IMAGINEA ROMÂNILOR ÎN OPERA LUI DIMITRIE CANTEMIR

Abstract

The identity of a culture depends decisively today on the image it has in the space of other cultures and of global communication space as a result of multiple interactions and intense dialogue among geographies and cultural models. Dimitrie Cantemir understood in a very modern sense the strategic importance that the image of his people held in the process of transition to modernity. He construed a first ethno-psychological blueprint of Romanian people, revealing, with a profound sense of observation, some fundamental features that define our spiritual identity. The author was equally animated by the love of the nation and the "love of truth", managing to outline a complex, expressive and balanced portrait of the Romanians, with lights and shadows. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Grigore Georgiu*

[email protected]

* Prof. univ. dr., Facultatea de Comunicare si Relatii Publice Scoala Nationala de Studii Politice si Administrative, Bucuresti.

Abstract: The identity of a culture depends decisively today on the image it has in the space of other cultures and of global communication space as a result of multiple interactions and intense dialogue among geographies and cultural models. Dimitrie Cantemir understood in a very modern sense the strategic importance that the image of his people held in the process of transition to modernity. He construed a first ethnopsychological blueprint of Romanian people, revealing, with a profound sense of observation, some fundamental features that define our spiritual identity. The author was equally animated by the love of the nation and the "love of truth", managing to outline a complex, expressive and balanced portrait of the Romanians, with lights and shadows.

Keywords: image, identity, objectivity, ethno-psychological profile, personality traits.

Identitatea si imaginea - un cuplu inseparabil

Un popor calatoreste prin istorie Însotit de imaginile pe care i le atribuie alte popoare, În primul rând cele din vecinatate, pe baza unor interactiuni si experiente directe (contacte economice, spirituale, forme de colaborare, Împrumuturi culturale, aliante, conflicte, razboaie etc.). Aceste imagini se formeaza printr-un proces indelungat de procesare a unor impresii, informatii si evaluari diverse. Cu timpul, ele se cristalizeaza În reprezentari colective, dobândesc un caracter durabil si ajung sa functioneze ca stereotipuri nationale, care intervin În relatia dintre "noi" si "ceilalti". Problema imaginii unui popor sau a brandului de tara, În termeni recenti, are radacini istorice, dar abia În contextul globalizarii actuale ea a dat nastere unor preocupari sistematice, care se situeaza la intersectia multor discipline, a relatiilor publice, a marketingului si a diplomatiei culturale. Intensificarea comunicarii interculturale, inclusiv prin intermediul noilor mijloace de comunicare, a internetului, a repus pe agenda gândirii sociale tema diferentelor culturale si a imaginilor prin care popoarele se raporteaza unele la altele.

Gândirea postmoderna a impus o schimbare de paradigma În abordarea identitatilor nationale. Ideea unei identitati de substrat, cu o fundatie antropologica si istorica, e considerata o presupozitie fara acoperire. În lumea actuala, natiunile, cu identitatile lor culturale, sunt privite ca alcatuiri fluide, "comunitati imaginate",1 care se reinventeaza continuu prin mecanismele comunicarii. Identitatea se reconstruieste continuu si este "tradusa" În imaginile ei. Evident, identitatile culturale sunt mai bogate si mai complexe decât imaginile lor, reduse adesea la stereotipuri, clisee si prejudecati. Dar, acest fapt nu anuleaza teza ca identitatile se exprima prin imaginile lor si fac corp comun cu acestea. Exista totdeauna un "rest" al identitatii care nu e prezent si nu e reprezentat În imaginile ei. Aici apar doua probleme: a) adecvarea dintre identitate ca realitate primara si imaginile ei, fie ca ne apartin, fie ca sunt ale altora, si b) raportul dintre imaginea pe care o avem noi despre identitatea noastra ca popor si imaginile pe care si le-au format alte popoare despre aceasta identitate. Prima discrepanta e de ordin epistemologic, iar a doua implica o problematica de ordin istoric si comunicational. Ultimul aspect a fost intens problematizat de gânditorii români Întrucât românii s-au confruntat cu un deficit cronic de imagine În epoca moderna si, inclusiv astazi, mai ales În spatiul european, identitatea noastra este receptata printr-o imagine preponderent negativa.

