Radio România Internațional

Tag: history

  • Romania’s National History Museum

    Romania’s National History Museum

    Museums are cultural spaces,
    public or private, where visitors admire objects or relive times that were
    long forgotten. A museum is a time machine of sorts, an escape from the hubbub
    of the daily world, from routine and from everybody’s daily chores. Also, a
    museum is a place quite similar to the pilgrimage sites where people try to find answers to the questions, old and new, they ask themselves.


    In a museum, we got used to coming
    across portly figureheads, great army commanders, great political leaders,
    cultural personalities. In a museum, we expect to witness heroic, exceptional
    moments as well. But the museums are also repositories of people’s daily lives,
    of the allegedly most insignificant objects people surround themselves with. As
    for such a universe of the ordinary, it is no less important than that of the unique
    or special objects, Ordinary objects become special, just because the passing
    of time makes them special. The museums are specialized sites, yet even the big
    museums, relevant for the memory of a community, can be repositories of
    personal or familiar objects collections. A telling example of that is Romania’s National History Museum.




    Romania’s National History
    Museum was established in 1970. The museum is a continuation of a Romanian
    tradition of history and archaeology museums that emerged in the second half of
    the 19th century. At Romania’s National History Museum, the most
    important treasures were brought. First, there were the treasures made of
    precious metal. They were stored in a place where safety and visibility could
    be provided. Home to the museums is one of Bucharest’s most representative
    buildings. Located in the city centre, the Post Office Palace does attract
    visitors due to its visibility.


    However, the National
    History Museum’s policy also targets the private collections, which should be
    added to the already existing heritage.


    Corina Chiriac is one of Romania’s
    most popular entertaining music vocalists. She has recently donated personal
    collection items to the National History Museum. Born in 1949, Corina is the
    daughter of two musicians. Her father was a composer and an academic with the
    National University of Music in Bucharest, while her mother was a pianist and
    also a professor there. When the donation act was signed the Director of the
    museum, Ernest Oberlander-Târnoveanu, was keen on stating that history was
    equally made by ordinary people and their objects, and by the great
    personalities.


    History is, after
    all, our life, it is everybody’s life. Our life, day by day, goes by, and turns
    into history. Not everybody is aware of that, that’s for sure, but I am
    convinced that through all that she does, Mrs Corina Chiriac does have this
    feeling, that she belongs to history. And I can acknowledge that myself, since,
    among other things, I was a listener of the songs she has performed for a
    couple for decades. In the landscape of Romanian entertaining music of the 70s,
    the 80s and the 90s, Mrs Corina Chiriac stands out as an unconventional character,
    quite all right.


    The donation made by Corina
    Chiriac is also important because of the donor-artist’s notoriety, who can set an
    example for other heritage owners.

    Ernest Oberlander Tarnoveanu:


    Mrs Corina
    Chiriac belongs to a generation that managed to do a lot of things in very
    difficult and complicated times. And, apart from the talent, the charisma, the
    hard work she put in, Mrs Corina Chiriac also has a personality trait we should
    all appreciate: she is also an aware citizen. What has happened today stands
    proof of her ladyship’s responsibility towards her family, towards those who
    preceded her, but also towards her won work. And I think there is no better
    place for these documents to be displayed, kept and put to good use, items she
    has donated to the National Museum, than this institution. This is their home, and
    I would be very happy if more fellow citizens followed the Mrs Corina Chiriac’s
    example. We herewith have the proof that we’re dealing with a great artist,
    with a free individual, with someone who is responsible for the heritage she
    received and who believes that such an institution as the National Museum is
    the best place for the objects to be kept and displayed.


    Corina Chiriac made a clean breast
    out of it: her museum-related childhood memories and the desire to share
    part of the personal treasure with other people prompted her to opt for the
    donation.

    Corina Chiriac:


    For a whole
    year I prepared for that, thinking of what I should do with all these objects that
    are so very important for me. And I realized that, after a life of journeys,
    with my parents or on my own, through the museums of the world, their place was
    not at home in a folder, but somewhere in a museum. I knocked at the door of
    the museum asking them whether they wanted an act of donation dated 1915, with
    an embossed stamp and with king Ferdinand’s portrait? I told them I was also in
    the possession of the baccalaureate diploma of my Armenian grandmother from
    Adapazari, in Turkey, dated 1901. And, little by little, in the sweltering heat
    of last summer, a team of the museum called in at my place and we started selecting
    the stuff. I am very happy that especially the documents of my parents, those
    of my grandparents and even mine from now on can also be viewed by someone
    else, without having to invite them at my place.


    Romania’s National History
    Museum is also a museum of the daily history with a national scope, and beyond.
    As for Corina Chiriac, she significantly contributed to the heritage of the museum.

    (Translation by Eugen Nasta)

  • Romanian inter-war politics and its heritage

    Romanian inter-war politics and its heritage



    The Florica estate is located around 100 kilometers north-west
    of Bucharest. It is one of the best-known such estates across the country.
    Proof of that stands the personality of those who created the estate and lived
    there afterwards. We’re speaking about the Bratianu family. It is a most
    distinguished family, which for two generations had been actively taking part
    in the making of modern Romania. Ion C. Brătianu and his
    brother, Dumitru, were members of the generation of the 1848 Revolution, also
    contributing to Moldavia’s Union with Wallachia in 1859. Their sons, Ion I. C. Bratianu,
    Dinu Bratianu and Vintila Bratianu, were leading representatives of the 1918
    generation, which among other things, had an important contribution to the
    emergence of Greater Romania.


    The
    origin of the Florica estate has a story behind it. Historian Narcis-Dorin Ion documented that story. The
    foundation of the estate was laid by Dinca Bratianu, the father of the future
    great politician Ion
    I.C Bratianu. Ion I.C Bratianu inherited the Florica and Samburesti estates. Back in the day
    Ion I.C Bratianu also bought the adjoining vineyard, known as Floreasca. The
    vineyard would be Ion I. C Bratianu’s concern until he died, it was the vineyard he would
    tend to and exploit.

    Historian Narcis Dorin Ion:


    Ion C.
    Brătianu would build a first house in Florica in 1858, and here is how his
    nephew, the poet Ion Pillat, reminisced about it, in 1943:’ on the old cellar
    and wine-cellar of the Brancoveanu vineyard, later the property of Dinca Bratianu, his son, Ion C Bratianu,
    would build a simple, two-storey winegrower’s house, which also had an open
    terrace, back then. The gazebo remained in
    a primitive state until the old man’s death. That house in Florica, an old one,
    where I also spent part of my childhood, there was something quiet and
    traditional about it, something that never vanished form my soul.’


    Initially,
    the house was a modest lodging placed in the middle of the vineyard. From a
    three-room house and a wine cellar, in time, Ion I.C. Bratianu built a storied
    mansion and an open terrace. In August 1865, the house in Florica had ten
    rooms, but Bratianu was well aware of the fact that the lodgings still failed
    to provide the amenities he would have liked for his family, which had many
    children, all of them living in Bucharest. In 1877 the Florica railway station
    was inaugurated, so travelling form the capital city Bucharest became a lot
    easier.


    Historian Narcis-Dorin Ion describes the house that
    was substantially refurbished by Pia and her husband, Ion I. C. Bratianu:


    In a letter he sent to his wife,
    Pia, in 1871, Bratianu describes the home in Florica as follows: ‘then I calmed
    down and I got myself seated in the smaller parlor. The room seemed big to me.
    From the little parlor, when I look at the great parlor, I felt as if I were
    somewhere in the palaces in Germany which, being deserted, seemed to me the
    most spacious I had ever seen.’.


    Whenever
    he had his short holidays in Florica, Bratianu liked to be there all by
    himself, with his thoughts and with the passion he had for the vineyard and the animals. In 1869, Bratianu confessed to his wife about what that place meant
    for him, ‘it is the sheer sweetness of a home, since it is only here
    that I feel I am at home, with us. In Bucharest, despite all the amenities we
    have there, I feel like I am in a high-standard hotel, but nothing more than
    that.’


    As
    long as he was still alive, the house had an austere style, imposed by his
    simple taste. Towards the end of his life, his son, Ionel, found it really hard
    to persuade him to make some changes, since Ionel was so passionate about
    constructions.

