New Cultural and Political Perspectives on Serbian-Romanian Relations (South-East European History) [1 ed.] 1636670342, 9781636670348

Citation preview

New Cultural and Political Perspectives on SerbianRomanian Relations Edited by Aleksandra Djuric´ Milovanovic´, Jovana Kolundžija, Mircea Ma˘ran, Otilia Hedes,an and Christene D’Anca

Initiated by the Balkan History Association, this unique interdisciplinary volume explores the complex history of cultural, diplomatic and religious relations between Serbia and Romania during the late nineteenth and twentieth century. The authors, scholars with a wide range of academic backgrounds, address these themes in the context of Austro-Hungarian imperialism, the interwar period and the Communist era. The essays in Part I examine diplomatic, political and military relations, while those in Part II explore intellectual and artistic links between the two countries, including religion, literature and the visual arts. This is a landmark publication, the first of its kind in English, and will leave readers with a more comprehensive understanding of cultural and political relations in Southeastern Europe. Aleksandra Djurić Milovanović is an anthropologist and senior research fellow at the Institute for Balkan Studies, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (Belgrade, Serbia). She received her PhD from the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade in 2012. Her research interests cover Serbian-Romanian relations, religious minorities, national minorities, cultural transfers and Balkan studies. Representative publications include: Double Minorities in Serbia. Distinctive Aspects of Religion and Ethnicity of Romanians in Vojvodina (2015) and Orthodox Christian Renewal Movements in Eastern Europe, co-edited with Radmila Radić (2017). She is a member of the Balkan History Association. Jovana Kolundžija is art historian and PhD candidate at the University of Belgrade, She has been a research fellow at the Institute for Balkan Studies SASA and is currently affiliated with the Center for Banat Studies as project coordinator. Her research includes eighteenth-century Serbian art, religious painting, Serbian baroque, visual culture and Habsburg heritage in Serbia. She is a member of the Balkan History Association. Mircea Măran is a full professor of history at the Preschool Teacher training college “Mihailo Palov” in Vršac, Serbia. Măran’s main area of interest are the history of Banat, the Romanian minority in Serbia and cultural history between the two world wars. He is the author of 12 books, Representative titles include: Romanii din Banatul sârbesc în anii interbelici (1918–1941) pagini de istorie culturală (2012), Biserica Ortodoxă română din Banatul Iugoslav (1918–1941) with A. Djurić Milovanović (2019) and Românii din Voivodina – istorie, demografie, identitate românească în localitățile Voivodinei (2009). He is a member of the Balkan History Association. Otilia Hedeșan is an anthropologist and professor of Romanian civilization and culture at the West University of Timișoara. She is the coordinator of the Research Centre for Heritage and Anthropology. Her main areas of research are storytelling, Romanian mythology in its contemporary aspects, the history of Romanian ethnology in the communist and post-communist period, and food as cultural heritage. She has undertaken field research in Romania, Serbia, Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria, Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova. She has written and edited many books and articles. Christene D’Anca is a lecturer at California Lutheran University, as well as at her alma mater, the University of California, Santa Barbara, where she received her PhD in comparative literature, with an emphasis in medieval studies. She specializes in twelfth- to fourteenth-century funerary arts, female patronage and socio-cultural studies. Her recent publications include essays in Early Middle English and the Journal of Animal Ethics.

South-East European History www.peterlang.com

Cover image: “The Royal Wedding of HM King Aleksandar Karadjordjevic and M Queen Marija,” The Royal Palace Fund 1922.

advance praise for

New Cultural and Political Perspectives on Serbian-Romanian Relations “This volume, the first of its kind, covers political diplomatic, cultural and religious relations between the Romania and Serbia, seen through the processes that shaped the two nations over the past two centuries, but also through case studies of prominent diplomats, educators, artists, rulers and statesmen. The result is a comprehensive survey of Romanian-Serbian relations based on serious archival research, leading to new and more inclusive perspectives. I am quite convinced that the collection will become a standard guide for all those interested in the relations between Serbs and Romanians.” —Prof. Slobodan G. Markovich, University of Belgrade “Historically, relations between neighboring nations and the people who populated them, have at various points been plagued by conflict. Yet it is difficult to cast complete blame on either side as it can be surmised that the actions taken were a result of people subject to their times. However, aside from confrontations, neighboring states also cooperated, fought together in the interest of common values, against invaders, while they also intermarried, thus enhancing both cultures. The present volume is a successful attempt by Romanian and Serbian specialists to find the political-diplomatic, cultural, and artistic interferences, that amounted to the elements of cooperation between Romanians and Serbs in the last centuries. Such instances of alliance, far from few in number, certainly prevailed in the history of the two nations, and they shaped the destiny of Romania and Serbia into the modern and contemporary eras.” —Prof. dr Ioan Bolovan, Institutul de Istorie “George Bariţ” Cluj-Napoca and University Babeș-Bolyai Cluj-Napoca

New Cultural and Political Perspectives on Serbian-Romanian Relations

South-East European History Mihai Dragnea Series Editor Vol. 5

New Cultural and Political Perspectives on SerbianRomanian Relations Edited by Aleksandra Djurić Milovanović, Jovana Kolundžija, Mircea Măran, Otilia Hedeșan, and Christene D’ Anca

PETER LANG New York - Berlin - Bruxelles - Chennai - Lausanne - Oxford

newgenprepdf

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Control Number: 2023027052

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. The German National Library lists this publication in the German National Bibliography; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

Cover design by Peter Lang Group AG ISSN 2768-7554 (print) ISSN 2768-7562 (online) ISBN 9781636670348 (hardback) ISBN 9781636670355 (ebook) ISBN 9781636670362 (epub) DOI 10.3726/b20440

© 2024 Peter Lang Group AG, Lausanne Published by Peter Lang Publishing Inc., New York, USA [email protected] - www.peterl​a ng.com All rights reserved. All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilization outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. This publication has been peer reviewed.

Table of Contents

Introduction: New Cultural and Political Perspectives on Serbian-Romanian Relations  1 A leksandr a Djurić M ilovanović, M ircea M ăr an, Christene D’A nca Part I Serbian-Romanian Relations—Historical and Diplomatic Contexts The Idea of Nationality among Romanians in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy: The Political Involvement of Vincențiu Babeș, Andrei, and Alexandru Mocsonyi as Representatives of the Banat Region  19 M iodr ag M ilin, Victor Neumann Romanians and Serbs in the Banat Military Border  43 Ivana Spasović Romanian-Serbian Relations Reflected in Vasile Popeangă’s Works. Historiographical Insight  65 Felicia A neta Oarcea Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations  81 Sr đan M ićić Maria of Yugoslavia: Romanian Princess, Yugoslav Queen  125 A nđelija M iladinović The First Yugoslav Ambassador: Jovan Dučić in Romania, 1937–1940  147 Dr agan Bakić Josip Broz Tito, Petru Groza and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations 1945–1947  173 Vladimir Lj. C vetković

newgenprepdf

vi

Table

of

C ontents

Tito’s and Ceauşescu’s Personal Contribution to the Development of Yugoslav-Romanian Cooperation in the Late 1960s and Early 1970s  199 Nemanja M itrović Part II Serbian-Romanian Relations—Cultural, Artistic and Religious Studies Perspective The Circulation of Icon Painters between Banat and Transylvania during the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries  227 R aluca P relipceanu Stefan Tenecki: The Baroque Painter of Serbs and Romanians  257 Jovana Kolundžija Serbian Intellectuals from Arad, Personalities of Central Europe  275 M aria A lexandr a Pantea , Virginia Popović Vladimir Dimitrijević and Serbian-Romanian Church Relations in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries  293 M ircea M ăr an, A leksandr a Djurić M ilovanović Romanian-Serbian Literary Relations at the Beginning of the Millennium  305 Octavia Nedelcu, G ordana-Nicoleta P eici In-between Local Identity and National Artistic Heritage. A Case Study: Naive Painting from Uzdin  335 Diana M ihuț Acknowledgments  359 Notes on Editors and Contributors  361 Index  367

Introduction: New Cultural and Political Perspectives on SerbianRomanian Relations A leksandr a Djur ić M ilovanović, M ircea M ăr an, C hr istene D’A nca

Serbs and Romanians have been cohabitating in ​Southeastern Europe for centuries, and as they share the historical circumstances of this particular area, in a wider international European context they also occupy a similar position in regard to economic, political, cultural, and religious characteristics, which throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries marked the era of the formation of European nations and national states. SerbianRomanian relations have been the subject of numerous monographs and academic studies and have been expounded on by established researchers from Serbia and Romania. Serbian-Romanian historical and cultural ties constitute an important topic for research of dynamic and comparative processes of Southeast European past. When it comes to cultural, religious, and scholarly relations between Romanians and Serbs at the end of the eighteenth century and into the first half of the nineteenth, the most prolific author is the historian Nikola Gavrilović, with several monographs and studies concerning the subject.1 The renowned Romanian historian Nicolae Iorga also presented,

Nikola Gavrilović, Rumunski hroničar o banatskim Srbima u austro-turskom ratu 1788–1790 [Romanian chronicler on Serbs from Banat in Austria-Turkish war 1788– 1790] (Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1972); Kako je doneta uredba za srpske i rumunske osnovne škole u Banatu iz 1774. godine [How decree on the Serbian and Romanian elementary schools was passed in 1774] (Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1975); Plan Uroša Nestorovića o organizaciji srpskih i rumunskih pravoslavnih škola u austrijskim naslednim zemljama (23. maj 1811) [The plan of Uroš Nestorović on the organization of Serbian and Romanian orthodox schools in Austrian lands, 23 of May 1811] (Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1978); O rumunskom prevodu Rajićevog Malog Katihizisa [On Romanian translation of Small Catechesis of Rajić] (Novi Sad: Matica srpska,

1

2

I ntroduction: Ser bian-R omanian R elations

in his numerous works, different aspects of the relations between these two nations. For example, the brochure published at the “Neamul Românesc” printing house in Vălenii de Munte in 1915 was in fact the proceedings from the conference held by Iorga in Craiova on November 22, 1915, in favor of the Serbian refugees who crossed into Romania as a result of the attack on the state by the Central Powers. Iorga’s numerous and extensive travel notes, along with those from other Romanian authors who traveled through Serbian counties, were presented in a volume of Rumunski putnici u Srbiji [Romanian travelers through Serbia], recently published in Serbian.2 Historian Miodrag Ciurușchin wrote about the relations between the two states in regard to the first military conflagration.3 Radu Flora, in addition to other contributions in the fields of linguistics, history, and cultural history, among others, also signed two general reference works on this topic,4 as well as produced several titles in which examples of the collaboration of certain personalities from the neighboring nations are discussed.5 The bor­ der issues in Banat after the end of the Great War were presented in Andrej Mitrović’s monograph, Demarcation of Yugoslavia with Romania and Hungary 1919–1920.6 The historian Gligor Popi, author of the monograph Jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi 1918–1941, which was also his doctoral thesis that he defended at the University of Zagreb, dealt with Yugoslav-Romanian



1978); Srpsko-rumunska pravoslavna seminarija u Temišvaru u XVIII veku (b.m. b.i.) [Serbian-Romanian theological seminary in Timisoara in 18th century], 1982; Srpsko-rumunsko klirikalno učilište u Vršcu 1822–1867 [Serbian-Romanian Clerical Seminary 1822–1867] (Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet u Novom Sadu, Institut za istoriju, 1983); Rad temišvarskog vladike Vićentija Jovanovića Vidaka na osnivanju srpskih i rumunskih škola u Banatu [The work of Timisoara Bishop Vicentije Jovanovic Vidak on the establishment of Serbian and Romanian schools in Banat] (Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1986); Srbi i Rumuni [Serbs and Romanians] (Novi Sad: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva-Prometej, 1997). 2 Mirča Maran, Rumunski putnici u Srbiji [Romanian travelers in Serbia] (Vršac: Centar za banatske studije, 2017). 3 Miodrag Ciurușchin, Relații politico-diplomatice ale României cu Serbia în perioada 1903–1914 [Political-diplomatic relations between Serbia and Romania from 1903 until 1914] (Timișoara: Mitron, 2010). 4 Radu Flora, Din relațiile sîrbo-romîne (privire în ansamblu) [From Serbian-Romanian relations] (Panciova: Libertatea, 1964); Relațiile sîrbo-române. Noi contribuții [Serbian-Romanian relations. New contributions] (Panciova: Libertatea, 1968). 5 Radu Flora, Vuk și românii [Vuk and Romanians] (Panciova: Libertatea, 1988). 6 Andrej Mitrović, Razgraničenje Jugoslavije sa Rumunijom i Mađarskom 1919– 1920 [Demarcation of Yugoslavia with Romania and Hungary 1919–1920] (Novi Sad: Institut za izučavanje istorije Vojvodine, 1975).

Introduction: Serbian-Romanian Relations

3

relations in the interwar period.7 Another historian, Milan Vanku, similarly covered the same period, but instead focused on the history of diplomacy in his monographs,8 which was the topic broached by the historian Vasile Rămneanțu as well.9 A contribution on the topic of Romanian-Serbian relations was also provided by the historian Ion Dejan, in his monograph, Cercetarea continu,10 and then by Miodrag Milin in a series of monographs on the topic of Serbian (Yugoslav)-Romanian relations in the modern and contemporary era, some of which he signed as the sole author, while others were composed together with Andrei Milin.11 Lastly, a notable addition from the field of ethnomusicology is Niță Frațilă’s monograph Vokalni muzički folklor Srba i Rumuna u Vojvodini.12 From ethnologic perspective stud­ ies of Mirjana Maluckov on Romanians in Vojvodina, represent one of the first ethnographic monographs on Romanian community.13 A significant





Gligor Popi, Jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi 1918–1941 [Yugoslav-Romanian relations 1918–1941] (Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet u Novom Sadu, Institut za istoriju, 1984). 8 Milan Vanku, Mica înțelegere și politica externă a Iugoslaviei 1920–1938: momente și semnificații, [Understanding of external politics of Yugoslavia 1920–1938] (București: Editura Politică, 1979); Jugoslovensko-rumunska diplomatija uoči Minhenskog sporazuma [Yugoslav-Romanian diplomacy ahead of the Munich Agreement] (Beograd, 1984); Srpsko-rumunski odnosi u novijoj istoriji [SerbianRomanian relations in the new history] (Beograd: Metafizika, 2015); Srpskojugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi kroz vekove [Serbian-Yugoslav-Romanian relations through centuries] (Beograd, 2005). 9 Vasile Rămneanțu, Istoricul relațiilor româno-iugoslave în perioada interbelică [History of Romanian-Yugoslav relations in the interwar period] (Timișoara: Mitron, 2007). 10 Ion Dejan, Cercetarea continuă: relații istorice sârbo-române în epoca modernă 1859– 1878 [Continued research: Serbian-Romanian historical relations in modern times 1859–1878] (Panciova: Libertatea, 1989). 11 Miodrag Milin, Relațiile politice româno-sârbe în epoca modernă [Romanian-Serbian relations in modern era] (București: Editura Academiei Române, 1992); Vekovima zajedno. Iz istorije srpsko-rumunskih odnosa [Centuries together. From the history of Serbian-Romanian Relations] (Temišvar: Demokratski savez Srba i Karaševaka u Rumuniji, 1995); Srbi iz Rumunije i jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi [Serbs from Romania and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations] (Temišvar: Savez Srba iz Rumunije, 2004); Miodrag Milin, Andrej Milin, Srbi iz Rumunije i jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi: prilog i gradja (1944–1949). Sârbii din România și relațiile românoiugoslave: studiu și documente (1944–1949) [Serbs from Romania and RomanianSerbian Relations: studies and documents 1944–1949] (Vršac: Visoka škola za obrazovanje vaspitača, 2004). 12 Nice Fracile, Vokalni muzički folklor Srba i Rumuna u Vojvodini. Komparativna proučavanja [Vocal musical folklore of Serbs and Romanians in Vojvodina] (Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1987). 13 Mirjana Maluckov, Rumuni u Banatu [Romanians in Banat] (Novi Sad: Vojvođanski muzej, 1985). 7

4

I ntroduction: Ser bian-R omanian R elations

contribution in the field of ethnology and especially ethnolinguistics have studies of Biljana Sikimić who focuses on Serbian minority in Romania and Romanian minority in Serbia from perspective of language and traditional culture.14 This list is by no means exhaustive, and numerous other authors have also published a series of articles and studies in which different aspects of Romanian-Serbian relations are presented, but we will limit the overview of previously published research as in many of the following chapters more detailed and comprehensive overviews can be found. Found at the border of interference from the spheres of influence of two great empires—the Habsburg Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire— during a period of the awakening of national sentiments and the formation of nations, both Serbs and Romanians, not unlike the other peoples of the European Southeast, had a primary goal: survival, as well as the beginning of the struggle for national emancipation and, in time, for liberation from the foreign yoke. The era of great revolutions that engulfed the Euro-Atlantic area in the last decades of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth that were radiating the influence of Western European rationalism and enlightenment, especially the ideologies of the great French revolution, had an impact on the awakening of national sentiment among both Serbs and Romanians, ever-increasing their desire to free themselves from foreign rule and to form their own national states. An imported part of the Romanian people lived in the so-called Danubian principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, found since the first decades of the eighteenth century in an unfavorable position as a result of the coming to power of the Phanariot regime, established by the Ottoman Porte. Even though they officially had statehood, this was noticeably minimized by the Phanariots who were completely submissive and faithful to the Ottoman sultan, so that the era of Phanariot rule (1714–1821) represents one of the most difficult periods in the history of the Romanian people. The Serbs, for their part, found themselves in an even more unfavorable position, directly subject to Ottoman rule, and in addition, at the beginning of the nineteenth century to the dahis who rebelled against the Sultan, who in turn introduced a reign of terror in the Belgrade Pashaluk as never before seen. The Serbs’ reaction was decided: in 1804 the First Serbian Uprising broke out as the first phase of the so-called Serbian Revolution, during which the Serbian people sought to free themselves from Ottoman

Biljana Sikimić. “Romanians in Serbian Banat: Dynamic Epistemology, The Multilingual Society Vojvodina,” in Intersecting Borders, Cultures and Identities, eds T. Kamusella, M. Nomachi (Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University 2014), 51–73.

14

Introduction: Serbian-Romanian Relations

5

rule and form their national state. The consequence of the First Uprising was the temporary creation of a national state and, later, after the Second Serbian Uprising, within a few decades, the formation in 1830 of the Principality of Serbia, autonomous and vassal to the Ottoman Empire, headed by Prince Miloš Obrenović, who had unlimited and hereditary power. Miloš profited from his position in Serbia and in a relatively short time became one of the richest Christians in the Balkan Peninsula, and despite the fact that in Miloš’s Serbia feudal relations were abolished, Serbia being the land of small freeholders, the prince himself had large tracts of land in Wallachia, retiring to his estates after leaving the Serbian throne in 1839. He remained there until his return to Serbia in 1858, following the Assembly of Saint Andrew. Other Serbian leaders and chieftains also found refuge in the Romanian principalities during the turbulent years of the first decades of the nineteenth century. Karađorđe’s opponents during the First Uprising, voivodes Milenko Stojković and Petar Dobrnjac, after the decision of the People’s Assembly in which the Serbian leader’s adherents had the majority, left Serbia in favor of residing in the Romanian principalities the rest of their lives. Karađorđe himself, after the collapse of the First Serbian Uprising (1813), was exiled to Bessarabia, the southern territory of the principality of Moldavia that had been seized by Russia through the decisions of the Peace of Bucharest in 1812. Hadži Prodan Gligorijević, the leader of the anti-Ottoman revolt of 1814, after its failure also took refuge in Wallachia. During this century, numerous Serbian merchants settled in the cities of Wallachia and Moldavia where they opened their businesses, thus playing a dynamic role in the economic history of the Danube principalities. Romanian-Serbian collaboration gained momentum during the reigns of Prince Mihajlo Obrenović in Serbia, and Alexandru Ioan Cuza in Romania, who, in 1859 became the first ruler of the unitary state. The relationship intensified during the reign of the last Obrenović, especially with the marriage of Prince Milan to the great granddaughter of the Moldavian prince Ioan Sturdza (1822–1828), Natalia Keschko (Cheșcu), who became the queen of Serbia. During the Great Eastern Crisis (1875–1878), both Romania and Serbia participated in the war against the Ottoman Empire, on the side of Russia, which following the victory resulted in the recognition of independence and the territorial expansion of both states, as brought about by the decisions of the Berlin Congress of 1878. Shortly after gaining full independence, both states were elevated to kingdom status, Romania in 1881 and Serbia in 1882. During this period, both states pursued a policy of supporting AustriaHungary. However, Serbia abandoned this policy following the May Uprising

6

I ntroduction: Ser bian-R omanian R elations

of 1903, when the ruling couple of Serbia, King Aleksandar Obrenović and Queen Draga Mašin, were killed. With King Peter I Karađorđević’s rise to power, there was a turning point in Serbia’s foreign policy, abandoning the Austrophile policy of the last Obrenović rulers and approaching Russia and France. The same approach was taken by Romania in 1916, during World War I, as the state sided with the Entente powers while declaring war on Austria-Hungary. A distinct form of Serbian-Romanian cooperation was present in the areas under Habsburg rule in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, until the breakup of Austria-Hungary in 1918. For example, the Romanian Orthodox population of Transylvania and Banat was from an ecclesiastical point of view under the jurisdiction of the Serbian Orthodox Metropolitanate of Sremski Karlovci. This was primarily a result of the abolition of the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Transylvania and the transfer of a large number of Romanian parishioners from Transylvania to the united church. However, by granting privileges to the Serbian population settled in Southern Hungary during the Great Migration of the Serbs in 1690 under the leadership of Patriarch Arsenie III Čarnojević, privileges through which  the Serbian Orthodox Church received the right to autonomy, it also implied the inclusion of the Romanian Orthodox population (those who did not join the Catholic Church) within the Serbian Metropolitanate which since 1713 had its headquarters in Sremski Karlovci. Romanian parishioners from the Habsburg Monarchy remained within the Metropolitanate of Sremski Karlovci until the end of 1864, when the Orthodox Metropolitanate for Romanians from Transylvania and Banat was established in the Habsburg Monarchy, headed by Metropolitan Andrei Șaguna. Serbian-Romanian political cooperation throughout the territory of the Monarchy came to the fore after the signing of the Austro-Hungarian Agreement (1867), as both peoples, as well as others from the Hungarian part of the dualist monarchy, tried to fight together against the policy of Hungarianization carried out by the regime. In this struggle, the leading Serbian politicians, Svetozar Miletić and Mihailo Polit Desančić, paid special attention to cooperation with Romanians, and among the Romanian leaders, a similar policy was pursued by Vincentiu Babeș. They garnered success during the elections of the 1870s and ‘80s due to their joint efforts and votes obtained by a candidate from both sides. Additionally, in 1895, the Congress of Nationalities took place in Budapest, at which the political representatives of three peoples from the territory of the Hungarian part of the dualist monarchy participated: Romanians, Serbs and Slovaks. Moreover, they decided that in the future they would participate together in parliamentary elections,

Introduction: Serbian-Romanian Relations

7

with the aim of obtaining as many mandates as possible in the Hungarian parliament. However, tensions in Serbian-Romanian relations were present, especially as a result of the hierarchical split, and due to the division of church assets in the mixed Serbian-Romanian localities of Banat, as well as the division of monasteries. Yet, despite the problems that arose, these tensions were overcome because both the Romanians and Serbs realized that only through joint forces could they oppose the regime in Budapest in their struggle for the realization of full national rights. An example of good Serbian-Romanian relations in the field of education was represented by the Serbian-Romanian Clerical Institute in “Vršac”, which operated in the period 1822–1867 and trained hundreds of young people, Serbian and Romanian, providing priests for Serbian and Romanian parishes from all over the Banat region. However, as a result of the breakup of Austria-Hungary, SerbianRomanian relations once again became tense for several years due to the division of Banat, as both states, Romania and the newly forged Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, claimed rights to the entirety of the territory. Nevertheless, the long-lived friendship and common interest of the two nations once again helped in overcoming the tension between them, and the Banat region was divided between the states (with a small part also given to Hungry). Further, the dynastic families from both countries became related through the marriage of King Alexander I Karađorđević with Princess Maria Mařioara of Hohenzollern, who became Queen of Yugoslavia. In the meantime, the two states, together with Czechoslovakia, signed an alliance treaty in 1920–21, known as the Little Entente. The purpose of the treaty was to secure against any revisionist actions from Austria and Hungary, since the nations had been dissatisfied by the outcome of the peace conferences that had initially followed World War I. Additionally, the two states also signed numerous other agreements during the interwar period, including one in 1933 that regulated the education of Romanian students from the Serbian Banat and Serbian students from the Romanian Banat in their respective mother tongues. By facilitating the education of students in their respective native language, conditions were created for the formation of a new intellectual elite among the two minorities (Serbians in Romania and Romanians in Yugoslavia), which in the following period would become the harbinger of all cultural and educational activities tied to national identity. Even after World War II, the communist regimes in both countries, with the exception of the period of conflict between Yugoslavia and the Information Bureau countries (1948–1955), continued the traditional policy

8

I ntroduction: Ser bian-R omanian R elations

of good neighborly relations and cooperation in all fields. In the first postwar years the two countries solidified their relationship that had originally been founded under strong influence from the Soviet Union, by signing several treaties, including the Treaty of Friendship, Collaboration and Mutual Aid, signed in 1947 by Josip Broz Tito and Petru Groza, then president of the Romanian government. However, shortly thereafter a worsening of relations and their outright interruption occurred as a result of the outbreak of the conflict between the regime of Josip Broz Tito and the states of the Information Bureau led by the Soviet Union, among which was Romania. The period from 1948–1955 was one in which relations were particularly strained, with tensions only beginning to become subdued with the death of Stalin in 1953 and the signing of the Belgrade and Moscow Declaration in 1955, which led to the normalization of relations between Yugoslavia and the socialist bloc. The ensuing Yugoslav-Romanian friendship over the following decades bore the fruit of construction, with projects such as the Iran Gates I and II hydroelectric plant, among others. Finally, when the citizens of Romania, at the end of 1989, decided to finally overthrow the communist regime of Nicolae Ceauşescu, the neighboring Serbian people were the first to come to their aid, representing one of the most recent examples of the bond of friendship between the two neighboring countries, which also brings us to the chronological end of our volume. The edited volume New Cultural and Political Perspectives on SerbianRomanian Relations provides basis for much-needed reflection and deeper understanding of Serbian-Romanian relations during nineteenth- and twentieth-century history. Contributions included in the volume are different case studies which provide contextualized understandings of relations between two neighboring countries, but mostly reflections regarding the circulation of ideas and perceptions within the wider South-East European cultural and political context. Indicating the most relevant historical accounts, which include some of the key personalities who contributed to strengthening relationships between Serbs and Romanians, the volume seeks to contribute to overall discussion on the theory of cultural transfer which was defined in the early 1980s by French Germanists Michel Espagne and Michael Werner.15 This approach according to Duthille “went beyond the simple concern with influences, and was concerned with tracing the cultural intermediaries and the institutional and social milieus effecting transfers (in a sociological perspective), but also (in a philological perspective) the genesis and development

Michel Espagne, Les transferts culturels franco-allemands Universutaires de France, 1999).

15

(Paris:

Presses

Introduction: Serbian-Romanian Relations

9

of references to German culture in French discourses.”16 The concept of influence is rejected because of its assumption of passivity on the part of the receptor culture, and because it presupposes that both cultures are given and static. The end product of a transfer is not simply an unchanged cultural item tacked into a receiving culture, but a hybrid product that serves an original purpose in that culture—unless the transfer was rejected, in which case the original product remains available for transfer.17 By focusing on various personalities which have contributed in different ways to developing relations between the two countries in different sociohistorical contexts, the volume brings new interdisciplinary perspectives and understandings of Serbian-Romanian relations in the English language. Very rich archival sources from Serbia and Romania, as well as periodicals are analyzed and presented in the 14 chapters of the volume which have been divided thematically into two sections. The first, covers historical and diplomatic relations from the nineteenth until the twentieth century with diverse chapters from Serbian and Romanian historians, while the second part of the volume is dedicated to influences and contacts in the sphere of art, culture, and religion. Overall, the volume aims to provide a better understanding of mutual influences, exchanges, and transfers of knowledge and ideas which had a larger impact on Serbian-Romanian political and cultural history in modern times. The volume opens with “The Idea of Nationality Among Romanians in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy: The Political Involvement of Vincențiu Babeș, Andrei, and Alexandru Mocsonyi as Representatives of the Banat Region,” a chapter translated from Romanian by Christene d’Anca from two Romanian historians, Miodrag Milin and Victor Neumann, who focus on the second half of the nineteenth century, when Romanians in Banat and Transylvania began to better organize themselves from a political and institutional standpoint, and forged connections with other ethnic groups. Their demands echoed not only those across the two regions, but throughout Central Europe. The chapter analyzes the problems facing the Romanian nationality in Banat and Transylvania, the organizations and leaders who played essential roles in formulating political demands, and lastly, those who

Rémy Duthille, “Cultural Transfer Theory and Exchanges between Britain and the Baltic in the Eighteenth Century,” in Medien der Aufklärung – Aufklärung der Medien. Die baltische Aufklärung im europäischen Kontext, eds. Liina Lukas, Silke Pasewalck, Vinzenz Hoppe, Kaspar Renner (Munich: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2021), 303–315. 17 On methodological challenges in the study of cultural transfer see more in: Slobodan G. Marković (ed.) Cultural Transfer Europe-Serbia: Methodological Issues and Challenges. (Belgrade: Faculty of Political Sciences, Dosije Studio, 2023). 16

10

I ntroduction: Ser bian-R omanian R elations

criticized the authoritarian policies of the state that was preserving feudal privileges which dissatisfied a large part of the citizens from the two regions. As a continuation on the region of Banat, the second chapter, “Romanians and Serbs in the Banat Military border,” written by Serbian historian Ivana Spasović, is dedicated to Serbian-Romanian relations in the Banat Border in 1872. The chapter provides in-depth analyses based on rich archival sources about the period at the end of the ‘60s and the beginning of the ‘70s of the nineteenth century, which brought the Banat Border guards a historical turning point that reflected on the lives of their families, but also the challenge of entering the parliamentary life of Hungary. The chapter includes some of the main challenges Serbs and Romanians faced living in the area of the Banat Border, that was preoccupied with military-administrative, socio-economic, national-political and cultural-educational problems, which were brought by the temptation of terminating the border administration. From the perspective of individuals who significantly contributed to Serbian-Romanian relations, in the chapter by Felicia Aneta Oarcea, we learn about the life and work of Vasile Popeangă (1920–2012) one of the distinguished personalities of the Romanian education system. The chapter highlights Popeangă’s role in establishing Romanian-Serbian bridges of research in the field of education history in the former Habsburg monarchy. In the fourth chapter, historian Srđan Mićić focuses on the life and work of Serbian diplomat Boško ČolakAntić and Yugoslav-Romanian relations. Boško Čolak-Antić was one of the three Yugoslav diplomats who had a privileged status in the diplomatic service based on close relations with the Karađorđević dynasty. For fifteen years, Čolak-Antić participated in the gradual forging of the friendly and allied Yugoslav-Romanian relations on a bilateral level and in the ranks of the Little Entente and the Balkan Entente. The chapter brings rich archival source materials and analyzes the role of Boško Čolak-Antić in Yugoslav-Romanian relations on bilateral and multilateral levels during the Interwar period. The chapter which chronologically follows, “Marie of Yugoslavia: Romanian princess, Serbian queen,” written by Anđelija Miladinović, is dedicated to Romanian-Yugoslav dynastic relations. Miladinović explores the arrival of Princess Marie of Romania into the role as a Yugoslav queen—an event that simultaneously created a much-needed alliance between the nations while also providing domestic stability after the end of World War I. The relations between the two countries were further strengthen through this marriage between King Alexander of Yugoslavia and Princess Marie of Romania in 1922. The interwar period was a very dynamic phase in Serbian (Yugoslav)Romanian relations, especially in the area of bilateral diplomatic relations. In the sixth chapter, written by Dragan Bakić, he provides interesting accounts

Introduction: Serbian-Romanian Relations

11

of the first Yugoslav ambassador of royal Yugoslavia to Romania, well known poet Jovan Dučić with a diplomatic career. The chapter examines Dučić’s reports from Bucharest and their impact on policy-making in Belgrade, but also his perspective on Romanian foreign policy. In the seventh chapter, which chronologically follows developments after World War II, historian Vladimir Lj. Cvetković contributes with “Josip Broz Tito, Petru Groza and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations 1945–1947.” The author stresses that Yugoslavia and Romania had no diplomatic relations during World War II, and due to Romanian recognition of the Independent State of Croatia in 1941, the first political representative of Yugoslavia was sent to Romania only in the beginning of October 1944. Therefore, Cvetković provides an analysis of Yugoslav-Romanian relations in the period between March 1945, when the Government of Petru Groza was established, and December 1947, when the monarchy was abolished in Romania. Personal relations between Josip Broz Tito and Groza played an important role, above all due to the importance of Groza for the Romanian Communist Party and the Soviet Union whose final aim was to turn Romania into a single party. The last chapter of the first thematic block on Serbian (Yugoslav) relations from the historiography perspective closes with the eighth chapter by Nemanja Mitrović, “Tito’s and Ceauşescu’s personal contribution to the development of Yugoslav-Romanian cooperation in the late 1960s and early 1970s.” The chapter addresses the personal contribution of Josip Broz Tito and Nicolae Ceauşescu to YugoslavRomanian relations in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This research focuses on their commitment to improving political, economic, and other forms of cooperation. Based on plentiful archival material and modern literature, it is possible to notice that the turbulent international circumstances in the second half of the 1960s significantly influenced their rapprochement. Mitrović brings an example of the construction of the Djerdap dam, as a symbol of Yugoslav-Romanian relations. The second part of the volume aims to contribute to better understandings of relations between Serbs and Romanians in the area of arts, literature, and religion. The section opens with a chapter by art historian Raluca Prelipceanu, “The Circulations of Icon Painters between Banat and Transylvania during the 18th and early 19th century.” The contribution explores the circulation of painters and models between Banat and Transylvania during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Prelipceanu provides detailed accounts of painters who brought to Banat the neo-Byzantine style of painting developed at the court of prince Constantin Brâncoveanu, the activity of the Transylvanian painters who worked in Banat during this period, and the influence of Serbian painters on Transylvanian art. In this,

12

I ntroduction: Ser bian-R omanian R elations

but also in the next chapter, special focus is given to the activity and work of Stefan Tenecki (Rom. Ștefan Tenețchi), Serbian icon painter of Aromanian origin. The following chapter, by Jovana Kolundžija, “Stefan Tenecki: the Baroque painter of Serbs and Romanians” provides a rich biography of the well-known painter whose eclectic painting demonstrates the multi-layered and complex ideological conflicts between the original painting of the medieval Balkans and modern European artistic achievements. Tenecki was significant for the development of art and culture of the Serbs inhabiting the territory of today’s Romania, but he was equally important for the Romanian art and culture in the area. Continuing with significant personalities who contributed to Serbian and Romanian culture, Maria Alexandra Pantea’s and Virginia Popovici’s chapter, “Serbian Intellectuals from Arad, Personalities of Central Europe,” examines the role of urban places, such as the city of Arad, and the intellectuals who significantly contributed to the rich and diverse cultural heritage. Serbian priests and writers living in Arad and their collaboration with Romanians is the main thematic focus of this chapter, with special emphasis on the role of Sava Tekelija, philanthropist, Doctor of Law and noble who was born in Arad. In this insightful chapter, Pantea and Popovici reveal significant historical accounts on Serbs living in Arad and their contribution to the cultural life. Another noteworthy figure for both Serbs and Romanians is theologian Vladimir Dimitrijević, as discussed in the chapter by Mircea Măran and Aleksandra Đurić Milovanović, “Vladimir Dimitrijević and Serbian-Romanian Orthodox Church Relations at the Beginning of 20th Century” which introduces church relations and the religious landscape of Banat in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The life and work of Vladimir Dimitrijević contributed to relationships between two Orthodox churches, and his role was particularly relevant in combating newly emerged neo-Protestant communities. Numerous publications by Dimitrijević, both in Serbian and Romanian, are an important ethnographic account on many of the neo-Protestant communities, especially Nazarenes. The last two chapters are dedicated to literary relations and local artistic expression. In the chapter by Octavia Nedelcu and Gordana NicoletaPeici, “Romanian-Serbian Literary Relations at the Beginning of the New Millennium,” we learn about the reception of Serbian literature in Romania, since the literary relationship between two cultures over time, were and continue to be, a clear indicator of interculturality, and of the transcendental dialogue between two neighboring peoples. The authors focus on translations and literary connections, including an extensive list of translated books and authors. The last chapter of the edited volume, written by Diana Mihuț, “In-between local identity and national artistic heritage. A case study: naive

Introduction: Serbian-Romanian Relations

13

painting from Uzdin,” delves into the art of naive painting from Uzdin and provides an example of artistic heritage built in a certain political context that has been systematically revivified by authorities, professionals and even by the local community. At a closer look, it must be integrated within a broader context, that of naive painting schools specific to the minorities of the former Yugoslavia in order to understand its larger significance within the artistic community. The edited volume New Cultural and Political Perspectives on SerbianRomanian Relations seek to understand and reflect on the continuing role of cultural and political ties of the two neighboring countries. The role of post-empire heritage as well as the establishment of new borders are the key element in understanding shared values, beliefs, and traditions that have had a significant impact in shaping both past and present realities. As cultures and nations are not built nor continue to exist in isolation, it is important to gain perspective on their multi-layered interactions with those around them past and present. The novelty of this edited volume and collected chapters lies in providing a cohesive reflection of political, economic, literary, artistic, and cultural relations between Serbia and Romania during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Further, by approaching these subjects from the viewpoint of disparate academic fields, interested readers can gain a more well-rounded understanding of the circumstances that produced these relations, and the influence they have held into the modern era. We hope that this volume will be of interest to the wider readership interested in SerbianRomanian relations and cultural transfers from interdisciplinary perspective and that will inspire new research projects on cultural and political relations in Southeastern Europe.

Bibliography Ciurușchin, Miodrag. Relații politico-diplomatice ale României cu Serbia în perioada 1903–1914 [Political-diplomatic relations between Romania and Serbia during the period 1903–1904]. Timișoara: Mitron, 2010. Dejan, Ion. Cercetarea continuă: relații istorice sârbo-române în epoca modernă 1859– 1878 [Continued research: historical Serbian-Romanian relationships in the modern era 1859–1878]. Panciova: Libertatea, 1989. Duthille, Rémy. “Cultural Transfer Theory and Exchanges between Britain and the Baltic in the Eighteenth Century”. In Medien der Aufklärung – Aufklärung der Medien. Die baltische Aufklärung im europäischen Kontext, edited by Liina Lukas, Silke Pasewalck, Vinzenz Hoppe, and Kaspar Renner, 303–315. Munich: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2021.

14

I ntroduction: Ser bian-R omanian R elations

Espagne, Michel. Les transferts culturels franco-allemands. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1999. Flora, Radu. Din relațiile sîrbo-romîne (privire în ansamblu) [From Serbian-Romanian relations]. Panciova: Libertatea, 1964. Flora, Radu. Relațiile sîrbo-române. Noi contribuții. [Serbian-Romanian relations. New contributions]. Panciova: Libertatea, 1968. Flora, Radu. Vuk și românii [Vuk and Romanians]. Panciova: Libertatea, 1988. Fracile, Nice. Vokalni muzički folklor Srba i Rumuna u Vojvodini. Komparativna proučavanja [Vocal musical folklore of Serbs and Romanians in Vojvodina]. Novi Sad: Matica Srpska, 1987. Gavrilović, Nikola. Kako je doneta uredba za srpske i rumunske osnovne škole u Banatu iz 1774. godine [How decree on the Serbian and Romanian elementary schools was passed in 1774]. Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1975. Gavrilović, Nikola. O rumunskom prevodu Rajićevog Malog Katihizisa [On Romanian translation of small Catechesis of Rajić]. Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1978. Gavrilović, Nikola. Plan Uroša Nestorovića o organizaciji srpskih i rumunskih pravoslavnih škola u austrijskim naslednim zemljama (23. maj 1811). [Strategy of Uroš Nestorović on the organisation of Serbian and Romanian Orthodox schools in Austrian lands 23rd of May 1811]. Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1978. Gavrilović, Nikola. Rumunski hroničar o banatskim Srbima u austro-turskom ratu 1788– 1790. [Romanian chronical on Serbs from Banat in Austrian-Turkish war 1788– 1790]. Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1972. Gavrilović, Nikola. Srpsko-rumunska pravoslavna seminarija u Temišvaru u XVIII veku [Serbian-Romanian Orthodox Seminaries in Timisoara in 18th century]. (b.m. b.i.), 1982. Gavrilović, Nikola. Srpsko-rumunsko kilirikalno učilište u Vršcu 1822–1867 [SerbianRomanian Clerical seminary in Vršac 1822–1867]. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet u Novom Sadu, Institut za istoriju, 1983. Maluckov, Mirjana. Rumuni u Banatu [Romanians in Banat]. Novi Sad: Vojvođanski muzej, 1985. Maran, Mirča. Rumunski putnici u Srbiji. [Romanian travelers in Serbia]. Vršac: Centar za banatske studije, 2017. Marković, Slobodan G. (ed.) Cultural Transfer Europe-Serbia: Methodological Issues and Challenges. Belgrade: Faculty of Political Sciences, Dosije Studio, 2023. Milin, Miodrag. Relațiile politice româno-sârbe în epoca modernă [Political RomanianSerbian relations in modern times]. București: Editura Academiei Române, 1992. Milin, Miodrag. Vekovima zajedno. Iz istorije srpsko-rumunskih odnosa [Centuries together. From the history of Serbian-Romanian relations]. Temišvar: Demokratski savez Srba i Karasevaka u Rumuniji, 1995.

Introduction: Serbian-Romanian Relations

15

Milin, Miodrag., Milin, Andrej. Sârbii din România și relațiile româno-iugoslave: studiu și documente (1944–1949) [Serbs from Romania and Romanian-Yugoslav relations: study and documents 1944–1949]. Vršac: Visoka škola za obrazovanje vaspitača, 2004. Mitrović, Andrej. Razgraničenje Jugoslavije sa Rumunijom i Mađarskom 1919–1920 [Demarcation of Yugoslavia from Romania and Hungary 1919–1920]. Novi Sad: Institut za izučavanje istorije Vojvodine, 1975. Popi, Gligor. Jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi 1918–1941 [Yugoslav-Romanian relations 1918–1941]. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet u Novom Sadu, Institut za istoriju, 1984. Rămneanțu, Vasile. Istoricul relațiilor româno-iugoslave în perioada interbelică [History of Romanian-Yugoslav relations in the interwar period]. Timișoara: Mitron, 2007. Sikimić, Biljana. “Romanians in Serbian Banat: Dynamic Epistemology, The Multilingual Society Vojvodina”. In Intersecting Borders, Cultures and Identities, edited by T. Kamusella and M. Nomachi, 51–73. Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University, 2014. Vanku, Milan, Mica înțelegere și politica externă a Iugoslaviei 1920–1938: momente și semnificații [Small agreement and external politics of Yugoslavia 1920–1938]. București: Editura Politică, 1979. Vanku, Milan. Jugoslovensko-rumunska diplomatija uoči Minhenskog sporazuma [Yugoslav-Romanian diplomacy ahead of Munich agreement]. Beograd: 1984. Vanku, Milan. Srpsko-rumunski odnosi u novijoj istoriji [Serbian-Romanian relations in the new history]. Beograd: Metafizika, 2015.

Part I  Serbian-Romanian Relations—Historical and Diplomatic Contexts

The Idea of Nationality among Romanians in the AustroHungarian Monarchy: The Political Involvement of Vincențiu Babeș, Andrei, and Alexandru Mocsonyi as Representatives of the Banat Region M iodr ag M ilin, Victor Neumann

Background and Premises The bicentenary of the birth of the learned Banat scholar, Vincenţiu Babeş, is an opportune moment to underscore the importance of his role, along with those of his colleagues, Andrei and Alexandru Mocsonyi, in the sociopolitical life of nineteenth-century Banat, specifically in regard to the questions of political, cultural, and linguistic national equality for Romanians. Babeş was born in the Hodoni region,1 the space between Timişoara-Sânnicolaul Mare and Arad. According to Nicolae Bocşan, this northern area of Banat was strongly marked by early modernization from both the time of Josephineism, and from the beginning of liberalism.2 Arguably, the social atmosphere was adaptable to innovations, especially after the colonization of the Swabians, who founded strong village communities in Biled, Becicherec, Sânandrei and Variaş. At the same time, the Austrian administration tolerated Orthodoxy stemming from the regions of Karlowitz, Vârşeţ, Timişoara and Arad.3

George Cipăianu, Vincenţiu Babeş (1821–1907) (Timişoara, 1980), 11–19. Nicolae Bocşan, Contribuţii la istoria iluminismului românesc [Contribution to the history of the Romanian enlightenment] (Timişoara, 1986), 209–243. Specifically, the chapter on Enlightenment, Rationalism, and Secularism. 3 Victor Neumann, ed., unei Istoria Banatului. Studii privind particularităţile regiuni transfrontaliere, Second Edition, revised, Preface (Bucharest: Academy Răzvan Theodorescu, 2016), 123–146 (Victor Neumann, Iosefinism sau reformele 1 2

20

M. M ilin

and

V. Neumann

In was an environment conducive to the formation of Romanian personalities, such as Andrei Șaguna, the future Metropolitan bishop of the Romanian Orthodox Church in Transylvania.4 During this period, Vincențiu Babeș was demonstrating a remarkable inclination for learning, prompting the village priest to guide him towards contacting the Mocsonyi family,5 whose patronage was recognized through­ out Banat. Babeș, student at the Romanian Preparandia in Arad, educator of the Mocsonyi children, acting instructor at the Preparandia, and doctoral student in philosophy and law at Pesta and Vienna, was noted for his thorough knowledge of pedagogy, Orthodox theology, liberal philosophy, and the science of law. These were the disciplines that formed him as an intellectual, contributing to his elaboration on the countless and sophisticated disputes over the question of nationalities in Central and East-Central Europe.

Hesitations and Teachings on the Themes of Identity Vincenţiu Babeş graduated from the School of Law at Pesta, but hesitated to get immediately involved in the movements for the recognition of the Romanian language, or in those regarding the nation’s religious emancipation under the foreign hierarchy. He had worked as a civil servant, and during the revolution of 1848–49 he was the assistant to Sava Vucovici, the Banat commissioner of the Hungarian revolutionary government in Pest. Once Romanians understood that the Hungarian revolution had different objectives from their own aspirations, they advanced the idea of ​an autonomous Romanian captaincy under the leadership of Eftimie Murgu. Like the Mocsonyi family, Vincențiu Babeș had turned to imperial Vienna.6 For him, the defeat in the revolution marked the end of a chapter. However, in the following decade, he refined his ideas on the politics of identity as well as the modernizatoare); (Grozdanka Gojkov, Sistemul şcolar sub influenţa Vienei [The school system under the influence of Vienna] (333–352); I. D. Suciu, Monografia Mitropoliei Banatului [Monograph of the metropolitan church of Banat] (Foreword, ÎPS Nicolae Mitropolitul Banatului, Timişoara, 1977), 105–166. Specifally the chapters on organzing the Romanian Orthodox Church in Banat from the eighteenth century; trends of church emancipation, and a partial introduction to the local church hierarchy. 4 Keith Hitchins, The Identity of Romania, Second, Enlarged Edition, In Memory of Felicia and Pompiliu Teodor (Bucharest, 2009), 119–132. 5 Teodor Botiş, Monografia familiei Mocioni [Monography of Mocioni family], Third Edition (Bucharest, 2015), 480+LXVI. 6 I. D. Suciu, Revoluţia de la 1848–1849 în Banat [Revolution 1848–1849 in Banat] (Bucharest, 1968), 274.

Nationality of Romanians in Austro-Hungarian Monarchy

21

future trajectory of the Romanian community in Banat within the Austrian multilingual and multicultural empire.

Die Sprach- und Nationalitaetenfrage … [The Cause of Languages and Nationalities]7 As early as the eighteenth century, the Austrian empire encouraged a certain level of liberty, albeit not on par with the West. It was from within such initiatives introduced by Joseph II, which have continued into modern Josephineism, that the Romanian religious and secular elites were formed. Further, the intellectuals of Banat and Transylvania, who were speakers of several languages, coexisted and worked for a long time with the German, Serbian and Jewish elites, emphasizing the framework necessary for understanding the process of social emancipation that was underway. However, it was nevertheless, a top-down system, in which only the few who had access to formal education benefitted from freedom. In the political, socio-economic and intellectual spheres, the aristocratic model that favored the privileged, persisted. It was a system that had been embraced by the emancipated segments and was visible in both the previous generation and that of the revolutionaries of 1848. For example, the Transylvanian school, and especially those such as Ioan Budai-Deleanu, prospered from such a model,8 which had nothing to do with modernity, the population at large, or the idea of the nation in the Western sense at the time. In fact, literacy among the peasantry would be delayed, as would the general mentality on the matter. Within the context of Romanian intelligentsia’s passage from the Enlightenment inspired reformist programs to those of the first revolutionary romantic ones, Vincențiu Babeș aimed to reconceptualize identity through the prism of language and nationality. He addressed his studies to the Court of Vienna and to all those involved in the liberalization of the empire. He challenged the right of the so-called “jus gladii,” by virtue of which some claimed “to rule because they had ruled before.” Instead, Babeș proposed a

Die Sprach- und Nationalitatenfrage in Öestereich bei einem Rumanen, [Viena, 1860]; Also see Victor Neumann, Ideologie şi Fantasmagorie. Perspective comparative asupra istoriei gîndirii politice în Europa Est-Centrală, Second Edition (Bucharest, 2015), 43–70; Idem, Neam, popor sau naţiune?. Despre identităţile politice europene (Nation, people or nation? About European political identities), Third Edition (Bucharest, 2015), 41–110. Also, George Cipăianu, op. cit., 29–30. 8 Victor Neumann, “Exegeses of the Past as Militantism: The Case of Ioan Budai-­ Deleanu’s Political Thinking,” in Essays on Romanian Intellectual History (Centre for Advanced Studies in History/Institutul European, Timișoara/Iași, 2013), 15–41. 7

22

M. M ilin

and

V. Neumann

modern idea, namely social equality, possible by granting equal rights to all nationalities in the empire. By this, he understood that “each (community) by law should be granted such free activity and development, in their own specific way, by nation, by virtue of language, and at least in the public spheres of people’s lives, they are by no means, nor can be by any means restricted; on the contrary, on the part of the master … they shall be supported!” Recognition of the right to speak Romanian in all institutions and to practice any profession in the mother tongue had been a desire among all his peers. Hence his critique of the Austro-Hungarian compromise: “Whatever may come … a new Hungarian sovereignty in Austria, that is, a Hungarian state in the state of Austria, seems to us as absurd as the belief in two Gods …”9 It was true that the new Hungarian administration attempted to promote monolingualism to the detriment of multilingualism. Despite this limited meaning of the multi-cultural and intercultural phenomenon and its provocative meaning, Romanians from Banat and Transylvania were represented in the Parliament of Budapest. They would preserve their own older institutions or give life to new ones, useful for cultural, religious and economic life. Romanian foundations, banks, Orthodox and Greek Catholic churches are proof of this reality. Often, Romanian intellectuals spoke two or three languages, with the Mocsonyi family serving as an example among countless others. Vincențiu Babeș had written Die Sprach- und Nationalitätenfrage with thoughts towards the ​f uture of politics, electoral confrontations and the elaboration of the projects of a Kulturnation. As for the complex sociopolitical reality, Babeș’s position can be placed in the context of the political movements that belonged to those who sustained the ideologies of the revolutionaries from 1848, as well as of those who transcended them. As soon as these ideologies are examined comparatively, it becomes noticeable that in the middle of the nineteenth century there were various debates and controversies on the subject of nationalities. József Ötvös, a well-known figure in Hungarian public life at the time, had generated repeated discussions around the “issues” of nationalities. He had done so for the first time in 1842, when he had argued like no other the importance of the emancipation of the Jews from the empire.10 He had resumed and expanded upon the ideas behind

George Cipăianu, op. cit. Commenting on the book, Cipăianu states that it had become a “won landmark of the national movement” (p. 31). Vincențiu Babeș had proven “a political mentality deeply rooted in some circles and was considered a revelation of the new in the discussion on the regulation of national relations many years before their accreditation and acceptance as a norm of the right to self-determination.” 10 Victor Neumann, Evreii Banatului. O mărturie a multi- și interculturalității Europei Central-Orientale [The Jews of Banat. A testament to the multy and 9

Nationality of Romanians in Austro-Hungarian Monarchy

23

nationalities in his writings and public speeches during the 1848 revolution and in the following decades, including after the Austro-Hungarian compromise of 1867. The same was true of the writings and appeals of István Szécheny, who in turn provoked numerous commentaries and ideological controversies.11 The era itself was rich in unpredictable events, inclinations, and political decisions, as the representative personalities of each group sought selfdefinition through a new theoretical and political construction. Predominantly criticized or ignored by the inheritors of the old nobility -- the ruling political class—the political programs of the mid-nineteenth century demonstrate the enormous tension in the cultural—political life of the regions of Central and Eastern Europe. However, it is important to note that—and here we include the contribution of Vincențiu Babeș—some of the intellectual thinkers had not neglected the problems facing most of the population. They aimed at social, cultural, religious emancipation, intergroup dialogue and tolerance, the respective reestablishment of cultural values ​and the redefinition of identity of both the person and community. Gradually, the empire would shift from one with a cosmopolitan-Enlightenment orientation to one with a national ideology. World War I would find this newly transformed state unprepared in the face of terrible identity conflicts.

Vincențiu Babeş and Andrei Mocsonyi, Autonomist Claims On October 20, 1860, by an imperial decree based on the principle of equality between citizens regardless of nationality or denomination, the liberal regime was established in the Austrian Empire.12 One week later, an imperial interculturality of Central aand Eater Europe], Second Edition (Timișoara, 2016), 106–111. Idem (Editor), The Banat of Timișoara. A European Melting Pot (London, 2019), 287–290. 11 Victor Neumman, The Temptation of Homo Europaeus. An Intellectual History of Central and Southeastern Europe (London, 2020), 170. 12 A. J. P. Taylor, in his well-known history of the Habsburg state seen from the per­ spective of the Western thinker, speaks rather of a “historical federalism” of the old conservative nobility, making them liberal concessions. The October decree was allegedly inspired during a train conversation by Szécheny, the country’s magnate spokesman. It was already a vague anticipation of dualism, granting exceptional prerogatives to the Hungarian Diet, which “was to proceed according to its old constitution.” The patent of February 26, 1861, was an extension of the decree, taking a step towards dualism by “recognizing that the Hungarian territories constituted an imperial unit,” i.e. “a unit closer and more real than the theoretical unity of the whole Empire.” See, Monarhia habsburgică. 1809–1918. O istorie a Imperiului austriac şi a Austro-Ungariei [The Habsburg monarchy 1809–1918. A history of the

24

M. M ilin

and

V. Neumann

resolution decreed the inclusion of Banat, Vojvodina and the Partium in Hungarian administration of the Monarchy.13 The new administrative form sought to adapt to the demands of liberalism. In such circumstances, Andrei Mocsonyi, once the imperial commissioner of Banat, was asked by the Imperial Senate to take part in the process of state reorganization. Inspired by the writing of Vincenţiu Babeş, while considering it his duty to represent the interests of Banat, Andrei Mocsonyi pleaded for the maintenance of the Empire’s centralized unity, “based on the consecration of the principle of equal rights of the people who have reached the consciousness of their own value, embodying the main political factors in the state.”14 In his opinion, the reformation of the Empire had to ensure the full equality of nationalities expressed by their proportional representation in all spheres of public life. He would criticize the option of the old feudal class to introduce the outdated principle of “historical-political individuality of countries.”15 Labeled by the aristocracy as a “Garibaldist,” Andrei Mocsonyi was prevented from presenting to the Senate his political idea regarding Banat and Vojvodina. Instead, he chose to draft a memorandum to the emperor.16 Based on historical arguments, the length of time of their residence, and the numerical preponderance of Romanians in Banat, totaling over five hundred thousand inhabitants, Andrei Mocsonyi demonstrated in his Memorandum that Banat had always been “historically individual.” Thus, the inclusion of the region into Hungary should have been considered a mistake, as it did not correspond to the inherited historical and cultural realities. He would also argue that the language usage ​of the people, on the basis of the equality proclaimed by the emperor for all citizens of the empire, was in no way reconciled with the annexation into Hungary and the imposition of the Hungarian language. Considering the tests of faith required for Romanian and Serb border regiments on behalf of the emperor and the Habsburg Imperial House, Mocsonyi called for the recognition of the autonomy of



Austrian empire and Austro-Hungary] (Bucharest, 2000), 89–93; Jean-Paul Bled, Franz Joseph (Bucharest, 2002), 232–247; Jean Berenger, A History of the Habsburg Empire 1700–1918 (London, 1997), 182–190; Andrew Wheatcroft, The Habsburgs. Embodying Empire (London, 1995), 267–276. 13 Eugen Brote, Cestiunea română în Transilvania şi Ungaria [The Romanian issue in Transylvania and Hungary] (Bucharest, 1895), 50; Telegraful român, IX, 2, Sibiu, January 12, 1861. 14 Cipăianu, op. cit., 160. 15 T. V. Păcăţian, “Cartea de aur sau luptele politico-naţionale ale românilor de sub Coroana ungară,” Sibiu, 2 (1904): 77–80. 16 Botiş, op. cit., 42.

Nationality of Romanians in Austro-Hungarian Monarchy

25

Banat and Vojvodina. In essence, he pleaded for the upholding of the recently promoted equality of rights of Romanians and Serbs.17 On January 18–19, 1860, a conference of Romanian intellectuals from Banat who supported the autonomist Memorandum took place in Timişoara. The planners, conceiving the conference to be a decisive moment for the national congress of Romanians in the Empire, developed a program. It included among the desired items of the Memorandum the radical demands taken from the revolutionary program of Eftimie Murgu from 1848, which had supported, among other things, the autonomy of Banat, Timişoara, and Vojvodina in relation to Hungary; the establishment of Romanian legal institutions; recognition of the Romanian language as an official language in political-administrative life, etc.18 The political movement for the autonomy of Banat19 aroused curiosity outside the region as well, with a petition con­ taining claims regarding language and nationality being submitted to Senator Andrei Mocsonyi by Romanians from the Beiuş and Arad areas.20 However, such requests conflicted with Mocsonyi’s birth status and beliefs, as he was a representative of the new nobility of Banat. Consequently, he would refuse the mandate of dietary deputy in the Lugoj circle, preferring to retire from the political scene. He considered that the mandate to represent Romanian interests in the Hungarian Diet should be assigned to the only representative forum, namely the General Congress of all Romanians in Hungary (Partium), Banat and Transylvania.21

Babeş-Mocsonyi, Mocsonyi-Babeş, Respectively The impasse of the autonomist movement would be overcome by engaging the new political elite in Banat in parliamentary life. Alexandru Mocsonyi would stand out in this regard as he joined the more experienced Vincenţiu Babeş. Alexandru Mocsonyi (nephew of Andrei Mocsonyi’s brother) made his debut in the Imperial Parliament in 1865, having been elected in the Rittberg



Telegraful român, IX, nr. 47, November 24, 1860. The idea of ​recognizing the mul­ ticulturalism of new identities to define nationality, such as Romanian and Serbian, is remarkable. Andrei Mocsonyi’s assertion is a characteristic of the heterogeneous Austria of the time, which bore lasting fruit, especially in Banat. 18 Botiş, op. cit., 45; T. V. Păcăţian, Cartea de aur … , II, 94. 19 Nicolae Bocşan, Ideea de naţiune la românii din Transilvania şi Banat (Secolul al XIX-lea) [The idea of a nation among the Romanians from Transylvania and Banat] (Cluj-Napoca, 1997), 133–134. 20 Telegraful român …, December 29, 1860, 52 21 Botiş, op. cit., 61. 17

26

M. M ilin

and

V. Neumann

constituency (Tormac, Timiş).22 He provided a new course for Romanian politics in Banat and Hungary, with his own vision. As Neumann demonstrated, in Die Sprach- und Nationalitätenfrage (The Cause of Languages​ and Nationalities …),23 Vincențiu Babeş had advocated for the political and cultural equality of nationalities in the state. In the same vein, Alexandru Mocsonyi 24 would develop his parliamentary speech in Pest protesting against the merging of the entire demographic mosaic under the term “Hungarian nation.” Otherwise, Mocsonyi argued, it would be inferred that the entire population of Hungary at that time was made up only of Hungarians. He pointed out, therefore, that the most natural thing a community could do would be to accept the name that defines it. The nineteenth-century intellectuals were thus able to justify their request to not use a foreign name in lieu of a Romanian one.25 A fundamental political issue was the internal regulation of nationality status.26 The debate surrounding it laid the foundations for a parliamen­ tary solidarity of non-Hungarians, visible in the joint Romanian-Serbian activity of drafting nationalities in Banat and Hungary. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, the idea of ​collective identity was being redefined.27 Romanians from Banat also considered themselves the defenders of the interests of their compatriots from Transylvania. Further, the ideas of the Proclamation 28 were appropriated by the people of Banat since they demonstrated an understanding of the difficult constitutional conditions of





Arhivele Naţionale Centrale Bucureşti, Fond Familia Mocsonyi. Cauza limbelor şi a naţionalităţilor în Austria pertractată de un român, [Vienna, 1860]. 24 See Bocşan, op. cit., 141–166, the chapter De la ideea liberală de naţiune la prin­ cipăiul de naţionalitate [From the liberal idea of nation to the priniple of nationality]. See also Neumann, Neam, popor sau naţiune … , the chapter titled “Neam şi popor. Noţiunile etnocentrismului românesc,” 111–141; V. Neumann, A. Heinen (Editori), Istoria României prin concepte. Perspective comparative asupra limbajelor social-politice [The history of Romania t trough concepts. Comparative perspectives on social-political languages] (Iaşi, 2010). 25 Valeriu Branisce, Pagini resleţe [Relevant pages] (Lugoj, 1910), 156 26 T. V. Păcăţian, “Cartea de aur..,” IV (Sibiu, 1906): 439–459. For the meaning con­ temporaneously given to the notions of collective identity in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, see Neumann, Conceptul de naţiune la români şi unguri. Un studiu despre identitîăţile politice (Timişoara-Iaşi, 2013). 27 Milin, Autonomie regională versus activism etnonaţional. Exemplul liderilor români, in Istoria Banatului … [Regional autonomy versus ethnonational acitism. The example of the Romanian leaders in the history of Banat], 421–440. 28 Simion Retegan, “Pronunciamentul de la Blaj (1868)” [Blaj’s statement (1868)], Anuarul Institutului de istorie şi arheologie, 9 (Cluj, 1966), 130–131. 22

23

Nationality of Romanians in Austro-Hungarian Monarchy

27

the Transylvanians. Thus, as soon as the objectives for Romanian nationality became aligned in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, the people of Banat allied with the Transylvanians in claiming their rights.29 At the Constituent Conference of the Romanian National Party from Banat and Hungary held in Timişoara in 1869 (January 26–February 7), the cases of the Romanian communities in the two regions were discussed: “The case of Transylvania is also our case and even when our blood brothers leave the case of Transylvania there, we must seize it and defend it!”30 On the other hand, in the atmosphere of tension generated by the establishment of dualism, the balanced perspective of the Romanian politicians from Banat must be highlighted, as they understood not to confuse the policies of the Hungarian government with the entire Hungarian nation. The main objective of the Romanian political movement in Banat was to criticize the circles that violated the natural rights of the Romanian community, using the interests of the Hungarian nation as a pretext.31 A notable moment in the substantiation of the idea of ​nationhood was the Romanian-Serbian project,32 sustained in front of the Diet of Pest by Alexandru Mocsonyi, on November 24, 1868. The Banat intellectual stated, in the sense of natural law, that the feeling of nation is just as old as humanity, with the novelty arising only from the idea of ​nationality as an expression of the necessity of the modern world, and of the awakening of peoples on the path of democracy. The promotion of national community interests thus became a duty of statehood. Failing to do so, “does not erect a brilliant monument to freedom!” Through force, nations can be hindered in their historical development, “but only for a short time and if they are thus hindered,

Albina, IV, nr. 9, Viena, Jan. 26–Feb. 7 1869. Albina, February 2–14, 1869. 31 To understand the differences in meaning between the notions used to define state identity on the one hand and ethnocultural/ethnonational identity on the other, see Victor Neumann, Relaţiile româno-maghiare într-un moment de răscruce [Romanian-Hungarian relations at a crossroads], in Relaţiile româno-maghiare şi modelul de reconciliere franco-german, eds Levente Salat and Smaranda Enache (Cluj, 2004), 301–325; Albina, 5, January 15–27, 1869. Cf. and Idem, Neam, Popor sau Națiune? Despre identitățile politice europene [Nation, people or nation? About European political identities] (Bucharest, 2015), 121–128, 152–166. 32 Elaborated upon by Vincenţiu Babeş and Alexandru Mocsonyi on the Romanian side, and Svetozar Miletić on the Serbian side; see, Miodrag Milin, “Rolul ideii de solidaritate în programele naţionale ale românilor şi sârbilor bănăţeni” [The role of idea of solidarity in the national programs of th Romanians and Serbs from Banat] în Banatul şi Unirea cea Mare, eds Ioan David and Miodrag Milin (Timişoara, 2018), 7–22. 29

30

28

M. M ilin

and

V. Neumann

they can become all the more dangerous for the state.”33 It was a discourse specific to the Romantic period, when the main idea claimed by the communities throughout the empire attempted to make known the rights of a collective existence; it is equally true that in the last decades of the nineteenth century the “idea of ​national superiority” was born everywhere in the regions of Central Europe.34 In another speech, on June 30, 1870, Alexandru Mocsonyi declared himself a supporter of universal suffrage, considering that “everywhere the deprivation of rights, the restriction of rights, created explosive materials for anarchy, but never equal rights.”35 As for the structure of society, he consid­ ered that, although the middle class was “the focus of trade, industry and material and spiritual flourishing,” the only element entitled to govern was intelligence, which knows no social or national barriers. The reign of intelligence assumes, considered Mocsonyi, the fulfillment of two conditions: first of all, the necessity of order, of social balance, a context in which intelligence would impose itself, without artificial interventions; and secondly, the freedom and equality of the right to vote for all citizens, “that horizontal line on which we can establish and measure the price, the true value of each individual, of each class.”36 The quintessence of Alexandru Mocsonyi’s political thinking is embedded in his work, National Consciousness. Within the evolution of society, the author distinguishes between two orders of law: “the dynamic law of nature” and “the ethical law.” Thus, while the first order “fights with the weapons of force and ignorance in the service of private interests,” the second uses “the spiritual and moral weapons of awakening in the service of the solidarity of interests of individuals and peoples.” The modern age, according to Alexandru Mocsonyi, is a witness to the assertion of the rights of the individual and of nationalities. This tendency takes the form of the principle of the territorial state, and from the point of view of ethical law it takes the form of the right to free development embodying the principle of the national state. The Banat intellectual appreciated that his contemporary political moment was a theater between the ethical order of the national states and the dynamic order of the states of medieval origin, “bordered by conquest and the contractual law of the strongest.” From his point of view, national freedom was

Albina, III, 118, November 15–27, 1868. Marius Turda, Ideea de superioritate naţională în Imperiul Austro-Ungar (1880– 1918) [The idea of national superiority in the Austro-Hungarian empire], Trans. Varga Attila (Cluj-Napoca, 2016). 35 Păcăţian, “Cartea de aur …,” vol. V, p. 407. 36 Păcăţian, “Cartea de aur …,” vol. V, p. 407. 33

34

Nationality of Romanians in Austro-Hungarian Monarchy

29

to be imposed. Alexandru Mocsonyi was convinced of the success of the idea of ​freedom in the face of medieval forms of organization.37 The ideologi­ cal landmarks conceived by Alexandru Mocsonyi had in view the place and the historical role of modern nations; the importance of universal suffrage; founding of new states; and the legitimacy of Romanian political aspirations.

The Forming of the Romanian National Party from Banat and Hungary The incorporation of Transylvania into Hungary in 1867 generated confrontation with the Austro-Hungarian state.38 Romanians opposed this decision through the Blaj Declaration formulated 20 years after the assembly of May 3–15, 1848, in the same city. They wanted Transylvanian autonomy, the restoration of the validity of the Sibiu Diet decisions of 1863–64, and full equality for all the communities in the region. At the same time, Romanian politicians had proposed the reopening of the Transylvanian Diet based on the proportional representation “according to law and propriety.” The authors of the Blaj Declaration considered the Pest diet as “unjustified to make laws for Transylvania.”39 Regarding the union of Transylvania with Hungary, politician Ilie Măcelariu believed that the governmental project contrasted with Romanian prerogatives and requested the urgent convening of the Transylvanian Diet on democratic principles, aiming to resolve the issue by the consensus of both diets.40 Alexandru Mocsonyi supported the action of the contesters,41 and the massive adherence of the Banat deputies to Măcelariu’s project turned them into defenders of the Romanian cause in Transylvania. This, the Banat activists proved a superior understanding of the motivation of their passive Transylvanian colleagues, and consequently gave them, without reservation, full support. In the article “Pasivitatea legală a romanilor din Transilvania” [The legal passivity of Romanians in Transylvania], Alexandru Mocsonyi explains the tactic of abstaining from political life as the supreme form of protest against unilaterally imposed Hungarian authority. From his perspective, passivity was the manifestation of a serious political crisis, “one of the most dangerous symptoms in state life.”42

Alexandru Mocsonyi, Conştiinţa naţională, f. a. (1887), 7–11. Eugen Brote, “Cestiunea română în Transilvania şi Ungari,” Bucharest, 1995, 8–9. 39 Retegan, op. cit. 40 Albina, III, 118, November 15–27, 1868. 41 Branisce, Pagini … , 244–246. 42 Albina, IV, nr. 9, Jan. 26–Feb. 7, 1869. 37

38

30

M. M ilin

and

V. Neumann

In the article “Despre activitate şi pasivitate in politică” [On activity and passivity in politics], Vincenţiu Babeş was even more categorical, stating that through passivity Transylvanians do not lose anything, they only gain support from public opinion “for not accepting a state that was imposed on them by force.” Aside from the difference in tactics, which was dictated by political circumstances, there was a solidarity between the interests of Romanians in Banat and Transylvania. In other words, the passivity of the Transylvanians and the activism of the people of Banat had the same objective—the promotion of common interests.43 The proposed program aimed at organizing a political party. This was also evident from Alexandru Mocsonyi’s manifesto program, the so-called “Epistolă deschisă către mulţi” [The Epistle open to many].44 The manifesto discussed the political movement of Romanians from Banat and the importance of its transformation into a party. According to the author of the epistle, the organization of nationalities in the Monarchy could contribute to the establishment of a democracy. At the National Conference in Timişoara on January 26–February 7, 1869, the agenda was the founding of the National Party of Romanians in Banat and Hungary and the adoption of its program. The central figure of the conference was the same Alexandru Mocsonyi. Pointing out that no existing party had won based on nationalities, he proposed “the establishment of an independent national party whose members should not be employed by any other political party.” Obtaining the consensus of the entire assembly, he also proposed the political program “on the basis of which that national party would be formed and operated.” The program of the new party became known as programul mocionist, or the program in Timişoara. This program comprised seven points: 1. Solidarity with the homeland nations that have the same interest. 2. The preservation of the Romanian and Serbian deputies’ draft bill from the past diet regarding the case of nationalities. 3. In the case of Transylvania, the preservation of the well-known draft resolution of the Romanian deputies. 4. From previous experiences there is an internal connection between the article of law of 1867 and the denial of legality of law for nonHungarian nations, which is why it is the duty of the national party to analyze this article of law and fight it by all legal means.



Albina, IV, nr. 9, 26 ianuarie/7 februarie 1869. Albina, nr. 5, January 15–27, 1869.

43 44

Nationality of Romanians in Austro-Hungarian Monarchy

31

5. Supporting the Croatian national program for the autonomy of their country. 6. Organizing municipalities in the broadest sense of democracy and autonomy. 7. Adopting the principles of liberalism and democracy in all spheres of public life.45 Regarding the initiatives and the program’s way of functioning, the main role was played by Alexandru Mocsonyi and Vincenţiu Babeş. They made efforts to settle the dissensions between Lazăr Ionescu’s group from Arad, a follower of the compromise with the deakiştii,46 and the Mircea B. Stănescu-Alexiu Popoviciu faction, hostile to any form of cooperation with the ruling party. At the end of the meeting, the lawyer M. B. Stănescu asked the assembly to decide on the tactics to be followed towards the elections and the Diet. The speaker pleaded in favor of political activism, “because for us, those in Hungary and Banat, the laws make possible our opposition and active struggle.” Vincenţiu Babeş declared himself for activism, “so long as the laws still made it possible; but if the laws—as in Transylvania—would make legal activism impossible or useless, then it would be time to move to legal passivity which would be the last resort, and only then could it be justified as the result of extreme necessity.” The vote expressed by the participants was in favor of adopting the principle of activism. The party leadership was appointed at the meeting held that same evening,47 with the involvement of the Mocsonyi family being essen­ tial. The president elected and celebrated by the people of Banat would be Alexandru Mocsonyi.

“Activism” versus “Passivism” from Banat Activism, a form of political struggle characterized by the engagement of leaders in the system of parliamentary life, was an auspicious idea in supporting and recognizing the rights of Romanians in Banat. The aforementioned leaders opted for political activism in the case of the region’s incorporation into Hungary and the extension of the Hungarian electoral law.48 The

Albina, nr. 24, March, 12–24, 1869. Adherents of Deák Ferenc, the promoter of the Austro-Hungarian historical compromise. 47 Albina, IV, 14, February 2–14, 1869. 48 Albina, … 5, January 15–27, 1869 [Epistola deschisă, către mulţi: “… we are forced to say that for non-Hungarian nations, among the legal means for political 45

46

32

M. M ilin

and

V. Neumann

orientation towards activism, considered more effective than passivity in the political atmosphere of the time,49 was demonstrated during the debate on the draft laws of nationalities in 1868.50 Romanian activists clashed with the Hungarian government and its supporters over the law on nationalities—a law that propagated discriminatory rules in state policy. With the founding of the National Party, reuniting Romanians from Banat and Partium, high hopes were invested in the dietary elections in the spring of 1869. The success was illusory: only ten candidates succeeded, thus, activism lost its chance. Despite sporadic cooperation with Serbian activists (more symbolic than real) as occurred during the 1872 and 1874 elections, internal misunderstandings were visible. These reduced the political efficiency of the Romanian group. The very idea of ​“constitutional abstinence”51 was even circulated as a reac­ tion to the discriminatory orientation of the legislation. With the appearance of the newspaper Luminătoriul (March 1, 1880) in Timişoara, the first Romanian political newspaper in Banat,52 the temporary stalemate of Banat activism was overcome. Luminătoriul aimed to cultivate the interests of Romanians in the region. The newspaper was partial towards the unification of Romanian political life in Banat and Transylvania, in the same way as Vincenţiu Babeş had believed and supported. Due to the establishment of the Romanian National Party, the interest for political activism increased, a fact that was observed on the occasion of the general electoral conference in Sibiu from May 12–14, 1881, but







struggles, the right to choose is not only the most important, but even the only one. Furthermore, if we take into account the defects of the electoral law … then I say [Alexandru Mocsonyi] we must recognize and assert, although not without sadness, that the right to choose, which is the only means for non-Hungarian nations in their political struggle, is in their hands but a blunt, even broken, weapon. And so, with a broken weapon in hand, we have to fight for our national existence.”]. 49 Albina, 9, Jan. 26–Feb. 7, 1869 [Despre activitate şi pasivitate ăn politică: “For the Romanians from beyond Dealu-Mare [Banat and Hungary], the law grants a large number—although not enough, according to the fundamental principles of the Constitution—of deputies; so they can enter the field of activity, because they have means to do so, although few …”]. 50 Păcăţian, “Cartea de aur …,“ vol. IV, 432–459; on the common activities of the Romanian and Serbian parliamentarians in legislating the status of nationalities from 1868, see M. Milin, Relaţiile politice româno-sârbe în epoca moderna (Bucharest, 1992), 133–137. 51 Biblioteca Centrală Universitară “Lucian Blaga”, Cluj-Napoca, Colecţia Hossu-­ Longin, Corespondenţa George Popde Băseşti, Vol. I, p. 5 (mss. 4055); Păcăţian, Cartea de aur … , vol. VI, 661. 52 Aurel Cosma jr., Istoria presei române din Banat [The history of the Romanian press in Banat] (Timişoara, 1932), 40.

Nationality of Romanians in Austro-Hungarian Monarchy

33

also in the years following. The newspaper Luminătoriul pleaded for activism. Although voter turnout was livelier than ever, and despite the energies employed by the 1881 unionist program, the election ended in failure. Only three party candidates had succeeded.53 Consequently, the adoption of pas­ sivity by Romanians from Banat took place near the electoral assembly in Timişoara on May 3, 1887. The appeal addressed to the voters at this meeting was to follow the example of Alexandru Mocsonyi.54 A general consensus was sought on the final adoption of the passivist orientation. In the autumn of 1887, the new orientation in Banat was publicly confirmed, with the elections having taken place in Caransebeş. The winner, Border Guard General Traian Doda, adopted a rebellious position by refusing to validate his mandate in the Hungarian Diet. His gesture was greeted enthusiastically.55 This act of rebel­ lion had been the result of an internal process which was noted by the third Romanian National Conference in Sibiu from May 7–9, 1887.56 Thus, despite the fact that activism appeared useful,57 the people of Banat had adopted a passivist policy.58 Starting from this premise, we can better understand the nature of the policy of passivism in Banat. Passivism was the legal and ultimate form of protest against the dualist monarchy, which had also been recorded in Programul de la Timişoara [The Timişoara Program] of 1869. Alexandru Mocsonyi spoke of a psychological impossibility to adopt the model of the dualist state.59 Despite Mocsonyi’s dissatisfaction with his theoretical and political training and aside from the social or cultural discrimination, the Austro-Hungarian administrative-state system had encouraged unprecedented economic development. The case of Timişoara was not unique, but it was representative. It permitted the affirmation of each cultural-linguistic community that became a nationality, admitted and cultivated a visible plurality of identity in schools, universities, musical culture, literary and historiographical creations, and it allowed the formation and recognition of elites in urban formation.60 In

Luminătoriul, Anul V, nr. 46, Timişoara, June 9–21, 1884. Luminătoriul, Anul VIII, nr. 37, … May 13–25, 1887. 55 Păcăţian, “Cartea de aur …,” vol. VII, 359. 56 Păcăţian, “Cartea de aur …,” vol. VII, 359. 57 Arhivele Naţionale Bucureşti, Fond Familia Mocsonyi, nr. II/9, f. 26–27. 58 Drapelul, Anul II, Lugoj, nr. 48, April 23–May 6, 1902. 59 Dreptatea, Anul I, nr. 29, Timişoara, February 6–18, 1894 (Simptome de împăcare). 60 Victor Neumann, Temeswarer Zeitung și propagarea civismuluui Kakaniei; and Identitate lui Cultură. Studii privind istoria Banatului [Temeswarer Zeitung and the propagation of the citizenship of Kakania and culture’s identity. Studies of the history of Banat] (Bucharest, 2009), 77–88. 53

54

34

M. M ilin

and

V. Neumann

other words, it cultivated a cosmopolitan model that included all culturallinguistic and religious communities. It must be remembered, however, that the environment was not favorable to urban centers in the monarchy, nor to their orientations. The new elites wanted a radical change in the state of affairs, and segregation by nationality was in accordance with the notions of those who had recently discovered and been fascinated by the idea of ​Volksgeist.61 The new newspaper from Timişoara run by Valeriu Branişte, the daily Dreptatea, adopted the position of Alexandru Mocsonyi.62 As the younger generation took over the ideas of the older, more militant one, it also signaled the transfer of the interests of public life towards the passivist movement.63 The publication Dreptatea defended the national program, refusing concessions to state policy.64 The refusal of the conciliatory steps initiated by the ruling circles showed how important Romanian solidarity had become around the memorandum process in Cluj.65 The newspaper’s attitude towards the passive orientation con­ tributed to the affirmation of the Romanian collective identity.66







Victor Neumann, Volk (Popor) şi Sprache (Limbă) în gândirea lui Herder. Teoria speculativă a etnonaţiunii, in Neam, Popor sau Naţiune? … [People and language in Herder’s thought. The speculative thery of ethnonation in Nation, People or Nation? … ] (Bucharest, 2015), 41–78. See the influence of German Romantic literature and idealogy in the theories of Aurel C. Popovici in Victor Neumann, Ideologie și fantasmagorie [Ideology and phantasmagoria] (Iași, 2001), 68–102; cf. the stalemate reached between the monarchy and the hypotheses created by its opponents, 86–90. 62 Dreptatea, Anul I, nr. 1, Timişoara, Saturday, January 1–13, 1894. 63 Dreptatea, nr. 27, February 4–16, 1894. Valeriu Branişte: “In our country, the press is a national factor and as such is an integral member of our national life, of the Romanian people. Under the unfurled flag of the Romanian National Party, the press must enter into battle without hesitation, and under this banner must be the sleepless sentry of our national “clenodes” [sic] And only under this banner does it have the right to exist.” 64 Dreptatea, nr. 49, March 2–14, 1894 [“We will have nothing to do with the Hungarian Parliament until its elements, in whose name Pester Lloyd speaks, are willing to respect our rights and interests without the condition of unreserved submission to their idea of state, which is the idea of the Hungarian national state that means nothing but destruction for national identity.”] 65 Dreptatea, nr. 65, March 22–April 3, 1894 [“The Memorandum Trial is not a press trial, it is not an action against desolate people who are not to the liking of the master, but it is an act of persecution against an entire people.”] 66 Dreptatea, nr. 49, March 2–14, 1894 [However, this passivity of ours is restricted only exclusively to parliamentary life in our country and not to the other areas of public life. It would be an unforgivable mistake if there were factions within the national party that firmly believe this passivity will extend to all areas of our public life. No, on the contrary, even though we are excluded from parliament, we must develop a concerted effort in all other fields and not let a single opportunity pass, 61

Nationality of Romanians in Austro-Hungarian Monarchy

35

From Opportunity to Solidarity: Transylvanians, the People of Banat, and the Memorandum Although Alexandru Mocsonyi was the main opponent of the Transylvanian nationalists’ Memorandum, his prestige was growing in 1888 and 1889. He enjoyed sympathy even in the circles of the Memorandum’s main supporters. Iuliu Coroianu, to whom the party leadership had entrusted the task of working on the draft Memorandum,67 would consult Alexandru Mocsonyi. In fact, Coroianu hoped to attract the two politicians from Banat, Alexandru Mocsonyi and Vincențiu Babeş, to the Transylvanians’ political approach.68 However, as Mocsonyi had different views about the course of events, the optimism of the memorandists regarding the accession of the people of Banat was not unjustified. In the autumn of 1888, following Alexandru Mocsonyi’s acquisition of several shares of the magazine Tribuna, an attempt at reconciliation was made between the Romanian representatives from Transylvania and Banat. With the support of the publication, all those who were privy to the situation expected that Alexandru Mocsonyi would take over the leadership of the Romanian political movement after the withdrawal of Gheorghe Baritiu.69 After less than a year,70 Alexandru Mocsonyi, together with Andrei Mocsonyi, Vincenţiu Babeş and Coriolan Brediceanu, withdrew from the





without asserting ourselves in a dignified and imposing manner. Apart from church and school life, we have a place in communal, municipal and county life, where we must assert ourselves step by step with all our energy. From every act of public life on these grounds – because we are either in the majority or we remain in the minority – it must appear that here in this country there are Romanians, who form a compact nationality and are aware of their rights and aspirations.] 67 Şerban Polverejan, Nicolae Cordoş (eds.) Mişcarea memorandistă în documente (1885–1897) [The memorandum movement in documents (1885–1897)], (Cluj, 1973), 43. 68 Şerban Polverejan, Nicolae Cordo (eds.) Mişcarea memorandistă în documente (1885–1897) [The memorandum movement in documents (1885–1897)], (Cluj, 1973), 116–117. 69 Biblioteca Academiei Române,Bucureşti, Secţia Manuscrise – Corespondenţă Alexandru Mocsonyi,A-1083. Letter sent by Manole Diamandi, Braşov, December 6–18, 1889: “You are already at the head of a political group [with which] your work and manly struggle [imposed] on our opponents to recognize you as their intellectual leader. In my humble opinion, your calling is to make this group, under your leadership, the focal point around which all the men of character of our nation should concentrate and work together to eradicate from our hold all the corrupt weeds.” See also, Mişcarea memorandistă în documente … , 111–113. 70 Biblioteca Academiei Române, M-sse …, Letter from Alexandru Mocsonyi to Manole Diamandi, Căpâlnaş, November 20, 1889.

36

M. M ilin

and

V. Neumann

Tribuna leadership.71 This generated tension between the journalists and pol­ iticians supported by Luminătoriul on the one hand, and by Tribuna on the other. The difference between the two views had made cooperation impossible. Alexandru Mocsonyi considered that the Transylvanians from Tribuna deviated from the national program, while exaggerating their loyalty to the dynasty. Monarchical fidelity, he stated, must not exceed its limits, and end up degenerating into an “insipid servility.” He refused to endorse with his own name aspirations contrary to his own political thinking.72 On the other hand, according to the Transylvanians, the leaders of Banat had shortcomings, having been accused of a distorted interpretation of the national program, of unjustified detentions regarding the approach of the foundations of the dualist pact, and of the critique on the Hungarian policy.73 This was how two divergent political strands were born from within the party.74 The fourth National Conference of the Romanian National Party took place on October 27–29, 1890, in Sibiu and was an attempt to reconcile the nationalists.75 The report of the commission and the draft resolution of the conference were delivered by Vincenţiu Babeş. It was decided to support the program adopted at the conference of 1881, which had been reconfirmed in 1884 and 1887. They convened on the reasons for why the memorandum had not been sent to the emperor.76 Being among the most active and esteemed politicians of the time, Vincențiu Babeș was elected president of the party.77 Through this appointment, the group from Tribuna had regis­ tered a semi-failure. The general conference of October 27–29, 1890, would indicate a compromise between the supporters of the tribune, and those of the memorandum, in favor of the Mocsonyi group. Vincenţiu Babeş’s leading position was challenged by the attacks from Tribuna and the liberal press in Romania, with the principle author of the anti-memorandum policy



Biblioteca Academiei Române, M-sse …, Letter from Alexandru Mocsonyi to Manole Diamandi, Căpâlnaş, November 20, 1889. Manole Diamandi’s letter to Alexandru Mocsonyi, Braşov, November 15–27, 1889. 72 Biblioteca Academiei Române, M-sse …, Letter from Alexandru Mocsonyi to Manole Diamandi, Căpâlnaş, November 20, 1889. Alexandru Mocsonyi to Manole Diamandi, Budapesta, December 25, 1889. 73 Eugen Brote, Cestiunea românească … , 137–138. 74 Tribuna, VIII, nr. 173, Sibiu, August 3–15, 1891. 75 Liviu Maior, Programul politic al mişcării naţionale româneşti din Transilvania între 1881–1914 [The political program of the Romanian national movement in Transylvania between 1881–1914] (Cluj, 1974) (doctoral thesis), 9, 191. 76 Păcăţian, “Cartea de aur …,” vol. VII, 418. 77 Cipăianu, op. cit,. 73. 71

Nationality of Romanians in Austro-Hungarian Monarchy

37

being Alexandru Mocsonyi.78 The Tribuna circle, led by Eugen Brote, tried to recover lost ground, choosing the path of defaming Vincențiu Babeș.79 Alexandru Mocsonyi and Vincenţiu Babeş’s calls for “moderation,” in the hope that Romanian demands would be met, provoked these critiques. The action of defaming the Mocsonyi-Babeş-Miron80-Cosma81 faction went so far as to consider the aforementioned group a real league. Alexandru Mocsonyi explained that such a political faction did not exist, and one could only assert the fact that they were opponents of the ideas conveyed by Tribuna.82 The conflict entered its decisive phase in the summer of 1891.83 On August 30 and 31, 1891, a consultative conference of the party leadership was convened. At this meeting, the confidence in President Vincenţiu Babeş and in his political conduct, that was considered part of the national program, was voted upon.84 The decisive merit in obtaining this surprising deci­ sion went to Alexandru Mocsonyi. The Banat leader had then addressed an open letter85 to the party leadership outlining the foreseeable consequences of the memorandum tactic. The message overturned all prognoses, reaching





Alexandru Mocsonyi, Către Comitetul naţional central de la Sibiu [To the central national committee in Sibiu], f. l., f. a., broşură (Birchiş, August 14–26, 1891), 1–14; Luminătoriul, XII, nr. 82, October 26–November 7, 1891; T. V. Păcăţian, “Cartea de aur …,” vol. VII, 458–469. 79 Tribuna, VIII, nr. 195, September 3–15, 1891; nr. 199, September 7–19, 1891. 80 Miron Romanul, Archbishop of Transylvania. 81 Partenie Cosma, Transylvanian Romanian Leader, Owner of the diocese, Telegraful român. 82 Arhivele Naţionale Bucureşti, Fond Mocsonyi (Fond of Mosconi), II, nr. 19, f. 2. 83 Lucian Boia, Eugen Brote (1850–1912) (Bucureşti, 1974), 80–81; Ioan Slavici, ,,Tribuna“ şi tribuniştii, Orăştie, 1896, p. 19; D. Vatamaniuc, Ioan Slavici şi lumea prin care a trecut [Ioan Slavici and the world he went through] (Bucureşti, 1968), 174–279. 84 Păcăţian, “Cartea de aur …,” VII, 458. 85 Alexandru Mocsonyi, Către Comitetul naţional … [To the central national..], 1–14. Now, looking at the event in hindsight, we realize that Mocsonyi had enough political intelligence to realize that the Memorandum protest could not at that moment bring anything good to the cause of the Romanians, only problems—just as it had actually occurred. It is not by chance that he found, alongside him, other Romanians with major community responsibilities, such as Emanoil Gojdu, Iosif Gall, Miron Romanul or Partenie Cosma and, obviously, the entire Banat political spirit. And the tribune-memorandists begrudgingly scattered, led by their main agitator, Eugen Brote, who abandoned the cause, taking refuge in Romania. Others, such as Valeriu Braniste, took refuge in Banat, near Mocsonyi. Not to be neglected is the involvement of the Regat press, orchestrated by D.A. Sturdza ’s liberals, who maintained the cause of the memorandum and the conservatives of another famous Macedonian, Take Ionescu, related to the mocionistă camp. 78

38

M. M ilin

and

V. Neumann

the support of the majority.86 Alexandru Mocsonyi considered that the appeal to the empire in order to improve the political regime of the Romanians was possible from a constitutional point of view. All the more so since the Hungarian Diet had shown a lack of interest in Romanian issues in Banat and Transylvania and had caused its self-exclusion from the political life of the state. In choosing the right time to submit the memorandum, Mocsonyi was of the opinion that “the guarantees that ensure a benevolent prevention (reception) from the Crown” should be taken into account. As for the radical changes involved in the favorable settlement of the memorandum, a promising and receptive political climate had to first be created. As soon as he would declare himself against such risky tactics, “it could create a disaster for the national cause and the political reputation of the nation,” so Mocsonyi decided to defend and promote his views at a future national conference. At the same time, the Tribuna faction recovered. Some rushed to announce in the press the disagreement with President Vincențiu Babeş’ position, which was not an auspicious move for the party.87 The discrediting of the Mocsonyi-Babeș’s group followed under the pretext of aligning with the moderates.88 Despite their differences of opinion, Alexandru Mocsonyi contributed to the party’s ideational orientation, influencing the policy of the Romanians from Banat and Transylvania. Where the position of his close collaborator did not seem convincing enough, Mocsonyi intervened with letters and ideas. This was the case at the national conference in 1887, as well as at the meeting in 1891. Each time, the logic and personal distinction of the Banat ideologue was impressive.89 Observing his remarkable theoretical training, and his vocation as a leader that had overshadowed a large portion of his party colleagues, the committee meeting in October deliberately disregarded Alexandru Mocsonyi’s letter. His position would be completely disavowed by the withdrawal of Vincenţiu Babeş from the party leadership. At the Fifth National Conference of the Romanian National Party on January 20–21, 1892 in Sibiu, Mocsonyi spoke about the political situation in Hungary,90 condemning the principles of dualism and criticizing the oppression of Romanians in Banat and Transylvania. Enthusiastically received, his position was accompanied by a draft resolution adopted by those present. There was, however, one (essential) exception: point 4 of the draft

Maior, op. cit., 193. Tribuna, nr. 189, August 25–September 6, 1891. 88 Tribuna, nr. 191, August 28–September 9, 1891. 89 BCU Cluj-Napoca, mss. 4055, Colecţia Hossu-Longin, Corespondenţa lui Gheorghe Pop de Băseşti, vol. I, f. 25. Vezi şi Mişcarea memorandistă … , 177–178. 90 Păcăţian, “Cartea de aur …,” vol. VII, 504–512. 86

87

Nationality of Romanians in Austro-Hungarian Monarchy

39

recommended the presentation of the memorandum at the opportune time for the empire,91 which had become the subject of dispute.92 Eugen Brote, one of the Transylvanian politicians, proposed the presentation of the memorandum without postponement, which would decisively change the direction of the conference and of the entire national movement. Before the vote on this key point of the draft resolution, the protocol of the Conference stipulated the need to preserve at all costs the ideology of the party, with the minority being subject to the vote of the majority. On his behalf and on behalf of the Banat delegates, Alexandru Mocsonyi specified that they would “respect the opposition’s vote, but they would not cooperate in its active execution.”93 19 votes were in favor and 18 against, which rendered Mocsonyi’s opinion victorious. However, the insistence of the tribune supporters, who would not reconcile with the result, changed things. Eugen Brote demanded a revote in the plenary of the conference,94 and this time the Transylvanian representatives and a good part of those “from across the Meseş” voted for the memorandum, and simultaneously inaugurated the radical position. us began the open confrontation within the politics of the dualist state.95 The aforementioned draft resolution, despite the detachment of the people of Banat, with the Mocsonyi project had become the theoretical support of the memorandum action. Far too aware of the possible negative implications of his opposition, Alexandru Mocsonyi preferred silence, thus accepting the continuity of the party’s life.

In Lieu of a Conclusion In the last decades of the nineteenth century, Romanians from Banat and Transylvania better organized themselves from a political and institutional point of view. Their demands were echoed not only on the scale of the two regions, but throughout Central Europe. The affirmation of representative intellectual circles brought to the forefront the new identity ideologies. From among these circles, a political class emerged that would be continuously

Or, opportunistic. Păcăţian, “Cartea de aur …,” vol. VII, 501–503. 93 Păcăţian, “Cartea de aur …,” vol. VII, 499. 94 Branişte, op. cit., p. 179. 95 78 votes for, and 56 against. The solidarity between those from Banat and their leader was remarkable. For details regarding the votes, see Vasile Netea, Istoria Memorandului românilor din Transilvania şi Banat [History of the memorandum of the Romanians from Transylvania and Banat], f. a., Fundaţia Regele Mihai I, (Bucharest, 1947), 63. 91

92

40

M. M ilin

and

V. Neumann

present in public life. The repeated meetings in conferences and debates on the rights of nationalities, in the Romanian case accompanied by the founding of the Romanian National Party, showed the crises encountered by the Austrian Empire in 1840–1867, including those in the decades following the dualist compromise of 1867. Our article predominantly underscores the problems facing the Romanian nationality in Banat and Transylvania, the organizations and leaders who played essential roles in formulating political demands, and lastly, those who criticized the authoritarian policies of the state that was preserving feudal privileges which dissatisfied a large part of the citizens of the two regions. However, it should be noted that, despite the similar political conditions of Romanians, Serbs, Slovaks, Czechs, Croats, Germans, and Italians, the issue of nationalities has not always been accompanied by a debate of common policies, nor by cross-cultural cooperation between their associations, parties and elites. Being regions with diverse cultural-historical experiences and legacies, controversies have arisen both between nationalities and within them. Contradictory ideological influences, as well as decisions based on pride, have generated debatable competitions and actions. The case of Romanians from Banat and Transylvania, of their activist and passivist strands, gives an account of some of the choices made, seen through the prism of political facts, which we invoked or described here based on our own documentary-bibliographical research. The topic is a referential one, which is why we consider that it is worth reexamining not only from a local-identity perspective, but also from a European one. As for the continuities and ruptures of Romanian politics in Banat and Transylvania, they will require a multiplication of studies in conceptual history, including decodifying the socio-political vocabulary from before and after the memorandum movement.

Bibliography Arhivele Naţionale Centrale Bucureşti, Fond Familia Mocsonyi. Biblioteca Centrală Universitară. "Lucian Blaga”, Cluj-Napoca, Colecţia Hossu-Longin, Corespondenţa George Popde Băseşti, Vol. I, p. 5 (mss. 4055); Păcăţian, Cartea de aur …, vol. VI, 661. BCU Cluj-Napoca, mss. 4055, Colecţia Hossu-Longin, Corespondenţa lui Gheorghe Pop de Băseşti, vol. I, f. 25. Vezi şi Mişcarea memorandistă …, 177–178. Berenger, Jean. A History of the Habsburg Empire 1700–1918. London: Longman, 1997. Bled, Jean-Paul. Franz Joseph. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher, 1992.

Nationality of Romanians in Austro-Hungarian Monarchy

41

Bocşan, Nicolae. Contribuţii la istoria iluminismului românesc [Contribution to the history of the Romanian enlightenment]. Timişoara: Facla, 1986. Bocşan, Nicolae. Ideea de naţiune la românii din Transilvania şi Banat (Secolul al XIXlea) [The idea of a nation among the Romanians from Transylvania and Banat]. Cluj-Napoca/ Reşiţa: Presa Universitară Clujeană/Banatica, 1997. Boia, Lucian. Eugen Brote (1850–1912). Bucharest: Editura Litera, 1974. Botiş, Teodor. Monografia familiei Mocioni [Monography of Mocioni family]. Bucharest: Fundatia Pentru Literatura Si Arta Regele Carol II, 1939. Brote, Eugen. Cestiunea română în Transilvania şi Ungaria [The Romanian issue in Transylvania and Hungary]. Bucharest: Sibiiu Institut Tipografic, 1895. Cipăianu, George. Vincenţiu Babeş (1821–1907). Timişoara: Facla, 1980 Cosma, Aurel Jr.. Istoria presei române din Banat [The history of the Romanian press in Banat]. Timişoara: Editura “Unirea Română”, 1932. Hitchins, Keith. The Identity of Romania. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedica, 2009. Maior, Liviu. Programul politic al mişcării naţionale româneşti din Transilvania între 1881–1914 [The political program of the Romanian national movement in Transylvania between 1881–1914], PhD theses, Cluj, 1974. Milin, Miodrag. Autonomie regională versus activism etnonaţional. Exemplul liderilor români, in Istoria Banatului … [Regional autonomy versus ethnonational acitism. The example of the Romanian leaders in the history of Banat], 421–440. Milin, Miodrag. “Rolul ideii de solidaritate în programele naţionale ale românilor şi sârbilor bănăţeni.” [The role of idea of solidarity in the national programs of the Romanians and Serbs from Banat]. In Banatul şi Unirea cea Mare, edited by Ioan David and Miodrag Milin, 7–22. Timişoara: Editura Partoș, 2018. Netea, Vasile. Istoria Memorandului românilor din Transilvania şi Banat [History of the memorandum of the Romanians from Transylvania and Banat], Bucharest: Fundaţia Regele Mihai I, 1947. Neumann, Victor. Ideologie și fantasmagorie [Ideology and phantasmagoria]. Iași: Éditions Polirom, 2001. Neumann, Victor. Relaţiile româno-maghiare într-un moment de răscruce [RomanianHungarian relations at a crossroads]. In Relaţiile româno-maghiare şi modelul de reconciliere franco-german, edited by Levente Salat and Smaranda Enache, 301–325. Cluj: Centrul de resurse pentru diversitatea etnocuturala, 2004. Neumann, Victor. Neam, popor sau natiune? [Nation, people or nation? About European political identities]. Bucharest: Curtea Veche, 2005. Neumann, Victor. Temeswarer Zeitung și propagarea civismuluui Kakaniei; and Identitate lui Cultură. Studii privind istoria Banatului [Temeswarer Zeitung and the propagation of the citizenship of Kakania and culture’s identity. Studies of the history of Banat]. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 2009. Neumann, Victor. Conceptul de naţiune la români şi unguri: Un studiu despre identitîăţile politice. Timişoara-Iaşi: Institutul European, 2013.

42

M. M ilin

and

V. Neumann

Neumann, Victor. Essays on Romanian Intellectual History. Timișoara/Iași: Centre for Advanced Studies in History/Institutul European, 2013. Neumann, Victor. Volk (Popor) şi Sprache (Limbă) în gândirea lui Herder. Teoria speculativă a etnonaţiunii, in Neam, Popor sau Naţiune? … [People land language in Herder’s thought. The speculative thery of ethnonation in Nation, People or Nation? …]. Bucharest: Editura Rao, 2015. Neumann, Victor. Istoria Banatului. Studii privind particularităţile regiuni transfrontaliere, Bucharest: Academiei, 2016. Neumann, Victor. The Banat of Timișoara: A European Melting Pot. London: Scala Arts Publishers Inc., 2019. Neumann, Victor. The Temptation of Homo Europaeus. An Intellectual History of Central and Southeastern Europe. London: Scala Arts Publishers Inc., 2020. Neumann, Victor and Armin Heine. Istoria României prin concepte. Perspective comparative asupra limbajelor social-politice [The history of Romania t trough concepts. Comparative perspectives on social-political languages]. Bucharest: Polirom, 2010. Păcăţian, T.V. “Cartea de aur sau luptele politico-naţionale ale românilor de sub Coroana ungară.” Sibiu 2 (1904): 77–80. Polverejan, Serban and Nicolae Cordoş. Mişcarea memorandistă în documente (1885– 1897) [The memorandum movement in documents (1885–1897)]. Cluj: Dacia, 1973. Retegan, Simion. “Pronunciamentul de la Blaj (1868).” [Blaj’s statement (1868)] Anuarul Institutului de istorie şi arheologie, 9 ( 1966): 130–131. Slavici, Ioan. Tribuna şi tribuniştii. Orăştie: “Minerva” Institut Tipografic Societate PE Actii, 1896. Suciu, I.D., Revoluţia de la 1848–1849 în Banat [Revolution 1848–1849 in Banat]. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1968. Taylor, A. J. P. and Monarhia habsburgică. 1809–1918. O istorie a Imperiului austriac şi a Austro-Ungariei [The Habsburg monarchy 1809–1918. A history of the Austrian empire and Austro-Hungary]. Bucharest: ALL, 2000. Turda, Marius. Ideea de superioritate naţională în Imperiul Austro-Ungar (1880– 1918) [The idea of national superiority in the Austro-Hungarian empire]. ClujNapoca: Argonaut, 2016. Vatamaniuc, Dimitrie. Ioan Slavici şi lumea prin care a trecut [Ioan Slavici and the world he went through]. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1968. Wheatcroft, Andrew. The Habsburgs. Embodying Empire. London: Penguin Books, 1995.

Romanians and Serbs in the Banat Military Border Ivana Spasović

The peoples who inhabited the Military Border made sacrifices for Western culture by protecting not only the emperor’s house, the throne and Monarchy, but Christianity itself. Schwicker, a Military Border historian, believed that the border was important for the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but also for the entirety of Central Europe.1 For a whole century, the Banat part of the Military Border had its share in the sacrifice and in the importance of the Border’s existence. After the Austrian-Turkish war (1716–1718), through the signing of the peace treaty of Požarevac (June 21, 1718), Banat became a part of Austria. In 1764, Maria Theresa attached to the Military Border three Banat districts, forming along the rivers of Tisza and Danube the Banat Military Border, which was organized into three regiments: Serbian-Banat, German-Banat and Vlach-Banat 2 Regiment. The Banat Military Border was separated from Slavonia and handed to Timişoara to command in 1792.3 The Serbian-Banat Border was formed in 1851 by merging the 11th Petrovaradin Regiment with the three Banat regiments and the Titel Battalion. The military command was in Timişoara from 1849 to 1869, when it was moved to Petrovaradin, and in 1871 it was returned to Timişoara. At that time, the Petrovaradin Regiment was assigned to the Croatia-Slavonia Border, while the Banat Military Border and the Titel Battalion stayed under Timişoara’s command.4

Dušan J. Popović, “Vojna Granica,” [Military border] in Vojvodina, II, 1940, 269. D. Popović, op. cit, 17–18. 3 The regulation for the Banat Military Border from 1792 is in the Historical Archives in Bela Crkva. 4 F. Milleker, Istorija Banatske vojne granice [History of Banat’s military border], 68. 1 2

44

Ivana Spasović

Before the disestablishment of the Banat Military Border, under the Timişoara Garrison Command stood the 11th Petrovaradin, 12th GermanBanat, 13th Romanian-Banat and 14th Serbian-Banat Regiments, as well as the Titel-Šajkaš Battalion and the free military communes: Zemun, Karlovci, Petrovaradin, Pančevo and Bela Crkva. The Law on the Abolition of the Hungarian Military Border, dated June 9, 1872, referred to the three Banat regiments and the Titel Battalion, because, as aforementioned, the Petrovaradin Regiment belonged to the Croatian-Slavonian Border. The headquarters of the 12th German-Banat Regiment was located in Pančevo. The company stations were in Perlez, Tomaševac, Opovo, Glogonj, Sakule, Uzdin, Kovačica, Crepaja, Novo Selo, Omoljica, Bavanište and Kovin. The regiment’s uniform consisted of dark-brown coats, blue collars, tight light-blue pants and white buttons. In this regimental district, the commune of Pančevo was the most populous city in the entire Border, a famous timber market (mentioned as such as early as 1153), with a Minorite monastery and a large school. Also worth mentioning is the Vojlovica monastery, that was founded in 1385. The 13th Romanian-Banat Regiment, which occupied the eastern forested hills, had a lively trade with Romania and Turkey. The regiment’s headquarters were in Caransebeş. There are important spas near Mehadia with hot healing springs that were known even to the Romans, Orşova with a respectable trade, Rusca Montană (Ruksberg) and Oţelu Roşu (Ferdinandsberg) with mining. The commands of the companies were located in Dalboşeţ, Bozovici, Prigor, Petnic, Mehadia, St. Orşova, Cornereva, Cornea, Teregova, Slatina, Caransebeş and Ohaba-Bistra. The troops of this regiment had darkbrown coats, light gray epaulets and necklaces, tight light-blue pants and white buttons. The 14th Serbian-Banat Regiment was the smallest regiment in size and it lay in the middle between the two previous ones. This regiment produced a lot of wine, with viticultural activity having been mentioned as early as 1355 in the Bela Crkva commune that was formally established as such in 1777. In it was located the only railway with stations in Jasenovo, Bela Crkva and Baziaş, with the latter one serving as a port on the Danube which connected the border area with Vienna. Bela Crkva housed the brigade headquarters of the 13th and 14th Regiments as well as the regiment headquarters. The company stations were Dobrica, Ilandža, Alibunar, Banatski Karlovac, Izbište, Jasenovo, Dolovo, Deliblato, Vračev Gaj, Kusić, Srpska Požežena and Berzasca. The uniform of this regiment consisted of a dark-brown coat, blue epaulettes and necklaces, narrow light-blue pants and yellow buttons.

Romanians and Serbs in the Banat Military Border

45

In the Military Border, as well as in its Banat part, there were (the already mentioned communities) civic oases of craftsmen and merchants, released from military duty and life, who lived in cooperatives and subordinated to magistrates, i.e. the General Command. For their privileges, they paid a contribution. The community government (Magistrate) took care of maintaining security, order, cleanliness, assessing and collecting taxes, holding probate hearings and trials in civil matters in the first instance. The municipal organization of the Border was determined by the Law from 1860, when the foundation was laid for municipal autonomy and the organization of cities into communities, with the mentioned reliefs in taxes and military service, in order to develop the economy and sciences. Cities from Banat: Pančevo, Bela Crkva and Caransebeş were among the above mentioned twelve cities.5 Increasingly present in the Balkans, the Western powers rewarded the Serbian prince Mihailo for his peaceful policy and diplomacy by gaining cities in 1867. The great success of his commitment, the expulsion of Turkey from a large part of the Balkan Peninsula, made the Military Border, which was then on the lower reaches of the Sava and Danube, meaningless.6 The expected abolition of the Petrovaradin Regiment had not yet taken place, not even the planned actions in Bosnia, by either Austria nor Serbia,7 but the issue of the Banat Military Border gained first-class importance for both the government and the border population. It was briefly in the shadow of the Boka Uprising, which also left an impression in southern Banat, as well as a mark and consequences related to the events that would follow.8 The Banat border, as the most protruding rim of the Monarchy towards the East, was facing the biggest turning point since its founding and settlement. It was supposed to confirm the dilapidation and uselessness of the entire Frontier institution. It was preoccupied with military-administrative,



F. Milleker, Istorija Pančeva [History of Pancevo], 62, 63; F. Milleker, Istorija Banatske vojne granice [History of Banat’s military border], 69; B. Jankulov, Prilozi za istoriju Pančeva [Contributins to the history of Pancevo] (Pančevo, 1924), 27. 6 Mihailo Vojvodić, Putevi srpske diplomatije [Roads of Serbian diplomacy] (Beograd: Clio, 1999), 11. 7 Vojislav J. Vučković, Politička akcija Srbije u južnoslovenskim pokrajinama Habzburške monarhije 1859–1874 [Political action of Serbia in the South Slavic provinces of the Hazburg monarchy 1859–1874] (Beograd; Kuper-Oreskovicu, Berlin, 11.1867), 182 8 LASOCMP, Stojan Novaković, Ustanak u Boki, 1869; “Ustanak u Boki Kotorskoj,” [Uprising in Boka Kotorska] Pančevac, October 26, 1869, p. 29; Kosta Milutinović, Srbi u Dalmaciji 1797–1878, Istorija srpskog naroda [Serbs in Dalmatia 1797–1878, history of the Serbian people], book V, vol. II, Beograd, (1981). 5

46

Ivana Spasović

socio-economic, national-political and cultural-educational problems, which were brought by the temptation of terminating the border administration.

Romanians at the Time of the Abolition of the Banat Border: Serbian-Romanian Relations The Serbian-Romanian dispute, which had been simmering since the beginning of the nineteenth century, had its outcome in the years 1866–1969, so that the church and the school in Bela Crkva belonged to the Serbs, and the Romanians were paid out. The division in Pančevo was carried out in a similar way in 1911.9 Regarding the Serbian-Romanian dispute in Banat, Dr. Jovan Subotić, who himself took part in its resolution, wrote: “It is a great pity when two Christian churches quarrel, and the biggest trouble is when someone third puts his finger between them.”10 On the one hand, a solution was found in the church dispute, and on the other hand, the fact that new circumstances made mutual conflicts unnecessary and harmful were the reasons why Serbian-Romanian relations normalized at the beginning of the abolition of the Banat Border. At the same time, the relations of their home countries were marked by common issues of position towards Austria and Turkey, as well as towards Russia, together with common interests regarding the regulation of navigating on the Danube. The issue of the Serbian and Romanian national communities in the Banat Border and Hungary in general, it seems, did not deserve more attention from the statesmen of Serbia and Wallachia. Prince Milan, who was warmly welcomed in Livadia in 1871 by the Russian Tsar and his family, returned to Bucharest to visit Prince Carol.11 The Romanian prince, who was crowned in 1881, Carol Hohenzollern, announced his visit to Belgrade in 1884, where he was welcomed by the Serbian royal family “as never before, [and] he was enchanted”, although the visit was at Vienna’s request.12

MBC, 3393/1868, Bela Crkva, November 19, 1868; S. Subotić, op. cit, 99–101. Stevan Milašević, Srbi i Rumuni, juridičesko-politička studija [Serbs and Romanians, legal-political study] (Novi Sad, 1899), 1–21, 38–39, 42, 47, 56, 59; Ј. Subotić, Аutobiografija, 204–206. 11 ASASA, 7940/LXXIV/17, Beograd, October 25, 1871; AII SANU, Fond Jovana Ristica, XV/2, Međunarodni ekonomski odnosi, Ausland Serbien, Rumänische Post, Bucharest, December, 22, 1871, 55. 12 Kraljica Natalija Obrenović, Moje uspomene [My memories] (Beograd, 1999), 136– 137; ASANU, 7940/LXXIV/5, Beograd, February 15, 1872, Kallay to Andrassy. 9

10

Romanians and Serbs in the Banat Military Border

47

At the beginning of 1872, Jovan Ristić persuaded the Romanian consul Văcărescu against Austria-Hungary, “because the Romanian lands were under the Monarchy more than the Serbian ones”. As it came to Benjamin Kalaj (Kállay Béni), and then, of course, to Đula Andraši (Gyula Andrássy), it seems that the Serbian politician did not have in mind the situation of his and the Romanian people, just a kilometer northeast of Belgrade. Since the demands of the Orthodox peoples regarding the abolition of the Border to the future authorities, whose entry was only days away, were not radical and relied on legality and parliamentarism, the motherlands were expected to be very tactful and wise, without hasty and harsh moves. The following year, Serbian Minister of War Pantelija Jovanović, after visiting Vienna, spoke about the Romanian prince’s visit to the city, mentioning that the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania, Boerescu, advised him to pursue a similar, friendly policy towards Austria-Hungary and that, with the help of the Monarchy, the connection of the Serbian-Hungarian railway was certain.13 In the Border itself, the arrival of a new government, a completely new and different system, was welcomed by Serbs and Romanians with the determination not to observe the events silently, but to use all available means and do as much as possible for the benefit of these two peoples and their political role, their economic and social position and for the preservation and development of their cultural and educational significance. With the exception of the rest of the officially completed problem regarding the division of the church, there were no obstacles between Serbs and Romanians to achieving political cooperation. They were not bothered by the fact that the inspirers and organizers of that cooperation were Serbs, because the mutual benefit was great enough not to arouse vanity, and not to sway either political leaders or the former border population. The disestablishment was carried out without hearing the voice of the Border, but that fact faded before the first elections to the Hungarian Assembly in which the Hungarian Border participated and all energy in 1873 was focused on one goal: the election of the people’s candidates, their victory over government, and participation in Assembly proceedings.14 The decisive date for the joint appearance in the pre-election campaign was December 31, 1873, when a people’s assembly was held in Pančevo, which, based on the Becskerek program of the Serbian People’s Liberal Party, announced the founding of the Serbian-Romanian People’s Party. The Serbs also pledged

13

ASASA, 7940/LXXIV/15, Beograd, 27. 6. 1873, Kallay to Andrassy. “Solidarnost Srba i Rumuna u Granici,” Pančevac, July 19, 1873, p. 54.