Daca vom aplica o lectura actuala asupra operei lui Dimitrie Cantemir, vom avea surpriza sa constatam ca Învatatul principe a Înteles În termeni foarte moderni Însemnatatea strategica pe care o avea imaginea poporului sau În procesul de tranzitie spre modernitate. Angajându-se sa scrie istoria poporului român, Cantemir are ca obiectiv asumat, asemenea unui imperativ moral, restabilirea adevarului istoric si respingerea imaginilor false despre originea românilor, lansate de "scornitorii de minciuni". Pasionat de istoria neamului sau, de cunoasterea evenimentelor prin care a trecut, Cantemir doreste "la lumina a le scoate si la treaba de obste a le arata". 2 În aceasta actiune de aparare a imaginii românilor, Cantemir continua opera istoricului Miron Costin (1633-1691), care a reactionat fata de falsificarea cronicii lui Grigore Ureche de catre copistul Simion Dascalul,3 dar si fata de imaginile injurioase despre români din textele unor autori straini. El a inaugurat astfel "lupta cu basnele", termen prin care Întelegea nascociri si legendele fara temei, "o naratiune inventata, scornita, nedemna de Încredere".4 Varianta falsificata a cronicii lui Ureche, cea care contine o legenda denigratoare despre originea românilor, a fost multiplicata si astfel, Înca de la Începuturile sale moderne, "cultura româna s-a confruntat cu o problema de identitate si de imagine, fata de care carturarii din generatii succesive au reactionat polemic."5 Pentru a Înlatura aceste neadevaruri despre poporului român, Costin marturiseste ca obiectivul sau a fost "sa scot lumii la vedere felul neamului",6 ceea ce În terminologia de azi ar Însemna ca voia sa construiasca o imagine adecvata a identitatii românesti.

Elemente definitorii ale identitatii românesti

Viziunea lui Cantemir asupra românilor este formulata explicit În doua lucrari fundamentale: Descriptio Moldaviae si Historia moldovlahica. Ambele lucrari au fost definitivate În jurul anului 1716 si au fost scrise la solicitarea expresa a Academiei din Berlin, care l-a ales ca membru al ei În semn de pretuire pentru vastele sale cunostinte. Lucrarea Historia moldo-vlahica a fost tradusa si amplificata apoi de autor În româna sub titlul Hronicul vechimei romano-moldo-vlahilor, o vasta sinteza la care a lucrat pâna la sfârsitul vietii. Utilizând un amplu set de argumente istorice, lingvistice si etnografice, Cantemir este cel care a consacrat elementele fundamentale ale identitatii românesti: a) originea latina a limbii române; b) originea romanica a poporului român; c) unitatea de origine, de limba si de cultura a poporului român din cele trei state medievale românesti; d) continuitatea istorica a românilor pe teritoriul vechii Dacii; e) componenta crestin-ortodoxa a identitatii românesti. Aceste elemente formeaza pivotul identitatii noastre. Desigur, În aceasta tema, Cantemir preia si amplifica ideile cronicarilor, dar el le refundamenteaza teoretic, adauga un surplus de argumentatie istorica si le integreaza Într-un sistem explicativ coerent. Ideea latinitatii limbii si a originii romanice (id est: occidentale) a românilor are un relief extrem de pregnant În textele lui Cantemir, unde revine În mod obsedant.

