----------------------- Page 1-----------------------

STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS BABEȘ-BOLYAI 1/2018

Romanian Theatre – New Perspectives

Celebrating the Centenary of Modern Romania
(1918-2018)

----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

STUDIA
UNIVERSITATIS BABEŞ-BOLYAI
DRAMATICA

1/2018
March

----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS BABEŞ-BOLYAI

DRAMATICA

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:
ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca

HONORIFIC BOARD:
GEORGE BANU, Université Paris 3-Sorbonne Nouvelle
ION VARTIC, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca
MICHAEL PAGE, Calvin College

EDITORIAL BOARD:
LIVIU MALIŢA, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca
ANCA MĂNIUȚIU, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca
MIRUNA RUNCAN, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca
LAURA PAVEL-TEUTIȘAN, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca
VISKY ANDRÁS, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca
ANDREA TOMPA, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca
IOAN POP-CURŞEU, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca
DELIA ENYEDI, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca
RALUCA SAS-MARINESCU, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca
ANCA HAŢIEGAN, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca
MIHAI PEDESTRU, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca

INTERNATIONAL REFEREES:
DOMNICA RĂDULESCU, Washington and Lee University
PETER P. MÜLLER, University of Pécs
TOM SELLAR, Editor of Theatre Journal, Duke University Press, Yale University
JEAN-PIERRE SARRAZAC, Université Paris 3-Sorbonne Nouvelle
GILLES DECLERCQ, Université Paris 3-Sorbonne Nouvelle
PATRIZIA LOMBARDO, Geneva University
LAURA CARETTI, Università degli Studi di Siena
LIVIU DOSPINESCU, Université Laval, Québec

ISSUE EDITORS (1/2018):

ANCA HAŢIEGAN, ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU and MIHAI PEDESTRU, Babeş-
Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca

SECRETARY OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD:

MIHAI PEDESTRU, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca

EDITORIAL OFFICE: 4th Kogălniceanu Street, Cluj-Napoca, Romania,

Phone: +40 264 590066,
Web site: http://studia.ubbcluj.ro/serii/dramatica,
Contact: studia.dramatica@ubbcluj.ro
----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

Cover design by Constantin Daniel Rosenthal,

“Romania Breaking off Her Chains on the Field of Liberty” (1848)

STUDIA UBB EDITORIAL OFFICE: B.P. Hasdeu no. 51, 400371 Cluj-Napoca, Romania,
Phone + 40 264 405352,
office@studia.ubbcluj.ro

----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

YEAR
Volume 63 (LXIII) 2018
MONTH
MARCH
ISSUE
1

PUBLISHED
ONLINE: 2018-03-30
PUBLISHED
PRINT: 2018-03-30
ISSUE
DOI:10.24193/subbdrama.2018.1

Special Thematic Issue:

Romanian Theatre – New Perspectives
Celebrating the Centenary of Modern Romania (1918-2018)

ISSUE EDITORS: Anca Haţiegan, Ştefana Pop-Curșeu and Mihai Pedestru

CONTENT / SOMMAIRE

FOREWORD by Anca
HAŢIEGAN ..........................................................................
....... 7

STUDIES AND ARTICLES

Ștefana POP-CURŞEU, Un jeu théâtral traditionnel roumain au carrefour des

cultures (est-) européennes: Irozii – les Hérodes / A Traditional Romanian
Theatrical Performance at the Crossroads of (East-) European Cultures:
Irozii -
The Herods
Play ..............................................................................
.................... 25

Anca HAŢIEGAN, The Theatrical Christening of

Romania ...................................... 61

Justin CEUCA, Zaharia Bârsan and the Establishment of the National Theatre in

Cluj ..............................................................................
.......................................... 91

Delia ENYEDI, Written on the Walls: The Hungarian-Romanian Transfer of the

National Theatre Building from
Kolozsvár/Cluj ................................................. 107

Oana ILIE, The Story of a Story: The Grigoriu Theatre

Company ............................ 121

Ion CAZABAN, Aesthetic Perspectives in Romanian Theatre at the End of the

First World
War ...............................................................................
................... 145
----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

CONTENTS OF STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA, LXIII, 1, 2018

Florin FAIFER, Alexandru Davila – The Project as Work of Art. The

Father

Complex ...........................................................................
.................................... 163

Lucian SINIGAGLIA, Marietta Anca. A Portrait of a

Lady .................................... 177

Ursula WITTSTOCK, Perpetuation or Decline? The German Theatre in Sibiu at

the Turning Point
1918 ..............................................................................
......... 193

Cristian GROSU, The Image of History in Matei Vișniec’s Dramaturgy ................

205

Oltița CÎNTEC, Theatre for Young Audience. Romanian

Landscape ....................... 217

Miruna RUNCAN, Romanian Theatre as Public Service. A Critical Perspective of

the Last
Decades ...........................................................................
....................... 227

INTERVIEW

Elise WILK, Interview with Alina Nelega, Dramatic Author, Professor and Tutor
of the Playwriting MA at the University of Arts in Tîrgu-
Mureș .................... 243

PERFORMANCE AND BOOK REVIEWS

Anda CADARIU, “Us and Them” – A Transylvanian Story in Three Chapters

(Performance review: 20/20, written and directed by Gianina Cărbunariu,
a production of Yorick Studio, Tîrgu-Mureş, and of Double Bind, a
performance by Alina Nelega and Kincses
Réka) ........................................ 253

Anca HAŢIEGAN, Lucian Blaga as Visionary but Unfortunate Playwright (Book

review: Doina Modola, Lucian Blaga și teatrul. Jocurile dramei.
Tulburarea
apelor, Fapta, Daria, Înviere [Lucian Blaga and the Theatre. Drama
Games.
Whirling Waters, The Deed, Daria, Resurrection], Bucharest: Editura Anima,
2017; Lucian Blaga și teatrul. Riscurile avangardei [Lucian Blaga
and the
Theatre. The Risks of the Avant-garde], Bucharest: Editura Anima, 2003;
Lucian
Blaga și teatrul. Insurgentul. Memorii. Publicistică. Eseuri [Lucian Blaga
and the
Theatre. The Insurgent. Memoirs. Journalism. Essays], Bucharest:
Editura
Anima,
1999) .............................................................................
................................. 263

Crenguța MANEA, Les âges du Théâtre National de Yassy, (Book review: Ştefan
Oprea, Vârstele Scenei [The Ages of the Stage], Iași, Junimea Publishing
House,

2016) .............................................................................
.............................................................. 269

Alex TEODORESCU: Liviu Ciulei – WANTED At Home and Abroad (Book

review: Florica Ichim, Anca Mocanu (eds.), Liviu Ciulei acasă și-n
lume
[Liviu Ciulei Home and Abroad], Bucharest: Fundația Culturală “Camil
Petrescu”, Revista “Teatrul azi”,
2016) ....................................................................... 273

----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA, LXIII, 1, 2018, p. 7 - 22

(Recommended Citation)
DOI:10.24193/subbdrama.2018.1.01

Foreword

Anniversary of Romanian Theatre. Brief Retrospect.

1
ANCA HAŢIEGAN

Abstract: The paper presents the history of Romanian theatre,

beginning
with the creation of the first Romanian itinerant theatre
company, at the
middle of the 18th century, to the present. It is intended as a foreword
and a
chronological framework to this special issue of Studia UBB Dramatica.

Keywords: history, Romanian, theatre, union, centenary

The year 2018 is the centenary of the union of Transylvania, Banat, as

well as of Bessarabia and North Bukovina with the Kingdom of Romania.
The “Great Union” at the end of the First World War, as known in Romanian
historiography, crowned the Romanians’ movements
of national and
cultural emancipation from the ward of the Habsburg Monarchy (followed
by the Austro-Hungarian Empire), of the Ottoman and Russian Empires,
movements initiated in the second half of the 18th century and intensified in
the 19th. Given the celebration of the centenary of the Great Union, we intend
to dedicate an issue of the journal Studia Dramatica to Romanian
theatre,
which we seek to revisit not only festively, but also critically.
The history of Romanian theatre is slightly longer than one century: the
first Romanian itinerant theatre company was created by several Transylvanian
students, from Blaj, at the middle of the 18th century, the century of the first
attempts to create dramatic texts in Romanian. The first theatre shows
in
Romanian, in Moldavia and Wallachia, were performed in 1816, respectively

1. Anca Hațiegan: Faculty of Theatre and Television, Babeş-Bolyai

University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
ancahatiegan@yahoo.com. Paper translated from Romanian by Magda Iftene.

----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

1819. (We mean the first theatre shows in the modern sense of the word – and
not the theatrical performances typical to traditional cultures or the medieval
forms of entertainment, which continued to be present in the aforementioned
period). In the fourth decade of the 19th century, professional Romanian theatre
was established, by the foundation of the first theatrical education institutions
in Romanian, at Bucharest and Iasi – the capitals of the two
principalities
Wallachia and Moldavia, which, by the union of 1859 (“Small Union”), were
the nucleus of the modern Romanian state. The first national Romanian
theatres appeared in the same places; this phenomenon foreshadowed, to some
extent, the proclamation of Romania’s independence (the name “Romania”
was officially adopted by the United Principalities by the Constitution
of
1866). The declaration of independence occurred in 1877, at the beginning of
the Russo-Turkish war, during which the Romanians fought on Russia’s side,
obtaining the release from Ottoman suzerainty. Romanian theatre had seen
some significant developments since the beginning of the century, owing to
playwrights Vasile Alecsandri and Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu and to some
actors such as Costache Caragiali, Matei Millo, Teodor Teodorini, Mihail
Pascaly, Eufrosina Popescu or Fanny Tardini. In Iasi, which hosted a strong
Jewish community, in 1876, so around the war, Abraham Goldfaden founded
the world’s first professional theatre in Yiddish. Immediately after the country’s
independence was won, the reorganization of the Romanian theatrical system
was approached, according to the model offered by French Comedy, a model
that has remained roughly functional to the present day in the state-subsidized
theatres (repertory theatres with an established company) and it continues to
dominate the Romanian theatrical stage. Dramaturgy was strengthened in the
second half of the 19th century, with the arrival of the great playwright (and
prose writer) Ion Luca Caragiale (1852-1912), a tutelary personality of Romanian
theatre, the author of a number of comedies and of a drama that became a
standard in Romanian culture. Perhaps not accidentally, they premiered under
the ruling of Carol I of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, in a period favourable for
Romania, when the country was wholly ascending, an aspect marked by the
proclamation of the Kingdom, in 1881.
The same period saw the appearance of the great Romanian actors
(Aristizza Romanescu, Grigore Manolescu, then Constantin Nottara, Aglae
Pruteanu, Agatha Bârsescu, etc.). With Paul Gusty, stage director at the
Bucharest National Theatre, the theatrical staging entered a new visionary
and creative stage and became an indispensable element of the performance.
The Romanian theatre’s links with the Western European theatre (first and

----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

FOREWORD

foremost with the French one, but also with the Italian, German, Austrian or
English ones) increased. In the beginning of the 20th century, at the same time
with the European theatrical movement, the idea of free theatre
also
materialized in the Kingdom of Romania by the foundation, in 1909, of the
Davila Company – the first private theatre company in modern Romania.
A significant aspect is that, in the debut of the inaugural performance,
a programmatic play, written specifically for this event by Ion Luca Caragiale,
was put on stage. The company manager, Alexandru Davila, a complete
theatre professional (like Caragiale, in fact), i.e. actor, director and
playwright,
enforced such a discipline of the play and of the staging that his
shows
became and continued to be for a long time the supreme reference in
the
assessment of a new theatrical production. He launched and encouraged a
number of new acting talents who would reach their full potential in
the
inter-war period (Marioara Voiculescu, Lucia Sturdza and Tony Bulandra, etc.).
The coattail of the Davila Company encouraged, before the First World War, the
appearance of two other private companies (led by the aforementioned ones,
i.e. Marioara Voiculescu, respectively the Bulandra spouses, who also became
associates at some point).

Between World War I and World War II

During the First World War, when Romania fought on the side of the
Triple Entente, the capital and a large part of the country territory
were
occupied by the German army. Most of those active in the sector of theatre
took refuge in Moldavia, at Iasi, where the Royal Family has also withdrawn,
together with the government, the army and almost the entire country
administration. When the fortunes of war changed, the Romanians took back
their positions and once again began the attack at the west, for the release of
Transylvania and Banat – territories where the population was mostly
Romanian – from under the domination of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In
1918, i.e. one hundred years ago, the Romanians there, as well as those from
Bessarabia and North Bukovina, expressed their desire to unite with the
“motherland”, which, at the end of the war, led to the creation of
Greater
Romania. On 15 October 1922, in the Transylvanian locality Alba-Iulia,
chosen for the occurrence of this event owing to historical and symbolic
considerations, the coronation of King Ferdinand and of Queen Mary as
sovereigns of united Romania took place. Before that, the King and Queen
had engaged in an official tour across Transylvania, during which, in Sibiu,
9

----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

they woke up, in their sleeping room, with the two debut volumes of
the
young writer and philosopher Lucian Blaga (1895-1961), born not far from
this town. Their author was already considered Transylvania’s most precious
“gift”, after the Union, to the motherland. The Queen held the books
and
later awarded a prize to the writer. With Lucian Blaga, the
Transylvanian
culture took an unexpected qualitative leap after the Great Union. The
creator of the “most original and ample philosophical system in Romanian
culture”2, poet and prose writer, Blaga was also a bright playwright,
perhaps the most daring and inventive one in the inter-war period – a
period not at all deprived of valuable plays written by authors such as
Camil Petrescu (Blaga’s most important “competitor”, himself a philosopher
and excellent prose writer and theatre theorist), George Ciprian (dramatic
author successfully put on stage also in Berlin, Prague, Bern, and
Paris),
Mihail Sebastian, G.M. Zamfirescu, Victor Ion Popa, Al. Kirițescu, Tudor
Mușatescu, Adrian Maniu, Hortensia Papadat-Bengescu, and so on and so
forth. In the same period, in Cluj, Cernăuți and Chișinău, meaning the most
important urban hubs of the provinces that had recently joined the Kingdom
of Romania, new national theatres were founded. (Unfortunately, two of
them, i.e. in Cernăuți and Chișinău, and the National Theatre of
Craiova,
were closed down in 1935, perhaps also because of the great world economic
crisis, which had also had an impact on Romania).
In the inter-war, in Cluj, an Academy of Music and Dramatic Art was
also founded. Under the Habsburg rule and later under the Austro-
Hungarian one, the Transylvanian and Banat Romanians
had been
prohibited from founding a professional local theatrical movement or to
erect a national theatre. In the aforementioned provinces, until the
Great
Union, there had been only Romanian theatre companies made from
amateurs. Starting from the second half of the 19th century, professional
actors from the neighboring Romania took a chance, however, and engaged
in a number of tours in the said territories, facing the authorities’ complaints.
Such an actor was Zaharia Bârsan, born in Transylvania, but trained at the

th
Bucharest Music and Declamation Conservatory, in the beginning of the 20
century. He was appointed in the management of the Cluj National Theatre

2 . Marta Petreu, Filosofii paralele [Parallel Philosophies], second edition,

revised (Iasi: Editura
Polirom, 2013), 28. See also Marta Petreu, Ioan Muntean, Mircea
Flonta, Romania,
philosophy in, in The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2004):
 https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/romania-philosophy-in/v-1
(accessed on February
20, 2018).

10

----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

FOREWORD

in 1919, for his special efforts in promoting Romanian

theatre in
Transylvania before the war. Apart from the national theatres, in the inter-
war, in Romania and especially in the capital, at Bucharest, numerous private
theatres appeared, some short-lived, others with a longer life. Many of them
were led by actresses (Marioara Voiculescu, Maria Ventura, Lucia Sturdza
Bulandra, Maria Filotti, Dida Solomon, Tantzi Cutava-Barozzi, and so on and
so forth), a sign of accelerated emancipation of women in that time.
The
repertory program of these theatres was quite eclectic, and the staging did
not have a style too different from the one of the state subsidized theatres.
The great actors and directors of the age were positively active both in one
and in the other. Actor Constantin Tănase founded, in 1919, the Cărăbuș
Company, the first specialized revue theatre in Romania. In the same period,
in 1929, the National Radiophonic Theatre was created and it has been
extremely active until now.
There were also avant-garde movements, but, despite the fact that
Romania was the country of birth and debut of Tristan Tzara and Marcel
Iancu, two of the founders of Dadaism, the theatrical avant-garde here was
rather “soft”. There were attempts to found people’s theatres or theatres for
workers (this purpose was approached in particular by the directors and
playwrights Victor Ion Popa and G.M. Zamfirescu), but their activity did not
have a significant echo. (The existence of proletarian theatre, Agit-prop,
in
inter-war Romania, had not been well-documented.) The connections of
Romanian theatre with Western European theatre intensified significantly in
this stage. Actors and companies from abroad would
visit Romania
frequently, which had a strong echo among the professionals of theatre, but
also among the regular domestic audience. On the other hand, the Romanians
organize considerably fewer tours, of which we note, however, the one of the
Teatrul Mic of Bucharest, which, in 1923, presented in Paris M. Sorbul’s
Patima roșie [Red Passion], with Elvira Popescu and Alexandru Mihalescu
in
the leading roles, actors who were later adopted by the French stage.
Undoubtedly, the most important phenomenon characterizing the
inter-war Romanian theatre was the theatricalisation movement, promoted
by a number of gifted directors, such as Aurel Ion Maican, Ion Sava
(the former’s disciple and the most audacious “theatricalizer” of the
inter-
war), Soare Z. Soare (follower of Max Reinhardt), Haig Acterian (friend with
Edward Gordon Craig, who prefaced a book for him, and the author of a
micro-monograph dedicated to Craig), Victor Ion Popa, George Mihail
Zamfirescu, Sandu Eliad, Vasile Enescu, Ion Șahighian and so on, as well as a
11

----------------------- Page 13-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

number of equally gifted scenographers, such as Traian Cornescu, Victor

Feodorov, George Löwendal, Theodor Kiriacoff, M.H. Maxy, etc. The
theatricalization of theatre meant the waiving of
realism and stage
naturalism in favor of suggestion, abstraction, and stylization. The focus
shifted from the text to the performance. Stage director Ion Sava was
the
most decided supporter of the idea that theatre is not literature, it does not
serve to the dramatic text, but it is a self-reliant art (an idea also backed up by
playwright I.L. Caragiale in the second half of the 19th century).
Inter-war
“theatrical” theatre was first and foremost a theatre of image, the setting, the
stage design, the choreography of the actors’ bodies, corporeal plasticity
becoming increasingly more important elements of the play. The directors
who promoted theatricalization would often build stage metaphors which
would involve an intellectual labor from the audience – they had to decipher
the meaning of the related metaphors, the stage symbols. Cinematographic-
like staging was also a practice, which led to the acceleration of the pace of
the dramatic action, of the setting changes, of the acting. (The same Ion Sava,
who admired the Italian theatre and film director Anton Giulio Bragaglia, a
pioneer of photography and of futuristic filmmaking, was the main supporter
of the techniques borrowed from filmmaking to theatre.) The “inter-text”, the
cultural citation would also be practiced, the stage images being able to refer
to known or lesser known works of the plastic arts. Inter-war directors were
also frequently theatre theorists. Owing to them and to other critical writings
from Camil Petrescu, Lucian Blaga, Ion Marin Sadoveanu, Mihail Sebastian,
the aestheticians Tudor Vianu and Alice Voinescu, and others, in the inter-
war, Romanian theatrical studies saw an unprecedented development.
After the effervescence of the first decades after the Great
Union,
Romanian theatre entered a stage of decline, of marked commercialization,
toward the end of the 1930s, because of the increasingly more charged
political atmosphere. Like in other European countries, the right
nationalist
movement was more and more visible and aggressive in Romanian politics,
but also among a (rather significant) part of the intellectuals. The latter were
inclined toward the nationalist right rather than toward the socialist
left
because of their mistrust in the neighboring Russia, fueled by an unfortunate
historical experience and because they did not agree with
communist
internationalism, nor did they agree with the project of the
country’s
dismemberment and its organization in soviets, considering the efforts and
the delay taken for the creation of the unified Romanian state. The
liberal-
democratic and bourgeois notions began to wear away. The totalitarian and

12
----------------------- Page 14-----------------------

FOREWORD

the collectivistic temptations were increasingly stronger. In 1938, King Carol II

repealed the democratic constitution that had been adopted in 1923 and
installed the dictatorship. Octavian Goga’s nationalist government, installed
at the end of 1937, issued the first discriminating, anti-Jewish laws, of a series
that also continued under other succeeding governments.
During 1940, after the beginning of the Second World War, Romania
suffered a number of significant territorial losses (Bessarabia, reattached
to
the USSR, North Bukovina and the Hertza Region, also occupied by the
USSR, north-eastern Transylvania, assigned to Hungary by the Vienna
Award, and Southern Dobruja, lost in favor of Bulgaria), which led to
the
abdication of King Carol II who assigned his prerogatives to his young son,
Michael. However, the real leader of the country was General Ion Antonescu,
appointed head of government in the same year. For a while, he allied with
the Iron Guard (a fascist paramilitary organization), and, on 13
September
1940, Romania was proclaimed “national legionary state”. After a number of
disorders caused by them in the countries, assassinations and a pogrom
committed by the legionaries in Bucharest, Antonescu suppressed their rise
during their attempt to take over the rule from his hands (“the
legionary
rebellion”), an attempt crushed on 22 and 23 January 1941, which marked the
end of the legionary state, but not of the anti-Semite persecutions and
violence. Thus, because of the racist legislation enacted during Antonescu’s
government, which prevented Jews from playing in Romanian theatres, they
founded the theatre called Barașeum, which operated in 1941-1945. The
institution’s entire personnel was Jewish, but the performances (in prose and
musical) took place, by the authorities’ decision, only in Romanian. We need
to note that, however, this was the only Jewish theatre in Europe which
survived in the period of the Second World War. In fact, the whole theatrical
activity was turned upside down. For example, the staff of the Cluj theatre
was moved, during the war, in Timisoara, since the Cluj was on the territory
occupied by Hungary. On 22 June 1941, Romania entered the war by siding
with the Axis powers, beginning the (counter)attack against the USSR,
together with the German troops. The Romanians recovered the territories
that had been taken by the Russians, but continued to advance, with
their
German allies, to Stalingrad and in the Caucasus. As known, the Russians
were victors in these battles and, in exchange, began to flow to the West and
South-west. They had already entered Northern Moldavia when King
Michael I, who had grown sufficiently on account of the difficult circumstances,
removed and arrested marshal Antonescu, proclaiming, on 23 August 1944,

13

----------------------- Page 15-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN
Romania’s shift of side with the Allies. In consequence, the
Germans
bombarded Bucharest, one of the affected objectives being the National
Theatre, the building of which had been inaugurated in 1852 (initially called
Teatrul cel Mare). Nowadays, on Calea Victoriei, one can see only its front,
reconstructed and incorporated in a building meant to be a hotel...

During the Communist regime

After signing the armistice with the governments of the

United
Nations (12 September 1944), Romania began to lose, piece by piece, its
independence. The important decisions were made in Moscow. Moscow
enforced, for Bucharest, in 1945, a transition government led by Petru Groza,
an allied of the communists. In November 1946, elections were organized,
their results being heavily falsified; in the end, the Romanian Workers’
Party (resulting from the union of all the left wing Romanian parties with
the Romanian Communist Party) was declared winner. The historical,
democratic Romanian parties were under siege. Their leaders, as well as
numerous party members, would lose their lives in the communist prisons.
Terror had merely begun to show its teeth. By the Peace Treaties of
Paris
(1947), Romania received back Northern Transylvania, but lost Bessarabia,
North Bukovina and the Hertza region in favor of the Soviet Union, as well
as South Dobruja, assigned to Bulgaria. On 30 December 1947, King
Michael I, who had tried to reinstall the democratic regime and who had
taken every humanly possible effort to oppose the Soviet occupation and
the transformation of Romania in a leftist dictatorship, was forced by
the
communist authorities to abdicate. Romania was proclaimed a People’s
Republic. In April 1948, a new constitution was promulgated, moulded on the
Soviet Constitution. In the same year, the campaign of forced collectivisation
of agriculture began; it would last until 1962. The main means of production,
all the large enterprises of the country were nationalised, including private
theatres and film theatres or film processing laboratories. The removal of the
undesirable intellectuals from the higher education (including the theatrical
one) system and from the Romanian Academy began. Practically, 1948 was
the year when the extremely brutal mass repression of those labelled
enemies of the new regime was unleashed; not even the ill, the elderly, the
pregnant women, the children were spared. Many people were investigated
and judged in show trials or simply thrown in prisons, without having been
trialled; they were incarcerated in extreme conditions which most of them

14

----------------------- Page 16-----------------------

FOREWORD

could not survive. Many of them were tortured or even ideologically “re-
educated” (especially in the ominously famous prison of Pitești,), deported
(across the country or in the USSR), exploited in labour camps, or killed.
Despite the retreat of the Soviet troops from Romania in 1958, the age
of terror continued until 1964, with a brief “intermezzo”, after Stalin’s death
(1953), cut short by the anti-communist revolt of Hungary, in 1956. After the
nationalisation and in the middle of the collectivisation campaign, in
1951,
the accelerated industrialisation of the country was approached; it led to an
important migration of the population from the rural environment to the
urban one. In 1952, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, secretary general of the
Communist Party ever since 1945, won the fight for power within the
Romanian Workers’ Party. Following Petru Groza, he occupied the position
of President of the Council of Ministers (in other words, of the government).
But, more importantly, Gheorghiu-Dej continued to lead the Romanian
Workers’ Party, in the position of secretary general, until 1965, with a very
short break, between April 1954 and October 1955. In 1965, he was replaced
by Nicolae Ceausescu, who, thus, became the main decision-maker in the
country’s management and held dictatorial powers. In the same year, under
a new constitution, the name of the People’s Republic of Romania was
changed to the Socialist Republic of Romania, and the Romanian Workers’
Party was renamed the Romanian Communist Party.
Theatrically speaking, the Gheorghiu-Dej age brought a number of
processes that upset completely the system inherited from the inter-war: the
introduction of the drastic censorship of dramatic texts and of stage
plays;
starting from 1948, the disappearance of private theatres; the establishment
of new state theatres (including theatres of the Hungarian, German and
Jewish minorities) and of a new national theatre (in Timisoara);
the
enforcement of the presence of Soviet plays in the repertories –
usually,
these were written by minor authors; the enforcement of domestic plays of
political propaganda favouring the new regime; the political control of
the
program of theatres. At the same time, the single method of creation
approved by the communist party was socialist realism, imported from the
USSR; it had the following characteristics: ideinost’ (art is supposed to reflect
the communist party’s ideology), partiinost’ (party-mindedness), narodnost’ (it
should reflect the life of the simple man, of the commoner recte of
the
proletariat), klassovost’ (be class-oriented, reflect the class fight
between the
aristocracy and bourgeoisie, i.e. the classes deemed “retrograde”, on the one
hand, and the proletariat, seen as the society’s forward-moving class, the force

15

----------------------- Page 17-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

of good, on the other hand). The character (preferably from the industrial or
agricultural environment) was not to be individualised, the vision was
expected to be optimistic-triumphalist, adding to the construction of the “new
world”, reflecting the communists’ struggle for emancipation, etc.
Starting with 1955, Stanislavski’s system was introduced in
the
Romanian theatrical education, as a mandatory method of actor’s training;
however, this Stanislavski was sifted through the theses of socialist realism;
his writings (their translation in Romanian began in 1950) reached the readers
in an incomplete, censored version. As a reaction to the unprecedentedly
aggressive intrusion of the political in the Romanian theatre’s organisational
and creative problems, a group of young directors started, toward the end of
the seventh decade, the process of its re-theatricalisation, taking advantage of
the brief cultural-ideological thaw following the disruption triggered by the
report through which Khrushchev condemned, in 1956, the crimes of
Stalinism. The polemics approached in the press by the young insurgents
with the defenders of dogmatism in art ended with the Report of the V. I.
Popa Circle of Young Directors, presented at the Counsel of the Theatre
Professionals, of January 1957. The manifesto-articles signed by the directors
Liviu Ciulei and Radu Stanca, which were published in Revista Teatrul in June
and September 1956, should also be noted: Teatralizarea picturii de teatru [The
Theatricalisation of Painting in Theatre], respectively “Reteatralizarea”
teatrului
[The “Retheatricalisation” of Theatre]. The proponents of re-
theatricalisation
restored the connection with the inter-war stage approach and practice, but,
most of all, they sought to refute socialist realism, by using aesthetic
arguments, while promoting, in exchange, the aesthetics of suggestion and
stylisation. The greatest Romanian theatre productions of the communist era
(signed by directors such as Liviu Ciulei, Vlad Mugur, Radu Penciulescu,
Lucian Giurchescu, Crin Teodorescu, Aureliu Manea, Lucian Pintilie, David
Esrig, György Harag, Andrei Șerban, Cătălina Buzoianu, etc.) were, one way
or another, under the sign of the re-theatricalisation of theatre, owing a lot to
this second wave of the movement that had started in the inter-war and
which had extensions until the end of Ceausescu’s dictatorship (and even
afterwards). The tutelary presence of “theatrical” theatre, which dominated
the domestic stage until 1989, was, indisputably, that of the director who –
given the lack of the freedom of speech and, thus, the absence of a
viable
dramaturgy of the present – often had the trying task of bringing to
the
present-day plays included in the classic repertory or where the action
is
placed in other ages and in other geographical contexts. Thus, a style of the

16

----------------------- Page 18-----------------------

FOREWORD

“oblique”, allusive, Aesopian, subversive stage discourse was developed;

this style characterised also a part of the post-war Romanian dramaturgy
that remained politically non-aligned (owing to playwrights such as Iosif
Naghiu, Ion Băieșu, Dumitru Solomon, Teodor Mazilu, Marin Sorescu, etc.)
The theatrical education, limited to the related universities (called “institutes”)
of Bucharest and Târgu-Mureș, saw, starting from the 1960s, additional to
Stanislavski’s method, which was the foundation of the training of actors,
the arrival, in more or less covert ways, of the working method of
Jerzy
Grotowski, Lee Strasberg, Michael Chekhov, and Viola Spolin.
The
connections with the Western theatre (and with the Occident in general),
which had been ruthlessly amputated after 1947, started to be resumed from
the middle of the 1950s, but under the careful eye of the authorities
and
lacking the effervescence of the inter-war. Romanian tours abroad were the
authorities’ opportunity to offer to the West a pretend image of the country’s
reality. The beginning was with the Bucharest National Theatre, in 1956, and
its triumphal tour at the Nations’ Theatre in Paris, with O scrisoare pierdută [A
Lost Letter] by I.L. Caragiale, directed by Sică Alexandrescu, and Ultima oră
[Last Hour] by Mihail Sebastian, directed by Moni Ghelerter. Other tours
abroad followed, with plays directed by Lucian Giurchescu, Liviu Ciulei,
David Esrig, Cătălina Buzoianu, etc. Surprisingly, Romania was visited by a
fairly significant number of companies from abroad during communism.
Some of the most valuable Russian companies, of course, came here, such as
the company of the Bolshoi Theatre, of the Maly Theatre, of the Vahtangov
Theatre or of the Maxim Gorky Theatre, led by Tovstonogov. From France,
those that toured were: Marcel Marceau (1953, 1967), Théâtre Atélier (1956),
Vieux Colombier (1959, 1966), Théâtre National Populaire, led by Jean Vilar
(1961), Théâtre de la Cité de Villeurbanne (1963, 1971), Comédie-Française
(1964, 1975), Théâtre Odéon, with Jean Louis Barrault (1965), and so on and
so forth. From East Germany: Berliner Ensemble, with The Mother
by
Berthold Brecht, based on Maxim Gorky’s novel (with Helene Weigel herself
in the leading part) and with Life of Galileo (1959, 1976), Deutches
Theatre
(1967), Municipal Theatre of Karl Marx Stadt (1978), National Theatre of
Weimar (1969, 1973, 1976), and from West Germany: Kammerspiele of
Munich (1971), Stadttheatre of Köln, theatre of Bochum (1980), Schaubühne
am Halleschen Ufer (1980), etc. From Austria: the Vienna Burgtheatre (1969).
From Italy: Piccolo Teatro of Milano (1960), with Harlequin Servant of
two
Masters, based on Goldoni, directed by Giorgio Strehler, Teatro Stabile
of
Genoa (1965, 1970), Teatro Stabile of Catania (1968), etc. From England:

