View source for Junimea

{{Short description|Romanian literary society}}
{{distinguish|Societatea Academică Junimea}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}}
{{italic title}}
'''''Junimea''''' was a [[Romania]]n [[literary society]] founded in [[Iași]] in 1863, through the initiative of several foreign-educated personalities led by [[Titu Maiorescu]], [[Petre P. Carp]], [[Vasile Pogor]], [[Theodor Rosetti]] and [[Iacob Negruzzi]]. The foremost personality and mentor of the society was Maiorescu, who, through the means of scientific papers and essays, helped establish the basis of the modern [[Romanian culture]]. Junimea was the most influential intellectual and political association from Romania in the 19th century.

==Beginnings==
[[File:Junimea members 1883.jpg|thumb|Collective portrait of Junimea, 1883]]

In 1863, four years after the [[unification of Moldavia and Wallachia]] (''see: [[United Principalities]]''), and after the moving of the capital to [[Bucharest]], five enthusiastic young people who had just returned from their studies abroad created in Iaşi a society which wanted to stimulate the cultural life in the city. They chose the name "''Junimea''", a slightly antiquated Romanian word for "Youth".

It is notable that four of the founders were part of the Romanian elite, the [[boyar]] class ([[Theodor Rosetti]] was the brother-in-law of [[Domnitor]] [[Alexandru Ioan Cuza]], Carp and Pogor were sons of boyars, and Iacob Negruzzi was the son of [[Costache Negruzzi]]), while Titu Maiorescu was the only one born in a family of city elite, his father [[Ioan Maiorescu]] having been a professor at the National College in [[Craiova]] and a representative of the Wallachian government to the [[Frankfurt Parliament]] during the [[1848 Wallachian Revolution]].

==The literary association==
[[File:Iaşi , Romanian Literature Museum (House Pogor)2.JPG|thumb|right|Pogor House in [[Iași]], the headquarters of Junimea; nowadays, The Romanian Literature Museum]]
The earliest literary gathering was one year after ''Junimea'''s founding, in 1864, when members gathered to hear a translation of ''[[Macbeth]]''. Soon afterwards, it became common that they would meet each Sunday in order to discuss the problems of the day and review the newest literary works. Also, there were annual lectures on broad themes, such as  ''Psychological Researches'' (1868 and 1869), ''Man and Nature'' (1873) or ''The Germans'' (1875). Their audience was formed of the Iaşi intellectuals, students, lawyers, professors, government officials, etc.

In 1867 Junimea started publishing its own literary review, ''[[Convorbiri Literare]]''. It was to become one of the most important publications in the history of [[Literature of Romania|Romanian literature]] and added a new, modern vision to the whole Romanian culture.

Between 1874 and 1885, when the society was frequented by the Romanian literature classics – [[Mihai Eminescu]], [[Ion Creangă (writer)|Ion Creangă]], [[Ion Luca Caragiale]], [[Ioan Slavici]] – and many other important cultural personalities, it occupied the central spot of cultural life in Romania.

==Theory==

==="Forms without substance"===
After the [[Treaty of Adrianople (1829)|Treaty of Adrianople]] of 1829, the [[Danubian Principalities]] (Moldavia and Wallachia) were allowed to engage in trade with other countries than those under [[Ottoman Empire|Ottoman]] rule and with this came a great opening toward the European economy and culture (''see [[Westernization]]''). However, the Junimists argued, through their theory of "''Forms Without Substance''" (''Teoria Formelor Fără Fond'') that Romanian culture and society were merely imitating [[Western culture]], rapidly adopting forms while disregarding the need to select and adapt them to the Romanian context – and thus "lacked a foundation". Maiorescu argued that, while it seemed Romania possessed all the institutions of a modern nation, all were, in fact, shallow elements of fashion:

{{quote|Before we had any village teachers, we created village schools, and before we had any professors, we opened universities, and [thus] we falsified public instruction. Before we had a culture outside of the schools, we created the [[Romanian Atheneum]] and cultural associations, and we despised the spirit of the literary societies. Before we had even a shade of original scientific activity, we created the [[Romanian Academy|Romanian Academic Society]], with [[Philology|philological]], historical-[[Archaeology|archaeological]], [[natural science]]s departments, and we falsified the idea of an Academy. Before we had any notable artists, we created the [[National University of Music Bucharest|Music Conservatory]]; before we had a single worthy painter, we created the [[fine art]] schools; before we had a single valuable play, we founded the [[Romanian National Theater|National Theatre]], and we devalued and falsified all these forms of culture.<ref name="Maiorescu, În contra">Maiorescu, ''În contra...''</ref>}}

Moreover, Maiorescu argued that Romania only had an appearance of a complex modern society, and in fact harbored only two social classes: peasants, which comprised up to 90% of Romanians, and the [[landlord]]s. He denied the existence of a Romanian [[bourgeoisie]], and presented Romanian society as one still fundamentally [[Patriarchy|patriarchal]]. The [[National Liberal Party (Romania, 1875)|National Liberal Party]] (founded in 1875) was dubbed as useless since it had no class to represent. Also, socialism was thought to be the product of an advanced society in Western Europe, and argued to have yet no reason of existence in Romania, where the [[proletariat]] made up a small part of the population – ''Junimea'' saw socialism in the context of Romania as an "exotic plant", and Maiorescu engaged in a polemic with [[Marxism|Marxist]] thinker [[Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea]].

While this criticism was indeed similar to [[Conservatism|political conservatism]], ''Junimea'''s purposes were actually connected with gradual modernization that was meant to lead to a Romanian culture and society able to sustain a dialogue with their European counterparts. Unlike the mainstream [[Conservative Party (Romania, 1880-1918)|Conservative Party]], which sought to best represent landowners, the politically active Junimists opposed excessive reliance on agriculture, and could even champion a peasant [[ethos]]. Maiorescu wrote:

{{quote|The only true social class is the Romanian peasant, and his [daily] reality is suffering. His sighs are caused by the fantasies of the upper classes, for it is out of his daily sweat, that the material means to support this fictitious structure we call Romanian culture are taken. And we force him to hand out the very last measure of himself "[[obolus]]" in order to pay for our painters and musicians, the Academy and Atheneum members, and the literary and scientific awards wherever they are handed out. And we do not have, at the very least, the gratitude to produce a single artistic work that would for a moment raise his spirits and make him forget his daily misery.<ref name="Maiorescu, În contra"/>}}

===Influence===
The cultural life in Romania was since the 1830s influenced by France, and ''Junimea'' brought a new wave of [[Culture of Germany|German]] influence, especially [[German philosophy]], accommodating a new wave of [[Romanticism]] – while also advocating and ultimately introducing [[Literary realism|Realism]] into local literature. As a regular visitor of the Iaşi club, [[Vasile Alecsandri]] was one of the few literary figures to represent both ''Junimea'' and its French-influenced predecessors.<ref>Ibrăileanu, ''Un junimist patruzecioptist''</ref>

The society also encouraged an accurate use of the [[Romanian language]], and Maiorescu repeatedly argued for a common version of the rendition of words in Romanian, favoring a [[phonetic transcription]] over the several versions in circulation after the discarding of the [[Romanian Cyrillic alphabet]]. Maiorescu entered a polemic with the main advocates of a spelling that was reflecting pure [[Latin]] [[etymology]] rather than the spoken language, the [[Transylvania]]n group around [[August Treboniu Laurian]]:

{{quote|There is but a single purpose for speaking and writing: sharing thought. The faster and more accurately thought is shared, the better the language. One of the living sources for the [[Euphony|euphonic]] law of peoples, aside from the elements of [[physiology]], [[ethnicity]] etc., is the increasing speed of ideas and the need for a speedier sharing.<ref name="Maiorescu, Direcţia nouă">Maiorescu, ''Direcţia nouă...''</ref>}}

