This manuscript was created at the time of the Croatian Spring, and was published in the journal Kritika in its June issue in 1971. Rendić discussed the Croatian national question under Yugoslavian socialism, with particular emphasis on the status of Croatian language and Croatian statehood within a common state. In this respect, Rendić negatively assessed the developmental logic of Yugoslav socialism, which according to her view was based on the negation of the Croatian national identity and language. The main reason for Rendić's thesis was that the “radical colonization of the Croatian language” was carried out in socialist Yugoslavia by the introduction of numerous words from the Serbian language. Precisely because of that, the “Declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Language” arose to resist such efforts in 1967. According to Rendić, apart from linguistic policy, the unequal status of Croatia in the Yugoslav federation was reflected politically in the fact that all republic institutions were written in the genitive case, "Croatia has been wholly reduced to a certain administrative-territorial term, so that it could only be expressed as: Republic of Croatia, Parliament of Croatia, Executive Council of the Parliament of Croatia…"(Rendić 1971: 14). This prompted the Supreme Court to rule against her, after which she was forced to retire.
Report "The status of counter-intelligence work of the State Security to unveil and suppress the subversive activities of the enemy among the artistic intelligentsia and measures for its improvement", Sofia, April 20, 1973.
The report presents the state security's vision of how "the enemy" tries to win over wavering members of the artistic intelligentsia (whose majority is said to support and promote the party line). It is reported that among the intelligentsia groups of friends are formed in so called ‘microstructures’ opposing the policies of the party. Typical examples of this are said to be the writers Hristo Ganev, Valeri Petrov, Marko Ganchev, Gotcho Gotchev and Blagoy Dimitrov. The report is a good example for the assessment of the political attitudes of the intelligentsia by the state in the early 1970s, and also of the way how such assessments were rhetorically framed.
The Congress of the MWU held in 1954 seemed an unlikely place for raising controversial issues, while the chairman of the Union, Andrei Lupan, seemed an even more unlikely candidate for that. Lupan’s social and ideological background was irreproachable from the regime’s point of view, while his literary credentials were superior to those of many of his colleagues due to his education in interwar Romania. He generally supported the “Bessarabian” camp within the MWU and contributed to the improved quality of the literary output produced by its members, but his closeness to the regime was also indisputable. This ambiguity characterised Lupan’s entire career, and he was attacked by representatives of the “1960s generation” during the late 1980s for his political opportunism and failure to act on behalf of his colleagues persecuted by the regime (see Masterpiece 2). However, in 1954, just after Stalin’s death and in the as yet uncertain climate of the emerging “thaw,” Lupan openly tackled the issue of the classic literary heritage in one of the first public discussions on this topic. This question was controversial mainly due to the “common literary heritage” that Romanian and “Moldavian” culture shared. In the first post-war years, the Soviet authorities attempted, albeit with less vigour, to continue the “Moldavian” nation-building project launched in the MASSR in the interwar period, which postulated the existence of a separate “Moldavian” nation and culture. This also presupposed the construction of a distinct standard language, as well as the rejection of cultural and literary figures deemed “un-Moldavian” and linked to Romanian “bourgeois nationalism.” However, starting from the mid-1950s, the “common cultural heritage” of “Moldavian” and Romanian culture began to be emphasised by the “Bessarabian” faction. This was in line with other similar cultural battles waged on the Soviet periphery, such as those of the Tajik / Persian and Karelian / Finnish affinities. Still, the issue of “classic heritage” was primarily a stake in the internal struggle within the MWU between the “Bessarabians” and the “Transnistrians,” with the former supporting the partial rehabilitation of the traditional Romanian cultural canon and the latter adamantly opposed to it. The central institutions in Moscow sided with the “Bessarabians,” thus securing their final victory. In his report, Lupan mentions, first, the success of the project aimed at publishing the “classics” (among whom he included figures whose works had already been published, like A. Donici, C. Negruzzi, I. Creangă, C. Stamati, M. Eminescu, but also other prominent writers not yet fully included into the ”Soviet Moldavian” literary canon, e.g., V. Alecsandri, A. Russo, I. Neculce, D. Cantemir, A. Mateevici – all hailing from the historical Moldavian Principality). However, besides the customary criticism of “bourgeois nationalism,” Lupan also openly admitted that “our classic literature is intimately historically connected to Romanian literature,” being “a common treasure for both peoples.” This bold statement, given the context of the era, was supplemented by his criticism of “distortions and lack of clarity” that could result in “erasing our cultural heritage.” Lupan’s reference to writers such as George Coșbuc, Alexandru Vlahuță, and Ioan Slavici (coming from outside the “Moldavian” geographical area) as part of this heritage is especially striking. He harshly criticised an article published earlier in the official newspaper Sovetskaia Moldaviia (Soviet Moldavia), which tried to “appropriate” Eminescu exclusively for “Moldavian” culture, denying the common cultural heritage with Romania. Lupan’s position was clearly approved by the centre, signalling Moscow’s changing attitude in this regard. Lupan contrasted the “national dignity” purportedly fostered by the rehabilitation of the classic heritage to the “cosmopolitanism and [bourgeois] nationalism” reviled by the Soviet regime, but still found that the publication of the classics “will assist in the development of our literature, in solving the most complicated questions of the Moldavian literary language, will contribute to the enrichment and polishing of our language.” Finally, Lupan was clearly advocating the revision of the literary standard according to the model of “classic literature,” i.e., according to the Romanian model (without, of course, stating this explicitly) and condemned excessive “folkloric” influences. All these opinions had hardly been acceptable several years before. In fact, Lupan’s speech indicated a fundamental shift in official policy, which was to culminate with the total “rehabilitation of the classics” and an effective return to the Romanian literary standard in 1957. This case also shows that revisions in cultural policies on the Soviet peripheries, customarily associated with Khrushchev’s Thaw, were in fact initiated immediately after Stalin’s death, in 1954. The combination of local cultural battles with central signals, openly visible in Lupan’s speech, is what makes this example especially interesting. This case also highlights the generational and ideological contrast with the Perestroika period of the 1980s. As the controversy and open conflict between Lupan and Grigore Vieru shows (see Masterpiece 2), although the issues at stake remained similar, their interpretation was starkly different in the two periods. Beyond the similarities in substance, the generational and ideological conflicts of the 1980s signified a new and radical stage in the internal dynamics of the MWU and in its position toward the regime.