14

Ivana Spasović

48

solidarity with the Romanians, both unencumbered by the abolition of the Border, as well as the duration and development of national individuality and the establishment of central and local committees chaired by Dr. Konstantin Pejčić. In Bela Crkva, Romanian Archbishop Ioanichie Miculescu called on Serbian and Romanian voters of the former Serbian-Banat Regiment to vote for Vincențiu Babeș and his Mocioni program. At the vote on November 14, 1873, despite a significant number of Germans, the Romanian nationalist Babeș won the majority.15 That victory also encouraged voters in Pančevo and Caransebeş.

Manifesto of June 8, 1871 The imperial manifesto sent to the border guards of the Varaždin regiment, Senj and Bjelovar, the town of Ivanić and the municipality of Sisak completely changed the lives of 1,200,000 inhabitants who lived in the entire Frontier, without their participation in the change, which lasted an entire decade. The manifesto read: To my border guards of both Varaždin regiments, the towns of Senj and Bjelovar, the town of Ivanić and the municipality of Sisak: Imbued with the desire to raise the welfare and power of the state as much as possible, I established and reestablished life under the constitutional law of the state in both its halves. And now I want my faithful and brave people not to be further excluded from the full enjoyment of those constitutional rights, which are guaranteed to those countries to which the Border also belongs in terms of state law. This now requires justice all the more, because the introduction of general defense duty in the entire Monarchy ended the conditions of that difficult state of emergency, which have so far served as a reason for burdening the Military Border, which was under disproportionately more difficulty compared to other Monarchy countries. The former Constitution of my Military Border is rooted in the distant past and has merged with the nature, views and customs of the border people. A sudden transition to a new system of government in the entire large area of the Military Frontier would be a difficult task, which could hardly be overcome. Therefore, by my decisions of August 19, 1869 and January 31, 1871, I ordered that only those districts in which you live be handed over to the civil administration of the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia, and thus at the same time, that the change be gradual and not to be hasty. Your ancestors were the ones who, three centuries ago, were the first to dedicate themselves to the permanent defense of the Monarchy and founded the institution of the Military



F. Milleker, Istorija Banatske vojne granice [History of Banat’s military border] (1926), 217–218.

15

Romanians and Serbs in the Banat Military Border

49

Frontier. You be the ones who will lead other border peoples to lawfully regulated freedoms through constitutional life and development. The Border has never wavered in its strong sense of law and order in its loyalty to the throne and the fatherland. You have kept those sacred feelings in your new circumstances as well; you will be just as faithful and loyal citizens of the state as you were very loyal brave soldiers. Your emperor and king expects this from you with full confidence. In my order of June 8, 1871, and in my letter of June 8, 1871, all the rights and privileges that are provided to you when you withdraw from the Military Frontier are marked in a way that should be well understood.And now receive from your emperor and king the gratitude with which you, like your ancestors, have always gained merit for the throne and the fatherland. Given in our capital city Vienna. June 8, 1871. and the 23rd year of our government, F.J. s.r.16

The new distribution of forces in Southeast Europe conditioned the needlessness of the Border and Emperor Franz Joseph, aware of that, but also aware of the need to present to the border population the necessity and way to change, given different interpretations of this important act of demilitarization, headed towards the Banat Border, supposedly because of the floods. He was accompanied by the Hungarian Prime Minister Count Menyhért Lónyay, Ministers István Tisza, Wendheim, Károly Kerkápoly, József Slavi, Count Gedeon Raday, Ferenc Deak and the Supreme Prefect Sigmund Ormos. The emperor came to the Border, to Bela Crkva, on May 7, via Novi Sad and Kikinda.17 In Bela Crkva, he was welcomed by the new mayor Leonard Bem (Krajc’s successor) and by the locals, who escorted him from the train station to the town house, through the decorated city. On his way, the emperor was greeted by school children, the Singing and the Shooting Sport Society, and border guards in national costumes. In the center of the city, with the sound of church bells, municipal officials and officers of the Banat and Bačka Military Borders introduced themselves to him. The emperor assured them that their right in the army would remain intact when the Border was abolished. Priests and delegations of border municipalities followed them. Franz Joseph then gave the following speech: I am glad to see here the representatives of my honorable border guards, whom, I am convinced, have always proven their loyalty and devotion. The reforms and

“Carski manifest Franje Josifa,” [Imperial manifesto of Francis Joseph] Pančevac, June 10, 1871, p. 47. 17 “Na čijoj je strani istina,” [On whose side is the truth] Srbski narod, April 24, 1872, p. 27. 16

50

Ivana Spasović changes undertaken now in the Border, represent a treasure of the people, giving them the same rights as all other citizens. Therefore, I expect that you will support, as much as possible, me and my government, which works in accordance and by will of my expectations, in the implementation of the respective measures, in order for these changes to bring salvation to the people through their zealous and harmonious participation. Assure the inhabitants of this Border that by working in that spirit, they can always count on my special favor.

The Emperor spent about an hour in Bela Crkva, and then he returned to Timişoara.18 Among others, the municipality of Petrovo Selo sent a delegation to Bela Crkva to present itself to His Majesty: Ilia Mândrea, Matei Susa, Todor Marta, Avram Jivan, Stefan Davidović and Stefan Lolin.19 The emperor told all the representatives of the Border municipalities that the Hungarian government, which was acting entirely according to his will, would help them with all its might. Representatives of the Romanian-Banat Regiment requested that a separate county of Caran-Sebeş be created from their municipalities and that this place, like the other two communities, Pančevo and Bela Crkva, be raised to the level of a free royal city, as well as to construct a railway from Lugoj to Caransebeş. When the representatives of Pančevo, led by Pirk, expressed their opinion against the dissolution, Emperor Franz Joseph replied: “It is my royal will.”20 In the City Museum in Bela Crkva, there is an oil painting made by border guard Sima Mičin, which commemorates the event of the emperor’s arrival in this Banat border town, an event in which the painter himself participated. The picture shows the city decorated with flags, for the first time with Hungarian ones, but blurred, due to the discontent that reigned towards them, while the Serbian and imperial ones are presented in bright colors. The painting is dominated by a solemn procession on the main street, in the middle with the emperor’s chariot and with Franz Joseph in a war uniform. To his left is Count Belgard’s aide, the carriage is driven by the local German Anton Blasuti, while behind the emperor is only one young man, from the local city guard. The border people are in traditional costumes, in the colors of the kilims, and with striking physiognomies that indicate the determination and courage of these people. Their chakshirs are white, with red, white and blue sleeves and complemented by vests. While the emperor was greeting them, Count Lónyay was shown as being astonished, and in front of the emperor’s chariot, the first civilian mayor of Bela Crkva,

HABC, Akt Magistrata 26/1872; Timişoara, 26. 4, Srbski narod, May 2, 1872, p. 28; Srbski narod, May 11, 1872, p. 32; Banater Post, May 5, 1872, p. 6. 19 Nikolae Penca, Monografija opštine Roman Petre [Monography of municipality Roman Petre] (Petrovoselo, Vladimirovac), 1808–1908 (Pančevo, 2001), 23, 24. 20 F. Milleker, op. cit, 268. 18

Romanians and Serbs in the Banat Military Border

51

numismatist and historian, Leonard Bem, could be seen. On the side are citizens in civilian suits, women with scarves made of transparent fabric and men in coats with red lapels. Guests from Serbia, from Gradište, 21 can also be seen.

Although “Pančevac” broadcast the emperor’s path by emphasizing that the emperor remained blind and deaf to the misery and fear of the future of the border people,22 while at the same time “Lloyd” published Scudier’s letter to Pančevo Mayor Pirk, stating that the Hungarian government feared Serbian uprising in the Border, 23 the emperor sent the following letter from Buda on May 10, 1872: “Dear Count Lónyay! Due to the damage (from the flood) which I noticed with grief, I was glad that I noticed everywhere on my whole journey, my dearest treasure, the love of my people!”24 On the other hand, while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed B. Kállay that he should not welcome the emperor,25 there were many objec­ tions from Pest that no one from Serbia, not even from Wallachia, came to greet the emperor.26 Prince Milan apologized and rectified the situation by expecting the emperor’s arrival in Pančevo, planning to greet him there personally.27 Already in August 1872, the Hungarian Minister of Finance visited the Banat border, especially Pančevo, Bela Crkva and Orşova. An important new step was taken on November 1, 1872, when the Banat Military Border was subordinated to the Hungarian Ministry. On that day, one battalion from the regular inf. regt. Cezarević, no. 61 (Timişoara) in Bela Crkva and one from the regular inf. regt. Thun-Hohenstein, no. 29 (Großbetschkerek) were transferred to Pančevo, and to Caransebeş the reserve commander of the regular inf. regt. Baron Alleman, no. 43 (Vršac) was sent. The visits of the ministers of education and transport, Agoston Trefort and Szende, followed,

Svetolik Subotić, "Iz prošlosti Bele Crkve,” Zbornik MS za društvene nauke, 17 (1957): 116–117. 22 “Carev put,” [The Kings way] Pančevac, 4. 5. 1872, p. 35; F. Milleker, Istorija grada Pančeva [History of Pancevo], 149; S. Jovičić. op. cit, 161; F. Milleker, Istorija Banatske vojne granice [History of Banat’s military border], 204. 23 “Izjava na adresu g. ministra Lonjajia i g. komandanta Skudijera,” [Statement to Mr Minister Lonjai and Mr Commander Skudijer] Pančevac, April 30, 1872, p. 34. 24 “Ručno pismo Njegovog carskog i kraljevskog veličanstva,” [Hand written letter of his imperial and Royal Majesty] Domaće novosti, Srbski narod, May 6, 1872, p. 30; Banater Post, May 12, 1872, p. 7. 25 Andrija Radenić, Dnevnik Benjamina Kalaja (5. 1872), 466. 26 Srbski narod, May 6, 1872, p. 30. 27 ASASA, 7940/18, Belgrade, May 12, 1872. 21

52

Ivana Spasović

but the dissatisfaction and concern, especially of the rural population, was so great that in the beginning of 1873 there was a revolt in Petrovo Selo.28 However, the Hungarian Assembly soon passed the 27th legal article from 1873 “On the inarticulation of the Banat Border and the Titel Battalion,” as well as other issues related to provincialization. The law was sanctioned on June 27, 1873, and the next day it was published in the House of Representatives and on July 1, 1873, in the Upper House. It stated that the districts of Caransebeş, Teregova, Bozovici and Orşova form a new county called Severin, with Caransebeş as the capital. The Bela Crkva district fell under the Caraș county, the Kovin and Karlsdorf districts under the Tamiš county, and the Pančevo, Novo Selo, Kovin and Perlez districts fell under the Torontal county (Pančevo, Caransebeş and Bela Crkva received jurisdiction, while the district courts remained subordinate to the county courts of first instance, which were established in the three mentioned cities (Articles 9 and 15)). On August 24, prefects were appointed. Jakov Bogdan was appointed the first prefect of Severin County, Sigmund Ormos was appointed as the Tamiš County prefect, Georgije Ivačković was appointed the Caraș County prefect, and Hertelendi was appointed Torontal County prefect. In those days, when the final act of provincialization was taking place, the royal commissariat in Timişoara ceased to function, but it formally continued to exist until 1880. On July 6 of the same year (Art. 4), Severin was merged with Caraș County. Caransebeş and Bela Crkva, unlike Pančevo, were deprived of municipal rights and reduced to cities with a regulated magistrate, under the county.29 According to the “draft law on the inarticulation of the provincialization of the Banat Military Border and the Titel Border Battalion,” the former border was represented through its districts. The town of Caransebeş fell under the rule of the grand prefect of the Srem County and was the center of the constituency that included the former Romanian-Banat Regiment, from where one MP was elected to the Hungarian Assembly. Also, one representative was elected by the districts with centers in the former communes of Pančevo and Bela Crkva, with the territories of their former regiments, German-Banat and Serbian-Banat, entering Tamiš and Torontal, and Severin, Caraș and Torontal counties. (Bačka County and Titel Battalion also gave one MP each). The Census Commission was under the supervision of the ministers: Trefor, Zichy, Szapáry, Sande, Pejačević, Slavi, Wendheim, Kerkápoly, Pauler and Tisza.30

Mileker, op. cit, 272, 274. Mileker, 275, 277, 278, 289, F. Vaniček, op. cit, 581–583. 30 Zastava, June 1 (13), 1873, p. 63.

28

29

Romanians and Serbs in the Banat Military Border

53

On behalf of the People’s Party, which represented Serbs at the Hungarian Assembly, Svetozar Miletić expressed opposition, and it was also against the law, to decide on the number of their deputies without the presence of border guards. At least according to the law from 1848, each of the Banat regiments, the German-Banat, Wallachian-Banat and Illyrian-Banat regiments, would elect one deputy. According to the key from Art. 2 of the 1848 law, one deputy represented 30–32,000 inhabitants, and the Frontier numbered 340,000, which would mean 10 or 11 deputies. “Now the former communities, Pančevo and Bela Crkva, are being neglected in relation to the counties and to the detriment of the annexation of regiments to those counties, even though Pančevo alone has 23,000 souls.” Instead of one injustice, and there were some in Transylvania and other areas, giving birth to another, so this was an opportunity to call for law and justice. Hungarian law stipulated that every regulated or organized resident of the country, who was at least 20 years old and did not reside under paternal or tutoring authority and was not punished for high treason, fraud, kidnapping, murder or arson, under the condition that he had a house, had the right to vote if aside from that he had a field worth 300 forints of silver or if he had 1/4 of sesija,31 and if he was a craftsman or a manufacturer, if he had his own workshop and worked continuously with one machine. If he did not belong to any of the listed groups, the resident could exercise the right to vote if he had a permanent annual income of 100 forints of silver, or if he was a priest, chaplain, teacher, municipal notary. Despite this determination and the work of the census committee, there were illegalities in the work of the Hungarian Assembly, which was acknowledged by the government paper as well, as Pest’s “Lloyd” stated that “The hatred between parties in the hands of voters is much harsher and in its consequences much more dangerous than in the hands of the Parliament itself. That must be put to an end if the Parliament is to be a truly faithful mirror of the people’s will.”32 At the time of the conference, the people of Pančevo were in a solemn mood, as they were aware of the importance of the event taking place in their city that day. There was, as someone wrote, a “harmonious fuss”. The gate of the Cathedral was decorated, the tribune was decorated with a Serbian tricolor and the emperor’s image, all around there were flags, and in front of 5–6,000 participants, the president of the Pančevo committee, Velizar Boboron, delivered a welcoming speech.

31 32

“Sesija” is the amount of land one household could cultivate on-translator’s remark. Biračko pravo, “Graničar”, August 30, 1873, 3; Mihovil Tomandl, “Dve istorijsko-političke studije,” [Two political-history study] Izbori M. P. Desančića u Banatskoj Granici (Pančevo, 1940).

54

Ivana Spasović

President Pejčić, rapporteur of the Pančevo committee Jovan Pavlović, Kamenko Jovanović, Dr. Svetislav Kasapinović, leading people of Pančevo and of the People’s Party, spoke heartily and with inspiration: “Welcome and may you happily solve your task! The goal of our meeting today is to take the first step from the current tutoring, border-like, unconditional life subordinated to the authorities—to free, constitutional, civil life” (Pejčić). Jovan Pavlović gave assurances that passivity would not make the Assembly disappear, while active opposition would at least awaken the people’s consciousness, spread it, raise it, preserve it and make it more mature: According to the laws of physics, if the weaker of the two forces withdrew, the stronger would be even greater … What value our opponents place on the outcome of these border elections can be seen from the fact that they use all means, just to send their man to Assembly, to thus they show the world that the Hungarian state thought has penetrated to the gates of Belgrade; we are friends of the wholeness and the constitution of Hungary, but we respect ourselves and the time will never come to abandon the rights of the Serbian people for the love of anyone’s hegemony.

This was met with stormy approval and thunderous shouts of “Long live!” He continued: “We want to show that the border guard in the Border is the master and that is why our man must come to the Assembly. If an opponent, a foreigner of some kind, goes, the world will say that there are no Serbs and Romanians, that they are nothing, but important next to some unit, so we will show that we are still very valuable today.” The municipalities of the former 13th Serbian-Banat Regiment, the Serbs and Romanians in it, were subsequently invited to a conference in Bela Crkva, on the occasion of preparations for the election of deputies to the Hungarian Assembly, on Saturday, September 8, 1873, according to the old calendar, and on September 20 according to the new calendar, with the following agenda: 1. Content of the program of the Serbian People’s Party in Pančevo; 2. Designation of candidates for deputies; 3. How to organize the Serbian-Romanian People’s Party in the former Bela Crkva Regiment, to produce the election of its candidate. The signatories were members of the Provisional Committee of the Serbian-Romanian People’s Party for the election of deputies to the Hungarian Assembly: Mileta Pradvarović, Gliša Mičin, Mita Barbulović, Pavle Miguleski, Kosta Boborani, Vasa Živković, Miša Novačesko, Aron Jovanović, Branko

Romanians and Serbs in the Banat Military Border

55

Bradvarović, Sima Pajka, Zaharije Stanković, Vasa Stefanović, Marko Mičin, Mita Milutinović, Đoka S. Milutinović.33 By order of the deputy prefect, the Magistrate banned the conference, allegedly because the prefect’s permit was not submitted with the application.34 The Serbs of the Bela Crkva were all the more determined to register on the voter list and vote for the candidates of the People’s Party.35 The Serbian-Banat Regiment, now the Bela Crkva constituency, drew special attention to the annulment of the census by the ministry, allegedly because there was no data on all voters, although they were already divided into traders, officials, farmers, etc. The supporters of Deak rejoiced to that and to the fact that the Torontal Central Committee had chosen “the wellknown moral and material ruin, Plug” as a member of the census commission, as if that could have changed their position. Dissatisfied and frightened by Laza Kostić’s election in Šajkaš, they spoke in the villages in favor of their candidate Bissingen.36 Serbs and Romanians nominated Vincențiu Babes, editor of the Romanian newspaper in Pest, “Albina.” He was proposed by the priest Stevanović from Uljma, and Miletić agreed to win over the Romanians.37 Along with the Serbian-Romanian party and Babes, free-minded Germans also agreed. Babes thanked the Serbs for the candidacy briefly in Serbian, “because Serbs don’t need to be spoken to much,” and spoke longer in Romanian and German. After the conference, a torchlight procession was held, with the participation of the Singing Society, toasts from Miletić and German Johann Siegl, who saw the salvation of the German people in Hungary in the program of the People’s Party.38 Out of 6,500, 3,500 Serb voters gave their vote; 500 Babes voters were challenged; the victory of the government candidate was declared too early and untrue; there were threats and arrests without trial, e.g. priest Zarije Stanković; the government spread the word about setting up a police line during the elections in Bela Crkva39 …



Graničar, no. 4 (October 2, 1873) Representatives of the Bela Crkva district denied the text from “Neue Temesvarer Zeitung”, no. 208, September 9, 1873, stating that they had proclaimed the government candidate Bissinger, “Zastava”, no. 110, September 19, October 1, 1873, “Graničar”, no. September 5, 6, 1873. 35 Graničar, no. 9 (September 20, 1873). 36 Zastava, October 31, November 12, 1873, p. 128. 37 Zastava, October 4, 16, 1873, 130. 38 Zastava, November 23, December 5, 1873, 138. 39 Zastava, October 4, 16, 1873, 130. 33

34

Ivana Spasović

56

The candidate of the People’s Party in Pančevo was Mihailo Polit Desančić. Polit’s opponent was Aleksandar Stojačković.40 A special surprise for the government was General Doda’s refusal to accept the government’s candidacy in Caransebeş and his accession to the People’s Party. As its candidate, Traian Doda also won in Caransebeş. December 28, 1873, was set as the day of the elections in Pančevo. The meeting of all municipalities, before entering Pančevo, was in Crepaja. Over ten thousand people gathered there. The already elected Bela Crkva’s MP Vincențiu Babes went to meet the people’s candidate with the Romanians from Uzdin and Novo Selo. In Crepaja, in a large area, in front of the church, the people’s candidate gave a speech to the gathered voters, which was enthusiastically received. But the peak of enthusiasm was in Pančevo itself. The election began on December 28, 1873. Each municipality was led to the polls by a priest and a teacher, and among them was a flag bearer with a Serbian flag. Serbian voters, because they did not know in which order they would vote, remained encamped on the big market, unlike the voters of the government party, and in the evening they lit fires like in a camp. The ladies from Pančevo cooked paprikash for the voters. The citizens of Pančevo did not get any sleep all night, dealing with the voters. Since all the voters could not withstand the winter, the patriotic people from Pančevo set up horsemen who would invite voters from certain inns, where they were staying, to the polls. The election lasted five days and four nights. When one of the citizens of Pančevo came among those border guards to encourage them not to lose heart, they replied: “Well, you know, my lord, that we border guards have learned that from the border. Since we were often freezing on the border, we can do it here, too”. During the election itself, the government party committed indescribable illegalities: some ballots disappeared, they did not register some voters properly. At that time, the Serbian commissioners demanded that a soldier with a bayonet stand in front of each scribe, because that is the only way they could be sure that the ballot would not disappear. But, when all the machinations did not help, and when on the fifth day the people’s candidate advanced with thousands of votes more, the president suddenly became ill and the vice president fell ill after him! As a result, the election was postponed indefinitely. The indignation among Serbian voters was indescribable. On the occasion of that thwarted election, Dr. Polit issued a proclamation to his voters, which gave vent to the hurt people’s feelings. If the election in the Pančevo district had not been interrupted, when the authorities saw that their candidate had 518 votes less, even before seven other Serbian municipalities voted, it is assumed that the end result would have been 5,745 votes for Polit, compared to 2,950 for Stojačković. Thanks to Kasapinović’s calmness, which he conveyed to the indignant voters, their conflict with the Hungarian Honveds and gendarmes did not occur.41



Mihovil Tomandl, Svetislav Kasapinović (Pančevo, 1940), 45. M. Tomandl, Svetislav Kasapinović, 45.

40 41

Romanians and Serbs in the Banat Military Border

57

Although not yet an MP, but certainly a moral and political winner, Polit wrote after the election: “The government cowardly escaped from the constitutional battle before the dawn and heroism of the Serbian consciousness in the Frontier. Let that be enough satisfaction for us for now. On the next such constitutional battle let the Serb know what he should do, and now—shame on that government, and glory, three times glory to the voters of the People’s Party in the Pačcevo district and a happier upcoming year!!!”42

The Hungarian government arranged a new election in Pančevo for March 1874. The government party again made the greatest efforts. Conscious Serbian voters exercised their constitutional right in the greatest silence. There were no flags in the second election. The candidate was welcomed in silence, and while the election was going on, there was dead silence in Pančevo. The election lasted for two days and two nights. On the second night at half past two in the morning, the president-elect declared Mihail PolitDesančić an elected member of the Pančevo constituency. There was no end to the enthusiasm. In the first period of the constitutional era and after the Settlement of 1867, the people’s deputies in the Hungarian Assembly played a significant role. They had their own national club, which was attended not only by MPs from the opposition, but also Serbs and Romanians from the government (Deak’s) party, when a debate was held on an important national issue. Over time, the club became smaller and smaller, both due to the absence of government representatives and the fact that the Germans, after the conflict with the Romanians, founded a special club. Miletić’s Romanian colleague, Alexandru Mocioni, retracted his mandate in 1873, out of the belief that it was no longer possible to work with the Hungarians. That year, the Hungarian Frontier was disestablished, and the elections in it increased the number of deputies of the national opposition party. According to the election law from 1848, each border regiment and the Šajkaš Battalion could submit only one deputy for the Hungarian Assembly, so the whole Frontier could have only four deputies.43 In the election period of 1872 to 1875, in the Budapest Parliament, in addition to Romanians, opposition MPs were also Serbs: Mihailo PolitDesančić, Svetozar Miletić, Nika Maksimović, Laza Kostić, Aleksandar Trifunac. After Babeș there was short-lived representation of the former 13th

“Prvi korak u novu godinu,” [The first tep into the hew year] Zastava, 1874, 1. Sve dosadašnje besede dr M. Polit-Desančića, sa povesničkim crtama iz srpske političke borbe 1861–1883 [All previous sermons by Dr. M. Polit Desancic, with historical lines from the Serbian political strggle 1861–1883] (Novi Sad, 1883), 179, 180.

42

43

58

Ivana Spasović

Regiment, from the entry of the Border into the Hungarian constitutional and parliamentary system, to the elections of 1875. In the second threeyear period, until 1878, there were no more Romanians—only opposition MPs and out of the Serbs only Miletić and Polit-Desančić remained. When Svetozar Miletić was arrested and taken to the Budim Criminal Court prison in Novi Sad in July 1876, and after the verdict to Vac prison, the Serbian people were represented at the Hungarian Assembly only by Pančevo’s MP Mihailo Polit-Desančić. (The reason for Miletić’s arrest was the suspicion that he was gathering 20–30,000 Serbian volunteers with Kasapinović for the war against Turkey). Notably, that year and the years that followed, except for 1878, when he was simultaneously elected in Bačka, Šajkaš and Banat, and when he retained that Uzdin mandate, Polit-Desančić was always in the Assembly thanks to the awareness, fighting spirit and resistance of the Banat people.44 Judging by his performances at the rostrum, the impression and the trace they left on the re-elections, he did not disappoint the expectations of the former border guards and their descendants. The first appearance of the Border on the political scene, through PolitDesančić, as well as through Laza Kostić, Traian Doda and Vincențiu Babeș (elected in Titel, Caransebeş and Bela Crkva) was on May 11, 1874, when these deputies sent a proposal to the Lower House of Parliament for resolution, requesting the formation of a committee of 11 members, which, in agreement with His Majesty, would examine the difficulties and wishes in the Banat Border, and then submit a report to the Assembly with concrete proposals. The floor was taken by the MP from the Pančevo constituency. He considered it his duty to warn the Hungarian public of the dangers of the so-called “Hungarian state idea,” equating the Hungarian people with the Hungarian state. “The fact that the Hungarian people are in the possession of state power must not contribute to turning the issue of non-Hungarian nationalities in Hungary into a question of force,” said Polit-Desančić. He and his colleagues from the former Banat Border expected advice from the committee on the shortcomings of the people’s law from 1868, in agreement with the government and them, the representatives of the Border, as well as a submission to change the law, at least in the section related to the Frontier. According to Babeș, Doda, Kostić and Polit- Desančić, the entirety of the changes that should be implemented in South Banat were included

Nikola Milutinović, "Prve dve poslaničke izborne pobede Mihaila Polit-Desančića u Banatu“ [The first two parliamentary election victories of Mihail Polit Desancic in Banat], Zbornik MS za društvene nauke, 13, no. 14 (1956): 209.

44

Romanians and Serbs in the Banat Military Border

59

in ten points of their proposal: political administrative organization of the Border, judiciary, language equality, education, peasant-cooperative life, use of income from Erar forests, tax reduction, securing property rights and their enjoyment for the Romanian population, free use of mineral baths, and lastly, increasing the number of parliamentary seats in the Border.45 Aware of the impatience with which its report on this parliamentary session would be received in Banat, “Zastava” carefully followed its every moment and first emphasized that Polit spoke nicely and clearly, with great oratory skills, in good Hungarian and in a beautiful voice. Everyone listened to him very carefully, and Tisin’s “Elener” reported, that even Deak himself was not listened to in the same manner. The article continues: We see that journalistic Hungary is still blind because it advocates the principle of the ruling policy, which consists in giving uniformity, uniformity to the entire state organization, regardless of justified characteristics and various special relations of certain parts of this country, with a purely Hungarian type and character. With that it was said that Hungarians should not give up the Hungarianization of non-Hungarian peoples. On the other hand, there is no other answer we could give but that, in that case, this would announce the constant struggle of the state’s non-Hungarians with such a policy of Hungary, which could not bring about another prediction but the final death of one of the fighting parties. Which side would be the one to submit to such a destiny, we leave to the judgment of those concerned.46

At the next session of the Hungarian Assembly, held on July 2, 1874, a discussion was held on electoral reform, in which Polit-Desančić, on behalf of Pančevo and the entire abolished Banat Border, demanded true democracy of the common state of Hungarians and other peoples; he reiterated and emphasized the demand that border guards, in proportion to the number of inhabitants, reach a larger number of deputies and demanded the introduction of universal suffrage. Similar to Miletić, who has already written that “Either Hungary will adapt to democratic and popular thought, which is, if not causally, then certainly in mutual connection with each other, or the grain among the grains will be ground,” Polit-Desančić said on this occasion that Hungary is on the verge of great storms, which are related to the solution

Sve dosadašnje besede dr Mihaila Polit-Desančića, sa povesničkim crtama iz srpske političke borbe (1861–1883) [All previous sermons by Dr. M. Polit Desancic, with historical lines from the Serbian political strggle 1861–1883] (N. Sad, 1883), 181–184; S. Milleker, Istorija Banatske vojne granice [History of Banat’s military border], 219; M. Tomandl, Dve istorijsko političke studije … [The two history-political study … ], 29; N. Milutinović, op. cit, 216. 46 Zastava, “Krajina na Ugarskom saboru,” May 3,15, 1874, 52. 45

60

Ivana Spasović

of the great Eastern question, which will, in all likelihood, solve the fate of Hungary. He continued: “It is my conviction that Hungary must become either eastern Switzerland or it will not exist. We, followers of democracy— and here meaning not only non-Hungarian representatives, but also those Hungarians who want this country to become free and democratic—we hope to implement and save this homeland in these storms, but to you, gentlemen, on the other side, when the catastrophe of the Eastern Question is coming, we Serbs will tell you: ‘See you again at Philippi’s! Bei Phillippi sehen wir uns wieder!’ ”47 It is not surprising that such a heartfelt speech caused a storm in parliament, and a sense of pride in Pančevo. A good connoisseur of life and people and aware that every aggression is a reflection of internal instability, comparing the state with the human body, Polit-Desančić, who represented the former 12th Border Regiment, then the Pančevo Electoral District, saw Hungary as a great, but dependent and unfree, unhappy state. One week later, on February 11, 1875, the border deputies took part in the debate on the budget and the introduction of new taxes.48 Polit-Desančić used every opportunity in the Assembly to express his anger towards the government, his opinion on important issues and his aspiration to contribute to the betterment of his voters and other compatriots and fellow citizens. Thus, on the occasion of the debate on the interest-free loan of 300,000 forints for the Hungarian National Theater, held on April 13, 1875, he proved again in two speeches that Hungary was not a national Hungarian state, but a people’s state, that non-Hungarian peoples were in the majority in Hungary and that the Hungarian will never succeed in the hungarization of millions of Slovaks, Romanians and Serbs living on Hungarian territory. “You can claim here, where you are in the majority, that Hungary is a state of one people, but you cannot invalidate the statistics, and it confirms that in Hungary the non-Hungarian peoples are—the majority!”49 At the same session of the Assembly, deputies from the former Hungarian Frontier submitted a proposal for a decision with the following content:



Zastava, “Susret mađarske i narodnosne misli,” [An encounter of Hungarian and natinal thought] June 26, July 8, 1874, 74; Sve dosadašnje besede dr Mihaila PolitDesančića … [All previous sermons by Dr. M. Polit Desancic …] (Novi Sad, 1883), 199. 48 M. Tomandl, op. cit, 31. 49 Sve dosadašnje besede dr Mihaila Polit-Desančića … [All previous sermons by Dr. M. Polit Desancic …] (Novi Sad, 1883), 224; M. Tomandl, op. cit, 31; N. Milutinović, op. cit, 217. 47

Romanians and Serbs in the Banat Military Border

61

Considering that the Proposal for the decision, containing numerous difficulties of the population of the former Frontier, that was submitted to the House of Representatives on May 11 last year by the undersigned, has not been put on the agenda until today, in this Assembly in the way they desired, due to the shortness of time, it can no longer be resolved. But considering that the Proposals for the decision contain difficulties of such a nature that their fair and just solution as soon as possible is in the interest of the local population and in the interest of the homeland and becomes the right of duty of the provincial government; the undersigned, both in the interest of the fatherland and the people represented by them, are free to propose: let the famous house of representatives decide, that the Proposal for the decision, signed on May 11 for the elimination of the difficulties of the people of the former Frontier be split, be given to the earthly authorities with that aim, that if the difficulties given in that decision can be solved within the scope of individual ministers, that they solve them at least provisionally, and if the solution of these problems requires more detailed knowledge, to obtain them in their own way and, finally, if any legislative regulation is requireed, that the relevant ministries submit such a document at the next Assembly. In Buda-Pest, April 12/24, 1875. В. Babeș, Dr. M. Polit-Desančić, Dr. L. Kostić, T. Doda50

After hesitating between the government’s candidacy and the People’s Party’s program, Traian Doda was elected as a supporter of Deak on January 1, 1874, in the Caransebeş constituency, but in the Assembly he supported the position of the other three deputies from the Banat Border. In the next elections, on July 8, 1875, he was re-elected and that decided the survival of the Severin County, but only until the end of 1880, when it was merged with Krassó. The main reason for that was the persistent resistance to Hungarianization, including in this area resisting against the activity of the royal commissioner Nikola Ujfalussi, known for abolishing voting rights, bringing exclusively Hungarian officials, replacing the county head Bogdan himself and causing a great revolt in Dolboşeţ in 1878, among the population that did not tolerate the new order and its terror.51 The Pančevo constituency was divided, by the decision of the government of Kalman Tisza, in 1878 into Pančevo and Uzdin, in an attempt to prevent the election of a Serbian MP from this important part of the former Banat Border. Polit-Desančić, who in his previous speeches at the Assembly, compensated the Frontier for all the years of exclusion from political life,

Laza Kostić, О politici, o umetnosti [About politics and the arts], I, Novinski članci 1863–1878 (Novi Sad, 1990), 299, 300; Zastava, “Predlog za odluku, ” Zastava, April 20, May 2, 1875, 6. 51 F. Milleker, Istorija Banatske vojne granice [History of Banat’s military border] (Pančevo, 1926), 220.

50

Ivana Spasović

62

again, thanks to the Serbian-Romanian agreement, won the elections in 1881 in the new Uzdin District.52 The credit went to Polit-Desančić even if, on his 70th birthday, looking back and considering the condition of his people, he did not find that the struggle was worth with what the Serbs in Hungary entered the twentieth century.53 To his friend Kasapinović, handing over the Minutes of his election victories in 1874, 1875 and 1881 to the Serbian Orthodox Church Municipality, he wrote: More than a quarter of a century passed since the enthusiasm of the proud citizens of Pančevo and Serb border guards in the election of deputies to the Hungarian Assembly was so wonderfully manifested. You and your friends in Pančevo deserve the greatest credit for knowing how to lead the people in your enthusiasm. All those who lived in that age will remember those days, when the constitutional battle was held in Pančevo in such a great way that the whole of Serbdom looked at Pančevo and was proud of the Serbian fighters of the Pančevo constituency.54

Conclusion Serbian-Romanian relations went through a great ordeal in the circumstances of the development of the Banat Border in 1872. The two peoples, related to each other by kinship (religious, historical, geographical, etc.) and interests, then faced the challenge of the new age. The end of the ‘60s and the beginning of the ‘70s of the nineteenth century brought the Banat Border guards a historical turning point that reflected on the lives of their families, but also the challenge of entering the parliamentary life of Hungary. The visit of the Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph to Bela Crkva on May 7, 1872, testifies to the importance of these events. In the diplomatic sense, the role of the mother states, the principalities of Romania and Serbia were also important. Finally, the joint appearance of Romanian and Serbian candidates brought victory in the first elections held in 1874 in the newly abolished Banat Military Border, despite attempts by the authorities to steal the election results.



Sve dosadašnje besede dr M. Polit-Desančića … [All previous sermons by Dr. M. Polit Desancic …] (Novi Sad, 1883), 221. 53 ASASA, HC, 13091/15, Novi Sad, June 19 1903, Prepiska Svetislava Kasapinovića, Pismo Mihaila Polit-Desančića. 54 ASASA, HC, 13091/9, April 15, 1900, Prepiska Svetislava Kasapinovića, Pismo Mihaila Polit-Desančića. 52

Romanians and Serbs in the Banat Military Border

63

Bibliography Archive of SASA (ASASA), Historical collection, 13091/15, Prepiska Svetislava Kasapinovića; ASASA, Fond Jovana Ristića. The history archives in Pančevo (HAP), Fond Magistrata; The history archives in Bela Crkva (HABC), Fond Magistrata. Library of the Archives of the Serbian Orthodox Church Municipality of Pančevo (LASOCMP): Stojan Novaković, Ustanak u Boki, 1869. “Pančevac”, 1869–1873; “Srbski narod”, 1872; “Banater Post”, 1872; “Graničar”, 1873; “Zastava”, 1873–1875. Jankulov, Borislav. Prilozi za istoriju Pančeva [The sources for Pancevo history]. Pančevo: Štamparija Prosveta, 1924. Kostić, Laza. O politici, o umetnosti: Novinski članci 1863–1878 I [About politics, about art: Journalistic articles 1863–1878 I]. Novi Sad: Matica Srpska, 1990. Malešević, Stevan. Srbi i Rumuni, juridičesko-politička studija [Serbs and Romanians, jurist-political study]. Novi Sad: Braća M. Popović, 1899. Mileker, Feliks. Istorija Banatske vojne granice 1764–1873 [History of Banat’s military border 1764–1873]. Pančevo: Štamparija “Napredak”, 1926. Milutinović, Kosta. “Srbi u Dalmaciji 1797–1878.” [Serbs in Dalmatia 1797–1878]. In Istorija srpskog naroda, Book V, edited by Vladimir Stojančević, 296–463. Beograd: Srpska književna zadruga, 1981. Milutinović, Nikola. “Prve dve poslaničke izborne pobede Mihaila Polit-Desančića u Banatu.” [The first two parliamentary election victories of Mihail Polit Desancic in Banat] Zbornik Matice srpske za društvene nauke 13, no. 14 (1956): 209–225. Obrenović, Natalija. Moje uspomene [My memories]. Belgrade: Srpska književna zadruga, 1999. Penca, Nikolae. Monografija opštine Roman Petre (Petrovo selo, Vladimirovac), 1808– 1908. [Monography of Roman Petre Municipality (Petrovo selo, Vladimirovac), 1808–1908]. Pančevo: Istorijski arhiv, 2001. Popović J. Dušan, Vojna granica, u knjizi Vojvodina, II, 1940. Polit-Desančić, Mihailo. Sve dosadanje besede dr M. Polit-Desančića, sa povesničkim crtama iz srpske političke borbe 1861–1883 [All speeches of dr M. Ppolit-Desančić, with historical remarks from the Serbian political fights 1861–1883]. Novi Sad: Parna Štamparija Nikole Dimitrijevića, 1883. Radenić, Andrija. Dnevnik Benjamina Kalaja [The Diary of Benjamin Kalaj]. Beograd: / Novi Sad: Institut za istoriju/Istorijski institut Vojvodine, 1975. Subotić, Jovan. Život DRa Jovana Subotića (avtobiografija) [The life of dr Jovan Subotić (autobiography)]. Novi Sad: Izdanje Matice Srpske, 1909. Subotić, Svetolik. “Iz prošlosti Bele Crkve.” [From the Past of Bela Crkva town], Zbornik Matice srpske za društvene nauke 17 (1957): 112–113. Tomandl, Mihovil. Dr Svetislav Kasapinović. Pančevo: Knjižarsko izdavački zavod “Napredak” Braća Jovanović, 1940.

64

Ivana Spasović

Tomandl, Mihovil, Dve istorijsko-političke studije: Izbori M. P. Desančića u Banatskoj granici-Miletićev Baša-Hidski poraz i Titelski izbor 1875. godine [Two historicalpolitical studies]. Pančevo: Knjižarsko izdavački zavod “Napredak” Braća Jovanović, 1938 Vojvodić, Mihailo. Putevi srpske diplomatije [Roads of Serbian diplomacy]. Beograd: Clio, 1999. Vučković, Vojislav J. Politička akcija Srbije u južnoslovenskim pokrajinama Habzburške monarhije 1859–1874 [The political actions of Serbia in South Slavic provinces of Habsburg Monarchy]. Beograd: Naučno delo, 1965.

Romanian-Serbian Relations Reflected in Vasile Popeangă’s Works. Historiographical Insight F elicia A neta Oarcea

There are people who are strong, with unselfish characters, capable, through their power of example, to change the life of the communities in which they live and work. Through hard work and perseverance, the distinguished professor, Vasile Popeangă created his own universe—one that takes its place in the system of the fundamental values of human existence. He embraced Friedrich von Schiller`s advice “Live in your time but do not be its creation, work for your contemporaries but be what they need, not what they praise.”1

Vasile Popeangă (1920–2012), Short Biography He was born to two hardworking parents, Ioan and Maria Popeangă, in the village of Lelești, in Gorj County, on December 22, 1920, during the interwar period, and continued residing in Romania during communism, as well as the post-revolutionary era. He was a bright book lover from an early age when he started his education in his village, later moving to the Spiru Haret School in Târgu Jiu and the “Frații Buzești” Highschool in Craiova. There he sat for the Baccalaureate exam in 1942, followed by undergraduate studies in Letters and Philosophy at the University of Bucharest. Unfortunately, he had to quit his studies to instead enroll in the 18 “Dorobanți” regiment from Târgu Jiu at the start of World War II, in which he would encounter

Felicia Aneta Oarcea, “Dr. Elena Rodica Colta. Repere biografice,” [Dr. Elena Rodica Colta. Biographical milestones] în Studii și comunicări. In honorem Elena Rodica Colta la 65 de ani, ediție îngrijită de dr. Felicia Aneta Oarcea (Arad: Editura Gutenberg Univers, 2017), 11.

1

66

F elicia A neta Oarcea

the harsh conditions of battle in Mindszent and Budapest from 1942–1944, that eventually landed him in the Military Hospital in Bucharest to undergo surgery2 after being wounded near the Kerepesi Cemetery, not far away from the Hungarian capital, and then again in the Slovakian Mountains.3 The end of the war meant that in the autumn of 1945 he could return to university, where he was destined to meet renowned professors, such as Gheorghe I. Brătianu, George Călinescu, Tudor Vinu, Dimitrie Gusti, C.C. Giurăscu, Mircea Florian, G.G. Antonescu and others. In 1947 he graduated with a pedagogy dissertation directed by C. Narly.4 Popeangă started his professional career with patience and perseverance. He was given a teaching job in Nadlac, Arad County. On September 1, 1947, the young teacher of Romanian language was invited by the school inspector, Mihai Păun, to a pedagogy course in Predeal (1949). Soon after, the same teacher offered him a teaching job at the Pedagogical School in Arad where he taught the history of pedagogy. When his mentor began teaching Romanian language again, he tried to support talented young poets. Grateful to his benefactor, years after, Popeangă remembered his personality in a volume that was dedicated to the Pedagogical Highschool from Arad.5 Distinguished educators and men of culture have been working in this famous institution throughout the years. A thorough spirit, tactful and conscientious, Popeangă was named deputy head teacher between 1956 and 1960 and head teacher between 1960 and 1978. After 35 years of teaching activity, Vasile Popeangă retired in 1983. Nevertheless, he stayed close to the values and the traditions of the Pedagogical Highschool. Between 1984 and 1990, the distinguished professor carried out assiduous scientific research at the Pedagogical Research Institute in Bucharest.6 After the 1989 Revolution, together with other



A dialogue with the emeritus university professor Vasile Popeangă in the autumn of 2006. 3 Ibid., 16. 4 Serviciul Județean al Arhivelor Naționale Arad, Colecția Vasile Popeangă (1799– 1996) [The collection Vasile Popenga (1799–1996)], nr. inv. 505, dosar personal, Autobiografie. 5 Vasile Popeangă, Studii despre Preparandia din Arad [Studies on Preparandia from Arad] (Arad: “Vasile Goldiș” University Press, 2011), 210. 6 Marțian Iovan, “Prof. univ. dr. Vasile Popeangă. Universitatea de Vest “Vasile Goldiș” din Arad. Laudatio,” [Univ. Prof. Dr. Vasile Popeanga. Western University “Vasile Goldis” from Arad Praise] in Doctor Honoris Causa. 1990–2010 (Arad: Editura Gutenberg Univers, 2010), 129. 2

Romanian-Serbian Relations in Vasile Popeangă’s Works

67

intellectuals, he founded the “Vasile Goldiș” University from Arad, where he taught until 2010. For years he enriched the Romanian historiography, through studies, articles and books that were published both in Romania and abroad. Few people know that his immense interests focused not only on the Romanian educational system from the Arad area and Transylvania, but also from the Serbian Banat or Hungary. As an example of a highly professional educator, he was concerned with the enrichment of the Arad museal heritage with different manuscripts, due to the relationships he kept with some of the figures who were present at the Great Union on December 1, 1918, in Alba Iulia, but whose works were thwarted by the communist regime. A significant correspondence, books, and documents may be found at the personal foundation, that he had constituted during his life at the Arad archives. The entire heritage was released as a priceless legacy. By the end of 2010, he was old and in poor health, but content with his accomplishments. In January of 2011, he passed away leaving behind an immense corpus of work.

Pathways in Researching the Romanian and Serbian Relations The pathways in the domain of educational sciences that Popeangă followed can be observed in terms of Romanian-Serbian relations: the collaboration between the Pedagogical Highschool from Arad and the one in Vârșeț; his own historical research at the Serbian archives; the activity of various Romanian primary school teachers from the Arad County among the Romanian communities from the Serbian Banat; the contemporary Romanian language historiography in the Serbian Banat.

The Relations between the Pedagogical Highschool in Arad and the Highschool in Vârșeț The year of 1967 marked the beginning of a close relationship between the Pedagogical Highschool from Arad and the one in Vârșeț. It is the year when 25 students from Vârșeț came to Arad with their teacher, Gligor Popi.7 Considered an important moment for the relation of the two neighboring states, the visit opened the door for new ways of collaboration: trips and cultural events in Belgrade and Novi Sad. Vasile Popeangă recalls that “In

Vasile Popeangă, Studii din domeniul științelor educației [Studies in the field of edu­ cational sciences] (Arad: “Vasile Goldiș” University Press, 2007), 67–68.

7

68

F elicia A neta Oarcea

Belgrade, especially at the Mladost Bookshop [he] saw tens of Romanian volumes printed in Germany, Yugoslavia and Spain”.8 The cross-border relations and intercultural exchanges between Arad and the Romanian communities from Voivodina were intensified by Professor Nicolae Roșuț (1933–1981). The meetings between the teachers Radu Flora, Milan Vanku, Gligor Popi from Vârșeț, Nikola Gavrilovici from Novi Sad and Momčilo Saviči, from Belgrade were centered around the topic of the Romanian presence in the history of the Former Yugoslavia and the presence of the Serbians and Croatians in the cultural and historical life of Romanians. We are indebted to them for the findings on the Alexici family and its contribution to the enrichment of the Romanian and universal cultural heritage. The relentless educator, Momčilo Saviči, facilitated the study of some archive documents in Budapest and the meetings with the relatives of Gheorghe Alexici in Straja (near Vârșeț). Years later, member of the Romanian Academy, Gligor Popi from Vârșeț, stated that the Pedagogical Highschool from Arad was his first home. His interest in the area resulted in archivistic research on churches, schools, old houses, as well as following the historical traces of his ancestors in Frumușeni and Bizere, the place from where they were forced to leave.9 For more than three decades, the close cultural relations between the two countries were kept alive by Vasile Popeangă and Gligor Popi. Renowned educators, intellectuals and researchers from the schools and the universities in Vârșeț, Novi Sad, Belgrade, but also from Timișoara or Bucharest participated at the conferences organized by them. Mihai Avramescu and Teodor Șandru, former graduates of the Pedagogical Highschool in Arad, helped establish intercultural relations between Romanians and Serbians in the field of history, ethnography, folklore, and linguistics.10 The Musical school festivals and competitions from 1980, organized by the music teacher Petru Juriță (1940–2009), opened new cultural opportunities for Romanian and Serbian relations, especially due to the contribution of the Romanian Language Society from Voivodina.11 Years after, Gligor Popi noted that “the merits for this close relation between the two educational institutions go to the principals of this school. The principals Vasile Popeangă and Miroslav Djordjević have become true friends and very good collaborators”.12

Popeangă, Studii despre Preparandia, 98. Ibid., 239. 10 Popeangă, Studii din domeniul științelor, 78. 11 Ibid., Studii despre Preparandia, 250. 12 Gligor Popi, “Ultimele amintiri legate de personalitatea profesorului dr. Vasile Popeangă,” [The last memories related to the personality of Dr. Vasile Popeanga], 8 9

Romanian-Serbian Relations in Vasile Popeangă’s Works

69

New Romanian-Serbian Scientific Research Approaches Popeangă’s interest in the relations between the two countries animated research of the history of education of the Romanians living in the Habsburg Monarchy. His activities show an almost forgotten aspect of his complex personality. Avid for knowledge, he investigated inaccessible archive documents. The school’s institutional setting played an important role in his preoccupations. His closeness with the Serbian intellectual circles granted him access to the archives from the Science and Arts Academy in Karlovitz. Grozdanka Gojkov, member of the Romanian Academy, and former Dean of the Pedagogical Academy from Vârșeț, remembered that Popeangă had maintained exceptional relationships with the principal of the Highschool in Vârșeț while he was a principal himself. The old friendship with Gligor Popi, the principal of the already mentioned school institution, continued when the letter went to Arad for a school exchange.13 The scientific encounters between Romanians and Serbians opened new research opportunities. The well-known professor nostalgically confessed that he benefitted from Momčilo Savić and Nikola Gavrilović’s help so that he could conduct his research in the archives from Belgrade, Novi Sad and Sremski Karlovac.14 The rich data base contributed also to the establishment of new research opportunities regarding the history of education in the former Habsburg Monarchy. Studying the problem of hierarchical relations between Romanians and Serbians in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries from the ecclesiastic and educational perspective, he highlighted the determination of both Romanians and Serbians to form an intellectual elite capable of fighting for the rights of the Illyrian nation. Serbian school inspectors, Romanian teachers, spiritual leaders, and political personalities, all worked for the creation of a large school network. For decades, Popeangă pursued authentic, methodical, and serious research. Making known to the public the documents from the Archive of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Sremski Karlovci—Fond A (1786, 1797, 1816), School Fund (1807, 1809, 1810, 1811, 1813, 1816, 1818), Temišvarski Sabor Archive of Vojvodina in Sremski Karlovci-Ilirska Royal Office (1791, in Vasile Popeangă. Vocație de intelectual (Arad: Editura Universității “Aurel Vlaicu”, 2007), 89. 13 Grozdanka Gojkov, “La jubileul prof. dr. Vasile Popeangă,” [The jubilee of prof. Dr. Vasile Popeanga], in Vasile Popeangă. Vocație de intelectual (Arad: Editura Universității “Aurel Vlaicu”, 2007), 86. 14 Popeangă, Studii despre Preparandia, 315.

70

F elicia A neta Oarcea

1792) contributed to renew the Romanian historiography concerning the Romanian schools from the Arad area between 1721 and 1821. In the volume dedicated to this historiographical topic, the distinguished professor Vasile Popeangă showed the way in which the educational politics promoted by the Court of Vienna were applied and their impact upon the school network from the Arad area that were under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Karlovitz. The valuable documents from the Voivodina Archives—Ilirska dvorska deputacija și Ilirska dvorska kancelarija, contained conscriptions, reports and important references about the way in which books in Romanian were published in Vienna and Budapest, but also mention the efforts of Romanian authorities to set up and develop the school network. Two conscriptions, Tabelle über die in dem Königreich Hungarn et annexis Provinciis dann in denen Karlstaedter, Warasdiner, Banat Sclavonil und Temesvarer Militärgrenzen wie auch in dem Temesvarer Banat vorhandene nicht unierte Trivial oder Elementar Schulen de Anno 1772 and Tabelle von der Arader Dioces über den Zustand der Normal und Trivial Schulen bei den Glaubensgenossen der griechsch nicht unierten Kirche vom Jahr 1791 provide a complex image of the educational system from Arad, at the end of the eighteenth century. Regarding his activities initiated between 1971 and 1973, Popeangă wrote about them with deep gratitude. He underlined that he was sustained by Kalman Cehak, director of the Voivodina Archives and by the librarian from the Scientific Serbian Academy Archives, Cedomir Denici. And there were also the scientific dialogues with distinguished professors such as Nicola Gavrilović (Novi Sad) și Gligor Popi (Vârșeț).15 His hard work resulted in three papers dedicated to the educational system from the Arad area, in the twentieth century: Un secol de activitate școlară românească în părțile Aradului. 1721–1821 (Arad, 1974), Școala românească din părțile Aradului la mijlocul secolului al XIX-lea. 1821–1867 (Arad, 1979), Școala românească din părțile Aradului în perioada 1867–1918 (Arad 1976).16 Through studies and books, a special importance was given to the Pedagogical Highschool in Arad. The exhaustive documentation of Teodor Botiș and Avram Sădean represented the architectural basis for Popeangă’s future scientific work. The orthodox ecclesiastic authorities from Karlovitz and the school inspector, Uroș Nestorovici, did everything within their Ibid., Un secol de activitate școlară românească în părțile Aradului. 1721–1821 [A century of Romanian school activity in the parts of Arad. 1721–1821] (Arad: 1974), 5, 75–78. 16 Felicia Aneta Oarcea, Școala și societatea în comitatul Arad (1867–1918) [School and society in Arad country] (Arad: Editura Gutenberg Univers, 2012), 22.

15

Romanian-Serbian Relations in Vasile Popeangă’s Works

71

power to set up the Greek Pedagogical Royal Highschool. The financial and material struggles, together with the mentalities of that time were overcome by the teachers of the educational institution.17 The complexity of Popeangă’s research express his careful interest in the educational world—one that, starting with the eighteenth century and up to 1918, underwent different modernizing political metamorphoses coming from Vienna, or laws and modernizing changes set up by the AustrianHungarian Empire, starting in 1868. With the help of significant relationships, and due to the desire to give to the scientific world another historical and pedagogical approach, with scientific and monographic spirit, Professor Popeangă analyzed the Romanian educational history in the Arad area, its identity, its beginning, and its struggle to keep alive its national identity. All these have shown the determinations that both Romanians and Serbians had to establish an intellectual elite capable of fighting for their rights. The hard work of analyzing the Romanian school network that was under the ecclesiastic authority’s jurisdiction from Karlovitz crossed with the analysis of the social and cultural aspects of life in previous centuries for Romanians and Serbians.18 Popeangă took a close look at the challenges that new-born states from Central and Eastern Europe dealt with after the fall of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. In the chapter, “Provocările timpurilor moderne și răspunsurile eparhiale”, from the volume Eparhia Aradului în perioada instituționalizării culturii naționale. 1807–1948, he analyzed the situation of the Romanian schools in Yugoslavia under the Orthodox Episcopalian jurisdiction in the interwar period. The legislative measures applied by the authorities from Belgrade in the school year of 1920–1921, stated that the school, as a state institution, belonged to the state, and so teaching would be conducted in the Serbian language. Many teachers emigrated to Romania. The energetic initiatives taken by the priest Gherasim Andru at the Consistory from Arad, the Romanian and Yugoslavian meetings that demanded that the principle of reciprocity in the relations between the Romanian and Serbian states regarding Serbian or Romanian minorities resulted in the agreement document,

Vasile Popeangă, “Înființarea Preparandiei din Arad în context pedagogic cultural european” [The establishment of Preparandia in Arad in European cultural pedagogical conext] Ziridava 25, no. 1 (2010): 149–150; Pavel Vesa, Învățământul teologic de la Arad (1822–1948) [Theological education in Arad (1822–1948)] (Deva: Editura Episcopiei Devei și Hunedoarei, 2013), 42. 18 Popeangă, Un secol de activitate, 3–4. 17

72

F elicia A neta Oarcea

Acord privind școlile minoritare române și sârbo-croate din Banatul jugoslav și roman, signed in Blad on August 17, 1927. Later, on September 26, 1933, the Convenția privind școlile primare minoritare din Banat, was signed in Belgrade by the Alexandru Iakovaky from the Romanian Ministry and B. D. Jevtici from the Yugoslavian Foreign Ministry. The benefits of this historical act became the subjects of different exhaustive research undertakings initiated by Romanian and Serbian historians.19 The intensification of Romanian and Serbian cultural relations through the presence of important researchers from Arad, opened new means of collaboration, and Vasile Popeangă read their works and wrote about them in 2007. With great energy at 87 years old, professor Popeangă enriched the Romanian-Serbian relation historiography. It was a form of gratitude towards those that, in the year of 2007 when the distinguished professor was given the Doctor Honoris Causa title by the Vasile Goldiș University in Arad, praised the professor and his scientific activity in the volume Vasile Popeangă. Vocație de intelectual. At the end of his life and activity, the researcher Vasile Popeangă opened the memory box. A good observer of the efforts enacted by teachers from the Serbian Banat in order to support the educational system, Romanian values and traditions, he proposed an historiographic incursion. His two research approaches were based on the involvement of teachers from the Arad area to the preserving of Romanian cultural identity and to highlighting the Romanian language contemporary historiographical contribution.

The Role of the Teachers from Arad in Preserving the Romanian Cultural Identity in the Serbian Banat In Studii în domeniul științelor educației, Popeangă dedicated two chapters to this problem. He discussed the teachers’ mobility, the cultural exchanges, and the impact of those from the Arad area upon the Romanian community in the Former Yugoslavia. He also brought to light the portraits of certain educators “true cultural promoters,” such as Atanasie Lipovan or Romulus Roman. After the Paris Peace Conference, the localities from the south of the Banat County became part of Serbian state. Realizing the danger of reducing the number of Romanian language schools, Romulus Roman adapted the schoolbooks printed in Arad and in

Ibid., Eparhia Aradului în perioada instituționalizării culturii naționale. 1807–1948 [The eparchy of Arad during the institutinatilazion of national culture. 1807–1948] (Arad: “Vasile Goldiș” University Press, 2006), 289, 296–297.

19

Romanian-Serbian Relations in Vasile Popeangă’s Works

73

the Serbian Banat. The dramatic situation of the Romanian educational system and the need to resolve the problem of the minorities made it possible for the foreign minister, Take Ionescu, and the president of the Serbian ministry council, Nikola Pašić, to meet on June 7, 1921. After more than a decade, in March 1933, the Yugoslavian-Romanian Educational Accord was signed. From then on, the Romanian teachers who became Yugoslavian citizens, had the right to teach in the Romanian schools on a contract. Two of the 17 teachers that found themselves in this situation, Mihai Avramescu (1914–1981) and Teodor Șandru (1912–1993), became real communication facilitators between the Highschool from Arad, from where they had graduated, and that of Vârșeț. Their efforts were continued by Alexandru Crișan (1912–1974), Verișan Ștefan (1915–?) and Nicolae Polverejan (1911–1995). They were rooted in the realities that the Romanians from Romania were confronted with. They also tried to find an answer to the cultural and educational needs of those living in Voivodina. Thus, they strengthened the idea of national identity, facilitating the cultural interferences between the Romanians and the Serbs.20

Romanian Language Contemporary Historiographic Contributions in the Banat of Serbia Vasile Popeangă showed a particular interest in the historical writings from the Serbian Banat. This interest took the form of a chapter, Istoriografia contemporană în limba română din Banatul Sârbesc. With a particular sensitivity, he appreciated that the Romanian historians from the Serbian Banat: created a historiographic heritage, that has distinguished itself through its theme and value, and that was appreciated in the scientific circles from Yugoslavia and after its dismemberment, from Serbia. But it also caught the attention and appreciation of the historical circles in the Mother Country, Romania.

Radu Flora, Gligor Popi, Milan Vanku, Trăilă Spăriosu, Ion Dejan, Costa Roșu, Aurel Trifu enriched the contemporary historiography about the relations between Serbians and Romanians from a political, military, economic, cultural, and sportive perspective. Their research directions referred to the historical aspects of interculturality and interdependence, to the evolution of educational and ecclesiastic institutions, to the cultural societies and gatherings, and the printing of some local monographs, but also, the to the



Ibid., Studii din domeniul științelor, 269–288.

20

74

F elicia A neta Oarcea

dissemination of their scientific results throughout symposiums, conferences, or international scientific meetings.21 In his writings, Radu Flora discussed Yugoslavian and Romanian collaborations in the political, cultural, literary, editorial, educational, and linguistic domain, stressing that tense historical episodes were active for just a short period of time. The few disagreements, registered by history that consisted in clerical harassment, did not alter the ascendant evolution of the economic, cultural, and confessional relations. His work 22 spoke about Romanian-Serbian inter­ culturality and its impact upon the two European entities. The historian Milan Vanku from the Universities of Priština and Belgrade analyzed the political conception and the visionary thought of some leaders that had tried to build political alliances, in works such as Mica Înțelegere și politica externă a Iugoslaviei. 1920–1938 and Nicolae Titulescu, promotor al politicii de pace și colaborare în Balcani. The well-known historian underlined that the revisionist tendencies of Hungary, Bulgaria and Austria determined the political circles from Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania, as successor countries of AustriaHungary. Thus, together, Eduard Benes, Take Ionescu and Nikola Pašić signed political and military collaborative treaties as the Small Entente, that was a regional construction. The same author highlighted the providential role of Nicolae Titulescu in the Balkans. A visionary spirit, with a political and diplomatic way of behavior anchored in a well-established system of values, Nicolae Titulescu “believed in the victory of the idea of peace and the principles of right” in Europe.23 The professor from the Pedagogical Academy in Vârșeț, Ion Dejan was interested in the diplomatic relations between Bucharest and Belgrade and in the way the first diplomatic consulates were established.24



Ibid., 290–291. Ibid. 292–294 (Details in: Radu Flora, “Relațiile iugoslavo-române,” [Yugoslav-­ Romanian relations] Lumina XXII, (1968); Ibid., Relațiile sârbo-române. Noi contribuții metodologice, istorice, culturale, lingvistice [Serbian-Romanian. New methodological, historical, cultural, linguistic] (Panciova: Editura Libertatea, 1968). 23 Ibid., 294–296 (Details in: Milan Vanku, Mica Înțelegere și politica externă a Iugoslaviei. 1920–1938 [The little understanding and Yugoslavia’s foreign policy. 1920–1938] (București: Editura Politică, 1979); Ibid., Nicolae Titulescu, promotor al politicii de pace și colaborare în Balcani [Nicolae Titulescu, promoter of peace and collaboration policy in the Balkans] (București: Editura Politică, 1986). 24 Ibid. 296–297 (Details in: Ion Dejan, “Din istoria relațiilor româno-sârbe,” [From the history of Romanian-Serbian relations] Lumina XL (1986). 21

22

Romanian-Serbian Relations in Vasile Popeangă’s Works

75

The Romanian Foundation of Ethnography and Folklore endorsed monographic research as well. Professor Gligor Popi authored the volume, Românii din Banatul Sârbesc în secolele XVIII-XX-pagini de istorie și cultura. In this work we discover the continuity of Romanians in the Charpatian, Danube and the Black Sea territory, and their historical, political, social, economic, cultural, and educational evolution. He paid particular attention to maintaining the national identity, culture, and traditions of Romanians from the Serbian Banat, now a national minority in Serbia. He tried to keep alive the conscience of belonging to the Mother Country, Romania, and to being a European entity. Initially published in Serbian, Românii din Banatul Iugoslav între cele două războaie mondiale (1918–1941), was republished and printed in Romanian at the West University Press, in 1996. The same author, born in Toracu Mic, along with other intellectuals from the same village, wrote two monographs about their native town, regarding the fact that their ancestors established the settlement, built the church, the school, and the beautiful houses. They bought pieces of land and transformed the village into a prosperous place to live. Other monographs were dedicated to the great personalities of the Banat villages or analyzed the Romanian and Serbian relations from a historic, educational, cultural, or artistic perspective. Popeangă also produced an analysis of the Romanian community from the Serbian Banat and its significant contribution to the Romanian-Serbian relation heritage.25 Trăilă Spăriosu, professor at the Pedagogical Academy from Vârșeț and at the University of Novi Sad, who was thought to have had “a vocation of pedagogy historian”, like Onisifor Ghibu,26 wrote papers about the school network of the Romanians from the Serbian Banat. He observed both the evolution and the involution of the educational system, highlighting the measures taken to stimulate the education in the Romanian language, promoted both at the Highschool in Vârșeț and that of Arad. Starting with the

Ibid., 297–302 (Details in: Gligor Popi, Românii din Banatul Sârbesc în secolele XVIII–XX- pagini de istorie și cultură [Romanians from the Serbian Banat in the 18th–20th centuries, pages of history and culture] (Panciova: Editura Libertatea, București: Editura Fundației Culturale Române, 1993); Ibid., Românii din Banatul Iugoslav între cele două războaie mondiale (1918–1941) [Romanians from the Yugoslav Banat between the two world wars (1918–1941)] (Timișoara: Editura de Vest, 1996); Ibid., Românii în viața publică [Romanians in public life] (Novi Sad: 1997); Ibid., Românii din Banatul Sârbesc 1941–1996 [Romanians from the Serbian Banat 1941–1996] (Panciova: Editura “Libertatea”, 1998); Ibid., Parohia și Biserica din Toracu Mic [The Parish and Church of Toracu Mic] (Novi Sad: Editura Fundației Culturale Române, 2001); and other articles). 26 Popeangă, Studii din domeniul științelor, 305. 25

76

F elicia A neta Oarcea

1969–1970 school year at the Highschool from Zrenjanin, a class was set up where the teaching was done in Romanian. The future teachers studied at the Philology Faculty from Belgrade.27 It was a normal evolution, as in 1973– 1974 the Pedagogical Academy from Vârșeț was established. Well informed about the cultural-educative life from the Romanian villages Spăriosu gave a sociological and pedagogical note to his studies. Some researchers have noted the cultural and artistic manifestations of the Romanians living in Serbian Banat, manifestations destined to keep alive the ethnic identity. Costa Roșu was the one who brought to our attention the remarkable contribution of the cultural and educative institutions in the dissemination of cultural and traditional values. The member of the Academy has scanned the beginning and the activity of the choirs from Banat in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, “describing those wonderful manifestations of the Romanian spirit” that contributed to the enrichment of musical composition and the Romanian national and spiritual education.28 In his articles, Aurel Trifu from Vârșeț referred to the creative personalities29 that have marked the identity of the Romanians from the Serbian

Ibid., 303–305 (Details in: Trăilă Spăriosu, Învățământul în limba românească în P.S.A. Voivodina 1945–1980. Contribuții [Education in Romanian language in P.S.A. Vojvodina 1945–1980. INPUT] (Panciova: Editura Libertatea, 1982); Ibid., Învățământul primar românesc în secolul XX [Romanian primary education in the 20th century] (Panciova, Editura Libertatea, 1997); and another articles: Trăilă Spăriosu, “Probleme actuale de metodica predării limbii române în școla primară,” [Current problems of teaching the Romanian language in primary school] Lumina XIX (1965); Ibid., “Unele momente psihopedagogice în predarea limbii române,” [Some psychopedagogical moments in the teaching of the Romanian language] Lumina XXIII (1969); Ibid., “Idei noi în întocmirea manualului de limba română pentru școala elementară,” [New ideas in the preparation of the Romanian language textbook for the elementary school] Lumina XXIV (1970); Ibid., “Scriitori clasici despre manualele de limba română,” [Classic writers about Romanian language textbooks] Lumina XXIV (1972); Ibid., “Funcțiile manualului de lectură literară,” [The function of the literary reading textbooks] Lumina XVII (1973). 28 Ibid., 305–307 (Details in: Costa Roșu, Dicționarul Literaturii Române din Iugoslavia [The dictionary of Romanian literature from Yugoslavia] (Panciova: Editura Libertatea, 1989); Ibid., Corurile noastre bănățeme. Contribuții la istoria corurilor din Banatul Sârbesc [Our childhood choirs. Contribution to the history of choirs in the Serbian Banat] (Panciova: Editura “Libertatea”, 1991). 29 Ibid., 308–309 (Details in: Aurel Trifu, “Romulus Roman, un vizionar și un deschizător de orizonturi,” [Romulus Roman, a visionary and an opener of horizons] Analele Societății de Limba Română 3–4 (1972–1973); Ibid., “Publicații periodice cu preocupări sociale și culturale pe teritoriul actualului Banat Iugoslav din secolul al XIX-lea până azi,” [Periodical publications with scial and cultural concerns on the territory of the current Yugoslav Banat from the 19th century to the present days] in Contribuții la istoria culturală a românilor din Voivodina I (Zrenjanin: Societatea 27

Romanian-Serbian Relations in Vasile Popeangă’s Works

77

Banat. One of the hardworking teachers from Arad, Romulus Roman (1875– 1957), was a choir conductor, popular calendar author, poet, who printed in Panciova the volume În seri de iarnă (1922). The professor Aurel Trifu wrote studies about the Romanian press history, and analyzed the themes of the newspapers and their impact upon the Romanian cultural world, but also the political actions from the first two decencies of the twentieth century in the Banat of Serbia. His younger brother, Octavian Trifu, was preoccupated with the educational problems of the eighteenth century that concerned Enlightenment thinkers.30 The monographic trend of the nineteenth century has kept alive the idea of national identity for the Romanians living in the Serbian Banat. Following in the footsteps of Teodor Petrișor, from Alibunar who published in Foaia Diecezană, facts about the history of the terrritory, about the past of the villages from Banat and their destiny after the Union with Romania, Costa Roșu and Pavel P. Filip wrote the volume Begheiți (Torac)-pagini din trecut și de azi. From the middle of the twentieth century, the recovery of many monographs by the researchers Pavel Gătăianțu, Panta Bagiu, Aurel Bojin, Florin Ursulescu, Ion Sfera, Rodica Todoran31 that were still in the manuscript state,

de Limbă Română din P.S.A. Voivodina, 1973); Ibid., “Încercarea de emancipare a românilor din Vârșeț și împrejurimile de la începutul secolului XX (Alegerile dietale din 1906),” [The attempt to emancipate the Romanians from Vaset and its surroundings at the beginning of the 20th century (Dietary elections 1906)] in Contribuții la istoria culturală a românilor din Voivodina, IV (Zrenjanin: Societatea de Limbă Română din P.S.A. Voivodina, 1977). 30 Ibid., 309–310 (Details in: Octavian Trifu,“Unele aspecte ale învățământului ele­ mentar în limba română în părțile noastre în secolul XVIII,” [Some aspects of elementary education in Romanian in our parts in the 18th century], in Contribuții la istoria culturală a românilor din Voivodina I (Zrenjanin: Societatea de Limbă Română din P.S.A. Voivodina, 1973); Ibid., “Cartea funduară a comunei Alibunar din 1786,” [The register of the Alibunar commune fom 1786], in Contribuții la istoria culturală a românilor din Voivodina IV (Zrenjanin: Societatea de Limbă Română din P.S.A. Voivodina, 1977). 31 Ibid., 310–313 (Pavel Gătăianțu, Panta Bagiu, Locve—ieri și astăzi [Locve— yesterday and today] (Novi Sad: Editura Libertatea, 1989); Aurel Bojin, Seleuș. Un secol de activitate culturală. 1884–1984 [Seleucus. A century of cultural activity 1884–1984] (Seleuș: 1990); Florin Ursulescu, Iancov Most (Iancaid), trecut și prezent [Iancov Most (Iancaid), past and present] (Novi Sad: Editura Educa, 1997); Ion Sfera, Școala din Locve (Sân Mihai) în perioada 1765–2000 [The cshool in Locve (San Mihai) in the period 1765–2000] (Panciova, 2001); Rodica Todoran, 40 de ani în slujba folclorului coreografic tradițional din Locve-Sân Mihai [40 years in the service in traditional choreographic folklore from Locve- San Mihai] (Panciova: Editura Libertatea, 2001).

78

F elicia A neta Oarcea

have determined the printing of many volumes dedicated to historical events, sociological, linguistic, and cultural analysis. The remarkable involvement of the Romanian Language Society, set up in Vârșeț on March 4, 1962, had the purpose of bringing together the intellectual elite to maintain alive the ethnic and cultural identity of the Romanians from Voivodina. Its publications—Analele Societății de Limba Română, Actele Simpozionului dedicat relațiilor sârbo (iugoslavo)-române ori Caietele Societății de Limba Română—have reunited European researchers, interested in the study of historical relations between Serbians and Romanians. Another cultural society that followed the model of ASTR A Society from Transylvania, was Luceafărul, printed in 1998, celebrating half a century of existence. At the event, that was organized by Popeangă, Istoria literaturii române din Voivodina written by Ștefan N. Popa, was presented by Ileana Magda. Romanian-Serbian relations have preoccupated historians from Romania and Serbia (Former Yugoslavia) alike. The result of their collaboration can be seen in scientific research projects, articles, and scientific manifestations where important names from throughout Europe attended.

Conclusions Vasile Popeangă’s work is an extraordinary historiographic example. It set up a bridge over time between Romanian and Serbian historians and researchers. The history of the ecclesiastic, educational and cultural meetings under the concept of “Illyrian nation”, the efforts to edify institutions in order to create an intellectual elite in the Habsburg Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the diplomatic endeavors to assure a favorable climate for the development of a Romanian language educational system and culture in the Serbian Banat, the researches and the cultural exchanges between the teachers from the Pedagogical Highschool in Arad and that of Vârșeț (extended also to an university level) have constituted the theme of an exhaustive archivistic research both in Romania and Serbia. In his last years on earth, in order to demonstrate gratitude to all his collaborators, Popeangă inserted into the contemporary historiography dedicated to the educational science, the contribution that the Romanian teachers from the Arad area, after the Great Union of 1918, brought to the development and support of the Romanian language schools and culture from the Serbian Banat. The references to the Romanian language contemporary historiography and the analytical study of the works of various distinguished historians and researchers that have dedicated articles, monographs and studies to the

Romanian-Serbian Relations in Vasile Popeangă’s Works

79

representative Romanian figures, had the purpose of highlighting the efforts of the intellectuals in order to promote cultural values and national traditions in the Serbian Banat. Professor Popeangă never forgot to give thanks to the teachers from Arad that consolidated the Romanian-Serbian cultural edifice. His gratitude went also to the Serbian historians that sustained his historiographic initiatives. The historiographic approach that distinguished professor Popeangă reflects the complexity of his preoccupations. Living in between the twentieth and the twenty-first centuries, eyewitness to World War II, to the fall of communism in Europe, and to the period of Romania’s identity quest, he considered appropriate to bring to light the educational, cultural, and scientific becoming of Romanians and Serbians separated by national borders. Despite all vicissitudes of life, the roots of the European cultural heritage created and will create cultural bridges between Romanians and Serbians. The references of every civilized nation reside in its past, as “the memories of the past are a priceless heritage, and their preservation is an attribute of the civilized people.”32 In the modern era Popeangă’s oeuvre is still consulted by many historians and researchers, and this fact proves its everlasting value. A way maker for many generations of researchers, the distinguished professor Vasile Popeangă left us and our successors a valuable legacy.

Bibliography Unpublished sources Serviciul Județean al Arhivelor Naționale Arad, Colecția Vasile Popeangă (1799–1996), nr. inv. 505, dosar personal, Autobiografie

Published sources Gojkov, Grozdanka. “La jubileul prof. dr. Vasile Popeangă” [At the jubilee of prof. Dr. Vasile Popeanga]. In Vasile Popeangă. Vocație de intellectual, edite by Anton Ilica. Arad: Editura Universității “Aurel Vlaicu”, 2007. Iovan, Marțian. “Prof. univ. dr. Vasile Popeangă. Universitatea de Vest ‘Vasile Goldiș’ din Arad. Laudatio,” [Univ. Prof. Dr. Vasile Popeanga. Western university “Vasile Goldis“ from Arad Praise], In Doctor Honoris Causa. 1990–2010. Arad: Editura Gutenberg University, 2010.

32

Ioan Aurel Pop, “Postafață,” [Postface] in Ioan Aurel Pop, Thomas Nägler, Magyar András (coordonatori), Istoria Transilvaniei [History of Trnasilvania], vol. III (de la 1711 până în 1918) (Cluj Napoca: Academia Română. Centrul de Studii Transilvane, Deva: Editura Episcopiei Devei și Hunedoarei, 2016), 652.

80

F elicia A neta Oarcea

Oarcea, Felicia Aneta. Școala și societatea în comitatul Arad (1867–1918) [School and society in Arad country]. Arad: Editura Gutenberg Univers, 2012. Oarcea, Felicia Aneta. “Dr. Elena Rodica Colta. Repere biografice,” [Dr. Elena Rodica Colta. Biographical milestones]. In Studii și comunicări. In honorem Elena Rodica Colta la 65 de ani, edited by Felicia Aneta Oarcea, 11–65. Arad: Editura Gutenberg Univers, 2017. Pop, Ioan Aurel. “Postafață,” [Postface]. In Ioan Aurel Pop, Thomas Nägler, Magyar András (coordonatori), Istoria Transilvaniei, vol. III (de la 1711 până în 1918). Cluj Napoca/Deva: Academia Română. Centrul de Studii Transilvane/Editura Episcopiei Devei și Hunedoarei, 2016. Popeangă, Vasile. Un secol de activitate școlară românească în părțile Aradului. 1721– 1821 [A century of Romanian school activity in the parts of Arad. 1721–1821]. Arad: Comitetul de Cultură şi Educaţie Socialistă a judeţului Arad, 1974. Popeangă, Vasile. Eparhia Aradului în perioada instituționalizării culturii naționale. 1807–1948. [The Eparchy of Arad during the institutinatilazion of national culture]. Arad: Vasile Goldiș University Press, 2006. Popeangă, Vasile. Studii din domeniul științelor educației [Studies in the field of educational sciences]. Arad: Vasile Goldiș University Press, 2007. Popeangă, Vasile. “Înființarea Preparandiei din Arad în context pedagogic cultural european.” Ziridava 25, no. 1 (2010): 149–165. Popeangă, Vasile. Studii despre Preparandia din Arad [Studies on Preparandia from Arad]. Arad: Vasile Goldiș University Press, 2011. Popi, Gligor. “Ultimele amintiri legate de personalitatea profesorului dr. Vasile Popeangă,” [The last memories realted to the personality of professor dr. Vasile Popeanga], In Vasile Popeangă. Vocație de intelectual. Arad: Editura Universității “Aurel Vlaicu”, 2007. Vesa, Pavel. Învățământul teologic de la Arad (1822–1948) [Theological education in Arad (1822–1948)]. Deva: Editura Episcopiei Devei și Hunedoarei, 2013.

Boško Čolak-Antić and YugoslavRomanian Relations* Sr đan M ićić

The main impediment to the study of Yugoslav foreign policy during the Interwar Period is represented by partially preserved archival records. In this respect, the particular case of Boško Čolak-Antić’s role in Yugoslav-Romanian bilateral and multilateral relations is not an exception. The Records of the Legation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in Bucharest contain only the Strictly Confidential archive for the years 1924–1932, and the Confidential archive for the years approximately 1919–1934 (with certain deviations). The records of the Court, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministerial Counsel and private archives of the Prince Regent Pavle Karađorđević, and the Foreign Ministers Vojislav Marinković and Aleksandar Cincar-Marković contain only a few documents that can shed some light on the topic. As far as we know, the personal archive of Boško Čolak-Antić has not been preserved. Therefore, the main basis for analysis are documents from the Legation’s archive. Boško Čolak-Antić was born in 1879 to a prominent Serbian family that was renowned for their distinguished freedom-fighters and military officers. He was the son of the Serbian colonel Ilija. His younger brother Vojin became a Yugoslav general.1 Boško finished law studies in Geneva in 1895, and started his professional career as a tax collector for the Belgrade Tax Administration. He entered the Serbian diplomatic service in December

This research was supported by the Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia, PROMIS, #6062589, YEH. 1 Vojin Čolak-Antić was the major-general since 1923 (Mile S. Bjelajac, Generali i admirali Kraljevine Jugoslavije 1918–1941. Studija o vojnoj eliti i biografski leksikon [Generals and admirals of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1918–1941. A study of the military elite and the biographical lexicon] (Beograd: INIS, 2004), 135, 136. *

82

Sr đan M ićić

1898.2 Under the favoritism of the PM and the Foreign Minister Vladan Đorđević, he was rapidly advancing in the hierarchy. He was appointed the secretary to the Legation in Sofia in 1899.3 His brother Vojin, as a lieutenant in the Serbian army, was the member of the officers’ conspirator group which had dethroned the Obrenović dynasty in a bloody coup d’état in May 1903.4 Boško was recalled from Sofia by the order of the Foreign Minister Andra Nikolić, member of the People Radical Party (PRP).5 On the recommendation of the general and the PM Slavko Grujić—who later became the father-in-law to Vojin6 —Boško was appointed as the acting Marshal of the Court for King Petar I Karađorđević, in midNovember 1903. Thus, he became a member of the Court camarilla—but not as prominent as Živojin Balugdžić—and a close collaborator of the Karađorđević dynasty.7 In early 1908 he was promoted as the Marshal of the Court.8 At this time, he was among the first representatives of the new regime who had a duel with one of the journalists who were in opposition to the conspiring officers.9 Čolak-Antić was among the few people who had some sympathies for Prince Đorđe, older brother of the Regent Aleksandar.10 Boško was formally reactivated in the diplomatic service in 1908. He virtually reentered the service as the plenipotentiary minister in Sofia after the Second Balkan War in mid-December 1913. He stayed at this post until Bulgaria







Archive of Yugoslavia (AY), Belgrade, Records of the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 334, box 203, folder 526 personal dossier of Boško Čolak-Antić, folios 192 (pages 1–4). 3 Јован М. Јовановић Пижон, Дневник 1896–1920 [Diary 1896–1920], edited by: Миладин Милошевић, Радош Љушић (Нови Сад–Београд: Проментеј–Радиотелевизија Србије–Архив Југославије, 2015), 40, 55, 69. According to Slobodan Jovanović, Vladan Đorđević was hoping that eventually Boško Čolak-Antić would become his son-in-law (Ibid., 34). 4 M. Bjelajac, Generali i admirali [Generals and admirals], 136. 5 AY, 334, b. 203, f. 526, folios 192 (pages 1–4). 6 Vojin Čolak-Antić had married with Mara (née Grujić) in 1904 (M. Bjelajac, Generali i admirali [Generals and admirals], 136). 7 Др Драгољуб Р. Живојиновић, Краљ Петар I Карађорђевић: у отаџбини 1903–1914. године [King Peter Karadjordjevic I: in the homelnd 1903–1914. (Београд: Завод за уџбенике и наставна средства, 2003), 53. 8 AY, 334, b. 203, f. 526, folios 192 (pages 1–4). 9 Васа Казимировић, Црна рука. Личности и догађаји у Србији од преврата 1903. до Солунског процеса 1917. године [Black hand. Personalities and events in Serbia from the coup of 1903 to the Thessaloniki prcess in 1917] (Нови Сад: Прометеј, 2013), 203. 10 Ј. Јовановић Пижон, Дневник 1896–1920 [Diary 1896–1920], 464. 2

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

83

sided with the Central Powers in World War I, at the beginning of October 1915.11 It seems that during his mission in Sofia, Čolak-Antić had left a favor­ able impression on the Crown Prince Boris (later King Boris III).12 After the evacuation of the Court, government, army and a number of civilians from Serbia to Greece during the winter 1915/16, he was once again a member of King Petar’s intimate circle.13 Čolak-Antić was in a rivalry with the PM and Foreign Minister Nikola Pašić and the PRP. As the Marshal of the Court, he was supporting opposition to the PRP and was working on the demission of Pašić from the post of PM in the spring of 1916.14 His hostility was only growing by that time. At the beginning of 1918, he was convinced that the PM’s political unscrupulousness was mainly motivated by material gains and vanity.15 As the per­ sonal secretary of the Regent, Čolak-Antić was one of a number of persons who had tried to convince the Regent Aleksandar to drop charges against the officers, members of the organization “Unification or death” (known also as the “Black Hand”). His role in this episode is not quite clear. Some preserved documents suggest that he was one of the civilians close to the organization and had an important part in their conspiracy to overthrow the Karađorđević dynasty. According to the same sources, only due to ČolakAntić’s close ties with King Petar and the Regent Aleksandar was he not arrested and prosecuted.16 On the other hand, he was convinced that Pašić



Boško Čolak-Antić was appointed the general consul and the diplomatic agent in Cairo in 1908 and he formally retained that post until 1912, yet he did not leave the position of Marshal of the Court (AY, 334, b. 203, f. 526, folios 192 (pages 1–4)). 12 When the first Yugoslav plenipotentiary minister in Sofia, Milan Rakić, had the first audience with the Bulgarian King, on February 16, 1921, Boris III was complimenting the three celebrated Field-Marshals Radomir Putnik, Živojin Mišić and Stepa Stepanović, but the highest compliments were addressed to Boško Čolak-Antić (Archive of the Serbian Academy of Science and Arts (ASASA), Belgrade, Milan Rakić’s personal papers (14.331), item no. 15, document no. 1,10, diary entry for February 16, 1921). 13 Др Драгољуб Р. Живојиновић, Краљ Петар I Карађорђевић: рат и последње године 1914–1921. године [King Peter I Karadjordjevic: War and the last years 1914–1921] (Београд: Завод за уџбенике и наставна средства, 2003), 176, 230, 231. 14 Бранислав Глигоријевић, Краљ Александар Карађорђевић, 1, Уједињење српских земаља [King Aleksandar Karadjordjevic] (Београд: БИГЗ, 1996), 266; В. Казимировић, Црна рука [Black hand], 689, 700. 15 Др Ђорђе Станковић, Никола Пашић и југословенско питање [Nikola Pasic and Yugoslavian question], 2. Део (Београд: БИГЗ, 1985), 197, footnote no. 126. 16 Ј. Јовановић Пижон, Дневник 1896–1920 [Diary 1896–1920], 228, 468; Б. Глигоријевић, Краљ Александар Карађорђевић [King Aleksandar Karadjordjevic], 1, 270. 11

84

Sr đan M ićić

was using the Salonika trial—organized against some of the most prominent members of the Black Hand—to shift the blame to the Regent and to tarnish his political reputation.17 Čolak-Antić returned to diplomatic duties in early 1918. He was one of a number of distinguished individuals who were chosen to strengthen the diplomatic service, after the Bolsheviks’ revolution in Russia and the BrestLitovsk Peace Treaty had aggravated the Serbian international position.18 He was appointed as the plenipotentiary minister in Stockholm and retained this post until the Yugoslav government had decided to close diplomatic missions in the Nordic countries due to the policy of reducing the expenditure budget in December 1920.19

Б. Глигоријевић, Краљ Александар Карађорђевић [King Aleksandar Karadjordjevic], 1, 286. 18 His appointment at first as the titular and later as the plenipotentiary minister in Stockholm was part of the arrangement between Pašić and the opposition on the issue of reorganizing the Serbian diplomatic service (Др Милан Ђ. Милојевић, Балканска равнотежа. Сећања краљевог дипломате [Balkan balance. Memories of the King’s diplomat], приредили Милена Пвловић, Милан Шећеровић (Београд: Signatura, 1994), 175; Андреј Митровић, „Дипломата Милан Ракић и његово сведочење о историји,“ In Милан Ракић, Конзулска писма 1905–1911 [Consular letters 1905– 1911] (Београд: Просвета, 1985), 16, 17; Предраг Крејић, „Посланство Краљевине Србије и Краљевине СХС у Шведској-Стокхолм 1918–1920,“ [Embassy of the Kingdom of Serbia and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenens in SwedenStocholm 1918–1920] Архив. Часопис Архива Југославије, Година III, Број 3 (2002), 81; Dragoš Petrović, “Predstavništva Kraljevine Jugoslavije u skandinavskim zemljama 1918–1945,” Istorija 20. veka [History of the 20th century], Br. 1/2013: 37, 38). 19 Due to the same policy of reducing the expenditure budget, the Legation in Lisabon was closed in March 1920 (Žorž P. Santuš Karvalju, “Prilike među jugoslovenskim izbeglicaama u Portugaliji (1941–1945),” Istorija 20. veka [History of the 20th century], No. 2 (1985): 93, 94; П. Крејић, Посланство Краљевине Србије и Краљевине СХС у Шведској-Стокхолм 1918–1920 [Embassy of the Kingdom of Serbia and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenens in Sweden-Stocholm 1918–1920], 89; D. Petrović, Predstavništva Kraljevine Jugoslavije u skandinavskim zemljama 1918–1945 [Representations of the Kigdom of Yugoslavia in Scandinavian countries 1918–1945], 38.

17

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

85

The Plenipotentiary Minister in Bucharest, February 1921–May 1935 Boško Čolak-Antić was appointed as the first Yugoslav plenipotentiary minister in Bucharest in December 1920,20 and he took the office in late February 1921.21 Along with Živojin Balugdžić and Miroslav Spalajković, he became one of the three most prominent diplomats of the Regent and later King (after 1921) Aleksandar I Karađorđević. They held some of the most important posts in the Yugoslav diplomatic service, until mid-1935.22 Čolak-­ Antić’s personal relations with the Yugoslav Court were strengthened during 1920–1922. He played a part in the arrangement of the marriage between



AY, 334, b. 203, f. 526, folios 192 (pages 1–4). After World War I, the Kingdom of SCS was represented by the two chargé d’affaires of the Legation in Bucharest Radomir M. Luković and Stevan K. Pavlović. Luković was the counselor of the Legation in Prague and was the acting counselor and chargé d’affaires in Bucharest from January until December 1920. Pavlović was appointed as the counselor of the Legation in Bucharest in February 1920, but he remained the chief of the Cabinet of the Foreign Minister until Ante Trumbić’s resignation on the ministerial position in December 1920 (AY, 334, b. 167, f. 490, folios 414, 417; AY, 334, b. 180, f. 503, folios 1058, 1061; Правда [The justice], “Допутовао г. Луковић,ˮ December 20; Правда [The justice], “Код председника владе,ˮ December 22, 1919). The first appointed plenipotentiary minister in Bucharest, Dragomir M. Janković, did not take his post. The Romanian government gave the agreement for Janković in midJune 1919, the decree was signed on July 1, but he was appointed as the deputy Foreign Minister at the end of November (Службене новине Краљевства Срба, Хрвата и Словенаца [Officials newspaper of Serbs, Croats and Slovenens], Год. I, Бр. 85, August 23, 1919; Službene novine Kraljevstva Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca [Officials newspaper of Serbs, Croats and Slovenens], God. I, Br. 56, June 17, 1919, 5; Правда [The justice], „Помоћник мин. спољ. Послова,ˮ November 23, 1919). 21 Политика [The politics], „Г. др Бошко Чолак Антић,“ February 21, 1921. 22 Miroslav Spalajković was plenipotentiary minister in Paris, while Živojin Balugdžić was plenipotentiary minister in Berlin and Rome. Balugdžić was even considered as the possible successor to Petar Živković in the position of PM in 1930, during the dictatorship of King Aleksandar (Yugoslavia: Political Diaries 1918–1965, Volume 2: 1927–1937, edited by Robert L. Jarman, Slough: Archive Editions, 1997, 189; Бранислав Глигоријевић, Краљ Александар Карађорђевић у европској политици [King Alexander Karadjordjevic in European politics], друго издање (Београд: Завод за уџбенике и наставна средства, 2010), 7; Зоран Бајин, Спалајковић: дипломата и контрареволуционар [Spalajkovic: Diplomat and counterrevolutionary] (Нови Сад: Прометеј, 2021); Срђан Мићић, Од бирократије до дипломатије. Историја југословенске дипломатске службе 1918–1939 [From bureaucracy to diplomacy. History of the Yugoslav Diplomatic Service 1918–1939] (Београд: ИНИС, 2018), 176. 20

86

Sr đan M ićić

the Regent (and later King) Aleksandar and the Romanian Princess Maria 23 and had an important role in the planning of the wedding ceremony celebration.24 As one of the king’s men, he was recognized by the diplomatic corps in Bucharest as the diplomat who was intimately acquainted with the ideas and plans of the decision makers in Belgrade.25 Therefore, his attitudes and barring were perceived as the omen of the Yugoslav foreign policy.26 Alongside his diplomatic post in Bucharest, Čolak-Antić was appointed as the acting Minister of the Court on July 12, 1932,27 replacing Bogoljub Jevtić who was appointed as the new Foreign Minister.28 King Aleksandar was sending the clear message—after open dictatorship was replaced by the quasi-parliamentary system in September 1931—that he wanted a nonpartisan and a non-political man,29 but also a trusted friend, in the highest Court’s position. Čolak-Antić kept this office for six months since ill health did not allow him to continuously work on state affairs in Belgrade and on





Алексаданр Ђ. Маринковић, Женидба краља Александра Карађорђевић [Marriage of King Alexander Karadjordjevic], друго издање (Београд: Вајат, 2004), 47. 24 Čolak-Antić was making arrangements in direct communication with the president of the State Board for the wedding Branislav Nušić (Kosta St. Pavlović, Vojislav Marinković i njegovo doba (1876–1935) [Vojisav Marinkovic and his time (1876– 1935)], Knjiga prva (London: M. Caplin & Co, 1955), 104, 105). 25 Central State Archive (CSA), Sofia, Records of the Ministry of the Foreign and Religious Affairs (176 k), inventory no. 6, folder 2361, folio 4; CSA, Records of the Legation of the Kingdom of Bulgaria in Prague (460 k), inventory no. 2, folder 55, folio 223. 26 CSA, 176 k, inv. no. 6, f. 1885, folios 1–3; CSA, 460 k, inv. no. 2, folder 55, folio 223. 27 Време [The time], “За вршиоца дужности министра Двора постављен је г. Бошко Чолак-Антић,” July 12, 1932, 1; Политика [The politics], „Г. Бошко Чолак-Антић вршилац дужности министра Двора,“ July 12, 1932, 3. 28 ASASA, Milan Antić’s personal papers (14.387), items no. 8503, 8511. 29 On the parliamentary elections in 1931 only the government had the electoral list. Later, the quasi parliamentary opposition was formed from the MP’s elected in 1931, while the real non-parliamentary opposition could not organize parties officially recognized by the state (For further reading: Milorad Ekmečić, Osnove građanske diktature u Evropi između dva svetska rata [Fundamentals of civil dictatorship in Europe between the two world wars] (Beograd, 1967); Todor Stojkov, Opozicija u vreme šestojanuarske diktature [Opposition during the January 6th dictatorship] (Beograd: Prosveta, 1969); Branko Petranović, Istorija Jugoslavije 1918–1988 [History of Yugoslavia 1918–1988], 1, Kraljevina Jugoslavija 1918– 1941 (Beograd: Nolit, 1988); Branko Petranović, Momčilo Zečević, Agonija dve Jugoslavije [Agony of two Yugoslavias] (Šabac: Zaslon, 1991); Љубодраг Димић, Историја српске државности [History of Serbian statehood], Књига 3, Србија у Југославији (Нови Сад: САНУ: огранак у Новом Саду-Беседа: Друштво историчара Јужнобачког и Сремског округа, 2001). 23

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

87

the diplomatic affairs in Bucharest. He remained the plenipotentiary minister in Bucharest until his retirement from diplomatic service, in May 1935.30 The old bitterness between Čolak-Antić and Pašić was prolonged after the Great War. The plenipotentiary minister in Bucharest considered the Balkan’s policy by the PM and the short-term Foreign Minister (January 1921–January 1922) to be the result of a wild imagination that was not based in reality.31 It is difficult to define Čolak-Antić’s relations with Momčilo Ninčić, the Foreign Minister during 1922–1926. In the preserved archive records, there are no traces either of the close collaboration or the frictions. Yet, it should be noted that Ninčić was very careful to avoid conflicts with Spalajković and Balugdžić as they were close friends of King Aleksandar.32

As was the case with the reactivation in the diplomatic service in 1918, same goes for the case of the retirement. It was in the scope of the wide-ranging changes of the heads of the diplomatic missions during 1935. The Prince Regent Pavle was gradually taking over control foreign affairs after King Aleksandar was assassinated in Marseille in October 1934. During 1935 his two PMs and Foreign Ministers Bogoljub Jevtić and Milan Stojadinović were making great changes in the personnel of the diplomatic missions (Извештаји Министарства иностраних послова Краљевине Југославије за 1935. Годину [Reports of the Ministrry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1935.], књига VI, приредила Нада Петровић (Београд: Архив Југославије, 2011), XIX, XX). Spalajković, Balugdžić and ČolakAntić—as the most trusted men of the late King Aleksandar—were retired from diplomatic service, while their close collaborators were designated from the posts in Paris, Berlin and Bucharest (Srđan Mićić, “Yugoslav Diplomats during the Interwar Period,” Balcanica Posnaniensia, 25 (2018): 154, 155). 31 Čolak-Antić’s assessment was based on his belief that the main goal of Pašić’s Balkan policy was to conquer the Aegean Macedonia and Thessaloniki (Чешки и словашки извори за българската история (ЧСИБИ), том III, съставители Jozef Kolař, Ivan Štoviček, Valerián Bystrický, Васил А. Василев, Лидия Манолова, София: Българска академия на науките, 1994, 208, document no. 68). According to recent studies, Pašić’s policy toward Greece did not plan any conflict or territorial expansion, yet it was based on the cooperation against the possible Bulgarian-Albanian collaboration. Nevertheless, the Greek statesmen were in fear from the Serbs, and their South Slav brethren Bulgarians, for the safekeeping of the Aegean littoral. This anxiety was not totally baseless. Unlike Pašić, the plenipotentiary minister in Athens Živojin Balugdžić and the future Foreign Minister Vojislav Marinković did contemplate the territorial expansion towards the Aegean Macedonia. (Dragan Bakić, “The Port of Salonica in Yugoslav Foreign Policy 1919–1941,” Balcanica, 43 (2012): 194–196; Dragan Bakić, “Nikola Pašić and the Foreign Policy of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, 1919–1926,” Balcanica, 48 (2016): 307, 308). 32 Momčilo Ninčić decided to undermine the position of Ljubomir Nešić—one of the two Pašić’s candidates for the position of the Foreign Minister—before the diplomatic corps in Prague. Yet, he avoided any conflict with Spalajković, the second of Pašić’s candidates. Ninčić was not creating any conflicts with Balugdžić—the candidate of the Yugoslav Democratic Party for the position of Foreign Minister—but he 30

88

Sr đan M ićić

Since Čolak-Antić was enjoying the same status at the Court, the Foreign Minister was most probably avoiding any hostility with him. Contrary to the relations with Pašić, Čolak-Antić had close collaboration with Vojislav Marinković, the Foreign Minister in July–November 1924 and during 1927–1932 (also the PM for three months in 1932). The relations between the two were based on the fact they had been friends since childhood.33 They were closely collaborating on the Yugoslav-Romanian bilateral relations and consulting on a variety of multilateral issues.34 Their mutual efforts towards Bucharest were hampered in 1927 by the Romanian public opinion—which was under the influence of the General Alexandru Averescu’s government policy of the defense against the alleged “Slavic menace”—that the new Yugoslav Foreign Minister was the advocate of the South Slavic rapprochement.35 The situation was changed when Nicolae Titulescu became the Foreign Minister in 1927. On the first meeting with the Yugoslav plenipotentiary minister he expressed the delight for future collaboration with Marinković.36 Marinković’s confidence in Čolak-Antić was evident in Montreux. The Foreign Minister invited the plenipotentiary minister to Bucharest—who was in Switzerland in transit—to attend the Little Entente’s conference which was held on the margins of the League of Nations’ (LoN) Counsel’s session, on February 1, 1932.37 During 1927–1932, Čolak-Antić went only five times to Belgrade for briefings and consultations.38 After







was not issuing him any instructions for work as the plenipotentiary minister in Berlin and Rome (С. Мићић, Од бирократије до дипломатије. Историја југословенске дипломатске службе 1918–1939 [From bureaucracy to diplomacy. History of the Yugoslav Diplomatic Service 1918–1939] (Београд: ИНИС, 2018), 178, 179). 33 Marinković and Čolak-Antić were members of the boys gang—together with Jovan T. Marković and Stevan K. Pavlović, the deputy Foreign Ministers in 1924–1927 and in 1927–1928, respectivley—and they were “terrorizing” passerbys on the Belgrade streets (K. Pavlović, Marinković i njegovo doba [Marinkovic and his time], I, 41, 42). 34 Kosta St. Pavlović, Vojislav Marinković i njegovo doba (1876–1935) [Vojislav Marinkovic and his time (1876–1935)], Knjiga treća (London: Caplin, 1957), 124, 125. 35 AY, Records of the Legation in Romania-Bucharest (395), box 16, folder 168, folio 88. 36 AY, 395, b. 16, f. 168, folio 97. 37 Alongside Čolak-Antić, the conference was attended only by Milan Đ. Milojević and Mihai B. Boerescu, the Yugoslav and Romanian plenipotentiary minister in Berne, respectively, (Коста Ст. Павловић, Дневник 1930–1932 [Diary 1930–1932], ed. Срђан Мићић, Наташа Милићевић (Београд: Историјски архив Београда-ИНИС, 2020), 333). 38 Čolak-Antić went to Belgrade twice in 1929 and once in 1930, during negotiations on a number of open issues in the bilateral negotiations, once in July 1931 at the beginning of the discussion on the meaning of “jusqu’au bout” from the conclusion

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

89

Bogoljub Jevtić became the Foreign Minister, on July 2, 1932, the plenipotentiary minister’s official travels to Belgrade became more frequent. He went at least 16 times during 1932–1935.39 This could indicate that under Jevtić, Čolak-Antić had or presumed that he had a lesser degree of freedom of action. His numerous reports from the 1920s and 1930s further indicate the change of status. Until 1932, Čolak-Antić was taking initiative on various bilateral and multilateral issues, suggesting policies to the Yugoslav foreign ministers and government, and selecting approaches toward particular Romanian statesmen. After July 1932, he was merely transmitting messages and information between Belgrade and Bucharest. Since many important changes took place in the ranks of the Little Entente and Balkan Entente, and in European affairs, during 1932–1935, it seems that Čolak-Antić’s inactivity was the result of his status in Belgrade’s governing circles. Boško had opportunities to collaborate with his younger brother, Vojin on state affairs in Bucharest. This was not only a reflection of King Alkesandar’s reliance on the members of the family Čolak-Antić. Colonel (cavalry) Vojin was entrusted with Hungarian affairs for five years after the Great War. He was commander of the Yugoslav troops in Baranja (Baranya), in two terms during 1918–1920. After the Trianon Peace Treaty was signed in 1920, he was a member of the Yugoslav delegations in Paris for war reparations and for the demarcation with Hungary during 1920–1921, a member of the Government’s board for the evacuation of Baranja in 1921, a member of the Committee for the demarcation between the Kingdom of SCS and Hungary during 1922–1923, and a commissioner in the Bureau for the demarcation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) in 1923.40 After the main work on the demarcation between the two countries was completed,41 the Ministry of Army and Navy asked the Romanian Ministry of Army for the consent of the Štrbské pleso conference, and once in 1932 after the audience with King Carol II (AY, 334, b. 188, f. 511, folio 166; AY, 334, b. 203, f. 526, folios 252, 253, 263, 267; AY, 395, b. 20, f. 211, folios 461, 462). 39 Čolak-Antić went to Belgrade for the first time, on July 7, 1932, immediately after Jevtić became the Foreign Minister (AY, 334, b. 172, f. 494, folios 133, 135, 137, 138, 140, 141, 143, 145, 148, 149, 152; AY, 334, b. 203, f. 526, folios 269–271; AY, 395, b. 29, f. 278, folio 174; AY, 395, b. 30, f. 287, folio 147). 40 Vuk Vinaver, Jugoslavija i Mađarska 1918–1933. [Yugoslavia and Hungary 1918– 1933] (Beograd: ISI, 1971), 98; M. Bjelajac, Generali i admirali Kraljevine Jugoslavije 1918–1941 [Generals and admirals of Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1918– 1941], 135; Александар Хорват, Барања 1918–1922 [Baranja 1918–1922] (Нови Сад: Прометеј–Мало историјско друштво-Нови Сад, 2013), 52, 167, 198, 205, 261, 262. 41 AY, 334, b. 102, f. 369, folio 923.

90

Sr đan M ićić

to appoint Vojin Čolak-Antić as the military attaché in Bucharest. As the colonel (cavalry) and later as the brigadier general (after October 1923), he was the military attaché in Bucharest from July 18, 1923 until January 25, 1927.42 One of his first duties in the new post was to settle the issue of the territorial disagreement in the tri-border area between the Kingdom of SCS, Romania and Hungary. The Protocol was signed by Boško Čolak-Antić on November 24, 1923, while Vojin Čolak-Antić signed the Proceedings on the demarcation between the Kingdom of SCS and Romania on June 13, 1926. The final settlement in this issue was reached on June 4, 1927.43 The general Vojin Čolak-Antić was assigned to the new military duty during Averescu’s government. Although Čolak-Antić was accusing Pašić of unjustified spending of state funds during 1916, he was not the role model in that regard. After World War I, the Yugoslav Ministry of Army and Navy attempted to resolve the problem of the cost justification for the amount of 200.000 gold Dinars which were at the disposal of the Serbian Legation in Sofia in 1914. This case dragged from early 1923 until mid-1925.44 The former Minister of Court, Milan Antić, claimed that Čolak-Antić had never submitted balance sheets or financial documents to the MFA for the expenditures in Sofia and in Bucharest, and that the Court protected him from persecution.45 Besides unreliability with state funds, Čolak-Antić was also notorious for his carelessness. According to the former deputy Foreign Minister, Ivo Andrić, he neglected administrative work and other dull duties in the Legation for months only to sign the documentation in the end without reading it first.46 Exemplary was the case with the circular order of the Foreign Minister Bogoljub Jevtić on the





The Romanian Ministry of Army gave consent on July 18, and colonel Čolak-­ Antić was released from his duties in the MFA on September 1, 1923 (AY, 334, b. 102, f. 369, folios 916, 917, 922, 925, 927, 930; M. Bjelajac, Generali i admirali Kraljevine Jugoslavije 1918–1941 [Generals and admirals of Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1918–1941], 135, 136). 43 Dr Gligor Popi, Jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi 1918–1941 [Yugoslav-Romanian rela­ tions 1918–1941] (Novi Sad: Institut za istoriju, 1984), 76. 44 It seems that Čolak-Antić was deliberately ignoring the request from the Ministry of Army and Navy to justify expenses or to return the received money. Only after the administrative ban had been issued on his salary, Čolak-Antić managed to present some financial documents and partially justify costs, and the MFA had taken over the blame for the rest of the cost justification with the clarification that their archives were in disorder after the Great War and they were not able to present the financial documentation in a timely manner (AY, 334, b. 203, f. 526, folios 204, 206–209, 212, 214–220, 222, 223–225, 228, 231, 232, 234). 45 ASASA, 14.387, item no. 9345. 46 AY, 334, b. 134, f. 475, folio 920. 42

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

91

organization of the information service on economic affairs and business opportunities, issued on September 15, 1932, repeated and supplemented on March 23, 1933. The plenipotentiary ministers were obliged to assign their subordinates with specific duties concerning this information service. Only after Čolak-Antić had left the office, the counselor and on many occasions the Legation’s chargé d’affaires, Vladimir Milanović,47 read the circular order for the first time on 25 July 1935.48 During the Interwar Period the Kingdom of SCS/Yugoslavia and the Kingdom of Romania were allies in the ranks of the Little Entente, beginning in 1921, and in the ranks of the Balkan Entente, beginning in 1934. The bilateral relations were also based on historical experience, which was mainly positive. Since the 1890s Serbs and Romanians were cooperating in the Habsburg monarchy against the magyarization of minorities. During the Balkan wars in 1912–1913 Serbia and Romania fought on the same side against the Ottoman Empire and the Kingdom of Bulgaria, respectively. The main problem arose during World War I when both states had territorial claims in Banat. After 1918, both sides lacked mutual trust, mainly due to territorial claims and minority issues (which included church and school matters). The bilateral relations were much improved by the dynastic marriage in 1922. It facilitated the settling of the mutual border, even though minority concerns persisted. Although allies, Yugoslav and Romanian foreign policies differed on several key issues. The greatest problem of the Little Entente was that all three member states could not acquire guarantees for military assistance in the event of war against the neighboring Great Powers. For the Kingdom of SCS/Yugoslavia the greatest menace was Italy and for Romania it was the USSR. Therefore, Belgrade and Bucharest were very cautious and suspicious toward the bilateral or multilateral diplomatic actions of Rome and Moscow,

Vladimir Milanović was appointed as the counselor to the Legation in Bucharest on June 12 and took his position on October 24, 1932 (AY, 334, b. 172, f. 494, folio 126). Unit Čolak-Antić left his duty on May 4, 1935, Milanović was chargé d’affaires of the Legation once in 1932, seven times during 1933, six times during 1934 and for the last time from June 24 until late July 1935 (AY, 334, b. 172, f. 494, folios 129, 133, 135, 137, 138, 140, 141, 143, 145, 148, 149, 152; AY, 334, b. 203, f. 526, folios 271). 48 AY, 395, b. 37, f. 309, folio 104; AY, 395, b. 37, f. 310, folio 178. The circular sup­ plements to the original order of the Foreign Minister were issued by the Consulareconomy Department of the MFA on October 8, 1932 and by the deputy Foreign Minister Momčilo Jurišić-Šturm on March 24, 1933 (AY, 395, b. 37, f. 310, folio 188). From the preserved archive records it is not clear if counselor Milanović was aware of those documents. 47

92

Sr đan M ićić

respectively. In the ranks of the Little Entente, the two states were frequently cordial in the policy toward Hungary. In the ranks of the Little Entente and later the Balkan Entente there were some ambiguities and contradictions in Belgrade’s and Bucharest’s policies towards Sofia.49 These were the main out­ lines of the framework in which Boško Čolak-Antić was operating from 1921 until 1935.

Boško Čolak-Antić and Romanians As the plenipotentiary minister in Bucharest, Boško Čolak Antić did not praise highly the political system nor parties and their leaders in Romania. Čolak-Antić demonstrated an incredible lack of objectivity in analysis. During the 1920s, he criticized the Romanian political system for all the shortcomings that were similar or identical to the political system in the Kingdom of SCS. For instance, Čolak-Antić was condemning governments’ malpractices during the parliamentary elections—which were very similar in both countries—and went so far as to call them “illusory parliamentarism.” However, his reports created an image of two significantly different parliamentary systems.50 The question remains whether he could not make an objective compar­ ison due to certain prejudices or simply because he was not well informed on the development of the Yugoslav political system after 1918 and compared the post-war situation in Romania with the pre-war situation in Serbia. During the Romanian Dynastic crisis in late 1925 and early 1926, ČolakAntić was very cautious not to provoke any discontent in the governing circles through his actions. At first, he was following the issue only through the press, avoiding any direct contact with officials, thus dispatching reports based on the news headlines.51 Only after King Ferdinand I had resolved to Eliza Campus, Mica Înţelegere (Bucureşti: Editura Ştiinţificǎ, 1968); Dr Milan Vanku, Mala antanta 1920–1938 [Small Entente 1920–1938] (Titovo Užice: IP “Dimitrije Tucović”, 1969); Eliza Campus, Înţelegerea Balcanicǎ (Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1972); Bogdan Krizman, Vanjska politika jugoslavenske države 1918–1941: diplomatsko-historijski pregled [The foreign policy of the Yugoslav state 1918–1941: A diplomatic historical review] (Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1975); G. Popi, Jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi 1918–1941 [Yugoslav-Romanian realtions 1918–1941]; Živko Avramovski, Balkanska atanta (1934–1940) [Balkan Entente 1934–1940] (Beograd: ISI, 1986); Milan Vanku, Srpsko-jugoslovenskorumunski odnosi kroz vekove [Serbian-Yugoslav-Romanian relations through the centurie] (Beograd, 2005). 50 AY, 395, b. 14, f. 142, folios 326–334; AY, 395, b. 16, f. 168, folios 122–131; AY, 395, b. 21, f. 212, folios 69–72. In January 1929, he had reported that Iuliu Maniu’s government had held the first free elections (AY, 395, b. 18, f. 199, folios 478, 479). 51 AY, 395, b. 1, f. 3, folios 131–137.