De exemplu, desi este un sustinator al ortodoxiei, el deplânge faptul ca românii s-au rupt de traditia latina În privinta scrisului si a "Învataturii". Adoptarea alafabetului chirilic a fost o masura profund gresita, care explica În buna masura izolarea fata de cultura occidentala si "barbaria În care este Împotmolita astazi Moldova".7 Dar, constata autorul, pe masura ce au aparut traduceri În limba româna din textele religioase, Moldova "a Început sa se trezeasca si sa vina iarasi cu Încetul la lumina din adâncul Întuneric al barbariei ce se Întinsese asupra tarii".8 Se subÎntelege ca starea de "barbarie" este echivalenta cu perioada de dominatie a limbii slavone. Teza continuitatii elementului românesc În spatiul vechii Dacii este, de asemenea, subliniata În chip special, vorbind mereu de faptul ca populatia formata În urma convieturii dintre daci si romani "pâna acum necurmat locuieste În Dacia (adica În Moldova, În Tara Munteneasca si În Ardeal)".9

Cantemir este puntea de legatura Între umanism si luminism, un catalizator al noilor codificari ale ideii nationale. Temele specifice luminismului sunt prezente În textul lui Cantemir, putând fireperate uneori si la nivelul termenilor utilizati, precum este si antiteza barbarie/luminare. Lucian Blaga aprecia ca prin ideile si atitudinile sale, "exaltate de constiinta prea arzatoare a romanitatii, Dimitrie Cantemir devine de fapt Întâiul «latinist" sau, cel putin, inspiratorul de capetenie al Scolii Ardelene".10

O imagine echilibrata, cu lumini si umbre

Cantemir deschide seria cercetarilor dedicate specificului national. El elaboreaza o schita a profilului etnopsilogolgic si spiritual al poporului român, combinând mai multe planuri de referinta. Capitolul al 17-lea din Descrierea Moldovei, cu titlul: "Despre naravurile moldovenilor" a stârnit multe controverse. Începutul capitolului este memorabil pentru modul transant În care autorul Îsi exprima atitudinea fata de aceasta tema sensibila.

"În vreme ce Încercam sa descriem naravurile moldovenilor (lucru despre care nimeni sau numai putini straini au o imagine adevarata), dragostea ce avem pentru patria noastra ne Îndeamna pe de o parte sa laudam neamul din care ne-am nascut si sa Înfatisam [pozitiv] pe locuitorii tarii din care ne tragem, iar pe de alta parte, dragostea de adevar ne Împiedica, Într-aceeasi masura, sa laudam ceea ce ar fi, dupa dreptate, de osândit. Le va filor mai folositor daca le vom arata limpede În fata cusururile care-i slutesc, decât daca i-am Însela cu lingusiri blajine si cu dezvinovatiri dibace, Încât sa creada ca În asemenea lucruri ei se conduc dupa dreptate, În vreme ce lumea mai luminata, vazându-le, le osândeste".11

Din acest text trebuie retinute câteva idei esentiale. a) Cantemir era constient de importanta pe care o avea imaginea poporului român În mediile externe; b) prezentând tensiunea dintre tendintele subiective ("dragostea de neam") si aspriatia spre obiectivitate ("dragostea de adevar"), Cantemir formuleaza În mod explicit o tema intens dezbatuta În gândirea moderna, anume caracterul problematic al cunoasterii sociale, din care nu pot fieliminate cu totul angajamentele valorice; c) necesitatea abordarilor interculturale, comparative si critice, atunci când Încercam sa descriem si sa definim identitatea unui popor; d) necesitatea unei atitudini sincere si autocritice fata de starile de fapt, ca temei pentru un program autentic de reforma nationala.

