We hear about the feminization of politics, of feminism in international relations, in art, science even in history where the expression “herstory” refers to writing about the past having women as “major characters of a play”, from a feminist point of view. There is no need to criticize these approaches, as long as they do not mystify the truth of course, and as long as, for instance, they do not try to find manifestations of feminism before the modern age. They mark in fact the progress made by women in intellectual and cultural domains. They are the outcome of women scholars who are interested in setting women in an appropriate context in their fields of activity. Indeed, female scholars tend to be the first to be interested in these kinds of approaches, yet male scholars also support their colleagues’ efforts. This is proved, in history for instance, by the fact that some of the best historians on women’s history are men (G. Duby, for example). Yet gender does not matter, or should not matter, where women’s history is concerned. Moreover, historians had indeed recovered much of women’s past. There are still gaps that must be filled, especially in regard to Romanian historiography. This is one of the goals we try to achieve through the present study: to reveal the connection between women and nation. It is our aim to identify how the Romanian nation, at its birth, had included in it the “other half of the nation” (Lungu, 1879, 69). Also, we intend to identify the mechanisms by which the nation incorporated women among its symbols.

In the first part of the study, we will discuss the connection between nation, nationalism and gender. First, we have to find a suitable definition for nation. But this is not an easy thing to do despite the generous literature we have on the subject (Hobsbawm, 1992, Gellner, 1997, Anderson, 2006). From all definitions at our disposal, the one that best fits our approach deals with the symbolic understanding of it. The nation is a mental projection, a mental construct disseminated through education. It is, as Benedict Anderson argued, an imagined community, an imagined political community – and imagined both as inherently limited and sovereign  [1] – which turned into a real one by using a set of symbols. E. Hobsbawm names them “the holy icons” which make a nation “feel like being a real, palpable thing” [2]. This symbolic feature of a nation justifies our approach once more: that is because we treat women and nation, likewise, symbolically. Nation is the outcome of an “ideological process”; women were “imagined” as well, either as goddesses, angels or demons. They were either idealized or diabolized. In fact, we consider that each society, whatever the age, or nation, had elaborated a portrait of an ideal woman. There is, an “imagined woman” in each nation. Likewise, both women and nation, as mental projections, are idealized. This means that they are inspired by reality but that they idealize it: for instance, the imagined woman is never the replica or embodiment of the real one. It is also true that, if we use the progressive method, the visual representations of women multiply from one age to another; and that the “visual language” can best reflect this progress towards gender equality made by women. See for instance the miniature of J. Le Grant, Livres de bonnes moeurs from the XVth Century and Eugèn Delacroix’s Liberté and you will have a glimpse of this complex process of building the modern woman. Whereas, during the Middle Ages the most common images of women were those of “saints” and “sinners” – as the medieval age favored the opposing images of Virgin Mary and Eve – the Renaissance, owing to its admiration for the classic cultures, would enrich the female portrait [3]: from then on we have women as they were during Antiquity: personifications of such abstract notions as Victory, Justice; Peace etc.

The modern age would also contribute to this feminine portrait which gains new features, more realistic ones it might be said. We would still have the image of abstract notions embodied by women [4], but from now on we would also have female embodiments of nations. One can argue that “nation” is also an abstract notion, but the Nation/Woman allegory is different from the others. Allegories of Peace, War, and Justice etc. required a certain cultural level, whereas feminine allegories of the nation were for everyone; their message seemed to be easily understandable by everyone, even by those who were illiterate as they incorporated symbols of a sort that all could understand. This visual propaganda, as some scholars argue, was the best way to approach the common people [5]. Indeed, comparing the two types of allegories, the representations of abstract notions were more difficult to read as they were inspired by models from ancient times. Thus, in order to understand their message the viewer needed some classical knowledge. But should we consider the allegories of nation as being more easily understandable than their predecessors? From P. Burke’s point of view we might give a positive answer to this question. The historian argues that nationalism is relatively easy to express in images, whether they caricature foreigners or celebrate the major events of a nation’s history, whether they evoke the style of the folk art of the region or they depict the landscape characteristics of the region [6]. But would they, in fact, be easy to read? How and who could read these images, these paintings representing the nation as a woman? Because, before attempting to read images “between the lines” and to use them as historical evidence it is only prudent to begin with their meanings [7]. Moreover, can the meanings of images be translated into words? [8]

