Ion
Zainea, Carmen Ungur-Brehoi, “The literary creation as an endurance form in
Romania during Communism - Known cases of Censorship (1966-1971), (Remembrance in time, Transilvania
University Press of Brasov 2012), pp. 181-186.
The title of our study might seem, for some, ambitious, for others,
probably not. Depends on whose side you are regarding the optional answers to the
question: Was the literary creation an endurance form in Ceausescu’s Romania?
We will try to answer below, from the perspective of the censorship
institution: The Press and Print General Directorship/ The Press and Print
Committee2. In Romania during communism, the censorship had ideological basis,
its aim being, ultimately, the production of a literature that fits the
ideological request and the will of the Communist Party. Talking about the
mission of the writers and that of the artists, in his statement of The Work
Deliberation with the Party’s Effective, regarding the field of ideology and
that of the political and cultural-instructional activity, in July 1971,
Nicolae Ceausescu pointed out: “The ideological conception must be one and one
alone: the revolutionary ideology and conception of the working class... For
that purpose, we sustain the complete freedom of creation, for the total
expression of imagination, but in the spirit of our conception about life and
the world”3.
So, writers had either to accept or to
learn to accept the conditions and the suggestions of the board of the party
and those made directly by Nicolae Ceausescu. To be published, they had two
options: they either wrote about subjects and modes that fit the party, and of
course, the censors, or they avoided or hiden the controversal and unfriended
cases, if not, they had „to fight”, to negociate, to bargain with the censors4,
this happening in the best case. Some divided the writers in “reds” and
“whites”, the first ones, „the reds”, where the writers devoted to the system,
and „the whites”, those that stand against it. It’s about an “endurance in
specific forms, literary forms, not factionalism” – said Nicolae Manolescu –
the factioneers didn’t come into question, some being under a ban, and some in
exile5.
Beyond what it is said and sometimes
written, we have to keep in mind what the censorship institution says, what the
censors write, what is their vision, what are their convictions. I’ve chosen as
a reference, The Proceeding compiled by The Training- Control Directorship6,
from November 30 1967, that analyses the country side’s publications during the
period November 1966-November 1967. From its first lines, we find out that the
number of political, social, scientifical, cultural and literary publications
that appeared in the country side was growing continuously, answering more and
more to the demand (s.n. -I.Z.) to „inform and guide” the mass of readers.
There were also
mentioned, as positive elements, the augmenting of the thematic
diversity, and a qualitative improvement of the published materials, fact due
mainly to the editorial offices, that tried to answer to the readers’ growing
requests, for the content and the intellectual attitude.
However, is still mentioned that many materials (s.n.- I.Z.) included in
the pages of the named publications „continued to debate in a wrong way, even
tendentiously” the argued problems, their appearance being considered
unfitting. Many of the materials were „negative, calumnious”, because, trying
to debate upon a „supposed enclosure” in the normal development of our values,
presented „a distorted image of our reality”, transforming the particular into
general. Others handled „in an inadequate way” (understood different than the
oficial line) the origins of the Romanian language and the Romanian people, or
moments of its history. There were also frequent the “unprincipled
controversial” articles, the tone used giving here and there, a shade of
personal dispute, the fact destroying the quietness and prestige of the
magazines that appeared in. Anyway, the articles refering to the international
events, where seen as „getting to a manner of reporting” that could strongly
affect our country’s relations with other states7.
