i cre i cre i cre , the psychology of death ú ú ú ú ú tinismul”, p. 67–68. tinismul”, p. 66. tinismul”, p. 66. tinismul”, p. 65. tinismul” [The Youth and Christianity], and Youth [The tinismul” Enciclopedia italiana Europe in theTwentieth Century 66 158 in1931 spoke about “the new principle in the ú i cre 156 , “the meaning metaphysical of ú tinismul” (London: Wedenfeld and Wedenfeld (London: Gîndirea 153 [The Youth and Youth [The 3/ 1934 CEU eTD Collection 163 represented by the Iron Guard, depicted as a new stage in Romanian nationalist tradition: nationalism as Orthodoxism had finallyfound asocial incarnation in thenew generation social and support attracted convictions prove thathisnationalist to example text inthe he text.Even wrote this though hemere wasa sympathizerGuard, he of Iron the used this Guard of “charismatic Iron inthe group” the become will on later which and elites Liberal and Jewish the against assassinates of number Corneliu Georgescu. They were all acquitted of all the accusations brought to them in March 1924. March in 162 to them brought accusations the of all acquitted all were They Georgescu. Corneliu 161 1924 in V 159 Elena Lupescu, the mistress of Carol II of influence the under Codreanu of entrance the after movement Guard Iron the anymore 160 Nichifor Crainic, “Tineretul Irina Livezeanu, Irina It was formed by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, Ilie Gîrnea According to Crainic’s own testimony from Nichifor Crainic, “Tineretul until yesterday crawled on earth, today bathe its upsurges in the unseen world of the of angels. world unseen in the upsurges its bathe today earth, on crawled yesterday which until nationalism, new this and nationalism of element a constitutive existence] into religious mysticism becomes from now on [from the moment when Iron Guard came Although itis group Crainic aboutthefamous thatspoke obvious and hisicon will patronize theirmeeting houses. andsome of their protection them underthe put will organizations of archangel the this moment, religious mysticism will descend in the tormentedthe celestialsoul legionsof thisreveals youth himself and takes them under his protecting wings. From toseems It visions. them religious have men young imprisoned that the exaltation, religious Archangeltheir and Michaelthoughts theirfeelings. began Theyfastand inpray God... In gathering group asingle their to to everyday write to some hunger, himself,to chose Some souls. their better analyze to time have themovements student’s the commanderof heads the prison, into Thrown with the blazed sword of ăFă re 163 ú Cultural Politics in Greater Romania ti penitentiaryti for plotting politicalthe against regime and preparing a ú ú i cre i cre ú ú tinismul”, p. 70. tinismul”, p. 68. 159 Zile albe. Zile negre 67 162 , p. 280 and passim. Ġă , Crainic had something else inmind when , Radu Mironovici, IonMo 160 , p. 72. Ġ a, Tudose Popescu and 161 imprisoned in imprisoned CEU eTD Collection Center forInternational and Area Studies, 1995), p. 155. Katherine Verdery 167 166 165 in the influence of Nae Ionescu and, accordingly, he felt excluded from hehis leadingposition from feltinNae Ionescu excluded and, accordingly, of the influence publiclyCrainic his practically uttered dissatisfaction with Romanian the Guard, now Iron Rome.” the secular towards East venerated from away the to turn with “Crainic ethnicity him forfascism emphasis Nazism. andupon hisadmiration caused disagreement his and fascism Italian the for preference his expressed Crainic Christianity, principles the to of according Christianity” “created state Mussolinian the considering By Germany. Nazi and Italy and by contradicting as Fascist patterns for political Crainic They became earlier. hehad rejected realities which the viability of a German in and interested Western morethe wasmore Crainic it seemed that noticed, Hitchins religion, a Nazi and Religion] represented a double shift in Crainic discourse. On the one hand, as Keith 164 Romanian people and its institutions.” nationalthe monarchy and the demophily,namely deepthe feeling of love towards the Romanian nationalism:“Christ, the King,themeaningNation the religion of Fatherland, the of Nae Ionescu, and second by sending him prison.to person who him disappointed first byneglecting himasthe ideologueofficial in detriment ofa monarchy,of in despite idea the ofauthority embedded concept respecttowards the King in the person of Carol II, Crainic chose to use a principle in order to show to his reader values of the spiritualistnationalism of Crainic can be deceitful: although Romania had a Keith Hitchins, „Orthodoxism: Polemics over Ethnicity and Religion ininterwar Romania” in Ivo Banac & „Ras NichiforCrainic, „Titanii ateismului” [The Titans of Atheism] in Nichifor Crainic, “Tineretul ăú For the new generation to reach Crainic proposed the new values of new new the of values the proposed reach Crainic newgeneration to For the “Titanii Ateismului” “Titanii i religiune” [Race and Religion] in National Character andNationalNational Ideology Interwar in EasternEurope ú i cre 165 ú [The Titans of Atheism] “Ras and tinismul”, p. 70. Gîndirea 164 The presence of the King among the fundamental the among King the of presence The 68 XIII, 2/ 1935, p.57–66. Gîndirea XIII,7/ 1934,p. 257–263. ú ă 167 i Religiune” On the other hand, other the On (New Haven: Yale 166 [Race CEU eTD Collection 1978), p. 156. 1860-1940: ADebate onDevelopment in a European Nation, center.” in“Gîndirea: Nationalismthe at inethnicity aspiritual placed he Guise”,and Kennetheconomics, uponJowitt than (ed.), rather culture and religion of philosophy the on sociology 174 Legionen “Erzengel Michael” in Rumänien,Soziale Bewegung undPolitische Organisation Studies, 1978),p. 117–139. the For rejectionof corporatism by IronGuard,the please seeHeinen, Armin Romania, 1860-1940: DebateA onDevelopment ina European Nation, Jowith(ed.), Kenneth in Europe” ofWestern Periphery on the Development Dependent Delayed– the of consequences political the and Manoilescu Mihail on „Reflections Schmitter, C. Philippe see voice of Ioan Mo Ioan of voice corporatism hoping that could he approach the Romanian Iron Guard. However, Iron the Guard throughthe 173 minorities.” (p. 249) other and Romanians between proportionality numerical ofthe principle the introduced is it state ethnocratic Italian definition: the Ethnocratic State “differs from corporatism because in the professional legislationof the 172 1919 – 1945 Gentile in general please see AlastairHamilton, 170 171 “Cre 169 rasei noastre” [George Co [George noastre” rasei more nothing than a summary and articles the already of ideas byCrainic inhis advertised are its because features many of state notfocus ethnocratic on the Iwill andxenophobia. book named book present in Crainic thought (cultural Orthodoxism, traditionalism, nationalism) with whole with new elements:nationalism) fascist corporatism traditionalism, Orthodoxism, (cultural thought Crainic in present embrace his idea and put itinto practice. This was mixture between some elements eventually already would someone that hoping state ethnocratic the him for was which state program.” political one. He did little,not succeed toughnot is This ideas. of although–as movement interwar the in itsdirection a created shade, Orthodox an founderwith we shall wanted see–he more. went asHe farwanted as to setto upturn a this ideological direction into a 168 asbefore topics same dwell continuedCrainic’sup 1944Nichifor on the argue that in to texts Guard. I theIron Keith Hitchins argued that shaping the concept of ethnocracy, “unlike Manoilescu, Crainic based his based Crainic Manoilescu, “unlike ethnocracy, of concept the shaping that argued Hitchins Keith After1934, when he lost politicalhis influence infront of King Carol II, he started to advocate forItalian the from different state ethnocratic his made which a characteristic corporatism fascist to added Crainic Zigu Ornea, For Giovanni Gentile’s influence over Crainic, please see Dumitru Micu, Dumitru see please Crainic, over influence Gentile’s Giovanni For “Romauniversal “Na ú tinismul Ġ ionalitatea în art Dissatisfied with Codreanu and Carol II, Nichifor Crainic, “with his traditionalism his “with Crainic, Nichifor II, Carol and Codreanu with Dissatisfied 170 (New York: MacMillan, 1971), p. 57–58. ú Accordingly, inspired by Italian fascism Italian by inspired Accordingly, i fascismul”, Secolul corporatismului The Romanian Extreme Right Ġ a, rejected corporatism as hidden Marxism. For Manoilescu’s economical doctrine, please doctrine, economical Manoilescu’s For Marxism. hidden as corporatism a, rejected ă ” [Universal Rome], Gândirea 4/ 1935, p. 169 – 175; “Omul eroic” ă ” [The Nationality inArt] 168 ú buc, the poet of our race], of our poet the buc, Gîndirea with only one exception: his growing interest in Italian fascism. in Italian interest growing his exception: one only with 3/ 1937. 3/ 172 (1934) , p. 103. which was by popularized Mihail Manoilescu in a TheAppeal of Fascism.A Studyof Intellectuals and Fascism, Gîndirea Gîndirea 173 69 but in a dissimilar manner in adissimilar but 3/ 1935, p.113–116; “George Co 5/ 1935, p. 258–267. 171 (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, , he shaped his own definition of the (Berkeley: of Institute International Gîndirea SocialChangein Romania, ú i gîndirismul Gîndirea 174 , p. 169. , anti–Semitism , Social Change in ú buc,poetul 6/ 1936; , p. 96. For 169 Die CEU eTD Collection 180 111. 179 the Christian nationalism] in against Jewish aggression 178 177 Motru. Nicolae P Nicolae people who are suffering as we do, although they do not have our blood.” needy many so noin against souls is our cruelty becausethere beshall not antisemites, anti-Semitism. In his early years, Crainic had stated that: “We have notbeen, we are notand regarding statements interesting most the contained and Crainic by written ever text fascist namedan interesting “Program EthnocraticState” the annex of professions and the work categories are organic, consequent categories of the national life.” (p. 248) (p. life.” 176 national ofthe categories consequent organic, are categories work the and professions The professions… and categories social work different from composed nation the sees State Ethnocratic Ethnocratic State” is anoriginal application of the fascist corporatism to the Romanian society: “The 175 before. much moderate which was his of discourse characteristic previous articles. Themost striking consequencehis of Orthodoxism is anti–Semiticthe Noticed by LeonVolovici, “Mistificarea românismului” [The Mystification of the Romanianness] in Romanianness] of the Mystification [The românismului” “Mistificarea Nichifor Crainic, „Nicolae P „Nicolae Crainic, Nichifor LeonVolovici, Nichifor Crainic, „În marginea unei s unei marginea „În Crainic, Nichifor Initially published in Calendarul in 1933, after his severance from the Iron Guard, “The Program of the 179 Europe Europe stirredistoday not byasimple norby ideological social war.an war, Today is stirred by the war of the Talmud against the Gospel of Christ. The Crainic radicalization of his position can be seen best in two texts, one dedicated to dedicated one in texts, two best beseen can hisposition of radicalization Crainic practice.’ in Semitic anti- and theory in anti–Semitic anti-Semitic: it because is is healthy ofits ‘Ourspirit it validity: became a guarantee represented; Crainic did anintellectual. longeranti-Semite nodishonored anti–Semitism praise openly and not hesitate 1933,thetermTodeclareafter however. oneself renewedpopularity, enjoyed an to use anti-Semitism as a slogan of the new direction he Some of his later texts were later includedlater in were texts his later Some of Placing in himself the Nicolaecontinuation of P ă ulescu National Ideology &Antisemitism 178 and other the written as a critique addressed Constantin to R Ortodoxie National Ideology & Antisemitism 180 ă ulescu, fondatorul na fondatorul ulescu, , Crainic stated that ú ă i Etnocra rb ă tori” in tori” Ġ ie , p. 97. Gîndirea , p. 127–138. Ġ 70 ionalismului cre ionalismului , 11/ 1931,p. 458. Ortodoxie Ortodoxie ,p.99. ú tin” [Nicolae P [Nicolae tin” ă ulescu’s Christian ulescu’s defensive 175 Ortodoxie ú i Ethnocra which is I think most the ă ú ulescu, the founder of founder the ulescu, 177 176 i Etnocra However, Ġ ie together with Ġ ă ie dulescu – dulescu , p. 95– CEU eTD Collection 182 183 2006), p. 363 and Nationalism in Central and Southeast Europe, 1900–1940 Turda, & Marius Weindling Paul in Romania” Fin–de–Siécle in Semitism Gîndirea 184 critiques were both “false and slandering.” and “false both were critiques feature to this Orthodoxism that is anti–Semitism: is that Orthodoxism this to feature about Orthodoxism against a secular nationalism of Motru disciples, namely Constantin R Junimisttrue which tradition against was and of one anti–Semite Maiorescu’s Iorga sphere. political Romanian in the successes political anti–Semitismthe inordertoremain inof Guard which theIron the sight newwas gaining which was known forits moderation regarding anti–Semitic measures, heembraced fully hand, his although and political cultural wereinfluenced by options fascism Italian the other the on but continuator, direct a as saw always he which to tradition intellectual the to Guard movement itshighly anti-Semitic with doctrine. Therefore, Crainic faithful remained the Iron of rise the was minority Jewish the against speech Crainic’s of radicalization to the 181 Cuza Junimistsfollowers, andespecially namely peoplelike their Nicolae Iorga CrainicFor from anti-Semitismborrowed wassomethinga cultural thetradition went to ForNicolae Iorga’s anti-Semitism, please see R LeonVolovici, He criticized Motru’s book in another article “Românismul Dlui Motru” [The Romanianness of Mr. Motru], “Na 183 Ġ ionalismul sub aspect cre reduction of the foreigners’s influence, the most modest case, according to the to case, according modest most the influence, foreigners’s the of reduction Semite because anti– its and domination inxenophobe culture, politics,implicit is andtends in the today socialfrom life postulates Romania which the to Ethnocracy Accordingly, in “Mistificarea românismului” Crainic stood up as the defender of the these excesses of an immoderate people will be the downfall of Judaism. and its progressive domination in the world is blinding it toits limitations. …Since White French Judaismhas the Horse. revolution, success, success after won However, peace, has given the Jewish people an insane courage and the messianic frenzy of the democratic regime of the last century, its unlimited liberties in paroxysm after world 7/ 1935, p. 192. As Zigu Ornea showed in and he feltsomehow responsible to continue this tradition. Another factor which led National Ideology & Antisemitism ú tin” [Nationalism under Christian image] in ă dulescu–Motru. In dulescu–Motru. article,this he after resumedhis view ă TheRomanian Extreme Right zvan Pârâianu, “Culturalist Nationalism and Anti– , p. 22. 71 (Budapest: Central European University Press, ’Blood and Homeland’: Eugenics 184 Ortodoxie , Crainic addedonemore , p.110–111,Crainic’s ú i Etnocra 182 181 and A. C. Ġ ie , p. 143. CEU eTD Collection [History and Myth inRomanian Conscience] (Bucharest: Humanitas, 1997), p. 53–54. 190 189 188 187 of Nazi ideology. validity in the believed if he or Nazism to converted ifCrainic is doubtful it discourses, Nazi and of Despite becamealeadingintellectual his Antonescu. duringGeneral theregime pro– Ministry of Propaganda 1940hewaselected after and its unchristian character Nazism for “Crainic embraced fully and integrally Nazism in his next years” next his in Nazism integrally and fully embraced “Crainic that whostated Micu Dumitru disagree with to has someone Nevertheless, profiteers.” Jewish the of from hands the be removed would “medicines andthat land properties” dispelledfrom inof the had place Jews the the Romanian “colonize people Romanian state inmanifest that in relatingpoint chapter the“ethnic Crainiclast stated with where policy” 186 principles, namely“the destruction Judaicof the parasitism.” came backtothe one hisof main themes which inwas expressed lastof the his ethnocratic 185 the State is the law of Christ” law of “The that stating After State”. theEthnocratic of in the“Program discourse Crainic of characteristic principal in a remained Anti–Semitism Romania. of matters internal numerus clausus A poignant critique of Nichifor Crainic was issued by Lucian Boia, Dumitru Micu, Dumitru Nichifor Crainic, „Programul statului etnocratic”, in etnocratic”, statului „Programul Crainic, Nichifor Nichifor Crainic, „Programul statului ethnocratic”, statului „Programul Crainic, Nichifor Nichifor Crainic, „Programul statului ethnocratic”, statului „Programul Crainic, Nichifor NichiforCrainic, Crainic’s position about the minorities and the Jews is quite clear: in the best case a case best in the clear: is quite Jews the and minorities the about position Crainic’s by ethnical their own genius? inof Jews caninthe thought how the is which ourselves determined we recognize replacingideals our simulate who minorities and Jews of hands in the is press the in when culture of reality realm in the be would ethnocracy of kind What proportion. with numerical of principle the ideals of their own race? If every nation is a Gîndirea Ortodoxie 190 had in tobeintroduced to reduce theinfluenceorder of foreignersthe in ú i gîndirismul ú i Etnocra 186 and “the life conception of the state is spiritualist” Ġ , p. 202. ie , p. 109. 185 72 Ortodoxie Ortodoxie Ortodoxie Ortodoxie Ortodoxie ú ú i Etnocra i Etnocra ú i Etnocra Istorie Ġ Ġ ie ie Ġ 188 ie , p. 251. , p. 245. ú 189 i mit încon , p. 245. This principle becomes principle This ; Crainic always rejected always ; Crainic ú tiin Ġ a româneasc unicum, 187 , he , ă CEU eTD Collection assassination from 29 from assassination Romanian people theincarnation andelite his philosophicalAfter the of traditionalism. among of Guard Iron the progress in hesaw electoral alsothe but because Calendarul, from colleagues of his –Gardist he pro influence Iron fell the under Guard because Crainic from Calendarul and Gîndirea was at the beginning of the year wrote in favor of the spirituality and Romanian the village. Christian between identification the and on emphasis peasantry important an placed hisreasons behind traditionalist to philosophyCrainic’s options which wereconnected madeprogress byIuliuManiu’s Party, the emerging Peasants eitherGuard. The to Iron suddenly hischanged apoliticala view to more partisan view either towards electoral the Orthodox differentspirituality, wrote Crainic texts especially 1926–1927in after he which namely best, he knew perspective the from nationalism framed he and journal Gîndirea Romania. Althoughin interwar the possible was sphere cultural and public the to on discourse theological he was not interested in politics at the beginning of his career at the Legion.the after and Novemberideologue leading of became that official the Mentor 1933NaeIonescu become a never he could elite heterogeneous Guard’s Iron among the that factthe also contributed Legion the from exit his For untouched. prestige Christian his maintain to also but organization, becameaterrorist Guard Iron that bythe reality dictated make achoice After 1933 Crainic became both pro–Legionary and a detached Legionary Legionary a supporter. both and becamepro–Legionary detached After 1933Crainic Nichifor Crainic’s work is just a brief example of the way in which amutation of the remarks 2.6. Final th of December 1933 of the Prime Minister I. G. Duca, Crainic hadG. Duca,Crainicto I. Prime Minister the 1933of of December 73 CEU eTD Collection Mircea Eliade, Emil Cioran or Constantin Noica. of have young the impact NaeIonescumostgeneration of the durable Romanianness, would theologianjoined defend publicwho the views sphereto andunderstandings his of the by the young only Crainic facerepresents of one Romanian traditionalism,the was receipted which aside generation only throughpropose him to become Minister of Culture. the other General wouldlater who Antonescu to hewill ideologue. Nevertheless, turn personal mediations.book inDespite 1936 his King thepublishing dictatorial the of mostanticipated wishes II, controversial Carol of was he notwas a a coincidenceleadingin he ideaand regime.the Because believed democratic of the heand monarchy the fascism Romanian both to alternative an original reader his to proposed Crainic Semitism, and he maybe corporatism,he andanti-system Mixing together Orthodoxism ethnocracy. called which was intending to become Carol’s After extensively 1934,Crainic wrote refuge andhe in took a utopian political 74 CEU eTD Collection supporters bringsissuebehind thepoliticalsupporters another implications agenda: the this on Greek-Catholic of base massive a with Maniu Iuliu of Party Peasants National the against nationality and Orthodoxy interconnected Ionescu fact that The ontology. ethnic Ionescu’s homologue. its with ethnicity Romanian about in adiscussion neverengaged insured NaeIonescu that factors of these intellectual intellectualleadingyouth, different