Ion Luca Caragiale - Style and Cultural Tenets

Style and Cultural Tenets

According to Tudor Vianu, Caragiale's writings signify "the highest expression" of Romanian theater, mirroring and complimenting the contribution Mihai Eminescu had to Romanian-language poetry. Vianu nonetheless pointed out the immense difference in style and approach between the Eminescu and Caragiale, noting that, to Eminescu's metaphysical interests and "Romantic genius", the dramatist opposed his "great classical and realist endowment, a social, voluble and epicurean nature".

Critics and historians place Caragiale's style midway between the delayed Classicism of 19th century Romanian literature and Realism (with its fin de siècle development, Naturalism). The writer, who abode by the classical unities, rejected Romantic tenets, and, as early as the 1870s, opposed the lyricism present in the dramas of Victor Hugo and Friedrich Schiller. Neoclassicism in his works is further enhanced in his drama and comedies by his adherence to Eugène Scribe's principles (see Well-made play). Paul Zarifopol argued that, for most of his life, Caragiale, the opponent of didacticism, advocated Maiorescu's principles of art for art's sake. He often sketched out alternative endings to his stories, and selected the ones he felt came most natural. Nevertheless, Zarifopol also noted that, late in his life, the writer contemplated adding a didactic message to one of his writings, which was to remain unfinished.

His role in the Romanian context was likened to those of Honoré de Balzac in France, Charles Dickens in the United Kingdom, and Nikolai Gogol in the Russian Empire. Literary critic Pompiliu Constantinescu credited Caragiale's sense of irony with having corrected the tendencies of his day, and, through this, with helping create an urban literature. Caragiale's interest in Realism was however denied by some of his Junimist advocates, who attempted to link his entire work with Maiorescu's guidelines: on the basis of Schopenhauerian aesthetics, critic Mihail Dragomirescu postulated that his humor was pure, and did not draw on any special circumstance or context.

Through many of his traits, Caragiale was connected to a Balkan environment of virtually permanent human contact, with its humor condensed in anecdotes, mimicry, and witty comebacks. Zarifopol quoted him saying that he admired the traditional forms of entertainment, and that he admired the soitarìi ("buffoons").

Largely reflecting his primordial study of dramaturgy, Caragiale's literature is indebted to dialog, as well as, in rarer cases, to internal monologue and free indirect speech (the favorite technique of Naturalists). Language takes the central role in his work, often compensating for the lack of detail. To this was added his tendency to reduce texts to their essence—he shortened down not only his own text, but also his occasional translations of stories by Queen Elisabeth and even Miguel de Cervantes or Edgar Allan Poe. At times, he added a lyrical, meditative or autobiographical, perspective to his works: this trait was especially obvious in his later fantasy works (Kir Ianulea and Calul dracului among them), all marked by Neoromantic inspiration. Zarifopol claimed that, although Caragiale often rejected the tendency of other writers to capitalize on picturesque images, he often used them in his own writings.

Caragiale arguably won as much acclaim for his rigorous approach to playwriting as for his accomplished style. With Alexandru Vlahuţă, George Coşbuc and others, he belonged to the first generation of Romanian authors to take a noted interest in imposing professionalism. He was specific about this requirement—on one occasion, he used sarcasm to overturn a common misconception, saying: "Literature is an art that needs not be learned; whoever knows how to turn letters into syllables and the latter into words is has had sufficient preparation to engage in literature." Commenting on this, Vianu stressed: " even under the appearance of ease, lets us catch sight of the severe law of his art" (adding elsewhere that " was a scrupulous and tormented artist").

Caragiale compared writers who could not dissimulate their intent and generate a good story with "a cross-eyed who tells you which way to go: one doesn't known if he is to go down the road he points to, or down the road he is looking at". Speaking in the late 1890s, he also likened writing for the stage with architecture:

"In truth, just as much as the architect's plan is not yet the final accomplishment of his intent—that is to say, the monument—but only its conventional recording, so too is the dramaturg's writing not yet the accomplishment of his intent—that is to say, the comedy—but the conventional recording, to which will be added the personal elements, in order to depict a development of human circumstances and deeds. In short: just as an architect's plan bears little resemblance to a painting, so does drama bear little resemblance to a poem."