17

----------------------- Page 19-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

Royal Shakespeare Company, with King Lear and A Midsummer Night’s

Dream directed by Peter Brook and The Comedy of Errors, put on stage
of
Clifford Williams (1964, 1972), English Stage Company of the Royal Court
Theatre (1968), Royal Exchange Company of Manchester (1979), London
Actors Partnership (1986) and the actor Ian McKellen, with an excellent
recital (1982). Furthermore, a number of Polish, Hungarian, Czech, etc.
theatre toured here. This means that Romania was not fully isolated in
communism, from a theatrical point of view. The information on the
evolutions of Occidental dramatic art also circulated on various ways, but its
more daring and radical aspects could not always be applied. Romanian
theatre studies no longer experienced the spectacular development they had
in the inter-war. But theatrical historiography was enriched with Ioan
Massoff’s Teatrul românesc [Romanian Theatre], a massive, eight-volume work
published by the author in 1961-1981 and covering the history of Romanian
theatre from the beginning to 1950. Although censorship and self-censorship
did leave their mark on the work, it continues to be the most important and
fullest synthesis in the sector for the mentioned period.
In his first years of leadership, Nicolae Ceausescu was seen as
a
reformist, and this opinion was strengthened by the denunciation of the 1968
Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, a move that attracted the Occident’s
goodwill and rekindled hope across the country. In fact, Ceausescu had
focused constantly on the increase of his powers, by cumulating various
positions and responsibilities and by encouraging the cult of his personality.
In 1974, he was proclaimed the President of the Socialist Republic of
Romania, a position occupied by him until the fall of the communist regime
after the people’s revolt of 1989. Unlike his predecessor, who was a
Stalinist, Ceausescu revived nationalism, to megalomaniac extents, thus
distancing himself from Moscow. During Nicolae Ceausescu’s dictatorship,
the repression was somewhat gentler than in the Gheorghiu-Dej age, but it
did not cease. It took some of the most insidious forms: those who caused
disruptions were no longer incarcerated for political offences, but
for
(imaginary or staged) civil or criminal transgressions, or they were forcedly
admitted in psychiatric hospitals. Deaths were “accidental”. In the more
“fortunate” situations, problematic individuals were “merely” intimidated
and placed under constant surveillance. Sometimes, they were put under
house arrest. Censorship grew equally insidious; it was applied by a larger
number of authorities and at a larger number of levels, which meant
that
responsibility was distributed among more establishments. In the case of

18

----------------------- Page 20-----------------------

FOREWORD

stage plays, censorship operated at the level of the theatrical institution, but
also of party and state bodies, which delegated the members of the play
viewing commissions (before and after the premiere).
In July 1971, after a visit to North Korea, deeply impressed by what he
had seen there, Ceausescu gave a speech in Mangalia, on the shore of
the
Black Sea, a speech called “Measures proposed for the improvement of the
political-ideological activity of Marxist-Leninist education of the
party
members, of all the workers”. The seventeen “theses” of this speech dictated
an even deeper subjection of art to the requirements of party directives. The
effects were soon visible. In 1972, after only three performances (23, 26, and
28 September), N.V. Gogol’s Government Inspector, directed by
Lucian
Pintilie, put on stage at the Bucharest Bulandra Theatre, was suspended. It
was not the first play prohibited by the communist regime and it would not
be the last one to be subject to this treatment, but, exceptionally, the decision
was announced by a release from the Council of Culture and Socialist
Education (the ministry of culture), which was broadcast on radio and on
television, and then published in the Scânteia newspaper, the
official
platform of the Romanian Communist Party (issue of 30 September 1972).
Following this scandal, the whole management of the theatre, including
director Liviu Ciulei, was removed, and Lucian Pintilie was forbidden to put
plays on stage in Romania. After the halting of the Government
Inspector,
theatre professionals could no longer kid themselves with regard to the
condition of art and of the artist under Ceausescu’s regime. A real exodus of
the great Romanian theatre creators started: one by one, some directors
(Lucian Pintilie, Vlad Mugur, Andrei Șerban, Lucian Giurchescu, Radu
Penciulescu, Liviu Ciulei) went into exile and settled in the West. This was
an authentic catastrophe for the Romanian theatre – the second of this extent,
after the early disappearance, for various reasons, of several valuable inter-
war directors during or around World War II and the installation of
communism. Exiled directors would return in the country after 1989; some of
them managed to stir things again with their productions (Andrei Șerban
and Vlad Mugur, first of all), but the wrong that had been done could
no
longer be undone. On 20 December 1973, the new building of the Bucharest
National Theatre was inaugurated, an event also attended by the Ceausescu
spouses. This was the first and last time that the dictator visited this building,
an aspect symptomatic of his relationship with theatre.

19

----------------------- Page 21-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

After the fall of the communist regime

Following the events of 1989 and the fall of communism, Romanian

theatre, like the whole society, began a lengthy and strenuous stage of
restoration. In 1991, the new democratic Constitution of the country, still in
force nowadays, was adopted. In theatre, the recently acquired freedom of
expression prompted the massive return of the things that had
been
repressed in the collective subconscious: nudity, sexuality, violence,
strong
and vulgar language, all prohibited during communism, squeezed their
quick way on the stage, stirring the audience’s or the critics’ intense reactions
of approval or disapproval. In the absence of dramatic texts drawing directly
upon the Romanian experience of totalitarianism, the denunciation and
exorcising of the traumas caused by it were possible, however, immediately
after the end of the communist dictatorship, by the directors’ use of the texts
written by the classics of world dramaturgy (based on the pattern offered by
the years prior to 1989) or of texts drawing on the experience of the right-
wing totalitarian regimes.
Small private theatre companies, independent initiatives re-emerged
with great efforts. Some theatre productions began being hosted
in
unconventional spaces because of the precarious resources rather than
owing to the theatre professionals’ need to experiment. The higher education
theatre schools of Cluj and Iasi were re-established and some new ones
appeared. The actor’s training methods were diversified. The connections
with the Western theatre were resumed by the organisation of great tours of
the national theatres abroad (at the beginning of the 1990s), by the founding
of mixed theatre companies (which, however, did not have a long life), by
the individual efforts of artists who were awarded creative residences or
workshops abroad and by the participation to the international theatre
festivals or the organisation of such festivals in the country (in
Sibiu,
Craiova, Cluj, Bucharest). After the beginning of the new millennium, a new
generation of playwrights and directors, much readier to collaborate and
interested in the present and in Romanian reality, began its self-
assertion.
Another increasingly clearer tendency in the last years is the one that
challenges the director’s supremacy. Young theatre professionals engage
more and more often in collective creation. Stage scripts and plays are a team
effort. Of course, there are also negative aspects: the chronic underfunding
of the theatrical system, especially of its independent component, the
audience’s preference for casual entertainment, the competition of television

20

----------------------- Page 22-----------------------

FOREWORD

and internet, the diminishing of the space dedicated to dramatic reviews in

generalist publications, the extremely precarious condition of the Bucharest
and Iasi museums of Romanian theatre, etc. The reasons of pessimism are as
many as those of optimism. In Studia Dramatica, we sought to avoid the
extremes and to approach soundly both the assessment of the past and the
assessment of the present. The reader will weigh the success of our attempt.

References

Documentary Sources (in Romanian)

ALTERESCU, Simion, Anca Viorica Costa-Foru, Olga Flegont, and Ion Cazaban, eds.
Istoria teatrului în România [History of Theatre in Romania]. 3 volumes.
Bucharest:
Editura Academiei RSR, 1965, 1971, 1973.
ALTERESCU, Simion, and Ion Zamfirescu, eds. Teatrul românesc contemporan.
1944-1974
[Contemporary Romanian Theatre. 1944-1974]. Bucharest: Editura
Meridiane,
1975.
BERLOGEA, Ileana. Teatrul românesc în secolul XX [Romanian Theatre in the 20th
Century].
Bucharest: Editura Fundației Culturale Române, 2000.
MALIȚA, Liviu, ed. Viaţa teatrală în şi după comunism [Theatrical Life During and
After
Communism]. Cluj-Napoca: Editura EFES, 2006.
MASSOFF, Ioan. Teatrul românesc [Romanian Theatre]. 8 volumes. Bucharest: Editura
Minerva, 1961-1981.
POPESCU, Cristian Tudor. Filmul surd în România mută. Politică şi propagandă în
filmul
românesc de ficţiune (1912-1989) [The Deaf Film in Mute Romania.
Politics and
propaganda in the Romanian film of fiction (1912-1989)]. Iasi: Editura
Polirom,
2011.
POPESCU, Theodor-Cristian. Surplus de oameni sau surplus de idei.
Pionierii mişcării
independente în teatrul românesc post 1989 [Excess of People or Excess of
Ideas. The
Pioniers of the Independent Movement in Romanian Theatre Post-1989]. Cluj:
Editura
Eikon, 2012.
POPESCU, Marian. Scenele teatrului românesc 1945-2004. De la cenzură la libertate
[The
Scenes of Romanian Theatre. 1945-2004. From Censorship to Freedom].
Bucharest:
Editura Unitext, 2004.
RUNCAN, Miruna. Modelul Teatral Românesc [The Romanian Model of Theatre].
Bucharest:
UNITEXT, 2000.
RUNCAN, Miruna. Teatralizarea și reteatralizarea în
România. 1920-1960 [The
Theatricalisation and Re-Theatricalisation in Romania]. Second ed.
Bucharest:
Editura Liternet, 2012.
VARTIC, Ion. Clanul Caragiale [Caragiale Family Clan]. Cluj: Biblioteca Apostrof,
2002.

21

----------------------- Page 23-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

Further Reading (in English)

BANHAM, Martin, ed. The Cambridge Guide to Theatre. Cambridge University Press,
1995, 2000.
DELETANT, Dennis. Romania Under Communist Rule. Second edition,
revised.
Bucharest: Center for Romanian Studies, Civic Academy Foundation, 1999.
CAZABAN, Ion. Romanian Theatre. Brief History:
http://www.cimec.ro/Teatre/cazaban_eng.htm
HAȚIEGAN, Anca. “Miruna Runcan: Theatricalisation and Re-theatricalisation
in
Romania [1920-1960]”, in Philobiblon. Transylvanian Journal of
Multidisciplinary
Research in Humanities. Issue 1. Volume 20. Cluj University Press, 2015.
HITCHINS, Keith. Rumania 1866-1947. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
HITCHINS, Keith. The Romanians, 1774-1866. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
KRAKOWSKA, Joanna, and Daria Odija (eds.). Platform: East European Performing
Arts Companion. Lublin, Warsaw: Adam Mickiewicz Institute, Centre
for
Culture in Lublin, Institute of Arts of the Polish Academy of Sciences,
City of
Lublin, 2016.
PAVEL, Laura. Teatru și identitate. Interpretări pe scena interioară.
Theatre and
Identity. Interpretations on the Inner Stage. Cluj: Casa Cărții de
Știință, 2012.
POPESCU, Marian. The Stage and the Carnival. Romanian Theatre After Censorship.
Piteşti:
Editura Paralela 45, 2000.
POPOVICI, Iulia, ed. Sfârșitul regiei, începutul creației colective în teatrul
european. The
End of Directing, The Beginning of Theatre-Making and Devising in
European
Theatre. Cluj: Editura Tact, 2015.
RUBIN, Don, ed. The World Encyclopedia of Contemporary Theatre: Europe. Volume I.
London, New York: Routledge, 1994, 1998, 1999, 2000.

22

----------------------- Page 24-----------------------

STUDIES AND ARTICLES

----------------------- Page 25-----------------------

----------------------- Page 26-----------------------

STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA, LXIII, 1, 2018, p. 25 - 60

(Recommended Citation)
DOI:10.24193/subbdrama.2018.1.02

Un jeu théâtral traditionnel roumain au carrefour des

cultures (est-) européennes: IROZII – les HÉRODES

1
ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU

Abstract: A Traditional Romanian Theatrical Performance at the Crossroads

of (East-) European Cultures: Irozii - The Herods Play. The kind of
theatrical
performance upon which we focus our attention in the present study brings
together sacred and profane masks, characters coming from the
Christian
tradition (present in the canonical texts of the Bible as well
as in the
apocryphal ones), characters who represent an image of a certain social
order
on the one hand (the priest, the shepherds, the sacred family)
and of a
possible disorder on the other hand (the lunatic of the village, the
devils, the
personification of Death). Taking into consideration the fact that the
orthodox
communities had difficulties in accepting religious theatre and that there
are
interesting similarities between these
performances and the catholic
medieval mysteries, a few questions will guide us through the matter:
Where
are these performances, mixing the archaic and the modern, coming
from?
Which are the links we can retrace back to the medieval religious theatre?
And
how did the neighbouring communities, Ukrainians, Hungarians,
Germans,
Serbs influence the evolution of the Romanian Herods plays?

Keywords: The Herods, Romanian popular theatre, religious theatre,

folkloric
Romanian masks, Nativity popular theatre
 En cette année qui marque le centenaire de la Grande Union des
provinces roumaines, et de la Roumanie en tant que nation
moderne
indivisible au sein du continent européen, la meilleure manière de célébrer le
théâtre de ce pays fascinant, situé aux carrefours des cultures de l’Ouest et de
l’Est, du monde latin et slave, de la chrétienté catholique et orthodoxe, me

1 Ștefana Pop-Curșeu: Faculty of Theatre and Television, UBB Cluj.

pop_curseu@yahoo.com

----------------------- Page 27-----------------------

ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU

semble être celle de me tourner vers le folklore, vers les coutumes théâtrales
populaires contemporaines, qui relient le moderne à l’ancien, en ouvrant
un couloir temporel qui nous fait remonter dans le temps, à travers le
Moyen Âge, jusqu’à l’Antiquité et aux civilisations préchrétiennes. Le
théâtre populaire roumain est un des plus riches d’Europe. Encore vivant,
bien que transformé par la modernité, par l’intrusion du plastique en tant
que matériau qui participe à la confection de certains masques, ou par
l’ajout de certains objets qui renvoient à l’usage quotidien de notre monde
contemporain, ce « théâtre populaire » est en fait un appellatif générique de
manifestations paysannes des plus diverses, à caractère rituel combiné au
divertissement, qui revêtent des spécificités en fonction de chaque région ou
communauté qui les pratique, mais qui se caractérisent toutes par un
puissant caractère théâtral, souvent para-dramatique très archaïque2, et par
la présence de masques et costumes des plus élaborés qui relient la vie du
XXIème siècle aux rites et croyances des ancêtres.
Bien que pour l’homme citadin – qui a oublié les lois de la cohabitation
avec la nature, la proximité familière de la mort, les joies de l’initiation, les
rites de passage à l’âge adulte et à la fondation d’une nouvelle famille –, les
jeux masqués ne soient plus que des curiosités touristiques et des vestiges
de la tradition rurale, le monde paysan a gardé la plupart de ses
repères
culturels et continue d’assurer leur survivance en dépit des adversités
historiques ou socio-économiques. Pour le chercheur et l’historien du théâtre,
ces traditions qui incluent jeux dramatiques, danses, pantomimes, parades
et processions, ne sont ni plus ni moins qu’une mine d’or. Et cela, non pas
seulement du point de vue de l’histoire du théâtre roumain, mais aussi de
celle du théâtre européen car dans la plupart des cultures des
différents
pays de notre continent nous retrouvons des coutumes similaires et des
croisements de certains types de masques et de costumes qui nous renvoient
ainsi à un bagage culturel indoeuropéen commun, transmis et modelé par la
culture latine, germanique ou slave. Romulus Vulcănescu, un des plus
importants ethnologues roumains qui a mené à bien la première grande
étude de synthèse sur les masques paysans de Roumanie dans les années

3
1970, dessine la carte de ces masques d’Europe Centrale et de l’Est .

2 Nous utilisons ici le terme de Jelle Koopmans, Le théâtre des exclus au Moyen-
Âge, hérétiques
sorcières et marginaux (Paris : Éditions Imago, 1997).
3 Romulus Vulcănescu, Măștile populare, Bucarest, Ed.Științifică, 1970.

26

----------------------- Page 28-----------------------

UN JEU THÉÂTRAL TRADITIONNEL ROUMAIN AU CARREFOUR DES CULTURES (EST-)

EUROPÉENNES: IROZII – LES HÉRODES

Fig. 1: Carte de la répartition des masques phytomorphes, anthropomorphes et

zoomorphes en Europe Centrale et de l’Est, d’après Romulus Vulcănescu

Masques zoomorphes (d’ours, cerf, chèvre et mouton, taureau et bœuf,

cheval, oiseaux), anthropomorphes (vieux et
vieillies, danseurs, fous,
démons, etc.) et phytomorphes (à feuilles et branchages, paille, roseaux, etc.),
masques profanes ou sacrées peuplent les fêtes et coutumes des paysans
roumains et des communautés des montagnes d’Europe.

27

----------------------- Page 29-----------------------

ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU

Le jeu théâtral sur lequel nous concentrerons notre attention

dans la
présente étude, Les Hérodes, rassemble des masques sacrés et profanes,
des
personnages issus de la tradition de l’Église chrétienne (présents dans
les
Évangiles canoniques et dans les textes apocryphes), des
personnages
trahissant un certain ordre ou désordre social (le prêtre, les bergers, le fou du
village), aussi bien que des êtres fantastiques comme les diables ou la
personnification de la mort. Étant données, d’un côté, les fortes ressemblances
avec certaines formes de théâtre religieux médiéval occidental catholique et,
d’un autre côté, l’appartenance aux traditions des communautés roumaines
orthodoxes qui n’ont pas officiellement connu des formes de théâtre religieux,
mais qui ont accepté la pratique d’anciens rituels païens
christianisés,
plusieurs questions nous guideront dans notre démarche: 1. D’où viennent
ces jeux qui mélangent l’archaïque et le moderne? (structure, personnages,
costumes, mise en espace, rôle social) ; 2. Quels sont les liens qui les unissent
aux drames semi-liturgiques du Moyen-âge occidental catholique? ; 3. Quels
sont les apports des peuples voisins et/ou présents sur le territoire de
la
Roumanie historique, comme les Saxons, les Hongrois et les Sicules, les
Ukrainiens, au développement de ce jeu traditionnel roumain?
 Fig. 2: Masque zoomorphe d’ours, dans la danse des ours du
Nouvel An, en Moldavie

28

----------------------- Page 30-----------------------

UN JEU THÉÂTRAL TRADITIONNEL ROUMAIN AU CARREFOUR DES CULTURES (EST-)

EUROPÉENNES: IROZII – LES HÉRODES

Fig. 3 : Carte des régions historiques de la Roumanie

1. Origine des Hérodes : variantes, contenu, personnages

On appelle Les Hérodes un nombre de Jeux théâtraux

religieux
traditionnels4 que l’on trouve en Transylvanie centrale, au Maramures, en
Moldavie et Bucovine, puis en Munténie, joués entre Noël et le Nouvel An,
plus précisément entre le 25 décembre (Fête de la Nativité) et le 28 décembre
(Jour des Saints Innocents) :

Par le Bethléem (Vicleimul) en Munténie ou les Hérodes (Irozii)

dans les
autres provinces roumaines, il faut comprendre la coutume des jeunes
de représenter à Noël La Nativité de Jésus Christ, les Mages
suivant
l’étoile, leur accueil par Hérode, la ruse de ce dernier pour
trouver
l’enfant par l’intermédiaire des trois rois, et, souvent, la
confrontation
de la mécréance, personnifiée par un enfant ou par un berger.5

4 Traditionnel étant ce qui est propre à une culture qui reconnaît et assume son
identité, tout

en étant validé par une certaine continuité, ritualisation, rythme vital cyclique
à l’intérieur
de la communauté en question (de la « société civile culturelle ».)
5 Tudor Pamfile, Sărbătorile la Români, Crăciunul, Studiu etnografic [Les Fêtes
chez les Roumains,
Noël, Étude ethnographique] (Bucarest : Libr. Socec & Comp. & C. Sfetea, 1914) p.
155.

29

----------------------- Page 31-----------------------

ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU
 Plusieurs historiens parlent de l’apparition de ce théâtre
populaire
religieux vers la fin du XVIIIe siècle6, d’autres de ses racines antiques datant
de la christianisation du territoire roumain7, mais nous n’avons affaire qu’à
des hypothèses et il se peut que le phénomène soit un peu plus ancien, vu les
rapports directs et indirects avec des formes théâtrales typiques du Moyen
Âge européen.
Dans certaines régions (au Maramureş, par exemple), les acteurs
des
Hérodes portent avec eux une arche d’alliance, une sorte d’église en miniature
portable, qui peut laisser voir à l’intérieur différentes scènes des environs de
Bethléem, comme le palais du roi, des jardins, la crèche, très probablement
inspirée par la caisse à poupées des marionnettistes slaves, influence
sur
laquelle nous aurons l’occasion de revenir. Cette petite église-crèche
peut
aussi avoir un compartiment où est glissé l’argent reçu pour les spectacles,
jouant donc le rôle de tirelire.
Il n’y a pas beaucoup de textes de ces pièces, mais après l’inventaire de
toutes les variantes, il n’y a aucun doute que le texte fondamental qui a servi
de canevas aux dramatisations ultérieures est le passage biblique
de
l’Évangile selon St. Matthieu, 2:16-17 :

Alors Hérode, voyant qu’il avait été joué par les mages, fut pris d’une
violente fureur et envoya tuer, dans Bethléem et tout son territoire, tous
les enfants de moins de deux ans, d’après la date qu’il s’était fait
préciser
par les mages. 17.°Alors s’accomplit l’oracle du prophète Jérémie : Dans
Rama s’est fait entendre une voix qui sanglote et moult se lamente : c’est
Rachel
pleurant ses enfants et ne veut pas qu’on la console car ils ne sont plus.

Dans les plus anciennes variantes écrites attestées, datant du début du

XIXe siècle, l’action se concentre sur la nativité, l’hommage rendu par les rois
mages et le massacre des innocents ne figure pas, étant juste annoncé.
Cet
épisode, qui est pourtant l’un des plus dramatiques, se limite le plus souvent

6 Voir Ioan Chindriş, « Blaj and the Beginnings of the Vifleim Custom among the
Romanians »,
in Anuarul Institutului de Istorie « George Bariţ » (2005) 531-544 ;
Letiţia Gitza et Mihai
Florea, « Manifestări de dramă populară în câteva regiuni ale ţării » [«
Manifestations de
drame populaire dans quelques régions du pays »], in Studii şi cercetări e
istoria artei, n° 1,
(1958) : 275-280 ; G. Vrabie, « Teatrul popular », in Studii şi cercetări de
istoria artei, n° 3-4,
(1957) :485-562.
7 Mihail Vulpescu, Irozii, Păpușile, Teatrul țărănesc al Vicleimului,
Scaloianul și Paparudele,
(Bucarest: Tipografia Ziarul universul 1941).

30
----------------------- Page 32-----------------------

UN JEU THÉÂTRAL TRADITIONNEL ROUMAIN AU CARREFOUR DES CULTURES (EST-)

EUROPÉENNES: IROZII – LES HÉRODES

à une discussion parsemée de chants entre Hérode et les trois Mages.

D’autres textes signalent la présence de personnages plus nombreux, deux
anges, un officier, un berger, l’enfant et les bouffons qui ne manquent
jamais8. La première publication d’un texte roumain des Hérodes a été faite a
par Ion Thomici à Buda, en 1827, et il s’agit d’un court dialogue en
prose
entre Hérode et les Mages9 . En 1848, une variante très courte a été publiée
par Aton Pann (Munténie)10, en 1860 est publiée la variante de Moldavie11, et
en 1875 la variante de Transylvanie12. Mais beaucoup d’autres textes ont
circulé, ou par voie orale, ou dans des manuscrits perdus.
Un manuscrit intéressant en ce sens est celui de Picu Pătruţ
qui
rassemble trois variantes de Transylvanie, écrites entre 1836 et 1838. Le
premier texte qu’on y trouve présente, d’après Elisabeta Nanu13,
des
similarités et des parentés dans le style des répliques avec des textes latins
de drames liturgiques médiévaux allemands14. Il reste quand même difficile
à vérifier si le diacre Transylvain Picu Pătruţ avait pu connaître ce genre de
textes en version latine ou allemande. Une version allemande des Hérodes,
provenant de Transylvanie, publiée en 1859 à Sibiu15, ne présente pourtant
aucune ressemblance avec la pièce jouée par Picu Pătruţ, car elle est
du
genre liturgique chanté, alors que la variante roumaine est, quant à
elle,
effectivement jouée.
Les deux premiers textes, plus simples, ne font entrer en scène qu’un
ange, Hérode et les rois mages qui lui annoncent la naissance de Jésus
et

8 Tudor Pamfile, Sărbătorile la Români, Crăciunul…, 158.

9 Ion Thomici, Scurte învăţături pentru creşterea şi buna purtare
a tinerimii române [Courts
enseignements pour l’éducation et la bonne conduite de la jeunesse roumaine]
(Buda, 1827).
10 Voir N. Cartojan, Cărţile populare în literatura românească [Les livres
populaires dans la littérature
roumaine], vol II, (Bucarest : Ed. Encicliopedică Română, 1974), 187.
Une autre variante de
Munténie, plus ample mais ressemblant à celle d’Anton Pann, a été publiée en
1884, voir G.
Dem. Teodorescu, Poesii populare române (Poésies populaires roumaines),
Bucureşti, 1885, 102-109.
11 T. Burada, Istoria teatrului român în Moldova (Histoire du théâtre roumain en
Moldavie), I, Iaşi, 1915,
pp. 7-26.
12 P. Băncilă, Colindele Crăciunului şi ale Pasciloru (Les « colinde » de Noël
et de Pâques), Sibiu, 1875,
pp. 46-56.
13 « Un manuscris cu Irozi al lui Picu Pătruţ » [« Un manuscrit de Picu
Pătruţ contenant les
Hérodes »], in Anuarul Arhivei de Folclor, VI,( s.l., 1942).
14 Voir Karl Weinhold, Weihnachtspiele und Lieder aus Süddeutschland und Schlesien
(Wien, 1875),
56-61.
15 Carl Johann Schuller, Herodes. Ein deutsches Weihnachtsspeil aus Siebenbürgen…
(Hermannstadt,
1859).

31

----------------------- Page 33-----------------------

ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU

leur mission. Hérode réagit et menace de tuer tous les enfants16, puis la pièce
finit avec un chant de Noël. Dans la troisième variante, de 1838, plus
développée, sont ajoutées les personnages de Marie, Joseph, 3 bergers, et le
messager du roi Hérode. L’arrêt de mort prononcé par Hérode est suivi par
une atroce malédiction lancée par Balthazar avant qu’il ne parte pour la
crèche, malédiction que l’on retrouvera dans la grande majorité des scénarios
ultérieurs, en Transylvanie comme en Moldavie :

Irod zice mânios şi cătrănit : Hérode dit courroucé et

énervé :

[…] Poruncivoi la ostaşi Je vais ordonner aux gardes

pre moarte să facă paşi de faire des pas vers la mort
Vino, vino oaşte tare Viens, viens forte armée
săţi dau o poruncă mare que je te donne un ordre
important
De o dată multe o grămadă que tu apportes d’un seul
coup
la mine de săbii adă un énorme tas d’épées
Casăfac o vitejie pour que j’accomplisse un
exploit
sătaiu prunci preste omie en tranchant plus de mille
nourrissons
Ca şi Isus săsă tae pour que Jésus aussi soit
tranché
Întru acea rea bătae. Pendant cette lutte terrible.

I lea craiu Valtazar zice cătră dânsul: Et le Ier roi mage, Balthazar
lui dit:

Ho, ho că nu merge aşa Halte là, arrête, ça ne va

pas aller
după socoteala ta Comme tu le souhaites
Ce vrei tu tirane câne Ce que tu veux, toi, tyran,
chien
calicule vai detine pauvre miséreux que l’on
prend en pitié
Pre Is.vreai să-l omori c’est de tuer Jésus.
mai bine tu acum sămori Or c’est à toi de mourir
maintenant
Crapă nori şi zipoteaşte Ciel, fend les nuages et
verse la
pluie
ceriule iutel trăzneaşte Foudroie-le vite
16 « Irod cu mânie zice: tăiare eu îţi poruncesc / căla tot ţinutul vestesc / nici
o glumă nu le pae /
cicu deadinsul să-l tae / au voi şi aşi sâlnici / prunci de 2 şi mai mici /
lăsând şi jalea şi mila /
doară îl voi tăia şi prea acela. », in Elisabeta Nanu, « Un manuscris
cu Irozi al lui Picu
Pătruţ », 312.

32

----------------------- Page 34-----------------------

UN JEU THÉÂTRAL TRADITIONNEL ROUMAIN AU CARREFOUR DES CULTURES (EST-)

EUROPÉENNES: IROZII – LES HÉRODES

Că a acestui armadie car l’armée de celui-là

iasă astăzi la păradie sort faire une parade
aujourd’hui.
La păradie cumplit À la parade terriblement
varsă sânge negătit Elle verse du sang non
préparé
Foc şi piatră pucioasă Que du feu et de la
pierre de
soufre
din ceriu preste a tale oasă să iasă. Sorte du ciel et tombe
sur tes

17
os.

Fig. 4 : Les rois mages du jeu des Hérodes, dans l’espace scénique de la cour
d’un habitant du village, les spectateurs autour, dans le Maramureș

17 Ibidem, 326 ; notre traduction. On retrouve exactement le même texte

avec très peu de
modifications dans la commune Geoagiu de Sus, district d’Alba, un siècle plus
tard, en 1938.
Texte fourni par Ioan Bocănici, in Vasile Albu, Vasile Repede, Ovidiu Repede,
Geoagiu de Sus,
judeţul Alba, Străveche icoană a biruinţei legii româneşti la porţile munţilor
Apuseni, (sl. : Coordonate
monografice, s.d., 2004).

33

----------------------- Page 35-----------------------

ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU

Dans une variante moldave, jouée en 2004 à Suceviţa (texte qui nous a
été donné par un des acteurs, Florin Antoniac), l’introduction est faite
toujours par l’ange qui vient donner la bonne nouvelle de la naissance
de
Jésus au public et aux personnages. Un général se présente devant Hérode
pour lui annoncer que trois rois ont été arrêtés dans les rues qui mènent au
palais et qu’ils cherchent le Messie. Hérode les fait entrer et il s’en suit une
confrontation verbale où les explications sur leur origine, leur mission,
sur
les prophéties sur Nativité et sur la vie du Christ, sont données en chansons.
L’affirmation que Jésus est un roi plus grand qu’Hérode déclenche la rage de
ce dernier et il se vante d’avoir tué quatorze mille enfants parmi lesquels se
trouvait sûrement le petit Jésus. Par la suite, le roi est maudit par le Prêtre
pour sa mécréance, il appelle ses officiers pour tuer les rois mages, mais un
Turc intervient et fait la paix (élément dramaturgique plutôt étrange, vu que
les Turcs ont joué le rôle des bourreaux dans l’histoire de la Moldavie et que
leur présence est connotée le plus souvent négativement18). L’ange revient
pour demander le repentir du roi et sa christianisation et le prêtre l’obtient,
Hérode promettant d’aller se prosterner aussi devant le nouveau-né.
D’autres sources confirment la récurrence de ces personnages typiques,
costumés en uniformes (pour les généraux), avec de coiffes colorées sur
la
tête pour les rois mages, costume à turban pour le Turc, longue tunique noire
pour le prêtre et robe blanche pour l’ange, et le fait que ces petites pièces se
jouaient et se jouent encore dans les cours des gens ou dans les maisons, avec
des processions à travers le village19. À part l’église – qui est le lieu de départ
obligatoire – et, plus récemment, depuis le début de la période de
régime
politique communiste, la salle de la maison culturelle du village – où
l’on
organise les festivités de la communauté –, l’on décide à l’avance qui seront
les villageois qui accueillent le spectacle et il s’agit des personnes
les plus
importantes du village et des familles des « acteurs » impliqués qui vont
aussi gratifier les acteurs de nourriture, boissons et argent. Et même si le jeu
proprement-dit se limite à une sorte de drame semi-liturgique du genre Ordo
Stellae, comme nous le verrons plus loin, dans le cadre des déplacements
d’un espace de jeu à un autre, se joignent à la compagnie des masques
de

18 Dans toutes les représentations du Jugement dernier, sur les peintures

murales post-
byzantines des Monastères de Moldavie, les turcs sont figurés en Enfer.
19 Voir Jean Cuisenier, Memoria Carpaţilor. România milenară : o privire
interioară (Cluj : Echinox,
2002), 444-457, et aussi, du même auteur, « Rois Mages dans les Carpathes », in
Simposio Rito y
Misterio, (La Coruña : Coleccion « Cursos, congressos y simposios », 1991), 27-
38.