Briefly, The Training-Control Directorship
considered that the materials that dealed with censorship were many, so they
were grouped in more categories: first were those that “debated in a wrong way,
sometimes tendentiously” the problems approached, than were the “negative,
calumnious” ones, that treated in a „wrong” manner historical issues or
international aspects. The materials that dealed this kind of problems, or some
similar ones, it is said further more in the proceeding, were „in their
majority felt”, being necessary „either to give up completely to their
printing, or to make in part changes of structure”. In all the cases, we are
told, before being discussed and solved with the editorial office, that „the
observations have been presented to the regional committees of The Romanian
Communist Party, for monitoring”. The problematic articles, whose solution
interested first of all the guidance forums, were pointed out to the local
organs of the party, these deciding „if they can appear in the initial form or
with
modifications”8. As we can see, this part of the paper reveals on one
hand the fate of the so-called „wrong” materials, and on the other hand,
aspects related to the work of control and procedure/subordination. We get the
idea that those who made the control/the reading had the necessary experience,
if they „sensed” (i.e. discovered) the majority of the materials, which, on the
other hand, makes us think that existed also „leaks”. As for the
procedure/subordination part, we find out that the observations were, first,
presented to the regional committees of the party for monitoring, and then
discussed and solved with the publising houses; those that interested the
superior organs of the party were presented to the local organs of the Romanian
Communist Party, who decided if those can appear in the initial form or woth
modifications.
After this general part, the paper deals
with concrete cases, for each category of the presented problems. We shall also
show the most significant cases. From the first category, the first because
contains many cases, who were also very serious, is that of the materials that
presented „a distorted image” of our realities. It was said, that „starting
from the deficiencies of different fields of activity”, from „some singular
actions”, some authors were „exaggerating, giving them a critic, general and
denigration note”, putting unprincipled relations, negative practices on the
social relations who would generate them. So, it was recognised the existence
of some „minuses” and of some „actions”, even if „singular”, but also
considered that some evil-minded authors were augmenting them, criticizing them
in general, denigrating them, or worse, putting them on the social relations
(therefore, socialists). A first example is offered by the pamphlet of Traian
Cosovei The Deratization Project9. In his vision, our world had to be
„desinfected” by the rats (in the pamphlet, the rats were the people, good and
evil, grouped and labeled after their professions, characters,
characteristics). „Small rats, middle rats, big rats, perched rats..., rats
with nephews..., rats with big mouth, ...rats playing in a gear with millions
of wheels..., rats-all-in-its-turn”10.
Amplifying the criticism from the
particular, isolated case to a general one, and then denigration was considered
evident also in the pamphlet Zoodidactic by George Mihaescu11. Satirizing the
abusive way of obtaining study certificates by some with high positions,
unadvised regarding culture, outdated by the events and impelled by the daily
demands of life, the author transfers as in a fable his opinion, in the fate of
a common dunkey. This, in the past, had a raw live, working for masters, having
no food or drinks, and nowadays becomes a Grand Old Man. Instead of enjoying
that he is „the ruler of a yard and eats alone from the big rack”, he hasn’t
any peace, because the pensioners gossip „he’s a fool dunkey and the duties go
wrong, from this reason”. He finds the solution in getting with all means,
except working, a study certificate. So, with some „dirty jobs”, he gets his
first school diploma when „having some few more teeth left in his mouth”.
„Bucking with his hoof in a headmaster’s desk”, he gets a general certificate
of education, then he signs up for faculty (extramural). When close to graduate
„he was pulled by the ears and taken who knows where”12.
The article Marginals to an overture by
Romulus Zaharia13, was claimed because presented too realistic, and not after
the regime’s wish, the doctor’s situation; similar facts but related to
professors, try to approach also Szilagyi Istvan in his article The Problems of
the Countryside Teachers14. This kind of accounts „have been practised before”
in materials regarding other fields of activity, such for example „Nowaday
Oceanology”15 (where was criticized the lack of contribution of our country in
the field of oceanologic explorations, underlining the fact that brought many
benefits from others’ researches and discoveries), Cinematographic Repertoire
facing the audience16 (investigation made by St. Oprea regarding the Romanian
cinematographic production, who had as a conclusion the fact that except the
movie „The Dacians”, all others are at the bottom of the world’s contemporary
cinematrography). Calumniouns accounts for the editing activity came from the
narrator’s interview Ion Lancranjan, taken by Petru Sfetcu17. According to the
author’s opinion, books fate in general was not determined by their value, but
by the author’s position, by his situation. „If their author – it was said – is
a boss somewhere, or is going to be a boss or a general, if he has high
relations with some literary circles, very competent and able to cover ups, who
guide an absent but very good „literary scholarship”, then obtaining the
certificate of authenticity and constancy for the characters of different
literary „creations”, those being poorly written, pauper or practically gross,
was vividly and for ever assured. Regarding the literary phenomenon from our
country, the person interviewed was saying that „the analysis of this one is so
badly made, that would be a shame for the writer who coult guide his activity
following such an analysis”18.
