Early in 1890, at the same time as his volume of collected works, Caragiale published and

staged his rural-themed tragedy Năpasta — both writings were presented for consideration to
the Romanian Academy, in view of receiving its annual prize, the Ion Heliade Rădulescu Award.
Caragiale's conflict with the National Liberals reached its peak, as two of their representatives
inside the forum, historian Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu and future Premier Dimitrie Sturdza,
reported unfavorably.[123] Additional criticism was voiced by the poet Gheorghe Sion, who also
defended the a work by Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea (itself up for review).[124] When
the Junimist Iacob Negruzzi defended his friend, Sturdza contrasted Caragiale's works with his
own version of didacticism, claiming that it altogether lacked a moral and national quality.[125]

Both Hasdeu and Sturdza hinted at the influence exercised over Caragiale by their adversary
Maiorescu, and went on to compare the dramatist with foreign writers such as Mite
Kremnitz and Joseph Brociner; the latter was Jewish.[126] For the two liberal leaders, Kremnitz and
Brociner, who had authored works critical of the Romanian establishment, were aiding to
construct a negative image of the Romanian nation.[126] Hasdeu insisted that Caragiale was
himself creating problems for the country, while Sturza, showing himself more lenient in this
respect, insisted that Caragiale's plays had failed to display a love for "the truth, the beautiful and
the good".[127] He stressed:

"Mr. Caragiale should learn how to respect his nation, and not mock it." [127]
Sturdza's discourse contributed to the academy's negative vote (20 votes against and 3 in favor),
[128]
and rose Caragiale's anger.[6][129] In parallel, Dobrogeanu-Gherea's candidature for the prize
was rejected with 16 votes against and 8 for.[127] In 1897, writing for the Conservative
paper Epoca, the writer lashed out at Sturdza and his partisans, claiming that they viewed all
humorous talents as "unholy", "useless to the nation", and "downright perilous". [121] Vianu noted
that Caragiale's article directly aimed at Sturdza's reverence for Jacobinism, collectivism,
and nationalism, which, in Caragiale's own words,

"manipulated the baggage of big words with which the phony liberal school has been filling empty
heads for fifty years on end".[121]
Split with Junimea[edit]

The building in Buzău, across the street from the city railway
station, where Caragiale leased a restaurant in 1895
During the controversy, Caragiale published two memoirs of Eminescu—the poet had died in
June 1889.[21][130] One of them was titled În Nirvana ("Into Nirvana"), and notably expanded on the
early years of their friendship and on one of Eminescu's earliest amorous disappointments. [131] In
an essay of the following year, he showed himself critical of a wave of Eminescu imitators,
commenting: "A lot of reasonable people will walk the path and [...] of the people that know them
only a few will raise their hats; whereas an insane person [...] will be followed by all the people.
That is why the success of the [1890 Eminescu edition] has overcome all the editors'
expectations".[132] He also reprinted his recollections from the world of theater, alongside pieces
originally published in Claponul and various new satirical pieces.[21]

Although this attack owed much to Junimea's discourse, Caragiale had by then turned against
Maiorescu, probably due to his perception that the society had failed to support his cause at the
Academy.[133] In May 1892, he used a public conference at the Romanian Athenaeum as a venue
to make known his claims against the former Minister of Education and his associates, which
caused a definitive rift between the two public figures.[134] Caragiale also wrote Două note ("Two
Notes"), an article accusing Maiorescu of having modified and censored some of Eminescu's
poems, and of having exploited the poet for financial gain.[135] Around that time, he ceased
contributing to Convorbiri Literare.[85]

Late in 1892, Caragiale published two volumes of prose, including his new novellas Păcat, O
făclie de Paște and Om cu noroc.[136] The following year, he began frequenting socialist circles as
an outsider to the cause, and soon became good friends with the Imperial Russian-
born Marxist thinker Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea.[137] Financial constraints forced Caragiale to
become an entrepreneur, and, in November of that year, opened a beer garden near Gabroveni
Inn, in Bucharest's Lipscani area.[6][29][138] He probably moved on soon after, and purchased a pub
on a neighboring street.[6][29] In a letter he wrote at the time, the writer showed that he was
planning to move to Transylvania, and considered starting a career as a teacher.[6]

In November 1893, as a gesture of goodwill towards his adversary, Alexandru

Macedonski authored an article in Literatorul, in which he asked authorities if it was normal for a
former Head of Theaters not to have a stable source of income—the intended recipient did not
acknowledge this offer, and the Caragiale-Macedonski conflict escalated after he continued to
attack the latter in the press.[139] One year later, Caragiale leased the restaurant catering to the
train station in Buzău (just like Dobrogeanu-Gherea had done in Ploiești).[6][29][140] His successive
businesses were all struggling, and Caragiale was often on the verge of bankruptcy.[6][29] Although
he invested time and work in the enterprise, and even affiliated with the International Association
of Waiters for a short period, he eventually decided not to renew his contract upon the years'
end.[29] His period in Buzău was noted for its other results: in February 1895, the press reported
that Caragiale had given a public lecture on "the causes of human stupidity". [29]

