Vol. XXIV, 2011
L’étude analyse comment les différents gouvernements cherchent de mobiliser la population selon leur idéologie, afin d’assurer leur légitimité et par conséquent le consensus social nécessaire pour qu’ils fonctionnent. On voit ainsi les méthodes à travers lesquelles les gouvernements procédent, conformément à deux types majeurs de légitimité: la légitimité individualiste (le libéralisme clasique et le libéralisme démocratique) et la légitimité surindividuelle (l’étatisme birocratique, le totalitarisme et le communitarisme). Dans tous les cas il s’agissait d’une forme de persuasion avec des arguments positifs, qui correspondait aux changements de la société, et notamment à la sécularisation du pouvoir et à la formation de l’espace public des personnes privées.
L’article est une approche diacronique du discours identitaire roumain à travers de l’image de l’autrui, notamment des « grecs » venus de Phanar, qu’on perçoit comme superposés et malins. On voit ainsi le passage d’un discours autour de la conscience sociale et les intérêts des boyards autochtones, vers une vision moderne fondée sur l’idée ethnique et sur la communauté culturelle, qui a été entamé par les gens cultivés issus y compris des milieuxpopulaires.
Constantin Ardeleanu, Navigaţia pe Dunăre şi tratatul austro-britanic din iulie 1838, p. 41-56.
The paper analyses the context in which the British and Austrian governments signed at Vienna, on July 3, 1838, a new treaty of commerce and navigation, which stipulated, in its fourth article, that “all Austrian vessels arriving from the ports of the Danube, as far as Galacz inclusively, shall, together with their cargoes, be admitted into the ports of the United Kingdom and Ireland, and of all the Possessions of Her Britannic Majesty, exactly in the same manner as if such vessels came direct from Austrian ports, with all the privileges and immunities stipulated by the present Treaty of Navigation and Commerce. In like manner, all British vessels, with their cargoes, shall continue to be placed upon the same footing as Austrian vessels, whenever such British vessels shall enter into or depart from the same Ports”. Though initially considering it as advantageous for British merchants and ship-owners, the conservative opposition strongly criticised the treaty, as it was based on a double fallacious foundation: firstly, there were no Austrian ports on the Danube where British sea-going vessels could call, and thus the two signatories agreed upon the terms of entering Turkish ports; secondly, it was contrary to navigation laws to allow Austrian ships loaded at the Danube to sail to British ports. Thus, in 1839, when an Austrian vessel, the “Vallaco”, attempted to enter the port of Gloucester, with a cargo of Danubian grain, it was seized on the ground of violating the navigation laws and then relieved, after the payment of a fine. Proving inoperative and illegal without further legislative measures, the treaty was criticised both by the conservative politicians and the anti-governmental publicists. The paper covers the parliamentary debates and the works of two vocal and influential publicists, William Cargill and David Urquhart, so as to give an idea of the public echo of these agitations, fully revealing the prospects which the British political and economic circles related to the development of the Danube navigation and the exploration of the Romanian Principalities’ resources. In the same time, the treaty is analysed in the context of the strained British-Russian relations in the Near East, after the conclusion of the treaties of Adrianople and Unkiar Skellesi, when the Russian impositions in the way of the Danube navigation became the object of Britain’s diplomatic representations.
Raluca Tomi, Aboliţionismul în dezbaterea elitei politice în perioada războiului Crimeii, p. 57-70.
The Abolition of slavery (robia) was the first significant social reform in the Romanian
Principalities before the emergence of the modern state. In this article we aim to analyse the way Romanian leaders conceived this reform, taking into consideration the opinions regarding the immediate or gradual liberation of the gypsy slaves and the problem of financial compensation of the owners. We used in our analysis documents from the Romanian archives, the press and the literary works of the time. We also annex some unpublished documents, which complete our investigation.
Alexandru Mamina, Structura şi tipologia crizelor, p. 71-75.
L’article propose une définition de la crise en tant que moment de déséquilibre structurel dans un système quelconque, à cause d’une pression qui tende à recomposer les relations où les représentations en place. Par rapport aux plans susceptible de connaître un tel déséquilibre, on identifie les crises morales-intellectuelles, naturelles, sociales-institutionnelles et géopolitiques, chacune avec trois possibilités de se résoudre : maintenir le système, le modifier ou le remplacer.
Due to the scientific work and institutional contributions of Nicolae Iorga, the writings of “foreign travellers” became a trustful source for the study of the medieval and modern eras of the Romanian history. The present definition of the concept of “foreign traveller” belongs to Maria Holban (1968), being confirmed by Paul Cernovodeanu (2004). The aim of this preliminary contribution is to shed a new light on the concept, by dividing the “foreign travellers” into sub-categories, according to the purpose, sources and content of their writings. This work has by no means a deconstructive purpose, but an attempt to stimulate the research based on this type of historical sources.
[Învăţământul istoriografic actual. Interviu cu Norocica Maria Cojescu și Ecaterina Lung, p. 87-90]
[„Annales. Histoire, Sciences sociales”, no 1, 2011. Recenzie de Alexandru Mamina, p. 101]
[„Acta Moldaviae Septentrionalis”, VII-VII, 2009, şi IX, 2010. Recenzie de Bogdan Popa, p. 102-103.]