Sunteți pe pagina 1din 13

DIVANUL

STRUCTUR I STIL N RECONSTRUCIA MORAL


A PERSONLITII UMANE
Mihaela Sterian,
mihaela.sterian@gmail.com

Mihaela Mocanu
rmocanu100@yahoo.fr
Abstract: The Divan or the Wise Mans Parley with the World is one of
Dimitrie Cantemirs fundamental works. In this work the medieval speeches and
reflections on time, soul, nature or consciousness are recollected in an original way.
Dimitrie Cantemir asserts mans superiority over the other creatures, places man in the
center of all that exists and supports the superiority of spiritual life over the human
biological condition.
Keywords: self-consciousness, wise man, Christian values, inner reconstruction,
self-identity.

Prin Divanul, Dimitrie Cantemir druiete neamului su o carte de


moral cretin pentru mireni, pentru credincioi n general, care trebuie
s biruiasc ispitele lumii, trind n mijlocul ei.1
Aadar, Divanul poate fi vzut, ntre altele, i ca un tratat de etic ce
mediteaz asupra condiiei umane generice a omului, urmnd principiile
religiei cretine. Nu speculaia teoretic l atrage pe autor, ct drumul
Golgotei care ne conduce ctre evoluie n plan spiritual. n mod firesc,
acest drum nu poate fi altul dect cel al nelepciunii, iar cluza adecvat
neleptul. De aceea, trebuie relevat paradigma cantemirian a
nelepciunii pentru c ea circumscrie n corpusul ei regulile perfecionrii
luntrice.
Din faptul c omul este creaia lui Dumnezeu, decurg ulterior toate
caracteristicile eseniale, inclusiv sensul condiiei umane. Firea omeneasc
este un dar de la Dumnezeu: ...Dumnezeu atoatefctorul nu te-a fcut

Lect. univ. dr., Facultatea de tiine ale Educaiei, Universitatea


Cretin Dimitrie Cantemir, Bucureti.

Lect. univ. dr., Facultatea de tiine ale Educaiei, Universitatea


Cretin Dimitrie Cantemir, Bucureti.
1
Vaida, Petru, Dimitrie Cantemir i umanismul, Bucureti, 1972, pag. 55.

446

piatr, lemn sau vreun altfel de anim al fr de simire, ci om nzestrat cu


minte i cu socoteal i te-a nnoit cu duh dumnezeiesc.2
O alt not specific (chiar n cadrul teologiei cretine ortodoxe) este
aceea c omul a fost creat brbat i femeie i nu este vorba, prin urmare, de
o fiin androgin, aa cum apare n unele interpretri n teologia rus
contemporan (Kovalenski, 1996). Diferenierea brbat i femeie nu
diminueaz statutul ontic al omului care este afirmat explicit n revelaia
biblic. Dumnezeu a fcut pe om dup chipul lui Su, parte femeiasc i
brbteasc i-a fcut. (Facerea, cap. I, v.27)
Prin urmare, omul este o fiin raional, dobitoc mluitor, n
expresie cantemirian, iar raiunea este universalul dat n om, propriul
lui, datum-ul lui. Aa se explic interesul exclusiv al neleptului,
"personajul central din Divanul, pentru ceea ce este venic n om, i de ce
lucrarea propune un ndreptar de re-construcie luntric a omului n
consonan cu valorile cretine.
Structura de dialog platonician
Lucrarea este structurat n trei pri distincte, cuprinznd, pe lng
coninutul propriu-zis al lucrrii, cele zece porunci ale stoicilor, i cteva
reguli importante de via. Astfel, n prima parte, neleptul dialogheaz cu
Lumea pe tema imperfeciunii acesteia din urm. Lumea aduce n prim
plan slava i nemurirea numelui, iar neleptul gndul i perspectiva
morii.
Prin contrastul perpetuu al sufletului cu trupul, al neleptului cu
Lumea, se manifest dorina de perfecionare moral nscris n fiecare din
noi. Este nevoie ca Lumea s fie perceput n rutatea ei, pentru ca omul s
devin mai bun, trebuie reprezentat ca nebun, nct, spune neleptul,
prin a ta nebunie nelept s m fac.
n acest scurt fragment dialogul se mbin cu naraiunea, cele dou
personaje simbolice prelund funcia naratorului, care trebuie s
povesteasc nu numai ceea ce au rostit ntr-adevr preopinenii, dar s i
transmit implicit, tonalitatea i gestica replicilor, tot ceea ce, ntr-o
reprezentare scenic, ar fi cuprins n jocul actorilor.
Divanul dorina reconstruciei luntrice a omului
Divanul lui D. Cantemir trebuie plasat n poziia originii. Iar aceast
poziie nu se datoreaz faptului istoric de a fi prima carte de filosofie din
cultura noastr, ct, mai degrab, faptului c acest moment inaugural a
generat o influen de durat asupra istoriei mentalitilor filosofice
Dimitrie Cantemir, The Divan or the Wise Mans Parley with the World or the
Judgement of the Soul with the Body, edition prepared and introductory study by Virgil
Cndea, Bucharest, Literature Publishing House, 1969, p.110. Emphasis.
2

