N. Steinhardt, “Jurnalul fericirii”

1968.

“La iesirea din brutarie, un cersetor batran, mic, discret.

Ii dau trei sau patru lei.

Isi scoate respectuos palaria si-mi multumeste indrugand lung. De ce nu stiu- amintirea tatei, asemanarea fizica (de mititel garbovit), gestul atat de politicos, rusinea de a fi salutat de un mosneag pentru cativa lei, navala in memorie a scenelor de puscarie revelatoare ale bietei conditii umane?-, dar izbucnesc intr-un plans cu hohote in mijlocul strazii, ca nebunul.”

Gherla, Martie 1962

“Numai ca, spre deosebire de ce cred initiatii guenonisti, teosofi, antroposofi, spiritualisti sau oamenii pozitivi cu idei largi, ori ateistii de nuanta agnostica, divinitatea din cerul al noualea nu este o “forta” sau o “energie”, cat mai impasibila si mai impersonala, un ascuns coordonator sau constructor, ci este Dumnezeu cel cu barba alba, bland si bun, Dumnezeul copilariei celei mai indepartate si al colindelor, al cozonacilor, colindelor si turtelor, al celor mai frumoase seri de Craciun, cel din Dickens si din Bibliotheque Rose.

Aici sta Hristos, Mangaietorul si Odihnitorul, care ne-a fagaduit ca ne va tamadui de rele, scarbe, pacate si dureri, la care se gandesc eroii lui Cehov din Unchiul Vania (Ne vom odihni, unchiule Vania…).”

Jilava, camera 9, 1960

Lui C.C. Jung, in Ceylon, un preot ii spune: “Nu, lui Buddha nu i te poti ruga. Nu i te poti implora. Buddha nu mai e. E in Nirvana”

Asta-i marea deosebire. Hristos, care S-a rugat mereu, asteapta mereu ruga noastra. E cu ochii si cu urechile la noi, mereu la usa.

Hristos, ca si Tatal, lucreaza mereu (Ioan 5,17), iar la fiecare liturghie se jertfeste. El nu e in Nirvana, la odihna, la repaus, la deconectare. E pe santier si pune umarul.”

Un discurs bun

Parlamentarii au aplaudat cateva secunde mai mult decat le dadea voie mizeria contextului istoric romanesc. Au aplaudat un discurs de o lipsa revoltatoare de corectitudine politica, un discurs patriotic si anticomunist lipsit de jena demitizanta, deci sanatos.

Iubitori ai adevarului- capul sus!

