REVUE DES ÉTUDES SUD-EST

EUROPÉENNES

TOME LVIII 2020 Nos 1–4, Janvier–Décembre

SOMMAIRE / CONTENTS

Medieval History of Byzantium and of Its Neighbours

BOŠKO I. BOJOVIĆ, Byzance et les Slaves méridionaux : alliances dynastiques

matrimoniales (Xe–XVe siècles) ................................................................. 5
OVIDIU CRISTEA, The Siege of Zemun in 1165 and a Gesture of Power of
Manuel I Komnenos ................................................................................... 29
DAVID LINUS NEAGU, “King of All the Armenians”: Lewon I and the Armenian
Church ........................................................................................................ 39

The Ottoman Empire and Southeastern Europe

VIOREL PANAITE, RADU DIPRATU, A Forgotten Capitulation (‘ahdname):

The Commercial Privileges Granted by Sultan Ahmed I to Emperor
Matthias in 1617 ......................................................................................... 51
IOANA FEODOROV, Recent Findings Regarding the Early Arabic Printing in
the Eastern Ottoman Provinces ................................................................... 91

Orthodoxy and Modern Greek Literature and History

PASCHALIS M. KITROMILIDES, Faith and the Challenges of Worldly

Power. What Is Left of Orthodoxy? ........................................................... 107
PETER MACKRIDGE, Enlightenment and Entertainment: the Intolerable
Lightness of Phanariot Literature, 1750–1800 ........................................... 119
ȘTEFAN PETRESCU, Nicolae Mavros. The Lifestyle of a Wallachian Boyar
of Greek Origin in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century ...................... 139

Rev. Études Sud-Est Europ., LVIII, 1–4, p. 1–450, Bucarest, 2020

2

L’art arménien en Roumanie

SEYRANOUCHE MANOUKYAN, L’art des icônes des Arméniens de

Roumanie .................................................................................................... 165
MARIAM VARDANYAN, Altar Crosses in Romanian-Armenian Church
Tradition ............................................................................................ 191

Empire’s Legacy in the Balkans: Romania and Bulgaria in the 20th Century

Proceedings of the session held at the 12th International Congress of South-East

European Studies (Bucharest, 2–6 September 2019)
Editors: CRISTINA DIAC and ALEXANDRE KOSTOV

Editors’ Note
ALEXANDRE KOSTOV, L’héritage habsbourgeois et ottoman dans l’Europe
du Sud-Est : les réseaux de chemins de fer ................................................. 225
CRISTINA DIAC, A Linguistic Babylon or Competing Linguistic Imperialisms?
The Languages Spoken by Communists in Interwar Romania ................... 239
ANETA MIHAYLOVA, Crossing the Borders of Former Empires: Patrick
Leigh Fermor and His Journey Through the Balkans in the 1930s ............ 263
CARMEN STRATONE, Between the French Legacy and the Soviet
Imperialism. The Romanian Culture in the ’50s and Its Instrument – the
National Institute for Promoting Romanian Culture Abroad ...................... 275
ALEXANDRU-MURAD MIRONOV, Elaborating on a Limit of the Socialist
Model. Pensions, Retirees, Retirement Systems in Post-War Romania ..... 291
VASILE BUGA, Blocage soviétique envers les propositions de Roumanie
concernant l’élargissement des collaborations dans les Balkans dans les
années ’70 du XXe siècle ............................................................................ 299

In Search of a Useful Past: History as a Resource for the Present

Bulgarian contributions to the Conference organised at the Institute for South-East

European Studies (Bucharest, 25 September 2018)
Editor: BLAGOVEST NJAGULOV

Presentation

ALEKA STREZOVA, The Remembrance of the First World War in Bulgaria..... 309
ANETA MIHAYLOVA, World War II Revisited: New Approaches and
Interpretations in the National Historiographies of Bulgaria and Romania
after 1989 .................................................................................................... 317
 3

DANIEL VATCHKOV, Le mythe de la protection du travail à l’époque

communiste comme source de la nostalgie dans la société bulgare
contemporaine ............................................................................................ 331
BLAGOVEST NJAGULOV, Médias et histoire en Bulgarie contemporaine ..... 337
RUMYANA CHUKOVA, Legitimizing New National Identity Through the
Monuments: the Case of Macedonia and Post-Soviet Central Asian
Republics .................................................................................................... 353

Comptes rendus

Wilfried FIEDLER, Vergleichende Grammatik der Balkansprachen (Cătălina Vătăşescu);

Balkan Area. Altaic Studies. General Linguistics. In memoriam Albina H. Girfanova
(1957–2018) (Cătălina Vătăşescu); David BERTAINA et al. (eds.), Heirs of the Apostles.
Studies on Arabic Christianity in Honor of Sidney H. Griffith (Adrian Pirtea); Paul
MAGDALINO, Andrei TIMOTIN (eds.), Savoirs prédictifs et techniques divinatoires de
l’Antiquité tardive à Byzance (Mihail Mitrea); Boletín de la Sociedad Española de
Bizantinística, nº 35, 2020 (Petre Guran); Бојана КРСМАНОВИЋ, „Е, е, шта је то?”
Евнуси у војном врху византијског царства (780–1025) (Mihail-George Hâncu);
Ljubomir MAKSIMOVIĆ et al. (eds.), Byzantine Heritage and Serbian Art, vol. I–III
(Mihail-George Hâncu); Małgorzata SKOWRONEK, Palaea Historica. The Second
Slavic Translation. Commentary and Text (Mihail-George Hâncu); Александър НИКОЛОВ
et al., Дубровнишки документи за историята на България и българите през XIII–XV век.,
I. (1230–1403 г.) (Mihail-George Hâncu); Azat BOZOYAN (ed.), Cilician Armenia in the
Perceptions of Adjacent Political Entities (David Linus Neagu); Αναστασία
ΚΟΝΤΟΓΙΑΝΝΟΠΟΥΛΟΥ (ed.), Πόλεις και εξουσία στο Βυζάντιο κατά την εποχή των
Παλαιολόγων (1261–1453) (Mihai Ţipău); Oliver Jens SCHMITT, Korčula sous la
domination de Venise au XVe siècle. Pouvoir, économie et vie quotidienne dans une île
dalmate au Moyen Âge tardif (Dana Caciur); Κοινωνίες της υπαίθρου στην
ελληνοβενετική Ανατολή (13ος–18ος αι.), ed. Κostas E. LAMBRINOS (Ştefan Petrescu);
Maria Ana MUSICESCU, Tradition et innovation dans l’art du Sud-Est européen du XVe
au XIXe siècle (Ștefania Dumbravă); Noel MALCOLM, Useful Enemies. Islam and the
Ottoman Empire in Western Political Thought, 1450–1750 (Andrei Pippidi) ; Ovidiu-
Victor OLAR, La boutique de Théophile : Les relations du patriarche de Constantinople
Kyrillos Loukaris (1570–1638) avec la Réforme (Andrei Pippidi); Alexandru ELIAN, Doi
umanişti greci în Italia: Mihail Sofianos şi Teodor Rentios (Mihai Ţipău); Viorel
PANAITE, Ottoman Law of War and Peace. The Ottoman Empire and Its Tribute-Payers
from the North of the Danube (Radu Dipratu); Hasan ÇOLAK, Elif BAYRAKTAR-
TELLAN, The Orthodox Church as an Ottoman Institution. A Study of Early Modern
Patriarchal Berats (Mihai Ţipău); Антология литературы православных арабов, 1.
История, ed. Konstantin A. PANCHENKO (Ioana Feodorov); Erol A.F. BAYKAL, The
Ottoman Press (1908–1923) (Ioana Feodorov); Școala Ardeleană, vol. I–IV, coord.
Eugen PAVEL (Mihail-George Hâncu); Elena SIUPIUR, Die deutschen Universitäten
und die Bildung der Intelligenz in Rumänien und den Ländern Südosteuropas im 19.
Jahrhundert (Andrei Pippidi); Άννα ΜΠΕΝΑΚΗ ΨΑΡΟΥΔΑ, Εγγυήσεις «Δίκαιης
Δίκης» και δικαιώματα του κατηγορουμένου στην «Ποινική Δικονομία»του 1834.
Επισκόπηση της ποινικής νομολογίας του Αρείου Πάγου των ετών 1835–1855 (Ştefan
Petrescu); Béla BORSI-KALMAN, Au berceau de la nation roumaine moderne / Dans le
miroir hongrois. Essais pour servir à l’histoire des rapports hungaro-roumains aux XIXe
et XXe siècles (Andrei Pippidi); Constantin IORDACHI, Liberalism, Constitutional
4

Nationalism, and Minorities. The Making of Romanian Citizenship, c. 1750–1918 (Daniel