A second category contains those literary
writings, prose and poetry, that debated the problems of the artistic creation
and generated „the feeling of the lack of perspective, of the impossible way of
value expression, hinting social causes”19. A part of these materials, through
symbol, or directly, „stands up fiercely against the so-called freedom’s
limitation”. It’s designated for start, the short story Only with the right
(treacherous style) by Romulus Vulcanescu20. Using an allegorical form, it was
considered that the author protested against the so-called compulsoriness for
poets to write ordered lines, without content and truth. In the short story, all
the poets are called at the „grand merchant of artistic products”, that for
assuring the material daily standards, asked them to write lines in a certain
way. Although he promises, demagogically, that they are free to write what they
want and how they want, „the grand merchant” sets some rules, „in the agenda,
alphabetically”, saying that there is a single censorship, a single judge:
„me”, and a single penalty „pen life forbiddance”. When, shortly after, some
poets try to write about truth, their right arm is plaster in gypsum. The
rebellion attempt is late, because the gypsum falls, for some of them together
with the arm, and for the others remains forever rigid.
Against the guidance of art and
literature, stands up N. Manolescu in the article Contemporaneity and artistic
universe21, where he writes, among the others: „Any mixture in the inner
atributes of literature is a disaster; literature must be left to evolve by
itself, because – why is this thing so hard to get?- literature is made by
writers, not by theoreticians”. The short story The Corridor by Dumitru
Tepeneag22, was approached because the author „tried to demonstrate the
nowadays man follows a checkpointed road with compulsory rules, being obligated
to escape on a corridor without any perspective, full of obstacles and of the
bleeding bodies of the sacrificed ones” 23. Into a long corridor, with pieces
of furniture, one upon another, the hero of the story agonizes desperately to
get to the light, to the window. His efforts are useless, because at every step
he hits the furniture with different destinations and a huge and massive stall,
immovable. His despair is amplified by the terror made by the smell of
„bruised, chopped books”. In the middle of such a heavy climate, he
nostalgically remembers his childhood, when, on the same corridor, he had the
opportunity to watch through a window a white horse, colored birds, green
grass, everything in a vivid, shiny light, while now, prisoner in the wildwood
of furniture, he can’t even get to the window, feeling himself no enough high
and strong to destroy the obstacles on his way.
Problems for censorship made also some
materials on themes related to the origins of the language and of the Romanian
people, the older or newer boundaries of the country. Many contained frequent
references to territories that didn’t make part of Romania, and proved that the
economical and cultural tradition of the inhabitants who lived here, showed
their common origin with Romanians. It was mentioned the study The Roman Ruins
from Komarovo by N. Gostar24, where the author confuted the soviet scientist’s
opinion M.I. Smisko, that all the material tracks discovered at Komarovo,
Cernauti region, could have aborigine origins, saying that on the contrary, the
close study of those tracks prove Roman origin. The historiographer from Iasi
added that there was a Roman castrum made with the purpose to defend the
boundaries of Trajan’s Dacia and that only in the III-IV centuries appear the
inhabitants’ tracks, overlapping them.
Another category of notices materials of
censorship referred to those who discussed about different contentious
international problems, using often the symbol or an allegorical way of
expression. Using as a comparison element the potato, the satire with the same
title by Valeriu Sirbu25 „condemn, with a cynical tone, the abusive dealing of
the states by outlander forces”. The poet’s outrage, said the censors, was
directed against the mixture of the great powers into the inner life of other
countries, mixture that goes till the administrative separation of those and
even to the control of the people’s ideas and conceptions, to hatred and
hostility between brothers26. This is what the censors say. The author says it
differently. He appeals to the story of a gardener, who, tired of so many
flowers, decided to make an exceptional thing. He took a potato and divided it
into two with a chalk, expressing a speech as a constitution, by which he
decides that „although pieces of a whole, the two parts will never be called
the same again” and forbidders „the sap and the food, even ideas to circulate
from one part to another”. Not being able to predict what will happen in the
future with the potato, the author exclaims ironically at the end: „I
understand that the big bosses of the states/would share the country into
two/It’s normally and just/But a simple gardener to do such thing with a
potato/It is just too much”.
