The inner primitive of the Enlightenment

The first interests in the knowledge of the people do not concern the ?traditions preserved by the people,? but rather their superstitions and the need to overcome them. This peasant is thus the equivalent of the (bad) savage, eventually of the exotic primitive. In doing so, this kind of Enlightenment ethnology is overtaking and translating in rational terms--and for other reasons!--the Christian (mainly Catholic and Protestant) theory of superstitions as developed from Saint Augustine to Luther and Calvin. In the Romanian case, leading figures of the Orthodox Church such as Vasile Moga in Sibiu or Simion Popovici Datcu and Radu Verzea in Brasov also condemned in the 19^th century the ?superstitious? or ?vain? beliefs of the Folk in very similar terms (Muşlea, 1945: 128-129). The Church even excommunicated sometimes whole communities suspected of practicing ?magical rituals? (Duma, 1995: 108-109).[2]

Nevertheless, the main actor in this respect is not the Church but a group of lightening and politically engaged intellectuals in the 19^th century known as the ?Şcoala ardeleană? (the Transylvanian school). The typical example is a book published by a leading member of the School, Gheorghe Şincai, in 1808 and entitled Învăţătură firească pentru surparea superstiţiei norodului (Common Sense Teaching for the Undermining of People?s Superstitions).  A handful of such ?superstitions? are presented by the author in order to be ?explained? in the rational terms of science and also mocked at as they are interpreted by local people. Written ten years latter, Vasile Popp?s doctoral dissertation on funeral practices defended in 1817 in Vienna is considered to be the very inaugural work of Romanian folklore. It is ?the first scientific essay in the field of Romanian folklore, the subject and the author belonging to our folk. But its meanings are transgressing the national borders,? Vasile Muslea claims, ?what other modern nation had in 1817 a research on its funeral customs? None, as far as I know!? (Muşlea, 1971 [2]: 46). It may be true, but Popp?s intention was the same militant enlightening one, his ethnographic descriptions of peasant current practices being meant to illustrate and condemn their irrational superstitions. Later on, different kinds of social workers will follow and develop this kind of rationalist mainly hygienic approach, being interested in such knowledge about the people?s nutrition, heath, conditions of work and living, etc., criticizing them in order to change them (see Bărbulescu, 2006).

Nevertheless, another stream underwent this main discourse: these very condemned ?superstitions? may be also perceived as some historical proofs of the ancient origin and continuity of the Romanian people, and thus turned into valuable arguments. It is what another leading figure of the School, Samuil Micu-Klein did in his 1800 history of the Romanians (Muşlea, 1971[1]: 4). In a more explicit and programmatic way, such then-popular customs were compared with ancient Roman ones by Damaschin Bojincă in 1832-1833, in order to prove the Roman origin of the Romanian people (Bojincă, [1832-1833] 1978; 115-130, passim). Inside a still primitivist approach, the nation-building ethnology was making its first steps.

[2]Local priests used to be much more indulgent with such ?superstitions,? sometimes also being accused by their superiors (Muşlea, op. cit.: 128).