Cain); Alberto BASCIANI, L’Illusione della Modernità. Il Sud-Est dell’Europa tra le
due guerre mondiali (Stelu Şerban); Angela KASTRINAKIS, Η λογοτεχνία στη δεκαετία
1940–1950 (Lia Brad Chisacof); Thede KAHL, Ioana NECHITI, The Boyash in
Hungary. A Comparative Study among the Argeleni and Munceni Communities (Stelu
Şerban) .......................................................................................................... 367

In memoriam

† Maximilian Demeter Peyfuss (1944–2019) ...................................................... 425

† Mihai Dim. Stourdza (1934–2020) ................................................................... 426

Vie scientifique de l’Institut d’Études Sud-Est Européennes 2019 .................... 429

Livres reçus......................................................................................................... 443

A LINGUISTIC BABYLON OR COMPETING LINGUISTIC IMPERIALISMS?
THE LANGUAGES SPOKEN BY COMMUNISTS
IN INTERWAR ROMANIA

CRISTINA DIAC
(The National Institute for the Study
of Totalitarianism, Bucharest)

This article deals with language(s) and politics, more specifically, it aims to discuss the way
in which the ability to speak more than one language influenced the political activity of the
communist activists in interwar Romania. The linguistic question within the Communist
Party of Romania and, in a broader sense, within the communist movement, could be
addressed from two perspectives: how the individuals dealt with the language issue and, on
the other hand, how the institutions that, altogether, formed the so-called “communist
movement” – Communist International with its central and regional bodies, the local parties,
the other structures created and driven by Comintern in different parts of the world –
managed the linguistic diversity. This article concentrates on the first angle and analyses the
methods, decisions, and strategies used by individuals to deal with the linguistic issue.
The paper is organized in two main parts. In the first one, it is explained what languages the
first communists spoke then one discusses the attitude toward the Romanian language of
those communists who didn’t speak it natively.

Keywords: bilingualism, multilingualism, ethnolinguistic nationalism, interwar

communism, Comintern studies, language and politics.

“When, for instance, comrade Dinu (Boris Stefanov, my note, C.D.) writes an
article in Romanian, com. Bela (David Fabian, my note, C.D.) must proofread it,
com. Szasz or someone else must translate it into Hungarian before we can send to
our newspapers for publication. Another example: when com. Balthazar (Elek
Köblös, my note. C.D.), our general secretary, drafts a report, it must be translated
from Hungarian into Romanian, the Romanian version must be proofread and
edited, because there is no Hungarian comrade able to write in Romanian correctly,
with no mistakes. If the general secretary receives a report in Romanian, it must be
translated into Hungarian, so as he could understand what it says and
symmetrically – his reply must be translated into Romanian. With the Russian
language the things work even harder.”1
1
Report of the Central Committee (hereinafter C.C.) of the Communist Party of Romania
(hereinafter CPoR) to the Executive Committee of the Communist International (hereinafter ECCI), in The
National Archives of Romania – Central Unit (hereinafter ANIC, after the Romanian abbreviation), fund
the Central Committee (hereinafter C.C.) of the Romanian Communist Party (hereinafter R.C.P.) –
Chancellery, file 41/1925, p. 14–15.

Rev. Études Sud-Est Europ., LVIII, 1–4, p. 239–262, Bucarest, 2020

240 Cristina Diac 2

This quotation is part of a report sent by the Central Committee (C.C.) of the
Communist Party of Romania (CPoR) to the Executive Committee of the
Communist International (ECCI) on 19th October 1925. Among many others, this
document finger-points the linguistic problem as one of the reasons for the too
many shortcomings and delays in the CPoR’s activities, and explains how the
things were really functioning in the Romanian “communist” world.
It is common knowledge that in Romania, between the two world wars, the
communist ideology seemed appealing mostly to citizens with ethnic origins other
than Romanian. The alienness of this new political movement was highlighted
often by policy makers and by the force institutions.2 Interesting to notice, the
historiography in the last two decades of the Romanian communism, when the
regime took a clear, nationalist facies, perpetuated exactly the same ideas as the
interwar precursors.3 This idea is so widespread even nowadays insomuch that it
2
Between the two world wars, high-ranked officers within the Romanian secret services wrote
expanded analyses of the communist phenomenon, that referred to its origins, types of manifestation,
organization, institutions etc. For their works, the authors used both theoretical literature regarding the
subversive movements and information derived from the daily reports drafted by the secret police agents
who were dealing with the communist movement in the field. Among these works, we mention Sava
Dumitrescu, Activitatea de războiu a organizației comuniste din România: nouile metode de luptă ale
mișcării comuniste revoluționare în stare de războiu [The Communism in Romania at War. New methods
used by the revolutionary communist movement during the war], Atelierele Grafice Socec, București, f.a.;
Constantin Maimuca, Inspector Regional al Poliției în Basarabia, Tehnica și tactica comunistă [The
communist ‘modus operandi’], ediția a II-a revizuită și adăugită, Monitorul Oficial și Imprimeriile Statului
Imprimeria Chișinău, 1936 (republished Constantin Maimuca, Tehnica și tactica comunistă, Studiu
introductiv și note de Corneliu Crăciun, Editura Primus, Oradea, 2011); Nicolae Turcu, Demascarea
comunismului în România [Revealing the real face of the Romanian communism], [Bucharest?], 1941.
3
M.C. Stănescu, Mișcarea muncitorească din România în anii 1921–1924 [The working-class
movement in Romania, 1921–1924], Bucharest, 1971; idem, Mișcarea muncitorească din România în
anii 1924–1928 [The working-class movement in Romania, 1924–1928], Bucharest, 1981. In this
latter work, the author stated: “După cum se vede, Biroul Politic din străinătate, ca și militanții care,
între 1924–1928 au îndeplinit sarcina de secretari ai C.C. ai P.C.R. în țară, au fost, aproape în
exclusivitate, activiști din rândul celor numiți de Comintern. Această politică de cadre, care a afectat
activitatea Partidului Comunist din România între congresele al III-lea și al IV-lea, își avea originea în
concepția eronată cu privire la semnificația istorică a încheierii procesului de desăvârșire a statului
national-unitar român. Unii dintre membrii conducerii superioare a P.C.R. acceptau cu mai multă
ușurință directivele pe care Internaționala Comunistă le impunea ori s-a străduit să le impună
partidului nostru. Respectiva compoziție a cadrelor a avut ca urmare, între altele, și o anumită izolare
a partidului de masele largi ale poporului român, furnizând, în același timp, autorităților represive
pretextul de a denigra Partidul Comunist Român, pe care îl prezentau, în mod fals, ca nefiind un
produs al solului românesc”. M.C. Stănescu, Mișcarea… 1924–1928, p. 157. [“As one can see, the
Political Bureau from abroad, as well as the militants who, between 1924–1928, had been appointed
as members of the Secretariat of the C.C. of the P.C.R. which worked in the country, were almost
exclusively among those preferred by Comintern. This cadres’ policy, which affected the activity of
the CPoR between the 3rd and 4th congresses, originated in the misconception about the historical
significance of the end of the process of completion of the Romanian, unified state. Some members of
the senior leadership of the R.C.P. too easily accepted the directives that the Communist International
imposed or strove to impose on our party. That composition of the cadres resulted, among other
things, in a certain isolation of the party from the large masses of the Romanians, while providing the
repressive authorities with the pretext to denigrate the R.C.P., which they falsely presented as not a
product of the Romanian soil”]. (my translation, C.D.). It worth underling that this interpretation
3 A Linguistic Babylon or Competing Linguistic Imperialisms? 241

became an axioma, or a truth similar to those revealed by the Holly Bible, which
mustn’t be demonstrated, nor questioned how it really worked in reality.
Before 1989, scholars who dealt with the subject finger-pointed the “national
composition” of the leading bodies of the party and subsequently, the Comintern
and the Russians, as responsible for the mistakes made by communists between the
two world wars. This interpretation, completely in sync with the foreign and
domestic policies promoted by the Romanian state in general did nothing but draw
some political disputes from those days on the recent (and not always recent) past.
Starting from the realities disclosed by the report of the C.C. of the CPoR
from October 1925, one might rightly wonder how the most prominent leaders of
the party managed to understand each other in their day-to-day activity. This
question leads us to the problem of languages spoken by the first communists. As
we can admit that the majority were native in other languages than Romanian, we
should ask which language they were native in? It could be also interesting to
explore if the communists in interwar Romania used to be bi- or multilingual, since
many of them were born and lived their lives in complex, multi-ethnical, multi-
confessional and sometimes even multicultural regions, such as Banat or even
Bessarabia.

