Free and Independent Faction

Free and Independent Faction
Fracțiunea Liberă și Independentă
(Fracționiștii)
Leader Nicolae Ionescu (first)
Dimitrie Tacu (last)
Founder Simion Bărnuțiu
Founded ca. 1864
Dissolved ca. 1884
Merged into National Liberal Party
Conservative Party
Headquarters Iași
Newspaper Tribuna Română (1866)
Dreptatea (1867–1870)
D̦iorile (ca. 1868)
Uniunea Liberală (ca. 1871–1873)
Gazeta de Bacău (ca. 1871)
Mișcarea Națională (ca. 1880)
Ideology Ethnic nationalism (Romanian)
National liberalism (Romanian)
Republicanism
Federalism
Communalism
Nativism
Economic antisemitism
Anti-Germanism
Political position Center-left to far-left

The Free and Independent Faction or Free and Independent Fraction (Romanian: Fracțiunea Liberă și Independentă, sometimes Fracțiunea Liberală și Independentă, "Independent Liberal Faction",[1][2] commonly Fracționiștii, "The F(r)actionalists") was a nationalist and national-liberal party in Romania, regionally centered on Western Moldavia. Originally informal, and defined by its adversaries, the Faction mainly comprised pupils and followers of the philosopher Simion Bărnuțiu. During most of its existence, it had as its recognized leader the academic and polemicist Nicolae Ionescu.

Consolidated during the election of Carol I as Domnitor, the Faction opposed his rule, favoring either an elective monarchy with a native prince or a republican system. Factionalist nativism bordered on violent xenophobia, endorsing economic antisemitism and anti-Germanism. The party also stood for democratization, including radical land reform and a reshaping of the census suffrage, while its regional ethos resulted in support for federalism, then communalism. Such stances created tension between the Factionalists and most other groups on the left-liberal fringe, making the Faction an uneasy partner in the "Red" government alliances of the 1860s and '70s. They were also opposed in Moldavia by the conservative club Junimea, with whom the Faction had a consuming rivalry, and by moderate liberals such as Mihail Kogălniceanu, who drained the Faction of its votes after 1877.

Ionescu's career peaked in 1876, when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs in the "Red" cabinet of Ion Brătianu, and began to separate himself from the Factionalists. He was deposed for his opposition to the war of independence, by which time the Faction was steadily declining in importance. In the 1880s, after a brief alliance with the Conservative Party, the Faction dissolved into the National Liberal Party.

Beginnings

The origins of Bărnuțiu's movement can be traced back to "the very last years"[3] of Alexander John Cuza rule as Domnitor over the "United Principalities", which confederated Moldavia with neighboring Wallachia. The group was centered on the last Moldavian capital, Iași, where Bărnuțiu and Ionescu were both active as educators. Following Bărnuțiu's death in 1864, the Faction had for its "chiefs" Alexandru Gheorghiu, Alecu D. Holban, Theodor Lateș, Dimitrie Tacu, Iorgu Tacu, alongside Constantin Corjescu and his brother Dimitrie. As noted by their one-time colleague George Panu, they were "students and disciples of Bărnuțiu", who "had hypnotized them, had inoculated into them his fanatical ideas; they spoke like him, they dressed like him, they walked like him, and quite clearly they thought like him."[4] Defining itself as "national and liberal",[5] Bărnuțianism was strongly nativist and primordialist, circulating the claim that old Romanian law was purely Roman law (see Origin of the Romanians).[6] On such grounds, it conceived Romania as a modern reconstruction of the Roman Republic, secured by protectionism, anti-German sentiment, and economic antisemitism,[7] going as far as to propose the expulsion of all foreigners from Romanian soil.[8] Another eccentricity was the Factionalists' project for a complete land reform, redistributing all available land among Romanian nationals.[9]

Like most other groups existing before the creation of an independent Kingdom of Romania in the 1880s, the "vaguely liberal"[10] or "most originally liberal"[11] Faction was somewhat diffuse, identified by voluntary allegiance rather than formal membership, and was mainly a parliamentary party.[12] Its earliest rally point was the gazette Tribuna Română ("Romanian Tribune"), published in 1866 as the self-styled exponent of "truly liberal and independent convictions".[13] Despite having a longer history, the party was only formalized around January 1867, following a speech by its recognized leader, who was by then Nicolae Ionescu—his claim to speak for a "free and independent faction" was picked up as a derisive exonym by his adversaries, then accepted by the "Faction" itself; ideally, however, Ionescu favored non-partisan democracy.[14] A professor of law and brother of the agronomist Ion Ionescu de la Brad, Ionescu had played a marginal role the Moldavian and Wallachian Revolutions of 1848.[15] In 1856–1858, he had also supported the unionist National Party, putting out the French edition of Steaua Dunării from Brussels. His effort was partly financed by the Moldavian statesman Mihail Kogălniceanu, with whom Ionescu had an on and off friendship.[16]

Under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire, Cuza's regime took steps toward solidifying the Principalities, which became the nucleus of modern Romania; however, it alienated the political class with its expansive authoritarianism. The liberal wing, or "Reds", envisioned a ceremonial role for the monarchy, within a democratized country: they "admired Cuza's democratism [but] despised his Bonapartist methods".[17] "Red" leaders joined conservatives and centrists in forming a "monstrous coalition" of conspirators, who toppled Cuza in February 1866 and began a search for a foreign Domnitor to inaugurate a hereditary monarchy. Eventually, after Philippe of Belgium withdrew from the race, Carol of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen became a main candidate for the throne. The Faction itself took a distinct position against the Carlist consensus. Bărnuțian postulates allowed Factionalists to argue that a single Romanian vote against a foreign dynasty was the exercise of a natural right, and would invalidate all other opinions.[18] Still frequenting the National Party, D. Tacu took a more moderate position: like Vasile Pogor and Titu Maiorescu, he was only opposed to Carol specifically, and demanded a prince from Romance-speaking Europe.[19]

Eventually, a plebiscite on the monarchy confirmed Carol as Domnitor, 685,969 votes to 224.[20] Elected to the Constituent Chamber of Bucharest during the parallel race, six Factionalists abstained during the vote to proclaim Carol as the hereditary ruler. Seated among the left and far-left of Chamber, they were: Ionescu, Tacu, Lateș, Nicolae Iamandi, Ianache Lecca, and Ioan Negură.[21] Speaking from the rostrum at the time, Ionescu, who represented six Moldavian counties,[22] voiced his admiration of Cuza's constitutional law, since "although despotic, it yielded decent fruit, being applied with a sense of liberalism."[23]

1866 troubles

Grigore Sturdza's proclamation upon retaking control of Iași in May 1866, condemning the "barbaric propaganda" of local antisemites

While their initial opposition to Carol had by then been reduced to abstentionism, the Factionalists' core constituency of Iași experienced a separatist rebellion, instigated by Calinic Miclescu, Constantin Moruzi Pecheanu, Teodor Boldur-Lățescu, and Nicu Ceaur-Aslan.[24] The movement was almost immediately quashed, but moderate federalism was preserved by a plan of moving the Court of Cassation to Iași, making that city a judicial capital of Romania. In the city itself, the Faction's "group of electors" held meetings during which some advocated full federalism with a separate civilian government for Moldavia. A motion supporting a preferential treatment for Iași was proposed by the lawyer Gheorghe Cigaras with support from Ceaur-Aslan—and also signed by Gheorghiu, Holban, Alexandru M. Șendrea, Petre Suciu, Tacu, Sandu Dudescu, Grigore Cobălcescu, Anastasie Fătu and Vasile Gheorghian, alongside priests Iosif Bobulescu, Neofit Scriban, and Climent Nicolau.[25] However, to the dismay of other deputies who endorsed decentralization (including Tacu and Lateș), Ionescu spoke out against the Court of Cassation proposal, as he expected Iași to be more thoroughly assisted by government.[26]