447

romneti. Prin urmare, putem spune c Divanul lui D. Cantemir


reprezint simbolul unei epoci, sinteza unei diversiti de fenomene
culturale, un ndemn pentru noi realizri n plan cultural. Din aceast
perspectiv, l putem considera pe D. Cantemir ca pe un dascl al
romnilor, parafrazndu-l astfel pe Hegel care l considera pe Wolff un
dascl al germanilor pentru faptul de a scrie filosofie n limba naional:
o tiin aparine unui popor cnd acesta o posed n limba sa proprie; i
acest lucru este cel mai necesar cnd e vorba de filozofie.3
Filosoful din Apus, spre deosebire de neleptul din Rsrit, este un
explorator al contiinei teoretice (Adevrului) n cutarea propriilor ei
temeiuri, interesat aproape n exclusivitate de cunoaterea cunoaterii.
Deviza preocuprilor sale intelectuale se rezum la formula: a ti pentru a
ti. Conform acestui principiu, Principele-filosof valorizeaz figura
neleptului ca simbol al contiinei reflexive din aceast parte a lumii.
Figura dominant n cultura noastr veche este neleptul, preocupat de
activarea semnificaiilor culturale, cultura ca paideea, cultura n calitatea
ei de mijlocitor al vieii, de mod de a fi al omului n lume. Profilul
neleptului se contureaz ca figura central a culturii vechi rsritene de
rit ortodox i, n mod firesc, i a culturii noastre din acea perioad, profil
pe care l putem identifica n aceast lucrare. neleptul, ne transmite
Principele-moldav, este un nvat, un purttor i un posesor de
nelepciune. El este mai mult dect un simplu crturar pentru c
nelegerea lui se situeaz deasupra tiinei lumeti.
Fapt explicabil, de altfel, ntruct, n spiritul religiei ortodoxe,
crturarii i fariseii au fost printre cei puini care nu au neles mesajul
nvturii divine i tot ei, orbii de propriile lor rtciri, au fost cei ca
l-au trimis la moarte pe Iisus Hristos: Vai vou crturarilor i fariseilor
farnici! C nchidei mpria cerurilor naintea oamenilor; c voi nu
intrai, i nici pe cei ce vor s intre nu-i lsai (Matei, 23.13).
neleptul nu este n cutarea unui algoritm de producere a adevrului,
precum filosoful, neleptul este n posesia adevrului, pe care l
transform ntr-un bun comunitar, o form pentru atingerea idealului
frumuseii interioare, ct i un instrument de aciune n (re)construcia
moral a omului. neleptul nu este n mod obligatoriu un preot, dup cum
nu orice preot este neaprat un nelept. neleptul este mai degrab un
laic, n ciuda faptului c se afl n cutarea valorilor cretine i se
raporteaz la textele filosofice clasice prin prisma credinei ortodoxe.
Studiile de specialitate nu au insistat asupra acestor probleme, dar
cunoaterea culturii specifice a romnilor ne-ar ndrepti s vorbim
despre existena unei teologii cretin-ortodox trit. Mircea Eliade s-a
G. W. F. Hegel, Prelegeri de istorie a filosofiei, Vol. II, Bucureti, Ed. Academiei,
1964, p.523.
3