49

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

93

accept the abdication of the Crown Prince Carol and the Crown Council accepted his resignation, did Čolak-Antić travel from Bucharest to Sinaia. He made direct contact with the members of the Crown Council in order to acquire the verified information on the issue.52 The most important sources of information on this occasion were the Foreign Minister, Ion Gheorghe Duca, and the Minister of the Court, Constantin Hiott.53 Čolak-Antić was expecting Queen Maria to be appointed as a member of the Regency.54 During the period of internal instability in Romania, caused by the King’s ill health and the changes in the balance of power on the political scene,55 Čolak-Antić was analyzing the possible new head(s) of state and the impact on state affairs. In December 1926 he predicted—due to the Regency’s lack of authority56 —that either Queen Maria would become a new member of the Regency or that Prince Carol would be re-elected as the heir to the throne.57 In May 1927, he was convinced—contrary to wide spread opinion—that military circles would not dare to make a move in the direction of proclaiming the Prince as the heir to the throne after the death of King Ferdinand I.58 In mid-August, he was predicting that the Regency lacked the potential to rule for twelve years, since the nation could whole-heartedly accept and support only the reign of a king. He attributed this sentiment to the successes achieved during the relatively short reign of King Ferdinand I.59 After Carol was proclaimed King in June 1930, Čolak-Antić was the first member of the diplomatic corps who had an audience with him. His first impressions were somewhat positive. This was probably the result of Carol’s foreign policy intentions regarding the restoration of the Habsburgs in Hungary—a result





AY, 395, b. 1, f. 3, folio 140. AY, 395, b. 1, f. 3, folios 159–169, 173. 54 AY, 395, b. 1, f. 3, folio 155. 55 During 1926–1928 NLP was gradually losing position, while the strong opposi­ tion was formed through unification of the Peasant Party and the National Party of Transylvania into the National Peasant Party. Formation of Averescu’s and Știrbey’s governments did not serve their purpose, while Prince Carol still had strong support in wider circles (Andrzej Dubicki, System partyjny Królestwa Rumunii. Uwarunkowania i funkcjonowanie (Łódǎ: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2013), 367–409). 56 The members of the Regency were: Prince Nicolae, the Patriarch Miron Cristea and the president of the High Court of Cassation, Gheorghe Buzdugan. The significant weakness was the fact that the position of regent was not linked to a specific function, and in the event of premature death the government could nominate an appropriate candidate (Ibid., 367.). 57 AY, 395, b. 14, f. 142, folio 363–370. 58 AY, 395, b. 16, f. 168, folios 30–36, 91–97. 59 AY, 395, b. 16, f. 168, folios 167–175. 52

53

94

Sr đan M ićić

of Otto’s coming of age—and the construction of a bridge over the Danube, both of which coincided with Yugoslav foreign policy.60 Although, Čolak-­ Antić was not neglecting the negative consequences of Carol’s private life on state affairs, he was expecting the monarch’s positive influence in reducing of the parties’ harmful influence on state affairs. At the beginning of September 1930, he was convinced that King Carol II alongside with Titulescu would have the main role in foreign affairs.61 He concluded that the monarch became the most important factor in politics, after the second Cabinet of Gheorghe Mironescu was formed in October 1930.62 Following Mironescu’s resigna­ tion in mid-Arpil 1931, Čolak-Antić’s estimation was that King Carol II was enjoying the endless confidence of the people, because “the experiment with the Regency” was a failure.63 One of Čolak-Antić’s frequent criticisms of the Romanian political parties and their leaders was the lack of the wider and sincere support among electorate.64 During December 1925 and January 1926, he was not explicit in the reports regarding the abdication of the Crown Prince Carol, yet he was criticizing the political leaders for abusing the Dynastic crisis for political goals or personal gains.65 After Carol’s proclamation as the king in June 1930, Čolak-Antić was making comparisons between the lines. On the one side, he was informing the MFA on the enthusiastic support of the people for the new monarch. On the other side, analyses made by Čolak-Antić and the Legation’s chargé d’affaires, Vladimir Ribarž, were concluding that those politicians who were in opposition to Carol II—particularly the National Liberal Party (NLP)—were losing their ground not only at Court but also among the electorate.66 Nevertheless, Čolak-Antić praised highly some politicians.







AY, 395, b. 1, f. 7, folios 357, 358. AY, 395, b. 21, f. 212, folios 69, 70. 62 Извештаји Министарства иностраних послова Краљевине Југославије (август– децембар) 1930. Године [Reports of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (August–Decembre) 1930], књига I, приредили Нада Петровић, Саша Илић (Београд: Архив Југославије, 2005), 155. 63 AY, 395, b. 23, f. 231, folios 25, 26. 64 AY, 395, b. 14, f. 142, folios 326–334; AY, 395, b. 16, f. 168, folios 167–175. 65 According to Čolak-Antić, political leaders and the press changed their tune only after personal interventions of King Ferdinand I and the deputy Minister of the Interior, Gheorghe Tătărăscu. He was particularly emphasizing the selfishness and subjectivity of Ion Brătianu, Nicolae Iorga and Iuliu Maniu, on the one side, and the loyalty of Alexandru Averescu and dignity of Ion Mihalache, on the other side (AY, 395, b. 1, f. 3, folios 140–144, 149–151, 155–172, 176). 66 AY, 395, b. 1, f. 7, folios 359–361; AY, 395, b. 23, f. 231, folios 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 9. 60 61

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

95

Among the political parties he had the highest opinion on were the NLP and their leaders during the 1920s. He appraised Ion I. C. Brătianu as the pivot against the pro-Italian tendencies during Averescu’s government and as the only politician capable of forming the government which could introduce the Regency after King Ferdinand’s death.67 Čolak-Antić estimated Nicolae Titulescu—after Averescu’s descent from power—as the guarantee for the Romania’s anti-Hungarian foreign policy and for the resumption to Take Ionescu’s policy toward the Little Entete.68 He considered Titulescu as the great friend of the Kingdom of SCS with whom Marinković could easily find a good interlocutor.69 After Ion Brătianu’s death, Čolak-Antić appraised Titulescu as the greatest authority in Romanian politics and as the most important diplomat.70 His respect was further emphasized in November 1928. The diplomatic corps and the international community were unfamiliar with the new Foreign Minister, Mironescu, and Yugoslavs did not have any prior experience in dealing with the new PM, Iuliu Maniu. Čolak-Antić informed his superiors that the Romanian conduct towards the Kingdom of SCS and the Little Entente would continue along the same lines, because Titulescu would hold firmly the foreign policy in his hands.71 After a year and a half of positive experiences with Mironescu, Čolak-Antić would conclude that he would also be a guaranty of the continuity in the Romanian foreign policy after the proclamation of Prince Carol for the kingship.72 The Yugoslav plenipotentiary minister had managed to gradually establish trusty relations with Mironescu.73 As the plenipotentiary minister, Čolak-Antić was in frequent communication with the Romanian Foreign Ministers and the MFA’s officials. Yet, he was using subordinates in the cases when they have managed to establish good personal contacts with their Romanian colleagues.74 Čolak-Antić’s

AY, 395, b. 16, f. 168, folios 174–177, 252–262. AY, 395, b. 16, f. 168, folios 91–97. 69 AY, 395, b. 17, f. 184, folios 326, 327. 70 AY, 395, b. 16, f. 168, folios 252–262. 71 Although Mironescu and Maniu had tried from the start to convince Čolak-Antić of their sincerity toward the Kingdom of SCS and policies of the Little Entente, the Yugoslav plenipotentiary minister was estimating the situation only through the position of Titulescu to influence conduct of the foreign policy and diplomatic actions (AY, 395, b. 17, f. 184, folios 421–427). 72 AY, 395, b. 21, f. 212, folios 51 52. 73 AY, 395, b. 23, f. 231, folio 14. 74 Exemplary was the case when Čolak-Antić asked his superiors to postpone desig­ nation of the Legation’s secretary Aleksandar Protić to the new post, in January 1931. He clarified that due to tumbles during the Christmas holidays and due to Mironescu’s duties in the Parliament, he was not able to efficiently finalize the 67

68

96

Sr đan M ićić

reports indicate that he was not pleased with the lack of frankness among the Romanian diplomatic officials. In that respect, he had the better experience with Prince Dimitrie I. Ghika. This was very important for his line of work during Averescu’s government.75 Only after Titulescu had taken the stage as the Foreign Minister, Čolak-Antić could conclude that Ghika was not as frank as he could have been.76 In March 1929, he drew the attention of the Foreign Minister, Marinković, to the general secretary of the MFA Grigore Gafencu, a young clerk for whom he was predicting a promising diplomatic career.77 The exceptional situation when Boško Čolak-Antić was highly praising the behavior, postures and feelings of the king, statesmen, political parties and the public was after King Aleksandar was assassinated by Bulgarians and Croats, in October 1934. His conclusion was that such a reaction was not only a reflection of allied relations, but also the responsiveness to the importance of the historical moment that would affect both countries and both peoples. Čolak-Antić particularly emphasized that King Carol II was the first to express his deepest condolences to the Yugoslav Regency, and that he was sincerely distressed.78

Italy as an Important Factor in Yugoslav Foreign Policy Since Italy represented the greatest menace for the Kingdom of SCS/ Yugoslavia until the late 1930s, Rome’s diplomatic actions had vital importance for Yugoslav foreign policy. In that regard, the bilateral relations





work on the prolongation of the Temporary trade agreement without the support of Protić, who had good personal contacts with the clerks in the MFA and in the Ministry of trade (AY, 334, b. 185, f. 508, folio 616). 75 AY, 395, b. 16, f. 168, folios 108, 177. 76 At the end of November and the beginning of December 1927, Čolak-Antić informed Marinković that during Titulescu’s absence it had been very difficult to gather any information on Romanian foreign policy through the general secretary Ghika, since he was avoiding meetings with the members of the diplomatic corps and was conducting diplomatic affairs through numerous clerks (AY, 395, b. 16, f. 168, folios 257–262). 77 AY, Records of the Permanent Delegation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia at the League of Nations-Geneva (159), box 4, folder III Čolak-Antić to Marinković, personally, Conf. No. 105 from 5 March 1929; AY, 395, b.19, f. 200, folio 18. 78 Извештаји Министарства иностраних послова Краљевине Југославије за 1934. rодину [Reports of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1934.], књига V, приредиле Нада Петровић, Јелена Ђуришић (Београд: Архив Југославије, 2010), 397–399.

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

97

between Belgrade and Bucharest were not an exception. The first frictions and suspicions were caused by the Yugoslav-Italian Pact of friendship and cordial cooperation of January 1924. Since the arrangement was based on the amiable actions of the two Adriatic states in Central Europe and the Balkans, and Rome was guaranteeing Yugoslav freedom of action in the latter region, it caused much suspicion in Bucharest. The situation was further aggravated with the Czechoslovak-French Treaty of alliance and friendship of January 1924. Both agreements were apprehended by the Romanian government as the first steps towards the dissolution of the Little Entente. The Polish refusal to participate in the conference at Belgrade of the Little Entente, in January 1924, did not make the situation any better.79 These developments led to the discussion on many open questions on bilateral relations, raised the suspicion of Bucharest on the alleged forging of the “Slav front” between Belgrade, Prague and Moscow,80 and developed discussions in the Yugoslav and Romanian press on their policies toward Bulgaria and the USSR. Čolak-Antić, together with his Czechoslovak colleague Ferdinand Veverka had hit the wall of mistrust and faced many accusations. He was not able to diminish the anger and nervousness of the Foreign Minister Ion G. Duca or to persuade him that these suspicions were unfounded. The PM, Ion Brătianu, and Duca were not satisfied with clarifications of the Yugoslav and the Czechoslovak plenipotentiary ministers due to the mutual negative press propaganda, and were ready to accept only assurances given by the Foreign Ministers or even by the governments in Belgrade and Prague.81 In this particular case, Čolak-Antić had a better understanding with the



Piotr S. Wandycz, France and Her Eastern Allies 1919–1925: French-Czehoslovak-­ Polish Relations from the Paris Peace Conference to Locarno (Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1962), 307; Władysław Stępniak, Dyplomacja polska na Bałkanach (1918–1926) (Warszawa: Naczelna Dyrekcja Archiwów Pańswowych, 1998), 237; Jindřic Dejmek, Edvard Beneš, Politická biografie českého demokrata, Část první, Revolucionář a diplomat (1884–1935) (Praha: Nakladatelství Karolinum, 2006), 367. 80 Romania and Poland were anxious to prevent the alleged plan that all three mem­ ber states of the Little Entente simultaneously officially recognize the USSR (P. Wandycz, France and Her Eastern Allies 1919–1925, 318; W. Stępniak, Dyplomacja polska na Bałkanach (1918–1926), 237–239). The conclusion of the conference at Belgrade was that each member state would separately make a decision on the recognition and on the establishment of diplomatic relations with the USSR (M. Vanku, Mala antanta 1920–1938 [Small Entante 1920–1938], 26). 81 AY, 395, b. 1, f. 1, folios 3, 4, 7–9, 11–15. 79

98

Sr đan M ićić

Minister of the Court, Nicolae Mișu.82 His conclusion was that the surprising reaction of the Romanian statesmen was the result of their miscalculation. According to Čolak-Antić, governing circles in Bucharest were convinced that the Kingdom of SCS could not reach any political agreement with Italy on the Adriatic issues. Therefore, they were pleased with the Romanian international position which they assessed as much better than the Yugoslav one. The Yugoslav-Italian Pact of January 1924 left an unconformable impression on Romanians. They suddenly felt isolated and envied Belgrade for turning the tables on regional affairs.83 In the end, Čolak-Antić could only suggest to Ninčić that the Yugoslav government should give satisfactory explanations, because he was convinced that the Romanian government could not afford the revision of the foreign policy and the dissolution of the Little Entente over the imaginary conflict.84 His endeavors were not fruitless. Gradually, Duca started to confide on the issues concerning the Little Entente to ČolakAntić as a sincere supporter of the alliance policy, since July 1925.85 One of the major setbacks for the progress of Yugoslav-Romanian relations during the Interwar Period was the formation of Averescu’s government. After failure in the first phase of negotiations for the tripartite agreement between the Kingdom of SCS, France and Italy in late February 1926,86 Momčilo Ninčić was convinced that Benito Mussolini would not terminate attempts to weaken the Little Entente and the bilateral relations between



According to Mișu, both he and the king Ferdinand I were not nervous as the NLP’s leaders, since they had believed that that the Little Entente was vital enough to outlive the negative press propaganda (AY, 395, b. 1, f. 1, folio 10). 83 AY, Records of the Legation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in France-Paris, Vichy (388), box 12, folder 30, folios 363, 364. 84 AY, 395, b. 1, f. 1, folio 15. 85 AY, 395, b. 1, f. 2, folio 97. 86 The first phase of negotiations had started in December 1925 and lasted until February 1926. Ninčić, Pašić and King Aleksandar could not reach an agreement with Mussolini due to mutual distrust and the opposing goals of the Yugoslav, Italian and French foreign policies in the Balkans and in Central Europe. (Vuk Vinaver, Jugoslavija i Francuska između dva svetska rata (Da li je Jugoslavija bila francuski “satelit”) [Yugoslavia and France between the two world wars (Was Yugolavia the french “satellite”)] (Beograd: ISI, 1985), 90–96; Stanislav Sretenović, “Le poids grandissant de l′Italie dans les relations entre la France et le Royaume des Serbes, Croates et Slovènes 1924–1927,” Istorija 20. veka, No. 2 (2007): 26–28; Stanislav Sretenović, Francuska i Kraljevina Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca 1918–1929 [France and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes 1918–1929] (Beograd: ISI, 2008), 318–324). 82

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

99

Belgrade and Bucharest.87 In mid-March 1926, Čolak-Antić did not expect any revision of the Romanian foreign policy regardless of the evident change in the governing parties.88 His first suspicion concerning Averescu was based on the assessment that he was a Germanophile.89 Soon, he became very skep­ tical towards the Romanian foreign policy. He was particularly suspicious towards the policy of collaboration between “the two Latin sisters.” He was excited by the Italian-Romanian political and economic rapprochement and the signing of the Concordat with the Holly See;90 although he was aware of the importance of Bessarabia in this rapprochement.91 On several occasions he was quite clearly irritated by the explanations given by the PM, Averescu, and the Foreign Minister, Ion Mitilienu.92 Čolak-­ Antić had rejected—it seems without prior consultation with the MFA— Mitilineu’s proposal for the intermediary role between the Kingdom of SCS and Greece.93 Although there is no report in which he stated it clearly—at least not in the preserved archive records—in between the lines he was warning the MFA that the collaboration between “the two Latin sisters” could





Constantin Iordan, “La Roumanie et la Yugoslavie face à l’Italie fasciste (1926– 1928): une solidarité défaillante?,” Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes, 2, tome XXII–1984, (Avril–Juin): 162. 88 AY, 395, b. 1, f. 3, folio 179. 89 Čolak-Antić was informing the MFA, during January 1925, that Averescu had close ties with the general Erich von Ludendorff, who was at the time one of the German champions for the revision of the Versailles Peace Treaty (AY, 395, b. 13, f. 124, folios 12–21, 28–30). It seems that he was not familiar or had neglected for some reason or another the facts that Averescu was educated at Torino, was married to an Italian and was a personal friend of Marshal Pietro Badoglio (C. Iordan, “La Roumanie et la Yugoslavie face à l’Italie fasciste (1926–1928)”, 166). 90 AY, 395, b. 14, f. 142, folios 326–339, 342–350; AY, 395, b. 14, f. 143, folios 437–439, 466, AY, 395, b. 16, f. 168, folios 46, 49, 52, 53. 91 On the recommendation of the Italian plenipotentiary minister in Bucharest, Carlo Durazzo, Mussolini was playing on Romanian fear for Bessarabia, after failed negotiations with Soviets in Vienna, in 1924. He was not willing to grant necessary guaranties to Bucharest before he was convinced that the general, Averescu, would honestly pursue the policy of rapprochement with Italy (Alberto Basciani, “Les relations italo-roumaines et la ratification italenne du traité pour la Bessarabie (1919– 1927),” in East-Central Europe and the Great Powers Politics (19th–20th centuries), ed. Veniamin Ciobanu (Iași: Editura Junimea, 2004), 205–207; Stefano Santoro, “Relazioni italo-rumene fra la due guerre mondiali: i documenti di Bucarest,” Storia e Futuro. Rivista di storia e storiografia, Numero 12, Novembre, 2006: 5, 6). 92 Čolak-Antić was particularly irritated by the assessment of the Romanian statesmen that the Italian-Albanian treaty of 1926 did not represent a threat to the Kingdom of SCS or the Balkans (AY, 395, b. 14, f. 142, folios 465, 371–375, 385–389). 93 AY, 395, b. 16, f. 168, folios 30–36. 87

100

Sr đan M ićić

be the end of the Little Entente. He was emphasizing the Romanian press reports on the alleged action of the Kingdom of SCS and Czechoslovakia on incorporating the existing alliance into the wider bloc of the Slavic states. According to Čolak-Antić, this was causing anxiety for the Romanian public of the alleged Slav menace.94 As a countermeasure he suggested to the MFA that the Yugoslav press should accuse the Romanian public of disloyal attitudes, but to avoid any critiques of the government in Bucharest. He emphasized that it was not in the interest of the Kingdom of SCS “to publicly reveal that we do not trust them [the Romanian government].”95 Čolak-Antić was able to inform his superiors that only after the Italian-Hungarian Treaty of friendship, and mediation and arbitration was signed on April 5, 1927,96 that both government and opposition could finally realize the value of the Little Entente as the pivot of the status quo policy in the region.97 In his first detail Čolak-Antić was reporting convergence between Romanian and Yugoslav policies toward Bulgaria, yet he was not impressed with the Romanian-French agreement nor with Averescu’s and Mitilineu’s explanations that the Romanian-Italian rapprochement was cordial with the policy of the Little Entente (AY, 395, b. 14, folder 142, folios 385–389; AY, 395, b. 14, f. 143, folio 420; AY, 395, b. 16, folder 168, folios 2–9, 11, 13, 16–24, 44, 45, 47). Contrary to Čolak-Antić’s assessments, Durazzo and the general director for Europe and the Levant of the Italian MFA, Raffaele Guariglia, were certain, in February and March 1927, that the Italian-Romanian rapprochement alone could not enable the realization of Mussolini’s plan for rapprochement between Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary. Two Italian diplomats were convinced that the Romanian foreign policy was based on the allied relations with the Kingdom of SCS and the cooperation in the ranks of the Little Entente (C. Iordan, La Roumanie et la Yugoslavie face à l’Italie fasciste (1926–1928), 166, 167). 95 AY, 395, b. 16, f. 168, folios 16–24. Čolak-Antić’s suggestion was clearly accepted, and soon it became evident even to Carlo Durazzo that the government in Belgrade did not trust Averescu’s foreign policy (C. Iordan, “La Roumanie et la Yugoslavie face à l’Italie fasciste (1926–1928)”, 167). 96 Mussolini had instructed Durazzo to personally inform Averescu on the forth­ coming signing of the Treaty. As a gesture of good will, he sent a draft proposal of the treaty to Averescu and asked for his opinion. Mussolini’s interpretation was that the Italian-Hungarian treaty would be another step in the direction towards consolidating international peace and order. Also, he had tried to present the Treaty of friendship as a means to further facilitate Italian-Romanian rapprochement. Romania was the only member of the Little Entente that was informed and consulted on the forthcoming treaty (Ildikó Császár, “From Isolation to Active Foreign Policy: The Hungarian-Italian Treaty of Friendship 1927,” West Bohemian Historical Review, 7, no. 1 (2017): 108, 109). 97 AY, 395, b. 16, f. 168, folios 82–87. Тhe Hungarian PM, István Bethlen, was assessing the Treaty of friendship of April 5, 1927—inter alia—as the countermeasure against the Slavic danger and preponderance in the Danubian region. This resemblance with the policy of Averescu’s government could not facilitate the

94

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

101

account for the new Foreign Minister, Marinković, on the political situation in Romania—sent before the Little Entente’s conference in Jáchymov—he emphasized that the settlement between Rome and Budapest was strengthening the idea of the Little Entente in the public opinion and even gave the momentum for propaganda of expanding the alliance with the membership of Poland and/or Greece. In that respect, he concluded that even the PM’s pro-Italian sympathies could not reverse the process.98 Only after Averescu’s resignation, Čolak-could Antić report that Prince Barbu Alexandru Știrbey’s interim government and later Ion Brătianu’s government, would orient Romanian foreign policy toward cooperation with the Kingdom of SCS, consolidation and strengthening of the Little Entente, and with noticeable distrust toward the Italian policy in the Balkans. Therefore, he concluded that the Italian action to weaken the Little Entente had come to its end, as far as Romania was concerned.99 Nevertheless, Čolak-Antić could not immediately be met with sincerity or candidness from the members of both cabinets. The exception was Titulescu.100 The bilateral relations were gradually improving during 1927 and some open issues were resolved. However, the Yugoslav MFA and the political leaders were still cautious regarding Bucharest’s foreign policy. This was particularly the case concerning Italian diplomatic activities in the region, and the MFA had suspicions even about Titulescu.101 During the course of





98

99 100 101

improvement of Romanian-Hungarian relations due to significant bilateral difficulties between Budapest and Bucharest (Ildikó Császár, From Isolation to Active Foreign Policy, 108, 110, 111). AY, 395, b. 16, f. 168, folios 91–97. The Romanian position towards the Italian-­ Hungarian treaty was plainly presented during the Little Entete’s conference in Jáchymov, May 13–15, 1927 (C. Iordan, La Roumanie et la Yugoslavie face à l’Italie fasciste (1926–1928), 163, 167). Therefore, Mitilineu and the general secretary of the MFA Nicolae Filodor could concluded that the alliance was strengthened during the conference (E. Campus, Mica Înţelegere, 78). AY, 395, b. 16, f. 168, folios 108–110, 122–131. AY, 395, b. 16, f. 168, folios 243, 326; AY, 395, b. 17, f. 180, folios 349, 354, 355; AY, 395, b. 17, f. 184, folios 318, 327–329, 365, 366. The bilateral agreements were reached on the issues of the tri-border area based on the Protocol of 1923 and on the church and school issues in Banat. The MFA was dissatisfied with Titulescu’s visit to Rome and the milder tone of the note submitted to the LoN on the Saint Gotthard’s arms smuggling affair, in January 1928. The Belgrade government would be satisfied with Titulescu only in February, when the three Foreign Ministers of the Little Entente addressed the joint request to the LoN’s Counsel, yet it was criticized by the opposition in Parliament on its indulgence toward Romania in March 1928 (M. Vanku, Mala antanta 1920–1938. [Small Entente 1920–1938.], 46; G. Popi, Jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi 1918– 1941. [Yugoslav-romanian relations 1918–1941.], 75–77).

102

Sr đan M ićić

one year, Čolak-Antić was scrutinizing the processes which were determining Romanian foreign policy. He concluded that Bucharest was reacting to inconsistencies in the Italian foreign policy. In that regard, Čolak-Antić noticed that anxiety of the Slav menace was fading before the real danger that Mussolini could definitely accept the role of the main revisionist in European affairs and support the Hungarian and Bulgarian claims to Romanian territories. In the Central-European issues this change led to the greater support for the Little Entente in Romanian official circles and public opinion, and simultaneously led to the friendlier attitude toward the Kingdom of SCS. In the Balkans issues, the result was the fading of the hitherto anxiety of the alleged Yugoslav hegemony. This enabled Romanian statesmen and politicians to consider the possibility of the revival of the Balkan alliance of 1912.102 Based on these analyses Čolak-Antić suggested to Marinković, on June 16, 1928, to exploit the favorable circumstances. Since no progress was made in resolving bilateral issues between the two at the Little Entente’s conferences of 1927 and 1928—and Čolak-Antić was convinced that for many of those only little effort and good would was required—he appraised the moment was ripe for settlement. Conversations with Duca assured him that the Romanian side was not prepared to open the discussion on the issues which had no consent from both sides.103 Just days before Čolak-Antić’s suggestion, King Aleksandar and Marinković were acclaiming Titulescu’s actions on behalf of the Little Entente before the LoN, during his visit to Belgrade on June, 14 1928. The Yugoslav Foreign Minister had clearly accepted Čolak-Antić’s proposition. During the following Little Entente’s conference in Bucharest, June 20–23, 1928, Marinković and Titulescu came to terms to form mutual committees tasked to resolve most of the open issues in bilateral relations.104 Čolak-Antić’s initiative led to the formation of the Yugoslav-Romanian mutual committee which regulated a plethora of issues during 1929. He was the head of the Yugoslav delegation during the negotiations’ second phase in Bucharest, in June.105 Čolak-Antić was ready to accommodate Mironescu’s 102 AY, 395, b. 17, f. 184, folios 375–385; AY, 385, b. 19, f. 201, folio 115. 103 AY, 395, b. 17, f. 184, folios 386–389. 104 AY, 395, b. 17, f. 184, folios 395–399; G. Popi, Jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi 1918–1941. [Yugoslav-romanian relations 1918–1941.], 77, 78. 105 In October 1928, the Directory for contracts of the MFA had grouped 26 unresolved issues in eight clusters, and they were covering a variety of questions: cross-border trafficking, customs, financial, administrative, archival, compensatory damages, hydro technical, veterinary, schools and churches, labor and pension, etc. The first phase of negotiations was in Belgrade from January until May 1929 (AY, 395, b. 19, f. 201, folios 115–123, 129, 165–190, 205, 262–264, 280, 281, 283–285, 298;

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

103

wish to resolve the issues of church and schools. Yet, Marinković refused the proposition because he was insisting on the discussion of other issues first and was waiting for the result of the secret negotiations.106 Čolak-Antić had imme­ diately changed positions. He informed Marinković that Mironescu’s posture was a kind of threat, incompatible with the friendly and allied relations between the two countries. He emphasized that the Romanian insistence on the internationalization of church and school issues was in direct opposition to the Little Entente’s conference conclusions107 on the efforts to suppress the German initiative for the reform of the minorities’ right protective system before the LoN. The three member states were collaborating together with several of LoN’s members against Stresemann’s plan to exploit minority issues for the political goals of the Wilhelmstrasse.108 Čolak-Antić concluded that Mironescu’s request was playing straight into the hands of the revisionist Great Powers, i.e. Germany and Italy.109 After the Yugoslav-Romanian mutual committee had reached conclusions on number of issues, the work came to a halt. The Yugoslav delegation did not dispose of all of data and did not receive instructions for negotiating all the issues. The Romanian delegation lacked legal basis for some of their theses and was swaying the conversations towards the political ground.110 Marinković instructed the Yugoslav delegation to suspend further negotiations on July 1, 1929. His intention

106 107

108

109 110

G. Popi, Jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi 1918–1941. [Yugoslav-romanian relations 1918–1941.], 80–82). From preserved archival records it is not clear to which secret negotiation Marinković was referring (AY, 395, b. 19, f. 201, folios 240, 241, 243, 244). During the Little Entente’s conference in the Kingdom of SCS, in May 1929, the minority rights issue was of the utmost importance, and it was the first item on the agenda. The foreign ministers were adjusting the strategy to the wider collaboration with the interested LoN’s members (AY, 395, b. 20, f. 206, folios 248, 251, 252, 256). The Little Entente wanted to prevent reform of the LoN’s minority rights protec­ tive system and to avoid further deterioration of the state sovereignty of all three member states. The main debate was started by the Stresemann-Zaleski dispute on the minority issue in the Upper Silesia before the LoN’s Counsel in 1928 and lasted until the XI Assembly of the LoN’s in 1930. The Little Entente was collaborating with Poland, Greece, Belgium and the Baltic states on this issue, and Marinković played an important role in the XI Assembly (Срђан Мићић, „Мала антанта и питање мањина пред Друштвом народа 1927–1934. Године,“ in Od Moravy k Moravě III: Z historie česko-srbských vztahů, ed. Václav Štěpánek, Ladislav Hladký, Верица Копривица (Brno: Matice moravská ve spolupráci s Maticí srbskou, 2017), 337–347). AY, 385, b. 19, f. 201, folios 245–250. AY, 395, b. 19, f. 201, folios 291–295.

104

Sr đan M ićić

was to avoid the committee’s discussion on the church and school issues, and instead offered direct arrangements between the two Foreign Ministers. The Romanian side rejected his proposition.111 During Marinković’s visit to Bucharest in July 1930, he was avoiding, together with Čolak-Antić, the discussion on the church and school issue on the pretext that the minority issues were under jurisdiction of the LoN.112 Although the two sides could not immediately reach conclusions on all the issues, this was the first phase in solving most of them.113 The Great Depression was another impulse for better bilateral relations, as both sides concluded that only mutual understanding and cooperation could help them to pull through the crisis.114 Čolak-Antić had personal insight on how this conclusion brought a more cordial and intimate rapprochement 111 The school and church issues were discussed only in private conversations between members of the two delegations, usually over a course of meals (AY, 395, b. 19, f. 201, folios 262–264, 280, 281, 283–290). Although Marinković’s proposition for the direct agreement was rejected in July 1932, the issue of minority schools in Yugoslavia and Romania was finally resolved in direct negotiations between the two new Foreign Ministers Jevtić and Titulescu, during the Little Entente’s conference in Belgrade in December 1932, and the Convention’s implementation was started in 1934 (AY, 395, b. 28, f. 270, folio 240; M. Vanku, Srpsko-jugoslovenskorumunski odnosi kroz vekove [Serbian-Yugoslavian-Romanian relations through the centuries], VI, 36). 112 On Mironescu’s invitation, Marinković stayed for 3 days in Bucharest and Sinaia on his return from the Little Entente’s conference in Štrbské pleso (AY, 395, b. 22, f. 222, folios 70, 71). Marinković was publicly emphasizing the need for the closer economic collaboration between the members of the Little Entente and between the agrarian states in Eastern Europe, which was in compliance with the ongoing negotiations of interested parties at the time (CSA, 176 k, inv. no. 6, f. 70, folios 142–146; CSA, 176 k, inv. no. 6, f. 82, folios 1, 2). 113 The negotiations were finalized in March 1933, after three and a half years, when 16 conventions and protocols were signed (AY, 395, b. 28, f. 270, folios 240–262; G. Popi, Jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi 1918–1941. [Yugoslav-romanian relations 1918–1941.], 82, 98, 302, 303). The Yugoslav Parliament and the Senate ratified those acts in the sessions of June 13 and June 16, 1933, respectively. The ratification instruments were exchanged on September 26, 1933 (AY, 395, b. 28, f. 270, folios 393, 394). 114 Никола Вучо, „‘Аграрни блок’ подунавских земаља за време економске кризе 1929–1933.,“ in Светска економска криза 1929–1934. године и њен одраз у земљама Југоисточне Европе [World Economic Crisis 1929–1934 and its reflection in the countries of South-Eastern Europe], уредник академик Васа Чубриловић (Београд: Балканолошки институт САНУ, 1976), 40–49, G. Popi, Jugoslovenskorumunski odnosi 1918–1941. [Yugoslav-romanian relations 1918–1941], 83–85, 244–250; M. Vanku, Srpsko-jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi kroz vekove [SerbianYugoslavian-Romanian relations through the centuries], VI, 24, 25, 33.

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

105

between the two allied countries during the negotiations for the construction of the bridge on the river Danube. This led him to believe, in September 1930, that information on the Greek and Polish endeavors to divert transit with the Thessaloniki port over the Bulgarian territory was false.115 Yet, Ghika’s clarification before the Bulgarian plenipotentiary minister, Svetlosav Pomenov, on the issue confirmed the suspicion of the Yugoslav diplomatic service that Italy was involved in the plan for the transit via Bulgaria.116 Since the MFA could not rely entirely on the Romanian side, it was seeking support from Czechoslovakia and France.117 Although there were no clear signals that would indicate the cooperation between Rome and Bucharest, Boško Čolak-Antić could not be fully satisfied in the matter. In July 1932 and in January 1933, he reported on the postponements of the prolongation of the Romanian-Italian Pact of friendship and on disagreements between the two sides on the conditions for the prolongation. Nevertheless, he was reluctant to draw any conclusion on the future development of the bilateral relations between Romania and Italy.118 In January 1934, Čolak-Antić informed Jevtić that official and journalistic circles in Bucharest were cultivating friendly feelings and “racial solidarity” toward Italians, while temporary dissatisfactions were the immediate reaction to Rome’s diplomatic actions for the revision of the peace treaties.119

Yugoslav-Romanian Relations and the Balkans After Boško Čolak-Antić took the post in Bucharest, he was closely inspecting the growing anxiety of the Romanian statesmen and political leaders from the Yugoslav supremacy in the Balkans. In late 1923, he came to the conclusion that most of the political parties had confused views on foreign policy. Therefore, he found it quite difficult to analyze their views on particular issues.120 After five years of scrutinizing all parties’ policies, he informed AY, 395, b. 21, f. 212, folios 71, 72; Извештаји, I, 45. CSA, 176 k, inv. no. 6, folder 70, folios 82, 83. AY, 395, b. 21, f. 214, folios 356–358, 402. Извештаји Министарства иностраних послова Краљевине Југославије за 1932. годину [Reports of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1932.], књига III, приредила Нада Петровић (Београд: Архив Југославије, 2008), 250; Извештаји Министарства иностраних послова Краљевине Југославије за 1933. годину [Reports of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1934.], књига IV, приредиле Нада Петровић, Јелена Ђуришић (Београд: Архив Југославије, 2009), 22. 119 AY, 395, b. 28, f. 268, folios 199–201. 120 AY, 388, b. 12, f. 30, folios 362, 363. 115 116 117 118

106

Sr đan M ićić

the MFA in 1925 that leading figures in Bucharest were convinced that Yugoslav foreign policy in the Balkans had hegemonic tendencies and imperialistic plans. Therefore, he was warning superiors to have a watchful eye on Romanian diplomatic actions toward Italy, Bulgaria and Greece, which were all directed against the alleged Yugoslav imperialism. He emphasized the ambiguities in the Romanian foreign policy on the Balkans. On the one hand, Bucharest was ready to pursue the new regional alliance as a means to counter domination by the Great Powers. On the other hand, Romanian statesmen and politicians were anxious to accept the Yugoslav leading role in the region. Therefore, Čolak-Antić was advising cautions in the rapprochements between Belgrade, on the one side, and Athens and Bulgaria, on the other. He was warning the MFA that any Romanian-Greek rapprochement was directed against Yugoslav political and economic interests in the region.121 His esti­ mate was that Bucharest sought to diminish Belgrade’s influence through cooperation with Athens.122 Among the Romanian diplomats, Čolak-Antić was particularly suspicious of Constantin Langa-Răşcanu’s actions, as the plenipotentiary minister in Sofia, and later in Athens.123 Boško Čolak-Antić had played a prominent part in the negotiations for constructing the bridge over the Danube River on the mutual border. In 1925, he took an active role in the negotiations. His intention was to prevent the realization of the plan for the transit from the port of Thessaloniki to Romania through Bulgaria. His key argument was that with the construction of the bridge near Prahovo, the route would be shortened by 900 km, and the Romanian side could also communicate with the ports on the Adriatic Sea via a narrow-gauge railway.124 During the Romanian-Italian rapproche­ ment in 1926–27, his activities were also aimed at preventing Mussolini’s plan to connect Romania with the Adriatic ports in Albania and to outflank the Kingdom of SCS.125 As the plenipotentiary minister and as the head of the Yugoslav delegation in the Mutual Committee, since March 1930, ČolakAntić was not keen to relent to the claims of the Romanian Joint Chief of Staff.126 Therefore, on his proposition one member of the Yugoslav delegation 121 122 123 124

AY, 395, b. 13, f. 124, folios 32–40, 74–77. AY, 395, b. 13, f. 127, folios 388, 389. AY, 395, b. 13, f. 124, folios 32–40; AY, 395, b. 16, f. 168, folios 91–97. AY, 395, b. 13, f. 124, folio 95. With the more detailed plans for the construction of the bridge between Brza Palanka and Țigănași at the beginning of 1931, he could claim that transit via the Yugoslav territory would shorten the rout for nearly 600 km (AY, 395, b. 21, f. 214, folios 352–354). 125 AY, 395, b. 16, f. 168, folio 12. 126 The Romanian side was opposing the Yugoslav suggestion for the location of the bridge since it was too close to the Bulgarian border and thus open for an artillery

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

107

was appointed by the General Staff in order to facilitate the negotiations on the military aspects of the issue, in August 1930.127 His efforts were also directed towards accepting the Convention of 1913128 as a basis for the future work of the Mutual committee. He insisted on the pre-war arrangement as the means to prevent the Thessaloniki transit via the Bulgarian territory.129 In November 1930, Čolak-Antić was certain that the whole project depended on persistence and insistence by the Yugoslav government, since he concluded that Mironescu and his cabinet colleagues were unreliable in this matter.130 In February 1931, he could inform superiors in more details on the different groups and their influence in the Court. It seems that he concluded that Mironescu was not playing an important part in this matter. According to Čolak-Antić, the Chief of the General Staff, General Nicolae Samsonovici, and the Minister of Industry and Trade, Mihail Manoilescu, were the staunchest opponents to the Yugoslav propositions. In his report, the former was considered as the opponent of the location near the mutual border with Bulgaria and the latter as the opponent of the construction of the bridge between Yugoslavia and Romania. Therefore, Čolak-Antić had concluded that Manoilescu had the greatest influence on King Carol’s indecision. On the other hand, he was praising Constantin Argetoianu as the trusty collaborator in the negotiations.131

127 128

129 130 131

assault (AY, 395, b. 21, f. 214, folios 383–386; AY, 395, b. 23, f. 232, folio 205; CSA, Records of the Legation of the Kingdom of Bulgaria in Vienna (304 k), inventory no. 1, folder 2778, folio 53; Др Милан Гулић, Краљевина Југославија и Дунав. Дунавска политика југословенске краљевине 1918–1944 [Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Danube. Danube policy of the Yugoslav Kingdom 1918–1944] (Београд: ИСИ, 2014), 194). AY, 395, b. 21, f. 214, folios 369, 374–376. The Convention on the construction of the bridge over the Danube River was singed on December 10, 1913. According to the Convention’s provisions, a location was planned between Brza Palanka and Țigănași, the bridge was for the single-track railway, costs for the construction of the bridge were to be equally divided, and each signatory bore the expenses for building the railway to the bridge on their territory (М. Гулић, Краљевина Југославија и Дунав [Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Danube], 192). AY, 395, b. 21, f. 214, folio 379, 383–386. AY, 395, b. 21, f. 214, folio 402. AY, 395, b. 23, f. 232, folios 208, 209. Contrary to assessments, the Yugoslav, Svetoslav Pomenov was certain that Mironescu and the Romanian General Staff were supporting the plan for the transit over the Yugoslav territory. According to Pomenov’s report, not even Ghika could explain the reason for the Romanian General Staff opposition to the plan for the transit over the Bulgarian territory (CSA, 176 k, inv. no. 6, folder 70, folios 53–57, 82, 83).

108

Sr đan M ićić

It seems that his assessment of the aforementioned persons had an impact on the government in Belgrade. In April 1931, Marinković had instructed Čolak-Antić to congratulate Argetoianu for his appointment as the Foreign Minister.132 Since the Yugoslav statesmen had no prior experience with Argentoianu in conducting state affairs, and he was appointed only as the ad interim minister, there were no real reasons for Marinković’s move unless he did not expect that the negotiations would continue in a more rapid manner. Finally in March 1931, King Carol II decided to resolve the issue of the location for constructing the bridge in direct agreement with King Aleksandar.133 The two monarchs had discussed this issue on May 4, on the margins of the Little Entente’s conference in Bucharest. The meeting took place at the symbolical location, on the Yugoslav royal yacht on the river Danube near the Romanian riverside.134 But the negotiations had continued in the following years, and there was little chance that Čolak-Antić could succeed where two kings had failed.135 He was attributing the slowness of the process—alongside with the different positions between the two interested parties—to the 132 AY, 395, b. 1, f. 8, folio 376. At the beginning of the Little Entente’s conference in Bucharest, on 3 May 1931, Čolak-Antić had hosted a lunch in the Legation. On that occasion, Argetoianu had a prominent place among the guests („Свечаности у част гостију“, Време [The time], 4 May 1931, 1). 133 AY, Collection of documents of Vojislav Jovanović-Marambo (335), box 18, folder 4, folio 199; М. Гулић, Краљевина Југославија и Дунав [Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Danube], 193, 194. 134 King Aleksandar’s intention was to organize the working meeting and intended to invite on his behalf only the Minister of Court, Jevtić, and Čolak-Antić. But King Carol II called the PM, Iorga, several members of his Cabinet, and brought a number from the royal entourage. In the end, the press release stated that it was a family reunion (AY, 395, b. 1, f. 8, folios 379, 380; „Састанак Њ. В. Краља са Краљем Румуније,“ Политика [The politics], May 6, 1931, 1; „Састанак Њ. В. Краља са Краљем Румуније,“ Време [The time], May 6, 1931, 1). 135 Exemplary is the case with Manoilescu with whom Čolak-Antić had great difficul­ ties even after the meeting of the two kings (AY, 395, b. 1, f. 8, folios 393). King Aleksandar and King Carol II renewed discussion on the issue of the bridge’s location, in January 1933. During the following three months, King Aleksandar, the two Foreign Ministers, Jevtić and Titulescu, the minister of public works and communications, Eduart Mirto, Čolak-Antić and the Romanian plenipotentiary minister in Belgrade, Alexandru Guranescu, participated in separate discussions, yet the issue of the location remained open (AY, 159, b. 46, folder 4–2 Čolak-Antić to the MFA and the Permanent Delegation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia at the LoN in Geneva, Str. Conf. No. 53, May 24, 1933; Fotić to the Legation in Bucharest, Str. Conf. No. 28, May, 24 1933; AY, 395, b. 28, f. 273, folios 617–619, 621, 623, 633–636, 638, 662–665, 662–665, 669–671; G. Popi, Jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi 1918–1941. [Yugoslav-romanian relations 1918–1941.], 260, 261).

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

109

Romanian habit of procrastinating on state affairs.136 After Čolak-Antić had left the office in Bucharest, King Carol II informed the Prince Regent Pavle Karađorđević—through the newly appointed plenipotentiary minister Ninko Perić in June 1935—that he was opposing the construction of the bridge for strategic reasons.137 Čolak-Antić’s active role in negotiation for the Danube Bridge was part of the wider Yugoslav diplomacy in the Balkans which sought to prevent the reorganization of regional relations in such a manner that would diminish the dominant position of Belgrade.138 The diplomatic service was carefully observ­ ing Romanian, Bulgarian, Greek and Polish maneuvers and propaganda for the transit with the Thessaloniki port through the Bulgarian territory. The plenipotentiary ministers in Athens, Jovan Vučković, and the general consul in Thessaloniki, Vladimir Kojić, were convinced that the Greek government was pursuing to reduce political and economic dependence on Yugoslavia. Čolak-Antić was more cautious in his assessments, but did not rule out the possibility of this alternative project.139 Čolak-Antić was not looking kindly upon the differences between Yugoslav and Romanian views on Bulgaria. Both states were on the side of the victors in World War I, and therefore had a common goal to preserve the international order established during the Paris Peace Conference. In that regard, Belgrade and Bucharest were interested in preventing Bulgarian revisionism, guerrilla warfare and terrorist actions. Yet, the fear of Romanian statesmen and the public from Slavs in general, and from possible cooperation of the South Slavs in particular, was creating the opposite attitudes in regard 136 As an argument for observation, Čolak-Antić emphasized that the first Convention was signed in 1898, ratified by the Romanian side in 1914, while Maniu and the Prince Regent Nicolae expressed desires “to start the project once and for all” only in March 1930, after the Yugoslav government had guaranteed support in war material in the case of a Soviet attack (AY, 395, b. 21, f. 212, folios 13–16; AY, 395, b. 21, f. 214, folio 355). 137 AY, Collection of microfilms (797), Prince Pavle Karađorđević’s personal papers, reel 5, scan 88, diary entry for June 28, 1935. The Convention on the construction of the bridge over the Danube River between Kladovo and Turnu Severin was signed on November 21, 1936, and ratified during the next two years, but the bridge was not constructed (G. Popi, Jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi 1918–1941. [Yugoslavromanian relations 1918–1941.], 262–265; М. Гулић, Краљевина Југославија и Дунав [Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Danube], 195–198). 138 AY, 395, b. 13, f. 124, folio 95. 139 Извештаји, I, 45; Срђан Мићић, Наташа Милићевић, „Изазови унутрашње и спољне политике у време диктатуре краља Александра,“ in Коста Ст. Павловић, Дневник 1930–1932 [Diary 1930–1932], прир. Срђан Мићић, Наташа Милићевић (Београд: Историјски архив Београда–ИНИС, 2020), 76.

110

Sr đan M ićić

to Belgrade and Bucharest toward political parties and governments in Sofia. These differences had momentous impact on the conduct of the two allied states after the coup d’états in Sofia, in 1923 and 1934, as well as after the creation of the Balkan Entente.140 After the coup d’état of June 9, 1923, Čolak-­ Antić unsuccessfully tried to sway Duca and the Romanian public towards the formation of a mutual stand between the Kingdom of SCS and Romania, against the government of Aleksandar Cankov and the possible domino effect among the revisionist states.141 His conclusion was that the Romanian government had an appropriate attitude but was stalling the timely decisions, while his assessment of the public opinion was not the least positive. He emphasized in particular, the reports of the semi-official L’Indipendance Roumanie.142 Čolak-Antić appraised the reporting of the press as an action against Aleksandar Stamboliyskithe murdered PM and champion for the rapprochement and unification of the South Slavs—systematically prepared after his visit to Belgrade in November 1922. In the days following the coup d’état, he especially had problems in personal communication with journalists due to the opposite reports of the Yugoslav and Romanian press on the turmoil in Bulgaria.143

140 Živko Avramovski, “O stavu jugoslovenske vlade prema Devetojunskom prevratu u Bugarskoj 1923. Godine,” Istorija XX veka [History of the 20th century], edited volume, vol. IX (Beograd: ISI, 1968): 155–163, 170–180; Dr Desanka Todorović, Jugoslavija i balkanske države 1918–1923 [Yugoslavia and Balkan countries 1918–1923] (Beograd: Narodna knjiga, 1979), 218–227; G. Popi, Jugoslovenskorumunski odnosi 1918–1941. [Yugoslav-romanian relations 1918–1941.], 50–52; Živko Avramovski, Balkanska atanta (1934–1940) [Balkan Entente 1934–1940] (Beograd: ISI, 1986), 161–175; Constantin Iordan, “La Roumanie et le coup d’état de Bulgarie du 9 Juin 1923. Noveaux témoignages,” Revue des Études SudEst Européennes, tome XXVII–1989, 1, no. 2 (Janvier–Juin), 113–121; Иван Т. Ристић, Бугарска у политици Краљевине Срба, Хрвата и Словенаца (1919–1929) [Bulgaria in the policy of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes 1919–1929], PhD dissertation (University of Belgrade, 2017), 269–278. 141 At the time, Čolak-Antić had appraised Hungary and Turkey as possible revisionist states in the region (AY, 395, b. 9, f. 96, folios 146, 147, 182–187). 142 Duca tried to justify the Romanian government before Čolak-Antić for the report­ ing of the L’Indipendance Roumanie, in mid-June. Later he had promise to publish communiqués to repel the suspicions on the discord in the ranks of the Little Entente (AY, 395, b. 9, f. 96, folios 228, 233). 143 Čolak-Antić was attempting to persuade Romanian journalists that they should rely on historical experience and draw a conclusion about whether the Bulgarian politicians—who had returned to power after the coup d’état—were trustworthy (AY, 395, b. 9, f. 96, folios 225–227).

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

111

Boško Čolak-Antić was meticulously analyzing meetings and conversations between Romanian and Bulgarian statesmen and diplomats, and reporting to the MFA openly, or indirectly in between the lines, on the possible Romanian-Bulgarian rapprochements against the South Slavs cooperation. After the official visit of the PM, Aleksandar Stamboliyski, to Belgrade in November 1922, Čolak-Antić noticed that Romanian statesmen started to imagine the new threat from the South. In the following years he closely observed their negative attitude toward the Bulgarian agrarians— Stamboliyski’s followers—even after they were overthrown in the bloody coup d’état.144 Čolak-Antić was suggesting caution to Duca, in March 1925, as he was convinced that the Romanian policy towards Bulgaria was on several occasions based on the false information gathered from unreliable sources.145 Averescu’s ascent to power emphasized the Romanian policy toward the South Slavic states. It was Mitilineu who in mid-July 1926 initialized the consultation between Bucharest, Belgrade and Athens on mutual measures against intensified Bulgarian guerrilla actions against three countries. Ninčić had accepted it, yet in a fortnight Mitilineu changed his tune.146 Čolak-Antić came to the conclusion that it was the resuming of the old Romanian tactic to support the weaker South Slavic neighbor in order to prevent the YugoslavBulgarian rapprochement and thus to divert the assumed Slavic menace from the mutual borders.147 In this particular case, he even suspected that Rome played a part in this change of Bucharest’s attitude.148 Since the Romanian-Bulgarian rapprochement—led by Titulescu and Langa-Răşcanu—raised serious concerns in Belgrade, in late 1932, on ČolakAntić’s insistence the Little Entente’s conference was summoned to Belgrade. King Aleksandar managed to suppress Titulescu’s policies on the rapprochement with Bulgaria in order to prevent Italian exploitation of the process for diplomatic action against Yugoslavia.149 According to the Czechoslovak 144 AY, 395, b. 13, f. 124, folios 32–40; И. Ристић, Бугарска у политици Краљевине Срба, Хрвата и Словенаца (1919–1929) [Bulgaria in the policy of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes 1919–1929], 277. 145 AY, 395, b. 13, f. 132, folios 607, 608. 146 И. Ристић, Бугарска у политици Краљевине Срба, Хрвата и Словенаца (1919– 1929) [Bulgaria in the policy of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes 1919– 1929], 374–378. 147 AY, 395, b. 1, f. 3, folios 216–223. 148 И. Ристић, Бугарска у политици Краљевине Срба, Хрвата и Словенаца (1919– 1929) [Bulgaria in the policy of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes 1919– 1929], 377. 149 V. Vinaver, Jugoslavija i Mađarska 1918–1933. [Yugoslavia and Hungary 1918– 1933.], 503.

112

Sr đan M ićić

plenipotentiary minister in Bucharest, Jan Šeba, Čolak-Antić had an important role in facilitating the establishment of personal contacts between King Aleksandar and King Boris III. The Yugoslav foreign policy during the 1920s and the first half of the 1930s was conducted in the manner that the Yugoslav-Bulgarian rapprochement was a precondition for the collaboration between the Little Entente and Bulgaria. Čolak-Antić managed to persuade King Carol II to postpone his plans for the meeting with King Boris III, in summer 1933. Consequently he had provided necessary time for King Aleksandar to discuss important bilateral issues directly with King Boris III without the external pressure or the multilateral obstacles, especially the one which could occur on Titulescu’s behalf.150 Čolak-Antić was particularly interested in relations between the Yugoslav and Bulgarian kings, since he had sincerely believed that the personal union of the two South Slavic states was attainable.151 Nevertheless, King Aleksandar did not have complete con­ fidence in Čolak-Antić in this matter. In December 1933, he only informed Spalajković on the issues which were discussed during the meetings with King Boris III. He was keen to avoid any indiscretion and did not confide to Jevtić or other Yugoslav diplomats.152

Yugoslav-Romanian Relations in the Ranks of Regional Alliances Boško Čolak-Antić was a loyal supporter of the allied relations between Yugoslavia and Romania, both on the bilateral and multilateral level. In a number of reports, he emphasized its importance for both sides. Although Čolak-Antić was not active in the processes which led to the formation of the Balkan Entente, since Marinković was not interested in the work of the Balkan Conferences,153 he was not inconspicuous. His importance in the Yugoslav regional diplomatic activities was evident during the Belgrade meeting of 150 ЧСИБИ, III, 202, document no. 68. 151 Čolak-Antić was convinced that the model of the Second German Reich was appli­ cable for the South Slavs, i.e. that King Aleksandar I could be the head of state and King Boris III could remain on the Bulgarian throne in the larger united kingdom which was usually referred to as the “Great Integral Yugoslavia” (ЧСИБИ, III, 231, document no. 79). 152 Душан Марковић, Срђан Мићић, „Сусрети краља Александра и краља Бориса од септембра до децембра 1933. године,“ Токови историје [Currents of history], 1/2017, 192, 198. 153 С. Мићић, Н. Милићевић, „Изазови унутрашње и спољне политике у време диктатуре краља Александра“ [Challenges of domestic and foreign policy during the dictatorship of King Alexander], 70–73.

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

113

the four Foreign Ministers, February 3–4, 1934. He was the only Yugoslav plenipotentiary minister from three Balkan capitols that Jevtić called to this meeting.154 Regarding the Little Entente, Čolak-Antić was much more active and even managed to leave a personal mark on the alliance conferences. The original practice was that the two visiting foreign ministers were accompanied by the hosting country’s plenipotentiary minister accredited to the country of the guest. This practice was later changed on Čolak-Antić’s suggestion and the three member states’ plenipotentiary ministers from two other capitols were attending meetings.155 Among the Romanian foreign ministers, Čolak-Antić had the most positive experience with Duca and Titulescu regarding the affairs of the Little Entente. Even when Yugoslav and Romanian foreign policies were not completely cordial, he respected Duca’s intention to avoid any public dissonance.156 In some situations, he had a conciliatory role between the three sides.157 In other situations, he was displeased or even irritated by the con­ duct of the Romanian statesmen. These occurrences were more frequent during the Great Depression which shook the international economy and finances, and threatened to disrupt the international order, since many countries sought new directions for their policies in order to overcome the crisis as painlessly as possible. Čolak-Antić was dissatisfied with the part of the Romanian public which was supporting the project of the German-Austrian customs union of 1931, which was a direct threat to the Little Entente’s policy in Central Europe.158 In his criticism, he neglected the fact that similar disaccord existed among Yugoslav statesmen. Čolak-Antić’s standpoint was cordial to Marinković’s, but it differed from King Aleksandar’s position.159 In 154 ЧСИБИ, III, 260, document no. 90. 155 K. St. Pavlović, Vojislav Marinković i njegovo doba [Vojislav Marinkovic and his time], III, 125, 126. 156 AY, 395, b. 13, f. 132, folio 617. 157 For instance, Čolak-Antić was advising the MFA not to attribute any importance to the intensive reaction of the Czechoslovak delegation led by Šeba about King Carol’s attention towards Gustav Gratz and the Hungarian delegation, during the Inter-Parliamentary conference in Bucharest, in October 1931 (Извештаји Министарства иностраних послова Краљевине Југославије за 1931. годину [Reports of the Ministrryof Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1931.], књига II, приредили Нада Петровић, Јелена Бакић (Београд: Архив Југославије, 2007), 381). 158 AY, 395, b. 23, f. 231, folios 28, 29; Извештаји, II, 112. 159 Marinković was anticipating German economic dominance in Central Europe as the greatest threat to the region, and therefore he was ready to accept closer economic collaboration not only with other regional states and France, but he was even swaying toward closer cooperation with Italy. Together with Beneš, he

114

Sr đan M ićić

January 1931, he was not able to report on the Beneš-Mironescu’s meeting in Bratislava more than it was published in communiqué.160 In his reports from December 1931, Čolak-Antić criticized the PM, Iorga, for creating confusion regarding the Romanian foreign policy through public statements “filled with fantasies.”161 Čolak-Antić was also displeased with Ghika’s indecision on the issue of war reparations162 and his interpretation that Tardieu’s plan for the Danubian federation (féderation danubienne) was cordial with the economic interests of the Little Entente.163 Probably the most unpleasant situation in Yugoslav-Romanian relations in the ranks of the Little Entente, at the time, was the discrepancy in the interpretation of the agreement from Štrbské pleso regarding the restoration of the Habsburgs. Since King Carol II had initiated talks on the harmonization of the Little Entente’s position against the proclamation of Otto for Hungarian King—during the first audience of the Yugoslav plenipotentiary minister on June 11, 1930164 —Čolak-Antić was expecting that Romanian foreign policy would follow that line of action. Marinković, Beneš and Mironescu had reached an agreement at the Little Entente’s conference in Štrbské pleso, June 25–27, 1930, that the alliance would go “jusqu’au bout” to prevent the Habsburgs and the Hungarian PM, Count István Bethlen de Bethlen, in realizing their intentions. The trouble was that the conference took place in an informal and leisurely atmosphere, and official protocol

160 161 162 163

164

openly sided with France in this issue before the LoN. This had made an unfavorable impression on the government and financial circles in Belgrade, and especially on King Aleksandar, who were seeking to improve the bilateral relations with the Weimar Republic (К. Ст. Павловић, Дневник 1930–1932 [Diary 1930–1932], 212; V. Vinaver, Jugoslavija i Francuska između dva svetska rata [Yugoslavia and France between the two world wars], 200, 201; Vuk Vinaver, Svetska ekonomska kriza u Podunavlju i nemački prodor 1929–1935 [The World Economic Crisis in the Danube Region and the German penetration 1929–1935] (Beograd: ISI, 1987), 126; Б. Глигоријевић, Краљ Александар у европској политици [King Aleksandar in European politics], 125; Далибор Денда, Шлем и шајкача. Војни фактор и југословенско-немачки односи (1918–1941) [Helmet and scarf. Military factor and Yugoslav-German relations 1918–1941] (Нови Сад: Матица српска, 2019), 103). Извештаји, II, 26. Извештаји, 478. AY, 395, b. 25, f. 249, folios 336, 337. AY, 395, b. 25, f. 249, folios 388–390. Beneš and Marinković were not impressed by the Tardieu’s proposal. The Yugoslav Foreign Minister was certain that it was yet another French inapt plan and that such policy would result in searching for new economic partners among non-friendly states (E. Campus, Mica Înţelegere, 101, 102). AY, 395, b. 1, f. 7, folios 357, 358

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

115

was not followed. The Ministries of Foreign Affairs in Belgrade, Prague and Bucharest had only unofficial notes in their archives and those notes were incompliant.165 Marinković opened the discussion among the three member states on the agreed countermeasures against the Habsburg restoration, in summer 1931. His initiative was based on the information gathered by the Yugoslav diplomatic service that Bethlen was planning proclamation of Otto for Hungarian King on July 18.166 The problem arose from Marinković’s and Ghika’s quite different interpretations of the meaning to go “jusqu’au bout.” Marinković considered the use of arm forces as the last resort.167 Čolak-Antić—who had attended the conference in Štrbské pleso on Marinković’s instructions168 — had great difficulties to learn Romanian intentions. It took him a fortnight to get first impressions from the PM, Nicolae Iorga, and a month and a half to get a clear answer.169 Ghika was relying on the interpretation of his predeces­ sor, Mironescu, and considered withdrawal of the plenipotentiary ministers from Budapest and the closure of the mutual borders with Hungary as the last resort.170 Obviously irritated with the stalling technics and with the final answer, Čolak-Antić decided to discuss the matter directly with King Carol II. Although he made a wise decision, he, nevertheless, miscalculated the time and place. Čolak-Antić engaged King Carol II in conversation during the wedding ceremony of Princess Ileana and Archduke Anton. The noisy and leisurely atmosphere was perfect for new misunderstandings.171 The disso­ nance between Belgrade and Bucharest had compelled King Aleksandar to intervene in the matter. He asked King Carol II for a straight answer. The 165 K. St. Pavlović, Vojislav Marinković i njegovo doba (1876–1935) [Vojislav Marinkovic and his time 1876–1935], III, 110–112; M. Vanku, Mala antanta 1920–1938 [Small Entante 1920–1938], 65; Zdeněk Sládek, Malá dohoda 1919–1938: Její hospodářské, politické a vojenské komponenty (Praha: Karolinum, 2000), 115; С. Мићић, Н. Милићевић, Изазови унутрашње и спољне политике у време диктатуре краља Александра [Challenges of domestic and foreign policy during the dictatorship of King Alexander], 63. 166 AY, 395, b. 1, f. 8, folio 426. 167 С. Мићић, Н. Милићевић, Изазови унутрашње и спољне политике у време диктатуре краља Александра [Challenges of domestic and foreign policy during the dictatorship of King Alexander], 63. 168 AY, 334, b. 203, f. 526, folio 256; AY, 395, b. 22, f. 222, folio 70. 169 AY, 395, b. 1, f. 8, folios 427, 440, 441. 170 С. Мићић, Н. Милићевић, Изазови унутрашње и спољне политике у време диктатуре краља Александра [Challenges of domestic and foreign policy during the dictatorship of King Alexander], 63. 171 ASASA, Vojislav Marinković’s personal papers (14.439), item no. 181.

116

Sr đan M ićić

response was the most satisfactory. King Carol II sent a message through the Romanian plenipotentiary minister, Alexandru Gurănescu, in Belgrade, stating that “if Yugoslavia marches, Romania will march beside her.” Since both sides realized that the main problem was absence of Protocol, he suggested that the Foreign Ministers should produce one at the next conference. King Aleksandar was satisfied with the answer. Yet, he declined Carol’s pretext for the equal share of blame between Bucharest and Prague for the dissonance. King Aleksandar replied through Gurănescu that Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia had the same interpretation of the Štrbské pleso’s conclusions.172 On the margins of the XII LoN’s Assembly in mid-September 1931, Marinković had further difficulties with Ghika. The Romanian Foreign Minister was trying to excuse the Government for the delaying tactics. He tried to shift the blame to Čolak-Antić, claiming that the Yugoslav diplomat was incomprehensible. Marinković had to employ much of his persuasion skills to convince Ghika to accept the Yugoslav and Czechoslovak interpretation of the arrangement, and later to get his signature on the Protocol which was produced during the Little Entente’s conference in Geneva.173

Epilogue After retirement from diplomatic service, Boško Čolak-Antić was appointed as Marshal of the Court in 1935. He was in this post until April 5, 1941, one day before the Axis Powers attacked the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.174 When he took the new office at Court, the major-general Vojin Čolak-Antić was the aide-de-camp of the king (until September 6, 1936).175 Partially preserved archival records do not shed any light on Boško Čolak-Antić’s activities, as the Marshal of the Court, in the Yugoslav foreign policy, or in relations with Romania. He was appraised by the British plenipotentiary minister in Belgrade, Robert H. Campbell, as “an amiable elderly gentlemen who 172 ASASA, 14.439, item no. 648. 173 Ghika tried for two days not to sign it under false pretexts. Marinković’s personal secretary Kosta St. Pavlović managed to get a signature at the train station just moments before Ghika left Geneva (К. Ст. Павловић, Дневник 1930–1932 [Diary 1930–1932], 251, 296, 297, endnote no. 189). 174 Време [The time], „Политички дневник,“ април 5, 1941, 5. During the so-called “April War”, Boško Čolak-Antić was interned together with the former Foreign Minister Aleksandar Cincar-Marković and the general Petar Kosić (Aprilski rat 1941., zbornik dokumenata, knjiga 2, edited by colonel Antun Miletić, Beograd: Vojnoistorijski institut, 1987, document no. 256, p. 705). 175 M. Bjelajac, Generali i admirali Kraljevine Jugoslavije 1918–1941 [Generals and admials f Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1918–1941], 135, 136.

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

117

performs his ceremonial duties with dignity.”176 In mid-July 1939, Campbell reported that Čolak-Antić was aging rapidly.177 As Marshal of the Court, he was accompanying the Prince Regent Pavle during a visit to Timisoara, January 8–11, 1939.178 After the journey, Čolak-Antić was contacted by the Romanian side on the issue of the reorganization of bilateral relations in times of strained international situations. This was an important issue as the Little Entente became dysfunctional after the Munich agreement of 1938. For some reason the two sides were avoiding official diplomatic channels in this matter.179 Since the Karađorđević dynasty had close family ties with the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen dynasty, it seems that Boško Čolak-Antić as Marshal of the Court had merely a mediatory role in this particular case.

Conclusion Boško Čolak-Antić as one of the three most important king’s men in the Yugoslav diplomatic service held the position of plenipotentiary minister in Bucharest for nearly 15 years. Close relations with the Karađorđević dynasty enabled him to hold strong the position in service while providing him freedom in relations with immediate superiors. It seems that he had decent communication with Momčilo Ninčić and he had close personal relations with Vojislav Marinković. Therefore, during their ministerial mandates, 1922–1932, his activities in the bilateral and multilateral relations regarding Romania were at their peak. Perhaps one of his greatest successes achieved in Bucharest was the initiative of June 16, 1928. His advice to Marinković 176 Yugoslavia: Political Diaries 1918–1965, vol. 2, 668. 177 Yugoslavia: Political Diaries 1918–1965, volume 3: 1938–1948, edited by Robert L. Jarman, Slough: Archive Editions, 1997, 129. 178 AY, Records of the Court of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (74), box 332, folder 489, folio 278. 179 The Romanian side had offered, through Boško Čolak-Antić, the conclusion of several agreements for surmounting the bilateral issues and strengthening the international positions of both countries (AY, 797, Prince Pavle Karađorđević’s personal papers, reel 14, scans 895–898). These issues were planned to be discussed during the meeting of the Permanent Counsel of the Balkan Entente in Bucharest, February 22, 1939. According to the Political Department (PD) of the MFA, Romanians were in frightful fear of a possible Hungarian or Bulgarian military assault since the September crisis of 1938. Therefore, Bucharest was anxious to affirm the bilateral allied relations with Yugoslavia, beyond the multilateral alliance in the ranks of the Balkan Entente (AY, Collection of documents of Aleksandar Cincar-Marković (310), box 4 strictly confidential reports of the PD MFA “Our obligations towards Romania”, January 31, 1939, and “Stojadinović Gafencu protocol”, February 4, 1939).

118

Sr đan M ićić

to exploit favorable circumstances and to regulate a plethora of open bilateral issues led to the negotiations in 1929–1933 which ended with the conclusion of a number of conventions and protocols. In Yugoslav-Romanian relations on the multilateral level, he was more active in the issues of the Little Entente than in the issues of the Balkan Conferences. After Bogoljub Jevtić was appointed as the Foreign Minister on July 2, 1932, Čolak-Antić gradually lost hitherto position and role. This was noticeable not only in his activities regarding Yugoslav-Romanian bilateral relations, but also in his activities in the ranks of the Little Entente and the Balkan Entente. For almost 15 years, Boško Čolak-Antić’s reports were some of the most relevant sources of information for the governing circles in Belgrade. Thus, his views had an impact on the policies of the Kingdom of SCS/Yugoslavia towards Romania. He did not highly praise the Romanian political system, parties or their leaders, only particular politicians and diplomats. In that regard, he had the highest opinion of Nicolae Titulescu. Contrary to politicians, Čolak-Antić had highly evaluated the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen dynasty, King Ferdinand I and King Carol II. In the case of the latter, he did not often emphasize his private life and its consequences on state affairs. He was chiefly highlighting the importance of the institution of kingship in Romanian society, with which the institution of the Regency could not be compared. The question remains whether he sincerely appraised the Romanian monarchs, or whether he did not dare to report openly on the shortcomings due to the family ties between the Kaarđorđević and HohenzollernSigmaringen dynasty.

Bibliography Archive of Yugoslavia (AY), Belgrade Archive of the Serbian Academy of Science and Arts (ASASA), Belgrade Central State Archive (CSA), Sofia Avramovski, Živko. “O stavu jugoslovenske vlade prema Devetojunskom prevratu u Bugarskoj 1923. godine” [About the attitude of Yugoslav Government towards 06/09 coup in Bulgaria in 1923]. In Istorija XX veka, edited by Bogumil Hrabak, Vuk Vinaver, Živko Avramovski, Todor Stojkov, Atif Purivatra, Desanka Todorović, Momčilo Zečević and Draga Vuksanović-Anić, 133–186. Belgrade: Institut društvenik nauka-Odeljenje istorijskih nauka, 1968. Avramovski, Živko. Balkanska atanta (1934–1940). [Balkan Entente 1934–1940]. Beograd: ISI, 1986.

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

119

Андреј Митровић, Андреј, „Дипломата Милан Ракић и његово сведочење о историји,“ In Милан Ракић, Конзулска писма 1905–1911 [Consular letters 1905–1911]. Београд: Просвета, 1985. Bajin, Zoran. Spalajković: diplomata i kontrarevolucionar [Spalajkovic: Diplomat and counterrevolutionary]. Novi Sad: Prometej, 2021. Bakić, Dragan. “The Port of Salonica in Yugoslav Foreign Policy 1919–1941.” Balcanica 43 (2012): 194–196. Bakić, Dragan. “Nikola Pašić and the Foreign Policy of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, 1919–1926.” Balcanica 48 (2016): 285–316. Bjelajac, Mile S. Generali i admirali Kraljevine Jugoslavije 1918–1941. Studija o vojnoj eliti i biografski leksikon [Generals and admirals of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1918–1941. A study of the military elite and the biographical lexicon]. Beograd: INIS, 2004. Campus, Eliza. Înţelegerea Balcanicǎ. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1972. Campus, Eliza. Mica Înţelegere. Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţificǎ, 1968. Ciobanu, Veniamin. East-Central Europe and the Great Powers Politics (19th–20th Centuries). Iași: Editura Junimea, 2004. Császár, Ildikó. “From Isolation to Active Foreign Policy: The Hungarian-Italian Treaty of Friendship 1927.” West Bohemian Historical Review 7(1) (2017): 95–115. Dejmek, Jindřic and Edvard Beneš. Politická biografie českého demokrata, Část první, Revolucionář a diplomat (1884–1935). Praha: Nakladatelství Karolinum, 2006. Denda, Dalibor. Šlem i šajkača. Vojni faktor i jugoslovensko-nemački odnosi (1918–1941) [Helmet and scarf. Military factor and Yugoslav-German relations 1918–1941]. Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 2019. Dimić, Ljubodrag. Istorija srpske državnosti. Knjiga 3, Srbija u Jugoslaviji [History of Serbian statehood. Book 3, Serbia in Yugoslavia]. Novi Sad: SANU-Ogranak u Novom Sad/Beseda: Društvo istoričara Južnobačkog i Sremskog okruga, 2001. Dubicki, Andrzej. System partyjny Królestwa Rumunii. Uwarunkowania i funkcjonowanie. Łódǎ: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2013. Ekmečić, Milorad. Osnove građanske diktature u Evropi između dva svetska rata [Fundamentals of civil dictatorship in Europe between the two world wars]. Sarajevo: Zavod za izdavanje udžbenika, 1967. Gligorijević, Branislav. Kralj Aleksandar Karađorđević 1, Ujedinjene srpskih zemalja. [King Aleksandar Karadjordjevic 1, Unification of Serbian lands]. Beograd: BIGZ, 1996. Gligorijević, Branislav. Kralj Aleksandar Karađorđević u evropskoj politici [King Alexander Karadjordjevic in European politics]. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva, 2010. Gulić, Milan. Kraljevina Jugoslavija i Dunav [Dunavska politika jugoslovenske kraljevine 1918–1944. Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Danube]. Belgrade: Institut za savremenu istoriju, 2014. Horvat, Aleksandar. Baranja 1918–1922 [Baranja 1918–1922]. Novi Sad: Prometej/ Malo istorijsko društvo Novi Sad, 2013.

120

Sr đan M ićić

Iordan, Constantin. “La Roumanie et la Yugoslavie face à l’Italie fasciste (1926–1928): une solidarité défaillante?” Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes, 2 (1984): 159–171. Iordan, Constantin. “La Roumanie et le coup d’état de Bulgarie du 9 Juin 1923. Noveaux témoignages.” Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes, 1, no. 2 (1989): 113–121. Jarman. Robert L. Yugoslavia: Political Diaries 1918–1965, Volume 2: 1927–1937. Slough: Archive Editions. Jovanović Pižon and Jovan M. Dnevnik 1896–1920. [Diary 1896–1920] Beograd/Novi Sad: Prometej/Radio Televizija Srbije/Arhiv Jugoslavije, 2015. Kazimirović, Vasa. Crna ruka. Ličnosti i događaji u Srbiji od prevrata 1903. do Solunskog procesa 1917. godine [Black hand. Personalities and events in Serbia from the coup of 1903 to the Thessaloniki process in 1917]. Novi Sad: Prometej, 2013. Kolař, Josef et. al. Чешки и словашки извори за българската история (ЧСИБИ), том III. [Czech and Slovak sources for the Bulgarian history]. Sofia: Българска академия на науките, 1994. Krejić, Predrag. “Poslanstvo Kraljevine Srbije i Kraljevine SHS u Švedskoj-Stokholm 1918–1920” [Embassy of the Kingdom of Serbia and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in Sweden-Stockholm 1918–1920]. Arhiv Časopis Arhiva Jugoslavije 3, no. 3 (2002): 80–92. Krizman, Bogdan. Vanjska politika jugoslavenske države 1918–1941: diplomatskohistorijski pregled [The foreign policy of the Yugoslav state 1918–1941: A diplomatic historical review]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1975. Marinković, Aleksandar Đ. Ženidba kralja Aleksandra Karađorđevića [Marriage of King Alexander Karadjordjevic]. Beograd: Vajat, 2004. Marković, Dušan and Srđan Mićić. “Susreti kralja Aleksandra i kralja Borisa od septembra do decembra 1933. godine” [The meetings of king Alexander of Yugoslavia and king Boris of Bulgaria from September till December 1933]. Tokovi istorije 1 (2017): 175–198. Mićić, Srđan. “Mala antanta i pitanje manjina pred Društvom naroda.” [The Little Entente and issue of ethnic minorities before League of Nations 1927–1934]. In Od Moravy k Moravě III: Z historie česko-srbských vztahů, edited by Václav Štěpánek, Ladislav Hladký and Verica Koprivica, 337–347. Brno: Matice moravská ve spolupráci s Maticí srbskou, 2017. Mićić, Srđan. “Yugoslav Diplomats during the Interwar Period,” Balcanica Posnaniensia 25 (2018): 143–159. Mićić, Srđan. Od birokratije do diplomatije. Istorija jugoslovenske diplomatske službe 1918– 1939 [From bureaucracy to diplomacy. History of the Yugoslav Diplomatic Service 1918–1939]. Beograd: INIS, 2018. Miletić, Antun. Aprilski rat 1941: Zbornik dokumenata, knjiga 2 [April War 1941: Collection of documents, book 2]. Beograd: Vojnoistorijski institut, 1987.

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

121

Milivojević, Milan Đ. Balkanska ravnoteža. Sećanje kraljevog diplomate [Balkan balance. Memories of the King’s diplomat]. Beograd: Signatura, 1994. Pavlović, Kosta St. Dnevnik 1930–1932 [The Diary 1930–1932]. Beograd: Istorijski arhiv Beograda/INIS, 2020. Pavlović, Kosta St. Vojislav Marinković i njegovo doba (1876–1935) Knjiga prva [Vojisav Marinkovic and his time (1876–1935) First Book]. London: M. Caplin & Co, 1955. Pavlović, Kosta St. Vojislav Marinković i njegovo doba (1876–1935) Knjiga treća [Vojislav Marinkovic and his time (1876–1935) Third book]. London: Caplin, 1957. Petranović, Branko. Istorija Jugoslavije 1918–1988 I [History of Yugoslavia 1918–1988 I]. Beograd: Nolit, 1988. Petranović, Branko and Momčilo Zečević. Agonija dve Jugoslavije [Agony of two Yugoslavias]. Šabac: Zaslon, 1991. Petrović, Dragoš. “Predstavništva Kraljevine Jugoslavije u skandinavskim zemljama 1918–1945” [The Embassy of Kingdom of Yugoslavia in Scandinavian Countries], Istorija 20. Veka 1 (2013): 35–46. Petrović Nada and Jelena Đurišić. Izveštaji Ministarstva inostranih poslova Kraljevine Jugoslavije za 1934. godinu Knjiga V [Reports of the Ministrryof Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1934. Book V]. Beograd: Arhiv Jugoslavije, 2005. Petrović Nada and Jelena Đurišić. Izveštaji Ministarstva inostranih poslova Kraljevine Jugoslavije za 1933. godinu, knjiga IV [Reports of the Ministrryof Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1934. Book IV]. Beograd: Arhiv Jugoslavije, 2009. Petrović, Nada and Saša Ilić. Izveštaji Ministarstva inostranih poslova Kraljevine Jugoslavije (avgust–decembar) 1930. godine Knjiga I [Reports of the Ministry Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (August–December) 1930. Book I]. Beograd: Arhiv Jugoslavije, 2005. Petrović, Nada. Izveštaji Ministarstva inostranih poslova Kraljevine Jugoslavije za 1935. godinu. Knjiga IV [Reports of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1935. Book IV]. Beograd: Arhiv Jugoslavije, 2011. Petrović, Nada. Izveštaji Ministarstva inostranih poslova Kraljevine Jugoslavije za 1932. godinu knjiga III [Reports of the Ministrryof Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1932. Book III]. Beograd: Arhiv Jugoslavije, 2008. Popi, Gligor. Jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi 1918–1941 [Yugoslav-romanian relations 1918–1941]. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet Novi Sad, 1984. Ristić, Ivan T. Bugarska u politici Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca (1919–1929) [Bulgaria in the policy of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes 1919–1929], PhD dissertation (University of Belgrade, 2017). Santoro, Stefano. “Relazioni italo-rumene fra la due guerre mondiali: i documenti di Bucarest.” Storia e Futuro. Rivista di storia e storiografia 12 (2006): 2–15. Santuš Karvalju, Žorž P. “Prilike među jugoslovenskim izbeglicaama u Portugaliji (1941–1945)” [The situation of Yugoslav refugees in Portugal]. Istorija 20. veka 2 (1985): 93–131.

122

Sr đan M ićić

Sládek, Zdeněk. Malá dohoda 1919–1938: Její hospodářské, politické a vojenské komponenty. Praha: Karolinum, 2000. Sretenović, Stanislav. “Le poids grandissant de l′Italie dans les relations entre la France et le Royaume des Serbes, Croates et Slovènes 1924–1927.” Istorija 20. Veka 2 (2007): 26–28. Sretenović, Stanislav. Francuska i Kraljevina Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca 1918–1929 [France and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes 1918–1929]. Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju, 2008. Stanković, Đorđe. Nikola Pašić i jugoslovensko pitanje. 2. deo [Nikola Pasic and Yugoslavian question 2nd part]. Beograd: BIGZ, 1985. Stępniak, Władysław. Dyplomacja polska na Bałkanach (1918–1926) [Polish diplomacy in Balkans]. Warsaw: Naczelna Dyrekcja Archiwów Pańswowych, 1998. Stojkov, Todor. Opozicija u vreme šestojanuarske diktature [Opposition during the January 6th dictatorship]. Beograd: Prosveta, 1969. Todorović, Desanka. Jugoslavija i balkanske države 1918–1923 [Yugoslavia and Balkan countries 1918–1923]. Beograd: Narodna knjiga, 1979. Vanku, Milan. Mala antanta 1920–1938 [Small Entente 1920–1938]. Užice: IP Dimitrije Tucović, 1969. Vanku, Milan. Srpsko-jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi kroz vekove [Serbian-YugoslavianRomanian relations through the centuries]. Beograd: Stručna knjiga, 2005. Vinaver, Vuk. Jugoslavija i Francuska između dva svetska rata (da li je Jugoslavija bila francuski “satelit”) [Yugoslavia and France between the two world wars (was Yugoslavia the French “satellite)”]. Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju, 1985. Vinaver, Vuk. Jugoslavija i Mađarska 1918–1933 [Yugoslavia and Hungary 1918–1933]. Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju, 1971. Vinaver, Vuk. Svetska ekonomska kriza u Podunavlju i nemački prodor 1929–1935. [The World Economic Crisis in the Danube Region and the German penetration 1929– 1935]. Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju, 1987. Vučo, Nikola. “ ‘Agrarni blok’ podunavskih zemalja za vreme ekonomske krize 1929– 1933.” [The “Agricultural Block” of the Danube Basin Countries during the Great Depression of 1929–1933] in Svetska ekonomska kriza 1929–1934. godine i njen odraz u zemljama Jugoistočne Evrope, [World Economic Crisis 1929–1934 and its reflection in the countries of South-Eastern Europe] edited by Vasa Čubrilović, 29–51. Beograd: Balkanološki institute SANU, 1976. Wandycz, Piotr S. France and Her Eastern Allies 1919–1925: French-Czechoslovak-Polish Relations from the Paris Peace Conference to Locarno. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1962. Živojinović, Dragoljub P. Kralj Petar I Karađorđević: rat i poslednje godine 1914– 1921. godine [King Peter I Karadjordjevic: War and the last years 1914–1921]. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva, 2003.

Boško Čolak-Antić and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

123

Živojinović, Dragoljub P. Kralj Petar I Karađorđević: u otadžbini 1903–1914. godine [King Peter Karadjordjevic I: in the homeland 1903–1914.]. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva, 2003.

Maria of Yugoslavia: Romanian Princess, Yugoslav Queen A nđelija M iladinović

Following the Central Powers’ capitulation and the armistice on all fronts in the fall of 1918, preparations for the signing of peace treaties between the warring parties began. The victorious Allies signed separate peace treaties with each defeated state: on June 28, 1919, the Versailles Peace Treaty was signed with Germany; on November 10, 1919, the Saint-Germain-en-Laye Peace Treaty was signed with Austria; on November 27, 1919, the Neuilly Peace Treaty was signed with Bulgaria; on June 4, 1920, the Trianon Peace Treaty was signed with Hungary; and on August 10, 1920, the Sèvres Peace Treaty was signed with Turkey, later replaced on July 24, 1923, by the Lausanne Peace Treaty.1 However, due to the series of large and important, but also frequent and numerous events that took place from mid-October to midDecember of that year, the Yugoslav state devised their foreign policy through an extremely rapid process that left them arriving at the 1919–1920 Peace Conference unprepared.2 This chapter, however, explores another avenue for forging foreign friendships and negotiating peace—the arrival of Princess Marie of Romania as a Yugoslav queen—an event that simultaneously created a much needed alliance between the nations while also providing domestic



M. Vanku, Srpsko-Jugoslovensko-Rumunski odnosi kroz vekove [Serbian-Yugoslav-­ Romanian relations through the centuries] (Beograd: Stručna knjiga, 2005), V and V 15. 2 A. Mitrović, Razgraničenje Jugoslavije sa Mađarskom i Rumunijom 1919–1920 [Delimitation of Yugoslavia with Hungary and Romania 1919–1920] (Novi Sad: Prometej 1975), 3. 1

126

A nđelija M iladinović

stability as Marie amassed the adoration of the people through both her charismatic personality and charitable acts of patronage.3

Contextual Background: Relations between Yugoslavia and Romania after the Great War and the Alliance Yugoslavia and Romania welcomed the end of World War I as victorious states, which resulted in territorial expansion and the establishment of a common border, followed by an increase in population. Yugoslavia controlled the eastern Adriatic coast and the Moravian-Vardar Valley, while Romania gained control of new territories: Transylvania, Bessarabia, and parts of Bukovina and Dobrogea. The changes enacted after World War I, and promptly implemented in the years that followed, transformed previous social and political systems, resulting in the formation of a new Romania with significantly different institutional structures than before. The liberal platform, debated in 1913 and implemented from 1917 when King Ferdinand signed the documents concerning agrarian reform, the abolition of the income-based election system, and the introduction of universal suffrage, resulted in the dissolution of the great landlords’ economic power base as well as their political monopoly, resulting in a shift in power on the internal political stage.4 After the war, Yugoslavia was faced with the absence of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union due to King Alexander’s dread of communism and the revolution in Yugoslavia, the fear of revanchism from Hungary and Bulgaria, along with German attempts to mediate. Additionally, Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Soviet Union posed a revisionist danger to Romania, where, much as in Yugoslavia, there was a widespread dread of communism and revolution, as well as internal conflicts over the legal system, education, and population instability brought on by demographic imbalance. However, the matter of Yugoslavia’s demarcation with Romania and Hungary had to be handled first. The issue of Banat was rather complex and had caused great friction between Yugoslavia and Romania, as both countries had territorial aspirations towards the region. The peace delegation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes used the following principles in its demarcation policy with Hungary and Romania: strategic, ethnic, national, nationalhistorical, economic, and geographical. Strategic argumentation was



Ioan-Aurel Pop, Ioan Bolovan, eds. History of Romania (Cluj-Napoca:Romanian Cultural Institute, 2006), 585. 4 Mitrović, Razgraničenje Jugoslavije sa Mađarskom i Rumunijom 1919–1920, 257–258. 3

Maria of Yugoslavia: Romanian Princess, Yugoslav Queen

127

frequently similar to geographical argumentation in that the central and basic principle was the national principle, with the rest serving as an auxiliary.5 Internal and external consolidation in Yugoslavia ended with the ratification of the constitution in 1921, as well as delimitation. While Yugoslavia and Romania were negotiating over Banat, discussions were also underway to link the Serbian and Romanian royal courts by marriage. In response to the continual danger from revisionist neighbors, relations were strengthened by forming a dynastic connection of governing houses. The first signs of a possible marriage proposal appeared during the Paris Peace Conference in January 1919, when a letter from the chargé d’affaires of the royal embassy in Bucharest, Đorđe Nastasijević, arrived. The letter’s information was based on contact with Ms. Presen, the wife of the Romanian Army’s Chief of Staff, who had been authorized by the Romanian royal couple, King Ferdinand and Queen Marie, to negotiate Regent Alexander’s marriage to a Romanian princess. The original intention was to offer their daughter Elizabeth’s hand in marriage. The Romanian queen had first met the regent in London in 1910 during the coronation of King George V. Later, Queen Marie would be very pleased with how she had been welcomed in Zemun during her trip, thus, she spoke highly of the regent, and it was written in the press about a possible engagement between Regent Alexander and Princess Elizabeth. However, when news of Torontál’s accession to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes arrived, the issue of engagement was put on hold. When things calmed down and marriage negotiations could resume, Romanian Princess Elizabeth was already married to Greek Regent George, and there were rumors of a marriage between Princess Maria and Bulgarian King Boris. The mere possibility of a Greek-Romanian-Bulgarian-Hungarian alliance terrified Yugoslav diplomacy. 6 On October 22, 1921, the Sunday Express reported that a telegram from Belgrade published by newspapers there stated that Bulgarian King Boris was to marry Princess Maria of Romania. Aleksandar Stamboliyski, Bulgaria’s Prime minister, was expected to travel to Bucharest soon to officially request the princess’s hand in marriage.7 Belgrade newspaper, Politika, warned the public of Bulgaria’s numerous attempts to make Princess Maria a Bulgarian Queen to link Athens, Sofia, and Bucharest in an alliance directed against the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. However, tensions were reduced thanks to the ingenuity of Romania’s A. Đ. Marinković, Ženidba kralja Aleksandra Karađorđevića [Marriage of King Aleksandar Karadjordjevic] (Beograd: Vajat, 2004), 41–45. 6 Arhiv Jugoslavije [Archives of Yugoslavia; hereafter AJ, Belgrade, 74 The Royal Court, 547–1055. 7 Marinković, Ženidba kralja Aleksandra Karađorđevića, 46.

5

128

A nđelija M iladinović

Foreign Minister, Take Ionescu.8 Romania joined the Little Entente, and on June 7, 1921, Prime Minister Nicola Pašić, of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and Take Ionescu concluded a marriage agreement along the same lines in Belgrade. As Pašić put it to Czech politician, Edvard Beneš, this was “a significant accomplishment whose purpose is to maintain peace and secure the peace treaties that are the foundation of our countries’ future.”9 Members of the Romanian government and politicians were also keen to see the marriage through. Ionescu requested a reception with Queen Marie to press for the marriage to be finalized.10 The Romanian newspaper, Dimineața, emphasized the significance of this marriage for all of Central Europe, citing shared linguistic features as well as the Orthodox faith. Queen Marie’s invitation to King Alexander to visit Bucharest for Christmas in 1922 confirmed the improvement in relations, and she later wrote a letter to the Yugoslav people, expressing her joy that her daughter was marrying a patriot of exceptional military courage. She also stated: My daughter, who is used to working, will be delighted to devote all her abilities to a country that has suffered so much, with all the zeal of her heart, always ready to relieve the trouble. It will be a blessing for her to work for your people and contribute to the development of the great qualities they possess, as well as to aid in the development of art and poetry which have always fascinated her. Her main desire when she comes to you will be to work with the king, her future husband, on all the needs of the country … My joy will be even greater and more justified if we are fortunate enough to see our beloved daughter one day become the virtues she acquired in her home, the true mother of her people.11

On the 22nd birthday of Princess Maria Hohenzollern, King Alexander Karađorđević’s engagement to her was officially announced on January 9, 1922. On that day it was decided that the wedding would take place in Belgrade on June 8 of the same year. The wedding was preceded by a final delineation between the two states in February 1922, with the historical split of Banat, which included the Romanian-controlled island of Ada Kaleh

D. Bakić, “The Great War and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia The Legacy of an Enduring Conflict,” Balcanica XLIX, (Belgrade 2018), 159. 9 D. Čolović, S. Čolović, Marija Karađorđević Kraljica-Majka [Marija Karadjordjevic Queen-Mother] (Beograd: Arhiv Srbije, 2001), 28. 10 Marinković, Ženidba kralja Aleksandra Karađorđevića, 47–51. 11 S. Zdravković, “Kraljica Marija i dinastijski odnosi između Kraljevine Jugoslavije i Kraljevine Rumunije,” in Kultura Republike Srbija i Srba u Rumuniji [Culture of the Republic of Serbia and Serbs in Romania], ed. dr Nenad A. Vasić i msr Sandra R. Davidović (Beograd: Institut za međunarodnu privredu i politiku, 2020), 217. 8

Maria of Yugoslavia: Romanian Princess, Yugoslav Queen

129

Cala. According to Jovan M. Jovanović, the agreed boundary was warped and poorly devised, “as if it were drawn by two litigants, not allies.”12 King George V of the United Kingdom was represented as best man by his second son, Prince Albert (Duke of York, who will be crowned King of England under the name George VI in 1936). Acceptance of this honor by the English court was a step toward normalizing diplomatic relations with Belgrade.13 This was especially important since, following the May coup in 1903, in which the royal couple, King Alexander Obrenvic of Serbia and his consort, Queen Draga, had been assassinated, the United Kingdom took the strongest stance against Serbia: it temporarily closed its embassy in Belgrade and demanded that the assassins be punished in response to their removal from court yet continued service to the new crown. Although the British decision to sever diplomatic relations was a manifestation of Victorian mentality, the decision to re-establish them was purely political, based on British interests. Serbia, on the other hand, was once again placed in the category of inferior states, but it nevertheless remained a European country. This pattern was broken only by the alliance between Serbia and England during World War I. Thus, the further re-establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries during the marriage ceremony implied the re-occidentalization of the region.14 The marriage of King Alexander Karadjordjevic to a Romanian princess piqued the public’s interest, and for the first time after the war there was cause for celebration in the Yugoslav capital. On June 8, 1922, tens of thousands of people arrived in Belgrade to see their future queen.15 Celebrations were held in both Bucharest and Prague, the English and French press covered the wedding extensively, and the embassy of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes hosted a grand reception in Washington on June 8, attended by 600 guests, including members of the US administration and the entire diplomatic corps.16 This marriage strengthened the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes’ international standing, and the Karadjordjević dynasty’s reputation grew.

Ž. Avramovski, Britanci o Kraljevini Jugoslaviji. Godišnji izveštaji Britanskog poslanstva u Beogradu 1921–1938, tom 1 (1921–1930), (Beograd-Zagreb: Globus 1986), 115. 13 S. G. Markovich, British perceptions of Serbia and the Balkans (Paris: Dialogue, 2000), 202–204. 14 Zdravković, “Kraljica Marija”, 219. 15 Marinković, Ženidba kralja Aleksandra Karađorđevića, 93. 16 Avramovski, Britanci o Kraljevini Jugoslaviji. Godišnji izveštaji Britanskog poslan­ stva u Beogradu 1921–1938, 163–165.

12

130

A nđelija M iladinović

However, at the start of the interwar period, previous to the marriage, Yugoslav-Romanian relations were strained: first, due to the final determination of their common border and the irregularities of their officials; then, due to the eternal issue of Romanian schools and churches in Yugoslavia and Yugoslav schools and churches in Romania that were continuously closed for political reasons; and finally, due to Romania’s benevolent attitude toward Bulgaria and Cankov’s regime, which caused serious controversy in the Belgrade press. Thus, the dynastic connection established by King Alexander’s marriage to Romanian Princess Maria did not result in a significant reduction in tensions in the beginning. Further, according to British reports, because Romania supported Bulgaria, the young Yugoslav queen’s frequent family visits to Bucharest were met with suspicion by the Yugoslav public.17 At one point, it appeared that the two countries’ alliance was seriously jeopardized. To further sow distrust, Bulgaria used propaganda. For example, a fraudulent letter from Queen Maria to her father was published in the Sofia newspaper, Nezavisimost, in which the queen was allegedly saddened by the chaos in her country, the opposing nations, and the growing anti-monarchist mood.18 Nevertheless, the queen’s popularity grew as time went on.

Mignon, Yugoslav Queen Princess Maria Hohenzollern, the future Queen of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, was born in Gotha, Germany on January 9, 1900. She was in close kinship with the courts of England (as Queen Victoria’s great-granddaughter) and Russia (as great-granddaughter of Tsar Alexander II), as well as Germany, Spain, and Portugal through various other ties. She was the daughter of Romanian King Ferdinand Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (r. 1914–1927) and English Princess Marie Alexandra Victoria of Edinburgh. Aside from Maria, the Romanian royal couple had two other daughters: Elizabeth and Ileana, as well as three sons.19 Maria was nicknamed Mignon because on the night she was born, an opera of the same name was being performed at the Gotha Theater. She would later develop a love for opera, painting, and sculpture. She was also fascinated by science, particularly chemistry, physics, and botany, and had set up a small laboratory for herself where she would conduct various experiments. She and her husband communicated primarily in French, and she spoke English, Russian, and German in addition to Romanian, 20

Marinković, Ženidba kralja Aleksandra Karađorđevića, 95–96. Marinković, Ženidba kralja Aleksandra Karađorđevića, 31, 34. 19 Zdravković, “Kraljica Marija”, 218. 20 Marinković, Ženidba kralja Aleksandra Karađorđevića, 71–72. 17 18

Maria of Yugoslavia: Romanian Princess, Yugoslav Queen

131

though the princess began actively learning Serbian from the first day of her engagement, in anticipation of becoming Serbia’s queen. However, she only spoke Serbian in the masculine gender because, according to her son, Prince Tomislav, she was surrounded only by men in the family.21 Romanian Queen Marie wrote in her memoirs about her daughter: Mignon was almost entirely made up of gentleness and a smile. Mercy and patience, with a dash of indifference, appear to have been her key qualities: she was comfortable with everything, happy to be in the company of others, and had no urge to command or govern. She was never irritated or upset about anything. She exuded serenity with her wide, blue eyes. Mignon was a thrifty kid who was always prepared to lend a hand.22

After World War I, Maria finished her education at the Romanian court by attending Hiltfield School near Ascot, England. In her spare time, she enjoyed horseback riding and motoring, especially in the winter when she could slide and ride in a bobsleigh. Citizens of Belgrade were able to see the queen as she drove her sons and the children of Prince Paul, her husband’s cousin, through the city’s streets. She was a regular member of the auto clubs in Paris and Bucharest, but she was also a sponsor of the Belgrade auto club since its founding in 1922.23 She dressed modestly, preferring simple sports dress cuts, and pastel colors that matched the character of a modern, selfconscious woman who valued elegance and ease. She was a visible public figure and used different opportunities to display her personality for the people, rendering her more personable, and relatable, regardless of whether this was her actual intention. Earlier, during the Great War, Queen Marie Hohenzollern of Romania, and her two daughters, Elizabeth and Maria, assisted in the war by running a hospital called “Queen Mary” and caring for the sick. Princess Maria Hohenzollern was only sixteen years old when, as a nurse, she dealt with the terrible agony of the wounded while also soothing them. She performed her duty conscientiously, seeing it as her personal obligation to the homeland and the people who suffered while fighting for their kingdom’s interests.24 Much of her aforementioned personality, along with her upbringing would be later reflected in her approach to queenship where she won favor from the



Zdravković, “Kraljica Marija”, 219. Čolović, S. Čolović, Marija Karađorđević Kraljica-Majka, 53. 23 Zdravković, “Kraljica Marija”, 218. 24 Radojičić, Dvorska kancelarija kralja Marije Karađorđević (1934–1941) [Court office of King Marija Karadjordjevic (1934–1941)], 13–14. 21

22

132

A nđelija M iladinović

people through her lightheartedness, easy demeanor, and genuine kindness and concern for her subjects. In her union with Alexander, Maria stood by her husband as both his wife and the people’s beloved queen. They toured the country together, learning about the problems that their people were facing. As they passed through different regions, it was a cause for celebration, and they were greeted with loud cheers from locals. In the king’s hometown of Cetinje, the queen charmed people by appearing in folk costume, causing a sense of pride among the Montenegrins. She accompanied the king to inter-state meetings, such as the “peace mission,” during which they visited Greece, Bulgaria, and Turkey.25 According to those who knew her, the queen was not involved in politics, and she was uninterested in backstage court games and power struggles. She had a ruler’s humane approach toward her people, which was reflected in her behavior and attitude toward those with whom she interacted.26 On the occasion of major Orthodox holidays, a special type of ceremony was organized, with the queen paying special attention to Mother’s Day. She kept this custom going even after her husband, King Alexander, died. The princes were present at these ceremonies and assisted mothers in distributing gifts. Every year, she sent gifts to children in the form of shoes, clothes, and socks. She did not overlook the children of the Court’s employees. As King Peter II noted in his memoirs, a ceremony with a special program was prepared for the Court each year, which between 200 and 300 children, mothers, and teachers from the country’s major communities attended. Considering Maria’s own erudition, and earlier preoccupation with education, it is unsurprising that children for this event were chosen based on their academic performance.27 However, the most important task for the Queen remained to raise her own children. In much the same way that King Alexander’s marriage to Maria had been a significant undertaking for both domestic and international policy, the birth of their first son was regarded as a momentous event for the continuation of the dynasty and subsequent stability of the kingdom. According to Article 56 of the Vidovdan Constitution, dated from 1921, kingship was inherited by a male offspring from a lawful marriage in the order of firstborn. Thus, the birth of the heir to the throne was a condition for the state’s more peaceful existence, and the Yugoslav royal couple’s marriage resulted in three sons. Crown Prince Peter was born on September 6, 1923, in Belgrade, in the D. Čolović, S. Čolović, Marija Karađorđević Kraljica-Majka, 54. Život jednog kralja: Memoari Petra II Karađorđevića (Beograd: Novo delo, 1990), 52. 27 Zdravković, “Kraljica Marija”, 220.

25

26

Maria of Yugoslavia: Romanian Princess, Yugoslav Queen

133

presence of the highest representatives of the Government and Assemblies, according to court protocol. Prince Tomislav was born on January 19, 1928, and Prince Andrej was born on June 28, 1929. The children would be raised in the Orthodox faith, according to Article 13 of the royal couple’s marriage contract, and the education and care for the children born of this marriage would be governed by the civil laws of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.28 Yet, Queen Maria was educated by English models and decided to raise her children in the same manner. As a descendant of Queen Victoria of England, the queen favored English educators and had always chosen them for her sons. However, the environment in which these children would grow and develop also had to be taken in consideration, and it was thought that they should not feel as if they were living in excessive luxury. On March 8, 1925, in one of the daily newspapers-Vreme, under the title Queen’s Days, one could read about the Queen’s wishes, in which “Her fantasy is not a large yard filled with orchestras and a lavish lifestyle. It never occurs to her to turn her house into a haven of luxury entertainment.”29 Consequently, a wooden house was built on the king’s estate in Dedinje for the young princes to be raised in nature, with their favorite animals, and to socialize with local children. The royal couple instilled in their children a tolerant attitude toward society, confirming the queen’s desire to open a school in Dedinje for Crown Prince Peter, younger princes, and students from that Belgrade area. In other words, Queen Maria was focused on her children’s physical and intellectual development. In an attempt to instill a love of music in the princes, Peter played the saxophone, Tomislav the clarinet, and Andrej the trombone, later the flute. The royal couple also placed several charitable and cultural-educational organizations under the patronage of the underage princes as a means of teaching them humanitarianism.30 One interesting portrait of the royal family was presented in a travelogue by Grace Ellison, who arrived in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in September 1932, at the invitation of Prince Paul. King Alexander and Prince Paul could not have been unaware of the significance of travel literature in presenting the Serbian people to British public opinion during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. According to Biljana Šimunović-Bešlin’s article, it is very likely that when deciding whom to entrust the propaganda mission in favor

M. Radojičić, Dvorska kancelarija kralja Marije Karađorđević (1934–1941), (Master’s Thesis. Faculty of Philosophy-University of Belgrade) 2018, 12. 29 D. Čolović, S. Čolović, Marija Karađorđević Kraljica-Majka, 64–66. 30 B. Šimunović-Bešlin, Grejs Elison i Karađorđevići, Novovekovne srpske dinastije u memoaristici (Beograd: Istorijski institut, 2007), 180. 28

134

A nđelija M iladinović

of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the choice fell on Grace Ellison because of her closeness to Princess Olga’s family, particularly her father, Nikola, the third son of the late Greek of King George I.31 Grace Ellison provided sketches of family life as well as short biographies of King Alexander, Prince Paul, Queen Maria, and Princess Olga in the chapter “King Alexander of Yugoslavia-The Happy Home Life of an Industrial and Able Ruler.” The author presented these small portraits of the conservative royal family with great enthusiasm, emphasizing their perfection and harmony in everything. She tried to memorialize the royal family’s day in detail, not missing any opportunity to highlight Prince Paul’s Anglophilism: the prince’s studies at Oxford, the fact that his household spoke more English than Serbian, the English governesses of little princes, the English newspapers read by Queen Maria, and so on. Given that the author spoke to the king in French and that almost all of Queen Maria’s correspondence, except for letters to the king, were in English, it is a pity that Grace Ellison did not pay a little more attention to the queen, who was clearly in charge of the young princes’ education.32 The latter is made evident by the great deal of surviving correspondence between Queen Maria and the English governesses which testifies to the queen’s concern in regard to the young princes’ education and upbringing.33 As much as Maria was concerned about her children’s physical and intellectual development, she was also interested in the methods and manner of schooling in the kingdom. She believed that learning must have a purpose, and stated that school, in addition to general education, must train and prepare a young person for life. She also valued crafts and saw them as the foundation of industrial production, so she donated to craft schools.34 In regard to the upkeep of her own education, the queen had a personal library for which she received gifts from individuals or associations, and which she further equipped following her own interests. According to her interests in literature, science, and political and cultural affairs, she read foreign magazines such as Punch, The Woodworker, Le Figaro, Le Matin, and La Revue du Mois, as well as the newspapers Revue des Deux Mondes and L’Illustration. There were also publications from the domestic press, such as the magazine Ženska Misao, whose patron she had been, and which sought



G. Ellison, Yugoslavia. A New Country and its People (London: Bodley Head, 1933), 34–38. 32 AJ, 74, The Royal Court, file no. 547–419, letter from the governess to Queen Mary, 20 August 1924. 33 D. Čolović, S. Čolović, Marija Karađorđević Kraljica-Majka, 67. 34 Radojičić, Dvorska kancelarija kralja Marije Karađorđević (1934–1941), 26. 31

Maria of Yugoslavia: Romanian Princess, Yugoslav Queen

135

to enlighten women in a national-educational-social manner.35 Many of these endeavors and proclivities would later shape public opinion, as well as her role at court and in the kingdom following her husband’s death in 1934.

Queen Mother The king’s assassination in Marseilles resulted in state-level changes. Following the provisions of the Constitution and the wishes of the king, Peter, still a minor, became the new king, along with the three-member Governorate and Prince Paul, the young king’s uncle, in the role of chief, first deputy. Since the king’s death, sympathy for her had grown, fueled by the compassion she evoked as a widow, the fact that she did not interfere in politics, and that she lived in seclusion with only a few public appearances. The title “Queen Mother” was bestowed upon her by the people.36 Queen Maria had the support of her husband, King Alexander, in the field of humanitarian aid until he died in 1934 when the queen personally took on the care of charitable associations and institutions under the Karađorđević family’s custodianship. The establishment of the King’s Fund with the task of awarding, assisting, and praising institutions and individuals who contributed to the moral, cultural, educational, religious, and health improvement of the people. Following King Alexander’s assassination, the Fund’s resources were transferred to a newly established institution with the same purpose, known as the Office of Her Majesty Queen Mary. The queen promised to look after the service Offices, which were responsible for allocating funds to all organizations whose patrons included King Alexander, the young princes, and herself. She ensured that funds were delivered regularly to hospitals, churches, children’s homes, students’ homes, humanitarian societies, endowments, and select individuals. In addition to monetary assistance, the Queen’s office sent packages containing clothing, shoes, and other necessities to areas affected by natural disasters. Packages, as well as donations to charities, were sent throughout the kingdom. Money raised through the sale of commemorative and charitable postage stamps featuring royal figures, such as the Karđorđević family, was used to build hospitals, care for orphans, and combat various diseases, most notably tuberculosis.37 In the following years, her humanitarian work rose to prominence.



Radojičić, Dvorska kancelarija kralja Marije Karađorđević (1934–1941), 15. Zdravković, „Kraljica Marija“, 222–223. 37 AY, Belgrade, 74 The Royal Court, 547–286, Letter of Prince Paul to Queen Maria on the 15 of October 1934.

