Nicolae Iorga | |
|---|---|
 Iorga in 1938 | |
| 34th Prime Minister of Romania | |
| In office 19 April 1931 – 6 June 1932 | |
| Monarch | Carol II |
| Preceded by | Gheorghe Mironescu |
| Succeeded by | Alexandru Vaida-Voievod |
| President of the Senate of Romania | |
| In office 9 June 1939 – 13 June 1939 | |
| Monarch | Carol II |
| Preceded by | Alexandru Lapedatu |
| Succeeded by | Constantin Argetoianu |
| President of the Assembly of Deputies | |
| In office 9 December 1919 – 26 March 1920 | |
| Monarch | Ferdinand I |
| Preceded by | Alexandru Vaida-Voevod |
| Succeeded by | Duiliu Zamfirescu |
| Member of the Crown Council | |
| In office 30 March 1938 – 6 September 1940 | |
| Monarch | Carol II |
| Minister of Internal Affairs | |
| Acting 18 April 1931 – 7 May 1931 | |
| Prime Minister | Himself |
| Preceded by | Ion Mihalache |
| Succeeded by | Constantin Argetoianu(Acting) |
| Minister of Culture and Religious Affairs | |
| In office 18 April 1931 – 5 June 1932 | |
| Prime Minister | Himself |
| Preceded by | Nicolae Costăchescu |
| Succeeded by | Dimitrie Gusti |
| President of theDemocratic Nationalist Party | |
| In office 6 May 1910 – 16 December 1938 Serving with A. C. Cuza (until 26 April 1920) | |
| Preceded by | None (co-founder) |
| Succeeded by | None (party formally banned under the1938 Constitution) |
| Personal details | |
| Born | (1871-01-17)17 January 1871 |
| Died | 27 November 1940(1940-11-27) (aged 69) |
| Manner of death | Assassination bygunshots |
| Political party | Democratic Nationalist Party(1910–1938) National Renaissance Front(1938–1940) |
| Spouses | |
| Alma mater | Alexandru Ioan Cuza University École pratique des hautes études Leipzig University |
| Occupation | Writer, poet, professor, literary critic, politician |
| Profession | Historian, philosopher |
| Signature | .jpg) |
Nicolae Iorga[alt 1][a] (17 January 1871 – 27 November 1940) was a Romanian historian, politician, literary critic, memoirist, albanologist, poet and playwright. Co-founder (in 1910) of theDemocratic Nationalist Party (PND), he served as a member ofParliament, President of theDeputies' Assembly andSenate, cabinet minister and briefly (1931–32) asPrime Minister. Achild prodigy,polymath andpolyglot, Iorga produced an unusually large body of scholarly works, establishing his international reputation as amedievalist,Byzantinist,Latinist,Slavist,art historian andphilosopher of history. Holding teaching positions at theUniversity of Bucharest, theUniversity of Paris and several other academic institutions, Iorga was founder of theInternational Congress of Byzantine Studies and theInstitute of South-East European Studies (ISSEE). His activity also included the transformation ofVălenii de Munte town into a cultural and academic center.
In parallel with his academic contributions, Nicolae Iorga was a prominentright-of-centre activist, whose political theory bridged conservatism,Romanian nationalism, andagrarianism. FromMarxist beginnings, he switched sides and became a maverick disciple of theJunimea movement. Iorga later became a leadership figure atSămănătorul, the influential literary magazine withpopulist leanings, and militated within theLeague for the Cultural Unity of All Romanians [ro], founding vocally conservative publications such asNeamul Românesc,Drum Drept,Cuget Clar andFloarea Darurilor. His support for the cause of ethnic Romanians inAustria-Hungary made him a prominent figure in the pro-Entente camp by the time ofWorld War I, and ensured him a special political role during the interwar existence ofGreater Romania. Initiator of large-scale campaigns to defend Romanian culture in front of perceived threats, Iorga sparked most controversy with hisantisemitic rhetoric, and was for long an associate of the far-right ideologueA. C. Cuza. He was an adversary of the dominantNational Liberals, later involved with the oppositionRomanian National Party.
Later in his life, Iorga opposed the radically fascistIron Guard, and, after much oscillation, came to endorse its rivalKingCarol II. Involved in a personal dispute with the Guard's leaderCorneliu Zelea Codreanu, and indirectly contributing to his killing, Iorga was also a prominent figure in Carol'scorporatist and authoritarian party, theNational Renaissance Front. He remained an independent voice of opposition after the Guard inaugurated its ownNational Legionary dictatorship, but was ultimately assassinated by a Guardistcommando.
Nicolae Iorga was born inBotoșani into a family ofGreek origin.[2] His father, Nicu Iorga, was a practicing lawyer;[3] he ultimately descended from a Greek merchant who had settled in Botoșani in the 18th century[4] five generations before Nicolae Iorga's birth.[5] His mother, Zulnia Iorga (née Arghiropol), was a woman ofPhanarioteGreek descent.[6][7][8] Iorga claimed direct descent from the nobleMavrocordatos andArgyros families.[9][10][11] He credited the five-generation-boyar status received from his father's side (e.g. the Miclescu and Catargi families) and the "oldboyar" roots of his mother (e.g. the Mavrocordatos family) with having turned him into a politician.[12] His parallel claim of being related to noble families such as theCantacuzinos and theCraiovești is questioned by other researchers.[13] Iorga is generally believed to have been born on 17 January 1871, although his birth certificate provides a date of 6 June.[14]
In 1876, aged thirty-seven or thirty-eight, Nicu Sr. was incapacitated and then died of an unknown illness, orphaning Nicolae and his younger brother George. Nicolae would later write that the loss of his father dominated the image he had of his childhood.[15] In 1878, he was enlisted at the Marchian Folescu School, where he discovered a love for intellectual pursuits and took pride in excelling in most academic areas. At age nine, he was allowed by his teachers to lecture his schoolmates on Romanian history.[16] His history teacher, arefugee Pole, sparked his interest in research and his lifelongpolonophilia.[17] Iorga also credited this period with having shaped his lifelong views on Romanian language and local culture: "I learned Romanian ... as it was spoken back in the day: plainly, beautifully and above all resolutely and colorfully, without the intrusions of newspapers and best-selling books".[18] He credited the 19th-century polymathMihail Kogălniceanu, whose works he first read as a child, with having shaped this literary preference.[18]
Iorga enrolled in Botoșani'sA. T. Lauriangymnasium in 1881, receiving top honors. In 1883, Iorga began tutoring some of his colleagues to supplement his family's main revenue (according to Iorga, a "miserable pension of pittance").[19] Aged thirteen, while on extended visit to his maternal uncle Emanuel "Manole" Arghiropol, he also made his press debut with paid contributions to Arghiropol'sRomanul newspaper, including anecdotes and editorial pieces on European politics.[20] The year 1886 was described by Iorga as "the catastrophe of my school life in Botoșani": on temporary suspension for not having greeted a teacher, Iorga opted to leave the city and apply for theNational High School ofIași, being received into the scholarship program and praised by his new principal, the philologistVasile Burlă.[21] Iorga was already fluent in French, Italian, Latin and Greek; he later referred toGreek studies as "the most refined form of human reasoning".[22]
By age seventeen, Iorga was becoming more rebellious. He first grew interested in political activities for the first time but displayed convictions which he later strongly disavowed; a self-describedMarxist, Iorga promoted theleft-wing magazineViața Socială and lectured onDas Kapital.[22] Seeing himself confined in the National College's "ugly and disgusting" boarding school, he defied its rules and was suspended a second time, losing scholarship privileges.[23] Before readmission, he decided not to fall back on his family's financial support and instead returned to tutoring others.[23] Iorga was suspended a third time for reading during a teacher's lesson but graduated in the top "first prize" category (with a 9.24 average) and subsequently took hisBaccalaureate with honors.[24]
In 1888, Nicolae Iorga passed his entry examination for theUniversity of Iași Faculty of Letters, becoming eligible for a scholarship soon after.[25] Upon the completion of his second term, he also received a special dispensation from theKingdom of Romania'sEducation Ministry, and, as a result, applied for and passed his third term examinations, effectively graduating one year ahead of his class.[26] Before the end of the year, he also passed his license examinationmagna cum laude, with a thesis onGreek literature, an achievement which consecrated his reputation inside both academia and the public sphere.[27] Hailed as a "morning star" by the local press and deemed a "wonder of a man" by his teacherA. D. Xenopol, Iorga was honored by the faculty with a special banquet. Three academics (Xenopol,Nicolae Culianu,Ioan Caragiani) formally brought Iorga to the attention of the Education Ministry, proposing him for the state-sponsored program which allowed academic achievers to study abroad.[28]
The interval witnessed Iorga's brief affiliation withJunimea, a literary club with conservative leanings, whose informal leader was literary and political theoristTitu Maiorescu. In 1890, literary criticȘtefan Vârgolici and cultural promoterIacob Negruzzi published Iorga's essay on poetVeronica Micle in theJunimist tribuneConvorbiri Literare.[29] Having earlier attended the funeral of writerIon Creangă, a dissidentJunimist andRomanian literature classic, he took a public stand against the defamation of another such figure, the dramatistIon Luca Caragiale, groundlessly accused of plagiarism by journalistConstantin Al. Ionescu-Caion.[30] He expanded his contribution as an opinion journalist, publishing with some regularity in various local or national periodicals of various leanings, from the socialistContemporanul andEra Nouă toBogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu'sRevista Nouă.[31] This period saw his debut as asocialist poet (inContemporanul) and critic (in bothLupta andLiteratură și Știință).[32]
Also in 1890, Iorga married Maria Tasu, whom he was to divorce in 1900.[33] He had previously been in love with an Ecaterina C. Botez, but, after some hesitation, decided to marry into the family ofJunimea man Vasile Tasu, much better situated in the social circles.[34] Xenopol, who was Iorga's matchmaker,[35] also tried to obtain for Iorga a teaching position at Iași University. The attempt was opposed by other professors, on grounds of Iorga's youth and politics.[36] Instead, Iorga was briefly a high school professor of Latin in the southern city ofPloiești, following a public competition overseen by writerAlexandru Odobescu.[27] The time he spent there allowed him to expand his circle of acquaintances and personal friends, meeting writers Caragiale andAlexandru Vlahuță, historians Hasdeu andGrigore Tocilescu, and Marxist theoristConstantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea.[27]
Having received the scholarship early in the year, he made his first study trips to Italy (April and June 1890), and subsequently left for a longer stay in France, enlisting at theÉcole pratique des hautes études.[27] He was a contributor for theEncyclopédie française, personally recommended there bySlavistLouis Léger.[27] Reflecting back on this time, he stated: "I never had as much time at my disposal, as much freedom of spirit, as much joy of learning from those great figures of mankind ... than back then, in that summer of 1890".[37] While preparing for his second diploma, Iorga also pursued his interest in philology, learning English, German, and rudiments of other Germanic languages.[38] In 1892, he was in England and in Italy, researching historical sources for his French-language thesis onPhilippe de Mézières, a Frenchman in theCrusade of 1365.[38] In tandem, he became a contributor toRevue Historique, a leading French academic journal.[38]
Somewhat dissatisfied with French education,[39] Iorga presented his dissertation and, in 1893, left for theGerman Empire, attempting to enlist in theUniversity of Berlin's PhD program. His working paper, onThomas III of Saluzzo, was not received, because Iorga had not spent three years in training, as required. As an alternative, he gave formal pledge that the paper in question was entirely his own work, but his statement was invalidated by technicality: Iorga's work had been redacted by a more proficient speaker of German, whose intervention did not touch the substance of Iorga's research.[38] The ensuing controversy led him to apply for aUniversity of Leipzig PhD: his text, once reviewed by a commission grouping three prominent German scholars (Adolf Birch-Hirschfeld,Karl Gotthard Lamprecht,Charles Wachsmuth), earned him the needed diploma in August.[40] On 25 July, Iorga had also received hisÉcole pratique diploma for the earlier work on de Mézières, following its review byGaston Paris andCharles Bémont.[38] He spent his time further investigating the historical sources, at archives in Berlin, Leipzig and Dresden.[41] Between 1890 and the end of 1893, he had published three works: his debut in poetry (Poezii, "Poems"), the first volume ofSchițe din literatura română ("Sketches on Romanian Literature", 1893; second volume 1894), and his Leipzig thesis, printed in Paris asThomas III, marquis �de Saluces. Étude historique et littéraire ("Thomas, Margrave of Saluzzo. Historical and Literary Study").[42]
Living in poor conditions (as reported by visiting scholarTeohari Antonescu),[43] the four-year engagement of his scholarship still applicable, Nicolae Iorga decided to spend his remaining time abroad, researching more city archives in Germany (Munich), Austria (Innsbruck) and Italy (Florence, Milan, Naples, Rome, Venice etc.)[41] In this instance, his primordial focus was on historical figures from his Romanian homeland, the defunctDanubian Principalities ofMoldavia andWallachia: theMoldavian PrincePeter the Lame, his son Ștefăniță, and Romania's national hero, theWallachian PrinceMichael the Brave.[41] He also met, befriended and often collaborated with fellow historians from European countries other than Romania: the editors ofRevue de l'Orient Latin, who first published studies Iorga later grouped in the six volumes ofNotes et extraits ("Notices and Excerpts") andFrantz Funck-Brentano, who enlisted his parallel contribution forRevue Critique.[44] Iorga's articles were also featured in two magazines for ethnic Romanian communities inAustria-Hungary:Familia andVatra.[41]
Making his comeback to Romania in October 1894, Iorga settled in the capital city ofBucharest. He changed residence several times, until eventually settling inGrădina Icoanei area.[45] He agreed to compete in a sort of debating society, with lectures which only saw print in 1944.[46] He applied for the Medieval History Chair at theUniversity of Bucharest, submitting a dissertation in front of an examination commission comprising historians and philosophers (Caragiani, Odobescu, Xenopol, alongsideAron Densușianu,Constantin Leonardescu andPetre Râșcanu), but totaled a 7 average which only entitled him to a substitute professor's position.[47] The achievement, at age 23, was still remarkable in its context.[48]
The first of his lectures came later that year as personal insight on thehistorical method,Despre concepția actuală a istoriei și geneza ei ("On the Present-day Concept of History and Its Genesis").[49] He was again out of the country in 1895, visiting the Netherlands and, again, Italy, in search of documents, publishing the first section of his extended historical records' collectionActe și fragmente cu privire la istoria românilor ("Acts and Excerpts Regarding the History of Romanians"), hisRomanian Atheneum conference on Michael the Brave's rivalry withcondottieroGiorgio Basta, and his debut in travel literature (Amintiri din Italia, "Recollections from Italy").[50] The next year came Iorga's official appointment as curator and publisher of theHurmuzachi brothers collection of historical documents, the position being granted to him by theRomanian Academy. The appointment, first proposed to the institution by Xenopol, overlapped with disputes over the Hurmuzachi inheritance, and came only after Iorga's formal pledge that he would renounce all potential copyrights resulting from his contribution.[49] He also published the second part ofActe și fragmente and the printed rendition of the de Mézières study (Philippe de Mézières, 1337–1405).[49] Following an October 1895 reexamination, he was granted full professorship with a 9.19 average.[49]