Caracterizarile formulate de Cantemir sunt sumare, dar dense si expresive, cu grija de a alterna luminile si umbrele, de a respecta adevarul si de a nu se Îndeparta de dovezile empirice. El semnaleaza, ca atribute pozitive - pe lânga "credinta cea adevarata" (ortodoxia) si "ospetia" -, caracterul deschis si omenia taranilor, În pofida saraciei lor. De asemenea, toleranta si lipsa fanatismului religios. Dar, În ansamblu, autorul face mai degraba un portret negativ al moldovenilor (portret ce poate fiextins, cu nuante, asupra Întregului popor român), fapt ce i-a contrariat pe multi comentatori. Astfel, el afirma transant ca În afara de "credinta cea adevarata si de ospetie nu gasim prea lesne ceva ce am putea lauda". În continuare el stabileste un adevarat catalog al "naravurilor rele", care ar tine de "firea lor", formulând, Într-un elan criticist, multe acuze grave cu privire la felul de fial moldovenilor. Astfel, paradoxal, el considera ca trasatura lor fundamentala este lipsa de masura. Amintind de dregatorii care Îsi Însusesc "banii tarii" si uneltesc Împotriva domnului, Cantemir vorbeste de "cugetul cel nestatornic al moldovenilor.

Moldovenii nu sunt constanti nici În modul de ducere a razboiului: sunt viteji la Început, apoi se Înmoaie, iar "daca le merge bine, sunt semeti, daca le merge rau, Îsi pierd cumpatul"; totul li se pare usor, la Început, dar daca Întâlnesc un obstacol "se zapacesc si nu stiu ce sa faca"; "cu cei Învinsi se poarta când blânzi, când cruzi"; "uita usor dusmaniile", dar nici prietenia nu o tin mult; sunt "cutezatori, semeti si foarte pusi pe gâlceava", Însa "se linistesc lesne si se Împaca iarasi cu potrivnicul"; sunt petrecareti, iubesc bautura, Însa "nu-i sunt plecati peste masura"; iubesc viata, dar, fiind fatalisti, si-o daruiesc cu usurinta. În sfÎrsit, sentinta cea mai grea este aceea ca moldovenii "nu sunt iubitori de Învatatura", "chiar si numele mestesugurilor cele frumoase si ale stiintelor nu le sunt cunoscute".12

Cantemir: criza constiintei românesti În tranzitia spre modernitate

Iata câteva linii ale profilul etnopsihologic al românilor În viziunea lui Cantemir. Este un tablou echilibrat, dar cu anumite accente negative mai apasate. Autorul pare nemultumit de "firea neamului", pare pus pe gâlceava, zice Noica. Care este semnificatia acestei atitudini atât de critice a lui Cantemir? Unele interpretari au pus viziunea critica a lui Cantemir pe seama unei atitudini subiective a autorului, sustinând ca acesta ar fifost nemultumit ca moldovenii nu l-au rechemat pe tron sau ca nu l-au sprijinit În proiectele sale politice. O interpretare originala, de ordin istoric si filosofic, formuleaza Contantin Noica. 13 El apreciaza ca atitudinea lui Cantermir exprima criza constiintei românesti În procesul de tranzitie spre modernitate. Cantemir era constient de diferentele de model cultural dintre Occident si Orient. Dorinta lui arzatoare era sa scoata poporul român din sfera de influenta bizantina, salvona si otomana si sa-l conexeze la mediul cultural occidental, acolo unde Îsi are originile uitate. Noica apreciaza ca viziunea critica a lui Cantemir vine din constientizarea acestei situatii geopolitice si culturale paradoxale a românilor. Asa s-ar explica faptul ca el proiecteaza asupra românilor sistemul occidental de valori. De aceea, critica lui era "si dreapta si nedreapta". Perspectiva din care el se raporteaza la români este "lumea mai luminata", asa cum afirma explicit. Or, aceasta "lume mai luminata" era lumea occidentala, nu cea rasariteana.

Bibliografie

Anderson, Benedict, (2000), Comunitati imaginate. Reflectii asupra originii si raspândirii nationalismului, Bucuresti, Ed. Integral.

Blaga, Lucian, (2002), Isvoade, Bucuresti, Humanitas.

Cantemir, Dimitrie, (1981), Descrierea Moldovei, traducere de Petre Pandrea, prefata si tabel cronologic de Leonida Maniu, Bucuresti, Ed. Minerva.