Mesajul
presedintelui României, Traian Basescu,
în fata Camerelor reunite ale Parlamentului
(14 aprilie 2009)
Domnule Presedinte al Senatului României,
Doamna Presedinte a Camerei Deputatilor,
Domnule Prim-ministru,
Stimati membri ai Guvernului,
Doamnelor si domnilor parlamentari,
Excelentele voastre,
Dragi români,
Am solicitat sa ma adresez Camerelor reunite ale Parlamentului pentru a-mi exprima
preocuparea fata de recentele evenimente din Republica Moldova. Consider ca avem obligatia
sa analizam împreuna situatia creata la granita de est a tarii noastre, granita a Uniunii
Europene.
Multi s-au întrebat de ce Presedintele României nu a reactionat imediat.
Nu am dorit sa raspundem la provocarile din ultima saptamâna, care urmareau sa justifice
actiunile de represiune prin invocarea atitudinii si actiunilor României. Dar nu putem sa tacem
la infinit, chiar daca va pot prezenta doar o evaluare partiala.
Sunt voci care ne spun ca România ar trebui sa uite de Republica Moldova, sa ne prefacem ca
nu avem o relatie speciala cu cetatenii acestei tari. Acestora le recomand sa-i întrebe pe
români: cum este privit cel care îsi lasa fratii la greu?
Datoria noastra morala este sa nu-i abandonam pe cei care ne vorbesc limba, pe cei care se
revendica de la aceeasi istorie ca si noi, pe cei care vor sa aiba în Europa un viitor comun cu
cel al României, indiferent daca sunt români, ucraineni, rusi sau de alta origine etnica.
România nu vrea sa revendice drepturi asupra unor teritorii pierdute în trecut, România nu
vrea sa puna în discutie granitele sau suveranitatea Republicii Moldova. Este în interesul direct
al României sa se învecineze cu o tara stabila si prospera.
Ca stat european, avem responsabilitatea de a face cunoscut atât aliatilor nostri, cât si celorlalte
state ale lumii, ce se întâmpla dincolo de Prut. Atitudinea noastra pleaca de la valorile care
stau la baza Uniunii Europene, comunitate de tari care are vocatia, asa cum este scris în
Tratatul de la Roma din 1957, sa promoveze pacea si libertatea, chemând toate popoarele
Europei care împartasesc aceste idealuri sa i se alature.
Doamnelor si domnilor,
Am fost primul stat care a recunoscut Republica Moldova, imediat dupa momentul proclamarii
independentei acesteia la 27 august 1991. România a fost si primul stat care a stabilit relatii
diplomatice cu Chisinaul pentru a pune bazele firesti ale relatiei între cetatenii de pe cele doua
maluri ale Prutului. România a facut acest gest desi teritoriul de la est de Prut a fost desprins
din trupul tarii de pactul fascisto-comunist, Ribbentrop-Molotov, declarat si de catre
Parlamentul României drept un act ilegal si arbitrar.
În primii ani dupa 1989, statele noastre au început parcurgerea unui lung drum spre edificarea
unor societati moderne si democratice, fondate pe respectarea drepturilor si libertatilor
fundamentale ale omului. Si România si Republica Moldova se aflau în fata parcursului comun
de la un regim totalitar la un stat de tip european. Si România si Republica Moldova si-au
afirmat vointa de a consacra caracterul unic al relatiilor noastre, consolidat de utilizarea limbii
române si de o istorie comuna. Valorile europene erau împartasite atât la Bucuresti, cât si la
Chisinau, iar integrarea în familia europeana era dezideratul comun al ambelor state.
Înainte de a deveni parte a Uniunii Europene, România a trecut printr-un proces îndelungat de
desprindere de trecutul totalitar. Comisia Internationala pentru Studierea Holocaustului si
Comisia pentru Analiza Dictaturii Comuniste din România au facut o necesara opera de
clarificare a istoriei noastre din ultimul secol, tragând o linie de demarcatie între România
moderna si cele doua totalitarisme care au acaparat statul român vreme de jumatate de veac.
Astfel, am putut privi cu încredere viitorul nostru european.
Cetatenii Republicii Moldova au fost victimele unui sistem totalitar care a lasat urme adânci.
Negarea identitatii românesti este parte a acestei mosteniri totalitare. Pentru o întreaga
generatie de tineri studiul limbii si literaturii române sau al istoriei românilor a devenit o
dovada de curaj. A rosti slujba în limba româna si a oficia într-o biserica apartinând
Mitropoliei Basarabiei a fost, adesea, un act de eroism, desi libertatea religioasa trebuie
respectata ca orice drept universal.
Sechelele comunismului se regasesc si în teza conform careia identitatea unui stat se
construieste lansând permanente acuze la adresa României si a cetatenilor sai. Nu vom accepta
ca românii sa fie culpabilizati pentru ca sunt români. Nu vom accepta ca România sa fie
acuzata de actiuni menite sa destabilizeze Republica Moldova. Nu vom tolera ca românii de
peste Prut sa fie umiliti doar pentru ca nu cred într-un sistem ostil societatii deschise.
Doamnelor si domnilor,
România sprijina neconditionat Republica Moldova. Este în interesul direct al României ca
Republica Moldova sa îsi împlineasca destinul european, conform aspiratiilor cetatenilor ei de
a trai în securitate si stabilitate democratica. Tara noastra considera ca democratizarea si
modernizarea Republicii Moldova, precum si respectarea drepturilor si libertatilor civile ale
cetatenilor sai, sunt elemente fundamentale care influenteaza calitatea relatiilor cu statul vecin,
iar acestea trebuie urmarite indiferent de orientarea politica a autoritatilor de la Chisinau, atât
timp cât sunt rezultatul unor alegeri corecte.
Fara sa cerem nimic în schimb, am devenit avocatul vocatiei europene a Republicii Moldova.
De aceeasi abordare am dat dovada si în demersurile noastre de sustinere la ONU, OSCE,
Consiliul Europei, NATO si în alte organizatii regionale. Am sprijinit includerea Republicii
Moldova în proiectele derulate sub egida Pactului de Stabilitate pentru Europa de Sud Est, în
cadrul Procesului de Cooperare in Europa de sud-est (SEECP), al Acordului de liber schimb în
Europa Centrala (CEFTA), în cadrul Organizatiei Cooperarii Economice la Marea Neagra
(OCEMN), al Initiativei de Cooperare în Europa de sud-est (SECI), ca sa enumar numai o
parte din aceste dovezi de sustinere venite din partea noastra.
În mod constant România a atras atentia comunitatii internationale, Uniunii Europene si
NATO, asupra pericolului pe care îl reprezinta conflictele înghetate, si în mod deosebit,
conflictul transnistrean. România a pledat pentru implicarea Uniunii Europene si a Statelor
Unite ale Americii, alaturi de OSCE, Federatia Rusa si Ucraina, în problematica reglementarii
situatiei din zona transnistreana. România a sustinut decizia Uniunii Europene de a se angaja
concret în aceasta problematica prin crearea si implementarea Misiunii UE de Monitorizare a
frontierei moldo-ucrainene, fiind multumiti de rezultatele pe care aceasta misiune le-a produs
în teren. De asemenea, am apreciat numirea de catre Uniunea Europeana a unui reprezentant
special pentru Republica Moldova si deschiderea unei reprezentante a Comisiei Europene la
Chisinau. În plus, am adus, în mod constant, tema Republicii Moldova pe agenda sesiunilor
Consiliului European.
Schimburile economice dintre tara noastra si Republica Moldova s-au intensificat constant.
Exporturile acestui stat în România au crescut puternic mai ales în ultimul an, sustinute de
regimul comercial preferential asimetric acordat de Uniunea Europeana. România este acum a
treia sursa de importuri si prima destinatie a exporturilor din Republica Moldova.
Cu toate acestea, reactia autoritatilor de la Chisinau a vizat, cu predilectie, împiedicarea
dezvoltarii firesti a relatiilor bilaterale. Astfel, România a fost acuzata, în repetate rânduri, de
“imperialism” si de “expansionism”, inclusiv în fata Curtii Europene a Drepturilor Omului,
unde România nu a facut decât sa apere cauza propriilor ei cetateni.
Identitatea româneasca a fost atacata prin falsificarea istoriei nationale, punerea sub semnul
întrebarii a unitatii limbii române, descurajarea afirmarii apartenentei etnice si tratamentul
discriminatoriu aplicat unor institutii de presa de limba româna. În plus, la probleme pentru
care exista solutii tehnice, cum ar fi solicitarea de a deschide doua consulate la Balti si Cahul
sau micul trafic de frontiera, am primit raspunsuri propagandistice care, de fapt, lovesc chiar
în interesele cetatenilor din Republica Moldova.
Doamnelor si domnilor,
În ultimii patru anii, în pofida sincopelor, ne-am straduit sa relansam relatiile bilaterale.
Datorita acestor eforturi si convingerii ca este în interesul cetatenilor ambelor state sa
beneficieze de avantajele unei relatii constructive, am reusit sa avem aproape în fiecare an
întâlniri si convorbiri la nivel de sef de stat, de Prim-ministru, de ministru de externe.
Am propus si s-a realizat un maximum de angajare în planul dialogului politic. De fiecare
data, la sfârsitul unui asemenea parcurs optimist, liderii de la Chisinau au lansat, printr-o
diplomatie publica gresit înteleasa, cele mai diverse acuzatii, nefondate, la adresa partii
române, menite sa blocheze aproape tot ce se realizase anterior. Nu am renuntat, nu ne-am
angajat pe calea disputelor sterile, nu am anulat resurse sau întelegeri deja convenite, ci am
continuat sa mentinem toate ofertele pozitive, care raspundeau intereselor cetatenilor din
România si din Republica Moldova. Suntem convinsi ca nu avem dreptul sa intram într-o
logica a escaladarii, nici din perspectiva specificitatii relatiilor bilaterale si nici din cea a
spiritului normelor europene. Nu vom abdica de la valorile europene si nici de la obligatiile ce
ne revin prin prisma unitatii istorice, de limba si cultura, între cele doua state.
În pofida unei abordari în care am dovedit deschidere si dorinta de dialog, suntem din nou
confruntati cu atitudini ostile din partea autoritatilor din Republica Moldova, cu acuzatii fara
precedent. Acuzatii, dar nu si probe!
Încercarea de externalizare a originii problemelor interne din Republica Moldova, de
închipuire a unui dusman extern si, pornind de la o asemenea abordare, acuzatiile la adresa
statului român, sunt inacceptabile si ridica semne serioase de întrebare asupra motivelor,
scopurilor si semnificatiilor politice ale acestui tip de atitudine.
De fapt se încearca punerea pe seama românilor si a statului român a responsabilitatii pentru
pasii înapoi facuti în procesul de democratizare, chiar responsabilitatea pentru dificultatile
economice si sociale prin care trece Republica Moldova. Aceste acuzatii ma obliga sa afirm ca
nu România este responsabila pentru esecul democratizarii Republicii Moldova, ci cei care o
conduc în mod periculos înapoi spre trecutul comunist sovietic.
Afirmatiile autoritatilor din Republica Moldova dovedesc rea credinta si încercarea de a
dezinforma. Spre exemplu, autoritatile statului vecin au anuntat introducerea regimului de
vize pentru cetatenii români, subliniind ca astfel cetatenii români vor plati taxe asa cum
cetatenii Republicii Moldova platesc pentru vizele românesti. În realitate, cetatenii Republicii
Moldova nu au platit niciodata taxa de viza, desi partea româna acorda anual circa 120 de mii
de vize, mai multe decât toate celelalte state membre ale Uniunii Europene la un loc.
Modalitatea de introducere de catre autoritatile de la Chisinau a regimului de vize pentru
cetatenii români, care sunt în acelasi timp si cetateni europeni, s-a facut cu încalcarea
acordurilor în vigoare dintre Republica Moldova si Uniunea Europeana în materie de circulatie
a persoanelor si denota atitudinea arbitrara si discriminatorie a autoritatilor de la Chisinau.
Acestea au afectat relatiile cu România prin initierea unor masuri ostile pe plan politic,
mergând pâna la declararea ca persona non grata a ambasadorului nostru. Totusi, România nu
a întreprins contramasuri si va ramâne consecventa sustinerii unei politici active în beneficiul
cetatenilor Republicii Moldova si pentru integrarea acestui stat în Uniunea Europeana.
Tara noastra a condamnat violentele si distrugerile care s-au înregistrat în timpul
manifestatiilor de la Chisinau si a atras atentia asupra necesitatii respectarii normelor
democratice. Responsabilitatea asigurarii ordinii de drept revine conducerii Republicii
Moldova. Evenimentele de la Chisinau, unde autoritatile au permis, repet, au permis accesul
manifestantilor în sediile principalelor institutii ale statului, ridica semne importante de
întrebare. Violentele de acum o saptamâna, inclusiv devastarea unor institutii publice, nu au
servit nici manifestantilor, nici opozitiei politice. Ele au servit exclusiv celor care, de fapt le-au
provocat si le-au facut posibile, adica acelora care detin acum puterea.
Violenta nu este o solutie. Numai prin ajungerea la un acord asupra redemararii procesului de
democratizare se poate iesi din impasul actual.
Suntem îngrijorati de represaliile pe care autoritatile Republicii Moldova le întreprind, de
încalcarile grave ale drepturilor omului. Situatia este agravata de limitarea si blocarea
activitatii reprezentantilor mass-media, actiuni prin care se încearca sa se ascunda opiniei
publice abuzurile si comportamentul brutal al fortelor de ordine. Jurnalistii care mai pot
transmite mentioneaza rapiri de persoane, retineri abuzive, amenintari, terorizarea cetatenilor,
fabricarea de dosare, anchete fara asigurarea asistentei juridice pentru persoanele retinute.
Chiar daca alegerile parlamentare s-ar fi desfasurat corect, libertatile cetatenesti nu pot fi
anulate. Am învatat din istoria recenta ca cenzura asupra mass-media, amenintarile si
violentele asupra jurnalistilor reflecta un sentiment de ilegitimitate si nereprezentativitate.
Este condamnabila amenintarea cetatenilor cu folosirea armelor, amenintare venita din partea
unor lideri marcanti ai Republicii Moldova si care tradeaza o atitudine de neînteles fata de
valoarea unica a vietii fiecarui om. Atragem atentia ca utilizarea armelor împotriva populatiei
civile, în rândul carora se regasesc si cetateni români, constituie o crima. În situatia
înregistrarii, în asemenea circumstante, de victime omenesti, autoritatile române vor
întreprinde toate masurile pentru aducerea în fata justitiei penale internationale a persoanelor
care au executat si comandat astfel de actiuni.
România îsi manifesta preocuparea fata de agresarea si masurile ilegale întreprinse pâna acum
împotriva cetatenilor români. Consideram ca neinformarea partii române cu privire la cetatenii
tarii noastre care sunt, eventual, retinuti sau arestati, precum si interzicerea stabilirii de catre
acestia a legaturii cu Ambasada României pentru asigurarea asistentei consulare constituie
încalcari grave ale normelor internationale. Cerem autoritatilor de la Chisinau sa asigure
imediat reprezentatilor consulari ai României accesul la cetatenii români eventual retinuti,
daca aceasta situatie exista.
În ultimul timp au existat presiuni brutale fata de cetateni ai Republicii Moldova care îsi
afirma identitatea etnica româneasca. Asemenea manifestari românofobe, încurajate de actuala
putere din Republica Moldova, precum si limitarea prin orice forma a dreptului de exprimare
libera cu privire la apartenenta etnica reprezinta manifestari inacceptabile de intoleranta,
caracteristice unor guvernari profund nedemocratice, straine de spiritul european.
Represaliile care au loc în Republica Moldova, încalcarea libertatilor fundamentale, a
drepturilor omului, a libertatii de expresie, expulzarea unor jurnalisti si acuzatiile la adresa
statului român obliga România sa ceara efectuarea unei anchete europene asupra
responsabilitatilor pentru represiunile din ultimele zile.
În conditiile în care masurile represive vor continua, România va analiza, în conformitate cu
normele internationale, formele de asistenta umanitara si de protectie pentru cei a caror viata si
integritate fizica sunt amenintate.
Doamnelor si domnilor,
Elogiez curajul si profesionalismul jurnalistilor care au reflectat corect evolutiile din statul
vecin, asigurând accesul la surse de informare, atunci când acesta se dorea a fi limitat. Am
apreciat gestul de solidaritate al institutiilor media din România care au oferit si vor oferi
sprijin colegilor din Republica Moldova.
Amintesc ca prin articolul 7 al Constitutiei, statul român are obligatia sa acorde sprijin
etnicilor români din afara granitelor. Vom continua sa acordam sprijin persoanelor din
Republica Moldova care se considera români si simt româneste, pentru a-si pastra identitatea.
Nu putem accepta ca românii de peste Prut sa fie izolati de restul Europei. Nu putem accepta
ca, în special generatia tânara, sa nu aiba sansa de a circula liber si de a-si face studiile în tara
noastra sau în restul tarilor europene.
În acest sens, amintesc ca legea româna prevede redobândirea, la cerere, a cetateniei române
de catre fostii cetateni ai statului nostru si urmasii lor, care au fost privati de acest statut
împotriva vointei lor. Constat însa ca procesul birocratic prevazut de aceasta lege limiteaza
drastic numarul persoanelor care beneficiaza în mod real de ea. Ca urmare, am solicitat
Guvernului sa adopte, în regim de urgenta, modificarea legii cetateniei astfel încât sa putem
facilita si urgenta procesul de redobândire a cetateniei de catre cei care si-au pierdut-o abuziv
si de catre famiile acestora, pâna la gradul trei. Astfel, românii din Republica Moldova îsi vor
putea recapata în mod accelerat cetatenia româna si vor deveni din punct de vedere legal, nu
numai moral, membri ai marii familii europene.
Vom continua sa oferim acces nediscriminatoriu si gratuit tuturor tinerilor din Republica
Moldova care doresc sa studieze în limba româna în învatamântul preuniversitar si în
învatamântul superior din România. Vom continua sa sustinem prin proiecte si programe
culturale spiritualitatea româneasca din Republica Moldova. Vom continua sa oferim
posibilitatea ca reprezentantii autoritatilor locale de peste Prut sa beneficieze de expertiza
colegilor români. Vom continua sa sprijinim dezvoltarea societatii civile din Republica
Moldova, cunoscând, din experienta proprie, beneficiile pe care aceasta le aduce consolidarii
democratice.
Acum doresc sa ma adresez în mod special tinerei generatii de peste Prut:
Dragi tineri care va puneti speranta în România, care va puneti speranta în institutiile
europene,
Viitorul nu poate fi decât al vostru! Aveti încredere în fortele libertatii!
Totalitarismul comunist reprezinta trecutul si îsi are locul numai în manuale si în cartile despre
crimele sale.
Republica Moldova nu mai poate fi izolata. La 20 de ani de la caderea zidului Berlinului
nimeni nu mai are dreptul sa ridice un zid între tarile noastre.
Doamnelor si domnilor,
Azi, la granita de rasarit a Uniunii Europene, are loc un conflict între doua sisteme de valori.
Pe 18 decembrie 2006, înainte de intrarea României în Uniunea Europeana, în numele
valorilor europene si universale, am tinut sa condamn regimul comunist din România. Azi
constat cu îngrijorare ca realitati pentru care am condamnat oficial regimul comunist se
regasesc la frontiera României secolului al-21-lea: absenta statului de drept, discriminarea
etnica, reprimarea oponentilor, cenzura, atacarea culturii române, utilizarea saraciei pentru a
crea dependenta de puterea politica, amenintarea cu folosirea fortei împotriva propriilor
cetateni. Iata elemente care, luate împreuna, creeaza o atmosfera de teroare.
La doua decenii de la revolutiile anticomuniste din 1989, tin sa reafirm valorile supreme care
i-au inspirat pe cei care au decis sa nu mai traiasca în minciuna: libertatea individului nu poate
fi negociata; nu exista nici o justificare pentru înjosirea fiintei umane în numele unei false
ratiuni de stat ori de partid; nimeni nu detine monopolul adevarului si nimeni nu poate sa nege
dreptul cetatenilor la exprimarea propriilor opinii, la libera circulatie, la organizare politica în
partide independente.
Fac un apel catre toate partidele politice din România, catre toti liderii de opinie, sa înteleaga
acest moment ca un moment al solidaritatii nationale, ca un moment care nu trebuie sa ne
divizeze, ca un moment în care trebuie, dimpotriva, sa le aratam tuturor ca suntem realisti,
uniti si ca stim sa ne aparam interesul national.
România reafirma principiile Cartei ONU si pe cele ale Actului Final de la Helsinki, chemând
la respectarea integritatii teritoriale, suveranitatii si independentei Republicii Moldova. În
acelasi timp, avem o datorie legala, morala si de onoare fata de românii de peste Prut.
România va sprijini în continuare democratizarea si europenizarea Republicii Moldova. Vom
accelera acordarea cetateniei române celor care au acest drept, vom folosi toate instrumentele
politicii nationale si europene pentru a întari legaturile culturale si relatiile economice cu
Republica Moldova, pentru a dezvolta asistenta acordata administratiei centrale si locale,
pentru a facilita accesul elevilor si studentilor la resursele educationale din România.
Doamnelor si domnilor,
România nu va permite transformarea Prutului într-o noua cortina de fier, Prutul trebuie sa fie
doar o linie de demarcatie temporara a frontierei Uniunii Europene, pâna la integrarea
Republicii Moldova în Uniunea Europeana, proces pe care tara noastra îl va sustine
neconditionat.
Va multumesc!