35 36

136

A nđelija M iladinović

It was at this time that the family’s unity had to be maintained. On October 15, 1934, just six days after the death of King Alexander, Prince Paul wrote to Queen Maria, asserting that “The whole situation is difficult enough and can only be properly dealt with if we remain loyal to each other as, after all, we are both striving for the same end.”38 In the ensuing lawsuit designed to bring King Alexander’s assassins to justice, she attempted to act as a private party. She hired ex-French Prime Minister, Paul Boncourt, but was forced to abandon that agenda.39 The queen stayed in Belgrade with King Peter, while the princes, Tomislav and Andrej, were educated in England beginning in 1937. According to Prince Paul’s biographers, Nile Balfour and Sally McKay, Queen Maria was sensitive about her position, as it appeared that she believed she should have been a part of the Governorate. They inform us that thirty days after the king’s death, Maria sent to Prince Paul a document entitled “Requests of Queen Maria,” in which she presented what she considered her rights. Prince Paul accepted the majority of the requests, and it was decided that Peter would stay with his mother in Belgrade, and he would be tutored by the English tutor Cecil Parott.40 Milan Stojadinović, once Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, mentioned the royal family’s tribulations in his memoirs. He took notes and made his observations, placing the blame for much of the instability on Princess Olga, who he described as ambitious and vain. Furthermore, Stojadinović believed that people close to Queen Maria were under surveillance, and courtiers and ladies who were overly loyal to her were removed, perhaps because Prince Paul held certain ambitions in regard to the throne.41 Thus, the representation of the royal family in public was very different from the one portrayed in the written works of their contemporaries, since the goal was to maintain the public’s perception of family unity. For example, when we glance at the press coverage at the time, we notice that in the field of humanitarian work, Queen Maria was often accompanied by Princess Olga, or joined forces with Prince Paul. Vreme42 reported on Queen Maria and Princess Olga attending together the



B. Gligorijević, Kralj Aleksandar Karađorđević u evropskoj politici [King Aleksandar Karadjordjevic in European politics] (Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike 2002), 334. 39 N. Balfur, S. Mekej, Knez Pavle Karađorđević, jedna zakasnela biografija [Prince Pavle Karadjordjevic, a belated biography] (Beograd: Litera, 1990), 62. 40 M. Stojadinović, Ni rat, ni pakt: Jugoslavija između dva rata [Neither war nor pact: Yugoslavia between the two wars] (Beograd: Glas 2002), 626–629. 41 AY, 38 Central press bureau 485–637, Vreme 8.3.1938. 42 AY, 38 Central press bureau 485–637, Novosti 11.4.1938. 38

Maria of Yugoslavia: Romanian Princess, Yugoslav Queen

137

feast of Annunciation at the Assembly Serbian Mothers. Novosti43 reported on Queen Maria and Princess Olga attending the dedication of the child protection home, and on Prince Paul’s speech at the Red Cross Assembly. Regardless of what may have been happening behind closed doors, much was done to project a united familial front to the world. However, the queen’s humanitarian work, especially when it came to children, was not a front. The queen wholeheartedly believed that it was vital to work on caring for and raising neglected and unprotected children. She looked after them with great self-sacrifice and assisted them in almost every city in Yugoslavia. She was interested in all of the country’s children’s problems, which led her to accept the presidency of the Yugoslav Union for Child Protection, where she actively participated in all manifestations for childcare, social, educational, health, and pedagogical issues. She also contributed a positive editorial to Belgrade Municipal Newspapers.44 Even as early as her arrival in the Kingdom, the queen became the patron of The Society of Female Doctors, founded in Belgrade in 1920. The company wanted to build the Dr. Elsie Ingils Memorial Hospital for Women and Children to honor the English health missions that helped the wartorn Kingdom of Serbia. The Dr. Elsie Ingils Memorial Hospital was built in Dedinje in 1928 with a donation from the Scottish Women’s Hospital, inaugurated under the patronage of Queen Maria in 1930, and was owned by the Yugoslav Society of Women Doctors, whose president was Dr. Vera Jovanović. “We work for Yugoslav children,” Queen Maria said, emphasizing her point. “Let no child be left unattended or unprotected; let all our children live and prosper happily and let their joyful song of Happiness spread throughout beautiful Yugoslavia” she continued.45 Queen Maria was involved in the creation of the Yugoslav Charter on the Rights of the Child, which was adopted in 1935. The Yugoslav Union for Child Protection quickly became a member of the Geneva-based International Union for Child Protection. The Yugoslav Union held its first congress in 1935 in Belgrade, in the building of the Kolarac endowment. The guiding principle was then declared to be: “Protect every child, without exception.” Because of her maternal love and concern for children, the queen earned the respect of her people by actively participating in the work of the Congress.46



M. Bodrožić, “Kraljica Marija Karađorđević od 1922. do 1940.”, Zbornik radova X kongresa SIJ, (Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva,1998), 441. 44 D. Čolović, S. Čolović, Marija Karađorđević Kraljica-Majka, 162–165. 45 D. Čolović, S. Čolović, Marija Karađorđević Kraljica-Majka, 160–162. 46 D. Čolović, S. Čolović, Marija Karađorđević Kraljica-Majka, 158–172. 43

138

A nđelija M iladinović

In addition to supporting and actively participating in women’s humanitarian organizations such as The Circle of Serbian Sisters, Maternal Association, among numerous others, which were all occupied not only with providing care for children but for mothers as well, especially young unwed mothers, affected by poverty,47 Queen Maria`s humanitarian work in the field of medicine and public health was also significant. The Tuberculosis League was established, and the queen was immediately included in the League’s work upon her arrival in the kingdom. Every year, the League received assistance from its patron, and with these funds it organized the regular annual event “Sunday fight against tuberculosis,” which was held throughout the country in May. In the fight against tuberculosis, the Belgrade League established the “School on Clean Air” for weak children on Šumatovačka street in Belgrade, where they attended exclusively poor children who received nutrition and hygienic care. Efforts were made to make the children happy with gifts for “Mothers Day.” The queen visited health resorts regularly, materially assisted the sick, and frequently personally donated to the sick. In 1931, the propaganda department of the League Against Tuberculosis stated that Queen Maria was the protector and the greatest fighter of the Yugoslav people against tuberculosis and called on the people to emulate her and join the fight against tuberculosis. The queen was also the patron of the organization that included the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in the “International Week Against Cancer,” and Prince Paul became a permanent patron of the International Union Against Cancer in 1938.48 The Association for Cancer Research launched a fundraising campaign to raise funds for the construction of a facility for sick people’s accommodation, treatment, and care, and the idea received the queen’s and prince’s enthusiastic support.49 Education and illiteracy in Yugoslavia were serious problems that necessitated constant efforts for their improvement. It was necessary not only to materially assist in the establishment of educational institutions but also to provide a form of support, both to the individual and associations. The queen was considered a patron, who had her protégés at all levels of education and contributed to a more educated image of Yugoslav society by the provision of scholarships to students, and textbook purchases. She also contributed by being a benefactor to educational institutions that were being built in the state, materially assisting in the construction of, among other things, primary school Voždovac, and Women’s Gymnasium on Queen Natalija Street, both

Radojičić, Dvorska kancelarija kralja Marije Karađorđević (1934–1941), 70–75. D. Čolović, S. Čolović, Marija Karađorđević Kraljica-Majka, 140. 49 D. Čolović, S. Čolović, Marija Karađorđević Kraljica-Majka,131–133. 47

48

Maria of Yugoslavia: Romanian Princess, Yugoslav Queen

139

of which were named after her.50 Of the utmost significance was the founda­ tion “Table for students” in 1925 by Queen Maria, which served 150–200 children daily. The “tables” could be found in Zagreb, Ljubljana, Split, Celje, Maribor, Pljevlja, and Križevci, and fed approximately 2,000 schoolchildren every day. The main source of income for the “tables” was funds provided by Queen Maria`s Office.51 The gratitude of the children from the High School shelters is especially touching, as it stated: “To the Merciful Mother, Queen Mary, she is thanked for the care the ladies have shown throughout the year, attempting to fulfill their wishes. Without Queen Maria, the wind and winter would bite their faces, but now they sing joyfully. ”52 Because the queen was the patron of numerous organizations, she was invited to a variety of gatherings, such as institution celebrations, anniversaries, annual assemblies, exhibitions, and fairs, all of which were most often required to provide contributions for the organization’s continued functioning. In the form of the queen’s envoy, these types of ceremonies were frequently attended by the queen’s court ladies. As protocol required, such events were usually held in the presence of important people, such as the wives of ministers, deputies, and representatives of governmental organizations. The most famous Belgrade balls were those organized by the Court (usually on the occasion of a royal family member’s birthday), various institutions such as the Circle of Serbian Sisters, or associations such as “Cvijeta Zuzorić.”53 According to Pravda, Queen Maria attended all Cvijeta Zuzorić exhibitions.54 The Yugoslav Women’s Union, a branch of the Little Entente, organized an exhibition of paintings, sculptures, and architectural works by Czechoslovak, Romanian, and Yugoslav female artists in the Cvijeta Zuzorić pavilion, which was patronized by Queen Maria, Queen Marie of Romania, and Hana Beneš, wife of the Bulgarian Prime Minister. Queen Maria visited this exhibition which also had a political dimension, as it was emphasized that this exhibition represented the concept of cultural relations and the future path to be taken. This exhibition sent a clear message about women’s empowerment and also about the utmost importance of cultural relations for the future of the Alliance.55



Radojičić, 59. Radojičić, 24. 52 Radojičić, 27. 53 AY, 38 Central press bureau 485–637, Pravda 28.12.1937. 54 AY, 38 Central press bureau 485–637, Novosti 21.1.1938, Vreme 21.1.1938, Politika 21.1.1938, Samouprava 21.1.1938, Il Moment 27.1.1938. 55 Radojičić, Dvorska kancelarija kralja Marije Karađorđević (1934–1941), 28. 50 51

140

A nđelija M iladinović

The majority of the balls had a humanitarian theme. Balls in honor of the queen were very popular on her birthday, January 9. It was the day when celebrations were being organized for the Queen, not only in the Royal Court in Dedinje, but in cities across the country, including Zagreb, Cetinje, Niš, Dubrovnik, Skopje, Sarajevo, and Banja Luka. After the tragedy of Alexander’s assassination in Marseille, her sacrifice and the upbringing of King Peter, and Princes Tomislav and Andrew, were praised and elevated especially on that occasion.56 Additionally, Every year, the Yugoslav press such as the newspa­ pers Politika,57 Pravda,58 Novosti,59 etc. were flooded with reports that were honoring the queen on her birthday, emphasizing the infinite love of mothers for their children and establishing a representation of Queen Maria as the Mother of the People. However, honoring Queen Maria`s birthday was also noticeable in the larger European press. According to the Romanian Viitorul,60 Dimineaţă61 and Universul62 she was a symbol of Yugoslavian mothers, and the nobility of her character was the reason she was loved by her people. French Excelsior,63 Belgian L’Indépendance Belge64 and Swiss La Suisse,65 wrote about her tragic faith and praised her love for her children, the way she was raising them, and her heroic persona. French Le petit journal,66 wrote an interesting article about her increasing interest in Yugoslav customs after the king’s death, because she found those traditions resembling the traditions of her Romanian country. Representations of the queen as the Mother of those in need were more than just favorable publicity. When we take into account her upbringing and work in hospitals with the injured soldiers during The Great War, descriptions of her contemporaries, and interviews she gave, humanitarian work was truly her calling. In an interview she gave in January 1934 for New York American, she emphasized that besides rights she had duties as well. She said: Certainly, just as every woman has problems, a Queen has problems too and has definite duties. She must live a good deal. By that, I mean not simply to



AY, 38 Central press bureau 485–637, Politika 10.1.1939. AY, 38 Central press bureau 485–637, Pravda 10.1.1939. 58 AY, 38 Central press bureau 485–637, Novosti 10.1.1939. 59 AY, 38 Central press bureau 485–637, Viitorul 11.1.1937. 60 AY, 38 Central press bureau 485–637, Dimineaţă 11.1.1937. 61 AY, 38 Central press bureau 485–637, Universul 11.1.1937 62 AY, 38 Central press bureau 485–637, Excelsior 8.1.1939. 63 AY, 38 Central press bureau 485–637, L’Indépendance Belge 9.1.1939. 64 AY, 38 Central press bureau 485–637, La Suisse, 8.1.1939. 65 AY, 38 Central press bureau 485–637, Le petit journal, 19.4.1935. 66 AY, 38 Central press bureau, 486–638, New York American, 28.1.1934. 56

57

Maria of Yugoslavia: Romanian Princess, Yugoslav Queen

141

be present at receptions and State functions, but also to take an active part in them. In short, she must be a help to the king in whatever circumstances she can. This she can do better I think by not mixing in politics but remaining on the social side ready to give a helping hand wherever necessary. That’s why when it comes to politics I simply don’t … I think a man has a clearer head for politics. To women, it is usually a worry and unnecessary work. Charity is my chief interest and the tremendous work in all the charities is part of the Queen’s duty. To begin with, to be King and Queen no longer means meeting only a certain class of people. Nowadays one meets everybody, from the simplest to the most sophisticated. Stimulating new contacts to arise from knowing so many different and interesting people, giving one a much broader outlook … But the joy comes in knowing you can do good. The great satisfaction of my position is the moments when one can help people-really help them as individuals.67

She praised her people for their honesty, straightforwardness, and hard work. She stated that they were always willing to give up what they could when needed. She also discussed her passion for driving, stating that the most memorable trip she took was from Bled to Paris, where she was behind the wheel the entire time.68 Yet, despite this desire for what may have been considered at the time untowardly independence, in another interview for the New York American she stated: “Above all, a woman should not belong to that class who believes that being with their children is a waste of time. It is not so! You can get more fun out of them than anything under the sun. They can be good comrades too.” She also stated that women at the time were giving up men`s ideas about life and stepping back to the home as “They seem to be tired of public life, to realize most of its joys are Dead Sea fruit, whereas family ties are more enduring.”69 To compare her attitude to the current zeitgeist would be anachronistic. Her work with the association “Unprotected Mother and Child” was, however, progressive for the patriarchal society of the time. The Queen was a generous supporter of this organization and recognized the importance of preserving a mothers’ dignity. On her initiative, a proposal was sent to the Ministry of Social Policy stating that unwed mothers who were financially insecure should be prioritized when it came to employment, and the Ministry accepted the proposal.70



AY, 38 Central press bureau, 486–638, New York American, 28.1.1934. AY, 38 Central press bureau, 486–638, New York American, 14.1.1934. 69 D. Čolović, S. Čolović, Marija Karađorđević Kraljica-Majka, 172. 70 D. Čolović, S. Čolović, Marija Karađorđević Kraljica-Majka, 96. 67

68

142

A nđelija M iladinović

Her Life in Exile She began traveling to England more frequently as early as 1937, as a means of visiting her sons and also for her health treatment—bile surgery, which she had to undergo and from which she never fully recovered. At the start of World War II, at the end of 1939, she permanently settled in England, first in a London apartment and then in the countryside. The circumstances in which she found herself, her operation, and then the declaration of war against the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, prevented her from ever setting foot again on the soil of the country of which she was queen.71 During World War II, she tried to help her people. She established two charities in London to aid the Yugoslav people as well as captured soldiers and officers: Committee of the Yugoslav Red Cross Society, on July 1, 1941, and the Humanitarian Society of St. Andrew in 1942. Despite the abolishment of the appanage previously given to her and her family in 1944, the prohibition of the family’s return to their homeland in 1945, and the confiscation of their entire property in the country in 1947, aid continued to arrive in Yugoslavia even after the war ended, until 1952.72 The Yugoslav coup d’état gave the queen a sense of pride. She would talk a great deal about the late King Alexander, how he was a symbol of courage and patriotism, and also how it was of utmost importance for people not to think of themselves, but to consider future generations and the sacrifices that sons have to make to preserve what their fathers gave lives to protect. On the March 27, 1941 she wrote to King Peter II: “May God pour out his blessing on you, my son, the king, and our dear homeland.”73 By the end of November 1941, on a Sunday evening, Queen Maria gave a radio speech addressed to Yugoslav mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters to inspire and improve the morale of the Yugoslav people.74 According to biographers, the relationship between Queen Maria and Prince Paul changed during their exile due to Maria’s doubts about Paul’s desire for the throne. She expressed regret that she was not with King Peter II, regularly writing to Prince Paul about care for her son and his health, and how financially insecure she was as a widow. According to Prince Paul’s biographer, as the widow of a king, she received certain sums for her treatment. However, the biographers conclude, without any basis and with bias, that

Zdravković, “Kraljica Marija”, 225. D. Čolović, S. Čolović, Marija Karađorđević Kraljica-Majka, 97. 73 K. S. Pavlović, Ratni dnevnik 1941–1945 [War diary 1941–1945] (Beograd: Službeni glasnik 2011), 58. 74 N. Balfur, S. Mekej, Knez Pavle Karađorđević, jedna zakasnela biografija, 183. 71

72

Maria of Yugoslavia: Romanian Princess, Yugoslav Queen

143

one of the main reasons for the disagreement was Queen Maria’s jealousy of Princess Olga.75 We cannot determine the grounds for this claim with certainty, so this hypothesis is very unlikely to be true, and it also aims to reduce power struggles to envy and jealousy amongst women. Furthermore, personal correspondence between Princess Olga and Queen Maria, which date from 1921 to 1937 testifies to amicable relations.76 Relations between Maria and her son, Peter II, were not as amicable, and it was one of the few times that Maria’s reputation suffered on the local and international stage. The news of the king’s marriage to a Greek princess, Alexandra, sparked great controversy both within the royal family, and Yugoslavia at large. The marriage issue was resolved during the war, which resulted in bad public relations and the separation of mother and son.77 The queen initially consented to the king’s engagement, then marriage. She thought that the king should marry an Orthodox princess, whose homeland was a friendly neighbor to Yugoslavia, and held similar interests. However, it was neglected that it would be controversial if the wedding took place during the war. The prospect of a large wedding celebration while the king`s subjects fought in the war and suffered would have been unacceptable and upsetting. If Peter intended to return to the country, that would have been a significant blow to his popularity, which was still being built. To make the matter worse, the wedding took place during the Easter Fast which was something that the Orthodox Church allowed only in exceptional circumstances. Queen Maria refused to attend citing a toothache as the reason for her absence. According to Maria’s contemporary, Kosta Pavlović, after that event, she saw her son less, and the king’s decision to entrust the government to Ivan Šubašić led the queen to conclude that the king no longer cared about the throne.78 It was clear that mother and son had a strained relationship, especially since Peter avoided her, not even showing interest in the surgeries she had to undergo. Kosta Pavlović made a note of Queen Maria`s words about her son: “During the entire time I was in the hospital, he called once and asked how I was doing. He proclaimed once that he would come to see me, but at the last



For example: AY, 74 Royal Court, 547–281,282 Letter from Princess Olga to Princess Maria 17. December 1921 AY 74 Royal Court, 547–273, Letter from Princess Olga to Queen Marie 22 of April 1922, AY, 74 Royal Court, 547–274, 275 Letter from Princess Olga to Queen Marie 21. May 1937. 76 Radojičić, Dvorska kancelarija kralja Marije Karađorđević (1934–1941), 93. 77 K. S. Pavlović, Ratni dnevnik 1941–1945, 476–479; K. S. Pavlović, Ženidba kralja Petra II (Beograd: Otkrovenje, 2002), 111–117. 78 K. S. Pavlović, Ratni dnevnik 1941–1945, 118. 75

144

A nđelija M iladinović

minute, he informed me that he couldn’t because he needed to go to the airport to see his plane. I can’t think of anything else after this.”79 As the king denied her appanage, she demanded in October 1945 what had been taken from her, which struck a negative chord with the public that found their relations to be horrifying.80 In his diary, Kosta Pavlović wrote: “The thing is just terrible, and one cannot understand the Queen Mother. Isn’t it enough for her that she got 141,000 pounds during the war while the princes got 82,000 pounds? It’s terrible that the King refuses to give his mother a reception, but can’t they work out their differences without the interference of Tito’s authorities and the press? So, does the Queen realize how harmful this is to the Monarchy’s reputation?”81 The unity displayed by the family in the early days following Alexander’s assassination appeared to have evaporated, and in its place stood discord for the whole world to see, and worse, judge. The Queen’s health had been deteriorating since 1957 and she had begun to grow weaker. The pharmaceuticals she needed were expensive, so she resorted to selling her jewelry to have the means to live and heal. Her friends from that time stated that even in the difficult conditions in which she was living, she always found a way to help those in need in the most discreet ways possible. She was awarded the Legion of Honor at the end of the decade when she was in France to commemorate the 25th anniversary of King Alexander’s assassination. She died in her sleep on June 22, 1961, in London, shortly after. She was buried on July 3 in Frogmore, near Windsor Castle, where her remains remained until they were moved to Oplenac, the Karađorđević family burial site, on April 29, 2013. Despite the hardships and blows to her popularity that she endured in later life, she is still remembered as a figure that united royal houses and brought tranquility to her people, as much now as at her funeral which was held where the members of the British Royal house are buried, and was attended by her sons and their wives, grandchildren, Prince Paul and Olga with their son, and members of the many dynasties, as befitting a great queen.



M. Radojičić, Dvorska kancelarija kralja Marije Karađorđević (1934–1941), 95. K.S.Pavlović, Londonski dnevnik 1945–1946 [London’s diary 1945–1946] (Beograd: Istorijski arhiv Beograda, 2017), 261. 81 D. Čolović, S. Čolović, Marija Karađorđević Kraljica-Majka, 114–115. 79

80

Maria of Yugoslavia: Romanian Princess, Yugoslav Queen

145

Bibliography Archive of Yugoslavia (AY) AJ, 38 Central press bureau AJ, Belgrade, 74 The Royal Court Avramovski, Živko. Britanci o Kraljevini Jugoslaviji. Godišnji izveštaji Britanskog poslanstva u Beogradu 1921–1938 Tom 1 (1921–1930) [The British on the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Annual reports of the British Embassy in Belgrade (1921–1938) Vol. 1]. tom 1 (1921–1930), Beograd/-Zagreb: Arhiv Jugoslavije/Globus, 1986. Bakić, Dragan. “The Great War and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia: The Legacy of an Enduring Conflict.”, Balcanica 49 (Beograd 2018): 157–169. Balfur, Nil and Mekej, S. Knez Pavle Karađorđević, jedna zakasnela biografija [Prince Pavle Karadjordjevic, a belated biography]. Beograd: Službeni glasnik, 1990. Bodrožić, Milica. “Kraljica Marija Karađorđević od 1922. do 1940” [Queen Marija Karadjordjevic from 1922 till 1940]. In Zbornik radova X kongresa SIJ, Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike, 1998: 437–447. Bolovan, Ioan and Ioan-Aurel Pop (eds). History of Romania. Cluj-Napoca: Romanian Cultural Institute, 2006. Čolović, Danica and Srđan Čolović. Marija Karađorđević Kraljica-Majka [Marija Karadjordjevic Queen-Mother]. Beograd: Arhiv Srbije, 2001. Ellison, Grace. Yugoslavia. A New Country and Its People. London: John Lane, 1933. Gligorijević, Branislav. Kralj Aleksandar u evropskoj politici [King Aleksandar in European politics]. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva, 2002. Karađorđević, Petar Drugi. Život jednog kralja: Memoari Petra II Karađorđevića. Beograd: Novo Delo, 1990. Marinković, Aleksandar Đ. Ženidba kralja Aleksandra Karađorđevića [The marriage of the King Aleksandar Karadjordjevic]. Beograd: Vajat, 2004. Markovich, Slobodan G. British Perceptions of Serbia and the Balkans. Paris: Dialogue, 2000. Mitrović, Andrej. Razgraničenje Jugoslavije sa Mađarskom i Rumunijom 1919–1920 [Demarcation of Yugoslavia with Hungary and Romania 1919–1920]. Novi Sad: Prometej, 1975. Pavlović, Kosta St. Ženidba kralja Petra II [The marriage of the King Petar II]. Beograd: Otkrovenje, 2002. Pavlović, Kosta St. Ratni dnevnik 1941–1945 [War diary 1941–1945]. Beograd: Službeni glasnik, 2011. Pavlović, Kosta St. Londonski dnevnik 1945–1946 [London diary 1945–1946]. Beograd: Istorijski arhiv Beograda, 2017. Radojičić, M. Dvorska kancelarija kraljicea Marije Karađorđević (1934–1941) [Court office of Queen Marija Karadjordjevic]. Master’s Thesis. Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of Belgrade, 2018.

146

A nđelija M iladinović

Stojadinović, Milan M. “Ni rat, ni pakt: Jugoslavija između dva rata.” [Neither war, nor pact: Yugoslavia between the two wars], Glas javnosti. Beograd: Glas Javnosti, 2002. Šimunović-Bešlin, Biljana. “Grejs Elison i Karađorđevići.” [Grace Ellison and Karadjordjević Dynasty]. In Novovekovne srpske dinastije u memoaristici [Modern Serbian dynasties in memoirs], edited by Petar Krestić, 179–203. Beograd: Istorijski institut, 2007. Vanku, Milan. Srpsko-Jugoslovensko-Rumunski odnosi kroz vekove [Serbian-YugoslavianRomanian relationships through the ages]. Beograd: Stručna knjiga, 2005. Zdravković, Slađana. “Kraljica Marija i dinastijski odnosi između Kraljevine Jugoslavije i Kraljevine Rumunije” [Queen Marija and dynastic relations between the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Kingdom of Romania]. In Kultura Republike Srbija i Srba u Rumuniji, edited by Nenad A. Vasić and Sandra R. Davidović, 216–227. Beograd: Institut za međunarodnu politiku i privredu, 2022.

The First Yugoslav Ambassador: Jovan Dučić in Romania, 1937–1940* Dr agan Bak ić

Jovan Dučić has long been established as one of the finest Serbian men of letters, with his style being an unmatched role model for elegance and form. He was also one of those prominent Serbian literary men who, following the pattern of some of their French counterparts, had respectable careers in Serbian and, after 1918, Yugoslav diplomacy. Dučić served in Sofia (1910–1912), Rome (1912–1914), Athens (1914–1918), Madrid (1918–1922), Athens again (1922–1924), Geneva (1925), Cairo (1926–1927), Cairo again after two years back in Yugoslavia (1929–1931) and, as a plenipotentiary minister, in Budapest (1932–1933).1 The pinnacle of his diplomatic career was his time as head of the Yugoslav Legation in Italy between 1933 and 1937. This was perhaps the most troubling period in the notoriously tense and hostile

This paper has resulted from the ongoing work in the Institute for Balkan Studies SASA, financed by the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovations on the bases of the agreement on realization and financing of the scientific research of SRO in 2023 number: 451-03-47/2023-01 from 17.01.2023 1 Miladin Milošević has given an overview of Dučić’s diplomatic service in his introduc­ tion to the collection of the latter’s reports that he edited: Јован Дучић, Дипломатски списи (Diplomatic files) (Београд: Просвета, 1991). It should be noted that Dučić’s diplomatic reports from Bucharest were published in Romanian even before the Serbian edition in: Јоvan Dučić, Rapoarte diplomatice din București (1937–1939), trans. by Dorin Gămulescu (București: Universal/Dalsi, 1988). Another edition of Dučić’s reports comprises those deposited as part of his private papers in the city library named after him in his native Trebinje, in eastern Herzegovina (not included in the first Milošević’s edition): Јован Дучић, Дипломатски списи [Diplomatic files] (Београд: Удружење Требињаца Јован Дучић, 2015). Finally, there is a third and the most comprehensive edition used in this paper: Миладин Милошевић, eds, Дипломатски списи Јована Дучића (Андрићград-Вишеград: Андрићев институт, Архив Републике Српске, Архив Србије, Архив Југославије, Историјски архив Београда, Удружење архивских радника Републике Српске, 2020). *

148

Dr agan Bak ić

relations between the two Adriatic neighbors throughout the interwar years. It was generally considered that Dučić handled his difficult mission in Rome in a satisfactory manner and he even became associated with the conclusion of the Italian-Yugoslav friendship treaty on March 25, 1937, although the negotiations in Rome were conducted by two special envoys sent from Belgrade. “Dučić was not the most pleased for having been side-tracked in those direct negotiations, but that was the case only because of the issues the delegates had to discuss, which required purely expert, technical qualifications,” Milan Stojadinović, Yugoslav prime minister, who was also foreign minister at the time, explained in his memoirs. “After all,” Stojadinović continued, Dučić “had completed the first, main and introductory work with much skill, diplomatic tact and prowess, with the innate intelligence and gentlemanly demeanour of an envoy from [the medieval city-state of] Dubrovnik.”2 Stojadinović praised Dučić for his fine intellect, literary standing and class.3 Besides being the most challenging and rewarding post for any Yugoslav diplomat, Rome was the perfect place of residence for Dučić, since he could marvel at the treasure trove of ancient history and arts of which he possessed an extraordinary knowledge. It is not surprising then that he was a little disappointed after Stojadinović had decided in mid-May 1937 to move him to the Bucharest legation.4 Under the strong impression of the “constant ecstasy facing three thousand years of this city”, suspecting he was redundant in Rome rather than necessary in Bucharest on account of some under-thetable dealings in Belgrade, Dučić departed from the eternal city on September 28 with a heavy heart, sensing that “something big and the greatest I could experience” had just ended.5 The mission of the famous poet-diplomat in Rome has received historiographical attention because of Italy’s crucial role as Yugoslavia’s arch-enemy.6 On the contrary, his stint in Romania has gone



Milan Stojadinović, Ni rat ni pakt: Jugoslavija izmedju dva rata [Neither War nor Pact: Yugoslavia between the two] (Buenos Aires, El Economista, 1963), 456. 3 Milan Stojadinović, 542. 4 Dučić’s diary cited here is published in a monograph by Радован Поповић, 2 изд., Књига о Дучићу [A book about Dučić] (Београд: БИГЗ, 1992), 168–194 (179). The diary, or what has been left of it given that it covers 1937 alone, was first published in Miladin Milošević, “Dučićev dnevnik iz 1937. godine” [Dučić’s diary from 1937.], Književnost: mesečni časopis [Literature, monthly magazine], 92, nos. 9–10 (1991), 1212–1213. The most recent and comprehensive edition is: Јован Дучић, Дневник 1937 [Dučić’s diary from 1937], приредио Миладин Милошевић (Нови Сад: Прометеј, 2019), but the differences are not substantial. 5 Поповић, Књига о Дучићу [A book about Dučić], 184–185. 6 Stanislav Sretenović, “Dučićevi stavovi o italijansko-jugoslovenskim odnosima” [Ducic about Italian-Yugoslav relations], Istorija 20. veka, 2 (2001), 89–102; Stanislav Sretenović, Dučić u Rimu [Dučić in Rome] (Beograd: Konras, 2002). 2

First Yugoslav Ambassador: Jovan Dučić in Romania

149

largely unnoticed, apart from the unkind portrayal of Dučić authored by his secretary in the Bucharest Legation.7 This lacuna is certainly not justi­ fied in view of the importance of Yugoslav-Romanian relations in the run-up to World War II. The two countries, together with Czechoslovakia, formed the Little Entente in 1920–1921 for the purpose of countering Hungarian irredentism and preventing a Habsburg restoration. Romania and Yugoslavia also pledged to suppress Bulgaria’s territorial aspirations dating back to the Balkan Wars of 1912–1913. The link between the two countries was further buttressed through the marriage of King Alexander of Yugoslavia and Princess Maria of Romania in 1922. Finally, the two countries joined with Greece and Turkey to form the Balkan Entente in 1934 aimed against Bulgaria, but also with the ambition to emancipate Balkan nations from the interference of great powers.8 Indeed, Romania and Yugoslavia tried to coordinate their policies and strengthen their hands in the international environment increasingly dominated by Nazi Germany, at least to the limited extent that smaller powers in South-Eastern Europe had room for diplomatic manoeuvres. This was reflected in the elevation of status of the Yugoslav mission in Romania. Dučić became the first ambassador of royal Yugoslavia. This chapter will examine Dučić’s reports from Bucharest and their impact on policy-making in Belgrade. It will look at his view of Romanian foreign policy, but also at the important internal developments, as Romania was undergoing the tumultuous period of King Carol II’s authoritarian dictatorship and fascistization of the country, especially evident in the rising anti-Semitism. Moreover, the particular sensibility of the poet-diplomat lent his reports color that is usually absent from the matter-of-fact tone of diplomatic dispatches. A perceptive and keen observer, Dučić recorded his Коста Ст. Павловић, Јован Дучић (Милано, 1967); this account has been refuted in Зоран Св. Томић, Одговор Кости Ст. Павловићу на књигу “Јован Дучић” (Париз, 1974). Stanislav Sretenović has presented a paper “Les points de vue de Jovan Ducić sur les relations roumano-yougoslaves de 1937 à 1940” at the annual conference of the Institute for South-East European Studies in Bucharest under the title La coopération entre les peuples du Sud-Est européen du Moyen Âge à l’époque moderne in October 2021. This paper, along with others presented at the conference, will be published in due course. 8 For Yugoslav-Romanian relations, see Gligor Popi, Jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi 1918–1941 [Yugoslav-Romanian relations 1918–1941] (Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet, Institut za istoriju, 1984) and Eugene Boia, Romania’s Diplomatic Relations with Yugoslavia in the Interwar Period, 1919–1941 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993). It should be noted that Popi’s monograph is produced in the ideological mold of communist Yugoslavia, while that of Boia is not and is thus more reliable, but neither work could make full use of the Romanian archival records which were not accessible to historians at that time.

7

150

Dr agan Bak ić

impressions of Romanians and their society in general and of political personalities in particular. As he put it in an interview with a Hungarian journalist, he focused on what was “of eternal value and characteristic for a particular nation” as modern diplomacy was not just required to forge “economic and political links, but also has duties in the cultural and moral field and it cannot neglect this if it has an ethical soul.” 9 Be that as it may, his reports certainly provide a valuable eyewitness account of Romania’s external and internal affairs on the eve of Europe’s greatest catastrophe. Dučić arrived in Bucharest on November 5, 1937, and a week later handed his letter of credence to the Romanian king, Carol II. He could not have expected that the beginning of his mission would coincide with the major turbulence in the political life of Romania following the general elections in December of that year. The election results reflected the growing strength of the radical right and outright fascist parties at the expense of the discredited mainstay of Romanian politics, the National Liberals and National Peasants. As the government failed to obtain the necessary majority and the All for the Fatherland, which was the legal cover name for the Legion of the Archangel Michael, better known as the Iron Guard led by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, won the impressive 15.58 per cent of the vote, Carol II turned to the leaders of the National Christian Party, Octavian Goga and Alexandru Cuza who came only fourth with 9.15 per cent, to form a cabinet.10 Goga, the greatest Romanian poet who was appointed prime minister, and Cuza, an old university professor, were extreme nationalist and anti-Semites, just like Codreanu, but unlike him they were conservatives and monarchists rather than revolutionaries. The Goga-Cuza government was thus Carol II’s device to ride the tide of Romanian nationalism and isolate the Codreanu movement which was inimical to the king, and perhaps, in the longer run, to prepare the ground for royal dictatorship.11 Under these circumstances, it fell to Dučić to assess the nature of the new Romanian government and what might be expected of them, and to Milošević’s introduction in Dučić, Дипломатски списи Јована Дучића [Ducic’s dip­ lomatic files], 37. 10 Paul A. Shapiro, “Prelude to Dictatorship in Romania: The National Christian Party in Power, December 1937–February 1938”, Canadian-American Slavic Studies, 8, no. 1 (Spring 1974): 45–88; Philippe Henri Blasen, “De la nomination du cabinet Goga au coup d’État du roi Carol II (28 décembre 1937–10 février 1938)”, Studia Universitatea Babeș-Bolyai - Historia, 63, no. 2 (December 2018): 111–157. 11 For a discussion of Carol II’s motives, see C. A. Macartney and A. W. Palmer, Independent Eastern Europe: A History (London, New York: Macmillan, St Martin’s Press, 1966), 375–376; Shapiro, “Prelude to Dictatorship in Romania”, 66–69.

9

First Yugoslav Ambassador: Jovan Dučić in Romania

151

inform the Yugoslav foreign ministry accordingly. He reported that “All of Bucharest is standing stunned by the accession of the minority Goga government. Astonishment before the storm or before a scandal. (…) Now he ought to save the corrupt Romania in the way Mussolini had saved the degenerate Italy and Hitler the run-over communist heaven.”12 In his first substantial report to Stojadinović, Dučić presented the radical outlook of the Goga cabinet which strove to bring about “a revolution, an overthrow and rebirth” on the basis of the present-day dominant ideology in Europe “and that is nationalism, an exclusive one, in the manner of Fascism and Nazism.”13 He proceeded to paint a picture of the change the Goga gov­ ernment was intent to introduce in Romania and presented a short study of Romanian history and political mentality: The main thing is, therefore, to create a new Romania, which means, above all, to bring in the new guiding ideas, to unite the people morally, to create a movement. This means primarily to create a single basic principle for moral life of these people who wander and do not see their true place, or understand what their legitimate rights to live are. Romania is ripe for an ideology of its own. It is, above all, one of the richest European countries (it has corn and petroleum). Its people possesses an innate political sense and a lot of Latin flexibility. They showed it in the Middle Ages; while the rest of the Balkan peoples lost any memory of a legal system under the Turks, autonomies remained in Romania; and while the Balkan countries were ruralized, there remained, to a certain extent, a class, nobility, in Romania under the Turks, just like in part of Hungary, which maintained a tradition of state, of national government, and of national culture. These people showed formidable resistance to Russia as well, since it often tried through Orthodox Christianity to slavicize Romania. When Romania became a new state in the XIX century, it took its ruler from one of the most prominent foreign dynasties, and the minor domestic candidates never made difficulties for their own ends, but were the first ones to stand by the Crown and protect its prerogatives and prestige. This is an example of both patriotism and wisdom. Those who judge light-headedly these people, because they are light-headed themselves, l ose sight of their ethnic traits that represent a foremost factor in politics most of all. In Romania, I think, neither corruption nor debauchery are greater than elsewhere, but moral discipline and the innate sense for human-to-human relationship are on an enviable level. This is the people without conspiracies and overthrows, and it has succeeded in making more wealth and arts than its Balkan neighbors.14

Поповић, Књига о Дучићу [A book about Dučić], 192–193. Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Dučić’s Diplomatic files], doc. 88, Dučić to Stojadinović, 7 January 1938, 323–331. 14 Ibid. Original emphasis.

12

13

152

Dr agan Bak ić

Dučić then turned to the personality of the prime minister Goga based on his own impressions after their long conversation a day before: Goga is a man who surprises with particularly incredible speed of thinking and the finesse and richness of expression. With every sentence he shows a great and orderly general culture and critical sense. You can sense an orator and especially a polemic. And not a hector, but rather a true duelist. A man of race, whose beliefs come from the heart rather than from the mind; and whose all intentions seem to come from consciousness and a sense of duty rather than from some plan. He is a man who believes not just in his capabilities but also in a calling. To me he seems a man of endeavor, but also of endurance. (…) Goga believes he would create a new Romania by himself and be a first spiritual factor in the European east, just like Romania is the wealthiest and most European judging by its society among other [countries in the region]. For such mission he possesses, apart from the talent of a natural initiator, the strength of will, the experience of a politician (he was a minister of interior affairs), and personal honesty that has been denied in vain.15

Dučić also relayed the substance of his conversation with the prime minister, or rather the exposé of the latter’s political program about to be implemented. Goga asserted his determination to free Romania from French tutelage and expunge Jewish influence from the national life of the country. He was insistent that anti-Semitism in Romania was home-grown rather than imported from Germany, of which the evidence was the fact that Cuza had been advocating it for decades, as well as a half of the political parties, the army, intelligentsia and the whole of society. Finally, Dučić warned of a danger that excessive nationalism might drive the Goga government to embrace the policy of irredentism, with an eye on the Kutzovlach population in Serbia and the ultimate formation of a grand Latin empire envisaged by professor Nicolae Iorga, whom Dučić had long known. The Yugoslav minister was convinced that Iorga, as well as Mussolini, believed that a Latin empire was a distinct possibility if the connection across Albania and Bitolj and then the Timok river, once disrupted under the old Roman emperors but still existent on the basis of common Latinity, could be restored.16 Of special interest for a diplomatic representative was the twisted course of Romanian foreign policy, difficult to grasp in view of contradictory statements given by both the government and the crown. Dučić observed that the foreign minister Istrate Micescu, an old Francophile himself, and Goga, a renowned friend of Rome and Berlin, expressed their views in such manner

Ibid. Ibid.

15 16

First Yugoslav Ambassador: Jovan Dučić in Romania

153

“that one makes foggy again what the other one has previously wanted to make clear and apparent …”17 In fact, Goga’s anti-Semitic convictions mixed with his foreign policy vision. The prime minister told Dučić that he wanted to negotiate with France, “but he is always forced to talk with mediators who are regularly French Jews (…) which he cannot consent to because of his principles, notwithstanding his good will.”18 Dučić relayed the general opinion that the Goga cabinet would introduce no real changes despite all the announcements – there would be no fully fledged dictatorship or complete adherence to the Axis. It was considered that the king would not go to the extremes “as he is too much Englisheducated and too much convinced that his lifeline is linked with England rather than the fascist states.” The Liberals and Peasants were regarded in Romania as having no prospects, since they could not cooperate with the crown and championed democracy, which was not an advantage at the present juncture of international relations. On the other side, the Iron Guard gained ground, although it was, as Dučić put it, “dynamic rather than grounded in ideas”; its agitation to do away with the old regime and start anew on the pattern of Italy and Germany appealed to the youth, younger army officers and civilian officials. Nonetheless, on the basis of information at his disposal and his personal impression, Dučić thought that Goga would win the forthcoming elections because the king, the army and even Codreanu wanted him to do so. The leader of the Iron Guard was deemed to be favorable to Goga’s election victory as he did not consider the time ripe as yet for his own accession to power.19 Dučić found the Iron Guard neither Fascist nor Nazi “but rather reminiscent of certain Russian mystical movements that preceded the Russian revolution.” He stressed that its members were at work among the people: “they build a bridge to the people where necessary with their own hands and tools, a house to a homeless person, a church in a village that does not have one. They force the rich to cede part of their property to the poor, and they force a loan shark to tear up the receipt of a debtor.” In Dučić’ view, the movement brought about “something new and fresh” that appealed to the people deceived time and again. “They consider it a part of the future, although it is not clear where it would lead eventually.”20

Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Dučić’s Diplomatic files], doc. 90, Dučić to Foreign Ministry, January 22, 1938, 333–334. 18 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Dučić’s Diplomatic files], doc. 95, Dučić to Stojadinović, January, 28 1938, 345. 19 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Dučić’s Diplomatic files], doc. 99, Dučić to Stojadinović, February 4, 1938, 351–353. 20 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Dučić’s Diplomatic files], doc. 91, Dučić to Foreign Ministry, January 23, 1938, 334–337. 17

154

Dr agan Bak ić

On balance, Dučić was inclined to think, perhaps reflecting the views of those people he mostly kept in touch with, that public opinion in Romania was clearly in sympathy with the Western powers. Codreanu’s unequivocal advocacy of the alignment with the Axis stirred resistance among all those who did not share his opinion. The more he declared that Romania’s salvation lie in Nazism and Fascism, the stronger was the reaction against those doctrines and the mistrust for Rome and Berlin. Dučić believed that “either a harebrained man such as Codreanu will knock down everything in front of him, or he will be overrun himself together with alien doctrines. Some think, to be true, that he is a man of tomorrow, while the others blindly believe that Romania still has enough strength to resist and keep the balance which is the sole sign of political health.” In geopolitical terms, Dučić continued, Romania had always regarded Russia alone as its enemy and sought a guarantee against that danger in French and British support. Germany was not seen as a guaranteeing power despite its preparations for war against Russia for reasons of solid geopolitical assessment: There is a general feeling here that in case of Russia’s attacking Romania, Germany would not come to defend Romania, but rather to drive the Russians out in order to stay itself in this country, or at least to divide Romania with Russia as it once partitioned Poland. Everyone believes that once Germany has taken Austria and then conquered Czechoslovakia, nothing would restrain it from the natural impulse in the direction of the Black Sea. England and France, on the contrary, have that advantage that they are in favor of status quo, and therefore [in favor of] Romania’s borders.21

It was from such a widespread mood that stemmed Dučić’s conviction that the Romanian people, with the exception of the youth, did not consider Codreanu “a providential man but rather an overt enemy of the Crown and a dangerous conspirator against the laws of the land.”22 However, the elections were never held. The king masterminded a coup d’etat, forced Goga to resign and on February 10, 1938, and appointed a new cabinet headed by Patriarch Miron Cristea. The new government abolished the 1923 constitution, imposed a new one based on corporatism, dissolved all political parties and made the king the sole master of Romania.23 It was received with the distinct lack of enthusiasm among the people, Dučić reported, for two reasons: it was widely regarded that the Iron Guard could

Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Dučić’s Diplomatic files], doc. 101, Dučić to Stojadinović, February 9, 1938, 356–358. 22 Ibid. 23 Keith Hitchins, A Concise History of Romania (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 174–175. 21

First Yugoslav Ambassador: Jovan Dučić in Romania

155

be suppressed by the rigorous application of the existing laws and it exposed the person of a head of the Orthodox Church in the most inappropriate manner. In particular, Cristea could be placed in an unenviable position to carry out repressive measures against his priesthood, many of whom (two thirds as Dučić stated) supported the Iron Guard. Dučić emphasized that the major concern of the supporters of the crown was that the new dictatorial government represented an open duel between the king and Codreanu instead of a clash between the people and the Iron Guard leader.24 Dučić also noted that both France and Germany interpreted the introduction of royal dictatorship in a light most favorable to their own interests. Neither power, or rather ideological bloc, had been satisfied by the overthrown Goga government and was equally anxious as to further internal development in Romania. In Dučić’s opinion, the nature of a struggle between the king and Codreanu made it clear abroad that it also concerned the orientation of Romanian foreign policy, “since Codreanu is morally, and perhaps materially, protected by Germany.”25 Here Dučić voiced the general suspicion that Codreanu was in Nazi pay, but there is no evidence that he ever was, unlike Goga prior to becoming prime minister and unlike Horia Sima, the Iron Guard leader after Codreanu’s death.26 Patriarch-prime minister Cristea presented to the Yugoslav minister the main lines of policy his government intended to follow. His cabinet was determined to energetically continue the anti-Semitic policy of their predecessors, because the people would otherwise believe that the Jews had toppled the Goga government and installed the new one, and such conviction would benefit Codreanu.27 Dučić was quite contemptuous of Codreanu, “a man of mediocre spirit, poor education, a fanatic and mystic, but also a conspirator

Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 103, Dučić to Stojadinović, February 13, 1938, 360–363. 25 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 104, Dučić to Stojadinović, February 14, 1938, 363–366. 26 Rebecca Haynes, “Corneliu Zelea Codreanu: The Romanian ’New Man’,” in: In the Shadow of Hitler: Personalities of the Right in Central and Eastern Europe, eds Rebecca Haynes and Martyn Rady, 169–187; for the Iron Guard, see also Radu Ioanid, The Sword of the Archangel: Fascist Ideology in Romania, trans. by Peter Heinegga (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990); Nicholas M. Nagy-Talavera, The Green Shirts and the Others: A History of Fascism in Hungary and Romania (Iaşi, Oxford, Portland: The Center for Romanian Studies, 2001); Roland Clark, Holy Legionary Youth: Fascist Activism in Interwar Romania (New York: Cornell University Press, 2015). 27 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Dučić’s Diplomatic files], doc. 107, Dučić to Stojadinović, February 17, 1938, 371–372. 24

156

Dr agan Bak ić

and murderer, who personally shoots down people with a revolver.” More importantly, he found that the royal dictatorship cut the ground from under his feet not just because the activities of his movement had been suppressed, but even more so because the new regime had taken over his political program. Codreanu “preached a dictatorship idea, the persecution of Jews, punishment for corruption, agrarian justice, and now dictatorship has come into being and the legal authorities have appropriated all those attributes. Thus, there is nothing left to place his own word as a new truth, a new suggestion, a new promise.”28 In his analysis of Romanian foreign policy, Dučić pointed out that the dictatorship allowed full liberty to the press and public opinion to discuss international affairs as opposed to muzzling any debate regarding matters of domestic policy. On the whole, the Romanian press openly expressed the sympathies of public opinion for France and Britain, as well as dislike of the totalitarian powers. Despite the obvious failures of Western democracies in the international arena, the belief that the final victory would be theirs carried on. Dučić’s assessment was “that neither the dictatorship here, nor the Anschluss of Austria, have managed to change anything in respect to the old connections with the democracies.” The Yugoslav minister’s views could have only grown stronger after the German minister, Wilhelm Fabricius, had vented his dissatisfaction with the absence of good will in Romania to establish closer relations with the Third Reich. Hence Dučić concluded as to the general feeling in the country: The Romanians have no affinity with Germany indeed, or sympathies for Italy, or considerations for Bulgaria. It is believed that the Romanian problem also exists in today’s crisis, but that it is not separated from the other issues, and for that reason they do nothing here on their own. They know that if Germany ruins Czechoslovakia, then it is Romania’s turn, regardless of whether it starts to praise the Germans, or maintains the attitude of God-loving pride. Hitler does not want war as he does not need it; ultimatums will suffice to him. After the one [delivered] in Prague, there will be another one for Bucharest.29

The most immediate concern, however, was the attitude of Hungary. The dilemma was whether Hungary would serve the needs of Germany’s drive down the Danube and in the direction of southern Russia in order to take back Transylvania, or if it would find itself in the position of a victim forced

Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 111, Dučić to Foreign Ministry, February 28, 1938, 377–379. 29 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 116, Dučić to Stojadinović, March 23, 1938, 389–394. 28

First Yugoslav Ambassador: Jovan Dučić in Romania

157

into a vassal status vis-à-vis the Third Reich, in the wake of Czechoslovakia’s misfortune, and thus seek an agreement with its neighbors placed in the same situation. The majority of Romanians believed that Hungary would act as Germany’s stalking horse, since it was not part of any wider racial community and constituted a natural German ally. There was also a feeling that Hungary and Bulgaria were the enemies of Russia and would “use the present favorable moment to raise their heads as revisionists first, against the Little Entente states, and then against Russia in the German service.”30 As for the attitude towards Yugoslavia, Dučić noted that it was strictly reserved. The Romanian public opinion was shaken in its confidence in the allied country on account of the January 1937 friendship treaty between Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, suspecting that it ran deeper than it was actually the case. The Yugoslav minister spared no effort to explain that it was better to make friends with Bulgaria in peacetime than alienate it, that Yugoslavia’s policy aimed at keeping alive possibilities for an eventual economic and then political alliance among all the Balkan countries, and that the YugoslavBulgarian agreement had, in fact, tied Sofia to the status quo in the Balkans. In the final instance, Dučić was optimistic as to the endurance of the alliance between Romania and his country judging by the prevailing Romanian perception: It is believed that with the two great powers in the north and west [Germany and Italy] and the two half-Mongol peoples, as the Bulgarians and Hungarians are called here, on its flank, Yugoslavia finds itself in a position similar to that of Romania notwithstanding all its apparent optimism. It is thus believed that the old centuries-long ties between us will be maintained and that it will be clear in a decisive moment that history, just like great rivers, rarely changes its canal and its course. At this moment I hold that our friendship with Romania, though seemingly wavering, is not in danger of passing into suspicion, resentment and malice, which would then take root among the people and become a stuff of myth. I even believe that Romania watches us more closely than anyone else, including the Poles who are said to have showed the first signs of defeatism in respect of the old allied front [France and Britain], because they are megalomaniac and hate Czechoslovakia and Russia more than they love their own household.31

An example of the reserved attitude towards Yugoslavia was the Romanian press’s coverage of Stojadinović’s meeting with the Italian foreign minister, Count Ciano in Venice in June 1938. Political circles in Romania gauged, although without any foundation in reality, that some substantial

Ibid. Ibid.

30 31

158

Dr agan Bak ić

understanding had been reached between the two Adriatic neighbors on that occasion. However, the reason for rapprochement between Italy and Yugoslavia was assessed with much realism – it was down to the mutual reinsurance against the powerful Germany that had emerged, following the Anschluss, at the doorstep of both countries. In that sense, there was even an expectation that a Yugoslav-Italian alliance was inevitable unless the two countries were willing to become German vassals, which no one in Romania believed.32 But it was on the negotiations with Hungary that the diplomatic efforts of the Little Entente were focused over the course of 1938. These concerned the troubled issues of legalization of Hungary’s rearmament and the treatment of Hungarian national minorities in the Little Entente states, for which the latter wanted in return to obtain Budapest’s recognition of the territorial status quo.33 Dučić was a liaison between Stojadinović and the Romanian government in the tedious process of drafting the text of an agreement.34 In Dučić’s view, the attitude of the Hungarian government was a barometer for taking stock of their foreign policy direction following the Anschluss. Looking for an answer to that important question, he turned to perusing the fundamental psychological factors which, as he saw it, had emerged throughout Hungarian history (and also Bulgarian history in something of a comparative analysis). The result was a very Dučić-like historical tour d’horizon: Hungary is by nature a megalomaniac, like a typical Mongolian nation, with the obsession for space and eternal movement, just like all the once nomadic peoples. In the old homeland, and also in its present lands, it had mirages that deceive a healthy human mind. Just like Bulgarians, Hungary has never been satisfied with what it has accomplished, and throughout its history banged with its head to the right and to the left, especially attacking Venice, Bosnia and Dalmatia, and descending on Kosovo and Nicopolis after the Turkish invasion. Just like Bulgarians who have always kept the restless mentality of a hord rather than that of an army, striving to conquer and plunder instead of ruling and organizing, because of which Bulgaria was ruined every time its army was defeated. It was the other way round with the Serbians who always maintained



Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files] doc. 142, Dučić to Stojadinović, June 28, 1938, 449–451. 33 Vuk Vinaver, Jugoslavija i Mađarska 1933–1941 [Yugoslavia and Hungary 1933– 1941]. (Beograd: Narodna knjiga, Institut za savremenu istoriju, 1976), 271–277, 282–289. 34 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 117, Dučić to Foreign Ministry, March 23, 1938, 395; doc. 118, Dučić to Foreign Ministry, March 24, 1938, 396–397; doc. 125, Dučić to Foreign Minister, April 20, 1938, 413–414; doc. 127, Dučić to Stojadinović, April 23, 1938, 418–420; doc. 146, Dučić to Stojadinović, July 1, 1938, 457–458. 32

First Yugoslav Ambassador: Jovan Dučić in Romania

159

their states longer than their military strength after a military defeat, as was the case on the Marica [river in 1371] and Kosovo [in 1389].35

Internal developments commanded Dučić’s attention no less than foreign policy. On March 30, 1938, Patriarch Miron Cristea formed his second cabinet which was opposed, together with the entire royal dictatorship, by Romanian democratic parties. The Yugoslav minister discussed this turn of events with the somewhat despondent leader of Liberals, Dino Bratianu, who made a strong impression on him. “A classy Romanian boyar, a man of the world, with considerable education and very gentlemanly habits, Mr. Bratianu is, in my opinion, a precise, logical, synthetical spirit, the most European appearance among Romanian politicians, mostly Orientals and, especially, Levantines,” read Dučić’s description of this prominent figure.36 It was only his rheumatism and non-combative character that prevented Bratianu from playing the role commensurate with his strength of conviction, patriotism and the love of his party. Bratianu professed that dictatorship was the worst of all regimes, a sanctuary for those who had lost the (1914–1918) war and then their wits, and he believed in the strength of resistance on the part of the Romanian people. The leader of Liberals also considered that dictatorship allowed for interference of the totalitarian powers with Romanian internal affairs and that dissolution of the old political parties cleared the ground for the advent of Codreanu. Dučić’s impression was that the whole of Romanian opposition was supported by great powers; France and Britan backed Liberals and Peasants, whereas the Axis stood behind the Iron Guard. He concluded that, in the eyes of a foreigner, the entire Romanian political life was, both in its form and contents, something of a product of imitation and snobbism. But the distinct embiterness and the willingness to use force caused much concern for all the non-partisan people in Romania, especially during the times of grave international crisis.37 A major move of the dictatorial regime, however, was the clamping down on the Iron Guard. Codreanu was arrested on April 17, 1938, and eventually charged with the preparation of a violent seizure of power in Bucharest. The public opinion in Romania was distrustful of this official explanation as Codreanu himself had given statements to the effect that he needed two years

Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 119, Dučić to Stojadinović, March 30, 1938, 397–400. 36 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 121, Dučić to Stojadinović, April 4, 1938, 401–405. 37 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 123, Dučić to Stojadinović, April 17, 1938, 407–410. 35

160

Dr agan Bak ić

to take office, which he seemed to have envisioned on Mussolini’s pattern, by means of an invitation from the crown after all the other possibilities had been discredited. In Dučić’s opinion, the government had no other option unless they were prepared to allow that “maniac” to emerge as the master of the situation with the foreign assistance.38 His antipathy for Codreanu was expressed here without any reservations. He also discussed the Codreanu affair with Fabricius: after the latter had complained again that Romania was not doing anything for rapprochement with Germany and doubted the success of Carol II’s policy against the Iron Guard, which he presented as being “too much spiritually united, widespread and increasingly a moral reaction as much as political one,” Dučić had the impression “that Germany does not stand far away from the Iron Guard, and that should perhaps be counted on.”39 After Codreanu had been convicted at his four-day second trial to ten years of hard labor for high treason, Dučić reported to Stojadinović that the masses of Romanian population had taken a dim view of the show trial. “Neither democratic governments nor tyrants make use of political trials, but only camarillas that allegedly save rulers, and whose services rulers themselves come to pay for later,” Dučić relayed general opinion in the country. He pointed out the indignation felt in Romania at the court camarilla gathered around Elena Lupescu, the king’s mistress, who was regarded as having “shattered the Royal house and introduced the regime of corruption and confrontation” although her name was not mentioned. Describing the course of the show trial, Dučić also stressed the general opinion that it was making Codreanu a martyr and that the Iron Guard could only benefit from such proceedings. But on this occasion, he passed his own judgment, not customary in his dispatches, that “Yugoslavia could not wish for the advancement of the Iron Guard. For Codreanu to win, that would be the victory of an arrogant nationalism in this part of Europe and [the accession] of a Romanian cabinet inclined to bring into question certain well-established values in other neighboring countries.”40 Dučić was particularly weary of the fact that much of the Iron Guard leadership consisted of Romanians born outside of Romania, which suggested a peril of growing Romanian irredentism, and of the attitude of the

Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 126, Dučić to Stojadinović, April 26, 1938, 415–417. 39 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 128, Dučić to Stojadinović, May 14, 1938, 420–423. 40 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 131, Dučić to Stojadinović, May 27, 1938, 428–431. 38

First Yugoslav Ambassador: Jovan Dučić in Romania

161

army that Codreanu alone could induce, just like Mussolini in Italy, national mobilization and dynamism. As the Codreanu trial centered on his alleged connection with and instrumentalization on the part of Germany, which Dučić was prone to believe in, the Yugoslav minister inquired of both the Romanian government and Fabricius about the matter. The interior minister, Armand Călinescu, was adamant that he was in possession of hard evidence that Codreanu was working in the service of Germany for the purpose of establishing a National Socialist regime in Romania. Călinescu made no secret of his decision to suppress the Iron Guard through state terrorism on the grounds that the time was “such that it is not possible to do otherwise.”41 On the other hand, Fabricius denied the validity of evidence against the Iron Guard leader and held that his imprisonment, given that he suffered from tuberculosis, amounted to death sentence.42 In the midst of the Sudeten crisis, which would come to an end in Munich on September 29–30, 1938, Dučić reported on the Romanian view of a German danger. Despite another and major retreat on the part of France and Britain, Dučić maintained that the predominant feeling in the country was that Germany could not emerge victorious. The Third Reich was believed to have been weaker than the Wilhelmine Germany of 1914 and, unlike the latter, without any allies (Italy was not deemed a reliable ally), while the resources of Western democracies, as well as their historical record, were impressive. Romania’s attention was, however, fixed on Hungary in the anticipation of its exploitation of the Sudeten crisis, first against Czechoslovakia and then Romania. This was seen as part of a grand design to “ruin the Little Entente, compromise and ruin the governments of Western democracies, and finally, dismember all the other states of the Balkan peninsula and the Danube basin for the benefit of Germany, Hungary and Bulgaria, the states morally committed to the German idea of force. There is no one in Romania who conceives of Hitler’s intentions differently.”43 But after the “tragic week,” as Dučić called it, in which France and Britain had capitulated diplomatically at the Munich conference, the Yugoslav minister pondered the manner in which Romania had handled the crisis and the impact it had left. He observed that the Romanian government had expressed sympathies for Czechoslovakia throughout the crisis in order not to appear

Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 135, Dučić to Stojadinović, June 2, 1938, 435–437. 42 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 136, Dučić to Stojadinović, June 2, 1938, 438–440. 43 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 151, Dučić to Stojadinović, September 27, 1938, 464–469. 41

162

Dr agan Bak ić

as having abandoned the allied country, but had avoided giving any offense to the Axis powers. Most importantly, Romania’s international position and security were shaken to the core. Once more, Dučić took a long view back to the Romanian past to appreciate fully the profound shift in the present: For nearly a century, since the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia united to form the Kingdom of Romania, and then in 1918 incorporated within its borders the other Romanian lands, Transylvania, Bukovina and Bessarabia, the whole system of foreign policy and the entire cultural life here have leaned on France. And that in a manner that no other European country would have done. It can be said that Romania has been a French dominion for the whole century in a moral and cultural sense, which it is happy to admit and does not want to renounce in the future.44

But, Dučić went on, France proved to be incapable of protecting its friends and allies, as the Czechoslovak example had just demonstrated, which caused an unprecedented fear and a sense of loneliness in Romania. Particularly disheartening was the prospect of the four-power directorate that would replace the entire international order as established after the Great War and could only work to the detriment of post-1918 successor states. Under the circumstances, King Carol II and his government turned all their energies to rearmament, having no illusions about what the future held in store. Romanian politicians feared German expansion down the Danube in which Romania would fall one of the first victims. Furthermore, according to Dučić, Romanians were concerned that even “if Germany does not embark immediately on conquering territories, they think here that the Danubian states will be dependent on Germany in the future both economically and politically, and nothing could foil their ultimate submission.” In addition, it would take nothing short of “a miracle” to restore a balance of power in Europe in place of “pax germanica with all that that race had long prepared for nations of different origin and different laws and customs.”45 Fear of fur­ ther revision of the Versailles settlement was compounded by the divisions in the Romanian army, church, society and politics, as evidenced by the rise of the Iron Guard in the countryside. In that respect, Dučić reported on the turmoil in Transylvania, which he believed might lead to separatism, and on the revived activities of the opposition leaders, but Călinescu with whom he had close relations denied any serious trouble. The latter claimed that the old

Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 152, Dučić to Stojadinović, October 3, 1938, 469–473. 45 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 153, Dučić to Stojadinović, October 6, 1938, 474–477. 44

First Yugoslav Ambassador: Jovan Dučić in Romania

163

leaders of political parties had passed their prime and that the government was in control, the king self-confident and the people reasonable in their expectations. As for foreign affairs, Călinescu simply said that Europe would not be in a position to choose friends and enemies before France and Britain had found new leadership.46 Dučić noted that the recent momentuous changes in Europe left their marks in Romania. He pointed out the great activity of Fabricius in the wake of the Munich settlement, reflecting the ascendancy of Germany. Contrary to him, the “English minister does not talk politics and the French one does not think of it”, he added bitterly.47 The Romanian people were trying to find their way in the new situation, which required a departure from traditional policy, and that was not facilitated by their lack of familiarity with Germany and the previous lack of interest in forging ties with Berlin and Rome.48 On the other hand, Dučić warned of the irredentist campaign, the intensity of which was increasing in proportion with the demands from Budapest concerning the Transylvanian Hungarians. Moreover, the irredentist cries were heard from the official quarters, such as on the pages of the former prime minister Gheorghe Tătărescu’s newspaper in which the number of Romanians outside the mother-country was said to be two million, of which some 500,000 lived in Yugoslavia this number was nearly fourfold that of the official Yugoslav statistics that put the number of Romanians at 137,000. Dučić also admonished that books and money were sent to the Serbian Banat for propaganda purposes, while the instigators of propaganda in southern Serbia (in the area of Bitola in present-day Northern Macedonia) were the Aromanians (Cincars, Kutzovlachs) from Bucharest’s high society. At the heart of this movement was Professor Iorga who publically voiced his idea of a great Latin empire stretching from Romania and Italy to Spain and Portugal.49 Dučić carefully observed how the royal dictatorship threw Romanian political parties in disarray. After their formal dissolution in the wake of promulgation of the new constitution that sanctioned Carol II’s autocracy, the party leaders were embittered but their reaction was confined to mutual consultations, protests and preparation of memorandums for the crown in

Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic Stojadinović, October 8, 1938, 481–483. 47 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic Stojadinović, October 28, 1938, 484–486. 48 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic Foreign Ministry, November 10, 1938, 487–488. 49 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic Foreign Ministry, November 10, 1938, 488–491. 46

files], doc. 156, Dučić to files], doc. 157, Dučić to files], doc. 158, Dučić to files], doc. 159, Dučić to

164

Dr agan Bak ić

which they underscored the services their parties had performed to the country and dynasty, and predicted all the perils in case their activities remained forbidden. In parallel, further divisions took place in their own ranks between the implacable opponents of dictatorship and those willing to work with the king, most notably in the Liberal Party from which Tătărescu’s faction favorably disposed to the new regime split.50 Dučić paid particular attention to a memorandum prepared by the Peasant Party, although he believed that not even its authors expected it to produce any change. But they doubted the capabilities of the new government made up of Carol II’s minions and thus thought that at a critical moment the king would have to appeal to Liberals and Peasants who had given ample evidence of their loyalty. It was generally believed that the king would entrust Tătărescu with a mandate to form a cabinet no later than the spring of that year.51 But in late 1938 Romania moved to further radicalization rather than restoration of parliamentary democracy. The regime staged the murder of Codreanu and a group of his supporters during the alleged transport to another prison on November 30. It seems that the intense distaste of Francophile and liberal Dučić for Codreanu and his movement prevented him from commenting on the gruesome manner in which the government got rid of the Iron Guard leader. The Yugoslav minister informed Belgrade that Fabricius confirmed to him that Codreanu’s murder embittered Germany not only because he was a staunch supporter of Nazism, but also because it took place just three days after King Carol II’s visit to Berlin, which might imply that it was linked with the conversations held in the German capital.52 There was no denying, however, that the people at large condemned this unprecedented state-sponsored assassination.53 By that time it had become clear that all the talk of the leaders of the disbanded political parties being invited to form a cabinet was just an illusion. Together with the growing dissatisfaction with the government, this led Dučić to describe the political situation in Romania as “very onerous” and declare his opinion “that

Извештаји Министарства иностраних послова за 1938. годину, књига IX, приредила Јелена Ђуришић (Reports of the Ministry of foreign affairs) (Београд: Архив Југославије, 2014), Извештај о Румунији, април 1938, 232–234. 51 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 170, Dučić to Stojadinović, November 29, 1938, 510–511. 52 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 173, Dučić to Stojadinović, December 15, 1938, 514–515. 53 Извештаји Министарства иностраних послова за 1938. годину [Reports of the Ministry of foreign affairs], Извештај о Румунији, децембар 1938, 671–673.

50

First Yugoslav Ambassador: Jovan Dučić in Romania

165

the crown has taken on too much responsibility.”54 On December 14, Dučić learned from Fabricius on the latter’s return from court that the king was going to announce the formation of the Front of National Rebirth (FNR) the next day, and the German minister was the only diplomat informed of Carol II’s decision in advance. It should be noted that Dučić did not draw any conclusions about the influence the Third Reich had exerted on that latest development in Romania despite its smacking of fascism, or at least he refrained from commenting on it. Detailing how a number of prominent personalities from political and cultural life joined the governmental party, and how Professor Iorga alone courageously opposed the imitation of Italian and German principles, Dučić expressed his personal impression that FNR would indeed succeed in “forming a front loyal to the crown and devoted to the national idea of defense.”55 In January 1939, Yugoslavia and Romania elevated the status of their respective diplomatic missions from legations to embassies.56 Dučić was thus honored to become the first ambassador in Yugoslav diplomatic service of which he was immensely proud. With an increasing prospect of war in 1939, his reports focused on the relations within the Balkan Entente (the Little Entente ceased to exist with the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia). Grigore Gafencu, Romanian foreign minister after December 1938, discussed with Dučić the renewal of the Balkan Pact for another four-year period. A true supporter of Romania’s cooperation with the Axis, Gafencu was in favor of the prolonged existence of the Balkan Entente, which he believed was not running contrary to foreign policy of the totalitarian powers.57 In fact, the common policy of the Balkan Entente members was undermined by their differing attitudes towards the conflicting interests of Western democracies and the Axis powers in the region. Turkey was inclined to close cooperation, including military understanding, with France and Britain, while Yugoslavia

Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 172, Dučić to Stojadinović, December 13, 1938, 512–513. 55 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 175, Dučić to Stojadinović, December 18, 1938, 517–519, especially f. 788. Details of the ideology and organization of the FNR were given in Ibid., doc. 177, Dučić to Stojadinović, January 16, 1939, 522–526. The minister considered Maniu and his party alone capable of remaining an opposition to the regime, although they could only maintain their passivity and make their point by not joining the ranks of FNR. 56 This had been agreed to at the Little Entente conference in May 1938. See Milošević’s introduction, Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], 24, f. 71; Boia, Romania’s Diplomatic Relations with Yugoslavia, 249. 57 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 178, Dučić to Foreign Ministry, January 28, 1939, 526. 54

166

Dr agan Bak ić

and Romania tried to maintain their strict neutrality between the two blocs. Yet, France and Britain extended their unilateral guarantee to Romania’s territorial integrity in April 1939, whereas Yugoslavia made a point of not receiving the same in order not to provoke Germany. Consequently, dealing with Bulgaria, which was a raison d’être of the Balkan Entente, was subsumed into wider, and often divergent, foreign policy and defense considerations. “My personal feeling is that Romania does not intend to make concessions to Bulgaria, feeling safe at its southeast because of an alliance with Turkey,” Dučić recorded. But he also believed that the region of Dobrudja was no longer important as a matter of national dispute between Bulgaria and Romania, but rather as a military-strategic issue concerning the Anglo-French-Turkish agreement in the Black Sea and Balkan areas and the guarantees given to Bucharest.58 The crux of the problem was that Turkey was assuming obligations within the framework of the Anglo-Turkish declaration of May 1939 with which other states of the Balkan Entente did not want to be associated. Gafencu took credit for ensuring that the Balkan Entente had not been mentioned in the text of the Anglo-Turkish agreement.59 But the Romanians doubted Yugoslavia’s commitment to containing Bulgaria in light of Belgrade’s efforts to cultivate relations with that country. Despite Dučić’s tendency to play down his words, Călinescu, appointed prime minister on March 6, 1939, was clear in stating his regret at the Yugoslavs’ belief “that the real Bulgarian claims concern Dobrudja more than the [Turkish] Trace and [Serbian] Macedonia.” He reminded the Serbians of the Bulgarian attack on the Balkan allies in 1913. “He obviously assumes that such friendship with Bulgaria is arranged for from abroad,” Dučić concluded, although Călinescu was tactful enough not to refer to Yugoslavia’s relations with the Axis.60 On the eve of the war, Dučić’s report again stressed considerable uncertainty and mistrust in Romania, as well as in Turkey and Greece, regarding Belgrade’s determination to defend the Balkans, as all these allied countries pressed for an unequivocal stance towards Bulgaria, a country deemed to be waiting for a signal from Berlin and Rome to attack its neighbors. The Balkan allies

Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 183, Dučić to Foreign Ministry, July 17, 1939, 534–536. 59 Ibid., doc. 184, Dučić to Foreign Ministry, July 18, 1939, 536–537. Gafencu’s inter­ ceding with the Turkish government followed, in fact, his meeting with the Yugoslav foreign minister, Aleksandar Cincar-Marković, in Orshava on May 21, 1939 during which their common stance had been agreed on. See Živko Avramovski, Balkanska Antanta 1934–1940 (Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju), 307. 60 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 185, Dučić to London Legation, July 29, 1939, 538–539. 58

First Yugoslav Ambassador: Jovan Dučić in Romania

167

suspected Yugoslavia, as Dučić saw it, for its satisfaction with Bulgaria’s attitude during that critical time.61 The Yugoslav diplomat spared no effort to scotch any such suspicions heard in Bucharest. The last preserved Dučić’s report from Romania was made just a day after the outbreak of war, and it relayed the attitude of the official circles towards the recently concluded non-aggression treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union. There was an air of unreality, whether due to a degree of self-deception or an attempt to present the matter in a more favorable light, as Dučić’s interlocutors claimed that the said agreement had brought certain relief to Romania. An alternative agreement between France, Britain and the Soviet Union, it was argued, would make it more difficult for Germany to get its supplies, and Hitler would then turn to Romania and draw it into the war. Prominent Romanians still considered the Balkan Entente, if it managed to maintain its unity and solidarity, the best hope for the Balkan countries to stay out of conflict between the great powers.62 Unfortunately, Dučić’s mission in Romania is less and less documented as it progressed over time. This is a consequence of the ravages that archival material of the Yugoslav foreign ministry and diplomatic agencies abroad suffered in the course of World War II.63 In contrast to the multitude of reports from late 1937 and 1938, only eleven reports have survived from 1939 and virtually none from 1940 when Dučić was recalled from the Bucharest embassy on May 22 and appointed minister in Madrid (he was also accredited to the Portuguese government in mid-November), the last post in his diplomatic career.64 The lack of primary sources in Belgrade poses a major impediment to full historical inquiry into Yugoslav-Romanian relations until the collapse

Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 186, Dučić to Cincar-Marković, August 15, 1939, 539–542. 62 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 187, Dučić to Foreign Ministry, September 2, 1939, 542–544. 63 Војислав М Јовановић, Потрага за украденом историјом: извештај о пљачки српских историјских докумената у Другом светском рату и настојањима да се врате Србији [The search for stolen history: a report on the robbery of Serbian historical documents in World War II and efforts to return them to Serbia] (Београд: Издавачка књижара југоисток, 2010). 64 Milošević’s introduction, Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], 25–27. This lacuna cannot be compensated by the dry matter-of-fact monthly reports for January-March 1940 covering Romania compiled in the Yugoslav foreign ministry (the reports for April and May are also missing). See Извештаји Министарства иностраних послова Краљевине Југославије за 1940–1941. годину [Reports of the Ministry of foreign affairs], edited by Драган Теодосић (Београд: Архив Југославије, 2015). 61

168

Dr agan Bak ić

of Yugoslavia in April 1941 and the role Dučić played in the (roughly) latter half of his ambassadorship. This also presents a difficulty inherent in any attempt to assess his (de) merits as a diplomatic representative in Romania. However, such as it is, the record allows for several observations to be made regarding certain limitations of his diplomatic performance. Above all, it is worth noting that Dučić had very little contact with Carol II and his influential entourage, which meant that he had no access to true policy-makers in a country in which the king was the sole and undisputed authority in both internal matters and foreign affairs. Dučić was no doubt aware of that deficiency for his ability to collect information, as evidenced in his recording the opinion of the opposition that no one knew the direction of Romanian foreign policy, including the cabinet members, because “it is made between four walls; and it is not a national idea, but an idea of the [court] camarilla.”65 On other occasions, in the course of negotiations between Hungary and the Little Entente, he observed that prime minister Tătărescu and foreign minister, Nicolae Petrescu-Comnen, were not inclined to accept responsibility for any decision without the approval of the king.66 There is only one report on Dučić’s exchange with Carol II at a social event that took place in late June 1938, after the latter’s return from Turkey. But the king was not forthcoming on that occasion either the minister could report only what an unnamed colleague had told him from his own, more substantial, conversation with the Romanian monarch.67 It is highly likely that the colleague in question was Fabricius who was in the habit of speaking openly with Dučić, perhaps reflecting a conscious effort to cultivate relations with a representative of a country central to Germany’s foreign policy in the Balkans.68 By contrast, the Yugoslav diplomat seems not to have been in close

Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučić [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 116, Dučić to Stojadinović, March 23, 1938, 389–394. 66 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 114, Dučić to Stojadinović, March 13, 1938, 385–386. 67 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 144, Dučić to Stojadinović, June 28, 1938, 453–455. Lack of contact with the king must have accounted for the conspicuous absence of his brief portrait in the striking collection of Dučić’s sketches of important personalities he encountered during his diplomatic missions. For an early and well-known example, see his portrait of the Bulgarian king Ferdinand in: Андреј Митровић, “Дучићев опис краља Фердинанда Кобуршког и прилика у Бугарској почетком 1911. године”, Историјски часопис, XIX (1972), 317–325. 68 Fabricius had no qualms about discussing a prospective dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and also let him know that Carol II himself entrusted George Bratianu with a mission to Berlin indicative of Romanian attempts to find security in the dramatically changed post-Munich international situation. See Diplomatski 65

First Yugoslav Ambassador: Jovan Dučić in Romania

169

touch with his British and French colleagues, of whom he did not form favorable opinions. He penned ironically that Sir Reginald Hoare refrained himself, “like the English do in general, to reply[ing] to nine tenths of things in life with a few words of domestic humor”; Adrien Thierry fared even worse, as Dučić found him “to believe that France keeps its end among the public here without the assistance and prestige of its minister who inspires feelings of pity among some and a sense of revolt among the others.”69 In governmental circles, Dučić mostly relied for the best of his information on Călinescu, the driving spirit of all cabinets formed under the dictatorial regime, and, finally, a prime mister himself (until the Iron Guard murdered him on September 21, 1939, in retaliation for his repression against that organization). It was to his credit that he established early on close personal relations with such an important figure. As has been seen, he also kept in contact with the democratic opposition in Romania, whose views he regularly reported to Belgrade. In stark contrast, he never recorded any firsthand accounts of political situation from a prominent Iron Guard leader. Apart from his personal dislike of Codreanu and his fanatical supporters, this is understandable in light of the hostility running deep between the government he was accredited to and the revolutionary-minded Iron Guard. In terms of foreign policy, Dučić appears not to have grasped fully the extent to which the rising Third Reich came to dominate Romania both economically and politically. He took at face value Călinescu’s assurance that the trading agreement between Germany and Romania that had been concluded on March 24, 1939, was favorable to the latter.70 Dučić’s reports were well-received in Belgrade as far as one can conclude from the monthly reports prepared at the Yugoslav foreign ministry on the basis of all the available information provided from the Bucharest legation/embassy, general consuls and the Central Press Bureau journalists in Romania. As for his personal contribution to policy-making, it is safe to assume that it did not amount to anything like a decisive influence. Foreign ministers of the two countries met often at the Little and Balkan Ententes’s spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 128, Dučić to Stojadinović, May 14, 1938, 420–423 and doc. 165, Dučić to Foreign Ministry, 22 November 1938, 502–503, respectively. 69 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 129, Dučić to Stojadinović, May 16, 1938, 424–426. 70 Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files], doc. 181, Foreign Ministry to London Legation [forwarded Dučić’s report], March 24, 1939, 531–532. For a realistic estimate, see Boia, Romania’s Diplomatic Relations with Yugoslavia, 257–258.

170

Dr agan Bak ić

conferences and, when necessary, outside those frameworks. For example, at a critical moment prior to the Munich conference Stojadinović and PetrescuComnen met in a train to consult about possible Hungarian aggression against Czechoslovakia.71 After the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, on November 5, 1938, Prince Regent Paul of Yugoslavia visited Bucharest to mark the continued strong alliance between the two countries under the new circumstances.72 Frequent personal contact between key political figures on both sides, including the heads of states, certainly facilitated Dučić’s mission. Apart from diplomatic activities, Dučić made friends in Bucharest with the best known Romanian writers (Ion Pilat, Ion Minulescu, Virgil Carianopol, Victor Eftimiu, Anton Balota) who translated his poetry in Romanian, while some of his prose, namely Blago cara Radovana (two editions), Gradovi i himere, and Plave legende were also published in Romanian. Dučić gained such literary acclaim that he was elected an honorary member of the Society of Romanian writers on May 8, 1940, shortly before his departure from Romania.73 This contribution to cultural ties between the Romanians and Serbs was perhaps the most enduring legacy of his time in Bucharest.

Bibliography Avramovski, Živko. Balkanska Antanta 1934–1940. Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju. Badel, Laurence et. al. Ecrivains et diplomates: L’invention d’une tradition. XIXe-XXIe siècles. Paris: Armand Colin, 2012. Boia, Eugen. Romania’s Diplomatic Relations with Yugoslavia in the Interwar Period, 1919–1941. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. Clark, Roland. Holy Legionary Youth: Fascist Activism in Interwar Romania. New York: Cornell University Press, 2015. Dučić, Jovan. Dnevnik 1937 [Ducic’s diary from 1937]. Novi Sad: Prometej, 2019. Haynes, Rebecca. “Corneliu Zelea Codreanu: The Romanian ’New Man’.” In In the Shadow of Hitler: Personalities of the Right in Central and Eastern Europe, edited by Rebecca Haynes and Martyn Rady, 169–187. London: I.B. Tauris, 2014.



Jacob Hoptner, Jugoslavija u krizi 1934–1941 [Yugoslavia in crisis 1934–1941] (Rijeka: Otokar Keršovani, 1972), 141–142. 72 Извештаји Министарства иностраних послова Краљевине Југославије за 1938. годину [Reports of the Ministry of foreign affair], 612; Popi, Jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi [Yugoslav-Romanian relations], 188–189. 73 Октавија И. Неделку и Лидија В. Чолевић, “Срби у Букурешту (3): Српски књижевници-дипломате у Букурешту: Јован Дучић, Иво Андрић и Милан Ракић” (Serbs in Bucharest (3): Jovan Ducic, Ivo Andric and Milan Rakic) из збирке радова (Темишвар: Савез Срба у Румунији, 2007), 251. 71

First Yugoslav Ambassador: Jovan Dučić in Romania

171

Henri Blasen, Philippe. “De la nomination du cabinet Goga au coup d’État du roi Carol II (28 décembre 1937–10 février 1938).” Studia Universitatea Babeș-Bolyai – Historia 63, no. 2 (2018): 111–157. Ioanid, Radu. The Sword of the Archangel: Fascist Ideology in Romania. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990. Jovanović, Vojislav M. Potraga za ukradenom istorijom: izveštaj o pljački srpskih istorijskih dokumenata u Drugom svetskom ratu i nastojanjima da se vrate Srbiji [The search for stolen history: a report on the robbery of Serbian historical documents in World War II and efforts to return to Serbia]. Beograd: Izdavačka knjižara Jugoistok, 2010. Macartney, C. A. and A. W. Palmer, Independent Eastern Europe: A History. London/ New York: Macmillan/St Martin’s Press, 1966. Milošević, Miladin. Diplomatski spisi Jovana Dučića [Ducic’s Diplomatic files]. Belgrade/ Višegrad-Andricgrad: Andrićev institute, Arhiv Republike Srpske, Arhiv Srbije, Arhiv Jugoslavije, Istorijski arhiv Beograda, Udruženje arhivskih radnika Republike Srpske, 2020. Milošević, Miladin. “Dučićev dnevnik iz 1937. godine.” [Ducic’s diary from 1937] Književnost: mesečni časopis 92 (1991): 1212–1213. Nagy-Talavera, Nicholas M. The Green Shirts and the Others: A History of Fascism in Hungary and Romania. Iaşi/Oxford/Portland: The Center for Romanian Studies, 2001. Неделку, Октавија И. и Лидија В. Чолевић, “Срби у Букурешту (3): Српски књижевницидипломате у Букурешту: Јован Дучић, Иво Андрић и Милан Ракић” [Serbs in Bucharest (3): Jovan Ducic, Ivo Andric and Milan Rakic]. из збирке радова, 251. Темишвар: Савез Срба у Румунији, 2007. Nedelku, Oktavija I. and Lidija V. Čolević. “Srbi u Bukureštu (3): Srpski književnicidiplomate u Bukureštu: Jovan Dučić, Ivo Andrić i Milan Rakić” [Serbs in Bucharest (3): Jovan Ducic, Ivo Andric and Milan Rakic] Ishodišta 4 (2018): 243–255. Popović, Radovan. Knjiga o Dučiću [A book about Ducic]. Beograd: BIGZ, 1992. Popi, Gligor. Jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi 1918–1941 [Yugoslav-Romanian relations 1918–1941]. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet-Institut za istoriju, 1984. Shapiro, Paul A. “Prelude to Dictatorship in Romania: The National Christian Party in Power, December 1937–February 1938.” Canadian-American Slavic Studies 8, no. 1 (1974): 45–88. Sretenović, Stanislav. Dučić u Rimu [Ducic in Rome]. Beograd: Konras, 2002. Sretenović, Stanislav. “Dučićevi stavovi o italijansko-jugoslovenskim odnosima” [Ducic about Italian-Yugoslav relations]. Istorija 20. veka 2 (2001): 89–102. Sretenović, Stanislav. “Les écrivains et poètes serbes dans la diplomatie du Royaume des Serbes, Croates et Slovènes/Yougoslavie, 1918–1941: un enjeu historiographique.” In Ecrivains et diplomates: L’invention d’une tradition. XIXe-XXIe siècles, edited by Laurence Badel, Gilles Ferragu, Stanislas Jeannesson et Renaud Meltz, 238–254. Paris: Armand Colin, 2012.

Josip Broz Tito, Petru Groza and Yugoslav-Romanian Relations 1945–1947 Vladimir Lj. C vetković

At the end of World War II, on May 9, 1945, Yugoslavia and Romania had no diplomatic relations, due to the circumstances present in the spring of 1941, when the war had been in full swing. The two neighboring countries found themselves on opposite warring sides—Romania on the side of the Third Reich, and Yugoslavia on the side of the Western Allies; the latter however, with occupied territory and the government in exile. The relations between the two countries reached a critical point when Romania, whose army did not participate in the attack, allowed Germany to attack Yugoslavia from Romanian territory. About 2 o’clock in the morning on April 6, 1941, a German Army unit set off from Turnu Severin, crossed the Danube and, following an earlier prepared sabotage, defeated the weak Yugoslav forces deployed in the Sip-Kladovo sector.* During the same day, German Air Force, stationed at the Arad air base, bombed the air bases in Zemun, Pančevo and Novi Sad.1 In response, Yugoslav Air Force bombers attacked air bases, rail­ way hubs and German motorized and armored units in the area of Timişoara

This paper is a result of work at the Institute for Recent History of Serbia, which is financed by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia based on the Agreement on Accomplishment and Financing of Scientific Research of NIO /Scientific Research Organizations/ in 2021, no. 451– 03–9/2021–14/200016 of 05/02/2021. 1 Velimir Terzić, Slom Kraljevine Jugoslavije 1941. Uzroci i posledice poraza [The col­ lapse of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1941. Causes and consequences of defeat], II, (Beograd: Narodna knjiga, Ljubljana- Beograd: Partizanska knjiga, Titograd: Pobjeda, 1982), 279. *

174

Vladimir Lj. C vetković

and Arad.2 Already on April 7, this caused protests on the Romanian side, which still considered itself neutral.3 German troops started entering the Yugoslav territory by land from Romania on April 9, along the TimişoaraVršac axis.4 Regardless of these Romanian acts, the Yugoslav Government, which had already fled the country on April 15, urged its envoy to Bucharest on May 1 to “remain on duty as long as possible” and to break diplomatic relations only if Romania occupied a part of the Yugoslav territory or recognized the Independent State of Croatia.5 Taking into account that Romania recognized the Independent State of Croatia in the night between May 6–7, 1941, the Yugoslav envoy characterized that as an act of hostility and broke diplomatic relations between the two neighboring countries on May 9.6 In the summer of 1944, after the landing of the Western Allies in Normandy on June 6, and amid the ever faster advance of the Red Army in the south-east of Europe, it became apparent to all the participants of the war that it was entering into its final phase. Facing the Soviet military force which had already crossed its pre-war borders, Romania found the exit from the straits by a coup organized by King Michael on August 23, 1944, followed by signing an armistice with the Allies, in which Romania agreed to Soviet occupation and changed sides in the war, becoming overnight a part of the anti-Hitler coalition.7 It became obvious in the occupied Yugoslavia at that





Vojislav V. Mikić, “Vazduhoplovstvo u Aprilskom ratu” [Air force in April war], Vojnoistorijski glasnik 1 (1991): 95. 3 Velimir Terzić, Slom Kraljevine Jugoslavije 1941. Uzroci i posledice poraza [The collapse of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1941. Causes and consequences of defeat], II, 293. 4 Gligor Popi, Jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi 1918–1941 [Yugoslav-Romanian relations 1918–1941] (Novi Sad: Institut za istoriju Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom Sadu, 1984), 229. 5 Зоран Јањетовић, „Југословенски Банат 1941. године“ [Yugoslav Banat 1941], Срби и рат у Југославији 1941. године [Serbs and war in Yugoslavia in 1941], Зборник радова, ур. Драган Алексић, (Београд: Институт за новију историју Србије, Музеј жртава геноцида, Институт за славистику РАН, 2014), 300; Velimir Terzić, Slom Kraljevine Jugoslavije 1941. Uzroci i posledice poraza [The collapse of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1941. Causes and consequences of defeat], II, 602. 6 Archives of Yugoslavia (AJ), fonds 103, Government of Kingdom of Yugoslavia in Emmigration (103), file 60–280, Telegram of Dr Momčilo Ninčić, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the Embassy in Ankara, Confidential, no. 104 of 1st May 1941; Veselin Đuretić, Vlada na bespuću. Internacionalizacija jugoslovenskih protivrječnosti na političkoj pozornici Drugog svjetskog rata, (Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju, Narodna knjiga, 1982), 26. 7 AJ, fonds 103, file 60–280, Report of Avakumović, Ambassador to Bucharest, to Dr Momčilo Ninčić, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, no number, 29th May 1941, 1. 2

Josip Broz Tito, Petru Groza, Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

175

time that the first Allied army to reach its borders would be the Soviet Red Army, in the area of the Danube, in particular.8 In expectation of that event, the areas close to the Yugolav-Romanian border gained particularly great strategic importance for all the parties at war in Yugoslavia, especially for the People’s Liberation Army of Yugoslavia (NOVJ/PLA) led by Josip Broz Tito and the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (KPJ/CPY).9 In full collabo­ ration with the Soviets, Tito was preparing for the meeting of units of the PLA and the Red Army in the Yugoslav territory as well as for legalization of partisan authorities headed by the National Committee for the Liberation of Yugoslavia (NKOJ/NCLY), which had not yet been formally recognized by the Western Allies at that time, taking into account that the Allies maintained relations with the Government of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (KJ/ KY) in exile. The entry of the Soviet Army into Romania and the establishment of the Allied Control Commission (SKK/ACC) created a strange situation, since Yugoslavia had no diplomatic relations with Romania, while Switzerland, which represented the interests of Yugoslavia, had no diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, the representatives of which were dominant in the ACC. Therefore, Switzerland was not able to take proper care of the sizable Yugoslav community in Bucharest.10 Taking into account that Romania signed the armistice with the Allies on September 12, 1944, according to which it pledged to break diplomatic relations with Germany and its satelites, including the Independent State of Croatia, the road to resolving that problem had been opened.11 On October 1, already in his capacity of President of the NCLY, Tito appointed engineer Nikola Petrović,12 member of the Anti-­ Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia (AVNOJ), as the interim representative of Yugoslav interesets in Romania. The power of attorney of Nikola Petrović explicitely stated that he had exclusive authorization to organize, in collaboration with the Soviet Authorities there, the recruitment

Стеван К. Павловић, Историја Балкана 1804–1945 [Balkan history 1804–1945] (Београд: Клио, 2018), 439–440; Ричард Џ. Кремптон, Балкан после Другог светског рата [Balkan after Second World War] (Београд: Клио, 2003), 106. 9 Branko Petranović, Srbija u Drugom svetskom ratu 1939–1945 [Serbia in Second World War 1939–1945] (Beograd: Vojnoizdavački i novinski centar, 1992), 603–604. 10 AJ, fonds 103, file 177–623, Encrypted telegram of Embassy of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to Bern, sent to the Government of KY in London, no. 682, 16/09/1944. 11 AJ, fonds, Office of Marchal of Yugoslavia (KMJ), I–3–b/534, Armistice Agreement between Allies and Romania, 2. 12 AJ, KMJ, I–3–b/529, Power of Attorney of NCLY for Nikola Petrović, Belgrade, 01/10/1944 8

176

Vladimir Lj. C vetković

of Yugoslav citizens into the PLA on behalf of the NCLY, as well as to take over the embassies of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Independent State of Croatia in Bucharest.13 Judging by the verbalization “in collaboration with the Soviet Authorities there,” it can be concluded that Nikola Petrović’s primary task was collaboration with the Soviets, and not with the Government of General Constantin Sănătescu. This is also obvious from his attitude towards Romanian authorities, with whom he did not hasten to establish contacts, although he had been informed of their interest to do so; according to his own account, it was because “Romanians had a skeleton in the closet.”14 However, Petrović’s mission ended very quickly. In the beginning of November 1944, Tito appointed a new political representative of Yugoslavia to Romania-Nikola Grulović, also a member of the AVNOJ. Following the suit of his predecessor, Nikola Petrović, he retained the same attitude towards Romanian authorities. Until the end of 1944, Grulović did not meet anyone from the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs or any representative of Sănătescu’s or later Rădescu’s Government, in spite of the fact that it was ostensibly his task. Instead, he was engaged in matters of commerce and, in collaboration with the ACC, problems of Yugoslav citizens in Romania. Such a position on behalf of Yugoslavia, and essentially of Tito and the CPY, towards Romania was determined by their perception that both—the Government of Sănătescu and the Government of Rădescu—had a full continuity with the Government, Administration, Army and diplomacy of Marshal Antonescu. Only with the appointment of Petru Groza as Prime Minister, would the attitude of Yugoslav authorities towards Romania importantly change. The Government of Petru Groza, leader of the Ploughmen’s Front, was sworn in on March 6, 1945, under Soviet pressure and following two weeks of unrest and riots in Bucharest. King Michael accepted it only after the promise of return of Northern Transylvania to Romania. The Government was politically diverse, although under control of the majority People’s Democratic Front, dominated by the Romanian Communist Party (RCP).15 From that

Ibid. AJ, KMJ, I–3–b/530, Letter of Nikola Petrović to Marshal Josip Broz Tito, President of NCLY, Bucharest, 05/10/1944. 15 R. Krempton, op. cit., 114–117; Ion Bulei, Brève histoire de la Roumanie [Short sto­ ries from Romania] (Bucharest : Meronia, 2005), 186–187; Bernard Lory, L’Europe balkanique de 1945 à nos jours [Balkan Europe from 1945 to the present day] (Paris: Ellipses, 1996), 27; A Histoty of Romania, ed. by Kurt W. Treptow, (Iași: The Center for Romanian Studies, The Romanian Cultural Foundation, 1996), 513– 514; Овидију Печикан, Историја Румунâ [Romanian history] (Београд: Бесједа, Клио, 2015); Gheorghe I. Ionița, Istoria românilor-de la 23 August 1944 până in 13

14

Josip Broz Tito, Petru Groza, Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

177

moment on, under the influence of the USSR, a process of social and economic transformation began in Romania, similar to the one that had already started in Yugoslavia. This process was going to transform the two neighboring countries into countries of “people’s democracy,” with single-party systems and a new role within the Soviet interest zone.16 During this process, which met much stronger resistance in Romania than in Yugoslavia, Josip Broz Tito and the Communist Party of Yugoslavia openly provided support to the Romanian Communist Party in their ascent to power. This support varied in its level of directness, as in the case of supporting the Government of Petru Groza, which was accepted as a transitional formulation in the achievement of the final goal. Thus, Yugoslav support of Petru Groza in person, including the personal relationship between him and Tito, could be viewed in that light. Already in the first months upon the construction of Groza’s Government, there were improvements in Yugoslav-Romanian relations, first and foremost in the field of economy. The first transport of paraffin and petrol from Romania to Yugoslavia was accomplished precisely in March 1945, while World War II was still in progress.17 In May of the same year, negotiations were launched on regulating trade relations between Yugoslavia and Romania prezent (Evenimente și personalități postbelice sub semnul controversei) [History of the Romanians from August 23, 1944, to the present (post-war events and personalities under the sign of contraversy] (București: Editura Universității din București, 2001), 76–78; Ioan Scurtu, Gheorghe Buzatu, Istoria românilor în secolul XX: (1918– 1948) [Romanians iin the twentieth century: (1918–1948)], (București: Paideia, 1999), 492. 16 See more about it in: Branko Petranović, Sava Dautović, Jugoslavija, velike sile i balkanske zemlje, 1945–1948. Iskustvo “narodne demokratije” kao partijske države [Yugoslavia, great powers and Balkan countries 1945–1948. The experiences of people’s democracy as a party state], (Beograd:1994); Branko Petranović, Istorija Jugoslavije 1918–1988, [History of Yugoslavia 1918–1988], III: Socijalistička Jugoslavija 1945–1988 [Socialist Yugoslavia 1945–1988], Beograd: Nolit, 1988; Marija Obradović, “Narodna demokratija” u Jugoslaviji 1945–1952 [Public democracy in Yugoslavia 1945–1952], (Beograd: Institut za noviju istoriju Srbije, 1995); Șerban Rădulescu-Zoner, Daniela Bușe, Beatrice Marinescu, Instaurarea totalitarismului comunist în România [Communist totalitarianism in Romania], (București: Cavallioti, 2002); Gheorghe I. Ionița, Istoria românilor … ; Dennis Deletant, Romania under Communist Rule, (Bucharest: Civic Academy Foundation, 2006); Андреј Милин, Миодраг Милин, Цветко Михајлов, Срби у Румунији за време комунизма [Serbs in Romania during communism]. Звучни архив и приручник о страдању, (Темишвар: Савез Срба у Румунији, 2011). 17 Владимир Љ. Цветковић, „Економски односи Југославије и Румуније 1945–1948. године” [Economic relations between Yugoslavia and Romania 1945–1948], Токови историје 1/2021, 168–169.

178

Vladimir Lj. C vetković

which were finalized by signing the Agreement on Exchange of Goods and Payment18 in Belgrade on December 15. Although Yugoslavia did not rush to renew its diplomatic relations with Romania, it accepted the Romanian initiative of August 13, 1945, aimed in that direction. Yet, this initiative soon flopped, due to the crisis in relations between King Michael and the Government of Petru Groza. In fact, this was an attempt on the part of King Michael to prevent the process of the sovietization of Romania which was advancing faster under Groza’s Government than before. Encouraged by the Potsdam Declaration, according to which Romania was envisaged to establish a democratic government before signing the peace treaty and before being admitted into the United Nations, the king relied on the fact that the Western Allies did not recognize Groza’s Government due to the method in which it was established and due to its composition. In mid-August 1945, the king invited Groza to offer his resignation, but Groza refused.19 King Michael asked the United States of America (USA) and the United Kingdom for support, but he did not get it. Therefore, he went on strike, retreating to Sinaia and refusing to have contact with Groza or to sign decrees. After violent riots in Bucharest on November 8, the crisis was resolved at a conference in Moscow, where it was decided to incorporate one representative from each, the National Peasants’ Party, and the Liberal Party into Groza’s Government. After that, the Western Allies formally recognized the Government of Petru Groza on February 4, 1946, and the king was compelled to collaborate with him again and to sign decrees.20 Yugoslavia was completely aware of the context in which its relations with the neighboring Romania were developing as well as of Petru Groza’s position, which it endeavored to strengthen. This was among other things obvious during the months-long crisis in his relations with King Michael. Responding to the Romanian proposal of August 13 on establishing diplomatic relations, Yugoslavia answered positively, pointing out that it wished to establish relations with Romania regardless of the “passive resistance” of King Michael, but primarily “in order to support the democratic government of Dr. Groza.”21 In order to achieve this, the Yugoslav Government was ready to send its envoy to the Romanian Government in the rank of an authorized

Ibid., 171–172. R. Krempton, op. cit., 120. 20 Ibid., 121; I. Bulei, op. cit., 187–188; B. Lory, op. cit., 27. 21 Diplomatic Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Serbia (DAMSPS), Political Archives (PA), 1945, Romania, file 27, dossier 26, Dispatch of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia (FPRY) to the Representative Office of FPRY in Bucharest, Confidential no. 6886, Belgrade, 12/12/1945. 18

19

Josip Broz Tito, Petru Groza, Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

179

minister or even to send an ambassador without presenting credentials.22 This proposal, according to which King Michael would be bypassed, and diplomatic relations nevertheless established, was welcomed with open arms in Romania. On December 17, Prime Minister Groza promised Grulović to put that proposal on the agenda of the first Government session.23 However, taking into account that the Romanian political crisis was soon resolved at the Moscow conference, this pragmatic solution was no longer needed. Finally, on February 7, 1946—only three days after the Western Allies formally recognized legitimacy of Groza’s Government—Gheorghe Tătărescu, Minister of Foreign Affairs, invited Grulović and personally conveyed to him the decision of the Romanian Government to establish diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia, as well as its desire to have representative offices at the level of embassies.24 Establishing diplomatic relations between Yugoslavia and Romania paved the road for more intensive cooperation, yet it took almost one and a half years before the two prime ministers—Marshal Josip Broz and Petru Groza, officially met for the first time in Belgrade in June 1947. However, it is possible that their first official meeting in 1947 was not their first meeting ever. Although Yugoslav archival sources (at least those accessible to researchers) do not mention any meeting of the two leaders before, there is information on preparations for such a meeting. On May 25, 1945, Nikola Grulović talked to Groza about his meeting with Tito and learned that Groza had asked the Soviets for their consent in that regard.25 Two weeks later, Groza told Grulović he had the consent of the Soviets received from General Susaikov from the ACC. They advised him that the meeting should be held in “complete secrecy,” in the border zone, so that if information thereof leaked into the public, explanation could be offered that the meeting had occurred by chance, during a regular inspection.26 On the occasion of marking the two-­ year anniversary of the University of Medicine in Timişoara in July 1947, Petru Groza himself said: “Two years ago, I went to Yugoslavia to have talks

Ibid. DAMSPS, PA, 1945, Romania, file 27, dossier 26, Telegram of Nikola Grulović to Jože Brilej, Head of Political Department of FPRY MFA, Confidential, no. 7210, Bucharest, 17/12/1945. 24 DAMSPS, PA, 1946, Romania, file 75, dossier 16, Telegram of Nikola Grulović to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of FPRY, Confidential, no. 1399, Bucharest, 07/02/1946. 25 DAMSPS, Strictly Confidential Archives (SPA), 1945–1946, file 11, dossier 16, Report of Nikola Grulović sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (DFY), Strictly confidential, no. 11, Bucharest, 15/06/1945, 1. 26 Ibid. 22

23

180

Vladimir Lj. C vetković

with Marshal Tito. Belgrade had been in ruins then, so I was not able to recognise it a few weeks ago.”27 It can be concluded from that address that he had been to Belgrade, most probably in July 1945. The above-mentioned time of his visit in 1945 also coincides with the rumors that went around Bucharest at the time, of how Groza was planning a secret visit to Belgrade with one or two of his ministers in order to have talks with Tito. Cortlandt V. R. Schuyler, American representative at the Allied Control Commission in Bucharest also wrote a note about it.28 Finally, Groza’s youngest daughter, Mia, left a testimony according to which, in July 1945, she accompanied her father on his trip from Deva via Novi Sad to Pančevo, where he had a meeting with Tito in a castle surrounded by a large park. Impressed by Tito’s appearance in an elegantly tailored uniform, Mia Groza said that her farther and Tito had discussed the issue of Banat all day and all night and that they had finally agreed that Banat should belong to Romania.29 More probably, the deal was to keep the existing border between the two countries in Banat, since there had been some aspirations in Yugoslavia on possible territorial claims against Romania. These were primarily linked with the issue of status for the Serbian national minority in Banat, Yugoslav strategic and economic interests, but also with the position of Romania as a country defeated in the war.30

DAMSPS, PA, 1947, Romania, file 103, dossier 1, Report of FPRY Ambassador Dane Medaković on political situation in Romania in the month of July, Bucharest, 31/07/1947, 6–7. 28 Dorin-Liviu Bîtfoi, Petru Groza, ultimul burghez. O biografie [Petru Groza, ultima­ tum burghez. About biography], (București: Compania, 2004), 338. 29 Ibid. 30 Бранко Петрановић, „Питање граница Југославије према Мађарској и Румунији и југословенских мањина у Мађарској и Румунији после Првог и Другог светског рата (историјска паралела)” [The qustion of Yugoslavia’s borders with Hungary and Romania and the Yugoslav minorities in Hungary and Romania after the First and Second World War (historical parlallel)], Историјски записи, XXXIX (LIX), br. 3, (1986); Миодраг Милин, Андреј Милин, Срби из Румуније и југословенскорумунски односи. Прилог и грађа (1944–1948) [Serbs from Romania and YugolavRomanian realtions. Annexes and materials (1944–1948)] (Вршац: Виша школа за образовање васпитача, Темишвар: Универзитет „Banatului”, 2004); Владимир Љ. Цветковић, „Црвена армија на Дунаву, ослобођење Београд и тежње Срба из Румуније ка присаједињењу Југославији 1944–1945.“ [The Red Army on the Danube, the liberation of Belgrade and the aspirations of the Serbs from Romania towards the annexation of Yugoslavia 1944–1945], у: Ослобођење Београд 1944. године, уредник Александар Животић (Београд: Институт за новију историју Србије, 2010), 168–184; Павле Стојанов, Југословенска национална мањина у Румунији [Yugoslav minorities in Romania], (Београд, 1953). 27

Josip Broz Tito, Petru Groza, Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

181

Yugoslav territorial aspirations were never officially revealed, yet there were talks about them in Moscow, at the meeting between Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin and the delegation of the NCLY, headed by Andrija Hebrang, Secretary of the CPY Central Committee. On that occasion, on January 9, 1945, Hebrang demanded Timişoara and its surroundings for Yugoslavia, together with the city of Resita and its metallurgical complex, justifying it through ethnic and economic criteria.31 However, discussing the same issue with the Soviet Ambassador to Belgrade, Lavrentiev, in April 1946, Tito stated that, regarding the ethnic aspect, Yugoslavia did have certain territorial aspirations against Romania, but that he was not planning to raise that issue because he hoped that it could be resolved through bilateral negotiations.32 Bearing this in mind, a secret meeting between Tito and Groza seems even more plausible because it might have served that purpose exactly, for the two countries to find a solution in direct contact. Taking into account that, in the spring of 1946, Tito explicitly acknowledged he was not going to raise that issue, it is possible that such an agreement had been reached in the meantime. Groza’s address of the issue of borders in Banat at the session of the Romanian Government on October 2, 1945, also indicated that there had been an agreement between Tito and Groza in that regard. On that occasion, in his account of the situation in the Romanian part of Banat, he pointed out that the local Serbs there were refusing to pay taxes and to be recruited by the Romanian Army, since they only wanted to be Tito’s soldiers. Analogously to the recently resolved issue of Northern Transylvania, Groza believed that the solution should be sought with consent of the Serbs.33 However, it seems that he did not mean the consent of Banat Serbs, but rather of Yugoslavia, as their mother country. This was evident from the rest of his account in which he announced a pro-government convention of the Serbs in Timişoara for Sunday, October 7, with guests from Belgrade headed by the military commissioner of the city. Immediately after that, Groza concluded that “the border in Banat will remain as it is.”34 Judging by his vastly Андреј Милин, Миодраг Милин, Цветко Михајлов, Срби у Румунији за време комунизмa, 309–310. 32 Из дневника посла СССР в Юугославии А. И. Лаврентьева. Запись беседы с Председателем Совета министров маршалом Й. Б. Тито об отправке торговой делегации в Москву, территориальных претензиях Югославии, планах балканской федерации и др., 22 апреля 1946 г., Советский фактор в Восточной Европе 1944– 1953, Том 1: 1944–1948. Документы, Т. В. Волокитина (отв. Редактор), (Москва, Росспэн, 1999), 281. 33 Dorin-Liviu Bîtfoi, Petru Groza, ultimul burghez, 337. 34 Ibid.