At the same time, Maiorescu exercised influence through his attack on what he viewed as excessive innovative trends in writing and speaking Romanian:

{{quote|[[Neologism]]s have come to be a real literary affliction with [the Romanian people]. The starting point has been with the tendency to remove [[Slavic languages|Slavic]] words from the language, replacing these with Latin ones, but, using this pretext, most of our writers would, without selection, use new Latin and French words even where we have our own [[Romance languages|Romance]]-origin ones, and would discard those Slavic words that have grown only too deep roots in our language for us to be able to remove them. Both the starting point and its development are equally wrong, and originate yet again with the empty [[Formalism (literature)|formalism]] of theory, to which the real language of the people has never attached itself.<ref name="Maiorescu, Direcţia nouă"/>}}

Accordingly, ''Junimea'' heavily criticized Romanian [[Romantic nationalism]] for condoning excesses (especially in the problematic theses connected to the [[origin of Romanians]]). In the words of Maiorescu:

{{quote|In 1812, [[Petru Maior]] (...) wrote his ''The History of the Romanian Beginnings in [[Dacia]]''. In his tendency to prove that we [Romanians] are un-corrupted descendants of the [[Ancient Rome|Romans]], Maior maintains, in the fourth paragraph, that [[Dacians]] were entirely exterminated by the Romans, and there was thus no mixing of these two peoples. In order to prove such an unnatural hypothesis, our historian relies on a dubious passage in [[Eutropius (historian)|Eutropius]] and a passage in [[Julian the Apostate|Julian]], to which he gives an interpretation that no sane mind could admit, and thus begins the demonstration of our Romance identity through history – with a falsification of history. (...) that which surprises and saddens concerning these creations is not their error itself, since this can be explained and at times justified through the circumstances of the period, but rather the error of our assessment of them nowadays, the haughtiness and self-satisfaction with which they are defended by the Romanian [[intelligentsia]] as if true acts of science, the blindness that provides for a failure to see that building a Romanian national awareness cannot rely on a basis that would enclose a lie.<ref name="Maiorescu, În contra"/>}}

Using the same logic, ''Junimea'' (and especially Carp) entered a polemic with the [[National Liberal Party (Romania, 1875)|National-Liberal]] historian [[Bogdan Petriceicu-Hasdeu]] over the latter's version of Dacian [[Protochronism]].

The society encouraged a move towards [[profession]]alism in the writing of history, as well as intensified research; Maiorescu, who served as Minister of Education in several late-19th century cabinets, supported the creation of new opportunities in the field (including the granting of scholarships, especially in areas that had previously been neglected – amounting to the creation of one of the most influential Romanian generation of historians, that of [[Nicolae Iorga]], [[Dimitrie Onciul]], and [[Ioan Bogdan (historian)|Ioan Bogdan]]).

Although ''Junimea'' never imposed a single view on the matter, some of its prominent figures (Maiorescu, Carp, and ''Junimea'' associate [[Ion Luca Caragiale]]) notoriously opposed the prevalent anti-Jewish sentiment of the political establishment (while the initially Junimist intellectuals [[A. C. Cuza]], [[A. D. Xenopol]], and [[Ioan Slavici]] became well-known [[Antisemitism|antisemites]]).

==Moving to Bucharest==
[[File:Titu Maiorescu House, on Mercur Street.jpg|thumb|[[Titu Maiorescu]] House on Strada Mercur (known today as Strada Arthur Verona), where the meetings of Junimea were held, [[Bucharest]], {{circa}}1870, unknown architect.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Potra|first1=George|title=Din Bucureștii de Altădată|date=1981|publisher=Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică|isbn=|page=|url=|language=ro}}</ref> The house was demolished at the end of the 1950s or in the early 1960s, and now in that place is a playground behind the Eva apartment building]]
In 1885, the society moved to [[Bucharest]], and, through his [[University of Bucharest]] professorship, Titu Maiorescu contributed to the creation of a new ''Junimist'' generation. However, ''Junimea'' ceased to dominate the intellectual life of Romania.