These are among the statements we try to validate in the Romanian case, too. First, we do not have to think that when the nations were born the past allegories vanished; on the contrary, from the French Revolution onwards, the visual language was enriched with new, modern allegories (like Nation), and many attempts were made to translate into visual language the classic ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity [9]. We must also stress the fact that these feminine representations of nations would have been inspired by such representations of abstract notions as those previously mentioned.

Moreover, of great relevance is the fact that these national allegories seem to interact with each other. See for instance Russian propaganda posters from 1914 representing altogether France, Russia and Great Britain as feminine figures.

In what follows, we will discuss the connection between the emergence of these feminine allegories and the nation-building process. It is not so easy to connect the two aspects given the fact that the literature on nations and nationalism rarely addresses the question of gender. In fact, most texts on nationalism do not take gender as a significant issue [10]. Although the subject is analyzed only marginally, the few existing studies written so far have proved that there is a close connection between the emergence of nations and the progress made on the women’s question [11]. We have to take into account that they are both aspects of modernization and are thus interconnected. Moreover, they would “use” each other. A nation would use female allegories as propaganda for constructing “the real nation”. Meanwhile, women, in their effort to gain civil rights, appealed to the role they were given in forming the national identity. In summary, women were involved in the national and ethnic processes both as subjects and objects. Anthias and Yuval-Davis suggest that there are five major ways in which women were involved in the nation-building process: “1. As biological reproducers of members of ethnic collectivities; 2. As reproducers of the boundaries of ethnic/national groups; 3. As participating centrally in the ideological reproduction of the collectivity and as transmitters of its culture; 4. As signifiers of ethnic/national differences – as a focus and symbol in ideological discourse used in the construction, reproduction and transformation of ethnic/national categories; 5. As participants in national, economic, political and military struggles” [12]. These five points can be seen in the process of constructing the Romanian nation, too. Indeed, they are more obvious among the Romanians from Transylvania due to their distinct political status in the Austro – Hungarian empire. But they are also noticeable in Romanian discourse from the society of the old regime. What must be stressed is how this process of nation building seems not to mark gender differences any more. This is probably the result of the effort of intellectuals to create and strengthen the nation’s unity. But we should not exaggerate facts. This openness towards women’s involvement in the creation of the nation tends to be temporary. Once again, there seems to be a difference between discourse and reality. A sort of gender equality is accepted mainly in extreme situations such as revolutions and wars [13]. But after the crises are past there is a tendency to re-establish normality when and if possible. Where the symbolic status of women as icons of the nation is concerned, it jarred in most cases with the inability of real women to participate fully in the polity [14].

Despite this fact, no one can deny that during the XIXth Century we witnessed the emergence of a new feminine ideal. It emerged as a consequence of the transformation brought by the modernization processes the European societies were going through. During this period there emerged, in France for instance, an urban background saturated by feminine figures: monumental sculptures; religious allegories, advertising posters etc. [15] The XIXth Century also introduced feminine allegories of national and political regimes. From now one, we would have the new image of woman represented as the people’s mother [16]. This is also the birth period of feminine figures transformed in myths and included in the national iconography. These feminine allegories of nations tend to have common features whichever nation designed them. They either represent images of real or imagined women who brought themselves to notice or they personify noble features such as purity and modesty, commitment and sacrifice for both the family and the country [17]. They are all young women, usually dressed in ancient clothes, looking to the past [18] and wearing several easily identifiable national symbols. These features tend to be constant across the ages. These allegories were not usually dependent upon changes in the nation itself, monarchical or republican; they “represented through their constant visual presence the ancient values that the nation was supposed to hold dear” [19].Look for instance at Marianne, the national symbol of France, Germania, the national personification of the German nation, Britannia, the national personification of great Britain; Albania; Bulgaria; the Finnish maiden, the national personification of Finland; Greece; Romania etc.