31

182

Vladimir Lj. C vetković

self-assured attitude and the fact that the officials from Belgrade were coming to Timişoara to support the pro-government rally, it can be concluded that Groza had the support of Belgrade i.e., Tito’ support, that he could have well received at the secret meeting three months earlier. At a number of rallies of the Ploughmen’s Front held in Transylvania and Banat in the second half of October 1945, Groza mentioned Banat “as a whole inseparable from the Romanian motherland,” pointing out that Yugoslav and Romanian reactionaries were trying to plant a “bone of contention” in their desire to poison the relations between the neighbors.35 In the interview given to American war correspondent Theodor Andrica in January 1946, Petru Groza once again indirectly confirmed he had had a meeting with Tito. He spoke about the tense situation regarding the congress of the Slavic Anti-Fascist Front that had been arranged to be held in Timişoara on May 8, 1945, but then it was banned by the Allied Control Commission in Bucharest.36 Groza said that, unlike the communists who had demanded from him to take actions against the armed Serbs, he preferred to have talks with Tito.37 In addition to the territorial issues, the international status of Romania also presented an obstacle to the first official meeting of Tito and Groza. In effect, from the moment of signing the armistice in September 1944, all the way to the signing and ratification of the peace treaty with the Western Allies on February 10, 1947, Romania had the status of a state defeated in the war and supervised by the ACC. For that reason, Romania could not have been viewed as an equal partner to Yugoslavia, and this was why no official visit could have been taken into consideration. Tito himself confirmed this in the autumn of 1946, stating that relations with Romania were the best possible, as well as that there was economic and political cooperation, but that the status of Romania made it impossible to have the same effect in the domain of political cooperation as in the domain of the economy.38

DAMSPS, PA, 1945, Romania, file 27, dossier 10, Report of Nikola Grulović to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of DFY in Belgrade, Confidential, no. 5599, Bucharest, 27/10/1945, 2. 36 More about it in: Миодраг Милин, Андреј Милин, Срби из Румуније и југословенско-­ румунски односи, 36–38, 83; Андреј Милин, Миодраг Милин, Цветко Михајлов, Срби у Румунији за време комунизма, 30–31; Владимир Љ. Цветковић, „Црвена армија на Дунаву”, 179–183; Павле Стојанов, Југословенска национална мањина, 76–78; Љубивоје Церовић, Срби у Румунији од раног средњег века до данашњег времена [Serbs in Romania from the early Middle Ages to the present day], (Нови Сад, Матица српска, 1997), 425. 37 Dorin-Liviu Bîtfoi, Petru Groza, ultimul burghez, 337–338. 38 DAMSPS, PA, 1946, Romania, file. 75, dossier 4, Telegram of Vladimir Velebit, FPRY Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs, sent to FPRY Embassy in Bucharest, Confidential. no. 12970, Belgrade, 05/11/1946. 35

Josip Broz Tito, Petru Groza, Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

183

Obviously, Yugoslavia did not want contact with Romania at the highest level before Romania signed and ratified a peace treaty. In the background of this attitude was, among others, one fact that Belgrade was very much aware of, but never revealed it in public or in contacts with the Romanian side. The fact was that Yugoslavia and Romania were de facto in a state of undeclared war as of April 6, 1941, which was the unequivocal position of Yugoslav legal experts. Namely, a special study of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia (FPRY) of July 16, 1946, regarding this issue, which was supposed to provide an answer to the question of whether Yugoslavia and Romania were at war at that moment, specified five elements which, according to the 1933 Convention for the Definition of Aggression, were sufficient for a declaration of war. Firstly, starting with the fact that a in legal sense it is not necessary to have a formal declaration of war for two countries to be in a state of war, Yugoslavia and Romania were at war, due to the fact that Romania was a member of the Tripartite Pact, which was at war with the United Nations, of which Yugoslavia was a member.39 Secondly, Romania allowed German armed forces to attack Yugoslavia from its territory on April 6, 1941, which caused a protest on the Yugoslav side, though not a declaration of war. Thirdly, Yugoslav Air Force responded to that by bombing the air base and the railway station in Timişoara as well as the city of Arad, which was a sufficient cause for Romania to declare war on Yugoslavia, although it did not do it either. Fourthly, Romania allowed the formation of the German Prinz Eugen Division in its territory which subsequently committed numerous atrocities against Serbian civilians in the territory of Yugoslavia. Fifthly and finally, Romania showed no indication, written, verbal or in the press, that would express its disapproval at all the atrocities committed by the occupying forces against Yugoslav citizens. Neither did it signal to Germany that the senseless Ustaša crimes in the Independent State of Croatia should be stopped.40 The conclusion of this legal analysis was unambiguous: Romania was at war with Yugoslavia, both from the legal point of view and theoretically. Further analyzing the question of why there was no formal declaration of war between the two countries, even though the issue was redundant from the legal point of view, the author (or authors) of the analysis arrived at a conclusion that the reasons on Romania’s part were tactical, while those on the Yugoslav side were dynastic, taking into account the close family relations

DAMSPS, PA, 1946, Romania, file. 75, dossier 4, Is Yugoslavia at war with Romania?, Confidential. no. 10650, Belgrade, 16/07/1946, 1–2. 40 Ibid., 3. 39

184

Vladimir Lj. C vetković

between the Yugoslav and Romanian royal dynasty.41 The time of preparing this study—July 6, 1946—clearly indicates that it was most probably written for the needs of the Yugoslav delegation at the peace conference in Paris, which was opened on July 29, that year. Although Yugoslavia did not raise the issue of the state of war between itself and the neighboring Romania before or at the actual conference, the evidence regarding the issue prepared in advance might have been necessary in case someone else had raised it. Signing the peace treaty in Paris on February 10, 1947, was a huge diplomatic success for Romania and the end of months-long struggle for defending its territorial integrity and breaking out of diplomatic isolation.42 Less than three months later, Petru Groza invited Yugoslav Ambassador Dane Medaković, and told him that, in a situation when his “hands were untied,” he wanted to visit Yugoslavia, pursuant to the decision of the Romanian Government, at the end of May or at the beginning of June.43 Groza also intended to take economy experts with him in order to expand economic cooperation, but not Minister of Foreign Affairs Tătărescu, justifying the decision by stating he was taking care of the sensitivity of “those in the west.” Groza was hoping he would be accompanied by Yugoslav Ambassador Medaković on his way but also that he would not be met in Belgrade by Romanian Ambassador Tudor Vianu, who was to be “removed,” since the Yugoslav Government did not have a high opinion of him, which it had openly communicated to the Romanians.44 Asked by Medaković if his visit to Yugoslavia would come first, or if he was going to visit Moscow before, Groza said he would see Stalin first, even

Ibid., 3–4. Stela Acatrinei, “Forumul păcii de la Paris (iulie-octombrie 1946)” [Paris Forum (July-October 1946)], România în ecuația războiului și păcii (1939–1947). Aspecte și controverse, coord. Gheorghe Buzatu, (București: Editura Mica Valahie, 2009), 138–164; Gheorghe Buzatu, Marusia Cîrstea, “Bilanțul prezenței României la Paris” [The balance of Romanian’s presence in Paris], România în ecuația războiului și păcii (1939–1947). Aspecte și controverse, coord. Gheorghe Buzatu, (București: Editura Mica Valahie, 2009), 165–189; Daniel Onișor, “Diplomația României și ecuația păcii” [Romanian diplomacy and the equation of peace], România în ecuația războiului și păcii (1939–1947). Aspecte și controverse, coord. Gheorghe Buzatu, (București: Editura Mica Valahie, 2009), 236–296; Valeriu Florin Dobrinescu, România și organizarea postbelică a lumii (1945–1947) [Romania and the post-war organization of the world (1945–1947)], (București: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1988), 102–194; 43 DAMSPS, Strictly Confidential Archives (SPA), 1947, Romania, file 7, dossier 8, Telegram of Dane Medaković, FPRY Ambassador to Bucharest, sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Belgrade, Confidential, no. 1224, Bucharest, 03/04/1947. 44 Ibid. 41

42

Josip Broz Tito, Petru Groza, Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

185

without a protocol if necessary, after which he was supposed to visit Hungary on May 1, and then most probably Czechoslovakia. In reaction to this, Josip Broz Tito and the Yugoslav Government repeated their wish to invite Groza after the peace treaty ratification but they also asked Medaković to find a “convenient way” to tell Groza that it would not be opportune to visit Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Bulgaria before visiting Yugoslavia.45 When he was acquainted with this, Groza maintained he had to be in Hungary at the beginning of May and he offered to visit Belgrade on April 24, if the Yugoslav Government did not mind the fact that the peace treaty would not have been ratified by then.46 According to Medaković, Groza spoke “a lot and fine” about Marshal Tito on the occasion, whose picture he had in his own study at home. Medaković then added that Emil Bodnăraș, Minister of Economy in Groza’s Government and highly ranked officer in the RCP, confirmed his “respect and admiration” for comrade Tito were really high. However, the fact that the peace treaty had not been ratified still bothered Tito, who asked for a postponement of the visit until his commitments allowed him to receive Petru Groza.47 Apparently, the order of Groza’s visits to the neighbors was also a matter of prestige. Talking to First Advisor of Soviet Embassy in Bucharest, Yakovlev, Medaković said he was of the opinion that Groza should visit Belgrade first, to which Yakovlev replied that Moscow had been informed about Groza’s imminent visits to the neighboring and friendly states but that the order of those visits depended solely on Romanians.48 After the Yugoslav Government was informed that Groza had displayed a “good political attitude” in Budapest, both in his public addresses and in private conversations, Medaković informed Groza, on May 15, of Tito’s accord to welcome him on June 7.49 Groza immediately accepted that date as bind­ ing and promised to cancel the visit to Bulgaria, planned for May 24. Then, obviously aware of the discontent of the Yugoslav side with the fact that he

DAMSPS, SPA, 1947, Romania, file 7, dossier 8, Dispatch from Vladimir Velebit to Dane Medaković, FPRY Ambassador to Bucharest, Confidential, no. 1398, Belgrade, 10/04/1947. 46 DAMSPS, SPA, 1947, Romania, file 7, dossier 8, Telegram of Dane Medaković, FPRY Ambassador to Bucharest, sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Belgrade, Strictly Confidential, no. 1223, Bucharest, 12/04/ 1947. 47 Ibid. 48 DAMSPS, SPA, 1947, Romania, file 7, dossier 8, Telegram of Dane Medaković, FPRY Ambassador to Bucharest, sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Belgrade, Strictly Confidential, no. 1252, Bucharest, 30/04/ 1947, 2. 49 DAMSPS, SPA, 1947, Romania, file 7, dossier 9, Telegram of Dane Medaković, FPRY Ambassador to Bucharest, sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Belgrade, Strictly Confidential, no. 1299, Bucharest, 16/05/ 1947. 45

186

Vladimir Lj. C vetković

had traveled to Budapest first, he said that the Czechoslovaks also bore a grudge against him because of that, but that he believed he did the right thing because he had received a public statement from Hungary that the issue of Transylvania had been definitely resolved.50 Over the following few days, Bucharest asked for the program of Petru Groza’s stay in Yugoslavia, and Bodnăraș asked to have suggestions with regard to the topics the two delegations were going to discuss.51 This was how the communication started from which we can now perceive the unconcealed and entirely blatant cooperation of the Yugoslav authorities only with particular actors of the Romanian political scene, with whom they shared a common goal—turning Romania into a single-party people’s democracy. Thus, Ambassador Medaković asked Belgrade for its opinion on whether to ask Groza in advance for the text of his principal statement, despite the fact that Groza incidentally mentioned that they were going to agree with what he is going to say when he visited them.52 At the same time, taking into account the fact that no agreements could yet be signed, Medaković proposed talks on cultural convention and a treaty of friendship, yet without mentioning the border issue, which would have been to his country’s advantage, primarily “to avoid creating troubles for the Romanian Government,” i.e. Groza, whose situation was already difficult.53 The cooperation of Yugoslavia with only one part of Groza’s Government became even more obvious on the occasion of proposing topics for discussion during the coming visit. Belgrade proposed talks on signing a convention on cultural cooperation, economic cooperation, a water system on the Danube, the issue of the Iron Gates, but also to have preliminary discussions on signing a treaty of friendship, which could though be signed only after the peace treaty ratification.54 Ambassador Medaković informed Groza, Gheorghiu-­ Dej, Bodnăraș, and Tătărescu about this and they were satisfied with the proposal. However, upon Groza’s advice, Medaković did not inform Tătărescu about the last item on the agenda. Groza and the ministers in his Government from the ranks of the RCP agreed to inform Tătărescu about this item on the agenda only on their way to Belgrade or after the arrival in Belgrade,

Ibid. DAMSPS, SPA, 1947, Romania, file 7, dossier 9, Telegram of Dane Medaković, FPRY Ambassador to Bucharest, sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Belgrade, Strictly Confidential, no. 1315, Bucharest, 20/05/1947. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid. 54 DAMSPS, SPA, 1947, Romania, file 7, dossier 9, Telegram of Stanoje Simić, FPRY Minister of Foreign Affairs, sent to the Embassy in Bucharest, Confidential, no. 1326, Belgrade, 24/05/1947. 50 51

Josip Broz Tito, Petru Groza, Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

187

so “that he would not have time to inform political opponents thereof.”55 Such a method of communication was the best indicator that Yugoslavia had several channels and at least three levels of communication with Romanian authorities and that these were used as deemed appropriate. Thus, one thing could be communicated to Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gheorghe Tătărescu, another thing to Petru Groza, and something completely different to Emil Bodnăraș, Minister from the ranks of the RCP. Euphemisms such as “our close friends” were often used in Yugoslav documents for people from the RCP.56 This would mean that for Tito and his Government, members of the Communist Party of Romania were “close friends,” Groza and his environment were “a wider circle of friends,” while Tătărescu and his associates were ideological enemies. This was also confirmed by Bodnăraș’s request before Groza’s visit to Belgrade, to receive suggestions on what was going to be discussed in front of everyone (including Tătărescu), then in front of Groza and representatives of the RCP, and lastly in presence of only representatives of the RCP.57 The same Bodnăraș, who was known in Yugoslavia to have collaborated with Soviet, Bulgarian, Polish, and obviously Yugoslav intelligence services, warned Belgrade on his own behalf and on behalf of the RCP Central Committee, that Groza had maintained frequent contacts with British and American representatives in Bucharest recently and that care should be taken of what was discussed in his presence.58 The official visit to Belgrade of Petru Groza, accompanied by Gheorghe Tătărescu, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, and Emil Bodnăraș, from June 7–9, 1947, was marked by an evident manifestation of friendship. Although it is not possible to find any stenographic notes from the talks between Tito and Groza in the Yugoslav materials, the principal topic was certainly the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, which was being prepared by both sides. According to the official communiqué, the two delegations harmonized the text of the future convention on cultural cooperation, agreed on establishing a mixed commission that would be engaged in improvement of economic relations, reached an agreement on the issues of navigation on the

DAMSPS, SPA, 1947, Romania, file 7, dossier 9, Telegram of Dane Medaković, FPRY Ambassador to Bucharest, sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Belgrade, Strictly Confidential, no. 1369, Bucharest, 28/05/ 1947. 56 DAMSPS, SPA, 1947, Romania, file 7, dossier 8, Telegram Telegram of Dane Medaković, FPRY Ambassador to Bucharest, sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Belgrade, Strictly Confidential, no. 1252, Bukurešt, 30. 4. 1947, 1. 57 AJ, KMJ, I–2–a/64, Memo of Aleš Bebler, Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs, sent to the Office of Marshal of Yugoslavia, Belgrade, 23/05/1947. 58 AJ, KMJ, I–2–a/64, Information materials, without number and date. 55

188

Vladimir Lj. C vetković

Danube, coordinated and signed the Protocol on the Regulation of Waters of the Carpathian Basin, and naturally, discussed the treaty of friendship.59 However, during his visit to Belgrade, Petru Groza played an important role in resolving another issue, which was not mentioned in the official communiqué. On his own initiative, and certainly also prompted by the Soviet side, he played the role of mediator in restoring relations between the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church. The relations between the two churches were severed when, similarly to the state authorities of Romania that recognized the Independent State of Croatia, the Romanian Orthodox Church recognized the illegitimate and puppet Croatian Orthodox Church. At the time when Serbian people were exposed to the most appalling atrocities in the Independent State of Croatia, the Romanian Orthodox Church did no less than send Metropolitan Visarion to Zagreb where, together with Metropolitan Germogen of the noncanonical Croatian Orthodox Church, he ordained a degraded priest, Spiridon Mifka, as Metropolitan of Sarajevo on August 15, 1944.60 This was the reason for breaking canonical relations between the two churches, which maintained that status in the summer of 1947. However, the non-existing relations between these two autocephalous orthodox churches were becoming an obstacle to the plans Stalin had with the Russian Orthodox Church. The Soviets were planning to organize an Ecumenical Council of all Orthodox churches in Moscow which was, before all, supposed to resolve the issue of the right of the Patriarch of Constantinople to be placed at the head of all Orthodox churches.61 In connection with this council, which was supposed to establish a new center in Moscow opposite to Rome, a visit to Romania by Russian Patriarch Alexey was organized. According to Soviet Ambassador to Bucharest, Sergey Kavtaradze, Groza reluctantly agreed to that.62 During

AJ, fonds of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (507), Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (CK SKJ), Committee for International Relations (IX), 107/1–2, Communiqué on talks between representatives of Romanian Government and Yugoslav Government. 60 DAMSPS, PA, 1947, Yugoslavia, file 57, dossier 13, Letter of the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church sent to Stanoje Simić, FPRY Minister of Foreign Affairs, Confidential no. 412650, Belgrade, 05/07/ 1947, 1; Александар Стојановић, Растко Ломпар, „Ангажман Независне Државе Хрватске на међународном признању Хрватске православне цркве 1942–1944.”, Токови историје, 2/2019, 51–52. 61 DAMSPS, PA, 1947, USSR, file 106, dossier 4, Note on Conversation of Comrade Vejvoda with Protoiereus Jovan Sokal, Confidential no. 48429, 12/05/1947, 1. 62 DAMSPS, PA, 1947, Romania, file 102, dossier 5, Telegram Telegram of Dane Medaković, FPRY Ambassador to Bucharest, sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Belgrade, Confidential, no. 48001, Bucharest, 03/05/1947. 59

Josip Broz Tito, Petru Groza, Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

189

that visit, which ended only a few days before his trip to Belgrade, Groza was most probably “kindly asked” to mediate in a renewal of relations between the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church. That this engagement was sudden is evidenced by the fact that Yugoslav authorities had not contacted the Patriarchate of the Serbian Orthodox Church with a request that Patriarch Gavrilo receive the Romanian Prime Minister before the afternoon of June 8, when Groza had already arrived in Belgrade.63 The next day, Groza was received by Patriarch Gavrilo, to whom he expressed his regrets because of the bad relationships between the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church, due to the “affair of Metropolitan Germogen,” excusing the Romanian Patriarch with old age and bad advisers.64 The Patriarch replied that the Romanian Orthodox Church made a mistake “that cannot be canonically excused in any way whatsoever,” but he proposed that Patriarch Nicodim of Romania should write a letter in which he would justify his act with the “pressure of war,” and with which the Patriarch could come before the Synod and propose a renewal of relations, for which Groza thanked him.65 Such a penitential letter from the Romanian Patriarch in which he referred to coercion by the then Romanian Government to meet the request of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Independent State of Croatia, arrived in Belgrade on August 8, 1947, through which the gate to a renewal of relations between the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church was opened.66 Due to the fact that the text of the future treaty of friendship had not been finally agreed upon during the summit of Tito and Groza in Belgrade, the activities regarding this text were resumed only a few months later, but this time in absolute secrecy. The initiative for a new meeting came from Petru Groza in mid-September. He invited Tito to Romania to go hunting together, but incognito and in the vicinity of the border between the two



DAMSPS, SPA, 1947, file 7, dossier 9, Note on conversation conducted between Bishop Valerijan, Metropolitan Josif and Aleksandar Magarašević, Advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the Partriarchate on June 8, 1947, regarding the visit of Dr Groza to Patriarch Gavrilo, Strictly Confidential, no. 1400, 1. 64 DAMSPS, SPA, 1947, file 7, dossier 9, Note on conversation conducted between the Prime Minister of the Romanian Government and Patriarch Gavrilo at the Patriarchate on June 8, 1947, Confidential, no. 1401, 4. 65 Ibid., 4–5. 66 DAMSPS, PA, 1947, Yugoslavia, file 57, dossier 14, Memo of FPRY Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent to the Patriarchate of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Confidential, no. 414796, Belgrade, 08/08/1947 63

190

Vladimir Lj. C vetković

countries, with the intention of preparing Tito’s official visit to Bucharest.67 In the beginning of October, Tito agreed to visit Romania at the end of that month, which delighted Groza, who told the Yugoslav Ambassador that he would invite his “friends, Romanian communist leaders” to the hunt.68 Groza’s “communist friends,” however, insisted on giving this visit an official character, signing the treaty of friendship on the occasion and organizing an outstanding reception.69 Tito refused that proposal, wanting to come to the hunt “strictly incognito” with the provision that he would discuss the subsequent official visit with Groza on that occasion.70 Finally, in accordance with the program that was kept secret, Tito went for the hunt in Romania between October 24–26, 1947.71 Groza welcomed him ceremonially in Deta, from where they proceeded to Banloc Castle, from which they went hunting in the surrounding grounds, having beforehand allocated particular amounts of time for talks as well. Although the main topics of the talks were the treaty of friendship and the preparation of Tito’s upcoming visit to Romania, Tito and Groza discussed some other topics as well, such as the political fate of Gheorghe Tătărescu. Namely, until his latest meeting with Tito, to the insistence of the RCP Central Committee to have Tătărescu removed politically, Groza replied that Tito told him in Belgrade that it was useful to have Tătărescu in the Government.72 After the secret meeting in Romania, upon hearing Tito’s opinion, Groza agreed to have Tătărescu “eliminated.” The Romanian Central Committee was very happy with the results of Tito’s visit to Romania, primarily because the meeting helped improve relations between the RCP Central Committee and Groza on whom, according to the account of Ana Pauker, General Secretary of RCP, the talks with Tito made such an impression that after them he agreed entirely with the economic and political plans

DAMSPS, SPA, 1947, file 7, dossier 10, Telegram of Dane Medaković, FPRY Ambassador, sent to FPRY Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Confidential, no. 1624, Bucharest, 15/09/1947. 68 DAMSPS, SPA, 1947, file 7, dossier 10, Telegram of Dane Medaković, FPRY Ambassador, sent to FPRY Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Confidential, no. 1632, Bucharest, 03/10/1947. 69 DAMSPS, SPA, 1947, file 7, dossier 10, Telegram of Ranko Zec sent to FPRY Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Confidential, no. 1648, Bucharest, 09/10/1947. 70 DAMSPS, SPA, 1947, file 7, dossier 10, Telegram of Vladimir Velebit sent to FPRY Embassy in Bucharest, Confidential, no. 1651, Belgrade, 10/10/1947. 71 DAMSPS, SPA, 1947, file 7, dossier 10, Telegram of Radonja Golubović, FPRY Ambassador, sent to Vladimir Velebit, Confidential, no. 1722, Bucharest, 19/10/1947. 72 AJ, 507, CK SKJ, IX, 107/1–3, Dispatch no. 66, 27/10/1947. 67

Josip Broz Tito, Petru Groza, Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

191

of the RCP.73 The wait for the results of the secret meeting between Tito and Groza did not last long: already on November 6, the Romanian National Assembly voted for the removal of Tătărescu and his party from Groza’s Government.74 The reconstruction of the Government was performed the next day. The vacant posts in the Government were filled by RCP members— Ana Pauker, who was appointed Minister of Foreign affairs and Vasile Luca, who was appointed Minister of Finance.75 Josip Broz Tito soon went a step further in providing aid to the Communist Party of Romania in establishing control in the country through the Government of Petru Groza. An opportunity for that arose during his official visit to Romania, between December 17–19, 1947. Albeit thoroughly, this visit was also prepared in secrecy. To secure confidentiality, the Yugoslav Embassy in Bucharest even had the invitation notes regarding Tito’s visit printed in Belgrade.76 The con­ spiracy as well as the moment when Tito came to Romania were by no means arbitrary. In coordination with Groza and the RCP, Tito arrived in Romania just at the moment when his support was needed most, i.e. at the time when the final showdown with the monarchy and the multiparty political system began. The opportunity for that was provided by none other than Romanian King Michael, who traveled to the UK with his mother on November 12, 1947, to attend the wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip. He returned to Romania only on December 21.77 In the meantime, it was exactly the visit of the Yugoslav Marshal to Romania that marked the beginning of the end of the Romanian monarchy, which ensued only two weeks later. The absence of King Michel from the country facilitated Tito’s visit to Romania to unfold as if the king did not exist at all. Starting with the border crossing by train at Moravița on December 16, where he was welcomed by Teohari Georgescu, Tito’s visit was a succession of grandiose events, ceremonial meetings, abundant feasts, receptions and



Ibid. Dorin-Liviu Bîtfoi, Petru Groza, ultimul burghez, 391; Andrej Ocetea, Istorija rumunskog naroda [History of Romanian people], (Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1979), 385. 75 DAMSPS, PA, 1947, Romania, file 107, dossier 2, Telegram of Radonja Golubović, FPRY Ambassador, sent to FPRY Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Confidential, no. 422483, Bucharest, 08/11/1947. 76 DAMSPS, SPA, 1947, file 107, dossier 10, Memo of FPRY Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent to the Office of Marshal of Yugoslavia, Strictly Confidential, no. 1738, Belgrade, 26/11/1947. 77 Dennis Deletant, Romania under Communist Rule, 75. 73 74

192

Vladimir Lj. C vetković

awarding decorations.78 He received a ceremonial welcome, without the Romanian anthem though, at the Bucharest railway station, welcomed by Petru Groza and a rally of 200,000 citizens of Bucharest, who were then addressed by both Groza and Tito.79 The visit continued with talks of del­ egations and was finalized on December 19, with the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance between the FPRY and the Kingdom of Romania, signed by Josip Broz Tito and Petru Groza.80 Although it was written in the text that the Treaty was entered into by the Presidium of the National Assembly of the FPRY and the Romanian king, in reality King Michael was not even informed of Tito’s visit to Romania, because Groza had avoided any contact with the king ever since the king had left the country.81 In this way, Tito consciously approved of Groza’s usurpation of the king’s powers, even though it was true that the sides had exchanged their powers of attorney, “found in proper state,” before signing the Treaty.82 Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that Tito could have been so naïve as to believe in the correctness of Groza’s power of attorney, taking into account that King Michael had already been absent from the country for more than a month at that point. Tito’s conscious support of RCP and Groza’s Government could not have been more concrete. However, it could have been more visible, and Tito himself did his best in this regard, using the visit and the rallies in front of large numbers of Romanian citizens, to send the messages that left no doubt on whose side his heart was. In his public addresses in Romania, Tito pledged his entire reputation as a fighter against fascism, his own prestige, and the popularity he enjoyed in Romania in order to support the efforts of RCP and Groza for gaining absolute power in the country. Already during his trip towards Bucharest, in Craiova, Tito addressed the audience with messages of friendship, emphasizing that he came to Romania at the moment when its population “was



Eleodor Focșeneanu, Două săptămâni dramatice din istoria României (17–30 decem­ brie 1947) [Two plays of dramatic from the history of Romania (17–30 December 1947)], (București: Curtea veche, 2014), 11, 14. 79 Ibid., 15–16. 80 DAMSPS, PA, 1948, Romania, file 128, dossier 11, Memo of the Predsedent of FPRY Council of Ministers Josip Broz Tito sent to the Presidium of FPRY National Assembly, Confidential, no. 4235, Belgrade, 24/12/ 1947. 81 Eleodor Focșeneanu, Două săptămâni dramatice, 17. 82 DAMSPS, PA, 1948, Romania, file 128, dossier 11, Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance between the Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia and the Kingdom of Romania, preamble, 1–2. 78

Josip Broz Tito, Petru Groza, Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

193

marching firmly towards consolidating its true people’s democracy.”83 In his other speeches as well, Tito mentioned only the “democratic Romania,” and in his address after signing the Treaty of Friendship he spoke again of the Romanian people as the population that “established its own true democracy.”84 At the ceremonial session of the Romanian National Assembly, Tito addressed the members as representatives of the “new Romanian people’s democracy.”85 In the course of returning from Romania, Tito seized the opportunity to send another important message, this time to the Serbs who lived in Romania. Speaking at the rally in Timișoara, he addressed the Serbs as Romanian citizens telling them that Yugoslavia and Romania were united then, that the border would not play an important role anymore and that he expected from them to “be at the forefront in the building and consolidating of true people’s democracy in Romania.”86 In this way, by making it clear to the Serbs that they were Romanian citizens, Tito put an end to the issue of correction of the Yugoslav-Romanian border, which had been hanging in the air ever since the end of the war. The visit of the Yugoslav Government delegation headed by Tito was undeniably of great importance for the Government of Petru Groza and the RCP, especially with regard to their reputation in the country. However, for a careful observer it could have also indicated the direction in which the events were soon to unfold. Namely, in the entire course of Tito’s visit, the name of Romanian King Michael was never once mentioned, in spite of the fact that he was the head of state. Neither was the Romanian national anthem, in the lycrics of which the king is mentioned, played on any occasion.87 In the wake of Tito’s return from Romania, their National Assembly feverishly worked on changing a number of laws which enabled Petru Groza and Gheorghiu-Dej to force King Michael, under threat of bloodshed and civil war, to abdicate on December 30, 1947, and turn



Поздрав народу у Крајови [Greetings to the people of Krajova], Јосип Броз Тито. Говори и чланци (Загреб: Напријед, 1959), 200. 84 Говор послије потписивања уговора између Југославије и Румуније [Speech after the signing of the agreement between Yugoslavia and Romania], Јосип Броз Тито. Говори и чланци (Загреб: Напријед, 1959), 211. 85 Ријеч на свечаној седници румунског парламента [Speech at the formal session of the Romanian parlament], Јосип Броз Тито. Говори и чланци, (Загреб: Напријед, 1959), 214; Eleodor Focșeneanu, Două săptămâni dramatice, 21. 86 AJ, KMJ, I–1/10, Speech of Marshal Tito in Timișoara on his return to Yugoslavia, without number and date, 2. 87 Eleodor Focșeneanu, Două săptămâni dramatice, 22. 83

194

Vladimir Lj. C vetković

Romania into a people’s democratic republic.88 Through this, the goal of the RCP and the Soviet Union was achieved. Tito’s visit which, together with the signing of the Treaty of Friendship between Yugoslavia and Romania, represented the highest achievement in post-war Yugoslav-Romanian relations, and also proved to have been the last phase of a process that had been going on since 1945. Starting with the summer that year and the first secret meeting between Josip Broz Tito and Petru Groza, several processes unfolded in parallel—from the constant improvement of inter-state relations, and cooperation with the RCP, to establishing personal communication between Tito and Groza. All of them were leading to the final goal: turning Romania into a “people’s democracy,” a single-party state shaped according to the Soviet model, and its inclusion into the so-called “Soviet Bloc” in which Yugoslavia had already taken a prominent place.

Bibliography Archive of Yugoslavia (AJ) Arhiv Jugoslavije: Fond 103, Emigrantska vlada Kraljevine Jugoslavije; Fond 836, Kancelarija maršala Jugoslavije; Fond 507, Savez komunista Jugoslavije. Diplomatic archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia (DAMSPS) Diplomatski arhiv Ministarstva spoljnih poslova Srbije: Politička arhiva (PA); Strogo poverljiva arhiva (SPA). Из дневника посла СССР в Юугославии А. И. Лаврентьева. Запись беседы с Председателем Совета министров маршалом Й. Б. Тито об отправке торговой делегации в Москву, территориальных претензиях Югославии, планах балканской федерации и др., 22 апреля 1946 г. Советский фактор в Восточной Европе 1944– 1953, Том 1: 1944–1948, Документы, Т. В. Волокитина (отв. Редактор), 281. Москва: Росспэн, 1999. Pozdrav narodu u Krajovi [Greetings to people from Krajova]. Josip Broz Tito. Govori i članci, 200. Zagreb: Naprijed, 1959. (cyrilic) Govor poslije potpisivanja ugovora između Jugoslavije i Rumunije [Speech after the signing of the agreement between Yugoslavia and Romania]. Josip Broz Tito. Govori i članci, 211. Zagreb: Naprijed, 1959. (cyrilic) Riječ na svečanoj sednici rumunskog parlamenta [Speech at the formal session of the Romanian parlament]. Josip Broz Tito. Govori i članci, 214. Zagreb: Naprijed, 1959. (cyrilic)

Gheorghe I. Ioniță, Istoria românilor, 85–86; Șerban Rădulescu-Zoner, Daniela Bușe, Beatrice Marinescu, Instaurarea totalitarismului comunist, 287–290; Eleodor Focșeneanu, Două săptămâni dramatice, 22.

88

Josip Broz Tito, Petru Groza, Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

195

Acatrinei, Stela. “Forumul păcii de la Paris (iulie-octombrie 1946)” [Paris Peace Forum (July-October 1946)]. In România în ecuația războiului și păcii (1939–1947). Aspecte și controverse, coord, edited by Gheorghe Buzatu, Stela Acatrinei, Daniel Onişor and Horia Dumitrescu, 171–195. Bucharest: Editura Mica Valahie, 2009. Bîtfoi, Dorin-Liviu. Petru Groza, ultimul burghez: O biografie [Petru Groza, the last bourgeois. Biografy]. Bucharest: Compania, 2004. Bulei, Ion. Brève histoire de la Roumanie [Brief history of Romania]. Bucharest: Meronia, 2005. Buzatu, Gheorghe and Marusia Cîrstea. “Bilanțul prezenței României la Paris” [The balance of Romania’s presence in Paris]. In România în ecuația războiului și păcii (1939–1947). Aspecte și controverse, edited by Gheorghe Buzatu, Stela Acatrinei, Daniel Onişor and Horia Dumitrescu, București: Editura Mica Valahie, 2009. Cerović, Ljubivoje. Srbi u Rumuniji od ranog srednjeg veka do današnjeg vremena [Serbs in Romania from thee early Middle ages to the present day]. Novi Sad: Matica Srpska, 1997. (cyrilic) Cvetković, Vladimir Lj. “Crvena armija na Dunavu, oslobođenje Beograda i težnje Srba iz Rumunije ka prisajedinjenju Jugoslaviji 1944–1945.” [The Red Army on the Danube, the liberation of Belgrade and the aspirations of Serbs from Romania towards the annexation of Yugoslavia in 1944–1945]. In Oslobođenje Beograda 1944. godine, edited by Aleksandar Životić, 168–184. Beograd: Institut za noviju istoriju Srbije, 2010. (cyrilic) Cvetković, Vladimir Lj. “Ekonomski odnosi Jugoslavije i Rumunije 1945–1948. godine“ [Economic relations between Yugoslavia and Romania 1945–1948], Tokovi istorije 1 (2021): 165, 190. Deletant, Dennis. Romania under Communist Rule. Bucharest: Civic Academy Foundation, 2006. Dobrinescu, Valeriu Florin. România și organizarea postbelică a lumii (1945–1947) [Romania and the post-war organizatin of the world (1945–1947)]. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1988. Đuretić, Veselin. Vlada na bespuću: Internacionalizacija jugoslovenskih protivrječnosti na političkoj pozornici Drugog svjetskog rata [The government is on the road: Internationalization of Yugoslav contradictions on the political stage of the Second World War]. Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju, Narodna knjiga, 1982. Focșeneanu, Eleodor. Două săptămâni dramatice din istoria României (17–30 decembrie 1947) [Two dramatic weeks in the history of Romania (December 17–30 1947)]. Bucharest: Curtea veche, 2014. Ionița, Gheorge I. Istoria românilor-de la 23 august 1944 până în prezent [Romanian history from August 23, 1944 to the present]. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 2001. Janjetović, Zoran. “Jugoslovenski Banat 1941. godine” [Yugoslav Banat 1941.]. In Srbi i rat u Jugoslaviji 1941. godine, edited by Dragan Aleksić, 291–317. Beograd: Institut

196

Vladimir Lj. C vetković

za noviju istoriju Srbije, Muzej žrtava genocida, Institut za slavistiku R AN, 2014. (cyrilic) Krempton, Ričard Dž. Balkan posle Drugog svetskog rata [Balkan after Second World War]. Beograd: Klio, 2003. (cyrilic) Lory, Bernard. L’Europe balkanique de 1945 à nos jours [Balkan Europe from the 1945 to the present day]. Paris: Ellipses, 1996. Mikić, Vojislav V. “Vazduhoplovstvo u Aprilskom ratu” [The Air force in the April war]. Vojnoistorijski glasnik 1 (1991): 85–123. Milin, Miodrag and Andrej Milin. Srbi iz Rumunije i jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi. Prilog i građa (1944–1948) [Serbs from Romania and Yugoslav-Romanian relations. Attachment and materials 1944–1948]. Vršac/Timisoara: Viša škola za obrazovanje vaspitača/Univerzitet “Banatului”, 2004. (cyrilic) Milin, Andrej et al., Srbi u Rumuniji za vreme komunizma. Zvučni arhiv i priručnik o stradanju. [Serbs in Romania during communism. Sound archive and manual on suffering]. Timisoara: Savez Srba u Rumuniji, 2011. (cyrilic) Obradović, Marija. “Narodna demokratija” u Jugoslaviji 1945–1952 [People’s democracy in Yugoslavia 1945–1952]. Beograd: Institut za noviju istoriju Srbije, 1995. Ocetea, Andrej. Istorija rumunskog naroda [History of Romanian people]. Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1979. Onișor, Daniel. “Diplomația României și ecuația păcii” [Romanian diplomacy and the peace equation]. In România în ecuația războiului și păcii (1939–1947). Aspecte și controverse, edited by Gheorghe Buzatu, Bucharest: Editura Mica Valahie, 2009. Pavlović, Stevan K. Istorija Balkana 1804–1945 [Balkan history 1804–1945]. Beograd: Clio, 2018. (cyrilic) Pečikan, Ovidiju. Istorija Rumunâ [History of Romanians]. Beograd: Clio, 2015. (cyrilic) Petranović, Branko. “Pitanje granica Jugoslavije prema Mađarskoj i Rumuniji i jugoslovenskih manjina u Mađarskoj i Rumuniji posle Prvog i Drugog svetskog rata (istorijska paralela)” [The question of Yugoslavia’s borders with Hungary and Romania and the Yugoslav minorities in Hungary and Romania after the First and Second World War, historical parallel], Istorijski zapisi, 3 (1986): 107–117. (cyrilic) Petranović, Branko. Istorija Jugoslavije 1918–1988 [Yugoslav history 1918–1988]. Beograd: Nolit, 1988. Petranović, Branko. Srbija u Drugom svetskom ratu 1939–1945 [Serbia in Second World War 1939–1945]. Beograd: Vojnoizdavački i novinski centar, 1992. Petranović Branko and Dautović Sava. Jugoslavija, velike sile i balkanske zemlje, 1945– 1948. Iskustvo “narodne demokratije“ kao partijske države [Yugoslavia, great powers and Balkan countries, 1945–1948. The experience of “people’s democracy” as a party state]. Beograd: Istorijski institut Crne Gore, 1994. Popi, Gligor. Jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi 1918–1941 [Yugoslav-Romanian relations 1918–1941]. Novi Sad: Institut za istoriju Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom Sadu, 1984. Rădulescu-Zoner et. al. Instaurarea totalitarismului comunist în România. Bucharest: Cavallioti, 2002.

Josip Broz Tito, Petru Groza, Yugoslav-Romanian Relations

197

Scurtu, Ioan and Gheorge Buzatu. Istoria românilor în secolul XX (1918–1948) [The history of the Romanians in the XX century]. Bucharest: Paideia, 1999. Stojanov, Pavle. Jugoslovenska nacionalna manjina u Rumuniji [Yugoslav national minority in Romania]. Beograd: Kultura, 1953. Stojanović Aleksandar and Rastko Lompar. “Angažman Nezavisne Države Hrvatske na međunarodnom priznanju Hrvatske pravoslavne crkve 1942–1944.” [Engagement of the independent state of Croatia at the international recognition of the Croatian Orthodox church 1942–1944]. Tokovi istorije, 2 (2019): 35–58. Terzić, Velimir. Slom Kraljevine Jugoslavije 1941. Uzroci i posledice poraza Tom I [The collapse of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1941. Causes and consequences of defeat Part I], Beograd/Ljubljana/Titograd: Narodna knjiga/Partizanska knjiga/Pobjeda, 1982. Terzić, Velimir. Slom Kraljevine Jugoslavije 1941. Uzroci i posledice poraza Tom II [The collapse of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1941. Causes and consequences of defeat Part II], Beograd/Ljubljana/Titograd: Narodna knjiga/Partizanska knjiga/ Pobjeda, 1982. Treptow, Kurt W. A History of Romania. Iași: The Center for Romanian Studies, The Romanian Cultular Foundation, 1996.

Tito’s and Ceauşescu’s Personal Contribution to the Development of Yugoslav-Romanian Cooperation in the Late 1960s and Early 1970s Nemanja M itrović

Bilateral relations between states are predominantly determined by actual state interests. However, a deeper analysis can reveal several other factors, such as a single person’s ability to influence the development or deterioration of relations in a specific sphere. While politicians cannot be the bearers of entire bilateral relations, they can initiate them. As the key figures of their respective states, they can inspire or guide their subordinates towards creating favorable resolutions to interstate issues. Moreover, a politician’s charisma can easily ignite, in principle, the friendly feelings of ordinary people who are in positions to support various interstate relationships. One such instance, in which state leaders played key roles in interstate relationships, occurred between the Serbian-Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito and his Romanian counterpart, Nicolae Ceauşescu, post-World War II. Throughout this chapter I demonstrate the latter’s dependance upon Tito’s mentorship during the first ten years of his leadership and explore key instances of their interactions that led to the creation of significant political, economic, cultural, and militaristic changes that were mutually beneficial for both nations. Initially, ideological disputes between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, which had been a vital factor of rapprochement in the first years after World War II, became the reason for the hostile atmosphere on the YugoslavRomanian border in 1948. The normalization of relations that took place in the years after Stalin’s death could not immediately remove the mistrust and caution that the separation of Tito and Stalin brought to the interactions between Yugoslav and Romanian politicians. However, as will be shown,

200

Nemanja M itrović

difficult times did not substantially jeopardize traditionally good YugoslavRomanian relations. Although Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej (r. 1947–1965) worked tirelessly in the last years of his rule to overcome the geopolitical problems between the nations and develop relations, the actual results followed with the arrival to power of Nicolae Ceauşescu, who created an exceptional bond with Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito. If we look at Tito’s contacts with various world politicians, he noticeably had the most meetings with the Romanian leader during his life.1 From 1965 until Tito died in 1980, they met on as many as 19 occasions.2

A Relationship Built on a Realistic Basis The reasons for these frequent meetings were numerous, and require their own article, but for the purpose of this chapter I will mention only the most important cases. First, for the young Nicolae Ceauşescu, general secretary of the Communist Party of Romania from 1965,3 the advice and experience of a “free spirted” communist leader such as Tito were more than necessary. The path towards independence from the Soviet Bloc on which the Romanian leadership decided, required all kinds of help.4 Yugoslavia, which had suc­ cessfully achieved this path potentially served as a model. Furthermore, Yugoslavia’s position between East and West provided an ideal opportunity for a socialist country like Romania to make more significant contacts throughout the world. For Ceauşescu himself, Tito’s example demonstrated

According to a census kept today in the Archives of Yugoslavia, Josip Broz Tito has left the country 159 times since taking office in 1953, visited 70 countries and met with over 250 foreign heads of state and prime minister. Until his death, he hosted 175 heads of state, 110 prime ministers, about 200 foreign ministers and a huge number of parliamentary and other delegations in Yugoslavia (Archive of Yugoslavia (Serbian: AJ), Cabinet of the President of the Republic (Serbian: KPR), Popis zemalja koje je posetio Josip Broz Tito i prijemi stranih delegacija kod Josip Broza Tita [List of countries visited by Josip Broz Tito and reception of foreign delegations of Josip Broz Tito]. 2 Counting only official meetings and interstate visits and not meetings at interna­ tional gatherings, conferences and sessions. 3 When he was elected secretary-general at 47, Ceauşescu was the youngest party leader elected to the post. 4 Francisko Veiga, “Sličnosti u političkom i društvenom životu Jugoslavije i Rumunije”, u: Balkan posle Drugog svetskog rata, [Similarities in political and social life of Yugoslavia and Romania, in The Balkans after World War II], edited by Petar Kačavenda, Dragan Bogetić, (Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju, 1996), 245–253. 1

Tito and Ceauşescu in Yugoslav-Romanian Cooperation

201

that travel and meetings with foreign politicians were vital for consolidating personal prestige and international affirmation. Summit diplomacy, of which Tito was a supporter, soon became enticing to the Romanian leader, who in every way sought to win the support of the people and the world at large in order to boost his reputation. Unlike other communist representatives, Ceauşescu did not initially have broad popular support because his positions had not previously put him at the forefront of the nation.5 Since revolution­ ary prestige, terror, and foreign support were not sources of strength for him in 1965, Nicolae Ceauşescu resorted to a combination of four political strategies: a policy of compromise and ambiguity within the new collective leadership; personnel manipulation, especially promotions; moves toward the institutionalization of the political process, both in Party and state, and participatory reforms; and populism. The course of independence and antiSoviet politics were the basis of his populism and the key factors that brought Ceauşescu closer to Tito.6 The desire to get Romania out of Moscow’s arms sent Bucharest to the countries of the West, as well as to the third world. For Ceauşescu, the support of non-engaged countries, primarily at the United Nations, was sorely needed.7 Tito, as the uncrowned leader of the non-aligned, could therefore play a significant role. Relying on his excellent relations with Tito, Ceauşescu began to “court” the non-aligned, especially beginning in 1973.8 In addition to political benefits, the third world was viewed as a large economic market for both Romania and Yugoslavia. Consequently, Romanian producers, uncompetitive in the Western market, saw their opportunity in African, Asian and South American countries and their markets.9 Thus, Tito was Ceauşescu’s



Three of the most important bases of power used by leaders of communist parties have been revolutionary prestige as the leader of the revolution, violence, and foreign support. Ceauşescu certainly could not use Soviet support to implement his policies, for, by that time, he firmly established the independent course in foreign policy, and Romania began to be seen in the world as a possible “dissident” in a Soviet camp. Adam Burakowski, Dictatura lui Nicolae Ceauşescu (1965–1989) (Bucureşti: Editura Polirom, 2011), 139. 6 Mary Ellen Fischer, Nicolae Ceauşescu and the Romanian Political Leader­­ ship: Nationalisation and Personalisation of Power (Harvard: Harvard College, 1983), 14. 7 Jadranka Jovanović, Jugoslavija u Organizaciji Ujedinjenih nacija: 1945–1953 [Yugoslavia in United Nations; 1945–1953] (Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju, 1985), 36–38. 8 Lavinia Betea, Florin-Răzvan Mihai, llarion Ţiu, Viața lui Ceaușsecu [Ceauşescu’s life] (Târgovişte: Cetatea de Scaun, 2015), 118. 9 Colin W. Lawson, “National Independence and Reciprocal Advantages: The Political Economy of Romanian-South Relations”, Soviet Studies, 35, no. 3 (1983): 362–375. 5

202

Nemanja M itrović

role model in foreign policy, a valuable adviser in anti-Soviet policy, and an essential mediator in Romania’s penetration into third world economies. Yet, how did Tito view this neighboring country and its leader? Initially, in 1962, with early indications of Dej’s illness (cancer), as there was talk in diplomatic circles of a specific divide among the Romanian leadership itself with one part leaning towards the progressive First Deputy Prime Minister Gheorghe Apostol, and the other towards Ceauşescu, the organizational secretary of the Romanian Workers’ Party, and a pillar of old forms,10 there was fear in Yugoslavia that the arrival of Nicolae Ceauşescu to power would cause notable deterioration in relations.11 Therefore, to prevent such a development, Ceauşescu was treated warmly and given great attention by the Yugoslav representatives during his passage through Yugoslavia in 1963. Moreover, when Ceauşescu came to power, the other leaders of the Romanian Party knew little about his life and for them, he existed only within the framework of party functioning. Silviu Brucan notes that even as late as “1965, Romania was ruled by a perfect party apparatchik visible only within the service.”12 In other words, the world and most Romanians, did not initially pay much attention to him.13 Conversely, the biographical data collected by the Yugoslav Embassy in Bucharest that was being used as material for relationship building, beginning with the hospitality offered to him on his visit to Yugoslavia in 1963, was impressive. Ceauşescu remembered the way he had been treated abroad, and because of it, he venerated Yugoslavia and its leadership more.14 Additionally, Ceauşescu’s continuance of Dej’s policy of liberalization, maintenance of an independent course, and especially his defiance of Moscow further encouraged Tito’s interest in the eastern neighbor. For Tito, good relations and close contacts with representatives of the Romanian government were a crucial window into the Eastern Bloc for timely





Diplomatic archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia (Serbian: DAMSPS), Political Archive (Serbian: PA), 1963, Rumunija, fol. 113, doc. 42411, Odnosi Jugoslavija–Rumunija u toku 1962. i perspektive za 1963. [Yugoslavia Romania relations during 1962 and perspectives for 1963], 4. 11 DAMSPS, PA, 1963, Rumunija, fol. 114, doc. 44307, Telegram iz Bukurešta od 05. 02. 1963 [Telegram from Bucharest], 1. 12 Silviu Brucan, The Wested Generation: Memoirs of the Romanian Journey from Capitalism to Socialism and Back (Boulder: Westview Press, 1993), 100–103. 13 Martyn Rady, Romania in Turmoil: A Contemporary History (London: IB Tauris, 1992), 39; Nemanja Mitrović, Tito–Čaušesku: godine zbližavanja [Tito– Ceauşescu: years of rapprochement] (Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju, 2020), 36. 14 DAMSPS, PA, 1963, Rumunija, fol. 114, doc. 428669, Telegram iz Bukurešta od 29. 08. 1963 [Telegram from Bucharest], 1. 10

Tito and Ceauşescu in Yugoslav-Romanian Cooperation

203

information on politics, developments and relations within it. In short, Tito viewed Ceauşescu, with his signs of independence from Moscow, as a means to potentially strengthen Yugoslavia’s position on the world stage and be seen as a country that could attract other communist countries through its example and thus shake the monolithic nature of the Bloc.

Frequent Encounters to Political Rapprochement When analyzing the personal contributions of these two executives, it should be noted that both built their cults by identifying themselves with the state and the Party. Under the principle “L’état c’est moi”, they represented state interests as their own and vice versa. Therefore, their relationship was a mixture of their personal and public personas.15 The meetings of the highest level were organized with ease. Both leaders, Tito and Ceauşescu, were supporters of summit diplomacy. Based on their political activities, it can be argued that they took to heart Roosevelt’s opinion that any agreement could be reached through talks. Both sides were ready to openly exchange opinions on and perceptions of bilateral and international problems.16 Tito’s engagement at the international level was so great that the successes or mistakes of Yugoslav diplomacy were almost entirely attributed to him. Therefore, there was a common consensus that good relations with foreign politicians resulted exclusively from Tito’s efforts.17 Ceauşescu’s personality was directly related to Romania’s struggle for equal relations between the socialist countries and a more independent policy concerning the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Ambitions to achieve a more modern and independent Romania in a short period sometimes clashed with the country’s actual capabilities.18 The Romanian leader, like his Yugoslavian counterpart, aspired to hold foreign policy more firmly in his hands over time, but also like Tito, he was willing to accept the advice of more experienced associates and diplomats, at least in the first years of his

Vladimir Tismăneanu, “What Was National Stalinism?”, in: The Oxford Handbook of Postwar European History, edited by Dan Stone (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 462–479. 16 Wiliam E. Leuchtenburg, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal (New York: Harper and Row Publisher, 2009), 212. 17 More about the role of Josip Broz Tito in Yugoslav diplomacy in: Vladimir Petrović, Titova lična diplomatija [Tito’s personal diplomacy] (Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju, 2010). 18 Dennis Deletant, Romania under Communism Paradox and Degeneration (New York: Routledge, 2019), 282. 15

204

Nemanja M itrović

rule. Such people significantly influenced Tito and Ceauşescu in formulating their respective foreign policies. All of them advised that it was in the interest of both countries to have good relations.19 Accordingly, in the interest of maintaining cooperative relations, a series of high-level meetings between Tito and Ceauşescu transpired in order to explore solutions to mutual problems. The year that stands out for the number of such meetings is 1968. That year revealed that foreign policy was also essential for the development of Yugoslav-Romanian relations. The meetings and talks between President Tito and Ceauşescu helped clarify the positions of the two countries, while strengthening trust and looking at further opportunities for cooperation in the bilateral and foreign policy spheres.20 Both countries expressed a desire to participate in solving global problems and mediate in resolving notable crises, so when numerous global issues escalated in the late 1960s, they became opportunities for small states, such as Romania and Yugoslavia, to stand out on their own on the big political stage. As Mari Žanin Čalić notes, “Southeast Europe was not only the scene of block confrontation itself, but it was also intertwined in various ways with other cold war hotspots, Asia and the Middle East,”21 which was most likely the primary motive for closer contact between Tito and Ceauşescu in that period. In the turbulent year of 1968, Nicolae Ceauşescu came to Yugoslavia three times. The first in that series was an unofficial visit and hunting expedition at the Tikveš farm in Belje from 3 to 5 January. I should stress that this was his first visit to Yugoslavia as the Secretary-General and President of the State Council.22 The main reason for the visit was so that through summit diplo­ macy the two leaders could overcome the rift created by differing perceptions

For Ceauşescu, that was Jon George Maurer, and for Tito, Konstantin Koca Popovic (DAMSPS, PA, 1968, Rumunija fol. 157, doc. 419232, Podaci o Čaušeskuu, Maureru i drugim rumunskim rukovodiocima [Information on Ceauşescu, Maurer and other romanian leaders], 5; Aleksandar Nenadović, Mirko Tepavac: sećanja i komentari [Mirko Tepavac: memories and comments] (Beograd: Radio B92, 1998), 59–65. 20 Nemanja Mitrović, “Međunarodni problemi posmatrani kroz razgovore Josipa Broza Tita i Nikolae Čaušeskua tokom 1968. godine” [International problems observed trough the talks between Josip Broz Tito and Nicolae Ceauşescu during 1968], Istorija 20. veka 1 (2020): 129–146. 21 Mari Žanin Čalić, Jugoistočna Evropa: globalna historija [South-Eastern Europe: global history] (Sarajevo: Udruženje za modernu historiju, 2020), 446. 22 With the exception of Nicolae Ceauşescu’s passage through Yugoslavia in 1962, this was the Romanian leader’s second visit to Yugoslavia. The first visit was when he came as the head of the Romanian delegation at the Eighth Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia held in December 1964. (AJ, KPR, I-3-a/9720, Podsetnik za razgovore Predsednika Republike sa generalnim sekretarom RKP i predsednikom Državnog saveta SR Rumunije Nikolae Čaušeskom [Reminder for the 19

Tito and Ceauşescu in Yugoslav-Romanian Cooperation

205

of the crisis in the Middle East, which had arisen in 1967. Romania was the only communist country that maintained diplomatic relations with Israel after the Six-Day War (June 5–11, 1967) and even expanded the scope of cooperation. The friendly relations between Romania and Israel can also be interpreted through the Romanian aspiration to emphasize an independent position at every opportunity. The Middle East crisis was one of the most critical international issues, and that is where Romania especially wanted to underline its independence. Objectively speaking, Ceauşescu did not have any particular interest in the Middle East. Romania did have relatively good commercial relations there, but its political interests were somewhat limited.23 On the other hand, the crisis was of great political importance for Yugoslavia because of Tito’s most significant ally among the non-aligned—Egypt and Gamal Abdel Nasser. Predictions that the fall of Nasser would drastically worsen the position of the movement and its reputation in the world, as well as awareness that only the Soviet Union could provide the necessary help to the Arab countries, influenced Tito to approach Moscow.24 Yugoslavia’s attachment to the Bloc was most evident during Tito’s participation in the summits in Moscow on June 9, Budapest on July 11, and later conferences in Belgrade and Warsaw, where the leaders in attendance formed and adopted a joint strategy to combat imperialism.25 The Conference of Leaders of Communist and Workers’ Parties and Governments of Socialist Countries, held in Moscow during the Six-Day War, was crucial for Tito–Ceauşescu relations. At it, the communist parties agreed with Tito’s emergency program for Arab countries. All parties signed the joint communiqués except Romania. Tito was frustrated by the fact that Ceauşescu ignored the danger of imperialism for personal gain. It was precisely this difference in views, along with Romania’s decision not to sign the joint declaration condemning Israel’s attack on Arab countries that led to the two leaders’ distancing.26



talks of the President of the Republic with the General Secretary of the RCP and the President of the State Council of the SR of Romania Nicolae Ceaușescu], 22. 23 Cezar Stanciu, “Romania and the Six-Day War”, Middle Eastern Studies, 50, no. 5 (2014), 775–795. 24 More in: Dragan Bogetić, Aleksandar Životić, Jugoslavija i arapsko-izraelski rat 1967 [Yugoslavia and Arab Israeli war 1967] (Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju, 2010). 25 Dragan Bogetić, Jugoslovensko-američki odnosi 1961–1971 [Yugolav-American rela­ tions 1961–1971] (Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju 2012), 12–17. 26 AJ, KPR, I-2/33, Beleška sa Savetovanja rukovodilaca KP i šefova socijalističkih zemalja, održanog u Moskvi 9. i 10. juna 1967. godine [Notes on the consultation of

206

Nemanja M itrović

The opportunity to improve relations appeared during the January visit in Belje. Aware that cold relations with Tito were not in his favor, Ceauşescu tried to circumvent the crisis in the Middle East as well as Israel’s conflict with Arab countries by tying them to the past. In other words, he had not changed his mind.27 There were differing opinions about which side was to blame for the outbreak of the conflict, with Nicolae Ceauşescu believing that the Arabs were to blame since statements such as “we will destroy Israel” provoked Israel to attack Egypt and Syria, while Tito, on the other hand, considered the United States the main culprit of the Six-Day War.28 Although they both maintained their respective positions, in the breaks between wild boar hunting, the trip allowed the two leaders to discuss bilateral and international issues,29 and bridge the gap that had previously formed. More importantly, time had rendered the Arab-Israeli war no longer a hindrance for cooperation. Apart from the Middle East question, there was also discourse on the Vietnam War, European security, China, advising communist parties, and relations between Yugoslavia and Romania with economic organizations like the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) and the Common European Market.30 During the stay, Ceauşescu reiterated his desire for relations with Yugoslavia to be at the highest possible level and serve as an example of successful cooperation. However, to achieve this, much work and commitment were needed, especially in the economic sphere. As part of his orientation for fuller emancipation and independent policies, Ceauşescu used the hunt in Tikveš to underline a long-term interest in developing versatile cooperation with Yugoslavia and to further affirm his country internationally.





the coordinators of CP and leaders of socialist countries, held in Moskow on June 9 and 10, 1967]. 27 AJ, KPR, I-3-a/97-20, doc. 1226/8, Stenogramske beleške sa razgovora vođenih na Belju između Predsednika SFRJ i Predsednika SKJ Josipa Broza Tita i generalnog sekretara KP Rumunije i predsednika Državnog saveta Socijalističke Republike Rumunije Nikolae Čaušeskua dana 3. januara 1968. u 10 časova [Shorthand notes from the talks held in Belje between the President of the SFRY and the President of the SKJ Josip Broz Tito and the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Romania and the President of the State Council of the Socialist Republic of Romania Nicolae Ceauşescu on January 3, 1968, at 10 a.m.]. 28 D. Bogetić, Yugoslav-American relations 1961–1971, 244–245. 29 Danilo Todorović, Tito–lov–politika [Tito–hunting–politics] (Beograd: Službeni glasnik, 2010), 155–159. 30 DAMSPS, PA, 1968, Rumunija, fol. 157, doc. 4721, Poseta Nikolae Čaušeskua Jugoslaviji – kabinet Babića [Nicolae Ceauşescu’s visit to Yugoslavia – Cabinet of Babić], 11. 1. 1968.

Tito and Ceauşescu in Yugoslav-Romanian Cooperation

207

After Ceauşescu’s conversation with Tito, a positive evolution was noticeable in some Romanian attitudes, such as cooperation with progressive and democratic movements in maintaining peace and developing relations. Romania’s effort to be more resilient in relations with the Soviet Union was also noted.31 Finally, the exchange of ideas during the three days in Belje improved relations between the two leaders and served as the impetus for developing bilateral relations.32

Crisis in Czechoslovakia, a Factor of Rapprochement Ceauşescu’s other two visits in 1968—the first from May 27 to June 1, which was his first official visit to a foreign country as the head of the Party and state, and later, a one-day consultation on August 24 in Vršac—were partly the products of the events in Czechoslovakia. Unlike in the previous year, when the issue of the Middle East was a point of contention between the two countries, the Czechoslovak crisis was a factor of rapprochement.33 During the official visit, the two sides underscored the importance of further improving cooperation in economy, culture, science, tourism and preserving good political relations, with both sides confirming good relations and manifesting enthusiasm for further positive developments of cooperation.34 On the international scale, Romania wanted to be informed about Yugoslavia’s views on the non-aligned movement, Tito’s new intelligence gathered during his months-long travels in Asia and Africa, and especially about the talks held in Moscow with Brezhnev. On the other side, Tito was concerned with the situation of the Warsaw Pact and the CMEA. He wanted more first-hand knowledge about the reactions of the Soviet Union and other countries to Romania’s countering and emphasis on its own position. The Yugoslav delegation also showed great interest in De Gaulle’s visit to Romania.35 Overall, the interlocutors confirmed their determination to expand “all types of foreign policy cooperation, preservation of peace, affirmation and strengthening

DAMSPS, PA, 1968, Rumunija, fol. 157, doc. 41984, Šandru i drugi funkcioneri MIP-a o susretu na Belju [Șandru and other members of the MFA on the meeting at Belje], 15. 1. 1968. 32 DAMSPS, PA, 1968, Rumunija, fol. 155, doc. 42281, Pisanje rumunske štampe [Writing of Romanian press], 1–15 januar 1968, 15. 1. 1968. 33 AJ, KPR, I-3-a/97-21, Zabeleške o razgovorima [Notes on conversations]. 34 DAMSPS, PA, 1968, Rumunija, fol. 155, doc. 415896, Materijal u vezi zvanične posete Čaušeskua Jugoslaviji [Material about official visit of Ceausecu in Yugoslavia], 26. 6. 1968. 35 Zoran Milošević, Anatomija rumunske politike [Anatomy of Romanian politics] (Šabac: Centar akademske reči, 2017), 83. 31

208

Nemanja M itrović

of socialism.” The standard position of consistent respect in international relations for the principles of national sovereignty and independence, as well as equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries were emphasized. These principles were seriously tested very shortly.36 The Prague Spring was carefully monitored and analyzed in Bucharest and Belgrade. Ceauşescu received confirmation from Tito that Soviet leaders perceived the events in Czechoslovakia as very dramatic and dangerous. Unlike Leonid Brezhnev, Tito believed that the reforms in Czechoslovakia were taking place under the control of the Party and that the process was therefore not a danger to socialism in Czechoslovakia, but its further development. Tito’s support for Dubcek caused an avalanche of attacks by the Soviet leadership on Yugoslavia.37 Like Tito, Ceauşescu understood the processes in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic as consolidating the achievements of the revolution and contributing to the development of socialism. He assessed that the reform carried out by the Czechoslovak leadership would not affect relations with the camp countries.38 However, soon after the visit, it became clear that Moscow would not allow the successful implementation of reforms and liberalization in Czechoslovakia. The deterioration of Yugoslav-Soviet relations was caused by the Soviet military intervention in Czechoslovakia which was reminiscent of the previous intervention in Hungary. Yugoslavia assessed the latter as a “necessary evil” but the former as a “violent act and occupation.” Belgrade’s foreign policymakers examined some basic principles in the example of Czechoslovakia. The League of Communists of Yugoslavia’s (LCY) Central Committee reiterated the importance of non-interference in the internal affairs of another country. As a sign of support for the new Czechoslovak leadership, Tito visited Prague. With this visit, on August 9–10, coinciding with the intervention, Yugoslavia decided to maintain its foreign policy orientation and preserve its international position and reputation at the cost of the conflict with the USSR.39



AJ, KPR, I-3-a/97-21, Zabeleške o razgovorima [Notes on conversations]. Ibid. 38 Ljubodrag Dimić, Jugoslavija i Hladni rat [Yugoslavia and cold War] (Beograd, 2012), 327–329. 39 Dragan Bogetić, “Jugoslovensko-sovjetski odnosi u svetlu vojne intervencije u Čehoslovačkoj” [Yugoslav-Soviet relations in the light of military intervention in Czechoslovakia], in: 1968 – četrdeset godina posle, edited by Radmila Radić, Ljubodrag Dimić, Milan Ristović, Dragan Bogetić, and Aleksandar Životić (Beogra: Institut za noviju istoriju Srbije, 2008), 129–162. 36 37

Tito and Ceauşescu in Yugoslav-Romanian Cooperation

209

Romania, like Yugoslavia, expressed full support for the Czechoslovak leadership. Several days after Tito, between August 15 and 17, the Romanian delegation visited Prague.40 During Ceauşescu’s stay on August 16, an agree­ ment on friendship and mutual assistance was signed between Czechoslovakia and Romania. The treaty emphasized, in particular, the principle of inviolability of borders in Europe, the right to independence, sovereignty and non-interference in the affairs of any country.41 The Soviets assessed the arrival of the two leaders in Prague within such a short span of time as a potential establishment of an alliance—the Little Entente. Polish leader Vladimir Gomulka understood ties between Belgrade, Bucharest and Prague as an aspiration to move closer to the West and pursue a common policy towards the Eastern Bloc.42 Although Tito and Ceauşescu closely monitored the developments and were well informed,43 the Czechoslovakian intervention by the five Warsaw Pact countries came as a shocking surprise to the Yugoslav and Romanian leaders.44 Military units from the USSR, East Germany, Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria entered Czechoslovakian territory on the night between August 20 and 21. Members of the Politburo of Communist Party of Czechoslovakia were arrested and, in chains, transferred by plane to Moscow. Under pressure, they had to sign an agreement with the USSR on the residency of Soviet





“Stenographic transcript of a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Central Committee of the Romanian Communist Party”, August 17, 1968, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, ANIC, RCPCC, Chancellery, folder 131/1968,4–10. Translated for PHP and CWIHP by Viorel Buta. http://dig​ital​ arch​ive.wil​son-cen​ter.org/docum​ent/112​0 49 (accessed September 29, 2020). 41 Politika, “Ugovor savremenog tipa” [Contract of modern type], 16. 8. 1968, 3. 42 Ashby Crowder, Legacies of 1968: Autonomy and repression in Ceauşescu’s Romania, 1965–1989 (Ohio: Ohio University, 2007), 60. 43 Petrescu concluded that the Romanian leadership was thoroughly acquainted with and aware of the “Prague Spring” aspects based on archival material and secret documentation. Tito also knew that Moscow would not allow the Bloc to weaken with the emergence of liberal currents among the members of the Warsaw Pact. See: Dragoş Petrescu, “Continuity, Legitimacy and Identity: Understanding the Romanian August of 1968”, Cuadernos de Historia Contemporanea, 31 (2009): 69–88. 44 Moscow finally decided on the intervention after announcing an appeal to the people in June, known as the “Two Thousand Words” manifesto. What seemed to frighten the Soviet leadership the most was creating an independent socialist movement that would oppose the Warsaw Bloc. The Romanian press gave additional confirmation that this danger was tangible, which portrayed Romania and Czechoslovakia as two allies in the joint struggle for independence from Moscow. See: Mihai Retegan, In the Shadow of the Prague Spring: Romanian Foreign Policy and the Crisis in Czechoslovakia, 1968 (Bucharest: Center for Romanian Studies, 2000), 60. 40

210

Nemanja M itrović

troops in Czechoslovakian territory and pledge to reintroduce censorship and abolish all reforms.45 After legalizing Soviet troops in Czechoslovakia, Romania remained the only Warsaw Pact country that did not have a single Red Army unit within its territory.46 Driven by the moment, Ceauşescu and Tito condemned the intervention very sharply only a few hours later. The first addresses by the two statesmen to the people regarding the intervention were very critical of Moscow. Thus, the scene of Ceauşescu’s speech from the balcony was remembered as heroic and frequently compared to the biblical story of David and Goliath, with August 21 subsequently being remembered as the day when “Romanian David defied Soviet Goliath.”47 During one of the most notable Cold War crises, Yugoslav-Romanian relations had only one topic—defense against a possible attack. Due to the proximity of the USSR and membership in the Warsaw Pact, Romania feared aggression much more than Yugoslavia. For Josip Broz, the Czechoslovak crisis was more of a challenge for the already established foreign policy orientation, so he tried to condemn the intervention in this country, but not to break all relations with the Soviet Union because of it. Romania’s nonparticipation in the intervention was the greatest point of rupture from the Soviet Union, other members of the Warsaw Pact and the CMEA. It was at this time the ultimate goal of Romania’s policy to distance itself from the USSR, but also to reinforce relations with Yugoslavia, a country that had been living an unattainable dream for Romania for the last 20 years—to forge an independent path to socialism.48 Immediately after the occupation of Czechoslovakia, Ceauşescu demanded an urgent meeting with Tito, either on Romanian or Yugoslav soil.49 With the intervention in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, for the first time



Mihail Geler, Aleksandar Nekrič, Utopija na vlasti: Istorija Sovjetskog Saveza [Utopia on power: History of Soviet Union] (Podgorica: CID, 2000), 583–586; Mark Kurlansky, 1968 – godina koja je uzdrmala svijet [1968: The Year That Rocked the World] (Zagreb: Naknada Ljevak, 2007), 366–369. 46 AJ, Telegraphic Agency of New Yugoslavia (Serbian: TANJUG), 112, fol. 742, br. 944, Komunističke zemlje posle čehoslovačke krize [Communist countries after Czechoslovakian crises], 10. 3. 1969. 47 Vladimir Tismaneanu, Promises of 1968: Crisis, Illusion and Utopia (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2011), 258. 48 Vladimir Lj. Cvetković, “Jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi u danima sovjetske inter­ vencije u Čehoslovačkoj 1968. godine” [Yugoslav–Romanian relations in the days of Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia], in 1968 — četrdeset godina posle, 163–181. 49 AJ, KPR, I-3-a/97-22, Poseta predsednika Državnog saveta NR Rumunije i gener­ alnog sekretara KPR Nikolae Čaušeskua [Visit of the President of the State Council 45

Tito and Ceauşescu in Yugoslav-Romanian Cooperation

211

Romania found itself directly faced with the danger of a similar action by the USSR. The Romanian leader had repeatedly stressed that Romania and Yugoslavia would be much stronger, which would have been a concern to the USSR. Yugoslav Ambassador to Bucharest, Jakša Petrić, assessed such rhetoric as Romania’s intention to strengthen its position.50 The great danger that loomed over Romania, but also Yugoslavia, influenced the search for allies; consequently, they saw each other as the closest allies against a possible military intervention.51 In a problematic atmosphere of anticipation and uncertainty of a possible Soviet attack, Josip Broz Tito and Nicolae Ceauşescu soon met in Vršac on August 24, 1968. Yugoslav leadership initially proposed the Brioni Islands as the meeting place, but Ceauşescu insisted to meet as close as possible to the border so the Soviet Union could not use his absence for a possible attack.52 At the beginning of the conversation, the two statesmen introduced each other to their parties’ and governments’ unique and principled positions on the intervention. Ceauşescu spoke about the decisions of the plenum of the Romanian Communist Party (RCP) and the declaration of the Grand National Assembly, condemning the occupation and the need to take measures, including those to ensure independence and territorial integrity.53 Romania considered that “the Soviet leadership took an adventurous path, not paying attention to the interests of socialism at all.” The Yugoslav leadership considered the Soviet reason for the intervention, an alleged danger from the West, completely unfounded.54 Tito advised a Romanian delegation, consisting of Emil Bodnăraș, Vice President of the State Council, Vasile Sandru, Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Romanian Ambassador in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) Aurel Malnasan, not to undertake any action that could





SR Romania and Secretary General of CPR of Nicolae Ceauşescu], 24. avgust 1968. godine. 50 DAMSPS, PA, 1968, Regionalno, fol. 147, doc. 43331, Telegram ambasadora J. Petrića DSIP-u [Telegram from Ambassador J. Petrić to DSIP], 23. avgust 1968. 51 DAMSPS, PA, 1968, Rumunija, fol. 156, doc. 431474, Deklaracija Velike narodne skupštine Socijalističke Republike Rumunije od 22. avgusta 1968 [Declaration of the National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Romania, date 22nd August 1968], 30. 8. 1968. 52 AJ, KPR, I-3-a/97-22, doc. 274/34, Razgovor rumunskog ambasadora sa Mišom Pavićevićem [Conversation of Romanian ambassador with Miša Pavićević]. 53 AJ, KPR, I-3-a/97-22, Zabeleške o razgovorima Tita i Čaušeskua [Notes on conver­ sations between Tito and Ceauşescu], 24, avgust 1968. 54 AJ, KPR, I-3-a/97-22, Informacije o razgovorima Tito–Čaušesku [Information on Tito-Ceauşescu conversations].

212

Nemanja M itrović

serve as an occasion for the other party to intervene. “Moscow is most bothered when socialist countries and their parties embark on their path to socialism. That is why the USSR cannot reconcile with the policy of Yugoslavia, but also with the political direction that Romania followed. Both countries should act calmly but decisively, making every necessary preparation to defend their independent path,” Tito counseled.55 The main question with which the Romanians came to Vršac was not posed by Ceauşescu but by Bodnăraș. He asserted that in the event of an attack, Romania was vulnerable to enemy assaults from three sides and that the only safe border would be with Yugoslavia. “What kind of help can Romania count on from Yugoslavia, and is it possible to have an open corridor from Timișoara to Turn Severin?” was Bodnăraș’ question. This corridor was vital for Romania because it would be the only direction for its supply of weapons and other war materials in the event of an attack. With the closure of the Black Sea, Romania could only be supplied through Yugoslavia. However, Tito was not prepared to give the Soviets a reason to attack his country by cooperating with the Romanian army.56 Belgrade was not ready to come to Bucharest’s aid at any cost. Ceauşescu failed to extract concrete military aid from Tito in the event of Soviet intervention. The only thing the Yugoslav president could promise was the cooperation of the intelligence services and that Yugoslavia would not allow the attack on Romania to come through Yugoslav territory. The most important result of this meeting was the conclusion that calming the situation would be the only favorable solution to the crisis. After the meeting, the two countries significantly reduced the intensity of criticism directed at Soviet policy. Romania’s much more moderate stance was not only the result of the talks in Vršac but also of tremendous Soviet pressure (aimed at bringing it into a position of subservience), as well as the fact that the West had come to terms that it was under Soviet influence.57 Romania retained membership in the Warsaw Pact and continued to belong to the socialist community despite highlighting its unique standing. Hoping to be led to independence and freedom, the Romanian people initially followed their “1968 hero,” and even after he fell from favor, they reluctantly continued to do so—until December 1989.58 AJ, KPR, I-3-a/97-22, Zabeleške o razgovorima Tita i Čaušeskua [Notes on conver­ sation between Tito and Ceauşescu], 24. avgust 1968. 56 Ibid, 35. 57 Džon L. Gedis, Hladni rat [Cold War] (Beograd: Klio, 2003), 83; John Lewis Gaddis, “On Moral Equivalency and Cold War History”, Ethnics and International Affairs, 10 (Cambridge, 1996): 131–148. 58 Ştefan Borbély, “The Year 1968 in Romania and Two Literary Aftershocks”, Caietele Echinox, 30 (2016): 271–283.

55

Tito and Ceauşescu in Yugoslav-Romanian Cooperation

213

After the August crisis of 1968, Romania maintained a high degree of mutual political understanding with an orientation towards development and further improvement of comprehensive cooperation with the SFRY.59 Since Ceauşescu came to power, relations with Yugoslavia had become very important. By the end of 1970, there were three more meetings between the two statesmen—the first in February in Timişoara, which was important for continuing the dialogue after the meeting in Vršac, the second in September 1969 in Djerdap, and the third one in November 1970. The talks held on February 1 and 2, 1969, in Timişoara showed that Romania was ready to normalize and reduce tensions with the Soviet Union, but only on the principle of equal relations. Yugoslavia’s support was crucial in defending such views.60 On the other hand, full support for Romania’s efforts to preserve independence and sovereignty was in Yugoslavia’s interest, and contributed to strengthening its international position while affirming Yugoslavia’s cooperation policy on the principles of respect for independence and sovereignty with other socialist countries.61 The joint appearance of Tito and Ceauşescu was especially noticeable when the USSR was trying to diminish or eliminate the individuality of socialist countries and put pressure on them to achieve military, political and economic integration within the Bloc.62 Romania had sharpened its stance on Moscow’s pressure by condemning the

AJ, KPR, I-2/40, Informacija za posetu SR Rumuniji, Stanje odnosa SFRJ sa SSSR i drugim istočno-evropskim socijalističkim zemljama, januar 1969 [Information on the visit to the SR Romania. Current situation of SFRY with SSSR and other eastern European socialist countries. January 1969]. 60 Domestic and foreign newspapers closely followed the meeting of the Yugoslav and Romanian leaders, which came five months after the intervention in Czechoslovakia. Scântea tineretului characterized the visit as “an example of broad and fruitful friendly cooperation in the spirit of mutual respect, trust and equality based on independence, national sovereignty and mutual assistance and mutual benefit.” When Romanian officials began to feel an inevitable depression regarding further opposition to Soviet pressure, the arrival of Josip Broz Tito had a positive effect on political factors and the Romanian people. The Turkish Ambassador saw the issue of holding the Warsaw Pact maneuver on Romanian territory as the reason for the meeting, which was of great interest to Turkey (Borba, “Važan trenutak o susretu, Rumunska štampa o susretu Tito–Čaušesku” [Important note on the encounter, Romanian press on the meeting Tito-Ceauşescu], 5. 2. 1969, 1; DAMSPS, PA, 1969, Rumunija, fol. 129, doc. 46523, Šifrovani telegram [Coded telegram], Ankara, br. 47, 20. 2. 1969). 61 AJ, KPR, I-2/40, Informacija u vezi posete Predsednika Republike SR Rumuniji [Information about the visit of the President of SFRY to SR Romania], 31. 1. 1969. 62 AJ, KPR, I-2/41, Informacija o poseti Predsednika SFRJ SR Rumuniji [Information about the visit of the President of SFRY to SR Romania] (1. i 2. februara 1969), br. 446487, 12. 2. 1969. 59

214

Nemanja M itrović

Soviet doctrine of limited sovereignty and opposing joint maneuvers.63 After the meeting with Tito, Ceauşescu placed greater emphasis on the principles of independent politics, economy and military, to show the limits of how much he would be willing to give in for the sake of normalizing relations with the Soviet Union. At the same time, moving away from Moscow meant getting closer to Belgrade.

Djerdap as the Crown of the Relationship The decision to start a grandiose project like Djerdap (Iron Gate)64 was another of Romania’s manifestations of independence. While Dej’s earlier visits to Yugoslavia were a clear sign of Romania’s desire to connect with countries outside the Bloc, and Yugoslavia served as an ideal candidate due to its proximity to the West,65 it was the completion of one of the essen­ tial phases of the construction of the Djerdap hydropower and navigation system—the partitioning of the Danube in September 1969—that once again brought the highest officials of Yugoslavia and Romania together. At that point, workers had completed 80% of the project; only the installation of equipment remained.66 The meeting of the two presidents took place on September 20, right in the middle of the dam, after which the delegations had the opportunity to see and get information about the works. On the Romanian side of the system, Tito and Ceauşescu were particularly interested in a ship-lock which worked, although the system was unfinished.67 At this meeting, Ceauşescu underlined the importance of the hydroelectric power plant (HPP) for strengthening the



Ibid. The Yugoslav-Romanian hydroelectric power plant “Djerdap-Portile de Fier” has a capacity of 2,100 megawatts with an average annual electricity production of 10.3 billion kilowatt-hours, which put the system in fifth place in the world in terms of production at the time of construction. Djerdap is equal in strength with the Aswan Dam, but it has a higher production output. HPP Djerdap was the giant European hydroelectric power plant and the fourth largest globally (Milan Gulić, “Yugoslav authorities and construction of the Iron Gates hydroelectric power plants”, Tibiscum 5 (2015): 511–528. 65 Ioan Bolovan, Florin Constantinescu, Paul Michelson, Ioan Aurel Pop, eds. A his­ tory of Romania (Iasi: Center for Romanian Studies, 1996), 531. 66 Borba, “Tito i Čaušesku danas na Đerdapu” [Tito and Ceauşescu today at Djerdap], 20. 9. 1969, 1. 67 Politika, Petar Janković, Mirko Đekić, “Susret Tito-Čaušesku” [Tito–Ceauşescu meeting], 21. 9. 1969, 1–2. 63

64

Tito and Ceauşescu in Yugoslav-Romanian Cooperation

215

economies of Romania and Yugoslavia, but also their independence in economic and political terms.68 During the talks in Kladovo and Turnu Severin, they exchanged views on current international and bilateral topics with mutual information on socialist construction in the two countries.69 The determination of the LCY and the RCP to further develop relations of friendship and equal cooperation with all socialist countries, communist and workers parties, and revolutionary and progressive movements was highlighted.70 The focus of the talks, however, was on bilateral cooperation. Both sides gave an upbeat assessment of bilateral relations but pointed out a deficit in their partnership, especially in the economic field, which led to them taking concrete steps in that direction. Ceauşescu vowed that Romania would pay more attention to eliminating Yugoslavia’s surplus, speed up bauxite production in Yugoslavia and consider building a second step in Djerdap.71 As an obligation, the two presidents tasked the Mixed Commission of Economic Experts and Prime Ministers with studying and present proposals at the beginning of the next year, which would raise economic cooperation to a higher level. Furthermore, the arrival of Tito and Ceauşescu in Djerdap was of great importance for the construction of the hydroelectric power plant itself. The builders hoped that their arrival would improve financing, which was a large problem. On September 21, Tito held a meeting with the Djerdap hydropower and navigation system builders in Brestovačka Banja near Bor. The workers, led by Panta Jakovljević, presented the technical details of the previous work conducted, as well as what remained to be done. Jakovljević especially mentioned the eviction of 8,500 inhabitants from Donji Milanovac, Sip and other places, along with the problem of providing compensation for inhabitants of the flooded territory. Tito promised the workers that the Federal Government would fulfill all of its obligations. Presidential support for the faster completion of the works was vital to General Director

Borba “Tito: Ukrućeni Dunav služiće interesima naroda Jugoslavije i Rumunije, Čaušesku: Hidrocentrala Đerdap još više približava naše narode” [Tito: Stiff Danube will serve the interests of the peoples of Yugoslavia and Romania, Ceauşescu: Djerdap hydropower plant brings our peoples even closer], 21. 9. 1969, 3. 69 Politika, “Zajedničko saopštenje o razgovorima Tito–Čaušesku” [Joint statement on the Tito–Ceauşescu talks], 21. 9. 1969, 2. 70 Politika, “Čaušesku: Doprinos afirmaciji principa saradnje među socijalističkim zemljama” [Contribution to the affirmation of the principle of cooperation among socialist countries], 21. 9. 1969, 3. 71 AJ, KPR, I-2/41, Izveštaj o razgovorima predsednika Tita sa predsednikom Čaušeskuom [Report on the conversation between Tito and President Ceauşescu], br. 428422, 29. 8. 1969. 68

216

Nemanja M itrović

Jakovljević. Tito openly stated that the construction of Djerdap was not only a question of electricity production and the creation of better sailing conditions but also of Yugoslavia’s prestige.72 The importance of the project in Djedap to Josip Broz Tito was demonstrated by the fact that he officially visited the gorge six times—four in which he met with Dej and Ceauşescu (1964, 1969, 1972 and 1977), and once in the company of Zambian President Kenneth Kaunda in 1970.73 He also personally began the project with Dej in 1964 and then, with Ceauşescu, ceremoniously put the hydroelectric power plant into operation in 1972.74

Contribution to Economic, Cultural, and Military Cooperation The orientation of Yugoslavia and Romania towards independent politics determined the mutual interest in advancing the bilateral collaboration. Differences in their international positions—with Yugoslavia belonging to the non-aligned and Romania to the Eastern Bloc—did not represent obstacles to better cooperation because the countries recognized each other’s idiosyncrasies.75 Tito’s and Ceauşescu’s actions and interactions created a favorable climate for implementing various initiatives to develop the best possible relations economically, culturally, and militaristically.76 Economic partnership between Yugoslavia and Romania was originally relatively small in scope. For Yugoslavia, it was one of the minor exchanges with socialist countries. Only Albania was below it. A glance at the ten-year period between 1960 and 1970 demonstrates a significant difference in trade volume; at the beginning of this period, it was only 19 million dollars, while at the end, in 1970, it reached 76 million. It wasn’t until after 1964 that economic cooperation between the two countries began to develop more





Borba, Radule Vasović, “Impresioniran sam svim onim što je sagrađeno” [I am impressed with all that has been built], 22. 9. 1969, 1; Politika, “Đerdapsku hidroelektranu treba što pre završiti” [The Djerdap hydroelectric power plant should be completed as soon as possible], 22. 9. 1969, 1. 73 Jovan Pejkić, Tito na Đerdapu [Tito at Djerdap] (Negotin: Krajina, 1984), 1. 74 Aleksandar Simić, Nemanja Mitrović, “Djerdap through the Centuries”, Transylvanian Review, vol. XXIX, no. 2 (2000): 227–252. 75 DAMSPS, PA, 1970, Rumunija, fol. 161, doc. 427267, Međunarodni položaj i ori­ jentacija Rumunije i jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi [International position and orientation of Romania and Yugoslav-Romanian relations], 23. oktobar. 1970. 76 Vasile Šandru, “Rumunska komunistička partija – aktivan odred komunističkog i radničkog pokreta.” [Romanian communist party-an active detachment of the communist and workers’ movement], Međunarodna politika, br. 507, 16. 5. 1971, 20–22. 72

Tito and Ceauşescu in Yugoslav-Romanian Cooperation

217

intensely, especially after the meeting of state delegations at the highest level and the forming of the Joint Committee for Economic Cooperation.77 During 1968, 1969 and 1970, economic relations were developed simultaneously with the political rapprochement. The sound practice of maintaining rigorous contact between state representatives and political leadership continued, reflecting mutual interests and a high degree of relations. In between 1971 and 1975 an agreement was reached to double the planned mutual trade that was worth 549 million dollars. In those years, several significant long-term agreements were signed: cooperation in the production and mutual deliveries of electric locomotives and subassemblies; oil transit through Romania to Yugoslavia via the Constanța-Cherna Voda pipeline; delivery of bauxite from Yugoslavia to Romania; joint work in the field of geological research of hydrocarbon deposits in the border zone and else. Additionally, there were agreements on cooperation in the production of machine tools, hydropower and hydrotechnical equipment, automatic electrical groups, equipment and products of the electronic industry, computing technology, and agricultural machinery. Border cooperation had also risen, with the implementation of an agreement on the small border traffic of citizens, culminating with the implementation of a new international road crossing point, Srpska Crnja-Jimbolia. However, some economic cooperation between the two countries had also begun to develop earlier, in January 1970, both in trade and in the establishment of modern forms of production cooperation that were based on long-term relations. Through the two leaders’ efforts, economic organizations of both countries were encouraged to get in touch independently and find opportunities for cooperation.78 During the meeting in February 1969, Tito and Ceauşescu saw differences in prices and outdated payment methods as the main problems in Yugoslavia’s and Romania’s economic cooperation, which posed a challenge to trade increase. It was proposed and then determined in Djerdap that the prime ministers and experts would meet and discuss the problems in more



AJ, KPR, I-2/ 51, Informacije o razvoju trgovinskih odnosa SFRJ sa SR Rumunijom [Information on development of commercial relations of SFRY and SR Romania], 8. 10. 1971. 78 AJ, The Federal Executive Council (Serbian: SIV-130), fol.738, Savezni sekretar­ ijat za spoljnu trgovinu, Informacija o razvoju trgovinskih odnosa SFRJ sa SR Rumunijom [Federal secretariat for foreign commerce, Information on development of commercial relations between SFRY and SR Romania], 8. 10. 1971. 77

218

Nemanja M itrović

depth to offer new ways of cooperation.79 At the leaders’ insistence, these meetings soon took place. A new impetus for the development of economic relations was given during the meeting of the two prime ministers, Mitja Ribičič and Ion Gheorghe Maurer, in January 1970. They outlined specific directions and plans, as well as new forms of collaboration. At that time, a large number of contracts and agreements were signed in various spheres of cooperation.80 The implementa­ tion of these agreements reduced the gap between the high degree of political relations and inadequate economic and cultural cooperation. In regard to economics, the most significant proposals were the cooperation in truck production, petrochemistry, electronics, and the military industry. Also notable were the construction of HPP Djerdap 2 in the sector Gruja-Radujevac, and then the connection of energy systems and railways across the second step of the HPP on the Danube along with the construction of transmission lines.81 In the field of trade, results showed that from 1969 to 1970 there was a 50% increase, which contributed to shifting the volume of trade envisaged by the five-year plan for 1966–1970 as a result of the dizzying jump to $76 million. Thus, the goods for the period 1966–1970 were exchanged for $227.4 million, while the original long-term agreement provided for it had been only $209 million.82 Economic relations at the same time had not yet acquired the features characteristic of a relationship between two neighbors with solid political interests and ties despite constant progress. The main reason was that the two countries did not have to offer products necessary for the other due to each country’s orientation towards industrial production. Neither needed finished industrial products but rather raw materials, while both lacked the raw materials needed by heavy industry.83



AJ, KPR, I-2/40, Zabeleška o razgovoru između Predsednika SFRJ i Predsednika SKJ J. B. Tita i Predsednika Državnog saveta SR Rumunije i generalnog sekretara CK RKP Nikolae Čaušeskua, u Temišvaru [Notes on the conversation between President of SFRY and President of SCY, Tito and President of SR Romania and Secretary General of the SC Nicolae Ceauşescu in Timisoara], 1. 2. 1969. 80 AJ, SIV-130, fol.738, Razvoj ekonomskih odnosa između SFR Jugoslavije i SR Rumunije [Development of Economic relations between SFRY and SR Romania], 16. novembar 1971. 81 DAMSPS, PA, 1970, Rumunija, fol. 161, doc. 427267, Informacija o aktuelnim pitanjima jugoslovensko-rumunskih odnosa [Information on current affairs in Yugoslav-Romanian relations], 1. 11. 1970. 82 AJ, KPR, I-2/51, Informacije o razvoju trgovinskih odnosa SFRJ sa SR Rumunijom [Information on commercial relations between SFRY and Romania], 8. 10. 1971. 83 Nemanja Mitrović, “Economic Relations between Yugoslavia and Romania during the 1960s”, Transylvanian Review 28, no. 1 (Spring 2019): 131–145. 79

Tito and Ceauşescu in Yugoslav-Romanian Cooperation

219

The opening of the Yugoslav consulate in Timişoara provided a significant contribution to bilateral relations. The two leaders also played an important role there. Even though the idea for the consulate first appeared in 1948, the complex situation between the two countries delayed it until there was a successful development and expansion of bilateral cooperation, at which point the proposal to open a consulate became relevant again in the late 1960s. At the beginning of September 1970, the President of the Executive Council of Serbia, Milenko Bojanić, pointed out Yugoslavia’s wish to the Romanian leadership, primarily Nicolae Ceauşescu, during his visit to Romania. Ceauşescu then, despite the problems Romania had with certain neighbors, agreed to open a consulate in Timişoara, but the condition was the application of reciprocity and the opening of a consulate in Zagreb.84 Yugoslavia’s need for a consulate in Timişoara stemmed from several facts: it was the political, economic and cultural center of the Romanian region; it was close to the Yugoslav border, and it was home to some 60,000 Yugoslavs, according to Yugoslav documents at the time (however, according to the Romanian census from 1966, the number was reported as 44,236).85 Yet, although Yugoslavia had Ceauşescu’s consent, the opening of the consulate was delayed until 1973 due to technical negotiations. Over time, Yugoslavia developed and branched relations with Romania in culture and education. The last years of the sixth decade of the twentieth century saw a significant turning point in cultural ties, thanks to Nicolae Ceauşescu’s decision to accept Yugoslav proposals to go beyond the usual framework of cooperation through state bodies and move to a cultural policy of open society.86 This decision unlocked the possibility of connecting interesting cultural and other institutions with similar ones in Yugoslavia. Especially during 1968, fruitful cooperation was established between Yugoslav and Romanian universities, educational and pedagogical institutions, music and theater institutions, film and publishing companies, and individual contacts of scientists, artists, and writers. In 1969, for the first time,



AJ, SIV-130, fol. 628, doc. 2950/70, Predlog za otvaranje Generalnog konzulata SFRJ u Temišvaru, SR Rumunije [Proposal for the opening of the General Consulate of SFRY in Timisoara, Romania], 13. 11. 1970. 85 Volumul II: Populația stabilă (rezidentă) – structura etnică și confesională [Volume II: The resident population – the ethnic and confessional structure], http://www. rec​ensa​mant​roma​n ia.ro/nout​ati/volu​mul-ii-popula​t ia-stab​i la-rezide​nta-struct​u raetn​ica-si-confe​sion​a la/ (accessed April 20, 2020). 86 Dušan Vejnović, “Kulturna politika otvorenog društva” [Cultural policy of an open society], Međunarodna politika, no. 450, 1. 1. (1969), 30. 84

220

Nemanja M itrović

there was an exchange of students in full-time studies to study Romanian and Serbo-Croatian. In addition to politics, economy and culture, Tito and Ceauşescu contributed to Yugoslav-Romanian military and intelligence relations. During 1969, Romania’s state and military leadership developed intensive military contacts with Yugoslavia, especially in the production of weapons and military equipment. Broader military-economic relations with Romania suited Yugoslavia because of the possibility of arming with funds that it could not procure in any other way, primarily due to financial difficulties. Another reason was the sale of Yugoslav military products to Romania.87 Thus, on November 8, 1969 in Bucharest, an agreement was signed between the governments of SFRY and Romania on economic, scientific and technical cooperation in the field of military technology for ten years.88 This agreement defined cooperation in exchange, production, exploitation and overhaul of weapons and military equipment and the founding of the Joint Yugoslav-Romanian Commission for Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation in the Field of Military Technology.89 In other words, the agreement created favorable conditions for the establishment and expansion of military-economic mutual support. Ceauşescu had previously been interested in military cooperation with Yugoslavia, after Moscow refused, in December 1967, to grant Romanians a license to manufacture MIG aircraft.90 Consequently, during Ceauşescu’s visit to Belje in January 1968, he expressed a desire to produce military aircraft, which opened up partnership opportunities. Later, the meeting of the delegations of SFRY and Socialist Republic of Romania in Bucharest on October 13–16, 1969 launched the project of joint production of aircraft. The Federal Executive Council approved the protocol on June 17, 1970, and thus opened to negotiate the conditions and prepare an interstate agreement.91 The “Yurom” project for the production of fighter-bomber aircraft had the



AJ, SIV-130, fol. 628, doc. 1153, Pitanja iz oblasti naoružanja i vojne tehnike [Questions from the field the military equipment], 23. 7. 1969. 88 DAMSPS, PA, 1970, Rumunija, fol. 161, doc. 42713, Šifrovani telegram, Bukurešt [Coded telegram, Bucharest], br. 43, 11. 6. 1970. 89 AJ, SIV-130, fol. 628, Sporazum između Vlade SFRJ i Vlade SR Rumunije o ekon­ omskoj, naučnoj i tehničkoj saradnji u oblasti vojne tehnike [Agreement between Governments of the SFRY Yugoslavia and Romania on the economic, scientific, technological and military cooperation]. 90 AJ, KPR, I-3-a/97-21, doc. 274/13, Zabeleška o jugoslovensko-rumunskim zvaničnim razgovorima [Notes on Yugoslav-Romanian official meetings]. 91 DAMSPS, PA, 1970, Rumunija, fol. 161, doc. 425816, Šifrovani telegram, Bukurešt [Coded telegram, Bucharest], br. 43, 30. 6. 1970. 87

Tito and Ceauşescu in Yugoslav-Romanian Cooperation

221

technical support of Western Europe. An engine license was purchased from Great Britain and a license for a landing gear from France.92 The prototype of the Yugoslav-Romanian plane took off in 1974. The plane’s plans were completed in 1972, after which production began. The wings and rudders were made by the Yugoslav factory Soko, the rear part of the fuselage and the wings by the factory Utva, and the Romanian factory Intreprinderea de avioane [Aircraft Company] made the front part of the fuselage. Nevertheless, tests showed that the planned mass was exceeded, which effected the performance and payload of the aircraft.93 Ten years of production (1981–1992) resulted in 203 aircraft, of which 115 were for Yugoslavia and 88 for Romania. However, the plane bearing the Yugoslav designation “J-22 Orao” was the backbone of the Yugoslav and even Romanian fighter-bomber air force.94 Besides airplane production, other areas of collaboration were also considered: cooperation in the production, research and development of semiautomatic and other anti-tank missile guidance systems; cooperation in the production of sabotage weapons; exchange of knowledge and experience in improving artillery weapons; joint development of hydroacoustic mines, among others. For example, in 1970, there was a contract for the delivery of 41 76mm caliber cannons with complete accompanying equipment and ammunition worth 737,400 dollars, which lasted until 1973. A contract for the purchase of spare parts from Romania for a T-34 tank worth $664,000 was also concluded. Nevertheless, despite all of this, the real intensification of cooperation in the military sphere came in the next decade.95 Josip Broz Tito was respected even among those Western diplomats and journalists who viewed him as a communist leader. From the onset of his career, Nicolae Ceauşescu largely imitated Tito and respected his views and ideas, especially in foreign policy. He took the advice received from Tito exceptionally seriously. Similar attitudes and goals in foreign policy were



DAMSPS, PA, 1971, Rumunija, fol. 115, doc. 413168. Telegram, Beograd [Telegram, Belgrade], br. 45, 6. 4. 1971. 93 J-22 Orao, https://www.myc​ity-milit​a ry.com/Avi​oni/J-22-Orao.html (accessed July 24, 2021). 94 Bojan Dimitrijević, Jugoslovensko ratno vazduhoplovstvo i protivvazdušna odbrana [Yugoslav Air Force and Air Defense] (Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju, 2017), 403. 95 AJ, KPR, I-2/ 51, Informacije o stanju i razvoju vojnih odnosa sa SR Rumunijom [Information on current status and development of military relations with SR Romania], 19. 11. 1971. 92

222

Nemanja M itrović

the starting point for their rapprochement and the development of interstate cooperation. As can be seen from this chapter, the decisive role in encouraging the constant upward flow of Yugoslav-Romanian relations belonged to Presidents Josip Broz Tito and Nicolae Ceauşescu. Their meetings quickly became necessary. Furthermore, those meetings marked new benchmarks that opened an even broader perspective of cooperation in all areas. Due in large part to their engagement, the economic exchange that had initially lagged well behind political relations increased from 29 million dollars in 1965 to 76 million in 1970. Additionally, the two leaders are credited for implementing many agreements, opening consulates, improving cultural ties, and strengthening the relations between the two nations until Tito’s death in 1980, after which the trajectory of Romanian politics drastically changed.

Bibliography Archive of Yugoslavia (AJ) Cabinet of President of the Republic (KPR) Telegraphic Agency of New Yugoslavia (TANJUG) The Federal Executive Council (SIV-130) Diplomatic archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia (DAMSPS) Political Archieve (PA) “Stenographic transcript of a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Central Committee of the Romanian Communist Party”, August 17, 1968, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, ANIC, RCPCC, Chancellery, folder 131/1968, pp. 4–10. Translated for PHP and CWIHP by Viorel Buta. http://dig​ ital​a rch​ive.wil​son-cen​ter.org/docum​ent/112​0 49 (accessed September 29, 2020) Bogetić, Dragan. “Jugoslovensko-sovjetski odnosi u svetlu vojne intervencije u Čehoslovačkoj” [Yugoslav-Soviet relations in the light of military intervention in Czechoslovakia]. In 1968 — četrdeset godina posle, edited by Radmila Radić, Ljubodrag Dimić, Milan Ristović, Dragan Bogetić, and Aleksandar Životić, 126– 162. Beograd: Institut za noviju istoriju Srbije, 2008. Bogetić, Dragan and Aleksandar Životić. Yugoslav and the Arab-Israeli War of 1967. Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju, 2010. Bogetić, Dragan. Jugoslovensko-američki odnosi 1961–1971 [Yugoslav-American relations 1961–1971]. Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju, 2012. Bolovan, Ioan, et al. A History of Romania. Iasi: Center for Romanian Studies, 1996. Borbély, Ştefan, “The Year 1968 in Romania and Two Literary Aftershocks.” Caietele Echinox, 30 (2016): 271–283.

Tito and Ceauşescu in Yugoslav-Romanian Cooperation

223

Brucan, Silviu. The Wested Generation: Memoirs of the Romanian Journey from Capitalism to Socialism and Back. New York: Routledge, 1993. Burakowski, Adam. Dictatura lui Ceauşescu (1965–1989). Bucureşti: Polirom, 2011. Crampton, J. Richard. The Balkans since the Second World War. London: Routledge, 2002. Crowder, Ashby. Legacies of 1968: Autonomy and Repression in Ceauşescu’s Romania, 1965–1989. Ohio: Ohio University, 2007. Cvetković, Lj. Vladimir. “Yugoslav-Romanian Relations in the Days of the Soviet Intervention in Czechoslovakia in 1968.” In 1968 — četrdeset godina posle, edited by Radmila Radić, Ljubodrag Dimić, Milan Ristović, Dragan Bogetić, and Aleksandar Životić, 161–181, Beograd: Institut za noviju istoriju Srbije, 2008. Deletant, Dennis. Romania under Communism Paradox and Degeneration. New York: Routledge, 2019. Dimić, Ljubodrag. Jugoslavija i hladni rat [Yugoslavia and Cold War]. Beograd: Arhipelag, 2014. Dimitrijević, Bojan B. Jugoslovensko ratno vazduhoplovstvo i protivvazdušna odbrana [Yugoslav Air Force and Air Defense]. Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju, 2017. Fischer, Mary Ellen. Nicolae Ceauşescu and the Romanian Political Leadership: Nationalization and Personalization of Power. Harward: Harvard College, 1983. https://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nce​eer/1983-626-10-Fisc​her.pdf (accessed September 30, 2020) Gaddis, John Lewis. “On Moral Equivalency and Cold War History”. Ethnics and International Affair, 10 (1996): 131–148. Gedis, L. Džon. Hladni rat [Cold War]. Beograd: Klio, 2003. Geler, Mihail., and Aleksandar Nekrič. Utopija na vlasti: Istorija Sovjetskog Saveza [Utopia on power: History of Soviet Union]. Podgorica: CID, 2000. Gulić, Milan. “Yugoslav Authorities and Construction of the Iron Gates Hydroelectric Power plants.” Tibiscum 5 (2015): 511–529.,J-22 Orao, https://www.myc​ity-milit​ ary.com/Avi​oni/J-22-Orao.html (accessed July 24, 2021) Jovanović, Jadranka. Jugoslavija u Ujedinjenim Nacijama: 1945–1953 [Yugoslavia in the United Nations:1945–1953]. Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju, 1985. Kurlansky, Mark. 1968 – godina koja je uzdrmala svijet [1968: The Year That Rocked the World]. Zagreb: Naknada Ljevak, 2007. Lavinia Betea, Florin-Răzvan Mihai, and llarion Ţiu, Viața lui Ceauşescu [Ceauşescu’s life], Târgovişte: Cetatea de Scaun, 2015. Lawson, W. Colin. “National Independence and Reciprocal Advantages: The Political Economy of Romanian-South Relations.” Soviet Studies, 35, no. 3 (1983): 362–375. Leuchtenburg, E. Wiliam. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 2009. Milošević, Zoran. Anatomija rumunske politike [Anatomy of Romanian politics]. Šabac: Centar akademske reči, 2017. Mitrović, Nemanja. “Economic Relations between Yugoslavia and Romania during the 1960s.” Transylvanian Review 28, no. 1 (2019): 131–145.

224

Nemanja M itrović

Mitrović, Nemanja. “Međunarodni problemi posmatrani kroz razgovore Josipa Broza Tita i Nikolae Čaušeskua tokom 1968. godine” [International problems observed through the talks between Josip Broz Tito and Nicolae Ceauşescue during 1968]. Istorija 20. veka 1 (2020): 129–146. Mitrović, Nemanja. Tito–Čaušesku: godine zbližavanja: jugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi: 1968–1970 [Tito-Ceauşescu: years of rapprochement: Yugoslav-Romania relations: 1968–1970]. Beograd: Institut za noviju istoriju Srbije, 2020. Nenadović, Aleksandar. Mirko Tepavac: sećanja i komentari [Mirko Tepavac: memories and comments]. Beograd: Radio B92, 1998. Pejkić, Jovan. Tito na Đerdapu [Tito at Djerdap]. Negotin: Krajina, 1984. Petresku, Dragoş. “Continuity, Legitimacy and Identity: Understanding the Romanian August of 1968.” Cuadernos de Historia Contemporanea, 31 (2009): 69–88. Petrović, Vladimir. Titova lična diplomatija [Tito’s personal diplomacy]. Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju, 2010. Rady, Martyn. Romania in Turmoil: A Contemporary History. London: IB. Tauris, 1992. Retegan, Mihai. In the Shadow of the Prague Spring: Romanian Foreign Policy and the Crisis in Czechoslovakia, 1968. Bucurest: Center for Romanian Studies, 2000. Šandru, Vasile. “Rumunska komunistička partija – aktivan odred komunističkog i radničkog pokreta.“ [Romanian communist party-an active detachment of the communist and workers’ movement] Međunarodna politika, br. 07, Beograd, 16. 5. 1971. Simić, Aleksandar, and Mitrović, Nemanja. “Djerdap through the Centuries.” Transylvanian Review 29, no. 2 (2020): 227–252. Stanciu, Cezar. “Romania and the Six Day War.” Middle Eastern Studies 50, no. 5 (2014): 775–795. Tismaneanu, Vladimir. Promises of 1968: Crisis, Illusion and Utopia. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2011. Tismăneanu, Vladimir. “What Was National Stalinism?” In The Oxford Handbook of Postwar European History, edited by Dan Stone, 462–479. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Todorović, Danilo. Tito–lov–politika [Tito–hunting–politics]. Beograd: Službeni glasnik, 2010. Veiga, Francisko. “Sličnosti u političkom i društvenom životu Jugoslavije i Rumunije.” [Similarities in the political and social life of Yugoslavia and Romania] In Balkan posle Drugog svetskog rata/The Balkans after World War II, edited by Petar Kačavenda and Dragan Bogetić, 245–253. Beograd: Institut za savremenu istoriju, 1956. Vejnović, Dušan. “Cultural Policy of an Open Society.” Međunarodna politika, časopis, br. 450, Beograd, 1. 1. 1969. Volumul II: Populația stabilă (rezidentă) – structura etnică și confesională [Volume II: The resident population – the ethnic and confessional structure] http://www.rec​ ensa​mant​roma​n ia.ro/nout​ati/volu​mul-ii-popula​t ia-stab​i la-rezide​nta-struct​u ra-etn​ ica-si-confe​sion​a la/ (accessed April 20, 2020) Žanin, Čalić Mari. Jugoistočna Evropa: globalna historija [South-Eastern Europe: global history]. Sarajevo: Udruženje za modernu historiju, 2020.

Part II  Serbian-Romanian Relations— Cultural, Artistic and Religious Studies Perspective

The Circulation of Icon Painters between Banat and Transylvania during the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries R aluca P r elipceanu

The Banat region has a rich history of artistic exchange as a direct result of the multiple cultures that have at various points populated the area. By tracing the territory’s influences over time, my study provides for an interesting and fertile discussion on the state of the region’s artistic output. Banat came under Habsburg control in 1716 after the battle of Petrovaradin and the peace treaty of (Požarevac).1 The newly established administration facil­ itated the arrival of Serbs in the land of Banat. There were three important waves of Serbian migration to the Habsburg lands, including Banat.2 The first one took place at the end of the seventeenth century and it was led by Patriarch Arsenyi III. Then, in 1737 there was a new colonization of Serbs in Banat under Patriarch Arsenyi IV Jovanovici.3 The third wave

Drago Njegovan, Miodrag Milin, “Mitropolia de la Karlowitz și relațiile sârboromâne din cuprinsul monarhiei habsburgice,” [Karlowitz Metropolitanate and Serbo-Romanian relations within the Habsburg monarchy] Analele Banatului, S.N., Arheologie-Istorie, 23, (2015): 419–427, 424. 2 George Popovicu, Istoria românilor bănățeni [The history of the Romanians from Banat] (Lugoj, 1904), 266 and 296. 3 Nenad Makuljevic, “Migrations and the Creation of Orthodox Cultural and Artistic Networks between the Balkans and the Habsburg Lands (17th–19th Centuries),” in Across the Danube. Southeastern Europeans and Their Travelling Identities (17th–19th C.), eds. Olga Katsiardi-Hering and Maria A. Stassinopoulou (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 54–55.

1

228

R aluca P r elipceanu

of migration to Banat took place in 1813 after the Serbian uprising in 1804.4 The privileges granted by the Habsburg administration to the Serbs in 1690 for their support in the fight against the Ottomans were reconfirmed in 1743.5 Until 1708 the Serbian Orthodox Metropolitanate was based at Szentendre. In 1713 the monastery of Krušedol became the new seat of the Metropolitanate.6 The seat finally moved to (Sremski Karlovci) in 1737,7 where it remained until 1919. Karlowitz was part of the ancient seat of Pecs, but while Pecs was under Ottoman occupation, Karlowitz had passed under Habsburg jurisdiction.8 Also, Serbian bishops were installed in the cities of Timișoara and Arad. Later, in 1779, the region of Banat became part of Habsburg Hungary and in 1784 Emperor Joseph II split this region in two, with Timișoara as the main center in the north, and Pancsova as the corresponding center in the south.9 The following year some of the participants in the uprising of Horea, Cloșca and Crișan, that took place in Transylvania in 1784,10 were deported along with their families to Banat.11 They settled mainly around Pancsova. Meanwhile, the neighboring region of Transylvania also came under Habsburg domination at the end of the seventeenth century.12 In Transylvania the Orthodox bishop adhered to the Roman Catholic Church





Ljubivoje Cerović, Sârbii din România, Din Evul Mediu timpuriu până în zilele noastre [Serbs in Romania, from the early Middle Ages to the present days] (Uniunea Sârbilor din România, Timișoara, 2005), 55. 5 Popoviciu, Istoria, 319. 6 Cerović, Sârbii din România [Serbs in Romania], 65. 7 Dorina Pârvulescu, “Referiri la creaţia artistică ortodoxă din Banat până la sfârşitul secolului luminilor,” [References to the Orthodox Artistic Creation from Banat until the end of the Enlightement] in Tradiție și postmodernitate. 200 de ani de artă plastică în Banat (Timișoara: Art Press, 2003), 9. 8 Dorina Pârvulescu, 9. 9 Popoviciu, Istoria, 340. 10 The uprising led by Horea, Cloșca and Crișan took place in 1784 mainly in the regions of Alba and Hunedoara and was due to social and economic inequalities. See David Prodan, Răscoala lui Horea [Horea’ Revolt] (București: Ed. Științifică și Enciclopedică, 1979). 11 Costin Feneșan, Izvoarele răscoalei lui Horea. Lumea lui Horea în Banat și la Sud de Carpați [The Sources of Horea’s Revolt. Horea’s World in Banat and south of Carpathians], vol. XII, (București: Ed. Academiei Române, 2020), 90–97. 12 Andras Magyari, “Ocupația militară a Transilvaniei la sfârșitul secolului la XVII-­ lea,” [The Military Occupation of Transylvania at the end of 17th century] in Istoria Transilvaniei vol. II, eds. Ioan Aurel Pop, Thomas Nagler and Andras Magyari (Cluj Napoca: Ed. Academiei Române, 2018), 345. 4

Circulation of Icon Painters between Banat and Transylvania

229

in 1701.13 Following this act, until 1761 the Romanian Orthodox people in Transylvania had no official religious jurisdiction. In 1744, a Serbian monk, Visarion Sarai, came from Bosnia to Southern Transylvania to raise awareness among the people on the dangers of such an act and the betrayal of the “true faith.”14 Several petitions were addressed by the Orthodox Romanians in Transylvania to Empress Maria Theresa demanding an Orthodox bishop and the recognition of their ancient Orthodox faith. The empress did not accept these demands and the Orthodox representatives who addressed them were severely punished.15 Following the uprising of monk Sofronie of Cioara, which took place between 1759 and 1761,16 General Adolf Bukow used the opportunity to reprimand Sofronie by destroying several churches and monasteries. Finally, the Romanian Orthodox people of Transylvania were placed under the jurisdiction of the Serbian Bishop of Buda in 1761.17 Meanwhile, Habsburg authorities also closed down many of the monasteries from Banat, such as the ones in Srediștea Mică and Varadia.18 Only four monasteries were left in the territory of what is now the Romanian Banat: Bezdin, Sângeorge, Mesici and Hodoş-Bodrog.19 The tidings also had a direct effect on the art produced by the two cultures in Banat and Transylvania. For example, as the Serbians enjoyed more rights than other Orthodox nations under Habsburg rule, due to the Illyrian or Leopoldian privileges20 received from the Habsburg monarchy in reward for their support in the war against the Ottomans in 1690, they were more



Mircea Păcurariu, Istoria bisericii ortodoxe române [The History of the Romanian Orthodox Church], vol. II, (București: Ed. Ebimbor, 1981): 309. 14 Vasile Muntean, Istoria bisericii românești [The History of the Romanian Church], vol. II, (Timișoara: Ed. Marineasa, 2010), 27. 15 Silviu Dragomir, Istoria dezrobirii religioase a românilor din Ardeal în secolul XVIII [The History of the Religious Liberation of the Romanians from Transylvania during the 18th century], vol. II, (Sibiu: Tipografia arhidiecezană, 1920): 268–278, Vasile Stoica, Suferințele românilor din Ardeal [The Sufferings of the Romanians from Transylvania], ed. IV, (Bacău: Ed. Vicova, 2014), 71–77. 16 Silviu Dragomir, Istoria dezrobirii religioase a românilor [The History of the Religious Liberation of the Romanians], vol. II: 154–93. 17 Popoviciu, Istoria, 347; Muntean, Istoria, vol. II: 28. 18 Popoviciu, Istoria, 343–344. 19 Munteanu, Istoria, 40. 20 As concerns the geographic area, the concept of the Illyrian nation referred to the Orthodox populations from Southern Hungary, Banat and Partium; Romanians, Serbians, Greeks and Macedo-Romanians/Macedo-Vlachs. The Imperial authorities issued six diplomas between 1690 and 1695, comprising Illyrian privileges. Ethnicity played no role, yet almost all positions of high rank were occupied by Serbs, though Romanians were more numerous in Transylvania and Banat. 13

230

R aluca P r elipceanu

inclined to accept Western influences including regarding church painting, so long as those influences did not jeopardize their ethnic identity.21 On the other hand, the Romanians from Transylvania did not enjoy the same privileges22 and were involved in several conflicts with Imperial authorities during the eighteenth century, and thus were a lot more conservative with their religious art. The newly founded churches, as well as the ancient ones that had to be restored needed painters. The Serbian Patriarch Arsenie IV Jovanovic Sakabenta manifested a special care for the education of the priests and for the religious art of the churches under his jurisdiction. In 1733 he opened a school in Karlowitz and in then another one in Novi Sad in 1737.23 The first teachers came from Imperial Russia and were under the influence of the Reforms of Tsar Peter the Great published in the 1720 Gramata.24 Furthermore, church authorities, such as the Metropolitan and the bishops could also make recommendations regarding church art. Thus, influences over time came from a variety of sources. The two imperial Regulations of 1770 and 1777 established the primacy of the Habsburg administration in Orthodox Church matters, imperial approval and confirmation of all nominations, visitations, excommunications, and other actions performed by the church was strictly required. An explanatory Rescript of 1779 was issued in order to calm down those opposed to the Regulations. The office of the Imperial Commissar was also established.

Vladimir Simić, “The Impact of Migrations on the Transformation of Serbian Religious Art in the 18th Century,” 331–337, in Representations of identity in art and verbal-visual culture of the Modern Era, 333–334; Vladimir Simić, The Image of the Past as Historical Argument. The Reception of the Middle Ages in Serbian Baroque in Imagining the Past. The Reception of the Middle Ages in Serbian Art from the 18th to the 21th centuries, eds. Lidija Merenik, Vladimir Simić, Igor Borozan (Beograd, 2016), 20–21. 22 Due to their privileges, the Romanians in Banat had several rights that those in Transylvania never had: the right to settle down in towns, to hold certain professions or to accede to certain local administrative functions up to a specific level. The clergy of the Karlowitz Metropolitanate was practically the main beneficiary of those privileges. In 1739 Orthodox Romanians under the rule of the Karlowitz Metropolitanate lived in the territories of Vršac, Timişoara, and Arad bishoprics. In contrast with the state of affairs in Banat and Hungary, in Transylvania Romanians were not recognized as a nation with equal rights, they were only tolerated, and Orthodoxy was not recognized as a religion. 23 Vladimir Cvetković, “The Serbian Tradition,” in: The Orthodox Christian Orthodoxy, ed. Augustine Casiday, (London: Routledge, 2012), 135. 24 Waldemar Deluga, Ukrainian Painting Between the Byzantine and Latin Traditions (Ostrava-Warsaw 2019), 115. 21

Circulation of Icon Painters between Banat and Transylvania

231

The new regulations limited the power of the bishops in their dioceses by introducing the Konsistorialsystem which included also lay members. Lay members were thus introduced in church-governing bodies. Theresian and Josephinian reforms not only strengthened imperial control over the Orthodox Church, but also reduced the number of monasteries, monks and religious feasts and clearly defined contributions for religious rites. Though the first Regulation practically admitted confessional autonomy and some very limited political rights, actually by these regulations, the Aulic circles were trying to blur national individualities and melt different social groups and ethnicities into a confessional defined entity submitted to the Habsburg monarchy’s political goals of integration and centralization. The limitation of the clergy’s power was supported by the new secular Serbian intelligentsia who considered the church hierarchy backward, greedy, and duplicitous and accused it of betraying its people and neglecting its basic mission. The first conflict between the secular intelligentsia and church hierarchs took place at the Serbian People’s and Church Congress in Timişoara in 1790. Due to the activity of the Serbian bishops in Timișoara and Arad, in Banat the newly formed church united with Rome did not gain ground.25 As the bishops of Timișoara and Arad were the only ones besides those in Buda who could ordain priests and consecrate churches, the region of Banat played an important part in Transylvanian religious life. Nevertheless, according to the Regulations, for example, bishop Sofronie Chirilovici could not make canonical visitations without the approval of Habsburg authorities and had to report to the authorities the names of the Orthodox priests who were ordained in Wallachia.26

The Wallachian Painters: Between Banat and Transylvania Numerous exchanges took place at the artistic level between Banat and the surrounding territories during the eighteenth century. During the first part of the century, art in the two historical regions was linked by some painters coming from Wallachia who painted in both areas. The Wallachian painters worked in the neo-Byzantine style in vogue at the court of the Wallachian Prince Constantin Brancovan, which had been developed by the Greek painter Constantinos, and his Greek and Wallachian apprentices.27

Aleksov, 34. Cerović, Sârbii din România [Serbs from Romania], 71. 27 Alkis Prépis, “Architecture et art dans les Balkans pendant la période ottomane,” Études balkaniques 12 (2005): 27–28.

25 26

232

R aluca P r elipceanu

First, some painters from Wallachia migrated to Banat during the first half of the century and established themselves in Srediștea Mare in 1736, where the painter Vasile Diaconul (the Deacon), who originally came from Oltenia,28 opened a school. Religious painting was also taught at that school, and Vasile Diaconul organized a small guild. Fifty families had followed him from Wallachia. As the head of the group of Wallachian painters who moved to Banat, Vasile Diaconul was also the “vătaf” in the village (head of the local community).29 This shows that he was highly respected by the community in which he lived. The fact that he was initially a deacon also meant that he was schooled, he could read and probably write. Some other Wallachian painters also became part of the newly established group, and they generally worked together with local painters from Banat. In 1754 several painters addressed a petition to local authorities demanding protection against itinerant painters. The document was signed by Nedelcu and Șerban Popovici and by Gheorghe Ranite, Luca Jivonovici and Achim Iovanovici.30 Vasile Diaconul had a very active career in Banat. He painted the iconostasis of the church of Râtișor in 1745. His son Gheorghe also painted there at a later date, improving his father’s works.31 Between 1752 and 1755 he worked at the church in Iasa-Tomci (Modoș, Serbia) with his son, Gheorghe and an apprentice, Tudor. Another team of local painters made up of Nedelcu and Șerban Popovictch worked there at the same time. In 1762, in Clopodia, Vasile led a team of painters made up of his son, Gheorghe Diaconovici, Ioan Popovici and Radu Lazarevici, along with the apprentice Stancu Raicu.32 The icons from the iconostasis were painted byGheorghe in 1769. In the church of Radmina he worked again with his son Gheorghe and with Ioan Popovitch. Gheorghe Diaconovici (b. 1736) would become one of the most important painters in the Romanian community from Banat and the first master in portraiture.33 In the territory of Serbian Banat, besides Srediștea Mare

Popoviciu, Istoria, 317, Ștefan Meteș, “Zugravii bisericilor românești,” [The Painters of the Romanian Churches] Anuarul monumentelor istorice secția pentru Transilvania (1929): 131. 29 Popoviciu, Istoria, 317. 30 Dorina Pârvulescu, “O ipoteză privind activitatea zugravului Stan în Banatul secolu­ lui al XVIII-lea,” [A Hypothesis on the Activity of the Painter Stan in Banat during the 18th century] Analele Banatului, 4, no. 2 (1996): 108. 31 Mircea Măeran, “Familia Diaconovici și românii din Srediștea Mare,” [The Diaconovici family and the Romanians from Sredistea Mare] Studia Theologica et Historia Aradensia, An 3 no. 3 (2021): 79–87. 32 Aurel Cosma, Pictura românească din Banat de la origini până astăzi [Romanian Painting from Banat from its Origin to the Present Day] (Timișoara, 1940), 15. 33 Aurel Cosma, 15–16.

28

Circulation of Icon Painters between Banat and Transylvania

233

and Râtișor, he also painted in Alibunar, Srediștea Mică, Nicolinț, Mesici, Izbiște, Seleuș. In 1775 the family workshop was moved to Bocșa Montană.34 Two of his brothers were also painters: Grigore and Petru, while another one, Eustatie was a priest in Srediștea Mică and later in Srediștea Mare.35 Another Wallachian painter who worked in Banat was the painter Andrei from Hurezi who painted the church at Săraca Monastery with his son, Andrei and two other apprentices, Iovan and Chiriac in 1730. The school of Hurezi was the most famous school of painting from Wallachia established by Greek painters under the reign of Constantin Brancovan. Andrei may have also worked between 1728 and 1730 at the monastery in Bezdin.36 Furthermore, in 1737 Andrei Andreovici, Andrei’s son led a great team who painted the walls of Vracevsnița Monastery in the Serbian Banat. Nedelcu and Șerban Popovici were also part of this team. And in 1743 Andrei, Ioan and Petrar painted the monastery of Mesici.37 According to some scholars,38 the leader of the group of painters who painted the church in Lipova in 1732 may have been the famous Ioan from Hurezi, who was the apprentice of the Greek painter Constantinos. He worked at the church of Lipova together with Nedelcu, Șerban and Radu Popovici. Furthermore, the members of the Ranite family, who originated from Craiova, in Oltenia, were among the most important Wallachian painters who worked in Banat. Gheorghe and Grigore Ranite are first mentioned in Srediște in 1735.39 Their father is thought to have worked under the guid­ ance of Constantinos himself at the monastic churches of Hurezi, Govora and Bistrița.40 In 1738, Gheorghe Ranite41 had painted alongside his



Măeran, Familia Diaconovici, 86. Măeran, 86. 36 Dorina Pârvulescu, Pictura bisericilor ortodoxe din Banat între secolul al XVII-lea şi deceniul trei al secolului al XIX-lea [The Painting of the Orthodox Churches from Banat between the 17th century and the third decade of the 19th century] (Timişoara: Ed. Excelsior Art, 2003), 190. 37 Dorina Pârvulescu, “Catalog icoane și uși împărătești din Banat,” [Catalogue of Royal Icons and Doors from Banat] Analele Banatului, Sn., Arheologie-Istorie, XVI, (2008), n. 34, 383. 38 Horia Medeleanu, “Perspectivă nouă asupra picturii din biserica română Lipova,” [A New Perspective on the Painting of the Romanian Church in Lipova] Revista Muzeelor și Monumentelor, an L, tom I, (1981), 83–88. 39 Marius Porumb, “Relațiile artistice dintre Transilvania și Banat în secolul al XVIII-­ lea,” [The Artistic Relations between Transylvania and Banat during the 18th century] Tibiscus (Timișoara: Muzeul Banatului, 1979), 233–234. 40 Istoria artelor plastice în România [The History of Fine Arts in Romanian], vol. II, (București, 1970):68, 71. 41 Porumb, Dicționar de pictură veche românească [Dictionary of Old Romanian Painting] (București: Ed. Academiei Române, 1998), 316.

34 35

234

R aluca P r elipceanu

brother and two other painters the Paraklis of St. Nicholas church in Șcheii Brașovului in Transylvania. The only icons signed by him in Transylvania belonged to the former church in Mogoș in the Apuseni mountains and they are not dated.42 Gheorghe seems to be the first one to have established himself in Banat. His brother, Grigore worked more in Transylvania, where he was commissioned paintings in Blaj in 1736, in Șcheii Brașovului in 1738–1740 and at St. Paraskeve church in Rășinari in 1760. The latter’s son, Ioan Grigorovici who had worked alongside his father at the churches of Crasna in Oltenia and Rășinari would have also traveled to Banat at some point. After the work done for the Paraklis and the church in Șcheii Brașovului in 1738, Grigore was commissioned several works in Banat, where he painted  in Partoș in 1740, in Butin, between 1740 and 1745 and later in Subotica in 1745. In 1745, he also painted the royal doors of the church in Drinova. Furthermore, he also worked in Ferendia in the areas of Timiș and Belobreșca in the region of Caraș Severin.43 He was last mentioned on an icon from Tritenii de Jos, in the region of Cluj in Transylvania, dating from 1764. Meanwhile, his brother, Gheorghe Ranite worked together with a painter from Banat, Nedelcu Popovici in Esztergorm in 1740, in Szentendre in 1742 and later in Rackeve, all three in the Hungarian territory.44 Furthermore, he may have also painted the royal doors in Ofsenița around 1743, again with Nedelcu Popovici.45 Other painters who may have come from Wallachia,46 were Iancu Zugrav, Paul and Stan who painted in 1753 at Petroman and Hodoni Satchinez in the region of Timiș. Finally, Popa Simion from Pitești, who was a highly appreciated painter and who was already living at that time in Transylvania in Silvașu de Sus in the county of Hunedoara worked in Zolt in 1777, in the region of Timiș. He also painted a banner for a church in Lugoj,47 and the



Ibid. Dorina Pârvulescu, “Zugravi de formație brâncovenească în Banatul secolului al XVIII-lea,” [Painters of Brancovean Formation in 18th century Banat] Sargetia. Acta Musei Devensis, 25 (1992–1994): 301. 44 Peter Bakos, “Nedeljko Popović és Georgije Ranite Bánsági ikonfestõk munkássága, különös tekintettel muhelyük Magyar vonatkozású emlékeire,” [The Works of the Icon-Painters Nedelcu Popovici and George Ranite, with an Emphasis on their Paintings in Hungary] Magyar Sion. Új Folyam 3/45, no. 2 (2009): 217–242. Dinko Davidov, Spomenichi Budimski Eparhy [Monuments of the Eparchy of Buda], (Belgrad, 1990), 418. 45 Pârvulescu, O ipotеza [A Hypothesis] 46 Porumb, Dicționar [Dictionary], 160. 47 Marius Porumb, “Relațiile artistice …” [The Artistic Relations], 235. 42

43

Circulation of Icon Painters between Banat and Transylvania

235

iconographic register from Sânpetru, that is now at Gai monastery near Arad.48 In Transylvania his most famous works are the iconostasis in Gurasada, and the paintings done for the churches in Densuș and Prislop, which are among the most ancient churches still standing in that region.49 I can thus conclude that two types of movements characterized the migration of Wallachain painters. They either came straight to Banat from Wallachia or Oltenia, which was a neighboring province, that was for a short while under Habsburg domination or, they first worked or lived in Transylvania, before working in Banat.