    Narcis-Dorin Ion:


    The great changes would occur in 1905-1912 and 1924-1925,
    following architect Petre Antonescu’s plans. To this day, thanks to their
    lavish interior decoration, the bookcases can still impress visitors. The early
    days of the library in Florica are also linked to Ion I. C Bratianu, the one
    who had the first bookcase built on the premises. The first books in the
    library were purchased by Bratianu, from Paris. It was also the old man who
    compiled the first catalogue of that rich library, which proudly included
    bibliophile copies coming from the libraries of his friends in politics, C.
    A. Rosetti, Cezar Bolliac, Alexandru Papiu-Ilarian, as well as his brother, Dumitru
    Brătianu.


    Ion
    C. Brătianu also had a park built, which he names Semiramis’ Gardens, since the
    planting of trees was also one of his hobbies. Apart from the house, the
    vineyard and the park, on the estate, Ion C Bratianu had also set up a farm and
    had a church built there. It was in the church that he was buried,
    alongside his first child, a girl, Florica, who died at the tender age of 3. Four
    of Bratianu’s eight children got married on the Bratianu estate. They were
    Sabina, Maria, Vintila and Tatiana. The place
    was visited by many personalities of that time, among them King Carol I, his
    wife Elisabeth and prince heir, the future King Ferdinand I.

    Historian Narcis-Dorin
    Ion:


    Quite telling for the modesty in which the late 19th
    century’s most prominent politician lived are his and his wife’s room, kept in
    mint condition, also as a result of the mansion’s thoroughgoing refurbishment
    and extension works initiated by Ionel Bratianu. For the family’s elder son, so
    passionate about the study of history, those rooms already had a historic
    value, being presented to the high-brow guests of the mansion as some sort of
    family museum, something the contemporaries held in high esteem. ‘Daddy’s room
    had remained intact as a historical monument, in the cupboard the clothes he
    wore for the last time had been neatly arranged, as well as his Junker’s
    uniform and ma’s engagement dress. His bathroom, simple as it was, had remained
    intact. Ionel’s cult for daddy had been so very uncompromising’, recalled the
    daughter, Sabina Cantacuzino.


    To this day, Florica estate has remained a Romanian heritage element in its own right. It is a tourist asset, also facilitating a trip down the
    memory lane.

    (Translation by Eugen Nasta)


  • 80 years since the assassination of historian Nicolae Iorga

    80 years since the assassination of historian Nicolae Iorga

    On September 6, 1940, the regime led by General Ion Antonescu in partnership with the legionnaires, proclaimed Romania a national-legionary state. This meant that the model of state and society adopted was the fascist one, imagined by the Iron Guard and inspired by Italian fascism and German Nazism. A supporter of the superior race theory, the Romanian fascism was synchronised with then European one. Most historical studies see the Antonescu-legionary regime as a strict one, against basic democratic norms.




    Imposing such as regime was possible only in the context of a deep crisis, such as the one undergone by the rule of Carol II, a Romanian version of the European crisis. Starting 1938, Carol II had imposed a regime of personal authority, restricting rights and liberties. At the beginning of September 1940, the king was held responsible for the territorial disaster suffered by Romania. In June, Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina had been annexed by the Soviet Union while two months later Hungary annexed Northern Transylvania, under the Second Vienna Award.




    On September 5, under huge public pressure, Carol II appointed General Ion Antonescu as head of state and renounced the throne. Although it lasted only four and a half months, until January 23, 1941, the regime was defined by repressive measures, especially against Carol II’ camarilla, a group seen as having ruined democracy and made up of courtiers, senior diplomats, army officers, politicians and industrialists who were all in some way dependent upon royal favour. The legionary revenge against 65 dignitaries who had supported Carol II can be explained by the fact that the latter had been involved in the repressive measures against them and especially in the killing of the Iron Guard leader, Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, in 1938.




    One of the legionnaires’ victim was historian Nicolae Iorga. Born in 1871, he is generally seen as the most important historian of Romanians. There is even a Iorga cult in Romania, for two reasons: his impressive work and his tragic death. Iorga wrote a lot, at least 1,250 books and 25,000 articles. Before being the victim of the fascist-type terrorism, Iorga was the model of intellectual who cultivated nationalism, eventually falling victim to its fury. Historian Ioan Scurtu summarized Iorga’s ideas and his political activity: ”Iorga was a nationalist, who in 1910 created, together with A.C. Cuza, the Democratic Nationalist Party. He cultivated the idea that Romanians must prove themselves in all domains, including the economic one, in the context in which, ever since the end of the 19th century, the main industrial companies, banks and trade were in the hands of national minorities and of foreigners. He believed the Romanian element had to replace the foreign one, by means of nationalization. In his opinion, the way to do this was a peaceful one, the Romanians having to prepare, to study, to learn how to do each job so as to be able to win the competition with the foreigners. This was what he supported. The legionnaires propagated his ideas, but they took on an extremist path and went as far as to murder their opponents.”




    Iorga’s separation from the legionnaires, whose mentor he initially wanted to be, took place in the mid-1930s. Iorga’s vanity and difficult personality made this relation to degenerate. The critical moment took place in 1938, when, after political parties had been dissolved, the Legionary Movement ended its activity through a document signed by Codreanu, ever since February 24, 1938. However, the legionary trade continued, and their stores sold products at smaller, production costs. Ion Scurtu explains: ”Nicolae Iorga said the legionnaires’ stores were serving as meeting venues where they gathered and planned actions meant to destabilize the government. Iorga asked for the legionary trade to be banned. Against this background, Codreanu sent Iorga a letter, in which he accused him of being dishonest. After having spread the idea that Romanians should handle trade so as to remove foreigners, Jews in particular, Iorga was now asking for these stores to be closed. Iorga showed the letter received from Codreanu to Armand Calinescu, who in his turned showed it to Carol II. Iorga was advised to sue Codreanu, so the matter was taken to Court. During the trial, Iorga realized he took a risky path and withdrew his court action. But the trial continued and Codreanu was sentenced to 6 months behind bars. During the trial, the headquarters of the Legionary Movement and the houses of a number of members were searched. Based on these searches, a new court action was opened against Codreanu, who, in May 1938 was sentenced to 10 years of hard labour for actions against the state and for holding secret information, accusations which were false. He was imprisoned and, while being transported from Ramnicu Sarat to Jilava, on the night of 29 to 30 November, 1938, he was murdered near the Tancabesti Forest.”




    On November 27, 1940, Nicolae Iorga was taken from his home by a team of legionnaires, and killed with nine bullets in the Strejnicu forest. Thus, the historian paid with his life for his opinions, at a time when political violence, hatred and abuse took the place of justice.


  • Burgher’s house in Bucharest

    Burgher’s house in Bucharest

    Although Bucharest is a relatively
    old city, being first mentioned in historical documents in 1459, its oldest surviving
    buildings date from the second half of the 19th century. You do,
    find, the odd exception, though, such as a house located on one of the city’s
    oldest streets called Șerban Vodă Road and which experts believe dates from
    around 1790. Voina House, as it is known, after the name of its last owner, is quite
    special because it is the only burgher’s house from the 18th century
    to survive in Bucharest and because its architecture is a mixture of Romanian
    traditional elements and Balkan influences. Not to mention that it is located
    on a street of great historical importance, Șerban Vodă Road or The Beylik’s Bridge
    as it was once known. Iozefina Postăvaru, an art historian at the National
    Heritage Institute, will be making a foray into the history of this street:




    Ruler Radu Șerban, who reigned
    between 1602 and 1611, issued a decree referring to a small road which ran from
    the Old Court, or the Princely Court in the historical centre of present-day Bucharest,
    to the south, all the way to Giurgiu and then further, to Constantinople. The
    ruler ordered that this road be paved with wood. Because of this measure, the
    street would be named after him: Șerban Vodă Road. Later, however, during the
    Phanariot rule, the street was known as Beylik’s Bridge, because it was
    transited by the diplomatic envoys from Constantinople or Istanbul to Bucharest
    and further to Europe. Whenever a new Phanariot ruler would be appointed, or dismissed,
    as the case may be, his procession would pass through this street. The processions
    accompanying the arrival of a new ruler were prepared in detail and involved a lot
    of pomp and ceremony. We can just imagine the locals attending enthusiastically
    and following the new ruler’s procession all the way to the princely court, all
    the more so as it was customary on such occasions to toss coins into the crowds.