At the same category was noticed the
sketch My dam by Marin Sorescu27, that, said the censors, „suggests the idea
that the battle for power is an unvoiced phenomenon of the human society, that
in this battle for getting new luxuries and territories, the masses act as
blind instruments, without reaction to the crimes and that the development of
the society is made with imminent wars”. More to come, the paper, it was said,
„mocks the idea of pacts at the round table for total or partial disarmament,
these pacts being used with the purpose of covering the race for the munitions’
improvement” 28. It was observed the story Pseudo tauro manie by Marin
Porumbescu29,, a burlesque fantasy, a parody of an imaginative performance of
bullfight offert by a foreign group on our national Circus’ arena. Presenting
the main heroes of this bullfight, the author, among other details, shows that
the bull Spuryus, coming across the borders and passing through Moldavia, on
all his itinerary made in our country he left deep marks. „With his nose
forever red, has stable, bloodshot eyes..., heavy hooves with surrealistic
stamps and some horns that terrify, imposing respect and fear”. Surprisingly,
the bull Spuryus reacts only to yellow. The matador, named Escondido Sacha
Sehohr Ubu, surnamed Ledykiler, coming from somewhere far away, from the east,
is tall, thin, agile and with the walk of a cat, wears a yellow jacket, uses a
yellow roulette, is saluted with yellow handkerchieves.
There is also a smaller torero, with a
more humble role in the fight, who also wears „a dirty yellow” roulette, and in
the battle with the bull he only tries to angry it, to get it tired. The author
shows in many details the fierce fight between the bull and the matador. At a
certain moment, the small matador introduces a crosstree in its nose, and from
Spuryus nose begins to flow wheat „as in Constanta’s silo”. At the end, looking
inside the dock of the woundeds, the author ascertain that the bull and the
matador are some madeup, disguised impostors, that the whole show (fight) was a
trick. A part of the fault for the existence of many problematic materials from
thi category
was considered to be because of the magazines’ editorial offices from
the countryside, who introduced in their pages materials whose publishing
wasn’t advisable in the given
conjunction. As examples, were given more materials, Reflexes by
Augustin Buzura30, who made some considerations upon the satire of A. Avercenko,
whose short stories were populated with „idiots of all kinds”, emphasizing the
special value of the social short stories, showing that „in a period as that in
which lived the author, when the authorities tries heavily to restrict, to
impose their way of thinking, the satirical literature was the only one who
could reflect properly the period, and who, as a paradox, got the right to
appear exactly from those described, because foolishness fits pride in ample,
declared gestures... Cehov, as Avercenko escaped all possible censorships
because they knew how to gain over these real characteristics of the idiots”
31. There were considered unfit other materials, such as the notes of V.
Rebreanu, At S. Esenin’s tumb, where were blamed indirectly the sovietc
authorities; in the same manner, the article Marasti, Oituz, Marasesti, by C.
Stefanache32, who contained harsh expressions against the German army, even
during the visit of Willy Brandt in our country, or in the story The Refuge by
Leonida Neamtu33, where are described in detail the terror and the panic that
layed over the Romanian population when the soviet troops entered the country,
in the year 1944, even in the moment of the aniversarry of the „liberation of
the country”. A special chapter in our paper is represented by the materials
(articles and studies) referring to the moments of our history and of the
communist and proletarian movement, treated „one-sided, ill-suited or unreal”.
It was nominated the study The Romanian Historiography about Romania’s
participation at The First World War, by C. C. Giurescu34, connected to this it
was mentioned that trying to clarify the character of Romania’s participation
to this conflict and presenting works on this theme, appeared before and after
August 23 1944, the author gives appreciations that signalized that from our
country’s point of view this was a just, legitimate war, determined by the
creation of a „rounded Romania”; he insisted on the king’s and of the prime
minister’s, I. C. Brătianu, positive role, on the support promised by Russia
for retaking Transilvania and on the desire to decide over Bucovina, following
the nationalities’ criterion.