This roughly coincided with the partial transformation of prominent Junimists into politicians, after leaders such as Maiorescu and Carp joined the [[Conservative Party (Romania, 1880-1918)|Conservative Party]]. Initially a separate wing with a moderately conservative political agenda (and, as the ''Partidul Constituţional'', "Constitutional Party", an independent political group between 1891 and 1907), ''Junimea'' representatives moved to the Party's forefront in the first years of the 20th century – both Carp and Maiorescu led the Conservatives in the 1910s.

Its cultural interests moved to historical research, philosophy (the theory of [[Positivism]]), as well as the two greatest political problems – the peasant question (''see the [[1907 Romanian Peasants' Revolt]]''), and the issue of ethnic Romanians in Transylvania (a region which was part of [[Austria-Hungary]]). It ceased to exist around 1916, after becoming engulfed in the conflict over Romania's participation in World War I; leading Junimists (Carp first and foremost) had supported continuing Romania's alliance with the [[Central Powers]], and clashed over the issue with pro-French and anti-Austrian politicians.

==Criticism of ''Junimea'''s guidelines==
The first major review of Junimism came with the rise of [[Poporanism|Romanian populism]] (''Poporanism''), which partly shared the group's weariness in the face of rapid development, but relied instead on distinguishing and increasing the role of peasants as the root of Romanian culture. The populist [[Garabet Ibrăileanu]] argued that ''Junimea'''s conservatism was the result of a conjectural alliance between low and high [[Moldavia]]n [[Boyar|boyars]] against a Liberal-encouraged [[bourgeoisie]], one reflected in the "''[[pessimism]] of the [[Mihai Eminescu|Eminescu]] generation''".<ref name="ReferenceA">Ibrăileanu, ''Deosebirile dintre vechea şcoală critică moldovenească şi "Junimea"''</ref> He invested in the image of low boyars, the [[Romanticism|Romanticist]] agents of the [[Moldavian Revolution of 1848|1848 Moldavian revolution]], as a tradition which, if partly blended into ''Junimea'', had kept a separate voice the literary society itself, and had more in common with ''Poporanism'' than Maiorescu's moderate conservatism:

{{quote|The old school is ''Poporanist'' and traditional, for the old critics have been Romanticists and defenders of the originality of Romanian language and [[Geist|spirit]]. Being Romanticists, they took inspiration from the people's literature, which contains Romanticist elements, and from the past, as all Romanticists did; that is why the Romanticist Eminescu resembles the old school of criticism in this respect. Being [[Radicalism (historical)|democrats]], it was natural that they would turn towards "the people". And as defenders of the originality of language and literature, it was also the people (...) and history (...) that they needed to take inspiration from. Eminescu resembles the old school of criticism in this respect as well. (...) Instead, Mr. Maiorescu was neither a Romanticist, nor a democrat, and neither did he fight as much (...) for maintaining originality in language and literature: as such, Mr. Maiorescu did not look into the ''Poporanist'' current, and treated with a certain disdain or, in any case, with indifference the traditional current.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>}}

