Suchergebnisse

Im März 1847 erließ Papst Pius IX die Enzyklika "Praedecessores Nostros", die die katholische Geistlichkeit weltweit aufrief, zur Linderung der großen irischen Hungersnot drei Tage der Gebete und Kollekten abzuhalten. Die Bischöfe, die diese Botschaft in den italienischen Staaten weiterführten, verfassten ihrerseits Appelle zur lokalen Durchführung des Triduums. Sie animierten die Gläubigen, dem Beispiel des Papstes zu folgen, dessen persönliche Spende für Irland zum Jahresbeginn weites Echo in der zeitgenössischen Presse gefunden hatte. Anhand eines Korpus aus fünfundzwanzig bischöflichen Appellen kartiert der vorliegende Beitrag die Implementierung eines globalen Aufrufs zur humanitären und geistlichen Hilfe in Italien. Der Aufsatz verortet die Enzyklika und die bischöflichen Appelle in der politischen und kulturellen Geschichte des vorrevolutionären Italien und verdeutlicht den Einfluss der Zensur. Eine Analyse der narrativen Elemente, der metadiskursiven Ressourcen, der Schlüsselwörter und der biblischen Verweise zeigt die spezifische moralische Ökonomie auf, mit der die Bischöfe zur Spendenfreudigkeit anhielten. ; Nel marzo 1847, Papa Pio IX emanò l'Enciclica "Praedecessores Nostros", un appello rivolto ai prelati di tutto il mondo affinché organizzassero tre giorni di preghiere e di raccolta di offerte a favore dell'Irlanda colpita dalla carestia. Negli stati italiani, le parole del Papa furono comunicate ai fedeli dai vescovi, che emanarono appelli locali. L'invito era di seguire l'esempio del Papa, il cui contributo personale, risalente ai mesi precedenti, aveva avuto vasta eco sui quotidiani della penisola. Con l'ausilio di un corpus di venticinque appelli scritti dai vescovi sull'impulso dell'Enciclica, l'articolo analizza la riproduzione di un appello umanitario globale negli stati italiani. L'articolo contestualizza la distribuzione della "Praedecessores Nostros" e degli appelli dei vescovi nella storia politica e culturale nei territori italiani e mappa l'impatto della censura su questa iniziativa ...

Per oltre quarant'anni, la scrittura della storia nei paesi dell'Europa orientaleè stata fortemente condizionata dagli imperativi ideologici e propagandisticidei regimi comunisti. La storia, più di ogni altra disciplina umanistica, offrivagiustifi cazioni, e quindi legittimità, al potere. Indagare il rapporto tra storia epotere in questo ambito signifi ca tanto addentrarsi nella storia dei socialismireali e dei loro obiettivi – strategie, tattiche, tra rotture con il passato e continuità– quanto approfondire il rapporto che storici ed istituzioni di ricercaintrattenevano con la politica.I saggi presentati in questo volume si concentrano su alcuni aspetti cruciali delrapporto tra Clio e dittature comuniste, dal signifi cato del mestiere di storicoall'interno di realtà che spingevano a cercare accomodamenti e compromessicon il regime – pena la marginalizzazione o la persecuzione –, all'analisidell'interazione delle storiografi e e della loro evoluzione in relazione ai rispettivicontesti istituzionali, all'uso pubblico della storia e dei miti storici da partedei regimi comunisti.