backgrounds, ideologue of and asan the all professor at Universitythe Bucharestwhenof Crainic impose struggled to himself asa reputed a and intellectual institutionalized an was Ionescu that fact the nation, Romanian its differentapproachesinunderstanding State, the the connection with the Orthodoxy and and Church the between separation the were important most the which among intellectuals two the between for this of dialogue lack reasons Several nation. Romanian of the character a seminalinto neverengaged influenced deeply Crainic Nae Ionescu, the about dialogue represented by CrainicNichifor itis andNae Ionescu, although obvious thatNichifor camps two the that I willargue this chapter. aim of is another discourse nationalist interwar Crainic in the same age.by Nichifor the offered definition ethnic the Toof radicalization the presentis to chapter see if there is any connection University. Romanian from Bucharest present philosopher and aim professor the of The between the two camps of the The counter–alternative theof traditionalist campwas represented by Nae Ionescu, a 3.1. Abstract The last target of the chapter will be to underline the Orthodox features of of Nae features Orthodox underline the beto will chapter of the target lastThe 3. Nae Ionescu: the Radicalization of theDebate of theRadicalization 3. NaeIonescu: 75 CEU eTD Collection emerging Iron emergingGuard. Iron the for ally a political into Church Orthodox Romanian the transform to namely sacred, syllogism regardingRomanianness wasinvested in Churchthe in politicizean attempt to the of environments IronGuard.the His textsfrom late 1930s the proved thatIonescu’s radical intellectual in the successful very be to proved formula his that closely so Romanianess On hand, other the ethnicontology the which developedIonescu linked Orthodoxy and language 1930,whenhe after already supported King Carol IuliuII against Maniu’s party. appearedinIonescu’s areOrthodox” because we Romanians Romanians andweare ontology and the reasonsthe only criterion of authenticity, the primacy of the spiritual overbehind reason, etc. as experience onlived emphasis it. the phenomena, seen asrelated positivism and democracy Statementsin language arealso Nae Ionescu’s presentagainstthis part ofhis contempt career: the like “we theological. from than Major Orthodoxy understanding themes was philosophical,of rather are orthodoxNae Ionescu’s arguethat will I andreligion Orthodoxy, about meditation serious becauseCrainic’s we are with he Nichifor before1930.Although collaborated Ionescu intellectual career of Nae confession. Orthodox belongthe to was to character Romanian the which assured Romaniana radical ethnicity to ontology in nation of whichthe the feature ontological nationalist discoursethat ethnic entered fact The option. intellectual Ionescu’s Nae influenced and present were speech nationalist ontology into a new was phase, shaped that is,by a fromphilosopher a cultural definitionreflects ofalso the the fact that Romanian The second part of the chapter engages in a close analysis of ethnic Nae Ionescu’s of analysis in aclose engages of chapter the part The second The chapter is divided into two parts. On the one hand, I will deal with the Gîndirea journal where he published two texts andjournal texts wherehe in he involvedpublished two wasdeeply a 76 CEU eTD Collection intellectual state. leading the intellectual isthe hisfrom argue that ideaabout Ionescu very possible took trend cultural popular this effect over the rising Nazis and the elite who was sympathizing with Hitler’s camp. I will in Philosophy and Logics. Universitythe Bucharestof (1909 –1913), continued in for Germany München, adoctorate 191 around in him a congregated faithfulnesstheira strong into leader. sympathizing Some writers whith ideas George’s by intellectual be boundedrepresenting artistic anewkingdom which ledby will elites, or messianic person himself asa which advertised an poet esoteric Anton George, Stefan reality had to be rebuilt according to ontological rules. the of element constitutive every and Philosophy the of target main the became ontology the taste for a new kind of philosophy and namely ontology. As Husserl tried to emphasize, Ionescu to opened argue Husserlian philosophy I will that Pfänder. science andAlexander Husserlians: Geiger Moritz (1880–1937)specialistin andaesthetics the philosophy of two also and psychoanalysis and Kant on specialist a Aster von Ernest vitalism”, philosophya supporter of MiddleAges,the Erich (1882–1929), Becher “psycho– of inspecialist the BaeumkerKlaus (1853–1924), Schule”, “Würzburger the psychologiche founderin anepistemological of 1916) realist, wereOswaldKülpe(d. his there professors, Among in his doctoral Logics. dissertation he University where the Muenchen of prepared Is interesting that his academic title had beencontested by some inthe interwar period. Another capital influence from the same period was the intellectual ledby was circle sameintellectual from the period influence capital Another Born June 16,1890in on Br Years First 3.2.The 191 During 1913 up to 1919 Ionescu was a student in1919 Ionescu During wasastudent Germany at 1913upto Georgekreis ă ila, asmall porton the DanubeNaeIonescu studied at (George circle) which have circle)which atremendous would (George 77 CEU eTD Collection Rozavînturilor, 1990), p.3. 193 Romanian Roots 192 5ă memorymost touching cameNae Ionescu of from his Mircea Eliade: student, “The (1927–28), Philosophy of Roman Catholicism” (1929–30). Phenomenology Religiousof “The Practice” (1924-25), of Philosophy Protestantism” The Reality “Metaphysicsof Life” (1921-22), Spiritual “The andReligion” (1923–1924), “ were entitled deliveredlectures first His and logics. of metaphysics Bucharest asprofessor only of the Orthodox citizens of Romania and that no other Christian denomination had the had denomination Christian other no that and Romania of citizens Orthodox the of only feature Romanianness wasa that To state people. of characteristic Romanian the Orthodox which hea livedled him to radical definition in which wasbasedRomanianness on the Ionescu. His search for spirituality behind culture and the troubled historical contextin by represented Nae Romania, that interwar in Romanian ethnicity debatethe about the at one of Romania’s finest university, the University of Bucharest. becomelecturer succeeded to Ionescu a in Nae professor Romanian the any universities, of immediate aftermathstudy in went to beingPhilosophy Viena without as a accepted graduating from Faculty the inof Theology WarIand World Bucharest experienced its after who Crainic Nichifor Unlike curricula. Faculty’s from the course interesting Mircea Eliade, “Introduction” to Nae Ionescu, Nae to “Introduction” Eliade, Mircea For informations regarding this side of the activity please see Mac Linscott Ricketts, dulescu–Motru, one of themost known disciples of Titu Maiorescu, two of themost nor thrill like a Pythia. Hisconquers word andhis thought troubles likean oracle dominate not does Ionescu Nae sober, than rather familiar prophetic, than rather Ironic illustrations… sentences,speech, humorous direct imitated: short students the astyle which created Hequickly lectures. dramatic familiar, warm, of in theform University – theinto the Socraticintroduced technique he anti– Structurally oratorical, from from he Faculty at the of Returned University Germany, taughtPhilosophy of Professor of Metaphysics and Logics, Nae Ionescu thought together with Constantin with together thought Ionescu Nae Logics, and Metaphysics of Professor The aim of the present chapter is provideto a descriptiveframework of another side of , I(Boulder: East EuropeanMonographs, 1988) p. 94. Roza vânturilor1926 –1933 78 [The Winds Cross] (Bucharest: Cross] Winds [The 192 From this period the 193 MirceaThe Eliade. CEU eTD Collection 194 Antohi). ontology (Sorin ethnic of NaeIonescu’s the institutionalization the on will look chapter present the of Thelastsection people. Romanian the to happen could that thing worse the as Orthodoxy considered who camp Westernizers forassaultGreek–Catholic Romanian both the national culture the andagainst claims on wasadirect people Romanian of the confession “national” the itself as consider to right online same year when Nichifor Crainic finally took over took finally Crainic Nichifor when year same itis Orthodoxy. Asacoincidence, nationalism and the between theregarding connection in regularly write After 1926,when hecamp for to traditionalistclear the could bedetected. started option from which solida concise, produce any text not Nae Ionescu did traditionalism,Orthodox By timethe whenCrainicmain his publishedalready concerning texts views the about inmainstream Europe. was particular cultural whichthe time that trend at anti–rationalist it heUniversity seemed that with already of Bucharest wascontaminated an anti–positivist, popularizeideas inwritinghis 1921,and Ionescu after Nae teach the started at 1919 to and later writings. NaeIonescu’s is paradoxical: This even to though Crainic started between is detectablespeech, there noother Nichifor ethno–theological Crainic’s connection by wasinfluenced Nae Ionescu though that, argue Iwill emergence, Guard’s political more addressed aChurch to supporting vividly electoral the program IronGuard.the of became categories fundamental as Romanianness and Orthodoxy between identification non–ecclesial his cultural, that point out to will I try of Ionescu texts oflater some spread his ideas. See Sorin Antohi, “Romania and the Balkans From geo - cultural bovarism to ethnic ontology”, , Nr. 21/2002, Internet accessed June 1 In the context of King Carol II restoration on the Romanian throne and the Iron Gîndirea as an intellectual movement advocating for an Orthodox traditionalism Orthodox an for advocating movement intellectual an as Cuvîntul [The Word] newspaper, he popularize began hisconvictions to newspaper, [The Word] st , 2007. , 79 194 Gîndirea More precisely, taking into account into taking precisely, More as a director and began to Tr@nsit CEU eTD Collection International Studies, 1978), p. 149. Change in Romania,Debate– 1940.on Development 1860 A in aEuropean Nation out, pointed has Hitchins Keith As two. the for RomanianAlso village. Ithink that spirituality differentmeaningshad and different sources inthe of spirituality the grounded perspective nationalista solid intellectual constructing theology and intellectualIconar life and continued to see Crainic as a theologian, rather than an 195 interwar Romanian heculture. NaeIonescu, although in published the late‘30sin in still present this prejudice eradicate in came to Gîndirea efforts Nichifor Crainic’s universities and pressor from printed disappearance abouttheirthe brought complete separation The clerics. and of theologians sphere from public the rejection the consequence as adirect had which Church and the State the between separation complete the stipulated training,pointRomanian also have out Iwill that to Constitutions from 1866 and1923 never quoted each other or found the other’s work relevant. Regarding the relevance of their in key same almost the andwrote contemporaries were they factthat the despite Ionescu, and Crainic why explanations the of one is This Ionescu. Nae like field in the expert an variety lackedin case. which intellectual Crainic’s towards oriented and background seemedtobemore secular intellectual Ionescu’s Berdyaev, Merejkovski, like sources mystical and theological on mostly relied expertise intellectual Dostoyevsky, Crainic’s If intellectuals. ofthese sources intellectual the regarding obvious difference is an important there andmost First between them. explained bythedifferences better Rainer Maria–Rilke and the Fathers of the Church Please see Keith Hitchins, „Gîndirea: Nationalism in aSpiritual Guise” inKenneth Jowitt (ed.), Crainic’s theological training and his solitary readings in Philosophy could not match Crainic’shisin theological training solitary Philosophy couldnot and readings lack andis NaeIonescu it Crainic between Nichifor The of communication apparent , or other Christian orientated magazines, never overcame this separation between this separation magazines, overcame never orientated Christian other , or 80 (Berkeley: of Institute Predania 195 , Nae , Social , CEU eTD Collection 197 196 which,inEurope itsagainst revolt positivist the of approach 19 the of cultural the elite in mainstream and represented whowere academic intellectuals the younga more approach. cultural Hewasmemberageneration of of and seductive in his remain had always theological encapsulated NaeIonescu categories the of education, and Crainic University. whowouldfellow–colleagues from the students Nichifor Unlike Philosophyexpand and to his knowledge by innovativeproposing something to his both break influence upwith decidedto of approach acknowledged, positivistthe old–style after 1890s,underthat Nietzsche andSpenglerlater on also Einstein, Freud’s Jung or intellectuals of generation anti–positivist the in integrated Ionescu Nae Crainic, Like intellectual position, namely as a PhD student and lecturer at Faculty lecturer at from Philosophy of intellectual aPhDstudentand namely as position, underlined, hasRicketts accurately As Mac Linscott intouniversity propose curricula. and this to unfamiliarset bridges to likemysticism, territories orphysical unconscious relativity the Mac Linscott Ricketts, Keith Hitchins, spiritual was revolution underway ina genuine Europe…” that himself he declared in 1931, last, at until eye acritical with it, called he soul,ferment as human of the great a decadehehad this For observed rationalists. emptiness’ supremescientismof technology and remote the beingand of of the ‘spiritual ‘return equilibrium’,God’ in to to ordertoescape the ‘frightening the post – warorigins inin positivism against therevolt the in and1890s maturity wasapproaching Europe. …Ionescu sensed adventof the a new Everywhereage of spirituality,for him, which, hadits had Ionescu saw man struggling to achieve a new Nae Ionescu approached this “spiritualist” trend in Europe from a cultural and from acultural in Europe trend “spiritualist” this approached Nae Ionescu and scientism,in the direction of religious problems and concerns Berdyaev, etc., was there than a decidedswing away from historicism,positivism, Karl Rudolf Otto, Barth, Giovanni French Papini, Neo–Thomists, the Nikolai within accord in mood spiritual of the Europe postwar general.In suchmen like …while Nae Ionescu was a‘revolutionary’ in Romania’sleadinghe university, was Rumania, 1866–1947 Mircea Eliade , p. 98. (Oxford: Clarendon 1994),Press, p. 315 81 196 th century to century attempted 197 . CEU eTD Collection like Keith Hitchins found himtobe amember of Gîndireathe traditionalist camp traditionalist in the true sense or close to near future.” the of philosophy the mysticism… characterize will reaction the against consequently, that the separation obviousfrom shift his positivistthe am position former professor:”I of sure thatvery soon of philosophy from religion will be a point won, and I cannot believe, argue thathewas never andhis a sympathizer was formal.Although headhesion published from the rise of Protestantism.” mysticism twocurrents andwhich romanticism: have those thought oppressed European Philosophy asa “Contemporary science: isphilosophy by fight characterized the against Constantin R his mentor, of approach secular with Junimist the he wasconfronted University. Here, end the after Worldin with achair WarIhebecame of aninstitutionalizedintellectual, the immediately fact the that of consequence in wasadirect culture direction with a spiritualist philosophy onculture, Romanticmysticism. approaches and experience rather than on reason. This was also a motif for braking up with the obsolete 198 called concept fundamental his landmarksof characteristic as mysticism spirituality and perceived Ionescu hand,other Nae buthis exposuretotheseideas his through wasprobablyfiltered theological training.the On Crainicof by Bucharest. years, ideas his wasinfluenced these stream the during Viennese 201 decade of the 19 200 18 May 1928, p. 298–299. 199 A Romanian translation of the German of the translation ARomanian See also Keith Hitchins, Keith Seealso Nae Ionescu, Nae ConstantinR Another issue which has to be clarified is the fact that Ionescu wasnevera fact that beis clarified the whichhasto issue Another Also, different from Nichifor Crainic’s freelancer career, Ionescu’s rapprochement 200 ă ă th Roza vînturilor dulescu–Motru who expressed publicly his views of who his the evolution expressed regarding dulescu–Motru publicly dulescu–Motru, “Filosofiecontimporan century theand beginning the of the 20 Rumania , p.47. , p. 315. 199 tr ă Ionescu’s reply to R reply to Ionescu’s ire Erlebnisphilosophie 198 [living - experience] which meant an emphasis on emphasis an meant which experience] - [living Gîndirea 82 ă th ” [Contemporary philosophy] in century. . Although some of Ionescu’s interpreters someIonescu’s of . Although which was a reactiontowards positivism in last ă dulescu–Motru’s skepticism was an skepticism was dulescu–Motru’s Societatea de mîine 201 , Iwill , CEU eTD Collection 203 Crucem” remainedmentor the hisof and students to convince attempted Carol appointII to him become of to young ideologue the theofficial generation, unlike Crainic whoattempted monarch. future of authoritarian plans the the heknewbecause andspirit about positivist ininbelieved 1930becausehenever as of of a product efficiency depicted a the democracy factionshe was one ofthe most fervent supporter of the restoration on the throne Carolof II in different the party of braking the after and Party Peasants Maniu supporting politics Crainic After thisentered date, culture. develop andnationalist an not authentic would about the risks of a cultural crisis in which theological undertaking. Romania could go intodefinition if the Romanian of ethnicity elite Party. Ionescu's National of Peasants faction the theGreek-Catholic namely confession, was a direct result of a politicaldeal to framework a politicized with theological apparent usedan Crainic, NaeIonescu feud and not just Unlike political andnotgrounds. on theological minority on attacking aGreek-Catholic of a culturalis He motivations. andCrainic’s Nichifor from different are Romanianness of definition the but articles. Christian–free spiritualist, Nae Ionescu and Gîndirea of side right–wing Orthodoxist the between attitudes and opinion of difference with with Radu Dragnea his polemics and Furthermore, between their careers. areobviousthere speeches affinities adirectnor disciple of for although importance much village, of Crainic, the Romanian the he not think cared city was the Ido that of action whose area intellectual asan because 202 two texts în Zigu Ornea, „Despre Individualismul englez” [About English individualism] in Between 1930 and 1933 there is a certain period of transition in Ionescu, ofwhich isNae transition acertain there period Between 1933 1930 and Crainic onthe hand,other until 1927, remained aright–wing intellectual warning least,notinbutLast involvement reasonsbehind Ionescu’s the debate regarding the Gîndirea Gîndirea The Romanian Extreme Right 4/ 1927, p.121–124. 203 202 and the fact he was criticized severely in severely fact hewas and criticized the , he can be considered neither a supporter of the traditionalist project of traditionalist the asupporter , hecanbe neither considered , p. 24. 83 Gîndirea Gîndirea 2/ 1924,p.33-37 „Juxtaand show an evident an show CEU eTD Collection position as the main politician of the most radical political movement. I will argue that Nae that argue will I movement. political radical most the of politician main the as position influenced hisconception and hebegan ideology to back legitimizeda nationalist his which includinghis rapprochement IronGuardto the and nationalist the milieu Orthodox and that by factors weremotivated of theconcerning several character texts Romanian ethnicity. His debate interwar of the actors of the one NaeIonescu making picture, into came nationalism root at the of positivism. Ionescu, was to according spiritwhich, Cartesian the against needspirituality the for adeep andispopularize attemptinghis he to intuitions the of existential on philosophy character or Gîndirea journalssome in mainly published texts religious and mystic to mathematics and logics fromcomplicated Bucharesthis discourse among between 1919 and 1930thereis ofintellectual a stage andquest heis obviously calibrating which relating the most to a importantlarge of Iron Guard the ideologue sum of weretopics. He wrote on topics which went from p. 281& Radu Ioanid, 204 pagesof the in he1933 became evenmore convinced that IronGuard was solution rightthe and opened inAfter avisit theIronGuard. inadvocate Germany favorof to Ionescu started Guard, Iron manyformer hisbeginningand Mihail joining students the with Polihroniade seeing that of by King the betrayed Feeling government. more authoritarian for a system democratic the by NaeIonescu’sKing’s be position wishtoovercome shattered unsympathetic to the soon over being merea ideologue serving the regime or the leader as Crainic. Hisillusions would Prime Minister. It seems that in Nae Ionescu’s case the temptation for politics prevailed Please see Stanley Payne, seeStanley Please In the second half of Ionescu’s career, the mixture between Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy between mixture the career, Ionescu’s of half second the In I will argue that in Nae Ionescu’s articles there are two stages of development. First, stages of development. two are there in articles Nae Ionescu’s I willarguethat . Inthis particularis Ionescu period, notvery found of an backgroundOrthodoxist Cuvîntul TheSword ofthe Archangel to legionary propaganda. After 1933, Ionesculegionary becametheofficial 1933, After topropaganda. A History of Fascism 1914–1940 204 and guided hisformer studentsjoin to IronGuard.the (Boulder: East EuropeanMonographs, 1990) p. 83. 