Transylvanian Painters in Banat During the first half of the eighteenth century, Transylvanian church art was under the influence of the post-Byzantine Wallachian art. The famous Transylvanian painters from Rășinari, the brothers Iacov and Stan, had painted in Curtea de Argeș as apprentices of Grigore Ranite.50 They were working in the same style as their master, perpetuating and spreading this style of religious art in Transylvania. Later, Iacov moved to Feisa and established his workshop there, while Stan settled in Orăștie. At the same time, some Ruthenian workshops were active in Transylvania and itinerant painters were probably at work. Paintings from the church in Dretea can be attributed to the Ruthenian style. The same Ruthenian style can be noticed in the works of the painter Andrei Bo (…) dor,51 the master of the prolific painter Simion Silaghi, in works such as the painting at the church in Bica, dating from 1775. It is characterized by long, slim figures with a lot of decorative elements originating in the traditional Ruthenian culture. During this period two tendencies were manifest in the Ruthenian lands. As Philip Zweig52 notes, one was promoted by the leading painting schools of the Kyiv Lavra and the Kyiv Academy, which was an academic painting style





Cristache Panait, “Pictori din Argeș”, [Painters from Arges] Argesis, Studii și comu­ nicări, Seria Istorie, Tom 14, (2005): 410. 49 Porumb, Dicționar [Dictionary], 373–374. 50 Ana Dumitran, “Un zugrav de elită: Grigore Ranite,“ [An Elite Painter: Grigore Ranite] Annales Universitatis Apulensis, Series Historica 14, no. I (2010): 83–98. 51 Ana Dumitran, “Siladi Șimon, ucenicul jupânului Andraș din Cluj. Parcurs retro­ spectiv în căutarea unui maestru,” [Siladi Simon, the Disciple of Master Andras from Cluj. A Retrospective Journey in Search of a Master] Apulum, 50 (Alba Iulia, 2013): 271–327. 52 Philip Zweig, Icônes XI-XVIII siècles [Icons. 11–18th century], (New York: Parkstone International, 2004).

48

236

R aluca P r elipceanu

that included many Western elements, while the other was a folk painting style promoted by many local workshops. The itinerant Ruthenian painters at work in Transylvania came from both artistic milieus as the icons painted by Vasili Zboroschi53 in 1752 for the iconostasis in Certege in the Apuseni Mountains prove. These icons belong to an accomplished painter working in the Baroque style. At the same time, paintings like the one in the church of Dretea or the one found now in the church of Crivina de Sus,54 dating from the end of the seventeenth century and later transferred from Hunedoara to Timis belong to a less academic painting style with many folk elements. One of the most important folk painting schools was the one in Rybotycze, which had an important influence in the eparchy of Mukacevo, but also in Maramureș.55 At the same time, painters of Transylvanian origin also came to work in Banat. For example, Stan from Rășinari, a former apprentice of Grigore Ranite painted some icons for the church in Banloc in 1741 where Nedelcu Popovici also worked. He may have also painted in Ofsenița,56 though accord­ ing to some other opinions57 the icons attributed to him in Banloc and the royal doors in Ofsenița were painted by Gheorghe Ranite. He also worked in Partoș in 1740. Almost twenty years later, in 1767 he signed some icons at Sânmihaiu Roman and in Utvin in 1768. Moreover, some icons painted by his brother, Iacov, were found in Carnecea. Iacov is also the creator of the icon of the All Mercy Virgin from Sintești that was painted by him and his apprentice Teodor.58 Another Transylvanian painter who worked in Banat was Râșcanu Constantin,59 from Hălmagiu, who came from the area of Hunedoara and had worked at Gurahonț in the region of Arad in 1774. The icons he painted are now at the monastery of Gai. He also painted at Groșii Noi, also in the region of Arad in 1776.



Ana Dumitran, “Pictura românească în județul Alba până la mijlocul secolului al XIX-lea. Demersuri pentru o bază de date,” [The Romanian Painting from Alba County until mid-19th century. Approaches for a Database] Patrimonium Apulense XII (Alba Iulia: Ed. Altip, 2012), 96. 54 Bogdan Ilieș and Vladimir Obradovici, “Fragments from the Painted Decoration of the Wooden Church of Crivina de Sus,” Museikon 3 (Alba Iulia, 2019): 183–187. 55 Bernadette Puskas, “The Art of the Greek Catholic Eparchy of Mukachevo,” in John Paul Himka and Franz Szabo Eastern Christians in the Habsburg Monarchy (Edmonton, Toronto: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Study Press, 2021), 106–107. 56 Porumb, Relațiile artistice [Artistic Relations], 235. 57 Pârvulescu, O ipoteză [A Hypothesis] 58 Pârvulescu, Catalog, 388. 59 Porumb, Dicționar [Dictionary], 327–328. 53

Circulation of Icon Painters between Banat and Transylvania

237

Other Transylvanian painters who worked in Banat came from the region of the Apuseni mountains, as was the case with Teodor Ciungariu,60 who worked alongside a local painter from Banat called Atanasie from Lugoj in 1781 at the churches of Zolt and Poieni in the region of Timiș. Interestingly, at the church in Zolt the two painted the portrait of Oprean Obead the cnez, who was the donor. In eighteenth-century Transylvanian art, the donors were not usually represented since most often the whole community was the donor, as argued by Ioana Cristache Panait.61 In Banat the social structure was different. The local minor nobles, often of Romanian or Serbian origin, called cnezi62 still held local power and could own or build churches. For example, the churches in Cusici and Săraca were restored in 1725 and 1730, respectively, at the expense of the obercneaz of Cusici and the Lazarevici family of small landowners.63 The church in Surducu Mare was restored by cneaz Sandru Baloșin,64 and the Orthodox church in Lugoj was restored by prefect Ioan Rațiu.65 In these cases, in their capacity of donors they paid for the paint­ ing and the icons. Nevertheless, as in Transylvania, sometimes the whole community would pay for the painting, as was the case of the Annunciation church in Lipova,66 or in that of Geira.67 Obercneaz Gavril Gurean and the cnezi Alisandru Pătraşcu and Mihail Faur played an important part in the building of the church of the Dormition of the Mother of God in Lugoj between 1759 and 1766. Cnezi and obercnezi, such as Ion Medescu and loan Chiricescu in Povergina in 1782, important local families like Vasiescu from Băteşti in 1783, or Marinescu in Topla during the following century68 also contributed to the building and restoration of churches. Sometimes the costs of building or restoring a church was supported by the local bourgeoisie, who also invested in the restoration of the monasteries



Porumb, Dicționar [Dictionary], 80. Ioana Cristache Panait, “Tipuri sociale și aspecte de critică socială în pictura mon­ umentelor de lemn din centrul și vestul țării,” [Social Types and Aspects of Social Criticism in the Painting of the Wooden Monuments from the Centre and Western Parts of the Country], RMM, MIA, anul XV, nr 1 (1984), 54–59. 62 The communal judges or cnezii were common people, without education. They did not pay taxes and they doled out punishments to those who transgressed the law. Popovici, Istoria, 307. 63 Pârvulescu, Referiri [References], 9. 64 Pârvulescu, Patrimoniul bănățean [Banat’s Heritage], 276. 65 Pârvulescu, 276. 66 Pârvulescu, Referiri, 10 and Popoviciu, Istoria, 308–309. 67 Pârvulescu, Patrimoniu bănățean, 278. 68 Pârvulescu, Referiri, 10. 60 61

238

R aluca P r elipceanu

as in the case of the church of the Partoș Monastery paid for by judge Marcu Muțiu from Timișoara.69 One of the most important painters from the region of the Apuseni Mountains, Simion Silaghi,70 who first worked in Țohești in the region of Arad in 1796 and later in Julița in 1813 alongside two of his apprentices, Nicolae Bădău and Nechifor Nandronie, came to paint in Banat. Simion Silaghi was an accomplished painter who held a workshop in Abrud where he had moved during mid 1780s, though he initially painted in the regions of Solnok, Dobâka and Cojocna. One of these regions, Solnok, was also probably his place of birth since he was nicknamed Sălăgeanu, after the region’s name. He remained in the memory of the inhabitants from the Apuseni mountains as the “painter of the Romanians.”71 Simion Silaghi’s apprentice, Nicolae Bădău,72 from Lupșa Mare, painted the church in Seliște towards the end of the eighteenth century together with deacon Filip from Lugoj. Around 1800 he also painted in Troaș, nearby Săvârșin in the region of Arad. Later, in 1807 he painted the church in Corbești in the county of Arad and in 1813 the church in Julița alongside Simion Silaghi and Nechifor Nandronie, as already mentioned. It seems that in 1813 he also painted the church in Căpruța in the county of Arad, a painting now lost, but which had been seen and mentioned by the Coriolan Petreanu in the 1920s.73 In 1820 Nicolae Bădău painted at Roșia Nouă, in Petriș, Arad where he signed Nicolae Zugrav. As this lengthy list of painters demonstrates, the Banat region gained a rich repertoire of artists from the Transylvanian region during the eighteenth century and first half of the nineteenth century. As they migrated to the area, built workshops, and began mingling with local artists, they helped shape the artistic landscape by providing influences from their home territories, even as they also incorporated local elements, as illustrated by the aforementioned discussion on the representation of donors in artwork that would not have occurred in Transylvania. Furthermore, as already well-known artists, such as



Pârvulescu, 10. Porumb, Dicționar, 368–372; Raluca Prelipceanu, “Eclectismul în arta lui Simion Silaghi Sălăgeanu” [The Ecclectic Art of Simon Silagi Salageanu- A Transylvanian Painter at the Confluences of the 18th and 19th centuries], Ars Transylvaniae, 29 (2019): 91–118. 71 As mentioned in a manuscript found by the author in the personal archive of the former priest in Lupșa, Sebastian Ciapa in 2019 72 Porumb, Dicționar [Dictionary], 31–33. 73 Coriolan Petreanu, Bisericile de lemn din județul Arad [The Wooden Churches from Arad county] (1927), 7–8. 69 70

Circulation of Icon Painters between Banat and Transylvania

239

Simion Silaghi, brought with them apprentices, they ensured a future generation of painters to continue to practice traditional elements of Transylvanian art, while further blending them with the surrounding styles, to create a unique form of design. Nevertheless, Transylvanians were not the only ones who migrated to the Banat region during this time period, and so to better understand the full range of artistic production in the area of Banat, other influences must also be taken into consideration.

The Shift in Art: The Influence of Russian Art on Serbian Church Art During the same period as Transylvanian artists were coming into the Banat region, Serbian migrants also arrived with their painters and their culture. Patriarch Arsenie IV invited painters and teachers from Imperial Russia and from the Kyiv Academy. For example, the monastery of Velika Remeta was granted privileges in 1722 and the renovation began afterwards. In 1739 some Serbian monks from the Rakovica monastery took refuge to Velika Remeta bringing with them icons by famous Russian painters like Leontie Stefanov, Ioan Maximov, Spiridon Grigorev and Tihon Ivanov,74 who were official painters at the Russian court. Leontie Stefanov had painted the wonder-working icon of the Holy Mother of God, which later became one of the main attractions of the monastery. The iconostasis they made belonged to the Baroque style which proves that their painting style was highly influenced by Western European art. These influences had started to manifest in the Russian religious milieu a century earlier and had been promoted by painters such as Fyodor Zubov, Mikhail Milutin, Kirill Ulanov, and Simion Ushakov.75 The latter was the head of the royal school of iconographers and had educated several generations of painters in this spirit. However, the two teachers who were of significant importance in the evolution of art in the Serbian Metropolitanate were Job Vasilievici and Vasily Romanovici. They came from Imperial Russia and had been educated at the Kyiv Caves Lavra. Romanovici became part of the teaching staff of the newly

Nenad Makuljević, “Piety, Ideology, and Orthodoxy: Russian Icons in Serbian Church Culture (17th-19th Centuries),” in Routes of Russian Icons in the Balkans (16th–early 20th Centuries), ed. Yuliana Boycheva (Seyssel: La Pomme d’or, 2016), 139; manastir velika remeta—www.manast​iri-crkve.com 75 In the 1660s, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich decreed the foundation of the royal school of iconographers, with zhalovannye (salaried) masters getting paid in money and food, and kormovye (literally “fed” or contract) icon-painters being paid in food for the amount of work performed. Russian Icons: Школа Царских мастеров (iconrussia.ru) 74

240

R aluca P r elipceanu

constructed Academy of Painting, built and funded by the metropolitan, while Vasilievici, who came in 1741, became a court painter of the Metropolitanate of Karlowitz. He painted the church in Karlowitz. Ukrainian painters who arrived in the region from the 1720s onwards, such as Job Vasilievici, Vasily Romanovici, but also Grigori Gerasimov, had a significant influence on Serbian Baroque art.76 Patriarch Arsenie IV issued a decree in 1742 compel­ ling painters to observe the models employed by Job Vasilievici and Vasily Romanovici,77 and demanded that all the painters who would like to receive commissions to paint the churches of the Metropolitanate come to Karlowitz and go through Vasilievici’s school. His actions tried firmly to unify the official religious art across the different dioceses of the Metropolitanate of Karlowitz and its development was thus tightly linked to that of Russian and Ukrainian iconography. However, there was no unity among the different Orthodox ethnic groups living in the territory of the Metropolitanate and the dioceses at the periphery of the Metropolitanate continued to employ the icon painters of the “traditional” schools, who were cheaper and considerably more numerous than those trained in the official style.78 The painting from the Kyiv Monastery of the Caves (Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra) was different from traditional art, mainly because of its ties with the Catholic Baroque culture of Central Europe. The influence of Polish painting from the end of the sixteenth century raised the interest in portrait and landscape painting, which subsequently led to changes in Orthodox icon painting. After significant parts of Ukraine were incorporated into Russia in the midseventeenth century, the Kyiv School gained ground and important innovations made their way into Serbian religious painting via Imperial Russia.79 At that time there were two directions of change manifest in the Ruthenian art. The first one came from the newly formed Greek-Catholic Ruthenian church, which adopted Catholic models. The fist polemical writings about the paintings of Orthodox churches appeared during the eighteenth century. Until then, there had been no clear differences between the Orthodox and Catholic churches, even though the Union of Brest80 had taken place at the

Vladimir Simić, “Political Orthodoxy and Arts: Serbian-Russian Relations Cultural Relations in the 18th century,” Musicology 28, (2020), 86. 77 Miodrag Jovanović, Slikarstvo Temišvarske Eparhije [Paintings of the Eparchy of Timisoara] (Beograd, 1996), 37. 78 Simić, The Impact of Migrations, 336. 79 Dinko Davidov, “O rusko-ukrajinskim i srpskim umetničkim vezama,” [About Russian-Ukrainian and Serbian Artistic Ties] in Studije o srpskoj umetnosti XVIII veka (Beograd: Srpska književna zadruga), 171–173. 80 Waldemar Deluga, “L’évolution de l’iconographie dans l’église gréco-catholique pendant le XVIII-ieme siècle à la lumière des sources écrites,” [The Evolution of 76

Circulation of Icon Painters between Banat and Transylvania

241

end of the sixteenth century. Many of the churches often changed their canonical jurisdiction and some Orthodox churches were transformed, receiving a choir or a tribune. At the council of Przemysl in 1693, church authorities remarked that there was chaos at the level of church organization, so a new Council took place in Zamosc in order to set some rules for the liturgical services and the church paintings. The report of this council was published in Vilnius and Suprasl in 1722 and later in Univ, Lvov and Poceaev.81 Some of its decisions were adopted by the Orthodox church as well. For example, Baroque decorations started to adorn Orthodox icons. Also, the iconostasis became higher, while in some places it disappeared completely. New subjects never before treated in Orthodox art were now being introduced. The iconography of the Passions of Christ was highly developed with a special emphasis on the Flagellation. Christ’s feet on the cross were separated and pierced by nails, as in Catholic iconography. Catholic saints began to be represented as well. Compositions, such as Mater Dolorosa and the three persons of the Trinity also made their way into Orthodox art. Furthermore, Christ and the Virgin were crowned, unlike in the traditional Byzantine iconography82 and sometimes Christ was represented with the orb and the stick as attributes of power. The symbol of the lily for the Virgin’s purity is also a Catholic influence. On the other hand, the Orthodox tried to fight Catholic attempts to gain control over the church in Ruthenia and they employed Protestant carvers and printers to this end. One of the main sources of inspiration for the painters during this period were precisely wood carvings or woodcuts, etchings and Blockbücher made by these carvers. They introduced images developed in the Protestant world by well-known engravers such as Albrecht Dürer, Lucas Cranach, and Hans Holbein the Younger.83 These kinds of drawings were taught at the painting school at the Caves Lavra.84 Some of the most important works that inspired the painters of this period were Biblia Ectypa, Thesaurus, Theatrum Biblicum and Biblia Piscator.85



Iconography in the Greek-Catholic Church during the 18th Century in the Light of Written Sources] Revue des études slaves, 71, no. 2 (Paris, 1999): 225–242. 81 Ibid., 229–230. 82 Judith Herrin, “The Imperial Feminine in Byzantium, Past & Present,” 169 (Nov., 2000): 3–35. 83 Waldemar Deluga, Ukrainian Painting between the Byzantine and Latin Traditions (Ostrava-Warsaw: Archeobooks, 2019) 84 Zweig, Icônes, 116. 85 Waldemar Deluga, L’évolution de l’iconographie [The Evolution of Iconography], 233.

242

R aluca P r elipceanu

Serbian painters, such as Hristofor Zafarović, Zaharia Orfelin, Nikola Nesković, Dimitrie Baćević, Dimitrie Popović, Jovan Popović, Vasa Ostojić, Ambrosie Janković, and Janko Halkozović, who worked between the 1750s and 1780s were under the influence of Ukrainian Baroque. According to Dinko Davidov, “they helped to speed up the slow process of Baroque in Serbian painting, make Serbian art emerge from its provincial anonymity and get in step with contemporary European art.86 The appearance of these painters is linked with the emergence and strengthening of the middle classes which at that time represented the most progressive social force among the Serbian population in Austria. These classes were influenced by Western culture and the underlying social changes found their reflection and stimulus in art. The tendency found further support in the Church which had even earlier desired to establish closer contacts between the traditional Greek-Catholic Church art and the typical Baroque art of the Roman Catholic Church.” Thus, the Serbian influence on art in the Banat region was an amalgamation of cultural and religious practices, not unlike its counterpart in Transylvania.

Serbian Painters in Transylvania. The Influence of Stefan Tenecki on Transylvanian Church Art The Metropolitan and the Bishops also sent some of the best painters to be educated at the Kyiv Lavra, or even in Vienna. This was the case for Stefan Tenecki, who was probably sent to study at the Kyiv Caves Lavra by the Bishop of Arad. Tenecki painted for the Bishops of Arad, Isaia Antonovici, Sinesie Jivanovici and Pachomius Cnejevici.87 He was an accomplished painter, and he also played an important part in the administration of the city of Arad as a senator. The most important commissions he received upon his return from Kyiv were the frescoes of the Krušedol monastery, which had been burnt by the Turks after their defeat near Petrovaradin in 1721. Its reconstruction was initiated in 1721 and lasted several decades. Another painter who also worked there was none other than Job Vasilievici, who painted the sanctuary and the nave between 1745 and 1757, while Stefan Tenecki painted the nave in 1756.



Dinko Davidov, Srednjevekovna umetnost u Jugoslaviji [Medieval Art in Yugoslavia], (Belgrade: Beogradski graficki zavod, 1964), VI-VII. 87 Davidov, Spomenichi, 420, Mircea Măran and Jovana Kolundzija, “Pictura bănățeană în secolul al XVIII-lea și al XIX-lea. Interferențe sârbo-române,” [The Painting from Banat during the 18th and the 19th centuries. Serbian-Romanian Mutual Influences] in Studii și cercetări. Banatul: istorie și multiculturalitate. (Zrenianin, 2020), 177–186. 86

Circulation of Icon Painters between Banat and Transylvania

243

Tenecki worked in Hungary, Banat and Transylvania. His most important work in Banat was probably the iconostasis of the church in Lipova.88 He also painted several iconostases in Hungary for churches either of the Romanian or Serbian communities. At the invitation of the bishop of Buda, Dionisie Novacovici, who like Tenecki had been educated in Kyiv, and who taught at Petrovaradin,89 Tenecki painted the iconostasis of St. Nicholas church in Pesta and later the iconostasis of the church in Szeged. Two icons of the Coronation of the Virgin were painted by the artist for this iconostasis.90 Tenecki also painted the iconostases of a Romanian church in Bichiș around 1789 and of a Greek one in Szentes in 1786, both in the Hungarian territory.91 Interestingly, he passed away in the Apuseni Mountains while he was in Certege, near Câmpeni.92 If he did work there, his paintings were not preserved. The iconostasis formerly attributed to Tenecki had been painted by a Ruthenian painter Vasile Zboroschi, as the signature proves.93 Tenecki was the most important Serbian artist who worked in Transylvania. At that time Transylvanian church art went through a period of transition. During the first half of the eighteenth century there was no official Orthodox hierarchy in Transylvania, and many parishes had united with Rome. However, the bishops of the new Greek-Catholic church, like Inochentie Micu Klein,94 who was tonsured in a Greek Catholic monastery in Mukachevo, still supported Byzantine and Post-Byzantine traditional art. At the time of Inochentie Micu there was more than one prolific painter in Mukachevo, where the workshop of the famous Ruthenian painter Ilia Brodlacovici was situated. However, Inochentie Micu, whose nephew, Efrem was a painter educated at the Vienna Academy of Art, called painters from Wallachia to decorate his new cathedral. In fact, the first painters who worked there were the Wallachians Grigore Ranite in 1736 and Ștefan from Ocnele Mari in 1737. Later, Iacov of Rășinari completed the mural paintings, whereas Tenecki, “zograf Aradschi,” was the author of the iconostasis.



Horia Medeleanu, “The Life of an 18th Century Painter: Stefan Tenețchi,” in Revue des études sud-est européennes, Tome 21, no. 2 (avril-juin 1983), 127–145. 89 Simic, Political Orthodoxy and Arts, 86. 90 Davidov, Spomenichi, 420. 91 Marta Nagy, Orthodox Ikonosztazonok Magyarországon [Orthodox Iconostases in Hungary] (Debrecen, 1990) 92 Ana Dumitran, Ștefan Tenețchi-finalul unei cariere de succes [Stefan Tenetchi-the End of a Prominent Career], Ars Transylvaniae, 29 (2019): 85–90. 93 Ibid. 94 Inochentie Micu Klein was elected bishop in 1730 and installed in 1732. He was exiled in 1744 and he resigned in 1751. 88

244

R aluca P r elipceanu

The exquisite Baroque painting style of Stefan Tenecki influenced the evolution of iconography in Transylvania. This is obvious at least in the works of Simion Silaghi, although Tenecki’s relationship with Silaghi is not clear. He may have met him while the latter was working in Țohești or Julița during the mid 1790s, both in the region of Arad. At the same time, they may have only met on the occasion of Tenecki’s visit to Certege in the Apuseni Mountains. In any case, the painting style of Silaghi seems to change after 1799, that is, after his alleged encounter with Stefan Tenecki who had died a year earlier in Certege. What were these changes? First of all, Simion Silaghi began to paint the Beatitudes on the triumphal arch. He painted them for the first time at the church in Gârda de Sus in 1804 and later at the church in Furcșoara, in the county of Hunedoara in 1808 and in 1823 in Ponor. The same allegorical images had been painted by Stefan Tenecki in the church of the monastery of Krušedol in 1756.95 Tenecki also painted them on a piece of furniture at the church in Lipova in 1785.96 The Beatitudes were also painted elsewhere in Banat: on the benches at the monastery of Hodoș-Bodrog in 1796 and, together with the Works of Mercy mentioned in the same Gospel of Matthew, in the Cathedral of Vârșet in 1808, by Simeon Jasici between 1806 and 1812 and later at the church in Goruia, Caraș Severin, this time by Axențiu Iancovici between 1819 and 1820.97 It was precisely such images that were studied at the Kyiv Caves Lavra painting school, and it was probably there where painters like Tenețchi and Tadei Spalinsky became acquainted with them. They were most likely inspired by the Biblia Ectypa printed by Christoph Weigel in Augsburg in 1695. Tadei Spalinsky who painted a series on the Beatitudes for the Malyi Bereznyi monastery commissioned by the Basilian brothers,98 was an academic painter from Galicia, an important fig­ ure in the Greek-Catholic eparchy of Mukacevo in Ukraine during the second half of the eighteenth century. He stood out from among the craftsmen

Pârvulescu, Catalog, 387. Dorina Pârvulescu, 185. 97 Dorina Pârvulescu, “Virtuțile creștine în pictura ortodoxă din Banat,” [Christian Virtues in the Orthodox Painting from Banat] in Arta românească. Artă europeană: centenar Vătășianu, ed. M. Porumb, A. Chiriac (Oradea: Ed. Muzeului Țării Crișurilor, 2002), 181–188. 98 After the Church Union of Berestia (1596), the metropolitan of Kyiv, Yosyf Rutsky, with the assistance of Archbishop Yosafat Kuntsevych, organized the monasteries in the Ukrainian-Belarusian eparchies that had adopted the union with Rome into the Congregation of the Holy Trinity under a common leadership and a common rule. He made the Basilian monasteries independent of the bishops and subject to the protoarchimandrite. In 1624 the new rule of the Basilian order was confirmed by the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith and, in 1631, by Pope Urban VIII. 95

96

Circulation of Icon Painters between Banat and Transylvania

245

who were making popular icons, as noted by Bernadett Puskás.99 He was himself a monk of the Basilian order, attested as such for the first time in the monastery Chernecha Hora near Mukacevo in 1767. However, these images were very rare in Transylvanian church art. Another image that entered Transylvanian iconography during the eighteenth century was the Immaculate Conception. It was painted by Simion Silaghi on the vault of the sanctuary of the church of Lupșa in 1810 and in the apse of the church in Vința in 1819–1821, both in the region of the Apuseni. The iconography of the Immaculate Conception was developed in the Western world, with the first known image coming from a Book of Hours from Rouen created during the second half of the fifteenth century.100 The literary sources of the image were the Canticle of Canticles and the Book of Revelation. In 1576 a text called the Litanies of the Virgin of Loretto presents the Virgin surrounded by her attributes, either the celestial orbs or floral symbols.101 These symbols were later represented in religious paintings. She is also depicted with the attributes of the Virgin from the Book of Revelation, standing on the crescent moon as Christ on the gates of hell. After the victory of Lepento over the Ottomans in 1571, this image became a symbol of the victory of the cross over the Ottoman crescent.102 And as such it was promoted by the Habsburgs after their victory over the Ottomans. According to tradition, an image of the Woman of Apocalypse was brought to Moscow during the fifteenth century by the Lithuanian, Sofia Vitovtovna, wife of Grand Duke Vasiliy I. The Western Catholic image spread in Russian iconography of the seventeenth century. In Russia, such images had two names: “Blessed Heaven” or “What Shall We Call Thee?” The image flourished in the Western world, especially in the art of the Counter-Reformation. However, during this period it gained in austerity and Mary was no longer represented surrounded by her attributes,103 but instead smashing the serpent’s head and, therefore, in direct opposition to Eve.104 Stefan Tenecki painted the Virgin on the Crescent in several compositions of the Coronation of the Virgin for the church of the Romanian community 99 Puskas, The Art of the Greek Catholic Eparchy of Mukachevo, 114–115. 100 Louis Réau, Iconographie de l’art chrétien. Tome II Iconographie de la Bible [The Iconography of Christian Art. Vol. 2, The Iconography of the Bible] (Paris : PUF, 1957), 81. 101 Louis Réau, 80. 102 Ibid. 103 Louis Réau, 82. 104 Beth Williamson, “The Virgin Lactans as Second Eve: The Image of the Salvatrix,” Studies in Iconography, 19, (1998): 105–138.

246

R aluca P r elipceanu

in Bichiș,105 and in the Serbian church of Szeged,106 both in Hungary and for the cathedral of Oradea. The posture of the Virgin, standing on the clouds or on the terrestrial globe, smashing under her feet the head of the serpent that had tempted Eve, while holding a lily, a symbol of purity is a direct reference to the woman in the book of Revelation and also to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. On the royal doors at the Cathedral in Blaj, painted in 1765, Tenecki associated the image of the Virgin with the symbol of the mirror,107 which is not of Orthodox origin, but rather mentioned in the Litanies of the Virgin. During the eighteenth century, the Virgin was compared to a mirror in an akathistos hymnos, written by the Basilians brothers and printed several times in Pochaiv Lavra, before it was forbidden in the Orthodox world during the nineteenth century. However, there were theological debates among Ukrainian Orthodox theologians during the seventeenth century regarding the immaculate conception, and there existed even an Orthodox faction of the Immaculate Conception. A book containing an engraving of the Virgin surrounded by symbols, among which is a mirror, was published by the Kyiv Caves Lavra in 1674. A fresco of the Virgin from the eleventh century St. Sophie Cathedral in Kyiv, whose restoration began under Metropolitan Peter Mohyla of Kyiv during the seventeenth century, also features the symbol.108 The same debates took place in the Serbian world a century later. The Serbian painter, Iovan Isailovici the Elder,109 also painted an icon of the Immaculate Conception in 1780. Furthermore, Cornel Tatai Baltă110 acknowledged the influence of the Ukrainian painting school, and namely of the school at the Kyiv Caves Lavra, in the composition of the Holy Trinity icon painted by Tenecki at the iconostasis in Blaj. Tenecki also painted a composition for Gai monastery which 105 Marta Nagy, “Tema Încoronării Maicii Domnului: aspecte iconografice,” [The Theme of the Coronation of the Mother of God: Iconographic Aspects] Lumina (Budapesta, 2006), 15–19. 106 Marta Nagy, “Stefan Tenecki és műhelyének munkái Magyarországon,” [The Works of Stefan Tenecki and those of his Workshop in Hungary] Művészettörténeti Értesítő (Budapest), 1, no. 4, (1989): 89–90. 107 Sylvester Terdik, “La Cathédrale gréco-catholique à Balaszfalva: influences orien­ tales et occidentales,” [The Greek-Catholic Cathedral in Blaj: Eastern and Western influences], HStud 28 (2014): 55–76. 108 Ibidem, 66. 109 Gallery of Matica Srpska, Novi Sad. 110 Cornel Tatai Baltă, “Noi date cu referire la icoana de hram a iconostasului catedra­ lei de la Blaj,“ [New data on the dedication icon of the iconostasis of the Cathedral in Blaj] Historia Artium,” 1 (2008): 49–54.

Circulation of Icon Painters between Banat and Transylvania

247

mixes elements from the Virgin Platytera, holding Christ infant, with the attributes of the Woman of the Apocalypse and the Coronation by angels. However, the most important changes occurred in the manner of painting and in the composition of iconographic programs. Simion Silaghi excelled in the art of portraiture at a later stage of his career. His icons became more naturalistic and an evolution towards an academic art can clearly be seen. The same evolution characterized the art of Gheorghe, son of Iacov. At a certain point in his career, Gheorghe’s art started to depart from that of his father’s. His icons were more naturalistic, and the chromatic spectrum also changed. He used intense colors and sharp contrasts. This was a consequence of the influence of the Baroque art. Furthermore, Ioan Abrudan believes that the composition of the Coronation of the Virgin in Transylvania also spread due to contact with the Serbian artistic milieu.111 The Greek-Aromanian painter from Albania, Jovan Cetirevici Grabovan painted it at the church in Roman, Moldavia in 1755.112 Nikola Nescovici painted the Coronation of the Virgin in 1764 for the iconostasis of St. George Serbian Orthodox church in Timișoara, Dimitrie Bacevici did so for the Serbian church in Sarajevo around 1770 and the painters Ion, Ioan and Ion also painted this composition in St. John church in Caransebeș in 1787, while Petar Nicolici painted it in Poieni in 1812. Tenecki painted it for the churches in Bichiș and Szeged and for the old Orthodox cathedral in Velența Orăzii in Bihor,113 but also for other churches in the Serbian eparchy of Ruma.114 The composition spread quickly throughout Transylvania during the eighteenth century, and it was painted in the church in Sadu in 1756 by the painter Oprea from Făgăraș,115 and in Rășinari in 1760 by Grigore Ranite 111 Ioan Abrudan, “Un ansamblu iconografic inedit: pictura lui Ioan Grigorievici şi a zugravilor familiei Grecu, din biserica satului Cornăţel,” [An original iconographic ensemble: the painting of Ioan Grigorievici and the painters of the Grecu family at the church of Cornatel village] Revista Teologica, nr. 2 (2009). 112 Aleksandra Kuceković, “Jovan Četirević Grabovan—an 18th Century Itinerant Orthodox Painter. Some Ethnic and Artistic Considerations,” eds. Emmanuel Moutafov and Ida Toth, Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Art: Crossing Borders, Thematic Peеr-reviewed Annual in Art Studies, Volumes I–II 2017.I-Old Art, 363. 113 Florian Dudaș, Constantin Butișcă and Cosmin Pintea, Vechea Catedrală Ortodoxă a Bihorului [The Old Orthodox Cathedral of Bihor], Ed. Brevis, Oradea, 2004, 131 114 Jovana Kolundžija, “Moştenirea pictorului Stefan Tenecki în Episcopia Sremului,” [The Legacy of the Painter Stefan Tenecki in the Bishopric of Srem] in Patrimoniu și patrimonializare, coord. dr. Elena Rodica Colta (București : Ed. Etnologică, 2018), 42–63. 115 I. D. Ștefănescu, La peinture religieuse en Valachie et en Transylvanie depuis les origines jusqu’au XIXe siècle [Religious Painting in Wallachia ad Transylvania from its Origins to the 19th century] (Paris, 1932), 267–269.

248

R aluca P r elipceanu

and his son Ioan Grigorovici.116 The same composition was also painted by Ioan from Deva and Nicolae, Simion’s apprentice from Pitești, at Gurasada in 1765. The iconostasis of this church had been painted by Simion ot Pitești.117 According to local priest, the imperial authority demanded that the church of Gurasada be repainted.118 This episode proves that political authorities also exercised a certain control on religious art. Gheorghe Ranite and the Grecu brothers painted this image in Transylvania at the church of the village of Cornățel towards the end of the eighteenth century. Around the same time the composition was painted in the church of Monoroștia, in the county of Arad.119 It was often painted by Simion Silaghi and his school, and also by the artists from the Ciungar family. However, the composition had begun to be represented in the Romanian space from the sixteenth century, first in the images of the Akathishos hymn on the walls of the Sucevița monastery. The Wallachian iconographers from the school of Constantinos also painted it. Constantinos himself did so for the loggia of the guest house of Dintr-un lemn Monastery at the end of the seventeenth century, and his apprentices Andrei, Ioan, and Iovan painted it at the monastery of Surpatele in 1705–1706.120 Two Greek icons from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries prove that this theme was also painted in the Greek space, though Elisabeta Negrău,121 following Violeta Barbu,122 believes that its proliferation in Wallachian painting was due to the influence of German engravings reflected in the Russian and Wallachian icons from the second half of the sixteenth century, as well as in Moldovan painting. Furthermore, a seventeenth-century Cretan icon of the martyrdom of St Kyrikos and Julitta from the Bachkovo Monastery in Bulgaria features in the

116 I. D. Ștefănescu, 292–293. 117 I. D. Ștefănescu, 292–293. 118 Ambulanţa pentru Monumente la biserica sfinţilor înarmaţi de la Gurasada - Stiri din judetul Hunedoara (replicahd.ro) 19 septembrie 2021 119 Petreanu, Bisericile de lemn [Wooden churches], 13. 120 Corina Popa, Ioana Iancovescu, Vlad Bedros, Elisabeta Negrău, Repertoriul picturilor murale brâncovenești [The Repertory of the Brancovan Style Mural Paintings], UNArte (București, 2008), 300. 121 Idem, 452–453. 122 Violeta Barbu, “Sisteme de reprezentare populară a cultului marianic în Țările Române în secolele XVII–XVIII,” [Systems of Popular Representation of the Marian cult in the Romanian lands during the 17th–18th centuries] in “Church and Society in Central and Eastern Europe”, ed. Maria Crăciun and Ovidiu Ghitta, Cluj, European Studies Foundation, 1997, 128–146

Circulation of Icon Painters between Banat and Transylvania

249

upper side the Coronation of the Virgin.123 In my opinion, this iconography might have developed in the Greek space after the union of Ferrara-Florence. This argument is put forward by Jean and Yann Le Pichon124 who under­ line that the composition suffered some transformations after the council of Ferrara-Florence. While the interest of their research lies with the changes brought to the image in the Western world, we focus rather on the changes it suffered in the Eastern world. Another painter from Banat who worked in Transylvania was Ioanovici Zugrav from Fabrica, who painted an icon of St John the Baptist for Vasilin Vasilievici from Brașov, while the cross in the church of Săliștea Sibiului dating from 1737 bears the signature of Ioan Stoevici, a painter who may have also come from Banat. Later, in 1812, Arsenie Teodorovici125 from Banat painted in a village near Sibiu.

Conclusion Both Banat and Transylvania were at the crossroads between the Ukrainian, Serbian, Russian and Romanian artistic milieus. The mobility of painters was mainly due to the commissions they received. At the same time, the migration of painters from Wallachia to Banat was facilitated by Oltenia’s annexation to the Habsburg Empire between 1718 and 1739.126 However, it may also have been due to possible links established between painters. In other words, when painters received a commission, they generally worked with other painters from the same workshop or school with whom they had previous ties. However, associations between local painters, as well as painters coming from other regions, were also quite common. During the first half of the eighteenth century there was a reverse movement as compared to the migration of painters during the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries, when several painters of Serbian origins were at work in Oltenia and Wallachia.127 Later, the painters who came from Oltenia brought to Banat the new Neo-Byzantine Brancovan painting style developed by the 123 Emmanuel Moutafov and Ida Toth eds., “Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Art: Crossing Borders,” in Thematic Peеr-reviewed Annual in Art Studies, Volumes I–II 2017.I-Old Art, cover image. 124 Jean Le Pichon and Yann Le Pichon, Le mystère du Couronnement de la Vierge [The Mystery of the Coronation of the Virgin] (Paris: ed. Robert Lafont et Le Centurion, 1982), 36. 125 Nicolae Iorga, Studii și documente VIII [Studies and Documents VIII], (1905), 169. 126 Pârvulescu, Referiri [References], 10. 127 For example the painter Dobromir and his son, Dobromir from Târgoviște.

250

R aluca P r elipceanu

Greek painter Constantinos and his school. The mobility of Transylvanian and Wallachian painters towards Banat was more important than that of painters from Banat to Transylvania. This can be explained by the fact that Banat was closer to the core, usually represented by Vienna at the political level, and at the religious level, by the Metropolitanate of Karlowitz. This was true in terms of both geographical and ethnic proximity. The new religious painting style adopted in these regions may have been encouraged by church authorities who could impose changes to the content of the iconographic program, and also at the level of the images. The traditional representation of an image can change. While Orthodox communities were quite strict and traditional concerning the content of the iconographic program, the images could evolve, and adapt to the new space designed according to church architectural rules applied to the territory of the Habsburg empire.128 The new style that developed during the eighteenth century was imposed by church authorities and had to be observed. The Russian support against Catholic pressures prompted the Serbs to turn to Imperial Russia for guidance and model. Therefore, in the territory of the Metropolitanate, starting in 1741, the official religious art would be that of Imperial Russia. Thus, the traditional painting style formerly promoted by painters of Romanian and Serbian origins began to lose ground during the second half of the century. Another reason for the new style’s wide acceptance lies perhaps in the evolution of society and the convergence of tastes. In Banat, the emerging middle class had different tastes and was more open to influences coming from the Imperial capital of Vienna. Also, there was a rising awareness of the talent and value of painters, which brought about a shift in perception. They were no longer considered as mere craftsmen but became to be regarded as artists. The painters’ quest for social recognition made them submit to the requests of the commissioners and observe their demands. In short, the artistic output in the Banat region during the eighteenth century was a result of a variety of events, such as the migration of painters, the shift in the requirements of religious art, and the changing ideology of the rising middle class who became catalysts for artistic production on par with church sanctioned commissions. Thus, throughout this chapter I have shown that while the artwork in the area during the studied period may appear as a cohesive unit, there were many factors that coincided in order to achieve the end state of the works as they are received today.

128 Pârvulescu, “Virtuțile”, 182–184 .

Circulation of Icon Painters between Banat and Transylvania

251

Bibliography Abrudan, Ioan. “Un ansamblu iconografic inedit: pictura lui Ioan Grigorievici şi a zugravilor familiei Grecu, din biserica satului Cornăţel.” [An original iconographic ensemble: the painting of Ioan Grigorievici and the painters of the Grecu family in the Church of Cornatel Village] Revista Teologica 2, (2009), 204–224. Aleksov, Bojan. “The Serbian Orthodox Church.” In Orthodox Christianity and Nationalism in Nineteenth Century Southeastern Europe, edited by Lucian Leuștean, 65–100. Fordham: Fordham University Press, 2014. Bakos, Peter. “Nedeljko Popović és Georgije Ranite Bánsági ikonfestõk munkássága, különös tekintettel muhelyük Magyar vonatkozású emlékeire.” [The works of the icon-painters Nedelcu Popovici and George Ranite, with an emphasis on their paintings in Hungary] Magyar Sion 2/45, (2009): 217–242. Barbu, Violeta. “Sisteme de reprezentare populară a cultului marianic în Țările Române în Structures de représentation du culte marial dans les Pays Roumains au XVII-e -XVIII siècle.” In Church and Society in Central and Eastern Europe, edited by Maria Crăciun and Ovidiu Ghitta, 128–146. Cluj: European Studies Foundation, (1997). Cerović, Ljubivoje. Sârbii din România, Din Evul Mediu timpuriu până în zilele noastre [Serbs in Romania, from the Early Middle Ages to the present days]. Timișoara: Uniunea Sârbilor din România, 2005. Cosma, Aurel. Pictura românească din Banat de la origini până astăzi [Romanian painting from Banat from its origin to the present day], Timișoara, 1940. Cristache Panait, Ioana. “Tipuri sociale și aspecte de critică socială în pictura monumentelor de lemn din centrul și vestul țării” [Social types and aspects of Social Criticism in the painting of the wooden monuments from the center and western parts of the country]. Revista Monumentelor Istorice XV 1 (1984), 54–59. Cvetković, Vladimir. “The Serbian Tradition.” In The Orthodox Christian World, edited by Augustine Casiday, 130–140. London: Routledge, 2012. Davidov, Dinko. Umetnički spomenici u Jugoslaviji: Krušedol [Medieval art in Yugoslavia: Krusedol]. Beograd: Beogradski graficki zavod, 1964. Davidov, Dinko. Spomenici Budimske eparhije [The monuments of the Orthodox Eparchy of Buda]. Beograd: Republički zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture/Prosveta/ Balkanološki institut SANU, 1990. Davidov, Dinko. Studije o srpskoj umetnosti XVIII veka [Studies of 18th century Serbian art] Beograd: Srpska književna zadruga, 2004. Deluga, Waldemar. “L’évolution de l’iconographie dans l’église gréco-catholique pendant le XVIII-ieme siècle à la lumière des sources écrites.” [The evolution in iconography in Greek-Catholic church pendant to the 18th century in the light of the sources of writing] Revue des études slaves 71, no. 2 (1999): 225–242. Deluga, Waldemar. Ukrainian Painting between the Byzantine and Latin Traditions. Ostrava/Warsaw: Archeobooks, 2019.

252

R aluca P r elipceanu

Dragomir, Silviu. Istoria dezrobirii religioase a românilor din Ardeal în secolul XVIII Vol. II. [The history of the Religious Liberation of the Romanians from Transylvania during the 18th Century vol. II] Sibiu: Tipografia arhidiecezană, 1920. Dumitran, Ana. “Un zugrav de elită: Grigore Ranite,” [An elite painter: Grigore Ranite] Annales Universitatis Apulensis, Series Historica 14, no. I (2010): 83–98. Dumitran, A. “Pictura românească în județul Alba până la mijlocul secolului al XIX-lea. Demersuri pentru o bază de date,” [The Romanian painting from Alba County until mid-19th century. Approaches for a database] Patrimonium Apulense XII (Alba Iulia: Ed. Altip, 2012): 46–99. Dumitran, A., “Siladi Șimon, ucenicul jupânului Andraș din Cluj. Parcurs retrospectiv în căutarea unui maestru,” [Siladi Simon, the disciple of Master Andras from Cluj. A retrospective journey in search of a master] Apulum, L (Alba Iulia, 2013): 271–327. Dumitran, A. Ștefan Tenețchi-finalul unei cariere de succes [Stefan Tenetchi-the End of Prominent Career], Ars Transylvaniae, 29 (2019): 85–90. Feneșan, Costin. Izvoarele răscoalei lui Horea. Lumea lui Horea în Banat și la Sud de Carpați [The sources of Horea’s revolt. Horea’s world in Banat and south of Carpathians] XII. București: Ed. Academiei Române, 2020, 90–97. Herrin, Judith. “The Imperial Feminine in Byzantium.” Past & Present 169 (2000): 3–35. Ilieș, Bogdan and Vladimir Obradovici, “Fragments from the painted decoration of the Wooden Church of Crivina de Sus.” Museikon A Journal of Religious Art and Culture – Revue d’art at de culture religieuse 3 (2019): 183–187. Iorga, Nicolae. Studii și documente VIII [Studies and documents VIII], (1905), 169. Jovanović, Miodrag, Slikarstvo Temišvarske Eparhije [Paintings from the Eparchy of Timi]. Novi Sad: Matica Srpska, 1997. Kolundžija, Jovana. “Moştenirea pictorului Stefan Tenecki în Episcopia Sremului.” [The legacy of the painter Stefan Tenecki in the Bishopric of Srem]. In Patrimoniu și patrimonializare, edited by Elena Rodica Colta, 42–63. Bucharest: Ed. Etnologică, 2018. Kuceković, Aleksandra. “Jovan Četirević Grabovan—an 18th Century Itinerant Orthodox Painter. Some Ethnic and Artistic Considerations.” Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Art: Crossing Borders I–II (2017): 349–367. Le Pichon, Jean and Yann Le Pichon. Le mystère du Couronnement de la Vierge [The mystery of the coronation of the virgin]. Paris: Robert Lafont, 1982. Măeran, Mircea. “Familia Diaconovici și românii din Srediștea Mare.” [The Diaconovici Family and the Romanians from Sredistea Mare] Studia Theologica et Historia Aradensia 3, no. 3 (2021): 79–87. Magyari, Andras. “Ocupația militară a Transilvaniei la sfârșitul secolului la XVII-lea” [The military occupation of Transylvania at the end of 17th century]. In Istoria Transilvaniei vol. II, edited by Ioan Aurel Pop, Thomas Nagler and Andras Magyari. Cluj Napoca: Ed. Academiei Române, 2018. Makuljević, Nenad. “Piety, Ideology, and Orthodoxy: Russian Icons in Serbian Church Culture (17th“19th Centuries).” In Routes of Russian Icons in the Balkans (16th–early

Circulation of Icon Painters between Banat and Transylvania

253

20th Centuries), edited by Yuliana Boycheva, 137–148. Seyssel: La Pomme d’or Publishing, 2016. Makuljević, Nenad. “Migrations and the Creation of Orthodox Cultural and Artistic Networks between the Balkans and the Habsburg Lands (17th–19th Centuries).” In Across the Danube. Southeastern Europeans and Their Travelling Identities (17th–19th C.), edited by Olga Katsiardi-Hering and Maria A. Stassinopoulou, 54– 64. Boston: Brill, 2017. Măran, Mircea and Jovana Kolundžija. “Pictura bănățeană în secolul al XVIII-lea și al XIX-lea. Inteferențe sârbo-române,” [The painting from Banat during the 18th and the 19th centuries. Serbian-Romanian Mutual Influences]. In Studii și cercetăriI, 177–186. Banatul: istorie și multiculturalitate, 2020. Marius Porumb, “Relațiile artistice dintre Transilvania și Banat în secolul al XVIII-lea,” [The artistic relations between Transylvania and Banat during the 18th century]. In Tibiscus, 233–234. Timișoara: Muzeul Banatului, 1979, https://bib​l iot​eca-digit​a la. ro/?volum=1041-tibis​cus--5-1979 Medeleanu, Horia. “Perspectivă nouă asupra picturii din biserica română Lipova.” [A new perspective on the painting of the Romanian Church in Lipova] Revista Muzeelor și Monumentelor 50, no. 1 (1981): 83–88. Medeleanu, Horia. “The Life of an 18th Century Painter: Stefan Tenețchi.” Revue des études sud-est européennes 21, no. 2 (1983): 127–145. Meteș, Stefan. “Zugravii bisericilor românești.” [The painters of the Romanian Churches] Anuarul monumentelor istorice secția pentru Transilvania (1929): 131. Muntean, Vasile V. Istoria bisericii românești Vol Ii [The history of the Romanians vol. II]. Timosoara: Editura Marineasa, 2010. Nagy, Marta. “Stefan Tenecki és műhelyének munkái Magyarországon.” [The works of Stefan Tenecki and those of his workshop in Hungary] Művészettörténeti Értesítő 1, no. 4 (1989): 89–98. Nagy, Marta. Orthodox Ikonosztazonok Magyarországon [Orthodox iconostases in Hungary], PhD Thesis, University of Debrecin, 1990. http://real-d.mtak.hu/59/3/ Nagy-m.pdf Nagy, Marta. “Tema Încoronării Maicii Domnului: aspecte iconografice.” [The theme of the coronation of the Mother of God: Iconographic aspects] Lumina (2006): 15–18. Njegovan, Drago and Miodrag Milin. “Mitropolia de la Karlowitz și relațiile sârboromâne din cuprinsul monarhiei habsburgice.” [The Karlowitz Metropolitanate and Serbo-Romanian relations within the Habsburg monarchy] Analele Banatului, S.N., Arheologie-Istorie 23 (2015): 419–427. Oprescu, George. Istoria artelor plastice în România vol. II [The history of Fine Arts in Romania vol. II]. Bucharest: Editura Meridiane, 1970. Păcurariu, Mircea. Istoria bisericii ortodoxe române. Vol II [The history of the Romanian Orthodox Church vol. II]. Bucharest: Ed. Ebimbor, 1981.

254

R aluca P r elipceanu

Panait, Cristache. “Pictori din Argeș.” [Painters from Arges] Argesis, Studii și comunicări 14 (2005). Pârvulescu, Dorina. “Zugravi de formație brâncovenească în Banatul secolului al XVIIIlea.” [Painters of Brancovean formation in 18th century Banat] Sargetia. Acta Musei Devensis, 25 (1992–1994): 299–308. Pârvulescu, Dorina. “O ipoteză privind activitatea zugravului Stan în Banatul secolului al XVIII-lea.” [A hypothesis on the activity of the painter Stan in Banat during the 18th century] Analele Banatului 4, no. 2 (1996): 103–110. Pârvulescu, Dorina. “Virtuțile creștine în pictura ortodoxă din Banat” [Christin Virtues in the Orthodox Painting from Banat]. In Arta românească. Artă europeană: centenar Vătășianu, edited by M. Porumb and A. Chiriac, 181–188. Oradea: Ed. Muzeului Țării Crișurilor, 2002. Pârvulescu, Dorina. Pictura bisericilor ortodoxe din Banat între secolul al XVII-lea şi deceniul trei al secolului al XIX-lea [The painting of the orthodox churches in Banat between the 17th century and the third decade of the 19th century]. Timişoara: Ed. Excelsior Art, 2003. Pârvulescu, Dorina. “Catalog. Icoane și uși împărătești din Banat.” [Catalogue of royal icons and doors from Banat] Analele Banatului - Sn., Arheologie-Istorie 16 (2008): 381–413. Pârvulescu, Dorina. “Referiri la creaţia artistică ortodoxă din Banat până la sfârşitul secolului luminilor” [References to the Eastern Orthodox Artistic Creation from Banat until the end of Enlightement]. In Tradiție și postmodernitate. 200 de ani de artă plastică în Banat, edited by Andrei Medinski, Doina Antoniuc, Violeta Zonte, Ioan Szekernyeş, Andreea Foanene and Adrian Ioniţă, 9–16. Timișoara: Editura Graphite, 2012. Pârvulescu, Dorina “Patrimoniul bănățean din secolul al XVIII-lea. Iconostasele bisericilor de la Giera și Surducu Mare.” [The 18th century Banat heritage. The iconostasis of the churches from Giera and Surducu Mare] Patrimonium Banaticum 7 (2017): 275–291. Petreanu, Coriolan. Bisericile de lemn din județul Arad [The Wooden Churches from Arad County]. Cluj-Napoca: Sibiu Tipografia şi Institutul de arte grafice Ios. Drotleff, 1927. Popa, Corina, Ioana Iancovescu,Vlad Bedros, and Elisabeta Negrău, Repertoriul picturilor murale brâncovenești [The Repertory of the Brancovan Style Mural Paintings]. București: UNArte, 2008. Popovicu, George. Istoria românilor bănățeni [The history of the Romanians from Banat]. Lugoj: Editura Autorului, 1904. Porumb, Marius. “Relațiile artistice dintre Transilvania și Banat în secolul al XVIIIlea.” [The artistic relations between Transylvania and Banat during the 18th century] Tibiscus V (1979). Porumb, Marius. Dicționar de pictură veche românească [Dictionary of old Romanian painting]. Bucharest: Ed. Academiei Române, 1998.

Circulation of Icon Painters between Banat and Transylvania

255

Prelipceanu, Raluca. “Eclectismul în arta lui Simion Silaghi Sălăgeanu” [The Ecclectic Art of Simon Silagi Salageanu- A Transylvanian Painter at the Confluences of the 18th and 19th centuries], Ars Transylvaniae, 29 (2019): 91–118. Prépis, Alkis. “Architecture et art dans les Balkans pendant la période ottomane.” Études balkaniques 12 (2005): 85–128. Prodan, David. Răscoala lui Horea [Horea’s revolt]. Bucharest: Ed. Științifică și Enciclopedică, 1979. Puskas, Bernadette. “The Art of the Greek Catholic Eparchy of Mukachevo.” In Eastern Christians in the Habsburg Monarchy, edited by John Paul Himka and Franz Szabo, 106–107, 114–115. Toronto: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Study Press, 2021. Réau, Louis. Iconographie de l’art chrétien. Tome II Iconographie de la Bible [The iconography of Christian Art. Tome 2, The iconography of Bible]. Paris: PUF, 1957. Simić, Vladimir. “The Image of the Past as Historical Argument. The Reception of the Middle Ages in Serbian Baroque.” In Imagining the Past. The Reception of the Middle Ages in Serbian Art from the 18th to the 21st centuries, edited by Lidija Merenik, Vladimir Simić and Igor Borozan, 11–24. Beograd: Službeni glasnik/Srpski komitet za vizantologiju/Vizantološki institut SANU, 2016. Simić, Vladimir. “The Impact of Migrations on the Transformation of Serbian Religious Art in the 18th Century.” Astra Salvensis 7, no. 14 (2019): 331–338. Simić, Vladimir “The Impact of Migrations on the Transformation of Serbian Religious Art in the 18th Century.” Asociaţiunea Transilvană pentru Literatura Română şi Cultura Poporului Român – ASTRA 7 (2019): 331–338. Simić, Vladimir. “Political Orthodoxy and Arts: Serbian-Russian Relations Cultural Relations in the 18th century.” Muzikologija 28 (2020): 79–98. Simić, Vladimir. “Popular Piety and the Paper Icons of Zaharija Orfelin.” Balcanica 51 (2020): 45–64. Ștefănescu, I. D. La peinture religieuse en Valachie et en Transylvanie depuis les origines jusqu’au XIXe siècle [The religious painting in Wallachia and Transylvania from its origins to the 19th century]. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1932. Stoica, Vasile. Suferințele românilor din Ardeal. [The Sufferings of the Romanians from Transylvania]. Bacău: Ed. Vicova, 2014. Tatai Baltă, Cornel. “Noi date cu referire la icoana de hram a iconostasului catedralei de la Blaj.” [New data on the dedication icon of the iconostasis of the cathedral from Blaj] Historia Artium 1 (2008): 49–54. Terdik, Sylvester. “La Cathédrale gréco-catholique à Balaszfalva : influences orientales et occidentales.” [The Greek-Catholic cathedral in Blaj: Eastern and Western influences] HStud 28 (2014): 55–76. Williamson, Beth. “The Virgin Lactans as Second Eve: The Image of the Salvatrix.” Studies in Iconography 19 (1998): 105–138. Zweig, Philip. Icônes XI-XVIII siècles [Icons. 11–18th century]. New York: Parkstone International, 2004.

Stefan Tenecki: The Baroque Painter of Serbs and Romanians Jovana K olundžija

By the first decade of the eighteenth century, Arad, the capital of the district of Pomorišje, had become the prominent center of the Serbian population in the district, as Serbs had begun inhabiting this territory as early as the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Historical data state that this area was inhabited by Stevan and Dimitrije Jakšić along with 1,200 warriors from Old Serbia. They were given large estates to use. They also built several Orthodox churches in this region, including the Bodrog church with the coat-of-arms of the Jakšić family and the monastery of Hodoș. When the Turks captured these territories in the mid-sixteenth century, Arad was both destroyed and restored in a period of three years. In 1685 the Austrian army finally drove the Turks out of these regions, and in 1699 Arad became the headquarters of the Austrian Military Frontier Command in Pomorišje. Along with the establishment of the Military Frontier in 1702 it became the center of the Serbian population, accounting for the largest part of the army in the Pomorišje borderland. At the time, the city was divided into two administrative parts—Military Arad and Civil Arad. Military Arad, the so-called Ratz Város, was inhabited by Serbian frontiersmen and officers, while Civil Arad was populated by Germans and Hungarians. Owing to its geographical position, Arad was an important trade and handicraft center in Turkish times. In the eighteenth century, trade still bloomed there, large fairs were organized, and the city hall, as well as an inn and brewery were built.1 At the time, Arad experienced a cultural change. Orthodox and Catholic churches were constructed, schools opened, and

Ljubivoje Cerović, Srbi u Aradu [Serbs in Arad] (Novi Sad/Arad: Muzej Grada Novog Sada/Savez Srba u Rumuniji, 2007), 35–42.

1

258

Jovana K olundžija

monuments were built. When the Military Frontier was abolished in 1741, the Serbs from this region emigrated in large numbers since they did not want to abandon their military profession to become farmers. Consequently, the number of Catholics increased at this point in time. Up until 1864 in Pomorišje, Orthodox Romanians belonged to the Serbian Orthodox Archbishopric of Arad. It had been established in the sixteenth century and united with the Eparchy of Timișoara, while in the early eighteenth century it was restored and independent again.2 In the first half of the eigh­ teenth century, Arad housed the Bishop’s residence with the court chapel and two Orthodox Serbian churches—the Cathedral and Saint Paul and Peter’s Church. Serbian bishops managed to gain certain benefits from the Austrian court, such as church autonomy, and the establishment of the Serbian school and printing house. Isaija Antonović was a significant figure for the development of Arad in the eighteenth century, and he was made the Bishop of Arad in 1731. As a man of culture and knowledge, he loved visual art and was a patron of many painters, including Stefan Tenecki. Much as all artists of the time, Stefan Tenecki aspired to find his own style and means of creation. Being aware of one’s personal mark was emerging in the field of the Modern Age art of this area. However, most of the early Baroque artists still rarely possessed this trait, as they mainly imitated other works of art. In addition, commissions reflected similar desires and frequently urged artists to copy the works of art which they considered well-known and attractive. Consequently, artists could not develop their personal style. Although Stefan Tenecki had various patrons and clients requesting already developed styles, he still found a way to represent some things in his own personal manner. The transition from Byzantine two-dimensionality to the threedimensionality of Baroque was exquisitely shown in the work of Stefan Tenecki, who is considered to be “the leading master of the 18th century Baroque” in this part of the world.3 In Serbia, Tenecki was very often men­ tioned in the media in the twentieth century, so it comes as a paradox that he is almost unknown in Romania. His work is barely mentioned in large Romanian national syntheses and art histories, and only a small number of authors have written about him (Frunzetti, Medeleanu, and Dumitran). The complexity of his works depended on the clients’ financial possibilities and claims, while the size of iconostases and number of registers

Ibid. 42. Miodrag Jovanović, Tri veka srpskog slikarstva [Three Centuries of Serbian Painting] (Belgrade, 2009), 19.

2 3

Stefan Tenecki: Baroque Painter of Serbs and Romanians

259

depended on the church size. In the beginning, he painted small iconostases, but later he started painting large iconostases with as many as five tiers. Tenecki had his own style which was recognizable even if he did not sign his works. Byzantine iconography imposed by Orthodoxy gained its threedimensionality in his works. Horia Medeleanu believed that he had been a great painter of models. Serbs think that he was a painter influenced by Ukrainian and Western art, similar to Vasilije Ostojić and Dimitrije Bačević. Distancing from the Byzantine style is evident in his interest in volume, perceived in the Baroque representation of the models’ clothes, furniture, introduction of landscape painting, etc. The personality and work of Stefan Tenecki has been a subject of several studies, as well as numerous discussion texts (Dimitrijević, Mikić, 1957; Ristić, 1960; Jovanović, 1970; Medeleanu, 1983; Nagy, 1997). Tenecki is considered to be one of the Europe-oriented pioneers in Serbian painting of the eighteenth century. His biographical data have been examined to a considerable degree.4 For example, his origin and birth year provoke great con­ troversies, with scholars such as M. Jovanović asserting he was born in Arad in the second decade of the eighteenth century,5 while Romanian researchers dealing with his work believe that he was born slightly earlier.6 However, what should be underscored is his education in Ukraine, his return to Arad, his social, private and also political life which greatly determined the course of his painting, and the places where he worked. It is also extremely significant to know that his patrons were bishops. It should be further highlighted that Serbian Baroque painting was shaped by a series of clients’ impacts on artists. Thus, they had the leading role in the development of the painting in this era. On the other hand, the occurrence, development and spread of Serbian Baroque painting were restrained by the scope of religious art, i.e. the church as the institution aspiring to put art at the service of reforms conducted by Metropolitans of Karlovci who, in turn, were patrons and commissioned works themselves.7



Medeleanu Horia, “The life of an 18th century painter: Stefan Tenecki, Revue des études sud-est européennes”, Institut d’études sud-est européennes (Bucurest,1983). 5 Miodrag Jovanović, Tri veka srpskog slikarstva [Three Centuries of Serbian Painting]. (Belgrade, 2009), 19. 6 “270 de ani spre cer”, Editura Mirador, (Arad, 2019).; Rodica Colta: “Pictura exe­ cutată de Ștefan Tenețchi la biserica ortodoxă română “Adormirea Maici Domnului” din Galșa, 73–82. 7 Miroslav Timotijević, Srpsko barokno slikarstvo [Serbian Baroque Painting]. (Novi Sad, 1996), 34. 4

260

Jovana K olundžija

The found and saved archival data show that the oldest trace of the Tenecki family dates back to the year 1625, in Lipova. In the same year the Prince of Transylvania, Gabriel Bethlen, gave some Arad district land to Serbian noblemen, officers and soldiers as a prize for their military services during the war with Turks. While naming these noblemen, he mentioned the name of Vladimir Tenecki. Stefan Tenecki is believed to be his descendant since the surname of Tenecki was never mentioned again in these areas.8 Originating from a noble family from Lipova, Tenecki was so persistent and hardworking that he soon became a favorite painter of Bishops of Arad, Isaija Antonović, Sinesije Živanović and Pahomije Knežević. He also became a Senator in the city administration of Arad.9 However, his family house near Arad and his sense of belonging to the city did not prevent him from being very mobile and from accepting numerous orders. Tenecki was actively present in the broad area of historical Banat, from Șiria to Arad, Lipova and the Uniate Church in Blaj on the east, to the monastery of Krušedol and other localities in Srem, parts of Bačka, up to Pest on the north. The construction of new temples in the eighteenth century required iconostases and icons. Stefan Tenecki used this opportunity to create many connections and to become famous. He became respectable very quickly, which was confirmed when he was invited to paint the mural paintings in the naos of the Krušedol monastery. Several years earlier, his teachers from Ukraine painted the frescoes in the narthex.10 After that, he worked in Timișoara (1750), Arad (1757, 1772, 1790), Vilovo (1752), Stari Bečej (1752), Opatovac (1758), Pest (1760), Stari Slankamen (1764), Lugoj (1764), Blaj (1765), Ruma (1772), Miniș (1775), Buzad (1775), Şimand (1777), Şiria (1778–1779), Arad-Gai, Békés, Szentes, Lipova (1785), Caransebeş (1789) and Certege (1798). As one of the leading creators of the Baroque expression in this area, Tenecki had a sense of color and plastic modelling on icons. His style was typical for the “transition” from traditional Byzantine art to Baroque. Stefan desired to maintain a balance between tradition and openness towards modern Baroque naturalism. Therefore, he was often restricting himself by volumizing the figures’ forms on icons while simultaneously trying out new

Branislav Todić, Srpski slikari od 14. do 18. veka [Serbian painters from the 14th to the 18th century], book II (Novi Sad, 2013), 157. 9 Olga Mikić, Stefan Tenetchi, Masters of the Transitional Period of Serbian Painting of the XVIII Century (Novi Sad, 1981), 72–79. 10 Jovana Kolundžija, “Moștenirea pictorului Stefan Tenecki, în Episcopia Sremului”, [Pictures of Stefan Tenetchi in the Episcopate of Srem]. In: Patrimoniu și patrimonializare, ed. Elena Rodica Colta (București: Editura Etnologică, 2018), 42–64. 8

Stefan Tenecki: Baroque Painter of Serbs and Romanians

261

things. These characteristics of his paintings attracted buyers from distant places. His most significant work was in the naos of the Krušedol monastery, which gave the definite priority to Baroque over Byzantine art in this area. As the leading representative of the generation of the “masters of transition,” he maintained the balance between late medieval models and the neutrality of a Baroque painting. Creation of Serbian Baroque painting was neither a spontaneous phenomenon nor a continuous evolution, but it was determined by the strong relationship between patrons and artists. The leading role in its complete development was assigned to patrons, whose needs, desires, beliefs and tastes had a decisive impact on the development of art practices, such as the aforementioned service of reforms conducted by Metropolitans of Karlovci, who commissioned many such works. Baroque art was best described in terms of rhetoric. The “sister” of Baroque painting was not poetry but a dogmatic and didactic sermon. In their pictures, artists contributed to the issues of faith in the same manner in which preachers did in their sermons. The cooperation between painters and preachers, their mutual activity and reliance on the same rhetorical models were a common practice of the Baroque era. Their favorite manners of thinking were symbols, metaphors, allegory, antithesis and emblems.11 Even when it illustrated the gospels on an advanced multi-tiered iconostasis or on the walls of newly built Baroque churches, this type of painting described things, delivered a sermon or taught rather than instigating mysticism. The appropriate didactic moral literature functioned in the same way. When it came to church painting, the Baraque style was gradually and very  convincingly liberating itself from traditional medieval prejudice. Traditional interpretations of mural painting were forgotten due to the development of church furniture. The interior of Serbian eighteenth-century churches was dominated by a tall Baroque iconostasis, which became the central place of the advanced painting program. It had a rich visual program that involved almost all the themes of Baroque religious painting. This was the artistic milieu in which Stefan Tenecki developed his style, as can be traced through an analysis of his works overtime, and the spaces they occupied. Ultimately, this article will demonstrate Stefan Tenecki’s Baroque innovations and contributions to Serbian, and subsequently to Romanian Modern Art.



11

M. Timotijević, Srpsko barokno slikarstvo [Serbian Baroque Painting], (Novi Sad, 1996), 38.

262

Jovana K olundžija

From Krušedol to Cluj The city of Arad and its surroundings were the home of Stefan Tenecki and his family, which should not be forgotten when considering this eparchy and Tenecki’s work in it. Thus, in order to understand the role of a painter in this area, numerous historical and geographical details of the region should be considered. Bishops Isaija Antonović (1731–1748) and Sinesije Živanović (1751– 1768) were significant for Stefan Tenecki’s life and work in this area.12 It can be said that Stefan Tenecki was their court painter, and this was the reason why he painted in the largest number of temples in the region. He made the iconostasis of the Dormition of the Theotokos in Galșa (1749), iconostasis of the court chapel of the old Arad bishopric, iconostasis of the Saint Peter and Saint Paul’s church in Arad (1771–1772), iconostasis of Saint John’s church in Arad (1756–1790), iconostasis of the parish church in Şimand, iconostasis of the parish church in Miniș (1775) and iconostasis in Nadab (1792). He painted in the monastery of Saint Simeon Stylites in Arad-Gai, monastery in Lipova (1785–1786) and the church in Şiria (1789). Saint Peter and Saint Paul’s church in Arad was built in 1702 and it is the oldest building in the city. The foundation and load-bearing walls were constructed using ashlar stone, while the dome is made of bricks and boards. The bell tower was added in 1790, and the church gained its present appearance in 1822 when Sava Tekelija reconstructed it.13 As for the church’s inte­ rior, some information dates to the time of constructing the altar screen. The wooden base was finished in 1769, and in 1771 or 1772 Stefan Tenecki probably finished painting the iconostasis, venerated icons and other individual icons. Nikola Aleksić cleaned this iconostasis and added a few more individual icons. Finally, it was replaced in 1863 and sold to the church in Fiscut (Bugarski, 2008). Having been invited by the Orthodox community in Lipova in 1785, Tenecki painted the frescoes in the church and made 65 icons, including the Crucifixion and the Last Supper, and thus confirmed that he had a significant place in the history of Romanian and Serbian Baroque painting. This is believed by many to be his most mature and complete work.



Alexis P. Vlasto, The Entry of the Slavs into Christendom: An Introduction to the Medieval History of the Slavs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970). 13 Vladimir Simić, “Sava Tekelija: patriot, educator and benefactor at the turn of the 18th and 19th century”, In: Sava Tekelija: great Serbian benefactor (Novi Sad, 2010), 15–105. 12

Stefan Tenecki: Baroque Painter of Serbs and Romanians

263

The town of Lipova is situated to the east of Arad on the right bank of the river Mureș, thus belonging to the region of Crișana, while Banat is located across the river. The Zarand Mountains are to the north. The town of Lipova was liberated from Turks during the Austro-Turkish war in 1688.14 It was the center of Serbian Orthodox bishops. In 1774 Austrian imperial auditor Erler determined that the town of Lipova belonged to the Lipova district. The iconostasis that can be seen in the church today is the one which was made in 1785 and has undergone numerous reconstructions so far. According to M. Jovanović, the iconostasis in the Church of the Dormition of the Theotokos in Lipova belongs to Tenecki’s best works. However, the uneven style of the iconostasis could indicate that this was the mutual work of a whole workshop. The Despotic icon of John the Forerunner bears the year of 1785 and the signature of the iconographer, Stefan Tenecki. The iconostasis has a typical arrangement of representations, although the icons differ in quality. Most of the icons possess Tenecki’s strong modulation and decorative arabesque of surfaces, typical for his large-format works. The icons on the Royal Doors were differently processed and have fresher coloring, so it is questionable whether they were made by Tenecki. When it comes to the icons on the iconostasis, the first zone of the bottom tier contains medallions with Old-Testament scenes, which were not created by Stefan Tenecki. The Despotic icons are the work of Stefan Tenecki, judging by the manner of production, composition, and his most characteristic feature—a gold background with ornaments. These icons depict St. Nicholas as a Bishop gesturing a blessing with his right hand and holding the book in his left hand, and the Mother of God holding Christ in her lap, sitting with two angels around her and looking at the observer. The next Despotic icon is the composition of Jesus Christ as the Great Archpriest, depicted as gesturing a blessing with his right hand and holding the book in his left hand. Two angels surround him. The following icon depicts St. John the Forerunner, and it has the signature of the artist and the year of the painting. The Royal Doors of this iconostasis consist of six fields which were not created by Tenecki. However, the northern and southern doors are the work  of Tenecki, while the round medallions with Old-Testament representations of Abraham stand above the doors. Above the Royal Doors, the Coronation of the Mother of God is depicted. In terms of iconography, it has no great deviations. It depicts Jesus Christ, God the Father and Holy Spirit placing a crown on the Mother of God’s head while she is standing on the clouds. They are surrounded by angels. The second iconostasis tier, placed to

Гласник друштва српске словесности (Belgrade, 1872).

14

264

Jovana K olundžija

the left and right of the Coronation, contains three icons on each side with scenes from the Great Feasts (the Nativity, the Baptism, the Transfiguration, the Ascension, the Nativity of the Mother of God, the Dormition). The Last Supper is presented above the Coronation of the Mother of God, while the Evangelists are presented in medallions arranged around this representation. The Crucifixion is placed above the Last Supper. The third iconostasis tier is rather damaged, although it can be noticed that it contains scenes with the Warrior Saints and Prophets. The church contains several more individual icons by Stefan Tenecki, while some of them are exhibited in a small church museum on the church choir premises. In Șiria, located to the north of Lipova, Stefan Tenecki painted the iconostasis in the Romanian church of Holy Archangels Michael and Gabriel. Since he completed this project in 1789, it is considered to be one of his later works. The church had existed since 1528, while the tower was added in 1769. The arrangement of the icons on the iconostasis shows the common rules of painting the altar screen. In the Church of Holy Archangels Michael and Gabriel in Șiria, Stefan Tenecki painted 18 signed venerated icons and the iconostasis from 1788 to 1789. The altar screen was not ornamented as a whole. It was merely painted white with differently shaped gilded details. The three-tier iconostasis contains the usual number of icons depicting typical eighteenth-century scenes. This iconostasis is specific because it contains the representations of the temple’s patrons. The iconostasis in Galșa, produced in 1749, is the first known work of Stefan Tenecki. Only recently has the date of its creation been discovered, while previous authors believed it had been made in 1769.15 However, the Galșa iconostasis cannot be considered to be an early work of art, or the work of a beginner. The method of painting points at an already shaped style and the figure typology which Tenecki cherished throughout his career. Therefore, the Galșa iconostasis represents one of the great works of art of the most pro-western Orthodox eighteenth-century artist and is, therefore, a priceless work of art. It is unknown who constructed the iconostasis. There are a rather small number of icons installed on the iconostasis when compared to other iconostases painted by Tenecki. Although the painter did not sign his work, it was undoubtedly painted by him judging by the typology of the presented characters. In comparison to other iconostases created by Tenecki,

“270 de ani spre cer”, Editura Mirador, Arad, 2019; Rodica Colta: “Pictura execu­ tată de Ștefan Tenețchi la biserica ortodoxă română “Adormirea N+Maici Domnului” din Galșa, 73–82.

15

Stefan Tenecki: Baroque Painter of Serbs and Romanians

265

the one in Galșa contains the scenes identical to the scenes in Békés and Ruma. Numerous iconostases contain the same representations of John the Baptist or Saint George. Although there is no doubt that he is the creator of the icons on the iconostasis, some feast day icons still provoke certain controversies despite being made on pine boards with the dimensions of 35x25 cm, as it was common for this artist. It is, however, doubtful whether the venerated icons (the “portable” ones) are the work of Stefan Tenecki, particularly because the method of painting does not correspond to his method. In addition, the inscriptions are in the Romanian Cyrillic alphabet. When the feast day icons are compared with similar icons from other churches, it can be noticed that the scenes from Galșa are significantly simplified, which may indicate that they were made by another artist, or that they were repainted later. It is believed that Tenecki did not work with his followers at the beginning of his career. However, this belief might be challenged in this case.16 In the Eparchy of Timișoara, Stefan Tenecki made the iconostasis in the Cathedral church (1750) and the mural paintings and iconostasis of the parish church in Lugoj (1764). Unfortunately, these works of Stefan Tenecki can no longer be found in these locales. The Eparchy of Timișoara encompassed the northern part of Banat towards the Mureș River and the Diocese of Vršac on the south. Bishop Georgije Popović (1744–1757) was significant for Stefan Tenecki’s work in this Eparchy. He accompanied Patriarch Arsenije IV and emigrated to the Habsburg Empire. During his activity in the Eparchy, spiritual prosperity was strengthened. He was the patron of the Cathedral church. The largest part of the Bishop’s palace was built during these years. Having been commissioned by Bishop Georgije Popović, Stefan Tenecki created the iconostasis of the Cathedral church in Timișoara. For a long time, this city had housed a temple dedicated to St. George, the patron of the city, which can be seen in old town vedutas, and the image of this building was placed on the eparchial coat-of-arms. The church had probably been built before the Turkish arrival to Timișoara (before 1552) and remained during Turkish times. It was destroyed by a fire in 1737. Ten years later, the construction of today’s Cathedral church, dedicated to the Ascension of Jesus Christ, began in order to replace the old one. The first construction stage was finished in 1748. The foundations and the complete building up to the



“270 de ani spre cer”, Editura Mirador, Arad, 2019; Rodica Colta: “Pictura execu­ tată de Ștefan Tenețchi la biserica ortodoxă română “Adormirea N+Maici Domnului” din Galșa, 75.

16

266

Jovana K olundžija

roof were constructed in the shape it has today, while the tower was built and decorated in 1791.17 It is one of the oldest buildings in the town. The original iconostasis of this church was made by Stefan Tenecki. Although it has great artistic value, the iconostasis was replaced by a new one after 1830 and sold to Baron Jovan Stojanović ot Lățunaș in 1836. According to ten-year-old studies, parts of the iconostasis were in the once Orthodox and today Uniate church in the village of Lățunaș (Bugarski, 2008). However, this cannot be confirmed with certainty today. In 1764, Tenecki worked on the iconostasis of the Dormition of the Theotokos Church in Lugoj, and the only extant icons from this iconostasis are the Crucifixion with the Mother of God and John the Apostle. He most likely at the same time painted the patron’s portrait of ober-knez Jon Gavrilo Gueran on the western wall of the choir, and the portraits of the Bishop of Vršac and Caransebeş Jovan Georgijević and heguman Gavrilo on the back of the iconostasis.18 Tenecki was given a large sum of money (1,300 forints) for the painting work in Lugoj, which indicates that he did more comprehensive work in this location.19 The Eparchy of Srem, first with the center in the monastery of Krušedol and then in the monastery of Hopovo, was established in 1500 when Sofia Metropolitan Kalevit ordained Đorđe Branković a monk and gave him the monastic name of Maxim. The rising significance of the Eparchy was related to the turbulent period of building the monasteries of Fruška Gora which can be limited to the stay of the Branković family in Srem. They had arrived in the region in 1465 (the year when Vuk Grgurević was given the management of Kupinik and Berkasovo). After the fall of the Despotate in 1459, most of the territory of the Serbian Patriarchate came under the direct administration of the Ohrid Archbishopric. At the beginning of the eighteenth century the seat of the Metropolitan was moved from Szentendre, first to the monastery of Krušedol in 1708, and then to Sremski Karlovci in 1713. Thus, the Eparchy of Srem merged into the Karlovci Metropolitanate, later the Patriarchate (the period from 1848 to 1920). During the period of the Patriarchate, Srem was under the direct administration of the patriarch’s notary as the Archdiocese of Srem and Karlovci. It was there that Stefan Tenecki created the mural paintings in the naos of the monastery of Krušedol. According to Miodrag

Dejan Medaković, Putevi srpskog baroka [In the Footsteps of the Serbian Baroque], (Beograd: Nolit, 1976). 18 Vera Ristić, Stefan Tenetcki in Romania (Proceedings of the National Museum 2, Belgrade 1960), 226. 19 Rodika Vârtaciu, Centre de pictură românească din Banat secolul al XIX- lea [Romanian painting center in Banat 19th century], (Timişoara, 1997), 18. 17

Stefan Tenecki: Baroque Painter of Serbs and Romanians

267

Jovanović, this was “his most significant work of art, marking the final domination of Ukranian Baroque for the Serbs in the Karlovac Metropolitanate.” In Krušedol, he also painted a group of six small-scale venerated icons, painted on both sides and ordered by the Bishop of Vršac Jovan Đorđević in 1766. Tenecki made the iconostasis of the Saint Nicholas Church in Stari Slankamen in 1764 as well. In 1772 he painted the iconostasis of the Ascension church in Ruma using a transitional style. The applied visual shaping and skillful workmanship make it one of his better works. Stefan Tenecki made the iconostasis of the church of Saint Stefan Dečanski in Vilovo in 1762. It is considered to be one of his first signed works, although this iconostasis was not initially made for this church.20 In fact, the church was not built until 1806, and further, it is improbable that such a respectable painter from northern Banat would make an iconostasis for a remote church in Bačka. A private chronicle, written on the basis of traditional stories, states that Tenecki actually made this iconostasis for the church in Stari Bečej, more precisely the second church built in 1744, and that it was moved to Vilovo in the nineteenth century. It is possible that Stefan Tenecki did the iconostasis of the church in Stari Bečej in 1762 since at the time Bečej was inhabited strictly by Serbs; it was the main place in the Potisje frontier and the center of the Potisje district. The iconostasis was most likely taken to Vilovo before 1849, since the church was destroyed in a fire during the Hungarian revolution in 1849. It is known that Serbian people running away from the Hungarians carried valuable ecclesiastical items and hid them in the villages of Vilovo, Mošorin and Lok. Since the iconostasis work of Stefan Tenecki was extremely respected, this iconostasis was probably disassembled into several pieces, taken to Vilovo and then adjusted to the space where it is situated now. When assembling the iconostasis parts, some of the engraved ornaments were incorrectly connected. Probably due to the church nave of smaller width, some icons were not used, so the iconostasis has only 2 Despotic icons, 10 icons of the Apostles and 10 different icons. The unused icons from the iconostasis were placed in other church rooms. The earliest work of Stefan Tenecki in this area was the iconostasis in the village of Vilovo, Šajkaš region, dated to 1762. The artist’s signature — Iconographer Stefan Tenecki—and the year of 1762 can be seen on this iconostasis, i.e. its Despotic icons. Therefore, this is considered to be one of the earliest signed works of this artist. This iconostasis has only 2 Despotic icons,

Stefan Tenecki’s signature was S.T. on the feast day icons in Vilovo, while he used his full name and surname on the Despotic icons. First, the year of 1762 had been wrongly interpreted as the year of 1752, but after the iconostasis was cleaned in 1961, it was determined to be the year of 1762.

20

268

Jovana K olundžija

10 icons of the Apostles and 10 different icons. The iconostasis was created at a mature artistic stage, and it was painted in the transitional style between traditional and Baroque art. The traditional style is applied to the Despotic icons. The extremely Byzantine iconographic types, thoroughly grounded peaceful and stately figures, as well as the golden tapestry behind them all represent the components of traditional iconography. The great impact of the Ukrainian school is perceived in rich fabrics of hairstyles covered by gilded non-stylized floral ornaments (the same ornaments were painted black on the golden backgrounds), details such as the Baroque crowns of the Mother of God and Saint Nicholas, and non-stylized figures placed in the landscape. This description particularly refers to the second iconostasis tier where individual figures of the Apostles and Evangelists are placed in realistic landscapes, which was extremely rare in the mid-eighteenth century. The landscapes were painted brownish-green, with glazing brush strokes. Stefan Tenecki also painted two icons in the Serbian Orthodox church in Opatovac in 1758. One of them is a large wooden panel icon depicting the Mother of God. The other large wooden panel icon of Christ the Saviour is probably the Despotic icon from an old iconostasis and has the inscription with the artist’s signature. Based on this inscription, it was ordered by “Master Todor Milašenović from Opatovac who dwells with the Lord … in March, 1758.”21 As demonstrated through this lengthy list of Stefan Tenecki’s works in the region from Krušedol to Cluj, he had an immensely productive career. However, during the same time period he also produced notable artistic commissions in the Transylvania region, underscoring his talent and success as an artist.

Transylvania Transylvania (Ardeal), once a principality under Ottoman rule up to 1688 when it was attached to the Habsburg Empire, is located to the east of Banat and Crişana, and is part of Romania today. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Catholic Church forced the population in this region, who were mainly Orthodox Romanians, to accept the Greek-Catholic religion.22 In 1765 Stefan Tenecki made the iconostasis of the Greek-Catholic Cathedral of the Holy Trinity in Blaj. The work in this church is specific since it shows that the artist worked not only in Orthodox churches but in Uniate

21 22

Chronicle of Matica Srpska (Novi Sad, 1872–1876). D. Letić, Contributions to the History of Romanians (Novi Sad, 1970), 56.

Stefan Tenecki: Baroque Painter of Serbs and Romanians

269

churches, as well.23 Blaj is a small town in Transylvania, first mentioned in thirteenth-century sources. In the fifteenth century, John Hunyadi, the voivode of Transylvania, attached it to the county of Alba, where it remained until today. In 1738, Uniate Bishop Inocentiu Micu moved the seat of his bishopric from Fãgãraş to the castle in Blaj around which he established a settlement. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries this settlement represented one of the centers of Romanian culture, both in Transylvania and beyond. The buildings, which were constructed afterwards in the vicinity of the cathedral, were completed in 1747, at the time when Bishop Micu was in exile. The school founded in the monastery situated next to the cathedral was a folk elementary school. The first boarding house was established in the monastery building, while monks took care of the students living there. Bishop Petru Pavel Aron, the successor of Inocentiu, founded a different seminary/ boarding house, which was in the same building as another monastery. In the beginning, monks looked after 12, and later 24 students. There were 300 students at schools in Blaj at the time of Bishop Aron. These two seminaries/ boarding houses were merged into one in 1781 which continued working throughout the following decades and centuries. The Gymnasium with five classes was established in 1784. This center of the Romanian Uniate culture in Blaj yielded the generation of the Transylvanian School (Petru Maior, Gheorghe Șincai, Samuil Micu), which laid the foundations for the Romanian national renaissance, and modelled the basic elements of their national identity, thus establishing the basis for creating the modern Romanian nation. This is where the great national assembly of the Romanians in Transylvania was held in 1848. It declared that the Romanian nation was free, having equal rights on par with other nations in the Monarchy. Therefore, Blaj was the location for multiple historical events, with a significant part of Romanian history defined there. Notably, under the strong impact of Rome, the Uniate churches remained the same as Orthodox churches regarding rituals and interior decoration. The iconostases were retained with all their themes and authenticity. In the Blaj Uniate church, Tenecki expressed his western style to a greater degree than he did in his other works in Serbian and Romanian Orthodox churches. The new painting decoration on the church’s wall did not diminish its impressive size. The Uniates were dissatisfied with the scarce preparation and great conservatism of Catholic painters. Being serious in their intentions and having

23

Vera Ristić, Stefan Tenecki u Rumuniji [Stefan Tenetchi in Romania], (Proceedings of the National Museum 2, Belgrade, 1960).

270

Jovana K olundžija

the material means, they hired the best painter of the time— “Stefan Tenecki, the Arad painter.”24 Tenecki was given an important mission—he was sup­ posed to paint 108 icons.25 This cathedral represents the first Baroque building in the Romanian parts of Transylvania. Its construction began in 1738 and completed in 1749. The sermons started only in 1765 when the frescos were completed. The building in the shape of the Latin letter U, was designed by the architect Giovanni Battista Martinelli, appointed by the court of Vienna. First, the cathedral had only one tower, but it was broadened in 1837 and considerably changed. Among other things, two towers were erected. There are obvious similarities to the Jesuit Baroque church in Cluj. Its appearance remained the same until today. The dome situated in front of the iconostasis was painted in the mid-eighteenth century by a post-Brâncovan painter, Iacov from Răşinari, whose name was revealed during the restoration in 1990. It is the largest iconostasis in the Romanian lands, but despite this fact it did not attract researchers’ attention. The iconostasis was made by Aldea from Târgu Mureș and it has the dimensions of 14x11.5 metres. The paintings were created by Stefan Tenecki, whose signature can be found only on six Despotic icons. He signed them in approximately 1765. After the complete iconostasis was photographed in detail and studied using computers, it was found that the icons of the Prophets, as well as the paintings of the Crucifixion, were painted by iconographer Grigore Ranite from Craiova. The iconostasis was carved in the post-Brâncovan Baroque style, which was developed starting from the third decade of the eighteenth century. Therefore, the iconostasis sculpture belongs to the Brâncovan tradition, but it is under the strong influence of Baroque. There is an abundance of vegetative, floral, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic decoration, conceived in a more dynamic manner. Geometric ornaments disappeared completely. The iconostasis fronton might represent an eagle with widespread wings, which is one of the divine symbols. In addition, when it comes to sculpture and painting, the Royal Doors in the Blaj Cathedral are unique in Romania. In their upper part, the Royal Doors have four sections, each with a gilded semicircular arch, laid against small columns decorated with botanical motifs. They contain the painting of the Annunciation, with the biblical characters of Anna and Joachim, parents of the Mother of Jesus. The bottom part of the Royal Doors is dominated

Dragutin Ostoici, Stevan Raici, Bojidar Panici, Liubomir Stepanov, and Bugarski Stevan, Three Centuries of Tekelija’s Church, Arad 1702–2002 (Timişoara, 2002). 25 Jovanović Miodrag, Tri veka srpskog slikarstva [Three Centuries of Serbian Painting] (Belgrade, 2009), 20. 24

Stefan Tenecki: Baroque Painter of Serbs and Romanians

271

by four identical images of the four Evangelists, placed immediately beneath the above-mentioned paintings. Ten round medallions of smaller dimensions contain carefully made floral images, representing the sunflower as a symbol of God’s love and the soul of the faithful in Christianity. They are placed in the upper and bottom parts of the Royal Doors. Although Tenecki signed only the Despotic icons, he is believed to be the artist responsible for all of the icons on the Blaj iconostasis, except the Prophets and Crucifixion. The combination of the Byzantine and Western influence typical for Tenecki is also present to a certain degree in the paintings on the Royal Doors. The Western influence is evident in the realistic painting of the characters, in the gradual transition from shade to light, and in his attempt to show the space. On the other hand, the abstract golden backgrounds demonstrate the Byzantine influence.26 As Horia Medeleanu states, if they are considered holistically, the paintings on the Blaj iconostasis represent Tenecki’s most easternly work in terms of form, facts, and in part iconography.27 Its large dimensions made it possi­ ble to fit six Despotic icons instead of the usual four. From left to right are Saint John the Baptist, Saint Nicholas, the Enthroned Mother of God with Jesus Christ, Christ Enthroned, Saint Basil the Great and the Holy Trinity, to which the Cathedral is dedicated. Therefore, the Royal Doors belong to Orthodox iconography. The characters are presented frontally having an official posture, while the background is the Byzantine gold. The costumes belong to the same ambiance. However, the humanization of the characters and the backgrounds full of vegetative and ornamental motifs typical for this artist are a reminder of the Baroque style. The selection of the icons on this iconostasis indicates the Ukrainian influence. It is little known that Tenecki painted the iconostasis in the Cathedral in Buzad, in the Timiș county.28 Unfortunately, this iconostasis cannot be

Olga Mikić, Leposava Šelmić, Majstori prelaznog perioda srpskog slikarstva XVIII veka [Masters of the Transitional Period of Serbian Painting of the 18th Century], (Novi Sad, 1981), 286. 27 Medeleanu Horia, “The life of an 18th century painter: Ştefan Teneţchi, Revue des études sud-est européennes,” Institut d’études sud-est européennes (Bucurest,1983), 132–142. 28 In 1774, Austrian imperial auditor Erler determined that the place of Buzad belonged to the Barack county in the Lipova district and that the inhabitants were predominantly Wallachian. However, in 1797 the census of the Orthodox clergy showed that there was only one parish priest, Georgije Petrović (ordained in 1778) who spoke only Romanian. In the “Romanian Encyclopedia”, this place was mentioned as early as in 1415. During the nineteenth century, the whole village belonged to the Serbian family Popović-Tekelija from Arad. 26

272

Jovana K olundžija

found in Buzad today. Still, some parts assigned to Tenecki are kept in the Timișoara museum of ecclesiastical art. Based on the inscriptions on the icons, we know that they were made in 1775. The museum houses the icons of Christ Pantocrator, Saint Nicholas, Saint Stephen, Saint Paraskeva, Mother of God with Christ, Saint George, Archangel Michael. The painting method does not make these the representative works of the artist. There are not enough details, and the colors are dark. Only the Despotic icons are of better quality. On the basis of these few paintings, it can be concluded that Stefan was rather sloppy while doing these less significant orders or that he allowed his disciples to do them. These representations lack the magnificent strokes found in Ruma or Lipova. This last list nearly completes Stefan Tenecki’s oeuvre, with the exception of a self-portrait that speaks to his personality and talent to the same extent as the numerous religious artworks outlined in this chapter. In order to understand its significance, and develop a more well-rounded understanding of Tenecki, further biographical information is required.

A Personal Portrait of Stefan Tenecki There are numerous details from this artist’s life that can help us understand his character better. He was strict, moral, and sometimes shorttempered towards his family members. He wanted himself and his family to be respectable because he was famous and esteemed in the eighteenth century. His personality can also be understood on the basis of his portrait which is housed in the Gallery of Matica Srpska, owing to the heir of Doctor Aurel Popović from Novi Kneževac. In addition to the portrait painting, the self-portrait appeared as a separate whole in the Metropolitanate of Karlovci in the mid-eighteenth century. The self-portrait represented an image of self-position and self-respect. In fact, one of the first painters of self-portraits in modern times was Stefan Tenecki. He painted himself in 1770. The painting shows the artist at an advanced age, standing next to a table and wearing formal clothes. He is represented symbolically. He is holding the tools of his profession—a palette and a brush—in his left hand, and a quill dipped into the inkstand in his right hand. He is dressed in the rich clothes of Hungarian noblemen, wearing a sixfold Senator’s belt around his waist and a white ermine cloak. His hair is gray, fastened into a ponytail. His facial expression makes the observer conclude he is a respectable and self-confident person. The figure is placed in the interior of a building with Gothic arches. It might be the Senate building in Arad, since Gothic architecture was

Stefan Tenecki: Baroque Painter of Serbs and Romanians

273

maintained longest in public buildings in Romania, and worldwide. The self-portrait was painted after Tenecki had become a Senator. By painting such a representative self-portrait, resembling famous Dürer’s self-portraits, Tenecki wanted to highlight his noble origin, his profession as a painter, but also his political position in society since he was for a time the Senator of the City of Arad. However, this self-portrait provoked numerous controversies. Although this is considered to be the first known self-portrait of the Modern Age art in Serbia, researchers in Romania doubt that this is a painting by Tenecki and that he is represented in it.29 Nevertheless, Stefan Tenecki’s self-portrait is very significant and highly ranked in the art history of Serbian lands of the Modern Age, and its high artistic value indicates that Stefan Tenecki had exceptional technical qualities as a painter and that he was a master of the painting profession. In addition, this first known portrait in Serbian art shows the artist’s permanent readiness to change and accept the ideas of current European painting tendencies.30

Conclusion Stefan Tenecki was one of the most prolific Serbian painters of the second half of the eighteenth century. Regardless of the religious belonging of his patrons (Orthodox, Catholic or Uniate), he managed to become their favorite. He knew how to please the high theological knowledge of metropolitans and bishops, to meet the demands of urban and rural municipalities, and even the demanding Uniate believers and priests. His eclectic painting shows the multi-layered and complex ideological conflicts between the original painting of the medieval Balkans and modern European artistic achievements. Tenecki was significant for the development of art and culture of the Serbian people inhabiting the territory of today’s Romania, but he was equally important for the Romanian art and culture in the area. This text shows that he used his art to build artistic, cultural, and religious connections between these two nations. Numerous artists of the late eighteenth century in the area of Cluj (and in Transylvania) followed his style in their works and enhanced it. Since Tenecki was a pioneer of Baroque ideas among the Serbs, it can be freely stated that he was also the initiator of Baroque pursuits in Romanian religious art.

“270 de ani spre cer”, Editura Mirador, Arad, 2019; Rodica Colta: “Pictura execu­ tată de Ștefan Tenețchi la biserica ortodoxă română “Adormirea N Maici Domnului” din Galșa, 73–82. 30 Art of the 18th century in the collection of the Matica Srpska Gallery (Belgrade-Novi Sad 2013), 144–145. 29

274

Jovana K olundžija

Bibliography Cerović, Ljubivoje. Srbi u Aradu [Serbs in Arad]. Novi Sad/Arad: Muzej Grada Novog Sada/Savez Srba u Rumuniji, 2007. Colta, Rodica. “Pictura executată de Stefan Tenecki la Biserica Ortodoxă Română Adormirea Maicii Domnulu din Galșa.” In 270 de ani spre cer, edited by Lucian Adorian Trif, Eugenia Groșan, 73–82. Arad: Editura Mirador, 2019. Gaál, György. Prilozi za istoriju Rumuna [Contributions to the history of Romanians]. Novi Sad: Zavod za unapređenje opšteg i stručnog obrazovanja SAP Vojvodine, 1970. Chronicle of Matica Srpska. Novi Sad, 1872–1876. Jovanović, Miodrag. Tri veka srpskog slikarstva [Three centuries of Serbian painting]. Beograd: Dereta, 2009. Kolundžija, Jovana. “Moștenirea pictorului Stefan Tenetchi în Episcopia Sremului” [Pictures of Stefan Tenetchi in the Episcopate of Srem]. In Patrimoniu și patrimonializare, edited by Elena Rodica Colta, 42–63. Bucharest: Editura Etnologică, 2018. Letić, D. Prilozi za istoriju Rumuna [Contributions to the history of Romanians]. Novi Sad: 1970. Medaković, Dejan. Putevi srpskog baroka [In the Footsteps of the Serbian Baroque]. Beograd: Nolit, 1971. Medeleanu, Horia. “The Life of an 18th Century Painter: Ştefan Teneţchi.” Revue des études sud-est européennes 21 (1983): 127–145. Mikić, Olga and Leposava Šelmić. Majstori prelaznog perioda srpskog slikarstva XVIII veka [Masters of the transitional period of Serbian painting of the 18th century]. Novi Sad: Galerija Matice Srpske, 1981. Ostoić, Dragutin et al. Tri veka Tekelijine crkve: Arad 1702–2002 [Three centuries of Tekelija’s church: Arad 1702–2002]. Timişoara: Savez Srba u Rumuniji, 2002. Ristić, Vera. Stefan Tenecki u Rumuniji [Stefan Tenetchi in Romania]. Beograd: Narodni muzej, 1960. Simić, Vladimir. “Sava Tekelija: patriota, prosvetitelja i dobrotvor na razmeđi XVIII i XIX veka” [Sava Tekelija: patriot, educator and benefactor at the turn of the XVIII and XIX century]. In Sava Tekelija: Veliki srpski dobrotvor, edited by Vladimir Simić and Snežana Mišić, 15–107. Novi Sad: Galerija Matice Srpske, 2010. Timotijević, Miroslav. Srpsko barokno slikarstvo [Serbian Baroque Painting]. Novi Sad: Matica Srpska, 1996. Todić, Branislav. Srpski slikari od XIV do XVIII veka I-II [Serbian painters from the 14th to the 18th century I-II]. Novi Sad: Platoneum, 2013. Vârtaciu, Rodika. Centre de pictură românească din Banat secolul al XIX- lea [Romanian painting center in Banat, 19th century]. Timişoara: Editura EUROBIT, 1997. Vlasto, Alexis P. The Entry of the Slavs into Christendom: An Introduction to the Medieval History of the Slavs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Serbian Intellectuals from Arad, Personalities of Central Europe M ar ia A lex andr a Pantea , Virginia Popović

Throughout Arad there are a series of connecting points between Serbs and Romanians. Since the Middle Ages, Arad and the fortresses on the Mureș and Criș rivers had an important role in the military strategy of Central Europe. The first Serbian communities appeared in this area as a result of the antiOttoman wars waged by the king of Hungary, Matthias Corvinus, in the second half of the fifteenth century. Among the personalities of Serbian origin, some representatives of the Jakšić family stood out militarily, and in the second half of the fifteenth century, after Serbia was conquered by the Turks, they owned important properties in Transylvania, in the counties of Arad, Cenad, Cluj, and Timiș. They participated in the most important “armed conflicts in south-eastern and central medieval Europe,”1 and thus also played a critical role in the history of Hungary. Those who came to Arad from Serbia were not only involved in militaristic local affairs, but also participated in the religious development of the area. In the sixteenth century, George Branković, a “descendant of the family of Serbian despots of the same name,”2 arrived in Arad. Among this family there was a clerical elite that provided several bishops of Ineu. The first of these was Matei Branković, mentioned in documents as “bishop of Ienopolis in the Gabriela Adina Marco, “Familia nobiliară Jakšić şi primii sârbi stabiliţi la Nădlac (a doua jumătate a secolului al XV-lea),” [The Jakšić noble family and the first Serbs settled in Nădlac (second half of the 15th century)] in Ateneul arădean, Arad, no.1, year 1 (2020); 31. 2 Sorin Bulboacă, “Personalități politice, culturale si ecleziastice sârbe din Arad (sec. XVII–XIX),” [Serbian political, cultural and ecclesiastical personalities from Arad (XVII–XIX centuries)], in: Studii de știință și cultură, Arad, year VI, 3, no. 22, (September 2010): 52.

1

276

M ar ia A lex andr a Pantea

and

Virginia Popović

last years of the 16th century.”3 At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Sava Branković became bishop of Ienopolis. He “pastored the monastery of St. Nicholas of Ineu from 1605 to 1627.” In 1628 Patriarch Chiril Lukaris ordained a new bishop of Ineu, Longhin (Lazar) Branković, a nephew of Sava. He had connections with the high Russian Orthodox clergy following a visit in 1624 when he was “received in audience by the tsar himself.”4 During the pastorate of the bishops of the Branković family, the bishopric of Ineu flourished, where “Sava Brancovici remained as metropolitan at the beginning of his activity for two years.”5 From the Brancović family from Ineu, Sava Brancović II was to assert himself in the seventeenth century, establishing himself as the family’s most prominent representative. Born in Ineu, educated as a priest in Wallachia, at the Coman monastery, he was ordained as archpriest of Ineu by the metropolitan of Wallachia. In 1656 he was elected Metropolitan of Transylvania. He was noted as an important supporter of Orthodoxy when Transylvanian princes pressed to impose Calvinism. At the end of the seventeenth century, as a result of the Austro-Turkish wars, Arad came under the rule of the Habsburg Empire, which would contribute to the modernization and transformation of the city into an important ecclesiastical and cultural center during the eighteenth century. Due to the political changes of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, Arad arrived on the map of important cultural corridors that linked Central Europe to the Balkan world, being a space for coexistence of several ethnic groups and denominations. Victor Neumann wrote about these cultural ties between the Balkans and other parts of Europe in his book The Temptation of Homo Europaeus, in which he quotes the Hungarian historian Kosáry Domokos, who considers that “the civilization of this region has never been outside the course of European ideas and values.”6 At the beginning of the eighteenth century, Vienna authorities took a series of measures regarding the modernization and development of the area, and Arad became an important strategic point due to its geographical position. It was the period when Mureș separated two empires: in the north the Habsburg Empire, and in the south the Ottoman Empire, with the Mureș

Mircea Păcurariu, Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române [History of the Romanian Orthodox Church], vol. II (București, Editura Institutului Biblic), 179. 4 Sorin Bulboacă, op. cit., 54. 5 Vasile Mangra, Mitropolitul Sava II Brancovici (1656–1680) [Metropolitan Sava II Brancovici (1656–1680)], (Arad, Tipografia Diecezană, 1906), 40. 6 Viktor Nojman, Iskušenja Homo Europaeusa [The Temptation of Homo Europaeus] (Belgrad, Pešić i sinovi, 2011), 29. 3

Serbian Intellectuals from Arad, of Central Europe

277

line being defended by Serbian border guards colonized in these territories by the Court of Vienna. This led to the development of an important Serbian community. Several intellectuals rose from its ranks, such as representatives of the Tekelija, Arsić, Aleksić or Tabaković families, who were also important personalities of Central European culture. By the beginning of the eighteenth century, Arad asserted itself as an important ecclesiastical center of the Orthodox believers in the empire. In 1706 it became the seat of an Orthodox diocese, thus ensuring a connecting corridor between Banat and Crișana and the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Sremski Karlovci, which was the most important institution of the Orthodox Church in the empire, as it was “the only Orthodox ecclesiastical authority recognized by Vienna.”7 It played an important role, being “a stronghold of Orthodoxy within the Habsburg Empire.”8 During this period the bishops subordinated to the Metropolitanate had a strong influence both in the territories they pastored and in the circles of Vienna, being “representatives and intermediaries between their believers and the Viennese court.”9 The coexis­ tence of Romanians with Serbs, which took place at this point, was possible due to the policy of the hierarchs of Sremski Karlovci, the leaders of the Romanians, but especially due to the Serbs who were important defenders of Orthodoxy. Thus, as a result of the existence of this diocese we can see that during the eighteenth century there were various connections between the diocese of Arad and other episcopal centers, which operated both inside and outside the empire.

Serbian Bishop of Arad, Personalities of the Orthodox Clergy from the Habsburg Empire As Arad played an important role in the formation and development of a Serbian elite in the eighteenth century, the existence of a Serbian community meant that for over 100 years the leadership of the Arad diocese had been entrusted to prelates of Serbian origin. The first of them, Isaia Diaconovici, “laid the material foundations of the Diocese of Arad”10 in

Victor Neumann, Interculturalitatea Banatului [Interculturality of Banat] (Timișoara, Institutul European, 2012), 20. 8 Silviu Anuichi, Relații bisericești româno-sârbe în secolul al XVII-lea și al XVIII-­ lea [Romanian-Serbian ecclesiastical relations in the 17th and 18th centuries] (București, Editura Institutului Biblic, 1980), 67. 9 Ibid. 10 Pavel Vesa, Episcopii Aradului: 1706–2006 [The Bishops of Arad: 1706–2006]. (Arad, Editura Gutenberg Univers), 21. 7

278

M ar ia A lex andr a Pantea

and

Virginia Popović

1706. According to documents, the Orthodox diocese of Ineu was moved there, Isaia Diaconovici bore the title of “episcopus Ienopolitanus,” and in the imperial diploma of August 27, 1706, his status was confirmed as “residentiam suam Aradiensem.”11 The death of Patriarch Arsenije III Crnojević in 1706 rendered the position of the bishop of Arad to be considered “the last pillar of Orthodoxy in the Habsburg Empire”12 and to be appointed metropolitan of all Orthodox in the Habsburg Empire. At the same time, the emperor of Vienna appointed Isaia Diakonović imperial adviser in 1707, confirming him as “delegate to the court of the Rascian, Ruthenian and Vlach people.”13 Becoming a metropolitan, he worked for the religious free­ dom of the Orthodox believers in the Empire, supervising the observance of Illyrian privileges. With the support of Eugene of Savoy, he demanded that Serbs be represented in the Hungarian Diet, arguing that they had fought and defended Austria’s interests. For a century and a half, important bishops rose in the Orthodox hierarchy from the episcopal see of Arad, reaching the leadership of the Metropolitanate of Sremski Karlovci. In 1731 Bishop Vikentije Jovanović became metropolitan of Sremski Karlovci and distinguished himself by the measures taken regarding the education of priests and for rural schools. In 1748 another bishop of Arad, Isaija Antonović, was elected metropolitan of Sremski Karlovci (1748–1749). On August 28 / September 8, 1748, the new metropolitan was solemnly installed and swore to guard the Orthodox faith. This was followed by a trip to Vienna, where he was to receive his appointment and take the oath of allegiance. He died on January 22, 1749.14 Following the appointment of Isaija Antonović as metropolitan, Pavle Nenadović was elected bishop. He pastored the diocese of Arad for only one year. In 1749, the Serbian national church congress took place, on which occasion the problems faced by the Orthodox Church in the Empire were discussed, especially after the imperial commissioner demanded the abolition of the Diocese of Arad. In this context, Bishop Pavle Nenadović became Metropolitan of Sremski Karlovci and due to his perseverance, the Bishopric of Arad was not abolished.15 The appointment “opened the prospects for the assertion of one of the most illustrious figures of the time, Pavle Nenadović,”16 who pastored the Orthodox Church in the Empire for two decades, fighting for the rights

Ibid. Ibid., 22. 13 Silviu Anuichi, op. cit., 487. 14 Mircea Păcurariu, op. cit., 514. 15 Pavel Vesa, op. cit., 43. 16 Silviu Anuichi, op. cit., 79.

11 12

Serbian Intellectuals from Arad, of Central Europe

279

of Orthodox believers at a time when Maria Theresa was taking a series of measures to strengthen Catholicism. It was the period in which in Banat there were massive colonizations with Swabian and Bulgarian Catholics, who enjoyed some privileges and managed to develop strong communities. During the second half of the eighteenth century, within the leadership of the Orthodox Church were important theologians who supported the modernization of society, being followers of Enlightenment ideas. In this context, Sinesije Živanović (1711–1768) was ordained bishop of Arad on September 1, 1751. He managed to change the appearance of the diocese, which also faced great material problems. He even managed to build a new episcopal residence, equipped with everything necessary, but also with a courtyard around the church, “for which he appealed to his representative in Vienna to send a horticulturist.”17 Moreover, the icons needed for the new diocesan head­ quarters were also ordered from Vienna, “according to a model seen in the engraver’s workshop in Vienna.”18 In other words, the bishop frequented the Viennese world and was a follower of Central European values ​and culture. The bishop also owned an impressive library, which he mentioned in his will, and which was donated to the diocese of Arad. In 1757 he donated to the Hilandar monastery the episcopal scepter of ivory which is kept today in the monastery library. Between 1770 and 1815, the Diocese of Arad was pastored by three other Serbian bishops. These were personalities who stood out through the education they received, but when they arrived in Arad, they had to deal with a series of household activities and become defenders of Orthodoxy, without being able to get too involved in cultural activities. Pahomije Knežević, who became bishop of Arad in 1770, continued the work started by Sinesije Živanović and distinguished himself as an important intellectual, who through his training acquired a culture specific to the times in which he lived. The bishop Pahomije greeted Emperor Joseph II in 1770, when he visited Arad, on which occasion the bishop officiated at the Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and “Deacon Feldvari translated to the emperor in Latin the meaning of the various moments during the service.”19 Petar Petrović (1784–1786), born in Sremski Karlovci, where he also studied, was appointed bishop of Arad in 1783. There he faced the danger of Greek

Pavel Vesa, op. cit., p. 58. Ibid., 63. 19 Bojidar Panici, „Aradul și arădenii în lucrările memorialistice ale lui Sava Tekelia,“ [Arad and the people of Arad in the memoirs of Sava Tekelia] in Minoritarul imaginar, minoritarul real [Imaginary minority, real minority] (Complexul Muzeal, Arad, 2003), 378. 17 18

280

M ar ia A lex andr a Pantea

and

Virginia Popović

Catholic proselytism. On July 21, 1786, he was “transferred to the episcopal see of Timisoara.”20 The last Serbian bishop of Arad was Pavle Avakumović (1786–1815), during whose time relations between Romanians and Serbs worsened, and the bishop was accused by some Romanian leaders of accepting the abuses of Serbian priests. Analyzing the situation of the Orthodox Church in the empire, during the eighteenth century the Serbian bishops of Arad and the leadership of the Metropolitanate of Sremski Karlovci played an important role defending Orthodoxy, but also serving the interests of Vienna, thus stimulating the modernization process. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the situation changed radically as a Romanian elite was rising in Transylvania, which would start fighting for the rights of Romanians in the area. In this context, the Serbian bishops came to be considered “oppressors of the Romanian people,”21 who neglected “the national political and ecclesiastical interests of the Romanians.”22

The Tekelija Family, Part of the Military Elite in the Arad Area In addition to this intellectual cultivation that was active around the Diocese of Arad, in the second half of the eighteenth century began to appear a secular intellectual cultivation, whose leading representatives were initially members of the Tekelija family. Jovan Popović Tekelija, born in 1665 in Cenad, considered “the first member of the most famous Serbian aristocratic family in the Habsburg Monarchy,”23 distinguished himself at the end of the sev­ enteenth century and in the first two decades of the eighteenth century as an important military leader. He played an important role during the battle of Zenta in 1697,24 exposing the Turks’ plan of attack, which helped Prince Eugene of Savoy win the battle.

Ibid.,77. Teodor Botiș, „Cuvântarea rostită în ziua de 26 octombrie 1929,“ [Speech deliv­ ered on October 26, 1929] in vol. Triumful Ortodoxiei la Arad [The triumph of Orthodoxy in Arad] (Arad, Editura Diecezană, 1929), 57. 22 Gheorghe Ciuhandu, Românii din Câmpia Aradului de acum două veacuri [The Romanians from the Arad Plain two centuries ago] (Timișoara, Editura Marineasa, 2005), 8. 23 Sorin Bulboacă, op. cit., 53. 24 Regarding his involvement in the battle of Zenta, the Serbian writer Miloš Crnjanski states: “With his horsemen he moved in front of the Austrian troops, and during the night, orienting himself with the help of the stars, he led them through a sea of ​water and mud. He appeared behind the Turks. Everyone now glorifies the general, the prince, the god of war, the idol of Europe, but no one mentions or knows about the 20 21

Serbian Intellectuals from Arad, of Central Europe

281

The following year, Jovan Popović Tekelija was appointed by the prince as commander of the “Serbian militia in Arad, whose main mission was to fortify the city urgently and prepare for defense.”25 Arriving in Arad, he rebuilt the fortress, built a church and was until his death, in 1722, the commander of the troops from the military border in Mureș. In 1703 he took part in the fights against the kuruc, supporting the Habsburg cause. As a result of his merits, in 1706, at the suggestion of Eugene of Savoy, Jovan Popović Tekelija was ennobled and received important properties. In the following years he took part in the Turkish-Austrian war of 1716–1718, witnessing Eugene of Savoy’s conquest of Banat. The military career had become a tradition for the representatives of the Tekelija family. As Jovan Popović Tekelija participated in several wars supporting the cause of Vienna. his son, Ranko Tekelija, had several children from two marriages, and one of these children, Jovan Tekelija, born in Arad in 1714, participated in the Turkish-Austrian war of 1737–1739 and in the war for Austrian succession, a decade later. He married Marta Nenadović,26 the daughter of Metropolitan Pavle Nenadović, who by his election as Metropolitan also received the title of nobleman. They had three children, one of whom was Sava Tekelija, and the others were named Petar and Alojzija. In the middle of the eighteenth century, dissatisfied with Vienna’s policy of not recognizing the privileges of the Serbian military, some members of the Tekelija family emigrated to Russia. In the new country, Petar Tekelija, Sava Tekelija’s uncle, would stand out, holding an “important position,”27 obtaining the rank of general and having considerable wealth, but he left no descendants. Representatives of the Tekelija family who arrived in Russia kept in touch with those who remained in Arad, and at the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century Sava Tekelija made three trips to Russia. In 1787, immediately after graduating, Sava Tekelija traveled to Russia to meet his relatives. Then came the voyages of 1811 and 1816, which aimed to solve problems related to succession. During these trips, Sava Tekelija got to know new aspects of life in Transylvania, Bucovina and Moldova and wrote important travel notes and memoirs. One who brought him victory and who, on that great night, through darkness and water, with the help of the stars, led the Army.” Ibid., 56. 25 Ștefan Bugarski „Familia Tekelija și Aradul,“ [The Tekelija family and Arad] în Aradul de-a lungul timpului [Arad over time] (Timișoara, 2012), 217. 26 Dušan Popović, Srbi u Vojvodini [Serbs in Vojvodina], vol. II (Novi Sad, Matica Srpska, 1990), 438. 27 Dan Roman, Oameni de seamă ai Aradului [Notable people of Arad] (Arad, Editura „Vasile Goldiș“ University Press, 2011), 71.

