The Uprising

I've returned to Liviu Rebreanu, as this is the third novel in this class written by the "Father of the Romanian novel." In this novel as well, Rebreanu displays his excellent skill in developing real-life characters and "showing" a story rather than "telling" it.

The Uprising is about the 1907 Romanian peasant revolt which shook the government and aristocracy to their very core. An excerpt from my first essay explains the context of this novel:

Intensified exploitation of the peasant workers led to the Great Uprising of 1907; this two-month protest culminated in acts of vandalism, resignations of public office, brutal repression, loss of land, and an estimated 11,000 deaths. In order to pacify the people, the parliament passed a series of regulations during the following two years, establishing minimum wages, determining the maximum rent that could be demanded of peasants, and giving the proletariat more control over the administration of charitable and cultural institutions (MacKenzie 400). Liviu Rebreanu’s novel The Uprising takes place during The Great Uprising of 1907 and chronicles the lives of several peasants in their struggle against the bourgeoisie to secure a livelihood for their families (Oana 4).

Indeed, one of the charming aspects of this novel is the way Rebreanu provides different perspectives by focusing on individual families. There's the boyars, the peasants, and in between, there's Titu Herdelea--rejoining us from Rebreanu's first important novel, Ion. Rebreanu makes a case for the peasants by revealing many different layers of suffering and indignation, revolt and pacification. Indeed, The Great Uprising was a complicated affair caused by a number of issues; but at the heart, it's all about--not land, but--one's sense of identity. The boyars tie there identity with their ability to control the peasants, manipulate them, and exit every argument unscathed. The peasants find their identity in becoming their own masters, reclaiming the land they have worked, and "bowing to no one but God" (no citation provided, but repeated throughout the next; I'll try to get a specific page number).

In Ion, the protagonist had to fight hard against man and nature to acquire the land, but at least the reader gains the sense that it is a possible feat. In contrast to Ion, characters in The Uprising do not have any sense of hope or security; they cannot depend on the court systems or government to rule justly--they were starving while others were living richly off their sweat. It is no wonder that they revolted. And so, the feel of this novel is very different from the first in the series (which actually, chronologically, occurs later in time).

On a side note, I was taken aback by the morality of this novel; it is simply imbued with sexual promiscuity, lewdness, and coarse jokes. Not to imply I was expecting Rebreanu to be a saint, but I don't yet see what purpose such details serve--except if to highlight to moral depravity of city dwellers in comparison to the peasants. (But, in this case, what side is Titu Herdelea on? For he is foremost among the womanizers!) And if critics are right, and Titu Herdelea is Rebreanu's literary double, what does this say about the author himself? hm... points to ponder...