Regarding the historiography after the
Second World War till the end of the year 1963, Giurescu shows that appears a
special aspect – sustained by V. Liveanu, G. Tudoran and others – according to
it, Romania’ participation to the war had an imperialist character, fact
confuted strongly by the author, showing the just appreciation of the First
World War’s character, started to be made in our historiography only in „the
last years” and especially after The Central Committee’s Declaration from the
Romanian Communist Party from April 1964, quoting for this his articles and one
of the academician C. Daicoviciu35.
Furthermore, it was mentioned the article
Beautiful death of Balogh Edgar36, who evoked the event happened at Cluj,
during the fall of the year 1944. A great part of the work, re-edifies aspects
of the antifascist resistance monument from Cluj led by „a group
of Hungarian, Romanian (in small number) and Jews communists soon
liberated from jail”. It was also written about the departure of a peace
delegacy to Moscow, made out of communists, with the purpose to obtain the unite
of Transilvania to Hungary. It was spoken about a certain Hegedus, arrived to
Cluj from Budapest, to represent The Hungarian Revolutionary Communist Party,
to handle the problem of the proclamation of the „Socialist Republic from
Tisza”, idea that had as a goal the proclamation of a „soviet republic” even
before the arrival of the Romanian troops in the region of Ardeal. This could
not be edited Similar aspects regarding
the censorship’s way to act upon the literary prints in the newspapers of that
period are seen in The Central Press Printing Directorship’s notes37.
We’ll show just a few aspects. The poem
Requiem by its author Ana Blandiana, sent into print to the newspaper “The
Contemporary”, is suspended. The Directorship states, without to many explinations,
that in November 23 1966, “at our exigency, it was indicated to be suspended
the poetry Requiem from a group of poems signed by Ana Blandiana, that was
supposed to appear”. The poetry used many allegories and made references to
departure, to death, but also to liberty, naively, abandonment. The poetry
Our
star from the newspaper „The sanitary laborer”, is modified, because „the
author (unspecified) declares in images the symbols of the blazon: the sun, the
abies’ forests, the bores, the sheaves, the star. Nothing was said about the
tricolor”. Thereby, at the censors’ demand the poetry „was modified”. At the
end of 1966, in “Students’ Life” was supposed to appear the chronicle 30
Dicember ’47 – the end of the year and the beginning of the century. The
censor’s attention is directed upon two aspects rendered below38, that he
doesn’t agree and that he pointed out to be easier for the editorial office to
modify them: “the editorial office was adverted upon the following historical
and political errors: a) that it isn’t almost a quarter century, but in fact
it’s really a quarter century since the first event mentioned; b) that the
insurgence isn’t, as said in the citation, the effect of the two previous
events, but their cause, so it must be post before those two”. Once the
mistakes solved, the author of the text accepted the corrections and „the
editorial board modified it”.
Conclusions: We detect, according to these, that it was written and a lot, said the
censors, in a different way than the
indications, directions, official line asked; that the writers, the artists,
especially those educated in the
period betweens wars, proved to be adaptable to the new cultural politics, they being the censorship’s
clients; that the writings called „problematic” by the censorship, kept in a form or another, so that we can recover them
nowadays; that these don’t discuss
upon the communist regime in general, but its elements, its aspects, such as
the limited freedom, the system of
values, aspects of the social life, types and characters, periods such as the dogmatism, the soviet
model introduced in Romania, are harshly criticized, denigrated. More over, the censorship says, the critique was
extended from the particular to the
general, so, to the system, to the social relations that generate it; strong
efforts were made for the recovery
of the Romanian historical truth, older or more recent, of the place and role of the communist movement. It’s,
without a doubt, this segment of the literary creation, a form of resistance, by the help of writing, during possible forms
and limits. The regime controlled,
supervised and punished writings through censorship, one of the communist politico-ideological instruments of
the power.