Carol was ultimately able to take the throne, but, during the same period, there was a breakdown of consensus inside the "monstrous coalition", with heated debates over the passing of the Constitution. A "White" party, comprising centrist and conservative elements, backed Carol's hands-on and gradualist approach to institutional modernization. As claimed by the independent radical Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu, the emerging anti-liberal coalition, a "scandalous phenomenon", "always paralyzed Romanianism with alienism, and democracy with reaction".[27] Although "too archaic", Hasdeu claimed, the Faction "rekindled the Romanian spirit" and mounted resistance against "cosmopolitan ideas".[28] Defining itself as "decentralist and anti-absolutist unionist", the Faction was organizing throughout Western Moldavia, relying on a network of academics, schoolteachers, and youths.[29] At Bârlad, its "national-liberal" chapter was supported by local intellectuals, including brothers Ion and Constantin Codrescu, Ioan Popescu, and Scarlat Vârnav.[30]

Within this context, a deeper controversy erupted over what Hasdeu referred to as "alienism": the issue of Romanian Jews and their political emancipation, which the "Reds" and the Faction opposed. In May 1866, while a petition to block Jews from obtaining commercial rights was signed by Ionescu and circulated throughout Moldavia,[31] antisemitic riots possibly instigated by the Faction erupted in Iași, Bârlad, Roman and Botoșani. The clampdown was led by Prefect Grigore Sturdza, and resulted in the temporary arrest of various party leaders, including Fătu, Gheorghian, Gheorghiu, Holban and Suciu—alongside sympathizers such as Petru Poni.[32] As noted by historian A. D. Xenopol (who was for a while a Factionalist sympathizer),[33] antisemitism was only present "up front" within the Moldavian Faction and taken up in Wallachia by Cezar Bolliac, but also spread out, more discreetly, among the other political groups.[34] Adolphe Stern, the Jewish community leader, decried the Faction's "mystical and intransigent dogmatism", infused with an "awful hatred" by the "pseudo-intellectual" Bărnuțiu.[35]

The "Reds" and the Factionalists were pushed into cooperating with each other, mainly because the "Reds" were virtually unrepresented in Moldavian cities,[36] but remained distinct parties; in crucial moments, the Faction voted against radicalism, rallying with the centrists.[37] The Factionalists' extreme nationalism and antisemitism embarrassed most of the "Reds", who generally refrained from directly associating with the Faction outside of elections.[38] The other side of the alliance was also avoiding any direct association. Seen as a purely "egotistic" force by its allies,[39] the Faction always feared that the liberals were secretly "right-wing".[40] As noted in 1886 by Holban, the Faction also viewed "Reds" as "counterfeit Jacobins", or as cosmopolitans whose stance was essentially "anti-national".[41]

The core disputes of 1866 centered on the reestablishment of a Romanian Senate, with its implication of elitism. Hasdeu claimed at the time that "its maintenance costs us some millions a year, but provides us with no benefit, other than that it passes for a fine ornament and emanates a fragrance."[42] Ionescu and the "Red" Nicolae Voinov proposed a number of successive projects, all of which were unicameral.[43] While supporters of bicameralism insisted that the Senate would function as a Romanian House of Lords, the Factionalists and their allies ridiculed this claim when it came to boyar nobility. Hasdeu wrote that, in Romania, "most of the old [boyar] families have gone extinct and were replaced by a make-believe aristocracy, newly born and lacking those glorious traditions which support English aristocrats; and on the other hand, most of our notabilities, political, literary and even parliamentary, have their roots in the mass of the people".[44]

Faced with mounting support for bicameralism, Ionescu and Tacu conceded defeat but, alongside Christian Tell and Alexandru G. Golescu, still supported limiting the power of Senate to vote on the budget.[45] However, they endorsed a bill which, if passed, would have given Senate the authority to try government ministers.[46] Like various deputies on the left, they still resented the distribution of census suffrage, arguing that their bourgeois voters—portrayed by Ionescu's as a "third-estate" backbone of constitutionalism—were underrepresented in the 3rd Electoral College.[47] Ionescu supported a two-college system and found it deplorable that, under the provisions for weighted voting, peasants had a 1:40,000 ratio of representation, and landowners a 1:40.[48] Nonetheless, the Faction, like the entire political class, rejected both universal suffrage and direct democracy, seeing Romanians, and peasants especially, as fundamentally immature for enfranchisement.[49]

Concordia alliance

In October 1866, after "difficult" negotiations with the Sublime Porte,[50] Carol also secured his international recognition, which relieved the need for consensus and allowed party politics to develop further. Following the election of November, in which Ionescu became a perennial deputy for Roman County,[51] the legislature was split evenly between "Reds", "Whites", and a heterogeneous coalition of Cuza loyalists and Moldavian separatists; the parties of "the left", including the Faction, had some 20 deputy seats.[52] During later contests for the new Senate seats, a more complex "Red" coalition emerged. Formalized as the Concordia Agreement in March 1867, it also included a group of moderates led by Kogălniceanu.[53] However, as a Kogălniceanu rival, Ionescu never signed up to the Concordia platform, and his colleagues only adhered to some of its tenets.[54]

Changing the configuration of Chamber, this alliance toppled the moderate Prime Minister Ion Ghica, producing three successive radical cabinets, respectively headed by Constantin A. Crețulescu, Ștefan Golescu, and Nicolae Golescu.[55] These inaugurated investment in public works, modified electoral laws, and reduced the powers of the Senate.[56] As Minister of Internal Affairs, "Red" doctrinaire Ion Brătianu worked to influence elections in favor the Concordia group, especially during December 1867.[57] The new majority had some 85 seats in Chamber,[58] of which some 14 were Factionalists—known to include Ionescu, Fătu, Gheorghiu, A. D. Holban, Lateș, Negură, Suciu, D. Tacu, Voinov, Ianache Lecca, Dumitru Lupașcu, Mantu Rufu, I. Strejescu, and Dumitru Țanu Vidrașcu.[59] Vârnav, winner of the 4th college seat for Tutova, died mysteriously before confirmation. His partisans claimed that he had been poisoned by Jews, sparking another antisemitic riot.[60]

The Faction was awarded the Chamber Presidency, held by Fătu, but remained suspicious of the "Reds".[61] The staunch "ethnic protectionism" and "hysteric xenophobia" of both nationalist parties, including their claim that Jews were incapable of assimilating,[62] ensured that the Constitution only granted citizenship to Christians. Moreover, at Internal Affairs, Brătianu went against Carol's advice, ordering "severe measures against the Jews and foreign 'vagabonds'."[63] Such policies were reportedly advocated, and imposed on him, by the Faction.[64] During the interval, thirty-one deputies, Fătu included, presented a bill with exceptionally harsh antisemitic provisions, but this was defeated by an ad-hoc Chamber majority.[65] At the time, Lateș also proposed to only grant Christians the "political right" of owning land; his bill was also defeated.[66] The xenophobic stance was reportedly gaining momentum in Moldavia, with Factionalist professors expressing "aversion" toward Westernization, and purposefully ignoring "foreign literature and art".[67] Their protectionism blended with natalism in another proposal, advanced at one time by Suciu, which would have overtaxed bachelors.[68]

