The Romanian Railway Project
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Toader Popescu. Proiectul feroviar românesc (1842-1916). Bucharest: Simetria, 2014. Illustrations. 294 pp. n.p., paper, ISBN 978-973-1872-34-6. Reviewed by Răzvan Pârâianu Published on H-Romania (March, 2015) Commissioned by R. Chris Davis (Lone Star College - Kingwood) Nowadays, when the Romanian railway sys‐ spicuous way forward to an exciting new but un‐ tem is in decay due endemic mismanagement, knowable one. rampant corruption, and a chronic lack of re‐ In Romania today, the story is quite different. sources, accounts of the truly pioneering epoch of The semantic is different. Modernity is no longer the railway system and its visionaries may come fascinating but threatening and frightening. To as a surprise. Yet, from the late nineteenth to the many, it endangers the identity of a nation no early twentieth century, Romania’s railway sta‐ longer perceived as young and dynamic but “mul‐ tions were perceived as veritable temples of ti-millennial” and unaltered.[2] Consequently, the modernity. At the beginning of the twentieth cen‐ greater part of Romanian historiography over the tury, Literatură și artă română (Romanian litera‐ last half century or so has ignored the concrete as‐ ture and art), one of the most respectable cultural pects of modernity, such as the railway system, fo‐ reviews, published a photo series of the Romani‐ cusing instead on the various forms of reaction an railways, including its stations and bridges.[1] against modernity. Historians and other scholars Nothing epitomized the progress of those years have neglected what was, or what might have more than these robust and modern structures. A been, the material substance of modernity, fnd‐ new nation had been born, and these were the ing it more relevant or rewarding to examine signs of its promising future. In Mihail Sebastian’s modernity’s imperfect forms and the myriad of 1944 play Steaua fără nume (The star without a critics they have triggered. For example, the two- name), Ms. Cucu, the local schoolmistress in a pro‐ volume Modernizare – Europenism: România de vincial town, every day corrals the young girls la Cuza Vodă la Carol al II-lea (Modernization – gathered at the station to witness the express Europeanism: Romania from Prince Cuza to Carol train passing through their little town. The won‐ II) (1995/1996), a major work edited by Luminiţa derment stirred by images of the railway reveals Iacob and Gheorghe Iacob, contains only a brief a fascination with the luxury and glamour of an‐ mention of Romania’s transportation system, pay‐ other world, of an intangible realm of progress ing greater attention to how Romanian tradition and wealth. Like the cinema, the railway offered was intertwined with modernity. Yet the railway an escape both fguratively and literally from an system, perhaps the most visible and potent sym‐ older and more stable order, and marked a con‐ bol of Romania’s entry into modernity, had noth‐ ing to do with tradition. It was pure modernity. H-Net Reviews Stations, bridges, tracks, and other railway struc‐ Romanian modernity, analyzing how different tures were all brand new in the second part of the agendas of development competed over quite lim‐ nineteenth century. ited public resources. Toader Popescu’s Proiectul feroviar românesc Popescu organizes the book according to (1842–1916) (The Romanian railway project) is three, increasingly smaller, scales of observation therefore a welcome and worthwhile reassess‐ to analyze what he refers to as the spatial aspects ment of Romania’s foray into modernity. The im‐ of the Romanian railway system: “Territory,” pressively researched and richly illustrated book “City,” and “Station.” Part 1, “Territory,” describes offers a historical interpretation about the nation- the early stage of the railway system’s develop‐ space and the way in which the process of mod‐ ment, which consisted of only a few plans and ernization conquered a geographically, politically, projects. At this time, the Romanian government and culturally heterogeneous territory. The rail‐ attempted to lease some of its lines to various for‐ way not only marked the advance of the technical eign companies, according to the importance as‐ world into Romania’s backward universe but also cribed to the respective lines. It was a moment of signified a profound change in the everyday way imagining the future, progress, and welfare. of life, creating new horizons and fostering new Part 2, “City,” explores how a prominent place attitudes about the future. Up to now, this change within Romanian cities was created for the rail‐ has been poorly documented. As Ana Maria Za‐ way station. This set off tremendously important hariade remarks in her foreword, this “technical discussions about the role of the station and its miracle” has not even piqued the interest of histo‐ place within the country’s future urban develop‐ rians of architecture (p. 8). Yet Popescu, an archi‐ ment. In addition, the placement and building of tect and a lecturer in urbanism and architectural stations