1895 was also the year when Iorga began his collaboration with the Iași-based academic and political agitator A. C. Cuza, making his earliest steps inantisemitic politics, founding with him a group known as the Universal ()and Romanian Antisemitic Alliance.[51][52] In 1897, the year when he was elected a corresponding member of the academy, Iorga traveled back to Italy and spent time researching more documents in the Austro-HungarianKingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, atDubrovnik.[49] He also oversaw the publication of the 10th Hurmuzachi volume, grouping diplomatic reports authored byKingdom of Prussia diplomats in the two Danubian Principalities (covering the interval between 1703 and 1844).[49] After spending most of 1898 on researching various subjects and presenting the results as reports for the academy, Iorga was inTransylvania, the largely Romanian-inhabited subregion of Austria-Hungary. Concentrating his efforts on the city archives ofBistrița,Brașov andSibiu, he made a major breakthrough by establishing thatStolnic Cantacuzino, a 17th-century man of letters and political intriguer, was the real author of an unsigned Wallachian chronicle that had for long been used as a historical source.[53] He published several new books in 1899:Manuscrise din biblioteci străine ("Manuscripts from Foreign Libraries", 2 vols.),Documente românești din arhivele Bistriței ("Romanian Documents from the Bistrița Archives") and a French-language book on theCrusades, titledNotes et extraits pour servir à l'histoire des croisades ("Notes and Excerpts Covering the History of the Crusades", 2 vols.).[54] Xenopol proposed his pupil for a Romanian Academy membership, to replace the suicidal Odobescu, but his proposition could not gather support.[55]
Also in 1899, Nicolae Iorga inaugurated his contribution to the Bucharest-based French-language newspaperL'Indépendance Roumaine, publishing polemical articles on the activity of his various colleagues and, as a consequence, provoking a lengthy scandal. The pieces often targeted senior scholars who, as favorites or activists of theNational Liberal Party, opposed bothJunimea and the Maiorescu-endorsedConservative Party: his estranged friends Hasdeu and Tocilescu, as well asV. A. Urechia andDimitrie Sturdza.[56] The episode, described by Iorga himself as a stormy but patriotic debut in public affairs, prompted his adversaries at the academy to demand the termination of his membership for undignified behavior.[57] Tocilescu felt insulted by the allegations, challenged Iorga to a duel, but his friends intervened to mediate.[58] Another scientist who encountered Iorga's wrath wasGeorge Ionescu-Gion, against whom Iorga enlisted negative arguments that, as he later admitted, were exaggerated.[59] Among Iorga's main defenders were academicsDimitrie Onciul,N. Petrașcu, and, outside Romania,Gustav Weigand.[60]
The young polemicist persevered in supporting this anti-establishment cause, moving on fromL'Indépendance Roumaine to the newly established publicationRomânia Jună, interrupting himself for trips to Italy, the Netherlands andGalicia-Lodomeria.[54] In 1900, he collected the scattered polemical articles into the French-language booksOpinions sincères. La vie intellectuelle des roumains en 1899 ("Honest Opinions. The Romanians' Intellectual Life in 1899") andOpinions pérnicieuses d'un mauvais patriote ("The Pernicious Opinions of a Bad Patriot").[61][62] His scholarly activities resulted in a second trip into Transylvania, a second portion of his Bistrița archives collection, the 11th Hurmuzachi volume, and two works onEarly Modern Romanian history:Acte din secolul al XVI-lea relative la Petru Șchiopul ("16th Century Acts Relating to Peter the Lame") andScurtă istorie a lui Mihai Viteazul ("A Short History of Michael the Brave").[63] His controversial public attitude had nevertheless attracted an official ban on his Academy reports, and also meant that he was ruled out from the national Academy prize (for which distinction he had submittedDocumente românești din arhivele Bistriței).[63] The period also witnessed a chill in the Iorga's relationship with Xenopol.[64]
In 1901, shortly after his divorce from Maria, Iorga married Ecaterina (Catinca), the sister of his friend and colleagueIoan Bogdan.[65] Her other brother was cultural historianGheorghe Bogdan-Duică, whose son, painterCatul Bogdan, Iorga would help achieve recognition.[66] Soon after their wedding, the couple were in Venice, where Iorga received Karl Gotthard Lamprecht's offer to write a history of the Romanians to be featured as a section in a collective treatise of world history.[67] Iorga, who had convinced Lamprecht not to assign this task to Xenopol,[68] also completedIstoria literaturii române în secolul al XVIII-lea ("The History of Romanian Literature in the 18th Century"). It was presented to the academy's consideration, but rejected, prompting the scholar to resign in protest.[63] To receive his imprimatur later in the year, Iorga appealed to fellow intellectuals, earning pledges and a sizable grant from the aristocraticCallimachi family.[63]
Before the end of that year, the Iorgas were in the Austro-Hungarian city ofBudapest. While there, the historian set up tight contacts with Romanian intellectuals who originated from Transylvania and who, in the wake of theTransylvanian Memorandum affair, supportedethnic nationalism while objecting to the intermediaryCisleithanian (Hungarian Crown) rule and the threat ofMagyarization.[63] Interested in recovering the Romanian contributions toTransylvanian history, in particular Michael the Brave's precursory role in Romanian unionism, Iorga spent his time reviewing, copying and translatingHungarian-language historical texts with much assistance from his wife.[63] During the 300th commemoration of Prince Michael's death, which ethnic Romanian students transformed into a rally against Austro-Hungarian educational restrictions, Iorga addressed the crowds and was openly greeted by the protest's leaders, poetOctavian Goga and Orthodox priestIoan Lupaș.[63] In 1902, he published new tracts on Transylvanian or Wallachian topics:Legăturile Principatelor române cu Ardealul ("The Romanian Principalities' Links with Transylvania"),Sate și preoți din Ardeal ("Priests and Villages of Transylvania"),Despre Cantacuzini ("On theCantacuzinos"),Istoriile domnilor Țării Românești ("The Histories of Wallachian Princes").[69]
Iorga was by then making known his newly found interest incultural nationalism and nationaldidacticism, as expressed by him in an open letter to Goga's Budapest-basedLuceafărul magazine.[69] After further interventions from Goga and linguistSextil Pușcariu,Luceafărul became Iorga's main mouthpiece outside Romania.[70] Returning to Bucharest in 1903, Iorga followed Lamprecht's suggestion and focused on writing his first overview of Romanian national history, known in Romanian asIstoria românilor ("The History of the Romanians").[69] He was also involved in a new project of researching the content of archives throughout Moldavia and Wallachia,[69] and, having reassessed the nationalist politics ofJunimist poetMihai Eminescu, helped collect and publish a companion to Eminescu's work.[71]
Also in 1903, Nicolae Iorga became one of the managers ofSămănătorul review. The moment brought Iorga's emancipation from Maiorescu's influence, his break with mainstreamJunimism, and his affiliation to the traditionalist,ethno-nationalist andneoromantic current encouraged by the magazine.[72] TheSămănătorist school was by then also grouping other former or activeJunimists, and Maiorescu's progressive withdrawal from literary life also created a bridge withConvorbiri Literare: its new editor,Simion Mehedinți, was himself a theorist of traditionalism.[73] A circle ofJunimists more sympathetic to Maiorescu's version of conservatism reacted against this realignment by founding its own venue,Convorbiri Critice, edited byMihail Dragomirescu.[74]
In tandem with his full return to cultural and political journalism, which included prolonged debates with both the "old" historians and theJunimists,[75] Iorga was still active at the forefront of historical research. In 1904, he published thehistorical geography workDrumuri și orașe din România ("Roads and Towns of Romania") and, upon the special request of National Liberal Education MinisterSpiru Haret, a work dedicated to the celebrated Moldavian PrinceStephen the Great, published upon the 400th anniversary of the monarch's death asIstoria lui Ștefan cel Mare ("The History of Stephen the Great").[76] Iorga later confessed that the book was an integral part of his and Haret's didacticist agenda, supposed to be "spread to the very bottom of the country in thousands of copies".[77] During those months, Iorga also helped discover novelistMihail Sadoveanu, who was for a while the leading figure ofSămănătorist literature.[78]
In 1905, the year when historianOnisifor Ghibu became his close friend and disciple,[79] he followed up with over 23 individual titles, among them the two German-language volumes ofGeschichte des Rümanischen Volkes im Rahmen seiner Staatsbildungen ("A History of the Romanian People within the Context of Its National Formation"),Istoria românilor în chipuri și icoane ("The History of the Romanians in Faces and Icons"),Sate și mănăstiri din România ("Villages and Monasteries of Romania") and the essayGânduri și sfaturi ale unui om ca oricare altul ("Thoughts and Advices from a Man Just like Any Other").[77] He also paid a visit to the Romanians ofBukovina region, in Austrian territory, as well as to those of Bessarabia, who were subjects of theRussian Empire, and wrote about their cultural struggles in his 1905 accountsNeamul romănesc în Bucovina ("The Romanian People of Bukovina"),Neamul romănesc în Basarabia ("...of Bessarabia").[80][81] These referred toTsarist autocracy as a source of "darkness and slavery", whereas the more liberal regime of Bukovina offered its subjects "golden chains".[81]
Nicolae Iorga ran in the1905 election and won a seat inParliament'slower chamber.[82] He remained politically independent until 1906, when he attached himself to the Conservative Party, making one final attempt to change the course ofJunimism.[83] His move was contrasted by the group ofleft-nationalists from thePoporanist faction, who were allied to the National Liberals and, soon after, in open conflict with Iorga. Although from the same cultural family asSămănătorul, the Poporanist theoristConstantin Stere was dismissed by Iorga's articles, despite Sadoveanu's attempts to settle the matter.[83]
A peak in Nicolae Iorga's own nationalist campaigning occurred that year: profiting from a wave of Francophobia among young urbanites, Iorga boycotted theNational Theater, punishing its staff for staging a play entirely in French, and disturbing public order.[82][84] According to one of Iorga's young disciples, the future journalistPamfil Șeicaru, the mood was such that Iorga could have led a successfulcoup d'état.[85] These events had several political consequences. TheSiguranța Statului intelligence agency soon opened a file on the historian, informingRomanian Premier Sturdza about nationalist agitation.[82] The perception that Iorga was axenophobe also drew condemnation from more moderate traditionalist circles, in particular theViața Literară weekly. Its panelists,Ilarie Chendi and youngEugen Lovinescu, ridiculed Iorga's claim of superiority; Chendi in particular criticized the rejection of writers based on their ethnic origin and not their ultimate merit (while alleging, to Iorga's annoyance, that Iorga himself was a Greek).[86]
Iorga eventually parted withSămănătorul in late 1906, moving on to set up his own tribune,Neamul Românesc. The schism was allegedly a direct result of his conflicts with other literary venues,[77] and inaugurated a brief collaboration between Iorga andFăt Frumos journalistEmil Gârleanu.[87] The newer magazine, illustrated with idealized portraits of the Romanian peasant,[88] was widely popular with Romania's ruralintelligentsia (among which it was freely distributed), promoting antisemitic theories and raising opprobrium from the authorities and the urban-oriented press.[80]
Also in 1906, Iorga traveled into theOttoman Empire, visitingIstanbul, and published another set of volumes—Contribuții la istoria literară ("Contributions to Literary History"),Neamul românesc în Ardeal și Țara Ungurească ("The Romanian Nation in Transylvania and the Hungarian Land"),Negoțul și meșteșugurile în trecutul românesc ("Trade and Crafts of the Romanian Past") etc.[77] In 1907, he began issuing a second periodical, the cultural magazineFloarea Darurilor,[77] and published withEditura Minerva an early installment of his companion to Romanian literature (second volume 1908, third volume 1909).[89] His published scientific contributions for that year include, among others, an English-language study on theByzantine Empire.[77] At home, he and pupilVasile Pârvan were involved in a conflict with fellow historianOrest Tafrali, officially over archeological theory, but also because of a regional conflict in academia: Bucharest and Transylvania against Tafrali's Iași.[90]
A seminal moment in Iorga's political career took place during the1907 Romanian Peasants' Revolt, erupting under a Conservative cabinet and repressed with much violence by a National Liberal one. The bloody outcome prompted the historian to author and make public a piece of social critique, theNeamul Românesc pamphletDumnezeu să-i ierte ("God Forgive Them").[77] The text, together with his program of agrarian conferences and his subscription lists for the benefit of victims' relatives again made him an adversary of the National Liberals, who referred to Iorga as an instigator.[77] The historian did however struck a chord with Stere, who had been made prefect ofIași County, and who, going against his party's wishes, inaugurated an informal collaboration between Iorga and the Poporanists.[83] The political class as a whole was particularly apprehensive of Iorga's contacts with theLeague for the Cultural Unity of All Romanians [ro] and their commonirredentist agenda, which risked undermining relations with the Austrians over Transylvania and Bukovina.[91] However, Iorga's popularity was still increasing, and, carried by this sentiment, he was first elected to Chamber during theelections of that same year.[77][83]
Iorga and his new family had relocated several times, renting a home in Bucharest'sGara de Nord (Buzești) quarter.[45] After renewed but failed attempts to become an Iași University professor,[92] he decided, in 1908, to set his base away from the urban centers, at a villa inVălenii de Munte town (nestled in the remote hilly area ofPrahova County). Although branded an agitator by Sturdza, he received support in this venture from Education Minister Haret.[93] Once settled, Iorga set up a specialized summer school, his own publishing house, a printing press and the literary supplement ofNeamul Românesc,[94] as well as an asylum managed by writerConstanța Marino-Moscu.[95] He published some 25 new works for that year, such as the introductory volumes for his German-language companion to Ottoman history (Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches, "History of the Ottoman Empire"), a study on Romanian Orthodox institutions (Istoria bisericii românești, "The History of the Romanian Church"),[96] and an anthology on RomanianRomanticism.[97] He followed up in 1909 with a volume of parliamentary speeches,În era reformelor ("In the Age of Reforms"), a book on the1859 Moldo–Wallachian Union (Unirea principatelor, "The Principalities' Union"),[98] and a critical edition of poems by Eminescu.[99] Visiting Iași for the Union Jubilee, Iorga issued a public and emotional apology to Xenopol for having criticized him in the previous decade.[100]
At that stage in his life, Iorga became an honorary member of theRomanian Writers' Society.[101] He had militated for its creation in bothSămănătorul andNeamul Românesc, but also wrote against its system of fees.[102] Once liberated from government restriction in 1909, his Vălenii school grew into a hub of student activity, self-financed through the sale of postcards.[103] Its success caused alarm in Austria-Hungary:Budapesti Hírlap newspaper described Iorga's school as an instrument for radicalizing Romanian Transylvanians.[103] Iorga also alienated the main Romanian organizations in Transylvania: theRomanian National Party (PNR) dreaded his proposal to boycott theDiet of Hungary, particularly since PNR leaders were contemplating a loyalist"Greater Austria" devolution project.[104]
The consequences hit Iorga in May 1909, when he was stopped from visiting Bukovina, officially branded apersona non grata, and expelled from Austrian soil (in June, it was made illegal for Bukovinian schoolteachers to attend Iorga's lectures).[103] A month later, Iorga greeted in Bucharest the English scholarR.W. Seton-Watson. This noted critic of Austria-Hungary became Iorga's admiring friend, and helped popularize his ideas in the English-speaking world.[105][106]