From May 1867 to October 1870, in times of "maximum political strife",[69] Ionescu put out the Factionalist newspaper Dreptatea ("Justice" or "Fairness"). As outlined here, the ideology of Factionalism also comprised fringe positions, including criticism of Christianity—Ionescu viewed conversion to Christianity as a prerequisite of citizenship and the state religion,[70] but argued that the Romanian Orthodox Church was too indebted to Judaism and "the Greeks".[71] Alongside the promise of full land reform, Moldavian regionalism resurfaced as communalism: the Faction believed that the executive should be closely monitored by the Chamber, and stood by the notion that communes were autonomous units of the state. On this point, Factionalists were irreconcilable with the "Reds", who favored quick centralization and a unitary state.[72] The regionalist agenda was expanded on by another Factionalist newspaper, D̦iorile ("The Dawn"), accused by other liberals of wanting to "divide the country into satrapies".[59]

Despite this, and although the Faction voted against development loans from the Oppenheim family, Ionescu also supported the common nationalist agenda, favoring a national currency and the construction of a centralized transport infrastructure.[73] Beyond its advocacy of xenophobic restrictions, the Faction also viewed itself as a watchdog for individual freedoms, and lauded the introduction of jury trials as a testing ground for extended suffrage.[74] Ionescu in particular favored a focus on civics, rather than vocational education, in the state-funded primary schools.[75] From March 1868, Ionescu and Ianache Lecca were also instrumental in reforming the nationwide Civic Guard, which acted as a reserve and police force. Their project called for the Guard to no longer be a paramilitary wing of the "Red" caucus, and become a more reliable Landwehr.[76]

Brătianu confirmed Ionescu's suspicions in April 1868, when he canvassed direct support for the "Reds" at Iași. His trip was a disappointment, drawing a mob which protested violently against his schemes.[77] In the July 1868 race, Ionescu took a seat in the Senate, where he remained until 1870.[22] His leaving the Factionalist leadership in Chamber was deplored as a major loss by his replacement, Gheorghiu.[13] However, the Faction still dominated Moldavian politics, enlisting affiliations from the moderate liberal Gheorghe Mârzescu[78] and from urban professionals, variously including Dimitrie Anghel (father of the poet), Scarlat Pastia, Miltiade Tzony, and Ștefan Micle.[79] Before 1868, it also had the support of Ion Creangă, a rebellious priest and aspiring writer who attended electoral meetings and Faction primaries. It was during these that Creangă clashed with the local "White" orator, Iacob Negruzzi.[80]

Junimea and "White" consolidation

Iași was by then home to a cultural and political club, called Junimea, which soon presented a structured opposition to both Ionescu's group, and, from 1870, a distinct branch of the "White" movement; it was able to attract within its ranks some of the junior Factionalists, including Creangă, Panu, and Xenopol, as well as conservatives such as Negruzzi. Junimea's Wallachian founder, Titu Maiorescu, published essays directly attacking the cornerstones of Bărnuțiu's politics, and Romanian liberalism as a whole, from the implicit position of liberal conservatism.[81] In particular, he rejected the Faction's ideas on land reform as "communistic", expressing his astonishment that an anti-state party had been allowed to govern at all.[82] Maiorescu's friend Petre P. Carp also attacked Factionalism through his newspaper, Térra, which declared itself the voice of true liberalism in its constitutionalist, monarchist, version.[83] Especially through Carp, Junimism condemned the Faction's xenophobia, and called for the protection of Romanian Jews;[84] Maiorescu also described Ionescu's party "ephemeral", defined by its "hatred of foreigners, and in particular Jews."[85]

The Factionalists took notice of such reactions, and the conflict between them and the Junimists became exceptionally bitter—the two camps were deadly enemies to one another.[86] Factionalist propaganda portrayed the Junimists as "Freemasons" and as "hirelings" of the external enemies.[87] This political dispute highlighted earlier rivalries, which began in 1864, when Maiorescu and Ionescu accused each other of adultery.[88] Factionalists Suciu and Cobălcescu had also lodged a legal complaint against Maiorescu, claiming, spuriously so, that he lacked Romanian citizenship and was therefore ineligible for political office.[89] On the Junimist side, the response was provided by Negruzzi, who published number of pamphlets depicting Ionescu and the Factionalists as irrational demagogues.[90] Junimea also kept a record of "inanities" published in the Factionalist newspapers.[91]

The "Red" series in government ended in November 1868, when Carol, troubled by the excesses of antisemitism, began selecting his ministers from the moderate right.[92] Carol also apologized for the sufferings of his Jewish subjects, which led the Faction to issue a protest; its senators also voted against the N. Golescu government when it did the same.[93] Ionescu supported Golescu and Brătianu's definition of the Jews as "vagabonds", but declared his disappointment at their moderation.[94] As noted at the time by Carp, Brătianu was shying away from official antisemitism, and only instrumenting it through "anarchy" and "the rabble in the streets"; the Faction, he argued, was at least consistent in seeking out a legal method.[95]

The Concordia alliance crumbled before the election of March 1869, with Kogălniceanu, who resented the Golescus' external policies,[96] joining Dimitrie Ghica's ministry. The election itself was a sound defeat for the left: the "Reds" took 10 seats in Chamber and the Faction only 8, with the moderates and "Whites" sharing 120.[97] However, there were widespread reports and complaints that Kogălniceanu had advised local authorities to condone fraud and to intimidate the opposition.[98] According to one account, the defector Mârzescu, serving as Prefect of Iași County, personally ensured that Kogălniceanu won a deputy's seat against Ionescu.[99]

In early 1870, a new majority of moderates was formed around D. Ghica and Manolache Epureanu—calling themselves the "Party of Order"—, with the adherence of Efrem Ghermani and Cezar Bolliac. According to Hasdeu, this was a "broth of boyars and democrats", existing only to keep "the Reds and the Faction" out of office.[100] Hasdeu also accused Epureanu of wanting to naturalize and introduce Jews into the country, under the guise of constitutionalism: "So the Constitution will appear to be standing, although trampled upon by the Jews."[101] He called for an antisemitic unification—of liberals, radicals and nationalists—into a "great party of action", "purified of all things bastard, all things cosmopolitan".[102]

Republicanism

June 1870 caricature in the "Red" gazette Ghimpele, showing the Epureanu cabinet (including Petre P. Carp) shooting down he protesters in Pitești; the gibbon "Scarlat", a stand-in for Carol I, is shown ordering the atrocity

As noted by historian Silvia Marton, the marginalized "Reds" first began talking of republicanism in the early months of 1869—"chipping away at Carol's strength and authority" despite their setbacks.[103] While Ionescu attended official functions honoring the Domnitor well into 1869,[104] the Faction discarded its early project for a native dynasty (which it now deemed "the imperialistic regime") and, like the Wallachian radicals, embraced republicanism.[105] Nevertheless, Factionalist deputies such as Ion Codrescu still expressed a hope that the throne could stand for "the country as a whole", and reaffirmed their conditional support for Carol.[106] The republican drift was accentuated by the elections of May 1870. These were entirely manufactured by Carol, who was arguably overstepping constitutional bounds.[107] They took place in a climate of violence and uncertainty, with riots in Bucharest, Giurgiu, and Pitești.[108] In his editorial of June 3, Hasdeu called Epureanu a "butcher", but warned that "a nation is like iron: the more you strike at it, the more it will harden."[109]