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE IN THE FIELD

There is a huge amount of knowledge as regards the bilingualism/

multilingualism – nowadays4 and in a historical context5 as well. The recent

persisted even after 1989. In a book first published in 2003 and re-printed in 2011, the same author
wrote: “Desigur că vina principală pentru gravele măsuri organizatorice adoptate și mai ales pentru
marele număr de teze și indicații greșite incluse în documentele adoptate la Conferința a II-a o poartă
organismele comuniste internaționale, ale căror dispoziții erau obligatorii. Dar poate nu este lipsită de
semnificație nici compoziția națională total necorespunzătoare a organelor superioare de partid (the
italics are mine, C.D.) După cum se știe, la Congresul al IV-lea, din 1928, Comitetul Central ales,
aflat acum în funcție, era alcătuit din 9 membri proveniți din rândul minorităților conlocuitoare și
numai un român. Iar la această conferință, din 19 participanți, 15 erau din rândul naționalităților
conlocuitoare și doar 4 români. Era și aceasta o practică, din domeniul cadrelor, a Cominternului”.
M.C. Stănescu, Stânga politică românească în anii crizei (1929–1933), Bucharest, 2011, p. 58–59.
[“Obviously, the main fault for the serious organisational measures adopted and, in particular, for the
large number of theses and instructions included in the documents adopted at the Second Conference
lies with the bodies of the Communist International, the provisions of which were binding. But
perhaps it is not without significance the totally inappropriate national composition of the party
leading bodies. As it is well known, the Central Committee elected at the Fourth Congress, in 1928,
now in office, was composed of 9 members from the national minorities and only one member was a
Romanian. And at this conference, out of 19 participants, 15 came from the ethnic nationalities and
only 4 were Romanians. As a matter of fact, this was the cadre policy promoted by Comintern”]. (my
translation, C.D.).
4
From an impressive amount of publications on this matter, we send to some general, synthetic
volumes, such as L. Wei, M. Moyer (eds.), Blackwell Guide to Research Methods in Bilingualism and
Multilingualism, Wily-Blackwell, 2007; P. Auer, L. Wei (eds.), Handbook of Multilingualism and
242 Cristina Diac 4

migratory processes, stimulated by globalization, increased the degree of

interestingness in the ‘people on the move’ phenomenon, which could be and it is
addressed from multiple angles, the linguistic point of view included, because in a
world inter-connected now more than ever before in history, the bi- and/or
multilingualism is not rare anymore. As expected, the multilingualism field is now
‘ploughed’ mostly by linguists.
On the other hand, the subject addressed by this article belongs to the area of
communist studies. As concerns the communist movement between the two world
wars for more than 50 years, since the end of the WWII until the mid-90s, the
historical scholarship dealt mostly with the way in which the local “sections” of the
Communist International (namely the European parties) functioned. With some
exceptions,6 the research focused mostly on the political aspects.7 In the 90s, the
fall of the Iron Curtain and “the revolution of archives” that followed the
dismemberment of the Soviet Union and the fall of communism in Eastern Europe
allowed developments in two directions: a new, fresh approach as regards the
relations between the local parties and the Communist International;8 and, on the
other hand, a more in-depth analyse of the way in which the Communist
International itself functioned – its apparatus, international organizations led by
Comintern, etc. The revisionist historiography regarding interwar communism
admitted that nor Comintern, neither its sections functioned as precisely as it was
previously believed.9 Simultaneously, at the beginning of the 2000s, the increasing
Multilingual Communication, Mouton de Gruyter, 2007; M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, A. Creese (eds.),
The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism, Routledge, 2012.
5
There is also an impressive literature on bi/multilingualism from a historical perspective. We
mention J. Bloemendal, Bilingual Europe: Latin and Vernacular Cultures – Examples of Bilingualism and
Multilingualism C. 1300–1800, Brill, 2015; E.M. Tyler, Conceptualizing Multilingualism in England, c.
800–1250, Brepols, 2011.
6
Especially the scholarship regarding the French Communist Party addressed the topic form social
and cultural perspective. See, in this respect, the seminal B. Pudal, Prendre parti. Pour une sociologie
historique du PCF, Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, Paris, 1989. As well, the
British historians devoted a lot of interest to the history of the Communist Party of Great Britain, seen from
multiple perspectives. See G. Andrews, N. Fishman, and K. Morgan, Opening the Books: Essays on the
Cultural History of the British Communist Party, Palgrave, 1995.
7
F. Gloversmith, Class, Culture and Social Change: A New View of the 1930s, Brighton, 1980; S.
Courtois, M. Lazar, Histoire du Parti communiste française, Paris, 1995; K.-M. Mallmann, Kommunisten
in der Weimarer Republik. Sozialgeschichte einer revolutionären Bewegung. Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1996; A. Agosti, Storia del Partito Comunista Italiano. 1921-1991, Roma-
Bari 1999; J. Eaden, and D. Renton, The Communist Party of Great Britain since 1920, Basingstok, 2002.
8
See, in this respect, the monumental edition compiled by H. Weber, J. Drabkin, B.H. Bayerlein,
Al. Galkin, Deutschland, Russland, Komintern. I. Überlicke, Analysen, Diskussionen. Neue Perspektiven
auf die Geschichte der KPD und die Deutsch-Russischen Beziehungen (1918–1943), Berlin-Boston, 2014;
H. Weber, J. Drabkin, B.H. Bayerlein (Hrsg.), Deutschland, Russland, Komintern. II. Dokumente (1918–
1943). Nach der Archivrevolution: Neuerschlossese Quellen zu der Geschichte der KPD und den deutsch-
russischen Beziehungen, Berlin-Boston, 2015; A. Thorpe, The British Communist Party and Moscow,
1920–1991, Manchester, 2000.
9
One of the most influential work, representative for this stage, is M. Narinsky and J. Rojahn,
Centre and Periphery: The History of Comintern in the Light of New Documents, Amsterdam, 1996.
5 A Linguistic Babylon or Competing Linguistic Imperialisms? 243

interest for transnational history influenced the scholarship of interwar communism

as well, providing new avenues of discussion within a field that has still much to
offer.10 However, even if the new achievements in the field admit that diversity, in
many senses, characterized the “world of Cominternians”, including from linguistic
point of view11, the discussion doesn’t go further than acknowledging the situation
as such. In other words, the fields of linguistic and communist studies still remain
detached.
Basically, our article deals with language(s) and politics, more specifically, it
aims to discuss the way in which the ability to speak more than one language
influenced the political activity of the communist activists in interwar Romania.
When it comes to discuss language as a political instrument, the scholarship
regarding the study of nationalism could be helpful, for the reason that scholars
dealing with nationalism explore very often the way in which the language was
instrumentalized as a political weapon by the national movements of the XIX th
century. For our research, a closer look at the way in which multi-ethnic empires
surrounding the Romanian Kingdom, especially the Austria-Hungary, managed the
language issue12 could inspire resourceful comparison for our subject.
Whereas the language problem in multi-ethical empires manifests in relation
to certain institution – namely school, army, and politics –, topics related to those
institutions drew most of the scholars’ attention. In the last very few years, a new
trend appeared in military history and individuated itself as a hybrid field of study:
languages at war. The new field put together the efforts of linguists and military
historians. The research carried on by the British historian Hillary Footitt and her
team offers an example of this new approach. Footitt’s team devoted a lot of
attention to languages as constituent part of military conflicts and is studying
languages at war since the XIXth century to present day.13 Tamara Scheer, an
10
Brigitte Studer, a Swiss, revisionist historian who had dealt previously with the history of the
Communist Party of Switzerland stepped forward, to the transnational approach, with The Transnational
World of the Cominternians, Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.
11
See, in this respect, the articles and book chapters devoted to the students to the International
Lenin School in Moscow, unanimously described as a “linguistic Babylon”. B. Studer, Un parti sous
influence. Le parti communiste suisse, une section du Komintern, 1931–1939, Lausanne, 1994, p. 234–
249 ; G. Cohen and K. Morgan, “Stalin’s Sausage Machine: British Students at the International Lenin
School, 1926–1937, Twentieth Century British History, 13:4, 2002, p. 327–355; B. McLoughlin,
“Proletarian Academics or Party Functionaries? Irish Communists at the International Lenin School,
Moscow, 1927–1937, Saothar (Yearbook of the Irish Labour Society), 22, 1997, p. 63–79.
12
R. Rindler Schjerve (Ed.), Diglossia and Power. Language Policies and Practice in the 19th
Century Habsburg Empire, Berlin, New York, 2003; P.M. Judson, The Habsburg Empire: A New
History, Cambridge, 2016; T. Kamusella, Creating Languages in Central Europe During the Last
Millennium, Basingstoke, 2014; idem, The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central
Europe, Basingstoke, 2009.
13
H. Footitt, M. Kelly (eds.), Languages at War: Policies and Practices of Language Contacts in
Conflict, Basingstocke, 2012; H. Footitt, M. Kelly (eds.), Languages and the Military: Alliances and Peace
Building, Basingstocke, 2012; M. Kelly, H. Footitt, M. Salama-Carr (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of
Languages and Conflict, Basingstocke, 2019.
244 Cristina Diac 6