These allegories share several common features of course, but they are adjusted to national goals: emancipation from a foreign authority, the fight against the old regime etc. Sometimes even the context they emerged in is similar. Images of the nation as a woman, especially in Romantic art and literature in the 1820s and 1830s, served to dramatize national oppression and, implicitly, the need to rally to its defense [20]. For instance, the armed figure of Marianne was used to inspire resistance against the enemies of the French revolutionary nation [21]. Germania appeared somewhere around 1813 – when Germanic countries were at war with Napoleon. After an eclipse, the symbol reappeared in the 1840s and reached another apogee in 1870, during the war against France [22]. The nation is also represented as a warrior goddess, embodying the nation fighting against it enemies [23]. Britannia, whose origins can be traced back to the Roman conquest of Britain gradually evolved from the symbol of a conquered province to the icon of a powerful empire [24]. An allegory of Greece would be painted by Eugène Delacroix in 1827, inspired by the Greeks’ struggle for independence. Bulgaria would also emerge in the context of the national building process. It would inspire Georgi Danchov in painting Svobodna Bulgaria (Free Bulgaria).

The previously mentioned allegories, emerged, or were converted during the nation-building process but they should also be seen in the modern context of the age, because the latter also designed not only a new, modern woman but also a new, modern man. As George L. Mosse argued, nationalism was a movement which began and evolved in parallel with modern masculinity and it was this modern society that diffused the ideal of modern masculinity [25]. Yet, he argues that the position of manliness was not unlike that of femininity, that masculine and feminine figures became public symbols at the same time representing the nation [26]. Women as national symbols, however, did not embody generally valid norms such as the virtues that masculinity projected but, instead, the motherly qualities of the nation, and they pointed to its tradition and history [27].

We will focus, in what follows, on the allegories of the Romanian nation. Our intention is to expose and analyze the mechanisms, the processes and the context in which these personifications emerged. We also intend to identify whether or not they were designed in order to increase “national solidarities” [28].

The present study revolves around several basic questions: why did the Romanian nation, its scholars, need such an allegory? To what extent did the emergence of this feminine portrait denote a change in the general perception of women’s role in the society? Were they just an artistic product of the painter’s imagination or do they have a deeper significance, marking as well a change towards the perception of women? Whom were they addressed to? Were they meant just for the private eyes of the artist/owner or were they designed for a specific “target-public”?[29] Should these painters be considered as “political philosophers”? [30]

The answers to these questions will be drawn from an analysis of the most famous allegories of Romania signed by Constantin D. Rosenthal and Gheorghe Tattarescu. Besides these two, there are other painters who gave life to such allegories, for example, Theodor Aman and N. Grigorescu [31].

We chose only the visual language for this approach without forgetting that there are several other feminine allegories of the Romanian nation which can be found in other forms, literature for instance. Why choose the visual? Beside the reason we have already mentioned we might add another: that is because, with the second half of the XVIIIth Century, Western Europe – not alone we might add – was entering an ever more visually oriented age, exemplified not only by national symbols but also by the effect of sciences such as physiognomy and anthropology, with their classification of men according to standards of classical beauty [32]. We must also add the fact that during the XIXth Century Romanian painters were also commissioned to record such events as wars [33].

Romanian historiography had paid special attention to the Romanian nation and nationalism. They were studied in their entire complexity. Even the correlation art/nation and nationalism had already been the subject of analysis. It still is a major subject of interest, and not only for the historians, taking into account, for instance, the exhibition organized between 12 September 2012 and 31 March 2013 by the Romanian National Art Museum. The exhibition is a proof of the constant interest in the Romanian nation-building process. The exhibition, “The National Myth – the Construction of Romanian Identity (1830-1930)” included among its exhibits such famous paintings as those of C. D. Rosenthal and Gh. Tattarescu [34].

Less attention was paid to the relation between the Romanian nation-building process and the re-evaluation of women’s role and perception in the Romanian society. We still have a long way to run before revealing the process by which women from Romanian society became a “subject of history”. These statements are to be taken as arguments for the present scientific approach. As we already stated, there is a close connection between this process and the progress made by the women question. We consider the first as a vector for re-evaluating women in Romanian society of the XIXth Century [35]. The Romanian nation, in its effort to define itself and to create a national identity, used a set of symbols amongst women too. But are we entitled to apply the conclusions drawn by the European scholars where the other national feminine allegories were concerned?