Epureanu managed to set up a "Hen and Fledgling Cabinet" that included Junimist Carp at Foreign Affairs. This was an early sign of the success of anti-Factionalism in Moldavia, where Junimea was growing into a political movement. The election, however, produced 34 deputies who, according to Hasdeu, stood for the "independent current, whose banner, the one it raised only yesterday, has managed to overwhelm with its vigor the authoritarian school."[110] Alongside Ionescu, I. Codrescu, Fătu, Gheorghiu, A. D. Holban, Negură, Suciu, Voinov, and Tacu, these were: Stroe Belloescu, Constantin Bosianu, Alexandru Lăzărescu-Laerțiu, Gheorghe Lecca, Costache Negri, Nicolae Gr. Racoviță, Nicolae Rosetti-Bălănescu, George D. Vernescu, I. Adrian, Ion Agarici, N. Bossie, Costin Brăescu, D. Comănăsceanu, Leon Eraclide, E. Filipescu, I. Gâlcă, M. Ganea, P. Georgiade, V. Holban, Dumitru Lupașcu, George Mantu, L. Moldoveanu, Constantin Scafesu, G. Sefendache, G. Vucenicu.[111] This count may include "Red" sympathizers: according to Marton, the Faction only had 25 deputies, and the "Reds" 32—at 57 seats, their alliance actually had a slim majority; government was backed by neutral "Whites", and by a slim majority of senators.[112] Moreover, the caucus of various liberal groups and tendencies was especially weak, ridiculed by outsiders as a "perfectly undecided" legislature.[113]

In Chamber, Voinov had verbal duels with moderates such as Constantin Boerescu over suspicions of electoral fraud by political bosses.[114] During such bouts, he insisted that the Civic Guard had moral a duty to "rise up and protect" the people.[115] There were other calls for a revolution in Wallachia, all sparked by popular support for the French Empire during the Franco-Prussian War—while Carol and some of his ministers favored the German coalition. In radical circles, despite an awareness that France was under an illiberal regime, the war was depicted as a struggle "between freedom and despotism."[116] After some reluctance, with Ionescu noting that nobody in Europe cared about Romania's positioning,[117] the Francophile tenets were also taken up by the Factionalists. In Chamber, Ionescu and Gheorghiu spoke against neutrality, asking Epureanu and Carp to at least express moral sympathy for France, and proposing that Chamber be put in control of foreign policies.[118]

By August, Wallachian radicals became involved in the incident known as "Republic of Ploiești", which ended in a police round-up of prominent "Reds". Several were tried for sedition, but acquitted by a sympathetic jury.[119] Dreptatea condemned the "ridiculous rebellion", arguing that its instigators were inconsistent democrats, and dwelling on the older critique of Wallachian centralism; the "republic", Ionescu theorized, would only have reinforced the subjugation of Moldavian communes, while also imposing a one-party regime.[120] This denunciation, Marton notes, was possibly prompted by fear of prosecution—in Chamber, Negură and Ionescu pushed through a declaration that denounced sedition, but also proclaimed their support for democratic change and for more parliamentary control.[121] In addition, Ionescu expressed solidarity with the chief conspirator, Alexandru Candiano-Popescu.[122] The Faction then announced its alternative program to devolve the country into an elective monarchy, as a necessary transition to full republicanism.[123]

The resulting dispute led to a motion of no confidence, and Epureanu was deposed. This marked Ion Ghica's return as Prime Minister, a temporary arrangement which seemed to satisfy both the "Reds" and the Faction.[124] Faced with mounting opposition, Carol threatened to resign, and another conspiracy, headed by Eugeniu Carada, prepared to take over government; the status quo was preserved only after Brătianu asked Carada to rescind.[125] The "Reds" reverted to an earlier stance, and endorsed Carol as the legitimate Domnitor; Ionescu and the Faction agitated for the election of a Romanian monarch, but superficially endorsed legalism, and recognized Carol as a legitimate ruler.[126]

Catargiu's ascendancy

April 1874 cartoon in the "Red" magazine Asmodeu: Romania as a young warrior, stripped down by boyar raptors and the Prussian eagle

The period was also marked by another controversy, called "Strousberg Affair", which tarnished the early history of Romanian railways, rekindled xenophobia, and endangered Romania's relations with the German Empire.[127] This scandal emerged from laws that the Faction had approved of or abstained on (excluding Lăzărescu-Laerțiu, who was an early opponent of the deal);[128] nevertheless, it was largely attributed to the German and Jewish scheming.[129] Following the anti-German riot at Casa Capșa, which he blamed on poor crowd control, Carol ordered Ghica's cabinet to resign. After again threatening to resign himself, he eventually settled on creating a "White" cabinet under Lascăr Catargiu.[130] The situation upset Factionalist deputies: alongside their "Red" colleague Nicolae Fleva, Ionescu, Gheorghiu and Codrescu alleged that Catargiu was being forced on them by the Romanian military, and more discreetly by Germany.[131]

In April 1871, Carol and Foreign Minister Gheorghe Costaforu traveled to Moldavia, contacting the monarchist circles, in particular Junimea.[132] At the time, arch-conservatives and some of their Junimist backers caused a stir with their endorsement of Grigore Sturdza's bills to amend the constitution. These endorsed a more stringent limitation of suffrage, the screening of senators by the Domnitor, the death penalty for murder, and curbs on press freedom.[133] More controversially, Sturdza and his allies also favored opening the country to German colonists.[134] These proposals went unanswered, with Ionescu and Kogălniceanu threatening a revolt of the people.[31] However, the conservative trend was consolidated in the May 1871 election. The opposition was again coalesced: the Factionalists, the "Reds", and Kogălniceanu all stood for the "convened liberal party" or "the left";[135] nevertheless, the "Whites" had a solid win. It inaugurated five years of conservative government, with Catargiu as Prime Minister, while conspiratorial republicans, including Brătianu and C. A. Rosetti, failed to win seats.[136] Speaking for the far-left opposition, Hasdeu claimed that the election had been rigged, since intellectuals and aristocrats such as Maiorescu and Sturdza had been elected by peasant voters in the 4th College.[137]

Catargiu's administration brought the "routinization of political conflict", which, although violent in tone, remained mindful of constitutional arrangements.[138] It also witnessed the peak of reciprocal attacks between Junimea and the Faction: as deputy, and then as Education Minister, Maiorescu began investigating the politicization of higher learning, and in particular the work of Ionescu and other Factionalists at Iași University.[139] Such measures prompted Cobălcescu, who represented the University, to resign from Senate.[140] However, both Maiorescu and Ionescu were incensed when a "White" minister, Christian Tell, forced provincial academics to choose between their chairs and their deputy seats in Bucharest.[141]

In 1871–1874, the dispute between Ionescu and Maiorescu focused on the rural communes, their administration and economy. The new law of 1874 imposed centralization, allowing government to select mayors from a pool of elected councilors.[142] In his interventions, Ionescu supported communal autonomy as the basis for democratic self-government. Instead, Maiorescu noted that the democratic experiment had only created frail institutions, and proposed to curb this with "feudalism", by giving rich landowners over-representation in communal councils.[143] In parallel, at Iași, Holban, Tacu and the Corjescus mounted the opposition against a Junimist communal administration, headed by Mayor Nicolae Gane and Prefect Leon C. Negruzzi (Iacob's brother). As Ceaur-Aslan lost an auction to pave the city streets, a Factionalist newspaper, Uniunea Liberală ("Liberal Union"), claimed that Gane's public works were a graft from the Catargiu spoils system.[144] In November 1872, Gane and Holban almost dueled over the insinuations.[145]