448

oprit asupra caracterului cosmic al ortodoxiei, iar Mircea Vulcnescu


asupra dimensiunii romneti a existenei.
Dar care este modelul nelepciunii propus de ctre D.
Cantemir?
n Pontul I Cantemir identific n mod expres nelepciunea cu fapta
bun, n condiiile n care capitolul al VI-lea este intitulat sugestiv:
Cunoate frumoasa nelepciune, adic fapta bun (D. Cantemir, op.cit., p.
315). Prin urmare, n jurul nucleului de semnificaie al lui sophrosyne
(unul dintre cele trei cuvinte eline care desemneaz nelepciune), D.
Cantemir traseaz profilul neleptului, numit cu o diversitate de termeni
romneti: cuvios, drept, blagocestiv (bine credincios, n.n.), prealuminat,
cinstit, pastor.
Din aceast perspectiv, neleptul din Rsrit trebuie vzut ntr-o
relaie de complementaritate cu filosoful din Vest, doar c el are alte
sensibiliti i alte interese de cunoatere. El analizeaz aceleai texte
filozofice clasice ca i filosoful din Apus, numai c din alt perspectiv, n
strns concordan cu specificul cultural local. Pe scurt, putem spune c
neleptul din Rsrit este doar diferit, nu opus filosofului din Apus, mai
degrab i percepem n complementaritatea lor, ca dou tipuri de gnditori
care se raporteaz la aceeai tradiie cultural greco-latin, dar pe care o
rescriu n raport diferit n funcie de contextul cultural-cognitiv n care
triesc.
De pild, nelepii din Rsrit, iar paradigmatic este cazul lui
D.Cantemir, nutresc un interes major pentru studiul identitii de sine
colective pentru c, n paradigma cretin - ortodox, valorile superioare
(intelectuale, morale i spirituale) nu pot fi cultivate dect mpreun, prin
intermediul bisericii. Iar n teologia facerii l vom gsi pe om (cu toate
atributele de mai sus) integrat n creaie, nu oricum, ci n relaie cu viaa i
contiina, astfel sinele personal este pilonul celui colectiv, dar fr ca n
perspectiv i n trirea cretin vreunul dintre acetia, prin condiia lor
mistic, s devin entitate metafizic sau s se confunde. Comuniunea este
alctuit din suflete distincte i unice care i pstreaz identitatea proprie
i, n comuniune, sinele colectiv nu pierde din vedere faptul c mntuirea
este n primul rnd personal.
Condiia cristic pe care omul o poate integra (cu ajutorul contiinei
de sine) este real n El Intru El era viaa i viaa era lumina
oamenilor- lumina cea adevrat. Nici o posibilitate de alegere nu ar
exista dac nu ar fi natura contient a sinelui, nici cuvntul nu i-ar fi
putut fi adresat. Dac vrea cineva s vin dup mine, s se lepede de sine,
s-i ia crucea i s-mi urmeze mie (Matei, cap.16, V.24). Lepdarea de
Sine nu nseamn negarea Sinelui, omul nu se poate nega pe sine nsui, ci
situarea lui n cunoaterea adevratei sale esene.
449

Aadar, chiar dac neleptul este un explorator al sufletului preocupat


de mntuire, plasarea lui n contextul cretinismului ortodox l face
sensibil la valorile comunitare pentru c aceste valori sunt n primul rnd
religioase bine credincioasa turm a moldovenescului niam ..., cum
spune Cantemir. De aici i denumirea de pstor atribuit att preotului,
ct i neleptului. i neleptul pstorete n modul su specific
comunitatea credincioilor, asemeni preotului, i el promoveaz aceleai
nvturi cretine. Ceea ce-i difereniaz ns pe acetia sunt metodele
alese n realizarea scopurilor mprtite n comun. Faptul ca atare este
subliniat de mai multe ori de ctre D. Cantemir, artnd c neleptul te
nva cele vrednice de cinste i de laud, te ferete de ntunericimea cea
mare..., i arat i i dovedete minciunile cele greit cunoscute i cu
nedreptate grite de lume, prin Sfnta Scriptur cea nou i cea veche i
prin rspunsurile sale corecte; pe care tu, examinndu-le i ncercndu-le
cu raiunea sntoas i dreapt (s.n.) vei afla viaa venic... (D.
Cantemir, op.cit. p.18). Asumpiile metafizicii cretin-ortodoxe se relev,
aadar, n prim plan. Conchidem, deci, c neleptul rsritean nu este
atras de cercetarea raiunii n forma ei practic, precum I.Kant (cercetare
condus tot de idealuri cognitiviste), ci de ntrebuinarea dreapt a ei.
neleptul, n sugestia lui Cantemir, este un ontolog, un pzitor al raiunii,
care trebuie s urmeze n activitile sale intelectuale urmtoarea regul:
iar dac vrei s tii i s nelegi dreapta socoteal i buna chiverniseal,
aceasta este: cel ce va fugi de tine (de lume n.n.) i se va feri de toate
buntile tale i care l va cuta cu tot sufletul i cu inima ntreag pe
Dumnezeu, acela nu va fi lipsit de nici un bine. (D. Cantemir, Op.cit.,
p.68). Idealul pentru nelept este de natur moral i spiritual i const
n dobndirea statutului de om drept. "Dreptul nu va muri n veac pentru
c el umbl potrivit sfintelor porunci ale lui Dumnezeu (D. Cantemir,
op.cit., 220).
Concluzii
Prin urmare, in expresie cantemirian, omul este o fiin raional, iar
raiunea este universalul dat in om, propriul lui, datum-ul lui. Aa se
explic interesul exclusiv al neleptului, personajul central din Divanul
pentru ceea ce este dat universal n om, i de ce lucrarea propune un
ndreptar de re-construcie luntric a omului n acord deplin cu valorile
cretine.
Aadar, Divanul poate fi considerat un tratat de psihologie moral care
face din om subiect privilegiat de reflecie. Nu speculaia teoretic l
intereseaz pe Cantemir, ct mai degrab autoritatea acelor ci privilegiate
care ne pot conduce ctre auto-perfecionare moral. Natural c drumul
sigur este cel al nelepciunii, iar cluza este neleptul. Putem deci
450