Moftul Român and Vatra[edit]

George Coșbuc and Ion Luca Caragiale

Together with the socialist activist Tony Bacalbașa and the illustrator Constantin Jiquidi, he
established the satirical magazine Moftul Român, which ceased print after a few months, before
being revived in 1901 and becoming an important venue for social criticism.[21][141] The new
publication's spirit was indebted to Junimist discourse.[136] Its title, translatable as "the Romanian
trifle" or "the Romanian nonsense", alluded to the cynicism and self-importance of the emerging
modern Romanian society.[136] According to Vianu, this was a theme first debated
by Junimea's Theodor Rosetti.[136] Moft! thus mimicked the common answer to any important or
merely exacerbated problem, and Caragiale also used it to illustrate what he saw as a common
national feature.[142] In one of his early editorials for the magazine, he claimed that moft was to
Romanians what spleen (melancholy) was to the English people, nihilism to
the Russians, chauvinism to the Hungarians, and vendetta to the Italians.[136]

In parallel, Cargiale resumed his contacts with Transylvanian intellectuals: with George
Coșbuc and Ioan Slavici, he founded the magazine Vatra (1 January 1894), before withdrawing
from its leadership.[143] During his short stay, he printed an unsigned sketch story, Cum se înțeleg
țăranii ("How Peasants Communicate"), which mockingly recorded a lengthy and redundant
dialog between two villagers,[144] as well as a portrait of the deceased politician Mihail
Kogălniceanu, and a fairy tale inspired by the writings of Anton Pann.[21] He also translated
a novella authored by his friend, Queen Elisabeth, under the title Răzbunare ("Revenge")—he is
known to have been annoyed by the longueurs of the piece, and struck out large portions of it to
improve the flow.[21]

During the same period, Caragiale had the initiative to publish short fragments he had translated
from classical pieces, leaving readers to guess who their authors were—Vianu, citing the
speculations made by other critics, presumed that these were writers admired by both Caragiale
and his friend, schoolteacher Anghel Demetrescu (Thomas Carlyle, Alexis de
Tocqueville, Thomas Babington Macaulay, François Guizot and Augustin Thierry).[145] It was also
then that he authored a piece on Prince Ferdinand, the heir apparent, who had fallen severely ill
— it shows Caragiale to be a passionate defender of the Romanian monarchy, praying for
Ferdinand's health. In 1898, he wrote a lengthy essay on the state of Romanian theater, in which
he notably praised the actor Ion Brezeanu, who made his name through portrayals of Caragiale's
characters, for, among others, his "sober and refined interpretation". [143] Later that year, he
published a new novella, În vreme de război, a fantasy set to the background of the Russo-
Turkish War of 1877–1878.[146]

Radical Party[edit]
In 1895, at the age of 43, Caragiale decided to join the Radical Party, led at the time by
former Junimist George Panu; one year later, he began contributing to its mouthpiece, the
newspaper Ziua.[147] He was also briefly associated with the newspaper Sara, published in Iași.
[148]
Despite this, Caragiale was again an associate of the National Liberals later the same year,
when the Conservative cabinet of Lascăr Catargiu was replaced with one led by Dimitrie Sturdza.
[149]
Articles he contributed to Gazeta Poporului, a National Liberal newspaper, were centered on
new attacks against Junimea and were signed with the pseudonyms i and Ion.[150] In mid-
November 1895, Gazeta Poporului published an unsigned article which discussed the suicide of
writer Alexandru Odobescu, investigating the mundane reasons behind it—the piece is generally
attributed to Caragiale.[151] The writer placed the blame for Odobescu's death on his much
younger lover, Hortensia Racoviță, and hailed his wife, Sașa Odobescu, as a model of devoted
womanhood.[152]

This episode of his life coincided with a period when relations between Romania and Austria-
Hungary were extremely tense. Three years before, ethnic Romanian leaders in Austro-
Hungarian-ruled Transylvania had signed the Transylvanian Memorandum, which inflamed
passions among the Hungarians and led the authors to be indicted. Conservative
Party politicians in Romania had succeeded in negotiating an amnesty, but their policies were
overturned by the National Liberals, who appealed to nationalist and irredentist sentiment.[citation
needed]