34

----------------------- Page 36-----------------------

UN JEU THÉÂTRAL TRADITIONNEL ROUMAIN AU CARREFOUR DES CULTURES (EST-)

EUROPÉENNES: IROZII – LES HÉRODES

toutes sortes, des couples de vieux, des fous, des diables et autres
figures
carnavalesques qui font rire les passants et disent leur quatre vérités à ceux
qui n’ont pas eu un comportement correcte pendant l’année qui approche de
la fin. Le rôle des badins, fous et plaisantins est très important dans
les
petites communautés, car grâce au masque ils se permettent de parler sans
barrières de choses qui leur attireraient des ennuis autrement, et ainsi s’opère
une purification rituelle nécessaire de la communauté en question.
Intéressant est le fait que, dans le cas des Hérodes joués dans la région
du Maramures, le personnage du fou est souvent inclus dans le jeu lui-même.
Nous prendrons comme exemple le jeu des Hérodes du village de Botiza,
auquel nous avons eu l’occasion d’assister le premier jour de l’An 2004,
toujours représenté de nos jours et qui est beaucoup plus complexe que les
autres variantes mentionnées. Il semble que cette variante soit inspirée par le
texte dramatique le plus développé de Transylvanie, écrite dans le cahier de
33 pages du maître d’école Petru Bilț du village de Ieud (Maramureș) à la fin
du XIX siècle20 .
Voici les principaux moments de l’action: 1. installation du Viflaim (le
Bethléem : la crèche décorée) sur une chaise placée au centre de l’espace de
jeu, par de jeunes garçons habillés en femmes ; 2. les bergers arrivent
et
chantent des louanges à la gloire du Nouveau-né ; 3. deux bergers
parlent
avec le vieux berger Miron, corrompu par le diable, en essayant de le
convaincre du miracle ; 4. arrivée des rois Mages au palais d’Hérode et
dispute ; 5. Hérode communique à ses généraux qu’il vient d’être trompé par
les Mages et il leur donne l’ordre d’aller tuer tous les enfants de
son
royaume ; 6. les généraux reviennent et rapportent que l’ordre a été accompli,
que sept mille nourrissons ont été tués par chacun des deux groupes de
soldats, mais qu’ils sont horrifiés par ce qu’ils ont vu, par le sang et par les
pleurs des mères affolées ; 7. Hérode les félicite et leur promet une récompense
en monnaies d’or ; 8. le chœur des personnages entonne un chant
de
condamnation d’Hérode et une sorte de chanson funèbre qui pleure la mort
des petits innocents, tout en louant leur sainteté et en invoquant les anges ; 9.
Hérode est harcelé par les diables et par la mort, puis emporté par
ces
derniers ; 10. Hymne, remerciements et vœux finaux pour la Nouvelle Année.

20 Voir N. Cartojan, Cărțile populare în literatura românească…, 243

35

----------------------- Page 37-----------------------

ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU

Plusieurs choses sont à remarquer :

-L’espace : le lieu scénique traditionnel est la cour de l’église

mais
surtout la cour des maisons villageoises, un espace assez large qui
permet
aux spectateurs de se regrouper autour, en cercle, au niveau des acteurs ou
sur les terrasses et balcons des maisons qui les accueillent.
-Le temps : on joue le spectacle plusieurs fois par jour, on fonction de la
demande, en général de jour.
-L’action : tout est centré autour de la crèche à laquelle tous
les
personnages se rapportent mais de deux manières différentes : en
se
rapprochant pour lui rendre hommage par un signe de croix (pour les
personnages positifs) ou bien en prenant de la distance et en lui tournant le
dos (pour les personnages négatifs). Il s’agit d’une alternance de
dialogue
parlé partiellement versifié, et de chansons et hymnes de louanges et chants
religieux paysans. Le fou intervient de manière régulière dans l’action pour
empêcher les méchants d’agir et pour contrebalancer le dramatique et le
sérieux du sujet par des plaisanteries et des farces.
À la différence des autres variantes des Hérodes, le massacre des
innocents constitue une partie importante de la pièce et il est bien
rendu
présent, par la réaction des militaires et ce qu’ils racontent, sans
qu’il soit
pour autant véritablement montré scéniquement aux villageois spectateurs.
La douleur des Mères qui ont perdu leur enfants est racontée par les
généraux-messagers d’Hérode et rendue vivante par les lamentations du
chœur (composé des Bergers, des « Femmes »21, des Mages, menés par le
Prêtre) qui accomplissent ici le rôle des pleureuses, mais aussi de tribunal, à
la façon des chœurs antiques, porte-parole de la communauté rurale qui
assiste au spectacle.
-Les personnages et leur image : Le rôle important attribué aux
officiers du roi Hérode peut expliquer en partie le pluriel du nom sous lequel
est connu ce jeu. Car ces personnages masculins sans masque, font partie de
la catégorie plus large, communément connue dans les traditions roumaines
sous le nom de « Beaux », en opposition aux « Laids » masqués,
qui
comprennent vieillards, diables, fous, etc. « Beau » ne veut pas forcément
dire « bon », mais il est vrai que souvent la beauté est associée aussi
aux
vertus morales. Nous avons ainsi les costumes est masques suivants :

21 Les trois femmes sont des garçons déguisés, qui portent la petite
arche colorée et ornée,
fréquente dans le Maramureş.

36

----------------------- Page 38-----------------------

UN JEU THÉÂTRAL TRADITIONNEL ROUMAIN AU CARREFOUR DES CULTURES (EST-)

EUROPÉENNES: IROZII – LES HÉRODES

Fig. 5 : Quelques acteurs du groupe des Hérodes de Botiza : à gauche debout le

personnage de la Mort, dont on ne voit pas le visage, un mage debout en rouge,
deux bergers accroupis de part et d’autre du mécréant berger Badea Miron,
et à leurs côtés le fou à lunettes, derrière et devant on aperçoit deux
diables
à crinière, cornes et pompons rouges (photo personnelle 2004).

Les Beaux :
-Rois mages et Hérode: uniformes de cadres supérieurs de l’armée et képi,
transformées par des décorations, qui fictionnalisent partiellement l’uniforme :
colliers, perles, pendentifs à petites croix, paillettes, éclats de miroirs,
bandelettes
de tissus colorés. À Botiza, les rois mages sont vêtus d’uniformes rouges.
-Généraux du roi : uniformes militaires, moins décorés que ceux des
précédents
-Femmes qui portent la crèche : jeunes hommes travestis, portant des
costumes traditionnels de femme de la région, foulard sur la tête.
-Bergers : costumes traditionnels de la région, pantalons en
laine,
chemise blanche, gilet en laine noire, bâton de berger à la main.
-Le prêtre : costume typique d’un prêtre orthodoxe, croix etc.
37

----------------------- Page 39-----------------------

ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU

Les Laids :

-Le fou/ bouffon : masque partiel, costume coloré, sur sa veste

sont
cousus des jouets en peluche et toutes sortes d’objets et petites
clochettes,
lunettes de soleil aux yeux, fausse barbe, tête couverte.
-Le vieux berger mécréant Badea Miron : costume composé d’éléments
« diaboliques », fait en peaux de moutons à poil long, visage et tête couverts,
portant beaucoup d’anneaux sur ses doigts (signe de corruption), massue.
-Diables : costumes et masques archaïques, très grands et lourds, avec de
longues cornes de bélier auxquelles on a attaché des grands pompons à
franges rouges pour éloigner le mauvais œil. Personnages attribués en général
à des jeunes hommes forts et hauts de taille, habillés de peaux
d’animaux,
ceints de ceintures multiples à cloches de diverses les dimensions qui font un
bruit épouvantable à tout mouvement, surtout lors des déplacements et des
danses. (fig. 13 et 17)
-La Mort : costume archaïque composite, en peaux d’animaux noirs ou
bruns foncé, renvoyant aux êtres sauvages, sans visage
Ces derniers masques ont quelques chose de très sauvage, les costumes
étant de la même facture que ceux des wild men médiévaux que l’on trouve
en Angleterre et dans le pays germaniques, mais les masques qui couvrent
entièrement la tête et les épaules sont plus complexes. Dans son
chapitre
« Fools and other Entertainers », du livre consacré à la scène médiévale
anglaise, Davidson parle de certains personnages étranges très présents dans
les fêtes et jeux dramatiques du Moyen Âge : les hommes sauvages (wild man
and wild woman) qui faisaient de la place pour que les acteurs puissent passer
à travers la foule, avec des artifices ou torches flamboyantes. Ils sont décrits
comme étant laids, ayant une barbe noire et de longs cheveux noirs, habillés
de vert ou d’une sorte de mousse, bien que les images qui les figurent très
poilus, nous montrent plutôt une peau de bête sauvage, ou de mouton qui
les habille. Ils avaient un caractère belliqueux et grivois22, qui
correspond
tout à fait au caractère des diables et des masques de la famille des Laids des
manifestations théâtrales folkloriques roumaines.

22 Clifford Davidson, Illustrations of the Stage and Acting in England to 1580,

Early Drama, Art
and Music Monograph Series, 16 (Michigan: Kalamazoo, Medieval Institute
Publications,
1991).

38

----------------------- Page 40-----------------------

UN JEU THÉÂTRAL TRADITIONNEL ROUMAIN AU CARREFOUR DES CULTURES (EST-)

EUROPÉENNES: IROZII – LES HÉRODES

Fig. 6 : Miniature des sauvages dans Fig. 7 : Wild man

abducting a lady,
 De Nobilitatibus, Sapientiis et Prudenttiis Regum, Taymouth Hours, B.
Library, MS.
de Walter de Milemete, Oxford, Christ Church Yates Thompson 13,
fol.62.,
College, MS.92, fol. 64v, Davidson, 103 Davidson, 102

-Le jeu : ce n’est pas un théâtre professionnel, mais sont admis dans le
groupe d’acteurs les garçons de plus de 14 ans, d’habitude qui n’ont
pas
encore fait leur service militaire, mais qui, en tout cas, ne doivent
pas être
mariés. Les masques se transmettent aussi de père en fils et les costumes sont
cousus et préparés par les femmes et filles de la famille du jeune en question.

2 Les Hérodes roumains et les drames semi-liturgiques médiévaux

Etant donné le schéma dramaturgique suivi par toutes les variantes

des Hérodes, les types de personnages impliqués et les conventions quant à
l’espace et au temps de jeu, il est impossible de ne pas penser aux drames
liturgiques et semi-liturgiques du Moyen Âge occidental. Ainsi, un court
parallèle pourrait-il en éclaircir certains aspects.
Le moment de l’année consacré à ces jeux religieux est bien le même, le
temps des fêtes de Noël et du Nouvel An. La dénomination même de ce jeu,
rattaché aux coutumes des colinde23 qui supposent, même de nos jours, la
visite de toutes les maisons du village par des groupes de jeunes qui
chantent la Naissance du Christ, montre la lignée de facture religieuse culte
de ce jeu théâtral que l’on promène d’un lieu « scénique » à un autre.
D’ailleurs on dit rarement que l’on joue les Hèrodes, mais on va de maison en
maison avec les Hérodes, ou on porte l’étoile ou on porte le Bethléem.

23 Terme venant des Calendes romaines, que nous retrouvons aussi dans la
tradition de
Chalande en Suisse romande.

39

----------------------- Page 41-----------------------

ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU

En Occident, nous avons aussi un grand nombre de textes de drames

liturgiques et semi-liturgiques de L’Officium pastorum qui devient Officium
stellae (L’Office de l’étoile), Ordo ad representandum Herodem, ou bien
Officium
regnum trium. Auxquelles s’ajoutent plus tard les drames semi-liturgiques du
massacre des innocents: Ordo Rachelis, Lamentatio Rachelis, Ad
interfectionem
puerorum, qui complètent l’action criminelle du roi Hérode et en montrent les
résultats. Car le drame liturgique de Noël se charge à partir du XIe
siècle,
d’un nombre de plus en plus important de séquences dramatiques : l’arrivée
des rois mages, les rois mages devant Hérode, le départ des rois, l’annonce du
danger et la fuite en Egypte, le massacre des innocents. De même, parmi les
variantes du Jeu des Hérodes, comme nous l’avons déjà vu, il y en a de plus ou
moins développées, avec un nombre plus grand ou plus réduit de personnages.
Dans la tradition médiévale, l’église reste l’espace privilégié de la mise
en scène de ces épisodes des Évangiles, puis la place devant l’église
et les
processions théâtrales dans les rues. En Roumanie on ne joue les Hérodes dans
l’église même que de manière exceptionnelle et cela dans le Marmures (région
où le gréco-catholicisme est très présent) et en Moldavie, région qui a subi une
forte influence catholique ponctuelle au XVème et XVIème siècles. Dans le
village de Groși, par exemple, près de Baia Mare, on jouait le Viflaim
dans
l’église une seule fois, après la messe du Nouvel An, alors que le
spectacle
était joué dès le premier jour de Noël, chez les habitants du village24
. Par
contre, on joue devant l’église dans toutes les trois régions et surtout dans les
cours des gens, espaces ouverts intermédiaires entre la maison individuelle et
la rue, avec les spectateurs qui forment un grand cercle autour de
l’espace
scénique délimité ad hoc. La rue reste un espace traditionnel de passage, lieu
de rencontres, de charivaris et de farces jouées aux passants.
En ce qui concerne les personnages nous avons quelques éléments
intéressants à remarquer: à peu d’exceptions près, on retrouve les mêmes
présences de l’Évangile selon Matthieu : Les rois Mages (Magi), Hérode (Rex),
l’écuyer du roi (Armiger), les bergers (pastorum), L’ange (Angelus), les
sage-
femmes (mulieres, obstetrices), le messager (Intenuntius), Marie, Joseph et
le
petit Jésus. Peuvent encore apparaître ceux qui gardent la crèche (Custodes),
les grands prêtres (episcopi) et les scribes de la cour du roi.

24 Ioan et Floarea Herțeg racontent que dans l’église, Hérode était placé sur une
chaise, le
dos à l’autel, alors que les mages restaient debout, lui faisant face. L’ange et
es bergers se
mettaient à la gauche d’Hérode, et les soldats à sa droite. Memoria ethnologica,
no. 11-13,
(juillet-décembre 2004), 1371-1372.

40

----------------------- Page 42-----------------------

UN JEU THÉÂTRAL TRADITIONNEL ROUMAIN AU CARREFOUR DES CULTURES (EST-)

EUROPÉENNES: IROZII – LES HÉRODES

Dans la variante du Maramures, il y a des garçons déguisés en femmes

qui portent la crèche, au nombre de 3. C’est là un possible renvoi aux sages-
femmes qui, d’après les Évangiles apocryphes25, ont été appelées par
Joseph
pour laver le nouveau-né comme le montre iconographiquement la tradition
byzantine dès le Xe siècle, mais aussi aux trois Maries au tombeau et surtout
aux mères des innocents massacrés par Hérode.

Fig. 8 : Peinture murale de grandes dimensions située à la base de la coupole du

naos du Monastère de Probota, Moldavie XVIe s.

Les deux obstetrices jouent un rôle actif dès les premiers drames
liturgiques de l’Occident médiéval qui prennent forme le jour de la fête de
Noël, car ce sont elles qui posent la fameuse question aux bergers : « Quem
quaeritis in presepe, pastores, dicite ? » Puis, en entendant que c’est le Sauveur
qu’ils cherchent conformément aux dits de l’ange (« Salvatorem Christum
Dominum infantem pannis involutum, secundum sermonem angelicum »), elles
répondent : « Adest hic parvulus cum Maria matre sua, de quo vaticinando
25 Voir l’Évangile du Pseudo-Matthieu, in Cristian Bădiliţă Evanghelii
apocrife [Évangiles apocryphes]
(Iaşi: Polirom, 2002) 141.

41

----------------------- Page 43-----------------------

ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU

Ysayas dixerat propheta : Ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium ; et nunc

euntes
dicite quia natus est », en découvrant la crèche située devant ou sur l’autel
(« discoperiendo anconam ») et en se prosternant devant elle «
flexis
genibus »26 . Dans les Hérodes de Botiza, dans la région du Maramures,
le

Bethléem (la crèche) est porté par deux de ces « femmes » qui se prosternent
devant l’icône des saint personnages placée dans cette maisonnette-église en
miniature et tous les personnages « positifs » en font de même.
L’art médiéval occidental, comme l’art byzantin et post-byzantin ont su
exploiter de la même manière, l’épisode apocryphe des deux sages-femmes
Salomé et Zélémi (ou Zebel dans la Légende dorée)27, mais intéressant est le fait

que le rôle de Joseph est resté, quant à lui, secondaire, un rôle de figurant,
d’accompagnateur de la Vierge, debout à côté de la crèche dans les images
peintes ou sculptées, absent ou muet le plus souvent, dans les images
scéniques de la Nativité, dans les drames liturgiques et semi-liturgiques28 . Ce

n’est qu’un peu plus tard, au XIVe-XVe siècles, dans le cadre des mystères,
qu’il acquiert un véritable rôle dans l’économie dramaturgique de l’histoire

29
de la Nativité .
Nous remarquons aussi dans le cas des Hérodes roumains,
que,
pareillement, Joseph est rarement présent. Il apparaît pourtant dans certaines
variantes transylvaines plus complexes, qui font précéder la rencontre des
rois mages avec Hérode de quelques scènes comprenant l’Annonciation, le

26 Dans les tropes dramatiques du XIe siècle en France et en Italie,

comme dans l’Officium

Pastorum de Padoue, où l’appellation obstetrices apparaît clairement à la place

des duo cantores
qui se tiennent à côté de l’autel, cf. Young, The Drama of the Medieval Church,
2 vol. (London :
Oxford University Press, 1951), vol II, 7-12.
27 Pour l’importance des apocryphes dans les images médiévales de la Nativité et de
l’enfance du
Christ voir E. Mâle, L’art religieux du XIIIe siècle en France, Étude sur
l’iconographie du Moyen Âge
et sur ses sources d’inspiration (Paris : Armand Collin, 1968), t. II, 143-158.
Voir aussi l’épisode
des sages-femmes dans la Passione di Revello, in Anna Cornagliotti éd., La
passione di Revello,
 Sacra rapprezentazione quattrocentesca di ignoto piemontese, (Torino
: Centro di Studi
Piemontesi, 1976), 40-41.
28 Joseph se voit attribuer une réplique dans un seul des Ordo Stellae répertorié
par Young, celui

de la cathédrale de Laon, du XIIIe siècle, alors qu’il est absent de

tous les autres Officium
Pastorum et Officium Stellae., The Drama of the Medieval Church II, 103-107.
29 Dans la Passion de Valenciennes, par exemple (pendant la 4ème journée), c’est
lui qui va chercher

le nécessaire pour l’accouchement, c’est lui qui accueille les bergers

et les mages, et c’est
toujours lui qui demande la circoncision et va chercher les personnes en droit
de le faire de
Jérusalem. Voir E. Konigson, La Réprésentation d’un Mystère de la Passion à
Valenciennes en
1547 (Paris : CNRS, 1969), 79-80.

42

----------------------- Page 44-----------------------

UN JEU THÉÂTRAL TRADITIONNEL ROUMAIN AU CARREFOUR DES CULTURES (EST-)

EUROPÉENNES: IROZII – LES HÉRODES

mariage de Joseph et Marie, les doutes de Joseph inspirées par le diable, et le

départ à Bethléem suite au décret de César30, et il semble évident que
ces

insertions soient d’origine catholique occidentale, plus tardives que les

drames semi-liturgiques et mystères médiévaux, très probablement à relier
au théâtre catéchétique jésuite des XVIIe-XVIIIe siècles. Un élément venant
soutenir cette affirmation est le côté très explicatif, moralisateur de
la
présence de Joseph qui est là pour éclaircir comment la sainte
conception,
événement exceptionnel, mais en dehors de normes sociale et pouvant être
donc condamné par cette société, a été acceptée par la communauté. Joseph
en est la clef, et un passage de L’Hymne de la Nativité, de Romanos le Mélode,
a très probablement contribué à l’acceptation de ce rôle dans
l’église
orthodoxe. Ainsi, dans les strophes 11 et 12, la Vierge explique-t-elle aux rois
mages le rôle de Joseph dans l’économie de la situation : « Je vais
vous
rappeler pourquoi, dit Marie aux mages, je garde Joseph dans ma maison :
c’est pour confondre tous les médisants, car il dira ce qu’il a entendu sur mon
enfant […]. En songe il a vu un ange saint […], il raconte aux bergers […], de
vous, mages il dit qu’une étoile radieuse […] »31 . En d’autre mots, Joseph est

le témoin, c’est celui qui, bien que n’étant pas directement impliqué dans le
mystère de l’Incarnation, y participe, pourra en parler et le transmettre plus
loin. En général, dans le jeu des Hérodes, Joseph n’intervient pas dans
le
dialogue, et dans certaines variantes du Maramures les autres personnages
parlent de lui, mais il fait partie du mystère qui reste caché dans la crèche et
n’est dévoilé – sous la forme d’icône – qu’aux bons croyants.
L’ange est un personnage qui apparaît beaucoup plus souvent pour
guider les bergers, dans les drames semi-liturgiques du XIIe siècle.,
puis
réapparaît après le massacre des innocents pour les conduire au Paradis. Il
est surtout présent dans les variantes des Hérodes de Transylvanie centrale,
mais aussi, plus récemment, dans le nord du Maramures (Vișeu de Sus) et en
Moldavie, vêtu de blanc, ailé et interprété par un jeune garçon, qui
chante
avec les autres personnages.

30 N. Cartojan, Cărțile populare în literatura românească, 243-244.

31 Il s’agit de l’hymne le plus connu de Romanos le Mélode, ayant vingt-quatre
strophes, chanté à
Constantinople et de nos jours encore dans les églises orthodoxes pendant
l’office du jour de
Noël, Hymnes, trad. J. Grosdidier de Matons, vol. II (Paris : Cerf, S. C.,
1965), 63.

43

----------------------- Page 45-----------------------

ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU

Fig. 9 : Scène du Ménologe de Moldoviţa, Fig. 10 : Détail du cycle

sculpté par
correspondant au 25 décembre, XVIe s Jehan Ravy de 1318 à
1351,
On peut y voir la crèche, les rois mages, l’ange bas-relief en bois
peint
parlant aux bergers, les sages- Notre-Dame de
Paris
femmes lavant Jésus et Joseph
parlant au berger mécréant.

Les bergers par contre sont toujours présents, dans les

drames
liturgique et semi-liturgique catholiques comme dans les Hérodes orthodoxes.
Ils ont un rôle essentiel, ce sont les premières personnes qui
découvrent
l’enfant Jésus et qui portent la bonne nouvelle. Mais à part ce rôle,
leur
présence en grand nombre dans le théâtre populaire paysan de Roumanie
s’explique aussi par le fait que ces personnages sont très importants dans la
culture traditionnelle roumaine, vu le métier emblématique de l’élevage des
moutons pour une société éminemment rurale avant le XXe siècle. Bien
qu’ayant un rôle très actif aux débuts du théâtre religieux médiéval,
les
bergers finissent par se contenter d’être de simples témoins et perdent
du
terrain devant l’importance croissante au cours des siècles des rois mages et
du roi Hérode.
Une sorte d’intrus dans le groupe des bergers est le vieux
berger
corrompu par le diable ou le diable déguisé en berger. C’est un personnage
typique de l’iconographie post-byzantine, légué par la tradition des
écrits
apocryphes qui ont circulé dans le monde orthodoxe (voir fig. 5 et 11).
Il
apparaît dans le jeu du Maramures déjà cité de Botiza, sous le nom de Badea

44

----------------------- Page 46-----------------------

UN JEU THÉÂTRAL TRADITIONNEL ROUMAIN AU CARREFOUR DES CULTURES (EST-)

EUROPÉENNES: IROZII – LES HÉRODES

Miron De manière étrange, c’est une sorte de personnification de

la
mécréance et ne parle pas à Joseph (comme le montrent les peintures) mais
aux deux autres bergers qui ont appris le miracle, Coridon et Acteon, et qui
veulent le convaincre de venir rendre hommage au Fils de Dieu. Tâche
difficile car non seulement refuse-t-il toute prosternation, mais il joue
la
bêtise, il fait semblant de ne pas comprendre ce qu’on lui explique et
ce
qu’on lui demande de faire, il est ou fait semblant d’être ivre, ce qui rend la
communication encore plus difficile et plus drôle, il tombe à terre et refuse de
se lever, têtu comme un âne, et accepte difficilement à apprendre comment
faire le signe de croix devant la crèche et à reconnaître ainsi le Naissance de
Jésus. Ce personnage est beaucoup plus archaïque que les autres, c’est
l’homme non encore civilisé, non encore christianisé, mi-sauvage,
mi-
humain, qui aime boire et manger (il peut porter une énorme cuiller à
la
main), mais ne se soucie point des choses saintes. Querelleur comme il est, il
ressemble à un personnage du folklore médiéval flamand, Ourson, qu’on
retrouve dans la Querelle d’Ourson et de Valentin, jeu carnavalesque, où
Valentin (l’homme civilisé) rencontre Ourson, le sauvage monstrueux barbu
à la massue, devant le jugement du roi en robe longue et jaune-dorée,
qui
tient l’épée à la main, un roi qui ressemble d’ailleurs beaucoup à Hérode32 .
Le berger mécréant a, comme nous l’avons déjà vu, un statut similaire
à celui du fou. Le fou/ bouffon (Augustul) a quelque chose du mime antique
latin et des sots médiévaux, des badins présents dans les farces populaires. Il
intervient en permanence dans l’action des autres personnages, les empêche
de s’exprimer, détourne le sens des mots, joue des tours, mise sur un humour
grossier, fait du tapage avec les diables.

32 Voir « Le combat de Carnaval et Carême » de Bruegel l’Ancien et la reprise de la

scène
d’Ourson et Valentin par un anonyme en 1566, sous le nom de « La mascarade
d’Ourson
et de Valentin », d’après Bruegel l’Ancien, gravure sur bois. Ici, les costumes
sont aussi
plus détaillés, on voit bien Ourson avec sa massue, sa couronne de feuilles et
son costume
entier d’écailles, puis Valentin qui tient une arbalète à la main, le roi ou le
juge avec sa
boule à croix et la couronne sur la tête et finalement les deux
personnages qui font la
quête. Cf. Ștefana Pop-Curșeu, Pour une théâtralité picturale. Bruegel et
Ghelderode en jeux de
 miroirs, (Cluj-Napoca : Casa Cărţii de Ştiinţă, coll. Teatru-Eseuri 2012), 21-
22.

45

----------------------- Page 47-----------------------

ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU

Fig. 11 : Badea Miron et le fou, personnages des Hérodes dans le village de

Vișeu de Sus, Maramureș

Les rois mages, personnages centraux de l’office de l’étoile, ont donné

le nom pluriel de Hérodes (Irozi), peut-être à cause de leur condition royale
qui les unit tout en les opposant à Hérode. Ils sont les représentants du bien
et du beau. Leur discours est en vers, souvent moralisateur et prophétique.
Ils s’associent au prêtre « orthodoxe » pour condamner les mauvaises actions
du roi Hérode.
Les diables constituent un groupe de personnages fascinants du Jeu
et du cortège des Hérodes. Dans sa très récente étude sur Le théâtre religieux
roumain, Ion Cristescu en parle pourtant très peu, bien que Les Hérodes
y
occupent une place centrale. Or, il nous semble que si l’on veut
chercher
des éléments archaïques dans ce jeu, non empruntés à la
littérature
catéchétique culte, c’est du côté des diables et de leurs costumes qu’il faut
se tourner. Car la présence des diables et des diableries a été interdite en
Occident avec les mystères, au XVIe siècle. Or, nous voyons que dans la

46

----------------------- Page 48-----------------------

UN JEU THÉÂTRAL TRADITIONNEL ROUMAIN AU CARREFOUR DES CULTURES (EST-)

EUROPÉENNES: IROZII – LES HÉRODES

peinture murale religieuse post-byzantine (dans la figuration des miracles de

Saints importants, dans l’Hymne Acathiste, et surtout dans les Jugements
derniers), les diables sont très présents. L’imaginaire rural religieux roumain
est peuplé de ces figures monstrueuses qui font peur aux enfants pendant
les longues nuits d’hiver.

Fig. 12 : Détail du cycle sculpté par Jehan Ravy de 1318 à 1351,

bas-relief en bois peint de l’église Notre-Dame de Paris

On ne pourrait affirmer avec certitude que les personnages des diables

soient entrés dans les jeux de Hérodes par voie occidentale. Etant donné qu’ils
n’existent pas dans toutes les variantes, qu’ils ont en général peu de
texte
(ayant plutôt une présence menaçante) et qu’ils s’associent au groupe des
laids avec des masques qui font partie d’autres rites et processions, il
ne
serait pas erroné de penser que sur un fond théâtral para-dramatique
existant, sont venus se greffer des rôles dramatiques puisés dans les textes
des mystères médiévaux occidentaux.
47

----------------------- Page 49-----------------------

ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU

Fig. 13 : Jeunes masqués en diables, avec le personnage de la Mort au centre,

Village de Botiza Maramureș, 2009

Prenons par exemple le moment du châtiment du roi Hérode, après le

massacre des Innocents, dans les grands mystères de la Passion (où les
diables poussent Hérode à agir tel qu’il le fait, rôdent et commentent
les
faits, en attendant d’acquérir l’âme du criminel) et dans une variante plus
complexe des Hérodes roumains. Dans le Mystère de la Passion d’Arnoul
Gréban, par exemple, Hérode, poussé par Sathan, se suicide, ne pouvant
endurer sa douleur physique en disant « a tous les diables me commans »
(v. 7943) et alors Sathan et Astaroth emportent joyeusement l’âme du tyran
en Enfer :

48

----------------------- Page 50-----------------------

UN JEU THÉÂTRAL TRADITIONNEL ROUMAIN AU CARREFOUR DES CULTURES (EST-)

EUROPÉENNES: IROZII – LES HÉRODES

SATHAN ASTAROTH
Sus, troussons, C’est Hérode, vostre
menistre,
nous deulx saquemens, qui vient pour querir son
loyer.
Ce faulx murtrier desesperé !
LUCIFER
ASTAROTH Si le fault ung pou
faistoier ;
Son logis est ja tout paré ; Il vient de loing, et pour
salu,
Portons l’en enfer droicte voye. estrenez lë en plomb bollu,
confit de metal tout
ardant.
SATAN Noz loys a esté bien
gardant :
Lucifer, esgarde quel proye C’est raison qu’il ait ses
sauldees.
Nous admenons cy au chapitre !
Icy font les dyables
tempeste.
(v. 7944-7957)

Et voici l’échange de répliques d’un texte des Hérodes / Le Bethléem de

Slatina, correspondant au même moment de la fin, quand la mort et les
diables se disputent l’âme et le corps d’Hérode, en soulignant la morale
:
« Iar tiranul, acest rău, / Ce-i dușman lui Dumnezeu, / De viu îl va aduce
dracu. / Ca să se-ngrozească altu! » (Et le tyran, ce méchant, / qui
est
l’ennemi de Dieu, / vivant il sera emporté par le diable, / pour que
ses
semblables en soient terrifiés) »33 .