Ionescu was also highly critical of the Conservative laws on labor contracts, arguing that hired hands had been stripped of all means to pressure their landowning employers.[146] By then, Maiorescu also took a more protectionist stance than Sturdza, Costaforu, and Factionalists such as Ceaur-Aslan, demanding that foreign investors be barred from buying land in Romania for a period of ten years; his opponents only demanded a two-year term.[147] Ionescu, for his part, supported the establishment of native credit unions with the introduction of unrestricted capitalism, and spoke out against state monopolies for tobacco and alcohol.[148]

1875 return

Ghimpele cartoon of March 1877, showing Mihail Kogălniceanu undecided between the political camps of Ion Brătianu, Lascăr Catargiu, and Ion Ghica. Bottom left is the "Center", depicted as a headless calf ready for purchase

From early 1871,[149] the "Reds" began talks of fusion with the Factionalists and with all other liberal clubs. The cause was popularized by the two new Factionalist organs: Uniunea Liberală and Gazeta de Bacău ("Bacău Gazette").[150] These negotiations took years: the alliance, also known as the coalition of "Mozhar Pasha", only transformed itself into the National Liberal Party (PNL) in 1875 or after. According to some accounts, the Faction joined the coalition, but not the party.[151] Other sources suggest that the Faction, including its rural chapters, was "folded into the bosom of the Liberal Party".[152]

The elections of that year also created an understanding between Epureanu's "independent conservative" faction and Brătianu, allowing them to govern together.[153] In the electoral sweep of 1876, 18 Factionalists, including Ionescu, took seats as PNL deputies.[154] The PNL's secure victory, and a subsequent rapprochement with Carol, toned down republicanism, which was only expressed by dissenters such as Rosetti and Carada.[155] As leader of the Faction, his name absent from the cabinet proposal,[156] Ionescu also continued to voice the old credo, insisting that the republic was "the most liberal, most democratic, most perfect" regime.[157] Against the changing consensus, he also defended alleged perpetrators of antisemitic violence.[31]

With Brătianu as head of government, Ionescu served briefly as Vice President of Chamber.[22] Following a reshuffle, during which the moderates again withdrew and the Faction became an important partner in government,[158] he was appointed Foreign Minister. The younger Factionalist, Ștefan C. Șendrea, was one of his trusted secretaries.[1] Their policy still differed from the PNL's: Ionescu did not look favorably on the project to shed Ottoman suzerainty, and felt that Romania should declare herself a neutral country.[159] Since the guarantees of the Treaty of Paris would have been voided by independence, he feared that the country would end up under a foreign occupation,[160] and was especially troubled by any empowerment of the Russian Empire.[161] During his time in office, Ionescu also toned down his own protectionism. He supported fixed tariffs against Kogălniceanu's free-trade agenda, but argued that import substitution industrialization generated "bad, overpriced merchandise"; by 1877, he endorsed reciprocal free-trade agreements with the major exporters of Western Europe.[162] In other areas, the Faction took the initiative for asserting Romanian autonomy. By December 1876, Factionalist deputies, led by Andrei Vizanti, submitted a project to set up the National Bank of Romania. The motion, criticized in the press as amateurish, was eventually defeated in that form.[163]

Decline

This period in government preceded the Faction's ultimate downfall. Now identified as one of the "center-left" parliamentary leaders, Ionescu parted with the Faction during his tenure, leaving his Moldavian colleagues in Chamber as an unaffiliated group.[164] In February 1877, Kogălniceanu, George D. Vernescu and other moderates withdrew from the embryonic PNL, leaving it to be taken over by the "Reds"; the Faction remained aligned with the "Mozhar Pasha" group.[165] Its list of adversaries included, from April, a Moderate Liberal Party—formed in Moldavia by Kogălniceanu and Mârzescu, alongside Eugeniu Alcaz, Vasile Conta, and Telemac Ciupercescu. Also antisemitic, this new group saw itself as a morally superior alternative on the left, specifically designed to replace the Faction.[166] Kogălniceanu in particular criticized Ionescu's performance at Foreign Affairs, accusing him of incompetence and of wasting government resources on the Factionalist political machine; he called on Brătianu to renounce his alliance with Ionescu's "insignificant liberal group".[167] He achieved this goal the same month, when he himself took up the position of Foreign Minister.[168] Other Factionalists continued to serve in more minor positions: Gheorghian was Prefect of Iași County, but constantly pressured by the Moderate Liberals into resigning.[169]

Managed by Brătianu and Kogălniceanu, and under a temporary truce between the PNL and the "Whites",[170] the country pursued her independence, entering the Russo-Turkish War. On May 9, 1877, as Kogălniceanu proclaimed national sovereignty, Ionescu was one of two deputies to abstain.[171] As a Factionalist senator, Voinov voted against independence.[172] However, other Factionalists, including Vizanti and Tzony, enlisted for service in the Civic Guard of Iași, training alongside adversaries such as Carp, Maiorescu, and Pogor.[173] During the war, Ionescu resumed his campaigning for a more liberal regime for land-and-labor disputes. He and Vizanti proposed state regulations of contracts between landowners and peasants, as well as a continued system of land distribution from state property to landless veterans.[146]

Antisemitic cartoon published in Bobârnacul after the Congress of Berlin. It shows C. A. Rosetti, in shtreimel, kaftan and payot, as a patron of the Jews

By February 1878, various Factionalists were questioning Ionescu's authority, and considering a merger with either the PNL or the Moderate Liberals.[174] The PNL "Reds" were again nominally allied with the Faction, pushing aside Kogălniceanu—the latter's party sided instead with a Conservative-Liberal group, headed by the old anti-Factionalist Sturdza.[175] During the election of April, the PNL list in Iași was headlined by the former Junimist Vasile Alecsandri, with Fătu, Gheorghian, Gheorghiu, Holban, Pastia, and A. Șendrea among the lesser candidates; Junimea and the Conta–Mârzescu–Ciupercescu group ran on the Conservative-Liberal ticket.[176] As Minister of the Interior, C. A. Rosetti visited Iași and met with the Factionalist leaders at România Hotel. Fearful of not losing electoral power and hence offices, they vetoed Rosetti's plan to rewrite the constitution.[177]

The party soon switched tactics: Tacu and his younger disciple, Coco Dimitrescu-Iași, were putting out the group's newspaper, Mișcarea Națională ("National Movement"), strongly anti-government and critical of Brătianu's "Byzantinism".[41] The debates over antisemitism were rekindled by the Congress of Berlin, which asked Romania to naturalize its Jews. The PNL divided itself over the issue, and the Factionalists reemerged with their old nationalist message. However, they found themselves unable to compete with a younger category of antisemitic activists, rallied by Conta.[178] Ionescu objected to the liberalization of citizenship laws, describing them the process as a "stain on modern Romanian society."[31] While Rosetti and his Românul advocated a compromise, Ionescu and Vernescu proposed defying the international consensus, even at the risk of independence not being recognized; they only recommended naturalizing those Jews "who will ask us to".[179] Tzony took a more moderate position, advocating citizenship rights for Jewish war veterans and, "in due time", emancipation for the community as a whole.[180]