Este artículo tiene como objetivo el análisis de la relación entre la historia y el poder político en la Rumania comunista durante el gobierno de Nicolae Ceauşescu. La sección de apertura del artículo tiene como objetivo explicar cómo la historiografía rumana fue sustituida por una versión pro-soviética y pro-estalinista, con el objetivo de proclamar la superioridad de la Unión Soviética y del comunismo. En segundo lugar, la primera sección muestra el delicado paso entre el estalinismo y el comunismo nacional. Como explica la primera sección, el liderazgo rumano entendió que eliminar la dependencia de Moscú era esencial para garantizar la estabilidad interna. Por esta razón, tuvo que crearse una legitimidad genuina al reeditar la ideología nacional rechazada en 1948. La historia nacional recuperó su importancia primordial dentro de la cultura rumana, esta vez al servicio de la élite estalinista y al lado de los símbolos marxista-leninistas. La segunda sección tiene como objetivo mostrar el desarrollo del nuevo canon comunista nacional después de 1965, una vez que Nicolae Ceauşescu asumió el poder. La segunda sección presenta las principales tendencias desarrolladas por la historiografía rumana para inspirar lealtad al Partido Comunista Rumano. Como muestra el artículo, a principios de los años ochenta, el nacionalismo y el culto del líder se convirtieron en las principales tendencias de esta metanarrativa histórica. El epílogo señala brevemente las continuidades y los cambios producidos para la historiografía rumana por el cambio de régimen de 1989. ; This article aims to analyse the relationship between history and political power in communist Romania during the rule of Nicolae Ceauşescu. The article's opening section explains how Romanian historiography was substituted by a pro-Soviet and pro-Stalinist version which proclaimed the superiority of the Soviet Union and of communism; secondly, the section illustrates the delicate passage between Stalinism and national communism. As the section shows, Party Secretary Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej understood that autonomy from Moscow was essential in order to guarantee the internal stability of the Romanian communist élite. For this reason, genuine legitimacy had to be created by reissuing the national ideology dismissed since 1948. National history was given back its primary importance within Romanian culture, this time in service of the Stalinist élite, sided with more traditional Marxist-Leninist tenets, symbols and narratives. The second section illustrates the development of the new national-communist canon after 1965, once Nicolae Ceauşescu took power. The section presents the main trends developed by Romanian historiography in order to inspire loyalty to the Romanian Communist Party. As the article shows, by the early eighties, nationalism and the cult of the leader had become the main trends of this metanarrative. The epilogue briefly points out the continuities and changes produced by the regime change in 1989 for Romanian historiography.Keywords: Historiography; Stalinism; Romania; national communism; politics and history. ; From the Dossier "New Perspectives on Contemporary Romania: From Dictatorial Pasts to a European Future", edited by Dragoș Petrescu ( Cuadernos De Historia Contemporánea , Vol. 42/2020).

This article aims to analyse the relationship between history and political power in communist Romania during the rule of Nicolae Ceauşescu. The article's opening section explains how Romanian historiography was substituted by a pro-Soviet and pro-Stalinist version which proclaimed the superiority of the Soviet Union and of communism; secondly, the section illustrates the delicate passage between Stalinism and national communism. As the section shows, Party Secretary Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej understood that autonomy from Moscow was essential in order to guarantee the internal stability of the Romanian communist élite. For this reason, genuine legitimacy had to be created by reissuing the national ideology dismissed since 1948. National history was given back its primary importance within Romanian culture, this time in service of the Stalinist élite, sided with more traditional Marxist-Leninist tenets, symbols and narratives. The second section illustrates the development of the new national-communist canon after 1965, once Nicolae Ceauşescu took power. The section presents the main trends developed by Romanian historiography in order to inspire loyalty to the Romanian Communist Party. As the article shows, by the early eighties, nationalism and the cult of the leader had become the main trends of this metanarrative. The epilogue will briefly point out the continuities and changes produced by the regime change in 1989 for Romanian historiography. ; Este artículo tiene como objetivo el análisis de la relación entre la historia y el poder político en la Rumania comunista durante el gobierno de Nicolae Ceauşescu. La sección de apertura del artículo tiene como objetivo explicar cómo la historiografía rumana fue sustituida por una versión pro-soviética y pro-estalinista, con el objetivo de proclamar la superioridad de la Unión Soviética y del comunismo. En segundo lugar, la primera sección muestra el delicado paso entre el estalinismo y el comunismo nacional. Como explica la primera sección, el liderazgo rumano entendió que eliminar la dependencia de Moscú era esencial para garantizar la estabilidad interna. Por esta razón, tuvo que crearse una legitimidad genuina al reeditar la ideología nacional rechazada en 1948. La historia nacional recuperó su importancia primordial dentro de la cultura rumana, esta vez al servicio de la élite estalinista y al lado de los símbolos marxista-leninistas. La segunda sección tiene como objetivo mostrar el desarrollo del nuevo canon comunista nacional después de 1965, una vez que Nicolae Ceauşescu asumió el poder. La segunda sección presenta las principales tendencias desarrolladas por la historiografía rumana para inspirar lealtad al Partido Comunista Rumano. Como muestra el artículo, a principios de los años ochenta, el nacionalismo y el culto del líder se convirtieron en las principales tendencias de esta metanarrativa histórica. El epílogo señala brevemente las continuidades y los cambios producidos para la historiografía rumana por el cambio de régimen de 1989.