In 1910, the year when he toured theOld Kingdom's conference circuit, Nicolae Iorga again rallied with Cuza to establish the explicitly antisemiticDemocratic Nationalist Party. Partly building on the antisemitic component of the 1907 revolts,[52][80][107] its doctrines depicted theJewish-Romanian community and Jews in general as a danger for Romania's development.[108] During its early decades, it used as its symbol the right-facingswastika (卐), promoted by Cuza as the symbol of worldwide antisemitism and, later, of the "Aryans".[109] Also known as PND, this was Romania's first political group to represent thepetty bourgeoisie, using its votes to challenge the tri-decennialtwo-party system.[110]
Also in 1910, Iorga published some thirty new works, coveringgender history (Viața femeilor în trecutul românesc, "The Early Life of Romanian Women"),Romanian military history (Istoria armatei românești, "The History of the Romanian Military") and Stephen the Great's Orthodox profile (Ștefan cel Mare și mănăstirea Neamțului, "Stephen the Great andNeamț Monastery").[98] His academic activity also resulted in a lengthy conflict with art historianAlexandru Tzigara-Samurcaș, his godfather and former friend, sparked when Iorga, defending his own academic postings, objected to making Art History a separate subject at university.[111]
Reinstated into the academy and made a full member, he gave his May 1911 reception speech with aphilosophy of history subject (Două concepții istorice, "Two Historical Outlooks") and was introduced on the occasion by Xenopol.[112] In August of that year, he was again in Transylvania, atBlaj, where he paid homage to the Romanian-runASTRA Cultural Society.[113] He made his first contribution toRomanian drama with the play centered on, and named after, Michael the Brave (Mihai Viteazul), one of around twenty new titles for that year—alongside his collected aphorisms (Cugetări, "Musings") and a memoir of his life in culture (Oameni cari au fost, "People Who Are Gone").[114] In 1912, he published, among other works,Trei drame ("Three Dramatic Plays"), groupingMihai Viteazul, Învierea lui Ștefan cel Mare ("Stephen the Great's Resurrection") andUn domn pribeag ("An Outcast Prince").[115] Additionally, Iorga produced the first of several studies dealing withBalkangeopolitics in the charged context leading up to theBalkan Wars (România, vecinii săi și chestia Orientală, "Romania, Her Neighbors and theEastern Question").[113] He also made a noted contribution toethnography, withPortul popular românesc ("Romanian Folk Dress").[113][116]
In 1913, Iorga was in London for an International Congress of History, presenting a proposal for a new approach tomedievalism and a paper discussing the sociocultural effects of thefall of Constantinople on Moldavia and Wallachia.[113] He was later in theKingdom of Serbia, invited by theBelgrade Academy and presenting dissertations onRomania–Serbia relations and theOttoman decline.[113] Iorga was even called under arms in theSecond Balkan War, during which Romania fought alongside Serbia and against theKingdom of Bulgaria.[45][117][118] The subsequent taking ofSouthern Dobruja, supported by Maiorescu and the Conservatives, was seen by Iorga as callous andimperialistic.[119]
Iorga's interest in the Balkan crisis was illustrated by two of the forty books he put out that year:Istoria statelor balcanice ("The History of Balkan States") andNotele unui istoric cu privire la evenimentele din Balcani ("A Historian's Notes on the Balkan Events").[113] Noted among the others is the study focusing on the early 18th century reign of Wallachian PrinceConstantin Brâncoveanu (Viața și domnia lui Constantin vodă Brâncoveanu, "The Life and Rule of Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu").[113] That same year, Iorga issued the first series of hisDrum Drept monthly, later merged with theSămănătorist magazineRamuri.[113] Iorga managed to publish roughly as many new titles in 1914, the year when he received a RomanianBene Merenti distinction,[120] and inaugurated the internationalInstitute of South-East European Studies or ISSEE (founded through his efforts), with a lecture onAlbanian history.[121]
Again invited to Italy, he spoke at theAteneo Veneto on the relations between theRepublic of Venice and the Balkans,[113] and again aboutSettecento culture.[122] His attention was focused on theAlbanians andArbëreshë—Iorga soon discovered the oldest record ofwritten Albanian, the 1462Formula e pagëzimit.[123][124] In 1916, he founded the Bucharest-based academic journalRevista Istorică ("The Historical Review"), a Romanian equivalent forHistorische Zeitschrift andThe English Historical Review.[125]
Nicolae Iorga's involvement in political disputes and the cause of Romanian irredentism became a leading characteristic of his biography duringWorld War I. In 1915, while Romania was still keeping neutral, he sided with the dominant nationalist,Francophile and pro-Entente camp, urging for Romania to wage war on theCentral Powers as a means of obtaining Transylvania, Bukovina and other regions held by Austria-Hungary; to this goal, he became an active member of theLeague for the Cultural Unity of All Romanians [ro], and personally organized the large pro-Entente rallies in Bucharest.[126] A prudent anti-Austrian, Iorga adopted theinterventionist agenda with noted delay. His hesitation was ridiculed by hawkishEugen Lovinescu as pro-Transylvanian butanti-war,[127] costing Iorga his office in the Cultural League.[119] The historian later confessed that, like PremierIon I. C. Brătianu and the National Liberal cabinet, he had been waiting for a better moment to strike.[119] In the end, his "Ententist" efforts were closely supported by public figures such asAlexandru I. Lapedatu andIon Petrovici, as well as byTake Ionescu's National Action advocacy group.[128] Iorga was also introduced to the private circle of Romania's youngKing,Ferdinand I,[129] whom he found well-intentioned but weak-willed.[119] Iorga is sometimes credited as a tutor toCrown Prince Carol (future King Carol II),[130] who reportedly attended the Vălenii school.[131]
In his October 1915 polemic withVasile Sion, aGermanophile physician, Iorga at once justified suspicion of theGerman Romanians and praised those Romanians who were deserting theAustrian Army.[132] The Ententists' focus on Transylvania pitted them against the Poporanists, who deplored the Romanians of Bessarabia. That region, the Poporanist lobby argued, was being actively oppressed by theRussian Empire with the acquiescence of other Entente powers. Poporanist theoristGarabet Ibrăileanu, editor ofViața Românească review, later accused Iorga of not ever speaking in support of the Bessarabians.[133]
.jpg)
Political themes were again reflected in Nicolae Iorga's 1915 report to the academy (Dreptul la viață al statelor mici, "The Small States' Right to Exist") and in various of the 37 books he published that year:Istoria românilor din Ardeal și Ungaria ("The History of the Romanians in Transylvania and Hungary"),Politica austriacă față de Serbia ("The Austrian Policy on Serbia") etc.[126] Also in 1915, Iorga completed hiseconomic history treatise,Istoria comerțului la români ("The History of Commerce among the Romanians"), as well as a volume on literary history andRomanian philosophy,Faze sufletești și cărți reprezentative la români ("Spiritual Phases and Relevant Books of the Romanians").[126] Before spring 1916, he was commuting between Bucharest and Iași, substituting the ailing Xenopol at Iași University.[134] He also gave a final touch to the collectionStudii și documente ("Studies and Documents"), comprising his commentary on 30,000 individual documents and spread over 31 tomes.[126]
In late summer 1916, as Brătianu's government sealed analliance with the Entente, Iorga expressed his joy in a piece namedCeasul ("The Hour"): "the hour we have been expecting for over two centuries, for which we have been living our entire national life, for which we have been working and writing, fighting and thinking, has at long last arrived."[126] TheRomanian campaign initially went well, as theRomanian Army penetrated deep into Transylvania, defeated the Austro-Hungarian Army and briefly occupied much of the region. However, following a massive counterattack on multiple fronts by the Central Powers, the campaign ended in massive defeat, forcing the Romanian Army and the entire administration to evacuate the southern areas, Bucharest included, in front of a German-led invasion. Iorga's home in Vălenii de Munte was among the property items left behind and seized by the occupiers, and, according to Iorga's own claim, was vandalized by theDeutsches Heer.[135]
Still a member of Parliament, Iorga joined the authorities in the provisional capital of Iași, but opposed the plans of relocating government out of besieged Moldavia and into theRussian Republic. The argument was made in one of his parliamentary speeches, printed as a pamphlet and circulated among the military: "May the dogs of this world feast on us sooner than to find our happiness, tranquility and prosperity granted by the hostile foreigner."[136] He did however allow some of his notebooks to be stored in Moscow, along with theRomanian Treasure,[137] and sheltered his own family in Odessa.[45]
Iorga, who reissuedNeamul Românesc in Iași, resumed his activity at Iași University and began working on the war propaganda dailyRomânia,[138] while contributing to R.W. Seton-Watson's international sheetThe New Europe.[139] His contribution for that year included a number of brochures dedicated to maintaining morale among soldiers and civilians:Războiul actual și urmările lui în viața morală a omenirii ("The Current War and Its Effects on the Moral Life of Mankind"),Rolul inițiativei private în viața publică ("The Role of Private Initiative in Public Life"),Sfaturi și învățături pentru ostașii României ("Advices and Teachings for Romania's Soldiers") etc.[126] He also translated from English and printedMy Country, a patriotic essay by Ferdinand's wifeMarie of Edinburgh.[140]
The heightened sense of crisis prompted Iorga to issue appeals againstdefeatism and reissueNeamul Românesc from Iași, explaining: "I realized at once what moral use could come out of this for the thousands of discouraged and disillusioned people and against the traitors who were creeping up all over the place."[141] The goal was again reflected in his complementary lectures (where he discussed the "national principle") and a new set of works; these featured musings on the Allied commitment (Relations des Roumains avec les Alliès, "The Romanians' Relations with the Allies";Histoire des relations entre la France et les roumains, "The History of Relations between France and the Romanians"), the national character (Sufletul românesc, "The Romanian Soul") or columns against the loss of morale (Armistițiul, "The Armistice").[141] His ideal of moral regeneration through the war effort came with an endorsement ofland reform projects. Brătianu did not object to the idea, being however concerned that landowners would rebel. Iorga purportedly gave him a sarcastic reply: "just like you've been shooting the peasants to benefit the landowners, you'll then be shooting the landowners to benefit the peasants."[142]
In May 1918, Romania yielded to German demands and negotiated theBucharest Treaty, an effective armistice. The conditions were judged humiliating by Iorga ("Our ancestors would have preferred death");[135] he refused to regain his University of Bucharest chair.[143] The German authorities in Bucharest reacted by blacklisting the historian.[135]
Iorga only returned to Bucharest as Romania resumed its contacts with the Allies and theDeutsches Heer left the country. The political uncertainty ended by late autumn, when the Allied victory on theWestern Front sealed Germany's defeat. Celebrating theCompiègne Armistice, Iorga wrote: "There can be no greater day for the entire world".[135] Iorga however found that Bucharest had become "a filthy hell under lead skies."[45] His celebrated return also included the premiere ofÎnvierea lui Ștefan cel Mare at theNational Theater, which continued to host productions of his dramatic texts on a regular basis, until ca. 1936.[144]
He was reelected to the lower chamber in theJune 1918 election, becoming President of the body and, due to the rapid political developments, the first person to hold this office in the history ofGreater Romania.[135][145] The year also brought his participation alongside Allied envoys in the 360th anniversary of Michael the Brave's birth.[135] On 1 December, later celebrated asGreat Union Day, Iorga was participant in a seminal event of theunion with Transylvania, as one of several thousand Romanians who gathered in theGreat National Assembly ofAlba Iulia to demand union on the basis ofself-determination.[135] Despite these successes, Iorga was reportedly snubbed by King Ferdinand, and only left to rely on Brătianu for support.[119] Although he was not invited to attend theParis Peace Conference, he supported Queen Marie in her role of informal negotiator for Romania, and cemented his friendship with her.[146]
Shortly after the creation of Greater Romania, Iorga was focusing his public activity on exposingcollaborators of the wartime occupiers. The subject was central to a 1919 speech he held in front of the academy, where he obtained the public condemnation of actively Germanophile academicians, having earlier vetoed the membership of PoporanistConstantin Stere.[147] He failed at enlisting support for the purge of Germanophile professors from university, but the attempt rekindled the feud between him andAlexandru Tzigara-Samurcaș, who had served in the German-appointed administration.[148] The two scholars later took their battle to court[149] and, until Iorga's death, presented mutually exclusive takes on recent political history.[150] Although very much opposed to the imprisoned Germanophile poetTudor Arghezi, Iorga intervened on his behalf with Ferdinand.[151]
Following theNovember 1919 elections, Iorga became a member of theSenate, representing the Democratic Nationalists. Although he resented theuniversal male suffrage and viewed the adoption of electoral symbols as promoting political illiteracy, his PND came to use a logo representing two hands grasping (later replaced with a black-flag-and-sickle).[152] The elections seemed to do away with the old political system: Iorga's party was third, trailing behind two newcomers, the Transylvanian PNR and the PoporanistPeasants' Party (PȚ), with whom it formed a parliamentary bloc supporting anAlexandru Vaida-Voevod cabinet.[153] This union of former rivals also showed Iorga's growing suspicion of Brătianu, whom he feared intended to absorb the PND into the National Liberal Party, and accused of creating apolitical machine.[119] He and his disciples were circulating the termpoliticianism ("politicking"), expressing their disappointment for the new political context.[119][137]
Also in 1919, Iorga was elected chairman of the Cultural League, where he gave a speech on "the Romanians' rights to their national territory", was appointed head of the Historical Monuments' Commission, and met the French academic mission to Romania (Henri Mathias Berthelot,Charles Diehl,Emmanuel de Martonne andRaymond Poincaré, whom he greeted with a speech about the Romanians and theRomance peoples).[154] Together with French war hero Septime Gorceix, he also compiledAnthologie de la littérature roumaine ("An Anthology of Romanian Literature").[155] That year, the French state granted Iorga itsLegion of Honor.[156]
A founding president of the Association of Romanian Public Libraries,[157] Iorga was also tightening his links with young Transylvanian intellectuals: he took part in reorganizing theClujFranz Joseph University into a Romanian-speaking institution, meeting scholarsVasile Pârvan andVasile Bogrea (who welcomed him as "our protective genius"), and published a praise of the young traditionalist poetLucian Blaga.[158][159] He was in correspondence with intellectuals of all backgrounds, and, reportedly, the Romanian who was addressed the most letters in postal history.[145] Touring the larger conference circuit, he also wrote some 30 new books, among them:Histoire des roumains de la Peninsule des Balcans ("The History of Romanians from the Balkan Peninsula":Aromanians,Istro-Romanians andMegleno-Romanians),Istoria poporului francez ("The History of theFrench people"),Pentru sufletele celor ce muncesc ("For The Souls of Working Men"), andIstoria lui Mihai Viteazul ("The History of Michael the Brave").[160] Iorga was awarded the title of doctorhonoris causa by theUniversity of Strasbourg,[161] while his lectures on Albania, collected by poetLasgush Poradeci, becameBrève histoire de l'Albanie ("Concise History of Albania").[124] In Bucharest, Iorga received as a gift from his admirers a new Bucharest home on Bonaparte Highway (Iancu de Hunedoara Boulevard).[45][161]
