Nation-Building and Contested Identities: Romanian & Hungarian ...

The “Münchausenian Moment”8See I.G. Duca, “Doctrina liberalã” (The liberal doctrine), in Iordan Chimet,ed., Dreptul la memorie (The right to memory), vol. 2 (Cluj-Napoca: EdituraDacia, 1993). pp. 180-189; original edition, Dimitrie Gusti, ed., Doctrinele partidelorpolitice (The doctrines of the political parties) (Bucharest: InstitutulSocial Român, 1923), pp. 144-154.9ªtefan Zeletin, Din þara mãgarilor (From the land of donkeys) (Bucharest:Nemira, 1998), p. 41.10 Zeletin, Din þara mãgarilor, p. 42.11 Zeletin, Din þara mãgarilor, p. 42.12 Zeletin, Din þara mãgarilor, p. 67.13 Zeletin, Din þara mãgarilor, p. 45.14 Zeletin, Din þara mãgarilor, p. 68.15 Zeletin, Din þara mãgarilor, p. 68.16 Let us recall that, in Hayden White’s metahistorical scheme, Tocqueville’s historiographicalgenre is described as “tragedy.” See Hayden White, Metahistory(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), pp. 191-229.17 Constantin Dobrgeanu-Gherea’s most important work is Neoiobãgia: Studiueconomic-sociologic al problemei noastre agrare (New serfdom: Economic-sociologicalstudy on our agrarian problem) (Bucharest: Socec, 1910).18 As Eminescu puts it, back in 1820 “two independent classes had been existing,one peasant class, originating from impropriated soldiers, and the other, a citydwellerclass. … The history of the last fifty years is called ‘national regeneration’by many, but it could be better called the history of the eradication of yeomanryand guildsmen.” See Mihail Eminescu, Scrieri politice (Politicalwritings), edited by D. Murãraºu (Craiova: Scrisul Românesc, 1931), p. 64. Thereformation of the political establishment created an “unhealthy stirring” andcraving for positions, “based not on labour, but on privileges.” This “flockingto the gates of privileges” carried the members of the “positive classes” alongas well, leaving an economic void behind, which could only be filled up withalien elements – eminently with Jews. “Where are these positive classes in ourcountry? The historical aristocracy – it must be historical to be of any importance– almost disappeared, positive middle-class does not exist at all, the voidsare filled up with strangers, the peasant class is too uncultivated, and althoughit is the only positive class, nobody understands it, represents it.” Eminescu,Scrieri politice, p. 70. On the Junimist vision of history, see Alexandru Zub,Junimea. Implicaþii istoriografice (Junimea: Historiographical implications)(Iaºi: Junimea, 1976); and Zigu Ornea, Junimea ºi junimismul (Junimea andJunimism) (Bucharest: Eminescu, 1978).19 ªtefan Zeletin, Burghezia românã. Neoliberalismul (Romanian Bourgeoisie.Neoliberalism). (Bucharest: Nemira, 1997), p. 103.20 Adrian Marino pointed out that paºoptism, contrary to the Junimist criticism,did not propose the uncritical imitation of Western forms, but had a strongcapacity of self-reflexion and, in the writings of its proponents, one can find theroots of the ideology of “forms without substance” (forme fãrã fond) that wassubsequently turned against them. See Adrian Marino, “Pentru neopaºoptism”(For neo-paºoptism), Sfera politicii 60 (1998), pp. 12-26.21 Zeletin, Burghezia românã. Neoliberalismul, p. 424.22 Zeletin, Burghezia românã. Neoliberalismul, p. 429.77