Cantemir, Dimitrie, (1981), Hronicul vechimei romano-moldovlahilor, text ales si stabilit, table cronoogic, prefata si note de Stela Toma, Bucuresti, Ed. Albatros.

Costin, Miron, (1995), Opere, vol. II, Bucuresti, Ed. pentru literatura.

Noica, Constantin, (1993), Pagini despre sufletul românesc, Bucuresti, Ed. Humanitas.

Ungheanu, Mihai, (2005), Românii si "tâlharii Romei". Razboi religios - razboi de imagine?, Bucuresti, Ed. Phobos.

1 Benedict Anderson, Comunitati imaginate. Reflectii asupra originii si raspândirii nationalismului, Bucuresti, Ed. Integral, 2000.

2 Dimitrie Cantemir, Hronicul vechimei romano-moldo-vlahilor, text ales si stabilit, table cronologic, prefata si note de Stela Toma, Bucuresti, Ed. Albatros, 1981, p. 5.

3 Simion Dascalul este cel care a copiat manuscrisul operei lui Grigore Ureche, Letopisetul tarii Moldovei, prima istorie scrisa În limba româna (1643), dar a introdus În text un adaus personal, un paragraf prin care sustine ca Întemeietorii Moldovei sunt niste tâlhari din temnitele Romei, preluati de regele Ungariei, pe la 1241, si pusi sa lupte Împotriva invaziei tatare. Se pare ca legenda calomnioasa a fost preluata din unele cronici unguresti sau bulgaresti.

4 Mihai Ungheanu, Românii si "tâlharii Romei". Razboi religios - razboi de imagine?, Bucuresti, Ed. Phobos, 2005, p. 13.

5 Ibidem, p. 23.

6 Miron Costin, Opere, vol. II, Bucuresti, Ed. pentru literatura, 1965, p. 110.

7 Dimitrie Cantemir, Descrierea Moldovei, traducere de Petre Pandrea, Bucuresti, Ed. Minerva, 1981, p. 257.

8 Ibidem, p. 259.

9 Dimitrie Cantemir, Hronicul vechimei romano-moldo-vlahilor, ed.cit., p. 13.

10 Lucian Blaga, Isvoade, Bucuresti, Humanitas, 2002, p. 263.

11 Dimitrie Cantemir, Descrierea Moldovei, ed.cit., p. 205.

12 Ibidem, 206-208.

13 Constantin Noica, Pagini despre sufletul românesc, Bucuresti, Ed. Humanitas, 1993, pp. 46-72.

THE IMAGE OF THE ROMANIANS IN THE WORK OF DIMITRIE CANTEMIR

Grigore Georgiu*

[email protected]

* Prof. PhD., College of Communication and Public Relations, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Bucharest.

Abstract: The identity of a culture depends decisively today on the image it has in the space of other cultures and of global communication space as a result of multiple interactions and intense dialogue among geographies and cultural models. Dimitrie Cantemir understood in a very modern sense the strategic importance that the image of his people held in the process of transition to modernity. He construed a first ethnopsychological blueprint of Romanian people, revealing, with a profound sense of observation, some fundamental features that define our spiritual identity. The author was equally animated by the love of the nation and the "love of truth", managing to outline a complex, expressive and balanced portrait of the Romanians, with lights and shadows.

Keywords: image, identity, objectivity, ethno-psychological profile, personality traits.

Identity and image - an inseparable couple

A people travels through history together with the images that other peoples, primarily from the neighborhood, have assigned to it, based on direct interactions and experiences (economic and spiritual contacts, collaborative forms, cultural borrowings, alliances, conflicts, wars, etc.). These images are formed through a long process of processing impressions, information and various assessments. Along the years, they crystallize in collective representations, they acquire a lasting character and they operate as national stereotypes, which interact in the relationship between "we" and "the others". The enhanced intercultural communication, including through the new media and the Internet, has put back on the agenda of social thinking the issue of cultural differences and of the images peoples relate to each other.