Iorga's parliamentary bloc crumbled in late March 1920, when Ferdinand dissolved Parliament.[162][163] During thespring 1920 election, Iorga was invited by journalistSever Dan to run for a deputy seat in Transylvania, but eventually participated in and won the election of his earlier constituency,Covurlui County.[162] At that stage, Iorga was resenting the PNR for holding onto itsregional government of Transylvania,[119][137] and criticizing the PȚ for its claim to represent all Romanian peasants.[164] In March 1921, Iorga again turned on Stere. The latter had since been forgiven for his wartime stance, decorated for negotiating theBessarabian union, and elected on PȚ lists inSoroca County.[165] Iorga's speech, "Stere's Betrayal", turned attention back to Stere's Germanophilia (with quotes that were supposedly taken out of context) and demanded his invalidation—the subsequent debate was tense and emotional, but a new vote in Chamber confirmed Stere as Soroca deputy.[165]
The overall election victory belonged to the radical, eclectic and anti-PNRPeople's Party, led by war heroAlexandru Averescu.[166] Iorga, whose PND had formed the Federation of National Democracy with the PȚ and other parties,[162][167][168] was perplexed by Averescu'ssui generis appeal andpersonality cult, writing: "Everything [in that party] was about Averescu."[169] His partner Cuza and a portion of the PND were however supportive of this force, which threatened the stability of their vote.[167] Progressively after that moment, Iorga also began toning down his antisemitism, a process of the end of which Cuza left the Democratic Nationalists to establish the more militantNational-Christian Defense League (1923).[80][119][170] Iorga's suggestions that new arrivals from Transylvania and Bessarabia were becoming a clique also resulted in collisions with former friendOctavian Goga, who had joined up with Averescu's party.[165]
His publishing activity continued at a steady pace during that year, when he first presided over the Romanian School ofFontenay-aux-Roses;[171] he issued the two volumes ofHistoire des roumains et de leur civilisation ("The History of the Romanians and Their Civilization") and the three tomes ofIstoria românilor prin călătorii ("The History of the Romanians in Travels"), alongsideIdeea Daciei românești ("The Idea of a RomanianDacia"),Istoria Evului Mediu ("The History of the Middle Ages") and some other scholarly works.[161] His biographical studies were mainly focused on his nationalist predecessorMihail Kogălniceanu.[172] Iorga also resumed his writing for the stage, with two new drama plays: one centered on the Moldavian rulerConstantin Cantemir (Cantemir bătrânul, "Cantemir the Elder"), the other dedicated to, and named after, Brâncoveanu.[173] Centering his activity as a public speaker in Transylvanian cities, Iorga was also involved in projects to organize folk theaters throughout the country, through which he intended to spread a unified cultural message.[174] The year also brought his presence at the funeral of A. D. Xenopol.[174]
In 1921 and 1922, the Romanian scholar began lecturing abroad, most notably at theUniversity of Paris, while setting up a Romanian School in the French capital[174] and theAccademia di Romania ofRome.[175] In 1921, when his 50th birthday was celebrated at a national level, Iorga published a large number of volumes, including a bibliographic study on theWallachian uprising of 1821 and its leaderTudor Vladimirescu, an essay onpolitical history (Dezvoltarea așezămintelor politice, "The Development of Political Institutions"),Secretul culturii franceze ("The Secret ofFrench culture"),Războiul nostru în note zilnice ("Our War as Depicted in Daily Records") and the French-languageLes Latins de l'Orient ("The OrientalLatins").[174] His interest in Vladimirescu and his historical role was also apparent in an eponymous play, published with a volume of Iorga's selectedlyric poetry.[176]
In politics, Iorga began objecting to the National Liberals' hold on power, denouncing the1922 election as afraud.[177] He resumed his close cooperation with the PNR, briefly joining the party ranks in an attempt to counter this monopoly.[119][162][164][178] In 1923, he donated his Bonaparte Highway residence and its collection to the Ministry of Education, to be used by a cultural foundation and benefit university students.[179] Receiving anotherhonoris causa doctorate, from theUniversity of Lyon, Iorga went through an episode of reconciliation withTudor Arghezi, who addressed him public praise.[180] The two worked together onCuget Românesc newspaper, but were again at odds when Iorga began criticizingmodernist literature and "the world's spiritual crisis".[181]
Among his published works for that year wereFormes byzantines et réalités balcaniques ("Byzantine Forms and Balkan Realities"),Istoria presei românești ("The History of the Romanian Press"),L'Art populaire en Roumanie ("Folk Art in Romania"),Istoria artei medievale ("The History ofMedieval art") andNeamul românesc din Ardeal ("The Romanian Nation in Transylvania").[182] Iorga had by then finished several new theatrical plays:Moartea lui Dante ("The Death ofDante"),Molière se răzbună ("Molière Gets His Revenge"),Omul care ni trebuie ("The Man We Need") andSărmală, amicul poporului ("Sărmală, Friend of the People").[183]
A major moment in Iorga's European career took place in 1924, when he convened in Bucharest the first-everInternational Congress of Byzantine Studies, attended by some of the leading experts in the field.[179] He also began lecturing atRamiro Ortiz's Italian Institute in Bucharest.[184] Also then, Iorga was appointed Aggregate Professor by the University of Paris, received the honor of having foreign scholars lecturing at the Vălenii de Munte school, and published a number of scientific works and essays, such as:Brève histoire des croissades ("A Short History of the Crusades"),Cărți reprezentative din viața omenirii ("Books Significant for Mankind's Existence"),România pitorească ("Picturesque Romania") and a volume of addresses to theRomanian American community.[179] In 1925, when he was elected a member of theKraków Academy of Learning inPoland, Iorga gave conferences in various European countries, including Switzerland (where he spoke at aLeague of Nations assembly on the state ofRomania's minorities).[179] His bibliography for 1925 includes some 50 titles.[179] Iorga also increased his personal fortune, constructing villas in two resort towns: inSinaia (designer:Toma T. Socolescu) and, later,Mangalia.[185] More controversial still was his decision to use excess funds from the International Congress to improve his Vălenii printing press.[185]
Iorga was again abroad in 1926 and 1927, lecturing on various subjects at reunions in France, Italy, Switzerland, Denmark, Spain, Sweden and theKingdom of Yugoslavia, many of his works being by then translated into French, English, German and Italian.[186] His work for 1926 centered on the first of four volumes in his seriesEssai de synthèse de l'histoire de l'humanité ("Essay on the Synthesis of World History"), followed in 1927 byIstoria industriei la români ("The History of Industry among the Romanians"),Originea și sensul democrației ("The Origin and Sense of Democracy"), a study of Romanian contributions to the1877–1878 Russo-Turkish War (Războiul de independență, "The War of Independence") etc.[186] At home, the PND's merge into the PNR, accepted by Iorga, was stopped once the historian asked to become the resulting union's chief.[164] Acting PNR leaderIuliu Maniu successfully resisted this move, and the two parties split over the issue.[164]
For a while in 1927, Iorga was also local leader of thePan-European movement, created internationally byGraf Coudenhove-Kalergi.[187] Ahonoris causa doctor ofGenoa University, he opened his course at the University of Paris with lectures on France'sLevantine policy (1927) and, during 1928, was again invited to lecture in Spain, Sweden and Norway.[188] His published works for that time grouped the political essayEvoluția ideii de libertate ("The Evolution of Liberty as an Idea"), new historical studies and printed versions of his conferences:Istoria învățământului ("The History of Education"),Patru conferințe despre istoria Angliei ("Four Conferences on theHistory of England"),Țara latină cea mai îndepărtată din Europa: Portugalia ("The Remotest Latin Country in Europe: Portugal").[189] In addition to his Bucharest Faculty of History chair, Iorga also took over the History of Literature course hosted by the same institution (1928).[188]
Appointed the university'sRector in 1929, he followed up with new sets of conferences in France, Italy or Spain, and published some 40 new books on topics such asRomanian folklore andScandinavian history.[190] For a while, he also held the university's concise literature course, replacing ProfessorIoan Bianu.[191] Iorga's circle was joined by researcherConstantin C. Giurescu, son of historianConstantin Giurescu, who had been Iorga's rival a generation before.[192]
Iorga embarked on a longer journey during 1930: again lecturing in Paris during January, he left for Genoa and, from there, traveled to the United States, visiting some 20 cities, being greeted by the Romanian-American community and meeting with PresidentHerbert Hoover.[193] He was also an honored guest ofCase Western Reserve University, where he delivered a lecture in English.[124] Returning to attend the London International Congress of History, Iorga was also made ahonoris causa doctor by theUniversity of Oxford (with a reception speech likening him to bothLivy andPliny the Elder).[190] That year, he also set up theCasa Romena institute in Venice.[194] His new works includedAmerica și românii din America ("Romania and the Romanians of America") andPriveliști elvețiene ("Swiss Landscapes"), alongside the playsSfântul Francisc ("Saint Francis") andFiul cel pierdut ("The Lost Son").[195] In 1931–1932, he was made ahonoris causa doctor by four other universities (the University of Paris,La Sapienza,Stefan Batory,Comenius), was admitted into bothAccademia dei Lincei and theAccademia degli Arcadi, and published over 40 new titles per year.[196]
Iorga becameRomanian Premier in April 1931, upon the request of Carol II, who had returned from exile to replace his own son,Michael I. The authoritarian monarch had cemented this relationship by visiting the Vălenii de Munte establishment in July 1930.[197] A contemporary historian,Hugh Seton-Watson (son of R.W. Seton-Watson), documented Carol's confiscation of agrarian politics for his own benefit, noting: "Professor Iorga's immense vanity delivered him into the king's hands."[198] Iorga's imprudent ambition is mentioned by cultural historianZ. Ornea, who also counts Iorga among those who had already opposed Carol's invalidation.[119] In short while, Iorga's support for the controversial monarch resulted in his inevitable break with the PNR and PȚ. Their agrarian union, theNational Peasants' Party (PNȚ), took distance from Carol's policies, whereas Iorga prioritized his "Carlist"monarchism.[119][199] Iorga wilfully rejected PNȚ policies. There was a running personal rivalry between him and PNȚ leader Iuliu Maniu,[119] even though Iorga had on his side Maniu's own brother, lawyer Cassiu Maniu.[159]
Once confirmed on the throne, Carol experimented withtechnocracy, borrowing professionals from various political groups, and closely linking Iorga with Internal Affairs MinisterConstantin Argetoianu.[119][200] Iorga survived theelection of June, in which he led a National Union coalition, with support from his rivals, the National Liberals.[201] During his short term, he traveled throughout the country, visiting around 40 cities and towns,[196] and was notably on a state visit to France, being received by Prime MinisterAristide Briand and by Briand's allyAndré Tardieu.[202] In recognition of his merits as anAlbanologist, theAlbanian Kingdom granted Iorga property inSarandë town, on which the scholar created aRomanian Archeological Institute.[124][203]
The backdrop to Iorga's mandate was Carol's conflict with theIron Guard, an increasingly popularfascist organization. In March 1932, Iorga signed a decree outlawing the movement, the beginning of his clash with the Guard's founderCorneliu Zelea Codreanu.[204] At the same time, his neweducation law enhancing university autonomy, for which Iorga had been campaigning since the 1920s, was openly challenged as unrealistic by fellow scholarFlorian Ștefănescu-Goangă, who noted that it only encouraged political agitators to place themselves outside the state.[205] Also holding the office of Education Minister, he allowed auditing students to attend university lectures without holding aRomanian Baccalaureate degree.[206] Reserving praise for the home-grownyouth movementMicii Dorobanți,[207] he was also an official backer ofRomanian Scouting.[208] In addition, Iorga's time in office brought the creation of another popular summer school, in the tourist resort ofBalcic,Southern Dobruja.[140]
The major issue facing Iorga was the economic crisis, part of theGreat Depression, and he was largely unsuccessful in tackling it.[119][209] To the detriment of financial markets, the cabinet tried to implementdebt relief for bankrupt land cultivators,[210] and signed an agreement with Argentina, another exporter of agricultural produce, to try to limitdeflation.[211] The mishandling of economic affairs made the historian a target of derision and indignation among the general public.[212] The reduction ofdeficit with pay cuts for all state employees ("sacrificial curves") or selective layoffs was particularly dramatic, leading to widespread disillusionment among the middle class, which only increased grassroots support for the Iron Guard.[119][213] Other controversial aspects were his alleged favoritism andnepotism: perceived as the central figure of an academic clique, Iorga helpedGheorghe Bogdan-Duică's family and Pârvan, promoted young historianAndrei Oțetea, and made his son in law Colonel Chirescu (m. Florica Iorga in 1918) a Prefect ofStorojineț County.[214] His premiership also evidenced the growing tensions between the PND in Bucharest and its former allies in Transylvania: Iorga arrived to power after rumors of a PNȚ "Transylvanian conspiracy", and his cabinet included no Romanian Transylvanian politicians.[215] It was however open to members of theSaxon community, and Iorga himself created a new government position forethnic minority affairs.[216]
Nicolae Iorga presented his cabinet's resignation in May 1932, returning to academic life. This came after an understanding between Carol II and a rightist PNȚ faction, who took over withAlexandru Vaida-Voevod as Premier.[217] The PND, running in elections under a square-in-square logo (回),[218] was rapidly becoming a minor force in Romanian politics. It survived through alliances with the National Liberals or with Averescu, while Argetoianu left it to establish an equally small agrarian group.[219] Iorga concentrated on redacting memoirs, published asSupt trei regi ("Under Three Kings"), whereby he intended to counter political hostility.[119][220] He also created the Museum of Sacred Art, housed by theCrețulescu Palace.[221]
The political conflicts were by then reflected in Iorga's academic life: Iorga was becoming strongly opposed to a new generation of professional historians, which included Giurescu the younger,P. P. Panaitescu andGheorghe Brătianu. At the core, it was a scientific dispute: all three historians, grouped around the newRevista Istorică Română, found Iorga's studies to be speculative, politicized or needlesslydidactic in their conclusions.[222] The political discrepancy was highlighted by the more radical support these academics were directing toward King Carol II.[223] In later years, Iorga also feuded with his Transylvanian discipleLucian Blaga, trying in vain to block Blaga's reception to the academy over differences in philosophy and literary preference.[224] On Blaga's side, the quarrel involved philologist and civil servantBazil Munteanu; his correspondence with Blaga features hostile remarks about Iorga's "vulgarity" and cultural politics.[225]
On his way to a pan-European congress, Iorga stirred further controversy by attending, in Rome, the tenth anniversary of the1922 March, celebratingItalian Fascism.[226] He resumed his participation in conference cycles during 1933, revisiting France, as well as taking back his position at the University of Bucharest; he published another 37 books and, in August 1933, attended the History Congress inWarsaw.[196] His new project was a cultural version of thePolish–Romanian alliance, working together with poet-diplomatAron Cotruș to increase awareness of his country, and publishing his own work in the Polish press.[227]