conchide c Divanul lui D. Cantemir, dincolo de semnificaiile mai


generale, ntruchipeaz un sens inedit al nelepciunii, din aceast
perspectiva putem considera aceast lucrare ca fiind un pilon important al
culturii vechi romneti.
Bibliografie
Bdru, Dan, (1964), Filozofia lui Dimitrie Cantemir, Bucureti.
Cantemir, Dimitrie, (1974), Divanul, ediie ngrijit, studiu introductiv
i comentarii de Virgil Cndea, n Opere complete, I, Bucureti.
Cndea, Virgil, (1974), Studiu introductiv la Dimitrie Cantemir, Opere
complete, I, Bucureti.
Cioculescu, erban, (1966), Varieti critice, Bucureti.
Densuianu, Ovid, (1930), Evoluia estetic a limbii romne (curs
litografiat), I, Bucureti.
Ludat, I. D., (1973), Dimitrie Cantemir, Iai.
Micu, Dumitru (1974), Scurt istorie a literaturii romne. I. De la
nceputuri pn la primul rzboi mondial, Bucureti.
Minea, I., (1926), Despre Dimitrie Cantemir. Omul, scriitorul,
domnitorul, Iai.
Moldovanu, Drago, (1997), Dimitrie Cantemir ntre Orient i
Occident, Bucureti.
Muthu, Mircea, (1976), Literatura romn i spiritul sud-est
european, Bucureti.
Panaitescu, P.P.; Verde, I., (1965), Introducere la Istoria Ieroglific,
I, Bucureti.
Rosetti, Alexandru, (1951), Observaii asupra limbii lui Dimitrie
Cantemir n Istoria ieroglific, n Academia RPR Buletin tiinific, secia
de tiina limbii, literaturii i artei, I, nr. 1-2.
Rosetti, Alexandru; Cazacu, Boris, (1961), Istoria limbii romne
literare, I, Bucureti.
Sineanu, C., (1930), Noi recenzii, 1926-1929, Bucureti.
Sineanu, Lazr, (1900), Influena oriental asupra limbii i culturii
romne. I. Introducere, Bucureti.
Tartler, Grete, (1991), Proba orientului, Bucureti.
Tnsescu, Manuela, (1970), Despre Istoria ieroglific, Bucureti.
Vaida, Petru, (1972), Dimitrie Cantemir i umanismul, Bucureti.

451

THE DIVAN
STRUCTURE AND STYLE IN THE MORAL
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HUMAN PERSONALITY
Mihaela Sterian,
mihaela.sterian@gmail.com

Mihaela Mocanu
rmocanu100@yahoo.fr
Abstract: The Divan or the Wise Mans Parley with the World is one of
Dimitrie Cantemirs fundamental works. In this work the medieval speeches and
reflections on time, soul, nature or consciousness are recollected in an original
way.Dimitrie Cantemir asserts manssuperiority over the other creatures, places man in
the center of all that exists and supports the superiority of spiritual life overthe human
biological condition.
Keywords: self-consciousness, wise man, Christian values, inner reconstruction,
self-identity.