posed numerous problems, including history at the Ion Mincu University of Architec‐ property disputes and the empowerment of au‐ ture and Urbanism in Bucharest, offers much thorities to manage these issues. In the late nine‐ more than a history of Romanian architecture. teenth century, Romanian cities were developing Proiectul feroviar românesc reveals an important around emergent industries, such as oil, heavy in‐ landmark of Romanian modernity, one that has dustry, large-scale agriculture, munitions, and tex‐ been neglected by a mainstream of Romanian his‐ tiles. A newly industrious society was ready to be torians still too conservative to seek out new ob‐ born and to shape its living habitat according to jects of research. It is not surprising, then, that its new imperatives. Factories were the seeds for fresh historical interpretations and themes are the future. For the many who benefited from in‐ surfacing far away from the disciplinary shores of dustrialization and urbanization, these new cities professional history. represented living utopias of progress, prosperity, Proiectul feroviar românesc does justice both and wealth. In 1885, Colonel Eugeniu Alcaz built to the history of the frst decades of railway devel‐ in the town of Buhuși, in the province of Mol‐ opment in the Romanian Old Kingdom and to Ro‐ davia, the largest cloth factory in Southeastern mania's struggle for synchronization with the civi‐ Europe at the time.[3] Around the factory a new lized world. Popescu takes into account not only city grew, one whose growth was marked and ac‐ the practical details of this development but also celerated by a newly built railway station, of the discourse about Romania’s modernization course. Buhuşi was one of fve railway stations, process, both internally and in the broader Euro‐ together with ones in Gârleni, Podoleni, Rosnov, pean context. This book is also a valuable contri‐ and Piatra Neamț, on the line between Bacău and bution to the cultural and intellectual history of Piatra Neamț, inaugurated in 1885. While this was 2 H-Net Reviews nothing more than a very small, regional line, it contradicting Titu Maiorescu’s dictum. The afore‐ was nevertheless a definitive sign of progress and mentioned factory in Buhuși, once a powerful en‐ modernity, one that is rather missing from the gine of economic growth and development in the present-day landscape in that region. region, and long the heart that drove the pulse of Part 3, “Station,” examines the architectural the city, has been closed since 2006. The identity history of these stations. According to Popescu, and vigor of the city has, like so many deindustri‐ the station was the mirror of modernity, “the alized urban spaces across Romania and Eastern hitch between the technical and industrial world Europe, diminished as a result. Today in and urban life,” and moreover “the most visible Bucharest an inquiring traveler might come upon and striking act of the process of modernization” the old Filaret railway station, which served as (p. 236). In the 1870s, foreign concessionaires the terminus of the Bucharest–Giurgiu line. Both built Romania’s frst railway stations, whose ar‐ the station and the line were inaugurated in 1869 chitectural style was similar if not identical to oth‐ as Romania’s frst. The approximately 65 km er stations in Western Europe. The Romanian gov‐ north–south line connected Bucharest, the new ernment began building its own stations after capital of the Romanian United Principalities, to 1880, when the Ministry of Commerce and Public the Danube and the border with Bulgaria. In 1960, Works took over and expanded the railway sys‐ Progresul (“the progress”) railway station, close to tem. These new stations were, for the most part, the new margin of Bucharest, replaced Filaret as imitations of earlier ones. After 1885, however, a the line’s new terminus. Filaret was closed down period of original and vivid architecture emerged, and then transformed into a bus station. In 2005, one that can aptly be called a “C.F.R. style,” that is, the old Bucharest–Giurgiu line was suspended af‐ the style of the official Romanian Railways (Căile ter a truss bridge collapsed over the Argeș River Ferate Române). Representative of this style are at the town of Grădiştea, and Progresul was aban‐ the stations in Vaslui, Târgoviște, Mărășești, and doned. Once the embodiment of progress and Călărași, which are beautifully illustrated modernization in the late nineteenth century, Fi‐ throughout this part of the book. After the Great laret station is today nearly deserted. It functions Royal Jubilee Exhibition of 1906, designers began as a depot for bus companies serving routes to searching for a more national kind of architec‐ Bulgaria and Greece. While nowadays it is not tural style. Following the design trends of new hard to imagine the grandeur of the building buildings in Romanian towns and cities at this when it was inaugurated nearly 150 years ago, it time, new railway stations were built in neo-Ro‐ is hard to grasp the enthusiasm and trust of those mantic, neo-Gothic, or neo-Byzantine styles.