Early in 1934, Iorga issued a condemnation of the Iron Guard, following the assassination of National Liberal PremierIon G. Duca by aLegionary death squad.[228] However, during the subsequent police round-ups of Guardist activists, Iorga intervened for the release of fascist philosopherNae Ionescu,[229] and still invited Guardist poetRadu Gyr to lecture at Vălenii.[230] At the same time, he was again focusing his attention on the condemnation of modernists and the poetry of Arghezi, first with the overviewIstoria literaturii românești contemporane ("History of Contemporary Romanian Literature"), then with his press polemics.[130][231] Also in 1934, Iorga also published a book which coined his image of Romania'searly modern culture—Byzance après Byzance ("Byzantium after Byzantium"), alongside the three-volumeHistoire de la vie byzantine ("A History of Byzantine Life").[232] He followed up with a volume of memoirsOrizonturile mele. O viață de om așa cum a fost ("My Horizons. The Life of a Man as It Was"),[119][233] while inaugurating his contribution to Romania's official cultural magazine,Revista Fundațiilor Regale.[234]
Iorga again toured Europe in 1935, and, upon his return to Romania, gave a new set of conferences under the auspices of the Cultural League,[235] inviting scholarFranz Babinger to lecture at the ISSEE.[236] Again in Iași, the historian participated in a special celebration of 18th century Moldavian Prince andEnlightenment thinkerDimitrie Cantemir, whose remains had been retrieved from the Soviet Union to be reburied in the Romanian city.[235] Among the books Iorga published in 1935 are a new version ofIstoria lui Mihai Viteazul, alongsideOriginalitatea lui Dimitrie Cantemir ("Dimitrie Cantemir's Originality"),Comemorarea unirii Ardealului ("The Commemoration of Transylvania's Union") and two volumes of hisMemorii ("Memoirs").[235] His additional essays covered the careers of 17th century intellectuals (Anthim the Iberian,Axinte Uricariul,Constantin Cantacuzino).[237] Also in 1935, Iorga and his daughter Liliana co-authored a Bucharestguide book.[238]
Early in 1936, Nicolae Iorga was again lecturing at the University of Paris, and gave an additional conference at theSociété des études historiques, before hosting the Bucharest session of the International Committee of Historians.[235] He was also in the Netherlands, with a lecture on Byzantinesocial history:L'Homme byzantin ("Byzantine Man").[239] Upon his return, wishing to renew his campaign against the modernists, Iorga foundedCuget Clar, the neo-Sămănătorist magazine.[240]
By that moment in time, he was publicly voicing his concern that Transylvania was a target of expansion forRegency-period Hungary, while cautioning the public againstNazi Germany and itsrevanchism.[241] Similarly, he was concerned about the Soviet threat and the fate of Romanians in the Soviet Union, working closely with the Transnistriananti-communist refugeeNichita Smochină.[242] Such worries were notably expressed by Iorga in a series ofBucharest Radio broadcasts,Sfaturi pe întuneric ("Advice at Dark", soon after published in brochure format).[243] He completed several new volumes, among which wereDovezi despre conștiința originii românilor ("Evidence on the ConsciousOrigin of the Romanians"), the polemical essayLupta mea contra prostiei ("My Fight against Stupidity"), and the first two volumes of the long plannedIstoria românilor.[244]
Nicolae Iorga was officially honored in 1937, when Carol II inaugurated a Bucharest Museum of World History, placed under the ISSEE director's presidency.[245] However, the publicized death threats he received from the Iron Guard eventually prompted Iorga to retire from his university position.[246] He withdrew to Vălenii de Munte, but was still active on the academic scene, lecturing on "the development of the human spirit" at the World History Institute, and being received as a corresponding member into Chile'sAcademy of History.[246] He also mentored German biographerEugen Wolbe, who collected data on the Romanian kings.[150] This contribution was doubled by a steady participation in the country's political life. Iorga attended the Cultural League congress in Iași, where he openly demanded for the Iron Guard to be outlawed on the grounds that it served Nazi interests, and discussed the threat of war in his speeches at Vălenii de Munte and his Radio conferences.[247] With hisNeamul Românesc disciple N. Georgescu-Cocoș, he was also continuing his fight against modernism, inspiring a special Romanian Academy report on the modernists' "pornography".[248]
The early months of 1938 saw Nicolae Iorga joining thenational unity government ofMiron Cristea, formed by Carol II's right-wing power base.[249] ACrown Councillor, he then threw his reluctant support behind theNational Renaissance Front, created by Carol II as the driving force of a pro-fascist but anti-Guardone-party state (see1938 Constitution of Romania).[250] Iorga was upset by the imposition of uniforms on all public officials, calling it "tyrannical", and privately ridiculed the new constitutional regime's architects, but he eventually complied to the changes.[251] In April, Iorga was also at the center of a scandal which resulted in Codreanu's arrest and eventualextrajudicial killing. By then, the historian had attacked the Guard's policy of setting up small commercial enterprises and charity ventures. This prompted Codreanu to address him an open letter, which accused Iorga of being dishonest.[252] PremierArmand Călinescu, who had already ordered a clampdown on Guardist activities, seized Iorga's demand for satisfaction as an opportunity, ordering Carol's rival to be tried for libel—the preamble to an extended trial on grounds of conspiracy.[253] An unexpected consequence of this move was the protest resignation of GeneralIon Antonescu from the office ofDefense Minister.[254]
Iorga himself refused to attend the trial; in letters he addressed to the judges, he asked the count of libel to be withdrawn, and advised that Codreanu should follow theinsanity defense on the other accusations.[255] Iorga's attention then moved to other activities: he was Romanian Commissioner for the 1938Venice Biennale,[256] and supportive of the effort to establish a Romanian school of genealogists.[257]
In 1939, as the Guard's campaign of retribution had degenerated intoterrorism, Iorga used the Senate tribune to address the issue and demand measures to curb the violence.[258] He was absent for part of the year, again lecturing in Paris.[259] Steadily publishing new volumes ofIstoria românilor, he also completed work on several other books: in 1938,Întru apărarea graniței de Apus ("For the Defense of the Western Frontier"),Cugetare și faptă germană ("German Thought and Action"),Hotare și spații naționale ("National Borders and Spaces"); in 1939Istoria Bucureștilor ("History of Bucharest"),Discursuri parlamentare ("Parliamentary Addresses"),Istoria universală văzută prin literatură ("World History as Seen through Literature"),Naționaliști și frontiere ("Nationalists and Frontiers"),Stări sufletești și războaie ("Spiritual States and Wars"),Toate poeziile lui N. Iorga ("N. Iorga's Complete Poetry") and two new volumes ofMemorii.[258] Also in 1938, Iorga inaugurated the open-air theater of Vălenii de Munte with one of his own dramatic texts,Răzbunarea pământului ("The Earth's Revenge").[246] The total number of titles he presented for publishing in 1939 is 45, including a play aboutChristina of Sweden (Regele Cristina, "King C[h]ristina")[260] and an anti-war cycle of poems.[17] Some of hisAnglophile essays were printed byMihail Fărcășanu inRumanian Quarterly, which sought to preserveAnglo–Romanian cooperation.[261]
Iorga was again Romanian Commissioner of the Venice Biennale in 1940.[256] The accelerated political developments led him to focus on his activities as a militant and journalist. His output for 1940 included a large number of conferences and articles dedicated to the preservation of Greater Romania's borders and the anti-Guardist cause:Semnul lui Cain ("TheMark of Cain"),Ignoranța stăpâna lumii ("Ignorance, Mistress of the World"),Drumeț în calea lupilor ("A Wayfarer Facing Wolves") etc.[260] Iorga was troubled by the outbreak ofWorld War II and saddened by thefall of France, events which formed the basis of his essayAmintiri din locurile tragediilor actuale ("Recollections from the Current Scenes of a Tragedy").[260] He was also working on a version ofPrometheus Bound, a tragedy which probably reflected his concern about Romania, her allies, and the uncertain political future.[17]
The year 1940 saw the collapse of Carol II's regime. The unexpectedcession of Bessarabia to the Soviets shocked Romanian society and greatly angered Iorga.[165][262] At the two sessions of the Crown Council held on 27 June, he was one of six (out of 21) members to reject the Soviet ultimatum demanding Bessarabia's handover, instead calling vehemently for armed resistance.[165] Later, the Nazi-mediatedSecond Vienna Award madeNorthern Transylvania a part of Hungary. This loss sparked a political and moral crisis, eventually leading to the establishment of aNational Legionary State with Ion Antonescu asConducător and the Iron Guard as a governing political force. In the wake of this reshuffling, Iorga decided to close down hisNeamul Românesc, explaining: "When a defeat is registered, the flag is not surrendered, but its fabric is wrapped around the heart. The heart of our struggle was the national cultural idea."[260] Perceived as Codreanu's murderer, he received renewed threats from the Iron Guard, includinghate mail, attacks in the movement's press (Buna Vestire andPorunca Vremii)[263] and tirades from the Guardist section in Vălenii.[264] He further antagonized the new government by stating his attachment to the abdicated royal.[265]
Nicolae Iorga was forced out of Bucharest (where he owned a new home inDorobanți quarter)[45] and Vălenii de Munte by themassive earthquake of November. He then moved to Sinaia, where he gave the finishing touches to his bookIstoriologia umană ("HumanHistoriology").[266] He was kidnapped by a Guardist squad, the best-known member of which was agricultural engineer Traian Boeru,[267] on the afternoon of 27 November, and killed in the vicinity ofStrejnic (some distance from the city ofPloiești). He was shot at some nine times in all, with 7.65 mm and 6.35 mm handguns.[268] Iorga's killing is often mentioned in tandem with that of agrarian politicianVirgil Madgearu, kidnapped and murdered by the Guardists on the same night, and with theJilava massacre (during which Carol II's administrative apparatus was decimated).[269] These acts of retribution, placed in connection with the discovery and reburial of Codreanu's remains, were carried out independently by the Guard, and enhanced tensions between it and Antonescu.[270]
Iorga's death caused much consternation among the general public, and was received with particular concern by the academic community. Forty-seven universities worldwide flew their flags at half-staff.[268] A funeral speech was delivered by the exiled French historianHenri Focillon, from New York City, calling Iorga "one of those legendary personalities planted, for eternity, in the soil of a country and the history of human intelligence."[268] At home, the Iron Guard banned all public mourning, excepting an obituary inUniversul daily and a ceremony hosted by the Romanian Academy.[271] The final oration was delivered by philosopherConstantin Rădulescu-Motru, who noted, in terms akin to those used by Focillon, that the murdered scientist had stood for "our nation's intellectual prowess", "the full cleverness and originality of the Romanian genius".[272]
Iorga's remains were buried atBellu, in Bucharest, on the same day as Madgearu's funeral—the attendants, who included some of the surviving interwar politicians and foreign diplomats, defied the Guard's ban with their presence.[273] Iorga's last texts, recovered by his young discipleG. Brătescu, were kept by literary criticȘerban Cioculescu and published at a later date.[274]Gheorghe Brătianu later took over Iorga's position at the South-East Europe Institute[275] and the Institute of World History (known asNicolae Iorga Institute from 1941).[245]
Nicolae Iorga's views on society and politics stood at the meeting point oftraditional conservatism,ethnic nationalism andnational conservatism. This fusion is identified by political scientistIoan Stanomir as a mutation ofJunimea's ideology, running contrary toTitu Maiorescu'sliberal conservatism, but resonating with the ideology of Romania'snational poet,Mihai Eminescu.[276] A maverickJunimist, Eminescu added to the conservative vision of his contemporaries an intense nationalism withreactionary,racist andxenophobic tinges, for which he received posthumous attention in Iorga's lifetime.[80][277] Identified by researcher Ioana Both as a source for the "Eminescu myth", Iorga saw in him the poet of "healthy race" ideas and the "integral expression of the Romanian soul", rather than a melancholy artist.[278] This ideological source shaped the attitudes of manySămănătorists, erodingJunimea's influence and redefining Romanian conservatism for the space of one generation.[279] A definition provided by political scientistJohn Hutchinson lists Iorga among those who embraced "cultural nationalism", which rejected modernization, as opposed to "political nationalism", which sought to modernize the nation-state.[280]
Borrowing Maiorescu's theory about howWesternization had come to Romania as "forms without concept" (meaning that some modern customs had been forced on top of local traditions), Iorga likewise aimed it against theliberal establishment, but gave it a more radical expression.[281] A significant point of continuity betweenJunimism and Iorga was the notion of two "positive" social classes, both opposed to thebourgeoisie: the lower class, represented by the peasantry, and the aristocratic class ofboyars.[282] Like Maiorescu, Iorga attacked thecentralizing1866 Constitution, to which he opposed a statehood based on "organic" growth, with self-aware local communities as a source of legitimacy.[283] Also resonating with theJunimist club was Iorga's vision of theFrench Revolution—according to French authorRené Girault, the Romanian was an "excellent connaisseur" of this particular era.[284] The revolutionary experience was, in Iorga's view, traumatic, while its liberal orJacobin inheritors wereapostates disturbing the traditional equilibrium.[285] His response to the Jacobin model was an Anglophile andTocquevillian position, favoring theBritish constitutional system and praising theAmerican Revolution as the positive example ofnation-building.[286]
LikeJunimism, Iorga's conservatism did not generally rely on religion. Asecularist among the traditionalists, he did not attach a special meaning toChristian ethics, and, praising the creative force of man, sawasceticism as a negative phenomenon.[287] However, he strongly identified theRomanian Orthodox Church and itshesychasm with the Romanian psyche, marginalizing theLatin Church and theTransylvanian School.[106] In rejecting pureindividualism, Iorga also reacted against the modern reverence towardAthenian democracy or theProtestant Reformation, giving more positive appraisals to other community models:Sparta,Macedonia, theItalian city-states.[288] As argued by political scientist Mihaela Czobor-Lupp, his was an "alternative" to therationalist perspective, and a counterweight toMax Weber's study onThe Protestant Ethic.[289] His theories identified the people as a "natural entity [with] its own organic life", and sometimes justified theright of conquest when new civilizations toppleddecadent ones—the conflict, he argued, was betweenHeracles andTrimalchio.[290] In his private and public life, Iorga's conservatism also came withsexist remarks: like Maiorescu, Iorga believed that women only had a talent for nurturing and assisting male protagonists in public affairs.[291]
Despite the various similarities, Iorga and theJunimist loyalists became political enemies. Early on, Maiorescu would respond to his letters with disdain, while novelistIoan Slavici called his irredentist projects "nonsense".[292] Writing in 1920,Convorbiri Critice editorMihail Dragomirescu accused thoseJunimists who followed Iorga's "chauvinist nationalism" of having forgotten that Maiorescu'sart for art's sake principles "substituted the political criterion of patriotism for the criterion of truth."[293] The conflict between Iorga and Dragomirescu was also personal, and, as reported by Iorga's discipleAlexandru Lapedatu, even caused the two to physically assault each other.[294]
Iorga's brand of national conservatism was more successful than its more conventional predecessor: while theConservative Party disappeared from the public eye after 1918, Iorga's more nationalistic interpretation was still considered relevant in the 1930s. One of the last Conservative leaders,Nicolae Filipescu, even pondered forging an alliance with the historian, in an attempt to save the group for dissolution.[295] According to Ioan Stanomir, Iorga and fellow historianIoan C. Filitti were together responsible for "the most memorable pages" in Romanian conservative theory for "the 1928–1938 decade".[296] In Stanomir's assessment, this last period of Iorga's activity also implied a move toward the main sources of traditional conservatism, bringing Iorga closer to the line of thought represented byEdmund Burke,Thomas Jefferson orMihail Kogălniceanu, and away from that of Eminescu.[297]