Through the Divan, Dimitrie Cantemir bestows on his people "a book
of Christian morality for the laymen, for Christians in general, who must
overcome the temptations of the world, living in the midst of them".1
Therefore, the Divan can be regarded, among other things, as a treaty
of Ethics that muses upon the human condition of the individual following
the principles of the Christian religion.What strikes the author is not the
theoretical speculation, but the Calvary road that leads us to the spiritual
evolution. Naturally, there can be no other way except for that of wisdom,
and its adequate guide can be only the wiseman. That is why we need to
point out the Cantemirian paradigm of wisdom as it comprises the rules of
inner improvement. All the essential features, including the meaning of the
human condition, result from the fact that man is Gods creation. The
human nature is a gift from God: God who made it all did not make you

Lecturer PhD., Faculty of Educational Sciences, Dimitrie Cantemir


Christian University, Bucharest.

Lecturer PhD., Faculty of Tourism and Commercial Management,


Dimitrie Cantemir Christian University, Bucharest.
1 P. Vaida Dimitrie Cantemir and Humanism, Bucharest, 1972, pag. 55

452

stone, wood or any other senseless animal, but a man endowed with mind
and reason and renewed the divine spirit.2
Another specific note (even within the orthodox Christian theology) is
that the human being was created under the form of male and female and,
therefore, we do not speak about an androgynous being, as we can find in
some interpretations from the contemporary Russian theology
(Kovalenski, 1996). The differentiation between man and woman does not
diminish the ontic state of man which is explicitly stated in the biblical
revelation. "God created man in His own image male and female he
created them (Genesis, Chapter I, v. 27).
Consequently, man is a rational being, a trade beast in Cantemirian
expression, and reasoning is the "the universal put into man, his own, his
prerequisite. This explains the exclusive interest of the wiseman, the main
"character in the Divan for what is eternal in man, and why the work
suggests a guideline for mans inner reconstruction in accordance with the
Christian values.
The Platonic dialogue structure
The work is structured into three distinct parts, including, besides the
actual content of the work, the ten commandments of the Stoics, and some
important rules for life. Thus, in the first part, the Wise Man dialogues
with the World on the theme of the imperfection of the latter. The World
brings forward the glory and immortality of the name, and the "Wise Man
the thought and the prospect of death. Through the perpetual contrast
between the soul and the body, between the wiseman and the World, the
author conveys the moral desire to improve, which is inborn in each of
them. The World needs to be perceived in its evil and, for man to improve,
it needs to be represented as "crazy", so that the Wise Man says"by your
foolishness I become a wise man".
In this short excerpt the dialogue combines with the narrative, the two
symbolic characters taking over the role of the narrator who must
narrate not only what the spokespersons really uttered but, implicitly, to
convey the tone and gestures of the replicas, everything that, in a theatrical
representation, would be included in the actors play.
The Divan the desire for human being inner reconstruction
D. Cantemirs Divan must be placed in the position of origin. And this
position is due to the fact that this inaugural moment generated a lasting
influence on the history of the Romanian philosophical mentalities rather
Dimitrie Cantemir, The Divan or the Wise Mans Parley with the World or the
Judgement of the Soul with the Body, edition prepared and introductory study by Virgil
Cndea, Bucharest, Literature Publishing House, 1969, p.110. Emphasis).
2