Final years

During the election of 1879, Factionalists endorsed Catargiu's catch-all Conservative Party, and ran on a common list. The alliance was defeated, obtaining only 15 seats in Chamber; a full merger between the two parties was not attempted, with the Conservatives noting that they "needed no such grafting."[181] By January 1880, with most of the Moderate Liberals absorbed into the PNL,[182] Ionescu and some who had debuted with the Faction, including Ștefan Șendrea, joined Vernescu's own Sincere Liberal Party, which sought to reclaim the middle-class vote.[1][183] Ionescu was for a while a member of the Central Committee of that party,[184] which was sometimes referred to as the "Vernescu–Ionescu liberal faction".[179] According to seething diary entries by Domnitor Carol, in 1881 Catargiu, Vernescu and Ionescu had formed "something like a party", and were filibustering in Chamber against PNL laws.[184]

Allied with Rosetti, Ionescu was unable to make the constitution itself more liberal, but, in 1882, managed to reform the labor contracts.[185] By then, he had renounced the cause of republicanism, backing the Kingdom of Romania upon its proclamation in March 1881. H was also warning against anti-state agitation by the socialists and foreign "Nihilists", while rejecting a PNL project to place all radicals under police supervision.[186] In socialist circles, Holban and Tzony were known for participating in the crackdown against Moldavian socialism: allegedly, they engineered the persecution of Nikolai Sudzilovsky, Theodor Speranția, and Ioan Nădejde.[187]

From 1880, the PNL chapters in Moldavia had begun a focused campaign to "coerce [the Faction] into merging with the National Liberal party."[188] As a sign of this rapprochement, in 1882 several old Factionalist parliamentarians, including Ionescu, supported measures to fold the Civic Guard into the regular army.[189] Before the election of 1884, Tacu, Ștefan Șendrea, Gheorghiu and their colleagues left the Faction to take up PNL seats in Chamber, being criticized by the anti-Brătianu camp for their quick transformation into disciplined party cadres.[41][190] That year, Ionescu won a deputy's seat at Roman, returning to Chamber for a final term in the October 1888 election, but at Iași.[191] His Sincere Liberals still existed, absorbing remnants of the Moderate Liberal Party.[192] Ionescu was again hostile to Carol, now King of the Romanians, objecting to the creation of a Crown Domain under Ioan Kalinderu and defending Tzony when the latter was indicted for lèse-majesté.[122] Following the peasant riots of Ilfov County, put down by a Conservative administration, he asked for a formal inquiry—although he also supported the Conservative focus on a balanced budget.[193]

According to Conservative reports, in 1887 the Faction still existed as a distinct chapter within the PNL "collective", kept alive by the spoils system and working to "falsify public opinion" on the side of the PNL.[194] In 1889, Ionescu was an unaffiliated deputy, but loosely associated with George Panu's Radicals; his own son Eugen had joined Junimea's parliamentary group.[195] Ionescu Sr eventually joined the PNL in 1890, after which his political involvement was reduced to occasional speeches.[196] Like Eugen, who also joined the PNL, Ionescu remained essentially an outsider, "free and independent" within the party.[152] In contrast, Holban, who still regarded himself as the Factionalist leader,[197] crossed the floor and, by 1894, was one of the Conservative bosses in Iași—alongside Sturdza and Junimists such as Pogor and the Negruzzis.[198] In 1902, Hasdeu wrote the Faction's epitaph, noting that it had burned its "rather short fuse", whereas Junimea, being able to canvass outside Moldavia, "lasted longer."[199]