Departamentul comunicarii publice
14 Aprilie 2009

Ne bate Dumnezeu

Hannah Arendt, “Eichmann la Ierusalim. Raport asupra banalitatii raului.”

“In Romania, chiar si SS-istii erau luati prin surprindere si uneori ingroziti de ororile pogromurilor la scara larga, demodate si in acelasi timp spontane. Deseori interveneau sa-i salveze pe evrei de la macel, astfel incat omorul sa fie facut in- ceea ce ei numeau- mod civilizat.

Nu este o exagerare sa spuneam ca Romania era cea mai antisemita tara a Europei antebelice. Inca din secolul al XIX-lea, antisemitismul romanesc era un fapt bine stabilit. In 1878, marile puteri incercasera sa intervina, prin tratatul de la Berlin si sa determine guvernul roman s-i recunoasca pe locuitorii evrei drept cetateni romani- chiar daca ar fi ramas cetateni de rang secund. Nu au reusit, iar la sfarsitul Primului Razboi Mondial toti evreii romani- cu exceptia catorva sute de familii sefarde si a catorva evrei de origine germana- erau inca straini rezidenti pe teritoriul romanesc.[...]

Doi ani mai tarziu, in august 1940 (sic!), cu cateva luni inaintea intrarii Romaniei in razboi, maresalul Ion Antonescu, seful noii dictaturi a Garzii de Fier, i-a declarat apatrizi pe toti evreii romani, cu exceptia celor cateva sute de familii de evrei ce fusesera cetateni romani inaintea tratatelor de pace. In aceeasi luna, el a instituit o legislatia antievreiasca care era cea mai severa din Europa (luand in considerare si Germania). Categoriile privilegiate, veteranii de razboi si evreii care fusesera cetateni romani inainte de 1918, nu reprezentau mai mult de 10 000 de oameni, deci cel mult 1% din intregul grup etnic. Hitler insusi eea constient de faptul ca Germania risca sa fie depasita de Romania, si i-a atras atentia lui Goebbels, in august 1941, la cateva saptamani dupa ce daduse ordinul pentru Solutia Finala, ca “un om ca Antonescu procedeaza in aceasta chestiune intr-un mod mult mai radical decat am facut-o noi pana la ora actuala.”

Romania a intrat in razboi in iunie 1941, iar Legiunea Romana a devenit o forta militara demna de luat in seama, avandu-se in vedere apropiata invazie a Rusiei. Numai la Odessa, soldatii romani au fost raspunzatori de masacrul a 60 000 de oameni. Spre deosebire de guvernele altori tari balcanice, guvernul roman detinea informatii foarte exacte despre inceputul masacrarii evreilor din Est, iar soldatii romani, chiar dupa ce Garda de Fier a fost indepartata de la guvernare, s-au lansat, in vara anului 1941, intr-un program de masacrare si deportari care au “umbrit pana si rebeliunea de la Bucuresti a Garzii de Fier din luna ianuarie a aceluiasi an- un program de neegalat, din punctul de vedere al ororilor, in tot ansamblul de atrocitati semnalate (Hilberg). Stilul deportarilor romanesti consta in inghesuirea a 5000 de oameni in vagoane de marfa, lasandu-i sa moara acolo asfixiati, in timp ce trenul traversa tara zile de-a randul, fara vreun plan sau scop stabilit. O urmare preferata a acestor operatiuni de exterminare era expunerea cadavrelor in macelarii evreiesti. De asemenea, ororile din lagarele de concentrare romanesti- care fusesera infiintate si erau conduse chiar de catre romani, caci deportarea din Est nu era posibila, erau mai elaborate si mai atroce decat tot ce stim ca a avut loc in Germania. Atunci cand Eichmann si-a trimis la Bucuresti obisnuitul consilier in probleme evreiesti, pe Hauptsturmfuhrerul Gustav Richter, acesta a raportat ca Antonescu dorea acum sa trimita 110 000 de evrei in “doua paduri, de cealalta parte a raului Bug”, adica in teritoriul rusesc controlat de germani, pentru a-i lichida. Germanii au fost oripilati si toata lumea a intervenit.[...]