84 (Madison: Wisconsin University 1995), University Press, Wisconsin (Madison: Ideea European ă and CEU eTD Collection 208 207 206 [Methapysicalunrest] (Bucharest: The Publishing House of Romanianthe Cultural Foundation, 1993) p. 75. 205 of Iron the Guard which were highly mystical and a Christian heresy. complyheexpectations to fact wanted political the that onthe with speechrelied Ionescu’s even Nichifora pointwhere not upto Romanianness definition of Orthodoxist radicalizedthe Ionescu Crainic would take it. The radicalization of the nationalist trait in Nae vocabulary: authenticity and spirituality. and authenticity vocabulary: from thislines seemed tobe connected with the two fundamental words from Nae Ionescu’s force.” his therapeutic faith, also Orthodox superiority of Catholic;the butignore we again the immediatecannot spiritual highness of social the contest will West… None the against life religious our of characteristic fact the from us.” established from reasons ourselves by himknowing and this isnot aspontaneous action undertookof by ours, us, relies on God. Accordingly,are unquestionable inGod;butthe beginning course andthe of of process the knowledge it “theof goals knowledge that isHe stated and philosophy. culture of character mystical for the the will of a God epistemologic full of compassion for us to redeem Mac Linscott Ricketts, Nae Ionescu, Nae Ionescu, Nae „Func Again,“thelogical strict consequence isof Orthodoxism hermit. the And thisis in Nae Ionescu started his intellectual path with a lecture on the “Func onthe lecture a with path his intellectual started Nae Ionescu 3.3. Ionescu’s Quest for Spirituality for Quest 3.3. Ionescu’s Ġ ia epistemologic Nelini ă Nelini aIubirii” ú ú tea metafizic te metafizic Mircea Eliade, ă aiubirii” [The Epistemological Functionof Love] in 205 [The Epistemological Function of Love] in which he advocated he in which Love] of Function Epistemological [The ă . ă , p. 87. , p 93 p.81. 206 208 Nevertheless, the discourse of Nae Ionescu was 207 85 Nae Ionescu and hisinterestin Orthodoxy Nelini ú te metafizic Ġ ia ă CEU eTD Collection Despair. A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology General Theory of Fascism 213 212 p. 112–113. 211 210 system. foras emergence the philosophical the ground growth andthe of asapolitical democracy of Descartes approach egotistic this Ionescu considered Therefore, access totranscendence. egotistic based human system reason not on only spirituality on and an which guaranteed as shapedinandfunctional developments, its God although an used considered concept Nelini Descartes’ namely democracy, of source very the was he thought what contesting by intellectual, as nor an believedin asa politician, heneveragainst democracy which minded fight 209 sameperiod. the Ionescu his continued in against philosophy in Western criticisms article published another nota traditionalist an or Orthodoxist approach of the Romanian culture or Romanian nation. was speech although Ionescu’s culture, aboutRomanian approach aspiritualist crystallize new. forsomething is Ionescuto generation searching It believed thatalready started experienceR of account secular positivist into the takinginnovative quite from which was knowledgeGod nation. of Romanian the and perceptions the culture Romanian debate regarding a cultural engageinto to nationality or defineRomanian to associated an with attempt not intellectual who, in his first intellectual stage decided to charge every aspect of of intellectual incharge decidedthe his aspect every stage first intellectual to who, Universe” George Mosse, “Fascists and the Intellectuals” in George L. Mosse, L. George in Intellectuals” the and “Fascists Mosse, George Nae Ionescu, „Descartes–p Ionescu, Nae What is interesting that Spenglerwas highly criticized in „Descartes –p „Descartes „Descartes–p ú tea metafizic As Fritz Stern has argued in the case of Benn On the other hand, it seemed that for Nae Ionescu started to anchor the scientific 212 It did It notseem evenfrom that periodthat Ionescu engaged himself ina strong– 210 cogitoergosum , Nae Ionescu revolted against Descartes’ understanding of philosophy of Descartes’ understanding against , NaeIonescu revolted ă ă rinte al democratismului contemporan” [Descartes – Father of contemporary democracy] in democracy] of contemporary Father – [Descartes contemporan” democratismului al rinte rintele al democratismul contemporan”, p. 95. contemporan”, democratismul al rintele ă ă , dulescu–Motru andforP. Negulescuandthiswas a seductive P. quite dulescu–Motru 209 p. 94 –98. 94 p. By proposing philosophy as a “spiritual attitude in front of the (New York: Howard Fertig, 1999), p.99. Also, Stern, Fritz ă rintele democratismului contemporane”, p. 96. p. contemporane”, democratismului rintele . 86 (New York: Anchor Books, 1965),p. 52 and following. Ideile (1923)[The Ideas] in 213 , Nae Ionescu was atipical Ionescuwas , Nae The Fascist Revolution. Towards a Nelini Politics of Cultural ú tea metafizic 211 which ă , CEU eTD Collection 215 214 anti–democracy. with perfectly associated anti–rationalism was fact that quoting wasthe Ionescu out pointed has Ornea Zigu as mysticism mixing for reason Another histext. from evident is which becausemainly understanding have Ionescu andview not did inminda purpose theological the Christian conceptswas ask: what dared to as contribution the of Orthodoxy such? and Christian never Crainic which question is adifficultworld. asking He Orthodox for the characteristic revelation Ionescuindividualitypolitical order.” arguedthat and specificity were somehow the in values creative has orthodoxy, of character asocial the hand one the nothingon consequence in commonmanifesting freedoms– and with rights political her on jealous “Less sense: in general Orthodoxy, text Crainic’sthe often mostly under the form allies. aspotential other each perceived of a passivenever have they well, as Orthodoxy about spoke Crainic although that text the from resistance – numerous how Orthodoxy abouttexts nationalistback aRomanian it agenda and seems [individuality]which was there already likea theologian Nichifor Crainic whoalready by published 1923 has a published in was agenda Orthodox religious/ the tackled Ionescu in which text first A well. agenda as backedbyareligious against democracy was initial revolt Ionescu’s show, case studies bourgeois society and democracy with a problematic load. Iwill as Fritzargue that Stern’s 1848 spirit as Zigu Ornea has poignantly pointed 1848 spirit Ziguby as out haspoignantly Ornea settinga into Nae pointed Ionescu Zigu Ornea, N(icul)ae Ionescu, „Individialismul englez” in Despite Crainic’s mixture betweenDespite nationalism, mixtureusage Crainic’s of and Ionescu’s orthodoxy in andheintroduced Western individualism again validity the of contested Ionescu Another issue Another was from this on period of agenda NaeIonescuthe a critiqueof the The Romanian Extreme Right Gîndirea. 215 214 Itis strangeIonescu that decided write a to into ajournaltext in , p.59. Gîndirea 87 2/1924. CEU eTD Collection could be harmed by coming imports irrational from West. the Romania;more Ionescu preoccupied waseven with Romanian factthat the authenticity inorganic, for cultural 1848generationand political to the taunted inadequate, path an of in authenticity ifis Romanian clear not culture. It Ionescu asCrainic theJunimists and with the departure of Nichifor Crainic who was promoted as high–official in the Ministry of Junimists him before and Crainic Practically, knowing, without Ionescu assumed unconsciously thesame critiques the as but meantrevolution whichequally break–off nocontinuity minded.” a which of one criticism its economic the nottouch itup did politics; and culture life: social the layer of kept upper the only at reaction that detail the is Worthless evolution. of continuity to violence they skepticismwere metwith like raillery: and this looked brakingoff with the past, doing countries their to systems European the transplanted revolutionaries Romanian the “when intellectuals: of Romanian generation 1848 the critique against bitter voiced a Ionescu him, before in which,asCrainic theState Actual Institution] of Law and the [Between 217 most interesting text of Nae Ionescu was “Intre statul statul interestingof mostde drept was“Intre Nae Ionescu text 219 218 216 comparative in Florian framework Crainic wereincluded.which and Mircea also For Crainic’s please see chapter II of the present paper. present ofthe II chapter see please Crainic’s For Apud Zigu Ornea, Zigu Ornea, Cuvîntul After Ionescu became a permanent journalist for journalist a became permanent After Ionescu nationalism and Orthodoxy between intermingle The 1926. 3.4. After VI,1886/ 1930, p.1. The Romania Extreme Right The Romanian Extreme Right 219 on brought it basisthatthe 1848generation with a lack , p. 19 – 20. , p. 20. 88 Cuvîntul [The Word] May [TheWord] May 2, 1926, ú i institu Ġ iile de fapt” 216 One of 218 217 CEU eTD Collection 224 223 vie [The [The Problem ofRestauration] (19 July 1930) in Romanians in the 20 “Eroarea ini 222 221 articles several Ionescu wrote his before death. by KingFerdinand was established Regency asit the maintain to power in their stood what did they and Carol Prince abdicated the of return Liberal financial and political oligarchy, Iuliu andhis Maniu Party futurewere against a in the case of Nae Ionescu the Concordat of his Orthodoxist discourse which relation emphasized the between Nation and Orthodoxy, brought another issue radicalization the as consequence had this case inCrainic’s If andVatican. state Romanian in his attention. By taking under the pressure of Bolshevism and Fascism democracy and thesystem politicalof parties extensively andhe wrote abouttheirfailure believedin not fact Ionescudid that the Carol was for encouraging reason Another Minister. aPrime as Ionescu with Nae regime authoritarian an encourage would Carol believed hethat factthat with the was related inCarol promoting interest deep Ionescu’s bitterly.in favor NaeIonescu advocated whose Romania’s King(7Iunie1930) in over power from Party 1929. Transylvania took ininlived Peasants and NaeIonescuhistorical Greek–Catholic which the context which the First consistent. are fairly the buttwo numerous, are his attitude behind reasons Ionescu issuedhisfirst he in articles which and conned Romanianess The Orthodoxy. metafizic 220 in especially in period, hispageat this Whatin mostlyhis was puzzles interest extensively theological issues whichheabout wrote Religious Denominations, NaeIonescumatters.to publish started extensivelyondifferent Zigu Ornea, Scurtu –Buzatu, “Iuliu Maniu, om politic” (15July Maniu1930) [Iuliu as ina politician] Please see Ioan Scurtu &Gheorghe Buzatu, Please see „Pentru reintrareaOrtodoxie” in (1926)[For there-entrance into Orthodoxy] in Ġ ii” (23 ii” of July 1930) [Betweendictatorship and strangulationthe of Life] in 222 Another issue on Ionescu’s agenda was the affair of the Concordat between the between Concordat the of affair the was agenda Ionescu’s on issue Another ă , p.64 – 67 or „Ce este Predania” (1937) [What is Tradition]the in against Maniu especially after the return of Prince Carol and his enthronement as Ġ ial The Romanian Extreme Right ă ” [The ” [The Initial Error] (16July 1930) in Istoria românilor in secolul XX th century] (Bucharest: Paideea, 1999), p. 194. , p. 30. Cuvîntul Istoria românilor (1918in secolul XX –1848) Roza vînturilor , p.212. 89 224 Roza vînturilor called . 221 Champions of democracy against the against democracy of Champions Duminica , p.160–163; „Între dictatur , p.152–156; „Problema restaura Nelini [The Sunday]. Roza vînturilor Roza vînturilor ú tea metafizic [The [The History of , p. 167- 171. ăú 220 , p. 148–151;, p. ă i sugrumarea , p., 70–73. HereNae Nelini 223 Nae Ġ ú iei” tea CEU eTD Collection 226 [The Theology. The Integral of his Religious Articles] (Sibiu: Deisis, 2003). was “Biserica Orthodoxy interests. inhis personal them using selection, he butrather madeapersonal theology, Orthodox played usualcategories of with the not he did that note easily can One sphere. secular in the Church the of a representative or theologian a become to wanted never Ionescu Also, dogma. Christian the of exposition and approach acultural understanding to faculties of Theology incapacity andthe of the state of played only a secondaryargue againstDora Mezdrea when Theology saying that and for the Church NaeIonescu role, Ionescu being revolted by the Church subordination to the 225 experience only through accessible was which supra–knowledge and human experience of expression the by a cultural wascharacterized which mysticism Orthodoxy Ionescu in hadaphilosophical of understandingdepicted categories the of background,RomanianChurch, becausehecamefrom Orthodox intellectual Nae a different the as Orthodoxy of understanding theological obvious an is there latter the of case Crainic. Nichifor by prepared been had which already of people Romanian the character the regarding intoa debate entered NaeIonescu and Romanianness, between Orthodoxy inner–connection the Underlining people. ofthe Romanian conserve character theunique triedIonescu to Nae church, “national” of that had, Church Orthodox the as status same the Church their create for theirhistoriographical which canonandclaimed began to own Greek–Catholics from mainly formed was Party which Peasants National the of theemergence account into NaeIonescu, “Biserica Dora Mezdrea, „Nae Ionescu - teologul”, p. 6 in Nae Ionescu, Nae p. 6in - teologul”, Ionescu „Nae Mezdrea, Dora One of the first texts in which Nae Ionescu adhered to the nationalist approach of Orthodoxy for Nae Ionescu was something different as for Nichifor Crainic. If in the Ġă ranilor” (8Noiembrie 1926) in Ġă ranilor” 226 [The Church of the Peasants] in which Nae Ionescu Nae in which Peasants] the of Church [The 90 Roza vînturilor Teologia. Integrala publicisticii religioase , p., 34 – 36. 225 . Nevertheless, I will CEU eTD Collection 229 228 Orthodox, and economically self–sufficient.” Eastern pure, ethnically peasantist, state: Romanian ideal the invoked Ionescu semantics and arguments experience of Romaniathe peasant could notbe part of Romanianthe political community. Thus through his Rumân, newspaper directed he whichand decisively turned thetoward Guard Iron in the 1930s.In its 1930s usage, the standard links binding ethnic Romanians together, Ionescu increasingly,1930,after used thespelling & Ethnical Struggle, 1918 – 1930 sense than that of the theology of the Church. Again, onealways can note that, asOrthodoxy, Nichiformeant Ionescu Nae for CrainicChristianity intentions. author the although, to according it understand to order as I already mentioned, this concept was used in a different 227 peasantOrthodoxy “why explainedour essential part of our national being.” is nation: an “Christianity diatribes thehis future Romanian radicalization of regarding Romanian as by genius expressed Romanian the rural culture. suggested that traditional mixture culture between wasadirect Orthodox dogma andthe relevance rejected the Ionescu of of in Church institution the the it and seems this process he Church. Orthodox the by in and a point to up created was culture Romanian that considered in texts his early from who Crainic different isalso Ionescu culture. Romanian of a specific point starting the were dogmas Orthodox that believed one last the is that Ionescu Nae and Blaga between difference only the text this In nation. the in understanding way Romanian culture, originality assured villages cultureRomanian from the a complete of and traditional Romanian in the disseminated and, non–ecclesial Christianity, primitive about meditations our folklore.” contributingat theformation a specificof Romanian presentedsospecificallyuniverse, by life everyday in our has descended why Christianity realities; in incarnate concrete orthodox matters of faith, but rather a kind of cosmology in which the elements of doctrine stringently Nae Ionescu, „Biserica „Biserica Ionescu, Nae Nae Ionescu, „Biserica „Biserica Ionescu, Nae As Irina Livezeanu has pointed out in Ionescu’s conclusion to his article expressed also in his future articlesin the and his his future also to article expressed Ionescu’s conclusion a medieval term for enserfed peasant, suggested that those who had not shared the ancestral the shared not had who those that suggested peasant, enserfed for term amedieval Român 228 When someone reads Ionescu he immediately atLucian Blaga’s thinks heimmediately readsIonescu When someone for the ‘Romanian’ in his newspaper columns in Ġă Ġă ranilor” in ranilor” ranilor” in ranilor” (New York: Cornell University Press, 1995), p.311: “To stress the organic Roza vînturilor Roza vînturilor Cultural Politics in Greater Romania. Regionalism, Nation building, 229 Nae Ionescu’s statement needs more clarifications in more clarifications needs statement Nae Ionescu’s 227 is not a religion with a guiding church in the in church aguiding with a religion not is 91 , p. 35. , p. 35. Cuvîntul the the independentopposition Rumân instead of CEU eTD Collection nationality even more flagrant and clear as Nichifor Crainic did before him: defined Ionescu Church. Orthodox the than other Church, different a to affiliation their of Bercu Solomon) Romanians” couldnot but as“good belabeled true Romanians because Nae Ionescu. Br Ionescu. Nae to be the artisan of Great Romania, but also the one who send into exile Prince Carol, the political option of234 National Consciousness Hitchins, Keith in Transylvania” in Enlightenment Romanian the and Clain “Samuel Hitchins, Keith see please Micu, Samuel For rule. Habsburg the under Transylvania in people Romanian 233 232 p. 392–394. Br C. I. by nationalism. Romanian of construction the for landmark a represented it and prompt was reply Ionescu’s well. as minority Greek–Catholic the but Romanians, where majority Orthodox the only not that claimed who about text intellectualsreply this relation Greek–Catholic adirectwas publishedin to 1930s, interesting it most The people. andits relation with Romanian as he the Orthodoxy depicted privilegeChurches, trying to Protestant and Catholic Roman Greek–Catholic, against the 231 Romanian peopleOrthodoxy. with In this matter we stand together.” (p. 53). “The [Romanian Orthodox] Church Romanianess: and - moreOrthodoxy clearly between somerelation who the militate regarding in their convictions favour his more once – use to identify reiterating is Ionescu the 230 by in Micu text Samuel Ionescu’s (represented Catholics Greek the charged Ionescu Nae discrimination, of Church Orthodox Romanian the accused Goldi Vasile for example) (Blaga, perceive usedto Romanian the rural population. traditionalists other in which categories cultural in the rather but mass, electoral an as not seen peasantry the with nation wasidentified Romanian the for NaeIonescu seemed that which was seen nation Romanian of the with essence the Orthodoxy alsoassociated him,before Ionescu in the traditional categories of the Romanian village. Like Crainic, it I. C. Br Samuel Micu was an 18 The Greek Catholic that Ionescu was debating was professor IFrollo. The article was „Afi bun român” [To be a good Romanian] (30 octomber1930) in Nae Ionescu, in Concordate] [The „Concordatul” Ionescu, Nae Following 1927 Concordat affairin whichhe criticized includingeveryone involved, ă tianu was a Romanian Prime Ministerbelonging to the National Liberal Party and was considered ă tianu ú ă , the Romanian artisan of treaty of this artisan Romanian , the tianu converted to Catholicism on his death bed. death onhis Catholicism to converted tianu 234 ) which in aJewcitizen comparison Romaniato of (named text in the (Rome: Nagard Publisher, 1983). th century Romanian Greek–Catholic bishop who struggled for the rights ofthe rights the for struggled who bishop Greek–Catholic Romanian century 231 Answering to a Romanian Greek–Catholic Romanian a to Answering Roza vînturilor 92 230 , Nae Ionescu critique inbitter engaged , p.51–54. In this article is interesting that 233 ) and the Catholics (represented Catholics ) andthe Studies inRomanian Teologia 232 who , CEU eTD Collection 235 reactionsother hisinflammatory to text hisstatements byfurthering and bylinking even against Maniu’s and own electorate Maniu himself. attack wasadirect Greek–Catholic confessionally who were population Transylvania’s Carol all meansthrough andnegation the Romanianthe of of character almost 50%of Romanian crown after he abdicated in favor of his infant son, Mihai. Nae Ionescu supported the of heir rightful the as restoration Carol’s Prince of case in the position uncompromising leader with one of mostthe known from Transylvania,Greek–Catholics namely Maniu, theofIuliu the disaffection hisconstant with Romanianwas related this case in Ionescu’s but varied were Catholics againstof a radical Thereasonsbehindsuch Transylvania’s the Greek– population. attitude PeasantsRomania, he was practically denying the right to call themselves Romanians to almost ahalf Party. Romanians”Catholics “good werenot ontologically citizens “Romanians”,butonly of as As Greek– that age,bystating particular Atthat amajorrole. a have played would Orthodoxy Prime inwhich ontology ethnical a Romanian for base the was intellectual Greek–Catholic some Minister,Romanians”.this in Iwill argue that portion of which his text wrote polemicIonescu with Iuliu Catholicism believersand received Greek–Catholicism whose only “good appellativethe of Maniu had an „Afi bun român” in NaeIonescu, Writing Ionescu thesestatements, hadin mind wastosetaside Romanianness from Although he never mentioned in the text the word Orthodoxy, Ionescu responded to responded Ionescu Orthodoxy, word the text in the mentioned never he Although naturally ourselves unless by bestopping to ourselves overcome say we because cannot circumstances inOur will to has nothing these and gestures. attitudes necessity certain flow anabsolute with essence from which the course of thelife itself, certain forms… To be Romanian means haveto a certain means anaturalstate,an formula flow, from equilibrium of which existence through To whish to be a Romanian does not mean also tobe a Romanian. Tobe a Romanian Teologia , p. 393. 