282

M ar ia A lex andr a Pantea

and

Virginia Popović

Based on the acquired knowledge, he managed to draw some geographical maps. Cartography was a passion of his, but also of his family, due to the military career of his predecessors. Sava Tekelija’s maps show that he had a solid knowledge of mathematics, drawing and geography. In addition, he was interested in etymology, lexicology, history, religion and political history, which he demonstrated through his notes in the travel diary about Moscow and the Caucasus. Arriving in Russia, he had the opportunity to see Moscow, being accompanied by his uncle, Petar, as well as Archimandrite Milanković from Novi Sad. But the young intellectual trained in the Enlightenment spirit of Central Europe was not too impressed by the splendor of Moscow, considering that the urban architecture of the city was more attractive in his imagination than it was. Instead, the city of St. Petersburg reminded him more of the cities of Central Europe. From Russia, Sava Tekelija brought several notebooks, in which he wrote his memoirs, observations and impressions, but he also drew scenes that caught his attention. These notebooks and drawings are kept in the collection of the Matica Srpska Gallery in Novi Sad, 28 and provide a repository of information about the various regions, including Serbia and Romania as they existed at the time. The important role played by the Tekelija family in the area is also demonstrated by the fact that in 1770, when Emperor Joseph II made his second visit to Banat, he stopped for a day in Arad and a meeting took place between representatives of the Tekelija family and the emperor. Sava Tekelija witnessed this moment,29 which he remembered with some bitterness, because the mem­ bers of the Tekelija family, not knowing languages ​other than Romanian and Serbian, could not get along very well with the emperor. Thus Sava Tekelija, being still a small child, understood the importance of education, and that without enough knowledge one could not advance on any level. This event prompted him to study in order to have a proper education. Thus, at the end of the eighteenth century, Sava Tekelija came to study French, Italian and Spanish in Arad, Vienna and Budapest, among other subjects that would set him apart as an intellectual.



Vladimir Simić, “Putovanje Save Tekelije u Rusiju: skica Istočne Evrope u beleškama prosvećenih plemića,” [Sava Tekelija’s journey to Russia: a sketch of Eastern Europe in the notes of enlightened nobles] in Književna istorija, 53, no. 173 (2021): 41–65. 29 Bojidar Panici, op. cit., 378. 28

Serbian Intellectuals from Arad, of Central Europe

283

Sava Tekelija, First Serbian Doctor of Legal Sciences, Supporter of the Serbian Cause While other representatives of the Tekelija family became important soldiers, and some of them even arrived in Russia, as a result of the emigration of the Arad Serbs in the middle of the eighteenth century, the exception was Sava Tekelija, who distinguished himself as a lover of learning and made no effort to join the army. After finishing high school in Buda, where he had good results, at the insistence of his family he tried to approach the “path of arms” to maintain the family tradition but failed to enroll in the Military Academy in Vienna. Returning to Buda, he enrolled in the Faculty of Law, from which he graduated in 1785 with “the most deserving results.” Then, in 1786 he also obtained the title of Doctor of Legal Sciences with the thesis entitled Dissertatio de causa et fine Civitatis una cum Positionibus ex universali iure, quas annuente facultate juridica,30 which “transformed the young Sava Tekelija into the first Serbian holder of such a high academic title in the field of legal sciences.”31 Following, in 1790, Sava Tekelija was at the Illyrian Congress in Timișoara, where he argued that Serbs should not seek separate privileges, but “incorporate, that is, obtain the same rights as other citizens, regardless of the area in which they are located.”32 Sava Tekelija knew that the Habsburgs were in conflict with the Ottoman Empire and had an interest in supporting the cause of the Serbs, but he was aware that at the end of the military conflicts Vienna’s attitude towards Serbs would change, as evidenced in the years that followed. Through the proposals he made during the Congress in Timișoara, Sava Tekelija, although the representative of a family that supported Orthodoxy during the eighteenth century, having built an important place of worship in Arad, came into conflict with the Church. The intellectual from Arad considered that the imperial protection was insecure for the Serbs and considered that it was better for the Serbs to enjoy autonomy.33 Sava Tekelija asserted himself in this way as a true representative of the Enlightenment culture, supporting the secularization of the old Illyrian privileges and the collaboration with the Hungarian Court Chancellery.34

Sava Tekelija, Opisanije života moga [A description of my life] (Belgrad, 1989), 32–38. Dan Roman, op. cit., 270. 32 Ștefan Bugarski, op. cit., 220. 33 For more information on the role of Sava Tekelija in the Congress of Timisoara see “Temišvarski srpski sabor 1790,” in Arhiv za istoriju Srpske pravoslavne karlovačke mitropolije (Sremski Karlovci, IV, 1914): 6–50. 34 Nicolae Bocșan, Contribuții la istoria iluminismului românesc [Contributions to the history of the Romanian Enlightenment], (Timișoara, Editura Facla, 1986), 140. 30 31

284

M ar ia A lex andr a Pantea

and

Virginia Popović

In 1792 he was appointed secretary of the Court Chancellery in Vienna, where he worked until 1797, when he returned to Arad, where he became involved in both philanthropic activities, aimed at “the spiritual upliftment of the Serbs,” and in political activities, sending memoranda to Europe’s great leaders, calling on them to support the Serbian cause. In 1802 he became the representative of Cenad County in the Hungarian Diet, and following the outbreak of an anti-Ottoman uprising in Serbia, Sava Tekelija engaged in numerous political and diplomatic activities aimed at emancipating Serbs. In 1805 he sent a memorandum to Napoleon, asking him to get involved and support the “restoration of the Serbian state.”35 Disappointed by Napoleon, in 1806 he addressed the Austrian Emperor Francis I, to whom he tried to show that the existence of a Serbian state could stop Russia’s expansion in the Balkans.36 Having spent the majority of his life in Arad, while understanding the importance of education, Sava Tekelija carried out a project aimed at creating a foundation for the schooling of Serbian children in Arad whose families did not have the financial means to send them to school. The project of the foundation was printed in Buda in 1798. Due to political problems, the foundation was not established until 1810. In the last part of his life, Sava Tekelija, disappointed by what he experienced, performed important acts of charity, such as rebuilding the Serbian church in Arad and erecting a new tower, with the amount of 22,000 florins. The church was a symbol of the old family, and in the city it was known as the church of Tekelija. Sava Tekelija was well acquainted with the problems facing the Serbs, but also with the changes taking place in the major political and cultural centers and would assert himself until the end of his life as a supporter of the Serbian cause. The intellectual born in Arad was convinced of the need for the existence of an institution that would “support science and culture among the Serbian people,”37 which is why he helped the Matica Srpska association, and in 1838 he was appointed its president. It was the heyday of Matica Srpska, founded in 1826 and reorganized by Sava Tekelija, who united the foundation for the education of border guards with Matica, to help educate Serbs at the Military Academy in Vienna and Pest.38 To support the society, in 1838

Ibid., 275. Dan Roman, op. cit., 275. 37 Ljubivoje Cerović, „Un arădean, Sava Tekelija, cel mai mare mecena al culturii sârbe,“ [An Arad resident, Sava Tekelija, the greatest patron of Serbian culture] în vol. Identitate, alteritate, multiculturalitate (Arad, Complexul Muzeal Arad, 2001), 102. 38 Sava Tekelija, op. cit., 219. 35

36

Serbian Intellectuals from Arad, of Central Europe

285

he decided to donate his entire fortune, which was valued at 400,000 silver florins,39 and he founded on August 21, 1838, at Pest the Foundation for the Accommodation of Serbian Students, which later became Tekelijanum. The capital of the Foundation consisted of “150,000 florins plus two houses in Pest and nine houses in Arad, plus a few other goods.”40 Sava Tekelija’s house in Pest was very close to the University and the Orthodox Church and became the home of poor Serbian students. Initially, their number was 12, then it reached 18 students.41 Sava Tekelija took care of this foundation until the end of his life, after which Matica Srpska took care of this institution. This house would last until 1906, when another was built in the same place. Through this, Sava Tekelija “remains its biggest philanthropist for Serbian culture,”42 and Matica Srpska the most important cultural insti­ tution of Serbs. In the nineteenth century, the Arad intellectual became the “great benefactor” of the Serbian people, who through his donation showed wisdom, but which could also be considered as proof of the “broad cultural horizon of the founder.”43 Through scholarships awarded over time, Sava Tekelija contributed to the formation and emancipation of Serbian intellectuality. By the outbreak of World War I, “346 Serb children from all Serbinhabited provinces” had been educated through Tekelijanum. Analyzing the life and activity of Sava Tekelija, it can be said that Arad played an important role in the formation of Serbian intellectuality, and “Sava Tekelija from Arad was one of the most enlightened Serbian intellectuals of the second half of the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth century.”44 Sava Tekelija died in Arad on September 21, 1843, being buried in the Serbian Church in the city founded by his great-grandfather. Along with him, the Tekelija family died out, a family that for a century played an important role in Central Europe.

Jovan Stejić, Disciple of Sava Tekelija, Founder of the Public Health Service in Serbia One of Sava Tekelija’s fellows was Jovan Stejić, born in Arad in 1803 into a modest Serbian family. He distinguished himself through his love of learning,

Ibid., 225. Ibid. 41 Dušan Popović, op. cit., vol. III, 162. 42 Dan Roman, op. cit., 275. 43 Ljubivoie Cerović, op. cit., 102. 44 Bojidar Panici, op. cit., 375. 39

40

286

M ar ia A lex andr a Pantea

and

Virginia Popović

and due to “the goodwill of Sava Tekelija, Jovan Stejić completed his studies in philosophy in Szeged,”45 and then his medical studies in Pest, obtaining his doctorate in medicine in Vienna in 1829, when he defended his doctoral thesis on dysentery, Dissertatio inauguralis medica de Dysenteria.46 In 1826 he translated and prepared for printing the book Macrobiotics or the science of prolonging human life, written by Christoph Hufeland. He worked in Buda, being a member of the Matica Srpska society, which in 1828–1836 published four books written by Jovan Stejić. From 1831 he worked in Serbia, contributing to the creation of the new modern state. Dr. Jovan Stejić became the doctor of the Obrenović princely family. In this capacity he helped prevent the spread of the cholera epidemic that entered Belgrade in 1831. Being the family doctor of Miloš Obrenović, he managed to leave Serbia and went to Zemun, which was then in the Habsburg Empire, where he set up a private medical office. He returned to Serbia only in 1838, at the invitation of Prince Mihailo Obrenović, when the new Government (Ustrojenija Centralnog pravlenija Knjažestva Srbskog) was elected. Together with Karl Pacek, he set up the Ambulance Quarantine Section. He was secretary of the Scientific Society of Serbia and was involved in the creation of the public health service, being appointed by Prince Aleksandar Karađorđević head of the Health Department of the Ministry of Interior.47 Jovan Stejić was on the side of opponents of Vuk Stefanović Karadžić’s reform of grammar and the Serbian language. In this context, he printed the work “Observations on the Preface of Mr. Vuk Karadžić of the Translation of the New Testament.” In 1852 he wrote General Spelling, and in 1853 the Serbian Dictionary and Serbian Grammar, which were in public use in Serbia until 1868, when Vuk’s spelling was accepted. Jovan Stejić and Vuk Karadžić were friends, although the former did not agree with Vuk’s reform of Serbian grammar and spelling. Jovan Stejić also stood out through the translations he made. He translated excerpts from the works of the Greek philosopher Plato, but also the poem “Poltava” by Pushkin. Through his work, Jovan Stejić remains an important figure in Serbian culture, but also in Central Europe from the first half of the nineteenth century. Educated in the Arad cultural environment,

Sorin Bulboacă, op. cit., 64. Brane Kartalović, „O produženiju života čovečeskog..,“ [On the prolongation of human life] in Politika, April 4, 2020, https://www.polit​i ka.rs/sr/cla​nak/451​942/O-prod​ uzen​iju-ziv​ota-cov​eces​kog (information retrieved on October 25, 2021). 47 Predrag-Mile Purza, „Sârbii din Arad,“ [The Serbs from Arad] in Aradul de-a lun­ gul timpului [Arad over time], vol. 11 (Timișoara, 2010), 83. 45

46

Serbian Intellectuals from Arad, of Central Europe

287

supported by Sava Tekelija, a graduate of prominent universities in the Habsburg Empire, Jovan Stejić from Arad “remained in the collective memory as a founder or maker of medical literature and as a founder of the public health service in Serbia,”48

Serbian Writers from Arad, Personalities of Central European Culture At the beginning of the nineteenth century Serbian intellectuality was prevalent in Arad, with several homes in possession of notable libraries. Such was the case with the Tekelija and Arsić families. During this period writers appeared, such as Sava Tekelija, who “wrote, translated and edited books with historical, social, political, military, legal and polemical content, poems in classical rhythm, spelling treatises,”49 with his most important works being his posthumously published memoirs. Among the texts he printed during his life, The speech delivered as a deputy at the Illyrian Congress in Timișoara on September 9, 1790,50 published in Pest, is worth mentioning. Additionally, among the translations made by Tekelija The Romans in Spain, a translation of a work published by Watson, is notable for Tekelija’s added comments and suggestions for “the tactics of guerrilla warfare to be useful to the rebels.” It should be remembered that this work was translated and published by Sava Tekelija “in the midst of the Serbian uprising of 1805.”51 However, as stated, the most significant works written by the Arad intellectual are his posthumously published memoirs, entitled Opisanije života (Description of My Life), which are valuable for the amount of information they provide about various aspects and events in Arad throughout the late eighteenth century and the first decades of the nineteenth century. Sava Tekelija also wrote a diary about his trip to Russia, as well as a diary written during his time as a civil servant in Vienna. Additionally, Sava Tekelija was a patron of the arts, as evident by his support of theatrical activity as he provided his garden as a venue for the several German theater troupes that passed through Arad in the last decades of the eighteenth century.52

Sorin Bulboacă, op. cit., 65. Ștefan Bugarski, op. cit., 232. 50 Ljubivoie Cerović, op. cit., 99. 51 Ibid., 101. 52 Elena Rodica Colta, „Lecturile intelighenției sârbe arădene la sfârșitul secolului al XVIII-lea și începutul secolului XIX-lea,“ [Readings of Serbian Arad intelligentsia at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century] in Aradul de-a lungul timpului [Arad over time] (Timișoara, 2002), 116.

48

49

288

M ar ia A lex andr a Pantea

and

Virginia Popović

Gavril-Gavra Janković was also a supporter of the theatrical movement and donated his fortune to one of the most important cultural institutions for Serbian people in the Habsburg Empire—the Serbian National Theater in Novi Sad. Born in Arad on April 9, 1793, as the son of Georgije, a member of the city’s Senate, and Juliana,53 Janković continued the work started in Arad by Sava Tekelija. Further, as a leader of the Serbian community, he worked as a lawyer, and was involved in the management and administration of the city. An enlightened spirit, he promoted the idea of ​modernizing society, being one of the founders of the first Savings Bank in Arad in 1840, which played an important role in the city’s economic development. Lastly, another talented nineteenth-century personality from Arad was Eustahija Arsić, born Cincić on March 14, 1776, in the village of Irig in Srem, “the first Serbian woman writer of the modern period” and a member of the Serbian Academy. She was the author of several volumes with didactic and educational content published in Buda. Her first work, Maternal Advice to Beloved Serbian and Romanian Youth, was printed in Buda in 1814. The text was dedicated to Uroš Nestorović, who proposed to the emperor the ennobling of Eustahija Arsić, and her husband Sava, for their involvement in supporting Preparandia (Pedagogical Schools) from Arad. Her husband, Senator Sava Arsić (1760–1824), was the mayor of Arad and supported the establishment of Preparandia in the city. The couple played a significant role in the development of the school system, and they further supported religious, health and social institutions in Arad. Eustahija Arsić was especially preoccupied with the education of girls, which earned her a place in history. The writer from Arad was a self-taught woman and had extensive knowledge of philosophy, literature, religion, natural sciences, history, etc. From here came the idea to start writing, even though at the beginning of the nineteenth century there were very few women writers. In the years that followed, she published other books in Buda. In 1816 she published Poleznaja razmišljenija [Useful thinking] and Sovjeti maternji [Mother’s advice], and in 1818 the book Useful thoughts about the four seasons, in which the influence of Dositej Obradović’s ideas, whom the writer from Arad greatly respected, is felt. Due to her work in Arad, she was appreciated by the great Serbian reformer Vuk Stefanović Karadžic. In 1821, he asked Eustahija Arsić to gather subscribers for his third collection of popular poetry. Eustahija quickly sent him a list of about a hundred names, as well as a sum of money. Afterwards, it was

Enciklopedija Srpskog narodnog pozorišta, 160, https://www.snp.org.rs/encikl​oped​ ija/?page ​_ id=19&paged=160 (information retrieved on October 25, 2021).

53

Serbian Intellectuals from Arad, of Central Europe

289

discovered that she sold only six copies, and the rest she bought herself and then distributed to the best Serbian students in Arad and Serbia. Eustahija Arsić turned her home into a literary salon, where the most important personalities met. She was also the first woman member of the Matica Srpska society, to which she donated a significant sum of money in 1857. She died on February 17, 1843, and in her testament left large sums to the church, school and hospital, but also to help orphaned children. She remained known as a great benefactor of Serbian writers, and of Serbian and Romanian urban, religious and educational institutions in Arad.54

Serbian Artist from Arad, Personalities of Central Europe During the nineteenth century, important artists and representatives of the Tabaković and Aleksić families worked in Arad. The activity of the Aleksić family can be traced back to three generations of painters from the second half of the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth century. The first of them was Nikola Aleksić, a graduate of the Academy of Painting in Vienna, whose activity began in Arad in 1840. He distinguished himself as an important painter of icons and portraits, becoming one of the most prolific painters of the nineteenth century, as he “painted about a thousand church paintings and portraits, which makes him a kind of chronicler-painter of Banat.”55 Through his work he contributed to “the development of Serbian painting in the 19th century. His work is important both as a work and as a landmark of Serbian painting and its subsequent directions.”56 Several of his successors worked in the field of art. His sons, Dušan Aleksić and Stevan Aleksić, painted many churches. Analyzing the painting of an iconostasis, the restorer Viorel Țigu told the press that “Alexici’s icons are almost lifesize, and their figures are placed in a special light (…) It is extraordinary to see how a Serbian painter writes so beautifully in Romanian.” Among his nephews, Ivan Aleksić distinguished himself as a theologian, but he was also concerned with art history, and Stevan Aleksić studied painting in Munich, asserting himself as a representative of modern painting in Serbia. He settled in Pančevo, where he “painted over seventy portraits and several large compositions with historical content.” Through his activity, Stevan Aleksić was one of the representatives of the German painting school trained “in the



Božidar Panić, “Eustahija Arsić. Tragovi u vremenu,” [Eustahija Arsić. Traces in time] in Temišvarski Zbornik 7 (Novi Sad, 2014), 73. 55 Predrag-Mile Purza, op. cit., 86. 56 Ibid. 54

290

M ar ia A lex andr a Pantea

and

Virginia Popović

traditions of academic realism with sensations of symbolism, with accentuations of expressionism.”57 Known as an important artistic center, in 1844 two sculptors, Mihajlo and Lazar Janić, arrived from Bačka Palanka to Arad. The “brothers Mihailo and Lazar Janić collaborated for thirty years as masters of wood carving, with the most distinguished Serbian painters of the mid-nineteenth century preparing them. In most cases they produced wooden carvings of iconostases and other objects of church furniture.”58 Among those masters with whom the brothers collaborated was Nikola Aleksić, and together they created numerous important iconostases. At the end of the nineteenth century, representatives of the Tabaković family were also part of the Arad intellectual circle. Milan Tabaković, a graduate of the Faculty of Civil Engineering in Budapest, would stand out as an important architect, whose projects contributed to the beautification of Arad. His works in the city center “became symbols of the heyday of urban development.”59 Buildings designed by the Serbian architect from Arad can also be found in Békéscsaba or Bratislava. After World War I, he moved with his family to Novi Sad, and his son, Đorđe Tabaković, born in Arad, distinguished himself as an important architect and designed several buildings in Novi Sad, Zrenjanin, and Belgrade. Through his activity he became “among the leading Serbian architects of the interwar period.”60 Also in Serbia, Milan’s other son, Ivan Tabaković, an important painter, would become a member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, and produce outstanding art. Intellectuals from the Tabaković family played an important role in the Central European space, leaving their mark through the buildings built in this area. Some of the representatives of the Tabaković family worked both in Arad and in other cities in the monarchy, and through their activity they left an important “architectural heritage in Arad, Novi-Sad, Zrenianin and Kikinda.”61



Ibid., 88. Miodrag Jovanović, „Sculptorii din familia Janić din Arad,“ [Sculptors from the Janić family from Arad] Temišvarski Zbornik 3 (Novi Sad, 2001): 94. 59 Predrag-Mile Purza, op. cit., 92. 60 Ibid. 61 Dușan Dejanac, „Tabacovicii arădeni și Kikinda,“ [The Tabacovici from Arad and Kikinda] în Aradul de-a lungul timpului [Arad over time] (Timișoara, 2003), 137. 57

58

Serbian Intellectuals from Arad, of Central Europe

291

Conclusions Arad played an important role within Romania’s borders, played an important role for the Serbian world and culture in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The city’s geographical position unites Central Europe with the Balkan area, thus, as a result of the emigrations of many Serbs to the area, it became the main city in the development of Serbian culture, art, religion, and education. It is the place where many well-known names in the history of the Serbian people lived and worked, and through their endeavors they left traces that can be found everywhere in Arad and Central Europe. Arad has a rich past and cultural heritage, thus when key leaders of the Serbian community asserted themselves in the city, they became recognized as important intellectuals of Central Europe, but also promoters of the modernization of the Serbian state and culture during the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, with the impact of their activities still felt today.

Bibliography Anuichi, Silviu. Relații bisericești româno-sârbe în secolul al XVII-lea și al XVIIIlea [Romanian-Serbian ecclesiastical relations in the 17th and 18th centuries]. Bucharest: Editura Institutului Biblic, 1980. Bocșan, Nicolae. Contribuții la istoria iluminismului românesc [Contributions to the history of the Romanian enlightenment]. Timișoara: Editura Facla, 1986. Botiș, Teodor. “Cuvântarea rostită în ziua de 26 octombrie 1929” [Speech delivered on October 26, 1929]. In Triumful Ortodoxiei la Arad [The triumph of Orthodoxy in Arad]. Arad: Editura Diecezană, 1929. Bugarski, Ștefan. “Familia Tekelija și Aradul” [The Tekelija family and Arad]. In Aradul de-a lungul timpului [Arad over time]. Timișoara, 2012. Bulboacă, Sorin. “Personalități politice, culturale si ecleziastice sârbe din Arad (sec. XVII–XIX)” [Serbian political, cultural and ecclesiastical personalities from Arad (XVII–XIX centuries)] Studii de știință și cultură 3, no. 22 (2010): 52–67. Cerović, Ljubivoje. “Un arădean, Sava Tekelija, cel mai mare mecena al culturii sârbe” [An Arad resident, Sava Tekelija, the greatest patron of Serbian culture]. In Identitate, alteritate, multiculturalitate, edited by Pascu Hurezan, 96–108. Arad: Complexul Muzeal Arad, 2001. Ciuhandu, Gheorghe. Românii din Câmpia Aradului de acum două veacuri [The Romanians from the Arad Plain two centuries ago]. Timișoara: Editura Marineasa, 2005. Colta, Elena Rodica. “Lecturile intelighenției sârbe arădene la sfârșitul secolului al XVIII-lea și începutul secolului XIX-lea” [Readings of Serbian Arad intelligentsia at

292

M ar ia A lex andr a Pantea

and

Virginia Popović

the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century]. In Aradul de-a lungul timpului [Arad over time]. Timișoara: 2002. Dejanac, Dușan. “Tabacovicii arădeni și Kikinda” [The Tabacovici from Arad and Kikinda] In Aradul de-a lungul timpului [Arad over time]. Timișoara: 2003. Jovanović, Miodrag. “Vajari Janići iz Arada — The Janić Brothers, Sculptors from Arad — Sculptorii din familia Janiã din Arad.” Temišvarski Zbornik 3 (2001): 89–95. Kartalović, Brane. “O produženiju života čovečeskog ….” [On the prolongation of human life]. In Politika. April 4, 2020. https://www.polit​i ka.rs/sr/cla​nak/451​ 942/O-prod​uzen​iju-ziv​ota-cov​eces​kog (information retrieved on October 25, 2021) Mangra, Vasile. Mitropolitul Sava II Brancovici (1656–1680) [Metropolitan Sava II Brancovici (1656–1680)]. Arad: Tipografia Diecezană, 1906. Marco, Gabriela Adina. “Familia nobiliară Jakšić şi primii sârbi stabiliţi la Nădlac (a doua jumătate a secol lui al XV-lea)” [The Jakšić noble family and the first Serbs settled in Nădlac (second half of the 15th century)]. Ateneul arădean 1 (2020): 31–37. Nojman, Viktor. Iskušenja Homo Europaeusa [The Temptation of Homo Europaeus]. Beograd: Pešić i sinovi, 2011. Păcurariu, Mircea. Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române vol. II. [History of the Romanian Orthodox Church Volume II] Bucharest: Editura Institutului Biblic, 1992. Panić, Božidar. “Eustahija Arsić. Tragovi u vremenu” [Eustahija Arsić. Traces in time]. Temišvarski Zbornik 7 (2014): 63–77. Panici, Bojidar. “Aradul și arădenii în lucrările memorialistice ale lui Sava Tekelia” [Arad and the peple of Arad in the memoirs of Sava Tekelia]. In Minoritarul imaginar, minoritarul real [Imaginary minority, real minority], edited by Pascu Hurezan and Elena Rodica Colta, 375–386. Arad: Complexul Muzeal, 2003. Popović, Dušan. Srbi u Vojvodini Tom II [Serbs in Vojvodina Volume II]. Novi Sad: Matica Srpska, 1990. Purza Predrag-Mile, “Sârbii din Arad” [The Serbs from Arad]. In Arad kroz vreme/ Aradul de-a lungul timpului 11 (2010): Roman, Dan. Oameni de seamă ai Aradului [Notable people of Arad]. Asrad: Editura “Vasile Goldiș” University Press, 2011. Simić, Vladimir. “Putovanje Save Tekelije u Rusiju: skica Istočne Evrope u beleškama prosvećenih plemića” [Sava Tekelija’s journey to Russia: a sketch of Eastern Europe in the notes of enlightened nobles]. Književna istorija 53, no. 173 (2021): 41–65. Tekelija, Sava. Opisanije života moga [A description of my life]. Beograd: Nolit, 1989. Vesa, Pavel. Episcopii Aradului: 1706–2006 [The Bishops of Arad: 1706–2006]. Arad: Editura Gutenberg Univers, 2007.

Vladimir Dimitrijević and SerbianRomanian Church Relations in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries1 M ircea M ăr an, A leksandr a Djur ić M ilovanović

From the nineteenth century through the first decades of the twentieth, church relations between Serbia and Romania were characterized by the separation of Romanians from the Metropolitanate of Karlovci along with the issues regarding the division of church property after the establishment of the Romanian Orthodox Metropolitanate in Sibiu. This period witnessed tensions related to divisions, primarily in places with a mixed population, but also those related to the division of monasteries. Litigations were conducted before Hungarian authorities and court authorities settled these issues. Nevertheless, such tensions represent only some examples of church relations between Serbs and Romanians. In most cases, these two nations had friendly relations since the majority of them were Orthodox and had been living as neighbors for a long time. They struggled together against attempts by Hungarian authorities to deny them their national rights, particularly since the moment when the representatives of the bourgeoisie started to lead national movements of both peoples. Serbs and Romanians worked together and managed to elect their mutual representatives for the Hungarian Assembly. These representatives defended their interests in the parliament, and they included famous Serbian political leaders, such as Mihajlo Polit



The research was supported by the Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia, proj­ ect no. 7747152, Cultural Transfer Europe-Serbia from the 19th to the 21st Century CTES.

1

294

M. Mă r an

and

A. Djur ić M ilovanović

Desančić, Laza Kostić, as well as the Romanian politicians Vincențiu Babeș, George Mocsonyi among others. Although there were certain problems in the relationship between the two churches, Orthodox believers and churches alike lived side-by-side, so the relationships based on tolerance, cooperation and understanding prevailed throughout the whole period. This was supported by the appearance of Neo-Protestant movements, which were extremely quickly gaining ground in areas that had been inhabited by Orthodox people since the nineteenth century. Additionally, there was the constant danger of the growing impact of the Roman-Catholic Church and consequent conversion of part of the Orthodox Romanians to the union with the Catholic Church, becoming members of the Greek-Catholic (Uniate) Church.2 Numerous clerics, both Serbs and Romanians, worked together to prevent the spread of such movements among Orthodox people, which brought the two churches close together despite other problems. Among these clerics, there was a person who significantly contributed to stopping the spread of the Nazarene movement among Orthodox Serbs and Romanians—Vladimir Dimitrijević.

Vladimir Dimitrijević—Orthodox Theologican from Banat Known as a great theologian and thinker, Vladimir Dimitrijević contributed to the strengthening of Orthodoxy and cooperation between the two Orthodox churches in the area of Banat in the last decade of the nineteenth century and first decades of the twentieth. He was born in Sefkerin near Pančevo on February 1, 1868, to the family of a priest, as a son of Jovan (d. 1925) and Julijana (d. 1910).3 His father, Jovan Dimitrijević, worked as a priest in Sefkerin from 1866 to 1876.4 Later he was transferred to Deliblato where young Vladimir spent his childhood. Although there is no reliable evidence, we suppose that he learned the Romanian language in Deliblato, since almost half of the inhabitants were Romanians there. His inclination towards

On Romanian religious communities in the today’s area of Vojvodina, see more in: Đurić Milovanović, A. Maran, M. Sikimić, B. Rumunske verske zajednice u Banatu. Prilog proučavanju multikonfesionalnosti Vojvodine [Romanian Religious Communities in Banat: a Contribution to the Study of Multiconfessionality of Vojvodina]. Vršac: Visoka strukovna škola za obrazovanje vaspitača, 2011. 3 Vera Meza, Deliblato—tragovi prošlosti [Deliblato—traces of the past]. Kovin: Kulturni centar Kovin, 2020, 325. 4 Мате Косовац, Српска православна митрополија карловачка по подацима из 1905 [Serbian Orthodox Metropolitanate of Karlovac according to data from 1905]. Сремски Карловци, 1910. 2

Vladimir Dimitrijević and Serbian-Romanian Relations

295

the idea of cooperation between Serbs and Romanians must have occurred in this environment known for tolerance and the co-existence of these two peoples. We presume that he attended primary school in Deliblato,5 gymnasium in Novi Sad, and Theological Seminary in Sremski Karlovci (1888–1892).6 After completing his studies, he worked as the eparchial secretary and catechist in Vršac.7 He studied theology in Chernivtsi and graduated in 1897. In the same year, he was appointed catechist in Budapest. The following year he was chosen to be an assistant to the Serbian Orthodox priest in the city. In 1901 he obtained his doctorate in theology, after defending his dissertation in Chernivtsi. Next, he dedicated his life to monasticism. He was first mentioned as a protosyncellus in Sremski Karlovci (1905–1907), where he was a superior of the theological seminary. Finally, he became the archimandrite of the Mesić monastery near Vršac from 1906 to 1927.8 He was an active member of Matica Srpska since 1894, and he was elected member of the Department of Literature in 1904.9 He was a prolific writer and conducted a lot of research. He published numerous articles in the field of Orthodox theology in the press of the time, including Vesnik srpske crkve, Srpski Sion, etc. He published a significant number of books, such as Duvan je otrov (1894) [Tobacco is a Poison], Nazarenstvo—njegova istorija i suština [The Nazarenes—their history and essence], Zašto se u nas nazarenstvo širi [Why is the Nazarene movement spreading in our country], Pravoslavni rumunski bogoslovski fakultet u Černovicama [Orthodox Romanian Theological Faculty in Chernivtsi], and Kako je naš deda Živan ostavio nezarenstvo [How our grandfather Živan abandoned the Nazarene thought]. In his book Iz mojih beležaka [From my Notes] (1922), he described various events related to life in the monastery of Mesić, such as the earthquake in 1892, fires in 1912 and 1916, social unrest at the beginning of November 1918 when the monastery of Mesić was damaged, along with many other happenings.10 There is a painting of him as an archimandrite, made by an unknown painter, kept in the monastery. Moreover, Dimitrijević also had close relations with Romanians.

Not in Sefkerin, as stated in Српски биографски речник [Serbian biographical dic­ tionary], 3 (Нови Сад: Матица српска), 212. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Даринка Рацков, Манастир Месић [The Mesic Monestary] (Београд-Нови Сад: Издавачка кућа Драганић-Завод за заштиту споменика културе Војводине 2002), 95. 9 Српски биографски речник, 212. 10 Рацков, 95. 5

296

M. Mă r an

and

A. Djur ić M ilovanović

Vladimir Dimitrijević and Romanians Considering Dimitrijević had grown up in the village of Deliblato, he had had contact with Romanians since his early childhood. Consequently, he knew the Romanian language well. In this respect, it should be underlined that he studied theology in the Romanian language in Chernivtsi in Bucovina (at the time it belonged to Austria, in the interwar period to Greater Romania, while today this town is in the territory of Ukraine). He wrote about this period of his life in a book, as will be discussed. As a true fiend of Romanians, he appeared in the Romanian language press in the area of Austria-Hungary in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The eparchial press of the Romanian Orthodox church, primarily Foaia diecezana from Caransebeș and Biserica și școală from Arad, frequently wrote about his activities. They mainly wrote about his relentless writing of articles and books about the Nazarenes (presented to Romanian readers, as well),11 who represented a threat to both the Serbian and Romanian Orthodox Church. In several of its issues, Foaia diecezana published translations of the articles written by Vladimir Dimitrijević about the Nazarenes, neo-Protestant religious community of Anabaptist and Pietistic origin, or even his original articles written in Romanian.12 In addition, he informed readers about the printing of his book about the Nazarenes in the Serbian language,13 as well as a book of sermons.14 It was considered in the church press that these books “represent real masterpieces of church rhetoric and honour their hard-working and talented author.”15 Finally, his book about the Nazarenes was translated into the Romanian language and published in a feuilleton in the above-mentioned organ of the Eparchy of Caransebeș. It provides a comprehensive description of his strenuous activity and printing of his book in Romanian.16 Below, his works about Nazarenes will be discussed. His first work was extremely significant regarding relations between Serbs and Romanians in the nineteenth century. The work, Pravoslavni rumunski bogoslovski fakultet u Černovici (Orthodox Romanian Theological Faculty in Chernivtsi), was first published in 1893 as a feuilleton in the journal Srpski Sion and then as an individual 48-page brochure by the Serbian Monastery Printing House from Novi Sad. This was the first paper Vladimir Dimitrijević

Foaia diecezană, Caransebes, nr. 27, 1894. Foaia diecezană, Caransebes, nr. 19, 1894. 13 Foaia diecezană, Caransebes, nr. 23, 1895. 14 Зборник проповеди, Матица српска, Нови Сад, 1903. 15 Foaia diecezană, Caransebes, nr. 51, 1904. 16 Ibid.

11 12

Vladimir Dimitrijević and Serbian-Romanian Relations

297

published as a young student at the Orthodox Theological Faculty in Chernivtsi. It was followed by a prolific scientific nonfiction work, which was a summarized version of the work of Isidor, knight of Onciul, who was a professor at the aforementioned institution, adapted for Serbian readers. The paper was published in the journal of theology and literature Candela in 1883.17 In order to understand the significance of this paper, it is important to first understand Isador’s influential position in society. The well-educated professor Isidor Onciul was born in 1834 in Frătăuții Noi, in the vicinity of Suceava, Bucovina, in an old family of boyars and priests.18 He attended the gymnasium and the Institute of Theology in Chernivtsi, while he specialized in Biblical studies and Oriental languages at the University of Vienna.19 He worked as a professor at the clerical semi­ nary in Chernivtsi, as a priest in Vicova de Sus near Rădăuți, as an associate professor and finally a full professor at the Old Testament Department and Semitic Languages within the Institute of Theology. When the University in Chernivtsi was established (1875), he became a full professor at the same department belonging to the Theological Faculty, where he was the dean of the faculty for five one-year-long terms in office. He was the honorary advisor of the Metropolitanate, an archpresbyter, and a member of the Society for the Romanian Culture and Literature in Bucovina. He wrote textbooks in the field of Biblical archaeology and Old Testament Interpretations, the Hebrew grammar in the German language, as well as other papers in the  field of theology and church history. He also published several studies in the abovementioned journal Candela from Chernivtsi.20 He died in 1897. Using the above-mentioned paper of the venerable professor, Vladimir Dimitrijević wanted to acquaint the Serbian public with the history and development of the schools of theology in the Romanian language in Bucovina, primarily the Faculty of Theology in Chernivtsi. During the period of Austro-Hungarian dualism, this was the only Orthodox theological faculty in the dual monarchy, and numerous Serbs studied there, including Vladimir Dimitrijević. Having in mind that history is the teacher of life, he wrote, “we

Isidor Onciul, “Ceva despre mersul și desvoltamentul culturei teologice și clericale în Bucovina”, [Something about progress and development of theological and clerical culture in Bucovina] Candela, jurnalu bisericescu-literariu, Anul II (1883), nr. 1–7. 18 https://w w w.cre​ s tin​ o rto​ d ox.ro/dict​ i ona​ r ul-teo​ l ogi​ l or-rom​ a ni/isi​ d or-onc​ iul-84432.html 19 Corneliu Diaconovich, Enciclopedia Română [Romanian encyclopedia], tomul II, 460. 20 Ibid.

17

298

M. Mă r an

and

A. Djur ić M ilovanović

wish to present everything which might interest our honourable readers, and which might teach them something new”.21 First, Dimitrijević gives a thorough representation of theological education in Bucovina since its transition to the Habsburg Monarchy in 1775, at which point the first school in Suceava was founded by Danilo Vlahović, who was originally from Banatsko Petrovo Selo, and had been the hieromonk and bishop of the Kovilj monastery who “had learnt a little Romanian.”22 Then Dimitrijević writes about the establishment of various theological schools and institutes and their movement to Chernivtsi, as well as about the Theological Faculty in Bucovina. It was the first Orthodox faculty in the Monarchy where the subjects were taught in the Romanian language. He writes about its history, professors who worked there, syllabus, method of operation, textbooks used by students, library, and all other details important for the development of this higher education institution. Regarding the academic level and competence of the people working at this faculty, Dimitrijević emphasizes that “a great number of people talk about this level recklessly, unreasonably and ignorantly.” He replies to such comments in the following manner: “Come and see! Step through the doors of this faculty, take a listener’s seat and you will be immediately convinced that the science of theology is here represented in all its seriousness and comprehensiveness.”23 This is because “Romanians do not shout a lot but they work a lot” since “they have been sending their professors of theology to study in Vienna and Lemberg even before the 1830s.”24 He perceives Romanians as a united nation that “does not waste its strength and willingness for work and improvement in the mutual disputes and bickering. They do not tend to say I’m a cleric, I’m a radical, or I’m a liberal; they do not criticize church dignitaries in an unseemly and mean manner …”25 Dimitrijević states that Romanians respect and value only two things: “Their holy Church and their dear Nationality! These are their good-luck charms; they live and die for these two—and therefore they have advanced so much in every respect and they still keep advancing wonderfully even today!”26 These and the following examples show that Vladimir Dimitrijević highly respected and esteemed Romanians and their education, which was later confirmed in



Ibid. Ibid., 10. 23 Ibid., 41. 24 Ibid., 42. 25 Ibid., 44. 26 Ibid., 45. 21

22

Vladimir Dimitrijević and Serbian-Romanian Relations

299

his close cooperation with the Eparchial authorities in Caransebeș and Arad regarding anti-Nazarene activities. His work evidently contains an idealization of Romanian society in Bucovina and in the Austro-Hungarian monarchy in general. However, Romanians were divided into several groups that had certain disputes and disagreements, while envy and mischief were present like in other nations. Dimitrijević’s presentation of the Romanian reality in the Monarchy at the end of the nineteenth century, idealized and exaggerated, is similar to Jorga’s adulation of Serbian society, described in almost the same way in his travelogues. To illustrate this, we provide a short extract from Jorga’s Serbian travelogue: And they work. You can see their work everywhere. For example, there is the Minister of Public Education, the former university professor yearning for his department, who is a very likeable and polite Dalmatian. I see him working on a Sunday afternoon in his ministry which is being renovated in a Secessionist manner.27

This is only one of many similar examples in Jorga’s travel books about Serbia. These idealized or romaniticized examples of the organization of the Romanian Orthodox Theological Faculty in Chernivtsi were supposed to stimulate Serbian society, including the Serbian church and professionals in the field of culture and education. They were intended to make them overcome their mutual confrontations and disagreements, to unite and start building a better society. Among other things, Dimitrijević writes in the last part of his paper: “Faith and Nationality should become and remain our motto and then the grace of our Lord will come in greater abundance, although he has not deserted us completely so far! Only for the honoured cross and golden liberty!!”28 Therefore, Vladimir Dimitrijević’s brochure, which represents the history of Romanian education, primarily the one related to theology in the Romanian province of Bucovina (then the part of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy), has marketing tendencies, as well. On the one hand, it uses an example of a well-organized faculty to show its history and methods of operation. On the other hand, it praises people working at the faculty, the faculty itself, and Romanian society, presenting them as an example for Serbs to follow in their struggle for national emancipation and national rights within the dual monarchy.

Mirča Maran, Rumunski putnici u Srbiji [Romanian travelers in Serbia] (Vršac: Centar za banatske studije, 2017), 194. 28 Vladimir Dimitrijević, nav. delo, 47. 27

300

M. Mă r an

and

A. Djur ić M ilovanović

An Understanding of the Nazarenes Based on Dimitrijević’s Publications In the second half of the nineteenth century, the area of Austria-Hungary witnessed the spread of new Protestant communities. One of the most prominent groups, the Nazarenes, founded by Samuel Heinrich Fröhlich, appeared around 1830 in Switzerland under the influence of Anabaptism and German Pietism,29 and were considered to be the first Serbian Protestants. During Fröhlich’s numerous missionary journeys, he preached that salvation could be reached only by the baptism of adults after repentance. Furthermore, those who belonged to this religion were not allowed to carry weapons or take oaths. Fröhlich’s first followers in Switzerland were the followers of the Mennonites who lived in mountain settlements, isolated from the world.30 The Nazarenes spread very easily in the area of Austria-Hungary, particularly among Slovaks, Germans and Hungarians, as well as among the mainly Orthodox Serbs and Romanians.31 The conversion of Serbs and Romanians to the Nazarenes pro­ voked a strong reaction from the church, since the Nazarenes were present in almost every settlement. This was strengthened by the translation of Fröhlich’s works into the Hungarian language. Istvan Kalmar translated Fröhlich’s work On the Relationship of Believers with the State Church and The New Testament into Hungarian. Vladimir Dimitrijević wrote about this in his book Nazarenstvo—njegova istorija i suština [The Nazarenes—their history and essence] published in Novi Sad in 1894. Dimitrijević also wrote several studies on the occurrence and history of the Nazarenes: Nazarenstvo, njegova istorija i suština [The Nazarenes—their history and essence],32 Jedan razgovor sa nazarenom [A conversation with a Nazarene],33 Zašto se nazarenstvo širi i kako bi se moglo sprečiti? [Why is the Nazarene belief spreading and how to stop it?],34 U nazarenskoj skupštini [In the Nazarene

Aleksandra Djurić Milovanović, “On the Road to Religious Freedom. A Study of the Nazarene Emigration from Southeastern Europe to the United States”. Journal for Ethnography and Folklore 1, no. 2 (2017): 5–7. 30 Peter Brock, “The non-resistance of the Hungarian Nazarenes to 1914”, in Mennonite Quarterly Review 54, no. 1 (1980): 62. 31 Bojan Aleksov, Religious Dissent Between the Modern and the National. Nazarenes in Hungary and Serbia 1850–1914. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006, 32. 32 Vladimir Dimitrijević, Nazarenstvo, njegova istorija i suština [The Nazarenes—their history and essence] (Novi Sad: Srpska manastirska štamparija, 1894). 33 Vladimir Dimitrijević, Jedan razgovor sa nazarenom [A conversation with a Nazarene] (Pančevo: Knjižara Braće jovanović, 1984). 34 Vladimir Dimitrijević, Zašto se nazarenstvo širi i kako bi se moglo sprečiti? [Why is the Nazarene belief spreading and how to stop it?] (Novi Sad: Štamparija Srpske knjižare Braće M. Popovića, 1898). 29

Vladimir Dimitrijević and Serbian-Romanian Relations

301

Assembly].35 These studies were written as anti-Nazarene propaganda and have a documentary value since they were published at the time of greatest Nazarene spreading. Additionally, the Nazarenes left no written evidence about the history of their community, so Dimitrijević’s studies represent rare testimony in an almost ethnographic sense of the history, beliefs and practices of the Nazarene movement. In the beginning, Orthodox priests knew very little about Nazarene ideology. Orthodox priests wrote or translated texts about the Nazarenes trying to find out more about this new religion. Thus, Pavle Dimić, a rector from Bašaid, translated a text, A Short Draft of the Nazarene Creed, from Hungarian, which had previously been published in Szeged in 1869. Furthermore, some priests published texts about the Nazarenes in various church papers and journals. The conversion of Serbs to the Nazarenes was a sign that the Orthodox Church was increasingly losing its influence on people, which historian Bojan Aleksov believes was the reason for the Nazarene’s growing spread.36 In addition, the Nazarenes used the vernacular language and the translation of the Bible form 1867 (Vuk Karadžić, Đura Daničić) in their religious services, as well as the Nazarene hymnal Zion’s Harp, translated from German into Serbian by Jovan Jovanović Zmaj.37 In his studies, Dimitrijević wrote about the translation of the Zion’s Harp into both Serbian and Romanian: There is no village or hamlet in Srem, Bačka or Banat which has not been visited by Nazarene apostles to recruit new followers. There is no town where the Nazarenes do not build their “assemblies” where they sing from the notorious Zion’s Harp.38

In his studies, Dimitrijević also gives a thorough review of what the press wrote about the Nazarenes at the time. As an ethnographer, he collected this material from different locations, observing the Nazarenes and talking with them. Therefore, he provides extremely valuable insight into the spread of the new movement, which is not colored by his anti-Nazarene attitude

Vladimir Dimitrijević, U nazarenskoj skupštini [In the Nazarene Assembly] (Budimpešta: Štamparija srpskih novosti, 1903). 36 Bojan Aleksov, Religious Dissent Between the Modern and the National. Nazarenes in Hungary and Serbia 1850–1914. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006). 37 More on the engagement of Serbian poet Jovan Jovanović Zmaj in the translation of the Nazarene hymn book in: Jovan Maksimović, Zmajevo nazarenstvo [The Nazarene faith of Jovan Jovanovic Zmaj], (Beograd, 1911). 38 Vladimir Dimitrijević, Zašto se u nas nazarenstvo širi [Why are Nazarenes spreading among us], Vladimir Dimitrijević, “8.600 primeraka ‘Harfe Siona’!” [8.600 Copies of Zion’s Harp] in Srpski Sion, 18 (1897): 290–291. 35

302

M. Mă r an

and

A. Djur ić M ilovanović

and writing style. Although the criticism of the Nazarene belief remains the center of his studies, these studies also include an analysis of the general state-of-affairs in society and within the church. Therefore, they provide a priceless contribution to understanding the social circumstances of the time. He states: The first and most significant reason for the Nazarene spreading can be undoubtedly found in the poor religious education of our people, or better to say: in the misfortune that our people are not familiar with their religion anymore as it would be necessary.39

Since the Nazarenes did not print or publish other books except the Zion’s Harp, Dimitrijević paid particular attention to the issues of printing, translating and distributing the Nazarene hymnal, and provided a lot of details. When it comes to the Romanian translation, Dimitrijević highlights that Romanian new believers or Nazarenes also gained their translation of the Zion’s Harp, although with some challenges. They could not find a translator, however, Ioan Balnojan from the Romanian village Satu Nou, translated it into the Romanian local dialect and in 1895 the translation was published in 2000 copies.40 In his studies on the Nazarenes, Dimitrijević includes many insights and details which describe their beliefs and basic doctrine, way of life and persistence of their pacifistic stance which tremendously affected this community in the following decades. The significance of his studies lies in his detailed documentation of the various relationships across a religiously diverse area as well as the understanding of the new religious landscape of the AustrianHungary south that he provided from his own Christian Orthodox perspective. As Aleksov stresses, the work of Vladimir Dimitrijevic “usually took the form of romanticized discussions that he allegedly had with Nazarenes in which in the mode of medieval scholastic and Russian anti-Stundist debate he argued against adult baptism or defended icon worship. These numerous works contain much information that needs to be disentangled from the barrage of accusations and condemnations. The works of Dimitrijević made the most lasting impression and were uncritically used by almost all scholars in Yugoslavia who ever engaged in the issue.”41



Ibid., 11. Aleksandra Đurić Milovanović, “Consevative neo-Protestants: Romanian Nazarenes in Serbia”. Religion in Eastern Europe 30, 2010, 34–42. 41 Bojan Aleksov, Religious Dissent Between the Modern and the National. Nazarenes in Hungary and Serbia 1850–1914 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006), 25. 39

40

Vladimir Dimitrijević and Serbian-Romanian Relations

303

Concluding Remarks Orthodox clergy and theologians have had significant roles in the cultural, political and educational life of the region, and among them, Vladimir Dimitrijević had a significant role in enhancing Serbian-Romanian relations. More specifically, his major contribution lies in his efforts as an Orthodox theologian to counter the emergence of neo-Protestant communities during the second half of the nineteenth century through extensive studies and publications. He published numerous articles and books with detailed descriptions in the format of ethnographies about several religious communities, especially the Nazarenes, which currently represent valuable sources for analyzing and better understanding the circumstances and perception of Orthodox Christians towards neo-Protestants. Dimitrijević regularly published in journals of the Romanian Orthodox Church, such as Foaia diecezană and Biserica și școala, but he became well known among Romanian readers after publishing his monograph on the Nazarenes in Romanian translation. He was perceived by the Romanian Orthodox Church as one of the most important theologians—protector of the Serbian and Romanian Orthodox landscape.

Bibliography Aleksov, Bojan. Religious Dissent between the Modern and the National. Nazarenes in Hungary and Serbia 1850–1914. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006. Brock, Peter. “The Non-resistance of the Hungarian Nazarenes to 1914.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 54, no. 1 (1980): 53–63. Dimitrijević, Vladimir, “8.600 primeraka ‘Harfe Siona’!” [8.600 Copies of Zion’s Harp] Srpski Sion 18 (1897): 290–291. Dimitrijević, Vladimir. Jedan razgovor sa nazarenom [A conversation with a Nazarene]. Pančevo: Knjižara Braće Jovanovića, 1984. Dimitrijević, Vladimir. Zašto se nazarenstvo širi i kako bi se moglo sprečiti [Why is Nazarene faith being spread among us and how we can stop it]. Novi Sad: Štamparija srpske knjižare Braće M. Popović, 1898. Djurić Milovanović, Aleksandra. “On the Road to Religious Freedom. A Study of the Nazarene Emigration from Southeastern Europe to the United States.” Journal for Ethnography and Folklore 1, no. 2 (2017): 5–27. Đurić Milovanović, Aleksandra, Mirca Maran and Biljana Sikimić. Rumunske verske zajednice u Banatu. Prilog proučavanju multikonfesionalnosti Vojvodine [Romanian religious communities in Banat: a contribution to the study of multiconfessionality of Vojvodina]. Vršac: Visoka strukovna škola za obrazovanje vaspitača, 2011. Đurić Milovanović, Aleksandra. “Consevative Neo-Protestants: Romanian Nazarenes in Serbia.” Religion in Eastern Europe 30 (2010): 34–42.

304

M. Mă r an

and

A. Djur ić M ilovanović

Kosovac, Mata. Srpska pravoslavna mitropolija karlovačka po podacima iz 1905 [Serbian Orthodox Metropolitanate of Karlovac according to data from 1905]. Sremski Karlovci: Srpska manastirska štamparija, 1910. Maksimović, Jovan. Zmajevo nazarenstvo [The Nazarene faith of Jovan Jovanovic Zmaj]. Beograd: Štamparija Save Radenkovića, 1911. Maran, Mirča. Rumunski putnici u Srbiji [Romanian travelers in Serbia]. Vršac: Centar za banatske studije, 2017. Meza, Vera. Deliblato—tragovi prošlosti [Deliblato—traces of the past]. Kovin: Kulturni centar Kovin, 2020. Onciul, Isidor. “Ceva despre mersul și desvoltamentul culturei teologice și clericale în Bucovina.” [Something about progress and development of theological and clerical culture in Bucovina] Candela II, no. 1–7 (1883). Rackov, Darinka. Manastir Mesić. [The monastery of Mesic]. Beograd/Novi Sad: Izdavačka kuća Draganić/Zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture Vojvodine, 2002. Srpski biografski rečnik [Serbian biographical dictionary]. Novi Sad: Matica Srpska,

Romanian-Serbian Literary Relations at the Beginning of the Millennium O ctavia Nedelcu, G or dana-Nicoleta P eici

In Romanian-(Yugoslav) Serbian cultural, literary and linguistic relations, issues related to the Serbian minority in Romania have always aroused the interest of researchers, Slavists, and literary historians, on both sides of the border, ending in volumes, studies, articles, communications in numerous symposia and national and international conferences. However, when it comes to studies on Romanian-Serbian literary relations, the extent of this research is visibly reduced, and when we refer specifically to the reception of Serbian literature in Romania, and of Serbian literature at the beginning of the millennium, such studies are completely missing despite the presence of translations and translators of literature and their role. This is what we intend to present in our paper, which cannot be exhaustive, but a starting point for future research. We mention that for objective reasons we will limit the study only to an analysis and presentation of the independent volumes and not of the translations present in the periodicals that would deserve a separate study.

Literary Translations, a Bridge between Cultures the Reception of Serbian Literature in Romania Much has been written about the significance of interpretation and the usefulness of translations, but perhaps not with sufficient conviction that the act of translation is one of the most concrete and important social mediation activities in the transfer of cultural values. The reception in the world, of literatures coming from the former Yugoslavia, after the second half of the twentieth century proves the growing interest in Yugoslavia in general, as

306

O ctavia Nedelcu

and

G or dana-Nicoleta P eici

well as in Serbian literature in particular, maintained even after the events that changed the history of the two countries. The debut of the reception of Yugoslav literatures in Romania, the period of 1954–1970, was meticulously treated by the late professor Voislava Stoianovici in an article published in the “Proceedings of the symposium dedicated to Serbian (Yugoslav)-Romanian relations,” organized in Vršac in 1970 where she emphasizes the contribution of the Department of Slavic Studies, respectively, the activity of the Serbo-Croatians from the University of Bucharest in regard to the promotion of the interpretation, selection, and ranking of the most valuable works of Yugoslav literatures, in accordance with the political ideology of the time. The most translated Serbian writers of the time, who enjoyed the largest popularity, were in this order: Branislav Nušić, Branko Ćopić and Ivo Andrić. If prose was mainly translated in volumes, poetry was generally translated in periodicals, or literary magazines, except for a single volume of poems by Vasko Popa translated by Nichita Stănescu. A significant number of dramaturgical texts were also translated for the needs of theater, radio, and television, which today is an almost non-existent cultural act. After the 1970s, a new generation of translators emerged, and by virtue of a common ideology and respect for reciprocity, literatures in the former Yugoslav cultural space (today Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian, Slovenian, Montenegranian or Bosnian) penetrated quite deeply into the Romanian cultural perimeter, having been translated in over 150 volumes of representative literary works. Following the overthrow of the Romanian communist regime after 1989, with the disappearance of censorship and the emergence of free privatization, during the transition period there was a real editorial explosion through the emergence of a large number of new publishers, printing houses, and literary magazines for all categories of readers. In a market economy in which the book had become an increasingly expensive commodity and as such, inaccessible, with the decrease of purchasing power, the dominant criterion was the financial one imposed by the relentless law of capitalist economy, of supply and demand. In this context, literary works, that had been indexed until then, began to be translated; so-called drawer literature, the works of dissident and emigrant writers, marginal literary genres, and a lot of religious literature, all forbidden until then, were imposed on the market. The number of translated titles increased since the appearance of private publishing houses, but their circulation decreased drastically, from hundreds or tens of thousands of copies during the communist regime to several hundred copies. The free competitive market leads to an increase in production

Romanian-Serbian Literary Relations of the Millennium

307

costs. Luxury editions appear; they are richly illustrated on quality paper, but sold at a higher price, resulting in the book becoming a less accessible cultural product. Today, in the Romanian publishing landscape, several strong publishing houses or groups of publishing houses have imposed themselves and have taken over the role of promoting cultural-literary values. The following are representative for translations from Serbian literature: Humanitas, Niculescu, Nemira, Paralela 45, Polirom, Univers, R AO from Bucharest and Union of Serbs in Romania (unfortunately without the possibility of adequate dissemination) and West Publishing House from Timişoara. If until 1990 translators were the ones who made editing proposals, today publishers, participants in numerous international book fairs are the ones who impose the titles and writers to be translated, as there is the issue of copyright, most often held by private agencies and which are negotiated at an institutionalized level. Quite often there are situations when translators themselves obtain exclusive translation rights (Mariana Ștefănescu for Milorad Pavić or Dušan Baiski for Vuk Drašković). With the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, new cultural spaces began to be timidly set up, as well as the reception of their literatures. Despite the geographic proximity, the similar religious beliefs, and the similar history between the Serbian and Romanian peoples, the reception of Serbian literature in Romania was made after 1990, after the change of social regime, most often as a consequence of the literary and artistic impact caused by the ex-Yugoslav writers in Western culture. For example, writers such as Ivo Andrić, Miloš Crnjanski, Milorad Pavić, Borislav Pekić, Dušan Kovačević, Danilo Kiš, Vasko Popa and others were translated into Romanian only after having gained success in their country and abroad. The reader was provided with an extremely varied and rich offering, uncensored, unselected, in which the only dominant criterion was that of economic competitiveness which did not always correlate with literary value. Next, prose, respectively, the novel, sold best, and the translation of poetry volumes was conditioned by the financial support of some associations or literary unions, some foundations or cultural institutes, or even some private persons on the principle of reciprocity. Unfortunately, during this period there were extremely few dramaturgical texts (except for an anthology of contemporary drama in the Balkans). Among Serbian writers, the most translated in Romania after the ’90s was Milorad Pavić with seven titles, followed by Miloš Crnjanski (five), Danilo Kiš (four) and Ivo Andrić (three).1

We mention that in recent years Andrić’s novels have been republished, and unpub­ lished stories have been translated.

1

308

O ctavia Nedelcu

and

G or dana-Nicoleta P eici

Milorad Pavić For Serbian literature, Milorad Pavić is undoubtedly a representative writer. He was a creator who inaugurated a new literary genre, while trying to learn the meaning of the words of a long-lost language, transcending time and space through the prism of the fantastic, mythical, legendary and historical. In short, he created his own literary universe, his own vision that constituted in true palimpsests. He is a writer who belongs to the same literary family as Borges, Calvino, Eco, or Cortazar and other literary pioneers in whose works the formalist theories of intertextuality of metatextual and postmodernist type are applied. Such success is an unusual feat for an author from this area of ​Europe, in which the tragic has unexpected comic compensations and irony, typical of a detachment based on the inability to adapt to Western performance, coupled with self-irony, and with the Balkan specific tendency of self-contempt, and self-minimalization. However, Milorad Pavić manages to overcome everything that seems to be related to the condition of the area, to capture the essences of its mental-affective matrix in a series of unusual literary constructions of a deep originality, which places him among the greatest creators at the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first. In 1998, Nemira publishing house produced a translation of Pavić’s now famous Khazar Dictionary (Dicționar khazar), translated in over forty countries and considered by critics as “absolute literature,” produced by “a Homeric storyteller,” able today to perform that old magic of One Thousand and One Nights.2 In 2000, Univers publishing house published his novel Landscape Painted with Tea (Peisaj pictat în ceai), within the cultural studies program of the Third Europe Foundation, and in 2003 at Paralela 45 publishing house the novel The Inner Side of the Wind, or The Novel of Hero and Leander (Partea lăuntrică a vântului sau Roman despre Hero și Leandru) was printed. In 2006, the novel Last Love in Constantinople: A Tarot Novel for Divination (Ultima iubire la Ţarigrad. Îndreptar de ghicit) was published by the same publishing house, in 2008 the novel The Mantle of Stars (Mantia de stele) came out at Humanitas publishing house, and in 2009 the novel Second body (Celălalt trup) was produced at Paralela 45. The last novel, Unique Item. The novel with a hundred endings (Unicat. Cartea cu o sută de finaluri), appeared at Pandora Publishing in 2015. Another extraordinary novel, Paper Theater (Teatru de hârtie), had been in preparation for years at



Ioana Nicolau, “Dictionary of the Khazars-A revelation,” [Dicționarul khazar – o revelație] Observator cultural, no. 152 (January 2003): 25.

2

Romanian-Serbian Literary Relations of the Millennium

309

Humanitas, but unfortunately did not get published. However, Corint publishing house picked it up, and produced it in 2023. Mariana Ştefănescu, a tireless translator who has the undeniable merit of promoting contemporary Serbian literature, is the one who introduced Milorad Pavić to the Romanian reader. In 2000, Milorad Pavić’s novel The Mantle of Stars was dramatized and performed at the Small Theatre in Bucharest. The reception of Milorad Pavić’s work in the Romanian cultural space cannot be analyzed in stages, as his six novels translated into Romanian were published in a relatively short period of time, within a decade, 1998–2009. What appeared to be an editorial explosion, a marketing strategy, proved to be a failure. The Serbian writer found himself in an extremely unfavorable political context, coming from an anathematized country, which led to poor promotion of his work in the Romanian public space. However, once he passed away, many comments appeared in the virtual space, and on personal blogs, in which, in a last jolt, we are warned that a potential Nobel Prize winner had left us: “Milorad Pavić is the only writer whose books I felt I had to discover after reading the first one. And I succeeded, at least with the six translated into Romanian. Milorad Pavić died yesterday, November 30, 2009. He was 80 years old. If every reader in the world could give a prize for literature, I would give it to him. The thought that no more fresh novels will appear makes me grow old without a dream” .3 Unlike Westerners, who admired the formal innovations of the skeleton on which Milorad Pavić built his novels through hypertextual experiments, Romanian readers received the texts of the Serbian prose writer with a kind of caution, ensuing in a certain decrease of his success, a dilution of the narrative structure. Undoubtedly, separated from the context of their consecutive translation and publication, the seven novels, available in Romanian, represent an interesting and very exciting experience. But, read successively, his novels begin to “oxidize,” much as certain jewels held together in the same box. Thus, while Pavić is an excellent creator, endowed with an overflowing imagination, a disadvantage to such an “overdose” is the very feeling of supersaturation that can become slightly tiring. The public taste is less concerned with the aesthetics of these novels (the form) and more with the narrative product (the content). Therefore, the opinions of readers and critics can fluctuate over the course of a few books, ranging from the perception of an exotic Pavić that one can adore, as

Mihnea Măruţă, “Milorad Pavić-the writer of dreams-died,” [A murit Milorad Pavić – scriitorul visurilor], Surpriza, December 1, 2009, Accessed September 23, 2021, https://surpr​iza.info/a-murit-milo​rad-pavic-scr​i ito​r ul-visuri​lor/.

3

310

O ctavia Nedelcu

and

G or dana-Nicoleta P eici

expressed by the personal blog cited above, to a sour Pavić that one cannot understand. This may perhaps explain why Pavić’s novels had in Romanian literary criticism few reviews compared to his value as a writer. At the author’s death, the translator Mariana Ștefănescu tried once again to bring him back to the attention of the critics: The vision of the Serbian writer is by no means the effect of the imagination, but it has been laboriously built in the catacombs of the history of most tribes—in archives from all over the world. I do not know another writer who has brought to his home, in his language, so many nations of all times, from the Khazars to the Amazonian natives, from the Russians to the Jews. In the canvas of his narratives, Pavić intertwined the secrets of many tribes, of which the specialists in the field have no knowledge, as in the case of the German khazarologists, who admitted that they had found many answers in Pavić’s novel.4

Milorad Pavić’s works are intended for those readers willing to spend years to untangle the labyrinth of his texts, without which the universal literature of the late twentieth century would be much poorer.

Miloš Crnjanski Miloš Crnjanski’s work shyly entered the Romanian translation scene with the novel A Drop of Spanish Blood (O picătură de sânge spaniol), which was not the most representative of his oeuvre, without any echo in the literary press at the time. As in life, he did not have the luck and indulgence of destiny that had been so generous with other confreres such as Ivo Andrić or Miroslav Krleža. Not the same thing happens after the ’90s when The West Publishing House from Timișoara published in the interpretation of Dușan Baiski and Octavia Nedelcu the novel Migrations (Migrațiile), a river-novel or novel sequence, conceived in six volumes, of which three have appeared (but only one translated). The masterpiece of a great prose writer, but also of a poet with an unmistakable quality, Miloš Crnjanski’s novel, an impressive historical fresco of human uprooting, proposes migration as one of the structuring principles of the Serbian spirit. Focusing on the events of 1744–1752, when life on the southeastern border of the Habsburg Empire changed dramatically, the plot uses the “real” historical component as support for a double narrative of great richness of meaning. On the one hand, the saga of the Isakovič family illustrates the whole condition of a people, and on the other hand, the phenomenon of migrations opens parabolically

Mariana Ștefănescu, “Milorad Pavić,” România literară, 50 (December 2009): 23–24: https://arh​iva.roma​n ial​iter​a ra.com/index.pl/milor​ad_p​avi.

4

Romanian-Serbian Literary Relations of the Millennium

311

towards a utopian, generally human search for the Land of Promise, for the absolute good. According to the novel, the history of the Serbs would be under the double seal of Pan-Slavic messianism and migration, in a kind of dialectic in two stages: one utopian and metaphysical, capturing all national energy and pushing it into chimera, exile and failure, and the other—realistic and political, for which national emancipation must be achieved at home in the Balkans. The literary critic Cornel Ungureanu captured extremely well the essence of the novel in the afterword to the translation: The first reading of Migrations demonstrates what, in fact, I should have known for a long time: that in Eastern Europe the epic has not yet died and that the most important Eastern Europeans are creators of epics. Sadoveanu and Kadare, Iwaskiewicz and Prus should have prepared us for the understanding of this massive, branching, inexhaustible novel with a dense lyricism and monumental characters. The feeling that poetry has nothing old-fashioned and that the “barbarians” did not look like the characters in the novels I knew, even from the Books of the East, can be shocking.5

As an urban writer settles in London, after an imposed exile by the overthrow of the political regime in 1945, Crnjanski once again identifies with his tumultuous biography in the novel he will write in emigration, A Novel of London (Romanul Londrei), his swan song, whose first English version circulated in the ‘50s with no chance of publication, saw the light upon his return to the country in 1971 and was translated into Romanian by Mariana Ștefănescu at Paralela 45 in 2002. She writes down in the preface of the volume: “In any case, A Novel of London remains a disturbing soliloquy of an ostracized intellectual at the time of Europe’s division into different spheres of influence. The inability to duplicate the character is due to his radicalism, his catastrophic vision of an agonizing Europe which after World War II will not find its creative exuberance.6” But the writer who brought Crnjanski’s name back into the landscape of Serbian translations, confirming his value, was the late writer and translator Ioan Radin Peianov who published in 2007, in excellent graphic conditions, at the Brumar publishing house in Timișoara, a “triptych” from the author’s creation: a novel, The Journal of Čarnojević (Jurnal despre Čarnojević ), a volume of poems in a bilingual edition, Lirika Itake i druge pesme – Lyric of

Cornel Ungureanu, “Afterword,” [În loc de postfaţă] in Migrations. Novel [Migraţiile. Roman], by Miloš Crnjanski. Translated by Duşan Baiski and Octavia Nedelcu. (Timișoara: Western Publishing House, 1993), 206. 6 Mariana Ştefănescu, “Foreword,” [Prefaţă] in A Novel of London [Romanul Londrei], I–II, by Miloš Crnjanski. Translated by Mariana Ștefănescu (Pitești: Paralela 45, 2002), 11. 5

312

O ctavia Nedelcu

and

G or dana-Nicoleta P eici

Ithaca and other poems (Lirica Itacăi și alte poezii) and the poem Stražilovo. Ioan Radin Peianov explains the approach taken in the afterword of the poem. “The volume of poems, the debut novel and the poem Stražilovo, represent a unit, stylistically and thematically, […] which are, we believe, able to illustrate one of the most vigorous courses of the modernization process, which began in the interwar period, in Serbian literature and art. […] the translations of the 33 poems in this group as well as the translation of the debut novel come as a complement to the advanced arguments.7” The Serbian expressionist novel managed to identify both with the tradition of the European lyrical novel and with the avant-garde tendencies of the time, of experimenting with the Romanesque form through subjectivation, metaphorization, cancellation of narrative causality, introduction of the principle of repetition and variation. Miloš Crnjanski’s prose captures the reader’s attention not only through an interesting theme, intensive emotions and impressive images, but also through an original phrases structure, with his first novel, The Journal of Čarnojević, raising many theoretical questions in the evolution of the expressionist lyrical novel. Published immediately after the war, the volume Lyric of Ithaca and other poems shocked the literary world by “attacking” tradition and national myths, while ignoring the fact that the abuse of mythologization bore a political connotation. The translator manages to reproduce the expressiveness of the lyrical discourse in the Romanian version. Miloš Crnjanski is one of the most remarkable creative personalities of Serbian literature of this century and at the same time one of the most important virtuosos of the Serbian literary language, being identified, through his work and personality, with the destiny of his people, becoming a modern classic author even in his lifetime. The translations of his work reflect this.

Danilo Kiš The Romanian reader’s first contact with Danilo Kiš seemingly took place through Sorin Titel’s8 translation of a fragment from the French version of the novel Garden, Ashes, which was published in the magazine The 20th Century, in 1979. After having experienced the delirium of the New French Novel in Paris and writing The Prisoner’s Long Journey, an absurd, Kafkaesque anti-communist parable, Sorin Titel “returned home,” and discovering the

Ioan Radin Peianov, “Afterword,” [Postfaţă] in Stražilovo, by Miloš Crnjanski. Translated by Ioan Radin Peianov (Timișoara: Brumar, 2007), 521. 8 Sorin Titel (1935–1985), Romanian storyteller, novelist, essayist and translator. 7

Romanian-Serbian Literary Relations of the Millennium

313

formidable resources of his native land. In 1974 he wrote The distant country (Ţara îndepărtată), a novel that prefaces a series of books about Banat and the Kaiserlich-Königlich Empire, that belongs to an area of ethnic contact, and to the literature of liminal spaces and borderlands. Its heroes are Romanians, Germans, Serbs, Hungarians, Poles, as well as Danilo Kiš, Andrzej Kusniewicz, Meša Selimović, etc. authors inscribed in the perimeter of another literary geography. A refined intellectual, passionate about ideas and imaginative spirit, Danilo Kiš aroused deep hostility and deep admiration among the great European writers of his generation, as well as great creators. A storyteller, novelist, essayist, playwright of avant-garde theater, passionate translator of Russian, Hungarian and French poetry, Danilo Kiš is one of the key authors of neo-avant-garde and postmodernism in the Yugoslav space, along with Milorad Pavić, Borislav Pekić or Dušan Kovačević. He strongly believed in the supremacy of the book, of the document itself, in a material sense. Therefore, he confessed in an interview 9 that he did not necessarily want to write literature, but he wanted to write “books,” which he did, quite prolifically. Danilo Kiš finally entered the arena of European literature with the novel Grobnica za Borisa Davidoviča (A Tomb for Boris Davidovich) in 1976, which would arouse, through the Romanesque technique of Borhesian type, a fierce controversy among the Serbian literary critics who accused him of plagiarism. Kiš responded to these attacks by his comrades with a brilliant book of polemic essays entitled Čas anatomije (The Anatomy Lesson). Among the most representative authors for Central European culture, Danilo Kiš, appears onto the Romanian scene after the ‘90s with the volumes Garden, Ashes (Grădină, cenușă), The Encyclopedia of the Dead (Enciclopedia morților), Early Sorrows (Suferințe timpurii), and A Tomb for Boris Davidovich (Criptă pentru Boris Davidovich), in two versions, with the novel Hourglass (Clepsidra) being published earlier. Danilo Kiš’s work is predominantly translated into Romanian in periodicals (Orizont, Third Europe) and volumes in two distinct periods: the ‘80s, which represent the apogee of his literary career after the boom in Central Europe where he would spend the last years of his life (in France as a Serbian language lecturer) and posthumously, after 1989.10

Interview with the journalist V. Krivokapić in “NIN” journal, 1979. Thus, in chronological order we signal the appearance of the following translations in volumes: 1987, Clepsidra/ Hourglass, Univers Publishing House, Bucharest, in the interpretation of Lydia Tocariu; 1992, Criptă pentru Boris Davidovici/ A Tomb for Boris Davidovich, West Publishing House, Timişoara, volume translated by Simeon Lăzăreanu; 1996, Enciclopedia morţilor/ The Encyclopedia of the Dead,

9 10

314

O ctavia Nedelcu

and

G or dana-Nicoleta P eici

Of the numerous books comprising Kiš’s oeuvre, A Tomb for Boris Davidovich, translated in four editions, two in Romania and two in Serbia (in fact, three versions, one being taken over), garnered a considerable amount of attention for a variety of reasons. The book generated endless waves of polemic, controversy and volumes of critical analysis, even accusations of plagiarism. It is also the first postmodern work in Serbian literature. The novel, a polyphonic obituary that transcends documents, data, names, places and facts, builds a sophisticated meditation on human cruelty and its multiple incarnations. From the brutality of one who crushes his victim’s face with a boot, to the insidious cruelty of his denouncer, to the guilty silence of those who witness the crimes, to the “justified” assassinations of those in power, Danilo Kiš captures the frightening universe of lagers and denounces the mechanism that gave birth to them. The volume must be read as a testimony, as one of the many depositions brought to the surface by witnesses of the twentieth century. Through an unmistakable documentary style, the author operates with the flavor of an encyclopedist, like a documentarian who knows everything about his characters. Quoting imaginary or real sources, relying on a story with fabulous inserts, fictionalizing the plausible, Danilo Kiš brings out of the tomb’s darkness, phantoms of the same world, necessary for the second convergence, that of the characters. The heroes of the biographies constructed by Kiš have almost all the same structure and are, in fact, one and the same character: the man devoured by history. They all end up in the torture of arrest, of investigation; to all of them their humanity is denied in some way, in the name of ideology or religion. A recent gloss on Borges’s A Universal History of Infamy, or rather an immediate addition to Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, the novel A Tomb for Boris Davidovich becomes a reference volume for the reader, familiar with the years of Stalinist terror and the recent twentieth-century history of Central and Eastern Europe. The act of recovering fiction, a mixture of poetic imagination and documentary reality, thus becomes more important than Univers, Bucharest, translated by Mariana Ştefănescu; 2000, Grădină, cenuşă/ Garden, Ashes, Univers, Bucharest, in the interpretation of Ioan Radin Peianov and 2006, Criptă pentru sufletul lui Boris Davidovici/ A Tomb for the Soul of Boris Davidovich, Union of Serbs in Romania publishing house, Timişoara, translated by Slaviţa and Ioan Cărmăzan. We also mention translations in Romanian published by Lumina Publishing House, Panciova, Serbia: 1966, Grădină, scrum/ Garden, Ashes, translator Nicolae Vîrzac, 1976, Mormânt pentru Boris Davidovič/ A Tomb for Boris Davidovič, translated by Sima Petrović and 1989, Criptă pentru Boris Davidovici/ A Tomb for Boris Davidovich, translated by Simeon Lăzăreanu (later taken over by West Publishing House).

Romanian-Serbian Literary Relations of the Millennium

315

that of historicization, when it intends to rewrite life. The author remains at an appreciable distance from his characters. He looks at the picture on behalf of readers. The pleasure of creating is also accompanied by the induction of a second meaning, like a parable, referring to the immediate reality. It is Danilo Kiš who seems to have best understood the “one hundred years of solitude” he lived through with the two world wars, totalitarian systems, genocide and eruptions of nationalism in contrast between the fragility of the human being (Life) and the miserable seriousness of History, which was appreciated by the Romanian public.

Ivo Andrić The dissemination of Ivo Andrić’s writings (1892–1975) in the Romanian cultural landscape is not necessarily related to the awarding of the Nobel Prize for the novel The Bridge on the Drina (E un pod pe Drina) in 1961. However, we must recognize that a literary award of such universal prestige is extremely motivating for publishers to popularize. But Andrić means much more to Romanians given that in the interwar period he spent time in Bucharest as a diplomat, albeit for a short span. It is known that Ivo Andrić worked from October 1921 to November 1922 as a senior official at the General Consulate of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in Bucharest, appointed second class consul by King Alexander I Karađorđević’s Decree no. 5259 of October 1, 1921. A few months later, on June 8, 1922, in Belgrade, the new King Alexander married Princess Maria of Romania, the daughter of King Ferdinand and Queen Marie of Romania. There are hypotheses that Ivo Andrić’s appointment in Bucharest would not have been at all foreign to the desire of the first Yugoslav king to carefully prepare his wedding in 1922 to Princess Maria. There is seemingly no evidence that any of Ivo Andrić’s cultural encounters with interwar Romania were relevant in terms of his development after the debut of his volume of prose poems in 1918, Ex Ponto, or Nemiri in 1919. Yet, it can be agreed that Bucharest seems to have played a role in finding his own path, since in the year of his appointment he began collaboration with the prestigious magazine “Srpski književni glasnik,” and the publication of his short prose became a means towards his artistic development. It is known that Ivo Andrić had lived in Bucharest, on Strada Frumoasă, no. 14 (the house still exists today), and that he held a special nostalgia for the local cafes and their aromas that often strongly emerged into the streets. In some aspects, the history of his early writings is related to that of the cafes: in Belgrade, in 1919, Ivo Andrić frequented the Moskva Café, along

316

O ctavia Nedelcu

and

G or dana-Nicoleta P eici

with other future important names of Serbian and (later) Yugoslav literature (Miloš Crnjanski, Stanislav Vinaver, Sima Pandurović, Sibe Miličić etc). Later, without his friends from Belgrade, Andrić would spend his nights drinking Turkish coffee at the Alhambra11 cabaret in Bucharest, still uncommunist and magical, which would leave traces in his correspondence: “(…) I learn and read a lot. Romanian is an easy language and it is not as ugly as it is thought.” And on his arrival in Bucharest, after a period spent in Rome, he is surprised and pleasantly impressed: “Bucharest is a noisy and luxurious city,” as if it were always “Christmas and holiday.”12 Even if the Bucharest period left only a few traces13 in the author’s creation, in his work there are many historical and spiritual correspondences with the Romanian area at large that may not have existed without that short bout in the capital city. Only a year after the awarding of the Nobel Prize for literature, in 1962, the first translation from a French version of Ivo Andrić’s novel, The Bridge on the Drina, appears at the Publishing House for Universal Literature. Although the book mentions that the translation was made after the Serbian edition of Prosveta Publishing House, in Belgrade, in 1955, we consider that this information is not accurate: first, because the two translators, Gellu Naum and Ioana Seber were not experts in Serbo-Croatian, and secondly, the title in Romanian is similar to the French Plon edition from 1961: Il est un pont sur Drina: chronique Vichégrad. Obviously, the authenticity of the translation for this reason has enough shortcomings, especially since the Turkisms are rendered descriptively, thus losing the Balkan component. The translation is accompanied by a preface signed by the writer and literary critic Dumitru Micu. Fortunately, the novel was republished by Polirom Publishing House in 2018, (without Micu’s preface). If at the first edition the laudatory reviews did not delay to appear in the literary magazines of the time, the most recent edition gathered as many numerous reviews on personal blogs and in online magazines. Until 1990, stories appeared in periodicals or in different volumes, but the novel, The Chronicle of Travnik. Viziers and consuls (Cronica din Travnik. Viziri și consuli) translated, according to custom, by two translators: Virgil Teodorescu and Dragan Stoianovici was able to amass an impressive circulation of over 20,000 copies. With the change of regime, interest in

Alhambra was one of the most famous cabarets and night bars in Bucharest in the interwar period, frequented by the protipendada of the time and which will inspire Andrić in the story Noć u Alhambri / Night at the Alhambra. 12 Radovan Popović, Ivo Andrić. Život [Ivo Andric. Life] (Beograd: Jugoslovenska revija, 1988), 36. 13 We refer to the story Noć u Alhambr [Night at the Alhambra]. 11

Romanian-Serbian Literary Relations of the Millennium

317

Andrić’s work appears to have declined, but more than fifteen years after the last instance of one of his translations (a story in an anthology14) and after more than thirty-five years since the translation of the last novel, in 2005 the novel The Damned Yard (Curtea blestemată), edited by the Union of Serbs in Romania appeared. Reports on this occurrence were not delayed, but, unfortunately, not in the country’s cultural press, but in the Romanian one abroad. Within the magazine Agero, a cultural store of opinion and information of the Romanian diaspora in Stuttgart, a relevant chronicle of the novel appeared, signed by the journalist Teodor Negulescu: In order to reach that state of anguish, of suspense, from Kafka’s In the Penal Colony, Ivo Andrić proposes in The Damned Yard a meditation on both human destiny and the arbitrary, discriminatory nature of power. (…) Putting the story in the position of a basic tool of communication, but also of salvation through communication, Ivo Andrić re-edits, fragmentarily, something of the mystery of the “1001 nights.” As part of the spiritual family of prose writers such as Miroslav Krleža, Meša Selimović, Miloš Crnjanski, Vasko Popa or Milan Kundera, Ivo Andrić, a career diplomat, proved to be a supporter of the reconciliation of “combatants”, of the identity, historical and cultural synthesis from the Balkans, a space of violent contrasts, perceived as a buffer zone between the West and the East, between the world of Christianity and that of Islam. […]15

Year after year, the awarding of the Nobel Prize for literature enjoys more robust media coverage with public interest visibly growing. Thus, publishers can focus on works demonstrating true values. For the first time, as far as Andrić is concerned, there was an avant la lettre media coverage of a translation in preparation. It was in regard to an exceptional translation of the volume of aphorisms, notes and reflections that the writer made throughout his life, Signs by the roadside (Semne lângă drum), which was published in 2010 at one of the most prestigious publishing houses in Romania, Curtea Veche and under the signature of philosophy Professor Dragan Stoianovici, a wellknown translator of specialty literature in English, French and Serbian. This “intimate chronicle of his soul” comprises four thematic cycles: I. Anxieties of the Century, II. For the writer, III. Images, views, moods, IV. Insomnia. The translator mentions that he deliberately omitted a number of notes containing less representative data for the Romanian reader, from the first three

Ivo Andrić, “Holiday in the South,” [Vacanţă în sud] In Holiday in the South. Contemporary Serbian short story. Translated by Mariana Ştefănescu (Bucharest: Univers, 1989), 36–44. 15 Teodor Negulescu, “Ivo Andrić,” review of The Damned Yard, by Ivo Andrić, Agero, Stuttgard, 2005, www.agero-stuttg​a rt.de/REVI​STA-AGERO/CULT​U R A/Ivo Andrić. 14

318

O ctavia Nedelcu

and

G or dana-Nicoleta P eici

thematic cycles, certain literary fragments that were to be included in his novels or short stories and even a whole shorter cycle about words and idiomatic expressions. In the Translator’s Note at the end of the book, Dragan Stoianovici mentions how this volume was born: Andrić did not keep a diary or write memoirs. He was reluctant to cultivate these literary-documentary genres (…) although he passionately read a lot other writers and thinkers. The volume records impressions and observations about natural or urban landscapes that he had the opportunity to contemplate or about the circles met during his life, in his own country and in the countries where, as a diplomat, he spent longer or shorter periods, then meditations on artistic creation, on life, old age and death, finally on one’s own soul structure, activity and position in the world.16

The exceptional translation was further signaled with a review in the prestigious magazine “Letopis Matice srpske” in 2011 (Nedelcu 2011, 1167– 1171). Two essays were also translated in the Romanian magazine “Lettre internationale”: Japanese story in 1994 (Andrić 1994, 54) and Conversation with Goya in 2013 (Idem 2013, 89–92). In the same magazine, the essay dedicated to Goya is accompanied by another essay, The Rigor of Diplomacy and the Flight of Fantasy, signed by the editor-in-chief and literary critic Adrian Mihalache in which he presented two seemingly contradictory facets of Ivo Andrić, the diplomat and the poet in a complementary relationship. You can’t be an ambassador of France and a poet!” the surrealists strongly argued in an open letter to Paul Claudel, the French ambassador to Japan at that time, in July 1925. But is this valid for novelists? Ivo Andrić found himself in the ungrateful position of representative of a country to be formed. Taking the challenge, he managed honorably. (…) The magic of the novel consists in its ability to create a world, because it is the only literary genre where creation transcends writing, in order to give birth to a possible space marked accordingly. Through his novels, Ivo Andrić built, imposing in the history and culture of the Balkans, the virtual double of a country that no longer exists.17

In 2016, the translation of the novel The Miss (Domnișoara) in the interpretation of professor Dorin Gămulescu appeared at the publishing house of the Union of Serbs in Romania. The translation is prefaced by a study, entitled Ivo Andrić-a Homer of the Balkans, signed by Octavia Nedelcu.

Dragan Stoianovici, “Translator’s Note,” [Nota traducătorului] In Signs by the roadside (Semne lângă drum), by Ivo Andrić. Translated by Dragan Stoianovici (Bucharest: Curtea Veche, 2010), 434. 17 Adrian Mihalache, “The Rigor of Diplomacy and the Flight of Imagination,” [Rigoarea diplomației și zborul fanteziei] Lettre internationale, 87 (Autumn 2013): 92. 16

Romanian-Serbian Literary Relations of the Millennium

319

In addition to translators, literary critics, historians and specialists of Romanian-Yugoslav (Serbian) literary relations also brought their contributions to the reception of Ivo Andrić’s works in the Romanian field with important studies, articles and contributions: Nicolae Balotă, Mirco Jivcovici, Dorin Gămulescu, Voislava Stoianovici, Carmen Dărăbuș, Dragan Stoianovici, Octavia Nedelcu and others. Much of modern prose in Southeast Europe is characterized by the oscillation between truth and fiction, history and myth, the narrative following the trajectory of a movement of mythization, followed by the opposite demystifying one, as is the case of capitalizing on the legend in Ivo Andrić’s work. This prose has been and will be inspiring for comparative research in the Balkans. Often associated with the phrase “the powder keg” of Europe, the Balkan space is, in fact, and remains a bridge between cultures and civilizations, and Ivo Andrić’s southeastern “lesson” is a profound call for human solidarity.

Serbian Literature in Romania and Its Reception Living together in these lands for centuries, the Serbs have created a rich historical and cultural heritage of immeasurable value, cultivated with piety for generations, in their capacity as founders of monasteries, churches and printing houses, prelates, nobles, army leaders, politicians, diplomats, historians, writers, painters, and people of culture and art from Jovan Branković, Macarie, Dionisie, Baba Novak, Sava Tekelija, Dositej Obradović, Joakim Vujić, Dimitrije Tirol to Stevan Bugarski, Mirco Jivcovici, Mile Tomici, Slavomir Gvozdenovici, Voislava Stoianovici and others. The legacy of the past thus becomes the link between the Serbian and Romanian people both for the present and for the future. In recent decades there have been intense concerns about exploitation of cultural heritage18 in the linguistic field (studies of dialectology19 and



See the two articles by Jiva Milin, “Monographs,” [Monografii] In honorem Gheorghe Mihăilă (Bucharest: University of Bucharest Publishing House, 2010), 205–219 and “Romanian Serbian Studies at the Confluence of the XX–XXI Centuries (1990– 2010),” [Sârbistica românească la confluenţa secolelor XX–XXI (1990–2010)”] In Romanoslavica XLVII, no. 2 (University of Bucharest Publishing House, 2011): 165–184. 19 Mihai N. Radan, Caras Dialects Today: Phonetics and Phonology [Graiurile caraşo­ vene azi: fonetica şi fonologia] (Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2000). 18

320

O ctavia Nedelcu

and

G or dana-Nicoleta P eici

onomastics), lexicography, 20 history,21 ethnology22 and folklore, or in the field of interculturality. The same cannot be said when evaluating the Serbian literary phenomenon in Romania from the point of view of literary criticism and history. Most of the time, the pioneers of this enterprise were rather limited to the publication of literary lexicons23 without making hierarchies or even value judgments in the appraisal of these work. Although there are a small number of works of literary criticism, 24 the volume Trajanje by the late Professor Voislava Stoianovici, published in Valjevo in Yugoslavia in 1986, stands out. This volume, which presents a review of the Serbian literary phenomenon in Romania since 1951, when the first book of fiction in the Serbo-Croatian language (Prose Anthology, За срећнију бућност / For a Happier Future) was published, until 1986, and it continues to be the most complete study of literary criticism and at the same time the first of a polyphonic scale, with a complex vision of Serbian literature in Romania. In order to be able to discuss the Serbian literary phenomenon in Romania, we must mention the few publishing houses that promoted and supported this literature. Thus, if until World War II it was not possible to talk about an organized publishing activity of the Serbs in Romania (sporadic periodicals were generally published by sponsors, and the author’s books were published







Mile Tomici, Romanian-Serbian Dictionary (Dicţionar sârb-român), Vol. I, II, III (Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 1998, 1999). 21 Recent history studies, in Serbian and Romanian, or those in the field of Serbian-­ Romanian historical relations, signed by Miodrag Milin, The Golgotha from Bărăgan for the Serbs in Romania [Golgota Bărăganului pentru sârbii din România] (Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 1996); Together for Centuries [Vekovima zajedno] (Timişoara: Helicon, 1995). 22 Borislav Krstici, Popular Customs Of The Inhabitants Of The Danube Gorge [Народни обичаји Клисураца и Пољадијаца] (Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2002); N. Mihai N. Radan, On A Visit of the Mysterious Caras [У походе тајновитом Карашу] (Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2004). 23 See Olimpia Berca, Dictionary of Writers from Banat [Dicţionar al scriitorilor bănăţeni] (Timişoara: Amacord, 1996), Jivco Milin, Lexicon of Post-War Serbs, Representatives of the Written Word in Romania [Лексикон поратних Срба посленика писане речи у Румунији] (Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2004), Ivo Muncian, Serbian Writers in Romania [Scriitori sârbi din România] (Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2007), Ivo Muncian, Our pride [Naše gore list / Fala noastră] (Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2010). 24 Neboişa Popovici, Literary Reviews [Književni osvrti] (Bucharest: Kriterion, 1977), Jiva Milin, Critical Reviews [Kritički ogledi] (Bucharest: Kriterion, 1984), Jiva Milin, Selected Reviews [Odabrani osvrti] (Timişoara: Mirton, 1999), Miljurko Vukadinović, Approaches [Približavanja] (Bucharest: Kriterion, 1993). 20

Romanian-Serbian Literary Relations of the Millennium

321

under their own guidance), the establishment of the state publishing house (ESPLA), and respectively, of the Serbian editorial office within this house (1950–1970) exponentially increases the number of published titles (typically translations from Russian literature). In 1970, the Kriterion publishing house was founded in Bucharest with the intention to publish books in national minorities’ languages. For twenty years, the Serbian editorial office would publish several hundred titles of fiction, this time promoting mainly original creations and works from Yugoslav literature. After 1989, passing through a period of transition (1990–1994), Kriterion privatized and moved its headquarters to Cluj, with the publishing activity being taken over by the Union of Serbs and Caras people in Romania that had been established in 1990, and then later on, in 1997, the Union of Serbs in Romania, would continue with financial support from the state. Thereby, from 1994 to 2018, about 400 books were produced at this publishing house, with the emphasis laid on capitalizing upon the cultural heritage, such as publishing monographs of localities where Serbian populations live. Given the rigorous exploration of the literary phenomenon in Romania on the part of Voislava Stoianovici’s contribution in the aforementioned volume, we will update this analysis. Once the publication of the Serbian book production in Romania was taken over by the Union of Serbs, the series of monographs25 on some of the local places where Serbs used to reside, or on some monuments of religious and culture importance continue to be published.26 There are many works of historiographical and documentary character,27 educational texts,28 and works about the cultural-artistic activity of some folk ensembles.29 There







Ljubomir Stepanov, Stories of Ketfelj [Iz povesti Ketfelja] (Timişoara: Union of Serbs and Caras people in Romania, 1994), Vasa Lupulovici, Liubcova Valley [Ljupkova dolina] (Timişoara: Union of Serbs and Caras people in Romania, 1995), Vasa Lupulovici, Sokolovac (Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 1999). 26 Vasa Lupulovici, Bazjaš Monastery (Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 1998); Stevan Bugarski, Bezdin Monastery (Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 1999). 27 Arad Fortress (Timişoara: Union of Serbs and Caras people in Romania, 1994); Miodrag Milin, The Golgotha from Bărăgan for the Serbs in Romania [Baraganska golgota Srba u Rumuniji] (Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 1996). 28 Duşan Sablici, Serbian School in Romania 1919–1989 [Srpsko školstvo u Rumuniji 1919–1989] (Timişoara: Union of Serbs and Caras people in Romania, 1996); Borislav Krstici, Culture of Expression, II Grade [Kultura izražavanja, II razred], (1997); x x x, Methodical Notebook for I–IV Grade [Metodska sveska za I–IV razred], (1997). 29 Ljubomir Stepanov, Youth Murmurs and speaks to the Heart [Mladost žubori, srcu govori] (Timişoara: Union of Serbs and Caras people in Romania, 1994); Ivo 25

322

O ctavia Nedelcu

and

G or dana-Nicoleta P eici

are also concerns for capitalizing on Serbian-Romanian intercultural relations,30 even among authors from Serbia.31 During this period, a textbook for learning Serbian, Srpski jezik za sve uzraste / Serbian language explained for everyone, was published in 1998 by Vişeslava Cirici, the first of its kind, as well as a Serbian-Romanian three-volume Dictionary by Mile Tomici, in 1998–1999, which are both extremely useful tools for all those who want to learn the Serbian language. Even if in a smaller number, literary works are published, especially poetry, by already renowned authors such as Liubiţa Raichici, Blagoie Ciobotin, Gioca Jupunschi, Cedomir Milenovici, Dragomir Mirianici, Ivo Muncian, Miladin Simonovici and Goran Stefanovici, but also by some young aspiring writers such as Svetomir Bogdanov, Dalibor Marcovici, Damian Peiovici, Zoran Vuksanovici (more frequently present in anthologies).32 This apparent decline of original titles is explained by the fact that many of the authors publish their works in Serbia, being recognized and appreciated there. Not without interest is the fact that at this stage, monographs dedicated to writers or Serbian cultural personalities from Romania, such as Neboişa Popovici, Dušan Vasiljev, and the papers of a symposium on history, organized annually in Arad are also published. Furthermore, we notice a diversification of literary genres less cultivated in the past. Thus appeared a lexicon of literary and cultural personalities of Serbs in Romania in 2004 signed by Jiva Milin, a book of interviews with the well-known journalist Raico Cornea, Trenutak istine/ The Moment of Truth, 2001, and, for the first time, a dramatic text: Vasa Lupulovici, Kapetan Koča, 2000. The collection of monographs of local places (Chizătău, Ivanda, Ciacova) and of some personalities (Gioca Mirianici, Voislava Stoianovici, Vlada Barzin, Milan Nicolici, Dimitrije Tirol) continues. Mile Tomici’s Romanian-Serbian Dictionary was published by Academy Publishing House in 2004. Some of the young authors also confirm their value: Borco Ilin, Goran Mrachici, Zoran Vuksanovici and Liubomir Simovici. We notice an increase in the works published by poets as well. Thus, in addition to the well-known poets Liubiţa Raichici and Liubinca Perinaţ Stancov, new names appear, at the beginning of their writing careers, such as Miriana Ciocov, Milana Petrov and others.

Muncian, Roses Bloom From the Roots [Iz korena ruža cveta] (Timişoara: Union of Serbs and Caras people in Romania, 1994). 30 Miodrag Milin, Together for Centuries [Vekovima zajedno] (Timişoara: Helicon, 1995). 31 Ljubivoje Cerović, Serbs in Romania [Srbi u Rumuniji] (Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 1996). 32 Ne bih ni nuli ćutnju oprostio (Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 1999).

Romanian-Serbian Literary Relations of the Millennium

323

However, the publication in eight volumes of an Anthology of Serbian Literature, coordinated by Svetozar Marcov, sponsored by the Department for Interethnic Relations, seems remarkable. There is a higher frequency of publishing anthologies by literary genres: poetry, poetry for children, short prose also appeared in Serbia, or translated into Romanian. During this period, most translations of Serbian literature, both classical and contemporary, were published: Ivo Andrić, Vuk Drašković, Danilo Kiš, Miodrag Jakšić, Miodrag Pavlović, Aleksandar Čotrić, Miodrag Marjanov and others. Lastly, regarding the dramatic genre, we cannot help noticing that plays are translated today for the use of theaters during festivals or other cultural events (Dušan Kovačević, Biljana Srbljanović, Dragana Bošković, Milorad Pavić). However, their publication in volumes is almost completely missing33 (Contemporary Drama in the Balkans (Dramaturgie contemporană din Balcani), anthology by Andreea Dumitru, Bucharest, “Camil Petrescu” Cultural Foundation, 2008). The reception of Serbian literature in Romania has been a constant concern. In the period before 1989, in the state publishing house of national minorities, Kriterion, there was a Romanian language editorial office that dealt precisely with the reception of minority literature in Romanian, on which occasion titles of several Serbian writers were translated from Serbian (Slavco Vesnici, Svetomir Raicov), or for ideological reasons at prestigious Romanian publishing houses (Vladimir Ciocov). In the last quarter of a century, this concern for the promulgation of Serbian literature has become an individual one, when writers like Vlada Barzin, Neboișa Popovici, Slavomir Gvozdenovici, Ivo Muncian, Cedomir Milenovici, Draga Mirianici and others have been translated into Romanian. Serbs in Romania have preserved their name and national identity through the act of artistic creation, which has gained an overwhelming function. Serbian literature in Romania has thus proven its vitality and durability, subscribing, without fear of error, to the circuit of European literature through writers such as Slavomir Gvozdenovici, Cedomir Milenovici or Ivo Muncian. Perhaps even more important is the role of contemporary “chroniclers,” such as Stevan Bugarski and Liubomir Stepanov, who devoted themselves with much patience and meticulousness to record data, facts and people in commemorative books, document books aimed at preventing obscurity. Due to the vicissitudes, they face, especially in regard to the slow but relentless process of declining and aging Serbian nationality populations, there has

33

Contemporary Drama in the Balkans (Dramaturgie contemporană din Balcani), anthology by Andreea Dumitru, Bucharest, “Camil Petrescu” Cultural Foundation, 2008.

324

O ctavia Nedelcu

and

G or dana-Nicoleta P eici

been observed lately a special concern towards everything that is equated to cultural heritage which must be preserved for future generations in the collective memory. Since the establishment of the publishing house within the Union of Serbs in Romania in 1994, a collection of translations from Serbian literature was created, and 27 titles have been published until now. However, the distribution and promotion network is not adequate; with all publications being sponsored by the Romanian government, many of these books are present mostly in school libraries without reaching the Romanian reading public.

Conclusion The literary relations between two cultures over time, in this case the Romanian and the Serbian ones, were and remain a clear indicator of interculturality, of the transcendental dialogue between two neighboring peoples. Without the claim of being exhaustive, we consider that the present study dedicated to the reception of Serbian literature in Romania represents, to a greater or lesser extent, depending on other social and cultural factors, consistent proof of the mutual interest between the two cultures. With the segmentation of the literary space following the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, the number of translations from Serbian literature decreased. The Romanian publishing houses focused more on young authors awarded at various literary festivals in Croatia and Bosnia, stimulated also by the financial support of some European networks for literature promotion (Traduki), or on the publication of well-known writers in the West (Polirom, Curtea Veche, Paralela 45, etc.). Instead, there is a growing interest in Serbian literature from publishing houses in the Republic of Moldova (Cartier, Arc). The profession of literary translator is becoming more and more prominent, even though not necessarily among young people who, unfortunately, cannot, to a greater extent, promote valuable works to the detriment of those easily successful. Mainly prose, respectively, novels are being translated, and the lyrical genre is rather a matter of interchangeability. The dramatic genre, despite the existence of renowned playwrights abroad (Dušan Kovačević, Biljana Srbljanović, etc.) is present only in the theaters’ repertoire for several seasons or even temporarily, during international festivals. Nevertheless, we consider that the idea of a “minor culture” vs. a “major culture,” as encountered by Emil Cioran,34 is no longer valid today.

Emil Cioran, The Transfiguration of Romania [Schimbarea la față a României] (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2017), 10.

34

Romanian-Serbian Literary Relations of the Millennium

325

A “minority” culture in a European multicultural space becomes a component of the “majority cultures” to which it belongs through its reception, indebted in large part to translations.

Bibliography Andrić, Ivo. “Vacanţă în sud” [Holiday in the South]. In Holiday in the South. Contemporary Serbian short story, Translated by Mariana Ştefănescu, 36–44. Bucharest: Univers, 1989. Andrić, Ivo. “Poveste japoneză” [Japanese Story]. Translated by Alice Dumitrescu. Lettre internationale, October 1994, 54–56. Andrić, Ivo. “Convorbiri cu Goya” [Conversations with Goya]. Translated by Octavia Nedelcu. Lettre internationale 87 (2013): 89–92. Berca, Olimpia. Dicţionar al scriitorilor bănăţeni [Dictionary of Writers from Banat]. Timişoara: Amacord, 1996. Bugarski, Stevan. Manastir Bezdin [Bezdin Monastery]. Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 1999. Catana, Bogdan. Relații româno-sârbe 1875–1913 [Romanian-Serbian Relations 1875– 1913]. Târgoviște: Cetatea de Scaun, 2012. Cerović, Ljubivoje. Srbi u Rumuniji [Serbs in Romani]. Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 1996. Cerović, Ljubivoje. Srbi u Rumuniji [Serbs in Romania]. Novi Sad: Matica Srpska, 1997. Cioran, Emil. Schimbarea la față a României [The transfiguration of Romania]. Bucharest: Humanitas, 2017. Gavrilović, Nikola. Srbi i Rumuni: srpsko-rumunske veze kroz vekove [Serbs and Romanians: Serbian-Romanian ties through the centuries]. Belgrade/ Novi Sad: ZUNS/Prometej, 1997. Geambaşu, Constantin coord. Bibliografia traducerilor din literaturile slave. 1945–2011 [Bibliography of Translations from Slavic Literatures. 1945–2011]. Bucharest: University of Bucharest Publishing House, 2011. Krstici, Borislav. Kultura izražavanja, II razred [Culture of expression, II Grade], 1997. Krstici, Borislav. Narodni običaji Klisuraca i Poljadijaca [Popular customs of the inhabitants of the Danube Gorge]. Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2002. Lupulovici, Vasa. Ljupkova dolina [Liubcova Valley]. Timişoara: Union of Serbs and Caras people in Romania, 1995. Lupulovici, Vasa. Manastir Bazjaš [Bazjaš Monastery]. Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 1998. Lupulovici, Vasa. Sokolovac. Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 1999. Măruță, Mihnea. “ A murit Milorad Pavić – scriitorul visurilor” [Milorad Pavić’ thewriter of dreams-died] Surpriza, December 1st, 2009, Accesed September 23, 2021. https://surpr​iza.info/a-murit-milo​rad-pavic-scr​i ito​r ul-visuri​lor/.

326

O ctavia Nedelcu

and

G or dana-Nicoleta P eici

Mihalache, Adrian. “Rigoarea diplomației și zborul fanteziei.” [The rigor of diplomacy and the flight of imagination], Lettre internationale 87 (2013): 91–92. Milin, Jiva. Kritički ogledi [Critical reviews]. Bucharest: Kriterion, 1984. Milin, Jiva. Odabrani osvrti [Selected reviews]. Timişoara: Mirton, 1999. Milin, Jiva. “Monografii” [Monographs]. In In honorem Gheorghe Mihăilă, edited by Mariana Mangiulea, 205–219. Bucharest: University of Bucharest Publishing House, 2010. Milin, Jiva. Sârbistica românească la confluenţa secolelor XX–XXI (1990–2010). Romanoslavica 47, no. 2 (2011). [Romanian Serbian studies at the confluence of the XX–XXI centuries (1990–2010)] Bucharest: University of Bucharest Publishing House. Milin, Jivco. Leksikon poratnih Srba poslenika pisane reči u Rumuniji [Lexicon of postwar Serbs, representatives of the written word in Romania]. Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2004. Milin, Miodrag. Vekovima zajedno [Together for centuries]. Timişoara: Helicon, 1995. Milin, Miodrag. Golgota Bărăganului pentru sârbii din România [The Golgotha from Bărăgan for the Serbs in Romania]. Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 1996. Muncian, Ivo. Iz korena ruža cveta [Roses bloom from the roots]. Timişoara: Union of Serbs and Caras people in Romania, 1994. Muncian, Ivo. Scriitori sârbi din România. [Serbian writers in Romania]. Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2007. Muncian, Ivo. Naše gore list / Fala noastră. [Our pride] Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2010. Nedelcu, Octavia. “Ontological hypostases” [Ontološke hipostaze]. Letopis Matice srpske 488 (2011): 1167–1171. Negulescu, Teodor. “Ivo Andrić.” Review of The Damned Yard, edited by Ivo Andrić. Agero: Stuttgard, 2005. Nicolau, Ioana. “ Dicțíonarul khazar – o revelație.” [Dictionary of the Khazars – A revelation] Observator Cultural, January 21, 2003, https://www.obs​erva​torc​u ltu​ral.ro/ arti​col/dict​iona​r ul-kha​zar-o-revela​t ie/ Popović, Radovan. Ivo Andrić: Život. [Ivo Andrić: life]. Beograd: Jugoslovenska revija, 1988. Popovici, Neboişa. Književni osvrti. [Literary reviews]. Bucharest: Kriterion, 1977. Radan, Mihai N. Graiurile caraşovene azi: fonetica şi fonologia. [Caras dialects today: Phonetics and phonolog]. Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2000. Radan, Mihai. N. U pohode tajnovitom Karašu. [On a visit of the mysterious Caras]. Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2004. Radin Peianov, Ioan. “Postfaţă.” [Afterword] Stražilovo, edited by Miloš Crnjanski. Translated by Ioan Radin Peianov, 491–611. Timișoara: Brumar, 2007. Relații culturale, literare și lingvistice româno-iugoslave [Romanian-Yugoslav cultural, literary and linguistic relations]. Proceedings of the symposium no.VI Bucharest. October 21–25. Bucharest: TUB, 1982.

Romanian-Serbian Literary Relations of the Millennium

327

Sablici, Duşan. Srpsko školstvo u Rumuniji 1919–1989. [Serbian School in Romania 1919– 1989]. Timişoara: Union of Serbs and Caras people in Romania, 1996. Simion, Eugen. Scriitorii români de azi I–III. [Today’s Romanian writers I–III]. Bucharest: Cartea Românească, 1976. Ștefănescu, Mariana. “Prefaţă.” [Foreword]. In Romanul Londrei I-II [A Novel of London I-II] edited by Miloš Crnjanski. Translated by Mariana Ștefănescu, 5–11. Pitești: Paralela 45, 2002. Ștefănescu, Mariana. “Milorad Pavić.” România literară 50 (2009): 23–24. https://arh​ iva.roma​n ial​iter​a ra.com/index.pl/milor​ad_p​avi. Stepanov, Ljubomir. Iz povesti Ketfelja [Stories of Ketfelj]. Timişoara: Union of Serbs and Caras people in Romania, 1994. Stepanov, Ljubomir. Mladost žubori, srcu govori [Youth murmurs and speaks to the Heart]. Timişoara: Union of Serbs and Caras people in Romania, 1994. Stoianovici, Dragan. “Translator’s Note” [Nota traducătorului]. In Semne lângă drum [Signs by the roadside], edited by Ivo Andrić. Translated by Dragan Stoianovici, 433–435. Bucharest: Curtea Veche, 2010. Stojanović, Vojislav. Trajanje. Izbor iz poezije i proze na srpskohrvatskom jeziku u SR Rumuniji. [Selection of poetry and prose in the Serbo-Croatian language in Socialist Republic of Romania]. Valjevo: Milica Rakić, 1886. Tomici, Mile. Dicţionar sârb-român Vol. I, II, III. [Romanian-Serbian Dictionary Vol. I, II, III]. Timişoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 1998/1999. Trajanje. Izbor iz poezije i proze na srpskohrvatskom jeziku u SR Rumuniji. [Continuance. Selection of poetry and prose in the Serbo-Croatian language in Socialist Republic of Romania], Selection and review by Vojislava Stojanović. Valjevo: “Milić Rakić”, 1986. Ungureanu, Cornel. “În loc de postfaţă.” [Afterword] In Migraţiile. Roman [Migrations. Novel] by Miloš Crnjanski. Translated by Duşan Baiski and Octavia Nedelcu, 205– 207. Timișoara: Western Publishing House, 1993. Vancu, Milan. Serbian-Yugoslav-Romanian relations through the centuries [Srpskojugoslovensko-rumunski odnosi kroz vekove]. Beograd: Stručna knjiga, 2005. Vukadinović, Miljurko. Približavanja [Approaches]. Bucharest: Kriterion, 1993. Živković, Мirko. Svedočanstva o srpsko (jugoslovensko)-rumunskim kulturnim i književnim odnosima. [Testimonies about Serbian (Yugoslav)-Romanian cultural and literary relations]. Bucharest: Kriterion, 1976.

Appendix Selections (1990–2018) Literary translations from Serbian into Romanian A Andrić, Ivo. Curtea blestemată [The Damned Yard]. Translated by Steva Perinaţ and Ion Pachia Tatomirescu. Timișoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2005.

328

O ctavia Nedelcu

and

G or dana-Nicoleta P eici

Andrić, Ivo. Semne lângă drum [Signs by the roadside]. Translated by Dragan Stoianovici. Bucharest: Curtea Veche, 2010. Andrić, Ivo. Domnișoara [The Miss]. Translated by Dorin Gămulescu. Foreword by Octavia Nedelcu. Bucharest: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2016. Andrić, Ivo. Poză de familie și alte povestiri [Family picture and other stories]. Translated by Octavia Nedelcu. Chișinău: Cartier, 2022. Andrić, Radomir. Icoană românească–Rumunska ikona [Romanian Icon]. Translated by Ioan Radin. Timișoara: “Helicon” Banat, 1998. Antologia poeziei sârbe (sec. XIII–sec. XX). [Anthology of Serbian poetry (13th–20th century)] Second edition. Translated by Ioan Flora. Satu Mare: Solstiţiu, 2004. Avangarda sârbă. Poezie şi manifeste. [The Serbian avant-garde. Poetry and manifestos] Translated by Miljurko Vukadinović and Traian Manta. Iași: Princeps Edit, 2006. B Barzin, Vlada. Atlantida. Poeme [Atlantida. Poems]. Translated by Carmen Blaga and Lucian Alexiu. Timişoara: Hestia, 1992. Basara, Svetislav. Mărirea și decăderea bolii Parkinson [Rise and fall of Parkinson’s Disease]. Translated by Octavia Nedelcu. Chișinău: Cartier, 2017. Basara, Svetislav. Longevitate. Comendia del arte [Longevity. Comendia del arte]. Translated by Constantin Ghirdă. Bucharest: Anamarol, 2018. Bećković, Matija. Slujba: măsura versului în haosul istoriei [Service: the measure of verse in the chaos of history]. Translated by Miljurko Vukadinović and Gabriel Ion Andrei. Bucharest: Ziua, 2004. Bernède, Ivanka. Belgradul pe puncte. (Amintiri, amintiri) [Belgrade in frames. (Memories, memories)]. Translated by Octavia Nedelcu and Vlastimir Vukadinović. Bucharest/Belgrade: Europoint/Sfântul Sava, 1995. Bojić, Branislav. Noć granica. Izbor iz poezije. Noaptea graniţelor. Selecţie de poezii [Borders by night. Selection of poems]. Translated by Maria Mutici. Bucharest– Belgrade: “Europoint”– “Sfântul Sava”, 1997. Bulatović, Miodrag. Amantul morţii [Death’s lover]. Translated by Mariana Ştefănescu. Pitești: Paralela 45, 2003. C Crnjanski, Miloš. Migraţiile. Roman [Migrations. Novel]. Translated by Duşan Baiski and Octavia Nedelcu. Timișoara: Western Publishing House, 1993. Crnjanski, Miloš. Romanul Londrei I–II [A Novel of London I–II]. Translated by Mariana Ștefănescu, Pitești: Paralela 45, 2002. Crnjanski, Miloš. Stražilovo, Translated by Ioan Radin Peianov. Timișora: Brumar, 2007. Crnjanski, Miloš. The Journal of Čarnojević [Jurnal despre Čarnojević]. Translated by Ioan Radin Peianov. Timișoara: Brumar, 2007. Crnjanski, Miloš. Lirika Itake i druge pesme-Lirica Itacăi şi alte poezii [Lyric of Ithaca and other poems]. Translated by Ioan Radin Peianov. Timișoara: Brumar, 2007.