Austrian military historian carries out research in the same vein, questioning the
real effectiveness of the highly praised multilingualism of the Austro-Hungarian
Army (Kaiserlich und Königlich, abbreviated K.u.K.), and how the uses of the
regimental languages influenced the army’s combat capacity.14 Very recently, together
with Markian Prokopovych and Carl Bethke, Scheer edited a volume that “aims to
concentrate especially on language practices at the local, everyday level”.15 This
most recent book investigates the language diversity of the late Austro-Hungarian
Empire as a matter of everyday practices.
Jorge Marco and Maria Thomas’s very recent article on the language issue
during the Spanish Civil War16 deserves a special attention, due to the fact that it
combines the linguistic issue with communist militancy, manifested as the decision
to volunteer for the International Brigades. As the authors made clear, this “article
highlights the role of translators as ‘activists’ instead of ‘invisible’ actors in the
Spanish Republican Army. At the same time, it analyses the implications that
linguistic policies and language contact had for transnational soldiers in terms of
identity. At a grassroots level, we argue that ordinary soldiers’ daily experiences of
language contact and language exchange contributed to the forging of new
linguistic forms which underlined both strong sense of joint purpose and a shared
antifascist identity”.17
In our understanding, most of the first communists were among those
considered by the very recent historiography on nationalism18 as “national indifferent”,
moreover – sincerely committed to the values of internationalism, multilingualism
and even multiculturalism. The communists didn’t consider themselves as part of a
certain “national community”. In addition, remembering that everywhere in Western
Europe the communist movement appeared as an urban phenomenon and the town,
more than the rural side, was a cosmopolitan place of co-existence, multilingualism
and even multiculturalism, a sense of tolerance and lack of chauvinism is to expect
from the first generation of communists. To some extent, many of the interwar
communists honestly believed in these values. Obviously, not all of them. Later on,
when these universal values were being promoted as well by the communist ideology,
they fell on a fertile soil nurtured before by the supra-national states/empires. With
these people, the communist internationalism knocked on a door previously opened
by some of the policies carried on by the multi-ethnic/multicultural empires,
14
T. Scheer, “Habsburg Languages at War: ‘The linguistic confusion at the tower of Babel couldn’t
have been much worse’”, in Christophe Declercq & Julian Walker (eds.), Languages and the First World
War (Volume 1: Languages and the First World War: Communicating in a Transnational War),
Basingstoke, 2016, p. 62–78.
15
M. Prokopovych, C. Bethke and T. Scheer, Language Diversity in the Late Habsburg Empire,
Leiden-Boston, 2019, p. 4.
16
J. Marco and M. Thomas, “ ‘Mucho malo for fascisti’: Languages and Transnational
Soldiers in the Spanish Civil War”, War & Society, 38:2, p. 139–161.
17
Ibid., p. 142.
18
M. Van Ginderachter and F. Jon (eds.), National indifference and the history of nationalism in
modern Europe, London, 2019.
7 A Linguistic Babylon or Competing Linguistic Imperialisms? 245

especially by the Austro-Hungary, and mostly within the Austrian parts of the Dual
Monarchy. It might be useful to notice that, together with other reasons, these
people’s non-nationalistic beliefs explain their marginalization in the Soviet Union
during the 30s and in Romania at the end of 50s, when the communist regimes had
been abandoning their internationalist features.
The linguistic question within the CPoR and, in a broader sense, within the
communist movement, could be addressed from two perspectives: how the individuals
dealt with the language issue and, on the other hand, how the institutions that,
altogether, formed the so-called “communist movement” – the Communist
International with its central and regional bodies, the local parties, other structures
created and driven by Comintern in different parts of the world – managed the
linguistic diversity. This article concentrates on the first angle and analyses the
methods, decisions, and strategies used by individuals for dealing with the
linguistic issue.
It will look at the language issue in its dynamic, starting from what languages
a person knew in 1920 and what learned up to 1945, considering that this approach
is relevant for one’s readiness to learn foreign languages.
The archives are not very generous in information regarding the linguistic
problem. Still, some reports drafted by the local leaders for the Communist
International, as it is the one quoted at the beginning of this article, touch the
languages problem. In the rare occasions when it’s mentioned, the language issue
appears in a negative way, together with other inconveniences, and is meant to
explain why the things worked so badly with the communism in Romania. The
second reason for bringing the linguistic issue under the attention of the Comintern
leaders was for underlying one’s incapacities. In this case, the linguistic problems
had been used as a weapon against a political enemy. But, most of the documents
remain silent regarding the linguistic problem. Neither the CPoR, nor the
Communist International intended to open this discussion, so closely related to the
so-called “cadre issue”. Competent party cadres don’t appear from one day to
another and the truth is Comintern never took seriously its job to form cadres for
the Romanian party.
That’s why, in this respect at least, we owe more to the vigilant Romanian
police. The questionnaires, standard documents to be found in every personal file
opened in interwar period by the force institutions for every person suspected of
communist sympathies, comprise a rubric which must had been filled in by the
arrested person with the languages he or she could use. The linguistic information
provided by this type of documents represent the starting point for our analyse,
showing what languages a person knew at the beginning of his or her political career.
In addition, it expresses the person’s own subjectivity, the languages one admitted to
know, not what the police, or other persons, believed that that person knew.
The cadre files compiled by the Communist Party, both in interwar, but more
seriously after 1945 and even better since the beginning of 50s, comprise standard
questionnaires, similar to those created by the interwar police. These standard
246 Cristina Diac 8

documents, filled in by the same person at two moments in time, could show how
someone’s linguistic skills evolved throughout the decades.
Last, but not least, there are a few exceptional accounts, written in the 60s
and 70s by former members of the Romanian illegal communist movement. These
recollections are very valuable because the authors devoted more time to reflect on
their own lives and, as a consequence, its expose better the author’s inner self.
This paper is organized in two parts. The first one will discuss what
languages the first communists spoke (Table 1) and why they spoke that languages
and not others. Then it’ll discuss the attitude toward the Romanian language of
those communists who didn’t speak it natively.

1. LANGUAGES SPOKEN BY THE FIRST COMMUNIST.

BI- AND MULTILINGUALISM WITHIN THE CPOR

Some conclusions regarding the languages spoken by the first communists

can be drawn by analysing the Table 1. The analyse took into consideration the
following criteria: province of origin, nationality, and profession. And, as it was
already mentioned, every time when it was possible, the archival information
compiled for this article took into consideration the languages spoken by an
individual in the 40s and even at the beginning of 50s, so that to offer a picture
regarding individuals’ willingness and capacity to learn languages.
The Romanian communist intellectuals born in the Old Kingdom, such as
Mihail Macavei and Mihail Cruceanu, spoke French. There were also communist
intellectuals who could speak German, for instance Lucrețiu Pătrășcanu, who had
been a PhD student in Leipzig, Germany, during the 20s and had the opportunity to
improve his German. The Jewish intellectuals from the Old Kingdom, such as
Marcel Pauker, Al. Dobrogeanu Gherea or David Fabian, spoke also German. The
first two studied in German speaking countries – Al. Dobrogeanu Gherea was a
student at the Munich Technical University, Marcel Pauker studied at the prestigious
ETH, in Zürich. Important to mention, both Al. Dobrogeanu Gherea and Marcel
Pauker came from assimilated Jewry. David Fabian was more a self-made
intellectual, who hadn’t graduated from a university.
The workers from the Old Kingdom, such as Gh. Cristescu, Nicolae Marian,
Constantin Palade or Elena Filipovici, didn’t speak foreign languages at all. When
they learned something, they learned rather French than German. Which is
understandable in a country where the French influence was overwhelming. In the
same time, the belongingness of the Romanian language, that one the Romanian
workers from the Old Kingdom could speak natively, to the big family of Roman
languages, same as French, could also explain the preference for it. For a native
speaker of Romanian, it was easier to learn French than German, so as for a
Yiddish speaker was easier to learn German.
9 A Linguistic Babylon or Competing Linguistic Imperialisms? 247