The final years brought Iorga's stark condemnation of allstatism, from theabsolute monarchy to modernstate capitalism, accompanied by adystopian perspective on industrialization as the end of the individual.[298] Like Eminescu, Iorga was essentially a conservativeanti-capitalist and economiccorporatist, who confessed his admiration for pre-modernguilds.[299] In Stanomir's account, these ideals, alongside the dreams of a "ghostly" organic identity, anti-ideologicalmonarchism and national regeneration, brought Iorga into Carol II's camp.[300] Another factor was the rise of Nazi Germany, which, Iorga thought, could only be met by national unity under a powerful ruler.[259] The realignment came with contradictory statements on Iorga's part, such as when, in 1939, he publicly described Carol'sHohenzollern-Sigmaringen house as having usurped the throne ofDomnitorAlexander John I, statements which enraged monarchist writerGala Galaction.[301]
Iorga found himself in Kogălniceanu's conservative statement, "civilization stops when revolutions begin",[302] being especially critical ofcommunist revolution. He described theSoviet experiment as a "caricature" of the Jacobin age[284] and communist leaderJoseph Stalin as a dangerous usurper.[303] Iorga found the smallRomanian Communist Party an amusement and, even though he expressed alarm for its terrorist tendencies and its "foreign" nature, disliked the state's use of brutal methods against its members.[304]
A major and controversial component of Iorga's political vision, present throughout most of his career, was hisantisemitism. Cultural historianWilliam O. Oldson notes that Iorga's "amazing list of accomplishments" in other fields helped give antisemitism "an irresistible panache" in Romania, particularly since Iorga shared in the belief that all good nationalists were antisemites.[305] His ideas on the "Jewish Question" were frequently supported by violent language, which left traces on his journalist activity (even though, Oldson notes, he did not resort to racial slurs).[306] In 1901, when he blocked Jewish linguistLazăr Șăineanu from obtaining an academic position, Iorga wrote that Jews had a "passion for high praise and multiple earnings";[307] three years later, inSămănătorul, he argued that Iași was polluted by the "dirty business" of a "heathen and hostile" community.[80][308] Similar accusations were stated, in his travel accounts, where he even justifiedpogroms againstBukovinian andBessarabian Jews.[80]
The PND, coming from the same ideological family asPoland'sRoman Dmowski and theNational Democracy movement,[309] proclaimed that local Jews were suffocating the Romanian middle class and needed to be expelled, using slogans such asEvreii la Palestina ("The Jews toPalestine").[310] The program was criticized from early on byConstantin Rădulescu-Motru, Iorga's fellow nationalist and post-Junimist, who noted that the economic rationale behind it was unsound.[311] According to Oldson, the claim that Jews were economic "vampires" was entirely unsubstantiated, even hypocritical: "[Iorga was] a Moldavian and fully aware of the complex causes of that province's poverty".[306]
Iorga's personal conservative outlook, passed into the party doctrines, also implied a claim that the Jews were agents of rebellion against political and cultural authority.[312] He had nevertheless opted forreligious-cultural overracial antisemitism, believing that, at the core of civilization, there was a conflict betweenChristian values and Judaism.[313] He also suggested that Romanian antisemitism was conjectural and defensive,segregationist rather than destructive, and repeatedly argued that xenophobia was not in the national character—ideas paraphrased by Oldson as a "humane antisemitism".[314] Oldson also refers to a paradox in the attitude of Iorga (andBogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu before him): "A self-consciously proclaimed esteem for a minuscule [Jewish] elite (such as writerGheorghe Kernbach),[315] then, went hand in hand with the utmost contempt and condescension for the bulk of Romanian Jewry."[316]
Reviewing the impact of such ideas, literary criticWilliam Totok referred toNeamul Românesc as "the most important platform of antisemitic agitation prior to World War I."[52] Habitually, the magazine attacked the Jewish-owned papersAdevărul andDimineața, while claiming to document the "Judaization" of Romania's intellectual environments.[317] It also specifically targeted Romanians who were friendly with Jews, one such case being that of writerIon Luca Caragiale (attacked for his contacts with Șăineanu, dramatistRonetti Roman and other Jews).[318][319] Caragiale replied with noted irony, calling Iorga "tall but crooked".[225][319]
Nicolae Iorga and A. C. Cuza's modern revival of antisemitism, together with the core themes ofSămănătorul propaganda, were paradoxical sources of inspiration for theIron Guard in its early years.[80][320] However, with theinterwar period came a relaxation of Iorga's own antisemitic discourse, when he described Jews as potentially loyal to "the legitimate masters of the land".[321] He recorded being touched by his warm reception among theRomanian American Jewish community in 1930,[322] and, after 1934, published his work with theAdevărul group.[323] As Cuza himself began censuring this more tolerant discourse, Iorga even voiced his admiration for the Jewish mecenaAristide Blank.[324] As noted by researcherGeorge Voicu, the anti-"Judaization" discourse of the far right was by then turning against Iorga.[325] Also, as Prime Minister, Nicolae Iorga did not promote antisemitic measures.[326] Later in life, Iorga made the occasional return to antisemitic rhetoric: in 1937–1938, he alleged that Jews were pressuring Romanians into leaving the country, and described the necessity of "delousing" Romania by colonizing Romanian Jews elsewhere.[80][327]
Despite his shifting attitude towards the Romanian Jewry, he opposed theZionist movement throughout his life.[328]
Iorga's changing sentiment flowed between the extremes ofFrancophilia andFrancophobia. The Romanian scholar explained in detail his dislike for theThird Republic's social and political landscape. He recalled that, in the 1890s, he had been shocked by the irreverence andcosmopolitanism of French student society.[329] In a 1906 speech, Iorga also noted thatFrancophone elites and urbandiglossia were slowly destroying the country's social fiber, by creating a language gap between classes.[330] Also,Neamul Românesc showed a preference forAction Française and theFrench reactionary right in their conflict with the Third Republic.[331] Shortly after the beginning of World War I, during theBattle of the Frontiers, Iorga publicized his renewed love for France, claiming that she was the only belligerent engaged in a purelydefensive war; in the name ofPan-Latinism, he later chided Spain forkeeping neutral.[332]
Iorga's coverage of European culture and continental affairs also opened bridges with other cultural areas, particularly so during the interwar. By that time, historianLucian Boia notes, he was seeing Europe as a community of nations, and, "in his own way", was rejecting isolationism or "primitive" xenophobia.[333] According to academic Francesco Guida, Iorga's political and scholarly activities displayed a "great openness towards the outside world", even as, in 1930s France, public opinion was turning against him.[334] Instead, Iorga affirmed himself as a promoter ofEnglish culture, making noted efforts at promoting awareness of its defining traits among the Romanian public.[335][336] At the time, although flirting withPan-European nationalism, he stood in contrast with the Transylvanian-bornIuliu Maniu for displaying no sympathy towardDanubian Confederation projects, believing them to concealHungary'srevanchism.[202]
Disenchanted withGerman culture after the shock of World War I,[337] Iorga also had strong views onAdolf Hitler,Nazi Germany andNazism in general, taking in view their contempt for theVersailles system, but also their repressive politics. He summarized this inSfaturi pe întuneric: "Beware my people for great dangers are stalking you ... Borders are attacked, gutted, destroyed, gulped up. ... There reemerges, in its cruelest form, the old theory that small states have no right to independence, that they fall withinliving spaces ... I cannot forget the past and I cannot reach an agreement with Hitler's dictatorship, being a man who cherishes freedom of thought".[244] He later called Germany'sBohemia Protectorate a "Behemoth", referring to its annexation as a "prehistoric" act.[261]
His anti-war texts of 1939 replied to claims that a new armed conflict would usher in national "vitality", and, during theSeptember Campaign, expressed solidarity with Poland—Iorga's Polonophila was even noted by the Nazis, causing more frictions between Berlin and Bucharest.[17] The conservative Iorga was however inclined to sympathize with other forms oftotalitarianism orcorporatism, and, since the 1920s, viewedItalian Fascism with some respect.[338] Italian agents of influence hesitated between Iorga and the Iron Guard, but theFascist International sought to include Iorga among its Romanian patrons;[339] Iorga himself expressed regret that the Italian regime was primarily an ally of revanchist Hungary, but applauded the1935 invasion of Ethiopia, and, to the alarm of France, repeatedly argued that an Italian alliance was more secure than theLittle Entente.[340]
Nicolae Iorga's bitterness about Romanian geopolitical disadvantages was encoded in his oft-quoted remark about the country only having two peaceful borders: one withSerbia, the other with theBlack Sea.[341] Despite these views, he endorsed the idea ofminority rights in Greater Romania, attempting to find common ground with theHungarian-Romanian community.[342] In addition to promoting inclusive action in government, Iorga declared himself against turning Hungarians andTransylvanian Saxons into "pharisaic" Romanians by coercing them to adopt the Romanian tradition.[216] In 1936, he even spoke in favor ofArmenian Hungarian archeologistMárton Roska, prosecuted in Romania for challenging official theses about Transylvania, arguing that Transylvania "cannot be defended with prison sentences".[343] Iorga was also noted for fostering the academic career ofEufrosina Dvoichenko-Markov, one of the fewRussian-Romanian researchers of the interwar period.[344] He was however skeptical about theUkrainian identity and rejected the idea of an independentUkraine on Romania's border, debating the issues with ethnographerZamfir Arbore.[345]
Various of Iorga's tracts speak in favor of a common background uniting the diverse nations of theBalkans. Bulgarian historianMaria Todorova suggests that, unlike many of his predecessors, Iorga was not alarmed Romania being perceived as a Balkan country, and did not attach a negative connotation to this affiliation (even though, she notes, Iorga explicitly placed the northern limit of the Balkans on theDanube, just south of Wallachia).[346] In the 1930s, the Romanian scholar spoke with respect about all the Balkan peoples, but claimed that Balkan statehood was "Oriental" and underdeveloped.[124]
Iorga the European scholar has drawn comparisons with figures such asVoltaire,[130][347]Jules Michelet,[348]Leopold von Ranke[349] andClaudio Sánchez-Albornoz.[309] Having achieved fluency in some 12 foreign languages,[350] he was an exceptionally prolific author: according to his biographer Barbu Theodorescu, the total of his published contributions, both volumes and brochures, was 1,359.[351] His work in documenting Romania's historical past could reach an unprecedented intensity, one such exceptional moment being a 1903 study trip toTârgu Jiu, a three-day interval during which he copied and summarized 320 individual documents, covering the period 1501–1833.[69] His mentor and rival Xenopol was among the first voices to discuss his genius, his 1911 Academy speech in honor of Nicolae Iorga making special note of his "absolutely extraordinary memory" and his creative energy, and concluding: "one asks himself in wonder how a brain was able to conceive of so many things and a hand was able to record them".[112] In 1940, Rădulescu-Motru likewise argued that Iorga had been "a creator ... of unparalleled fecundity",[352] whileEnciclopedia Cugetarea deemed him the greatest-ever mind in Romania.[130][353] According to literary historianGeorge Călinescu, Iorga's "huge" and "monstrously" comprehensive research, leaving no other historian "the joy of adding something", was matched by the everyday persona, a "hero of the ages".[347]
The level of Iorga's productivity and the quality of his historical writing were also highlighted by more modern researchers. Literary historianOvid Crohmălniceanu opined that Iorga's scientific work was one of the "illustrious accomplishments" of the interwar years, on par withConstantin Brâncuși's sculptures andGeorge Enescu's music.[354] Romanian historian of cultureAlexandru Zub finds that Iorga's is "surely the richest opus coming from the 20th century",[355] while Maria Todorova calls Iorga "Romania's greatest historian", adding "at least in terms of the size of his opus and his influence both at home and abroad".[346] According to philosopher Liviu Bordaș, Iorga's main topic of interest, the relation between Romania and theEastern world, was exhaustively covered: "nothing escaped this sacred monster's attention: Iorga had read everything."[356]
The definition of history followed by Iorga was specified in his 1894Despre concepția actuală a istoriei și geneza ei: "History is the systematic exposition, free from all unrelated purpose, of facts irrespective of their nature, methodically acquired, through which human activity manifested itself, irrespective of place and time."[41] WithIoan Bogdan andDimitrie Onciul, young Iorga was considered an exponent of the "new" or "critical" school, with whichJunimism tackledRomantic nationalism in the name of objectivity.[357] However, even at that stage, Iorga's ideas accommodated a belief that history needed to be written with a "poetic talent" that would make one "relive" the past.[358]
By 1902, he had changed his approach inhistoriography to include and illustrate his belief in emotional attachment as a positive value of cultural nationalism. He would speak of historians as "elders of [their] nation",[359] and dismissedacademic specialization as a "blindfold".[360] Reflecting back on the transition, Iorga himself stated: "The love for the past, for great figures of energy and sincerity, ... the exact contrary of tendencies I had found existed among my contemporaries, had gripped me and, added to my political preoccupations, such awakenings served me, when it came to criticizing things present, more than any argument that is abstract, logical in nature."[69] The point of his research, Iorga explained in 1922, was to show "the nation itself as a living being".[361] According to literary historian Victor Iova: "[Iorga's] overall activity ... did not just seek the communication of knowledge, but also expressly sought to define the social finality of his time, its ethical sense and his own patriotic ideal."[235] The 1911 speechDouă concepții istorice nevertheless provided a more nuanced outline, cautioning against a potential cult of heroes and suggesting that national histories were inextricably linked to each other: "The life of a people is at all times mingled with the lives of others, existing in relation with these and at all times feeding into the others' lives."[98]
According to George Călinescu, Nicolae Iorga was overdependent on his memory, which could result in "utterly fictitious"critical apparatuses for his scientific works.[347] Călinescu suggests that Iorga was an "anachronistic" type in his context: "approved only by failures", aged before his time, modeling himself on ancient chroniclers and out of place in modern historiography.[347] In the 1930s, Iorga's status in regulating the official historical narrative was challenged byConstantin C. Giurescu,P. P. Panaitescu andGheorghe Brătianu, who wanted to return academic discourse back to the basicJunimist caveats, and were seen by Iorga as "denialists".[222] For all the controversy, Lucian Boia suggests, neither of theRevista Istorică Română publishers was completely beyond Iorga's subjectivity, pathos or political bias, even though Panaitescu was for long "closer" to theJunimist model.[362] A particular challenge to Iorga's historical narrative also came from rival Hungarian historiography: in 1929,Benedek Jancsó called Iorga's science a branch of "Romanianimperialist nationalism", his argument rejected as "false logic" by the Romanian.[363] Iorga had a friendly attitude toward other Hungarian scholars, includingÁrpád Bitay andImre Kádár, who were his guests at Vălenii.[216]