93 235 . CEU eTD Collection later radicalized and extended to other minorities. What is the most interesting and is most the What minorities. other to extended and later radicalized expectations and offered wentfar waspossible.Romanian Ionescu optimistic most Crainic’s character beyond to the Romanian ethnicaltraditionalist crystallizationin view Ionescu’s which no without Romanian uniqueauthenticity or camp of process an the and ethnicity,nationality, reflected Orthodoxy andassociated confession a perspective which Ionescu in statements these that fact The King Carol. of infavor Maniu Iuliu discredit will be to downplay Orthodoxy, even if this Orthodoxy was just aprefabricated concept,in order to definitioncharacter, butIwillIonescu’s position ethnicity an Orthodox of arguethat rather his in to applied Transylvania,Ionescu camp Greek–Catholic Againstsubstantial people. a through spirituality filtrated Romanian the of Orthodoxy peasantculture a certain the Orthodoxy as a spiritual reality with the indication of the fact that Crainic meant by 238 Romanian’] in Nae Ionescu, 237 236 catolicismul” anothertake step: to introduce Orthodoxy in Inhis linethe of text“Noi debate. of asfrom decided injustice, philosopherstatements to Ionescu the ahistorical Bucharest Greek–Catholic another to Answering confession. with nationality clearer „Noi Initially published in published Initially Bishop L. Russu. ú Ionescu’s statements came close to what Crainic said about the relation between relation the saidwhat Crainic about came to close statements Ionescu’s Orthodox. just“Romanian” Romanian”, not “good butpurely meansbeRomanian, alsoto be To Orthodoxy. component, essential an note, a as enters of “Romanian” reality the of constituency the in consequently, and, “Romanian” concept the from the other historical reality, namely the nation, itfollows that in the definition of is apart reality ahistorical as as the confession Assoon Orthodox… present reality historically,naturally, that second and realities; thehistorical Romaniansdistinct as exist Catholicism are most of them – in their For the matter at stake it is not sufficient to see first that Orthodoxy and Roman– i catolicismul” in Nae Ionescu, 237 [Us and Catholicism], Ionescu stated that: 238 Cuvîntul Teologia , VI, 1988/ 1931, p. 1 under the title „A fi bun român’” [To be a ‚good , p. 395. Teologia , p. 395. 94 normality - inpast and -their 236 who saw the ú i CEU eTD Collection dogmatic and cultural difference, but two fundamentally different utilizations of existence, in general.” 243 Ionescu. If Crainic understood Orthodoxyethnicity,namely beingof “good” “true”or Romanian. as a mark of Romanian Orthodoxy in asultimate criteriaand nationality determining the of Romanian authenticity spiritualitybeing wasbasically toestablish a of sacralization ethnicalthe categories byincluding whichRomanian in the interconnected was ontologically were nationality and Orthodoxy that stating in of ontological encapsulated the Romanianthe categories people destined itbewas because Catholics not could Romanians that sentence with claimed this Ionescu in their own being to be Orthodox, namely the Orthodox spirituality was also… butjust different confessions, arenot “Orthodoxy and Catholicism because, heargued, Romanianness RomanianWhen heCatholicism themainethnicity. characterizing comparedas confessions RomanIonescu’swhy he not argument Orthodoxy and Greek– and chose – Catholicism 242 of a Balkan Colony Chirot, Daniel see please term of the meaning original associated Orthodoxy and a peasant receptionof it which had nothing to do with therumîn official Church. For the 241 Teologia Greek-Catholics. 240 (Bucharest: Humanitas, 1997), p. 53. century, namely the namely century, 239 were responsible in shaping identity aRomanian inlate 18 the who namely Greek–Catholics the aconfession, character ethnical Romanian deprived of he of factthat Romanianness wasthe exclusive definition aspectof Ionescu’s paradoxical Zigu Ornea, p. 81 stated that: „Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not mere denominations with a certain Nae Ionescu, „Sor Ionescu, Nae Ionescu is using an interesting term, namely „Sor Lucian Boia, Lucian in the Middle Age meant apeasant with little or noland atall. Ithink that by thisusing term Ionescu Ġ ii de izbînd , p. 396–397. I think that this is the most flagrant difference between Nichifor Crainic and Nae Ionescu substantiated his argument in another article in another hisargument substantiated Ionescu two different fundamentally capitalizations ofexistence as such Istorie 241 ă (New York: Academic Press, 1976), p. 51. 239 and Catholicism, Ionescu found between them an irreconcilable gap irreconcilable an them between found Ionescu Catholicism, and ai ofensivei catolice” in Ġ ii de de izbînd ii ú i mit în con Transylvanian School ă ai ofensivei catolice” in Nae Ionescu, Nae in catolice” ofensivei ai ú tiin Ġ a româneasc Cuvîntul rumînie ă 95 , 1991, (5 noiembrie 1930), p.1 in Nae Ionescu, ù Social Change in a Peripheral society: The Formation [History Mythand inRomanian Conscience] to describe Romanian character. I will argue that a that argue will I character. Romanian todescribe coala Ardelean coala Teologia 240 ă ) which was composed by wascomposed ) which which defines even better th 243 and the beginning19 andthe , p. 397. . What Ionescu did by .” 242 Practically, th CEU eTD Collection Misha Glenny, throne to influence his political decisions and to support his dictatorial dreams. For more details please see Malaxa, bankers like Aristide Blank, officers like Urd like officers Blank, Aristide like bankers Malaxa, 247 246 245 articles from articles contradiction with theAs Mircea “was Eliade Ionescu out, haspointed always and in opened a continuous Palace. For a long and friends from hiscounselors listen the his King to to timeII’s willingness Carol Carol did not listenits ideologue movement, of the be Mentor consideredthe to started his advices and in his 1986), (Romanianedition Bucure Organisation. Ein Beitrag zum Problem des internationalen Faschismus Guard. Romanian ethnicity. remained evenwhich This a theorem not was applied bythe Iron ontology of Romanianthe most isethnicity which radical the in debatesondefiningthe 244 Orthodox” are we because Romanians and Romanians weare because Orthodox “We are citizen. Romanian of was Romanianness ontological feature which consideredOrthodoxy thatevery an true of built a definition Ionescu confessions, Christian Romanians of other to character disseminated in culturethe of village Romanian the anddenying wasnot the Romanian For this hypothesis please see Radu Ioanid, Radu see please hypothesis this For Armin Heinen, Nae Ionescu, „Sor Ionescu, Nae Camarilla After November 1933 when heopened when After 1933 November Guard Iron ofthe theContext in Orthodoxy and Nationalism 1933. 3.5. After was a number a close friends of Carol among which were industrial magnats like Auchnit and Auchnit like magnats industrial were which among ofCarol friends close a a number was Balkans. Nationalism, War, and the Great Powers Cuvîntul Die Legionen “Erzengel Michael” in Rumänien, Soziale Bewegung undPolitische Ġ 244 ii de de izbînd ii , stated Ionescu, stated andby he affirmation this issued baseda confessional Nae Ionescu was criticizing elegantly but accordingly royal the butaccordingly elegantly criticizing was Ionescu Nae ă ú ai ofensivei catolice” in Nae Ionescu, Nae in catolice” ofensivei ai ti: Humanitas,ti: 1999) p.171 The Swordthe Archangel of ă 96 reanu, etc. They started after Carol’s return on the return Carol’s after started They etc. reanu, Cuvîntul (London: Granta Books, 1999), p. 446. to the Iron Guard Iron to the Teologia , (München: R. Oldenburg Verlag, , p. 84. , p. 397. 246 in order topunish in order 245 , Nae Ionescu , Nae camarilla . 247 CEU eTD Collection Orthodox ChurchOrthodox and institution with this Guard, theguaranteebecomes, together Iron the Nae Ionescu is applying his confessional understanding Romanian of the nation to the 253 in Marin” Vasile „Sacralised Politics in Action: the February 1937 Burial of the Romanian Legionary Leaders Ion Mo Ion Leaders Legionary Romanian ofthe Burial 1937 February the Action: in Politics „Sacralised from from 13 252 and“Na confirmed thathisideas from 1930 werenota coincidence. intopolitics was a national NaeIonescuduty, made some stumbling which statements implication Church’s Romanian that stated was is inwhich adecision with replied Synod politics. in involve to not Church Spanish civil war, reacted against the State’s decision to ask the Romanian Orthodox 251 250 p. 45. Intellectuals and Ironthe Guard] (Milan: Barbarossa, 1994); Romanianedition (Bucharest: Anastasia, Romanian 1997), The Archangel. ofthe Plumes [The Lovinescu) Vasile Noica, Constatin Cioran, Emil Eliade, 249 Romanianness in the ideology Romanianness ideology Iron the in Guard movementthe of and between Orthodoxy connection the hisexport ideasabout continued to Codreanu, ideologue before hisdirectly, him,Ionescu, or students thorough asacloseto advisor 248 camarilla.” the to clearly alluding politics, rise to power despite the latter’s adoption of the Italian version of fascism. Iron Guard’s the support and he write in Nazithe investments thus continuedRomania, to Nae Ionescu, „Biseric About the Mo Nae Ionescu, „Na Nae Ionescu, „Biseric See also Claudio Mutti, Mircea Eliade, Mircea Two articles continued Nae Ionescu’s line before 1930, “Biseric 1930, linebefore Ionescu’s articles Nae continued Two th Ġ ionalism ionalism this Church.” of Orthodoxy from the which emanates anational character state Romanian the Orthodoxy; 2. Orthodoxy; of and ‘ethic program’ the ‘conception for the existence’ of which militates “1. The Church has Church The “1. of January 1937 of Ioan Mo Ġ Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions a–Marin burial and its implications in the fascist ideology please see Valentin S Memorii Ġ ionalism ú i Ortodoxie”. ă ă , stat, na , stat, na Le penne del’ Arcangelo. Intellettuali e la Guardia di Ferro 253 [Memories] (Bucharest: Humanitas, 1991), p. 286. the right ú i Ortodoxie” [Nationalism and Orthodoxy], Ġ Ġ iune” [Church, state, nation] in iune” [Church, state, nation] in the right 251 of our Church to ask the Romanian state to impress ask theRomanian to upon state Church to our of 252 In the first article Nae Ionescu, after the famous burial Against the intrusion of the State to which the Holy to support those actions – even political actions – Ġ a and Vasile Marin killed on the front during the 248 97 As Nichifor Crainic who was Iron Guard’s Vol. 8, No. 2 (2007), p. 259 and following. Predania 4 Predania 4 249 . Although he in was involved Predania 8–9 / 1937, p.1. / 1937, p.1–3. (Nae Ionescu, Mircea Ionescu, (Nae ă / 1937, p. 1–3. , stat, na stat, , ă ndulescu, Ġ Ġ a and iune” 250 CEU eTD Collection 256 255 124. societate în anii ’30 254 the toreframe from spacewishing academic secular the Orthodoxy space, came across in toapproachthelaic discourse his order infuse to acultural ethno-theological essence in to wanted who ideology Crainic Nichifor despite Ionescu, Nae Basically, sphere. public a secular political nationalist a back to came which spirituality Christian a with synonym for NaeIonescu remained Orthodoxy attitude. and political forcultural aRomanian nationalismthat mixed Orthodoxy with in view NaeIonescu the remained alternative only possible in which Orthodoxy was nothing more than a fundamental category; I will argue attitude mainpolitical the became andnationalism nation the NaeIonescu for Therefore, spiritual and economical,Dragnea the wants political us to believe, or possibility anation…just nationalism to abstraction not of is apolitical as attitude Mr. the cultural–aesthetic but the a without belongs polyvalent man every that fact necessary and naturally the of understanding attitude sectors whichof our coversactivity.”show once again that “nationalism is the attitude which draws all thein consequencesfrom the the same way theOrthodoxy with one of Nichifor Crainic’saccording to Nae Ionescu, supported best the creed of the Church, namely the Iron Guard. which, camp political the pupils,sustain to namely opinion, a political have to Church the of right namely Radu Dragnea“right” whichand hethe triedChurch ideologynever to had in thein Romanianthe relation Ionescustate, Naebetween Practically, Ionescu nationality. transferred Romanian the of censor rightful the struggled as the Church Orthodox Romanian Church for the in the and embodied hisform the institutionalized an to nation ethnical, the and State. Orthodoxy between relation the By asserting confessional to of thethe Romanian character. Church This shift in the culturalontology developmenta of Nae Ionescu’s view on and transformed it into a clerical Nae Ionescu, „Na Nae Ionescu, „Na The most recent investigationon this topic was made by Mirel B In his secondarticle [The Romanian Orthodox Church. State and Society in the ‘30s] (Iassy: Polirom, 2007), p. Ġ Ġ ionalism ionalism ú ú i Ortodoxie” [Nationalism and Orthodoxy], i Ortodoxie” [Nationalism and Orthodoxy], 255 , Nae Ionescu polemized about the relation between relation the about polemized Ionescu , Nae 98 ă nic ă , Biserica Ortodox Predania 8–9 Predania 8–9 / 1937, p. 2. / 1937, p. 1–3. ă Roman ă . Stat ú 254 256 i CEU eTD Collection 257 community destiny of belonging to nation.the This is Orthodoxy.” the with spatially and structurally itself identifies Church of love the of community “the that character. Romanian nature of nationalistthe achieve trying in discourse to anewapproach the defining supportinga homologue into transformed was Church Orthodox Romanian the nation, Romanian the social the of definition innovative radical, a produce to and Romanianness specify andbetter to order politicalnationalism onsocial and political grounds. If Orthodoxy served as a conceptual tool in realization Ionescuthat Church alsothe transformed into Romanianan institution which supported of the nationalist was consequence institutionalized it. The and ontology confessional derived hisethnical, projectIonescu’s ofagenda: Nae from toIonescu a spiritualthe Church. mode of about debate the between theconnection Orthodoxy definition the namely and nation:the of existence The blendof the true ofRomanian, the confession Nae Ionescu Guard. Iron the supported who clerics the and with Orthodoxy and Church the identify to nationalitystarted already had Ionescu time wasthis particular thatat movementand Ithink the to prestige a great Guard assured Iron the the next step Guard. This hour thejoined3 000Orthodox presence whopriests in Iron religious bythat on almost the Naeto rather but Synod, Holy the or hierarchy Orthodox Romanian the to confidence of vote a giving was Ionescu Nae that mean not does Church Orthodox in the interest suggest NaeIonescu’s that same anditsreunite nation the under I the spirituality roof. both could which institution only the was which Church Orthodox the with Ionescu Nae for Nae Ionescu, “Nationalism Therefore, one of the last statements of Nae Ionescu from the end of his article states On the other hand Ionescu ended up in the point from hand On Ionescuended Nichifor upinthepoint other the which started Crainic ú i Ortodoxie”, Predania 99 8 – 9/ 1937, p. 3. 257 Orthodoxy identified Orthodoxy CEU eTD Collection ethnicity was connected strongly with a certain Christian confession was a base for the for base a was confession Christian acertain with strongly connected was ethnicity that or Orthodoxy with tied Romanianness was that Stating interwar debate. Romanian the in definition radical most in the intermingled were nationalism and Orthodoxy Prince Carol heII asKing, approach stageinto another his intellectual speech in which of restoration andthe elite, hisGreek–Catholic Party with Peasants National emergethe of Romanian intellectuals1930s inthe Antitotalitaire, 1997), p. 13–56. Also, LeonVolovici, 258 hadintellectual discourse ahugeimpact ontheyounghis generation to coming lectures. background behindany act of authentic from culturehis in rostrum University and his a spiritual necessity of the his ideasabout popularized NaeIonescu West. from the coming mechanized lancethe offor the cure against adeep civilization asa need spirituality, the findto by his way constructing aninnovative approach of andphilosophy religion through political groundsmade Ionescuanintellectual as Crainicwho, inthesame attempted period, apolitical an proposed emphasis spirituality on and mysticism in conceptualized a cultural and key. In this lifeand academic totheRomanianossified an into alternative interested hebecame years period Inhis Romanian positivist governedacademiclife. the early spiritand university which an aesthetic approach on religion and an exploration on majority. Orthodox the to wasonly reserved aprivilege ethnicity which and Romanian the bedeprivedpersecuted of according to which all other Christian denomination and especially the Jews Nae Ionescu, Nae After 1926,whenhe hired at was modernity Nae Ionescu by markedagainst intellectual was a deeprevolt an and the 3.6. Final remarks 3.6. Final La question juive et le réponse de ’northodoxe des années trente (Oxford : PergamonPress, 1991), p. 105 – 107. Cuvîntul 100 National Ideology & Antisemitism.The Case of the and after the affairs of the Concordat, the Concordat, the of affairs the after and (Paris: Librairie Roumaine 258 had to be CEU eTD Collection 259 ontology. ethnical Ionescu’s Nae of consequence is direct a Church” true the are Guard] Iron [the authoritarian regime with Patriarch Miron Cristea as Prime Minister, that “from now on, we statements from 30 of March, 1938,whenKing Carol assumed full his andpower instituted Codreanu’s of one context, this In cell. legionary a became and annexed was Church with directlyideology movementthe sniffed this and Iron supported the Guard asif the Thebidfor power. Church andhisthrough many high clerics 3000priests sympathizing in couldhelpthe its legitimizingGuard Iron which ally fabricating Ionescu apolitical was argue that to will dare I scene, political Romanian the on an role intoactive passive from a applying aninstitution to a definition Romaniannessthe of which theChurch transformed the Church which was seen through the Boialance noticed the main problem of Ionescu’s and Crainic’s theory. of the fascist interwar samethe from whohad period out IonescuandCrainic, the pointed against critique commitment of Ionescu. Romanian space.” the across Constantinople and,obviously, towards By almost centuries two themain propagandistic argumentof Russia in its expansionist politics not, a national, but a trans–national religion. More, the orthodox idea has represented for is “like religion, anyother Orthodoxy AsLucian criteria Boia hasobserved, his theorem. of first the share not did who individual other any nationality and Orthodoxy between relation from the excluded more and stance extremist a approached NaeIonescu interconnected, culture had to be shapedminorities in ratherRomaniabut said onreligious grounds, Romanian that anyfuture from rural culture in Romania. If CrainicNichifor neverquestioned thein authentic Romaniancharacter of which folklore and directOrthodox contestation of any political, territorial and civil rightdogma of the religious minorities