453

than on the historical fact of being the first book of philosophy in our
culture. Therefore, we can say that D.Cantemirs Divan is the symbol of an
era, the synthesis of a variety of cultural phenomena, an urge for new
achievements in the cultural field. From this perspective, we can consider
D.Cantemir as a "teacher of the Romanian people", thus paraphrasing
Hegel who used to consider Wolf a "teacher of the German people for
having written philosophy in the national language:"a science belongs to a
people when it possesses it in its own language, and this is needed mostly
when it comes to philosophy".3
The Western philosopher, unlike the Eastern sage, is an explorer of
the theoretical consciousness (of Truth) in search of its own grounds,
almost exclusively interested in knowing knowledge.The motto of his
intellectual concerns can be summed up by the formula: knowledge for
knowledges sake. According to this principle, the "Prince-Philosopher
valorizes the figure of the Wise Man as a symbol of the reflexive
consciousness from this part of the world. The dominant figure in our old
culture is the wise man concerned with the cultural significance activation,
culture as paideia, culture in its quality of life mediator, of the man way of
being in the world. The Wise Mans profile emerges as a central figure of
the ancient Eastern orthodox culture and, naturally, of our culture from
the period, a profile that we can identify in this work. The Wise Man, the
Moldavian Prince tells us, is a scholar, a bearer and possessor of wisdom.
He is more than a simple scholar as his understanding is above the
mundane science.
This fact can be easily explained as, in the spirit of the orthodox
religion, the scholars and Pharisees were among the few ones who did not
understand the message of divine teaching and they were also those who,
blinded by their own wanderings, sent Jesus Christ to death. "Woe to you,
teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the
kingdom of heaven in peoples faces: you yourselves do not enter, nor will
those enter who are trying to. (Matthew23:13)
The Wise Man is not in search for an algorithm to produce the truth,
like the philosopher, the Wise Man is in possession of the truth, which he
turns into a community good, a form to achieve the ideal of inner beauty,
as well as an action tool for mans moral (re) construction. The Wise Man
is not necessarily a priest, as not every priest is necessarily a wise man. The
Wise Man is rather a layman, despite the fact that he is in search of the
Christian values and regards the classic philosophical texts through the
Orthodox faith.
The specialized studies have not emphasized these problems, but the
G. W. F. Hegel, Lectures on the History of Philosophy, Vol II, Bucharest,
Publishing House, 1964, p. 523.
3

454

knowledge of the specific Roman culture would entitle us to speak of the


existence of a lived Orthodox-Christian theology. Mircea Eliade
approached the cosmic nature of Orthodoxy and Mircea Vulcnescu the
Romanian dimension of existence.
But what is the model of wisdom proposed by Dimitrie
Cantemir?
In Pontul I Cantemir expressly identifies wisdom with the good
deed, given that the sixth chapter was entitled suggestively: Get to know
the great wisdom, that is the good deed" (D. Cantemir, op.cit. p. 315).
Therefore, around the nucleus of the significance of sophrosyne (one of the
three Hellenic words designating wisdom), D. Cantemir plots the profile of
the Wise Man, named with a diversity of Romanian terms: venerable,
righteous, a strong believer, enlightened, honest, pastor.
From this perspective, the wise man from the East must be regarded
in a complementary relationship with the philosopher from the West, only
that he has other sensitivities and other interests as far as knowledge is
concerned. He examines the same philosophical texts like the philosopher
from the West, but he does it from a different perspective, closely related
to the local cultural specificity.In short, we can say that the wise man from
the East is just different, not opposite to the philosopher from the West.
He rather scrutinizes the moral conscience and the myriads of meanings of
God, following the motto of knowledge for its own sake.
We emphasize again that in no case do we oppose the wise man to the
philosopher, but we rather perceive them in their complementarity, like
two types of thinkers who relate to the same Greek-Latin cultural tradition,
but who feel and re-rewrite it according to the different requirements
(internal and external) of the different worlds they live in.
For example, the wise men from the East, and the case of D. Cantemir
is a paradigmatic one, show a major interest in scrutinizing the self
collective identity because in the Christian-Orthodox paradigm the higher
values (intellectual, moral and spiritual ones) can be cultivated only
together, by means of the church.
And in the theology of creation we will find man (with all the
attributes mentioned above) integrated in the creation, not randomly, but
in his relation with life and consciousness, so the personal self is the
mainstay of the collective one, but without their becoming a metaphysical
entity or being confused in the Christian perspective and living. The
Communion is made up of distinct and unique souls who also keep their
own identity within this communion, the collective self does not lose sight
of the fact that salvation is primarily accomplished personally.
The Christ Condition that man can integrate (with the help of selfconsciousness) is real in Him - "In Him was life and the life was the light of
455