It appears that neither the Hungarian workers from Transylvania or Banat,

such as Elek Köblös, László Luca, Kacsö Francisc or Peter Mathais spoke foreign
languages. Hungarian and Jewish intellectuals from Transylvania, instead, such as
Al. Körösi-Crișan or Moszes Kahane, spoke languages other than their native ones,
especially German. One of them were Hungarian Jews, with Hungarian as their
mothers’ tongue.
The socio-political situation of Transylvania and Banat in the last two
decades of Dualism explains partially the above-mentioned situations. In Austria-
Hungary, which lasted from 1867 to 1918, Transylvania and Banat fell under
Hungarian administration. An ordinary inhabitant of this region, male, could have
encountered the official language, which was Hungarian, at the contact with one,
two or all three of the vectors used by every state that endeavoured to play
language card politically: the school, the army, and the administration.
During the Dualist period, the Hungarian state financed only the schools that
taught the disciplines in Hungarian, the education for minorities being left on
churches, which financed Romanian, German, and Serbs confessional schools.
After 1868, the permission granted by the Emperor to Hungary to have its
own army, part of the “Compromise”, was of a tremendous importance for
Hungarians. Hence, the Austro-Hungarian Army consisted of three parts: a joint
army (K.u.K.), formed by Hungarian and Austrian units, an Austrian Army
(Landwehr), and a Hungarian Army – Royal Hungarian Landwehr, commonly
known as the Honvéd Army. A man from Transylvania or Banat could have
recruited for a regiment of K.u.K. or for the Honvéd Army, by drawing lots.
It is to presume that the Hungarian workers from Transylvania and Banat
were persons averagely educated, who had completed their education in Hungarian.
Those who had served under arms had many chances to have spent 24 months in a
Honvéd regiment.
Searching Hungarian censuses from the Dualist period, recent scholarship19
concluded that many Transylvanians – Hungarians, Romanians and Germans as
well, were in fact monolinguals. In 1880, 92.7% of native Romanians were
monolingual and only 79.6% in 1910, probably because of the Magyarization
process promoted by Budapest. In 1880, 18.1% of the non-Romanians spoke
Romanian, and 21.8% in 1910. In 1880, 77.9% of Hungarians were monolingual of
all native Hungarians, and 74.9% in 1910. In the same time, according to censuses,
only 5.6% of non-Magyars spoke Hungarian in 1880, and 16.6% – in 1910. The
lowest percent of monolinguals came from the German community, with only
40.1% of natives, in 1910. According to the same census, only 5.8% of all non-
Germans could speak German.
The situation of monolingualism differed from one Transylvanian region to
another, not only from town to country side. The rate of monolingualism was
19
A. Berecz, The politics of early language teaching. Hungarian in the primary schools of the late
Dual Monarchy, Pasts, Inc., Budapest, 2013, p. 40–41.
248 Cristina Diac 10

higher in the counties from Szeklerland, where 92.8% of the Hungarians were
monolinguals in 1880 and 90.7% in 1910. In other 15 Transylvanian counties, in
1910, only 56.8% of the Magyars were monolingual and 88.9% of native
Romanians.
Bearing in mind that every census has limits and the numbers revealed by it
need to be questioned, yet we can admit that at least such a data collection gives as
a picture, even if not the clearer one.
Coming back to our Hungarian, monolingual communist workers, let’s say
that three of those chosen for this analyse were from Szeklerland, the region with
the highest percent of monolingual Hungarians in entire Transylvania (Köblös,
Luka and Kacsö). The other, Peter Mathais, had in fact Slovak origins and was
born in Banat, province that is considered as a multicultural one. Mathias’ case
argues that not all of the inhabitants of a multicultural region were in fact
multilinguals.
However, of the total number of communists from Transylvania and Banat
had in mind for this analyse, a certain number spoke more than one language.
Gavril Birtaș was born in Baia Mare, in a Romanian, bi-lingual family, who
could spoke Hungarian and Romanian. Gavril was sent to a public school, where
he was taught in Hungarian, and this is the reason why he spoke this language
better. Yet, as Birtaș remembered, at home everyone spoke both languages.20 Born
in a Jewish-Hungarian family from Odorhei, Szeklerland, Transylvania, but in
village inhabited mostly by Romanians, Miklós Goldberger spoke Hungarian as his
mother tongue. When he was three years old, he was sent to a Jewish religious
school. Living in a village inhabited mostly by Romanians helped him catching this
language, too. Moreover, in order to improve it, Goldberger attended the fifth grade
at a Romanian school. His mother was an open-minded person, and insisted his son
to learn as many languages as he could. Helped by her, and by a rich landlord from
their village, in his childhood he learned also some basic German.21
It is worth mentioning that between the two wars, communism was followed
less by Transylvanians with Romanian origin22, situation which could be explained
through both national and social lens. At the end of the Great War, and after the
Peace Conference, Romanians accomplished their national state, labelled soon by
Lenin and other Bolsheviks as an “imperialistic state”. From national point of view,
the communism challenged exactly the core of the Romanian state ideology, which
soon made the communism unacceptable for most of the citizens with Romanian
20
Gavril Birtaș recollections, in ANIC, Collection no. 60, file 395/2, p. 4.
21
Nicolae Goldbergher recollection, in ANIC, ibid., file 493, vol. I, f. 4.
22
Between the two world wars, from the total number of communists in Transylvania and Banat,
29% were Romanians (in reality – less than 29%), 40% – Hungarians, and 27% – Jews. The higher
numbers of Romanians could be explained by the fact that during the census realized at the beginning of
50s, some people declared themselves Romanians, even if they probably had other origin, and the
instrument (the database) registered them as they declared themselves. See http://www.ilegalisti.ro/en/
content/advanced-search, accessed at 23.04.2020.
11 A Linguistic Babylon or Competing Linguistic Imperialisms? 249

ethnic origins. The communists’ position as regards the national problem

overshadowed their positions concerning the social issue. The national problem
made them some pariah, who couldn’t be trusted not even when they could have
been right. In the same time, as during the Dualism the towns used to be inhabited
mostly by non-Romanians, and the working-class appeared as an urban phenomenon,
it turns out that, in Transylvania, most of the workers weren’t Romanians.23
Communists born in Tsarist Bessarabia spoke Russian and a rudimentary,
‘survival’ Romanian. Many were Yiddish speaker Jews (Seiva Averbuch/Vanda
Nicolski, Mihail Scvorțov, Elvira Gaisinski, Ida Felix, Estera Radoșoveskaia/Stela
Moghioroș). The intellectuals, such as Timotei Marin, learned French and German.
Communists with a better social background, such as Ipolit Derevici, Timotei
Marin’s friend, learned French and Italian.
It is to believe that many communists from Bessarabia were in fact bi-lingual,
being able to use both Russian and Romanian. But probably we’d be more accurate
if we described the linguistic situation in Tsarist Bessarabia as a combination of
bilingualism and diglossia, with the Russian language having the higher status (the
H-language), and Romanian – the lower (the L-language).
Many recollections, put together, lead to this conclusion. Derevici Ipolit, a
psychiatrist born in 1897, in the family of a Moldavian/Romanian Orthodox priest
from Pucioasa village, Bălți county, attended first the Romanian primary school in
his native village. Being a son of a priest, after graduation he was sent at the
theological seminary from Kishinev. The years of theological seminary didn’t
leave Ipolit Derevici with pleasant memories, on the contrary. In 1970, he
remembered he and other Romanian students were humiliated by the Russian
teachers: “Some teachers were kind and paid some attention to us, too, the
Romanian students, but most of them were clear chauvinists, who called us names
such as «Moldavian rams». Still, we had to learn Russian”.24
After 1918, Derevici moved to Romania and started studying medicine in
Iași. At the beginning, the students form Bessarabia stood together and took care
one of each other. In time, some of them, such as Derevici or his friend Timotei
Marin, also a Romanian from Bessarabia who were studying Foreign Languages at
Iași University, and others, men and women equally, got involved in politics on the
communists’ side. In March 1921, the Bessarabian students from Bălți county
organized a meeting to debate which form of organization suits them best. A
covered agent of the secret police infiltrated among them wrote in his report25 that
23
However, between the two wars, the number of Romanian workers in Transylvania increased and,
the number of the communist sympathizers among them increased, as well. According to our own previous
research, around 1940, almost 39% of the total number of the communist workers from Transylvania were
Romanians, 41% – Hungarians, and almost 17% Jews. See http://www.ilegalisti.ro/database2eng/
All/All/Transilvania/All/All/muncitor/All (accessed 15.03.2020)
24
Derevici Ipolit recollections, in ANIC, Collection no. 60, file 465, f. 1.
25
Report drafted by a covered agent who had attended the meeting of the Bessarabian students at 1st
March 1921, in ibid., Collection no. 53, file D/66, vol. I, pp. 36–37.
250 Cristina Diac 12