Moreover, due to iconography studies, some of the possible difficulties in order to understand this kind of representation were annulled [36]. Despite the pros and cons in the debate on how images should be approached, the scholars all agreed that images are a privileged source for studying the subtle relations between imagination and reality [37]. Images, as we previously mentioned, remain a significant source for women’s history, a privileged one perhaps for proving the progress made by women from one age to another. Images from Romanian society follow the same patterns as the European ones: compare, for instance the frequent medieval and modern votive paintings as the one representing Brâncoveanu’s family with the XIXth Century paintings of Rosenthal. It is also true that Romanian iconography is not as generous as the European one in representations of women. This can be considered as one of the main difficulties of studying such a topic. From another perspective, images are just like all the other sources in that they tend to put women in the background, lacking or showing little interest in “women stories”. Romanian historical mythology seems to be no more generous, as Lucian Boia argued, as it does not seem interested in women either [38]. Yet, the major events of the XIXth Century and the first half of the XXth Century would change this negative balance. The 1848 revolution is among the privileged moments of the Romanian society which favored women’s entrance as icons of the nation. This event is to be taken, for the Romanian case, as a “revolutionary” moment for women’s visual representations. The revolution was the one inspiring the artists to express the national ideals through allegories.

The first and probably the best known allegories are those signed by Constantin D. Rosenthal. He was not a native Romanian but a Jew born in Budapest who adopted the Romanian revolutionary ideals. Despite his origin, he would become a true Romanian assuming and sharing all the national aspirations of Romanian intellectuals. This is visible in his major works, the allegories he painted under the influence of the 1848 revolution. There are three allegorical representations of the Romanian nation: România eliberată [39]; România rupându-şi cătuşele pe Câmpia Libertăţii, in August 1848 and România revoluţionară painted in Paris while the artist was in exile with other Romanian revolutionaries among whom was C. A. Rosetti, the artist’s friend. Questions are still asked about the first allegory. Adrian Silvan Ionescu relates it to the statue of Liberty [40] while others, such as Doina Pungă focuses on România eliberată [41]. It is a sculpture initially placed in Piaţa Vorniciei in Bucharest, unfortunately destroyed when the temporary government withdrew to Rucăr fearing a Turkish invasion [42]. We know about it from the German press, which published a stamp commemorating it [43]. It can be considered the first step in creating the allegory of the Romanian nation as it resembled closely the first painting representing Romania (see Figure 1).

According to the iconography, we agree with A. Silvan Ionescu’s conclusion that this sculpture represented rather the abstract notion of Liberty than an allegory of the nation: it is dressed in ancient clothes; with a halo over the head; having around the wrists the chains it was imprisoned with; holding a crutch/cross in one hand and a pair of scales in the other; stepping on a snake [44]. As we have already argued, this is rather a classical representation, commonly seen in European iconography. See for instance Eugène Delacroix, Liberty Leading the People, which is by far the most famous of the many images of liberty which appeared, in paint, plaster and bronze, in the aftermath of the revolution of 1830 [45]. In the Romanian case, the sculpture, combines both classic and Christian symbols. It also mixes symbols belonging to more than one classic goddess: the broken chains are the key feature of Liberty whereas the pair of scales is usually used for representing Justice. The artist not only mixed the symbols but he also adjusted them to the context, as others of his romantic contemporary artists did. We make reference to the pair of scales as the symbol of Justice but, in revolutionary times, it was an attribute of Equality, represented also as a woman holding a pair of scales but without the blindfold[46].

In consequence, we consider that the first feminine allegory of the Romanian nation is România rupându-şi cătuşele pe Câmpia Libertăţii painted in August 1848 (Figure 2).

