Category: Uncategorized

« Activities « Research Seminars

16 January 2025, 16.00-18.00
Event: TransCorr Seminar
Location: NEC conference hall & Zoom
Constantin ARDELEANU, Researcher within the framework of the ERC project Transnational histories of ‘corruption’ in Central-South-East Europe (1750-1850); Senior Researcher, Institute for South-East European Studies, Bucharest

The appointment of new princes (“hospodars”) in 1834 to govern the two principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, in accordance with the “Organic Regulations”, was followed by a period of intense political infighting. Alexandru Dimitrie Ghica in Wallachia and Mihail Sturdza in Moldavia encountered considerable resistance from groups of disaffected boyars. The disagreements were especially pronounced within the Wallachian Assembly, where prince Ghica and the boyars exchanged a multitude of accusations. Facing pressure from various political factions and, more significantly, the loss of imperial Russia’s trust, Ghica was ultimately dismissed in 1842. The boyars elected a new prince, Gheorghe Bibescu, a prominent rival of Ghica’s.

In order to ensure the “good governance” of their respective countries, both Sturdza in Moldavia and Bibescu in Wallachia implemented more authoritarian measures against their political opponents. The censorship of the press was one method utilized to purge the public sphere of potentially disruptive political ideologies or provocations espoused by the opposition.
However, the opposition was not effectively silenced. In newspapers articles or printed brochures smuggled into the principalities, the princes were depicted as utterly “corrupt” leaders who exploited their public office for personal gain and the benefit of their close associates. The princes were denounced as guilty of embezzlement, extortion, nepotism, and conflict of interest. In response, the princes instructed their associates to disseminate articles and brochures defending their work and levelling accusations of “corruption” against their primary rivals.

Based on diplomatic reports, the private correspondence of several of the main actors and an analysis of the printed brochures and daily press, I will try to understand how “corruption” was defined and redefined in South-East-Central Europe and how such definitions were used for asserting or contesting political legitimacies.

« Activities

• October 2024
• January 2025

« Activities « Research Seminars

11 October 2024, 16.00-18.00
Andrei-Dan SORESCU, NEC alumnus
Postdoctoral Researcher, ERC research project “Transnational histories of ‘corruption’ in Central-South-East Europe (1750-1850)”

Intellectual histories of “empire” have long taken centre stage in scholars’ attempts to make sense of its attending “-ism” and the long shadows it continues to cast. By contrast, and with less definitional precision as a separate yet connected process, the meanings that the “colonial” held as a category for historical actors themselves have been left comparatively under-researched. That the two are – and were – deeply entwined is a given. And yet, the historical semantics of “colony” and “colonisation” deserve particular attention. As the politics, ethics, and pragmatics of “de-colonising” institutions, knowledge, and cultural praxis have in recent years gripped public imagination, my contention is that a deeper knowledge of what “the colonial” meant in its past, original context(s) is equally necessary.

The present intervention therefore takes nineteenth-century Romania as a surprisingly productive case-study for investigating the meanings that “colony” and “colonisation” could hold, as pervasively recurring concepts in public discourse. From the self-imagining of the nation’s origins as the outcome of Roman colonisation to envisioning the “colonial” potential of the Dobruja as a province, or by anxiously connoting German or Jewish presence as potentially “colonising”, the literate Romanian public sphere ceaselessly returned to, and attempted to define what these keywords could stand for. The rhetorics of colonial presence in the nation’s past, present, and future remained salient across long nineteenth century, I will argue, even in a country not directly involved in European processes of imperial expansion. Charting how, and which contexts “colony” and “colonisation” were used, and whether their meaning shifted, or was broadened across time, the present talk aims to highlight the often surprising texture of historical discourse, and how the two concepts remained hidden in plain sight for subsequent historical investigations.