In consecinta, la jumatatea lunii august- moment pana in care romanii ucisesera aproape 300 000 dintre evreii lor, in general fara ajutor german-, Ministerul de Externe a incheiat o intelegere cu Antonescu, ce prevedea ca evacuarile evreilor din Romania sa fie realizata de catre unitatile germane.”[...] Acum insa, cand totul era gata, iar aceste marete concesii fusesera facute, romanii si-au schimbat brusc opinia.[...] acum, maresalul dorea sa scape de evrei intr-un “mod comod”. In paralel cu aceste masacre, se nascuse o afacere infloritoare cu vanzarile de excluderi de la deportare, in care se angajase cu placere fiecare ramura a birocratiei, nationale sau municipale.[...] Acum, se descoperise ca evreii puteau fi vanduti peste hotare pe valuta forte, asa incat romanii devenisera cei mai ferventi sustinatori ai emigrarii evreilor- o mie trei sute de dolari pe cap de evreu.[...] Pe masura ce Armata Rosie se apropia, Antonescu devenea tot mai “moderat”; acum dorea sa-i lase pe evrei sa plece chiar fara a mai plati vreo compensatie baneasca.

Aproximativ o jumatate din cei 850 000 de evrei din Romania au supravietuit, dintre care o mare parte- cateva sute de de mii- au luat drumul Israelului. Nimeni nu mai stie cati evrei au mai ramas astazi in tara.”

Exercise in sympathy: Eusebius of Caesarea and the problem of “imperial theology”

An important issue in the scholarship on Eusebius is the exact implication of his enthusiasm for his own time and the rule of Constantine. Does he believe that sacred and profane history are now united in the same blissful present-day and that Heaven is now on Earth? Is this a start for the tradition of justifying imperial rule through divine providence? My purpose is to show Eusebius in the light of his context- not so much “historical”, but personal. I will follow his line of thought and prove that these questions ignore the actual text and his inner spiritual and intellectual determination. My method is to develop a close reading of the text (in its own logic- from beginning to end; but it is a logic which reflects his inner life of questions and divine answers) in order to bring back a tiny glimpse of his world in order to present the controversial Book 10 of the History of the Church as an incidental product of a mind who had never lost its connection with the hidden, divine mechanism of history. It is an experiment which makes the reader feel, together with Eusebius the intensity of a Truth which did not behave in our familiar patterns and cannot answer in our own terms.

Beginning. The ultimate cause

It all starts with 2 types of visions: one of them strikes the eye of the mind, confuses all your previous common sense, shakes your beliefs, awakens your soul. The other one is right here, out in the open, in empirical reality, in the territory of history. It is an image of unimaginable suffering, of the infinite capacity of man to inflict harm on his brother, an image so striking that it sends you back to archetypal points of reference and which have been acquired through the first type of vision. Sorrow, tears, despair, fear, screams and quiet mourning are enough to make one fall on his knees. By now, salvation is possible now, here, in History. It has to be possible.

Eusebius is part of the Holy Temple, the body of Christ which has descended into Hell and has risen up so that fallen man may follow him. It is an invisible community, formed by bonds of faith, love and the everlasting presence of the incarnated Word.

This temple built of yourselves, a living temple of a living God, the greatest truly majestic sanctuary, I say, whose innermost shrines are hidden from the mass of men and are in truth a Holy Mace and a Holy of Holies, who would dare to examine and describe?

He embarks on the project of writing the history of the Church from the time of Jesus to his own time, very carefully tracing back the apostolic succession. This issue is vital for a Church historian, because, as Arnaldo Momigliano puts it, “A Church that consciously breaks with its original principles and its original institutions is inconceivable.”[1] Indeed, the advent of Christian historiography and ecclesiastical histories signals a radical shift on the emphasis on the point of origin: the singular event of the Incarnation means that, from now on our world is sanctified and history will evolve within this paradigm of the supreme theophany. The Sacrifice is a Revelation, an absolute truth which should be guarded at all costs, but it  is also a sign that humans are responsible to constantly reactivate this mystical union through action (worship, sacrament, behavior) and speech (theological inquiry, historical writing). You might even rush to praise his reliance on facts and documents and his refusal to invent speeches like the classical historians did.

But, of course, there is a gap between our historical sense and his. Heaven is the ultimate point of reference for Eusebius, the cause and purpose of all things, the perfect, eternal, model of our existence, and, in the end, the only thing that is real. Glen F. Chesnut, Jr. observes that in hist texts, although we are empowered with free will, the choices available come from God.[2] For it is Him who provides the architecture of the Universe and determines everything. Eusebius is, I would say, the first historian who restores, albeit at a higher level, the fundamental belief in a Being which discloses itself freely and in a way accessible through mere contemplation.[3] Sensual reality mirrors a divine order which, ever since Judaism manifests Itself frequently in historical time and gradually instructs humanity on an ultimate purpose. Christ means the final disclosure of this plan because He is the Truth, the Way and the Life. Eusebius will feel, from this point of the Revelation, compelled to trace back all those principles to the beginning of time and in the age of the patriarchs. He regards this inquiry as fundamental to demonstrating the eternal status of history as a reflection of Being and as an expression of divine commitment to lift man from the place where he has  fallen. However paradoxical it may sound, through archetype, Christ has been with us even before time existed:

Before anything was created and fashioned, visible or invisible, He was the first and only begotten of God; the commander-in-chief of the spiritual and immortal host of heaven; the angel of mighty counsel; the agent of the ineffable purpose of the father; the fashioner, with the Father, of all things; the second cause, after the Father, of the universe; the Child of God, true and only-begotten; of all begotten the Lord and God and King, who has received from the Father lordship and dominion, godhead, power, and honor.[4]

The Scriptures provide Eusebius with numerous examples of Christ’s intervention in the form of the Word, an angel or a prophetic vision. History had, from the beginning, the destiny to which he is now witness. A combination of divine economy- that is, God allowing a course of events which at times may seem mysterious in order to fulfill the ultimate purpose- and immediate intervention triggered by humanity’s mistakes bends history to His own will. And Eusebius realizes the importance of demonstrating the eternal presence of Christ in worldly affairs: “It is clearly not permissible to regard the recorded theophanies as visitations by subordinate angels and ministers of God.”[5] This work of interpretation connects people and cultures to an Absolute which, tragically enough, reveals itself in different ways. One people receives the Law and the prophecy of the Messiah in the midst of an infinite cycle of tragedies brought by their own weaknesses:

I watched until thrones were placed and an Ancient of Days was seated. His clothing was white like snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool. His throne was a flame of fire, its wheels flaming fire; a river of fire flowed before Him. A thousand thousand ministered to Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court of judgement sat, and the books were opened… I watched, and lo, with the clouds of heaven came One like a Son of Man, who came quickly to the Ancient of Days and brought face to face with him. To Him was given the dominion, the glory, and the kingdom, and all the peoples, tribes and languages shall serve Him. His authority is an everlasting authority, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom shall not be destroyed.[6]

Sanctification and denial of history

Another group will see the tenuous story of the Jews as an allegory for the story of man after the Fall, the story of tragedy, suffering and a divine will which is slowly breaking the mystery which surrounds It. It will no longer be just a story, but an eternal symbol, reactivated by faith and the wisdom of the Scriptures. And, more important, theophanies will be observed in the light of the Incarnation, as mere anticipations of this supreme act of love.

We live in an age of sacred glory and beauty arising from the darkest suffering. Faith opens your eyes to indescribable riches. Eusebius speaks about divine punishment for Herod’s murder of the infants- sacred history is once again mysteriously interlinked with profane history; but Flavius Josephus, however different his style and background is, speaks about the same thing. Man’s connection with the sacred reveals the hidden chain of events but, at the same time, a sense of urgency, of imminent end, of crossing a border between two worlds unites these witnesses in a common emotion. Historical inquiry is hopelessly weak and may never be capable of describing this array of spiritual experiences. Something is happening- the increasingly unbearable existence, the ever present suffering, the omens, point to a radical shift, a decisive quake in the architecture of the world, an invisible, metaphysical storm intuited from concrete facts. And when the Son enters history, the witnesses experience a perplexity of a varying degree according to their background. Flavius Josephus, in a combination of objectivity and faith, acknowledges Him as an extraordinary man and he also speaks about the resurrection.[7] Eusebius will from now on speak about the Church comprised of the believers’ souls and a history of this community. Needless to say, this is a sacred history, with concrete facts as little more than signs of a continuous divine presence.