livingwere Lucian Boia, Lucian The last stage of Ionescu’s career was marked by the export of his ethnic ontology to ontology his ethnic of export by the marked was career of Ionescu’s stage The last Istorie ú i mit în con ú tiin Ġ a româneasc 101 ă , p. 53 259 As other critics As other CEU eTD Collection even nationalist hadhighly students. Though among convictions,theirthey his formula radical Ionescu Nae of failure the best express discourses whose intellectuals of Eliade and Emil Cioran whom I consider to be the most representative of the new generation Mircea namely studies, case explanatory two provide will I convictions. political their or Romanian intellectual joined the Iron Guard for several likepersonal reasons unemployment Romanian fascist movement,join the to students former his determined Nae Ionescu his students charisma over namely the Iron Guard. of ethnic ontology was Orthodox–free. More precisely, by I exercising hisinfectious argue that the 1930s generation1930s representedthecontinuation intellectual althoughhisof project, their understanding of the of intellectuals of thegeneration case Ionescu’s In Nae 1948. after Nichifor Crainic by Corneliu Zelea–Codreanu. led Guard by Iron the asexpressed nationalists of traditional the discourse ideologically the both Nichifor Crainicand Nae gaveIonescu ahelpinghand building andshaping process In this political arena. political inthe wing parties right forces of the extremist the joined discourses intellectual flamed highly in the imbued project nationalist interwar the and more became radical orientation The traditionalist intellectual directions. by different 4. Thedebate after thedebate. The Posteriority of the The 1930s Romania became a battlefield between different political forces backed political between different abattlefield became The 1930sRomania 4.1. Abstract The aim of the present chapter is to look at the posteriority of both Nae Ionescu and Ionescu Nae both of posteriority the at look to is chapter present the of aim The 1930s Generation 102 CEU eTD Collection Gîndirea able Ionescu,World Nichifor CrainicWarhardand survived imprisonment II years and was of andinjust Ionescu ended up Guard came generation Unlike Iron asthe the who Nae later. by fell and Crainic 1932 generation created Nichifor educated influenceof the under Nae nationalist project after 1948 but himself. In support character nation. Romanian of the true the discerning of this statementin criteria ultimate the as Orthodoxy of relevance the stressed comes which character confessional the fact that the ontology an like constructing Noica Constantin without peopleethnic succession, intellectual no had people the of character Orthodox the on exclusively based nation of Romanian the even inhis definition radical wasthefactthat own regime age Ionescu’s for its own profit. Another major factor in Nae Ionescu’s lack of appeal for the Communist possibility forhim intodownplayed intellectuals its aregimewhich awasted even enemy 1940 and he in died didIonescu that fact The Party. not Communist totalitarian survivethe for enemy main the into to see the emergencefor afascistsupport organization which togetherwithturned, democratic other the parties, of the Communist factors. Thesehis his include is byseveral succession intellectual through explained project regime transformed limit any access stand not regime to toan wanting succession andcould totalitarian his intellectual arbitrary to a plurality, even on cultural grounds. The failure of Nae Ionescu’s fact that in that fact confessional ethnic ontology. Nae Ionescu of continuation a direct not and nation the of understanding cultural nationalist a was movement of a continuation with Zelea–Codreanu’s rapprochement Corneliu to sell to For Nichifor Crainic I argue that there was no future generation to continue his generation to future wasno there For Nichifor Iarguethat Crainic After 1948, Nae Ionescu became a became Nae Ionescu After 1948, (Radu Dragnea, Fr. Dumitru St his intellectual expertise to the new regime. What was more interesting was the was interesting was more What new the regime. to expertise intellectual his Glasul PatrieiGlasul all the former collaborators of Crainic from the right–wing of ă niloae, Petre–Marcu Bal persona non grata persona 103 for the new regime inpower new the for regime ú , Radu Gyr, etc.) together CEU eTD Collection ontology. Therefore, their Legionary convictions and the lectures of their Mentor about an about of lectures their Mentor and the convictions Legionary their Therefore, ontology. ethnic Mentor’s their of category Orthodox by the uninfluenced remained nation, Romanian need about the of fora spiritual anational forbackground defining and the culture both sympathies, Mircea intellectual and spoke Cioran though discourses, Eliade they Emil fascist their of influence the under discourse their of radicalization the Despite formula. ethnic ontology remained a project with no continuity among his disciples in Nae Ionescu’s join although demonstrate both to Guard,his that determinedIonescu’s Iron the charisma to Cioran Mircea Emil and of that Eliade of first chapter partthe in this will be considered case studies in Two legacy. Ionescu Nae step as first nationality the Romanian the regarding Guard andits discourse tothe Iron influenced by Nae Ionescu of 1930sgeneration the regime. totalitarian of the influence in the era under not Communist the or changed, speech intellectual theirsee how will analyze only two case studies, Nichifor Crainic and Lucian Blaga, and I will attempt toideology. chapter toshape The present Marxist–Leninist of attempts approach anationalist of the motivations or itis toengageischapter purposeof intopic not the challenging, present the a closeanalysis the mechanism employed intellectual the development of a unique ideology of Romanian nationalism.Although the by the Romanian Communist controlled etc.) Uniuneaits (TheSecuriate, Scriitorilor, Romanian instruments state through State in its and this the aspect because theremostly wasnodebateconcerning nation, Romanian Glasul Patriei convictions. Nevertheless, shift the of Crainic’s Nichifor intellectual from discourse in1962 regime was approach.asking Nichifor Crainic and his former collaboratorsnational Communist a for hadsearch its in no choiceregime even but Communist to the back write to started what Crainic thewith if this meant sometimes texts which were against their own The chapter will be divided into three parts. In will first parts. part Ipresentthe intoalignment The chapter three be divided the contained only allusive statements about Orthodoxy and its relation with the with relation its and Orthodoxy about statements allusive only contained 104 CEU eTD Collection imported nationalism not from abroad, but rather from their political hinterland much like much hinterland political their from rather but abroad, from not nationalism imported regime communist The period. interwar the of nationalism the and nationalism Ceausescu’s regime. Communist the of expectations the to according adjusthis discourse to by attempting as Crainic intellectual trajectory same the almost has Lucian Blaga nation, of Romanian the character the regarding debate traditionalist Gîndirea international prestige.linefollow proper inachieve to order to political independence from and URSS Inside this section of the chapter another exampleRomanian Communist Party.of intellectualthe for role insignificant an played Church of Orthodox and religion like issues because irrelevant was undertaking Crainic’s for Orthodoxy of relevance the village, Romanian the of spirituality the and monasteries about is writing although Crainic that notice can one discourse Crainic’s Nichifor Regarding angle. political adifferent on ideology its reinvent to has one foreign tutelage, aproblematic toavoid wants one when regimes: totalitarian the of maneuver political a typical is elite cultural country the in reinsertion condemnationbeing for after anenemy People 1968Crainic’s of and supporter, the a fascist Communism inmanner anationalist by “interwarusing Despite experts”. the hisformer proof enoughPatriei of the factthe attention of Mircea Eliade and Emil Cioran.that Ceausescu’ssucceed catch to not Romanianness did between and Orthodoxy interconnection ontological regime tried to reshape its approach to and the inflation of nationalistic motifs borrowed from the interwar period which is These two sections of the paper will be followed by a comparative analysis between analysis comparative a by followed be will paper the of sections two These the was Communism of version nationalist the regime political Romanian the For in Crainic Nichifor of reintegration the investigate will I Furthermore, , namely Lucian Blaga will be brought into discussion. Formerly engaged in the in engaged Formerly discussion. into brought be will Blaga Lucian namely , 105 Glasul CEU eTD Collection Humanitas, 1994), p. 268. 262 Struggle, 1918–1930 261 Romania 260 students. among graduated andespecially functionaries a highdepression led to of among great Economical the problems and unemployment rate historical purposes andin politicaldifferent contexts. for different of communities readers by different andwasinterpreted metamorphoses history is still heavily influenced by traditionalistthe national creed whichhad different further investigations. Myfinal conclusion is Romania’s modern that and contemporary needs and was complex process The canon. Communist lifebring anational to to regime inin 1980stherewasalong beginningthe the of road consciousthe attempt of Ceausescu’s inKatherine Verdery herbook. argued Caledarul From From making journals like the traditionalists represented by Nichifor Crainic’s circle gathered around circle by Crainic’s Nichifor represented traditionalists the parties Royal orthe House,theRomanian started youth to slope towards competition:the youth. Romanian the to given alternatives the were life political Romanian in the themselves involve to attempting Hitchins, Keith, Livezeanu, SeeIrina Katherine Verdery, Katherine In early In feelingearly 1930s, the general Romanian of the young elite waspessimistic. Guard the Iron facing Cioran andEmil Eliade Mircea generation. 1930s 4.2. The , (Berkley: University of California Press, 1990) . Crainic advocated for traditionalist nationalism, based on village’s spirituality, Rumania 1866–1947 (New York: Cornell University Press, 1995), p. 29–48. National Ideologyunder Socialism. Identity andCultural Politics inCeausescu’s Cultural Politics in Greater Romania. Regionalism, Nation Building,& Ethnic 262 If If they did notembrace the official discourse of different political Glasul Patriei (Oxford: ClarendonPress,1994); Romanian translation(Bucharest: 260 This process was not engineeredin not This asingle stage. was process in the mid-1960s to publishing mid-1960sto writings inthe Eliade’s 106 261 Fighting against Communism and Communism against Fighting Gîndirea and CEU eTD Collection 266 Politics and Societies in Cioran)” M. E. and Ionescu Eugen Ionescu, Nae Eliade, Mircea Sebastian, (Mihai Choices Christian stood inpriests from of firingthe squadsin freedom Russia, of punishedthought persecuted in in priestsChristian tortured Italy,Jews Germany, Look Left:to the expelled. men to the right: fascistthe beheaded Look of persecutors inGermany, Jews… the thinkers are –andso arehooligans of churches arsonists Communist “the that states He fascism. and beginning of 1930s the one can see ambiguitythe of Eliade’s for position both Communism inthe by atthe articlesEliade written onelooks fascism. If openly–declared nationalism to moderate a from Eliade led which itinerary political his out point to started scholars several until West the to unknown fairly remained intellectual the of roots Romanian The be. will students. unofficially join Guard, his Iron the option had consequences tremendous overhis the mostimportant were Mircea Eliade orMihail Sebastian. After 1933, when he decided to Mircea Eliade, Nae Ionescu, Eugen Ionescu and E. M. Cioran)”, p. 653. 265 264 1986), p. 141. Change inRomania 1860–1941.debate A inaEuropean country He welcomed and proposed inHe welcomed andproposed pagesof the intellectuals. in astage asyoung Cioran and were Eliade formation of lectures the modern make theirin way Romanian underthe Crainic’spublic patronage. sphere very seductive in 1920s the mostand of 1930sintellectualsthe started to publish and to 263 deprived of any from imports West. the afterRomanian 1918and state Romanian on a true of anemphasis necessity the culture, the by proposed regime secular the of front in Christianity Orthodox of aprimacy on Matei C Matei For this aspect, please see Matei C Matei see please aspect, this For Zigu Ornea, Please see Keith Hitchins, “Gîndirea: Nationalism inPolitical disguise” inKenneth Jowitt (ed.), In the case of Mircea Eliade things are not as clear cut as everybody they as everybody thought cut asclear not are things Eliade Mircea caseof In the Nae Ionescu’s charisma was even more mesmerizing than Crainic’s. Ionescu’s anti– 266 ă linescu, “The 1927 Generation in Romania: Friendships and Ideological Choices (Mihai Sebastian, (Mihai Choices Ideological and Friendships Romania: in Generation 1927 “The linescu, The Romanian Extreme Right.The1930s 15,No. 3 (2001), p. 650. ă linescu, “The 1927 Generation in Romania: Friendships and Ideological and Friendships Romania: in Generation 1927 “The linescu, 263 Crainic’s synthesis from 107 Cuvîntul , (Boulder: Columbia University Press, 1999), p.86. his prestigiousamong students which , (Berkley: University of California Press, Gîndirea 264 proved to be East European Social 265 CEU eTD Collection Romanianedition (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2007) p.312. 271 269 270 268 turning point inturning his point viewsfascism; he although towards condemned Communism bitterly as 267 popularity Guard.” Iron the of threatening for sympathy Communism andmovements of Leftthe itand has ended with the began violence…a with year 1933 The ofviolence complain of theoreticians the likefor become ademocrat Maniu.Thedemocrats Iuliu offreedom, suppressors while the vote his legionaries to reactionary advises Zelea Codreanu, “Corneliu spiritual revolution: order. democratic the with common in nothing had which revolution national a spiritual of ideal byNaeof in embraced Ionescu, Influenced Eliade revolution.a spiritual this front probably annihilation imminent an to destined systems political all he considered rather but politics, in interested not was Eliade period particular in this because alike fascists and communists by hooliganismdeath, the of Communism inParis…” Liberal regime. AsLiberal regime. Florin between the intellectuals of the young generation and the politicians of the Romanian Florin Mircea Eliade, “Realit Eliade, Mircea Mircea Eliade, “Cîteva cuvinte mari” [Some Great Words] in Words] Great [Some mari” cuvinte “Cîteva Eliade, Mircea Vremea Credin He even Guard condemned the Iron together with partiesall advocatingother a revolution. national and revolution proletarian between ‘left–wing’ and ‘right–wing’ between from distinction samesubtle the hear different like to something We should else. what know don’t I and fascism, communism, Mussolini, Marx, Karl of enough hadnotyoung no had who Hitler. sentientimitating there person Leninor I think We are sick of political and politicizing revolutions, we are an inIn 1934he important wrote text which hedeclared that: sick of the revolutions Ġ a , VII,, 343,no. June 15 1934. ğ 3/1932. urcanu, Mircea Eliade. LePrisonnier dul’Histoire 268 ăĠ i Române ğ urcanu has pointed out urcanu haspointed ú ti” [Romanian Realities] in Realities] [Romanian ti” 269 In another article 108 270 Vremea 271 Vremea 267 Eliade describes a certain conflict acertain Eliadedescribes , 1935 represented for Eliade the , 1935represented (Paris: Editions la Decouverte, 2003); Eliade his wrote diatribes against VII, no. 341,June 10 1934. , 16June 1935 CEU eTD Collection 276 273 275 (Boulder:2, East EuropeanMonographs, 1988), p.713 passim.and 274 272 fascism international strongly foradvocate heto as ever, started by pointing out that the 1937 involvement and membership in the Iron by thattheand 1937involvementmembershipGuard wasamoral out pointing intheIron it notinsufficientexplainandlaterexonerate evolutions. Zigu Eliadedoes histried Ornea to expectation. messianic a certain involvementcan be explained a certain only through offulfillmentprocess bythe Guard of Eliade’s that Zigu considers Ornea debate. the scholars entered when several moment mysticism. Guard Iron in the embodied see later hewill which experience thereligious of peak the was this that I argue believer. play any role for atall youngthe who Eliade was obviously more preoccupied tobecome a aquestion butdogma,rather of have not of a question Christianity, been could “religion, consequently Ionescu, problem the forfaith, reconsider Eliadeof in periodinfluence under of directthis the Nae him to classesdetermined Nae Ionescu’s that Although confessed Nae Ionescu. Eliade politicalor whathasrevolutions, in he mindis adifferentfrom cultural mentor,his project be made: although Eliade is for aspiritualadvocating revolution fascist, nationalistagainst of Codreanu andhismovement. Atthis particular point of paperacertainthe must remark became obvious in 1937 whenhe published in extensively of support electoral the campaign to publish extensively in the History of publish in religions to of History the extensively continued and Guard Iron the of favor in and fascism about wrote Eliade years previous the in If analysis. scholarly insufficient and dimness historical by obscured still are this behind in history. people Romanian Zigu Ornea, Mircea Eliade, “Popor fara misiune?!” [People without amission?!], without [People misiune?!” fara “Popor Eliade, Mircea Florin ForEliade’s prodigious career, please see Mac Linscott Ricketts, Mircea Eliade, “Romania in eternitate” [Romania in eternity] in eternity] in [Romania eternitate” in “Romania Eliade, Mircea There are many factors involved in the fascist conversion of Eliade. This is the is This Eliade. of conversion fascist in the involved factors many are There ğ urcanu, The Romanian Extreme Right Mircea Eliade. Le Prisonnier du l’Histoire 273 276 The change in speechisEliade’s obvious. The reasons personal experience In the case of Eliade this kind of presupposition is rather , p. 166. 109 274 , Eliade’s rapprochement with the Guard the with rapprochement , Eliade’s (Paris: Editions la Decouverte, 2003), p. 51. .” 275 Credin Mircea Eliade. TheRomanian roots It means that Orthodoxy did not did Orthodoxy that means It Vremea Ġ a , 13 October1935. 