the discussions were conducted in both Romanian and Russian. Some students took
the floor in Romanian, other colleagues rebutted in Russian, which means that
everyone present at that meeting could use both languages. Only that some could
use Romanian actively, to express feeling and ideas in it, whereas others could only
use it in its passive function, to understand what was said/written in this language.
In January 1922, a big anti-communist trial started in Bucharest, in which
270 communists were being prosecuted. “Dealul Spirii” was the first show-trial
organized against the communist movement in interwar Romania. The worst was
yet to come. In January 1922, most of the defendants were jailed already, but a few
had been set free. After the trial began, thanks to the lawyers and to communists
tried in a state of freedom, the public opinion found out about the inhuman
conditions the communists were kept in prison. Because of the public scandal put
in motion by newspapers, the authorities had to react and general Davidoglu visited
the prison, including the room where the communist women were being detained.
Important to mention, communists from all country regions, of different nationalities
and language skills were being imprisoned those days. Many languages could be
heard at Jilava. Paula Kanton, Ion Dik Dicescu’s sister, remembered in her memoirs an
interesting episode regarding languages. The communist women rushed over gen.
Davidoglu – “we were all talking simultaneously, the Russian girls as well; they
were speaking as they could, with their bad Romanian language”.26 It worth wondering
what Kanton meant by “the Russian girls”. She could have referred to both women
of Russian origin from Bessarabia and women from Bessarabia, generally
speaking, with no clue regarding their ethnicity.
Seiva Averbuch/Vanda Nicolski provides us a third evidence of the bi-
/multilingualism of the Bessarabian communists. Seiva/Vanda was born in 1902, in a
Jewish family from Telenești, a small town in Orhei county. Her mother tongue was
Yiddish, but she could also speak Russian and a rudimentary Romanian, similar to
the one spoken by the “Russian girls” from Paula Kanton’s story. In the early 20s,
young Seiva was caught by the Romanian police and imprisoned for communist
activity in Plătărești. She later recalled that it was not until 1922, in Plătărești prison,
when she had the opportunity to speak Romanian more often. During the
imprisonment, she practiced her Romanian with a comrade named Kanner.27
As concerns the communists born in Cadrilater, the smallest of the Greater
Romania provinces, is interesting to notice that many of those of Bulgarian origin
spoke Turkish (Boris Ștefanov, Gh. Crosneff, Petre Borilă, Petre Gheorghe). Boris
Stefanov, a future general secretary of the CPoR, was a champion from linguistic
point of view: he knew seven languages.
The autodidact workers represent an interesting category, no matter which
part of Greater Romania they came from and what their ethnic origin was. Victor
Tordai, born in Transylvania, Solomon Schein, born in the Old Kingdom and
26
Paula Kanton memoires, in ibid., Collection no. 60, file 543, f. 24.
27
Vanda Nicolski recollections, in ibid., file 591, p. 2.
13 A Linguistic Babylon or Competing Linguistic Imperialisms? 251

Moise Dubinski, from Bessarabia managed to learn a few foreign languages of

their own free will. They were among those intelligent, curios people, who are
always ready to learn something new and tries to escape the concentric circles of
restrictions and of what “was meant to be”.
Concluding on this subchapter, it turns out that the number of languages a
person knew depended on ethnicity, place of birth (province, but also if the person
had a urban or a rural background), time of birth (if the person was born before or
after 1918), the social background, other, subjective factors.

II. THE ATTITUDE TOWARD THE ROMANIAN LANGUAGE

In late recollections in which they revisited their revolutionary life some

communist leaders touched the linguistic issue.
In 1921, when he was 19 years old, Al. Sencovici, a Hungarian worker from
Oradea, decided he wants “to see the world” .28 He put all his belongings in a small
suitcase and, together with other young Hungarian fellows, engaged in a long trip
throughout Romania. The young worker planned to visit as much as possible of his
new homeland. From time to time, the workers took temporary jobs in Galați,
Brăila, Ploiești, Târgoviște and other places. Because he travelled together with
persons who spoke the same language as his, Sencovici faced no problems in this
journey. Moreover, the group was lucky enough to run up against Romanians who
spoke Hungarian: “One Sunday, crossing the bridge in Ploiești, together with our
group, we were talking about some things in Hungarian when a gentleman stopped
us and talked to us. There was a Romanian who also spoke Hungarian. He asked us
where we are from, what can we do for a living, and told us that he would like us to
work for him, at «Creditul Minier». Said and done”.29 Sencovici mixed work and
pleasure: during his journey, he earned more money than he could ever imagined.
Eugen Iacobovici, another worker from Transylvania, also came to the Old
Kingdom to look for work. He was born in a village near Târgu Mureș, in a very
penurious family. Always short of money and in desperate need for work, he
travelled to Târgoviște, Galați, Ploiești, to find a job. In 1924, he came to
Bucharest. “It was difficult, because I didn’t know Romanian at all”, he said in
1969. “In my village and the environment I lived in up to 1923, I didn’t have any
chance to learn Romanian. At the apprentice school, in Târgu Mureș, I learned a
few Romanian words, but that was it. In Bucharest, I made no progress in this
respect neither, because I worked only with Hungarians. As a matter of fact, my
parents spoke Romanian quite well, but I didn’t, partially because I left home early.
But the truth is I didn’t learn because I didn’t need to. In my village and after, in
28
Al. Sencovici recollections, in ibid., fund Institute for Historical and Socio-Political Studies XVII
– Recollections (hereinafter ISISP, after the Romanian abbreviation), file 72, p. 16.
29
Ibid., p. 17.
252 Cristina Diac 14

my natural milieu, we didn’t use Romanian at all”.30 Yet, Iacobovici learned some
Romanian while he worked in Bucharest and remembered the new linguistic
acquisition boosted his political life: once he got to speak a better Romanian, he
could attend meetings organized by the communist unions. When a union was
formed in “Geiser” factory, where he was working, Iacobovici declined the offer to
become a member of the leading committee because he still considered himself a
new comer, on the other hand because he felt that he didn’t speak Romanian good
enough so that to do the job correctly.
When they were having these “linguistic encounters”, both Sencovici and
Iacobovici were young workers, at the beginning of their professional and political
life. They came to learn Romanian because of their own will, because they wanted
to, because they considered it useful. But there were some non-Romanians who
took the hard way to the knowledge of the Romanian language: through police
sections, court houses, prisons. They were the first communists.
In 1920, Ipolit Derevici, the medicine student born in Bessarabia already
mentioned, was arrested together with his brother, because of their supposed
communist sympathies. Derevici brothers were subject to a severe interrogation,
conducted by general Ioan Popovici himself. Popovici was the commander of the
Romanian troops stationed then in Bessarabia, which means he was the highest
ranked officer in the region. Yet, cpt. Mardare, Popovici’s adjutant, insisted to set
Derevici brothers free on “linguistic grounds”: even if they were communists,
Mardare would have said, “they are the only students from Bessarabia proficient in
Romanian”.31 This attitude is very representative for the beliefs of the army
officers: the best guardians of the nation’s “true soul” were convinced that a native
Romanian speaker couldn’t have been an enemy of the motherland.
Derevici brothers were lucky. Not the same can be said about a Hungarian
communist woman, Juliana Koch or Nagy, evoked by Paula Kanton in a late
recollection. The Hungarian woman was dying with tuberculosis in Văcărești
prison. He didn’t speak Romanian at all. Until the arrival of Paula Kanton and of
other communist women, Juliana had been left to rot alone in a cell. She couldn’t
say what she needed, nor the guards made any effort to find out. Remembering
those days, Kanton paints a terrible picture. The young woman was coughing to
faint and was spitting blood, but all the while, no one in the prison administration
did anything to help her: “Her tuberculosis got worse to the extent that she was
simply spilling her lungs. She was suffocating when she pulled pieces of lung out
of his mouth. He was delirious and shouting communist slogans in Hungarian”.32
Paula Kanton tried to comfort her helped by the sign language, because Iulișca
knew not a single word in Romanian and Kanton didn’t speak Hungarian. The
Magyar woman died soon after, in Plătărești prison. After many years, Paula
30
Eugen Iacobovici recollections, in ANIC, Collection no. 60, file 520, p. 10.
31
Derevici Ipolit recollections, in ibid., file 465, f. 10.
32
Paula Kanton recollections, in ibid., file 543, p. 12–13.
15 A Linguistic Babylon or Competing Linguistic Imperialisms? 253