INSPECTORUL L’INSPECTEUR DES DIABLES

Cât mor pruncii mititei Lorsque les poupons meurent
Noi nu avem folos de ei trop petits
Căci tu mulți prunci ai tăiat On ne peut pas s’en servir,
Și pe noi ne-ai înșelat Et comme tu en as massacré
Pentru aceasta a ta faptă beaucoup,
Te va duce-n iad la plată Tu nous as aussi trahis.
Că tu n-ai acum iertare C’est pour cela que ton
méfait
Că ești om blăstamat tare, Te portera en enfer pour ta
paye
Nu ești un om cuvios Car tu n’as plus de pardon
Nici dracilor faci folos! Car tu es un homme méchant
Tu n’es ni un bon croyant
Ni aux diables tu ne sers !

33 Vasile Ona Jotu « Viflaiemul din Slatina », Memoria Ethnologica, 8-9

(Juillet-Décembre
2003): 921-937, notre traduction.

49

----------------------- Page 51-----------------------

ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU

MOARTEA LA MORT
Voi, draci afurisiți, Eh, vous, diables maudits,
Voi de viu îl chinuiți! Vous le torturez vivant!
Lăsați-mă eu să-l spovedesc Laissez-moi le confesser,
Datorința s-o-mplinesc! Et accomplir mon devoir!

ISPRAVNICUL LE PRÉFET DES DIABLES

Mai așteaptă, domnișoară Un peu de patience,
demoiselle,
Căci noi nu voim să moară Car on ne veut pas qu’il
meure
Că și noi îl știm juca encore.
Mai altfel ca dumneata. On sait aussi comment le
faire
Că ar fi pagubă de tine danser,
Să-ți ungi dinții cu așe un câne! Un peu différemment de ce
que toi
Ț-îs destui acești copii, tu sais.
Vo patrusprezece mii, Et ce serait dommage pour
toi
Care ți i-ai luat ieri De graisser tes dents avec
un chien
Prin crâncenele tăieri! pareil
Cu aceasta pasăre vie Que tous ces enfants te
suffisent,
Ne-om face și noi veselie Ces quatorze mille poupons,
Căci ca el de blăstămat Que tu as pris hier,
Nu avem pe altu-un iad! Grâce aux terribles
massacres !
[…] Avec cet oiseau vivant,
 Nous nous amuserons aussi
un peu,
Car aussi maudit que lui
On n’en a pas de pareil en
enfer!
[…]

IROD HÉRODE
Ce folos de-a me domnie Quel bénéfice m’a apporté
mon
Că-s cu dracii de-o soție: règne
Ostașii nu mă pot scoate, Si je suis des diables le
conjoint
Nici a mele averi toate, Mes soldats ne peuvent plus
rien
Unde ești, iubită moarte? pour moi
MOARTEA Et tous mes trésors non
plus.
Aici! Aici! Où es-tu, ma chère Mort ?
[…] LA MORT
Ici! Ici!
34
[…]

34 Ibidem, notre traduction.

50

----------------------- Page 52-----------------------

UN JEU THÉÂTRAL TRADITIONNEL ROUMAIN AU CARREFOUR DES CULTURES (EST-)

EUROPÉENNES: IROZII – LES HÉRODES

Fig. 14 : Miniature de la cinquième journée du mystère de la Passion

de Valenciennes, par H. Cailleau, manuscrit de Rothschild I-7-3
de la Bibliothèque Nationale (reprod. Elie Konigson, pl. III).

Il faut remarquer la conception dramatique similaire

des deux
moments, qui correspondent, comme le montre aussi la fameuse miniature
de Cailleau, à la prise en main du roi, corps et âme, par les diables, auxquels
se joint chez les Roumains la Mort, personnage allégorique faisant penser
plutôt aux moralités médiévales, mais très présent aussi dans l’iconographie
religieuse des églises en bois du Maramures, des XVIIIe-XIXe siècles. De
même, la didascalie Icy font les dyables tempeste, se retrouve dans la
réalité
scénique de ces jeux, car le bruit produit par les diables, qui sautent
en
agitant leurs multitudes de cloches fendues attachés à leur costume, est
effectivement infernal.
D’ailleurs, la musique religieuse et le bruit infernal se trouvent côte à
côte35, puisque l’échange de répliques est constamment interrompu et complété
par des chansons de Noël, sacrées ou profanes, plus ou moins archaïques (en

35 Pour une étude plus poussée, voir Mihaela Nubert Chețan, Muzica în teatrul
popular romanesc
[La musique dans le théâtre populaire roumain], (Baia Mare : Editura
Ethnologica, 2005)
51

----------------------- Page 53-----------------------

ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU

fonction de la région et de la zone urbaine ou rurale, de montagne ou de plaine,

où les jeux ont lieu). En ce sens, la miniature du Psautier de St. Remigius, du
XIIe siècle (fig. 15), pourrait être considérée représentative pour les deux
réalités
scéniques, occidentale et roumaine.

Fig. 16 : Miniature du Psautier de St. Remigius, Beatus Vir-Musique sacrée et

musique
profane, Reims, vers 1125, Cambridge, Saint John’s, College, ms. B 180, fol.1r
(photo in Thomas E. A. Dale, “Monsters, corporeal Deformities and Phantasm
in the Cloister of St-Michel-de-Cuxa” in The Art Bulletin, vol.83, n°3,
sept. 2001, pl. 10, p. 114)

52

----------------------- Page 54-----------------------

UN JEU THÉÂTRAL TRADITIONNEL ROUMAIN AU CARREFOUR DES CULTURES (EST-)

EUROPÉENNES: IROZII – LES HÉRODES

Fig. 17 : Costume du groupe de diables (l’Intendant)

à cloches suspendues, Vișeu de Sus, Maramureș

3. Possibles croisements et Conclusion

D’où est venue l’idée du Vicleim chez nous ? Il n’est pas facile de
répondre.
Les Grecs [...] ne l’ont pas – et les Bulgares non plus ne le connaissent
que dans
les régions avoisinées à la Serbie. L’église orthodoxe, qui a été
réfractaire à
l’introduction de la sculpture dans les églises a considéré impie la mise en
scène du drame évangélique. Le mystère religieux est ainsi chez
nous
d’origine occidentale et il est lié au mystère des trois rois mages du Moyen
Âge. Parmi les peuples voisins, ce sont les Ruthènes qui l’ont, l’ayant reçu
des Polonais, et les peuples qui ont vécu dans la même sphère culturelle, au
sein de l’ancienne monarchie des Habsbourg : les Saxons qui l’ont pris des
Allemands ; les Italiens qui l’ont hérité du Moyen Âge, les
Hongrois qui,
d’après les études menées par leurs folkloristes et ethnographes
l’ont reçu
des Italiens, et , enfin, les Serbes des régions adriatique et du Banat
[...] ont
reçu au début du XVIIIème siècle des influences russes dans le
jeu du
36
Vicleim.
36 Cartojan, Cărţile populare în literatura românească, vol II, 246.

53

----------------------- Page 55-----------------------

ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU

En effet, il n’est pas aisé de retracer l’histoire de ce type de jeu

théâtral,
car la grande majorité de sources, étant orales, se sont perdues dans
une
histoire toujours mouvante, en perpétuel changement. Les documents qui
nous restent, textes écrits, récits et descriptions nous paraissent très
peu
nombreux si nous les regardons en miroir aux jeux
contemporains
proprement-dits qui varient d’une communauté à une autre et, qui, tout en
gardant certains schéma traditionnels, évoluent, changent d’une génération à
une autre. Il s’agit d’un théâtre vivant, qui a su au cours du temps assimiler
des éléments dramatiques et para-dramatiques provenant des coutumes des
pays voisins et des communautés minoritaires (hongroises, saxonnes) qui
vivaient dans les principautés roumaines et qui avaient en commun la même
religion chrétienne, en dépit des différences de culte ou de langue.
Pour synthétiser, nous dirions qu’il y a donc un très probable croisement
entre la manière de jouer effectivement ce jeu théâtral folklorique dans le
nord de la Transylvanie et le contenu typiquement semi-liturgique et
catéchétique catholique allemand et autrichien. Les influences hongroises
sont pratiquement à exclure, car les quelques formes qui existent en Hongrie
sont de provenance germanique-catholique et non réformée. D’un autre
côté, le peu de variantes des Hongrois de Transylvanie présentent beaucoup
de similitudes avec les textes roumains, tout en étant moins complexes et
nous pensons qu’ici le rôle important a été joué par les frères jésuites très
actifs au XVIIe-XVIIIe siècles dans le Banat, en Transylvanie, dans le
Maramureș et en Moldavie37 .
Pour ce qui est des influences du monde orthodoxe et gréco-catholique
slave, que nous avons moins eu l’occasion de discuter dans la présente étude,
il est important de signaler que c’est surtout sous sa forme de théâtre
de
marionnettes que les Hérodes slaves ont pénétré dans l’espace culturel
roumain. Tudor Pamfile parle ainsi dans une de ses études ethnographiques
d’une coutume très intéressante en Ukraine (dans la région de Kiev),
qu’il
décrit ainsi :

Considéré comme une sorte de mystère, comme la Bénédiction et la Nativité

de Jésus, le Bethléem [Vicleimul ou Viflaimul ] est représenté avant Noël,
le
Nouvel An et l’Épiphanie et il montre « Le massacre des innocents
». La

37 Pour les variantes existant chez les Hongrois de Transylvanie, voir

Ioan Cristescu,
Dramaturgia religioasă românească. De la misterele medievale europene la
realizări românești, [La
 dramaturgie religieuse roumaine. Des mystères médiévaux européens aux
réalisations roumaines]
(Bucarest : Editura Muzeul Literaturii române, 2013) 45-46.

54

----------------------- Page 56-----------------------

UN JEU THÉÂTRAL TRADITIONNEL ROUMAIN AU CARREFOUR DES CULTURES (EST-)

EUROPÉENNES: IROZII – LES HÉRODES

caisse, longue et haute d’un mètre et demi, contient des poupées manipulées
par une personne. « Les innocents, mis à mort par ordre d’Hérode, ne sont
pas faits en bois comme les autres acteurs, mais en cire, et les
soldats
d’Hérode, habillés en Polonais, les empalent avec leurs lances. À la fin de
la
pièce, Hérode est puni et deux serpents viennent le dévorer. Ces mystères
sont accompagnés de pièces satiriques où l’on donne la plus grande liberté
aux acteurs en bois. »38

Effectivement, l’Ukraine, plus proche de la Pologne catholique,

était
entrée en contact avec le théâtre religieux de type occidental beaucoup plus
vite que d’autres pays orthodoxes comme la Russie, par exemple, qui ne
tolérait que difficilement le théâtre de marionnettes, occupation des skomorokhi
ou jongleurs autochtones.
En Russie, ce genre de petites pièces à sujets évangéliques et bibliques
n’apparaissent qu’au milieu du XVIIe siècle, dans un élan de contre-attaque à
l’encontre des avancées de l’église catholique qui faisait sentir son influence
dans les régions côtoyant les frontières de la Pologne. Le théâtre
religieux
jésuite (apparu en réponse à la Réforme et au fait que Luther utilisait
le
théâtre comme moyen d’éducation et d’évangélisation protestante) était en
vogue à la fin du XVIe siècle, et l’église orthodoxe avait dû à son
tour
adopter les moyens scéniques et dramatiques pour attirer les masses et les
catéchiser39 . Le premier drame de la Nativité, dont le prologue annonce aussi
la participation capitale du roi Hérode et la monstrance du massacre des
innocents, date de la fin du XVIIe siècle et l’auteur, le moine Dimitry
de
Rostov (1651-1709), fut canonisé par l’Église russe en 1751. Cette pièce
fait
apparaître un grand nombre de personnages allégoriques (la Paix, l’Espoir, la
Joie, l’Envie, etc.), mais le passage consacré au massacre est réduit à l’ordre
donné par Hérode et à la punition immédiate du roi par la désintégration de
sa chair. Toute sa cour l’abandonne, horrifiée, et on le retrouve en Enfer où il
est sermonné par l’Innocence et par la Vengeance40 .

38 Tudor Pamfile, Sărbătorile la Români…, 159 ; il cite ici la Revue de Traditions

populaires, I, 1886, 84-
85. La traduction du roumain nous appartient.
39 À propos de la création de l’Académie dramatique Mohyla (du nom d’un descendant
de la
famille moldave des fondateurs du monastère de Suceviţa, Petru-Pierre Movilă –
Mohyla en
transcription russe –, qui fut métropolite de Kiev au XVIIe siècle et
grand théoricien de
 l’orthodoxie) et de la propagation du drame religieux scolaire, voir Simon
Karlinsky, Russian
Drama from its Beginnings to the Age of Pushkin (Berkley and Los
Angeles : University of
California Press, 1985), 7-11.
40 Voir ibidem, 17-19, qui qualifie ce drame de typiquement jésuite.

55

----------------------- Page 57-----------------------

ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU

Pour revenir sur le territoire roumain, dans la région du Banat

Le
Bethléem apparaît aussi sous cette forme de caisse à marionnettes, et nous
avons ce témoignage du XIX e siècle, qui utilise le nom slave du spectacle :
le Vertep.

Un groupe est composé de trois Mages, Hérode et le porteur de l’Étoile.

Un autre groupe formé de trois bergers et l’Ange. Quand ils vont avec le
Bethléem, ils se mettent ensemble […]. Je sais que c’est la coutume de
faire dans le Vîrtepu [le Bethléem] le jeu de marionnettes aussi
qui
représentent plusieurs scènes de légendes et le joueur [le marionnettiste]
qui joue souvent la comédie et ne produit que de la dérision et du rire.41

Il semble que ce genre de spectacle était courant au XIX e siècle dans

toute la Transylvanie (ce qui n’est plus du tout le cas) avec les
mêmes
scénarios et textes que le théâtre joué par des acteurs en chair et en os et qu’il
s’agissait d’une forme de spectacle mixte, « un étrange mélange entre le
drame liturgique et le théâtre de marionnettes ; quelquefois s’y
joignaient
aussi les chanteurs des colinde portant l’Étoile – des groupes de
musiciens
avec un répertoire composé de chansons qui racontent la naissance de Jésus
et l’Adoration des Mages »42 . Dans son livre Le Théâtre populaire
roumain,
Horia Barbu Oprișan, décrit justement le moment final du massacre des
innocents, d’un tel spectacle mixte :

Le spectacle continue dans cette double manière jusqu’au moment

final où
HÉRODE, furieux, dit :
Où sont tous ces mages et philosophes qui m’ont trompé?
J’enverrai
l’armée pour tuer tous les enfants de moins de deux
ans, pour
qu’ensemble avec eux je puisse tuer aussi le roi nouveau-né.

TOUT LE MONDE (en chantant):

Rafilo [Rachel], ne te lamente pas, ne pleure pas,
En voyant tous tes enfants ensanglantés,
Car ils ne périront pas
41 Atanasie M. Marienescu, Steaua Magilor sau Cântece a Nașterea Domnului
Isus Christos
(Biserica Albă : Tipografia J. Wunder 1875) 41,42.
42 Carmen Stanciu, « Metamorfozele teatrului de păpuși în România », Yorick, mai
2012. Ion
Cristescu parle aussi d’une seule variante de Hérodes joué par des marionnettes
attestée
dans l’espoace culturel hongrois, ayant une composante religieuse et
une laïque, cf.
Dramaturgia religioasă românească..., 57

56

----------------------- Page 58-----------------------

UN JEU THÉÂTRAL TRADITIONNEL ROUMAIN AU CARREFOUR DES CULTURES (EST-)

EUROPÉENNES: IROZII – LES HÉRODES

Mais fleuriront de plus belle.

Pendant cette chanson le marionnettiste sort la poupée Rachel avec son

enfant
dans les bras; Hérode apparaît l’épée à la main, enlève l’enfant de Rachel
et le
tue. Apparaissent alors le Prêtre avec son livre sous le bras et le diacre.
Le prêtre
accomplit la messe, alors que le diacre tire les cloches. Rachel pleure. Le
soldat
pique l’enfant avec sa lance et l’emporte pour l’enterrer. Après
l’enterrement,
[…] le soldat tape avec sa lance dans la boîte pour que les spectateurs
donnent
de l’argent. A la fin ils chantent tous la Chanson des trois mages [Trei
Crai
de la Răsărit].43

Les peintures murales des monastères moldaves qui figurent

le
moment du massacre des innocents constituent à leur tour un témoignage
digne d’être pris en considération. Dans le Pronaos de
l’église de
l’Annonciation du monastère de Moldoviţa, comme dans celui de l’église St.
Nicolas du monastère de Probota, datant de la première moitié du XVIe
siècle, les soldats d’Hérode, habillés d’armures ou juste portant des tuniques
empalent les nourrissons avec leurs lances. Est-ce possible que les
peintres
des deux églises se soient inspirés de représentations contemporaines de ce
« mystère » joué en Moldavie roumaine ou en Ukraine voisine pour figurer le
meurtre collectif des enfants, qui apparaissent avec leurs auréoles de saints
dans la fresque de Probota ? Ce qui prouverait que ces jeux théâtraux
existaient déjà à la fin du Moyen Âge sur le territoire roumain. Ou bien est-ce
l’inverse, et ce sont les marionnettistes et les acteurs qui se sont inspirés des
images religieuse contemplées sur les murs des églises ? La réponse saura
attendre des études à venir.
Que dire de plus ? Ce jeu traditionnel roumain nous renvoie à
une
multitude de cultures différentes qui viennent se greffer sur les coutumes
roumaines ou qui sont assimilées en tant que spécifiquement roumaines.
Il y a une « impureté » extrêmement riche dans le folklore de tout
pays,
et le théâtre paysan des Hérodes en témoigne à merveille. Il dépend de nous
de sauvegarder et de comprendre ce patrimoine immatériel en voie de
disparition.

43 H.B. Oprișan, Teatrul popular românesc, București: Editura Meridiane 1987, 111-
112, notre
traduction.

57

----------------------- Page 59-----------------------

ŞTEFANA POP-
CURŞEU

Fig. 18 : Fresque du massacre des innocents, pronaos de l’église St.

Nicolas
du monastère de Probota,
1532.

Fig. 19 : Pronaos de l’église de l’Annonciation du monastère de Moldoviţa,

1537.

58

----------------------- Page 60-----------------------

UN JEU THÉÂTRAL TRADITIONNEL ROUMAIN AU CARREFOUR DES CULTURES (EST-)

EUROPÉENNES: IROZII – LES HÉRODES

Reférences

BĂDILIŢĂ, Cristian. Evanghelii apocrife, Iaşi: Polirom, 2002.

CARTOJAN, N. Cărţile populare în literatura românească. 2 vol. Bucarest : Ed.
Enciclo-
pedică Română, 1974.
CHINDRIŞ, Ioan. « Blaj and the Beginnings of the Vifleim Custom among
the
Romanians », in Anuarul Institutului de Istorie « George Bariţ », 2005,
531-544 .
CORNAGLIOTTI, Anna. éd. La passione di Revello, Sacra rapprezentazione
quattrocentesca
 di ignoto piemontese, Torino : Centro di Studi Piemontesi, 1976.
CUISENIER, Jean.. « Rois Mages dans les Carpathes ». in Simposio Rito y Misterio.
La
Coruña : Coleccion « Cursos, congressos y simposios », 1991, 27-38.
DAVIDSON, Clifford. Illustrations of the Stage and Acting in England to
1580. Early
Drama, Art and Music Monograph Series. 16. Michigan: Kalamazoo, Medieval
Institute Publications, 1991.
GITZA, Letiţia. FLOREA ,Mihai. « Manifestări de dramă populară în câteva
regiuni
ale ţării », Studii şi cercetări de istoria artei, n° 1 (1958) : 275-280 .
HERȚEG, Ioan et Floarea. in Memoria ethnologica . no. 11-13 (juillet-décembre,
2004).
KONIGSON, Elie. La Réprésentation d’un Mystère de la Passion à Valenciennes en
1547,
Paris, CNRS, 1969.
KOOPMANS, Jelle. Le théâtre des exclus au Moyen-Âge, hérétiques sorcières et
marginaux.
Paris : Éditions Imago, 1997.
MÂLE, Emile. L’art religieux du XIIIe siècle en France, Étude sur
l’iconographie du
Moyen Âge et sur ses sources d’inspiration . Paris : Armand Collin, 1968.
MARIENESCU, Atanasie M.. Steaua Magilor sau Cântece a Nașterea Domnului
Isus
Christos. Biserica Albă : Tipografia J. Wunder, 1875.
NANU, Elisabeta. « Un manuscris cu Irozi al lui Picu Pătruţ », Anuarul
Arhivei de
Folclor, VI, s.l., (1942).
NUBERT CHEȚAN, Mihaela. Muzica în teatru popular romanesc (La musique
dans le
théâtre populaire roumain), Baia-Mare : Editura Etnologica, 2005.
ONA JOTU, Vasile. « Viflaiemul din Slatina ». Memoria Ethnologica, 8-9 (Juillet-
Décembre
2003): 921-937.
OPRIȘAN, H.B.. Teatrul popular românesc. București: Editura Meridiane 1987, 111-
112.
PAMFILE, Tudor. Sărbătorile la Români, Crăciunul, Studiu etnografic.
Bucarest : Libr.
Socec & Comp. & C. Sfetea, 1914, p. 155.
POP-CURȘEU, Ștefana. Pour une théâtralité picturale. Bruegel et Ghelderode
en jeux de
miroirs. Cluj-Napoca : Casa Cărţii de Ştiinţă, coll. Teatru-Eseuri, 2012.
STANCIU, Carmen. « Metamorfozele teatrului de păpuși în România »,
Yorick,
(mai 2012).

59

----------------------- Page 61-----------------------

ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU

VRABIE, G.. « Teatrul popular ». in Studii şi cercetări de istoria artei,

n° 3-4, (1957) :
485-562.
VULCĂNESCU, Romulus. Măștile populare. Bucarest: Ed.Științifică, 1970.
VULPESCU, Mihail. Irozii, Păpușile, Teatrul țărănesc al Vicleimului,
Scaloianul și
Paparudele. Bucarest: Tipografia Ziarul Universul, 1941.
WEINHOLD, Karl. Weihnachtspiele und Lieder aus Süddeutschland und Schlesien. Wien,
1875.
YOUNG, Karl. The Drama of the Medieval Church. 2 vol.. London : Oxford University
Press, 1951 (1ère ed. 1933).

ŞTEFANA POP-CURŞEU, Ph.D at the University of Paris III-Sorbonne Nouvelle,

in Theatre and Scenic Arts, is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of
Theatre and
Television of „Babeş-Bolyai” University Cluj-Napoca, where she
teaches antique
and medieval theatre history and modern theory of theatre. She
published many
articles in the domain of Theatre, in France and Romania. She translated
alone or in
collaboration with Ioan Pop-Curşeu a dozen of books from French to
Romanian, and
is the author of the book: Pour une théâtralité picturale. Bruegel et
Ghelderode
en jeux de miroirs, Casa Cărţii de Ştiinţă, Cluj-Napoca, coll. Teatru-
Eseuri, 2012.
She wrote in collaboration with Ioan Pop-Curșeu two theatre scripts
and directed
two performances based on these scripts (Killed by Friendly Fire, 2014 and
Every
Tzara has his Dada 2016). She is also, since 2011, the artistic director of
The National
Theatre in Cluj-Napoca.

60

----------------------- Page 62-----------------------

STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA, LXIII, 1, 2018, p. 61 - 90

(Recommended Citation)
DOI:10.24193/subbdrama.2018.1.03

The Theatrical Christening of Romania

1
ANCA HAŢIEGAN

Abstract: The present paper focuses on the first theatrical

representation
of Romania by the actor and playwright Costache Caragiali (1815-
1877),
examining the portrayal of the female protagonist of the prologue written
by
the said author on the occasion of the grand opening of Teatrul cel Mare
(the
future National Theatre) from Bucharest, in 1852. The paper also
traces the
history of the allegorical representation of the nation in the Romanian
theatre
from the beginning to the end of World War I, by such authors like
Gheorghe
Asachi (one of Caragiali’s precursors), actor Mihail Pascaly, Frédéric
Damé
(a writer and journalist of French origin), Ion Luca Caragiale
(Costache
Caragiali’s nephew and one of Romania’s greatest writers of all
times) and
actor and playwright Zaharia Bârsan.

Keywords: Romania, theatre, 19th century, Caragiali, allegory, nation,

Marianne

The Name of the Country: A Bit of History

The current name of the Romanian state, i.e. “Romania”, was adopted
first by the 1866 Constitution published in the “Official Gazette – Journal of
Romania”, no. 142, of 1/13 June 1866, and promulgated by the Ruling
Prince Carol I of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen on 30 June of the same year.
Article 1 of this Constitution stipulated the following: “The Romanian
United Principalities represent an indivisible State called Romania.” The
Romanian United Principalities referred to by the document were, at that
time, Wallachia2 3
and Moldavia , territories that had a majority
Romanian

1. Anca Hațiegan: Faculty of Theatre and Television, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-

Napoca, Romania.
ancahatiegan@yahoo.com. Paper translated from Romanian by Magda Iftene.
2 . Țara Românească, called “Wallachia” by foreigners, included at that
time the historical
regions of Oltenia (Lesser Wallachia) and Muntenia (Greater Wallachia)
(Dobruja joined
them later, after the War of Independence of 1877-1878).

----------------------- Page 63-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

population, under Ottoman sovereignty and the collective protection of the

greater European powers (England, France, Sardinia, Prussia, the Russian
Empire, the Habsburg Empire and the Ottoman Empire), incorporated in
1859 with the – required – name of “United Principalities Moldavia and
Wallachia4”, an action made possible owing to the Convention of Paris, of
7/19 August 1858, which ended the Crimean War. The representatives of
the Romanians in the two Danubian Principalities – another of their names
abroad – had requested in Paris that they make a single state, called “Romania”,
but the Great Powers dismissed this request; they had accepted, however,
their formal union (according to this vision, the Principalities would continue
to have different governments and capitals, but also common institutions).
“Romania” was the name selected by the members of the Ad hoc Meetings
convened in October 1857 both in Moldavia, at Iasi, and in Wallachia,
at
Bucharest, as provided by a decision made during the Paris Peace Conference
(18/30 March 1856), for extraordinary consultations regarding the future form of
organization of the Principalities. This was an unprecedented democratic
exercise in the history of the two state formations, attended, directly, by the
great boyars and the clergy, and, indirectly, by delegates, low-ranked nobles,
freelancers and peasants. The double election of Alexandru Ioan Cuza5, at
the beginning of 1859, as ruler of Moldavia and Wallachia, by the legislative
assemblies of both Principalities, accelerated the complete fusion of the two
states. In 1861, in the wake of the Constantinople Conference, the
sultan
issued a Firman (a decree) whereby he recognized officially the union of the
Principalities, but solely for the duration of Cuza’s rule. In reality, “the Small
Union”6, its later name, became thereafter an irreversible act. The announcement
was made across the country, by the ruler, through a proclamation to
the
nation in which – and this is extremely significant – there was no mention of

3 . Moldavia as part of the United Principalities included its Occidental or

Central-Western
part (without Bucovina) and a small section of Bessarabia, north of
the Danube Mouth.
After the War of Independence, a part of Budjak (historical Bessarabia), which
had been re-
included in Moldavia in 1856, was attached, for the second time, to
the Russian Empire
(which had occupied it in 1812).
4 . See note 2.
5 . Alexandru Ioan Cuza (b. 20 March 1820, Bârlad - d. 15 May 1873, Heidelberg,
Germany),
politician and ruler of the United Principalities between 1859 and 1866.
6. By opposition to the “Great Union” of 1918, by which Bessarabia, Bucovina and
Transylvania
also became parts of the Kingdom of Romania. (The Kingdom had been proclaimed in
1881,
four years after the independence from the Ottoman Empire had been won.)

62

----------------------- Page 64-----------------------

THE THEATRICAL CHRISTENING OF ROMANIA

the Principalities, but there was the unambiguous reference to the “Romanian
nationality” and to a “single Romania”, the message ending with “Long
live
Romania!”.7
According to the historian A. D. Xenopol, in the 20 March 1862 meeting,
the Legislative Assembly (the joint assembly of the legislating bodies of the
two Principalities, in other words, their first single parliament)
rejected
Mihail Kogălniceanu8’s suggestion, “that, among other measures meant to
strengthen the union – such as the unification of the colours and of the flag,
the fusion of the gazettes, the removal of the borders – the title of
United
Principalities should also be replaced with Romania”9 . The proposal was too
daring for that moment. Nevertheless, in the opening of the first meeting of
the assembly of the United Principalities, of 24 January 1862 (anniversary the
reminded the double election of Cuza three years before), the ruler Alexandru
Ioan I had begun his speech with the words: “A new life now opens for
Romania”. Xenopol did not miss this and, in a note to Domnia lui Cuza-Vodă,
he mentions: “This name (Romania, our note) had been given a number of
times before to the United Principalities, even in the internal official
acts.
Foreigners used it equally. As an interesting fact, we quote an 1862 letter of
Victor Hugo to one of his acquaintances in Bucharest, which, at the address,

10
includes the name Roumanie. See La Voix de la Roumanie, 3 January 1862.”
We can provide another example: the alternating use of the names “United
Principalities” and “Romania” in Statutul dezvoltător al Convenției din
7/19
August 1858 [The Expanding Charter of the Convention of 7/19 August
1858],
promulgated by Alexandru Ioan I in May 1864 and published in the “Official
Gazette – Journal of the Romanian United Principalities” (no. 146 of
3/15
July 1864), by which the ruler amended substantially the Convenția pentru
organizarea definitivă a Principatelor Dunărene ale Moldovei și Valahiei
din 7/19
august 1858 (Convention for the final organization of the Danubian Principalities
of
Moldavia and Wallachia of 7/19 August 1858) (the fundamental legal and political
act of the country between 1858 and 1866). For this purpose, the
opening

7. The proclamation was published in the “Official Gazette of Wallachia”, on 11,

respectively 12
December 1861, being also printed on leaflet at the Printing Office of
Adolf Berman of Iasi
(dated 1 December 1861). The text, translated in French, also appeared in the
magazine Archives
Diplomatiques. Recueil de diplomatie et d’histoire, VI, tome II, April, May, June
(1866): 209.
8. Mihail Kogălniceanu (1817-1891), Romanian politician, historian, writer.
9. A.D. Xenopol, Domnia lui Cuza-Vodă [Cuza Voda’s Rule], vol. I (Iasi:
Publishing Printing
Office “Dacia” P. Iliescu & D. Grossu, 1903), 235.
10. Ibid., 236 (see also footnote no. 44).

63

----------------------- Page 65-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

sentence is memorable: “The Convention made in Paris, on 7/19 August 1858,

between the Sovereign Charter and between the Power warranting
the
autonomy of the United Principalities, is and remains the fundamental law
of Romania.” The invocation of “Romania” in a sentence meant to put to
sleep the Great Powers’ suspicions regarding the legislator’s true intentions
was, in fact, a first and important departure from the spirit and letter of the
aforementioned Convention, in a series of other departures. The founders of
modern Romania did not leave untested any loophole in the international
relations of the Principalities, nor did they ignore any resource, in their keen
desire of independence and union.