- Chișinău, Moldova
Year of creation:
- Featured item of:
This document reflects the manner of organisation and activity of the Romanian postwar exile community, as well as a series of major problems that it encountered: the lack of material means and of the unity of Romanians. The Romanian exile community, although a form of opposition of Romanians from several historical periods, reached a significant dimension during the communist regime. The postwar Romanian exile community manifested itself over an expanded geographical area, spread across several continents: Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and Africa. There were, however, a number of states where the Romanian exile community was particularly active: France, the USA, the UK, West Germany, Spain, and Canada. Determined by the domestic political context and influenced by shifts on the international political scene, the Romanian exile after the Second World War must be understood as a reaction to the establishment and domination of the communist regime in Romania and as a form of opposition to it. Romanians abroad tried to organise themselves by setting up foundations, associations, institutions, institutes, and publications with the purpose of: representing the Romanian nation and defending its interests until its liberation; carrying out actions that would lead to the restoration of the democratic system in Romania; coordinating the activity of Romanians outside the country for the fulfilment of this common cause; establishing links with Western governments and international organisations; representing the exile community and solving its problems; and collaborating in joint activities with representatives of the other "captive nations" in Central and Eastern Europe.
The report in question, which amounts to five pages, presents the situation of one of the most important cultural organisations of the exile community, the Carol I Royal University Foundation. A university level institution, the Carol I Royal University Foundation (1950–1974) was initially founded in Paris on 3 May 1881 by King Carol I, but was abolished by the communist regime in Bucharest. Later, on December 8, 1950, out of a desire to continue the old royal family tradition, it was re-established by King Michael I in exile, with the support of the Romanian National Committee, which was in the view of the founders the government of Romanians in exile. The Foundation began to function effectively on 1 January 1951. The purpose of the Foundation was: to present the values of Romanian culture to the West; to affirm and develop the traditional ties between French and Romanian cultures; to establish and maintain relations with cultural and educational institutions and with the French administrative authorities; to ensure a Romanian presence in international cultural forums and events; to safeguard the national cultural heritage; to study the cultural and technical problems that Romania would face after liberation from the communist regime; to support and guide Romanian students in exile; to encourage scholarly research; to build up a library at the headquarters of the Foundation, transforming it into the House of Romanian Culture abroad. Every year, the Foundation's leaders drew up an activity report. Such a document can be found in the collection of Sanda Stolojan, who was involved in the Foundation's activities and published poetry and prose in its two literary publications: Ființa Românească (Romanian being) and Revue des Etudes Roumaines. A copy of this document is in Sanda Stolojan's private archive due to the fact that she was a close friend of the person who wrote the material, Constantin Cesianu, and was directly involved in the Foundation's actions. Regarding the personality of Constantin Cesianu (1886–1983), he was a political detainee in communist Romania between 1956 and 1963. A few years after his release, he emigrated to France, where he published the book Salvat din infern (Saved from the inferno), in which he reported his experience as a political prisoner in communist Romania. The volume originally appeared in French. It was translated into Romanian and published in Romania in 1992, and is an indispensable part of any specialised bibliography on the subject. In Paris, he actively participated in the activities of Romanians in exile for the promotion of Western media coverage of the repressive and aberrant policies of the communist regime in Romania.
The report that Constantin Cesianu wrote in 1971 draws attention to the situation of the Foundation in that year, when its annual activity balance was not a positive one. The explanation was the lack of the material means to achieve its goals. In fact, all organisations of the exile community were confronted with this problem. On a different line of thought, beyond the Foundation's poor financial situation, the report presented some of the activities the Foundation carried out in 1971: cultural conferences and the celebration of Romania's historic days (1 December – Great Union Day, 24 January – Little Union Day, 10 May – Independence Day). Furthermore, the paper presented the situation of the Foundation’s library and the profile of the researchers who had come there for documentation. Finally, the unity of Romanians abroad was called for – the supreme desideratum of all the organisations of the exile community, though it never materialised between 1948 and 1989.
- Bucharest, Romania
Year of creation:
- Featured item of:
"Summary report on the state of the agency-operational work in respect of the enemy intelligentsia in the country", Sofia, January 29, 1958.
This report gives a summary assessment of activities and expressions by intellectuals that the state security considered hostile, for the year 1957. This was a period of heightened state altert about (potential) opposition in Bulgaria in the wake of the revolution in Hungary, and its brutal suppression by the Soviets, in 1956. The report claims that after the revolution in Hungary, "capitalist representatives" are stepping up their efforts to create networks of friendly intellectuals and to "brainwash" certain intellectual circles in Bulgaria. A particular problem are cases of intellectuals who escaped abroad. The report describes intellectuals who are said to deny Soviet art, which they consider outdated and "smelling of mold." There is unrest among the writes against the "suggested" guardianship" by the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party; there is widespread talk about creative freedom. According to this State Security report, the intelligentsia numbered 26,799 people at that time. The report, thus, gives insight into the increased fears of the regime about the loyalty of the intelligentsia after the 1956 events and shows the dynamics of oppositional tendencies among them (in the eyes of the state security).