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 "Condeie", in România Liberă, December 6 (18), 1886, p. 2
  2. ↑ Scurtu, p. 154; Totu, pp. 123–124
  3. ↑ Marton, p. 26. See also Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 301
  4. ↑ Panu, pp. 12–13
  5. ↑ Maiorescu, p. 97
  6. ↑ Gafița, p. 98; Marton, p. 144; Panu, pp. 13–14; Xenopol, pp. 504–506
  7. ↑ Gafița, pp. 97–98; Puiu (2010), pp. 219, 221, 224, 228; Xenopol, pp. 504–506
  8. ↑ Maiorescu, pp. 77–78, 98; Scurtu, p. 154
  9. ↑ Maiorescu, pp. 78–79, 98; Marton, p. 144; Puiu (2010), p. 221, 228–229; Scurtu, p. 154; Xenopol, p. 505
  10. ↑ Ornea, p. 253
  11. ↑ Puiu (2010), p. 219
  12. ↑ Marton, pp. 30–31, 241; Scurtu, p. 154; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 128–130, 142
  13. 1 2 Puiu (2010), p. 220
  14. ↑ Puiu (2011), pp. 100, 103–104; Xenopol, pp. 504, 525
  15. ↑ Gafița, pp. 91–95
  16. ↑ Gafița, pp. 95–96
  17. ↑ Marton, p. 12
  18. ↑ Maiorescu, pp. 76–77, 515; Panu, pp. 13–14; Xenopol, p. 505
  19. ↑ Xenopol, pp. 503, 506
  20. ↑ Maiorescu, pp. 9–10
  21. ↑ Marton, p. 146; Puiu (2011), p. 102; Xenopol, p. 506
  22. 1 2 3 Puiu (2011), p. 99
  23. ↑ Xenopol, p. 479
  24. ↑ Maiorescu, pp. 13–14, 329; Xenopol, pp. 482–500. See also Balan, pp. 70–71; Marton, p. 146
  25. ↑ Xenopol, pp. 492, 496–498
  26. ↑ Xenopol, pp. 489–499
  27. ↑ Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 269
  28. ↑ Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 301
  29. ↑ Puiu (2010), pp. 220, 228. See also Scurtu, p. 154
  30. ↑ Antonovici, pp. XIV–XVII, 258
  31. 1 2 3 4 Puiu (2010), p. 224
  32. ↑ Xenopol, pp. 510–512
  33. ↑ Știrbăț, "Partidul...", p. 112
  34. ↑ Xenopol, pp. 518–519, 570
  35. ↑ Gafița, p. 98
  36. ↑ Brătescu, pp. 22–24; Maiorescu, pp. 19, 80; Ornea, p. 253; Puiu (2010), pp. 225–226; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 134–135
  37. ↑ Marton, p. 26; Puiu (2010), pp. 225–226; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 125, 128
  38. ↑ Marton, pp. 26, 143–148
  39. ↑ Gafița, p. 99
  40. ↑ Puiu (2010), p. 223 and (2011), pp. 100, 103
  41. 1 2 3 Alecu D. Holban, "Masca jos!", in Epoca, October 1 (13), 1886, pp. 1–2
  42. ↑ Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 112
  43. ↑ Puiu (2010), pp. 222–223; Xenopol, pp. 525–528
  44. ↑ Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 113
  45. ↑ Marton, p. 243
  46. ↑ Puiu (2011), p. 104
  47. ↑ Marton, pp. 32, 174–175, 244; Puiu (2010), p. 222 and (2011), pp. 103–104; Xenopol, pp. 535–538
  48. ↑ Puiu (2010), p. 222 and (2011), pp. 103–104
  49. ↑ Marton, p. 263; Puiu (210), p. 222 and (2011), pp. 103–104
  50. ↑ Maiorescu, p. 12
  51. ↑ Puiu (2011), pp. 99–100
  52. ↑ Scurtu, p. 298
  53. ↑ Brătescu, pp. 14–21; Marton, pp. 75–76, 183, 191; Puiu (2010), pp. 217–218; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 122–125, 128
  54. ↑ Puiu (2010), p. 217; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 125, 128
  55. ↑ Brătescu, pp. 14–15; Marton, pp. 75–76, 143–144, 153, 191–200, 285; Puiu (2010), pp. 217–219, 225–226; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 122–125, 128. See also Maiorescu, pp. 80, 439, 515–517; Panu, p. 99; Totu, pp. 123–147
  56. ↑ Puiu (2010), p. 218
  57. ↑ Marton, pp. 191–200; Scurtu, p. 299
  58. ↑ Scurtu, p. 299
  59. 1 2 "Revista politica", in Ghimpele, Nr. 4/1868, p. 1
  60. ↑ "Bucurescĭ 28 Îndrea 1867/9 Cărindariŭ 1868", in Romanulu, December 25–29, 1867, p. 1105; "D–luĭ Redactore alŭ d̦iaruluĭ Românulŭ", in Romanulu, January 1–3, 1868, p. 3
  61. ↑ Brătescu, pp. 21–22
  62. ↑ Marton, p. 32
  63. ↑ Marton, pp. 24, 155
  64. ↑ Balan, p. 68; Brătescu, pp. 15–22; Gafița, pp. 97–98; Maiorescu, pp. 515–517; Puiu (2010), pp. 221–222, 225–226; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 125; Totu, pp. 123–124
  65. ↑ Brătescu, p. 22
  66. ↑ Xenopol, p. 519
  67. ↑ Maiorescu, pp. 49–50
  68. ↑ Maiorescu, p. 45; Săteanu, p. 169
  69. ↑ Marton, p. 143
  70. ↑ Puiu (2010), p. 224 and (2011), p. 101
  71. ↑ Marton, pp. 144, 147
  72. ↑ Marton, pp. 147–149, 153–154
  73. ↑ Puiu (2010), pp. 218, 225–226 and (2011), pp. 107–109
  74. ↑ Marton, pp. 147, 258–261, 263
  75. ↑ Maiorescu, pp. 130–138
  76. ↑ Totu, pp. 140–145
  77. ↑ Brătescu, p. 23, See also Puiu (2010), p. 226
  78. ↑ Puiu (2010), pp. 219–220, 228
  79. ↑ Știrbăț, "Partidul...", p. 102
  80. ↑ Vladimir Streinu, "Ion Creangă", in Șerban Cioculescu, Ovidiu Papadima, Alexandru Piru (eds.), Istoria literaturii române. III: Epoca marilor clasici, p. 260. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1973. See also Săteanu, pp. 172–173
  81. ↑ Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 301–303; Maiorescu, pp. 21, 48–50, 73–84; Marton, pp. 160–163; Ornea, pp. 77–78, 252–258
  82. ↑ Maiorescu, pp. 78–80, 99–109, 515–526
  83. ↑ Balan, passim; Marton, pp. 154–160
  84. ↑ Gafița, pp. 98, 100–101; Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 301, 303; Marton, p. 155; Ornea, p. 253
  85. ↑ Maiorescu, p. 19. See also Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 124–125
  86. ↑ Gafița, pp. 97–102; Ghenghea, p. 116; Marton, p. 146; Ornea, p. 253; Panu, pp. 18–19, 26–29, 45–46, 48, 57, 64–65, 73, 105, 113; Puiu (2010), p. 227; Săteanu, pp. 7–12, 38–39, 42, 254, 331; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 125 and "Partidul...", p. 102
  87. ↑ Balan, p. 71; Gafița, p. 101. See also Panu, p. 73
  88. ↑ Gafița, p. 100; Săteanu, pp. 10–12
  89. ↑ Maiorescu, pp. 439–440; Săteanu, pp. 7–9
  90. ↑ Gafița, pp. 101–102; Panu, pp. 27–29
  91. ↑ Panu, p. 73
  92. ↑ Brătescu, pp. 26–27; Marton, pp. 24, 28–29, 33, 74–76, 200–202. See also Maiorescu, pp. 19–20
  93. ↑ Brătescu, pp. 25–26
  94. ↑ Puiu (2011), p. 101
  95. ↑ "Romani'a. Adunarea deputatiloru. Sedinti'a de la 26 aprilie 8 maiu 1868", in Federatiunea, Nr. 68/1868, p. 268
  96. ↑ Puiu (2010), pp. 216–217, 218; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 124–125, 128
  97. ↑ Marton, pp. 23–25, 200–201, 215–219. See also Scurtu, p. 299
  98. ↑ Marton, pp. 201–219, 238–241, 286; Săteanu, p. 355
  99. ↑ Săteanu, p. 355
  100. ↑ Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 268–269
  101. ↑ Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 271–272
  102. ↑ Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 270–273
  103. ↑ Marton, pp. 23–25
  104. ↑ Puiu (2010), p. 221 and (2011), p. 111
  105. ↑ Marton, pp. 26–28, 144–146
  106. ↑ Marton, p. 255
  107. ↑ Marton, pp. 28–30, 157–158, 173, 221, 284–287
  108. ↑ Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 274; Marton, pp. 153, 221–241
  109. ↑ Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 274
  110. ↑ Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 275
  111. ↑ Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 276
  112. ↑ Marton, p. 221–222. See also Scurtu, p. 299
  113. ↑ Puiu (2010), p. 226
  114. ↑ Marton, pp. 223–225
  115. ↑ Totu, p. 239
  116. ↑ Marton, pp. 17, 33–34, 133–136
  117. ↑ Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 280
  118. ↑ Marton, pp. 246, 247–250, 264
  119. ↑ Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 285–287, 311–312; Maiorescu, pp. 19–26; Marton, pp. 42–69, 91–95, 124–132; Puiu (2011), p. 102; Totu, pp. 239–244
  120. ↑ Marton, pp. 145–146, 153–154
  121. ↑ Marton, pp. 258–259, 263
  122. 1 2 Puiu (2011), p. 102
  123. ↑ Marton, pp. 145–146
  124. ↑ Marton, pp. 250–252, 268–270. See also Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 289–295
  125. ↑ Marton, pp. 141, 166, 264–272
  126. ↑ Marton, pp. 268–272, 281. See also Puiu (2010), pp. 220–221
  127. ↑ Maiorescu, pp. 26–36, 247, 486–487; Marton, pp. 138, 272–284
  128. ↑ Th. I. Focșăneanul, "Stroĭe Corbeanul de Alexandru Lazarescul (Laerțiŭ). Operă postumă, precedată de viața și operele luĭ. (Urmare)", in Revista Literară, Nr. 9/1892, pp. 142–143
  129. ↑ Marton, pp. 138, 274–275, 282. See also Puiu (2010), p. 218
  130. ↑ Maiorescu, pp. 27–36; Marton, pp. 279–281
  131. ↑ Marton, pp. 280–284
  132. ↑ Maiorescu, pp. 41–42
  133. ↑ Maiorescu, pp. 54–71, 320–334; Ornea, pp. 258–262, 264–265
  134. ↑ Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 297; Maiorescu, pp. 65–66, 69; Ornea, p. 259
  135. ↑ Puiu (2010), p. 226; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 121
  136. ↑ Marton, pp. 13–15, 138–139
  137. ↑ Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 295–297
  138. ↑ Marton, pp. 13–15, 165–173
  139. ↑ Maiorescu, pp. 73–109, 234–240, 285–287, 342–384, 439–476, 504–528; Panu, p. 113; Puiu (2010), p. 227 and (2011), pp. 111–114; Ornea, pp. 262–269. See also Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 125
  140. ↑ Maiorescu, pp. 518–521
  141. ↑ Maiorescu, pp. 114–123; Ornea, p. 264
  142. ↑ Marton, pp. 147–149
  143. ↑ Maiorescu, pp. 214–227. See also Puiu (2011), pp. 103–104
  144. ↑ Ghenghea, pp. 116–118. See also Săteanu, pp. 68–69
  145. ↑ Ghenghea, p. 117
  146. 1 2 Puiu (2010), p. 222 and (2011), p. 105
  147. ↑ Maiorescu, pp. 186–192
  148. ↑ Puiu (2011), pp. 105–107
  149. ↑ Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 297–300; Marton, pp. 281, 286–287; Puiu (2010), p. 226; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 121–126
  150. ↑ Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 298–300. See also Panu, p. 105; Scurtu, p. 154; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 121
  151. ↑ Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 124–136 and "Partidul...", pp. 102, 105–111
  152. 1 2 Puiu (2010), p. 227
  153. ↑ Ornea, pp. 269, 272–275; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 125–126. See also Maiorescu, pp. 192, 256–257, 320–334, 521–522, 580–582
  154. ↑ Puiu (2010), p. 227; Scurtu, p. 300
  155. ↑ Marton, pp. 138–143, 166
  156. ↑ Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 132
  157. ↑ Puiu (2010), p. 221 and (2011), p. 102
  158. ↑ Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 135–136
  159. ↑ Gafița, pp. 91, 102; Puiu (2010), pp. 225, 227, 229 and (2011), pp. 109–110; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 135–137
  160. ↑ Puiu (2010), p. 225 and (2011), p. 109
  161. ↑ Gafița, p. 103
  162. ↑ Puiu (2011), pp. 106–107
  163. ↑ Puiu (2011), p. 106
  164. ↑ Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 129
  165. ↑ Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 128–129, 135
  166. ↑ Știrbăț, "Partidul...", pp. 114–117, 127
  167. ↑ Știrbăț, "Partidul...", pp. 108–111, 114–115
  168. ↑ Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 137–138 and "Partidul...", pp. 110–111, 114–115
  169. ↑ Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 141 and "Partidul...", pp. 117, 126
  170. ↑ Ornea, pp. 270–271
  171. ↑ Puiu (2010), p. 225 and (2011), p. 109; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 140
  172. ↑ Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 140
  173. ↑ Totu, p. 251
  174. ↑ Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 141
  175. ↑ Știrbăț, "Partidul...", pp. 123–125
  176. ↑ Săteanu, pp. 38–39
  177. ↑ Știrbăț, "Partidul...", p. 123
  178. ↑ Ana Conta Kernbach, "Biografia lui B. Conta (Adăugiri și îndreptări)", in Viața Romînească, Nr. 10–11–12/1915, pp. 56–62
  179. 1 2 "Revista diuaristica", in Gazet'a Transilvaniei, Nr. 72/1879, p. 3
  180. ↑ "Bucuresci, 27 Iuniu", in Telegraphul, June 28, 1879, p. 1
  181. ↑ "Arena ziarelor", in România Liberă, June 18, 1880, p. 3
  182. ↑ Știrbăț, "Partidul...", pp. 126–127
  183. ↑ Puiu (2011), p. 110; Scurtu, p. 154; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 129
  184. 1 2 Puiu (2011), p. 110
  185. ↑ Puiu (2011), pp. 105, 110–111
  186. ↑ Puiu (2011), pp. 102, 108
  187. ↑ L. Gîrbea, "Asupra învățămîntuluĭ la noĭ", in Contemporanul, Nr. 10/1888, pp. 307–311
  188. ↑ Antonovici, p. XV
  189. ↑ Totu, pp. 280–288
  190. ↑ "Noua Constituție", in Lupta, July 26, 1884, pp. 1–2
  191. ↑ Puiu (2011), pp. 99–100, 102
  192. ↑ Scurtu, p. 158
  193. ↑ Puiu (2011), pp. 107, 110–111
  194. ↑ Tutoveanu, "Din districte. Alegerile de la Bêrlad, IV", in Epoca, June 2 (14), 1887, pp. 2–3
  195. ↑ "Votul fortificațiunilor", in România Liberă, April 6 (18), 1889, p. 1
  196. ↑ Gafița, pp. 103–107
  197. ↑ Scurtu, p. 154
  198. ↑ Rudolf Șuțu, Iașii de odinioară, I, pp. 1–4, 8, 14, 120–121. Iași: Tipografia Lumina Moldovei, 1923
  199. ↑ Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 301–302