Fig. 1: “Romania Breaking off Her Chains on the Field of Liberty” (1848)
by Constantin Daniel Rosenthal

Unofficially, the name “Romania”, with regard to both of the Romanian

countries, Moldavia and Wallachia, and even to Habsburg Transylvania, had
circulated in the Principalities (and not only there) since the first half of the

64

----------------------- Page 66-----------------------

THE THEATRICAL CHRISTENING OF ROMANIA

19th century, and then, starting from the 5 and 6 decades, it was used more
and more frequently. Before that, the word would sometimes be used with
regard to/ instead of Țara Românească (the oldest sources attesting this
meaning are those of the 15th and 16th centuries11). In fact, as shown
by
historian Ioan Aurel Pop, “the name of Ţara Românească (Romanian Country)
is absolutely identical with the one of Romania. Just as for anyone the name
of Germany is synonymous with Deutschland (which, translated literally in
Romanian, means ‘the German Country’ or ‘the Country of the Germans’), so
the name of Ţara Rumânească/ Românească can only be a synonymous of the
name Rumânia/ Romania. If England (translated literally as ‘the Country of the
Angles’) is a perfect synonymous of the name of England, if Scotland is the
‘Land of the Scots’ and Magyarország (‘Hungarian Country’) is the
official
name of Hungary, we cannot see why and how we could claim that there is
any essential difference between the name ‘Ţara Românească’ and the one of
Romania”12 and also according to him: “Obviously, Romania is a modernized
form of the name Ţara Rumânească, which appears in non-Romanian sources
as Wallachia. (...) Owing to this synonymy, in the age of national emancipation,
when every nation was supposed to have a national state to unify and
protect all of its members, Romanians had had for a long time a name readied
for their country. They did not choose the name Dacia (although it had been
proposed), because this name (…), albeit very old, had long disappeared from
the public consciousness, but they preferred the name Rumânia or România.
This was not invented by Dimitrie Philipide13, nor by the Forty-Eighters14, nor

11. See Mihai Sorin Rădulescu, “Despre numele României” [“About the Name of
Romania”],
in România literară, XLI, no. 41, October 16 (2009): 13; as well as the
reception speech of
historian Ioan-Aurel Pop at the Romanian Academy, of 29 May 2013,
titled Istoria şi
semnificaţia numelor de român/valah şi România/Valahia [History and Significance
of the Names
of Romanian/Wallachian and Romania/Wallachia], accessed February 18, 2018:
http://www.acad.ro/com2013/pag_com13_0529.htm. (Ioan Aurel-Pop also names an
even older
source, of the 4th century AD, i.e. “the letter of Auxentius of Durostorum,
probably dated
back to 383, kept in the annotations of Maximinus on the Council of Aquileia (of
381)”,
which mentions the phrase “in solo Romaniae”, used with regard to the Danubian
space,
but the historian believes it is “an isolated testimony, because later almost
all the sources
named Wallachia these lands inhabited by Romanians, while the
name given by
Romanians to their country remained in the dark”, 13.)
12. Ioan Aurel Pop, Istoria și semnificația..., 21.
13. Daniil Dimitrie Philippide (1750/1755? – 1832), Greek monk, man of letters and
historian,

author of a History of the Romanians and of a Geography of Romania, both

published in 1816
in Leipzig.

65

----------------------- Page 67-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

by the first ruler of the United Principalities, Alexandru Ioan Cuza, nor by his
minister of foreign affairs15, Mihail Kogălniceanu. This name was kept in the
collective memory, emerged from a distant past, a name that, at a point
in
time, all the political organizations of the Romanians had borne. This was also
the name that ‘Ţara Românească’ had had since 1300, i.e. the oldest and most
prestigious Romanian medieval state, around which the political unification

16
of the people that gave its name occurred.”

The First Allegorical Representations of Romania in the Realm of

the Visual Arts

We were saying above that, in the 5 and 6 decades of the 19th century,
i.e. around and after the (failed) Revolution of 1848, the name of “Romania”,
in its modern meaning, started to be used more and more often. Gazettes
were published with this name, such as “Romania” (Bucharest, 1848), a
magazine with commented domestic and foreign news and educational
materials, the motto of which was the French Revolution’s “Liberté, Égalité,
Fraternité”; “România viitoare” (single issue), magazine published in Paris,
in November 1850, by historian Nicolae Bălcescu and by an editorial board
made from exiled Romanian revolutionaries; “România literară” (Iasi, 1855),
led by writer Vasile Alecsandri (a first issue of the magazine had been
published in 1852, but censorship required immediately the closing of the
periodical); “România” (Bucharest, 1857), political and literary biweekly,
which was no longer published after 48 issues because of censorship and of
financial problems; or “România”, political and literary periodical edited in
Iasi by writer, historian and philologist B.P. Hașdeu between 18 November
1858 and 26 January 1859.17 (These were not the first magazines named
as
such; between 20 December 1837 and 31 December 1838, the existence of the
first Romanian newspaper, which had also been the first press element with

14. Participants at the Revolution of 1848 in the Romanian countries.

15. In fact, Mihail Kogălniceanu was not the minister of foreign affairs during
Cuza’s rule,

but later, under Carol I, in 1869-1878. During Cuza’s rule, Kogălniceanu was:
president of
the Council of Ministers of Iasi; minister of the interior;
minister of the interior,
agriculture and public works; and prime-minister.
16 Ioan Aurel Pop, Istoria și semnificația..., 21-22.
17. See Dicționarul literaturii române de la origini până la 1900 [Dictionary of
Romanian Literature

from Its Origins to 1900] (Bucharest: Editura Academiei R.S.R., 1979), 741-746.

66

----------------------- Page 68-----------------------

THE THEATRICAL CHRISTENING OF ROMANIA

this name – spelled “Pomania”, in the transition alphabet18 - had

expired.
Published in Bucharest, by the Editing and Printing House Frederic Walbaum,
the magazine had as editors in chief professors Florian Aaron and Georg
Hill.)19
Around 1850, the first iconographic representations
of Romania
appeared, from painters Constantin Daniel Rosenthal
(1820-1851) and
Gheorghe Tattarescu (1820-1894), both of them participants, one directly, the
other indirectly, to the Revolution of 1848. We are talking about the allegorical
paintings “România rupându-şi cătuşele pe Câmpia Libertăţii” [“Romania
Unshackled on the Field of Liberty”] (1848) and “România revoluţionară”
[“Revolutionary Romania”] (1850), respectively “Renașterea României” [“The
Rebirth of Romania”] (also known as “Deșteptarea
României” [“The
Awakening of Romania”], 1850), painted by their authors abroad (after the
defeat of the Revolution in the Principalities, Rosenthal was in refuge in Paris,
and, in the same period, Tattarescu was pursuing his studies in Rome). In the
three paintings, Romania is depicted as a young woman, like the modern
state that the Romanian revolutionaries of 1848 had tried to obtain and which
would appear with the Small Union of 1859. Probably an important source of
inspiration for the two artists was, in this sense (the representation
of the
country as a young woman), the famous Marianne of the French, symbol of
their nation during the Revolution of 1789, to the principles of which
the
generation of the Romanian Forty-Eighters was deeply attached. Gabriela
Gavril-Antonesei, the author of a study called Ipostaze feminine în
cultura
română a secolului al XIX-lea: “Marianne”-le românești, finds that the authors of
the three paintings tried to “fit in the Romanian setting (national
costume,
necklace, other details) the feminine allegories of the second French Republic,
of 1848”20 .

18 The alphabet that allowed the transition from the Romanian Cyrillic alphabet
(used in the
writing of Romanian starting from the 14th and 15th centuries) to the Latin one.
This was
done between 1828 and 1862 by the gradual replacement of one Cyrillic letter at
a time
with its Latin alphabet equivalent.
19. Dicționarul…, 741.
20 . Gabriela Gavril-Antonesei, “Ipostaze feminine în cultura română a secolului al
XIX-lea:

«Marianne»-le românești” [“Feminine Aspects in the Romanian Culture of

the 19th
Century: the Romanian ‘Mariannes’”], in Études sur le texte dédiées à Halina
Grzmil-Tylutki,
edited by Joanna Górnikiewicz, Barbara Marczuk, Iwona Piechnik (Kraków:
Jagiellonian
Library, 2016), 312-313.

67

----------------------- Page 69-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

Fig. 2: “Revolutionary Romania” (1850) by Constantin Daniel Rosenthal

The author also observes that Rosenthal’s and Tattarescu’s

paintings
were, “in the Romanian context of the age, exceptions”21, the feminine
allegorical representations being “absolutely sporadic in the
Romanian
Principalities”22 at the end of the 18th century and in the first half of the 19th.
Like in the France of 1800-1830, notes the author, when, according to historian
Maurice Agulhon, “‘Marianne’ left room to the virile, militarized
patriotic
representations, to the cult of Napoleon”23, “the revolutionary imaginary of
21 . Ibid., 312.
22 . Ibid., 307.
23 . Ibid., 312.

68

----------------------- Page 70-----------------------

THE THEATRICAL CHRISTENING OF ROMANIA

the Romanian Forty-Eighters was dominated by masculine, ruling tutelary

personalities, with a privileged place occupied by Mihai Viteazul, Vlad Țepeș,
Avram Iancu, and Tudor Vladimirescu”24 . In the opinion of Gabriela Gavril-
Antonesei, the explanation is the deeply patriarchal nature of the Romanian
society of that Turkish-Oriental age, but also the delay of its development
in relation to the West, especially with regard to the laicization of culture
and of public life dominated by a “suffocating Orthodox ethicism”, as put
by the literary critic Mihai Zamfir. Given the resistance of patriarchy to the
wind of change (which blew mainly from France, first through Russian and
Greek channels), by virtue of which, says the author, “the rulers’ and the
fighters’ (or even the outlaws’) personalities would come to dominate the
Romanian imaginary” in the first half of the 19th century, “the feminine
ones would be assigned, both in the age and later, the marginal zone, of the

25
ridicule and of parody” .

The First Theatrical Representation of Romania

Nevertheless, in the area of theatre, unexplored by Gabriela

Gavril-
Antonesei, we can identify several very interesting feminine allegorical
representations. One that deserved increased attention dates back to 1852
and belongs to the Wallachian actor and playwright Costache Caragiali
(1815-1877), from the famous family that also gave Iorgu Caragiali (1826-
1894; brother of the former, him too an actor and a playwright), Ion
Luca
Caragiale (1852-1912; nephew of the two mentioned before, considered a
classic of the Romanian literature and the greatest Romanian playwright),
Mateiu and Luchi Caragiale (Ion Luca’s sons, both of them writers) to
the
Romanian culture. This is the first allegorical-dramatic representation of
Romania (which appeared only two years after its first
iconographic
representations), in a too little known Prolog pentru inaugurarea noului teatru
din București [Prologue for the Inauguration of the New Bucharest
Theatre],
written by Costache Caragiali at the inauguration of Teatrul cel Mare [The
Grand Theatre] of the Wallachian capital (which will be later called the
National Theatre). Actually, this is not unprecedented: before him, the writer
and cultural promoter Gheorghe Asachi (1788-1869) had turned Moldavia in
a dramatic feminine character – “Zâna Moldovii [the Moldavian Fairy]” -, in

24 . Ibid.
25 Ibid., 313.

69

----------------------- Page 71-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

a Prolog [Prologue]26 made for the debut performance of the students at the Iasi
Philharmonic-Dramatic Conservatory (the first school of theatre in Moldavia),
which occurred on 23 February 1837, on the stage of Teatrul de
Varietăți
[Variety Theatre]. Asachi’s prologue “dramatized”, in fact, an even older
representation painted according to his own sketches on the curtain used on
27 February 1816, during the play with Mirtil și Hloe [Myrtil et
Chloé], after
Gessner and Florian, which went down in history as the first representation of
(semi)professional, “art” theatre (as opposed to
folkloric, traditional
performances or school drama), given by Romanians in their language.
Asachi, who would draw quite well and had studies in this field, first
taken in Vienna and, then, between 1808 and 1812, in Italian towns – had also
executed – additional to the translation of the text and its staging – the stage
design of the play performed in the house of hetman Costache Ghica. The
aforementioned curtain, which was an imitation of a model he had brought
from Rome, showed god Apollo extending his hand to Moldavia. In the later
prologue, with a marked pictorial tinge of “tableau vivant”, Asachi introduced
other characters, apart from the already described one: Genius27, as guide of
the Moldavian Fairy to Mount Parnassus, and the “Muses”, “with their
traits”28, companions of the god of arts (together with whom they made
a
decorative plastic group placed on the summit of Parnassus “like in the
famous icon of Raphael”29). The whole “action” of Asachi’s Prolog…, which
takes place, according to the stage directions, during a frightening
night,
with “lightning in the distance”30, is the travel of the Moldavian Fairy, led by
Genius who holds a torch with the other hand, to the site of the
divine
protectors of the arts, which is shown only at the end of the sketch,
like a
sudden musical-bright vision (according to the stage directions, a “slow
harmonious music” streams over to the audience31). At first, the Fairy, “used

26 . See Gheorghe Asachi, Prolog rostit în Teatru Național din Iași la ocazia
deschiderei și inaugurării
sale în 23 Fevr. 1837, apud Teodor T. Burada, Istoria teatrului în Moldova
[History of Theatre in
Moldavia], vol. I (Iasi: Institutul de Arte Grafice N. V. Ștefaniu & Comp.,
1915), 170-172; as
well as “Prolog compus de A. G. Asaki, și rostit pe Teatrul Varietăților din Ieși
în 23 februarie
1837. La acea întâi dramatică Reprezentație Moldovenească a Conservatorului
Filarmonic”,
in Albina românească (supliment), no. 18, March 4 (1837): 83-84 (in Cyrillic
script).
27 . “Ghenius” as transcribed by Teodor Burada.
28 . The specification can be found only in the supplement to Albina româneasca of
March 4

(1837): 84, in a Însemnare [Note] that Burada no longer reproduces in his

Istoria....
29 . See the previous note.
30 . “Thunders”, as transcribed by Teodor Burada.
31 . See note 28.

70

----------------------- Page 72-----------------------

THE THEATRICAL CHRISTENING OF ROMANIA

to leisure”, as she admits it herself, expresses her fears with regard

to the
difficult road that Genius had convinced her to follow, while the
latter,
without hiding from her its challenges and dangers (including temptations),
also finds words of encouragement, reminding her of her “twin sisters”
(probably the Western people of the Latin race) who had known a long time
before her the same trials and who had got to smooth waters. Called to
choose “between dark and light”, the Moldavian Fairy chooses to
go
forward, against any risk, ready to sacrifice herself for what seems to
be a
noble purpose: “Eu aleg petroasa cale, care văd că s-au deschis, / De-oi peri,
frumoasă-i moartea, pentr-un lucru evghenis” [“I choose the stony path that
I see open, / Should I succumb, death for a noble thing is beautiful”]. The
Prolog… (printed in the national colours on leaflets that “would rain” on the
spectators at a certain point, as shown by an unsigned review of the age32)
was staged in the opening of a play that included two other adaptations by
Asachi, based on La Pérouse (Lapeirus in his Romanian translation) and
Văduva vicleană (The Cunning Widow) by August von Kotzebue.
The Moldavian Fairy was played by madame Elisabeta Fabian, and
Genius by Alecu Asachi, son of Gheorghe Asachi, both students of the
Philharmonic Conservatory. Costache Caragiali may well have known this
Prolog…, just as he must have known about Iancu Văcărescu’s Prologul la
deschiderea teatrului întâiași dată în București [Prologue for the Opening
of the
Theatre for the First Time in Bucharest] created for the performance at
Cișmeaua Roșie, of 1819, of the Romanian students of Sf. Sava, a text
in
which god Saturn was the protagonist. (Văcărescu’s prologue was published
in Curierul românesc in 183033, while Asachi’s was published in Albina
românească, in 1837.) The certain thing is that the list of dramatis personae of
Caragiali’s Prolog… includes both Apollo with the Muses (but, here, they
were named and individualized) and Saturn, so it is very likely that
the
author knew the previous similar writing of Asachi and Văcărescu, and,
even more, he may have wanted to evoke them, reverently, by intertextual
reference, thus placing himself and his writing in the lineage of a “founding”
tradition. Unlike the previous prologues, however, Costache Caragiali’s text
had an extremely rough, totally undeserved fate: written, as said before, for
32 . See Albina românească (supliment), no. 18, March 4 (1837): 82. (The
review, bilingual,
printed on two columns in the pages of Albina, in Romanian and French, is
reproduced by
Burada in his Istoria..., 169-170.)
33 . See Curierul românesc, no. 83, Friday, January 17 (1830): 347-348.

71

----------------------- Page 73-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

the inauguration of Teatrul cel Mare of Bucharest, it could not be put

on
stage, apparently because of its too markedly patriotic nature which did not
sit well with the authorities of the age. “The inauguration took place; but it
did so quietly, reservedly, without prologues, without patriotic hymns, all of

34
them being cancelled... any hint at a national celebration was suppressed”
,
noted, later, Cezar Bolliac in the gazette Trompeta Carpaților.
For an understanding of this interdiction, things should be seen in their
historical context: this was an age of restrictions, of “restoration”:
after the
suppression of the Revolution of 1848, by the Convention of Balta-Liman
(1849), the organic Regulations had become effective once again;
they
(re)confirmed the domination of the Ottoman and Russian Empires (the
sovereign and protecting powers) over the Romanian Principalities. The
national rulers, considered high servants of the Sublime Porte, were required
to take into account the preferences of both the Turks and the Russians, who
took a poor view of the Romanians’ attempts of national emancipation. This
state of things lasted until the start of the Crimean War (1853-1856), when the
Principalities were occupied by Russian and Austrian armies. In fact, the
Romanian company of actors, led by Caragiali, who had been appointed
director-lessee of the new establishment with the composer and conductor
Ioan Andrei Wachmann (1807-1863), had been at threat itself of being
excluded from the theatre opening program, because its manager, the Italian
Papanicola, and the architect of the new building, the Austrian Heft, wanted
to inaugurate the construction with Meyerbeer’s Robert le diable, the topic of
which allowed the display of the modern German machineries that they had.
A fortunate event hindered the readiness of the machines within the due
time, so that a new program was quickly drafted for the opening. It did not
match Costache Caragiali’s plans (nor did it match the plans of the
former
director of the theatres in the capital, cup-bearer Ioan Samurcaș, who
had
been removed right before the grand event and replaced with the grand
logothete Ioan Slătineanul), but, at least, it allowed the Romanian artists (and
Caragiali himself) to appear in front of the eager audience, on this
great
festive occasion, together with the performers of the Italian opera company,
hosted in the same place. The intensely disputed inauguration occurred,
in
the end, on the evening of 31 December 1852, in the presence of ruler Barbu

34 . Apud Ioan Massoff, Teatrul românesc. Privire istorică [Romanian

Theatre. A Historical
Perspective], vol. I (Bucharest: Editura Pentru Literatură, 1961), 416.
(Hereinafter: Ioan
Massoff, Teatrul românesc I).

72

----------------------- Page 74-----------------------

THE THEATRICAL CHRISTENING OF ROMANIA

Știrbei, of the foreign consuls and of a motley crowd of spectators, from all
classes of the society. The program was eclectic, including the overture of Ioan
Wachmann’s operetta Claca țărănească [Peasant Corvée], opened by a doina on
flute (the only nationally specific moment of the program), several scenes of
Italian opera and a vaudeville-comedy (with Costache Caragiali and Niny
Valéry in the leading roles), which the theatre historians could not
identify
with accuracy: Zoe sau Un amor românesc [Zoe or a Romanian Love
Affair],
according to Dimitrie Ollănescu35, Zoe sau Un amor romanesc [Zoe or a Novelistic
Love Affair], as rectified in a recently published article by historian Georgeta
Filitti36, or Zoe sau Amantul împrumutat [Zoe or the Borrowed Lover], according to
the officious “Vestitorul românesc”37, a play translated, apparently, from Zoe,
ou L'amant prêté by Scribe and Mélesville, in the opinion of Ioan Massoff38 .
Costache Caragiali’s prologue remained in manuscript until after
the
author’s death and was only published in 1881, when Vasile Alecsandri
handed it over to Iosif Vulcan, to publish it in the magazine Familia, followed
by a letter of recommendation. Both texts were published in the opening of
issue 14 of Familia, of 15/27 February 1881. Ioan Massoff republished
fragments of them in the first volume of his grand work, Teatrul
românesc
[Romanian Theatre], with a brief appreciative comment: “Costache Caragiale’s
prologue is effective and its performance would have borrowed the national
character to the inaugurating play”, claims the theatre historian.39 Caragiali’s
Prolog… was never put on stage. In Scrisoarea adresată redactorului [Letter to
the Editor] of Familia, Vasile Alecsandri painted a commemorative portrait
of Costache Caragiali, without forgetting to emphasize his own artistic
merits while evoking Caragiali’s success, as actor, in the leading role of the
play Cuconul Iorgu de la Sadagura, one of the first dramatic creations of the
man who penned the letter. (In fact, therein, Alecsandri launched an
inaccurate piece of information when he said that the play was presented
by Caragiali, in Bucharest, in front of ruler Gheorghe Bibescu, while, after

35 . Dimitrie C. Ollănescu, Teatrul la români, edition managed, preface, notes,

and comments
by Cristina Dumitrescu (Bucharest: Editura Eminescu, 1981), 403.
36 . Georgeta Filitti, “Teatrul cel Mare”, in Ziarul Metropolis, March 9
(2016), accessed on
February 15, 2018: https://www.ziarulmetropolis.ro/teatrul-cel-mare/
37 . See the notice for the opening of the new theatre in Vestitorul
românesc, XVII, no. 103,
Wednesday, December 31 (1852): 412.
38 . Ioan Massoff, Teatrul românesc I, 414.
39 . Ibid., 415 (selections from Alecsandri’s letter) and 564-567 (in the notes:
beginning of the
prologue, to the entry on stage of Romania and her first lines).

73

----------------------- Page 75-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

the performance, the Romanian theatrical company obtained an annual

subsidy of 300 slots. But in fact, the play staged in front of the Wallachian
ruler in 1845 had been O bună educaţiune [A Good Education] by Costache
Bălăcescu, as shown by Costache Caragiali himself in Teatru Naționale în Țeara
Românească, a strongly autobiographic work of 1855.)
The protagonists of Costache Caragiali’s Prolog…40 are Apollo, God of
Muses; Melpomene, Muse of Tragedy; Thalia, Muse of Comedy; Terpsichore,
Muse of Dance; Erato, Muse of Lyric Poetry; Calliope, Muse of Poetry;
Polyhymnia, Muse of Hymn; Urania, Muse of Astronomy; Clio, Muse of
History; Euterpe, Muse of Harmony; Saturn, God of Time; Romania; and
Fama (Pheme), Goddess of Rumors. The background characters include the
spirits of “a number of dramatic authors of the classic school”,
peasants –
men and women. The site of action is no longer the road to Mount Parnassus
(like at Asachi), but Mount Parnassus itself: stepping on its peak, Caragiali’s
Romania will accomplish the journey begun by the other, older writer’s
Moldavian Fairy… The apotheotic nature of the image, tributary,
like
Asachi’s, to the plastic arts, is made evident from the beginning:

La ridicarea cortinei se vede Apolon pe muntele Parnas, cu lira sa pe

genunchi.
În giurul său Muzele în costum antic Elenic. În stânga și în
dreapta, de la
planul al 3-le până la planul 1-iu stau atârnate cununi mari de flori,
purtând
în mijlocul lor litera începătoare a numelui fiecărui autor
clasic. Zeița Fama
vine prin aer, anunțiând. Fiecare Muză ține în mână emblemul artei ce
protege.
Zeul Saturn e cam în mijlocul scenei, făcând o dreaptă linie din partea
stângă a
spectatorilor cu cununele spiritelor autorilor. Muzica ezecută un tremolo;
apoi
un acord de anunțiare ce precedează sosirea Famei.41
40 . The quotes are reproduced after Costachi Caragiali, „Prolog pentru inaugurarea
noului
teatru din București” [“Prologue for the Inauguration of the New Bucharest
Theatre”], in
Familia, XVII, no. 14, Sunday, February 15/27 (1881): 81-84.
41 . “When the curtain lifts, the audience can see Apollo on Mount Parnassus, his
lyre on the
knees. Around him, the Muses wearing ancient Hellenic costumes. On the left and
right,
from the third to the first plane, large wreaths of flowers, with the first
letter of the name
of each classic author at the center. Goddess Fama arrives by air, announcing.
Every Muse
holds the emblem of the art that they protect. God Saturn is at the middle of
the stage,
going in a straight line from the left side of the spectators, with the wreaths
of the authors’
spirits. The music is in tremolo; then an announcing tune preceding the arrival
of Fama”.

74

----------------------- Page 76-----------------------

THE THEATRICAL CHRISTENING OF ROMANIA

She descends on the stage in a cloud, in grand style. The God

of
Rumors announces the arrival of a girl whose traits she emphasizes are – and
we note this – youth, beauty, and modesty: „Juneța-i, frumuseța-i,/ Plăcuta-i
modestie,/ E scumpa chezășie/ De ceea ce doriți” [“Her youth, her beauty,/
Her lovely modesty,/ Are an assurance/ Of what you desire”]. Romania
appears in front of Apollo and she wears “splendid national costume”. When
she reaches close to him, “she greets everyone majestically”, while the
orchestra starts playing the prelude of a national area. The choir and
god
Apollo praise and sing the girl’s grace. Despite the much-mentioned shyness,
Romania introduces herself to the group of divinities fairly disinhibited:

România. Romania:
Apolon, mă ascultă, Apollo, listen to me,
Ascultă cu răbdare. Listen to me patiently.
Dorința mea e multă My desire is great
Și ruga-mi este mare. And my prayer is deep.
Sunt Țeara România! I am Romania the
Country!
Din mica mea pruncie From my infancy
Mereu am suferit I have always suffered
Resboaie de orice treaptă All kinds of wars
Și soarta mult nedreaptă And the unfair fate
Adesa m-au oprit Have often stopped me
De-a face-naintări. From going forward.
Sosita acuma vreme, But now the time has
come
Încât nu se mai teme For the Romanian not to
be afraid
Românu-n veatra sa. In his land
 Protecția ce are The protection he
enjoys
I face lui carare Paves the way
Spre a înainta For the world of
delight.]
În lumea de-ncântări.

The character’s speech is illustrative for the way in

which the
meaning of the denominative Romania would go, in that age, between the
more restricted meaning of Wallachia to the more comprehensive one of all
the territories inhabited by a majority Romanian population, a polysemy
that was kept by the writers (and probably the speakers) of the age in order
to disguise, to some extent, their union-wise ideas that were not seen
exactly favourably by the authorities.

75

----------------------- Page 77-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

Fig. 3: “Rebirth of Romania” (1850) by Gheorghe Tattarescu

The playwright proves his diplomatic tact also when he invokes, through
his character, the “protection” that the Romanian people would enjoy in their
land (hinting at the protection of the Ottoman and Russian Empires, whose
representatives would assist the inauguration of Teatrul cel Mare) and which
would finally allow them, after a long and difficult wait, to advance on the

76

----------------------- Page 78-----------------------

THE THEATRICAL CHRISTENING OF ROMANIA

42
land of arts. “Diplomacy and skills are not necessary only in parliaments”
,
would note Caragiali later, in Teatru Naționale în Țeara Românească, with
regard to his attempt to defeat the misconceptions of the higher classes
in
reference to the very young Romanian theatre. Although the author was well
endowed with both, diplomacy and skills did not work their magic this time
and failed to save his Prolog… from censorship.
The next fragment – the answer of the God of the Muses to Romania –
can be another argument in favor of a filiation between Caragiali’s and
Asachi’s prologues, because, like Genius, who recommended that the
Moldavian Fairy measure her step for an easier achievement of her goal,
Apollo (in whom we can reasonably see an alter-ego of the Wallachian
playwright) teaches Romania the lesson of measure, advising her to walk
with “tact and measure” on the path she chose. To strengthen his message,
Apollo proposes that Romania take as guide the God of Time, Saturn. Like a
good and docile daughter, she vows to abide by his advice and to take time
and patience as her allies in her progress. The choir sings
triumphantly,
proclaiming her saved, redeemed (even in the religious sense of the word)
from under the power of evil and of ignorance. Apollo repeats his invitation
for the young woman to share her requests. Making a confession out of her
ignorance, Romania asks to partake, like others before her, of the
sciences
and belles arts hosted on Mount Parnassus. The god is again moved by the
girl’s decency and spells a better fate for her:

Apolon: Apollo:
Îmi place modestia-ți! Ea îți I like your modesty!
It promises
făgăduiește Progress!
Progres! The one who knows
herself grows,
Acel ce se cunoaște pe sine, Expands,
acela crește, Goes forward,
Acela se mărește, Prospers,
Acela-naintează, Finds
Acela prosperează, The higher meaning!
Acela dobândește
Înaltul înțeles!

42 . C. Carageali, Teatru Naționale în Țeara Românească. Dedicată publicului român

(București, iulie
1855) [National Theatre in Wallachia. Dedicated to the Romanian
Audience (Bucharest, July
1955)] (Bucharest: Printing Office C.A. Rosetti, 1867), 18.

77

----------------------- Page 79-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

Apollo then encourages the Muses to share their gifts to the

new
proselyte, which they hurry to do, elatedly. In fact, in the guise of old Hellas,
the Muses perform a rite with autochthonous origins, the whole scene being
a reminder of the well-known motif of the Ursitoare (Fates) in the tales of the
Romanians. The Muse of Tragedy, Melpomene, as coryphaeus, speaks to
Romania in the beginning and at the end of the rite, on behalf of the other
Muses’ choir, treating her like a sister. (Although, as playwright,
Caragiali
wrote exclusively comedy, he did hold tragedy in higher regard – like most
of his contemporaries -, given that he had been raised, mainly, in the school
of the Greek classics, of neo-classicism, and of the Enlightenment). Then
comes the turn of the spirits of the “dramatic authors of the classic school” to
agree with helping Romania by their knowledge and advice, as masterfully
suggested by god Apollo. For this purpose, the “sublime” Shakespeare, the
“blissful” Molière, Aeschylus, Racine, Corneille, Aristophanes, and Voltaire
are invoked. The wreath of flowers that represent them tilt for
approval,
while “a light fills the stage”, as shown in the stage directions. The
choir
rejoices again:

Cor: Choir:
Au primit! au primit! They agreed! they
agreed!
Te bucură, fetiță. Be happy, little
girl.
Iubită copiliță, Darling child.
Acum s-a hotărât! Now it’s decided!
Junimea ´naripată The youth now
inspired
De-acum povățuită, And instructed
Va fi neobosită Will be determined
La scrieri mai solide, la faptă To more solid
writings, to more
mai bărbată! steadfast doings!
Te felicităm, We applaud you,
Te felicităm, We applaud you,
Și progres în toate cu drag îți And far-reaching
progress
urăm! we wish you!

78

----------------------- Page 80-----------------------

THE THEATRICAL CHRISTENING OF ROMANIA

Fig. 4: The beginning of Costache Caragiali’s prologue in Familia

79

----------------------- Page 81-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

Romania thanks her “divine sisters”, reassuring them that: „Pe plaiul
nostru românesc / Primite-ți fi cu bine!” [“On our Romanian land / You’ll be
welcome”]. These are her last replies in the prologue. Thereafter, Apollo
offers a number of directions to the Muses. The idea on the mission of the
arts, suggested by his words, is the one that dominated the Romanian culture
in the first three quarters of the 19th century, tributary to the
previous,
“meliorist” century of Reason and to the principles of neo-
classicism.
According to this idea, arts were tasked with fighting against the flaws
(vices) and with correcting the society’s mores, with eliminating
the
ignorance of the masses and with offering them delight with beautiful
visions or offering consolation. „Încoronați virtutea! Blamați neomenia. /
Prin blânde maniere poporul îndreptați. / Și ca să prospereze în secoli
România / O școală de năravuri frumoase ´ntemeiați” [“Crown virtue! Blame
inhumanity/ With gentle manners better the people. / And for Romania to
thrive across centuries/ A school of good habits you should establish”], tells
Apollo to the Muses. The phrase “school of good habits” means, of course,
the theatre. This synonymy, passionately nurtured by the pioneers
of
Romanian theatre, was long-lived in the 19th century, up to it becoming
a
cliché. The same god voices the following belief, which, certainly, was also
the playwright’s: „Teatrul e știința! Și școala de lumină! / El viața
ne-
ndreptează, durerea ne alină / Prin raza cea divină” [“Theatre is lore! And
school of enlightenment! / It betters our life, and soothes our pain/ By the
divine light”]. One “detail” of which Caragiali, and, in fact, his whole
generation, were too painfully aware was that a preliminary condition for
the arts to achieve their forward work was that this progress should be
desired and promoted by the state authorities – hence the request for
the
ruler’s support, masked by Apollo’s shout: „Ferice este țeara al căreia părinte
/ Cu inima fierbinte / O ´ndeamnă, o împinge să meargă înainte!” [“Happy
the country whose parent / With a heart fervent / Encourages it, pushes it to
go forward!”] – an exclamation that will then be reprised by the choir of the
Muses. In the end, the god hurries the Muses to the inauguration of the new
construction, which they should perform, by giving them one last order:
„Cântați un imn de pace, de mândra re´nviere, / Poporului ce are un nume
drept avere, / Și tot pe cale bună voi mersu-i îndreptați!” [“Sing a hymn of
peace, of proud resurrection, / To the people whose name is its treasure, /
And keep showing it the good way!”]. The characters and the setting are put
in motion, according to a choreography very well-orchestrated by the author:

80

----------------------- Page 82-----------------------

THE THEATRICAL CHRISTENING OF ROMANIA

Pornesc cu toții în modul următor: Saturn ținând de mână pe România și

Muzele
fac un giur pe dinaintea spectatorilor. Ies în stânga, în vreme ce se
coboară o cortină
în dreptul muntelui Parnas. Pe cortină se văd zugrăvite armoriile țării.
Culisele
sunt unite prin semighirlande de flori cu coloarele
României. Orchestrul
ezecutează arii naționale. Apoi intră de prin stânga toți
personagii din acest
prolog; și din dreapta toți actorii îmbrăcați în costume naționale
bogate. Ei cântă
imnul. Pe urmă șese mici fetițe și șese băeței costumați în silfi fac un
semi-rond, și
după ei vin alți doi, cari aduc două mari bucheturi; și le oferează,
zicând: Ție,
prea înnălțate Doamne! Ție, înnaltă nobleță și generosule public!”43 .