    The name Beylik’s Bridge came from
    the word bey, which is the title given by the Ottoman Empire, which had
    control of Wallachia, to high-ranking officials it appointed as provincial governors,
    a title also held by the rulers in Bucharest. The latter would enter the country
    by the road built by Radu Șerban. In time, new neighbourhoods mushroomed on
    either side of this road, such as the Slobozia Domnească Mahalla, the St. Spyridon Mahalla,
    and the Flamânda Mahalla. It is in this somewhat hilly part of the city, which
    in the old times used to be covered by woods and vineyards, that a new social category
    would be born. Art historian Iozefina Postăvaru explains:




    It was an economically and socially mixed area. It was
    an important street, and boyar residences stood side by side with the homes of the
    petty nobility and those of craftsmen and merchants. The area would, however
    gradually come to be dominated by a new social category, namely that of townspeople,
    burghers, or the early bourgeoisie of Bucharest, which was largely comprised of
    builders. Some of them were brought over by the rulers to work on various new church
    structures. A genuine school was formed around these builders, for construction
    and other professions. Merchants also formed part of this new social category,
    as well as people who didn’t have a specific profession but who were definitely
    not farmers.




    Casa Voina was the home of one such burgher. City records
    show that it saw a number of alterations in time for which its owners asked
    permission from the city authorities. For example, around 1890, the building underwent
    a change in its external appearance to be more in tune with the style fashionable
    at the time. This is why, if viewed from the street, the house is no different
    than other buildings in the area whose facades are decorated in 19th
    century style, with sombre Neo-classical elements. It’s when we step inside the
    garden that we notice it dates from a different era. Art historian Iozefina Postăvaru explains:




    Once we enter the courtyard it’s like stepping a further
    hundred years back in time, for the side of the house facing away from the
    street has been unchanged from 1790. I’m referring to two facades surrounded by
    a porch with wooden columns and carved capitals supporting trefoil arches. It’s
    similar to Manuc’s Inn from the historical centre of Bucharest, except for this
    row of columns. This type of building is typical of Balkan vernacular or
    traditional architecture and is also reminiscent of the brâncovenesc style seen in Wallachia,
    with the trefoil arches supported by pillars being characteristic to this style
    that developed during the reign of Constantin Brâncoveanu.
    The house was nationalised in 1950 and then rented out to various small craftsmen’s
    workshops, including a tapestry workshop at some point. But the building was
    not looked after and in the 1970s it was completely abandoned.




    In the early 1990s, the burgher’s house on Șerban Vodă Road, which had in the meantime been
    declared a historical building, came under the administration of what is today
    the National Heritage Institute. Restored in 1998, it still needs further
    maintenance works. As for its future use, there are plans to establish here a
    cultural heritage information and promotion centre.

  • Mircea Eliade

    Mircea Eliade


    A complex
    author whose interests varied from the history of religions to literature, Mircea
    Eliade was also known internationally, especially in the US, where he taught,
    at the Chicago University, from 1956 until his death in 1986. Eliade was born
    on 9th March 1907 in Bucharest into a family originating from Moldavia,
    Romania’s eastern province. His father was an army officer while his mother looked
    after the family. Eliade studied in the same high school as other important
    Romanian cultural figures such as the writer and journalist Arșavir Acterian,
    the poet, writer and director Haig Acterian, the philosopher Constantin Noica
    and the art critic Barbu Brezianu.




    As a
    teenager, apart from literature, philosophy and history, Eliade was also
    interested in natural science, chemistry and the occult. His favourite writers
    at this time included Honore de Balzac and Giovanni Papini. Eliade studied
    letters and philosophy at the Bucharest University and graduated with a thesis
    on the Italian utopian thinker Tommaso Campanella.




    Mircea
    Eliade’s work is extremely large and diverse and includes more than 80 books of
    literature and the history of religions, being one of the most influential historians
    of religions in his day. In this field alone, he authored around 30 books that
    went on to be translated into 18 different languages. His literary output
    includes 12 novels, the most popular being Diary of a Short-Sighted
    Adolescent, Bengal Nights and The Forbidden Forest, which you
    can find in English, as well as novellas like Miss Christina, With
    the Gypsy Girls, The Secret of Dr. Honigberger and The Snake.




    Mircea
    Eliade was one of the first Romanian orientalists who immersed himself in the
    culture of India. In love with India, he travelled there in 1928 to study in
    Calcutta, where he learnt Sanskrit and became familiar with Indian spirituality.
    His novel Bengal Nights is in fact dedicated to the daughter of his Indian
    landlord. He fell in love with her but couldn’t marry her because of her father’s
    opposition. In 1933 when he returned to Romania, Eliade wrote a doctoral thesis
    on yoga practices.




    The
    archives of Radio Romania’s Oral History Centre contain an exceptional recording
    of an interview given by Eliade to literary critic Monica Lovinescu in the
    1970s on Radio Free Europe. In this interview, Eliade described his Indian
    experience as a time that helped him understand the course of history as the
    dialogue between cultures. His study of religious beliefs and ideas helped him
    make a step forward and opened up a universe that had been inaccessible to him
    until then. Mircea Eliade:




    When
    I came back from India I realised the limitations of western cultural
    provincialism; I realised that after WWII we must find a bridge between
    different cultures, between western culture, oriental culture and archaic cultures;
    that the simplest and most convincing introduction into a given culture is understanding
    its tradition, which is always religious in origin and structure. It seemed to
    me that a history of religions was the first step, the first stage in trying to
    understand other cultures on an equal basis, through dialogue. So I was sure
    that these books would be received well and that they would interest people,
    because historical reality was proving me right.




    Mircea
    Eliade saw himself as both an academic and a writer. His academic work earned
    him a career at the Chicago University, where, together with the German academic
    Joachim Wach, he founded Divinity School. But he also couldn’t forget his native
    Romanian language and literature helped him return to his roots, as he
    explained:




    By
    writing literature I return to my roots, which is normal. It’s the language I never
    wanted to lose and I need this dreaming and working in my language for the
    health of my soul. I can easily translate certain literary texts into French or
    English. I can, perhaps, write them directly into English or French, but for me
    it is important to maintain this desire not to lose contact with my own history,
    which is obviously the history of a Romanian who worked both in Romania and
    abroad.




    To those
    who said that the influence of religion was waning, Eliade responded that the
    desacralisation of contemporary world is in fact a process of camouflaging the
    sacred, which people still need:




    This
    need to listen to a story, at first mythical, about how the world came to be,
    how man came to be, how society was formed, etc., is a need that I believe is
    fundamental. It is a layer of consciousness, not another stage in the history of
    consciousness. I don’t believe man can exist as a man without being told his
    history and the history of the world in which he exists and which continues to
    exist.






    Mircea
    Eliade lived in exile in the West since 1945, when the communist regime came to
    power in Romania. He died in Chicago on 22nd April 1986, leaving
    behind an impressive body of work. He was made a member of the Romanian Academy
    posthumously, in 1990. (CM)



  • Mircea Eliade

    Mircea Eliade


    A complex
    author whose interests varied from the history of religions to literature, Mircea
    Eliade was also known internationally, especially in the US, where he taught,
    at the Chicago University, from 1956 until his death in 1986. Eliade was born
    on 9th March 1907 in Bucharest into a family originating from Moldavia,
    Romania’s eastern province. His father was an army officer while his mother looked
    after the family. Eliade studied in the same high school as other important
    Romanian cultural figures such as the writer and journalist Arșavir Acterian,
    the poet, writer and director Haig Acterian, the philosopher Constantin Noica
    and the art critic Barbu Brezianu.




    As a
    teenager, apart from literature, philosophy and history, Eliade was also
    interested in natural science, chemistry and the occult. His favourite writers
    at this time included Honore de Balzac and Giovanni Papini. Eliade studied
    letters and philosophy at the Bucharest University and graduated with a thesis
    on the Italian utopian thinker Tommaso Campanella.