The Great Persecution will come as a punishment for the first (and, given the original sin, utterly predictable) signs of human weakness. Almost three centuries had passed from the time of Christ, the last witnesses of His presence were by now dead and Christians started to quarrel with each other and modify the initial teachings. Divine punishment will be extremely harsh. Diocletian and Maximin will “distinguish” themselves in the most hideous of crimes; the local governors (we don’t learn from Eusebius how much did ordinary pagans contribute to this) will rush to win imperial favors by staging resolutions and massive campaigns of terror; elaborate torture techniques will be employed in order to rob the Christians of dignity. These are times of pure evil unleashed and Eusebius is an eye-witness for many of these crimes. He chooses not to speak of the shameful conduct of some Christians who accepted the pagan ritual to stay alive, but to emphasize the examples of the martyrs.

When these things were going on I was there myself, and there I witnessed the everpresent divine power of Him to whom they testified, our Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, visibly manifesting itself to the martyrs.[8]

A man is a witness to divine power- a sentence which puts us to a border which cannot be crossed by reason or empirical (historical) understanding. This theophany is a proof and will constitute itself as a landmark in the flow of time which will not be remembered, but rather mystically reenacted through ritual and thirst of God. Intense suffering is, for the martyr and Eusebius, the point in which God embraces the man who has decided to imitate the passions of Christ. Dark times have clouded Eusebius’ life, but every hero which challenges death helps the Church survive. A mystical entity is kept only through self-ignoring, uncompromising faith.

The problematic epilogue

And then the unexpected occurs. The ordeal ends, the churches are rebuilt, the Christian are free to worship God. Something unprecedented in Christian history happens right now, in this world: this religion is now in the open, favored by the rulers, with all its enemies doing no harm. As Averil Cameron shows, it is very likely that Eusebius started working on the “The History of the Church” well before Constantine’s rule.[9] Later on, he adds that Eusebius had to reformulate his vision because of the apparent “political” victory of Christianity.[10] Book 10 of “The History of the Church” gives a taste of what it means to actually live what you believe, of consuming yourself in the flame of love for mankind, of developing, through the Revelation, the strong faith and the lucidity which helps you describe the  recurring patterns of history. After all, not so long ago they were confronted with a beast:

And now, as a result of this wonderful grace and bounty, the envy that hates good, the demon that loves evil, bursting with rage, lined up all his lethal forces against us.[...] he directed his ferocious madness against the stones of the places of worship[...] Then he uttered terrible hissings and his own serpent-like sounds, at one time in the threats of godless tyrants, at another in the blasphemous decrees of impious rulers. Again, he vomited forth his own deadly venom, and my his noxious, soul-destroying poisons he paralyzed the souls enslaved to him, almost annihilating them by his death-bringing sacrifices to dead idols, and letting loose against us every beast in human shape and every kind of savagery.[11]

And when such an Evil is destroyed so rapidly, and when you see your Church free from oppression, again united in Christ, and when you look back and see that this had never happened before, will not your soul rejoice, happy to breath the fresh air of freedom? Will you not think that what you are living is, for the first time, a fulfillment of the prophecies?

These things were foretold in words long ago, and set down in sacred books; but the fulfillment has reached us no longer by hearsay but in fact.[12]

And when you see that the main historical cause for this blessing is this new emperor, Constantine, will you not think, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, that he is the instrument of God and that there has to be more than pure historical determination which, from such a dark age, has brought this unexpected peace? Jesus has entrusted this power to Constantine- to be able “to appreciate and evaluate the character of the souls entrusted to his care.”[13], to defeat the Church’s enemies, to restore peace.

In the end what is so touching about Eusebius and about so many intellectuals which, throughout history, have passionately lived to their innermost corners of their being both their times and their ideas, is this almost childish enthusiasm about the reign of Constantine which follows a time of Hell unleashed on earth. His profound faith and the personal experience of the Great Persecution makes him see divine providence in an emperor and an actual imitation of Heaven through the mystical unity of the Church. In the modern interpretation of Eusebius, the question of imperial theology proves to be stronger. But, as Frank S. Thielman points out, in Eusebius’s later thought, the problem of the eschatology and the second coming of Christ does not disappear. Thielman shows that, in works such as the Prophetic Extracts, the Commentary on Luke, the Theophany or the Proof of the Gospel, Eusebius shows an uneasiness with this present order which, although good, may be again disrupted by human weakness. Everybody, including the emperor, will have to account for their actions at the final judgement.[14] And also, in Book 10 of the “History…” we can find a clear distinction between this earthly order, and the divine archetype which inspires it.[15] This is not a “heaven on earth” ideology of the modern age, but rather an enthusiasm for the present situation which is fundamentally imperfect and fragile compared to the divine order. His followers and interpreters will claim this to be the first imperial theology. My claim is that this is the work of a pilgrim wandering between history’s tragedies and the ultimate Truth.

Bibliography

Cameron, Averil, “Eusebius of Caesarea and the Rethinking of History”,  in Tria corda. Scritti in inore di Arnaldo Momigliano, ed. E. Gabba, Como, 1983, pp. 71-88

Chesnut, Glen F.,  Jr., “Fate, Fortune, Free Will  and Nature in Eusebius of Caesarea”, in Church History, Vol. 42, No.2, (Jun 1973), pp. 165-182

Eusebius of Caesarea, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, Translated by G.A. Williamson, Revised and edited with a new introduction by Andrew Louth, Penguin Books, 1989

Momigliano, Arnaldo, The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, with a foreword by Riccardo di Donato, University of California Press, Berkeley-Los Angeles-Oxford, 1990

Thielman, Frank S., “Another Look at the Eschatology of Eusebius of Caesarea”, in Vigilae Christianae, Vol. 41, No. 3, Sep. 1987, pp. 226-237

---

[1] Arnaldo Momigliano, The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, with a foreword by Riccardo di Donato, University of California Press, Berkeley-Los Angeles-Oxford, 1990, p. 136

[2] Glen F. Chesnut, Jr., “Fate, Fortune, Free Will  and Nature in Eusebius of Caesarea”, in Church History, Vol. 42, No.2, (Jun 1973), pp. 165-182, p. 179

[3] In this respect, it is telling for our own principles of thought that we regard Thucydides as the first lucid, objective historian who did not let himself fooled by the naive thinking that preceded him. Although we do not like his invented speeches, we praise him for the analysis he makes on the causes of the Trojan War. It is a sad thing that both our praise and his analysis come from an attempt to find all sorts of historical- economic, political- determinations for an event which took place and, indeed, is taking place, in the space of symbols. Our great “innovation” is to search for an artificial, irrelevant “historical truth” whereas the only truth revealed by any great piece of art is both personal and universal, thereby transcending history.

[4] Eusebius, op. cit., p. 3

[5] Ibid., p. 5

[6] Dan., VII 9-10, 13-14 quoted in Eusebius, op. cit., p. 9

[7] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities XVIII, ii, 3 in Eusebius, op.cit., p. 29

[8] Eusebius, op. cit., p. 263

[9] Averil Cameron, “Eusebius of Caesarea and the Rethinking of History”,  in Tria corda. Scritti in inore di Arnaldo Momigliano, ed. E. Gabba, Como, 1983, pp. 71-88, p. 73-74

[10] Ibid., p. 87

[11] Eusebius, op. cit., p. 309

[12] Ibid., p. 313

[13] Ibid., p. 319

[14] Frank S. Thielman, “Another Look at the Eschatology of Eusebius of Caesarea”, in Vigilae Christianae, Vol.41, No. 3, Sep. 1987, pp. 226-237, passim.

[15] Eusebius, op. cit., p. 318

Werckmeister Harmoniak, 2001. Bela Tarr

“Are the hills going to march off? Will Heaven fall upon us? Will the Earth open under us? We don’t know. We don’t know, for an eclipse has come upon us.

Dialectics of salvation, dialectics of damnation

A reason to love every human being beyond suffering, misery and weakness. Beyond the Fall repeated daily, until the end of ages.

“I go for all , because some one must go for all. I didn’t kill father, but I’ve got to go. I accept it. It’s all come to me here, here, within these peeling walls. There are numbers of them there, hundreds of them underground, with hammers  in their hands. Oh, yes, we shall be in chains and there will be no freedom, but then, in our great sorrow, we shall rise again to joy, without which man cannot live nor God exist, fro God gives joy: it’s His privilege- a grand one. Ah, man should be dissolved in prayer! What should I be underground there without God? Rakitin’s laughing! If they drive God from the earth, we shall shelter Him underground. One cannot exist in prison without God; it’s even more impossible than out of prison. And then we men underground will sing from thr bowels of the earth a glorious hymn to God, with Whom is joy. Hail to God and His joy! I love him!”

…

“A smile lighted up her face that was swollen with weeping, and her eyes shone in the half darkness.

” A falcon flew in, and my heart sank. ‘Fool! that’s the man you love!’ That was what my heart whispered to me at once. You came in and all grew bright. What’s he afraid of? I wondered. For you were frightened; you couldn’t speak. It’s  not them he’s afraid of- could you be frightened of any one? It’s me he’s afraid of, I thought, only me. So Fenya told you, you little stupid, how I called to Alyosha out of the window that I’d loved Mityenka for one hour, and that I was going now to love… another. Mitya, Mitya, how could I be such a fool as to think I could love any one after you? Do you forgive me, Mitya? Do you forgive me or not? Do you love me? Do you love me?” She jumped up and held him with both hands on his shoulders. Mitya, dumb with rapture, gazed into her eyes, at her face, at her smile and suddenly clasped her tightly in his arms and kissed her passionately.”