272 and for the mission of the , 1 December1935. faith , Vol. or CEU eTD Collection 280 structure.” of universal geniuses three least at produced has it life modern of collective rural life, it has beenamazingly fertile infokloric and artistic creations, and ina hundredyears of has created, throughoutIt the coursepeople. chosen of be a the history, can people lasting Romanian forms the that of government, evidence of plenty it We has have createdpeople. adistinctive achosen to belonging style 279 from quote Eliade from a Starting mission. messianic Romanian on hethe places is accent the interpreters 278 afinal take to generation Eliade youngdetermined Guard andthe influenceon Iron the both His people. Romanian the of character messianic in belief the and nationalism with imbued project, intellectual NaeIonescu’s between connection whodrewadirect interpreters this theory does not explain why Eliade joined the Iron Guard. Rather, 19 the from culture in the Romanian flowing trends between anti–democratic the interconnection 277 party. join Codreanu’s to chose possible explanations for this kind of attitude. revolution. Relying his spiritual man taskofwasembodied generation duty thatthe in considered whoa of on primary sources, Ornea disregards the historical context and other Mac Linscott Ricketts, of consciousness the have will Romanian every that planes onso many and so much create “Wemust Mac Linscott Ricketts, Mac Linscott Ricketts, th It is clear that the American exegete of Eliade embraced the traditional core of core traditional embraced the of Eliade exegete American the is It clearthat Eliade began to lend his moral support. itnation,was indeed and that capable ofsetting aChristian in Romaniarevolution – was the its purpose life and“resurrect” aimsto transform arenon–political, that Legion’s in the When1936 that fall hebecameconvinced of the Legion.towards the since late1933,though he wasneverhim amember–had of movement thedrawing effect the with associated closely been had – who Ionescu Nae for friendship and admiration his Undoubtedly, nationalism. Romanian the of concomitant itinevitableGuard’s as an buthe wasabletooverlook anti-Semitism,almost the share not did He Codreanu. of those with points many at coincided beliefs …his Mac Linscott Ricketts provides a historical and textual context in provides Ricketts textual ahistorical Eliade which Mac context and Linscott century onwards century 279 , Mac Linscott Ricketts develops this theory of messianic character, but Mircea Eliade. TheRomanian Roots Mircea Eliade. TheRomanian Roots Mircea Eliade. TheRomanian Roots 278 . But what singles out Linscott Ricketts from Eliade’s from all Ricketts Linscott what singles out . But 277 What is more interesting in this perspective is the is perspective in this interesting ismore What 110 280 , p. 921- 922. , p. 900. , p.792 passim.and CEU eTD Collection 287 286 285 284 indiference in the mid–1920s to Buddhism in beginningthe of the 1930s. 85 :in this pages Romanianthe author has pointout that Eliade religious interests wentfrom religious 283 (Bucharest: Humanitas, 1993), p. 56. moment for joiningmomentfor theGuard was Iron Mo new political elite Guard. Political opportunism joining Iron forthe factors decisive were other there feeling, messianic Romanian the or neglected explanations for Eliade’s political behavior. Beside Ionescu’s infectious charisma 282 (Munchen: R.Oldenburg Verlag, 1986); Romanian Edition (Bucharest: Humanitas,1999), p. 293. Soziale BewegungPolitische und Organization. EinBeitrag zumProblem des internationalen Faschismus Publishing House,p. 230–231&ArminHeinen, 1995), Publications de la Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, 1989)/ Romanianedition (Bucharest: Humanitas only factor responsible for Eliade’s later political decision. Rather, Rather, decision. political later Eliade’s for responsible factor only 281 Guard Iron on Romanian the decision regarding the movement. This perspective was embraced by most scholars working of history”.of definition Romanianthe of ethnicity hadnoappeal youngto the Eliade. Orthodoxy never played an important role for him. Accordingly, Nae Ionescu’s radical was messianic and nationalist, as someone can see from Eliade’s religious interests caused by Iron the Guard and inwhich Eliade believed,must I underlined that,although it professed. DissimilarRicketts Mac whoLinscott to a “Christianspoke about revolution” the Romanian people had nothing in common with the ethnic ontology which Nae Ionescu of messianic character and the revolution spiritual argue that I from interwar Romania. the factors important some forget other seems to Ricketts Linscott Mac decision. actual Eliade’s contemporaries bysome washighlighted other Ionescu also Florin Florin Florin Florin Florin Please see Mircea Vulc Mircea see Please Francisco Veiga, Francisco Florin Florin ğ ğ ğ ğ ğ urcanu, urcanu, urcanu, urcanu, urcanu, ğ urcanu emphasized a stunning conclusion: Nae Ionescu’s legacy was not the legacywasnot Ionescu’s astunning Nae conclusion: urcanu emphasized ğ Mircea Eliade. Le Prisonnier du l’Histoire Mircea Eliade. Le Prisonnier du l’Histoire urcanu Mircea Eliade. Le Prisonnier du l’Histoire, Mircea Eliade. Le Prisonnier du l’Histoire Mircea Eliade. Le Prisonnier du l’Histoire 287 La Mistica del ultranacionalismo. Historia delaGuardio deHierro were important factors in taking the final decision. Another decisive Another decision. final the in taking factors important were 284 ă nescu, in his monograph dedicated to Eliade considered him “a prisoner toEliade considered inhismonograph dedicated 285 281 Nae Ionescu asa cum l-am cunoscut , the friendship, the Mihai with Polihroniade , Eliade and the 1930s generation. This influence of influenceNae generation. of This , Eliade the 1930s and 111 Ġ a and Marin’s death a andMarin’s and theirdeath funerals in 13 Die Legionen “ErzengelMichael” inRumänien, , p.346. , 344. , p. 326 and passim. and 326 , p. (Paris: Editions la Decouverte, 2003), p. 83– p.347. 282 , but it does not fully explain [Nae Ionescu how I met him] ğ urcanu assembles some assembles urcanu 286 and the ideal of , (Bellaterra: 283 , , CEU eTD Collection 1999) p.8. 292 January 1938. 294 293 290 291 edition, p.306. Bewegung und Politische Organization. EinBeitrag zum Problem des internationalen Faschismus 289 Humanitas, 2004), p. 475. Europa, Asia, America… Coresponden 288 the Fatherland. lists of Party electoral the asdeputy the on elected and in county Prahova propaganda himnothing becoming couldfrom stop anactivemember,involved in legionary the January 1937 aristocracy” legionary regime before and after 6 after and before regime legionary out pointed has Petreu Marta As movement. the in officially entered never he although Guard, Iron of the supporter became afanatic and University in Bucharest he alsowas student 4 years younger than Eliade,hide Although laterfascist preferred to past. Guard that his Iron seduced by intellectual the Cioran entered under the same spell genuine. doctrine fascist was with the contamination of Nae Ionescu whose and involvement Eliade’s factthat of proof the enough lose warare the should England powers democratic that and the his conviction Portugal, leaderof authoritarian the nationalist/fascist victory over the Soviet Union during the war. His admirations for Salazar, Romanianthe legationsin hope for and London Lisbon where to a hecontinued NovemberMoroieniimprisonment 1938andhis at Zigu Ornea, Marta Petreu, Marta Sorin Alexandrescu, For more details, please see Armin Heinen, Armin see please details, more For Please see Eliade’s article “Noua aristocra “Noua article Eliade’s see Please Mircea Eliade, “Ion Mo “I have joined the Iron Guard because of Mo of because Guard Iron the joined “Ihave 294 , his fascination fascism beganinwith 1933whenhe inwas Germany. His later political career leaves no doubts about Eliade’s involvement in the involvement Eliade’s about leaves nodoubts political Hiscareer later Emil Cioran’s rapprochement to the fascist movement is another case of aRomanian of case another is movement fascist the to rapprochement Cioran’s Emil 291 The Romanian Extreme Right 288 to advocating for a legionary astep. wasjustfor alegionary toadvocating regime An InfamousPast.EmilCioran andtheRiseFascism of in Romania 290 andin reflected firstthe pro–Iron Guard openly article From this stance of writing in the support of a “new legionary Mircea Eliadedespre Portugalia Ġ a ú i Vasile Marin” [Ion Mo Ġă [Europe, Assia, America… Corespondence] Vol. 3 (Bucharest: 3 Vol. Corespondence] America… Assia, [Europe, th of September 1940. After the murder of murderinCodreanu of 1940.After the of September , p. 209. Ġ ie legionar ie Die Legionen “Erzengel Michael” in Rumänien, Soziale Ġ a and Marin’s deaths” [my translation] in Mircea Eliade, Mircea in translation] [my deaths” Marin’s and a 112 Ġ a and Vasile Marin], , Humanitas, 2006. ă ” [New Legionnary Aristocracy] in Aristocracy] Legionnary [New ” 292 293 , Eliade became a cultural attaché at attaché a cultural became , Eliade Vremea , 24January 1937. , (Chicago: Ivan. Dee, 289 after which 295 The deep Vremea , Romanian All for , 23 , CEU eTD Collection 298 297 296 (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1999), p. 111. 295 representative most him convincedfascism best for wasthe that theRomanian alternative specter. political and Klages Ludwig the fascistgoal to striking was another feature of fascism hadwhich Nazis all played along inhischoice. integration Theof intellectuals likeMartin Heidegger totalitarianismhome thevitality country, hisdeepattraction the towards andtowards of impression by provoked Nazi the thedesolatingseizurepower, of landscape ofhis political regime or dictatorship as contemporary had and Italy Germany regime ordictatorship ascontemporary for with atotalitarian inclination linkeda deep Guard’sleaderthe and movementwere for whose commitment andhe a“heretical”sympathizer Guard became Iron the discovered Guard as a member of Criterionthe Influencedcircle. byMihai Polihroniade, Cioran enter theIron to chose sense.in Cioran in As case, moderate Eliade’s a although revolution, follow by and Antohi waspresented inhisthat Sorin hypothesis is hypothesis very and seductive muchof explains political future the of Emil adventure Antohi’s Sorin Romania. for salvation possible a as seen movement fascist Romanian dictatorship or fascism Nazism, asMarxist, matters these to solutions extremist towards his inclination for way the paved in Romanianthe state its indestiny developingpath authentic an cultural towards history indespair hisbooks as depicted and articles andhisfrustration immobility the towards of developed a obsession psychological cultural Romania’s regarding insignificance. His Cioran in Sibiu, years highschool his of time in the met he whom colleagues Hungarian and hishadacknowledgehimself who ethnicalelite inferior to asbeing hisGerman, Jewish to Cioran in a Transylvanian of from characterizing terms stigmata cultural Romanian coming Sorin Antohi, Sorin Marta Petreu, Marta Emil Cioran, “Aspecte germane” [German aspects] in aspects] [German germane” “Aspecte Cioran, Emil Sorin Antohi, He expressed his fascination with Hitler and Germany in a series of articles. The Imaginaire culturel et réalité politique dans la Roumanie moderne An Infamous Past. Emil Cioran and the Rise of Fascism in Romania Imaginaire cultureletpolitique réalité danslaRoumaniemoderne. et LeStigmate l’utopie 296 expressedhis admiration towards the Reich anditsThird nationalist 298 . This sense of led. Thissensepersonal anguish the himeventually of to 113 Vremea , 19 nomeiembrie 1933. nomeiembrie 19 , Civitas imaginalis 297 . There is another track to is track . There another , p. 129. , p. 62. . Speaking about . Speaking , CEU eTD Collection fascists did, but he crossed over the strong boundaries of the Legionary political creed political Legionary the of boundaries strong the over he crossed but fascists did, Romanian as the modernity rejected Cioran political trends, different manner, provocative specific fascist tempo in a revolutionary and conservative manner conservative and revolutionary in a tempo fascist specific famous colonial, backward,smallculture as Romanian.the mentioned Thusnever inthe of text his strong as the Nazis or the Italian fascists through which he hoped he could reshape a what the Iron Guard had tooffer Guard Iron the what and Guard from Iron the wanted Cioran between what incompatibility wasaclearthere Zigu IronGuard’sideologues. has of optimistic expectations the that Ornea seen accurately farbeyond fascism went most the andradical which between political conservatism nation. Orthodoxy capacitythe beingof thespiritual ferment of a future of revolution Romanian the whichframework ethic nation. forthe provide code wassupposed denied an to He preference for Orthodox mysticism. Cioran took into consideration Orthodoxy as a moral 300 Language and Literature Gruzinska,“(Anti-) Semitism 1890s/1990s: Octave Mirabeau Emil Cioran” and in Semitism: thecaseofRomanian Intellectuals in the1930's 299 For Cioran anti-Semitism and its functions please see Leon Volovici, Semitism anti- accepted doctrine,Cioran for theanti-Semitic except legionary code the entirely fascists. Italian the Nazis and the efforts: Cioran believed that he had found in the Legion a consequence and a direct copy of Cioran.his Nevertheless, struggle needoptimism and his from for ratherdifferent Eliade’s 301 Zigu Ornea, Alexandra Laignel–Lavastine, Alexandra What Cioran had in mind when he joined the Iron Guard was a kind of synthesis of akind was Guard Iron the joined he when mind in had Cioran What Confronted with schematized political ideologies, unlike withideologies, whohas Confronted schematizedEliade political accepted Transfiguration ofRomania Transfiguration 299 , but rejected the legionary political doctrine thoroughly, including Iron , butrejected includingGuard thoroughly, legionary the doctrine Iron political The Romanian Extreme Right 55, no. 1 (2001), p.18. Cioran, Eliade, Ionescu. L’oubli du fascisme 300 . Cioran believed the Iron Guard to be an organization as organization be an to Guard Iron the believed Cioran . , his target was to impose tothe Iron Guard movement a , p. 177. 114 (Oxford: PergamonPress 1991), p.111; Alexandra Nationalist Ideology andAnti- , (Paris: PUF, 2002), p. 97. RockyMountains Review of 301 . Mixing,in a CEU eTD Collection War 306 Princeton University Press, 2006), p. 6. 305 p. 193. 1, vol. 1933), Minerva, 304 303 revolted againstrevolted problematic this heritage. and weredeeply who andtheintellectuals became French the (1789) Revolution fascists modernthe legacy likeageneralizedEnlightenment of becameof something critique the fascism out, points McGregor James As beundertaken. can dictatorships fascist the under practically nothing forme todo in Romania.” if I stay in this country? As I cannot actively join the nationalist movement, there is tremendous consequences over the political scene which was always shiftingfrom left to had tensions masses. These among the of discontent feeling andacertain tensions social whichledto eventually forprogress and economical political power, they were advocating andits it claimsfor againstthe although lived political paradox: was proletariat a strange and 1918. countries before after bestall European which the described the of crisis economical and political of kind this was there Again, chimera. democraticand rights the emergencetransformed of thefor manyCommunist intellectuals parties allin Europe,across Europethe issue into ofa politicaldemocracy and 302 Paris in down settle and country the leave to chose Cioran Codreanu, with meetings numerous his of regardless and unsubstantial as seen rather was movement fascist Romanian in the involvement because he was disappointed with the lack of political interest inside the Iron Guard Michael Burleigh, Please see James Gregor, James see Please Mircea Eliade, Mircea Alexandra Laignel–Lavastine, Alexandra Marta Petreu, Marta , (New York: Harper &Collins, 2006), p. 66. A comparison between generation A Romanian the between 1930s fascist and intellectuals the comparison An Infamous Past. Emil Cioran and the Rise of Fascism in Romania Mircea Eliade si coresponde Powers.Earthly and Religion Politics inEuropefrom the EnlightenmentGreat to the 303 . Before he left the country Ido “What would he Eliade: he Mircea told . Before country the left Mussolini’s Intellectuals. Fascist Social and PoliticalThought Cioran, Eliade, Ionescu. L’oubli du fascisme Ġ ii s 305 115 304 ă Together with likemodernizationproblems i (Mircea and Eliade his corepondents),(Bucharest: , p. 126. , p. 74. 306 The middle class Themiddle petite bourgeois , (Princeton: 302 . His CEU eTD Collection 311 political arena, to influence a certain movement which wanted to become and to take by take to become and to which wanted movement influence acertain to arena, political the enter to possibility the intellectuals 1920s the of some to offered nation Romanian The emergence in Guard and Iron 1927 of the its highly inflammatory rhetoric aboutthe future path of Romania should be built according to western standards, was a culturalnationalism. one. interwar an in developing step next the age certain that at represented Crainic Nichifor join influence of or fascism underthe Nae Ionescu to Theintellectuals’ present. decision that, although there are striking similarities between the cases, the differences are strong and ‘Fatherland’” in ‘Fatherland’” 312 no. 4(2002), p.551. 310 Reckless Mind. Intellectuals in Politics intellectuals in the welcoming hands of fascists of hands welcoming in the intellectuals victory,mutilated expansionist or political viewswereothertrends which lead the 309 New Consensus 308 Führer) the (führen Leader” “lead the he can believed Heidegger Martin inGermany If motifs. different had regime totalitarian to set their minds for either the left or the right. modernism which attracted theelite attracted modernism which andculture of developmentarts the opened towards spirit Mussolini was a that were convinced Leftfeared the they and regime becausethey the backed intellectuals the in Italy history, in destiny Germany’s of fulfilment the for answer Boolean Test of Major Hypothesis“ in Hypothesis“ ofMajor Test Boolean 307 right and backwards. Paul Betts, “The New Fascination with Fascism: Nazi Modernism” in Aristotle Kallis, “To expand or not to expand? Territory, Generic Fascism and the Quest for an ideal an for Quest the and Fascism Generic Territory, expand? to or not expand “To Kallis, Aristotle Gregor, James see please this For Please see his preface to the original editionof the Please see, Roger Griffin, Please see, Dirk Berg–Schlosser&Gisele du Meur, “Conditions of Democracy in Interwar Europe: A Europe: Interwar in ofDemocracy “Conditions Meur, du Berg–Schlosser&Gisele Dirk see, Please The interwar debate between traditionalists and modernizers, who advocated that the that advocated who modernizers, and traditionalists between debate interwar The The option of these intellectuals for Hitler or Mussolini and their strong support for a (London: Arnold Publishing House, 1998),p. 37. Journal of ContemporaryHistory 307 In these circumstances, the intellectuals had to choose quickly and quickly choose hadto intellectuals the Inthesecircumstances, Fascism Mussolini’s Intellectuals in Roger Griffin (ed.), Griffin Roger in , (Chicago:, Chicago University 2003).Press, Comparative Politics 311 . The experience of the trenches and the feeling of a of feeling the and trenches the of experience The . 309 38, no. 2 (2003), p.238–243. and they thought that Nazism was the correct 116 308 312 Introductioninto Metaphysics Vol. 26, No. 3 (1994), p. 261. . In the case of Romania one must argue , p.21. International Fascism. Theories, Causes and the 310 . There was this feeling of Nazi Journal of Contemporary History in Mark Lilla, 37, The CEU eTD Collection on East European Cultures and Societies), 2004. Societies), and Cultures European East on and Violence: The Legion of the‘Archangel Michael’ in interwar Romania MovementsPolitical and Religions 313 newgather followers that was the greatest the illusion party, them moreandmeaning who offered a higherspiritual of than a future, deceit to which Codreanu only For 1930sgeneration Guardwasthe lesserevil.Iron the sideswith dilemma taking of and his followerson thecould one hand and fromapply Russia on the inother hand,order the Germany and Italy from issue influence coming the with Together collapse. from save Romania toof choosing transformed in a started to think whether the Iron bankruptcy of and unemployment graduatedstudents,the some youngintellectuals of these Guard could be the providential the of depression, great of the context In the regime. parliamentary Romanian storm the party sent from above to Tito’s Tito’s indissidentregime Yugoslavia the and conflicts between RussianandMaoistSoviet became even moreinternational urgent because in of the block. theCommunist problems Especially 1960stheclaim Moscow. beginningof atthe independentthe stancetowards Romanianhad regime onlyonealternative left: toplay nationalist cardand developthe an the by Moscow, initiated campaign of a de-Stalinization wake ideology.the In Communist and creed thenationalist between rapprochement of feeling acertain was dictatorship there SeeFischer–GalaStephen After a short periodAfter of ashort inStalinization during GheogheGheorghiu–Dej Romania 1948. after Blaga and Lucian Crainic 4.3. Nichifor 313 . Ġ i, „Codreanu,RomanianNational Traditions andCharisma”in Vol. 7, No. 2, 2006, Vol.7, No.245–250 2, Constantin or p. Iordachi, 117 , (Trondheim: Trondheim Studies Trondheim (Trondheim: , Glasul Patriei Glasul Charisma, Politics Totalitarian CEU eTD Collection 316 Political Science 314 forproblem the Romanian originscommunists werethe nationalistideology of huge Another nationhood. to connection no with internationalism on based ideology an independenceof orideological insidedeviation surroundingthe countries anyact not tolerate will Russia Soviet fact that of the leaders Romanian the China ensured 317 elements of the political discourse left out of the official speeches and documents.” Dictatorship 315 Ceausescu’s Romania as main task a certain revitalization Romanianof history the and culture. had intellectuals these impositions, Russian the Rejecting ethnicity. Romanian of definition made alivingbyjoining handsin attemptthe state of Romanian the to buildingnational a regime. Communist the of years first the during imprisoned were who intellectuals wingrightlike movementC. Virgil orConstantin Giur Cândea nationalists DumitrulikeCrainic Nichifor St or sympathizersor like Constantin Noica, Ioan Dumitrescu–Bor imprisoned and some of them were even deceased at that time. were intellectual elite of the Most problematic. rather became ideology Communistwith the connection in adirect ofnationalism concepts the languageand use an academic capable to intellectual by inexistencefascism Furthermore, communist the ofproper party.the elite ethical problem inside party the if they were tousean ideology commonly labeled as they didnot operate with any of the concepts used by the nationalistmovements, it was an journal designated tobe thejournal the Romaniansof the Through abroad. ideasthe conveyed inthis Romanian regime wanted to show the world that there was no political grouped under grouped roof the of journal the Trond Gilberg, Trond Please see Katherine Verdery, Katherine see Please Katherine Verdery,“Beyond theNation in Eastern Europe” in Please see Vladimir Tism Vladimir see Please The nationalist discourse was