It is obvious that this representation respects the “canon”, the classical typology of nation. Romania appears as a young woman, in ancient clothes and wrapped in with what had already become, the national flag, the symbol of the Romanian nation, breaking the chains, a symbol of liberty, and holding a laurel branch in her left hand. The artist’s second allegory, Romania Revoluţionară is also a symbolic capturing of the Romanian national ideals of liberty and unity. This time, he had a real model to inspire him: Maria Rosetti, the wife of the Romanian revolutionary, C. A. Rosetti. One might notice a possible paradox: Maria Rosetti was not a native Romanian; she was English! Yet there is no doubt that she shared her husband’s revolutionary ideas [47], as the artist did as well. The second allegory is also extremely generous in symbolic meanings (Figure 3).

The painting was realized in 1850 when the artist was in Paris, having in mind the great impression of the revolutionary moments he was actively involved in. This allegory, as the first one, is perfectly anchored in the context: the first is an expression of hope whereas the latter captures the idea that the fight had not yet ended; just one battle had been lost. Romania is now dressed in a national costume, still holding – or defending – the national flag with its flagpole broken [48]. Both paintings are to be seen as a remarkable expression of the ideals shared by all Romanian revolutionaries, despite the fact that the paintings would be the private property of C. A. Rosetti until his death when the owner donated them to the state [49]. But, taking into account the compositions, it seems obvious that they were addressed to the Romanian people. This claim is argued by the visual language the artist used. It is a simple one, easily understood by common people. Moreover, we must mention that the Revolutionary committee in Paris decided to lithograph the first painting as propaganda material [50].

The revolutionary moments would be the source of inspiration for another Romanian artist, Gheorghe Tattarescu. He would paint the allegory named Deşteptarea României. The painting is as explicit as those of Constantin D. Rosenthal: Romania awaking in the presence of faith, religion, science and fine arts while an angel unveils her, rescuing her from obscurity [51] (Figure 4).

Although the painting was a gift for Barbu Ştirbei, it was also intended for the people, though the symbols are not as easily readable as in the case of C. D. Rosenthal’s paintings. But it was also propaganda material considering that it was lithographed in Italy [52]. Likewise, the defeat of the revolution inspired the artist to paint a second allegory, as C. D. Rosenthal did in Paris. Unfortunately it remained just a project as we have only a sketch called România plângând la sarcofagul Libertăţii. It represents a woman dressed in black, a widow crying at Liberty’s sarcophagus [53]. He will also find another source of inspiration in the events from 1866 as he will paint another allegory: 11 februarie 1866 – România Modernă (11 February 1866 – Modern Romania.)

It is obvious that revolution was what gave birth to the emergence of the feminine personification of nations. It is true that, with the exception of Romania revoluţionară which has a real model, the images represent woman as a passive actor. But we consider them to be closely connected with the progress made towards reconsidering the role and place of women in contemporary society. In fact, the national aspiration as well as the effort to modernize Romanian society caused this revaluation of women’s role in that society. This claim is argued by an entire literature which debates the great question of the age: the woman’s. Indeed, we are just at the level of theoretical debate. For instance, the correlation between society’s lagging behind and the people’s lack of education is emphasized in the journals of the period under review [54]. Illiteracy was understood as a cause of this lag [55]. This is also the context in which the problem of women’s education is gaining more and more scholarly attention [56]. In discussion of the educational issue, women would be seen as a key feature of “cultural nationalism” [57]. They have a new role in the process of constructing national identity. But this new role is based on women’s traditional roles: she is first of all the Mother, but the mother of the nation which is obvious in the allegories as well. Thus the allegories are to be considered as an indicator of the progress made by women, a progress which would be more accentuated in the second half of the XIXth Century. It is also understandable why the progress is first obvious at the symbolic level. The feminine allegories of the Romanian nation would also increase in number. Another significant national event would be a source of inspiration to the artists: the union of the Romanian Principalities, Moldavia and Wallachia, in 1859. Nicolae Grigorescu and Theodor Aman would both paint such feminine allegories. One must also mention that the artists as well, not just their work, would become national symbols [58].