    Mircea
    Eliade’s work is extremely large and diverse and includes more than 80 books of
    literature and the history of religions, being one of the most influential historians
    of religions in his day. In this field alone, he authored around 30 books that
    went on to be translated into 18 different languages. His literary output
    includes 12 novels, the most popular being Diary of a Short-Sighted
    Adolescent, Bengal Nights and The Forbidden Forest, which you
    can find in English, as well as novellas like Miss Christina, With
    the Gypsy Girls, The Secret of Dr. Honigberger and The Snake.




    Mircea
    Eliade was one of the first Romanian orientalists who immersed himself in the
    culture of India. In love with India, he travelled there in 1928 to study in
    Calcutta, where he learnt Sanskrit and became familiar with Indian spirituality.
    His novel Bengal Nights is in fact dedicated to the daughter of his Indian
    landlord. He fell in love with her but couldn’t marry her because of her father’s
    opposition. In 1933 when he returned to Romania, Eliade wrote a doctoral thesis
    on yoga practices.




    The
    archives of Radio Romania’s Oral History Centre contain an exceptional recording
    of an interview given by Eliade to literary critic Monica Lovinescu in the
    1970s on Radio Free Europe. In this interview, Eliade described his Indian
    experience as a time that helped him understand the course of history as the
    dialogue between cultures. His study of religious beliefs and ideas helped him
    make a step forward and opened up a universe that had been inaccessible to him
    until then. Mircea Eliade:




    When
    I came back from India I realised the limitations of western cultural
    provincialism; I realised that after WWII we must find a bridge between
    different cultures, between western culture, oriental culture and archaic cultures;
    that the simplest and most convincing introduction into a given culture is understanding
    its tradition, which is always religious in origin and structure. It seemed to
    me that a history of religions was the first step, the first stage in trying to
    understand other cultures on an equal basis, through dialogue. So I was sure
    that these books would be received well and that they would interest people,
    because historical reality was proving me right.




    Mircea
    Eliade saw himself as both an academic and a writer. His academic work earned
    him a career at the Chicago University, where, together with the German academic
    Joachim Wach, he founded Divinity School. But he also couldn’t forget his native
    Romanian language and literature helped him return to his roots, as he
    explained:




    By
    writing literature I return to my roots, which is normal. It’s the language I never
    wanted to lose and I need this dreaming and working in my language for the
    health of my soul. I can easily translate certain literary texts into French or
    English. I can, perhaps, write them directly into English or French, but for me
    it is important to maintain this desire not to lose contact with my own history,
    which is obviously the history of a Romanian who worked both in Romania and
    abroad.




    To those
    who said that the influence of religion was waning, Eliade responded that the
    desacralisation of contemporary world is in fact a process of camouflaging the
    sacred, which people still need:




    This
    need to listen to a story, at first mythical, about how the world came to be,
    how man came to be, how society was formed, etc., is a need that I believe is
    fundamental. It is a layer of consciousness, not another stage in the history of
    consciousness. I don’t believe man can exist as a man without being told his
    history and the history of the world in which he exists and which continues to
    exist.






    Mircea
    Eliade lived in exile in the West since 1945, when the communist regime came to
    power in Romania. He died in Chicago on 22nd April 1986, leaving
    behind an impressive body of work. He was made a member of the Romanian Academy
    posthumously, in 1990. (CM)



  • 200 years since the birth of Alexandru Ioan Cuza

    200 years since the birth of Alexandru Ioan Cuza

    Colonel Alexandru Ioan Cuza, the first ruling prince of the
    united principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, was born on the 20th of March,
    1820 in Barlad, the eastern part of today’s Romania. Cuza was the right man
    at the right time, and just like the Romanian elite of that time, he was well
    aware of the fact that his 7-year rule was temporary, in keeping with the
    documents signed by the Great Powers who had agreed to the union of the two
    Romanian principalities.




    On January 24, 1859, Moldavia and Wallachia united to form
    Romania and, through the election of Alexandru Ioan Cuza as ruling prince of
    Moldova and Wallachia, the union became centralised. Supported by most
    political actors and by the elites who fought for national emancipation and
    modernisation, Cuza carried out reforms that were vital for the Romanian state,
    such as the secularisation of monastic estates, the fiscal reform and the
    agricultural reform. Historian Alin Ciupala, a professor with the University of
    Bucharest, believes that Cuza was the man whose courage Romania badly needed
    during the transition period that followed after the union of Moldavia and
    Wallachia:




    Alexandru Ioan Cuza was, first of all, a very brave man. He had
    the courage to be a leader and carry out a mission at a very delicate time in
    history, a time of uncertainty and of high hopes. He had the courage to coordinate
    a coherent project to modernise Romanian society, the Romanian Principalities.
    It was he who introduced a modern institution system that set Romanian society
    on a path towards Europe.




    Over 1859-1863 Cuza
    introduced a wide range of reforms, helping build a new state, pattern on the
    European modern nation-state. 1863 marks a milestone in Cuza’s reign, as his
    rule turned towards authoritarianism, fueled by a profit-making camarilla which
    endangered everything he had achieved that far. Alin Ciupala:




    At the same time,
    Cuza’s rule has a dark chapter. At a certain point Alexandru Ioan Cuza decided
    to oversee the modernisation process himself. After the coup of May 2, 1864,
    Cuza becomes isolated, all alone. He distances himself of all his associates,
    first and foremost 1848 revolutionaries, who had gone to great lengths to have
    him elected as ruling prince. His entire administration can be seen in balance
    – we have to acknowledge Cuza’s achievements while at the same time recognise
    his failures. His removal from the throne was
    supported by the entire political class, for Cuza had gradually turned from a
    moderniser into an obstacle to modernisation. Cuza’s political mistake was that
    he did not understand that modernisation was not possible without liberalism.




    The
    Romanian elite was quick to react to Cuza’s new way of
    doing politics. On 11th February 1866, seven years since he was
    elected, on 24th January 1859, Cuza was removed from power by the
    army and former supporters. He was followed on the throne by Carol of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen,
    the future King Carol I, during whose reign Romania would lay down firm
    foundations. Alin Ciupală believes the reigns of Cuza and Carol I should not be
    viewed in competition with each other:




    The continuity is
    important because, after the ousting of Alexandru Ioan Cuza, prince Carol and
    his political supporters did absolutely nothing to repeal the measures adopted
    during Cuza’s reign. On the contrary, all initiatives and projects begun by
    Cuza would be continued throughout the course of the second half of the 19th
    century. In fact, we need to say that after 1866, the ruling prince who was to
    become King Carol I later did not make any efforts to obliterate the public
    image of his predecessor, on the contrary. To a certain extent, Carol built his
    own image as an outgrowth of Cuza’s image. If we read the mainstream history
    textbooks, if we take a look at everything that meant Alexandru Iona Cuza’s
    entering posterity, we will discover, until World War One, a great many facts
    and events having Cuza at the centre. There were political interests attached
    to that, that’s for sure. King Carol placing himself, chronologically, among
    Romanians’ great voivodes, somehow including Cuza in his dynastic discourse, all
    that revealed obvious political interests, undoubtedly foreseeable, in the long
    run. During the reign of Carol I as well as during the inter-war period, the
    image of Alexandru Ioan Cuza was not banned, it
    was not taken out of the history of Romanians. So we can see how, gradually,
    mainly the historians, but also other important actors, forgot about the flaws
    of Cuza’s reign, taking into account only his accomplishments.




    200 years ago,
    Alexandru Ioan Cuza emerged as one of the most promising political leaders in
    the history of the Romanian people. He accomplished his mission, despite his
    flaws and vices, which were all too human. Cuza succeeded in placing the new
    Romania on a modern and European path.



  • Pages of history on Radio Romania

    Pages of history on Radio Romania

    On November 1, 1928, Radio Romania started emitting in Bucharest, growing into the voice of the times, of the ideas and aspirations of Romanians, which shaped the contents of the institution’s broadcasts. Ever since, the development of the public broadcaster has mirrored all the transformations experienced by the Romanian society as a whole, and reflected the major landmarks of the history of the 20th Century.