atypical for the Communist states, communism being communism states, Communist the for atypical was discourse nationalist The The nationalist project of the Communist Party involved former–legionary members former–legionary involved Party Communist the of project nationalist The (Boulder: Westview 1990),Press, p. 48:the Communist regime fromRomania used “those , Vol. 38, No. 1, The New Europe: Revolution in East – West Relations. (1991), pp. 85–99. Nationalism and Communism in Romania.The Rise andFall of Ceausescu’s personal , (Berkley: University of California Press, 1990),p. 13. ă neanu, “The Revival of Politics in Romania” in Romania” in of Politics Revival “The neanu, National Ideology under Socialism. Identity andCultural Politics in Glasul Patriei 118 ă niloae, historians with strong niloae, strong historians withtheties with Social Text [Fatherland’s Voice] which was which Voice] [Fatherland’s ú a orRaduGyr,Orthodoxist , No. 38(1994), pp.1-19. Proceedings of the Academy of ă scu and some other 314 317 . They were all 315 . Because 316 They CEU eTD Collection al Comitetuluial Român pentru Repatriere 318 in from august 1965 interwar anarticle 20 Forexample, period. in from he dosomethingnewspaperforcing differentthe advocated to what wasquite 1972. of the member an became heactive afterwards in plotting 1952for against thelegal Nichifor Crainicorder. wasreleasedin 1962 andsoon Communists took power in 1947, he became an enemy of the state and he was condemnedhis repentedsons. well country prosperous all messagewhich treats and that as adeveloped presentsRomania is readerhas feelingthe message there lines of a that a newspaper, behindthe but the and in never for thepages The issue regime arises the living publicity of abroad. the Romanian seems that It miscellanea. other and toeconomical tosports was issuespage was devoted and last dedicated agricultural and the putnationalist The thirdintellectuals againonthe whoweretrying the to projectonce road. forsecond pagewasculture and herealways reserved canfind one all aforementioned the The etc.). Romania, visiting official foreign a meeting, Party (a matter political important an activities. for theirimprisoned political andwere borders the escapeacross not silence Romanian thestrong which emigration decried the whocould unfairthose destiny of andto countries impress foreign wasboth and the to democratic purpose the Romanian state communist the legitimating of as elite wasthought former the with regime Association respected. people were in Romania.discrimination It in Romaniawas a andbold the civil maneuver rights of the formers coming fascists from and enemies the of partthe of the Nichifor Crainic, “Cultura la îndemîna tuturor” [Culture available for everybody] in everybody] for available [Culture tuturor” îndemîna la “Cultura Crainic, Nichifor If alookhis at takes one would one articles, seethathis in activity of pages this the Nichifor Crainic’s contribution to the newspaper starts in early 1960s. After the therewasalways onthefirst page had asimpleof This section structure: journal the , an X, 25no. (351), August 201965, p.2. Glasul Patriei 119 Glasul Patriei was a perfect resume of Romania for a ’s editors until his’s editors in death 318 Crainic the praised Glasul Patriei. Organ CEU eTD Collection (375), p. 3. [Nicolae Tonitza, painter of life] in pentru Repatriere cîntectulpopular”Chiriac [D.G. andthefolkloric song] in Organ alComitetului Românpentru Repatriere (364), January 1 Comitetului Român pentru Repatriere Creang Animator],X, no. 34(360), November20 1965, p. 1-4; Creang„Ioan (358), November4;1 1965, „Nicolae p. Omul Iorga. [Francisc [Francisc Comitetului Român pentru Repatriere 321 septembrie 1965, p. 2. important figures from the interwar period and he was accommodating them new them the with andhe accommodating was period figures interwar from the important articles. made insome particular were Romanian Communism in asmallvillage from Oltenia.most Buthis striking comments to a Romanian cave famous elite. the of culture for a andnot for apopular culture andto advocate state the praiseof activity the him to was its beauty, was in which remained public the for State handof controlledalso the all that the education he praiseswas not destined the to be greatconsumedCrainicinterested wasmore in finding andcultivating anauthentic Romanian culture which by the achievementsRomanian masses. In this case, when theof culture the 320 319 interwar period at Gîndirea and the of themasses.” spiritualization maximum the for principle guiding the is materials cultural the of cheapness same book whicheconomic: ”Itook today from an book old librarythe itand me hascost 90lei.the Itook was edited moreculture cheap wasnow and keep Crainic’sfrontline factthat wasthe which seemedto today and it haswas in possible education in thecontrol Anotherissue and culture without State. of the cost me 6 lei.implication In the of actualthe State in regime,the education the of young children and believed that no progress “În amintirea lui Constantin Nottara” [In the Memory of Constantin Notara], Constantin of Memory the [In Nottara” Constantin lui amintirea “În „Pe NichiforCrainic, „Cultura la îndemîna tuturor”, p. 2 ú ă tera Muierii” in inarchival documents] in In another article from year from article same the In another ù irato’s Retrospective], irato’s st 1966, p. 2; „Amintirea 1966,p. IonMinulescu”lui [The Memory of Minulescu],Ion XI, (372),no. 9 March202; 1966, Goga” „Octavian p. in 319 The difference between the Nichifor Crainicwas the during writing who Nichifor Thebetween the difference Glasul Patriei. OrganalComitetului Românpentru Repatriere Glasul Patriei. Organ al Comitetului Român pentru Repatriere Glasul Patriei. Organ al pentruComitetului Român Repatriere Glasul Patriei. Organ al Comitetului Român pentru Repatriere , XI, No., 11 (374), April 101966, p. 2.;„N. Tonitza –pictor vie al X, no.31(357), October20 1965, p.2;„Retrospectiva Francisc Communist 321 X, 2 no. (365), January 10 1966,p.2; „D. G.Chiriac It was obvious that Crainic was recuperating 120 320 , although Crainic is narrating one of his trips Crainic is important: inperiod interwar the isimportant: Crainic ú i animatorul” [Nicolae Iorga. The Manand the Glasul Patriei. OrganalComitetului Român ă în documentele în dearhiv GlasulOrgan Patriei. al GlasulOrgan Patriei. al , anX, no. 27(353), 10 Glasul Patriei. , XI, no. 12 , X, no. 32 , X, no. 1 ă ” [Ioan ù irato” Ġ ii” ú i CEU eTD Collection 324 Organ alComitetului Român pentru Repatriere 323 (360), November20 1965, p. 2. 322 in reflected as conception folklore likeRomanian important topics other he approached be when can seen personalities governmentfrom 1938. This kindCommunist of reinterpretation of symbolicalthe values or Crainic did not mentionlandlords. by was oppressed whothe write peasant about thesufferingsthe of zeal to the political role socialistplayed realities.by Octavian For examples, Goga and Goga his is depictedproto–fascist by Crainic as the peasant’s poet and his elite had findto the continuity between the historical moment when they came powerto and mobilization of the Romanian people. In searching for a new cultural canon the Communist vianationalist a his toregain strength wanted who Ceausescu Nicolae regime of acommunist of beginning the only were efforts Crainic’s Internally, dissidence. Romanian the to regime Communist the by administrated coup intelligent an represented legionaries and nationalists former other with together Communism national to Crainic Nichifor of The revolution. of Marxistlastthe make stage possible the peasantry and to the by Communist villageto the todestroy in utopia whichwasexported proletariat the order interdependence it. villageandthecity the apart between This kindwas of of the more, Crainic,destroyingurban village civilizing stated isareas. Even city without the the the and rural the between conflict no is there harmony, social Communist the to according interwar period the village played the major role for establishing a national culture, now, Crainic in the pages of city, but especially the village confers specificity to Romanianthe landscape.” especially city,village confersspecificity but the from the interwar books of Crainic, but with a certain modification: “from ancient times, the Nichifor Crainic “Satul de azi Nichifor Crainic “Satul de azi “Folclorul” [The Folklore] in Folklore] [The “Folclorul” I will attempt to compare the conception of Nichifor Crainic from this text with his 322 , butalso Romanian the village which is mostthe poignantarticle written by Glasul Patriei Gîndirea ú ú Glasul Patriei. Organ al Comitetului Român pentru Repatriere i de totdeauna”, p. 2. i de totdeauna” [The village from today and from always] in . The first statement from the text seemed to be seemedfrom copied to text the statementfirst . The 323 , X, no. 1 (364), January 1 . 121 st 1966,p. 2. Glasul Patriei. 324 conversion , X, no. 34 If inthe If CEU eTD Collection century astrange andcentury Lucian Blagacameto conclusion: challenging and of attempts proselytism tried bythe Protestant churches in Transylvania during the 16 conflicts confessional about Speaking people. Romanian the of character peasant the and the Orthodoxy Romanianess, between connection Lucian Blagaestablishedadirect land] 329 328 from premise “major”for afuture art. folkloric shaped important the culture most old cultures of the world, the folkloric art of the Romanian village with its “minor” art is the authenticity.” named epithet the of manner exceptional inan worthy irradiates” from God near thechurch builtvillage iswhich traditionalist from position interwarLucianthe period. inBlaga stated articlethis that“our in almost as discourse, a consistent into framed are character Romanian the and Orthodoxy traditionalism, approach in toits readera articlesLucian Blagapresented of which traditionalist “Elogiu satului românesc” satului “Elogiu 327 326 (Bucharest: Minerva, 1972). Conferin name the his under waspublished of articles acollection his death publishallowed to only translations andno original However,text. in in 1961, yearthe of Orthodoxy was Blaga. MarginalizedLucian until 1960by Communistthe regime, he was elite. the language of 325 former some find torecruit agesbeforeavailablestratagem could they the them. was only The Lucian Blaga, „Isus –p Lucian Blaga, „Elogiul satului românesc” in românesc” satului „Elogiul Blaga, Lucian Lucian Blaga, „Elogiul satului românesc” in românesc” satului „Elogiul Blaga, Lucian Lucian Blaga, „Elogiu satului românesc” in românesc” satului „Elogiu Blaga, Lucian Lucian Blaga, Lucian In text includedinanother thesamevolume “Isus–p called Another striking example of intellectual who assumed a cultural approach of the enemies of the people enemies of Ġ e, Articole Isvoade. Eseuri,Conferin . 325 ă mîntul” in What is striking in this collection is the fact that this collection of Gîndirea 326 [Praise of the Romanian village] is a direct resume of the who knew how to develop in whoknewhowto anationalist discourse the Isvoade. Eseuri, Conferin . The first article from entitledfrom book article first . The the suggestively Ġ e, Articole Isvoade. Eseuri, Conferin Isvoade. Eseuri,Conferin Isvoade. Eseuri,Conferin 122 [Documents. Essays, Conferences, Articles] Conferences, Essays, [Documents. Ġ e, Articole 327 Ġ Ġ Ġ e, Articole and that Romanian village “is and Romanian that e, Articole e, Articole , p., 212 – 217. ă mîntul” 328 , p. 33–48. , p. 41. , p. 40. Accordingly, as the as Accordingly, Isvoade. Eseuri, 329 [Jesus – the th CEU eTD Collection 330 unfortunately insufficiently tackled with by scholarsthe in fieldthe historical of studies. If accordingly, the selection of the articles was arbitrary. publish thisnationalist collection character of interestingissue the regarding another he represent written and publishedafter deceased, these texts.of articles I think that were texts Blaga’s Lucian factthat the hand, other the On idea wereprinted. nationalist in Lucian forBlaga’s two case the with one acertain only the and from selection this of were excluded some his articles reasons: state agreed to first, that feeling the Ihave personally although discourse, hisinterwar reframe to chose Blaga the author was not alive and, because the book was published before Crainic started his collaboration with century from is plurality Transylvania. Thewayin religious Blaga isstriking which writing attempting to issue a connectedcertain definition of the Romanian Orthodox nation in the context of theconfession 16 with the peasant condition of the Romanian people Lucian Blaga, „Isus –p the compliance according to the Christian calendar of liturgy the Christian of tothe calendar compliance according the and murmuring ‘creed’ the the of wasreducedto which of categories an orthodoxy theirmajority Romanians preferred aminor existence, their ethnic life in spiritualthe language andconscienceIn asapeople. by could attheirobtain only renouncing learning,freedoms had people andprivilegesto the which access Romanian opened other the peoples,With level. intellectual a high to raise not theydid people Romanian werebenefits, slaves even Deprived by any political nobilityfrom which haveandrights benefitedfor social the time of the Hungarian royalty. The rights, In the age when Crainic was writing subordinate articles towards regimethe articles Lucian towards subordinate waswriting Crainic In theage when The finality of the traditionalist projects from the interwar period remains period interwar the from projects traditionalist the of finality The Conclusions 4.4. Final In this In this passage, asCrainic inhis from Lucian period, interwar texts Blaga the ă mîntul” in Isvoade. Eseuri, Conferin 123 Ġ e, Articole , p. 213–214. 330 . Glasul Patriei th . CEU eTD Collection Crainicin was thathelostbecame hisautonomy anda docile he puppet handsof the a Communist the and Crainic interwar the between difference only The canon. cultural new a in many respects was similar with the interwar fascist dream: a new man, anew intellectual, By striking adeal with Crainic Communistthe propaganda, joined in hands a which project be from appeal areply comingCommunist internationalistMoscow. the was designedto to language Communistpropagandaandcreatedaveritablethe which of discourse nationalist influence and writing,during hislife being one time, key–architectsof the of nationalist Throughhis Communism. all the commonlongevity his for and in acompromise,disposition Crainic legality hadthe enter chance to motifs of his Becauseof the create anational canon. cultural attempt to in a desperate regime Communist interwar period entered the official order topunishorder keep under or to close surveillance any attempt todig final upthis secret. in whichafter 1948 Romanianthe policesecret and the former legionaries hands shook in of Professor Ioan Petru Culianu at Chicago is nothing more than another piece of this puzzle new fascistthe is famous man. case most the of Eliade’s inall and death the probably 1991 keep silence andinto theirinfluence in histransforming about Mentor them of prototypes chose of Ionescu late disciples all the Furthermore, seriously. nevertaken was Nae Ionescu of project interwar or imprisonedthe of escaped in the continuation West that andafter the members active influence, Nae Ionescu’s because of Guard Iron inthe discretion. Involved Noica, Emil Cioran, Petre Cioran, Petre Noica, Emil Constantin Eliade, Mircea including intellectuals Romanian different by used were Ionescu credibility its intoof question.project Although legionary the myths inspired by Nae Crainic’s withrapprochement Communistthe propaganda duringlate the 1960sputs the in caseof Nichifor the become clearer, to arestarting Guardthe things in Iron the generation by 1930s the and deposited recollected legacywhichwas Ionescu’s inNae caseof the Nichifor Crainic had amore ğXĠ ea it seems that Ionescu’s legacy was characterized by certain legacy wascharacterized Ionescu’s ea it seems that successful 124 career. His project was taken up by the up was taken His project career. CEU eTD Collection its original form. original its itlegacy,was bourgeois tough by itorigin,be was consideredsecure enoughtopublishedin intellectual His Guard. Iron the with collaboration any refused who intellectuals major few hewasoneof period, interwarthe from the nation Romanian of the character the regarding Blaga wasusedby propaganda heinvolved because,although Party’s the in was debates the linkage the between periodtraditionalism interwar andthe the of Communist age.Lucian a itwas attempted means that it Ithink references nationalist sufficient contained texts these that fact the and Blaga’s text Lucian inselecting criteria the tell could which none in texts of a collection Publishing nation. the of definition a Communist time, same the in and, anationalist of producing project Communist face of this another represents regime when they were once again reinvented by different political parties. 1990s until seclusion in live to continued projects these of Both match. his to followers had and no he heritage waspoor legacy,Crainic’s Ionescu’s Despite criminal regime. The use of Lucian Blaga’s works in favor of the official nationalist ideology of the of ideology nationalist official the of in favor works Blaga’s Lucian of use The 125 CEU eTD Collection Nichifor Crainic attempted to build up an ethno–theology opened to the secular sphere. WorldWar One, before ideal nationalist the of continuation the with concerned intellectual and under the influence of different ideas or political ideologies. Starting as an apolitical As a representative figure of figure As a representative Crainic. Nichiforin writingsof inconnection nationalistthe with the Orthodoxy discourse of metamorphosis the tackled have I hand one the On directions. two on efforts my focused nation. Ihave of concerning Romanian the character the views and debate the its regarding history. Romanian in the issue historical questioned insufficiently an remains orientations political different in so and Romanianness becamebe to associated in such important numberan of intellectual speeches Romanian people onthemapWhy history. of nationalism culture, Orthodoxy, and by played the place and the Romanian ethnicity concerning debate of great the on an aspect betweennamely in scrutinizing relation and nationalism Romania, interwar the Orthodoxy Communist ageand the tormented legacy of 19 the the between nexus seemedaparadisiacal period interwar The history. Romanian the century century 21 until multiple faces and permutationsstarts in mystics ends up in politics.” The career interwar of nationalism in Romania withis its the materialization of Péguy’s aphorism. From the 19 The present paper attempted to provide a critical outlook of camp of traditionalist the outlook provide toacritical attempted The presentpaper Charles Péguy say Péguy Charles beginningused to at the 20 of the st Romanian characterremained Romanian aproblematic issueinthe of development Gîndirea Finals Remarks Finals , he exposed his intellectual hishestages creed indifferent exposed intellectual , 126 th century. The presentpaperfocused on th century that “everything that “everything that century th CEU eTD Collection Peasants Party Peasants Maniu, Crainicof turnedhis hopestowards returnof the Prince Carol, but National the of failure the After regime. the of figure intellectual leading the as himself institutionalize to manner in this and, regime political the for ideologue official the become bid to first his made Crainic Therefore, Party. Peasant National of the adversaries the base for main by Party, National and Liberal the the represented electoral bourgeoisie, the civilization Western the of threat the and spirituality Romanian for peasantry Romanian the discourseAccordingly, banners. political his under parliament Romanian in the a seat offer, mundane of NichiforManiu was far from being an messianicOrthodox leader. Rather,Maniu madeCrainic a Crainic Iuliu although project, of his traditionalist exacerbation the as Crainic was seenby Nichifor from this publicmassesmobilization like manifestations ofthe the storm usage andperiod the of troopers fascist and agrarianism emphasizednationalism, populism, mixing ideology political heterogeneous the its with Maniu Iuliu of Party Peasants National the of emergence The date. this was before role played by the nationalism andOrthodoxy as depicted spiritualthe behindforce the Romanian people. proof intellectual enough his forof search thiskindintellectual of between synthesis binder from of Romanian periodthe this Nichifor texts people. belonging The to Crainic are spiritual and social a as imagined was Orthodoxy life. better a for search in universities Romanian the to coming generation young Romanian tothe asynthesis proposed produce intellectual adapt his to profile his literary androle, to Crainic theological training tried his Viennese in mystics experience history which and Russian philosophy played amajorof context of the massive introduction of new intellectual trends coming from the West. After intellectuality,an “organic”Crainic proposed of developmentin Romanian the culture the Romanian the among