The Brothers Karamazov.

Lucian Pintilie, “Reconstituirea”

Un rau de oameni curge prin si catre neant, o natiune absenta de la confruntarea cu urgenta etica presupusa de recunoasterea celuilalt. Lumea e un decor, o melodie nostalgica dintr-o iluzie a libertatii, un stadion in care se aude constant vuietul multimii satisfacute. Libertatea e ca un card de gaste peste care trece o Salvare iesita din televizor, intrata, de fapt, in alt televizor. Salvarea vine si aduce o generozitate ucigasa,  aerul sufocant al sofismului si discursului antinomic, moartea auto-administrata a unor biete fiinte rapuse. Eroul-clovn moare pentru ca sufletul sau a murit primul, pentru ca a primit o palma cand nu se astepta, pentru ca joaca e revelata in sfarsit ca ritual funerar.

O poveste in care cadem cu totii in pamantul mizerabil, langa rauri de oameni.

Distortion of Idea and Reality for Plato, Dostoevsky, Hannah Arendt

In this essay I will follow Plato’s method of building “in speech” a paradigm which confirms, through its inner philosophic texture, the validity of a general assumption. While the objective of his endeavor is to build an ideal city and man (The Republic), my objective is not to reach a type of absolute truth, but a more humble one: to confirm, through a circular argumentation, the validity of a… perplexity. So what I call “general assumption” is more likely to be named a weak type of truth, a zero-sum game.

My claim is that any narrative on the interaction between religion and political thought would inevitably have to account for a fundamental, transcendental gap between Idea and Reality (human existence). What is bewildering about this gap is not only concerned with their specific ontological definitions, but the fact that there is something mysterious and almost absurd in the human condition which regularly distorts Ideas; however, and this the truly tragic issue, the relation is reciprocal: at the moment of their entry into Existence, Ideas have their own power to distort it. Sadly enough, this distortion can be understood in its most literal sense: the inadequacy of Ideas turns into aggression and the more Reality proves to be different, the more the degree of this aggression escalates into an effort of molding human existence according to a model. But this model is already different from the pure, initial form of the Idea and a second reason for calling this issue “absurd” is the fact that this transformation occurs precisely at the moment of contact, without anyone noticing it. This shift is under the sign of necessity. There is a story about king Midas who was under the spell of a curse to turn into gold everything he touched. He soon realizes that even his food and drink could turn into molten gold. A slightly different thing happens when Idea meets Reality: both of them turn into ashes and dust.

The condition of action

In my proposed model, I have chosen The Republic of Plato, Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor and Hannah Arendt’s The Human Condition as a late link and confirmation of this ancient problem. I shall start with the Arendt. The definition she gives to action is one in which human freedom is linked with the model of the polis as a public space in which common good and common sense are the single limits. Common good can only be looked upon by the man who is free from the necessity of labor and work- two specific activities of the private realm. A free citizen would have enough resources and slaves in his household to ensure that he is able to step in the public realm and attend only to the search for common good. Common sense, in turn, comes from the ancient Greek’s realization that action and not making is the true measure of freedom and moderation. This was all-too clear in the status of the law-maker, who was chosen from among the non-citizens or foreigners; his specific assignment of creating, establishing boundaries was seen like any other craft, as an activity which is inferior to politics.[1] Moreover, an enduring suspicion was directed against anyone who tried to apply the category of making to a territory of unpredictability and freedom like the agora. Therefore, action and speech are the true signs of a free man, one which recognizes both the dignity of himself and the others and the inherent limits of any human being in its power to force a solution of molding reality according to his own will. However, freedom comes with a factor of responsibility and uncertainty. The first attribute of action is its boundlessness:

The smallest act in the most limited circumstances bears the seed of the same boundlessness, because one deed, and sometimes one word, suffices to change every constellation.[2]

The striking thing about human affairs is its frailty, and this has been realized long ago, ever since the poets have put existence under the sign of Fate. The second attribute found by Hannah Arendt for action is “its inherent unpredictability”. Man seems in the awkward position of attaining freedom with a paradoxical loss if it. The preservation of his dignity can only be achieved in a public space of equals united under the sign of their own condition and for a common good. But this comes with the cost of knowing that action is only a beginning with an end which is unknown for the actor; only the future historian may see the outcome. And this is why, for Arendt, the whole course of political philosophy after Plato, directed for defining the good ends and the means to obtain them, is nothing but an ambition to escape this factor of uncertainty. There is no use, she says, for endless discussions of which means are justified for certain ends:

For to make a statement about ends that do not justify all means is to speak in paradoxes, the definition of an end being precisely the justification of means; and paradoxes always indicate perplexities, they do not solve them and hence are never convincing. As long as we believe that we deal with ends and means in the political realm, we shall not be able to prevent anybody’s using all means to pursue recognized ends.[3]

What is crucial is a fundamental gap between intention and realization. The actor will always live an uneasiness concerning the results of his actions, as they unleash not a series of domino series, but in an infinite number if these series multiplying exponentially. The agent may even become a sufferer, more often than not in a moral sense, as his conscience is confronted with the results of his own deed. Arendt sees the only escape from this paradox in a sort of personalization of action and speech, in perceiving the other for who he is rather than for what (as a generic term of a category: humanity, Greeks, citizens etc.) he is. From this come two solutions: promise, as way of securing a tiny element of predictability in an ocean of uncertainty, and forgiveness as an act of respect or even love. The actor may be freed from the burden of his own deed by receiving forgiveness in an act of recognition by the sufferer of the doer’s weakness. For Hannah Arendt, “The discoverer of the role of forgiveness in the realm of human affairs was Jesus of Nazareth.”[4] He says the an action inspired by love, such as is the case with forgiveness, is the equivalent of a miracle; rather than acting in a decisive manner, through a classic political action or craft in order to stop as many unforeseen consequences as possible- therefore restricting freedom, He calls for an act directed backwards, towards the person of the agent, towards who he is, offering him love and forgiveness, shadowing his action with an invisible stream of affection and leaving his freedom intact.

For the moment, I shall leave aside these last considerations on the Christian solution, and summarize the basic source of perplexity: the basic feature of human affairs is their frailty, unpredictability, boundlessness. Any action has unknown consequences which is the equivalent of saying that intention and realization are radically apart. Therefore, human existence has the potential of transforming, through human weakness, an Idea in any direction and degree. One of the ones who lived and reenacted this central drama of existence is Plato.

First part of The Republic: Becoming

The Republic starts from a problem about which common sense would say that it is political: how to define justice. Is it to do good to friends and to harm your enemies, is it the advantage of the stronger? Is it, as Socrates responds, to avoid doing harm because what does harm is necessarily unjust? Or is it good because it produces unanimity and friendship? The beginning is played in classical terms: the argument is derived from the goal of political goodness. Ideas bear the mark of Existence, they are the mark and product of it. Adeimantus’ outburst is the most vivid expression of the contradiction implied in the weak character of a definition of justice in terms of political utility. For, he says, in reality it is enough for a man to seem just in front of the people while doing the most wicked of deeds in private in order for him to achieve glory and for the city to be in well-being. Not only that, but the poets say that even the gods are content with receiving a public offering and will forgive the vilest of men. In other words, the public space is the ultimate point of reference in judging good and evil; good is what is shown, played in front of an audience not interested in absolute truth, but in collective tranquility. So Socrates is forced by his companions to provide a much better definition of justice if he is to be taken seriously.

“‘If we should watch a city coming into being in speech’, I said, ‘would you also see its justice coming into being, and its injustice?’”[5] His phrase, the start of a new road towards justice, deserves some attention. Apparently, nothing has changed: the argument still relies on political categories or, still better, in Existence. The new thing is that it is coming into being in speech, that is, in Idea. Socrates proposes an abstract experiment with unforeseen ending:

You see, I myself really don’t know yet, but wherever the argument, like a wind, tends, thither must we go.[6]

And, at first, it seems that- and more likely for a modern viewer- although everything happens as an abstract entity, there still is a strangeness of the words, a peculiar and radical nature of the utopian political solutions. At the very surface of the contact between Idea and Reality, a sort of inevitable reaction takes place and which distorts, in this play of words, only the former. The necessity to find the perfect political community leads to solutions which become stranger and more radical in the flow of arguments. Ironical, Socrates begins by refuting the saying of the poets about the imperfect gods by saying: “The god must surely always be described such as he is, whether one presents him in epics, lyrics, or tragedies.”[7] Lies, would seem, harm the political community, because of their intrinsic inadequacy towards Truth. But this gives a false impression. As the description becomes more specific and as the power of necessity and utility catches the attention, the Idea- Justice, Goodness- changes into a slave of immediate, ephemeral goals. No stories should be told about lust, greed, vices. Courts and hospitals are a sign of idleness, of imperfect souls who find their cure in oratory or medicine. Each man has a single role, and justice means to mind one’s own business. Children are selected and assigned randomly to adoptive mothers. No private property or accumulation of wealth is allowed. Everything is directed for the achievement of common good.