All the actors chant in the end a hymn in two stanzas, the
last one
proclaiming:

Vivat! trăiască Prințul! Vivat iubita țeară!/ Vivat noul Teatru! în el

chiar
astă seară / Românii s-au adunat / Și-n limba strămoșească / De trupa
Românească / S-au inaugurat! / Vivat! Vivat! Vivat! / Trăiască Prințul,
țeara și cei ce l-au fondat!44 .

Of course, as noted by Alecsandri, Costache Caragiali’s prologue is not

“a piece of great literature”, nor was it created to be one, but, for all intents
and purposes, i.e. for a (dramatic) poem of occasion, it is very well articulated
and cleverly constructed, designed thoroughly in relation to the history
of
European and national theatre, to the national aspirations and to the audience.
Significantly more complex, as compared with the similar creations of his

43 . “They start moving as follows: Saturn hand in hand with Romania and the Muses
move
in rounds in front of the spectators. They exit through the left, while a
curtain goes down
near Mount Parnassus. The country’s coat of arms can be seen painted on the
curtain. The
wings are joined by semi-garlands of flowers, in Romania’s colours.
The orchestra is
playing national areas. Then, through the left, all the characters in the
prologue enter; and
from the right, all the actors dressed in splendid national costumes. They sing
the anthem.
Then six little girls and six boys dressed as sylphs make a half
circle, followed by two
more who bring two large bouquets and offer them, saying: To you, our grand
Lord! To
you, our noble and generous audience!”
44 . “Vivat! Long live the Prince! Vivat beloved country! Vivat the new Theatre! In
it this very
evening/ Romanians have gathered/ And in our ancestors’ language/ The
Romanian
company/ Was inaugurated!/ Vivat! Vivat! Vivat! / Long live the prince, the
country and
those who founded it!”

81
----------------------- Page 83-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

predecessors, Gheorghe Asachi and Iancu Văcărescu, Caragiali’s play tells of

another, perhaps greater ambition: the playwright wanted to go down in
history as the author of the – theatrical – baptismal act of Romania (see the
sequence with the Muses-Fates), while also searching for the
official
recognition of the primacy of the Romanian theatre company (which he led)
in front of the foreign companies (fairly numerous at the time in the capitals
of the Principalities) with which they have to compete for the
audience’s
favour and, especially, for the state-granted subsidy (always lower than the
one granted to their rivals). Caragiali would have wanted his play to be the
foundation stone of a real National Theatre, in the sense that it would only
acquire around the War of Independence (1877-78), i.e. of fundamental state
institution meant to encourage, through theatre, the national idea and identity,
the national specificity. The stars were against it. Romania’s theatrical-dramatic
“christening” act has remained, undeservedly, an obscure document.
In Visualizing the Nation. Gender, Representation and Revolution
in
Eighteenth-Century France, when examining the feminine visual representations
of the French nation in the age of the first Republic, Joan B. Landes finds that
nationalist ideology involves a convergence of the patriotic sentiment and
of eroticism.45 The nation and the homeland are entities that are too abstract to
be able to stir the imagination of the masses in the absence of representations
that approach the senses, she notes, treading in the steps of the aforementioned
historian Maurice Agulhon. When the political community is exclusively
masculine – as the French one became (again) starting from 1793, when the
attempts of feminine emancipation, seen in the first stage of the Revolution,
were suppressed -, the feminine representations of the nation may help
to
stimulate the sentiments of (erotic) desire and (filial or passionate, or
even
filial-passionate, oedipal) attachment of its members to the thus embodied
idea (of nation). They are the vehicle of a close intimacy between the citizens
and the nation (homeland or state). The privileged position occupied by the
woman in the system of the representation during the first French republic
should not deceive us as to her condition: as shown by Joan B. Landes, this
can be seen as a form of compensation for the social and political inequality
that described her position in the real order of things.46 In fact,
says the
author, while quoting a number of studies, it has been proven that there is an

45 . Joan B. Landes, Visualizing the Nation. Gender, Representation and Revolution

in Eighteenth-
Century France (New-York, London: Cornell University Press, 2001), 80.
46 . Ibid., 82.

82

----------------------- Page 84-----------------------

 THE THEATRICAL CHRISTENING OF ROMANIA

affinity between nationalism and the societies defined, mainly, as masculine

fraternities; in other words, nationalism goes hand in hand with the tendency

47
of excluding women from the public life.
At the same time, nationalist ideology cannot do without the woman’s
reproductive body, which represents the promise of historical continuity on
which the nation is established.48 The possibility of social regeneration,
of
national rebirth depends on this body. Subsequently, the maternal role
becomes the core of the nationalist project, with a both public and
private
relevance, circumscribed to the domestic sphere.49 Joan B. Landes
also
observes that, as allegory of the nation, the female body may stir more than
feelings of affection; it may also lead to jealous possession: the
nation’s
feminine allegorical body – the object of patriotic love – is to be protected at
all time against a potential assault of internal or external suitors or assailants,
against the “rape” (by the representatives) of other states or nations.50 Because
the citizen’s “honour as family man” (as the famous nephew of Caragiali
would write) relates to it, it is preferable that this body has a seductive but

51
chaste, “desexualized but not altogether desensualized” representation
.
We have mentioned above a study by Gabriela Gavril-Antonesei,
which noted that the feminine allegorical representations (in literature and
in the plastic arts) belong rather to a field of exception in the
Romanian
culture at the end of the 18th century-the beginning of the 19th. This does not
mean that the women of the Romanian principalities had more rights, at that
time, than their sisters in the France during the first republic. Quite
the
opposite. Neither women, nor culture had it better. (Gabriela
Gavril-
Antonesei does not seem to consider this latter aspect: the backward position
of our visual arts in relation to the West, the delayed development, in
our
country, only in the second half of the 19th century, of the illustrated press,
for example, or the slow process of laicization of Romanian painting.
For
instance, Tattarescu began his career as church painter.) Despite their sporadic
nature, feminine allegorical representations appeared, in the
Romanian
culture, in close connection with the emergence of national consciousness –
or the “awakening of Romania”, a leitmotif of the age – and with the attempts

th
of national emancipation that would lead, in the second half of the 19

47 . Ibid., 138.
48 . Ibid., 173.
49 . Ibid., 91.
50 . Ibid., 165.
51 . Ibid., 168.

83

----------------------- Page 85-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

century, to the formation of the modern Romanian state and, in the end, to
the Great Union of 1918. This stands true also for the theatrical-
dramatic
feminine allegorical representations discussed above, coming from Gheorghe
Asachi and Costache Caragiali. The symptomatic aspect is that none of them
seems to threaten the patriarchal order that, in both prologues, remains firm:
men continue to hold the tutelary position (Genius, Apollo, Saturn); the man
is the tutor, the guide, the protector, the one who counsels the woman, who
has paternal authority, and the one who takes her hands (literally) to show
her the way. Therefore, he is the tutor and the guardian of a still innocent
country/nation. The woman (the Moldavian Fairy, Romania) has all the traits
of the ideal daughter: she is young, beautiful (there is nothing provocative or
indecorous about her, there is no sign of depravity), robust, docile, and amenable,
but not fearful, modest, and dignified. Romania, in particular, promises to be
the perfect wife… (The Fairy seems to be rather… otherworldly, she is of a
different class. From Asachi to Caragiali the representation of the
country
seems to become humanized, slightly more familiar, and more manageable.
Perhaps the image of the woman had also changed: she had begun to be
included in the same species as the man.)

Other Allegorical Depictions of Romania on Stage until the End of

WW1

Unfortunately, the text on which the performance that allowed the first
on-stage live representation of Romania – i.e. the debut show of the dramatic
character called Romania – was based has not survived. Titled 24 Ianuarie sau
Unirea țărilor și a tuturor partitelor [24 January or the Union of the Countries
and
of All the Parties], it was written by actor Mihail Pascaly (1830-1882), one of
Caragiali’s disciples and the most notable of the national Romantic stage art
representatives; it was performed at the celebration of one year after
the
Small Union, on the evening of 24 January 1860, in the presence of
Ruler
Alexandru Ioan Cuza. “The title of the play – notes historian Ioan Massoff,
our note – was a suggestion of amnesty, which, in fact, would occur on
24
January/ 5 February 1860, when those involved in the 28 September 1859
manifestation of the ‘Bossel’ hall were released; through it, the liberal-radical
group had tried to twist the ruler’s hand.”52

52 . Ioan Massoff, Teatrul românesc. Privire istorică (1860-1880) [The

Romanian Theatre. A
Historical Perspective], vol. II (Bucharest: Editura Pentru Literatură, 1966), 27
(footnote).

84

----------------------- Page 86-----------------------

THE THEATRICAL CHRISTENING OF ROMANIA

According to an on-site report for Gazeta Transilvaniei, the fragment “depicted

the events of 23 and 24 January of the last year, at the proclamation of the
union by the re-election of a single Ruler for both Principalities”53, and the
spectators’ reaction was enthusiastic: “The audience could not stop repeat
their joy and praises, thousands and thousands of long live Romania and
its Ruler”54 .
The part of Romania was played by the famous Eufrosina or “Frosa”
(b. Vlasto) Popescu, former student and prima donna of the Philharmonic
School (the first school of theatre in Wallachia, of which Caragiali had also
been a student), recently returned permanently from the West, where she
had delivered a good impression as lyrical artist with the name of E.
Marcolini, singing on the stages of theatres such as Scala of Milano or
La
Fenice of Venice. No other Romanian-born woman artist could boast a career
with such a scope; none until her had enjoyed such reputation. Immediately
welcomed among the employees of Teatrul cel Mare, the “prodigal daughter”
of Romanian theatre had reasserted herself strongly in the first part of
the
1859-1860 season, by approaching in only several months the role
of
Fiammina in the same-title play of Mario Uchard and the one of Adrienne
Lecouvreur in the same-title play by Scribe and Legouvé. These were two
difficult scores, in vogue in Paris, which approached the condition of being
an actress, slurred in the former and defended, rehabilitated in the
latter.
When she played Romania, Eufrosina (born on 20 October 1821) was not yet
39. The former beauty continued to score success after success not only as an
artist, but also as a woman. Apparently, in her not too distant past, one of her
conquests had been Napoleon III himself, “a kind of a godfather to the
making of Romania”55, as put by historian Neagu Djuvara, with whom,
according to Ioan Massoff56, Eufrosina Popescu had corresponded a long
time after her return in the country. We can, thus, imagine that
Romania

53 . “Cronica străină” [“The Foreign Review”], in Gazeta Transilvaniei, no. 5,

February 2 (1860): 19.
54 . Ibid.
55 . Neagu Djuvara, O scurtă istorie a românilor povestită celor tineri
[A Brief History of the
Romanians for the Young], 12th edition, revised and expanded
(Bucharest: Editura
Humanitas, 2010), 201.
56 . See Ioan Massoff, Istoria Teatrului Național din București, 1877-1937
[The History of the
Bucharest National Theatre, 1877-1937] (Bucharest: Editura Librăriei
„Universala” Alcalay &
 Co, 1937), 60; and Ioan Massoff, Actorul de la miezul nopții. Oameni și
întâmplări din lumea
teatrului de altădată [The Midnight Actor. People and Events of Olden
Theatre] (Bucharest:
Editura Cartea Românească, 1974), 263 and 265 (footnote).

85

----------------------- Page 87-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

played by “Popeasca” in the play staged by Pascaly looked like an attractive

and vigorous woman. The character was supposed to sing national songs, so
the performer must have been at home playing her. The music of the play
was composed by Alexandru Flechtenmacher. That Eufrosina was the ideal
choice for this role is proven by the fact that the actress would later be asked
constantly to play “national mothers”, thus becoming a true specialist in
national roles. Another peak of her career in the same type of “emploi” was
the role of Dochia57 in the dramatic poem (translated from French) Visul
Dochiei [Dochia’s Dream]58 by Frédéric Damé59, which premiered on
9
October, in the opening of the 1877-1878 season, amid the Russian-Turkish
war that also involved the Romanian led by the Ruling Prince Carol I
of
Hohenzollern, fighting for the Tsar’s subjects, in the hope of obtaining their
own independence. The younger Maria Vasilescu played Romania, here as
daughter of Dochia.
A novel view on the character comes from Ion Luca Caragiale, who, in
1899, on the eve of the new century, at the invitation of the
Bucharest
National Theatre director, “arranged” for the stage a setting of lyrics, prose
fragments and theatre play scenes signed by Romanian authors before or
contemporary with him, which he titled 100 de ani. Revistă istorică națională a
secolului XIX, în 10 ilustrațiuni [100 years. National Historical Revue of the 19th
Century, in 10 Illustrations]60. Caragiale’s script (which premiered
on 1
February 1899) did not have too many original lines, but the playwright
envisaged then an “armed Romania”, a character against the established
tradition of dramatic representation of the nation (launched by his uncle) and
a lot closer to the Western representations of the same type (Germania,
Britannia, Marianne, etc.). The character was played by Eugenia Ciucurescu,

57 . Personality of Romanian mythology, linked with the Dacians, the

ancestors of the
Romanians, as well as with the moment when a significant part of the
territories they
occupied was conquered by the Romans, in the 2nd century AD.
58 . See Frédéric Damé, “Visul Dochiei. Poemă dramatică” [“Dochia’s Dream.
Dramatic

Poem”], translation by D.Ollănescu and T. Șerbănescu, in Familia, III, no. 10,

February 28
(1879): 150-152; no. 11, March 15 (1879): 161-162; and no. 12, March 31 (1879):
183-184.
59 . Frédéric Damé (1849-1907) was a French-born journalist and writer
(dramatist, theatre
reviewer, translator amateur historian, etc.), who settled in Romania in 1872.
60. See I.L. Caragiale, 100 de ani. Revistă istorică națională a secolului XIX, în
10 ilustrațiuni, in
Opere. Teatru. Scrieri despre teatru. Versuri, vol. III, second edition, revised
and expanded
by Stancu Ilin, Nicolae Bârna, Constantin Hârlav, preface by Eugen
Simion (Bucharest:
Editura Fundației Naționale pentru Știință și Artă, 2015), 673-716.

86

----------------------- Page 88-----------------------

THE THEATRICAL CHRISTENING OF ROMANIA

a young actress at the beginning of her career. With Poemul Unirei [The Union
Poem], which premiered at the Bucharest National Theatre on 24 January
1919 (i.e. at the end of the First World War and after the Great
Union of
Bessarabia, Bucovina and Transylvania with the Kingdom of Romania, of
1918), the actor and writer Zaharia Bârsan (1878-1948), from Transylvania,
rechanneled the allegorical character of Romania. The play was staged under
the title 24 Ianuarie [24 January] (probably the initial title of the short
dramatic
work), together with Nicolae Iorga’s Învierea lui Ștefan cel Mare
[The
Resurrection of Stephen the Great]. But the greatest echo would be seen some
time later, during the symbolic tour performed by the Bucharest National
Theatre, at the initiative of director Ioan Peretz, in the Transylvania that had
just been released from under the Dual Monarchy and unified with Romania.
The tour began on 25 April 1919 and took place in 13
Transylvanian
localities, the first destination being Brașov, where Bârsan had spent
his
childhood. Then there were stops in: Sighișoara, Mediaș, Sibiu, Blaj,
Turda,
Cluj, Dej, Bistrița, Alba Iulia, Orăștie, Deva, and Lugoj. Bârsan’s
allegorical
sketch Poemul Unirei would open every performance. The peak moment of
the tour was the troupe’s arrival and performance in Cluj, at the
National
Theatre, a stage to which the Romanians’ access had been denied constantly
since 1906, when the building was inaugurated. (In fact, the location
was
taken over on the same day from the Hungarian company, led by the talented
theatre and film expert Jenő Janovics). In the Austro-Hungarian Cluj, which
was the cultural and administrative hub of the Transylvanian Hungarians,
only once, in 1870, in exceptional circumstances, was a company of Romanian
actors allowed to perform on the main stage of the town (in the former
Hungarian theatre).
The company was from Bucharest and was led by the great actor Matei
Millo. All this time - from 1867 (and even before, under the Habsburgs) until
the dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian Empire - the Romanians had
been also denied the right to build their own theatre. This is how the
unparalleled emotion linked with the performance of 14 May 1919, given
by the actors of the Bucharest National Theatre in Cluj, is explained.
“Romanians were coming in frequent and quick waves, in the evening, at
eight, towards the theatre, for the first Romanian performance in the former
Hungarian theatre. Seldom had we seen a hall filled by people as happy as

87

----------------------- Page 89-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

they were”61, notes Ștefan Mărcuș in Thalia română [Romanian Thalia] (1945),
an important history of Romanian-language theatre in Transylvania, from its
beginning to 1919. The first Romanian season of the Cluj National Theatre,
the management of which was entrusted to Zaharia Bârsan after the Union
(owing to his special success in promoting Romanian-language theatre in
pre-war Transylvania), opened several months after the great tour of the
Bucharest National Theatre, on 1 December 1919, with two of the new
director’s plays: Se face ziuă [Daybreak] (drama in one act) and Poemul Unirei,
with Olimpia Bârsan – then 37 years old – in the female leading roles (the
poster of the play has an honored place in the hallway of the Cluj National
Theatre). Poemul Unirei was first published only in 1921, in a volume, at the
Printing Office W. Krafft of Sibiu, enclosed by the poems Furtuna and Cu toții

62
una!..., written by Bârsan again on the occasion of the events of 1918.

References

*** “Cronica străină” [“The Foreign Review”]. In Gazeta Transilvaniei, no. 5,

February 2,
1860.
*** Dicționarul literaturii române de la origini până la 1900 [Dictionary
of Romanian
Literature from Its Origins to 1900]. Bucharest: Editura Academiei R.S.R.,
1979.
*** Vestitorul românesc, XVII, no. 103, Wednesday, December 31, 1852.
ASACHI, Gheorghe. “Prolog compus de A. G. Asaki, și rostit pe Teatrul Varietăților
din Ieși în 23 februarie 1837. La acea întâi dramatică
Reprezentație Moldo-
venească a Conservatorului Filarmonic. [Prologue composed by A.G.
Asaki
and spoken on the Iasi Variety Theatre’s stage on February 23, 1837.
During
the first Moldavian Performance of the Philharmonic Conservatory].” Albina
românească (supliment), no. 18, March 4, 1837, 83-84.
BÂRSAN, Zaharia. Furtuna. Cu toții una. Poemul Unirei [The Storm. All
Are One. The
Union Poem]. Sibiu: Printing Office W. Krafft, 1921.

61 Ștefan Mărcuș, Thalia română. Contribuții la istoricul teatrului românesc din

Ardeal, Banat și
părțile ungurene [Romanian Thalia. Contributions to the History of
Romanian Theatre in
Transylvania, Banat and the Hungarian Parts] (Timișoara: Institutul de
Arte Grafice “G.
Matheiu”, 1945), 474.
62 See Zaharia Bârsan, Furtuna. Cu toții una. Poemul Unirei [The Storm. All Are
One. The Union
Poem] (Sibiu: Printing Office W. Krafft, 1921), 3-11.

88

----------------------- Page 90-----------------------

THE THEATRICAL CHRISTENING OF ROMANIA

BURADA, Teodor T. Burada. Istoria teatrului în Moldova [History of Theatre in

Moldavia].
Iasi: Institutul de Arte Grafice N. V. Ștefaniu & Comp., 1915.
CARAGEALI, C. Teatru Naționale în Țeara Românească. Dedicată
publicului român
(București, iulie 1855) [National Theatre in Wallachia. Dedicated
to the Romanian
Audience (Bucharest, July 1955)]. Bucharest: Printing Office C.A. Rosetti,
1867.
CARAGIALE, I.L. 100 de ani. Revistă istorică națională a secolului XIX, în 10
ilustrațiuni
[100 years. National Historical Revue of the 19th Century, in 10
Illustrations]. In
Opere. Teatru. Scrieri despre teatru. Versuri [Works. Theatre. Writings on
Theatre.
Verses]. Volume III, second edition, revised and expanded by
Stancu Ilin,
Nicolae Bârna, Constantin Hârlav, preface by Eugen Simion.
Bucharest:
Editura Fundației Naționale pentru Știință și Artă, 2015.
CARAGIALI, Costachi. „Prolog pentru inaugurarea noului teatru din
București”
[“Prologue for the Inauguration of the New Bucharest Theatre”].
In Familia,
XVII, no. 14, Sunday, February 15/27, 1881, 81-84.
DAMÉ, Frédéric. “Visul Dochiei. Poemă dramatică” [“Dochia’s Dream. Dramatic
Poem”], translation by D.Ollănescu and T. Șerbănescu. In Familia, III,
no. 10,
February 28, 1879, 150-152; no. 11, March 15, 1879, 161-162; no. 12, March
31,
1879, 183-184.
DJUVARA, Neagu. O scurtă istorie a românilor povestită celor tineri [A Brief
History of the
Romanians for the Young]. 12th edition, revised and expanded. Bucharest:
Editura
Humanitas, 2010.
FILITTI, Georgeta Filitti. “Teatrul cel Mare”. In Ziarul Metropolis, March
9, 2016.
Accessed on February 15, 2018: https://www.ziarulmetropolis.ro/teatrul-
cel-mare/
GAVRIL-ANTONESEI, Gabriela. “Ipostaze feminine în cultura română a
secolului al
XIX-lea: «Marianne»-le românești” [“Feminine Aspects in the Romanian
Culture
of the 19th Century: the Romanian ‘Mariannes’”]. In Études sur le texte
dédiées à
Halina Grzmil-Tylutki. Edited by Joanna Górnikiewicz, Barbara
Marczuk,
Iwona Piechnik. Kraków: Jagiellonian Library, 2016, 306-314.
LANDES, Joan B. Visualizing the Nation. Gender, Representation and
Revolution in
Eighteenth-Century France. New-York, London: Cornell University Press,
2001.
OLLĂNESCU, Dimitrie C. Teatrul la români [Romanian Theatre]. Edition managed,
preface,
notes, and comments by Cristina Dumitrescu. Bucharest: Editura
Eminescu,
1981.
MASSOFF, Ioan. Actorul de la miezul nopții. Oameni și întâmplări din lumea
teatrului de
altădată [The Midnight Actor. People and Events of Olden
Theatre]. Bucharest:
Editura Cartea Românească, 1974.
MASSOFF, Ioan. Istoria Teatrului Național din București, 1877-1937 [The
History of
the Bucharest National Theatre, 1877-1937]. Bucharest: Editura
Librăriei
„Universala” Alcalay & Co, 1937.
MASSOFF, Ioan. Teatrul românesc. Privire istorică [Romanian Theatre. A
Historical
Perspective]. Volume I. Bucharest: Editura Pentru Literatură, 1961.

89

----------------------- Page 91-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

MASSOFF, Ioan. Teatrul românesc. Privire istorică (1860-1880) [The Romanian

Theatre. A
Historical Perspective]. Volume II. Bucharest: Editura Pentru Literatură,
1966.
MĂRCUȘ, Ștefan. Thalia română. Contribuții la istoricul teatrului românesc
din Ardeal,
Banat și părțile ungurene [Romanian Thalia. Contributions to the History
of Romanian
Theatre in Transylvania, Banat and the Hungarian Parts]. Timișoara:
Institutul de
Arte Grafice “G. Matheiu”, 1945.
POP, Ioan-Aurel. Istoria şi semnificaţia numelor de român/valah şi România/Valahia
[History
and Significance of the Names of Romanian/Wallachian and
Romania/Wallachia].
Reception speech at the Romanian Academy, May 29, 2013. Accessed February
18, 2018: http://www.acad.ro/com2013/pag_com13_0529.htm
RĂDULESCU, Mihai Sorin. “Despre numele României” [“About the Name of Romania”].
 In România literară, XLI, no. 41, October 16, 2013.
XENOPOL, A.D. Domnia lui Cuza-Vodă [Cuza Voda’s Rule]. Volume I. Iasi: Publishing
Printing Office “Dacia” P. Iliescu & D. Grossu, 1903.

ANCA HAŢIEGAN is Assistant Professor in the Theatre Department of the

Faculty
of Theatre and Television, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj, Romania. Her
main research
interests include Romanian theatre and literature, theatre history and
historiography.
She is the author of Cărţile omului dublu: teatralitate şi roman în
regimul comunist
[The Books of the Double-Man: Theatricality and the Novel under the
Communist
Regime]. Cluj: Editura Limes, 2010. She is currently working on another
book focusing
on the first generations of Romanian actresses and on the representation
of women in
the works of the Romanian playwrights from the 18th and 19th century.

90

----------------------- Page 92-----------------------

STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA, LXIII, 1, 2018, p. 91 - 106

(Recommended Citation)
DOI:10.24193/subbdrama.2018.1.04

Zaharia Bârsan
and The Establishment of the National Theatre in Cluj

1
JUSTIN CEUCA

Abstract: The article tackles the circumstances in which the National

Theatre
in Cluj came into being and its relevance to the Romanian
cultural scene. It
was inaugurated on the 1st of December 1919 after the
Unification of
Transylvania and Romania on the 1st of December 1918. To have
professional
theatre performed in the mother tongue of the majority was the embodiment
of an age-old yearning of the Romanians living in this region,
and was
supported by the entirety of the theatre movement. In this respect, the
most
important aspects are mentioned. Before the Unification,
Transylvania was
 part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Romanians, despite
forming the
largest segment of the population, were completely stripped
of rights.
Therefore, the new-born National Theatre in Cluj was
invested with a
plurality of missions, the main one being to stand as an
expression and a
stimulus of Romanian creativity in all Transylvania, which was
materialized
through tours and series of performances in the region.
The paper also attempts to capture the complexity of Zaharia
Bârsan’s
personality, a reputable theatrical animator, actor, director, teacher,
dramatist,
poet, prose writer, who was the first to be invested as director and
founder of
the institution. The difficulties he had to overcome, which
revolved around
founding a troupe of talented actors, finding a repertoire and bestowing
the
theatre with an aura of prestige are analysed. Initially, the repertoire
included
classical pieces, which were thought to carry a clearer, more
accessible
message, but he introduced modern and Romanian pieces as well.
Zaharia
Bârsan managed to produce extraordinary performances right from the
first
theatrical seasons: Vlaicu Vodă by Al. Davila, Oedipus Rex by
Sophocles,
Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Macbeth.

Keywords: National Theatre in Cluj, 1919, Zaharia Bârsan,

Transylvanian
theatre

1. Justin Ceuca: Honorific Professor at the Faculty of Lettres, UBB Cluj-Napoca,

justin.ceuca@yahoo.com.
Paper translated from Romanian Adriana Stan.

----------------------- Page 93-----------------------

JUSTIN CEUCA

In Western Europe, most national theatres were founded in the age of

the formation of nations, as a core of their spirituality and unity, anchored
primarily in their language.
The establishment of the National Theatre in Cluj followed the
formation of the Romanian national state, through the 1918 Great Union,
which liberated Transylvania from the centuries-long Austro-Hungarian
servitude. The act of establishment was signed by the Presidency of the
Romanian Directory Council that temporarily governed upon Transylvania,
until the full union with the Old Romanian Kingdom, through No. 3910
Decree from 18 September 1919. The same act certified the establishment of
the Romanian Opera of Cluj and the Conservatory of Music and Dramatic
Art. It was the age when great Romanian cultural institutions were being
created in a city which, until then, appeared to be led by Hungarian elites.
Head of the new national theatre was appointed Zaharia Bârsan, one of the
leading figures of Transylvanian culture, also assigned with organizing the
theatre. Therefore, Zaharia Bârsan stands as a founder, so the more as he
drafted the structure of the institution.
The National Theatre in Cluj opened its gates on 1 December 1919, in a
festival celebrating one year from the Great Union. The plays Poemul Unirii
(The Poem of the Union) and Se face ziuă (The Dawn is Here), both
written by
Zaharia Bârsan, were performed on the occasion. The first theatre season
started on 2 December 1919, with the premiere of Ovidiu by Vasile Alecsandri,
where Zaharia Bârsan had the leading role. The first Romanian words uttered
on the main stage in Cluj, by the great actress Olimpia Bârsan, Zaharia
Bârsan’s wife, were: „The storm hath ended!” (from The Poem of the Union).
The statement had a symbolic value. It signified the hope for better times, but
also the long and rough journey the Romanian people of Transylvania had to
undertake in order to get a professional theatre in their own language. One
might say the entire Romanian theatre movement in Transylvania shared this
goal. It expressed and professed national conscience, the ethnic unity,
the
unity of origin and language for Romanian people everywhere.
It was not coincidental that long before the Union, the first Romanian
performances took place in Transylvania. In 1755, the “Comedia ambulatoria
aulumnorum” of the students from the city of Blaj was established. On
Christmas Day, they played a religious performance, accompanied by an
orchestra, wearing Vienna-ordered costumes. They also went touring in
neighbouring locations. Everywhere, they attracted a large crowd
that
watched admiringly „the miracle”. In the following decades, the love for
theatre would also spread in other Romanian schools, like those from Arad,
Brașov, Beiuș, Oradea, Năsăud, Oravița.

92

----------------------- Page 94-----------------------

ZAHARIA BÂRSAN AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL THEATRE IN CLUJ

Fig. 1: The building of the new Theatre in Cluj-Napoca, postal card from 1915

Fig. 2: Posters of the first two performances of the first Romanian theatrical
season at the National Theatre in Cluj-Napoca, 1919

93

----------------------- Page 95-----------------------

 JUSTIN CEUCA

The first Romanian dramatic text was published in Transylvania

as
well, in 1780, under the title of Occisio Gregorii în Moldavia Vodae
tragedice
expressa (The Killing of Gregory, the King of Moldavia, depicted in a tragic
register),
by an anonymous author, a text that was apparently performed by the same
students from Blaj. It depicts the fight of Romanian kingdoms for freedom
and national independence. The play is structured as a modern tragicomedy,
with aspects of parody, nonverbal parts of circus or pantomime, scenes
inspired by the popular theatre from Romanian folklore. The interest and
love for theatre nurtured by the Romanian people of Transylvania is also
illustrated by the 1800 publication of the first translation of Hamlet, signed by
Ion Barac, with the title Amlet, Prințul de Dania.

Fig. 3: Photograph of one of the encounters of

The Society for Romanian Theatre Fund of Transylvania, in Săliște.