spirituality of lack the and state Romanian the of ideology Between an 1921 and 1926,Crainic proposed alternativeOrthodox Liberal tothe official After 1926, the intellectual discourse of Nichifor Crainic was not as innocent as it 127 CEU eTD Collection the quality of qualitythe being Romanianof true maneuveraboutIonescu’s with spokealotOrthodoxy. inhisby attempt succeeded being.NaeIonescu Romanianthe of understanding connecting represented forward astep from Crainic’s Nichifor toconstruct attempts previous a attempted toconstructa Romanian “ethnic Antohi), ontology” (Sorin aproject which phenomenology and logic Crainic.positivism, Although he came from intellectuala different background influenced by Husserl’s Nae Ionescu radicalization imaginedthe of by project nationalistexperiencethe represent was Nichifor the first Romanian philosopher to thathe doubts ever are there believed. rather to bring his contributiondemoralized Crainic changed hisdiscourse again butnottoservealeaderhis of choice, but to a Communist Afterincarnated and 1948,anowaging best Crainic. Christianfascistthe of utopia Nichifor nationalist project (6 power to rise Antonescu’s General conscience. Romanian ethnic in whose functionality in his theguardian of whichauthoritarianism thecreated as Church and utopia own political and Crainic both Guard andCarol, Iron political the Dissatisfiedtotalitarianism. with corporatism Italian of influence the under Orthodoxy and ethnocracy about view his polish to continued and Guard Iron the towards neutrality benevolent maintained he Accordingly, a into terrorist organization of andgetcapable assassinates power. using allmeans of to to Crainic’s baguette when they wrote in wrote they when baguette Crainic’s Toma Vl and especially to the youngthe VasileVojen,andone. Mihail especially Polihroniade, Drago to from Gîndirea in asofter approach, that is, ajournalist style addressed a broaderto audience high elitist speech he his transformed Accordingly, Romanian for the Guard. Iron advocate his after restoration on Romanian the Crainicthrone again wasdisappointed and decidedto After 1934, Crainic understood that Codreanu’s that understood Crainic After 1934, Nae Ionescu and his quest forNae Ionescuhis quest primacy and the spiritual,the of lived– authenticity and ă descu beingdescu intellectuals thefinished first who their underNichifor apprenticeship Calendarul 128 . innocent movement has transformed th of of September 1940) ú Protopopescu, CEU eTD Collection Crainic changedfive almost his times speech during hisintellectual career proved idea the factthat agenda. The intellectual behind adense sympathies political different interest and of topics different influences, different attest articles their linear trajectory, had a articles advertising among the young for intellectuals new recruits. ideologicalcontribution tothe crystallization of Guarddiscourse Iron the andhelped its Guard andbrought with of wasdirectly connected Iron the which traditionalistcamp the component. Orthodox the without namely form, abridged incontinued an ethnic project Ionescu’s that of prove Mircea Eliade Christianity” concept “Romanian feeling of being” (Sentimentul românesc al fiin a speakabout to continued prison freefrom Communist hewasset the Noica after revolution which seemedethnic ontology for the simpleto reason thatweight they had a different understanding of theon spiritual their in 1933,butnever the joining Iron Guard after succeeded inproposing hisconfessional minds in the 1930s. The Romanians.Romanians were good Ionescu’s influencedcharismatic his personality students fact that Orthodox only that Constantin principle his to according Transylvania from minority Greek–Catholic theRomanian of rejection a violent to led Ionescu II KingCarol of regime totalitarian from Concordat 1927 and the opposition Maniu’s of forParty installationthe of a Maniu’s state. Romanian the of character the with inorganic attemptwas it he thought which development industrial to dominate intellectual path trends and acertain Romania’s of Western and positivism democracy, thecriticized University who of Bucharest celebrity remainedan Crainic,academic Ionescu Romanian influencethe politicalthe of political contexthis and like Before convictions. of 1926, political scene, the affair of the The material it thatseemed thatCrainic although revealed Ionescu’s and analyzed The final contribution of presentpaperwassettingthe upthe intellectual background 129 Ġ ei) and the “Cosmic CEU eTD Collection even today in the Romanian culture through the legacy of the so-called P continues which a tradition syllogism, mentor’s their from Orthodoxy eradicated who Noica by by Mircea Vulc continued perpetuated a philosophical tradition Romanian Orthodox Ionescu’sChurch legacywas theperiod. Communist during the through project of Crainic’s Nichifor continuation canseethe someone Accordingly, Church. Orthodox the spaceto the secular from definition an ethnic construct to attempted who like Ionescu anintellectual with in middle meet the to had nochance sphere, secular the to sphere ecclesiastical the from came Church Orthodox the of relevance the upon relied project traditionalist nationalist a frame to attempt in his who, Crainic like theologian a that doubt without Orthodoxy, demonstrates to ascribed primacy the namely feature, on the one hand and the transmission of the Nae Ionescu’s ethnic ontology without its main from Church to theOrthodox bythesecular1859. isolation prescribed State Nicolae B spheres interwarduring Itis period. the nowonder theChurchthat Archbishopthrough ecclesiastic the and secular the between dichotomy the also, and, opinions of plurality theirreflected Nichifor lackof communication Ionescu’s Crainic andsuggested that Nae also I have nationality. and Romanian character concerning opinion shaped/ changedtheir agenda, ideologues whoto theiraccording political between different was fragmented character Romanian concerning debate the of side traditionalist the contrary, onthe wrong; representatives many with camp intellectual a unitary was traditionalism Romanian that As a personal conclusion, the lack of communication between Crainic and Ionescu and Crainic between communication lack of the conclusion, As apersonal ă lan lan Fr. Dumitru St and ă niloae attempted to overcome the cultural niloae toovercome cultural the and political attempted 130 ă nescu Constantin and ă ltini ú School. CEU eTD Collection Ionescu, Nae. Ionescu, ______. ______. Crainic, Nichifor. Blaga, Lucian. Blaga, Literature: Glasul Patriei Calendarul Gîndirea Journals: SOURCES PRIMARY 1921–1940 1990. Conferences, Articles]. Bucharest: Minerva, 1972. 1932–1933 Puncte Cardinale înHaos Ortodoxie 1962–1972 Roza vânturilor1926–1933 Zile albe. Zilenegre Isvoade. Conferin Eseuri, ú i Etnocra Ġ BIBLIOGRAPHY ie . Bucharest: Albatros, 1997. [Gooddays.Bad days]. Bucharest: Gîndirea, 1991. . Jassy: Timpul, 1996. [The Winds Cross]. Bucharest: Roza vînturilor, Roza Bucharest: Cross]. Winds [The 131 Ġ e, Articole [Documents. Essays, [Documents. CEU eTD Collection ______. “Poezia român ______. Zeletin, Maiorescu, Titu. “În contra direc contra “În Maiorescu, Titu. Lovinescu, Eugen ______. ______. ______. ù Its Its origins andhistorical Bucharest:role]. Nemira, 2005 (Bucharest: Minerva,(Bucharest: pp 133-134. 1978. Ibidem. direction in Romanian Culture] in Titu Maiorescu, Titu in Culture] Romanian in direction Works of Works of his Religious Articles]. Sibiu: Deisis, 2003. Modern Civilazation Librairie Roumaine Antitotalitaire, 1997. the Romanianthe Cultural Foundation, 1993. tefan. Nelini La questionjuiveetleréponse de’northodoxedes trente années Teologia. Integralapublicisticii religioase Burghezia român ú . Istoriaciviliza te metafizic ă ], Jassy:], Institutul Cultural Român, 1998. . Cercetare critic . Cercetare ă [Methapysical unrest]. Bucharest: The Publishing House of House ThePublishing Bucharest: unrest]. [Methapysical ă : Originea Ġ Ġ iei române moderne iunii deast iunii 132 ú i rolul eiistoric i rolul ă ă ” [Romanian poetry. Critical survey] in survey] Critical ” [Romanian poetry. zi a culturei române” [Against today’s [Against române” zi a culturei [ [The Theology. The Complete The Theology. [The The History of the The HistoryRomanian of [The Romanian Bourgeoisie: Romanian [The Critice I [Critical Essays] . Paris: . CEU eTD Collection Burleigh, Michael. Boia, Lucian. Boia, in Modernism” Nazi Fascism: with Fascination New “The Paul. Betts, %ă ______. “Romania and the Balkans From culturalgeo - bovarismethnic to ontology”, Sorin. Antohi, ______. culturel”discours et politique “Junimea: discours Coulianu, Alexandrescu, Sorin. P. in I. SECONDARY SOURCES nic ă , Mirel. Conscience]. Bucharest: Humanitas, 1997. Orthodox Church. State and Society in the ‘30s] Jassy: Polirom, 2007. to theGreat War Contemporary History Tr@nsit online Stigmate etl’utopie Ed. Paradoxul român Libra: Étudesroumaines offertsàWillemNoomen Imaginaireculturel etréalité dans la Roumanie moderne. politique Le Istorie BisericaOrtodox Earthly Powers. Religion and Politics fromtheEnlightenment EarthlyPowers. Religionand in Europe ú i mitîncon , Nr.21/2002,Internet accessed June1 . NewYork: Harper &Collins, 2006. . Paris:1999. L’Harmattan, [The Romanian Bucharest:Paradox] Univers,1998. 37, no. 4 37,no. (2002). ă Roman ú tiin Ġ a româneasc ă . Stat 133 ú i societate înanii’30 i ă [History and Myth in Romanian in Myth and [History st , Groningen, 1983 , 2007. [The Romanian [The Journal of Journal CEU eTD Collection Gregor, James. Gregor, Glenny, Micha. Griffin, Giurescu, Dinu, C.andStephenFischer–Gala Gilberg, Chirot, Chirot. Drace–Francis, Alex. Drace–Francis, &ă linescu, Matei.“The in1927 Generation Romania: Friendships and Ideological Choices Roger. the New Consensus 1999. Boulder:EastEuropean Monographs, 1998. Princeton UniversityPrinceton Press, 2006. in Cioran)” M. E. and Ionescu Eugen Ionescu, Nae Eliade, Mircea Sebastian, (Mihai Ceausescu’s personal Dictatorship AcademicNew York: 1976. Press, Development of a DevelopmentNational of Identity Trond. East EuropeanPolitics andSocieties Mussolini’s Intellectuals. FascistSocialandPolitical Thought Fascism Social ChangeinaPeripherala society: TheFormationBalkan Colony. of Balkans. Nationalism,War, andtheGreat Powers Nationalism andCommunismTheRiseFall inRomania. of in Roger Griffin (ed.), The Making of Modern RomanianCulture. Literacyandthe The Makingof . London: Arnold 1998. Publishing House, 134 . Boulder: Westview Press, 1990. . London: Tauris Academic 2006. Studies, Ġ International Causesand Fascism. Theories, i (eds.), 15,No.3(2001). Romania. AHistorical Perspective . London: Granta Books, . Princeton: . . CEU eTD Collection ______. “Gîndirea: Nationalism in a Spiritual in Jowitt, Guise” Kenneth Ed. Hitchins, Keith. Herf, Jeffrey. Armin, Heinen, ______. “Orthodoxism: over Polemics Ethnicity inand Religion interwar Romania” in Hamilton, Gruzinska, “(Anti-) Alexandra. Semitism 1890s/1990s: Octave Cioran” andEmil Mirabeau translation Humanitas,Bucharest: 1994. Humanitas, 1999. Faschismus Politische zum Organisation. EinBeitrag Problem des internationalen Ivo Banac & Katherine & Katherine Verdery Ivo Banac Berkeley: of Institute International 1978. Studies, Debate onDevelopmentinaEuropeanNation Change inRomania1860–1940.A Third Reich 1945 in Alastair Rocky Mountains Review Language andLiterature Review Rocky Mountains of Reactionary modernism.Technology,culture,andpoliticsinWeimar and the . New York: MacMillan, 1971. Die Legionen “Erzengel Michael” in Rumänien,SozialeBewegung Michael” Die Legionen“Erzengel und . The Appeal ofFascism.StudyThe Appeal A . of Intellectuals 1919 and Fascism, – Rumania 1866–1947 , München: R. Oldenburg, München: 1986, (Romanian Verlag, edition Bucharest: . Cambridge: Cambridge University 1996. Press, . (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994);Romanian 135 National Characterand NationalIdeology in 55,no.1 (2001). Social . CEU eTD Collection Ioanid, Radu. Kiel, Thomas J. Thomas Kiel, Iordachi, Constantin. Korkut, Umut. “Nationalism versusInternationalism: The Roles andof Political Cultural Kallis,Aristotle. “To expand ornot to expand? Territory, Generic Fascism and the Quest for of TheCase inPerspective: Historical and Decay “Modernization AndrewJanos, C. Studies, 1995. Interwar Eastern Europe 2006. European Monographs, 1990. Monographs, 2006. Elites in interwar and Communist Romania” in Romania” Communist and in interwar Elites an ideal ‘Fatherland’” in 1978. on DevelopmentinaEuropeanNation, Romania” inKenneth JowittEd. andCultures 2004. Societies, Michael’ ininterwar Romania The Swordthe of Archangel. Fascist IdeologyinRomania Romania’s TorturedRomania’s Roadtowards Modernity Charisma, Politics and Violence: The Legion of the ofthe ‘Archangel TheLegion PoliticsandViolence: Charisma, Journal ofContemporary History . New Haven: Yale Center for International and Area and International for Center Yale Haven: New . . Trondheim: Trondheim onEastEuropean Studies Social Change in Romania, 1860-1940: ADebate SocialChangeinRomania, 136 Berkeley: Institute Berkeley:of Institute International Studies, Nationalities Papers 34 . Boulder: East European Boulder: . 38,no.2 (2003). . Boulder: East , No. 2, CEU eTD Collection Mosse, L., George. “Fascists and the Intellectuals” in George L.Mosse, inGeorge Intellectuals” the and “Fascists George. L., Mosse, Lampe, John R. Moraru, Alexandru. Fr. Lavrin, Janko. “Kiriensky and the Problem of Culture”, in Culture”, of Problem the and “Kiriensky Janko. Lavrin, Micu, Dumitru. Irina. Livezeanu, Lilla, Mark. Laignel–Lavastine, Alexandra. Church, Nation, Culture] Vol. 3,I. Bucharest: IBMBOR, 2006. Na Minerva, 1975. 1999. TowardsFascismRevolution. a GeneralTheoryof York: PalgraveYork: Macmillan, 2006. Press, 2003. 2002. (1961) Ethnic Struggle,1918– 1930 Ġ iune, Cultur The Reckless Mind. Intellectuals in Politics in Intellectuals The Reckless Mind. Gîndirea Balkans into Southeastern Europe. A CenturyWar Balkans intoSoutheastern A of and Transition Europe. Cultural Politics in Greater Romania. Regionalism, NationBuilding,& CulturalPolitics Greater Romania. in ă BisericaOrtodox [TheRomanian Church betweenOrthodox 1885 and2000. ú i gîndirismul i Cioran, Eliade, Ionescu. L’oublidufascisme Eliade, Cioran, . New York: Cornell University Press, 1995. [The Thought and the thoughtism]. Bucharest: ă 137 Român ă intre anii 1885 Russian Review Russian . Chicago: Chicago University Chicago . Chicago: . New York: Howard Fertig,. NewYork: ú i 2000.Biseric , Vol. 20, No.2, . Paris: PUF, Paris: . The Fascist New ă , CEU eTD Collection Mutti, Claudio. 3ă Ornea, Zigu. vs. Lovinescu Doctrine: Aesthetic of Functions Socio-political “Variable Virgil. Nemoianu, Pârâianu, R Stanley. Payne, ______. curariu, Mircea. Fr. Mircea. curariu, 1995. International 1978. Studies, Debate onDevelopment1940: A inaEuropean Nation, Ed. Jowitt, Kenneth in Aestheticism” Western Barbarossa, Romanian 1994); edition, Bucharest:Anastasia, 1997. (Milan: Guard] Iron the and Intellectuals Romanian The Archangel. the Mircea Eliade, Emil Cioran, Constatin Noica, Vasile Lovinescu) [The Plumes of in Paul Weindling &Mariusin Paul Weindling Turda, Orthodox Church] Vol. 3.Bucharest: IBMBOR, 1981. Monographs, 1999. 1978. ă The Romanian Extreme Right.The Nineteen Thirties zvan. “Culturalistzvan. Nationalism and Anti–Semitism in Fin–de–SiécleRomania” Junimea Lepennedel’ Arcangelo. Intellettuali e la Guardiadi Ferro A History of Fascism 1914–1940. ofFascism A History Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române IstoriaBisericii Ortodoxe ú i junimismul [Junimea and the Junimism]. Bucharest: Eminescu, Bucharest: andtheJunimism]. [Junimea 138 ’Blood and Homeland’: Eugenics and andHomeland’:Eugenics ’Blood Madison: Wisconsin University Press, Social ChangeinRomania, 1860- [The History of the Romanian . Boulder:East European . Berkeley: Institute Berkeley:of Institute (NaeIonescu, CEU eTD Collection Schmitter, Philippe C. “Reflections on Mihail Manoilescu and the political of consequences political the Philippe“Reflections and Manoilescu onMihail C. Schmitter, 6ă Ricketts, MacLinscott. Ricketts, Marta. Petreu, 6ă Roberts, Henry L. ndulescu, Valentin. “Sacralised Politics inAction: the February 1937 Burial of the lcudeanu, Nicoleta. “Present Day Reverberations of Traditionalist–Nationalism– the “PresentDay of lcudeanu,Reverberations Nicoleta. Kenneth Jowith. Ed., Jowith. Kenneth in Europe” Western of Periphery the on Development Delayed–Dependent the Movements and Political Religions Napoca: Cluj University 1995. Press, Romanian Legionary Leaders Ion Mo Ovidiu Ghita, Chicago: Ivan.1999. Chicago: Dee, European European University Press, 2006. Nationalism inCentral Europe,1900–1940 andSoutheast Orthodoxism Sythesis professed by 1969. Monographs, 1988. An Infamous Past. Emil Cioran and the Rise of Fascism inRomania of andtheRise Past.An Infamous EmilCioran Rumania. Political Problemsan AgrarianState of Mircea Eliade.TheRomanianRoots Ethnicity and Religion inCentral and Eastern Europe SocialChangeinRomania, 1860-1940:ADebateon 139 Vol. 8,No. 2 (2007). Gîndirea Ġ a and Vasile Marin” in Magazine” in Maria in Magazine” Maria Cr , I. Boulder: East European Boulder: East , I. . Yale:Books, Anchor .Budapest: Central .Budapest: Totalitarian ă ciun & ciun . Cluj– . , CEU eTD Collection Stern, Fritz. Stern, Richard. Steigmann–Gall, Stanomir, Ioan. Stanomir, Sternhell, Zeev, Mario Sznajder & Maia Asheri. Sznajder &Maia Mario Zeev, Sternhell, Scurtu, Ioan Ioan Buzatu. &Gheorghe Scurtu, Berg–Schlosser, Dirk & Gisele du Meur. “Conditions of Democracy in Interwar Europe: A Europe: in “Conditions Democracy Interwar of & Gisele Meur. Berg–Schlosser, Dirkdu Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Bucharest: Nemira,Bucharest: 2000. Imaginary]. political Eminescu’s Essay on andConservatorism. [Reactionarism New York: New York: Anchor Books, 1965. History of Romanians in the 20 1994. Cultural RebelliontoPoliticalRevolution Boolean Boolean Test of Major Hypothesis“ in 1978. Development inaEuropeanNation, Politics Cultural Despair.of AStudyintheRiseofGermanic Ideology Reac Ġ iune The HolyReich.NaziConceptions ofChristianity, 1919–1945 ú i conservatorism.Eseu asupra imaginarului politiceminescian Istoria românilor in secolul XX (1918 –1848) insecolulIstoria românilor XX th century].Bucharest: Paideea, 1999. 140 Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, International of Institute Berkeley: Comparative Politics The Birthofthe Fascist Ideology.From . Princeton: Princeton University Princeton . Princeton: Press, Vol. 26, No. 3 (1994). [The . . CEU eTD Collection Ceausescu’s Romania Katherine. Verdery, Sugar, Peter F. „Nationalism and Religion in the Balkans since the 19 Vanhaelemeersch, Philip. ğ Tism Turczysky, Emanuel. Turczysky, Trencsènyi, Balázs. “The ‘Münchansenian Moment’: Modernity, Liberalism, and urcanu, Florin. urcanu, ă neanu, Vladimir. “The Revival of Politics in Romania” in in Romania” Politics of Revival “The Vladimir. neanu, Romania (1927- 1934) 2003. Sugar, 1999. Polirom, 2001) Building andContestedIdentities.RomanianHungarian Case Studies (eds.), Kántor Zoltán Iordachi, Constantin Cristina Petrescu, Petrescu, Nationalismin theThoughtof – West Relations. (1991). Political Science Academy of rumänischen Nationsbildung East EuropeanNationalism, Politics and Religion Mircea Eliade.LePrisonnier dul’Histoire National Ideologyunder Socialism. Identityand Cultural Politics in , (Berkley: University of California Press, 1990. Konfession und Nation. ZurFrühgeschichteKonfession und derserbischen A generation“without andthe Beliefs” Idea of Experience in . New York: Columbia University Press, 2006. . Dusseldorf: Schwamm, 1976. , Vol. 38, No.1, The New Europe: Revolution in East ù 141 tefan Zeletin” in Zeletin” BalázsTrencsènyi,tefan Drago . Paris: Editions laDecouverte, . Paris: Editions . th Century” in Peter F. Aldershot: Ashgate, Aldershot: Proceedings ofthe Proceedings Nation– (Iassy: ú CEU eTD Collection Ia ______. Volovici, Leon. ______. “National Ideology and in National interwarCharacter in Romania” in Ivo ______.“Beyond theNation inEastern Europe” in Young, Julian. Young, Roger. Woods, Zub, Alexandru. Walicki, Andrezj. “Russian Social Thought: An Introduction to the Intellectual History of ú i: Junimea, 1976. Studies, 1995. Interwar Eastern Europe Verdery. Eds. Banac &Katherine under Sign the of Modernity].Bucharest: Enciclopedic the 1930s 1997. modernit 19 1996. Junimea:Implica th Century Russia”, in Russia”, Century Heidegger, Philosophy,Nazism The Conservative intheWeimarRepublic Revolution National Ideology& CaseRomanian Antisemitism. The of Intellectuals in ăĠ De laistorie critic . Oxford: Pergamon 1991. Press, ii [From Critic History to Criticism. The Romanian Historiography Ġ ii istoriografice Russian Review . New Haven: Yale Center for International and Area and International for Center Yale Haven: New . ă lacriticism.Istoriografia român NationalCharacter and NationalIdeologyin 142 Historiographical[Junimea: implications]. . Cambridge: Cambridge. University Press, Social Text , Vol. 36, No. 1, (1977). , No. 38(1994), pp. 1-19. ă , 2002. . London: Macmillan, London: . ă sub semnul CEU eTD Collection 143