    On August 23, 1944, Romania joined the Alliance of the United Nations, a move which was to shorten the second world war and limit the human and material losses it caused. Taking part in the Council convened by King Michael I that night was, among others, the head of Radio Romania, Vasile Ionescu:



    Vasile Ionescu: “In the office of the Sovereign of Romania, starting at 6 PM on August 23, 1944, for 4 hours, until 10:05, I took part in all the preparations and formalities required in order to consolidate the coup that started with arresting Marshall Antonescu and his main collaborators, namely Prof. Mihai Antonescu, the vice-president of the Council of Ministers and also Foreign Minister and Propaganda Minister; Constantin Pantazi, War Minister; Gen. Piki Vasiliu, chief inspector of the gendarme corps and secretary of state with the Interior Ministry; and Prof. Gheorghe Alexianu, the former governor of Transdniester.”



    In 1968, troops from the Warsaw Pact countries, except for Romania, invaded Czechoslovakia in order to end Alexander Dubcek’s reformist policy. Engineer Ilie Dragan of the Radio Romania team in charge with the live broadcasting of Nicolae Ceausescu’s speech condemning the armed intervention, recalls:



    Ilie Dragan: “In 1968, we were called at home and asked to come to work one hour earlier. They told us we had to do an emergency transmission from a rally to be held in Republica Square. I went there immediately with a team of technicians, I remember we had an outside broadcasting van where we improvised a seat for the anchor, up on the vehicle. We had problems installing everything, because lots of people had started to gather in the square. I remember we had to move the car somewhere in a corner of the square, near a window, on a patch of grass. Together with the team from the national telecoms company, we managed to put up the circuits and 15 minutes before the event started we were live with the radio studio.”



    In turn, Radio Romania International covered the milestones of world history in spite of political barriers. Landing on the Moon was one such moment and Sergiu Levescu, a journalist with the French Service of Radio Romania International, remembers very well July 20, 1969 the day when the Apollo 11 crew set foot on the Moon:



    Sergiu Levescu: “Apollo 11’s landing on the Moon was the topic of a non-politicised meeting of the RRI’s producers. When Armstrong left the lunar module to explore the Moon surface we all got together in the office of Hortensia Roman, the then editor-in-chief, to listen to the radio programme. It was a really emotional moment.”



    In a broadcast from the Olympic Games in Rome, in 1960, radio journalist Ion Ghitulescu was reporting on the moment when Iolanda Balas became an Olympic champion.



    Ion Ghitulescu: “The Olympic Stadium is silent again. Iolanda Balas is getting ready for her third 1.85-meter high jump. She heads towards the horizontal bar, gets ready and jumps… We will witness the award ceremony in the high jump event. World record holder and Olympic champion, Iolanda Balas, is the winner. We congratulate you, Iolanda, on this extraordinary win and your hard work!”



    Poet Ana Blandiana, was one of the first intellectuals to speak on Radio Romania during the days of the 1989 Revolution:



    Ana Blandiana: “Friends, I have just arrived at the Radio coming from the Palace Square, where I joined the thousands of people who could hardly believe this day has finally come. It is very hard to believe that after so many years of humiliation, we have managed to do this, all by ourselves, due to our inner strength, which I almost believed we had lost forever, and without any political schemes or support from more influential and powerful people. The victims in Timisoara and the victims in Bucharest have restored our trust in ourselves and in the power to be ourselves.”



    On January 1, 2007, Romania joined the European Union, the most exclusive club of the world’s developed countries. On December 20, 2006, Radio Romania broadcast live the Romanian Parliament’s solemn meeting, celebrating the event. The then president, Traian Basescu, delivered a speech at the meeting:



    Traian Basescu: “Two concise sentences, of exceptional political value, will be imprinted in the history of Romania and also in the history of the European Union. The European Council hails the EU accession of Romania and Bulgaria as full member states, starting January 1st, 2007.”



    Radio Romania has been, in its 91 years of existence, an actor and an observer of history and will continue to be so.


    (translated by: Ana-Maria Popescu, Elena Enache)

  • Sibiu County

    Sibiu County

    Located in the central part of Romania, to the south of the region known in history as Transylvania, Sibiu County attracts growing number of tourists interested in complete holiday packages. So, today, we invite you to discover a region that caters for all tastes and is suitable for most forms of tourism.



    Anca Nitoi, an archaeologist with the Brukenthal National Museum specializing in the Middle Ages and medieval weaponry, tells us that Sibiu was first mentioned in official records in the 12th Century, in 1191, when Pope Celestine II confirms the prepositure of the Saxon settlers in Transylvania, thus recognizing the church authority of Sibiu over the neighbouring region:



    Anca Nitoi: “But before we get to how the town of Sibiu was founded, I would like to mention that the Saxon colonization initiated by King Geza II of Hungary in the 12th Century lasted for a longer period and covered the entire southern part of Transylvania. The decision was made because the region needed an army to defend its borders. It is in this context that 2 very important towns emerged: Sibiu and Brasov. With a much faster economic development than Brasov, the town of Sibiu had a bigger administrative importance in the medieval times. So it was in Sibiu that the Saxon prepositure was headquartered, and it was in Sibiu that the most important guilds were based, producing various commodities. So many tradesmen and many craftsmen were living here. It is also in Sibiu that in 1468 the Saxon University was founded. So Sibiu has been the heart of southern Transylvanias development from the medieval times to the present day.



    A proof in this respect is that in 2007 Sibiu was a European capital of culture. In a way, this was the confirmation of the importance of the city in terms of history, architecture, economy and tourism.



    Anca Nitoi: “Sibiu is a mix of ethnic groups, and as such it takes pride in its Catholic and Evangelical churches, Orthodox cathedrals, synagogues. You will find in Sibiu nearly all types of Christian and Jewish religious sites. If we were to go for a walk in Sibiu, I would suggest Huet Square and Piata Mica (the Small Square) as a starting point. This is where you can see the Evangelical church, in all its beauty. Next you should see the Sibiu fortifications. These are the walls that surrounded the city in the Middle Ages. Today they are only a tourist site, but between the 13th and 16th Centuries, they had an extraordinary role in the defence of the city. Sibiu has never been conquered. It opened its gates after a siege, but it has never been taken. The buildings were made of brick and had tile roofs, which is why it was also dubbed ‘The Red City. It would not burn down as easily as other cities could. And you should end the tour in the Main Square, where the most beautiful buildings in the city are, including the Brukenthal Palace. Most of the buildings have been restored, so the view is outstanding.



    One of the buildings that stands out in the city is the Hecht House, which used to belong to the Mayor of Sibiu. Later on, in the 18th Century, it hosted the Saxon University.



    Anca Nitoi: “Another noteworthy building is the Haller House. It belonged to one of the mayors under whose leadership Sibiu developed significantly in the 16th Century, at the time of the Reform and Renaissance. You can see the Catholic Church erected in the 18th Century, the Brukenthal Palace, belonging to the famous governor of Transylvania, Samuel von Brukenthal, a protector of the arts in the respective period. There are lots of sites whose beauty and history you can discover while enjoying a cup of coffee. Also, Sibiu is the capital of theatre in eastern Europe. The Sibiu International Theatre Festival is the second-largest in Europe after the one in Endinburgh. It brings here hundreds of thousands of tourists, because it is innovative and experiments with modern theatre formulas. For those interested in Romanian traditions, there is the Mountain Song Festival, as well as a dedicated museum, Astra, in Dumbrava Sibiului. Tourists who come to Sibiu should know that every weekend there is an event taking place here. The Christmas Fair in Sibiu is also one of the most highly appreciated in Romania.



    In Sibiu County you can also choose circuits that combine bicycle rides with tours of old towns and traditional villages, or, alternatively, routes that will test your endurance and fitness along the Transfagarasan motorway. The region boasts over 250 km of blazed trails, connecting scenic settlements in the Transylvanian hills. And whether you walk, ride a bike or drive, our guide today, archaeologist Anca Nitoi, advises you to make a stopover in Marginimea Sibiului:



    Anca Nitoi: “Marginimea Sibiului is a landmark for the history of southern Transylvania. Whereas in Sibiu we find traces of Saxon history in every corner of the city, Marginimea Sibiului reflects the history of the Romanian ethnics in this region. Over the past few years the interest in traditional culture has grown substantially, and I recommend the guesthouses in the area for their attention for preserving tradition. The village of Gura Raului hosts a Rhododendron Festival every year, which brings here large numbers of visitors. Sibiel also hosts events devoted to traditional life in Romanian rural communities. You will certainly not regret coming here.