Several other historians have expressed criticism of Iorga's bias and agenda.R. W. Seton-Watson regarded him as "prolific" and "bahnbrechend", but mentioned his "slovenly style".[349] In 1945,Hugh Seton-Watson spoke of the "great Roumanian Professor" having contributed "erudite chronology, written in a highly romantic and bombastic spirit."[364] In his ownMehmed the Conqueror and His Time, Iorga's German colleagueFranz Babinger also noted that Iorga could get "carried away by national pride".[365] MedievalistKenneth Setton also described Iorga as "the great Rumanian historian ... who was sometimes intoxicated by the grandeur of his own historical concepts, but whose work is always illuminating."[366] While Japanese sociologist Kosaku Yoshino sees Iorga as a main contributor to didactic and dramatized cultural nationalism in Europe,[367]University of Trento academic Paul Blokker suggests that, although "politicized,essentialist and sometimes anachronistic", Iorga's writings can be critically recovered.[368] Ioana Both notes: "A creator with titan-like forces, Iorga is more a visionary of history than a historian".[369] Bordaș criticizes Iorga's habit of recording "everything" into his studies, and without arranging the facts described into an "epistemological relationship".[356]
Despite Iorga's ambition of fusing research and pedagogy, his students, both rivals and friends, often noted that he was inferior to other colleagues when it came to teaching, in particular in directing advanced classes—reportedly, his popularity dropped with time, the aging Iorga having displayed aggression toward inquisitive students.[370] In 1923, even an old friend likeSextil Pușcariu could accuse Iorga of behaving like a "dictator".[371] In compensation, the historian fulfilled this function with his activity in the media and in the field ofpopular history, at which he was, according to historian Lucian Nastasă, masterful but vulgarizing.[372]
Iorga's ideas on theorigin of the Romanians, and his explanation for the more mysterious parts of that lengthyethnogenesis process, were shaped by both his scientific and ideological preoccupations. Some of Iorga's studies focused specifically on the original events in the process: ancientDacia's conquest by theRoman Empire (Trajan's Dacian Wars), and the subsequent foundation ofRoman Dacia. His account is decidedly in support of Romania'sRoman (Latin) roots, and even suggests thatRomanization preceded the actual conquest.[373] However, he viewed the autochthonous element in this acculturation, theDacians (collocated by him with theGetae),[374] as historically significant, and he even considered them the source for Romania's later links with the Balkan "Thracian" space.[375] Through the Thracians and theIllyrians, Iorga believed to have found a common root for all Balkan peoples, and an ethnic layer which he believed was still observable after later conquests.[376] He was nevertheless explicit in distancing himself from the speculative texts ofDacianistNicolae Densușianu, where Dacia was described as the source of all European civilization.[377]
Iorga had a complex personal perspective on the little-documentedDark Age history, between the Roman departure (271 AD) and the 14th century emergence of twoDanubian Principalities:Moldavia andWallachia. Despite the separate histories and conflicting allegiances these regions had during theHigh Middle Ages, he tended to group the two Principalities andmedieval Transylvania together, into a vague non-stately entity he named "the Romanian Land".[378] Iorga cautioned about the emergence of states from astateless society such as the proto-Romanian one: "The state is a late, very elevated, very delicate form that, under certain conditions, may be reached by a people. ... There was therefore no state, but a Romanian mass living in the midst of forests, in those villages harbored by protective forests, where it is just as true that a certain way of life could emerge, sometimes on a rather elevated level."[379]
Echoing his political conservatism, Iorga's theory proposed that the Romanized Dacians, or all theirVlach-Romanian successors, had created peasant republics to defend themselves against theinvading nomads. It spoke of the rapid ruralization of Latin urban dwellers—suggested to him byetymologies such as the derivation ofpământ ("soil") frompavimentum,[380] and the creation of "genealogical villages" around common ancestors (moși)[381] or the ancient communal sharing of village lands, in the manner imagined by writerNicolae Bălcescu.[106] Iorga also supposed that, during the 12th century, there was an additional symbiosis between settled Vlachs and their conquerors, the nomadicCumans.[382]
Iorga's peasant polities, sometimes described by him asRomanii populare ("people's Romanias", "people's Roman-like polities"),[239][383][384] were seen by him as the sources of a supposeduncodified constitution in both Moldavia and Wallachia. That constitutional system, he argued, created solidarity: the countries'hospodar rulers were themselves peasants, elected to high military office by their peers, and protecting the entire community.[385] UnlikeIoan Bogdan and others, Iorga strongly rejected any notion that theSouth Slavs had been an additional contributor to ethnogenesis, and argued thatSlavic idioms were a sustained but nonessential influence inhistorical Romanian.[191][386] Until 1919, he was cautious about counting the Romanians andAromanians as one large ethnic group, but later came to share the inclusivist views of his Romanian colleagues.[387] Iorga also stood out among his generation for flatly rejecting any notion that the 12th-centurySecond Bulgarian Empire was a "Vlach-Bulgarian" or "Romanian-Bulgarian" project, noting that the Vlach achievements there benefited "another nation" (Iorga's italics).[388]
The statelyfoundation of Moldavia andof Wallachia, Iorga thought, were linked to the emergence of majortrade routes in the 14th century, and not to the political initiative of military elites.[389] Likewise, Iorga looked into the genesis ofboyardom, describing the selective progression of free peasants into a local aristocracy.[390] He described the later violent clash betweenhospodars and boyars as one betweennational interest and disruptive centrifugal tendencies, suggesting that prosperous boyardom had undermined the balance of the peasant state.[391] His theory about the peasant nature of Romanian statehood was hotly debated in his lifetime, particularly after a 1920 discovery showed thatRadu I of Wallachia had been buried in the full regalia of medieval lords.[392] Another one of his influential (but disputed) claims attributed the appearance ofpre-modern slavery, mainly affecting theRomani (Gypsy) minority, exclusively on alien customs borrowed from theMongol Empire.[393] Iorga's verdicts as a medievalist also produced a long-standing controversy about the real location of the 1330Battle of Posada—so-named by him after an obscure reference in theChronicon Pictum—whereby theWallachian Princes secured their throne.[394]
A major point of contention between Panaitescu and Iorga referred toMichael the Brave's historical achievements: sacrilegious in the eyes of Iorga, Panaitescu placed in doubt Michael's claim to princely descent, and described him as mainly the political agent of boyar interests.[395] Contradicting the Romantic nationalist tradition, Iorga also agreed with younger historians that, for most of their history, Romanians in Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania were more justifiably attached to their polities than to national awakening ideals.[396] Panaitescu was however more categorical than Iorga in affirming that Michael the Brave's expeditions were motivated by political opportunism rather than by a pan-Romanian national awareness.[396]
Two of Iorga's major fields of expertise wereByzantine studies andTurkology. A significant portion of his contributions in the field detailed the impact of Byzantine influences on the Danubian Principalities and the Balkans at large. He described the "Byzantine man" as embodying the blend of several cultural universes:Greco-Roman,Levantine andEastern Christian.[239] In this context, Iorga was also exploring Romania's own identity issues as a confluence of ByzantineEastern Orthodoxy and aWestern Roman linguistic imprint.[397]
Iorga's writings insisted on the importance ofByzantine Greek and Levantine influences in the two countries after thefall of Constantinople: his notion of "Byzantium after Byzantium" postulated that the cultural forms produced by the Byzantine Empire had been preserved by the Principalities under Ottomansuzerainty (roughly, between the 16th and 18th centuries).[398] Additionally, the Romanian scholar described the Ottoman Empire itself as the inheritor of Byzantine government,legal culture and civilization, up to theAge of Revolution.[399] However, theGeschichte des Osmanischen Reiches postulated that theOttoman decline was irreversible, citing uncompromisingIslam as one of the causes,[400] and playing down the cohesive action ofOttomanism.[401]
The post-Byzantine thesis was taken by various commentators as further proof that the Romanian historian, unlike many of his contemporaries, accepted a level ofmulticulturalism or acculturation in defining modern Romanian identity.SemioticianMonica Spiridon writes: "Iorga highly valued the idea of cultural confluence and hybridity."[402] Similarly,Maria Todorova notes that, although it minimized the Ottoman contribution and displayed "emotional or evaluative overtones", such a perspective ran against the divisive interpretations of the Balkans, offering a working paradigm for a global history of the region: "Although Iorga's theory may be today [ca. 2009] no more than an exotic episode in the development of Balkan historiography, his formulationByzance après Byzance is alive not only because it was a fortunate phrase but because it reflects more than its creator would intimate. It is a good descriptive term, particularly for representing the commonalities of the Orthodox peoples in the Ottoman Empire ... but also in emphasizing the continuity of two imperial traditions".[403] With his research, Iorga also rehabilitated thePhanariotes,Greek orHellenized aristocrats who controlled Wallachia and Moldavia in Ottoman times, and whom Romanian historiography before him presented as wreckers of the country.[404]
Iorga's tolerance for the national bias in historiography and his own political profile were complemented in the field of literature and the arts by his strong belief in didacticism. Art's mission was, in his view, to educate and empower the Romanian peasant.[405] The rejection ofart for art's sake, whose indifference in front of nationality issues enraged the historian, was notably illustrated by his 1902 letter to the like-mindedLuceafărul editors, which stated: "You gentlemen should not allow aesthetic preoccupations to play the decisive part, and you are not granted such circumstances as to dedicate yourselves to pure art. ... Do not imitate ..., do not allow yourselves to be tempted by things you have read elsewhere. Write about things from your country and about the Romanian soul therein."[69] His ambition was to contribute an alternative toJunimist literary history,[119][191][406] and, according tocomparatist John Neubauer, for the first time integrate "the various Romanian texts and writers into a grand narrative of an organic and spontaneous growth of native creativity, based onlocal tradition and folklore."[265] Iorga described painterNicolae Grigorescu as the purveyor of national pride,[407] and was enthusiastic aboutStoica D., thewar artist.[117] He recommended artists to studyhandicrafts, even though, an adversary of thepastiche, he strongly objected toBrâncovenesc revival style taken up by his generation.[238] His own monographs onRomanian art and folklore, admired in their time by art historianGheorghe Oprescu,[116] were later rated by ethologistRomulus Vulcănescu a sample ofmicrohistory, rather than a groundbreaking new research.[408]
Initially, withOpinions sincères, Iorga offered a historian's manifesto against the whole cultural establishment, likened by historianOvidiu Pecican withAllan Bloom's 1980s critique ofAmerican culture.[62] Before 1914, Iorga focused his critical attention onRomanian Symbolists, whom he denounced for their erotic style (called "lupanarium literature" by Iorga)[248] andaestheticism—in one instance, he even scoldedSămănătorul contributorDimitrie Anghel for his floral-themed Symbolist poems.[409] His own theses were ridiculed early in the 20th century by Symbolists such asEmil Isac,Ovid Densusianu orIon Minulescu,[410] and toned down bySămănătorul poetȘtefan Octavian Iosif.[411]
.png)
After his own Marxist beginnings, Iorga was also a critic ofConstantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea's socialist andPoporanist school, and treated its literature with noted disdain.[83] In reply, Russian Marxist journalistLeon Trotsky accused him of wishing to bury all left-wing contributions to culture,[165][412] and local socialistHenric Sanielevici wrote that Iorga's literary doctrine did not live up to its moral goals.[78][413] Iorga wrote with noted warmth aboutContemporanul and its cultural agenda,[119] but concluded that Poporanists represented merely "the left-wing current of the National Liberal Party".[191]
Iorga's direct influence as a critic had largely faded by the 1920s, owing in part to his decision of concentrating his energy elsewhere.[414] Nevertheless, he was still often involved at the forefront of cultural campaigns against the various manifestations ofmodernism, initiating polemics with all the circles representing Romania's new literary and artistic trends: the moderateSburătorul review of literary theoristEugen Lovinescu; the eclecticContimporanul magazine; theExpressionist cell affiliated with the traditionalist magazineGândirea; and ultimately the various local branches ofDada orSurrealism. In some of his essays, Iorga identified Expressionism with the danger ofGermanization, a phenomenon he described as "intolerable" (although, unwittingly, he was also among the first Romanians to tackle Expressionism).[415] In an analogy present in a 1922 article forGazeta Transilvaniei, Iorga suggested that the same "German" threat was agitating the avant-garde voices ofLatin Europe,Futurists and Dadaist "energumens" alike.[416] During the 1930s, as the cultural and political climate changed, Iorga's main accusation againstTudor Arghezi,Lucian Blaga,Mircea Eliade,Liviu Rebreanu,George Mihail Zamfirescu and other Romanian modernists was their supposed practice of literary "pornography".[248][417]
The ensuing polemics were often bitter, and Iorga's vehemence was met with ridicule by his modernist adversaries.Sburătorul literary chroniclerFelix Aderca saw in Iorga the driver of "the boorish carts ofSămănătorism",[418] and Blaga called him "the collective name for a multitude of monsters".[225] Iorga's stance on "pornography" only attracted provocation from the younger avant-garde writers. In the early 1930s, the avant-garde youth put out the licentious art magazineAlge sent him a copy for review; prosecuted on Iorga's orders, they all later became noted as left-wing authors and artists:Aurel Baranga,Gherasim Luca,Paul Păun,Jules Perahim.[248][419]
A lengthy polemic consumed Iorga's relationship with Lovinescu, having at its core the irreconcilable differences between their visions of cultural history. Initially an Iorga aficionado and an admirer of his attack on foreign influences,[420] theSburătorul leader left sarcastic comments on Iorga's rejection of Symbolism, and, according to Crohmălniceanu, "entire pages of ironies targeting Iorga's advice to writers that they should focus of the sufferings of their 'brother' in the village".[421] Lovinescu also ridiculed Iorga's traditionalist mentoring, calling him a "pontiff of indecency and insult",[422] an enemy of "democratic freedom",[80] and the patron of forgettable "literature abouthajduks".[423]
Other authors back Lovinescu's verdict about the historian's lack of critical intuition and prowess.[78][130][181][191][424] According to Călinescu, Iorga was visibly embarrassed by even 19th centuryRomanticism, out of his territory with virtually everything after "Villani andCommynes", and endorsing the "obscure manqués" in modern Romanian letters.[425] Alexandru George only supports in part this verdict, noting that Iorga's literary histories degenerated from "masterpiece" to "gravest mistake".[130] An entire category of minor, largely forgotten, writers was endorsed by Iorga, among themVasile Pop,[78]Ecaterina Pitiș,Constantin T. Stoika andSandu Teleajen.[426]