In conclusion, the XIXth Century was not only the age of nations and modernization but also the century of women’s progress which is so masterfully captured, in the romantic style, in Rosenthal and Tattarescu’s paintings. Their allegories would inspire – as they were themselves inspired by – not only Romanian women’s involvement in the nation’s progress towards achieving its goals, but also towards the emancipation of their sex. They would gradually become active members of the society. On the one hand, they would be asked to be full Romanian citizens – despite their maternal duties – but they would also gain the right to be actively involved in society’s development. This progress is also visible in the “visual language”. Besides these feminine allegories where women tended rather to be passive symbols than active ones, we would have, in the context of the Great War, the emergence of such active symbols as Queen Mary of Romania. Thus we agree with Jennifer Hewer’s point of view that it was not only the “language” that favored the creation of feminine allegories of the nation [59].

First published in  BRUKENTHALIA – Romanian Cultural History Review  Supplement of Brukenthal. Acta Musei , no. 4, 2014

[1] B. Anderson, Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London, New York: Verso, 2006, p. 6.

[2] E. Hobsbawm, Nations and nationalism since 1780. Programme, myth, reality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 71.

[3] In respect of the progress/evolution of women’s condition from medieval to modern times, it can be seen as a “portrait in progress”.

[4] See for instance Eugène Delacroix, Liberté or the Statue of Liberty etc.

[5] M. Agulhon, Un usage de la femme au XIXe siècle: l’allégorie de la République, in “Romantisme”, no. 13-14, 1976, p. 144.

[6] P. Burke, Eyewitnessing. The Uses of Images as Historical Evidence, London, Reaktion Books Ltd, 2001, p. 64.

[7] Ibidem, p. 34.

[8] Ibidem.

[9] Ibidem, p. 19.

[10] Sylvia Walby, “Woman and Nation”, in Gopal Balakrishnan (ed.), Mapping the Nation, London, New York: Verso, 1999, p. 235.

[11] Nira Yuval-Davis, Floya Anthias(eds.), Women-Nation-State, London, 1989, p. 7, Apud Sylvia Walby, op. cit., pp. 236-237.

[12] Ibidem.

[13] Reference can be made to the 1789 French Revolution and the 1848 revolutions as well as to the Great War.

[14] Jennifer Hewer, “Gender and Nationalism”, in G. H. Herb, D. H. Kaplan (eds.), Nations and Nationalism. A Global Historical Overview, I, 1770-1880, Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2008, p. 49.

[15] Michelle Perrot, Femmes publiques, Paris: Les Editions Textuels, 1997, p. 17.

[16] Ionela Băluţă, “Apariţia femeii ca actor social – a doua jumătate a secolului al XIX-lea”, in Ionela Băluţă, Ioana Cârstocea, (eds.) Direcţii şi teme de cercetare în studiile de gen din România. Atelier, Bucureşti: Colegiul Noua Europă, 2002, p. 65.

[17] Ibidem, p. 66.

[18] G. L. Mosse, The Image of Man. The Creation of Modern Masculinity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 9.

[19] Ibidem.

[20] Jennifer Hewer, op. cit., p. 49.

[21] Ibidem.

[22] Ibidem.

[23] Michelle Perrot, op.cit., p. 19.

[24] Jennifer Hewer, op. cit., p. 48. But we must mention that England also has an allegory inspired by a real character: that is Queen Victoria.

[25] George L. Mosse, op. cit., p. 7.

[26] Ibidem, p. 8.

[27] Ibidem.

[28] I. Baluta, op. cit., p. 66.

[29] Probably the middle class: from George L. Mosse’s point of view women as public symbols were a projection of a normal society and a prosperous nation, in G. L. Mosse, Nationalism and sexuality: Respectability andAbnormal Sexuality in Modern Europe, New York, Howard Fertig, 1985, p. 93. Apud I. Baluta, op. cit., p. 66.

[30]  P. Burke, op. cit., p. 60.

[31] Theodor Aman painted The Union of Principalities in 1857, two years before the actual and desired union of Walachia and Moldavia. N. Grigorescu also has several works among which is an allegorical representation of the Romanian principalities which will form Romania in 1859.

[32] G. L. Mosse, The Image of Man, p. 5.

[33] Adrian – Silvan Ionescu, Artişti documentarişti şi corespondenţi de front în Războiul de Independenţă, 1877-1878, Bucureşti, Ed. Biblioteca Bucureştilor, 2002.