    Todays instalment of Travellers Guide was produced with support from the Government of Romanias Department for Inter-ethnic Relations.


    (translated by: Ana-Maria Popescu)

  • October 8, 2019 UPDATE

    October 8, 2019 UPDATE

    MUSEUM In a public ceremony held on Tuesday, President Klaus Iohannis promulgated the Law establishing the National Museum of Jewish and Holocaust History in Romania. The Jewish heritage is representative for the Romanian culture, and the new museum is aimed at showcasing it, Iohannis said. According to the President, Jewish scientists, physicians, lawyers, actors, painters, writers, philosophers and journalists are among the greatest personalities of Romania. The museum will be located in Bucharest and will showcase and promote the culture and traditions of the Jewish community in Romania, protect the victims of the Holocaust and fight anti-Semitism. The project is coordinated by the “Elie Wiesel National Institute of Holocaust Studies. PM Viorica Dancila said the Government of Romania strongly supported the idea of opening such a museum and of developing Holocaust studies programmes. In her message on the Romanian Holocaust Remembrance Day, marked every October 9, the PM emphasised that this day is only a reminder of a dark chapter in history, which meant suffering and injustice to millions of people around the world, including in Romania.




    VISIT The Romanian minister delegate for European affairs, George Ciamba, was on a working visit to Berlin on Monday and Tuesday, and had meetings with Uwe Corsepius, adviser for European affairs to the German Chancellor, and with the president of Aspen Institute Germany, Rudiger Lentz. According to the Romanian Foreign Ministry, the Romanian officials talks with Uwe Corsepius focused on the main topics on the EU agenda, such as the multi-annual financial framework, the solidarity of member countries in handling the migration crisis and protecting the environment and fighting climate change. During the meeting with the head of Aspen Institute Germany, George Ciamba discussed topics like multilateralism, trans-Atlantic relations, the 3 Seas Initiative, the new European institutional architecture and strengthening the role of the EU as a global actor.




    NATO North Macedonias NATO accession will contribute to improving the security of the Balkans, the Romanian Defence Minister Gabriel Leş said on Tuesday, during a visit to Bucharest by his Macedonian counterpart Radmila Sekerinska-Jankovska. The 2 officials discussed migration and bilateral and regional cooperation. Gabriel Leş reiterated Romanias constant support for North Macedonias NATO and EU accession efforts, particularly in the fields of strategic planning, logistics, human resources, communications and IT.




    JHA The topics discussed in the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting are particularly important in consolidating the EUs freedom, security and justice, the Romanian Justice Minister Ana Birchall said on Tuesday. She took part in the JHA Council meeting in Luxembourg, the first held under the Finnish presidency of the Council of the EU. According to the Romanian official, Romania takes special interest in areas related to fighting cross-border crime through the Eurojust, electronic evidence and the establishment of the European Public Prosecutors Office. “All these measures, intended to strengthen mutual trust between the judicial authorities of member states, were also priorities of the Romanian presidency of the Council of the EU, Ana Birchall said in her address.


    (translated by: Ana-Maria Popescu)

  • False patriotism

    False patriotism

    In the 19th century, the Romanian intellectuals and society were trying to achieve the nation state. In order to build a nation state, historians and philologists resorted to scientific arguments and equally to fake ideas. Fake patriotism mobilized latent energies that eventually had a positive impact on national emancipation.



    In mid 19th century, at the end of the Crimean War, between 1853-1856, the fate of the Romanian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia was decided. The national movement that had emerged in the last decade of the 18th century was asking for the union of the two principalities in one state, which was to put an end to the Ottoman influence. This could only happen if the great western powers could be persuaded of its necessity, and consequently the Romanian elites resorted to all means possible to reach their political objectives. One of the means was to falsify medieval documents in order to present a better state of affairs that had preceded the Turkish invasion in Europe and the Turkish conquest of the Romanian Principalities.



    The best known instance of false patriotism was Hurus Chronicle, which is supposed to be the official chronicle of 13th century Moldavia attesting to the Latin origin of Romanians. The one who wrote the chronicle was Huru, the alleged chronicler of prince Dragoș, the founder of the principality of Moldavia.



    Mircea Anghelescu is a professor at the Faculty of Letters of Bucharest University and he wrote a book entitled ‘Mystifictions, which tackles fakes, apocryphal stories, farces and other mystifications in the Romanian literature. One of the chapters is devoted to Hurus Chronicle, which Professor Anghelescu considers a typical manifestation of a historical period.



    Mircea Anghelescu: “There are special conditions that create such contexts in which false patriotism emerges. The context of this phenomenon is related to what is called the establishment of historical periods. When the critical mass is created, there emerges the idea which someone will implement right away. There were talks about attempts to preserve independence, about fighting, as Romanians were surrounded by enemies, so it was very difficult to maintain a certain degree of autonomy. It is that very historical moment that requires and supports the emergence and dissemination of false patriotism. A famous fake that preceded the 19th century fake belongs to a Maltese monk named Giuseppe Vella. In the 18th century he claimed that certain anodyne Arab religious manuscripts were chronicles that included testimonies about land possessions in Malta. It was Emperor Napoleon who had to intervene to save Giuseppe Vella. This phenomenon can change the economic order in a country and produces consequences.



    False patriotism mobilized energies and the critical spirit was suspended. Higher-level thinking was more important than academic debate, and the Romanian intellectuals borrowed the practices of the epoch.



    Here is Professor Mircea Anghelescu with more: “On the eve of the 1848 revolution, which required, through the proclamation of Heliade Rădulescu, the return to a state of affairs existing prior to the Ottoman invasion, people would say: ‘we are not making a revolution, we want restitution which meant a return to the old laws. The proclamation must have been a source of influence for one of the members of the Sion family, who thought that the idea of ‘being ancient could be used to attest to the old tradition of his own family, because he wanted to enroll his sons at a noblemens school in Petersburg, Russia. However, no one could ever prove who the real creators of fake documents were, or the creator of Hurus Chronicle. This fake document, which was published, dates back to the period following the Crimean War, when the future of the Principalities depended on the decision of the Congress of Paris (1856). How did the fake actually emerge? One of the beneficiaries, who was naïve and not willingly involved in the creation of the fake, was the descendant of a boyar family named Boldur-Lățescu. He claimed that he had simply gotten in the possession of the document. Nobody however asked him about how he got in its possession. Who had given it to him, had it been found in the archives? Nowadays, when we have a legalistic perspective of history, this would be the first question to ask.



    Like any fake, Hurus Chronicle was proved a fake much later, after the requests of the Romanian politicians had already been met. Mircea Anghelescu is back at the microphone: “Language was the first argument used by the people of the time in the discussions that peaked and found a resolution towards the end of the 19th century. They compared the oldest document in the Romanian language, credited as an important document, which dated to the late 16th century and had a perfectly intelligible text, with Hurus Chronicle. The chronicle was absurd, the words observed the Latin order in a sentence. It also included forms derived from Latin etymons, most probably taken from Cantemirs writings. The fake would have been striking if the public had had some sense of history, or at least the experts. Critical sense emerges with the development of objective research. So, the first argument was the language. The second argument was related to knowledge about ancient epochs. This chronicle included many credentials: date of writing, signature of the author similar to a notarized document. In the 14th and 15th centuries nobody would have thought of that. The fake document also included descriptions of the Romanians way of organization, similar to that of the Israelite tribes mentioned in the Bible. Everything was ordered according to ecclesiastical rules and the rulers were some sort of bishops. There are descriptions of their dresses, white and red gowns with buttons that showed their position in the hierarchy. But these elements emerged much later in history.



