• Subiect: Starting from the analysis of the contents with propagandistic finality done by Bernard Guénée, "Histoire et culture historique dans l'Occident medieval", as well as from the remark that troubled times are favourable to the historiography, the present study deals with a "paraleli reading" (after the methodologial suggestion made by N. Iorga) of the histories written in the second half of the XVIIth century in Muntenia from partisan positions: "Istoria Ţării Româneşti de când au descălecat pravoslavnicii creştini (Letopiseţul Cantacuzinesc)", ascribed to Stoica Ludescu, and the "Letopiseţul Bălenilor" ascribed to Radu Popescu. The background o f the relationship power-history in the XVIIth Century registers a novelty: in England as well as in France there appears a Party history: the Party is supported through the commendation of an event which proved to be succesful thanked to the respective Party. G. Lefebvre remarked that the manner was eulogistic but it offers the history a character unknown before. Besides the obwious tendency of the two chronicles of extolling and Justifying the actions of the boyars Parties, whose interests they represented,we intend to governance, i.e. a model suggested for the organisation and ruling of the State, which results from the adherence or taker by a hospodar or a boyar group. Without going into the controversies on the character of the political system in the Romanian Countries in the XVIIIth century quite often called aristocratic - boyar regime (government), we note only Florin Constantiniu's remark, according to which there is a difference between the baroque sensitivity and the insecurity of the position of the aristocratic class as a consequence of the Ottoman domination. The Complexity of the historical situation detennined, within this period of time, the aparition of a great number of historiographie monuments, which caused more frends in the political ideas, all of them a results of the political thought of the leading class. According to Eugen Stănescu, the advanced solutions promoted by the historical writing are divided into: a. radical solutions (Letopiseţul Cancatuzinesc); b. conciliatory solutions (Letopiseţul Bălenilor) which suggests partial reforms and not the basic reorganisation of the political system in force). This distinction is the expression of the projection in the plan of the ideas of the practical division of the aristocratic class into rival groups. The opening of our historical literature of the XVIIth century towards the new ideas was well noted by Alexandru Duţu, who got the partisan croniclers to write in the besement of a Bràncovenian edifice. This history registers the race for power, the outburst of personal interests and desire for possesion. In the analysis of the two above-mentioned histories, we will take into account the author's atitude towards some events and the alteration grade of the historical truth, when this one is not part of a pre-established scheme of a demonstration. Three elements can be followed in the reconstruction of the coordinates of the governing model proposed byt he boyard formations: 1. Th e image of the hospodar (the legitimation of the throne and the way of governing); 2. Th e relationship between the hospodar and boyars; 3. Th e relationship between noblemen and the producting masses, which really are not brought forward. The paraleli analysis we were previously talking about led to interesting conclusions: - the contemporary regims do not correspond to the political programme sustained by the two chroniclers, in which situation we have to refer to the importance of the past so as to shape out a model of ruling for the Romanian Society; -the example reigns are surprinsingly the same for both histories; they are represented by Radu Negru, Neagoe Basarab and Matei Basarab; - these reigns are authoritative and they control the boyars the moment they take political decisions, but at the same time they enjoy a "total" social adherence, which means that they assure the peace and tranquility in the country, always invoked and appreciated by the two chroniclers. We consider these conclusions to be quite worth mentioning, if the discussion about the nature of the political system in the XVIIth century Romanian Countries is eventually resumed.
  • Limba de redactare: română
  • Vezi publicația: Muzeul Naţional
  • Anul publicaţiei: 1999
  • Referinţă bibliografică pentru nr. revistă: XI; anul 1999
  • Paginaţia: 5-14
  • Navigare în nr. revistă:  |<  <  1 / 33   >  >|