Postmodern thinking has imposed a paradigm shiftin the approach to national identities. The idea of the substratum identity, with an anthropological and historical foundation, is considered to be a groundless assumption. In today's world, nations, with their cultural identities, are seen as fluid embodiments, "imagined communities" 1 that continually reinvent themselves through communication mechanisms. Identity is continually rebuilt and is "translated" into its images. Obviously, cultural identities are richer and more complex than their images, often reduced to stereotypes, clichés and preconceived ideas. Nonetheless, this does not invalidate the thesis that identity is expressed through their images and they are firmly attached to them. The paradox is that the images the others have about us (more or less accurate, but inevitably marked by an ethnocentric perspective), have effects on the level of reality, accumulate historically and enter, as constitutive elements, into the composition of our image about ourselves. There is always a "remainder" of the identity that is not present and not represented in its image. Here, there are two issues at stake: a) the adequacy between the identity as a primary reality and its images, whether we belong to us or to others, and b) the relation between the image we have about our identity as a people and images other people have shaped about this identity. The latter aspect was intensely problematized by the Romanian thinkers facing a chronic image deficit in the modern age and, today as well, especially in the European space, our identity is received through a predominantly negative image.

If we apply a current reading to the work of Dimitrie Cantemir, we shall be surprised to find that the learned prince understood in a very modern sense the strategic importance his people's image held in the transition toward modernity. As he undertook to write the history of the Romanian people, Cantemir set himself as an assumed goal, like a moral imperative, to restore the historical truth and to reject the false images about the origins of the Romanians, launched by "the manufacturers of lies." Passionate about the history of his people, by the knowledge of the events it experienced, Cantemir wants "o shed light on them and to make them known to the community". 2 In this action aimed to defend the Romanians' image, Cantemir continues the work of historian Miron Costin (1633-1691), who reacted against the forgery of Grigore Ureche's Chronicle by copyist Simion Dascalu 3 , but also against the forged images about Romanian from the texts of some foreign authors. He therefore inaugurated the "fight against the «basne»", a word which meant for him the untruths, lies, groundless legends and fabrications, "an invented, fabricated, unreliable story".4 To remove this stigma put on the Romanian people, Costin avows that his goal was to "to bring out to light the people's character",5 in other words, he wanted to build up a proper image of the Romanian identity.

Defining elements of national identity

Cantemir's outlook on the Romanians is explicitly formulated in two fundamental works: Descriptio Moldaviae and Historia moldo-vlahica. Both works were completed around 1716 and were written at the express request of the Berlin Academy, which elected him as its Fellow member as a sign of appreciation for his vast knowledge. Historia moldo-vlahica was translated and then extended by the author in Romanian under the title The Chronicle of the ancienty of Romanian-Moldo-Vlachs, an extensive synthesis to which he worked until his death. Using an extensive set of historical, linguistic and ethnographic arguments, Cantemir is the one to establish the basic elements of Romanian identity: a) the Latin origin of the Romanian language; b) the Roman origin of the Romanian people; c) the unity of origin language and culture of the Romanian people living in the three Romanian medieval states; d) the historical continuity of the Romanians on the territory of ancient Dacia; e) the Christian Orthodox component of the Romanian identity. These elements form the pivot of our identity. Of course, in this matter, Cantemir takes over and amplifies the chroniclers' ideas, but he reformulates their theoretical foundations, adds up an extra historical argumentation and integrates them into a coherent explanatory system. The idea of the Latinity of the Romanian language and the Roman origin (id est: western) of the Romanians has a very prominent relief in Cantemir's texts, almost obsessively recurrent.