men" -the true light. There would be no possibility of choice unless there
were the conscious nature of the self, and the word could not be addressed
to him either. "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and
take up his cross, and follow Me "(Matthew, chapter 16, V.24). Abandoning
Oneself to God does not mean Self-denial, man cannot deny himself, but his
position in the knowledge of his real essence. So, even if the wise man is an
explorer of the soul concerned about salvation, placing him within the
Orthodox Christianity context makes him sensitive to the community values
because these values are first and foremost religious ones. "The good
believer flock of the Moldavian people... as Cantemir says. Hence, the name
"pastor was assigned both to the churchman and to the wise man. For the
wise man also pastors in his specific way the congregation of believers, like
the priest, and he promotes the same Christian teachings. But what
differentiates them, as we said, are the methods chosen to achieve these
commonly shared goals. The fact as such is often stressed by D. Cantemir,
showing that "the wise man teaches you honest and noble things, spares you
of the great darkness... shows and proves you the wrongly known lies and
unrighteously uttered in the world by means of the old and new Holy
Scriptures and by its correct answers, that you, examining and judging with
the healthy and righteous reason will find eternal life ..." (D. Cantemir
,Works cited, p.18). The assumptions of the Orthodox-Christian
metaphysics are thus revealed in the foreground. We conclude, therefore,
that the Eastern wise man is not attracted by the research of reason in its
practical form like I. Kant, (research also by led the cognitive ideals), but by
its the righteous use. The Wise man, in Cantemir's opinion, is an ortolog, a
guardian of the righteous reason, who must follow in his intellectual
undertakings the following rule: "and if you want to know and understand
the right reasoning and proper wealth, this is; the one who will run away
from you (the world) and will give up all your goodies and will seek God
with all his soul and his heart, he shall not be deprived of any good. "(D.
Cantemir, Works, cited, p.68). The ideal for the wise man is of a moral and
spiritual nature and consists in gaining the status of a righteousman.
"Rightfulness will never die because it is in accordance with the holy
commandments of God (D. Cantemir, Works cited., 220).
Conclusions
Consequently, in Cantemirian terms, man is a rational being and reason
is the universal given in man, his own datum. This is how we can explain
the exclusive interest of the Wise Man, the main character from the Divan
in what is universal in man, and why the work proposes a guide for mans
inner re-construction in full accordance with the Christian values.
Therefore, the Divan may be regarded as a treaty of moral psychology
which makes man the privilieged subject of reflection. Cantemir is not so
456

interested in the theoretical speculation, but rather in the authority of


those privilieged ways which can lead us to moral self-improvement. It is
only natural that the safe way is that of wisdom, and the guide is the Wise
Man. We can thus conclude that Dimitrie Cantemirs Divan, beyond its
more general meanings, embodies an original sense of wisdom and, from
this perspective, we may consider this work as an importan pillar of the old
Romanian culture.
References
Bdru, Dan, (1964), Dimitrie Cantemirs Philosophy, Bucharest.
Cantemir, Dimitrie, (1974), The Divan, edition prepared, introductory
study and commentaries by Virgil Cndea, nComplete works, I, Bucharest.
Cndea, Virgil, (1974), Introductory study to Dimitrie Cantemirs
Works Complete Works, I, Bucharest.
Cioculescu, erban, (1966), Critical Varieties, Bucharest.
Densuianu, Ovid, (1930), The Estethic Evolution of the Romanian
Language I, Bucharest.
Ludat, I.D., (1973), Dimitrie Cantemir, Iasi.
Micu, Dumitru, (1974), A Short History of the Romanian Literature I.
From its origins up to the First World War, Bucharest.
Minea, I., (1926), About Dimitrie Cantemir. The Man, the Writer, the
Ruler, Iasi.
Moldovanu, Drago, (1997), Dimitrie Cantemir between East and
West, Bucharest.
Muthu, Mircea, (1976), The Romanian Literature and the SouthEuropean Spirit, Bucharest.
Panaitescu, P.P.; Verdes, I. (1965), Introduction to the Hierogliphic
History I, Bucharest.
Rosetti, Alexandru, (1951), Observations on Dimitrie Cantemirs
Language in the Hierogliphic History, in The Academy Scientific
Bulletin, the section of language, liteature and art science, I, nr. 1-2.
Rosetti, Alexandru; Cazacu, Boris, (1961), The History of the Literary
Romanian Language, I, Bucharest.
Sineanu, C., New Reviews, 1926-1929, Bucharest, 1930.
Sineanu, Lazr, (1900), The Eastern Influence on the Romanian
Language and culture I. Introduction, Bucharest.
Tartler, Grete, (1991), The Eastern Trial, Bucharest.
Tnsescu, Manuela, (1970), On the Hierogliphic History, Bucharest.
Vaida, Petru, (1972), Dimitrie Cantemir and Humanism, Bucharest.

457

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.