Kanton read in a book published at Chișinău about the woman’s identity. As her
behaviour suggested, Iulișca had been a staunch communist, who had fought in
Hungary for the Republic of Councils. She and her husband had even been part of a
delegation of Magyar communists who met Lenin in Russia.
For communists, the imprisonment periods could be considered as rites of
passage, equally for women as for men. At the end of the time served in prison, a
communist was not any more the same person who had entered. As regards the
linguistic problem, the imprisonment periods functioned like a mixer that alleviates
the linguistic discrepancies.
After the first Party Congress, in May 1921, communists from all provinces
were arrested and brought to Jilava and Văcărești prisons in Bucharest, most of them
– to the Jilava fort. Many years after, some of them admitted that being together
behind bars helped them know each other, understand each other, learn the language
of the other and, in the end, consolidated their group identity.
Victor Tordai was arrested in May 1921, in Cluj, after the First Congress of
the Communist Party, along with other Hungarian workers of communist
orientation. They were initially interrogated locally then sent to Jilava prison in
Bucharest. The first impression – overwhelming – was aggravated by the lack of
knowledge of the Romanian language, Tordai recalled: “The dimly lit waiting
room, full of shadows, gave the impression of a medieval torture chamber,
awakening anxiety and fear. We lined up near the smoky and cold walls, amid
shouts and commands uttered in a crude voice. The impression of oppression was
deepened by the fact that I did not understand any of those blurry screams, because
most of us did not know Romanian. Baga János’ and Salamon’s rather dubious
linguistic knowledge helped us convey the instructions, in the midst of which Baga
shouted without any restraint the exhortation «let us not get haircut! ». Hearing
Baga’s words, I felt that we were not alone, that the solidarity of our comrades
awaited us behind the thick walls”.33
By now, this article displayed the both situations: when one came to
understand the necessity of knowing the Romanian language thanks to day-to-day
experiences and practices, as it happened to the young workers Al. Sencovici and
Eugen Iacobovici. But it also pointed to the limit situations in which could have
been a person with communist sympathies who didn’t speak Romanian. The
imprisonment from 1921–1922, when most of the important communists stood
behind bars, put them in front of some hard choices. For example, to decide
whether or not it would have been useful to their political activity to know the
Romanian language, even at an elementary level. From then onward, learning or
not learning Romanian became a political matter. And, in the same time, a
necessary precaution in what was expected to became a guerrilla warfare with the
Romanian authorities.
33
Victor Tordai recollections, in ibid., fund ISISP XVII - Recollections, file 62, vol. II, p. 27.
254 Cristina Diac 16

At that time, the CPoR didn’t have a leader unanimously accepted or elected
legitimately. In theory, Gh. Cristescu was the general secretary of the party. In
reality, there were multiple centres of power within a very diffuse and incipient
communist movement.
Elek Köblös was one of the most influential leaders imprisoned in Jilava at
that time. A Szekler born in Dumbrăvioara, a village close to Târgu Mureș/
Marosvásárhely, Köblös was an intelligent person and gifted politician, who knew
when to push and when to slow down. He was not a scholar, but a practical leader,
who was feeling better in the field rather than at the library. In August 1924, at the
Third Congress of the CPoR, he was appointed the general secretary of the CPoR
and leaded the Romanian communist movement until 1928. He was, probably, the
most reasonable of all the official leaders the communists in interwar Romania had.
Yet, Köblös had a weak point, revealed from the first lines of this article.
Let’s put them again here: “If a report arrives in Romanian to the Central
Secretariat, in order for the Secretary to understand it and respond, it must be
translated into Hungarian and symmetrically, the response of the secretary must be
translated from Hungarian in Romanian”.34 These weren’t just gossip or small talk,
but realities brought to the Comintern’s attention by an official document.
In order to overcome this shortcoming, at the beginning of his career Köblös
enlisted the help of an improvised translator, who was assisting him all the time.
Later on, he married her. Köblös and Karolina Kajlic represent rather an exception
within the communist world: the couple remained together until Köblös’ death, in
1937.
Elek Köblös’s inability to learn foreign languages was confirmed by all his
close friends who left testimonies – his wife, his collaborators. Karolina Kajlic said
that although he had no talent whatsoever, he struggled to learn Romanian and,
when the couple was living in the USSR – even Russian.35 Victor Tordai was also
one of Elek Köblös’ closest collaborators. In his recollections, he spoke of Köblös
only at superlative. But as for foreign languages, he fully confirmed Karolina
Kajlic’s impression: “of an unmatched intelligence and a sharp mind, he had no
sense of language and except his mother tongue, he proved unable to learn any
other language. Even Romanian he spoke in such a way that only we, who were
spending most of the time with him, were being able to understand what he said”.36
Nevertheless, as his collaborators remembered, Köblös struggled to overcome his
linguistic inability and tried to use Romanian as often as possible.
Coming back to Jilava prison, where Köblös was detained in 1921, probably
it was at that time and there when he realised that some knowledge of Romanian
34
Report addressed by the C.C. of the CPoR to the ECCI, in ANIC, fund C.C. of the R.C.P.-
Chancellery, file 41/1925, p. 14.
35
Karolina Kajlic recollections about her husband, Elek Köblös, in ibid., Collection no. 60, file 341,
p. 13.
36
Victor Tordai recollections, in ibid., fund ISISP XVII – Recollections, file 62, vol. II, p. 68.
17 A Linguistic Babylon or Competing Linguistic Imperialisms? 255

language would make the life of the Hungarian communists easier. And decided
accordingly.
The detainees’ life changed behind bars. All of a sudden, they had a lot of
free time. Their leaders decided to turn the bad luck into a learning opportunity and
organized courses of Marxism-Leninism, general knowledge, and foreign
languages, whatever “foreign” meant.
Experience is the best teacher, it is said. In his first day in prison, Victor
Tordai learnt a lesson about communication skills: after the humiliating position he
was put in, he decided to learn Romanian. Elek Köblös, the informal leader of the
Hungarian communists imprisoned in Jilava, supported enthusiastically the idea, as
remembered Mihail Macavei, a Romanian lawyer and a communist sympathizer
who was also in Jilava at that time. Macavei, a typical Romanian intellectual, spoke
French. In prison, he initiated classes of French language for detainees. Many
communists wanted to learn French because the communist literature, Lenin’s
writings, for instance, were arriving to Romania in this language. “It’s very good to
know French”, Köblös would’ve said, “but first we need classes of Romanian
language for the Hungarian detainees”.37 Macavei understood Köblös’ decisions to
learn Romanian himself and to encourage the others to do the same as a political
strategy.
In the end, Mihail Macavei doesn’t say if he took Köblös’ advice and taught
Romanian to Hungarians. Yet, some classes of Romanian had been organized, we
know it from Victor Tordai, one of the “students-detainees” who took advantage of
the learning opportunities created in prison. Tordai attended the classes of Romanian
taught by Rozvany Jenö, also a lawyer, as Macavei, yet a Hungarian one.
We owe Tordai some details as regards the way in which this improvised
“school” functioned in prison: “At Jilava there were regular political courses of
Marxism-Leninism. We had a lot of time for learning. During the heated
discussions, our shortcomings and mistakes came to light, which was in fact a good
thing, because all of us could learn from the others’ mistakes. At the heart of the
political life of the Hungarian-speaking comrades was the apostolic figure of Dr.
Rozvány Jenö. I attended his Romanian language school every day, having here the
best conditions for practicing and appropriating it. Dr. Rozvany put his school at
the service of the cause, because he used all opportunities and possibilities to plant
in us the puritanical, communist morality, wherever he saw this necessity, his rich
and multilateral culture being shared with those outside the educational circle, in
all the circumstances of our daily lives. Beribits and Fabian also offered interesting
lectures to us. Thirsty for knowledge, I was present everywhere where something
could be learned and I was learning all that was new for me”.38 In Tordai’s opinion,
in 13 months of imprisonment he learned Romanian well.39
37
Mihail Macavei recollections regarding Elek Köblös, in ANIC, Collection no. 60, file 341, p. 37.
38
Victor Tordai recollections, in ibid., fund ISISP XVII - Recollections, file 62, vol. II, p. 30.
39
Ibid., p. 38.
256 Cristina Diac 18

The case of the communists in interwar Romania pleads against one of the
nationalists’ dearest idea namely the idea that states the language is always a
marker of the individual or group identity, or a marker of the social status. In line
with some recent achievements40, this paper argues that the usage of a language
might be understood rather as a communication instrument than as a proof of the
existence of a different culture.41
It seems that in interwar Romania, the communists learned to use Romanian
as a mean of communication, as an instrument to get in touch with their political
group and their followers and to promote their political ideas. Though, it’d be
interesting to ask if the usage of the Romanian language as a communication
instrument within the small world of the Romanian interwar communism did
managed to create a specific political culture, namely a “communist culture”. Even
if it remains for other article to answer to this question extensively, let’s bear in
mind Tordai’s words regarding “the communist puritanism” as a possible opening
for a broader and more complex discussion. Hence, Tordai says something very
valuable: through the language, in this case, the Romanian language, Rozvany tried
to create a certain ethos. The language was functioning both as an instrument for
communication and a method to create new political identities.
Not all the Hungarian communists and, to a bigger extend, communists of
ethnic origins other than Romanian, shared Victor Tordai’s enthusiasm regarding
learning new things, Romanian language included. That they didn’t want or couldn’t,
or maybe both, the fact is that not all of the Hungarian communists followed Tordai’s
path. After four years since the Jilava events, in 1925, a report written most probable
by Elek Köblös said the linguistic problem was persisting, which meant that the
“communist world” from Romania was still looking for a lingua franca. “In
Romania, a country with five different parts”, was said in the report, “it’s very easy
for Siguranța to keep a watchful eye on every communist, no matter what his or her
ethnicity is. From our point of view, this is a real disaster: we can use a comrade only
in that province he was born in, and whose language he can speak”.42
The author of the report was right to believe that it’d have been difficult for a
monolingual communist, native in other language than Romanian, to pursue illegal
political activities throughout entire country. Let’s take, for instance, the case of a
Hungarian communist who could speak only Hungarian. A Hungarian communist
from Romania might have had much more opportunities for political activism than
anyone could imagine at a first glance, but not all of them in Romania. He or she
could had remained his entire life in Transylvania or Banat, a territory big enough
40
P. M. Judson, “The Limits of Nationalist Activism in Imperial Austria: Creating Frontiers in
Daily Life”, in J. Feichtinger and G.B. Cohen, Understanding Multiculturalism: The Habsburg
Central European Experience, New York, 2014, 61–82.
41
This paper uses the notion of culture as “a system of ideas and signs and associations and ways of
behaving and communicating”, E. Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, Basil Blackwell, 1983, p. 7.
42
ANIC, fund C.C. of the R.C.P.-Chancellery Directorate, file 41/1925, p. 15.
19 A Linguistic Babylon or Competing Linguistic Imperialisms? 257