For example, although he is a supporter of Orthodoxy he deplores the fact that the Romanians broke up with the Latin tradition regarding the writing and the "learning". Adopting the Cyrillic alphabet was a deeply wrong measure, which largely explains the isolation from Western culture and "the barbarism in which Moldova of today is mired". But, the author notes down, as the translation into Romanian of religious texts came out, Moldova "began to wake up and come up again slowly to light, out of dark depths of barbarism which had spread over the country."6 The continuity thesis of the Romanian element in the area of ancient Dacia is also highlighted in a special way, always speaking about the fact that the population formed as a result of the cohabitation between the Dacians and the Romans "so far uninterruptedly lives in Dacia (that is Moldova, Wallachia and Transylvania)".7 Cantemir is the bridge between Humanism and Enlightenment, a catalyst for the new encodings of the national idea. The specific themes of the Enlightenment are present in Cantemir's text, sometimes embodied in the terms used, such as the antithesis barbarism / enlightenment. Lucian Blaga appreciated that through his ideas and attitudes, "exalted by the too ardent consciousness of Romanity, Dimitrie Cantemir becomes actually the first "Latinist" or, at least, the key inspirer of the Transylvanian School."8

A balanced image with lights and shadows

Cantemir opens up the series of researches dedicated to the national specificity. He draws up an outline of the ethno-psychological and spiritual profile of the Romanian people, combining several reference planes. Chapter 17 of The Description of Moldova titled: "About the Moldovans' moeurs" aroused controversy. The beginning of this chapter is memorable by the trenchant way in which the author defines his attitude towards this sensitive issue.

"While we try to describe the habits of Moldovans (something that no one or only few foreigners have a true rendition), the love we have for our homeland tells us on the one hand to praise the nation in which we were born and to depict [positively] the inhabitants of the land from which we came, and on the other hand, the love of truth prevents us, in the same way, to praise what would be, rightfully, to be blamed. It will be more useful to them if we clearly show the blemishes which disfigure them instead of deceiving them with kind flattery and skilful excuses, making them believe that in such things they are guided by justice, while the more enlightened world, seeing them, will condemn them".9

This text brings to the limelight a few key ideas. a) Cantemir was aware of the importance the image the Romanian people had in foreign milieus; b) showing the tension between the subjective tendencies ("the love of the nation") and the aspiration toward objectivity ("the love of truth"), Cantemir explicitly formulates an intensely debated topic in modern thinking, namely the problematic nature of social knowledge, from which value commitments cannot be altogether eliminated; c) the need for cross-cultural comparative and critical approaches, when trying to describe and define the identity of a people; d) the need for a frank and self-critical attitude towards the status quo, as a basis for genuine program of national reform.

The characterizations made by Cantemir are sketchy, but dense and expressive, careful to alternate the lights and the shadows, to respect the truth and not to depart from the empirical evidence. He points out as positive attributes - in addition to "the true faith" (Orthodoxy) and "the hospitality" - the peasants' openness and kindness, despite their poverty. Likewise, the tolerance and the absence of religious fanaticism. But above all, the author makes rather a negative portrait of the Moldovans (a portrait that can be extended, with nuances on to the entire Romanian people), which baffled many commentators. Thus, he categorically notes that besides "the true faith and hospitality we could not find too easily something else that may be praiseworthy." Further on, he establishes a true catalog of "bad habits" that would belong to their "nature", formulating, in a critical burst, many serious accusations about the Moldovans' lifestyle. Thus, paradoxically, he believes that their fundamental trait is the lack of proportion..

The Moldovans are not constant in the way they conduct the warfare: they are brave at the onset, then soften up and "if it goes well, they are haughty, if it goes bad, they lose temper"; everything seems easy for them at the beginning, but if they encounter an obstacle "they get confused and do not know what to do"; "with the defeated they are either kind or cruel"; "they easily forget the enmities" but they do not hold friendships for long; they are "bold, lofty and very bent on discord", but "they calm down easily and make peace again with the adversary"; "they love to party, to drink, but "not to an excess"; they love life, but being fatalistic, and give it up easily. Finally, the heaviest sentence is that the Moldovans "are not lovers of learning", "even the name of the most beautiful crafts and sciences are not known to them".10