The officially sanctioned criticism of ''Junimea'' during the [[Socialist Republic of Romania]] found its voice with [[George Călinescu]], in his late work, the [[Romanian Communist Party|Communist]]-inspired ''[[Compendium]]'' of his earlier ''Istoria literaturii române'' ("The History of Romanian Literature"). While arguing that ''Junimea'' had created a bridge between peasants and boyars, Călinescu criticised Maiorescu's strict commitment to ''[[art for art's sake]]'' and the ideas of [[Arthur Schopenhauer]], as signs of rigidity.<ref>Călinescu, ''Compendiu, XII. Titu Maiorescu''</ref> He downplayed ''Junimea'''s literature, arguing that many Junimists had not reached their own goals (for example, he rejected Carp's criticism of [[Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu]] and others as "''little and unprofessional''"),<ref name="ReferenceB">Călinescu, ''Compendiu, XII. Filologi, istorici, filozofi''</ref> but looked favorably upon the major figures connected with the society ([[Mihai Eminescu|Eminescu]], [[Ion Luca Caragiale|Caragiale]], [[Ion Creangă (writer)|Creangă]] etc.) and secondary Junimists such as the [[Materialism|materialist]] philosopher [[Vasile Conta]].<ref name="ReferenceB"/>
==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==References==
*[[George Călinescu]], ''Istoria literaturii române. Compendiu'' ("The History of Romanian Literature. Compendium"), Editura Minerva, 1983 (Chapter XII, "Junimea")
* [[Keith Hitchins]], ''Rumania : 1866–1947'', Oxford History of Modern Europe, [[Oxford University Press]], 1994
* [[Garabet Ibrăileanu]], [http://ro.wikisource.org/wiki/Spiritul_critic_%C3%AEn_cultura_rom%C3%A2neasc%C4%83 ''Spiritul critic în cultura românească''] ("Selective Attitudes in Romanian Culture"), 1908: [http://ro.wikisource.org/wiki/Spiritul_critic_%C3%AEn_cultura_rom%C3%A2neasc%C4%83:Un_junimist_patruzecioptist:_Vasile_Alecsandri ''Un junimist patruzecioptist: Vasile Alecsandri''] ("An 1848 Generation Junimist: Vasile Alecsandri"); [http://ro.wikisource.org/wiki/Spiritul_critic_%C3%AEn_cultura_rom%C3%A2neasc%C4%83:Evolu%C5%A3ia_spiritului_critic_-_Deosebirile_dintre_vechea_%C5%9Fcoal%C4%83_critic%C4%83_moldoveneasc%C4%83_%C5%9Fi_%22Junimea%22 ''Evoluţia spiritului critic – Deosebirile dintre vechea şcoală critică moldovenească şi "Junimea"''] ("The Evolution of Selective Attitudes – The Differences Between the Old School of Criticism and ''Junimea''")
* [[Titu Maiorescu]], [http://ro.wikisource.org/wiki/În_contra_direcţiei_de_astăzi_în_cultura_română ''În contra direcţiei de astăzi în cultura română''] ("Against the Contemporary Direction in Romanian Culture", 1868) and [http://ro.wikisource.org/wiki/Direc%C5%A3ia_nou%C4%83_%C3%AEn_poezia_%C5%9Fi_proza_rom%C3%A2n%C4%83 ''Direcţia nouă în poezia şi proza română''] ("The New Direction in Romanian Poetry and Prose", 1872)

==External links==
*[http://www.cimec.ro/muzee/Iasi/eng/pogor_eng.htm "Vasile Pogor" House at the Iaşi Romanian Literature Museum]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20060615044351/http://crvp.org/book/Series04/IVA-24/chapter_ix.htm Carmen-Maria Mecu, Nicolae Mecu, ''Paradigms of "Junimea" in Education for a Civic Society''] (an essay on Junimist attitudes and more recent developments)
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20070323160356/http://www.romaniaculturala.ro/Pages/Articol.aspx?ItemID=149 Ovidiu Morar, "Intelectualii români şi 'chestia evreiască'"] ("The Romanian Intellectuals and the 'Jewish Question'"), in ''[[Contemporanul]]'', 6(639)/June 2005

{{Romanian language}}
{{Historical Romanian political parties}}
{{Romanian nationalism}}

[[Category:Junimea| ]]
[[Category:1863 establishments in Romania]]
[[Category:Political parties disestablished in 1916]]
[[Category:Culture in Iași]]
[[Category:Defunct political parties in Romania]]
[[Category:Kingdom of Romania]]
[[Category:1916 disestablishments in Romania]]