In 1870 was established, on Iosif Vulcan’s initiative, “The

Society for
Romanian Theatre Fund of Transylvania.” The programmatic article written
by Vulcan, titled Let’s establish a national theatre, asserted the very necessity
to

94

----------------------- Page 96-----------------------

ZAHARIA BÂRSAN AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL THEATRE IN CLUJ

create a professional stage for the Romanian people from this province.
Hungarian authorities had approved the society regulations, with one single
amendment: Romanian people had the right to collect money for a theatre of
their own, but were not allowed to actually establish the theatre. Even so, The
Society’s activity was remarkable. It published the first theatre journal, with
the exact same name, “The Theatre Journal”. It edited “The Theatre Library”,
meant to encourage original Romanian dramaturgy, as well as translations,
which resulted in 400 volumes. In 1886, a 300-florin award was established
for every new Romanian play. A legitimate dramaturgy appeared, mainly
consisting of historical-national-themed dramas and comedies, Iosif Vulcan
being the most representative and prolific author.
The Society funded apprenticeships for young people of talent, to go
and study theatre but also opera in the West, in an attempt to train
specialists for the future professional artistic institutions. Zaharia
Bârsan
was one of the first to benefit from such stipends, studying in Vienna and
Rome. In the field of canto, we should mention Lya Pop, also known as
„Transylvania’s nightingale”. In order to collect funds, the Society organized
yearly meetings, in different cities, which contributed to enhancing the
national feeling. Performances or parades of popular costumes took place,
accompanied by songs, and an exchange of opinions. People made
donations, which amounted to a considerable sum until the beginning of
the first World War.
Tours made by great actors from Bucharest to Transylvania were
effective in keeping the ethnic bond between the Romanian people set apart
by historical hardships; they revealed and galvanized the feeling of national
unity, the sense of belonging to the same nation. Some of the most important
tours were made, from 1863, by Fanny Tardini, whose company’s prompter
was Mihai Eminescu, then by Mihail Pascaly, in 1868, and 1871, by Matei
Millo, in 1870, I. D. Ionescu, in 1873, and 1875. In addition to
those, many
other smaller yearly companies toured the entire province, triggering in all
cities genuine celebrations of the Romanian nationality. The
repertory
consisted of historical-patriotic plays and comedies.
The only actor allowed to perform in Cluj, which, as pointed out before,
was a dominantly Hungarian city, was Matei Millo. His performances from
the hall of the Hungarian Theatre were attended by Hungarian and
Romanian spectators likewise. In 1871, Matei Millo leaves the city. Two
actors, husband and wife, George and Margareta Alexandrescu, exit his

95

----------------------- Page 97-----------------------

JUSTIN CEUCA

company, opting to stay in Cluj. They join The Theatre Society which
had
been running in Cluj since 1868, founded by Ion Baciu, who came from the
strong theatre tradition of Năsăud. Members of the society were Romanian
students of the Catholic college. The society can be justly considered
the
direct predecessor of the National Theatre in Cluj. Wallachian actors
took
charge of the group, further encouraging its development.

Fig. 5: Matei
Millo (1814-1896), famous actor,

stage director and playwright

Fig. 4: Mihail Pascaly (1830-1882), famous
actor, company director, pedagogue

Considering the requirements of the time and the public, the repertory
was formed of historical plays and comedies written by great Romanian
writers such as V. Alecsandri, B. P. Hașdeu, C. Negruzzi, but also by
Al.
Lapedatu (Tribunul (The Tribune), about Avram Iancu).

96

----------------------- Page 98-----------------------

ZAHARIA BÂRSAN AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL THEATRE IN CLUJ

Performances were given „one almost every month”, in the building

of the Greek-Catholic parish, where Ion Baciu had built „an estrade under a
barn”. Many „high society” spectators used to come there. In 1875, the
students graduate college, and the society disintegrates. Still, Ion Baciu
doesn’t abandon theatre, but once he gets back in his village of
Șoimuș,
county of Bistrița-Năsăud, he builds a theatre and starts editing a
field-
specific magazine.
In what concerns the mission or the strategy of the new National
Theatre in Cluj, it resembled the general orientation of other European
national theatres, with certain particularities, however. The first one reflected
the need to express the Romanian spirituality, to encourage the artistic and
cultural creativity of the nation. In the initial conception, this institution was
supposed to belong not only to Cluj, but to all Transylvania, a goal meant to
be reached through tours and micro-seasons in other locations. The theatre
was aimed at achieving the so-called at the time „soul unity” of all
the
Romanian people who had been set apart arbitrarily in the course of time.
The famous French historian Jules Michelet once wrote that the nation
should resemble an individual, that it should similarly have a soul. Likewise,
the Cluj stage was meant to provide the model of a clean, unitary Romanian
language, purified of all the foreign influences brought by the known
historical conditions.
The new director, Zaharia Bârsan, had to face numerous and pressing
necessities in order to ensure the functioning of the National Theatre in Cluj.
Enhanced by the vicissitudes that followed the end of First World War, the
administrative union with Romania was pending. First of all, a company of
actors and a repertory, the body and soul of any theatre, as Mihai Eminescu
used to say, had to be set. Time was of the essence, meanwhile in the country
theatre seasons had already begun, performers were rather scarce then.
However, thanks to Zaharia Bârsan’s prestige, and to his personal relations,
several esteemed actors from the National Theatres of Iași, Craiova and
Bucharest gave up their good contracts and positions, choosing instead to
enliven the Cluj stage. Zaharia Bârsan would emphasize on every occasion
the fact that what these generous artists had made should always be
remembered. Here are some of the names from the core of the company in
those years: I. Stănescu-Papa, Nicolae Neamțu-Ottonel, Dem. Mihăilescu
Brăila, Aurel Athanasescu, Sonia Cluceru, Al. Ghibericon and, last but
not
least, Olimpia Bârsan, Zaharia Bârsan’s wife, first-class associate at the
National Theatre of Bucharest. They were joined, in the position of technical
97

----------------------- Page 99-----------------------

JUSTIN CEUCA

director, by Sică Alexandrescu, the future renowned stage director, who

made his debut in this quality here, in Cluj. Other actors would also settle in
this Transylvanian city on the Somes River, in later seasons, shaping a
typologically and expressively diverse company.

Fig.6: Zaharia Bârsan (1878-1948) in King Lear

98

----------------------- Page 100-----------------------

ZAHARIA BÂRSAN AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL THEATRE IN CLUJ

Fig. 7: Zaharia Bârsan in Hamlet

Repertory-wise, Zaharia Bârsan favoured primarily the classical type,

which he considered clearer and more approachable by the public. But a
then-modern play was also presented from the very first years. Romanian
dramaturgy provided a reliable source, especially through historical plays,
whose patriotic message was understandably successful in the case of
Transylvania. In general, the National Theatre in Cluj tried to present almost
every valuable new product in the domain. The institution was able to
balance drama, comedy, melodrama. The most often staged playwrights, in

99

----------------------- Page 101-----------------------

JUSTIN CEUCA

the first seasons, but also afterwards, were W. Shakespeare and I.

L.
Caragiale. They were joined by Molière, with quite many texts, Carlo
Goldoni (Hangița [The Mistress of the Inn]), V. Alecsandri, B. P. Hașdeu
(Răzvan și Vidra [Răzvan and Vidra]), Al. Davila (Vlaicu Vodă [King
Vlaicu]),
later also by N. Gogol (Revizorul [The Government Inspector]), M. Gorky (Azilul
de noapte [The Night Asylum]), A. P. Chekhov (Pescărușul [The Seagull], with
the title Pescărelul, in national premiere), H. Ibsen (Strigoii [Ghosts]), V. I.
Popa
(Ciuta [The Deer]), M. Sorbul (Patima roșie [The Red Passion]). Contemporary
Romanian dramaturgy was encouraged then, resulting in prestigious debuts
and absolute premieres, like Lucian Blaga’s Avram Iancu.

Fig. 8: Olimpia Bârsan (1885-1935), one of the most admired actresses

at the beginning of the XXth century

100

----------------------- Page 102-----------------------

ZAHARIA BÂRSAN AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL THEATRE IN CLUJ

One imperative goal of the National Theatre in Cluj was to build

prestige and come into prominence in the cultural landscape of the country.
This could be attained through great performances from the great
repertory. Director Zaharia Bârsan is quick to introduce such texts from the
very first season, but is only able to present them to the public, as distinct
performances, in the second and the following seasons. These texts are O
scrisoare pierdută (The Lost Letter) by I. L. Caragiale, from the very first year,
Vlaicu Vodă by Al. Davila, Hamlet by W. Shakespeare, Oedipus Rex by
Sophocles, milestones of any theatre.
Another problem was the audience. The Romanian population of Cluj
was not very large at the time, Hungarian people clearly prevailing.
Therefore, the same spectators had to be encouraged to attend more often
theatre performances. With this in view, several premieres had to be
prepared. To Zaharia Bârsan’s estimates, they needed one every two weeks.
In the very first season, 13 premieres were staged, while in the second
season their number increased to 18. This called for tremendous efforts
made by the actors. On the other hand, spectators had to be educated,
drawn towards theatre, their own taste taken into account. This explains
the repertory option for melodramas and small comedies, more accessible
and better fitted to the popular taste. Students supported the director’s
views, remaining to this day the most faithful spectators. They led the
actors in triumph to their homes, they went on stage as extras whenever the
case, like in the production of Vlaicu Vodă.
As for the tours, Zaharia Bârsan hoped that a first one would already
be made in the inaugural season, but the ministry did not grant the necessary
subvention. The first tour headed to Oradea, on 9 November 1921; further
on, the National Theatre in Cluj continued to travel weekly to this city, which
led to 12 performances, a micro-season in its own, consisting of
historical
plays and comedies, which was welcomed with „extreme enthusiasm”.
Things happened likewise in towns such as Dej and Turda. Zaharia Bârsan
aimed at forming an itinerant company dedicated to touring, called “The
Western Theatre”, which was supposed to be backed by the National Theatre
and the Astra Society. The head of the latter, Vasile Goldiș, agreed verbally,
but would never provide any money for the project.
 Zaharia Bârsan also introduced, from the first season, the so-
called
„popular performances”, meant to create a constant public, formed of
military men and school students, and taking place on Sundays from 2.30
p.m., at half the normal price.

101

----------------------- Page 103-----------------------

JUSTIN CEUCA

As pointed out before, Zaharia Bârsan was a true leading figure

of
Transylvanian culture, embodied in several creative avatars. He was theatre
promoter, actor, stage director, professor, playwright, poet, prose writer.
We already mentioned his contributions as the first director and founder of
the National Theatre in Cluj. Bârsan’s first directorate, between 15 Oct.
1919-31 July 1927, was followed by two other, between 1 Dec. 1931-31 June
1933 and between 16 Apr. 1934- 31 March 1936, respectively.
Prior to these, between 1903-l9l3, Zaharia Bârsan organized yearly
tours in Transylvania’s main localities, from south to north, from east
to
west. Like the entire theatre movement, these tours were meant to cultivate
the national conscience of the Romanian people, their sense of ethnic and
linguistic unity, but also to provide a pure Romanian language. Zaharia
Bârsan only chose performances of great aesthetic quality, played by
professional actors. Considering this objective and the times, the repertory
included historical plays, written especially by V. Alecsandri, but also by C.
Negruzzi, as well as readings from G. Coșbuc. In addition to these, Z.
Bârsan introduced in the Transylvanian repertory I. L. Caragiale’s Năpasta
[Injustice], Carlo Goldoni’s Slugă la doi stăpâni [Servant of Two Masters], A.P.
Chekhov’s Cerere în căsătorie [Marriage Proposal], Ursul [The Bear]. Comedies
were also on the list. Part of the company were first-rate artists of
the
National Theatre of Bucharest: Marioara Voiculescu, Aristizza Romanescu,
Petre Liciu, V. Toneanu, C. Calmuschi and, of course, his wife, Olimpia
Bârsan, always beside him. The mishaps and sometimes difficult conditions
in which performances took place, the obstacles imposed by Hungarian
authorities were chronicled by Z. Bârsan in Impresii de teatru din
Ardeal
[Impressions from Transylvanian Theatre], the first memorial of theatre travel
in Romanian literature. After 1913, the director was denied by
the
Hungarian government the permission to enter Transylvania.
Zaharia Bârsan came from the village of Sân-Petru, next to Brașov (he
was born on 11/23 January 1878, and died on 13 December 1948, in Cluj).
Once completing the sixth high-school grade, he fled to Bucharest. There,
he attended the classes of the Conservatory of Dramatic Art, which he
graduated at C. I. Nottara’s class, with a maximum grade and the first prize
in tragedy. He was then hired at the National Theatre of Bucharest, where
he became a first-class associate.
102

----------------------- Page 104-----------------------

ZAHARIA BÂRSAN AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL THEATRE IN CLUJ

Fig. 9: The National Theatre in Cluj-Napoca after World War I

and the Great Union

Similar to his master C. I. Nottara, his acting style

belongs to
Romanticism, emphasizing feelings, and fostering the musical values of
words. Zaharia Bârsan adds a classicist, more restrained dimension,
assumed from the theatre of Vienna, where he studied, and a natural
tendency, borrowed from Italian verismo. The first feature, enhanced by the
Enlightenment, makes the actor seem to officiate with certain solemnity,
like a lay priest that reveals existential truths, while the stage turns into a
secular altar. This taxonomy will long persist in the tradition of the
Cluj
stage. He preferred the drama, the Shakespearean and the Romantic
repertory. Among his great achievements, we mention the main parts from
Hamlet, Macbeth, King Lear, all plays by W. Shakespeare, from Ruy Blas by
Victor Hugo, Răzvan și Vidra by B. P. Hașdeu, Vlaicu Vodă by Al.
Davila,
other parts like Carl from Hoții (The Robbers) by Fr. Schiller, Luca
Arbore
from Viforul (The Blizzard) by B. P. Hașdeu.

103

----------------------- Page 105-----------------------

JUSTIN CEUCA

The most lasting chapter of Zaharia Bârsan’s literary creation remains

his dramaturgy. The landmarks of his career are the dramatic poems
Trandafirii roșii (Red Roses), Domnul de rouă (The Morning Dew
Gentleman),
which are in fact extravaganzas, a genre cultivated by Romanticism. Also
noteworthy is the historical play Se face ziuă, a dense, rough evocation
of
the figure of Crișan, one of the heroes of the 1784 Revolution, along with
Horia and Cloșca.
 Fig.10: Front page of The Red Roses (first edition) and cover of
the
The Morning Dew Gentleman

Trandafirii roșii premiered on the stage of the National Theatre

of
Bucharest on 12 October 1915, was warmly welcomed. In those days, after
the 1989 Revolution, it was presented at the Bulandra Theatre, during
Victor Rebenciuc’s directorate. The play reenacts the Romantic scenario of
sacrifice. One needs self-sacrifice in order to defeat a given fatum , or to fulfil
a destiny. This idea is embodied here through the theme of the artist, who

104

----------------------- Page 106-----------------------

ZAHARIA BÂRSAN AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL THEATRE IN CLUJ

accomplishes his mission at the price of his own life. This interwines with
the motive of total, absolute love, also drawn from Romanticism. The artist
achieves, in exchange, immortality. Trandafirii roșii are the metaphor of
a
new, non-existent before beauty, born out of the artist’s sacrifice and blood,
but also of his love. The text is built on the lyrical-dramatic and
poetic
tension of characters and verses.
The hero, Zefir, is a dreaming poet, a similarly Romantic
typology.
Liana was cursed to die, unless somebody would bring her every day a red
rose, considering only white roses existed at the time. Zefir loves the
girl
endlessly and is able to overcome this fatum. During the night, he
colours
with his own blood a white rose, which he gifts Liana in the morning. He
saves her this way, at the cost of his own life. As a consequence of that, all
white roses from the garden will turn red, a phenomenon viewed as a
miracle on stage. The dramatic poem is composed of harmonious, musical
verses, which remind of neo-Romanticism.
Domnul de rouă is less valuable than Trandafirii roșii. Although inspired
by local mythology, the legend of the sun and the moon, it is more elaborate,
more polished. Certain Symbolist traits can still be perceived here. The other
plays written by Zaharia Bârsan, Mărul (The Apple) from 1908 and Sirena (The
Mermaid), are composed in a realist-psychological register. However, they
don’t display some special kind of analysis, but fall back on moralising
didacticism. Zaharia Bârsan’s poetry, the volumes Visuri de noroc (Luck
Dreams), from 1903, and Poezii (Poems), from 1924, is subjected to usual
clichés of Romanticism. His prose, gathered in the volumes Ramuri (Tree
Branches), in 1906, Nuvele (Short Stories), in 1909, Nuvele, 1910, Ca mâini va bate
ceasul (Tomorrow will be the Day), 1915, reveal the talent of a storyteller who is
able to draw convincing portraits. Written in the realist-naturalist
manner,
this prose often tends to linger in a moral schematism, with accents of rural
idealisation.
In 1945, Zaharia Bârsan was vested by academician Mihail Ralea, the
then-Minister of the Arts, as a honorary lifelong director of the
National
Theatre in Cluj. He remains, to this day, the only one to hold this position in
the history of the institution.

105

----------------------- Page 107-----------------------

JUSTIN CEUCA

References

BÂRSAN, Zaharia, Impresii de teatru din Ardeal. Arad: Tipografia George Nichin,
1908
BÂRSAN, Zaharia, Scrieri. București: Editura pentru Literatură, 1969
BÂRSAN, Zaharia, Trandafirii roșii: poem dramatic în trei acte în
versuri. București:
Librăria universală Leon Alcalay, 1919
BUTEANU, Aurel, Teatrul Românesc în Ardeal și Banat, edited by The National Theatre
in
Cluj, 1945
CEUCA, Justin, Zaharia Bârsan: monografie. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia, 1978
MARCUS, Ştefan. Thalia română. Contribuţii la istoricul teatrului românesc din
Ardeal, Banat
şi Părţile ungurene. Timişoara: Institutul de Arte Grafice G. Matheiu, 1945

JUSTIN CEUCA is a Pro

fessor and Romanian theatre historian. He is
the author of
many books, among which: Zaharia Bârsan, Cluj, Editura Dacia, 1978;
Teatrologia
românească interbelică [Romanian Inter-War Theatre Critic], Bucureşti,
Editura
Minerva, 1990; Evoluţia formelor dramatice [The Evolution of Dramatic
Forms],
Cluj, Editura Dacia, 2002; Aureliu Manea. Eseu despre un Regizor [Aureliu
Manea.
Essay About a Theatre Director], Cluj, Casa Cărții de Știință,
2007; Aventura
comediei româneşti. 1780-2009 [The Adventure of Romanian Comedy. 1780-
2009], Cluj, Casa Cărții de Știință, 2013; Ileana Berlogea. Eseu despre un
Teatrolog
[Ileana Berlogea. Essay About a Theatre Critic], Cluj, Casa Cărții de
Știință, 2016;
Procesul Memorandumului. Teatru-document. Cluj, 7-25 mai 1894
[The
Memorandum Trial. Docu-Theatre. Cluj, 7-25 of May, 1894], Cluj, Casa Cărții
de
Știință, 2017.

106

----------------------- Page 108-----------------------

STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA, LXIII, 1, 2018, p. 107 - 120

(Recommended Citation)
DOI:10.24193/subbdrama.2018.1.05

Written on the Walls: The Hungarian-Romanian Transfer of the

National Theatre Building from Kolozsvár/Cluj

1
DELIA ENYEDI

Abstract: The 1918 Great Union of Transylvania with the

Kingdom of
Romania had direct consequences on the theatrical landscape of the
province.
The present paper reconstructs the controversial transfer of the building
that
at the time hosted the Hungarian National Theatre from
Kolozsvár/Cluj
(currently Cluj-Napoca2) to the newly formed Romanian state, as recounted
by
its manager, Hungarian theatre and film director Jenő Janovics, and by
Ștefan
Mărcuș, Romanian opera singer and arts historian.

Keywords: theatre, national identity, Transylvania, Jenő

Janovics, Ștefan
Mărcuș, Cluj, Kolozsvár, Cluj-Napoca.

On 24 December 1918, Romanian troops entered

Kolozsvár/Cluj.
Eighteen months of political negociations and individual
uncertainties
passed until the Treaty of Trianon, signed on 4 June 1920 in
Versailles,
recognized what the Great National Assembly in Alba Iulia had declared on
1 December 1918. The peace treaty between the Allied powers and Hungary
as a successor of the Austro-Hungarian Empire established the province of
Transylvania as part of the Kingdom or Romania. Overnight, an approximate
half of the three million Hungarians that the collapse of the Dual Monarchy
has positioned outside the borders of their country of origin (Steiner
96)
became a minority. The impact on the Transylvanian cultural landscape was
profound, aiming among others at its Hungarian national theatre of great
tradition.

1 Delia Enyedi: Faculty of Theatre and Television, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-

Napoca, Romania.
delia.enyedi@ubbcluj.ro
2 The current name of Cluj-Napoca was established through a decree
signed by Nicolae
Ceaușescu in 1974.
----------------------- Page 109-----------------------

DELIA ENYEDI

In the history of the city, the Hungarian theatre emerged in 1792, as an

initiative of the local aristocracy to support the first permanent company. By
1821 it had the first stone building in the country destined to host a theatre,
located on the Wolf Street3 . Under the management of Jenő Janovics, a
prolific artist in both fields of theatre and silent cinema, a new theatre was
inaugurated in 1906, in the Hunyadi Square. The elegant edifice designed by
the Austrian office Fellner & Helmer was to become the subject of conflict in
the transition of Transylvania from Hungarian to Romanian authority.

“We stay here!”

On the pages dedicated to the day of 21 December 1918 of his journal,

Janovics recounted the feeling of overwhelming expectancy dominating the
Hungarian locals from Kolozsvár/Cluj, torn between the decision to
remain in their barricaded homes or to join the tens of thousands of ragged
refugees transiting the city. This tension had also permeated the
theatre,
with its halls emptied and its performances cancelled. Those employees of
the institution, especially the ones with relatives in Budapest, were
more
vulnerable to the exaggerated rumors, weighing on the possibility to take
refuge themselves in the border city of Nagyvárad/Oradea, before heading
to the Hungarian capital.
In the shadow of this state of mind, Janovics decided to gather all of
them on stage, in the early hours of the morning. In few but wisely chosen
words, he informed them of his own decision to stay put in front of
the
uncertain immediate future. “As long as I breathe, I will defend this theatre
that I was assigned to manage.
No matter what happens, I keep my post of watchman”4 ({1918}[1942]
2001, 328). Not knowing what the next day would bring, he emphasized the
distinction between his own resolution and the influence it might have
on
them. To those ready to leave, he accompanied his best wishes with the offer
of financial support. To those taking into consideration to remain, he could
only reassure them of his complete moral support. The question lingering
was who wanted to remain by his side.

3 Today Mihail Kogălniceanu Street.

4 If not specified otherwise, all translations belong to the author of
this text. In original
Hungarian: “Ezt a színházat, amelyet gondozásomra bíztak, védeni fogom, amíg
lélegzem.
Bármi történik is, strázsahelyemen maradok.”

108

----------------------- Page 110-----------------------

WRITTEN ON THE WALLS: THE HUNGARIAN-ROMANIAN TRANSFER OF THE NATIONAL

 THEATRE BUILDING FROM KOLOZSVÁR/CLUJ

On the dimly lighted stage, the silence of about two hundred and fifty
Hungarians was broken by the voice of a woman, his wife, actress Lili Poór:
“We stay here!5” ({1918}[1942] 2001, 328). Aware that all of her
relatives had
already moved to Budapest, all others present echoed her words. Famous actor
István Szentgyörgyi, immediately joined by fellow actors, dancers,
musicians,
and technicians approached Janovics and uttered the same sentence, shaking
Janovics’ hands and asking for guidance from the one who over the years had
become their master. Meanwhile most of their relatives had taken refuge and the
Romanian troops were about twenty kilometers away from the city.

“Things standing thus unknown, shall live behind me!”

The solidarity of the Hungarian theatre company facing the sombre

premonition of the days and months to come could not stop the countdown
of what was to become its last year on that stage. Consequently,
Janovics
tried to convert the atmosphere similar to a capital sentence inevitably
surrounding the last performance into an ostentatious celebration of the era
it closed. Scheduled on 30 September 1919, it was promoted throughout the
city by means of lavishly decorated posters, reminiscent of the countless
glamorous evenings hosted by the theatre in the past. Under the title Hamlet
stood the names of Jenő Janovics in the lead role, Lili Poór as Ofelia
and
those of István Szentgyörgyi and Aranka Laczkó as the royal couple.
The Romanian authorities, with the designated role of temporary
political, economical, and symbolical administration of the new territories were
facing a delicate situation. Fully aware that a ban could have had more
serious consequences than the actual performance, they could not ignore the
influence Janovics was having on both artists and audience. The censors
speculated on the decision of choosing Shakespeare’s text to justify its
altering. Lines were cut out and the final scene disspeared altogether.
To the spectators these details mattered too little. Hours before
the
performance crowds invaded the hall filling every inch of available
space,
from the entrance to the orchestra pit. It was an impressive sight that
Janovics could not forget easily twenty years later. “Never in that
theatre,
before or after, were so many people crammed together. Everyboby wanted
to witness the grand farewell6” (1937, 76).

5 In original Hungarian: “Itt maradunk!”

6 In original Hungarian: “Abban a színházban soha, sem azelőtt, sem azután annyi
ember
nem szorongott. Mindenki jelen akart lenni a nagy bucsun.”

109

----------------------- Page 111-----------------------

DELIA ENYEDI
 Fig. 1 Young Jenő Janovics as Hamlet

Once the evening started, the tension that suffocated their

awaiting
was exteriorized. “Every actor is greeted with applause when walking onto
the stage and is accompanied with applause when exiting7” (Janovics 1937,
76). At the moment of Hamlet’s monologue that the censorship had reduced
to the famous interrogation, Janovics daringly addressed it to the audience:
“To be, or not to be, that is the question” (Shakespeare 309). After a second of

8
deathly silence, a woman shouted “We want to live! ” and immediately two
thousand voices started shouting “We want to live!”, although Janovics
recollected the fact that the words could barely be distinguished in the
ensuing frenzy. It was a reaction that scared him, but fortunately it dimished
within minutes with spectators calming each other (Însemnările... 77-78).

7 In original Hungarian: “Minden színészt tapsorkán fogad, amikor a

színpadra lép és
tapsorkán kisér, amikor kimegy.”
8 In original Romanian: “Vrem să trăim!”

110

----------------------- Page 112-----------------------

WRITTEN ON THE WALLS: THE HUNGARIAN-ROMANIAN TRANSFER OF THE NATIONAL

THEATRE BUILDING FROM KOLOZSVÁR/CLUJ

But Romanian security forces mobilized on sight to prevent any kind

of nationalistic manifestation were eager to close the evening. The irony
made that the censorhip transformed the last words uttered in Hungarian on
that stage to be Hamlet’s testamentary line: “O God, Horatio, what a wounded
name,/Things standing thus unknown, shall live behind me!” (Shakespeare
331). Fearing suplimentary outburts, immediately after the courtain fell soldiers
intervened and “violently” (Janovics 1941, 314) scattered the exhilarated
crowd. To the Hungarian Theatre from Kolozsvár/ Cluj, the most important
stage in its management under Janovics had abruptly ended. Regarding the
events sealing this fate, the two sides involved would confront before
and
after the famous evening.

A Matter of National Pride

Through the decree establishing the union of Transylvania with the

Kingdom of Romania, issued by King Ferdinand I, on 24 December 1918, the
public services of the province were under the authority of a Governing
Council9 . From the early separation into departments and thus the organizing
of one in charge with Cults, Public Instruction, and Arts, soon reorganized as
Department of Health, Arts, and Social Security, a major interest was taken
into “the artistic-cultural offensive in Transylvania (…) through
theatre10”
(Mărcuș 469). Despite the fact the composer Tiberiu Brediceanu, assisted by
the local poet Emil Isac, were in charge of the cultural politics in the region,
the first initiative belonged to Ion Peretz, the head of the Governing Council
of Nagyszeben/Sibiu. It consisted in an official tour of the Bucharest National
Theatre company, planned to reach thirteen cities, between 27 April and 31
May. Kolozsvár/Cluj was one of them.
Witness of the reorganization of the cultural life in Transylvania under
Romanian political authority was the tenor, and later on in life music
and
theatre historian, Ștefan Mărcuș. In his notes, one finds that behind
endless
departments, programs, and names there was a significant amount
of
disorganization and amateurishness, compensated with the enthusiasm of the
political moment. “Mister Brediceanu complained to me that he had no tasks,
no office and persons he could not get rid of were imposed on him11” (467).

9 In Romanian“Consiliu Dirigent”, government of Transylvania that functioned

between 2
December 1918 and 4 April 1920.
10 In original Romanian: “Paralel cu acțiunea ofensivă a armatei, începe și
ofensiva artistică-
culturală în Ardeal și Banat, prin teatru.”
11 In original Romanian: “D-l Brediceanu mi se plângea că n-are atribuțiuni, n-are
birou și i
se impun persoane, de care nu se poate scăpa”.

111

----------------------- Page 113-----------------------

DELIA ENYEDI

The situation of Janovics’ consolidated theatrical institution had been

permanently in the attention of the Romanian
authorities, but its
uninterrupted activity during the First World War and the firm stance of its
director after the Great Union were all signals of a situation difficult to grasp.
In the tour program12 the plays Răzvan and Vidra (Răzvan și Vidra) by B.P.

Hașdeu and The Fountain of Blanduzia (Fântâna Blanduziei) by Vasile Alecsandri

were scheduled to be played in Kolozsvár/Cluj on 14 May, and “on this date
it was a matter of national pride that the company would play in the
Romanian theatre13” (Mărcuș 478). The stakes were high given the context

generated by the Apponyi laws, passed in 1907, destined to accelerate

the
process of Magyarization in the Eastern partner of the Dual Monarchy. Despite
two thirds of the population in Transylvania being represented by Romanians,
education in their native language had been eliminated. Consequently,
theatre was gradually invested not only with the role of cultivating a correct
spoken language, but also of cultivating a national conscience.
As a direct response, all Romanian efforts to permeate the
cultural
scene of the province had been discouraged by the Hungarian authorities.
Although the local Romanian press constantly informed its readers on the
theatrical events from the Bucharest stage, official tours had been made
practicly impossible by the legislation. Non-Hungarian actors wishing to
perform in the province were required to obtain special approvals from the
government. While German or Italian theatre companies had been performing
throughout Transylvania, the last Romanian theatrical tours dated back to
1870 and 1871, and it is a significant detail that the ones organized
with
great difficulty between 1906-1913 seem14 to have not reached Kolozsvár/Cluj.

12 The repertoire of the tour was composed by a combination of classic and mediocre
texts, a
compromise generated by the lack of quality Romanian dramaturgy and the aim to
select
the existing plays instilling a sense of national identity to the audience.
Besides the two
already mentioned, it included The Poem of the Union (Poemul Unirei) by Zaharia
Bârsan,
Sunset (Apus de soare) by Barbu Ștefănescu-Delavrancea, Bimbașa Sava by Ion
Peretz and
The Red Roses (Trandafirii roșii) by Zaharia Bârsan (Mărcuș 469).
13 In original Romanian: “pe această dată era o chestiune de mândrie națională, ca
trupa să

joace în teatrul românesc.”

14 Precise information regarding the itineraries of the tours is hard to be
established as some

performances were cancelled while others were programmed spontaneously.

112

----------------------- Page 114-----------------------

WRITTEN ON THE WALLS: THE HUNGARIAN-ROMANIAN TRANSFER OF THE NATIONAL

THEATRE BUILDING FROM KOLOZSVÁR/CLUJ

However, the presence in the city of Onisifor Ghibu15 in 1919 as general

secretary of the Department of Cults, and Arts, had nothing to do with the
theatre, but with the taking over of the university. During the conversation in
which he communicated the above mentioned task to his superior, publicist
and politician Valeriu Braniște16, near to the latter stood Brediceanu:

who was preoccupied not only in taking over the theatre, but
was
searching all possibilities for the new Romanian state, as successor of
the old Romanian state, to also install its rights regarding the
organizing
of the arts, especially the building where the old Hungarian
State
supported a Hungarian National Theatre.
 The moment was decisive for the fate of the Hungarian theatre of Cluj.
For on the solicitation of dr. T. Brediceanu, dr. V. Braniște,
head of
department, ordered by phone dr. Onisifor Ghibu from Cluj to also take
over the theatre in which mister Ianovici’s (sic!) company performed.17
(Mărcuș 479)

In the morning of the next day, on 14 May, Ghibu, accompanied by the

mayor of the city, Iulian Pop, the head of the local administration
Vasile
Hossu/Vazul Hosszu and the opera singer Constantin Pavel/László Pap
were present at the theatre, where they encountered the deputy manager
Lajos Parlagi. In his 1945 account, Mărcuș cites later writings belonging
to
Janovics according to which Ghibu threatened with “armed force” (480)
Parlagi’s refuse to cooperate18.