But Plato knows that this isn’t enough. Allan Bloom puts it in this way:

The question is whether the two possibilities are identical, whether devotion to the common good leads to the health of the soul or whether the man with a healthy soul is devoted to the common good.[8]

This tension is equal to the destiny of men and their communities. For the classical Greek understanding of politics cruelty and justice are separated by a very fragile border; Asclepios, tells Socrates, treated men according to their usefulness for the city. But can justice or any Idea be found in relatedness, means-ends relations, utilitarian terms? In this uneasiness the dialogue shifts slowly to the second possibility stated by Bloom. Adeimantus had just put a simple question: but would these guardians be happy?[9] From this point onwards, they realize that a bad soul necessarily leads to bad politics. Laws are useless; education is vital.[10] But before the argument even properly commences, however, Socrates intuits that it is vital that a god “grants them the preservation of the laws described above.”[11]

Once at this point, it becomes evident that common, earthly, good is not enough to find justice. The point of reference shifts from the exterior to the soul, but also in heavens, where the god is the ultimate guarantee of the well-being and wisdom of men. The first radical question on the nature of existence is thus put.

Second part of The Republic: Being

Like a clumsy child learning to walk, the new man of Plato has to travel a hard, dark road out of the realm of the ephemeral. The four parts of Virtue are named: Knowledge, Courage, Moderation, Justice; but Justice still is derived from political happiness: it is minding one’s own business. Parallels are drawn between the parts of the city and those of the soul- both of whom should be ruled by the calculating part. It still is not clear which one has the primacy and what is the aim of this analogy; the argument is still on the threshold and still not devoted entirely to the education of the soul. It swings inwards and outwards, from the four parts of virtue to the necessity of hiding “bad” children and bringing the good ones into a pen where they would be collected by nurses and given to other women. But all of them sense the strangeness of the image, the cold appearance of this utopia. At this point Glaucon legitimately asks: How does this regime come into being? Socrates responds: “Can anything be done as it is said? Or is the nature of acting to attain to less truth then speaking, even if someone doesn’t think so?” This is precisely the tragedy of action present in Hannah Arendt’s thought; it is the crucial difference between thought and realization. A kind of cautious optimism seems to arise from Socrates’ resignation about the nature of acting; it is not so much an intrinsic attribute of men, but an abstract ontological concept, a mysterious, exterior force which subject human action to its constant influence. The paradox of the whole argument as it had developed so far seems all-too clear for them and the next thing said by Socrates bears a subtle mark of drama and despair:

Unless, I said, the philosophers rule as kings or those now called kings and chiefs genuinely and adequately philosophize, and political power and philosophy coincide in the same place, while the many natures now making their way to either apart from the other are by necessity excluded, there is no rest from ills for the cities, my dear Glaucon, nor I think for human kind, nor will the regime we have now described in speech ever come forth from nature, insofar as possible, and see the light of the sun. This is what for so long was causing my hesitation to speak: seeing how paradoxical it would be to say. For it is hard to see that in no other city would there be private or public happiness.[12]

Neither the proposed regime will come into being, nor will the general frailty and unhappiness of human affairs will be avoided in the absence of philosophers-kings. This could sound as a condemnation of existence for not being good enough to support a specific utopia. But it is more likely that Plato finally exposes the radical turn of his scenario[13]: the paradox to which Socrates has arrived in speech is the sign of ontological incompatibility between Idea and Reality; if a project fails in speech, there is reason to believe that in reality the breakdown would be truly painful. Through the boundlessness and unpredictability of action, any Idea inevitably degrades itself in the realm of human affairs.

The frame is now set for exposing the main conditions of knowledge. The philosopher looks at the things themselves and aims at knowledge and not opinion- which is about appearances. Adeimantus responds and expresses the same temptation of measuring virtue through existential categories, namely the polis. “What if the philosophers become, through their practice, useless to the cities?”[14] What Socrates responds constitutes the first significant break from earthly necessity. For what would be an alternate meaning of the image of the ship, with its crew fighting and praising the bully who manages to win the helm through violence and deceit and mocking the only man who knows how to pilot for him being too shy, if not a rejection and relativization of all those empty ideals of the lover of glory and of the clever politician? What other fate than error and oblivion awaits those who praise public success at all costs? This obsession with the public space and the equal one with “common good” only leads, through the degradation of souls, to disaster. Socrates sums this up by pointing to the sophists’ error of calling the necessary just and of not drawing a distinction between necessary and good.[15] Apparently, there is no place for the philosopher in the realm of human sociality. The tragedy of existence underlines Socrates’ melancholy:

At the same time, they have seen sufficiently the madness of the many, and that no one who minds the business of the cities does anything healthy, to say it in a word, and that there is no ally with whom one could go to the aid of justice and be preserved. Rather- just like a human being who has fallen in with wild beasts and is neither willing to join them in doing injustice nor sufficient as one man to resist all the savage animals- one would perish before he has been of any use to city or friends and be of not profit to himself or others.”[16]

So the response to Adeimantus’ question about philosophers seeming useless would also sound as: So what? If no city is suitable for philosophy[17], would this deter the wise man from pursuing the things themselves? There is something greater than justice[18], says Socrates and amazes his companions: The Good which makes possible, like the sun, not only the perception of passing things but their very existence also. Hence the myth of the cave gets its true value as an ultimate metaphor of the human condition. A man is released from the bonds and sees the true light of the Good outside of the cave. Once back, he would seem clumsy, inadequate in judging the fleeting shadows, useless. They would kill him.

But his duty to come back into the cave and tell the people, at all costs, about their error still remains. And would not the shadows and darkness of the cave also stand for the enslaving political necessity of the common good, for glory, prestige and, in all, for all the categories of socio-historical existence? Plato says “no” to the frailty of human affairs, to the world which had killed his master for corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods of the city. These gods, shows Plato, are nothing but shadows of political necessity, the error in which men desperately want to believe in order to make sense of their miserable, tragic world, a projection of historical life. To all these he assigns the term “Becoming” as opposed to what truly matters, “Being”. He says no to a world which corrupts souls in order to maintain its own comfort. What comes after the myth of the cave- the mechanism of the regime-change or what some might point as another error of applying an Idea to Reality- the attack against the poets who deceive people by their imitation of the imperfect things, themselves imitations of the things which are, is, in my opinion, the same radical plea for taking care of the souls through the contemplation of Being. His error against the poets is obvious:

Dear Homer, if you are not the third from the truth about virtue, a craftsman of a phantom, just the one we defined as am imitator, but are also second and able to recognize what sort of practices make human beings better or worse in private and in public, tell us which of the cities was better governed thanks to you, as Lacedaemon was thanks to Lycurgus, and many others, both great and small, were thanks to many others? What city gives you the credit for having proved a good lawgiver and benefited them? Italy and Sicily do so for Charondas, and we for Solon; now who does it for you?

But his reason for reproaching the poets (and it could have been any other category which does not fit in the pattern of contemplation) is for their portrayal of Becoming, of what seems, of moving only the part of the soul which reacts to emotions and passions. The only measure of truth is Being, and his exigency is drawn from a simple statement: the only way for a soul to be healthy is the contemplation of Being through philosophy. The final, paradigmatic in an ontological sense, irony of The Republic is the fact that it ends at the border of sublime and error. The only stake that matters is becoming good or bad, which would have consequences in the other world and in future lives. Do you say that it is profitable to be unjust? Look at the beast which mocks and controls the man and look at the damnation awaiting after this life. However, if viewed from another light, the deadly embrace between Idea and Reality again manifests itself. Infinite love and infinite exigency oriented only towards Being immediately produce problematic results in the moment of looking towards the city: the poets are expelled. The first example is set for a series of tragic defeats of intellectuals who have been unknowingly drawn into Existence through uncompromising love and consuming belief in Ideas.

The archetype of the Grand Inquisitor

In order that the paradigm which I have spoken of in the beginning to be complete, some final considerations have to be made on what constitutes a revelatory refinement of Plato’s intuitions into the Unknown, namely Christianity. For I believe that the sad outcome of the reason’s endeavor to apply one form or another of Truth to Reality as it is clearly shown in The Republic has been replicated time and again in the interaction between religion and political thought. The names and nature of actors have changed, but the result is the same: instead of Idea there is Revelation. Reality, however, has the same power of viciously transforming a noble intention in hell. A vivid example is the Grand Inquisitor. Ivan tells this story to Alyosha after the latter brings the example of Jesus Christ into attention. This, in turn, had been a response to Ivan’s radical questioning of the meaning of love in the face of humanity’s bestial nature. “And while I am on earth, I make haste to take my own measures.”[19] Would Hannah Arendt call this action or making? As the “measures” seem to imply violent action, it is more likely that she would choose the second. But the question still lingers on (and still more in the specific Christian ethos of The Brothers Karamazov): with this almost absurd condition of the Idea to be inevitably degraded through action, is not action, in fact identical with making? If so, which is the only action possible and permissible?

This central question of human existence has received an unequaled account in the legend of the Grand Inquisitor. For I believe that it is not directed only towards the Catholic Church, but it is the portrayal of a universal dilemma of how to intervene in the world without destroying the chances for salvation through the mockery of the original Idea and the alteration of Reality. The Grand Inquisitor, though starting from a truth of faith and not from the truth of reason as Plato, achieves less and destroys more. The irony, again, is that everything starts from love; It is a love of the weak, of those left behind, the people who were not able to endure the burden of free will and of abstaining, through faith, from subjecting themselves to miracles and earthly power. This love, however, is applied in a peculiar type “Why hast Thou come to hinder us?”[20] His second coming would only hinder their safe world in which people have been understood for their weakness and have been cared for through power and deceit. This is, after all, public good. And it also is action, public intervention towards obtaining order, comfort, collective happiness. What starts as a good intention ends in hell, a crude confirmation of Eric Voegelin’s theory of political religions as methods of “immanentizing the eschaton.”

