Spiritual self-portrait

He was born in Bucharest on 19 February (old calendar) 1904 to parents originally from Oltenia.

During the war years, he went to high school in Bucharest, sometimes in public, sometimes privately, in various cities of refuge: Iași, Tecuci, Galați.

He studied Philosophy and Law at the University of Bucharest, and got his licences in these two areas.

He went on to complete his studies in Paris, where he gained a diploma in law and political economy from the Faculty of Law. He also studied theology here, getting to know Orthodox and Thomist circles.

He went back to Bucharest and was made director of the University Office. Then he was made assistant at the University of Bucharest, in the Department of Sociology, Ethics and Politics of Prof. Gusti, in 1930.

In 1930, he was made Professor of Economics and Law at the Higher School of (Social) Assistance and Professor of Moral Statistics at the Higher School of Statistics.

He picked up his spiritual training through various youth associations: “Romanian Brotherhood”, A.S.C.R., “Criterion”, “XIII Gemina” – these were the places where almost all Romanian youth spent their formative years.

He set up the Romanian Institute of Conjunct, the Scientific Association for the Encyclopaedia of Romania and the Romanian Society for Political Studies with his contemporaries.

He was on the board of the Association of Economists and the Romanian Institute of Social Research.

He had a broad outlook, interested in everything from philosophy to economics, religion, art and morality. He tried to find the common thread that ties everything together, offering new insights into the material he worked with.

He’s a sociologist and part of the Romanian School of Professor Gusti. He’s somewhere in the middle between the logical right-wing of Gusti, represented by Traian Herseni, and the empiricist left, represented by H. H. H. Stahl.

As a philosopher, he militated for a realist, autochthonous, monarchical and orthodox position, following in the footsteps of Professor Nae Ionescu, whose disciple he is, with Mircea Eliade, Paul Sterian, George Racoveanu, etc.

In 1940, he worked with C. Noica, C. Floru, Virgil Bogdan and others on publishing Prof. Nae Ionescu’s lectures.

As an economist, he followed in V. Madgearu’s footsteps, particularly on the specifics of the Romanian rural economy and on integrating the evolution of the world economy in recent decades into a unified vision, which he called “economic neo-medievalism.”

He also helped develop the history of the Romanian economy, following in Eugen Demetrescu’s footsteps. He also worked with younger economists, guiding them towards researching concrete problems. We can also thank Durma, Neagu, Iordan, Eugen Demetrecu and Sterian for the technical side of our economic life.

In 1929 he joined the Studies Office of the Ministry of Finance, where he worked until 1935, when he was appointed Director of Customs. In 1937 he became Director of the Public Debt.

In January 1941 he was appointed Undersecretary of State at the Ministry of Finance.

As Director of Customs he introduced strict operating rules and living/working conditions for civil servants to ensure efficiency.

From the very beginning, he was a driving force behind the idea of converting the public debt and redeeming the foreign debts of the Romanian State.

His excessive legalism was often criticised in commercial circles, but he did make an impact in the Customs administration.

In the government of the generals, he had a technical role, mainly supporting General Stoenescu’s first steps and helping him get to grips with the ministry. Initially, he was mainly focused on the role of chief of the general staff, and then he was mostly involved in general issues within the ministry.

In politics, he was a mediator and peacemaker between opposing domestic groups. And in foreign policy, he supported all sides.

As a civil servant, he always preferred to make gradual improvements using the people he found, rather than trying to implement sweeping changes with grand ideas and plans. And yet he made lots of plans for other people to work on.

He was successful because he was clever, hard-working and stubborn. He wouldn’t give up no matter what.

He had a reputation for being honest, skilled and hard-working.

He also worked as a publicist for the newspaper ”Cuvântul”, which was edited by Prof. Nae Ionescu between 1927 and 1934. He also contributed to the economic newspaper ”Prezentul”, which was edited by Prof. V. Madgearu. And then there were the magazines and newspapers, like “Gândirea”, “Dreapta”, “Lumea nouă”, “Familia”, “Gând românesc”, “Criterion” and “Arhiva pentru știința și reforma socială”.

He didn’t like being in the publishing business. He only wrote when he had to and didn’t like putting his articles together in books. But he had a big impact on his colleagues through his writing and speaking. He encouraged them to work together on lots of different projects.

As a mentor, he encouraged the young people he was working with to look into the issues they were facing directly.

We talked about his lectures, articles and studies.

Some of his work, like the studies on Professor Gusti and Madgearu, are cited as sources because they provide great characterizations.

He also gave talks and wrote articles on other topics, including War Economics, which he delivered at the Association of Economists in 1934. This was never published, but it was shared with students at the War School for years.

He also had an interest in military matters and published a research summary of the history of the Romanian war of 1916-1919.

He covered so many different topics and interacted with most of the key figures of his generation that he was seen by some as the leader of this generation. He was always happy to acknowledge this, but he preferred to think of himself as one of many, alongside Mircea Eliade.

What has made him so many friends is that, regardless of what’s lacking or negative, he has a natural inclination to highlight the good and useful side of every element and encourage its development.

He was right-wing, but he was different from other activists of his generation. He was traditionalist and anti-revolutionary, and he believed in the superiority of things that are ready-made and organic. He thought that things made by force and stress weren’t as good as things that were already finished.

(Mircea Vulcănescu. Profil spiritual, edited by Marin Diaconu, Eminescu Publishing House, Bucharest, 2001, pp. 50-52 apud “Manuscriptum”, Year XXVII, no. 1-2, pp. 26-29)