References

  • Iacov Antonovici, Un dascăl ardelean la Bârlad: Ioan Popescu. Huși: Atelierele Zanet Corlățeanu, 1928. OCLC 895494408
  • Dinu Balan, "«La question juive» dans la premiere partie de l'anée 1868. Une perspective conservatrice: la gazette Terra", in Codrul Cosminului, Nr. 14 (2008), pp. 63–76.
  • Liviu Brătescu, "Căderea guvernului liberal-radical (1867–1868). Un episod al problemei evreiești din România", in Vasile Ciobanu, Sorin Radu (eds.), Partide politice și minorități naționale din România în secolul XX, Vol. III, pp. 12–28. Sibiu: TechnoMedia, 2008. ISBN 978-973-739-261-9
  • Irina Gafița, "Nicolae Ionescu și contemporanii săi", in Buletinul Cercurilor Științifice Studențești, Arheologie–Istorie–Muzeologie, Issues 17–18, 2011–2012, pp. 91–108.
  • Mircea-Cristian Ghenghea, "'Nicu Gane asfalta' — începuturile lucrărilor edilitare din Iași (1872–1873) reflectate în paginile Curierului de Iași", in Anuarul Muzeului Literaturii Române Iași, Vol. V, 2012, pp. 115–119.
  • Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu (ed. Mircea Eliade), Scrieri literare, morale și politice. Tomul 2. Bucharest: Fundația pentru Literatură și Artă Regele Carol II, 1938. OCLC 45702309
  • Titu Maiorescu, Discursuri parlamentare cu priviri asupra desvoltării politice a Romaniei sub domnia lui Carol I. Volumul I: 1866–1876. Bucharest: Editura Librăriei Socecŭ & Comp., 1897.
  • Silvia Marton, "Republica de la Ploiești" și începuturile parlamentarismului în România. Bucharest: Humanitas, 2016. ISBN 978-973-50-5160-0
  • Z. Ornea, Junimea și junimismul, Vol. I. Bucharest: Editura Minerva, 1998. ISBN 973-21-0562-3
  • George Panu, Amintiri de la 'Junimea' din Iași. Volumul I. Bucharest: Editura Remus Cioflec, 1942.
  • Adrian-Nicolae Puiu,
    • "O dizidență liberală: fracțiunea liberă și independentă de la Iași", in Suceava. Anuarul Muzeului Bucovinei, Vol. XXXVII, 2010, pp. 209–230.
    • "Nicolae Ionescu – Activitatea parlamentară", in Suceava. Anuarul Muzeului Bucovinei, Vol. XXXVIII, 2011, pp. 97–114.
  • Cornel Săteanu, Figuri din "Junimea". Bucharest: Editura Bucovina, ca. 1932. OCLC 889568088
  • Ioan Scurtu (ed.), Enciclopedia partidelor politice din România, 1859–2003. Bucharest: Editura Meronia, 2003. ISBN 973-8200-54-7
  • Gheorghe-Florin Știrbăț,
    • "Marea formațiune liberală în anii 1876–1878", in Acta Moldaviae Septentrionalis, Vol. XI, 2012, pp. 121–143.
    • "'Partidul Liberalilor Moderați' din Iași la 1878. Unele considerații", in Carpica, Vol. XLI, 2012, pp. 101–128.
  • Maria Totu, Garda civică din România 1848—1884. Bucharest: Editura Militară, 1976. OCLC 3016368
  • A. D. Xenopol, Istoria partidelor politice în România. Bucharest: Albert Baer, 1910.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.