But Jesus kisses the Inquisitor. What Hannah Arendt sees as the only escape from the unpredictable consequences of action- forgiveness and promise as expressions of love- may prove to be as the only action possible and permissible; or, at least, the only one which can never lose its initial form and intention. And it asks not for public action of an authority, but for an education of the soul in the absence of God, through faith only. This love does not act for any help or reward, it’s not stimulated or attained through policy, law, ceremonial. It shadows patiently any visible action and does not act to sort out the tares from among the wheat until harvest. (Mat. 13.24-30) And, in fact, there is no tragedy of Ideas and Existence. There is only us and the Truth. The road is hard and responsibility is ours alone.

When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh

through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.

Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I

came out; and when he is come, he findeth [it] empty,

swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh

with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself,

and they enter in and dwell there: and the last [state] of that

man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this

wicked generation. (Mat 12. 44-45)

Bibliography

Dostoevsky, Fyodor, The Brothers Karamazov, Translated by Constance Garnett, Introduction by Marc Slonim, Random House, New York, 1950

Plato, The Republic, Translated with notes and interpretative essay by Allan Bloom, Basic Books Inc. Publishers, New York, 1968

Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, With an Introduction by Margaret Canovan, Second Edition, University of Chicago Press, 1998

Bible quotations are taken from the “King James” version.

---

[1] Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, With an Introduction by Margaret Canovan, Second Edition, University of Chicago Press, 1998, p. 194-195

[2] Ibid., p. 190

[3] Ibid., p. 229

[4] Ibid., p. 238

[5] Plato, The Republic, Translated with notes and interpretative essay by Allan Bloom, Basic Books Inc. Publishers, New York, 1968, p. 45

[6] Ibid., p. 73

[7] Ibid., p. 56

[8] Ibid., p. 337

[9] Ibid., p. 97

[10] Ibid., p. 102

[11] Ibid., p. 103

[12] Ibid., p. 153

[13] And probably this the strongest argument in support of Allan Bloom’s theory about the ironical underpinning of The Republic.

[14] Ibid., p. 167

[15] Ibid., p. 173

[16] Ibid. p. 176

[17] Ibid., p. 176

[18] Ibid., p. 184

[19] Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, Translated by Constance Garnett, Introduction by Marc Slonim, Random House, New York, 1950, p. 290

[20] Ibid., p. 305

A typology of touch

Radiohead’s song “Where I end and you begin” presents some interesting philosophical underpinnings. It may sound like a failed love story, but the lines bear a subtlety which defies any superficial reading. “There’s a gap in between/ there’s a gap where we meet/ where I end and you begin”. The gap is stated, but one which is almost ironically produced at the precise point of contact- “where I end and you begin”. And this gap is the starting point for a fountain of images, sensations and new, albeit uninhabited, worlds. “The dinosaurs roam the earth/ the sky turns green/ where I end and you begin.” There doesn’t seem to be a place for mysticism, though; we are witness to an inner drama of realizing the transcendental nature of the space between a human being and the other.

“I am up in the clouds/ And I can’t come down

i can watch but not take part

where i end and where you start

where you, you left me alone

you left me alone.

X’ will mark the place

like parting the waves

like a house falling in the sea.”

One can only mark the cursed space with an X and live this tragedy as a bird condemned to live only among the clouds or as a simple man witnessing strange nightmares of houses falling in the sea, among the monotonous birth cycle of the waves. The solution is radical: “I will eat you alive” says the singer obsessively, pointing to a process which should be all too clear for a modern reader. The first symptom of alienation is existential anxiety; the second, and the last, is the aggressiveness against an outer world utterly unknown and inappropriate for the lonely mind’s abstract production. I will eat you alive- all of you people who do not conform to my will, all of you societies not good enough to understand my projects of transformation, all past beliefs, symbols, memories, sorrows, smiles. Thus the problem is stated.

The solution would be, of course, in bridging this gap. Let us proceed, my dear chap, towards building a typology of touch with the shameless objective of finding the best of all solutions in a comparative approach which should be, in theory, open-minded and free of axiological prejudice.

A fairly good solution would be the friendly touch. The subject finds some people with common language, thoughts, memories and enjoys life together with them. There is something unmistakable and unique in the atmosphere of a quiet pub where some long-time friends discuss, let’s say, the decline of traditional values and the uncertainty of the future. The “declining” world is outside in the cold and a tiny communion is formed in the gentle light of the pub. The subject leaves his own radical solitude and finds the most accessible marks to which he will cling as to a shelter in a stormy night. But the gap is still there. It is not challenged or confronted, but rather ignored.

Of course, when it comes to touch, a gigantic choir of present or past voices would rush enthusiastically and sing a tearful praise for erotic touch. I choose to assign it the more general meaning of love beyond sexual attraction. In this case, the communion is even stronger, with the ego bursting outside the self, embracing the other, the two of them becoming one. The embrace in the stormy night is infinitely more powerful than in the friendly touch; unspeakable beauty may be born and destinies can be changed forever. A seemingly absurd existence can melt away in the dance between two souls. Or can it? The embrace is so complete, that it can actually increase the transcendental gap from the rest of the world. For the unwise, wretched, weak- that is for most of the people- the emotional investment is so large that it will empty the unprepared soul of its capacity to confront this gap, to face it with all its suffering and filth. What is ironical is not only that is is accessible to absolutely everybody (as any badly managed passion), but also that it can provide legitimacy for the person who can be confronted at least once in his life with the naïve, uncomfortable, immature question: “What have you done for your neighbor?” “Oh, I loved a woman” he will answer, “and we have built a family. I did everything for my family.” Sometimes, the evil of the past century can be understood as a political force which obliterates alterity with its subjects turning their backs and caring for the safety of their family happiness. To sum up, erotic love, when it becomes the absolute guide of one’s life, can do very little for bridging the gap. The dinosaurs still roam the earth.

In a crisis of creativity, I shall call my next type “social touch”. This one arises in the public space from a sense that something has to be done in order to introduce some element of order and perhaps happiness into people’s lives. Most of the time, it is the product of love for the whole of humanity, a huge step forward compared to the 2 examples above, some might say. Man decides to intervene, through political/social action and provide for what he thinks to be the problems what he thinks to be necessary solutions. Entire libraries have been written; it is sufficient to stating some problems: the problematic definition of common good; the more problematic method of defining values according to political necessity and social, immediate relevance; the weakness of both the ruled- through the unpredictability of action and history- and the ruler- which is confronted with the dramatic ontological difference between Idea and Reality; that for every rule expressed and obeyed, there will be an infinite number of more rules – unexpressed- which man will be free to transgress.

We are thus left with deciding if the last type is appropriate. This is the spiritual touch. There are several divine models. One is an icon representing Mary and the infant Jesus; His child-like hands are held by His Mother’s gentle hand in a gesture of supreme tranquility and divine serenity. The Heavens are united in this touch as the angels and the saints praise God and His creation in a single voice. Christ is looking at Her with the most pure love, but he is also looking beyond the picture frame, to His Father, His fate, His children. Mary’s look bears a heart-breaking and complex array of emotions: she looks towards Existence and perhaps at the ultimate pain felt at the foot of the Cross but with absolute faith, as the only human gifted with infinite Grace. The second model is an episode from the Gospel of Mark, in which Christ is reproached by the Pharisees for forgiving one sick man, when it was only God who could forgive men. He answers:

Why reason ye these things in your hearts? {2:9} Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, [Thy] sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? {2:10} But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) {2:11} I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. {2:12}

Not the miracle of healing of which only Him, as God, is capable, is in focus here, but the first one, of forgiving, is. This one is, as He says, easier, because any man can perform it, because any man is capable of love for everybody. It is only man’s lack of faith which forces Him to perform a miracle, to touch, then and forever, humanity, in order to teach us how to replicate his love by touching each other. The gap is bridged with spiritual love, with people touching their brothers in a self-ignoring gesture, in the ethics of sacrifice and the embrace of Creation.

La “Obiecte pierdute”

Adresati-va cu incredere la obiecte pierdute,
Biroul minune-asigura clipe placute.
Se gasesc zgarde (fara caini)
Valize (fara stapani)
Carucioare (fara sugari)
lentile (fara ochelari)
O idee (dintr-un vers)
O medalie (cu revers)
43 de biciclete (cam neunse)
o pereche de manusi (doar mana dreapta)
Toate stau cuminti. Asteapta.
Vrei sa cumperi? Nu se poate!
Si ai vrea sa iei de toate
Uite-un Zil pus pe talpici
(cum o fi ajuns aici?)
O armura, un butoi
Patru inimi (par ca noi)
Un manechin barbat
Agatat intre coloane
(Pe piept sta scris cu litere mari “Mondo Cane”)
Fug la obiecte pierdute..
sperand sincer sa ma ajute
- Oameni! Va implor!
Nu cumva,
S-a gasit tineretea mea?

Sursa: “Psiheea”