Cantemir: the crisis of the Romanian consciousness in the transition towards modernity

Here are some lines of the Romanians' ethno-psychological profile in Cantemir's outlook. It is a balanced picture, but with some negative accents. The author seems unhappy about "the nation's character", seems to be ready to quarrel, says Noica. What is the significance of Cantemir's critical attitude? Some interpretations put Cantemir's critical outlook in relation to the author's subjective attitude, claiming that he was unhappy because the Moldovans did not call him back to the throne or did not support him in his political projects. An original historical and philosophical interpretation is made by Contantin Noica.11 He considers that his Cantemir's attitude expresses the crisis of the Romanian consciousness in the transition toward modernity. Cantemir was aware of the cultural differences between the East and the West. His burning desire was to bring the Romanian people out of the Byzantine, Slav and Ottoman sphere of influence and to connect it to the Western cultural environment, there where it has its forgotten origins. Noica considers that Cantemir's critical outlook comes from the awareness of the paradoxical geopolitical and cultural situation of the Romanians. It may explain why he projects over the Romanians the Western system of values. Therefore, his criticism was "both just and unjust." The perspective from which he refers to Romanian is "the enlightened world" as he stated explicitly. And, this "enlightened world" was the Western and not the Eastern world.

References

Anderson, Benedict, (2000), Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, Bucharest, Integral Printing House.

Blaga, Lucian, (2002), Sources, Bucharest, Humanitas.

Cantemir, Dimitrie, (1981), The Description of Moldavia, translated by Petre Pandrea, preface and chronological table by de Leonida Maniu, Bucharest, Minerva Printing House.

Cantemir, Dimitrie, (1981), The Chronicle of the Durability of the Romanians-Moldavians-Vallachians, text chosen and established, chronological table, preface and notes by Stela Toma, Bucharest, Albatros Printing House.

Costin, Miron, (1995), Works, vol. II, Bucharest, the Publishing House for Literature.

Noica, Constantin, (1993), Pages on the Romanian Soul, Bucharest, Humanitas Printing House.

Ungheanu, Mihai, (2005), The Romanians and the "Thieves of Rome": The religious war - the image war?, Bucharest, Phobos Printing House.

1 Benedict Anderson, Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationaism, Bucharest, Integral Printing House, 2000.

2 Dimitrie Cantemir, The Chronicle of the Durability of the Romanian-Moldavians - Vallachians, text chosen and established, chronological table, preface and notes by Stela Toma, Bucharest, Albatros Printing House, 1981, p. 5.

3 Simion Dascalul is the copyist of Grigore Ureche's manuscript, The Chronicle of the Country of Moldova the first history written in Romanian (1643), but he introduced in the a text a personal addition, a paragraph saying that Moldova's founders are some thieves from the dungeons of Rome, taken over by the King of Hungary around 1241, put to fight against the Tartar invasion. The injurious legend seems to be taken from Hungarian or Bulgarian chronicles.

4 Mihai Ungheanu, The Romanians and the "Thieves of Rome": The religious war - the image war?, Bucharest, Phobos Printing House, 2005, p. 13.

5 Miron Costin, Works, vol. II, Bucharest, the Publishing House for Literature, 1965, p. 110.

6 Dimitrie Cantemir, The Description of Moldavia, translaed by Petre Pandrea, Bucharest, Minerva Printing House, 1981, pp. 257-259.

7 Dimitrie Cantemir, The Chronicle, works cited, p. 13.

8 Lucian Blaga, Sources, Bucharest, Humanitas, 2002, p. 263. [The Transylvanian School was a broad ideological and cultural movement that militated for the rights of the Romanians, but exaggerating the Latin character of the Romanian language].

9 Dimitrie Cantemir, The Description of Moldova, works cited, p. 205.

10 Ibidem, 206-208.

11 Constantin Noica, Pages on the Romanian Soul, Bucharest, Humanitas, 1993, pp. 46-72.