    False patriotism was not an imposture but rather a means of reaching political purposes. And Machiavellianism used for the public good is an art, not a moral judgment. (translation by L. Simion)

  • 100 Years of Citizenship for Jewish Romanians

    100 Years of Citizenship for Jewish Romanians

    Before 1919, Jews in Romania had no civil rights, because Article 7 in the 1866 Constitution provided that only Christian Orthodox people could be Romanian citizens. In the meantime, many Jews contributed to Romanian economy, culture, and the arts, and fought in the 1877 -1878 War of Independence and in WWI.



    In 1919, in the aftermath of the Great War, Jews from the former Kingdom of Romania gained the right to be citizens of the newly formed Greater Romania. International peace treaties forced Romania to recognize the rights of the national minorities that had become part of it, along with the new territories with a majority Romanian population. Romanian legislation passed in 1919 brought the country in line with international realities, after decades of struggle for civil rights by Jewish organizations.



    100 years after the restoration of civil rights for Jewish Romanians, historian Lya Benjamin spoke to us about this event. This is not only a story about the Jews of Romania, but of Romania itself a century ago: “The political history of Jews in the Romanian context, the history of the struggle for civil rights, starts in 1857, when, right before the union of 1859, a number of political events occurred. The initiator of the struggle was Iuliu Barasch, who wrote of memorandum submitted in 1857 to crown prince Ghica. It was a list of demands for rights, saying that quote ‘we expect equality of rights enjoyed by the largest part of the people who share our religion across Europe’. This claim was addressed only after WWI, with plenty of hesitation and not a lack of restrictions.



    Romania before 1918 was a primarily rural society, like most states in Central and Eastern Europe, and a xenophobic society along with that. Romanian anti-Semitism was part of a general European attitude. In spite of intense campaigns for raising awareness among politicians and within society at large, the legal status of Jews remained unchanged until the spring of 1918, when Romania, a defeated country, signed the Treaty of Bucharest.



    Here is Lya Benjamin: “The peace treaty of April 24, 1918, was a milestone on the long road to having civil and political rights granted to Jews in Romania. The German side demanded that the peace treaty included, among other things, a special article granting rights for minorities, and also another article, article 28, specifically about Jews. The article stated that differences of a religious nature cannot have any influence on civil status, especially on political rights. That same treaty dictated that a law should be passed according to which all those who did not have ‘foreign allegiance’ and who had taken part in Romania’s wars, who had been born here out of parents also born here, should be granted citizenship and rights equal to those of Romanians.



    The first step, therefore, was made right before the end of WWI. The Conservative government led by Alexandru Marghiloman was trying to enforce the treaty, but faced strong opposition, as Lya Benjamin told us: “This provision in the peace treaty between Romania and Germany, according to some suppositions, was introduced upon demand from the Jewish community in Germany. In the spirit of the treaty, in the summer of 1918, the Marghiloman law was passed, which included a number of measures to provide citizenship to Jewish people. However, the measures were fairly restrictive and fairly complicated. The main Jewish organization in the country protested in Parliament on July 25, 1918, saying that the law was in violation of the peace treaty. The text of the law was vague, and did not contain the word Jew. The head of the Jewish Union, Wilhelm Filderman, along with the rest of the organization, believed that the law was inoperable, impossible to apply.



    The autumn of 1918 brought major changes to Romanian life, which suddenly turned from a defeated country to a victorious one. Alexandru Marghiloman, who was now branded a traitor, resigned in November 1918, and was replaced by his rival Ionel Bratianu, and the Marghiloman law got the axe too. The law passed by Bratianu was not Jewish friendly either, demanding that they go through a long chain of formalities in order to gain Romanian citizenship. The situation was now absurd: Jews from Bessarabia, Banat, Bukovina, and Transylvania had been granted Romanian citizenship automatically, but not the 270,000 Jews in the Old Kingdom that had completely integrated into Romanian society.



    Jewish organizations demanded that the Jews in the Old Kingdom be granted citizenship simply by a signed statement that they had been born in Romania, and that they held no other citizenship. In the end, Bratianu conceded, as Lya Benjamin told us: “Under the pressure of these protests, Bratianu, who was abroad in the spring of 1919, sent home the text of a new citizenship law, which, in Filderman’s opinion, was generally in line with his option, as he notes in his diary. That was because it was the first law that in fact granted citizenship based on a statement signed by the applicant. It was listed in the Official Journal of Parliament on May 28, 1919.



    However, that law did not ultimately provide security for Jewish Romanians. In 1938, a law rewriting the rules for citizenship struck mostly the Jews, paving the road to the Holocaust.

  • The Bolyai University

    The Bolyai University

    Carrying on the tradition of the Jesuit College established in Cluj in 1581 and of the Hungarian-language university set up in 1872, the University of Cluj became a bone of contention especially after Romanians demanded in 1848, the establishment of a Romanian-language academic institution. Their request was not granted at the time. After 1918, when Transylvania joined Romania, the Ferdinand I University was set up in Cluj, while the old university, called Franz Joseph, was moved to Szeged, Hungary, until 1940. When the north of Transylvania was merged into Hungary in August 1940, the Hungarian university returned to its home town. It was the Romanian-language universitys turn to take refuge, in Sibiu, only to come back to Cluj after 1945, when Romania reclaimed Northern Transylvania. In order to meet both demands, the communist authorities decided to have two universities in Cluj, one with Romanian tuition, and called “Victor Babes, after a famous Romanian physician, and another one, with teaching in Hungarian, called “Janos Bolyai to honour a great Hungarian mathematician. In 1959, the two institutions merged into what is today the “Babes-Bolyai University.



    Janos Fazekas was one of the leaders of the Hungarian community in the communist years. In a 2002 interview to the Centre of Oral History of the Romanian Radio Broadcasting Corporation, Janos Fazekas said Nicolae Ceausescu is the one responsible for the disappearance of Bolyai University: “Let me tell you about Ceausescus xenophobia. When he started out and included the social and national homogenisation of society into the platform of the communist party, he defined this goal as a forcible assimilation of ethnic minorities and created a unified nation, a new type of nation. He organised the dismantling of the Bolyai University, to which Ion Iliescu, then president of the democratic students, also made a contribution. He organised a National Conference in Cluj, where Romanian and Hungarian students were instructed to request that the two universities be merged, but the actual goal was for the Bolyai University to disappear gradually. And when the National Student Conference was actually held, Ceausescu went and asked Gheorghiu-Dej, ‘Comrade Dej, what are we to do? Students want the two universities unified! And Dej answered, ‘Then lets do what students say, because youth always look ahead, into the future! So Dej embraced the idea, too, and persuaded him to even give a speech at that conference.



    Janos Fazekas tried to rescue the Bolyai University, but he failed: “At that time, I was in hospital, in Otopeni. I checked myself out and told Georghiu-Dej: ‘Comrade Dej, how could you make such a mistake?’ Did you forget that back in 1947, when you came back from the signing of the Treaty of Paris and spoke in Oradea you said: ‘We got back Northern Transylvania, but not as a so-called historical right, we didn’t get it back because it has a majority Romanian population, we didn’t get it back because we took part in the late period of the war against Hitler, but we got it back because of the democratic policy of our party, of the Groza government. I told him that, showing him the newspaper that wrote that comrade Dej had an easy job at the Treaty of Paris conference, showing that there was a Hungarian university, another Hungarian language school of medicine in Targu Mures, a fine arts school in Hungarian, and the Hungarian Conservatory in Cluj, we had Hungarian language education.



    Erno Gall was a pro-rector of the Bolyai University. In a 1995 interview, he emphasized the difficulties faced by Hungarian language universities in the Stalinist period: “We had these two universities after 1945 in Cluj, and a collaboration was created between them. It was a natural and necessary collaboration, in line with the ideology of their times, an internationalist ideology, which promoted friendship. The professors who taught there lived through the Stalinist period, and after 1949 the rectors of these universities were arrested and convicted in Stalinist trials. We are speaking of physician Ludovic Csogor, rector of the university, and Balogh Edgar, another rector. During those years, the level of teaching fell, they were the years when this university was not much above a grade school, it could not, by any measure, be considered a modern university. To my good fortune, in 1952 to 1953, especially after Stalin’s demise, the situation improved, and the university underwent a period of relative growth and spiritual development. The professors were not changed, they brought in younger staff.