[34] A presentation of the exhibit can be found at

www.mnar.arts.ro/web/Expozitii-temporare/Mitul-national

[35] This connection is testified to by the entire debate around women led by some prominent personalities but also by the emergence of these allegories of the Romanian nation. The latter aspect is what we try to prove through the present study.

[36] Ibidem, p. 35. The author makes reference to Panofsky’s essay first published in 1939 in which the latter distinguished three levels of interpretation corresponding to three levels of meaning in the work itself. The first of these levels was the pre-iconographical description, concerned with “natural meaning” and consisting of identifying objects (such as trees, buildings, animals and people) and events (meals, battles, processions etc.). The second level was the iconographical analysis in the strict sense, concerned with “conventional meaning” (recognizing a supper as the Last Supper or a battle as the battle of Waterloo). The third level is that of iconological interpretation, distinguished from iconography because it was concerned with “intrinsic meaning”, in other words, those underlying principles which reveal the basic attitude of a nation, a period, a class, a religious or a philosophical persuasion, pp. 35-36.

[37] Simona Nicoara, Naţiunea modernă. Mituri. Simboluri. Ideologii, Cluj-Napoca: Editura Accent, 2002, p. 122.

[38] L. Boia, Istorie si mit în conştiinţa românească,Bucureşti, Ed. Humanitas, 1997, p. 335.

[39] It is not a painting but a statue. Some call it a statue of Liberty.

[40] A. S. Ionescu, Mişcarea artistică oficială în România secolului al XIX-lea, Bucureşti: NOI Media Print, 2008, p. 47.

[41] D. Pungă, Repere istorice în memoria artei româneşti – Revoluţia de la 1848, in “Periodicul Muzeul Naţional de istorie a României”, vol. XX, 2008, p. 93.

[42] A. S. Ionescu, Mişcarea artistică oficială, p. 47.

[43] Ibidem.

[44] Ibidem.

[45] P. Burke, op. cit.,p. 61.

[46] Ibidem.

[47] Taking into account that the couple named their daughter, born in 6/18 June 1848, Libertatea – Sofia, (Liberty) Cfr. Vasile Netea, C. A. Rosetti, Bucureşti, Editura Ştiinţifică, 1970, p. 135.

[48] Adrian Silvan Ionescu, Mişcarea artistică oficială, p. 46.

[49] Ibidem.

[50] Doina Pungă, op. cit., p. 94.

[51] Ibidem, p. 103.

[52] Ibidem.

[53] Ibidem.

[54] Georgeta Fodor, Romanian Women in the New Economic Context of the Twentieth Century, in “Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Historica”, 17/I, p. 82.

[55] Ibidem

[56] Ibidem

[57] Jennifer Hewer, op. cit., p. 52.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Papers in periodical journals:

1. Books:

1. Chapters in books:

List of illustrations

Fig. 1 – Constantin Daniel Rosenthal, Statue of Liberty (Constantin Daniel Rosenthal, Statuia Libertăţii)

Fig. 2 – Constantin Daniel Rosenthal, Romania Breaking off Her Chains on the Field of Liberty, 1848 (Constantin Daniel Rosenthal, România rupându-şi cătuşele pe Câmpia Libertăţii, 1848)

Fig. 3 – Constantin Daniel Rosenthal, Revolutionary Romania, 1850 (Constantin Daniel Rosenthal , Romania Revoluţionară, 1850)

Fig. 4 – Gheorghe Tattarescu, The Reveille of Romania (Gheorghe Tattarescu, Deşteptarea României)

Fig. 1 – Constantin Daniel Rosenthal, Statue of Liberty, “Illustrite Zeitung” No. 317/28 July 1849.

Source: A. S. Ionescu, Mişcarea artistică oficială, p. 47.

Fig. 2 – Constantin Daniel Rosenthal, România rupându-şi cătuşele pe Câmpia Libertăţii

Fig. 3 – Constantin Daniel Rosenthal, Romania Revoluţionară

Fig. 4 – Gheorghe Tattarescu, Deşteptarea României