Iorga's views were in part responsible for a split taking place atGândirea, occurring when his traditionalist disciple,Nichifor Crainic, became the group's new leader and marginalized the Expressionists. Crainic, who was also a poet withSămănătorist tastes, was held in esteem by Iorga, whose publications described him and his disciples as the better half ofGândirea.[225][427] Iorga was also the subject of aGândirea special issue, being recognized as a forerunner (a title he shared withOctavian Goga andVasile Pârvan).[428] There was however a major incompatibility between the two traditionalist tendencies: to Iorga's secularism, Crainic opposed a quasi-theocratic vision, based on theRomanian Orthodox Church as a guarantee of Romanian identity.[429] Crainic saw his own theory as an afterthought ofSămănătorism, arguing that hisGândirism had erected an "azure tarpaulin", symbolizing the Church, over Iorga's nationalism.[430]
In particular, his ideas on the Byzantine connections and organic development of Romanian civilization were welcomed by both theGândirists and some representatives of more conventional modernism.[431] One such figure, affiliated withContimporanul, was essayistBenjamin Fondane. His views on the bridging of tradition with modernism quoted profusely from Iorga's arguments against cultural imitation, but parted with Iorga's various other beliefs.[432] According to Călinescu, the "philosopher-myths" (Iorga and Pârvan) also shaped the anti-Junimist outlook of the 1930sTrăirists, who returned to ethnic nationalism and looked favorably on the Dacian layer of Romanian identity.[433] Iorga's formative influence onTrăirists such as Eliade andEmil Cioran was also highlighted by some other researchers.[434] In 1930s Bessarabia, Iorga's ideology helped influence poetNicolai Costenco, who createdViața Basarabiei as a local answer toCuget Clar.[435]
According to some of his contemporaries, Nicolae Iorga was an outstandingly talented public speaker. One voice in support of this view is that ofIon Petrovici, aJunimist academic, who recounted that hearing Iorga lecture had made him overcome a prejudice which rated Maiorescu above all Romanian orators.[436] In 1931, criticTudor Vianu found that Iorga's "great oratorical skill" and "volcanic nature" complimented a passion for the major historical phenomena.[437] A decade later, George Călinescu described in detail the historian's public speaking routine: the "zmeu"-like introductory outbursts, the episodes of "idle grace", the apparent worries, the occasional anger and the intimate, calm, addresses to his bewildered audience.[438]
The oratorical technique flowed into Iorga's contribution tobelles-lettres. The antiquated polished style, Călinescu notes, even surfaced in his works of research, which revived the picturesque tone of medieval chronicles.[347] Tudor Vianu believed it "amazing" that, even in 1894, Iorga had made "so rich a synthesis of the scholarly, literary and oratorical formulas".[439] CriticIon Simuț suggests that Iorga is at his best intravel writing, combining historical fresco and picturesque detail.[81] The travel writer in young Iorga blended with the essayist and, occasionally, the philosopher, although, as Vianu suggests, theCugetăriaphorisms were literary exercises rather than "philosophical system."[440] In fact, Iorga's various reflections attack the core tenets of philosophy, and describe the philosopher prototype as detached from reality, intolerant of others, and speculative.[441]
Iorga was a highly productive dramatist, inspired by the works ofCarlo Goldoni,[122]William Shakespeare,Pierre Corneille and the RomanianBarbu Ștefănescu Delavrancea.[442] According to criticIon Negoițescu, he was at home in the genre, which complimented his vision of "history as theater".[81] Other authors are more reserved about Iorga's value for this field: noting that Negoițescu's verdict is an isolated opinion, Simuț considers the plays' rhetorical monologues "hardly bearable".[81] Literary historianNicolae Manolescu found some of the texts in question illegible, but argued: "It is inconceivable that Iorga's theater is entirely obsolete".[442] Of the twenty-some plays, including manyverse works, most are in the historical drama genre.[442] Manolescu, who argues that "the best" of them have a medieval setting, writes thatConstantin Brâncoveanu, Un domn pribeag andCantemir bătrânul are "without any interest".[442] Iorga's other work for the stage also includes the "five-act fairy tale"Frumoasa fără trup ("Bodyless Beauty"), which repeats a motif found inRomanian folklore,[443] and a play about Jesus Christ (where Jesus is not shown, but heard).[444]
Iorga's poems include odes to Poland, written shortly after the1939 German invasion, described by author Nicolae Mareș as "unparalleled in any other literature".[17] Overall, however, Iorga as poet has enlisted negative characterizations, rated by Simuț as "uninteresting and obsolete".[81] Among Iorga's other contributions are translations from foreign writers:Johann Wolfgang von Goethe,[445]Kostis Palamas,[17] Goldoni[122] etc. A special target for his interest was English literature, which he believed had a "fundamental bond" with Romanian lore, as traditions equally "steeped in mystery."[336] In addition to translating fromMarie of Edinburgh, Iorga authored versions of poems byWilliam Butler Yeats ("Aedh Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven", "When You Are Old").[335]
In old age, Iorga had also established his reputation as a memoirist:Orizonturile mele was described by Victor Iova as "a masterpiece of Romanian literature".[196] George Călinescu referred to this series as Iorga's "interesting" and "eminently subjective" literature; "dignified" and dominated by "explosions of sentiment", it echoes, according to Călinescu, the Renaissance model ofIon Neculce.[446] Many of the volumes were quickly written as Iorga's attempt to rehabilitate himself after a failed premiership;[119]Orizonturile comprises messages on the power and justness of his cause: "And so I stand at age sixty-two, confident and strong, proud, upright in front of my conscience and the judgment of time."[235] The works offer retrospective arguments against Iorga's adversaries and sketch portraits of people who crossed Iorga's path—attributes which, Iova suggests, fully exploit Iorga's talents as a "polemicist" and "portraitist";[447] according to Alexandru Zub, they also fall into place within the Romanian ego-history vogue, between Xenopol's and Pârvan's.[448]
Both the diaries and the memoirs are noted for their caustic and succinct portraits of Iorga's main rivals: Maiorescu as inflexible and unemotional,Dimitrie Sturdza as avaricious,Nae Ionescu as "an awful temper", Hungarian politicianIstván Tisza as a "Turanian" tyrant; Iorga contributed particularly emotional, and critically acclaimed, tributes for his political friends, fromVasile Bogrea to Yugoslavia'sNikola Pašić.[220]Supt trei regi abounds in positive and negative portrayals, but, Călinescu notes, it fails to show Iorga as politically astute: "he gives the impression that he knows no more [of the events] than the man of the street."[449]
At times, Iorga sheds a nostalgic light on his one-time opponents (similar, in Călinescu's view, to "inscriptions on their graves").[426] Notably in this context, Iorga reserved praise for some who had supported theCentral Powers (Carol I,[119]Virgil Arion,George Coșbuc,Dimitrie Onciul),[450] but also stated that actual collaboration with the enemy was unforgivable.[449] His obituary piece of socialist activistI. C. Frimu, part ofOameni cari au fost, was so sympathetic that the authorities had to censor it.[451]
The fields of scientific inquiry opened by Iorga, in particular his study into theorigin of the Romanians, were taken up after his death by other researchers:Gheorghe Brătianu,Constantin C. Giurescu,P. P. Panaitescu,Șerban Papacostea,Henri H. Stahl.[452] As cultural historian, Iorga found a follower inN. Cartojan,[453] while his thoughts on the characteristics of Romanianness inspired the social psychology ofDimitrie Drăghicescu.[454] In thepostmodern age, Iorga's pronouncements on the subject arguably contributed to the birth of Romanianimagological,post-colonial andcross-cultural studies.[455] The idea ofRomanii populare has endured as a popular working hypothesis in Romanian archeology.[383]
Aside from being himself a writer, Iorga's public image was also preserved in the literary work of both his colleagues and adversaries. One early example is a bitingepigram byIon Luca Caragiale, where Iorga is described as the dazed savant.[456] In addition to the many autobiographies which discuss him, he is a hero in various works of fiction. As geographer Cristophor Arghir, he is the subject of a thinly disguised portrayal in theBildungsromanÎn preajma revoluței ("Around the Time of the Revolution"), written by his rivalConstantin Stere in the 1930s.[457] Celebrated Romanian satirist andViața Românească affiliatePăstorel Teodoreanu was engaged in a lengthy polemic with Iorga, enshrining Iorga inRomanian humor as a person with little literary skill and an oversized ego,[458] and making him the subject of an entire collection of poems and articles,Strofe cu pelin de mai pentru Iorga Neculai ("Stanzas in MayWormwood for Iorga Neculai").[459] One of Teodoreanu's own epigrams inContimporanul ridiculedMoartea lui Dante, showing the resurrectedDante Alighieri pleading with Iorga to be left in peace.[460] Iorga was also identified as the subject of fictional portrayals in a modernist novel byN. D. Cocea[461] and (against the author's disclaimer) inGeorge Ciprian's playThe Drake's Head.[462]
Iorga became the subject of numerous visual portrayals. Some of the earliest were satires, such as an 1899 portrait of him as aDon Quixote (the work ofNicolae Petrescu Găină)[463] and images of him as a ridiculously oversized character, inAry Murnu's drawings forFurnica review.[464] Later, Iorga's appearance inspired the works of some other visual artists, including his own daughter Magdalina (Magda) Iorga,[465] painterConstantin Piliuță[466] and sculptorIon Irimescu, who was personally acquainted with the scholar.[467] Irimescu's busts of Iorga are located in places of cultural importance: the ISSEE building in Bucharest and a public square inChișinău,Moldova (ex-Soviet Bessarabia).[468] The city has another Iorga bust, the work ofMihail Ecobici, in theAleea Clasicilor complex.[469] Since 1994, Iorga's face is featured on a highly circulatedRomanian leu bill: the 10,000 lei banknote, which became the 1 leu bill following a 2005 monetary reform.[470]
Several Romanian cities have "Nicolae Iorga" streets or boulevards: Bucharest (also home of the Iorga High School and the Iorga Park),Botoșani,Brașov,Cluj-Napoca,Constanța,Craiova,Iași,Oradea,Ploiești,Sibiu,Timișoara, etc. In Moldova, his name was also assigned to similar locations in Chișinău andBălți. The Botoșani family home, restored and partly rebuilt in 1965, is currently preserved as a Memorial House.[471] The house in Vălenii is a memorial museum.[472][473]
Iorga's murder, like other acts of violence ordered by the Iron Guard, alarmedIon Antonescu, who found that it contradicted his resolutions on public order—the first clash in a dispute which, early in 1941, erupted as theLegionary Rebellion and saw the Guard's ouster from power.[474] Reportedly, Iorga's murder instantly repelled some known supporters of the Guard, such asRadu Gyr[475] andMircea Eliade.[476] Responding to condemnation of his actions from his place of exile inFrancoist Spain, the Guard leaderHoria Sima claimed to have played no part in the killing. Sima stated that he did not regret the act, noting that Iorga the scholar had had a long enough career,[477] and arguing, counterfactually, that the revenge was saluted by most Romanians.[478]
Romania's communist regime, set up in the late 1940s, originally revised Iorga's role in the historical narrative: a record 214 works of his were banned bycommunist censors, and remained banned until 1965.[479] From 1948, theNicolae Iorga Institute of History was merged into a communist institution headed byPetre Constantinescu-Iași, while Papacostea was assigned as head of the reorganized ISSEE.[480] Beginning in the 1960s, thenational communist authorities capitalized on Nicolae Iorga's image, suggesting that he was a forerunner ofNicolae Ceaușescu's official ideology. Iorga was promoted to the national communist pantheon as an "anti-fascist" and "progressive" intellectual, and references to his lifelonganti-communism were omitted.[481] The ban on his works was selectively lifted, and some of his main books were again in print between 1968 and 1989,[191][482] along with volumes of his correspondence.[145] In 1988, Iorga was the subject ofDrumeț în calea lupilor, aRomanian film directed byConstantin Vaeni. It depicted an imaginary encounter and clash between the historian (Valentin Teodosiu) and a character based on Horia Sima (Dragoș Pâslaru).[483] However, the Bonaparte Highway villa, bequeathed by Iorga to the state, was demolished during theCeaușima campaign of 1986.[45]
Iorga's theories on theDacians and theThracians were among the many elements synthesized into the nationalist current known asprotochronism, which claimed that the sources of Romanian identity were to be found in pre-Roman history, and was offered support by Ceaușescu's regime.[484] His work was selectively reinterpreted by protochronists such asDan Zamfirescu,[485]Mihai Ungheanu[486] andCorneliu Vadim Tudor.[487] Contrasting perspectives on Iorga's legacy were held by the various voices within theRomanian diaspora. On the 40th anniversary of his death, the Munich-based Romanian section of the anti-communistRadio Free Europe (RFE) broadcast an homage piece with renewed condemnation of Iorga's killers. RFE received death threats from obscure Iron Guard diaspora members, probably agents of theSecuritate secret police.[488]
Iorga has enjoyed posthumous popularity in the decades since theRomanian Revolution of 1989: present at the top of "most important Romanians" polls in the 1990s,[489] he was voted in at No. 17 in the100 greatest Romanians televised poll.[490] As early as 1989, the Iorga Institute was reestablished under Papacostea's direction.[245] Since 1990, the Vălenii summer school has functioned regularly, having Iorga exegeteValeriu Râpeanu as a regular guest.[472] In later years, the critical interpretation of Iorga's work, first proposed byLucian Boia around 1995, was continued by a new school of historians, who distinguished between the nationalist-didactic and informative contents.[368]
Nicolae Iorga had over ten children from his marriages, but many of them died in infancy.[491] In addition to Florica Chirescu, his children from Maria Tasu were Petru, Elena, Maria; with Catinca, he fathered Mircea, Ștefan, Magdalina, Liliana, Adriana, Valentin, and Alina.[492] Magdalina, who enjoyed success as a painter, later started a family in Italy.[493][494] The only one of his children to train in history, known for her work in reediting her father's books[495] and her contribution as a sculptor, Liliana Iorga married fellow historianDionisie Pippidi in 1943.[491] Alina became the wife of anArgentine jurist, Francisco P. Laplaza.[491]
Mircea Iorga was married into the aristocraticȘtirbey family,[496] and then to Mihaela Bohățiel, a Transylvanian noblewoman who was reputedly a descendant of the Lemeni clan and of the medieval magnateJohannes Benkner.[497] He was for a while attracted to PND politics and also wrote poetry.[492] An engineer by trade, he was headmaster of the Bucharest Electrotechnical College in the late 1930s.[259][492] Another son, Ștefan N. Iorga, was a writer active with theCuget Clar movement,[426][492] and later a noted physician.[498]
Iorga's niece Micaella Filitti, who worked as a civil servant in the 1930s, defected from Communist Romania and settled in France.[494] Later descendants include historianAndrei Pippidi, son of Dionisie, who is noted as a main editor of Iorga's writings.[191][499] Pippidi also prefaced collections of Iorga's correspondence, and published a biographical synthesis on his grandfather.[145] Andrei Pippidi is married to political scientist and journalistAlina Mungiu,[500] the sister of award-winning filmmakerCristian Mungiu.[501]
...for instance the historian-Ottomanist Nicolae Iorga of Greek origin.
Nu are nici o picătură de sânge românesc în vine. Pe Iorga îl cheamă Arghiropol. Acesta este numele său adevărat, tatăl era avocat grec la Botoşani.
Iar Nicolae Iorga, recunoscut drept cel mai de seamă istoric român, se trage, pe linie paternă, dintrun grec stabilit în Moldova în secolul al XVIIIlea
[Editor's note:] Istoricul era descendent la a cincea generație dinIorga galiongiul, negustor grec stabilit la Botoșani,
Cât despre Iorga, străstrăbunicul său a fost grec, fost marinar. Mama istoricului era de origine greacă fanariotă, Arghiropol
| Political offices | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by | President of the Assembly of Deputies 1919–1920 | Succeeded by |
| Preceded by | Prime Minister of Romania 1931–1932 | Succeeded by |
| Preceded by | Minister of Internal Affairs 1931 | Succeeded by |
| Preceded by | President of the Romanian Senate 1939 | Succeeded by |
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Academics | |
| Artists | |
| People | |
| Other | |
.svg)