    Erno Gall believed the fate of the university he managed was sealed right after the anti-communist revolution of 1956 in Hungary: “The Hungarian revolution followed in 1956 with dramatic and tragic consequences for us, in more ways than one. Following the events in Hungary, the intellectuals in Cluj, writers in particular, became very critical of the status quo. This eventually gave rise to a movement that challenged and condemned previous developments, and, of course, this sense of relative relief influenced students and teachers. Students wrote a memorandum demanding certain rights, and we ended up in a position of opposition. In mind and spirit I sympathised with them, but as pro-rector I had to deal with all these complications and difficulties. The students fought back, and many of them along with many of the teaching staff, young teachers in particular, were arrested in 1957 when the authorities stifled the students movement.



    Despite its troubled history, in a century of turmoil, the Babes-Bolyai University is today an icon of multiculturalism, a positive example of how a history of unrest can give rise to something viable.

  • The Church and Communism

    The Church and Communism

    However, upon its consolidation, the regime started allowing religious practices as they were no longer considered a threat but a method of currying favour with the population.



    In theory, the communist ideology made a clear distinction between religion and church, although it was blaming both to a certain extent. While religion was considered the primitive mans way of seeing the world, the church was believed to be an instrument for exploiting people. And for this reason, in the communist society, religion was benefitting from mitigating circumstances, something which was denied to the church.



    Once in power, the Communist Party reconsidered its attitude towards religion and Church, which it later included in its cultural policy as elements of national identity. In fact a similar mechanism was in place, with local particularities of course, in all Central and East European Countries, occupied by the USSR after 1945, and Romania was no exception to the rule.



    Engineer Stefan Barlea used to be one of the dignitaries in the communist chain of command and began his activity in the mid 1940s. In an interview to the Oral History Centre of the Romanian Radio Broadcasting Corporation, back in 2002, he admitted that although he wasnt a practising Christian he had nothing against religion and the Church and hadnt opposed the religious baptism of his two sons, but he hadnt married his wife in church.



    Stefan Barlea: “I didnt have a particular stance on that matter, but my mother, mother-in-law and my grandmother decided to take the situation in their own hands. I realized they had gone to church because I sensed a certain scent of basil in the house. ‘May they live long! we all said about the kids and that was all. I know that one of them was baptized in the Church of Casin Monastery, the second was baptized as well but I dont know where. I let the women know I wouldnt attend the religious service but didnt oppose them either. My wife and I didnt have a wedding ceremony in church. We thought of getting one in secret but we eventually gave up the idea. I wasnt particularly against churches, even visited some with family and got some religious education as a child. I recall my grandpa taking me to a church in Prahova and I still carry in my pocket a small icon I got when I was ten or twelve. I wasnt exactly what they called a freethinker.



    Barlea admitted that even before 1989, together with two of his colleagues he conceived a theory combining science and religious representations: “At a certain point, while doing scientific research in the field of cybernetics, I was talking to several prominent figures of Romanias scientific life, engineer Edmond Nicolau and Balaceanu-Stolnici (…) I did some scientific research together with Balaceanu and we came to the conclusion that from a cybernetic viewpoint, intelligent beings on other planets should be very similar to humans because one must have a vertical position to be able to process a wide range of visual information. Why are all the senses located so high in our bodies? Because nature tends to simplify things and there should be a grain of truth in the Bible saying that ‘God created man in His image. I remember I was working at the time with the National Council for Science and Technology and wasnt reluctant to say that.



    Although religion wasnt encouraged, people avoided going to church because there was some sort of mild persecution against those showing a keen interest in religious issues.



    Stefan Barlea: “I dont remember any cases of people being criticized for having their children baptized or for attending a certain religious service in a church or another. I dont remember these people being criticized either in our party meetings or during any of the meetings staged by the Communist Youth Organisation. I dont want to say there werent abuses, but I personally heard of none. Ceausescu was tolerant of these things but his wife was against them. I understand that she was angry that their children, Nicu and Zoe, had visited some famous monasteries in Romania.



    The relationship between the communist regime, on the one hand, and Church and religion, on the other, was a difficult one. Back in the day, the two tried to get along with each other but the social, economic and political deadlock the regime was in made of peoples refuge in religion an acceptable compromise.

  • Modernity in Early 19th Century in the Romanian Space

    Modernity in Early 19th Century in the Romanian Space

    Public opinion started leaning towards secularism and the rule of law, to the detriment of a despotic state of church institutions. The French influence was essential in inspiring modern ideas, at a time when political and military events led into a new era.



    The Romanian Principalities, still under Ottoman control, were in dire need of reform. The Ottoman political and economic model had failed, and was a hurdle to new trends and aspirations. Modernity had sown the seeds of national movements, and in the Romanian space it manifested in the Greek and Romanian insurrections of 1821.



    The French Revolution was the decisive element in the emergence of national movements, as emphasized by historian Georgeta Penelea Filiti: “The French Revolution largely laid the groundwork for what was about to happen over the following two decades, culminating in the 1821 moment. When it comes to Romanian lands, we have to draw a line between the national movement led by Tudor Vladimirescu and the rather foolhardy movement of the Greeks led by Alexander Ypsilantis, an adviser to the Czar of Russia. I dare say “Romania, in quotation marks, because it was a Greek, Philippide, who used for the first time, in 1816, the term “Romania, meaning the area inhabited mostly by Romanians. Ypsilantis came to the Romanian Principalities from Russia, first to Moldavia, then to Bucharest, hoping that he would get a Christian people, and his own Greek people, to rise up and be helped by Russia. That did not come to be, his movement failed, unfortunately, just as Tudor Vladimirescu’s movement failed. Things did not go well between the two, and Tudor ended up being killed by Ypsilantis people.



    Modernization in the Romanian space followed the times, and in retrospect it could not have been hindered by any factor, just as it was not the result of any plan. It was first and foremost a result of the French influence.



    Historian Georgeta Penelea Filiti once again: “This state of mind generating profound changes and rifts in society are not easy to quantify and pinpoint. People had more information, had in their hands merchandise from Western countries, people talked about fashion and cuisine. What changes is the language that people use, the French language starts insinuating itself, replacing the Greek language among Romanians. There was no imposition to adopt either the Greek or the French languages, it was about the language of the era, the language of culture dominating the Romanian space. However, the Romanian language was being encouraged as well. […] We have to keep in mind the fact that not all French people arriving to the Romanian space were revolutionaries, there were also a lot of refugees. The French Revolution, among the bloodiest, given that any revolution is bloody, but the French Revolution was so more than most, produced a lot of refugees, who were looking to make a living. A lot of French people became secretaries, teachers, public servants in various ministries, and at the same time they were highly sought after as private tutors for wealthy families. The French spirit prevailed. Some of the French people were revolutionaries as well, people of all walks of life left France to settle in Bucharest.



    The ideas of modernity had a prevailing influence in Europe due to Napoleon I’s military campaigns, which turned the old political order on its head. The turmoil caused by France traverses Europe, from Britain to the west to Russia to the east, and also to the Ottoman Empire.



    Georgeta Penelea Filiti believes that in the Romanian space, the French drive to transform Europe from the ground up was represented by a generation of cultured youth, as always a ferment for change: “There was a movement here seeking to create in Bucharest a center of change so strong as to generate a revolution, but that was hard to make happen. As they say, Napoleon stirred the hill of ants, and the most important thing is that this caused a lot of young people in the Romanian space to take up studies abroad. They looked up to the emperor, they saw a savior in him. In 1813, a lot of Romanians went to study in Halle, along with Greek speakers that were settled in the Romanian space, including Aromanians. In Halle, Gottingen, Vienna, plenty of young people went to study medicine, among them Apostol Arsachi. When the emperor passed through Halle, he had the opportunity to hold a speech attended by him. It is a beautiful, fiery speech, in which he says: ‘Your Majesty, save the Christian from the Ottoman Empire!’ Dozens upon dozens such appeals rained on Napoleon, who was obviously a good Christian, but he was also an emperor, a dictator, who pursued his own politics.



    Romanian modernity took shape in the first two decades of the 19th century, but its ideals supposed a lot more time to pass, and lot more struggle.