Thus, Sturdza offered a measure of support to Eugen Brote, Tribuna editor and National
Romanian Party activist. Brote, who fled Transylvania and planned to directly implicate
the Romanian Kingdom into the conflict, attempted to replace the pro-Conservative leadership of
the National Party with a selection of politicians favored by the National Liberals. [153] As Sturdza
came to lead the cabinet, both he and Brote retracted their previous statements, but again
provoked the National Party by alleging that its leaders were the actual radicals. [153] In harsh
terms, Caragiale exposed the understanding Sturdza had with Brote.[154] Soon after, he authored
a short story about a con artist who traveled to the imagined Transylvanian town of Opidul-nou,
posing as the nationalist Romanian writer Alexandru Vlahuță as a means to live off the
local intelligentsia.[155] In October 1897, he was outraged by news that Sturdza had given in to
Austro-Hungarian demands, and that he had expelled Transylvanian nationalists from Romania:
Caragiale held a speech in which he argued that Romanians living abroad were "indispensable"
to the Romanian state.[156]

Epoca[edit]
 Caragiale as a traveler, parting with Epoca (1890s caricature by
Constantin Jiquidi)
In 1895, the writer followed the Radical group into its unusual merger with the Conservative
Party.[157] This came at a time of unified opposition, when the Junimists themselves returned to
their group of origin.[153] Caragiale came to identify with the policies endorsed by a new group of
Conservative leaders, Nicolae Filipescu and Alexandru Lahovari among them.[158] He was upset
when Lahovari died not too long after, and authored his obituary.[159]

Caragiale also became a collaborator on Filipescu's journal Epoca and editor of its literary
supplement.[160] A chronicle he contributed at the time discussed the philosophical writings of
Dobrogeanu-Gherea: while sympathetic to his conclusions, Caragiale made a clear statement
that he was not interested in the socialist doctrine or any other ideology ("Any idea, opinion or
system is absolutely irrelevant to me, in the most absolute sense").[161] He also published an
article criticizing Dimitrie Sturdza; its title, O lichea (roughly: "A Scoundrel"), was reluctantly
accepted by Epoca, and only after Caragiale claimed that it reflected the original meaning of the
word lichea ("stain"), explaining that it referred to Sturdza's unusual persistence in politics. [162]

When answering to one of Epoca's inquiries, he showed that he had yet again come to
reevaluate Junimea, and found it to be an essential institution in Romanian culture.
[161]
Nevertheless, he was distancing himself from the purest Junimist tenets, and took a favorable
view of Romantic writers whom the society had criticized or ridiculed — among these, he
indicated his personal rival Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu, whom he acknowledged to be among
"the most remarkable figures of our literature", and Alexandru Odobescu.[161] As editor of Epoca,
he published works by Hasdeu alongside those of his other contemporaries and predecessors
— Grigore Alexandrescu, Nicolae Filimon, Dinicu Golescu, Ion Heliade Rădulescu, Cilibi
Moise, Costache Negruzzi, and Anton Pann.[163] He also took a more sympathetic but still distant
view of Maiorescu.[161] At the time, he befriended the young poet Cincinat Pavelescu, and helped
to promote his works in the press.[164]

Universul[edit]
Around that time, Caragiale began collaborating with the formerly Junimist figure Mihail
Dragomirescu, who enlisted his anonymous contributions to the magazine Convorbiri Critice.
[165]
Again pressed by financial problems, he returned to a bureaucratic post—this time with the
administration of government monopolies, and appointed by the Conservative cabinet
of Gheorghe Grigore Cantacuzino in June 1899.[6][166] In 1901, the position was suppressed due to
cutbacks in budget spending.[6][167] This coincided with Sturdza's third mandate as Premier, and
further aggravated the conflict between the two figures.[6]

At the same time, Caragiale was contributing to Luigi Cazzavillan's newly founded
daily, Universul, where he was assigned the column "Notițe critice" ("Critical Notes").[168] This
material formed the bulk of his collected short prose volume, Momente și schițe, and notably
comprised satirical pieces ridiculing the Romanian press' reaction to the activities of Boris
Sarafov, a Macedonian-Bulgarian revolutionary who had attempted to set up a base in Romania.
[21]

He continued to pursue a business career, and, in 1901, inaugurated his own company, Berăria
cooperativă, which took over the Gambrinus pub in front of the National Theater.[6][138] It soon
became the site of a literary circle, which included, among others, Tony Bacalbașa and Ion
Brezeanu, the satirist Dumitru Constantinescu-Teleormăneanu (known as Teleor), and the
academic I. Suchianu.[143] At the time, the Caragiales rented a house in Bucharest, near the
present-day Bulevardul Magheru.[29]

In early 1901, as Ion Luca Caragiale entered his 25th year in literature, his friends offered him
a banquet at Gambrinus, where speeches were given by Barbu Ștefănescu Delavrancea and the
Conservative politician Take Ionescu,[169] and where a special single-issue magazine, Caragiale,
was circulated among the guests.[170] Hasdeu put aside his differences in opinion and sent in a
congratulatory letter.[171] In it, he deemed the dramatist "Romania's Molière".[172] Nevertheless, on
23 March 1902, the National Liberal majority in the Romanian Academy, headed by Sturdza,
refused to consider Momente și schițe for the Năsturel Herăscu Award[6][173] — despite a favorable
report from Dimitrie C. Ollănescu-Ascanio.[21][1