so that to assure some space of manoeuvre. Or he or she could’ve come to

Bucharest, where an enormous Hungarian community was living. Abroad, he or
she could’ve gone to a Hungarian speaking region in Czechoslovakia or Austria, or
even to the Soviet Union, where numerous Hungarian political emigrants were
living. Or to any other European metropolis with a big Hungarian emigration.
Hence, it’d have been easier for a Hungarian communist who could speak only
Hungarian to live, work, and be politically active in Paris, for instance, than in
Craiova or Vaslui.
However, some took their chances, ignored Elek Köblös’ suggestions and
didn’t learn Romanian. In this respect, Luka László/Vasile Luca, one of the most
prominent communist leaders in the 50s, provides an example which deserves a
closer examination.
In 1920, the Big Four granted Transylvania to Romania, political reality
which László Luka couldn’t come to terms with easily. As Köblös, he was also a
Szekler, born in a village from Trei Scaune/Háromszék county (Covasna county, in
present time). It turns out that the language played an important role in Luka’s
refuse to obey the rules of the new state he was living in. At the beginning of the
20s, he refused the conscription many times, because of two reasons. During the
last months of the Great War, in the havoc atmosphere that characterized the
dismantlement of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, he had volunteered for one of the
irregular armies assembled in Transylvania, where he served as a sub-
commissioned officer. Hence, he considered shameful to serve in the Romanian
army as an ordinary soldier after he had had a higher military rank in another army,
even an improvised one. Moreover, he felt that he was going to be humiliated
because of his inability to speak Romanian.43 Coming from a nation that had been
dominating everything in Transylvania for centuries, Luka László felt that the
Romanians won’t miss the opportunity of revenge. He even considered leaving to
Hungary. In the end, he decided to take advantage of the corruption that dominated
the Romanian public administration and tried to solve his military situation in an
old, but effective fashion, namely by bribe.
After a spectacular career within the Communist Party after the Second World
War, Vasile Luca was arrested at the beginning of 1952. Among different issues
regarding his activity as minister of Finances, the inquiry was very much interested
in Luca’s early years as a professional revolutionary, particularly in his sinuous
relationship with the Romanian secret police. During the investigation, Luca insisted
that in the 20s he needed a mediator/translator, for every important meeting with the
officers of the secret police, because he didn’t speak Romanian well.44
Looking more carefully into Luca’s story about his linguistic (in)capacities, it
seems more like a strategy to deceive the opponent. In interwar period, pretending
43
The Archive of the Council for the Study of the Securitate Archive (hereinafter ACNSAS, after
the Romanian abbreviation), Criminal Fund, file 148, vol. I, p. 6.
44
Ibid., vol. IV, p. 69, 92, 94, 95.
258 Cristina Diac 20

that he couldn’t speak Romanian, he hoped to fool the police regarding the real
danger posed by his deeds. In the 50s, when he was arrested by his own comrades,
also interested in his past, Luca probably tried the same strategy, in order to
alleviate his guilt: he couldn’t have done what Siguranța asked him to do, since he
didn’t understand what he was being asked to do.
Whether he was exaggerating his inability to speak Romanian in front of the
Siguranța and Securitate officers or not, it is certain that Vasile Luca never spoke a
good Romanian. He learned it late, and very approximative. And he was not a
singular case of Hungarian communists who never got to speak Romanian well.
Peter Mathais, a communist from Banat with Slovak origins, native in Hungarian
language45, advanced within the Party hierarchy at the end of 20s and became a
member of the Central Committee of the CPoR. Because of multiple reasons, his
enthusiasm lost momentum in the second half of the 30s and during the WWII. He
didn’t have an important career after 1945 either. Mathais’ linguistic inabilities
were listed among the reasons because of which he never got a position within the
central leading bodies of the party: “the comrade speaks Romanian very badly”, 46 a
party functionary wrote in Mathais’ cadre file.
Coming back to the interwar period, the decision to not learn Romanian put
the communists who couldn’t speak Romanian at a higher risk than their comrades
who could. The following examples are relevant for this discussion.
Between April-June 1925, a few dozen of the most important leaders of the
CPoR were trialled in what is known as “Francmasonă Street Trial”. Miklos
Goldberger, the multilingual communist from Odorhei, was one of those
prosecuted. In the end, he was acquitted, but other Transylvanian communists were
convicted to serve different prison terms for more or less the same deeds as
Goldberger’s. Goldberger wondered where this difference of treatment between
him and his comrades came from and concluded that the difference was made by
the ability to speak Romanian: whereas Goldberger did spoke Romanian, the rest
of the Hungarian co-defendants didn’t. He noticed that during the trial, no one
listened to the Hungarian defendants’ testimonies. When they were pleading their
cause, even the judges who were supposed to learn what defendants had to say in
their defence could barely suppress a yawn.47 Goldberger, instead, spoke in
Romanian, which made a good impression to the court and, he believed, brought
him the acquittal.
A fugitive from the “Francmasonă Street trial”, Luka László was arrested a
few month later, in September 1925, and sent to Jilava. There he refused to salute
the director of the prison, explaining, in Hungarian, that he can’t do that because he
45
For Mathais’ linguistic abilities, see the Table 1.
46
Report regarding Peter Mathais compiled by the Cadre Section of Arad Local Committee of the
R.C.P., May 1948, in ANIC, Collection no. 53, file M/74, vol. II, p. 146.
47
Nicolae Goldbergher recollection, in ibid., Collection no. 60, file 493, vol. I, p. 92.
21 A Linguistic Babylon or Competing Linguistic Imperialisms? 259

doesn’t speak Romanian. Such an attitude brought him a severe punishment. To

protest it, the other detainees declared a hunger strike.48

CONCLUSIONS

In its first part, this article explained what languages the first communists
spoke and concluded that this matter depended on ethnicity, place of birth (of
province, but also if the person had an urban or a rural background), time of birth
(if the person was born before or after 1918), the social background and other,
subjective factors.
Romanian intellectuals from the Old Kingdom spoke rather French.
Intellectual Jews from the Old Kingdom spoke mostly German. Romanian workers
in the Kingdom did not know foreign languages at all, nor did the Hungarian
workers from Transylvania. Hungarian and Jews intellectuals from the same
province knew mostly German. An interesting category is that of the self-taught
workers, who learned many languages by their own will. Militant communists born
and educated in Bessarabia, during Tsarism, knew Russian and a rudimentary
Romanian but learning foreign languages was rather a rare habit. Most of the
Bulgarian communists who worked in Romania during the interwar were born in
Cadrilater (Boris Ștefanov, Gh. Crosneff, Petre Borilă, Petre Gheorghe). Their
particular linguistic feature was that they spoke Turkish.
The second part of this article dealt with the communists’ attitude toward the
Romanian language, particularly the attitude of those communists who didn’t speak
it natively. We can conclude that especially the leaders of the CPoR learned to use
Romanian as a mean of communication, as an instrument. They had to find a way
to understand each other, to interact with the population and with the authorities.
Not knowing the language of the majority was not an option for an activist, as long
as he or she was supposed to embark on any mission the party send him to, in any
part of the country the party needed him. They learned it because their political
activities, many of which proved very dangerous, required the ability to speak the
authorities’ language even at an elementary level.
Romanian language offered the common ground for all these people coming
from three former Empires.

48
Ibid., f. 69.
260 Cristina Diac 22
23 A Linguistic Babylon or Competing Linguistic Imperialisms? 261
262 Cristina Diac 24