Romanian-Serbian Literary Relations of the Millennium

329

Crnjanski, Miloš. La un pas de infinit–Na korak do beskraja [One step away from infinity]. Translated by Ivo Muncian and Ioan Radin Peianov. Novo Miloševo: Banatski kulturni centar, 2019. Cvetanovic, Ivan. Piciorul femeii și gîtul lebedei. Povestiri erotice sau Călimările frivolităţii [The woman’s leg and the swan’s neck. Erotic stories or the inkwell of frivolity]. Translated by Antonie Şemineanu. Bucharest/Belgrade: Europoint/Sfântul Sava, 1996. Č Čotrić, Aleksandar. Incizii rapide. Aforisme [Quick incisions. Aphorisms]. Translated by Goran Mrakici şi Lucian Alexiu. Timișoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2007. Ć Ćosić, Bora. Rolul familiei mele în revoluția mondială [The role of my family in the world revolution]. Foreword by Corina Bernic. Translated by Georgina Ecovoiu. Bucharest: Art, 2008. D Dragin, Siniša. Primăvara e o altă țară [Spring is a different country]. Translated by Georgina Ecovoiu and Ruxandra Lambru. Bucharest: Cartea Românească, 2003. Dragojlović, Dragan. Cartea iubirii. Poeme [The book of love. Poems]. Translated by Duşan Baiski and Blagoie Ciobotin. Timișoara: Hestia, 1996. Drašković, Vuk. Consulul rus. Roman [The Russian Consul. Novel]. Translated by Duşan Baiski. Timișoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2005. Drašković, Vuk. Cuţitul. Roman [The knife. Novel]. Translated by Duşan Baiski. Timișoara: Helicon, 1995. Dučić, Jovan. Plave legende-Legende albastre [Blue legends]. Translated by Stevan Bugarski. Timișoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2013. Đ Đidić, Ljubiša. Konjanici Svetog Đurđa-Călăreţii Sfântului Gheorghe [The horsemen of Saint George]. Translated by Ioan Peianov. Timișoara: “Helicon” Banat, 1997. Đorđević, Goran. Pământ risipit. Poeme [Scattered ground. Poems]. Translated by Slavomir Gvozdenovici and Lucian Alexiu. Timișoara: Hestia, 1998. Đurović Habjanović, Ljiljana. Cuvioasa Parascheva [Pious Paraskeva]. Translated by Liubița Raichici. Sibiu: Andreiana (2010). G Grujičić, Nenad. Limba maternă şi poezii la-ndemână. Selecţie de poezii [Native language and poems at your fingertips. Selection of poems]. Translated by Duşiţa Ristin. Bucharest–Belgrade: “Europoint”-“Sfântul Sava”,1996. Gvozdenovici, Slavomir. Şcoala de seară. 101 poeme [Evening school. 101 Poems]. Translated by Lucian Alexiu, Timișoara: Anthropos, 2003. Gvozdenovici, Slavomir. Fragment despre adjectivele descriptive. Poeme [Fragment about descriptive adjectives. Poems]. Translated by Lucian Alexiu. Timișora: Hestia, 2007.

330

O ctavia Nedelcu

and

G or dana-Nicoleta P eici

I Ignjatović, Srba. Potlačeni Ahil-Ahil subjugate [Oppressed Achilles]. Translated by Sima Lăzăreanu. Timișoara: “Helicon” Banat, 1997. Ignjatović, Srba. Când eram cu toţii Tito şi alte povestiri [When we were all Tito and other stories] Translated by Ioan Radin. Bucharest: Universal Dalsi, 1997. J Jakšić, Miodrag. Micul zmeu şi visele sale. Poezii pentru copii [The little kite and his dreams. Poems for children]. Translated by Slavomir Gvozdenovici and Lucian Alexiu. Timișoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2007. L Latinović, Miloš. Povestirile vânturilor. Roman în opt povestiri [The Tales of the Winds. Novel in eight stories]. Translated by Dragica Stepanćev. Timișoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2010. K Kiš, Danilo. Criptă pentru Boris Davidovici. Şapte capitole ale aceleaşi istorii [A tomb for Boris Davidovich. Seven chapters of the same story]. Translated by Simeon Lăzăreanu. Timișoara: West Publishing House, 1992. Kiš, Danilo. Criptă pentru sufletul lui Boris Davidovici. Şapte capitole ale aceleaşi istorii [Tomb for the Soul of Boris Davidovich. Seven Chapters of the Same Story]. Translated by Slaviţa and Ioan Cărmăzan. Timișoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2006. Kiš, Danilo. Enciclopedia morţilor [The encyclopedia of the dead]. Translated by Mariana Ştefănescu. Bucharest: Univers, 1996. Kiš, Danilo. Grădina, cenuşa [Garden, Ashes]. Translated by Ioan Radin Peianov. Bucharest: Univers, 2000. Kiš, Danilo. Suferințe timpurii [Early sorrows]. Translated by Mariana Ștefănescu. Bucharest: Polirom, 2008. Kokošar, Miroslav. Casa nouă. Selecţie de poezii-Nova kuća. Izbor iz poezije [New home. Selection of poetry]. Translated by Vlastimir Vukadinović and Maria Mutici. Bucharest/Belgrade: Europoint/Sfântul Sava, 1997. Koljević, Nikola. Temele patriei [Homeland themes]. Translated by Borislav D. Krstici, Carmen Blaga, Cedomir Milenovici, Lidia Handabura and Ileana Ursu. Timișoara: Hestia, 1997. Komlenac, Živka. Când se pornesc zidurile [When the Walls Start]. Translated by Slavomir Gvozdenovici and Lucian Alexiu. Timișoara: Hestia, 1995. Kostić, Katarina. Ucigașii de cuvinte [Word killers]. Translated by Slavomir Gvozdenovici and Lucian Alexiu. Timișoara: Hestia, 1998. Krstanović, Zdravko. Povestiri din infern [Stories from hell]. Translated by Ioan Radin. Bucharest: Universal Dalsi, 1997. M Maksimović, Desanka. Vară târzie [Late summer]. Selected and translated by Ivo Muncian. Panciova: Libertatea, 1994.

Romanian-Serbian Literary Relations of the Millennium

331

Mandić, Slobodan. Kairos. Translated by Veronica Zafu. Afterword by Victor Crăciun. Bucharest: Semne (2000). Matijević, Boris. Uvertura florilor. Cântece pentru copii-Cvetna uvrtira. Zbirka pesama za decu. [Flower overture. Children songs] Translated by Domnica Țera. Timișoara: Eurobit, 1999. Milenovici, Cedomir. 7 incantații pntru femeie, piatră și vânt [7 Incantations for woman, stone and wind]. Translated by Carmen Blaga and Lucian Alexiu. Timișoara: Hestia, 1992. Mirković, Čedomir. Frica de linişte [Fear of silence]. Translated by Vişislava Vinchi. Timișoara: Helicon, 1999. Mladenović, Vlasta. Alegerea de minunăţii. Poeme alese şi neinedite [The choice of wonders. Selected and Non-original Poems]. Translated by Arala Ciora and Vlastimir Vukadinović. Bucharest/Belgrade: Europoint/Sfântul Sava, 1996. N Nenadić, Milan. Imagine nocturnă-Noćna slika [Nocturnal image]. Selection, translation and afterword by Ivo Muncian. Panciova: Libertatea, 2001. Nordul sârbesc. Poeţi sârbi din secolul XX [The Serbian North. 20th Century Serbian Poets]. Translated by Slavomir Gvozdenovici and Lucian Alexiu. Timișoara: Hestia, 1999. O Obradović, Dositej. Fabule [Fables]. Translated by Ivo Muncian. Timișoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2011. Orfeu îndrăgostit. Antologie a poeziei sârbe de dragoste [Orpheus in Love. Anthology of Serbian Love Poetry]. Translated by Ivo Muncian. Timișoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2006. P Pavić, Milorad. Peisaj pictat în ceai [Landscape painted with tea]. Translated by Mariana Ştefănescu. Bucharest: Univers, 2000. Pavić, Milorad. Dicționarul khazarilor. Roman lexicon în 100.000 de cuvinte, Exemplar masculine [Dictionary of the Khazars: A lexicon novel in 100,000 words, male edition]. Translated by Mariana Ștefănescu. Bucharest: Paralela 45, 2003. Pavić, Milorad. Celălalt trup [The other body]. Translated by Mariana Ștefănescu. Bucharest: Paralela 45, 2009. Pavić, Milorad. Mantia de stele, Ghid astrologic [The mantle of stars, astrological guide]. Translated by Mariana Ștefănescu. Bucharest: Humanitas, 2008. Pavić, Milorad. Partea lăuntrică a vântului sau roman despre Hero și Leandru [The inner side of the wind, or the novel of Hero and Leander]. Translated by Mariana Ștefănescu. Bucharest: Paralela 45, 2003. Pavić, Milorad. Ultima iubire la Țarigrad. Îndreptar de ghicit [Last love in Constantinople: A Tarot novel for divination]. Translated by Mariana Ștefănescu. Bucharest: Paralela 45, 2003.

332

O ctavia Nedelcu

and

G or dana-Nicoleta P eici

Pavić, Milorad. Unicat. Cartea cu o sută de finaluri [Unique item. Delta novel with a hundred endings]. Translated by Mariana Ștefănescu. Bucharest: Pandora Publishing, 2015. Pavlović, Miodrag. Adunarea câinilor la Cnossos. Poeme [Gathering dogs at Knossos. Poems]. Translated by Anghel Dumbrăveanu, Slavomir Gvozdenovici and Lucian Alexiu. Timișoara: Union of Serbs in Romania, 2007. Pavlović, Miodrag. Glasul de sub piatră [The voice beneath the stone]. Translated by Slavomir Gvozdenovici and Lucian Alexiu, Iași: Princeps Edit, 2007. Pekić, V. Borislav. O istorie sentimentală a imperiului britanic [A sentimental history of the British Empire]. Translated by Constantin Ghirdă. Bucharest: Historia, 2008. Pištalo, Vladimir. Tesla. Portret între măști [Tesla. Portrait between masks]. Translated by Mariana Ștefănescu. Bucharest: Nemira, 2013. Popa, Vasko. Inel celest [Celestial ring]. Selection and translation by Ioan Flora. Foreword by Cornel Ungureanu. Bucharest: Grai și suflet, 2000. Popov, Nada. Vârtejuri [Vortices]. Translated by Liubița Raichici. Reșița: Timpul, 2002. Popović, Danko. Spovedania lui Milutin [Milutin’s confession]. Translated by Ivo Muncian. Timișoara: Eubeea, 2001. Popovici, Neboişa S. Toamna, casa şi păunii [The autumn, the house and the peacocks]. Translated by Ion Arieşanu, Timișoara: Mirton, 1996. Porumbelul de argilă. Poeţi sârbi din România. [The Clay Dove. Serbian poets from Romania] Translated by Duşan Baiski, Carmen Blaga, Lucian Alexiu, Slavomir Gvozdenovici, Valeriu Drumeş, Vasile Versavia, Draga Mirianici, Duşan Petrovici, Ivo Muncian, Liubinca Perinaţ-Stancov and Liubiţa Raichici. Bucharest: Persona. Universalia Publishing Group, 1998. Puslojić, Adam. Zero degree of poetry. [Gradul zero al poeziei-Nulti stepen poezije] Translated by Nichita Stănescu and Ioan Flora. Timișoara: “Helicon” Banat, 1998. R Raičković, Stevan. Roata supliciului-Točak za mučenje [The wheel of torture]. Selection and translation by Ivo Muncian. Novi Sad: Svetlost, 1998. S Savić, Milisav. Pâine şi frică [Bread and fear]. Translated by Ioan Radin. Bucharest: Nemira, 1996. Selimović, Meša. Dervişul şi moartea [Death and the dervish]. Translated by Voislava Stoianovici. Bucharest: Leda, Corinth Publishing Group, 2009. Simović, Ljubomir. Furtună deasupra Belgradului. Poeme [Storm over Belgrade. Poems]. Translated by Slavomir Gvozdenovici and Lucian Alexiu. Timișoara: Union of Serbs in Romania-Anthropos, 2009. U Uljarević, Radomir. Pământul făgăduinței [The land of promise]. Translated by Ioan Radin. Afterword by Miljurko Vukadinović. Bucharest: Du Style, 1997.

Romanian-Serbian Literary Relations of the Millennium

333

V Vasiljev, Dušan. Rubovi sna-Muchiile viselor [The edges of dreams]. Translated by Ivo Muncian. Bilingual edition. Novo Miloševo: Banat Cultural Center, 2018. Vitezović, Milovan. Ciorapii Regelui Petar. Roman [King Petar’s socks. Novel]. Translated by Ivo Muncian. Timișoara: Hestia, 2009. Z Zivlak, Jovan. Penitenţă [Penance]. Translated by Duşiţa Ristin. Bucharest: Nemira, 1997. Zivlak, Jovan. Despre gaide. Poezii 1979–2009 [About bagpipes. Poems 1979–2009]. Translated by Ioan Radin Peianov. Timișoara: Brumar, 2009.

In-between Local Identity and National Artistic Heritage. A Case Study: Naive Painting from Uzdin Diana M ihuț

Introduction Uzdin is a Serbian village, situated in the South Banat District, part of the Covăcița commune. Uzdin is one of the most representative villages inhabited by Romanians from Serbia, characterized by persistence and prosperity. In general, Uzdin inhabitants are known for their perpetual willingness to become involved in carrying out artistic manifestations. Thus, Uzdin is the cradle for numerous cultural events representative of the Romanian community in Serbia. Villagers’ attachment to their traditions has made possible the appearance of poetry valorizing the local dialect, of various dancing ensembles, traditional music orchestras, theater groups, and naïve artists. These numerous performers are organized in various associations that locals used to call societăți, or societies. Some of the cultural activities carried out by these associations have gradually transformed Uzdin into an important symbol of Banat. The societăți take every opportunity to display publicly their creative activities (poems in dialect, traditional dances and / or songs, clothing or decorative fabrics, paintings, traditional food products, handicrafts, etc.) and to visually present themselves using one of the most important symbols of Uzdin: the traditional costume.1 Characterized by an exaggerated mixture of colors and richly decorated, the traditional costume from Uzdin is shown off with every possible occasion, as a sign of local identity. Thus, for Uzdin villagers, the traditional costume indicates more than an ethnic identity

See also Otilia Hedeșan, Luai Uzdinu de-amăruntul. Amintirile unei povestitoare prodigioase: Mărioara Sârbu. [Take Uzdinu in detail. The memories of the prodigious storyteller: Marioara Sabru] Timișoara: Editura Universității de Vest, 2015.

1

336

Diana M ihu ț

(Romanian), it proves a local identity (Romanian from Uzdin). Another complex cultural phenomenon, with a similar identity feature specific to Uzdin, is represented by the emergence here of naïve painting in direct relation with the rich decoration of the traditional costume that has served as a source of inspiration. This form of art form was developed in Uzdin within the last half-century within a specific context and it played a significant part in transforming Uzdin into a community considered representative for Romanians in Serbia. Thus, naïve painting ensured a bridge between Romanians from Vojvodina and Romania within the last half-century, through the exhibitions and different cultural events where painters were invited or where their paintings were exhibited. The current chapter explores naïve painting in Uzdin as a defining practice for the community, focusing on a specific field research experience that has revealed several constant themes related to understanding naïve painting as a representative local practice.2 My first direct contact with female naïve painters form Uzdin was in June 2014 when I was part of a research team at the West University of Timișoara, which had to produce a short video documentary on this topic. The team I was part of consisted of students and researchers from the university. The initial plan was to record exclusively Ileana Oalge and Sofia Ionașcu, as they formed an indisputable core in practicing this art. However, as a team of students was carrying out extensive field research in Romanian communities from Central Banat, we asked for their support in identifying additional community impressions on this phenomenon, which were meant to support our research. I found out that the painting practice is recognized by Uzdin villagers as a profession of great honor, with the female painters being highly valued in their community of origin.



I would like to thank Professor Otilia Hedeșan, Ph.D., West University of Timișoara and Corina Popa, Ph.D., with whom I carried out an important part of field research used in the elaboration of the current chapter. Ana Niculina Ursulescu helped me with precious information related to materials produced by Radio-televizija Vojvodine and assisted me to obtain part of these materials. Professor Brândușa Armanca, Ph.D., facilitated me obtaining the documentaries produced by her for TVR Timișoara. Priceless collaboration with Muzej Naivne i Marginalne Umetnosti Jagodina was the result of the dedication that Marica Vračević and Ivana Jovanovic had for the subject of naïve painting in Uzdin. One more time, I thank Otilia Hedeșan for the kind and patient coordination of my postdoctoral research at the West University of Timișoara. Nevertheless, my interest in this subject would not have been the same without charismatic, helpful, and patient old naïve painters Sofia Ionașcu and Ileana Oalge. My full gratitude goes to them as well as to all the other informants that helped me in documenting this cultural phenomenon.

2

Between Local Identity and National Artistic Heritage

337

As I was attempting to locate other potential naive painters willing to speak with our team, I learned about the existence of another group of naïve painters, less known to the Romanian (from Romania) public, that mainly differentiated itself through style and theme. As a result, our team conducted interviews with representatives of each of the three identified groups, either via video or audio, which lasted between 20 and 80 minutes, as follows: (1) Aurora Velici, June 25, 2014, Uzdin, video interview led by Otilia Hedeșan; (2) Sofia Ionașcu, June 25, 2014, Uzdin, video interview led by Diana Mihuț; (3) Trifu and Viorica Șoșdean, June 25, 2014, Uzdin, audio interview led by Corina Popa and (4) Ileana Oalge, June 26, 2014, Zrenjanin, video interview led by Otilia Hedeșan. Following this intriguing initial research, I continued my documentation by not only consulting specialized literature, but through on-site visits to museums, galleries or exhibitions related to naïve painting in former Yugoslavia, where I carried out short formal or informal interviews with specialists, painters, exhibition curators, etc.. Jagodina, Zagreb, Hlebine, Kovačica, Trebnje and Radovljica are just several examples in this regard. I was preoccupied with understanding how the communities where naïve painting schools have emerged built a specific image on themselves, meant to underline the uniqueness of the art. I had previously worked on a short study focusing on the community self-assumption of the naïve painting in Uzdin,3 but I had never considered an integrative analysis of different points of view focusing on this topic. Hence, I will try to go one step further and to underline here several features of the Uzdin naïve painting phenomenon as an equally imposed and self-assumed identity-generator.

Naive Painting in Uzdin: A Brief History The term naive was used for the first time in France at the end of the eighteenth century, as opposed to academic. Therefore, naïve was referring to the creations of authors who did not take any professional or academic courses. Naïve artists were autodidacts who, in a self-learning effort, succeeded in building their style both in terms of painting techniques and themes. Consequently, these works of art are inspired by the creator’s living environment, including the folklore or the traditional practices associated with the

Otilia Hedeșan and Diana Mihuț. “O analiză de caz: ‘pictorițele de la Uzdin.’ Desenarea contextelor culturale și metodologic.” [A case study. The painters from Uzdin. Drawing cultural and methodological contexts] in Cultura populară la români: context istoric și specific cultural [Romanian traditional culture: historical and cultural context], edited by Cornel Bălosu, Nicolae Mihai Craiova, 169–179. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2014.

3

338

Diana M ihu ț

artist’s community. Particularly, naïve art has found a fertile soil for its development in the territory of the former Yugoslavia which has encouraged artists to practice this new form of art.4 Thus, in the 60s, two famous museums ded­ icated to naive art were found in Yugoslavia. The first was set in Jagodina after hosting a gallery of self-learning artists.5 The second was set in Zagreb6 and had organized an exhibition of peasant painters. Lately, these two museums became relevant not only for Yugoslavia but also for the entire Balkan region. In addition, the organization in August–November 1966 of the first naive art triennial in Bratislava placed naive painting in an official context that contributed decisively to its international recognition as a new form of art. Conceived as a new way of artistic expression, naive art flourishes as technological progress and the occidental lifestyle approached the rather conservative southeast communist European space. Local communities, notably the traditional ones, started to fight against the fundamental changes they began to experience through different means, including art. Therefore, naive painting started to be more appreciated in the 50s. The development of a peasantry-based working-class also played an important role in the rising popularity of this form of artistic expression. Since naïve art is inspired both by rural and urban realities, from poetical realism or romanticism to almost surrealism, a series of naive painters quickly became famous. In a parallel with the development of their creative activity, these artists were also founders of naïve painting schools in their hometowns or villages, where they carried out different autodidactic experiments meant to define their artistic style. Once these painting techniques were learned, naïve painters started to share knowledge with other potentially talented villagers. The most talented of them embraced this art becoming practitioners and thus founding different naïve painting schools. Given the autodidact character of this type of art, the main difference between the painting schools is not necessarily the paintings’ creation technique that the artists appropriated to themselves intuitively, but rather the universe depicted within the art, inspired by the painters’ life experiences. Therefore, the main themes of naïve painters who originated from a variety of places are essentially similar. The pictures often portray

Pavle Ivić, The History of Serbian Culture, Porthill Publishers, 1995. Nina Krstić, Naivna i marginalna umetnost u Srbije / L’art naïf et marginal de Serbie / Naïve and Marginal Art in Serbia, Muzej Naivne i Marginalne Umetnosti, Jagodina, 2007 & Nina Krstić, Muzej naivne i marginalne umetnosti 1960–2015 / Museum of Naïve and Marginal Art 1960–2015 (Muzej Naivne i Marginalne Umetnosti Jagodina, 2015). 6 Vladimir Crnković, The Croatian Museum of Naive Art (Croatian Museum of Naive Art, Zagreb, 2011). 4 5

Between Local Identity and National Artistic Heritage

339

patriarchal rural life scenes, which differ from community to community, especially given the contrasting ethnical and religious affiliations. From this point of view, of Yugoslavia’s four big naive picture centers, the one in Uzdin manifests most deeply the characteristics of folklore art.7 The female painters from Uzdin render rural life-specific elements, customs, or folk mythology elements. Hence, the world that naïve painters from Uzdin portray on their canvas is to be found between their household and agricultural obligations. They don’t copy the life they lived, but depict it subjectively, equating it to a perpetual present that overlaps the authors’ youth. The case analysis below is based on field observations and interviews with the last two famous living naïve painters from Uzdin who insisted on the importance of their life experience and of memory in creating their paintings. Thus, the practice of naïve painting anchors the artists in a familiar and comfortable reality, a refuge from the modern world’s invasion: a new form of artistic expression overlapping the abundance of numerous cultural activities meant to publicly expose the richness of traditional art. It may represent an explanation for why, of all the Romanian villages of Voivodina, naïve painting emerged precisely in Uzdin. The emergence of naive painting from Uzdin is based on several legends that turn the appearance of this complex cultural element into almost a myth. Field research has revealed several such stories that push the boundaries of credibility. However, a clear chronology records the most important moments in shaping this practice. Certainly, the most talented and innovative person was Anuica Măran8who, for reasons that remain unknown, began using oil colors to decorate fabrics. Thus, somewhere in the middle of the ‘50s (most likely 1956) Anuica Măran began to paint various ornaments on traditional aprons—cotrânțe—and initiated Maria Bălan, her friend, in this technique. In the spring of 1961, Adam Doclean, the art teacher at the Uzdin school, realized that the aprons they were wearing were not sewn or woven, but painted. Consequently, he noticed the talent that the two young women had. As a result, he encouraged them to start painting, taking care of all the raw materials needed for such an endeavor. Meanwhile, other students were given homework to complete some paintings they started at school, and some of them were helped by talented mothers or grandmothers. Thus, Adam Doclean also discovers the talent of Marăriora Motorojescu, Sofia Doclean or Anuța

Marica Vračević, Naivna umetnost uzdina / Artă naivă de la Uzdin / Naive art of Uzdin (Jagodina: Muzej Naivne i Marginalne Umetnosti, 2014). 8 Barbu, Elena-Maria, Barbu, Vasile (coord.), Cartea de aur a picturii naive de la Uzdin (Contribuții la monografie) [The golden book of naïve painting from Uzdin (Contributions to the monograp)], (Uzdin, Editura Tibiscus, 2012). 7

340

Diana M ihu ț

Dolamă. Hence, a group of five talented women was formed. By the autumn of 1961, this group managed to complete some satisfactory paintings, so that Adam Doclean encouraged them to continue painting, constantly guiding them. One of his major interventions was related to support in choosing the theme of the paintings. The suggestion he made was that female painters let themselves be inspired by their own life experiences, a piece of advice that the women followed immediately. Consequently, they began to paint scenes inspired by the life of the traditional village, with special care for rendering graphic motifs specific to the home textile industry in Uzdin. This was the moment when the five women begin to define their style, from which the predilection for rich ornamentation strongly influenced by the local traditional costume stands out. In 1962, their first group exhibition took place, organized in Vrsac by the Libertatea Publishing House, but its reverberations did not live up to Adam Doclean’s expectations. However, he encouraged the women to keep painting and improve their techniques. In the meantime, the art teacher managed to mediate the organization of a group exhibition at the Belgrade Cultural Center Gallery in March 1963. This time, the group from Uzdin (to which Florica Cheț had also joined) had a huge surprise: all the paintings on display were sold, and one of those signed by Mărioara Motorojescu was shipped abroad. This success in Belgrade was equated to the acceptance of the Uzdin naïve painters’ group into the community of naive artists in Yugoslavia. Following their returnto Uzdin, the painters began to enjoy basic forms of recognition in the community of origin. The Naive Painting Gallery in Uzdin was inaugurated in November 1963, and the six painters who had exhibited in Belgrade were joined by Florica Puia, Viorica Epure, Steluța Țăran, and Ana Onciu. Immediately after the founding of the Uzdin gallery, locals started to be interested in what the group of women was creating. Thus, when organizing the traditional Sunday hore dances, the locals started to enter, timidly, inside the gallery to admire the paintings created by their female villagers. In 1963, Slavco Almăjan produced the documentary Uzdin, the first naïve village in the world. From then on, the gates were open to Uzdin female painters who started exhibiting not only in Yugoslavia, but also abroad. Their participation at these events were either in situ or simply through their paintings which were shipped and exhibited. After 1970, the group was joined by the younger painters Sofia Ionașcu and Ileana Oalge. It was the moment when the strong core of the painters reached twelve women. However, the emergence of naïve painting in Uzdin was not an isolated artistic phenomenon as the community understands and presents today. The phenomenon should be related to the debut of several specific naïve painting

Between Local Identity and National Artistic Heritage

341

schools in Yugoslavia. The specificity of naïve painting school in Uzdin is not represented by the singularity of its actual practice, but precisely from the place it has in a broader context. The ethnic diversity was a favorable context for a type of involuntary competition between the Yugoslavian naive painting centers to define specific styles and themes, that would guarantee coveted authenticity, starting with the beehive painting in Slovenia. Later, in the first half of the twentieth century, famous naïve painting schools emerged in Hlebine, Oparić, Kovačica, Novi Becej or Uzdin. The institutional background was also a clue to the importance that naive art played in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Numerous galleries or museums were built around this phenomenon, along with numerous local naïve painting galleries, either public or private. Relevant for the Uzdin school was the Naive Painting Gallery of the Cultural Center “Doina”. In 2015, it owned 78 paintings belonging to the following naive painters, more or less known: Patricija Almajan, Maria Bălan, Sofia Bosică, Viorica Bosică, Florica Cheț, Anuța Dolamă, Viorica Epure, Stela Giura, Sofia Ionașcu, Todor Ionașcu, Nikolaje Kojkeč Anuica Măran, Adam Mezin, Linka Mezin, Mărioara Motorojescu, Ileana Oalge, Ana Onciu, Florica Puia, Ion Rămianțu, Adina Maria Suboni, Stela Suboni, Ofelia Spăriosu, Steluța Țăran. The “Doina” Cultural Center provided the painters the necessary institutional context to participate in exhibitions either in the country or abroad, especially since Adam Doclean was the director of this institution for a short time. On the one hand, his position facilitated the establishment of links with decision-making entities, and, on the other hand, it provided the necessary physical space to create the collection of naive paintings resulting from donations made by the authors.

Naive Painting and Fabrics In 2014, Ileana Oalge and Sofia Ionașcu welcomed us into the most beautiful room of the house—camera din față—reserved only for important guests, and where they exhibited some of the paintings and fabrics sewn or woven by themselves or their predecessors. In addition, both were wearing the traditional costume from Uzdin of which they were very proud. It was the mandatory outfit to wear in formal contexts, not only as a local identity brand, but also as a symbol of the connection between the traditional local costume and naïve painting. Albums, books and newspaper articles with the focus on the recognition of the exceptional character of naive painting in Uzdin, and of their own works, were exposed. The visitor was introduced to the creative universe of the female painters from Uzdin emphasizing several events related to the history of the phenomenon, underlined by photos taken during the

342

Diana M ihu ț

exhibitions, monographs or magazine articles. Regardless of the context, all photos illustrate female naïve painters wearing the traditional costume from Uzdin. Hence, clothing represents a recognition criterion, as Sofia Ionașcu states: That’s how we walked, like soldiers in a row, but each dressed differently, wearing a coat, a thick coat called mincie, that was a must, every winter. I was a young girl, and I didn’t have mincie. The furrier had to make a mincie for me before Christmas. So, he came to my house, with three bobbins like that; with this type of thread and said: “I may finish your mincie by Christmas if you help me to weave this”; I said: “Well, I’ll help you, let’s just finish it by Christmas.” And I did so. That’s why I didn’t sleep at night, for my furrier to finish my mincie, because us, the female painters, all had to be dressed the same. In the end, everyone was amazed: where were we from?!9

Sofia Ionașcu’s statement indicates both the (self) perception of how naïve painters prepared themselves for every public appearance as well as the public’s expectation regarding their appearance. This story is narrated to emphasize the difficulty of obtaining a specific cloth item that provides identity. Wearing mincie is specific for Uzdin inhabitants in ceremonious contexts. Mincie is meant to underline their local identity, so that naïve painters themselves had to obey this unwritten rule. Since clothing was a defining characteristic starting with the first generation of painters, Ileana Oalge and Sofia Ionașcu prove an excessive concern for their own appearance. Moreover, they desire to publicly display promotional materials revealing their work as evidence of international recognition which is the result of love, care, and respect for tradition and community. They involuntarily create a specific setting for the video interview: female painters have another important community responsibility, besides artistic creation. The naïve artist is obliged to preserve and transfer to future generations intangible and tangible cultural heritage assets specific to the community they represent. Naïve female painters from Uzdin have the advantage of one of the most defining and visible local identity brands, namely the traditional costume.



In original: “Așa am mers, ca cătanele în șir, dar fiecare tot altfel îmbrăcată, dar cu bundă, cu mincie, asta o fost obligatoriu, în fiecare iarnă. Eu am fost tânără fată și n-am avut și trebuia să-mi facă și mie cojocarul ăsta una la un Crăciun. Și o venit cojocarul la mine acasă, cu trei mosoare așa … de fir de-ăsta și zice: ‘eu poate că-ți gat mincia până la Crăciun, dacă mă ajuți să împletesc asta;’ zic: ‘bine, te ajut, numai să o terminăm până la Crăciun.’ Și așa am făcut; pentru asta n-am dormit nopțile, ca să-mi termine cojocarul mincia mea, că o trebuit să mergem și noi, pictorițele, trebuia să fim toate o formă. S-or minunat toți că de unde ni-s …”

9

Between Local Identity and National Artistic Heritage

343

The analysis of the main themes that their works of art address is the second topic that the two painters underline. They are aware of the existence of several recurring themes in their paintings. Thus, they try to list these themes and describe their importance in connection with old rural life: the traditional costume (especially the feminine one, much more clearly differentiated according to age), the bride, moments of the nuptial ritual, the calendar of agricultural work, the old-fashioned life of the village and the social relations involved, rites of passage, etc.. All these scenes are portrayed in paintings through strong colors that illustrate the dynamics of a certain manner of living, specific to traditional communities. The story describes the reality from which the artist is inspired and emphasizes the picturesque and exceptional moment lived and later rendered on canvas. The two informants narrate with glimmers in their eyes their life experiences: first dance (intrarea în horă), their own wedding, motherhood, agricultural works, or other personal experiences lived in a traditional environment, and which are their sources of inspiration. Such an attitude represents positive thinking that is rendered on canvas, suggesting a community’s general happiness. There is a very thin line between the description of a painting and the evocation of the past that inspired it. Through successive retellings, this past becomes an idyllic reality. Thus, the discourse slides very easily from the artistic creation to reality and later to narrative fiction.

Naive Painting, Gender Identity and Founding Myth(s) The evocation of the founding myth of naïve painting in Uzdin is also frequent. Even if it is not explicitly requested, the two informants identify the best context to stress the difficulties encountered by the first female painters during the earliest days of artistic activity. In fact, Sofia Ionașcu begins her story by introducing herself in direct relation with the first painters: My name is Sofia Ionașcu and I am a female painter from Uzdin; in fact, I am a peasant, as I live in a village. In addition to the obligations of the house, like leisure, I paint. I’ve been painting since I was a girl. When I was a student at our school, a group of six women started painting. I didn’t know anything; I was small, I didn’t know; I thought that oil colors are tempera. The Drawing and Art teacher encouraged me: he brought me some oil colors, some canvas and told me to paint what I want. He also told me that after I finished the painting, I would take it to school, to his office. When he saw the painting, he was amazed and said, “Well done, keep going!”10

10

In original: “Mă numesc Sofia Ionașcu și sunt pictoriță din Uzdin; de altfel, sunt țărancă așa, ca la sat. Pe lângă obligațiile casei, ca la țară, în timpul liber, mă ocup cu pictura. Am început să pictez de când eram fată. Pe când eram elevă la noi la școală,

344

Diana M ihu ț

When I ask about the origins of naïve painting in Uzdin, she states that: Every commencement is difficult. A woman in the village did not dare to start painting. I don’t know what kind of crisis was at that time, around 61–62, and they were painting flowers on the kerchief (năframă), on the apron (cătrânță), or on what else they may have found. But … when they were painting, they were hiding, so that their husbands not to see them. The women worked at night: they hid their colors; they hid their paintings. But, when it was discovered that they were working, at the initiative of the drawing teacher, exhibitions started to be organized: the first exhibition was in Vrsac. I was not working then; I was at school. And when the families saw that the paintings were sold out and the poor women came home with money, they let them paint: “You should just work!” But who knows for how long they have been working hidden?!11

On the other hand, Ileana Oalge narrates how her grandmother, Anuica Măran, accidentally started to paint: She went to Zrenjanin and entered a store where different dyes were sold. And she saw some students buying oil colors. Since she was a woman interested in everything, she asked those youngsters: “What do you do with these colors?”; they said: “We paint!”; she: “What are you painting on?”; them: “On the canvas (pânză)!”; she: “On fabric (pânză)?!”; they said: “Yes!” Thus, she found out about the possibility to paint on a canvas. Yet she didn’t know that they are painters, and she imagined that they were painting on clothes, such as a dress or an apron. She came home, bought some colors, and started painting. The first time she hid the colors in the hay so that no one would see her. At that time—50 years ago—it was very embarrassing to be a painter in Uzdin.12 unele femei, un grup de femei-șase-au început să picteze. Eu nu știam nimic, eram mică, nu știam: credeam că culorile cu ulei sunt tempera. M-a îndemnat profesorul de desen, de artă plastică: mi-a adus acasă câteva culori, puțină pânză și mi-a spus că să pictez ce vreau eu și că, după ce termin tabloul, să-l duc la școală, la cancelarie. Când l-a văzut s-a minunat și mi-a spus: ‘ei, bravo, continuă, continuă!” 11 In original: “Cum să spun … Tot începutul e greu. O femeie la sat nu a îndrăznit să se apuce să picteze. Nu mai știu ce criză era pe-atunci, prin 61–62 și pictau flori pe năframă sau cătrânță sau pe plici sau pe ce mai știu eu ce. Dar … când au pictat … cum să spun eu: s-au ascuns, ca să nu vadă bărbatul și lucrau noaptea: și-au ascuns culorile, și-au ascuns tablourile. Dar, când s-a descoperit că ele lucră, la inițiativa profesorului de desen, s-au organizat și expoziții: prima expoziție era la Vârșeț: eu nu lucram atunci, eram la școală. Iar când au văzut familiile că picturile s-au vândut și bietele femei au venit cu bani acasă. Atunci le-au dat liber: ‘no, numa’ să lucrați!’ Dar cine știe câtă vreme au lucrat ele așa, ascunse.” 12 In original: “S-o dus la Zrenjanin și o intrat unde or fost fărburi, culori. Și o văzut niște studenți care or cumpărat culori. Și ea, cum era o femeie interesată de tot lucrul, o întrebat copiii ăia: ‘Copii la baba, dar ce faceți voi cu culorile astea?’; ei: ‘Babo, pictăm!’; ea: ‘Pe ce pictați voi?’; ei: ‘Pe pânză!’; ea: ‘Păi cum pe pânză?’; ei: ‘Păi pe pânză pictăm! Ei, și ea așa o prins de la ei, că se pictează pe pânză, numai că nu o

Between Local Identity and National Artistic Heritage

345

In fact, the incident in Zrenjanin was generated by a misunderstanding based on partial knowledge of the meanings of the word “pânză”. In Romanian, “pânză” defines both the fabric used in the textile industry, as well as the canvas used for paintings. But, according to Ileana Oalge’s story, it was precisely this misunderstanding that represents the commencement of painting as a specific cultural phenomenon for Uzdin, since her grandmother was the first woman to “mix” colors and fabric / canvas. Ileana Oalge continues her story by confessing the crucial role that the Drawing and Art teacher, Adam Doclean, had in establishing the hard core of the first naïve painters from Uzdin. He managed to establish here a veritable school of naïve painting: One day, on March 8th, she went to our school to give gifts to the teacher. It was not something expensive, but rather symbolic. She painted for my kindergarten teacher a traditional pillowcase, called căpătâni. Adam Doclean, who was a drawing teacher, saw her. You should know that the villagers used to call her Dădica, even though her name was Anuica Măran. Adam Doclean asked my grandmother: “Dădica, what is that, in your hand?” She said: “A pillowcase, it is a gift for March 8th for my granddaughter kindergarten teacher.” He: “Can I see it?” She: “Why not?!” Adam Doclean liked very much that pillowcase, on which my grandmother has painted flowers and he said: “Very beautiful! What you like to start painting? On canvas, with a wooden frame.” She said, “Well, I don’t know, I haven’t tried such a thing!” Adam Doclean brought her a canvas completely prepared for starting to paint and said: “Look here, Dădică, paint!” Then, she asked: “What should I paint?” He said: “What do you want?” She answered: “I would paint my life!” And so, she began to paint on canvas.13

This is just one example of how painters imagine the beginning of naïve painting in Uzdin. The dialogues and events they evoke are picturesque and știut că ei sunt pictori, și-o închipuit că pe pânza de pe cotrință, pe poale. A venit acasă, și-o cumpărat culori și a început să picteze. Prima dată a ascuns culorile în fân, să nu vadă nimeni, că la Uzdin o fost tare rușine că să fii pictoriță pe vremea aia, acum 50 de ani.” 13 In original: “Într-o zi, s-o dus, de un 8 martie, la noi la școală s-or dus cadouri la învățătoare: nu lucruri mari, decât, iaca, un lucru mic. Ea o pictat un căpătâni mic la învățătoare, că iaca, io am mers la grădiniță. Adam Doclean, care era profesor de desen, o văzut-o-ei i se spunea Dădica; o chema Anuica Măran, dar toată lumea în sat îi spunea Dădica-și o întrebat: ‘Dădico, ce-ai tu pe mână, aci? Ea spune: ‘Un căpătâni, duc la învățătoare de 8 martie! ’ el: ‘Pot să-l văd? ea: ‘De ce nu?!’ Când l-o arătat, cu flori, o fost, ca un căpătâni, adică, Adam Doclean o zis: ‘Tare frumos! Dar nu ai putea să pictezi tu? Pe pânză, cu ramă.’ Ea o zis: ‘Păi nu știu, io n-am probit așa ceva!’ Adam Doclean i-o adus pânză, preparată gata, cu ramuri, cu totul și i-o zis: ‘Uite aici, Dădică, pictează!’ ea o întrebat: ‘Ce să pictez?’ el o zis: ‘Ce tu vrei!’ Și ea o răspuns: ‘Io îmi pictez viața mea!’ Și așa o început să picteze pe pânză întinsă pe ramuri.”

346

Diana M ihu ț

exciting for a native Romanian speaker which fully understands the particularity of the dialect. The passion when talking about the beginning of painting in Uzdin and the self-confidence of the speaker carry the interlocutor in Anuica Măran’s world at the time she decided to put the first colors on a canvas. No one knows her real reason for this decision. Both the memories of the older painters and the monographs dedicated to the phenomenon mention some common realities, although in different forms. Undoubtedly, Anuica Măran started painting on fabrics, and only later on canvas. The reason that pushed her to paint on fabrics may be related to the crisis of the textile threads necessary for weaving or sewing, the desire to experiment as an effect of the misunderstanding that Ileana Oalge remembers, or, simply, the elect of her creativity. But if it weren’t for Adam Doclean who taught her how to paint on canvas and gather a group of other talented women around her, we probably wouldn’t be talking about a naïve painting school in Uzdin today. Thus, not only Ileana Oalge evokes Adam Doclean as a founding hero; he is unanimously recognized as the initiator of this artistic movement. However, the two naïve painters avoid speaking about Adam Doclean as a villager, despite the repeated and insistent questions I ask them both. Adam Doclean is preserved in the community’s memory as an important person from Uzdin, but no one reflects on his life story. The mythical time of the emergence of naïve painting in Uzdin overlaps with the first steps that Anuica Măran unconsciously takes in this regard. In fact, the references on Anuica Măran’s debut in painting are one of the few objective temporal references. The two informants do not provide chronological references when speaking about important events in the history of naïve painting from Uzdin but rather provide time references related to their own private life. The existence of personal stories related to the beginning of the painting practice is another feature of female painters’ speech. Thus, both Sofia Ionașcu and Ileana Oalge state that they started to paint following someone’s advice and based on the encouragement of Adam Doclean who insisted that each should paint what she had experienced. Moreover, Sofia Ionașcu declares that her debut as a painter is related to one of the moments often cited by Uzdin inhabitants as relevant for the history of their village: There is a very interesting story in Uzdin, on February 23, 1972, under Tito’s regime. Apollo 15 crew visited Uzdin. At that time, foreign artists were coming to Belgrade, to make movies. Among them were James Irvin and David Scott who came with their wives. Uzdin was like a center of culture, recognized at the national level. One of the sayings was: “Oh, my God, Uzdin was visited by the men on the moon” (she laughs). When visited Uzdin, they were also at our gallery; from the gallery, they went to Florica Puia’s house and they returned to Belgrade and then back to America, taking with them paintings from Uzdin.

Between Local Identity and National Artistic Heritage

347

I told this story to my mother-in-law and my husband, and she encouraged me: “Sofia, why don’t you try to paint something for us?!” Well, that’s what I did: I started painting and took some paintings to the gallery, to the school chancellery, to the school director. I was immediately well-received everywhere, I was well received by the other painters, even though I was the youngest, I was 22 at the time. My husband considered that I should paint, my mother-in-law also. Consequently, I started to exhibit both in the country and abroad.14

Ileana Oalge talks about her debut as a naïve painter evoking a moment in her personal history related to the danger that the public had forgotten that Anuica Măran, her grandmother, was the first naïve painter in Uzdin: I haven’t painted until my grandmother was no longer alive, although she asked me: “My daughter, you should start painting. I would help you if there is something you don’t know. Nobody knows everything from the beginning.” Like grandmother, like granddaughter. But I just couldn’t paint. I didn’t feel in my heart—that I needed to paint. How did I start painting? My grandmother died in 1982. I started painting in 1985 when I saw that the people were forgetting her. They no longer said that Anuica Măran was the first painter in Uzdin, but Maria Bălan or whatever (…) and I thought about my grandmother and how to bring her back to people’s attention. She was the very first painter; neither Maria Bălan, nor Mărioara Motorojescu, none. They all came gradually; she was the first. (…) Then I said to my husband: “I would like to start painting.” He didn’t stop me: “Do what you want! I had nine paintings prepared by my grandmother; I just had to finish them. My grandfather had given my grandma’s colors to another painter, from the neighborhood, but my father brought me other oil colors from Romania and everything necessary to start painting.”15

In original: “O fost o poveste foarte interesantă în Uzdin, în 23 februarie 1972, când a poposit, chiar la Uzdin, Apolo 15, pe vremea lui Tito. Pe vremea aceea, veneau la noi la Belgrad artiști din străinătate, filmau filme, printre care și aceștia, James Irvin și David Scott, au venit cu soțiile. Ei, la noi, Uzdinul nostru o fost un centru de cultură; s-o povestit pe la colțuri: ‘Doamne-Doamne, că la noi or fost și ăi dă pră lună!’ (râde) or fost la noi la galerie; de la galerie au fost la pictorița Florica Puia și, normal, după aceea s-au întros la Belgrad și apoi înapoi în America, cu picturi de la noi. Și eu le-am povestit la ai mei, la soț și la mama (la soacra mea). Și ea zice: ‘Doamne, Doamne, Sofio, dar de ce nu pictezi tu ceva și pentru noi?!’ Ei bine, și eu așa am făcut: m-am apucat de pictură și am dus câteva tablouri și la noi la galerie, la cancelarie, la domnul director. Am fost bine primită peste tot, am fost bine primită și de celelalte pictorițe, eu eram cea mai tânără, aveam 22 de ani la vremea aceea. Soțul a fost de părere că să lucru; mama (soacra mea), la fel și au început să îmi meargă expozițiile și în țară și în străinătate.” 15 In original: Eu n-am pictat până bunica mea o fost pictoriță, cu toate că s-o rugat de mine: ‘Pictează, fata mea, mai îți ajut și io dacă ceva nu știi, că nimeni nu știe.’ Știiți cum, ca bunica și nepoata. N-am putut să pictez: n-am simțit în inima mea că am nevoie să pictez. Dar cum am început să pictez? Bunica mea o murit în anul 1982. Și eu am început în anul 1985 să pictez, când am văzut că o zăuită lumea. Nu mai 14

348

Diana M ihu ț

Different personal stories on how each of the two women started painting become similar again when it comes to the images they render on canvas. Thus, like Anuica Măran, both painters state that they started painting to call attention to their own life experiences. They started to portray their own memories and life, according to their feelings, as Anuica Măran had done at the urging of Professor Adam Doclean. Ileana Oalge remembers in detail how the first painting she created looked like, inspired by her personal situation at that time: My first painting: my room and my mother-in-law, together with me, in the evening. At that time, I was employed at the shoe factory. In the evening, I was usually working on shoes, and she was usually spinning. Thus, I figured that my mother-in-law was spinning, and I was working on the shoes. (…) I had a painting with a shoe, and I came out of the shoe with the painting in my hand (…) That meant that I would like to paint, and not continue handcrafting.16

Like any other naive painting center, most famous painters from Uzdin are aware of the existing similarities between the realities rendered on their canvas. Themes are recurring and the paintings are extremely similar due to the rural environment in which the artists live and from which they are inspired. Thus, the two painters feel compelled to explain why each creation is unique. They justify the multitude of options from which the painter can choose when she decides to illustrate a certain theme in such a way that she does not fall into the trap of plagiarism or even self-plagiarism: I am in front of a white canvas: I look at it and I imagine how it is going to look like when it is ready. I render on the canvas all the things I love. Whatever the theme, painting means to describe different realities. Let’s take for example the wedding: it has numerous moments that can be illustrated in a painting: spring,

spuneau că o început Anuica Măran să picteze prima, numa Maria Bălan sau ce știu eu care. […] Și m-am gândit io așa, cum să fac să-mi amintesc de bunica și cum să fac să spun io la lumea care vine la mine că prima o fost bunica mea, Anuica Măran, nu o fost Maria Bălan, nici Mărioara Motorojescu, nicicare. Toate or venit treptat, ea o fost prima […] și atunci i-am zis la soț: ‘Aș vrea să încep să pictez.’ el nu m-o oprit: ‘Fă ce vrei!’ De la bunica mea am avut nouă tablouri pregătite, numai să pictez pe ele, culorile le-o dat moșul meu la alt pictor care o fost din vecini, dar mi-o adus tatăl meu altele, vă spun, din România, că atunci s-o mers în România și mi-o adus și culori, și ulei și de toate mi-o adus tatăl meu.” 16 In original: “Prima mea pictură: camera și soacra mea, cu mine, cum stăm sara la șezătoare. Eu, pe vreme aia, am fost angajată la fabrica de pantofi. Eu am lucrat la pantofi și ea o tors, dar io mi-am închipuit că soacra mea toarce și eu lucrez la pantofi. […] Am avut o pictură cu un pantof și din pantof am ieșit eu cu pictura în mână […] vreau să mă duc în sus acuma cu pictura, nu cu lucrul de mână.”

Between Local Identity and National Artistic Heritage

349

winter or summer motifs, dance motifs like hora or ardelene; the road towards the church for the Christian wedding ceremony together with the best men, wedding guests on the road from the Church back home, stăghiș custom.17 (Sofia Ionașcu) I want to tell you that all paintings are similar. A wedding is always a wedding. For example, painting a socializing moment that we call givan. It is a common socializing moment. Still, each painter portrayed it as he or she imagined givan would look like. It is obvious that all the women in Uzdin have spent similar lives. As my grandmother lived, so did Mărioara Motorojescu, Sofia Doclean and Sofia Ionașcu.18 (Ileana Oalge).

Underlying gender identity is specific to the official speech on naïve painting in Uzdin. It seems that only women paint in Uzdin since they are believed to have more leisure time. In addition, they are more sensitive and master much better the secrets of creating such richly ornamented clothing. But this predilection of peasant women for painting has initially generated persecution from their families, namely their husbands who disregarded this talent. There are many stories about the first painters who needed to hide their oil colors or paint hidden in the attic. This harassment lasted until families became aware of the potential material benefits resulting from selling the pictures. However, even after its recognition in the community, painting remained rather a backup job, a hobby carried out complementary to domestic occupations. Considering the complexity of the above mentioned context, the gender specificity of Uzdin’s school of naïve painting issues not only from the pragmatic components already stated, but also from the fact that the first person who painted in Uzdin was a woman. Fifty years ago, the community understood painting as particularly feminine work. In addition, naïve painting entails imitation of reality both in terms of theme rendered on canvas and in terms of artistic execution. Nevertheless, in Uzdin, naïve painting was characterized by its rich ornaments and the use of vivid colors, which is another characteristic of the traditional costume. In original: “Pun în fața mea o pânză albă și mă uit la ea și știu cum aș vrea să fie când va fi gata: pun acolo ce îmi place mie. Pictura, oricare ar fi tema, să spunem nunta—la noi se poate face nunta în diferite feluri: fel de fel, ai motive și de primăvară, și de iarnă, și de vară, și că joacă, și cu zestre, și de cununie, un dans îi cu horă, unul cu ardelene, unul îi cu givării că merg la cununie, altul îi că vin de la cununie, una-i cu stăghișul.” 18 In original: “Acuma vreau să vă spun … picturile îs cam toate o formă. Da, din cauză că nunta îi tot nuntă. Un lucru … de exemplu, la givan or făcut: tot la givan îi, numai că o schimbat fiecare cum și-o închipuit că o fost givanul ăla. Așa că toate femeile din Uzdin tot aia or petrecut în viață. Cum o petrecut bunica mea o petrecut și Mărioara Motorojescu, și Sofia Doclean, și Sofia Ionașcu.”

17

350

Diana M ihu ț

Referring to places they have visited and where they have exhibited, the famous painters lay the foundations of a spectacular geography, which later became common for the entire local community. On the one hand prestigious, and on the other exotic, these spaces blend in a remarkable way, as if the events hosted in cities like Vienna, Nissa, Cannes, Timisoara, Arad or Mangalia were on the same scale of international relevance. In addition, exceptional events are kept within community’s memory, almost like local legends, such as the visit of the Apollo 15 crew to Yugoslavia, which had stopped precisely in Uzdin. In addition, the mixture between relatives and villagers or friends, together with generals or ambassadors who came to Uzdin to admire and buy paintings of the famous painters is one of the remarkable ideas that issues from Sofia Ionașcu’s confessions. This attitude proves the appreciation that the villagers have for their own community and its cultural and artistic assets, because of their relevance inthe region. Further, the locals don’t miss any opportunity to emphasize it. A relevant event that Sofia Ionașcu remembers is related to the International Gallery of Naïve Art in Tel Aviv. Sofia Ionașcu was visited by a representative of this gallery who noticed a picture that was illustrating a table tennis match, a sport for which Uzdin was known through the “Unirea” team, whose name appeared on the picture. Of all the displayed paintings, the delegation from Tel Aviv proved to be the most interested in this. They asked Sofia Ionașcu for an explanation regarding its history and symbols. Thus, when asked what “Unirea” means, Sofia Ionașcu answered that “Unirea means for Uzdin what Maccabi means for you”. In fact, for a large village from the plain of Banat, rich, with hardworking and self-conscious people well anchored in their own village reality, such a comparison is not surprising at all.

Naive Painting and Its Recovering Role Aurora Velici, the third persons we interviewed, was eager to begin her speech meant to emphasize the exceptional nature of the work done by the naïve painters from Uzdin. First, she introduces herself as the “president of the Association of Painters, Women Painters and Naïve Art Lovers ‘Anuica Măran’ from Uzdin.”19 Thus, she states that the corpus of art created by the members of her association are “The Bible of the inhabitants from Uzdin. It renders tradition through images and colors, i.e. religion, customs, clothing,



In original: “Asociația Pictorițelor, Pictorilor și Iubitorilor de Artă Naivă ‘Anuica Măran’ din Uzdin”

19

Between Local Identity and National Artistic Heritage

351

and daily life.”20 Aurora Velici is thus more aware of the recording character that the naïve painting from Uzdin has in terms of recording information relevant to a specific lifestyle. Instead, the other two well-known painters underline the existence of a special talent necessary to create the paintings, rather than insisting on the documentary relevance of their paintings. Considering the generation gap between the three female painters, her statement is valid. Thus, for a person who has not experienced herself the realities of traditional life, their documentation is even more important. The interview, therefore, validates the safeguarding feature of naïve painting by recovering an important side of community memory: tradition, religion, customs, clothing, everyday life: “on these canvases we want to keep alive the peasant’s life from Uzdin which disappears day by day.”21 When asked to describe an ordinary day in her life, but in which she paints, Aurora Velici says that she starts her day by feeding her animals early in the morning. Later, she has breakfast like in any regular householder from Uzdin and only after she starts painting. Comparing this statement with other confessions related to the work of the naïve painters, I would conclude that even after painting has become a profession recognized by the entire community, the artists continue to understand it as a secondary job. Naïve painting is almost a hobby since household and agricultural activities come before. It seems that this practice is a paradox. On the one hand, painting is a source of pride, it generates additional income, and, above all, it provides a special form of public recognition in both Romania and Serbia. Thus, naïve painting is related to international appreciation. But these women’s internal community recognition comes from the volume of agricultural and household work performed. Diligence is an indicator of success in a traditional community. Quantity of products obtained using traditional techniques, such as the large number and variety of domestic animals kept, are the preferred unit of measurement in this regard. In fact, traditional costumes, through the rich ornamentation, involve not only raw textile resources but also a large amount of work done by women to produce specific and extremely complex ornaments. We cannot assume that only the villagers from Uzdin had access to certain yarns, fibers, or textile dyes, but we must be aware of the existence of extremely talented and industrious women who created all the richly ornamented garments we see today and recognize as a local symbol. Between

In original: “Biblia uzdinenilor în fotografii și culori fiind redate de altfel tradiția, adică religia, obiceiurile, portul și viața de zi cu zi.” 21 In original: “pe aceste pânze vrem să menținem viața țăranului uzdinean care din zi în zi dispare.”

20

352

Diana M ihu ț

the international recognition (i.e. outsiders, art critics and art lovers) and the internal one considered to be more important by traditional communities (i.e. the insiders, members of the community), painting remains a secondary occupation, even though it generates income. Much as other painters, the main themes that Aurora Velici describes in her paintings are related to what she calls “the life of the peasant from Uzdin”, insofar as she remembers scenes from the past. With no direct experience in this regard, she wants to render these moments on her own canvas. Therefore, she narrates with passion the moment when her sister entered hora wearing the traditional costume from Uzdin. With great satisfaction, she describes that the preparations for this important event in her sister’s life lasted from noon to three o’clock, due to the well-known complexity of the items that compose the traditional costume. Usually, old female painters would have given a lot of technical details related to pieces that make up the traditional costume. They use any opportunity to prove their knowledge in the field. However, Aurora Velici, who is younger, avoids this superfluous information. Instead, she was extremely happy when she had the opportunity to show us the painting meant to illustrate the moment. She is convinced that “any painting is a true story that the artist has lived.”22 Strictly, in this case, it is an indirect experience that the painter had witnessed. The option to reproduce at all costs the public or private rituals specific to the traditional village as pretexts to paint the traditional costume from Uzdin demonstrates the dependence of modern painters on the already imposed models. The practice of painting is thus continued by imitation and not by authentic learning. This makes it difficult to raise awareness towards naïve painting among the new generation. Talking about the naïve painting course dedicated to children and organized by Aurora Velici’s association at that time, she states that the theme is very important for naïve painting, as “traditional costume is a sign of communities’ identity.”23 In general, the creation camps in Uzdin are committed to teaching children what to paint, rather than how to paint. One of the recurring themes of this learning exercise is the focus on the colors and motifs specific to traditional costumes from Uzdin. Nevertheless, the traditional costume is very often an almost unknown reality to the children who attend the naïve painting camps. In fact, Ileana Oalge is aware of the futility of the efforts that rely on such an approach:



22 23

In original: “orice tablou este o poveste adevărată pe care artistul a trăit-o.” In original: “tematica este foarte importantă pentru pictura naivă, întrucât portul popular redă identitatea.

Between Local Identity and National Artistic Heritage

353

There were some boys who went to study at Adam Mezin, but I haven’t heard about any success. Sofia Ionașcu gathered four or five little girls to whom she wanted to show them how to paint. I told you that I have good relations with Sofia because maybe we are the last generation of painters who painted the realities they have lived. Thus, I told her: “Sofia, you can learn them, you can work hard”—because she worked hard with them. The girls are at school, and they just don’t know how to combine the colors, how to obtain new colors, how to prepare them. She worked very hard with them and I told her: “You may work as hard as you want, but if they don’t know the reality you want them to render on canvas, if they don’t feel it, you would not succeed to make them painters.” If they followed Sofia’s school, they have painted. But after that, I didn’t see any of them painting or having an exhibition. If they were under Sofia’s control, they painted. So, I don’t think (…) God forbid, I’d like them to come and tell me (…) But we should let everyone work and render the traditional costume as they imagine; it is not mandatory to follow a specific model but to use our own imagination. Perhaps to look at the photos, to use them, because it’s a pity that our traditional costume dies!24

In other words, Ilena Oalge’s choice is accurate in relation to the principles of naïve art. Thus, she encourages the originality of the artist who finds his source of inspiration in the surrounding reality. Imposing a certain theme, exterior to the cultural code of the artist, pushes him to the limit of naïve art. Moreover, the previous quote underlines, subjectively, the documentary character of naïve painting as a necessity. Thus, this art contributes to recovering those elements of cultural heritage that are defining for the community. For naïve painters from Uzdin, the traditional costume, frequently rendered on their canvases is one of the most important cultural heritage assets to be valorized. Rituals, ceremonies, knowledge, and practices related to agriculture which are representative of Uzdin from the first half of the twentieth century are reevaluated with nostalgia that has blurred all the difficulties

In original: “La Adam Mezin or fost niște băieți care s-or dus ca să învețe, dar nu am văzut niciun succes după ei. Sofia Ionașcu o strâns patru-cinci fetițe la care o vrut să le arate—v-am zis că trăiesc tare bine cu Sofia că poate noi ni-s generația de la urmă de pictorițe care o lucrat lucru și l-or și pictat—i-am spus așa: ‘Sofio, poți să le înveți, poți să te trudești – că o făcut mare trudă cu ele; fetele-s la școală și nu știu cum să pună culorile, cum să le facă, cum să le prepare, s-o trudit foarte mult cu ele—poți să te trudești cât vrei, dacă ele nu au în sufletul lor aia și nu or lucrat lucrul ăla, io cred că nu ai cum să reușești, să faci ceva cu ele, să le faci pictorițe.’ Așa că, cât or fost la Sofia, la școala ei, să spunem așa, or făcut. Dar după aia, n-am mai văzut pe urmă să mai picteze vreuna sau să aibă vreo expoziție, nu. Atât, cât or pictat la Sofia, cât or fost sub controlul lui Sofia, atât or pictat. Așa că nu cred … Să dea Dumnezeu, mi-aș dori să vină să le spun … dar fiecare lasă lucreze și să pună portul cum simte el, nu-i moară cum io l-am pus. Să se uite pe fotografii, să le facă, că-i păcat să moară portul nostru, îi păcat!”

24

354

Diana M ihu ț

and shortcomings of this past life. Trifu Șoșdean, with whom our team discussed mainly about agricultural techniques, calls himself a “naive technical painter”.25 Thus, he is aware of his moral obligation to the next generations to graphically describe the system of operation of the numerous machines or equipment he has in his yard, and which were built by himself. In opposition, the “beautiful nave painting”26 that his wife Viorica practices, is the one that has, besides the documentary role, an important artistic feature. Naïve painting from Uzdin thus has an important role of “not forgetting” the origins of those who practice this art. Hence, the paintings indicate the important moments that underline the life cycle of the individual, the agricultural year, or the daily household, i.e. mainly those activities related to the life of the traditional village that involved women. The enumeration of the titles of several paintings is thus disambiguating: “My life”, “The death of a girl”, “The preparation of hemp”, “Preparing bricks”, “New Year” (Maria Bălan), “Religious procession”, “Bride”, “Firewood supply” (Anuica Măran), “Cows watering”, “Rooster from Uzdin”, “Peasant’s Life” (Florica Puia), “Wedding Invitation”, “Winter”, “Sowing Cereals” (Florica Cheţ), “Harvest”, “Hora”, “Wedding” (Sofia Doclean), “Winter” (Anuța Dolamă), “Holiday walk”, “Just married” (Mărioara Motorojescu), “Picking apples”, “On the street”, “Portrait of a young man” (Steluța Țăran).

Naive Painting through Media The phenomenon of female painters from Uzdin is of fluctuating interest both for its community of origin and for the public or specialists, depending on the historical or cultural context to which we refer. The Romanian press from Serbia had an important role in disseminating information about this phenomenon. There are numerous articles published in the Romanian language press dedicated, over time, to the naïve painters from Uzdin. Particularly, Radio-televizija Vojvodine from Novi Sad made a series of extensive reports dedicated to the phenomenon of naïve painting in Uzdin, especially at anniversary moments. In general, this reportage is produced by Niculina Ursulescu. Romanian Television also made video reportage on the same topic, through its regional studio from Timișoara. Well-known documentaries have been produced by Brîndușa Armanca. Thus, the media has contributed decisively to the dissemination of information on the work of painters over time, transforming them into a symbol of both ethnic and local identity. Over time,

In original: “pictor naiv tehnic”. In original: “pictura naivă frumoasă”.

25 26

Between Local Identity and National Artistic Heritage

355

media played an important role in building the image of naïve painting from Uzdin as a cultural phenomenon considered representative for a certain community. A constant element in understanding Uzdin’s naïve painting both by insiders and outsiders is its public interpretation as a phenomenon characterized by four specific items, frequently underlined by the media’s speech. First and foremost, naïve painting from Uzdin is described as having a gender feature included. The practice of naïve art, most often painting, has been widespread in many Yugoslav communities since the 1950s. Naïve art became a cultural asset valued and intensely promoted not only by local authorities but also at the national level. It is supported by relevant national institutions or professional associations that regularly organize events dedicated to naïve artists, either painters or sculptors. In this context, the naïve painting from Uzdin acquires a special character thanks to the very phrase that defines it. The first information is implicit. Is not about the naïve painting from Uzdin, the naïve painters from Uzdin or the naïve painting school from Uzdin, but about “the naïve female painters from Uzdin”. The Romanian expression is “pictorițele naive de la Uzdin”, (pictoriță in singular). Expressions such as “women’s group” (grup de femei) or “the women’s group” (grupul de femei) are always used in the brief introductory descriptions. The thematic specificity of the paintings is often emphasized as well. Rendering on a canvas the reality in which the painters lived or lives and creates—i.e. the village with specific works and its rhythm of life—and the preference for rich graphic ornamentation inspired by the traditional costumes is a characteristic that the general public has to assume. Video documentaries suggest the existence of such a feature by taking care to include certain visual details from the paintings, while audio documentaries make explicit references in this regard. Another characteristic is related to a seemingly specific ethnicity. Thus, naïve painting from Uzdin is presented as a phenomenon with a specific representation for an ethnic minority in a certain historical context. Often, nowadays, naïve painting is presented as specific to Romanians (from Serbia) as an ethnic group and not a local phenomenon. Nevertheless, the naïve painting from Uzdin is presented to the public as an isolated occurrence. By omitting to place it in a broader context of the existence of naïve schools of painting from the former Yugoslavia, naïve painting in Uzdin is often perceived as an exceptional phenomenon. Starting from these main characteristics understood by the public, the naïve painting from Uzdin phenomenon ends up arousing today the interest of certain professional categories. At the same time, because of superficial documentation, the phenomenon has attracted in recent years the attention of some amateurs, mainly from Romania, who understand and explain this phenomenon as an exotic, out-of-context reality.

356

Diana M ihu ț

Hence, its understanding may be sometimes superficial, as this form of local artistic heritage is rarely presented and understood in its complexity.

Conclusions Naive painting from Uzdin provides an example of artistic heritage built in a certain political context and systematically revivified by authorities, professionals and even by the local community. The phenomenon is easily recognized based on several features assumed by the performers and maintained by the general public due to its slight unusual characteristics, as described above. At a closer look, it must be integrated within a broader context, that of naïve painting schools specific to the minorities of the former Yugoslavia. Even so, it is generally understood as a unique phenomenon and assumed as such by the community. The interviewed artists are aware of the existence of several themes rendered on canvas that are gender-specific and place them in connection precisely with the exceptional stories related to the emergence in Uzdin of such an artistic practice. These are the exact features of the phenomenon of naïve painting in Uzdin that media underlines when addressing the public: its uniqueness, a practice on the verge of exoticism, presented as a prerogative of the cultural identity of the Romanian minority in Vojvodina.27 Ioviță Dalea’s reply at the end of the documentary Schiță de portret cu naivi best captures its exceptional character that has shaped the image of the entire local community from where it had emerged: “Uzdin is a piece of land on the left bank of the Timiș River, fifty kilometers from Belgrade and a hundred kilometers from Romania. You can easily find it if you search for the navel of the earth.”

Bibliography Barbu, Elena-Maria, Barbu, Vasile (coord.). Cartea de aur a picturii naive de la Uzdin (Contribuții la monografie) [The golden book of naïve painting from Uzdin (Contributions to the monograph)]. Uzdin: Editura Tibiscus, 2012. Barbu, Vasile. Uzdin. Album monografic [Uzdin. Monographic album]. Zrenjanin: Institutul de Cultură al Românilor din Voivodina, 2013. Crnković, Vladimir. The Croatian Museum of Naive Art, Zagreb: Croatian Museum of Naive Art, 2011.



Vasile Barbu, Uzdin. Album monografic [Uzdin. Monographic (Zrenjanin : Institutul de Cultură al Românilor din Voivodina, 2013).

27

album]

Between Local Identity and National Artistic Heritage

357

Hedeșan, Otilia. Luai Uzdinu de-amăruntul. Amintirile unei povestitoare prodigioase: Mărioara Sârbu. [Take Uzdinu in detail. The memories of the prodigious storyteller: Marioara Sabru]. Timișoara: Editura Universității de Vest, 2015. Hedeșan, Otilia and Mihuț, Diana. “O analiză de caz: ‘pictorițele de la Uzdin.’ Desenarea contextelor culturale și metodologic.” [A case study. The painters from Uzdin. Drawing cultural and methodological contexts]. In Cultura populară la români: context istoric și specific cultural [Romanian traditional culture: historical and cultural context], edited by Cornel Bălosu, Nicolae Mihai Craiova, 169–179. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2014. Krstić, Nina. Naivna i marginalna umetnost u Srbije / L’art naïf et marginal de Serbie / Naïve and Marginal Art in Serbia. Jagodina: Muzej Naivne i Marginalne Umetnosti, 2007. Krstić, Nina. Muzej naivne i marginalne umetnosti 1960–2015 / Museum of Naïve and Marginal Art 1960–2015. Jagodina: Muzej Naivne i Marginalne Umetnosti Jagodina, 2015. Ivić, Pavle (coord.), The History of Serbian Culture. Translated by Randall A. Major. Edgware: Porthill Publishers, 1995. Vračević, Marica. Naivna umetnost uzdina / Artă naivă de la Uzdin / Naive Art of Uzdin. Jagodina: Muzej Naivne i Marginalne Umetnosti, 2014.

Ackowledgments

This edited volume has been a joint effort of scholars from different countries whose interest lie in the field of Serbian-Romanian relations within the project of Balkan History Association. Coming from diverse disciplinary backgrounds, the academics who gathered around this volume shared the same willingness to contribute to a comparative book that highlights some of the main but also forgotten personalities or events which had a significant impact on relationships and cultural transfers between Serbia and Romania. We owe special gratitude to Dr. Mihai Dragnea as editor of this series for his support and belief in our work. Thanks to the guidance of the production team from Peter Lang who assisted us during the various steps of production. We would like to express gratitude to the Royal Palace of Serbia for their generosity in providing us with the book cover illustration. Special thanks to one of the co-editors, Christene D’ Anca, for proofreading and copyediting all chapters and translating one chapter, and certain other sections, from Romanian to English. We would like to thank to Djordje Stojanović, PhD candidate and intern of the Institute for Balkan Studies SASA for support in the process of preparing chapters for proofreading. Last but not least, our gratitude goes to all the authors of this volume with the hope that our contribution to the field of Serbian-Romanian studies will open new doors for continued research endevours in the future. Editorial team

Notes on Editors and Contributors

Anđelija Miladinović is a junior researcher at the Institute of Balkan Studies (SASA) in Belgrade, a member of the Balkan History Association and a scholarship holder from the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technological Development. She has a master’s degree in the history of Yugoslavia and is a PhD student at Belgrade University’s Faculty of Philosophy. Her PhD thesis is entitled ‘Cultural Relations between the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Kingdom of Romania, 1919–1941’. Her research interests include Balkan history, cultural relations, and the history of Yugoslavia and Romania in the interwar period, on which she has published numerous articles and and reviews. Aleksandra Djurić Milovanović is a senior research fellow at the Institute for Balkan Studies, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (Belgrade, Serbia). She received her PhD from the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade in 2012 with the topic of Romanian Neo-Protestants in Vojvodina: between religious and ethnic identity. She is a member of the Balkan History Association. She has given guest lectures at universities worldwide and participated in numerous academic conferences. Her research interests cover Serbian-Romanian relations, religious minorities, national minorities, cultural transfers, and Balkan studies. Representative publications include: Double Minorities in Serbia. Distinctive Aspects of Religion and Ethnicity of Romanians in Vojvodina (Beograd: Balkanološki institut SANU, 2015), and Orthodox Christian Renewal Movements in Eastern Europe, co-edited with Radmila Radić (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017). Mircea Măran is a full professor of history at the Preschool Teacher training college “Mihailo Palov” from Vršac (Serbia). Măran’s main area of interest are the history of Banat, the Romanian minority in Serbia, and the cultural history between the two world wars. He is a member of the Balkan History

362

Notes

on

E ditor s

and

C ontr ibutor s

Association. He is the author of 12 books, some of them published in Romania, and he has participated in numerous scientific conferences. Representative titles include: Romanii din Banatul sârbesc în anii interbelici (1918–1941) pagini de istorie culturală (Argonaut: Cluj Napoca, 2012), Biserica Ortodoxă română din Banatul Iugoslav (1918–1941) with A. Djuric Milovanovic (Cluj Napoca, Caransebeș 2019), and Românii din Voivodina – istorie, demografie, identitate românească în localitățile Voivodinei (Editura ICRV: Zrenjanin, 2009). Jovana Kolundžija is art historian and PhD candidate at the University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy. She has been a research fellow at the Institute for Balkan Studies SASA and is currently affiliated with the Center for Banat Studies as project coordinator. Her research includes eighteenth-century Serbian art, religious painting, Serbian baroque, visual culture, and the Habsburg heritage in Serbia. She is a member of the Balkan History Association. Otilia Hedeșan is an anthropologist, professor of Romanian Civilization and Culture at the West University of Timișoara. She is the coordinator of the Research Centre for Heritage and Anthropology—RHeA. Her main areas of research are the storytelling, Romanian mythology in its contemporary aspects, the history of Romanian ethnology in the communist and postcommunist period, food as cultural heritage. She has field research experience in multi-ethnic and multi-confessional regions. She has done field research in Romania, Serbia, Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria, Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova. She is the author of monographs, coordinator of collective volumes or author of articles and studies capitalizing the experience she had during all these field researches. Christene d’Anca is a lecturer at California Lutheran University, as well as at her alma mater, the University of California, Santa Barbara, where she received her PhD in comparative literature, with an emphasis in medieval studies. She is a member of the Balkan History Association. She specializes in twelfth- to fourteenth-century funerary arts, female patronage, and sociocultural studies. Her recent publications include: “Hende: A Handy Medieval Adjective” Early Middle English 4.1 (2022) 87–95, and “Morality and Meat in the Middle Ages and Beyond” Journal of Animal Ethics 13.1 (2023), 61–79. Dragan Bakić is a senior research associate at the Institute for Balkan Studies of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts in which he has been working since 2012 after having completed his PhD dissertation at the School of History, University of Leeds, UK in 2011. His research interests focus

Notes on Editors and Contributors

363

on the history of Serbia, Yugoslavia and the Balkans in the era of the world wars, especially diplomacy, foreign policy, international relations and security, as well as British foreign policy towards Danubian Europe. He is the author of Britain and Interwar Danubian Europe: Foreign Policy and Security Challenges, 1919–1936 (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2017) and a number of articles and book chapters published in Serbia and abroad. Vladimir Lj. Cvetković is a senior research fellow at the Institute for Recent History of Serbia, in Belgrade. Vladimir LJ. Cvetković published two monographs: Ekonomski odnosi Jugoslavije i Francuske 1918–1941. godine (Institute for Recent History of Serbia, Belgrade, 2006), and Pogled iza gvozdene zavese. Jugoslovenska politika prema zemljama narodne demokratije u susedstvu 1953– 1958. godine (Institute for Recent History of Serbia, Belgrade, 2013). He also published more than 40 scientific articles. His research interests concern relations between Yugoslavia and Eastern European countries after World War II (especially Romania and Poland), the economic history of Yugoslavia, and Yugoslav-French relations in the twentieth century. His articles are in Serbia, Poland, Slovenia, Romania and Bulgaria in English, French, Polish and Romanian languages. Srđan Mićić is is an assistant professor at the Department of History at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade. The main field of his research is foreign policy, formal and informal diplomacy, diplomatic-consular service and propaganda of the Yugoslav Kingdom during the Interwar Period. His focus is on bilateral and the multilateral relations between Yugoslavia, on the one side, and the Balkans- and the Central European states, and the European Powers, on the other. His research was recently broadened to the Yugoslav multilateral diplomacy in the framework of the League of Nations’ activities. Diana Mihuț is a research assistant within the Department of Romanian Studies at the West University of Timișoara, a member of the RHeA (Research Center for Heritage and Cultural Anthropology) research group. Her main research topics are related to the contemporary ritual forms and holidays. She has carried out numerous field research in rural communities in Banat, both in Romania and in Serbia. She has experience in implementing nonreimbursable research projects focused on the identification and capitalization of the regional cultural heritage in Banat cross-border region. A particular field research she carried out between 2014 and 2015 focused on the phenomenon of naive painting in Uzdin. Later, she extended the research trough a two-year postdoctoral research internship (2019–2021) at the University of West of Timișoara.

364

Notes

on

E ditor s

and

C ontr ibutor s

Miodrag Milin is historian and senior research fellow of the Romanian Academy branch in Timișoara (Romania). From 2004 he was the Rector of the University of Banat in Timișoara and from 2003 scientific Director, Memorialul Revoluţiei Române din 1989 in Timișoara. In 1993 he was a Fullbright Scholar at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. He is one of the leading scholars on the history of Serbs in Romania and SerbianRomanian relations. He published a number of books and scientific articles. Representative titles include: Срби у Румунији. Чињенице и подаци из скорије прошлости, Arad, Beograd, Temišvar, 2011, Miodrag Milin, Andrei Milin, Sârbii din România şi relaţiile româno-iugoslave (studiu şi documente, 1944–1949), Editura Uniunii Sârbilor din România, Timişoara, Keith Hitchins, Miodrag Milin, Relaţii româno-americane (1859–1901, Documente diplomatice şi consulare), and Redacţia publicaţiilor pentru străinătate “România”, Bucureşti, 2001. Nemanja Mitrović is a doctoral student at the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade and a Research Grantee of the Institute for Contemporary History. His publications include a monograph, Tito–Ceaușescu: Years of Rapprochement, and several papers in domestic and foreign journals. His narrower area of scientific interest is the study of Yugoslav-Romanian relations in the socialist period. The topic of his doctoral dissertation is the relation between Yugoslavia and Romania between 1954 and 1968. He is the recipient of the “Dr Ljubomir Ljuba Petrović” award for the best master’s thesis in the field of history at the Faculty of Philosophy. Octavia Nedelcu is a professor within the Department of Russian and Slavic Philology, Department of Serbian Philology, Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures, University of Bucharest, with rich didactic and scientific activity. She has published almost one hundred studies and articles in scientific journals in the country and abroad, five volumes of studies on Serbian literature and culture in a comparative context, such as Tradition and innovation in the work of Miloš Crnjanski, monograph, Bucharest, EUB, 2000, History of Old Serbian Literature, Bucharest, Universal Dalsi, 2001, EUB 2008, 2014, 2017, History of Serbian Literature. Realism / Прилози настави књижевности. Реализам), Bucharest, EUB, 2008, 2020, among others. She is also a well-known Serbian translator, and a member of the Writers’ Union of Romania with a representative record. Victor Neumann is a Professor of History at the West University of Timişoara, Romania. His main research interests are focused on Romanian and East-Central European intellectual history, and history of political

Notes on Editors and Contributors

365

thought, majority-minorities relations in Romania and interculturality and multiculturality. He was a visiting Fulbright scholar at the Catholic University of America in 2000/2001, a visiting Rosenzweig Scholar at the Holocaust Memorial Museum, Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies and a visiting lecturer at the National Foreign Affairs Training Center—Foreign Service Training Institute, in Washington, D.C (January and June, 2001). His main publications in English, French and German include: Conceptually Mystified. East-Central Europe Torn Between Ethnonationalism and Recognition of Multiple Identities (Bucharest: Enciclopedica Publishing House, 2004), The End of a History. Jews of Banat from the Beginning until Nowadays, (Bucharest University Press, 2006), Essays on Romanian Intellectual History (West University of Timișoara, 2008), and others. Felicia Aneta Oarcea is a Romanian historian with a PhD in history at the West University of Timișoara (2011). Since 2004 she has worked at the Arad Museum as a specialist in modern history, mainly in the domains of the history of education and culture, research of national heritage, and bibliophile and documentary-archival resources. She participated in over 50 national and international conferences and is an author, co-author, publisher, editor and coordinator of 12 books, 3 collections of catalogs and over 75 scientific studies and articles published in collective volumes and journals in the country and abroad. Ivana B. Spasović is a Professor of History. She completed her studies of history at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Philosophy, where she obtained both master’s and doctoral degrees. At the beginning of her career, she had worked as a history teacher at the High School of Economics in Zemun and later at the Historical Archive in Pančevo. She is currently employed at the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SANU) Archives and at the Faculty of Culture and Media, where she teaches the History of Culture and Civilization and the Theory of Modernity. She is the author of the textbook History for the first grade of high schools of economics (2008) and of the following monographs: Banat Military Border and Its Abolition in 1872, 2004, 2022, The biographies Dr Mihovil Tomandl (1894–1963), 2021, and Isidora Sekulić, 2017, among others. Maria Alexandra Pantea graduated from the West University of Timișoara in 2004, doctor in history from the University of Oradea in 2015. Postdoctoral scholarship of the University of Bucharest (2019–2020). She is a member of the Balkan History Association. Currently a researcher at the “Vasile Goldiș” Western University in Arad and a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Bucharest. Author of numerous scientific papers published in magazines and collective volumes, as well as several books, including Medalioane ale preoților

366

Notes

on

E ditor s

and

C ontr ibutor s

și învățătorilor din Protopopiatul Ortodox Român Arad 1812–1918 and Relatări din Primul Război Mondial prezentate în presa ecleziastică din Banat awarded by the Society of Historical Sciences in Romania in 2017 and 2018. Gordana-Nicoleta Peici graduated from the Faculty of Letters, History and Theology, West University of Timişoara. Her doctoral thesis was entitled History, mythical and magical. Representations in Southeast European Postwar Prose. She has published works on the literary representations of history, myth and magic, as well as book reviews in scientific journals: “The bridge. A mythical literary construction”, in Journal of Romanian Literary Studies, no. 23/2020, Archipelago XXI Press, 2021, “The agony of the story act. To narrate and exist in the novels The Damned Yard and Death and the Dervish”, in Doc.Eu, no. 4/2019, Casa Cărţii de Ştiinţă Publishing House, Cluj-Napoca, “Metamorphoses of sociocultural phenomena in the novel The Bridge on the Drina. The Beginning of the 20th Century”, in Doc.Eu, no. 3/2019, Casa Cărţii de Ştiinţă Publishing House, Cluj-Napoca, as well as other papers. Gordana-Nicoleta Peici is a member of the Balkan History Association and the literary journal Književni život. Popović Virginia is Full Professor at the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Novi Sad. She studied Philology and Romanian Studies at the University of Novi Sad and graduated with an MA (2008) and PhD (2012) in Romanian literature. She has published six books about Romanian literature on the northern Serbian Province of Vojvodina and a doctoral thesis about the poetry of Ion Barbu. Virginia is member of scientific colleges and editorial collections of scientific and cultural publications in Romania and Serbia and editor-in-chief of magazine for ethnography and folklore “Tradiția”. She participated in numerous national and international scientific conferences and she has authored numerous scientific and research articles, as well as the translator of three books of poetry. Virginia is a member of Balkan History Association, Association of Writers of Vojvodina and Applied Linguistics Association of Serbia. Raluca Prelipceanu holds an MA degree in Society, Arts and Identities from the University of Babes Bolyai in Cluj. The subject of her thesis was The art of Simion Silaghi between the Temptation of Modernity and the Force of Tradition. She is a member of the International Society for Cultural History. She had received scholarships from New Europe College, Robert Schumann Foundation, the University of Paris 1 (Aires culturelles scholarship) and a Marie Curie scholarship at the University of Turin. She currently teaches economics and social sciences at the University of Paris 1 and Jean Baptiste de la Salle Highschool and also prepares for a PhD in History.

Index

Abrud  238 Abrudan Ioan  247 Abrudan Ioan  247 Adriatic coast  126 Alba Iulia  67 Albania  106, 152, 216, 247 Aleksić Dušan  289 Aleksić family  277 Aleksić Ivan  289 Aleksić Nikola  262, 289 Aleksić Stevan  289 Aleksov Bojan  301, 302 Aleksov Bojan  301, 302 Alexici Gheorghe  68 Alibunar  44, 77, 233 Almajan Patricija  341 Almăjan Slavco  340 Andrei from Hurezi  233 Andreovitch Andrei  233 Andrić Ivo  90, 306, 307, 310, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 323 Andrica Teodor  182 Andru Gherasim  71 Antić Milan  90 Antonescu G.G.  66, 176 Antonović Isaija  242, 258, 260, 262, 278 Apuseni mountains  234, 236, 237, 238, 243, 244 Arad  12, 25, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 78, 79, 173, 231, 236, 238, 242, 257, 258, 259, 260, 262, 263, 270,

275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 299, 322, 350 Argetoianu Constantin  107 Aron Petru Pavle  269 Arsić Eustahija  288, 289 Arsić family  277, 287, 289 Atanasie from Lugoj  237 Athens  106, 109, 111, 127, 147 Augsburg  244 Austria  7, 45, 46, 74, 154 Austro-Hungarian Empire  5, 6, 7, 9, 33 43, 47, 71, 78, 297, 299 Avakumović Pavle  280 Averescu Alexandru  88, 96, 98, 99, 101 Avramescu Mihai  73 Babeș Vincențiu  6, 9, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 48, 55, 58 Bačević Dimitrije  242, 247, 259 Bădău Zugrav Nicolae  238 Bagiu Panta  77 Baiski Dušan  307 Bălan Maria  339, 341 Balkan  5, 10, 45, 82, 89, 91, 92, 102, 110, 112, 113, 118, 147, 149, 151, 157, 161, 165, 166, 167, 169, 276, 291, 308, 316, 319, 338 Baloșin Sandru  237 Balota Anton  170 Balotă Nicolae  319

368 Baltă Cornel Tatai  246 Balugdžić Živojin  82, 85, 87 Banat  2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 67, 70, 72, 75, 76, 77, 126, 163, 180, 181, 182, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 242, 243, 249, 250, 263, 265, 267, 268, 277, 279, 294, 301, 313, 335 Banloc  190, 236 Barbu Violeta  247 Barbulović Mita  54 Barzin Vlada  322, 323 Băteşti  237 Bavanište  44 Becicherec  19 Békés  260, 265, 290 Belgrade  4, 8, 46, 67, 68, 71, 72, 74, 81, 86, 88, 89, 91, 97, 98, 99, 102, 109, 110, 111, 112, 115, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 136, 137, 138, 139, 164, 167, 169, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 205, 212, 286, 340, 356 Belobreșca  234 Bem Leonard  49 Beneš Eduard  74, 114, 128 Beneš Hana  139 Berlin  5, 154, 163, 164, 166 Bessarabia  5, 99, 126, 162 Bethlen István  114 Bezdin  229, 233 Bichiș  243, 246, 247 Biled  19 Bistrița  233 Bitolj  152 Black Sea  75, 154, 166, 212 Blaj  29, 234, 246, 260, 268, 269, 270, 271 Boborani Kosta  54 Bocșa Montană  233 Bocşan Nicolae  19 Bodnăraș Emil  186, 187, 211, 212 Bogdan Jakob  52, 61

I ndex Bogdanov Svetomir  322 Bojin Aurel  77 Bonaparta Napoleon  284 Boncourt Paul  136 Bosică Sofia  341 Bosică Viorica  341 Bošković Dragana  323 Bosnia  45, 158, 229, 306, 324 Botiș Teodor  70 Bradvarović Branko  55 Brâncoveanu Constantin  231 Branişte Valeriu  34 Branković family 276 (typo Brancovic instead Branković)  Branković George  267, 275 Branković Jovan  319 Branković Longhin (Lazar)  276 Branković Matei  275 Branković Sava  276 Brașov  234, 249 Bratianu Dino  159 Brătianu Gheorghe I.  66, 95, 97, 101, 159 Bratislava  114, 290, 338 Brediceanu Coriolan  35 Brest  84, 215, 240 Brezhnev Leonid  207 Brodlacovici Ilia  243 Brote Eugen  37, 39 Broz Josip Tito  8, 11, 144, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 185, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 220, 221, 222 Brucan Silviu  202 Bucharest  5, 11, 46, 66, 68, 74, 81, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 97, 98, 102, 104, 105, 106, 109, 110, 115, 116, 117, 127, 128, 129, 130, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 167, 169, 170, 174, 178, 180, 186, 187, 191, 192, 201, 202, 208, 209, 220, 306, 307, 315, 316, 321 Buda  51, 229, 231, 284, 288 Budai-Deleanu Ioan  21

Index Budapest  7, 57, 66, 68, 101, 115, 147, 163, 186, 205 Bugarski Stevan  319, 323 Bukovina  126, 162 Bukow Adolf  229 Bulgaria  74, 82, 97, 106, 107, 111, 130, 157, 158, 166, 185, 209, 248 Cairo  147 Călinescu Armand  161, 162, 163, 166, 169 Călinescu George  66 Campbell Robert H.  116 Câmpeni  243 Căpruța  238 Caransebeş  33, 45, 48, 50, 51, 52, 56, 58, 61, 247, 260, 266, 296, 299 Caraș Severin  234, 244 Carianopol Virgil  170 Čarnojević Arsenije III  6, 227, 278 Ceauşescu Nicolae  8, 11, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 219, 220, 221 Cehak Kalman  70 Certege  236, 243, 244, 260 Četirević Jovan Grabovan  247 Cheț Florica  340, 341 Chiricescu loan  237 Chirilovici Sofronie  231 Cincar-Marković Aleksandar  81 Ciobotin Blagoie  322 Ciocov Miriana  322 Ciungar family  248 Ciungariu Teodor  237 Ciurușchin Miodrag  2 Cnejevici Pachomius  242 Codreanu Corneliu Zelea  150, 153, 154, 155, 156, 159, 160, 161, 164, 169 Čolak-Antić Boško  10, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117 Čolak-Antić Vojin  82, 89, 90 Ćopić Branko  306

369 Cornățel  248 Cornea Raico  322 Corvinus Matthias  275 Čotrić Aleksandar  323 Covăcița  335 Craiova  2, 65, 192, 233, 270 Cranach Lucas  242 Crepaja  44, 56 Criș river  275 Crișan Alexandru  73 Cristache Panait Ioana  237 Cristea Miron  154, 155, 159 Crnjanski Miloš  307, 310, 311, 312, 316 Curtea de Argeș  235 Cusici  237 Cuza Alexandru Ioan  5, 150 Czechoslovakia  7, 74, 100, 105, 116, 149, 154, 156, 157, 161, 165, 170, 185, 207, 208, 209, 210 Dalea Ioviță  356 Dalmatia  158, 299 Daničić Đuro  301 Danube  5, 43, 44, 45, 46, 75, 94, 105, 106, 108, 109, 156, 161, 162, 173, 175, 186, 188, 214, 218 Dărăbuș Carmen  319 Davidov Dinko  242 Davidović Stefan  50 De Gaulle Charles  207 Deak Ferenc  49, 59 Deliblato  44, 294, 295, 296 Denici Čedomir  70 Desančić Mihajlo Polit  6, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 294 Diaconovici Isaia  277, 278 Diaconovitch Gheorghe  232 Diaconul Vasile (the Deacon)  232 Dimić Pavle  301 Dimitrijević Vladimir  12, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303 Djerdap  11, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218 Dobrica  44 Dobrogea  126 Dobrudja  166 Doclean Adam  339, 340, 341, 345, 346, 348

370 Doclean Sofia  339 Doda Traian  33, 56, 58, 61 Dolamă Anuța  340, 341 Dolovo  44 Domokos Kosáry  276 Đorđević Jovan  267 Đorđević Miroslav  68 Đorđević Vladan  82 Dožić Gavrilo  189 Drašković Vuk  307 Dretea  235, 236 Drinova  234 Dubcek Alexander  208 Dubrovnik  140, 148 Duca Ion Gheorghe  93, 97, 102, 111, 113 Dučić Jovan  11, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 Dumitru Andreea  323 Dürer Albrecht  242, 273 Eftimiu Victor  170 Elison Grace  133, 134 England  129, 130, 131, 133, 136, 142, 153, 154 Epure Viorica  340, 341 Espagne Michel  8 Esztergorm  234 Europe  1, 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 20, 23, 28, 39, 40, 43, 49, 71, 74, 75, 78, 79, 89, 97, 102, 113, 128, 129, 140, 149, 150, 151, 152, 159, 160, 162, 163, 174, 204, 206, 209, 221, 239, 240, 242, 259, 273, 275, 276, 277, 279, 282, 284, 285, 286, 290, 291, 308, 311, 312, 313, 314, 319, 323, 324, 325, 338 Fabrica  249 Fabricius Wilhelm  156, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165 Faur Mihail  237 Filip from Lugoj  238 Filip Pavel  77 Flora Radu  2, 68, 73, 74

I ndex Florian Mircea  66 France  6, 98, 105, 144, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 161, 162, 165, 166, 167, 169, 221, 313, 318, 337 Frațilă Niță  3 Fröhlich Samuel Heinrich  300 Furcșoara  244 Gafencu Grigore  96, 165, 166 Galicia  244 Galșa  262, 264, 265 Gămulescu Dorin  319 Gârda de Sus  244 Gătăianțu Pavel  77 Gavrilović Nikola  1, 68, 69, 70 Geira  237 Geneva  81, 116, 137, 147 Gerasimov Grigori  240 Germany  68, 103, 125, 130, 149, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 173, 175, 183, 209 Gheorghiu-Dej Gheorghe  186, 187, 193, 200, 202, 214, 216 Ghibu Onisifor  75 Ghika Dimitrie I.  96, 105, 115, 116 Gioca Mirianici  322 Giura Stela  341 Giurăscu C.C.  66 Gligorijević Hadži Prodan  5 Goga Octavian  150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155 Gojkov Grozdana  69 Gomulka Vladimir  209 Gotha  130 Grabovan Jovan Cetirevici  247 Grecu brothers  248 Greece  83, 99, 101, 106, 132, 149, 166 Grgurević Vuk  267 Grigorev Spiridon  239 Grigorovici Ioan  234, 247 Groza Mia  180 Groza Petru  8, 11, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194 Grujić Slavko  82

Index Grulović Nikola  176, 179 Gueran Ion Gavrilo  266 Gurănescu Alexandru  116 Gurasada  235, 248 Gurean Gavril  237 Gusti Dimitrie  66 Gvozdenovici Slavomir  319, 323 Gyula Andrássy  47 Habsburg  4, 6, 10, 24, 69, 78, 91, 94, 114, 115, 149, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 235, 245, 249, 250, 265, 268, 276, 277, 278, 280, 281, 283, 286, 287, 288, 298, 310 Habsburg Joseph II  21, 228, 279, 282 Habsburg Theresa Maria  279 Habsburg-Lorraine Franz Joseph I  49, 50, 62 Halkozović Janko  242 Hebrang Andrija  181 Hedeșan Otilia  337 Hitler Adolf  151, 160, 167, 174 Hoare Reginald  169 Hodoş-Bodrog  229, 244 Hohenzollern Ferdinand I  92, 93, 118, 129, 315 Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen Carol II  46, 93, 94, 95, 96, 107, 108, 109, 112, 114, 115, 116, 118, 149, 150, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 168 Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen Elisabeth  129 Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen Ileana  129 Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen Michael I  174, 176, 178, 179, 191, 192, 193 Holbein Hans the Younger  242 Hufeland Christoph  286 Hunedoara  234, 236, 244 Hungary  5, 6, 7, 10, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 38, 46, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 62, 67, 74, 89, 90, 92, 93, 115, 125, 126, 151, 157, 158, 161, 168, 185, 186, 208, 209, 228, 243, 246, 275, 296, 300, 302 Hunyadi John  269 Hurezi  233

371 Iacov of Rășinari  235, 243, 270 Iakovaky Alexandru  72 Ienopolis  275, 276 Imperial Russia  230, 239, 240, 250 Ioanovitci Zugrav  248 Ion Dejan  3, 73, 74 Ionașcu Sofia  336, 337, 340, 341, 342, 343, 346, 350 Ionașcu Todor  341 Ionescu Lazăr  31 Ionescu Take  73, 74, 95, 128 Iorga Nicolae  1, 2, 114, 115, 152, 163, 165, 299 Isailovici Iovan the Elder  246 Italy  91, 96, 98, 103, 105, 106, 147, 148, 151, 153, 156, 157, 158, 161, 163 Ivačković Georgije  52 Ivanov Tihon  239 Izbiște  44, 233 Jakovljević Panta  215 Jakšić Dimitrije  257 Jakšić family  275 Jakšić Miodrag  323 Jakšić Stevan  257 Janić Lazar  290 Janić Mihajlo  290 Janković Ambrosie  242 Janković Gavril-Gavra  288 Jasenovo  44 Jasitch Simeon  244 Jevtić Bogoljub  72, 86, 89, 90, 105, 112, 113, 118 Jivan Avram  50 Jivcovici Mirco  319 Jovanović Aron  54 Jovanovic Arsenije IV Šakabenta  227, 230, 239, 240, 265 Jovanović Jovan M.  129 Jovanović Jovan Zmaj  301 Jovanović Kamenko  54 Jovanović Miodrag  259, 263, 267 Jovanović Pantelija  47 Jovanović Vikentije  278 Jovanovici Sinesie  242 Julița  238, 244

372 Jupunschi Gioca  322 Juriță Petru  68 Kállay Béni  47, 51 Kalmar Istvan  300 Karadjordje  5 Karadjordjevic Alexander I  7, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 96, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 140, 142, 144, 149, 315 Karadjordjevic Tomislav  131, 133, 140 Karađorđević Andrej  133, 140 Karađorđević Maria  7, 10 (here it says Marie Karađorđević but in the rest of text its Maria) 86, (126 Also Marie, correct to Maria) 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 238, 139, 140, 142, 143, 149, 315 Karađorđević Olga  134, 136, 137, 143 Karađorđević Pavle  81, 109, 117, 131, 133, 134, 136, 138, 142, 170 (in this page Paul) Karađorđević Petar I  6, 82, 83 Karađorđević Petar II  131, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 143 Karadžić S. Vuk  286, 288, 301 Karlowitz  19, 228, 230, 240, 250 Kasapinović Svetislav  54, 62 Kaunda Kenneth  216 Kavtaradze Sergey  188 Kerkápoly Károly  49, 52 Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes  126, 127, 129, 133 Kiš Danilo  307, 312, 313, 314, 315, 323 Kladovo  173, 215 Knežević Pahomije  260, 279 Kojkeč Nikolaje  341 Kosovo  158, 159 Kostić Laza  55, 57, 58, 294 Kovačević Dušan  307, 313, 323, 324 Kovačica  44, 337, 341 Kovin  44, 52 Krušedol  228, 242, 244, 260, 261, 266, 267, 268 Kyiv  236, 239, 240, 242, 243, 244, 246

I ndex Langa-Răşcanu Constantin  106 Lazarevitch Radu  232 Lipova  72, 233, 237, 243, 244, 260, 262, 263, 264, 272 Lipovan Atanasie  72 Lolin Stefan  50 Lónyay Menyhért  49 Lorraine Francis I  284 Lugoj  25, 50, 234, 237, 238, 260, 265, 266 Lukaris Chiril  276 Lupulovici Vasa  322 Macedonia  166, 306 Măcelariu Ilie  29 Madrid  147, 167 Maior Petru  269 Maksimov Jovan  239 Maksimović Nika  57 Malnasan Aurel  211 Maluckov Mirjana  3 Mândrea Ilia  50 Maniu Iuliu  95 Manoilescu Mihail  107 Maramureș  236 Măran Anuica  339, 341, 344, 346, 347, 348, 350 Marcovici Dalibor  322 Marinković Vojislav  81, 88, 95, 96, 101, 102, 103, 104, 108, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117 Marjanov Miodrag  323 Marta Todor  50 Martinelli Giovanni Battista  270 Mašin Draga  6, 129 Maurer Ion Gheorghe  218 Maximov Ioan  239 Medaković Dane  184, 185, 186 Medeleanu Horia  259, 271 Medescu Ion  237 Mesici  229, 233 Mezin Adam  341 Mezin Linka  341 Micescu Istrate  152 Mičin Gliša  54 Mičin Marko  55 Micu Inochentie  243, 269

373

Index Micu Samuil  269 Miculescu Ioanichie  48 Mifka Spiridon  188 Miguleski Pavle  54 Mihuț Diana  337 Mikhail Milutin  239 Milanović Vladimir  91 Milašenović Todor  268 Milenko Bojanić  219 Milenovici Čedomir  322 Miletić Svetozar  6, 53, 57, 58, 59 Miličić Sibe  316 Milin Andrej  3 Milin Jiva  322 Milin Miodrag  3, 9, 68 Milutinović Đoka S.  55 Milutinović Mita  55 Miniș  260, 262 Minulescu Ion  170 Mirianici Draga  323 Mirianici Dragomir  322 Mironescu Gheorghe  94, 95, 102, 103, 107, 114, 115 Mișu Nicolae  98 Mitilienu Ion  99 Mitja Ribičič  218 Mitrović Andrej  2 Mocsonyi Alexandru  9, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 57 Mocsonyi Andrei  9, 19, 24, 25, 35 Mocsonyi George  294 Modoș  232 Mohyla Peter  246 Moldavia  4, 5, 162, 247 Moscow  8, 91, 97, 178, 179, 181, 184, 185, 188, 201, 202, 203, 205, 207, 209, 210, 212, 213, 214, 220, 245, 282 Motorojescu Marăriora  339, 340, 341 Mountbatten Philip  191 Mukachevo  243 Muncian Ivo  322 Muncian Ivo  323 Munich  117, 161, 163, 170, 289 Mureș  263, 265, 270, 275, 276, 281 Murgu Eftimie  20, 25

Mussolini Benito  98, 151, 152, 160, 161 Muțiu Marcu  238 Nandronie Nechifor  238 Nasser Gamal Abdel  205 Nastasijević Đorđe  127 Nedelcu Octavia  310, 318, 319 Negrău Elisabeta  248 Negulescu Teodor  317 Nenadović Marta  281 Nenadović Pavle  278, 281 Nešković Nikola  242, 247 Nestorovici Uroș  70 Neumann Victor  9, 25, 276 Nicolae from Pitești  234, 248 Nicolici Milan  322 Nicolici Petar  247 Nicolinț  233 Nikolić Andra  82 Ninčić Momčilo  87, 98, 111, 117 Northern Macedonia  163 Novačesko Miša  54 Novacovici Dionisie  243 Novi Sad  49, 58, 67, 68, 69, 70, 75, 120, 173, 180, 230, 282, 288, 290, 295, 296, 300, 354 Novo Selo  44, 52, 56 Nušić Branislav  306 Oalge Ileana  336, 337, 340, 341, 342, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 353 Obead Oprean  237 Obradović Dositej  319 Obrenović Alexander  6, 129 (on this page there is a typo and it says Obrenvic) Obrenović Mihajlo  5, 286 Obrenović Milan  5 Obrenović Miloš  5, 286 Obrenović Natalia Cheșcu Natalia also  5 Ocnele Mari  243 Ofsenița  234, 236 Onciu Ana  340 Onciul Isidor  297 Opovo  44 Oprea from Făgăraș  247

374 Orăștie  235 Orfelin Zaharia  242 Ormos Sigmund  49, 52 Orșova  44, 51, 52 Ostojić Vasilije  242, 259 Ottoman Empire  4, 5, 91, 276, 283 Ötvös József  22 Pacek Karl  286 Pajka Sima  55 Pančevo  44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 174, 180, 289, 294 Pancsova  228 Pandurović Sima  316 Partoș  234, 236, 238 Pašić Nikola  73, 74, 83, 87, 88, 90, 128 Pătraşcu Alisandru  237 Pauker Ana  190, 191 Pavić Milorad  307, 308, 309, 310, 323 Pavlović Jovan  54 Pavlović Kosta  143 Pavlović Miodrag  323 Pecs  228 Peiovici Damian  322 Pejčić Konstantin  48, 53 Pekić Borislav  307, 313 Perlez  44, 52 Pesta  20, 243 Peter Mohyla of Kyiv  246 Petreanu Coriolan  238 Petrescu-Comnen Nicolae  Petrescu-Comnen Nicolae  168 Petrić Jakša  210 Petrișor Teodor  77 Petrov Milana  322 Petrovaradin  43, 44, 45, 227, 242, 243 Petrović Nikola  175, 176 Petrović Petar  279 Pilat Ion  170 Plato  287 Poieni  237, 247 Poland  101, 154, 209, 363 Polverejan Nicolae  73 Pomorišje  257, 258 Popa Corina  337 Popa Simion  234

I ndex Popa Ștefan N.  78 Popa Vasko  306, 307 Popeangă Ion  65 Popeangă Maria  65 Popeangă Vasile  10, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 78, 79 Popi Gligor  2, 67, 68, 70, 73, 75 Popović Dimitrie  242 Popović Georgije  265 Popović Jovan  242 Popovici Ioan  232 Popovici Neboişa  322, 323 Popovici Nedelcu  233, 234 Popovici Radu  233 Popovici Șerban  233 Popoviciu Alexiu  31 Portugal  130, 163 Pradvarović Mileta  54 Prague  97, 115, 116, 129, 208, 209 Puia Florica  340, 341 Puskás Bernadett  245 Queen Victoria  129, 133 Raday Gedeon  49 Raichici Liubiţa  322 Raicov Svetomir  323 Raicu Stancu  232 Rakovica  239 Rămianțu Ion  341 Rămneanțu Vasile  3 Ranite Gheorghe  233, 234, 236, 248 Ranite Grigore  233, 234, 235, 236, 243, 247, 270 Râșcanu Constantin  236 Rășinari  234, 235, 236, 243, 247, 270 Râtișor  232, 233 Ristić Jovan  47 Roman Romulus  72, 77 Romania  2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 44, 62, 66, 67, 73, 78, 90, 91, 92, 101, 105, 106, 116, 117, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 188, 189,

Index 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 219, 220, 221, 268, 273, 282, 293, 306, 307, 314, 315, 317, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 336, 351 Romanov Alekseyevich Peter  230 Romanovici Vasily  239, 240 Rome  91, 97, 101, 105, 111, 147, 148, 152, 154, 166, 231 Roosevelt Frenklin D.  203 Roșu Costa  73, 76, 77 Roșuț Nicolae  68 Ruma  260, 267, 272 Russia  5, 6, 46, 84, 130, 151, 153, 154, 156, 157, 188, 230, 239, 240, 241, 248, 249, 250, 276, 281, 282, 283, 284, 287, 302, 310, 313, 321 Sădean Avram  70 Șaguna Andrei  6, 20 Sakule  44 Sânandrei  20 Sănătescu Constantin  176 Șandru Teodor  73 Sângeorge  229 Sânpetru  235 Săraca  233, 237 Sarai Visarion  229 Sarajevo  140, 188, 247 Săvârșin 238  Savić Momčilo  68, 69 Savoie- Carignan Eugene  278, 280 Saxe-Coburg Marie  93, 127, 128, 130, 131, 139, 315 Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Boris Boris III  83, 112, 127 Șcheii Brașovului  234 Schuyler Cortlandt V. R.  180 Šeba Jan  112 Seleuș  233 Seracin Jordakis  Serbia  1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 46, 51, 62, 75, 78, 83, 91, 129, 152, 163, 276, 282, 286, 294, 314, 354 Sfera Ion  77 Sibiu  29, 32, 33, 36, 38, 249, 293

375 Sikimić Biljana  4 Silaghi Sălăgeanu Simion  238, 239, 243, 247 Simonovici Miladin  322 Simovici Liubomir  322 Šimunović Bešlin Biljana  133 Șincai Gheorghe  269 Slavi József  49, 52 Sofia  82, 83, 90, 92, 100, 110, 127, 130, 147, 157, 245, 266, 336, 337, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 346, 350, 353 Sofia Vitovtovna  245 Sofronie of Cioara  229 Sokolović Makarije  319 Șoșdean Trifu  337, 354 Șoșdean Viorica  337 Soviet Union  8, 11, 126, 167, 175, 194, 199, 205, 207, 211, 213, 214 Spain  68, 130, 163, 287 Spalajković Miroslav  85, 87, 112 Spalinsky Tadei  244 Spăriosu Ofelia  341 Srbljanović Biljana  323 Stalin Joseph Vissarionovich  181, 184, 188, 200, 314 Stamboliyski Alexandar  110, 111, 127 Stancov Liubinca Perinaţ  322 Stănescu Mircea B.  31 Stănescu Nichita  306 Stanković Zaharije  55 Ștefan from Ocnele Mari  243 Ștefănescu Mariana  307, 310, 311 Stefanov Leontije  239 Stefanović Vasa  55 Stefanovici Goran  322 Stejić Jovan  286, 287 Știrbey Barbu Alexandru  101 Stoevici Ioan  249 Stoianovici Dragan  316, 319 Stoianovici Voislava  306, 319, 321 Stoianovici Voislava  322 Stojačković Aleksandar  56 Stojadinović Milan  136, 148, 151, 157, 158, 160, 170 Stojanović Jovan  266

376 Stojković Milenko  5 Sturdza Ion  5 Šubašić Ivan  143 Suboni Adina Maria  341 Suboni Stela  341 Subotić Jovan  46 Surducu Mare  237 Susa Matei  50 Susaikov Ivan  179 Szécheny István  23 Szeged  243, 246, 247, 286, 301 Szentendre  228, 234, 266 Szentes  243, 260 Tabaković Đorđe  290 Tabaković family  277, 289, 290 Tabaković Milan  290 Țăran Steluța  340 Țăran Steluța  341 Tatai Baltă Cornel  246 Tătărescu Gheorghe  163, 164, 168, 179, 184, 186, 187, 190, 191 Tekelija family  277, 280, 282, 283 Tekelija Jovan  281 Tekelija Petar  281 Tekelija Popović Jovan  280, 281 Tekelija Ranko  281 Tekelija Sava  12, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 319 Tenecki Stefan  12, 242, 243, 244, 246, 247, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273 Teodorescu Virgil  316 Teodorović Petar Dobrnjac  5 Teodorovici Arsenie  249 Thierry Adrien  169 Țigu Viorel  289 Timiș  234, 236, 271, 356 Timişoara  19, 25, 27, 30, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44, 50, 51, 52, 68, 117, 174, 179, 181, 182, 183, 193, 212, 213, 219, 228, 231, 238, 247, 258, 260, 265, 272, 280, 283, 287, 307, 310, 313 Timok river  152 Tirol Dimitrije  319, 322

I ndex Tisza István  49, 52, 61 Titulescu Nicolae  74, 88, 94, 95, 96, 101, 102, 111, 112, 113, 118 Todoran Rodica  77 Tomaševac  44 Tomici Mile  319 Topla  237 Trăilă Spăriosu  73, 75 Transylvania  6, 9, 11, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 53, 67, 78, 126, 156, 162, 163, 176, 181, 182, 186, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 242, 243, 244, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 260, 268, 269, 270, 275, 276, 280, 281 Trifu Aurel  73, 76, 77 Trifu Octavian  77 Trifunac Aleksandar  57 Troaș  238 Turkey  44, 45, 46, 58, 125, 149, 165, 166, 168 Ujfalussi Nikola  61 Ukraine  240, 244, 259, 260, 296 Ulanov Kirill  239 Ursulescu Florin  77 Ushakov Simion  239 Uzdin  13, 44, 56, 58, 61, 62, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356 Vanku Milan  3, 68, 73, 74 Variaş  19 Vârșet  19, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 244 Vasile Luca  191 Vasilievici Job  239, 240, 242 Vasiljev Dušan  322 Vaverka Ferdinand  97 Velici Aurora  337, 350, 351, 352 Venice  157, 158 Verișan Ștefan  73 Versailles  125, 162 Vesnici Slavco  323 Vianu Tudor  184

377

Index Vienna  20, 21, 44, 46, 47, 49, 70, 71, 242, 243, 250, 270, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 283, 284, 286, 289, 297, 298, 350 Vilovo  260, 267 VInaver Stanislav  316 Vința  245 Vinu Tudor  66 Vladimirovich Simansky Alexey  188 Vlahović Danilo  298 Vračev Gaj  44 Vucovici Sava  20 Vujić Joakim  319 Vuksanovici Zoran  322 Wallachia  4, 5, 46, 51, 53, 162, 231, 232, 233, 235, 248, 249, 250, 276 Washington  129 Werner Michael  8 Windsor Elisabeth II  191 Windsor George V  127, 129

Yugoslavia  7, 8, 11, 13, 68, 71, 72, 74, 81, 91, 96, 107, 109, 126, 127, 130, 134, 137, 142, 143, 147, 149, 157, 158, 160, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 193, 194, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 302, 305, 307, 320, 324, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 350, 355, 356 Zafarovitch Hristofor  242 Zboroschi Vasile  236, 243 Zemun  44, 127, 173, 286, 365 Živanović Sinesije  260, 262, 279 Živković Vasa  54 Zubov Fyodor  239 Zugrav Iancu  234 Zugravul Stan  235 Zweig Philip  235

South-East European History Mihai Dragnea, Series Editor This series is published in conjunction with the Balkan History Association (BHA) and comprises original, high-quality disciplinary and interdisciplinary comparative study of South-East Europe from ancient to contemporary times. It welcomes submissions in various formats, including monographs, edited volumes, conference proceedings, and short form publications between 30,000 to 50,000 words (Peter Lang Prompts) on various sub-disciplines of history—political, cultural, military, economic, urban, literary, oral, or the history of science communication—art history, history of religions and archaeology. Editorial Board: Dan Dana (French National Centre for Scientific Research), Valeria Fol (Institute of Balkan Studies and Centre of Thracology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences), Adrian Ioniță (Vasile Pârvan Institute of Archaeology, Romanian Academy), Zoran Ladić (Institute for Historical and Social Sciences, Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts), Marco Cassioli (University of Aix-Marseille), Ivan Biliarsky (Institute of Historical Studies, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences), Alice Isabella Sullivan (Tufts University), Mihai-D. Grigore (Leibniz Institute of European History in Mainz), Colin Heywood (University of Hull), Gábor Kármán (RCH Institute of History, Budapest), Nathalie Clayer (Center for Turkish, Ottoman, Balkan, and Central Asian Studies, Paris), Hans-Christian Maner (Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz), Katrin Boeckh (Leibniz Institute for East and Southeast European Studies, Regensburg), Lavinia Stan (St. Francis Xavier University), and Irina Livezeanu (University of Pittsburgh). Proposals should be sent to the series editor: Mihai Dragnea (University of South-Eastern Norway) [email protected] To order books in this series, please contact our Customer Service Department: [email protected] (within the U.S.) [email protected] (outside the U.S.) Or browse online by series at: https://www.peterlang.com/series/seeh