In 1990, the Institute for Historical and Socio-Political Studies of the Central Committee of the Romanian Communist Party was closed, since the Party was dissolved by the Romanian Revolution. Similar institutions had existed in all countries belonging to the Soviet bloc. This Institute was founded in 1951 under the name of the Party History Institute, and modelled on the Marx-Lenin-Engels Institute in Moscow. Since then, it served the Communist Party in producing thousands of books and journals on the history of the Party and of Romania, following Party orders. Previous research has portrayed the Institute as a loyal executioner of the Party's will, negating the agency of its history-writers in influencing the duties of the Institute. However, the recent opening of the Institute's archive has shown that a number of internal and previously obscured dynamics impacted on its activities. This book is dedicated to the study of the Party History Institute, of the history-writers employed there, and of the narratives they produced. By studying the history-writers and their host institution, this study re-contextualizes the historiography produced under Communist rule by analysing the actual conditions under which it was written: the interrelation between dynamics of control and the struggle for resources, power and positions play a fundamental role in this history. This is the first scholarly inquiry about a highly controversial institute that struggled in order to follow the constantly shifting Party narrative canon, while competing formaterial resources with rival Party and academic institutions. The main actors in this study are the history-writers: Party veterans, young propagandists and educated historians, in conflicting networks and groups, struggled in order to gain access to the limited resources and positions provided by the Party, and in order to survive the political changes imposed by the leadership. By doing so they succeed, on many occasions, to influence the activities of the Institute.

Romania: land of conquest by Romans, Huns, Turks, last outpost of Christendom in Eastern Europe, part of the Eastern front during the 20th century wars, a Soviet satellite and, finally, member of the European Union and of NATO. Romania has always been subject to different ideas of identity meant to define its essence: latinity or dacianism? Europe or authochthonism? The essay aims at analysing the debate regarding the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people since its origin in the 17th century, through the debates of the 19th century and the interwar period and, finally, analysing the debate between latinity and dacianism during the Ceauşescu regime in the light of the cultural politics of the regime and of the debate between different factions of intellectuals. ; As stated explicitly in the text, the original version of this article was written in italian and has been published in the collection BASSI, Jacopo; CANÈ, Gianluca (eds.) Sulle spalle degli antichi. Eredità cassica e costruzione delle identità nazionali nel Novecento, Milano, Unicopli, 2014.

Interview with political scientist Vladimir Tismaneanu about the condition of history discipline in Romania nowadays and its clashes with politics.

The essay aims at understanding the nationalist characters present in the cultural discourse of Romanian national-communism by the multilayered analysis of i) communist regime cultural politics, which developed the discourse on the nation in a Marxist-Leninist framework; ii) the keywords around which Romanian public discourse was build since the beginning of modernity until the instauration of communist regime; iii) the marginality of Marxism-Leninism and othe workers' movement in Romania since the 19th century until the communist takeover.

The Modena History Institute, in the timespam 1969-1989, recevied regularly monographs and reviews published by the ISISP, the History Institute of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Romania. The essay aims at explaining Romanian national-communist cultural politics by the analysis of historical discourse contained in the Romanian monographs and reviews stored by the "Romanian fund" at the Modena History Institute.

Per oltre quarant'anni, la scrittura della storia nei paesi dell'Europa orientaleè stata fortemente condizionata dagli imperativi ideologici e propagandisticidei regimi comunisti. La storia, più di ogni altra disciplina umanistica, offrivagiustifi cazioni, e quindi legittimità, al potere. Indagare il rapporto tra storia epotere in questo ambito signifi ca tanto addentrarsi nella storia dei socialismireali e dei loro obiettivi – strategie, tattiche, tra rotture con il passato e continuità– quanto approfondire il rapporto che storici ed istituzioni di ricercaintrattenevano con la politica.I saggi presentati in questo volume si concentrano su alcuni aspetti cruciali delrapporto tra Clio e dittature comuniste, dal signifi cato del mestiere di storicoall'interno di realtà che spingevano a cercare accomodamenti e compromessicon il regime – pena la marginalizzazione o la persecuzione –, all'analisidell'interazione delle storiografi e e della loro evoluzione in relazione ai rispettivicontesti istituzionali, all'uso pubblico della storia e dei miti storici da partedei regimi comunisti.