15 Onisifor Ghibu (1883-1972) was a teacher of pedagogy, correspondent

member of the
Romanian Academy and one of the politicians directly involved in the
Great Union of
1918. After the coming to power of the Communist regime, his nationalist and
anti-Soviet
activity would determin his forced retirement from the university, the
banning of his
books and ultimately three years of detention.
16 Valeriu Braniște (1869-1928) was a Romanian publicicst and politician, honorary
member of the
Romanian Academy, involved in organizing the Great National Gathering of Alba-
Iulia, on 1
December 1918. As head of the Department for Cults and Public Instruction in the
Governing
Council of Transylvania, he manifested great interest in the education of the
minorities.
17 In original Romanian: “pe care îl preocupa nu numai ideea preluării teatrului,
dar căuta
toate posibilitățile, cum Statul nou român în calitate de succesor al vechiului
Stat maghiar,
ar putea să intre cât mai curând în drepturile sale, și în ceea ce
privește organizarea
artelor, și în special clădirea unde vechiul Stat maghiar a susținut
un Teatru Național
Maghiar. Momentul a fost hotărâtor pentru soarta teatrului unguresc din
Cluj. Căci, la
insistența d-lui Dr. T. Brediceanu, Dr. V. Braniște, șef de Resort, a dat ordin
telefonic d-lui
Dr. Onisifor Ghibu la Cluj, să preia și teatrul în care juca trupa d-lui
Ianovici.”
18 Although we have been unable to identify the source, this detail stands as
testimony to the
note on which the Romanian side started the negociations. At that time, Romanian
troups
were stationed on the Tisza/Tisa River, preparing the offensive on Budapest.

113

----------------------- Page 115-----------------------

 DELIA ENYEDI

In the text we use as reference19, Janovics recalled the events from the
afternoon of the same day, when he received Ghibu and Hossu in his office.
The message delivered by the two was as clear as possible, Janovics was
summoned to evacuate the building and move the company in the building
of the summer theatre (Színkör/Cercul teatral). As proven by a transcript
written in everybody’s presence, Janovis protested, invoking a contract dated
11 March 1913, signed with count Colomán Esterházy as president of a
Theatre Committee, according to which the former was only renting the
theatre, and thus did not own the right to cede it to a third party. He also
underlined the fact that the building was not property of the Hungarian
state, all expenses of constructions being loaned from the Commercial Bank
of Budapest, annually paid back by means of a subvention guaranteed by the
same contract. As the document would not expire until 1921, Janovics
officially declared that he kept the rights to use the theatre and all catalogued
belongings for the continued management of the theatrical activity. He asked
for reassurments that his rights would be respected given the three hundred
employees he had valid contracts with and their families whose survival
depended on them (Janovics 1937, 71-76).
To the Romanian delegates, those details were no more than
“subtle
arguments of judicial formal order20” and consequently “the taking over the
National Theatre of Cluj was made immediately21” (Mărcuș 482).

Some Honest Words

As late as 7 May 1920, Janovics published a reponse in the form of an

article titled Honest Words (Őszinte szavak/Cuvinte sincere), in both Hungarian
and Romanian newspapers Ellenzék and Adeverul. The text revolved around
the ownership rights regarding the theatre building. A fund was brought
into discussion which had resulted from donations made by elite members
from the Hungarian society and had been used to erect, in 1821, the
old
theatre from Wolf Street. After it had gravely degraded eight decades into its
functioning, it had been sold. To the resulted amount of money were added
various donations which partially represented the costs of the theatre from
the Hunyadi Square. Janovics cited a document from the state archives

19 “The Theatre Life.” (“A színjátszás.”) Metamorphosis Transylvaniae

(Országrészonk átalakulása
1918-1936). Edited by Györi Illés István. Cluj: Az új Transzylvánia Kiadása,
1937. 69-93.
20 In original Romanian: “argumentări subtile de ordin formal juridic”.
21 In original Romanian: “preluarea Teatrului Național din Cluj s-a făcut imediat”.

114

----------------------- Page 116-----------------------

WRITTEN ON THE WALLS: THE HUNGARIAN-ROMANIAN TRANSFER OF THE NATIONAL

THEATRE BUILDING FROM KOLOZSVÁR/CLUJ
according to which the building, as well as the land beneath it, belonged to
a society for the Hungarian Theatre of Kolozsvár. In response to this
information, Mărcuș noted that further investigations proved this society to be
a mere camouflage for the Hungarian Ministry of Cults and Instruction (480).

Fig. 2 The Old Theatre from Wolf Street

In the mentioned article, Janovics also described various tactics

that
sabotaged the remaining performances of the Hungarian theatre company
on the disputed stage. They ranged from the offering of free tickets
that
affected its budget to spontaneous shutting down of the theatre. The hardest to
endure had been the censorhip that cancelled a cycle dedicated to Shakespeare,
as well as various stage adaptations from the repertoire of Hungarian or
French classic playwrights, with Sardou’s Fedora for example being catalogued
as nihilist propaganda.

115

----------------------- Page 117-----------------------

DELIA ENYEDI

The Romanian readers had already heard on 14 May 1919 the

first
words uttered in their language on the stage to be the symbolicly
chosen
“The storm has calmed down…22” (Mărcuș 475) in a frenzy equaling that of
the Hamlet performance. At least to them, the disclosure continued. On
16
September 1919, a decree-letter informed Janovics that the theatre would be
managed by the Romanian state, offering him the role of artistic manager in
return to his oath of fidelity. Aware that it was an unheard of condition and
moreover that two days earlier playwright Zaharia Bârsan had been
appointed to the task, Janovics cited the dialogue with the delegate sent to
hand him the letter, Vasile Poruțiu: “the Governing Council would find itself
in a very embarassing situation if I were to take the oath, to which
he
responded smiling, we are fully aware that you can not take the oath23”.

Fig. 3 The National Theatre built in 1906

22 In original Romanian: “S-a potolit furtuna...”, line from The Poem of
the Union (Poemul
Unirei).
23 In original Romanian: “Consiliul Dirigent ar ajunge într-o situație foarte
penibilă dacă eu
acum aș depune de fapt jurământul, mi-a răspuns surâzând, bine știm noi că D-ta
nu poți
depune jurământul.”

116

----------------------- Page 118-----------------------

WRITTEN ON THE WALLS: THE HUNGARIAN-ROMANIAN TRANSFER OF THE NATIONAL

THEATRE BUILDING FROM KOLOZSVÁR/CLUJ

To theatre historians, Zaharia Bârsan is fairly considered the architect of

interwar Romanian theatre in Transylvania, having previously proved his
determination and resilience pursuing his goal. The tours he organized in the
province between 1906 and 1913 were the result of significant
efforts.
Confronting the authorities, he was sometimes forced to declare his
fellow
actors as amateurs in order to get the permit to play (Ceuca 62-63) or employ
theatre students. In front of the audience, he composed a repertoire capable of
serving both the uneducated crowds and the pretentious young elite, an
impossible task equally attracting praise and criticism. In addition, delays and
lack of settings or costumes represented constant circumstances. While on 1
October 1919, at ten o’clock in the morning following the Hamlet performance,
the Hungarian Theatre ceased to exist in the Kolozsvár/Cluj building, the
previously persecuted Romanian one was rising under his guidance.
But the details surrounding the shifting moment have
remained
controversial mainly because Janovics was reassured that he could take his
personal belongings out of the theatre building.

Contrary to this disposition, the appointed guvernamental commissary

stopped me from taking out from the theatre one single peg, furthermore
when I ordered my personal carpentry workshop to be removed from the
basement he threatened to transport me and the workshop with
police
24
escort had I not return everything within an hour.

There are numerous formal requests archived addressed by Janovics to

various people capable to address the situation, unanswered or rejected on
procedural basis. In return, he was granted the possibility to loan whatever
he needed, including his own personal library. But the biggest inconvenient
became the moving of the Hungarian theatre company in the summer theatre in

25
the middle of the 1919-1920 winter. The building that had been inaugurated
in 1910 with a “lighter” repertoire was lacking a heating system and
had
already been altered to accommodate a cinema. Janovics had unsuccessfully
searched for solutions, when he inquired on buying or renting the building
of the old theatre from Wolf Street.

24 In original Romanian: “Contrar acestei dispozițiuni comisarul guvernial

denumit m-a
împedecat să scot din teatru măcar un cui, ba când am dispus să
scoată atelierul meu
propriu de dulgerie din souterain m-a amenințat că dacă în decurs de o oră nu
voi aduce
totul înapoi, mă va transporta și pe mine și atelierul cu jandarmi.”
25 The brick building in Secessionist style replaced an old wooden
theatre dating back to
1874, on the current location of the Hungarian Theatre of Cluj.

117

----------------------- Page 119-----------------------

DELIA
ENYEDI

Fig. 4 The Summer Theatre on the place of the current Hungarian Theatre of
Cluj

Fig. 5 The Summer Theatre on the place of the current Hungarian Theatre of
Cluj

118

----------------------- Page 120-----------------------

WRITTEN ON THE WALLS: THE HUNGARIAN-ROMANIAN TRANSFER OF THE NATIONAL

THEATRE BUILDING FROM KOLOZSVÁR/CLUJ

The final section of the mentioned article approached the special

condition of the summer theatre building in the context of the nationalizing
of the cultural institutions in Transylvania. After significant efforts from all
involved in honoring the programmed activities, Janovics started the plans
to repair it. The ownership rights became an issue of debate, as the
land
beneath had been offered by the town council, but the erection of the buiding
had been paid by Janovics personally. While he did not get any answer from
the Town Council or the Department of Social Justice, Mărcuș insisted in his
version of events that :
 We must underline the fact that, on the occasion of taking over
the
theatre building, the existence of the Hungarian theatre company was fully
insured and the revovations needed to be made to the summer
theatre
were made on the expenses and subsidies granted by the Romanian State
and the public Romanian institutions. This was the way in which
the
Romanian State considered from the very start to protect the
cultural
progress of all minorities26 (…). (484-485)

At the time, a written response from Janovics published in the

local
Hungarian papers regarding the crisis of his theatre promted an immediate
visit of a committee of experts at the end of March. The conclusions were the
same, the building needed significant renovations but the proposed solution
came as more than unexpected. He was assured that he could conceive a
plan and proceed with applying it all while renting the building for twenty
five years a period through which he could redeem the loan. Under the
pressure of time, Janovics conceived a plan regarding only the absolutely
needed immediate renovations and addressed it to the Department of Social
Justice. He received no response and the local authorities dismissed the
matter as not being under their jurisdiction.
Janovics ended his 1920 manifesto in a desperate note, reminding the
fact that he represented one of the most important tax payers and demanded
to know what had happened to the significant amount of money that the
Governing Council had offered the Romanian Theatre. But regardless of his
bitter remarks, he condemned the violation of a private contract and the
confiscation of his personal belongings. He spoke of a memorandum written

26 In original Romanian: “Trebuie să accentuăm că, cu ocazia preluării

clădirei Teatrului,
existența trupei de teatru maghiar a fost pe deplin asigurată și
renovațiile necesare la
clădirea Teatrului de vară s-au făcut pe cheltueala și din subvențiile
acordate de Statul
Român și de instituțiile publice românești. Așa a înțeles Statul Român
dela Început, să
protejeze înaintarea culturală a tuturor minorităților (...).”

119

----------------------- Page 121-----------------------

DELIA ENYEDI

on 10 august 1919 in which he had anticipated the fate of the

Hungarian
theatre in Transylvania, this precise first instance of uncertainty regarding its
future. However, it was an uncertainty equaling that of the Romanian theatre
developing in Kolozsvár/Cluj. The fact that political factors ultimately failed
to alter the mutual respect developed between the two cultural institutions of
the city was proven by the warm words adressed by Jenő Janovics to Zaharia
Bârsan27 in 1925, “as brothers and colleagues, as professionals and devotees
to Thalia28” (qtd. in Ceuca 74).
 References

CEUCA, Justin. Zaharia Bârsan. Monografie. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia, 1978.

JANOVICS, Jenő. A Hunyadi téri színház, 1942. Bevezetés: Senkálszky Endre.
Utószó:
Kötő József. Kolozsvár: Korunk Baráti Társaság, Komp-Press Kiadó, 2001.
---. “A szinjátszás.” Metamorphosis Transylvaniae (Országrészonk átalakulása 1918-
1936).
Szerk. Györi Illés István. Cluj: Az új Transzilvania, 1937.
---. “Cuvinte sincere.” 1920. Consulted as typed manuscript. Lajos Jordáky
Fund.
Transylvanian Museum Society Archive. Cluj-Napoca.
---. Însemnările lui Jenő Janovics despre condiția teatrului maghiar de după 1918.
(Janovics
Jenő feljegyzése az 1918 utáni kolozsvári színházi viszonyokról. ) Typed
manuscript.
Lajos Jordáky Fund. Transylvanian Museum Society Archive. Cluj-Napoca.
MĂRCUŞ, Ştefan. Thalia română. Contribuţii la istoricul teatrului românesc din
Ardeal, Banat
şi Părţile ungurene. Timişoara: Institutul de Arte Grafice G. Matheiu,
1945.
SHAKESPEARE, William. “Hamlet”. Edited by Harold Jenkins. The Arden
Shakespeare
Complete Works. Edited by Richard Proudfoot, Ann Thompson and David Scott
Kastan. Revised Edition. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013. 291-332.
STEINER, Zara S. The Lights that Failed: European International History 1919-1933.
Oxford
University Press, 2005.

DELIA ENYEDI is Lecturer in the Cinematography and Media Department of the

Faculty of Theatre and Television, Babeș-Bolyai University, Romania.
Her main
research interests include silent cinema, narrative theory, film technology
and aesthetics.
She co-edited the proceedings volume Regards sur le mauvais spectateur/
Looking at
the Bad Spectator (Cluj University Press, 2012) and is currently revising
for publication
her doctoral dissertation on Hungarian silent film and theatre artist Jenő
Janovics.

27 On the occasion of the Zaharia Bârsan’s celebration of twenty five years of

theatrical activity.
28 In original Romanian: “frați și colegi, ca profesioniști și devotați Thaliei”.

120

----------------------- Page 122-----------------------

STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA, LXIII, 1, 2018, p. 121 - 144

(Recommended Citation)
DOI:10.24193/subbdrama.2018.1.06
 The story of a story: the Grigoriu Theatre Company

1
OANA ILIE

Abstract: At the beginning of the past century, tenor Constantin Grigoriu

began gathering the outstanding members of the Romanian
Lyrical
Company, historically re-labelled „The Grigoriu Company” as an homage
to its founder. Even if all its years of assiduous activity
seem few when
compared to the grand scale of time’s passing, the Grigoriu
Company’s
two decades of existence have left a mark upon the history of artistic
life in
Romania. This was due, in part, to its self-assumed status of
„competitor”
of the National Theatre, aiming to offer its regionally diverse
public an
alternative form of entertainment. Grigoriu also discovered and promoted
grandiose performers the likes of Nicolae Leonard, Velimir
Maximilian,
Ciucurette, Carussy, Florica Florescu. The company contributed to
the
formation of an extraordinary generation of vaudeville singers too:
Florica
Cristoforeanu, Elena Drăgulinescu-Stinghe and Virginia Miciora
were
some of the most talented Romanian lyrical performers.

Key Words: Grigoriu Theatre Company, Romanian Lyrical Company

From a political perspective, the transitional period, between the 19th

and 20th century and the beginning of the First World War, was dominated
by sterile, small-scale confrontations, despite the hard work of the talented
politicians of the time. There was notable progress in the economic
sector,
but due to its regretfully uneven effectiveness, it led to the
preponderant
development of agriculture and the extractive industry. Class
division
worsened, making the chasm between elites and masses painfully obvious.
The most telling example in this case is the uprising of 1907, which
hit
Romanian society with the force of an earthquake, shaking it to its core. This
schism was also observed by contemporaries, with Constantin Bacalbașa

1 Oana Ilie: The National History Museum of Romania from Bucharest,

oana_muzeu@yahoo.com

----------------------- Page 123-----------------------

OANA ILIE
pointing out that “in the midst of the uprising, the inhabitants of Bucharest
are more preoccupied with the scandal of Elena Doamna Asylum or they
peacefully strut to variety theatre shows featuring French cabaret, to
the
cinema or to Sidoli Circus, that advertises « Fights among Ladies »”.
Great changes took place in urbanism and local administration.
Modernization manifested itself through local architectonic and urban
regulations which unified specific aspects of the town. Thus, a planned
expansion took place through the construction of new streets and the
modifications brought to their previous arrangement, the creation
of
recreational spaces and the placement of buildings by taking into account
their surroundings. The organization of a convenient urban
lifestyle,
featuring lighted streets, boulevards, a sewage system and public transport,
was also taken into account.
Artistic life could not be left behind these profound changes in
the
fabric of Romanian society. Following the expansionist trend, theatrical
movement evolved spectacularly. The administration of the Bucharest
National Theatre was forced to readapt to new societal demands due to its
frequent budget deficits by focusing more and more on the original plays of
Romanian dramatists, which inherently led to a preponderance of shows
held in Romanian. One of the densest regulation periods which led to the
modernization of Romanian theatre took place during the directorship of
Al. Davila.
Several theatre groups were created during that time, some
of
ephemeral existence, others responsible for the creation of alternative
performance at the National Theatre. The competition between official
theatre and private establishments could only pave the way for progress. The
tours that took place all around the country, even in the provinces that were
not part of Romania at the beginning of the 20th century, prompted cultural
and social effervescence.

The Grigoriu Theatre Company

The information regarding the company’s inception is incomplete and,

excluding memoirs, heavily sourced in a report forwarded by Constantin A.
Grigoriu to the Administration of the House of Arts in the autumn of 1905.

122

----------------------- Page 124-----------------------

THE STORY OF A STORY: THE GRIGORIU THEATRE COMPANY

Thus, we discover that the first lyrical Romanian troupe was founded in
1903, when 50 artists and their band united in the “Romanian Lyrical Company”
for five years, taking full responsibility of the society’s administration
costs.
Among them were Constantin A. Grigoriu, I. Băjenaru, N. Leonard, Elena
Leonard, N. Niculescu-Buzău, Ionel Cigallia, Madeleine Sion, Anna Grand,
Cr. Ștefănescu, Al. Gheorghiu, M. Fotino, Olga Culitza, Luisa Ferari, Adela
Marinescu, Zoe Orban, Vasilichiea Dumitrescu, Anicuța Popescu, Elena
Berlescu, Eliza Ionescu, Ștefania Călinescu, Paula Ionescu, Leontina Ioanid,
Ch. Ionescu, V. Grigoriu, Sv. Picvan, D. Marinescu, E. Pethen, E. Nedelcu, V.
Gh. Oboini, Eugenia Stelescu, D-tru Popescu, A. Luigi, C. Iliescu and others.
The artist N. Niculescu-Buzău recounts the tale of the company’s
founding in his memoirs: “Right after the season ended, Mihail Stere came
to me and proposed that I sign a contract for next summer. I told him
I
don’t want to become a part of such a deal with another fifty, sixty people.
« You can gild me in gold and I wouldn’t do it. I’m used to a small group,
but not this madness! ». Then C. Grigoriu offered to take Oteteleșanu Park
for next summer.”2

Fig. 1: The Grigoriu Company, first decade of the XXth century

2 N. Niculescu-Buzău, Suveniruri teatrale, (Bucarest: E.S.P.L.A., 1956), 113

123

----------------------- Page 125-----------------------

OANA ILIE

During the epoch, the group’s choice to perform at Oteteleșanu

terrace was considered unwise. Over the years, Velimir Maximilian wrote:
“Renting this place had many thinking that Grigoriu’s idea is a
stillborn.
Oteteleşanu Park was unknown. It had only been used for a couple of
parties thrown by Bucharest’s aristocrats. There was also a rumor that the
park’s vegetation was a health hazard. The meaner-spirited said that
alongside the park entry ticket, spectators should also buy a ticket for the
Techirghiol mud baths. Rheumatism was a sure thing… People also said
that the park was so damp and cold, that the owner of Tomek restaurant
(that stood where Estrade Theatre is today) never bought ice in the
summer. He would tie the wine bottles with rope, lower them into the park

3
and lift them frozen after a minute.”

Fig. 2: Postcard with the Oteteleșanu Terrace and Summer Theatre

3 Velimir Maximilian, Evocări, (Bucarest: Editura Meridiane, 1962), 90

124

----------------------- Page 126-----------------------

THE STORY OF A STORY: THE GRIGORIU THEATRE COMPANY

In his paper titled “Romanian Theatre”, Ioan Massoff proposes the

following people as part of the founding troupe: tenors I. Băjenaru, Al.
Bărcănescu, C. Stănescu-Cerna, bass D. Theodorescu, artists G. Niculescu-
Basu, Velimir Maximilian, N. Niculescu-Buzău, N.P. Ciucurette, G. Carussy,
Ion Cigallia, Margareta Dan, Elena Teodorescu, Aura Mihăilescu, Virginia
Micioara, Leontina Ioanid, Ana Grand, band leaders O. Spirescu and I.
Neuwirth, directors N. Elinescu and G. Dimitriu-Mitu. He is also the one to
record the season’s opening performance of The Princess from Canari (music
by Charles Lecocq), which took place at Oteteleșanu terrace, on the 23rd
of
June 1904, with Nae Ciucurette, Ion Băjenaru, N. Niculescu-Buzău, G.
Carussy, Velimir Maximilian, Leontina Ioanid, Anna Grand in the main
roles. In his memoir, Velimir Maximilian claims that the performance took
place on the 26th of June, “two times thirteen, said the superstitious”. It seems
that these credulous fears were justified- the play wasn’t as successful
as
planned, and after a second performance that failed to engage the audience,
it was definitively removed from the repertoire.
The newly-created troupe would perform at Oteteleșanu terrace
during the summer and at the Bucharest National Theatre during the winter,
or in various establishments around the country (in Galați, Brăila, Iași,
Craiova), collecting “praise for Romanian talent”, as C-tin Grigoriu writes in
his memoir; Ioan Massoff states that performances also took place in the
Lyrical and Modern (formerly known as Edison) Theatres.
Because the play that had been chosen for the debut was a nonsuccess,
Grigoriu decided to continue the season with Spring Wind (music by Joseph
Strauss) featuring N. Leonard, Carussy, Leontina Ioanid, Al. Bărcănescu,
Margareta Dan and N. Niculescu-Buzău. I. Massoff
also recalls a
performance of The Fairytale with the Princess from the Dream (Al. Davila) in
the Cotroceni garden, on the 21st of May, 1904, with Princess Maria playing
the Princess from the Dream. 4
Shows such as The Vagabonds, The Model, Boccaccio, Races-barbecues!, The
Gypsy King, Sweet Girlies, The Drum Major’s Daughter, Crispino, The
Tittle-
Tattler were added to the debut season’s repertoire list.5

4 Ioan Massoff, Teatrul Românesc (vol. IV), (Bucarest: Editura Minerva, 1972), xx
5 see Vera Molea, Teatrele din grădinile de vară ale Bucureștilor de
altădată, (Bucarest: Editura
Biblioteca Bucureștilor, 2011), 71 and Nicușor Constantinescu, “Cu Elena Mavrodi
despre ea și
alții”, în Rampa, 1926, apud Vera Molea, “Constantin Grigoriu și începuturile
operei române” in
https://historia.ro/sectiune/general/articol/constantin-grigoriu-si-inceputurile-
operetei-
romanesti.
125

----------------------- Page 127-----------------------

OANA ILIE

Fig. 3: The artists N. Leonard and his wife, Elena Leonard

At the end of the first season, in September, Grigoriu disbands

the
troupe only to reunite it one year later, after having recruited new
talent,
among which Leonard. They perform The Wizards of the Nile (translation by
Paul Gusty), Roam the World, The New-York Beauty (Sidney), and The Happy
Heirs (Winterberg)6. Elena Mavrodi recalls the Company’s activity in 1905.
“On the 20th of September 1905 we went on tour. (…) During those
times,
actors would travel in first class train carriages and stay in one town for a
week to play about 14-15 different vaudevilles. We were in Brăila and Galați
for a month. 21 days were spent in Iași. 15 days in Botoșani, and in Craiova
another month. (…) In Iași, for instance, our arrival was considered as
important as a holiday. The ladies would prepare the outfits they would

6 N. Niculescu-Buzău, Suveniruri teatrale, 113

126

----------------------- Page 128-----------------------

THE STORY OF A STORY: THE GRIGORIU THEATRE COMPANY

flaunt at premiers ahead of time. Back then, theatres were like racing booths:
real fashion shows. But Grigoriu disbanded the company at Christmas. Its
administration was taken over by Niculescu-Buzău and Leonard, who
remained until the 23rd 7
of April.”
There were two reasons behind the disbanding of the group during the
long tours of winter: some of the company’s stars signed contracts with the
National Theatre and would start work there in October, while the others
had no place of their own in which to perform during the cold season. Very
few places were suitable for theatre/opera/vaudeville: the National Theatre,
The Lyrical Theatre and the Modern Theatre, whose rent fees were much too
expensive for a debuting company. But…It was all for the best. The tours
contributed to the popularization of vaudeville in the countryside and
helped animate artistic and social life wherever Grigoriu’s company would
settle down for a while.
No more relevant information about Grigoriu’s troupe is to be found in
the archives until the record of autumn 1905. Upon a closer inspection,
it
becomes clear that it was no easy feat to be an artist at the commencement of
the past century; regardless of how assiduously the members tried to survive
solely by way of the profession they had dedicated themselves to with pride
and passion, state subventions given to theatres were necessary to ensure that
Constantin A. Grigoriu’s company would remain on the market. “No matter
how many sacrifices the private initiative makes, it is fighting a difficult battle
for the progress of theatrical music against the hindrances fatally encountered
in our country.”8 In order to support his enterprise, C-tin A. Grigoriu
also
made a presentation of the history of the vaudeville theatre movement, whose
debut he places in 1884, when the first attempts to introduce Opera and
vaudeville in Romania were made and the first valuable performers emerged,
“transcendent in the glory of our people and beyond borders”9 .
The private initiative had an important role in the
advent and
evolution of vaudeville theatre, which was initially supported by the
state
through subventions. The Minister of Education, Take Ionescu, offered a

7 Nicușor Constantinescu, “Cu Elena Mavrodi despre ea și alții”, în Rampa, 1926,

apud Vera
Molea, “Constantin Grigoriu și începuturile operei române” in
https://historia.ro/sectiune/general/articol/constantin-grigoriu-si-
inceputurile-operetei-
romanesti.
8 Serviciul Arhive Naționale Istorice Centrale (SANIC), a fund of the
Ministry of Arts,
dossier 147/ 1906, f. 139
9 Ibidem

127

----------------------- Page 129-----------------------

OANA ILIE

subvention of 20.000 lei in 1895 for the Romanian Opera and Vaudeville,
which later on grew to be 40.000 lei. “A whole movement, a true
artistic
event has its foundation stone in this attempt. While the private initiative has
made titanic efforts, never backing down from any sacrifice, it could
only
accomplish what was possible; and when all possibilities were exhausted, the
authority responsible for the protection of intellectual and artistic movements

10
comes in with the rescue boat.”
Despite the fact that during the directorship of Wachmann
the
Romanian Opera and Vaudeville made progress, the dissolution of the
Opera compromised the future of a brilliant group of young Romanian
artists. The subventions that were given up until that point to the
Opera
were now redirected towards foreign troupes. “Here we are then in front of
the following painting: a national castle full of riches, with sumptuous
dining tables, sheltering and feeding foreigners, while out the windows one
might notice prurient Romanian artists with 20 years of work as capital and
scores of talented graduates of our Conservatories. Performance made the
Romanian heart bleed and that was when we rebuilt our society, once more
thanks to private initiative, under the leadership of the distinguished

11
master G. Ștefănescu.”
After sending in an official statement to the Directorate of Arts, C-tin A.
Grigoriu writes an account to the Ministry of Public Instruction through which
he motivates his refusal to solicit subvention: “It would be the worst gesture
towards art and the taste of the general public, already tainted, to
ease the
lingering of vaudevilles that are, in their vast majority, null, or even
distasteful,
from both a musical and literary perspective.”12 A solution is also
agreed
upon, conditioning Mr. Grigoriu to respect certain commitments towards
the ministry regarding his troupe, its repertoire and its performance style.
While these undertakings were ongoing, Constantin A. Grigoriu sent a
statement to the ministry through which he solicited to become manager of
the Opera for five years, commencing with the 1907 season, so as to
offer
comical opera and vaudeville shows at Bucharest National Theatre (for three
months, during winter) and in the countryside for the remainder of the year.
It wasn’t only the need for money that prompted Grigoriu to take this step
(although subvention was about 20.000 lei annually), but also the fact that Al.
Davila, director of the National Theatre, asked him to renounce concessions
he had in the building.

10 Ibidem
11 Ibidem
12 SANIC, a fund of the Ministry of Arts, dossier 147/ 1906, f. 134

128

----------------------- Page 130-----------------------

THE STORY OF A STORY: THE GRIGORIU THEATRE COMPANY

After having left the National Theatre, Grigoriu’s troupe (Margareta

Dan, Elena Leonard, Florica Florescu, Ana Grand, Virginia Miciora,
Leontina Ioanid, Ana Berlescu, Ioan Băjenaru, N. Leonard, Vasile Toneanu,
C-tin Tănase, Alexandru Catopol, N. Niculescu-Buzău, Ionel Cigallia,
Grigore Petrovicescu, Mişu Ştefănescu) performs the following vaudevilles
at Oteteleşanu terrace: The Washwoman’s Daughter, The Gypsy King, Virgin
Asylum, If I’d be King, Boccaccio, Clereta Concentrating, Danger, Voyage
to
China, The Mascot, Sweet Girlie, Ragamuffin, Races-barbecues, Small Mouth
to
Sample, Spring Wind. Seeing how Leonard had gone to Paris to study the
performances being held over there, Grigoriu opts for comedies instead of
vaudevilles. After Vasile Toneanu from the National Theatre joins the
group, they stage A Debauchery and Ștrul Nuță. Seeing how these fail to be
successful Grigoriu decides they should opt for The Merry Widow. The first
performances that happened during Leonard’s absence did not attract great
audiences, so the group went back to comedies.

Fig. 4: Three of the important artists of the Grigoriu Company: Velimir

Maximilian,
G. Carussy and N. P. Ciucurette

129

----------------------- Page 131-----------------------

OANA ILIE

Not even a year had passed from the world premiere of The Merry
Widow at the Theater der Wien, when on the 18th of August 1906 it was
staged by the company with Leonard as the lead and music by Franz Lehar.
After his performance in this show, he would thenceforth be known as “the
prince of opera”. On the other hand, Leonard’s success was overshadowed
by Maximilian, Ciucurette and Carussy’s catastrophic decision to leave the
troupe to act at Blanduzia Garden. The “divorce” was not an amiable one,
and it seemed to have been rooted in a conflict between C-tin Grigoriu and
Ciucurette. Despite all this, the three stars would return a year later.
In the year of their factionalism, C-tin Tănase stars in
Boccaccio, Sibyl
and Air Girl alongside N. Leonard and Lucreția Brezeanu.
After the arrival of autumn, the tour is on the brink of recommencing
and it is decided that it should take place between September 1906 and
January 1907, featuring a repertoire which consisted of The Merry Widow,
The Charm of a Waltz, Three Wishes and The Island of Flowers. The
actual
debut happened on the 15th of October 1906, with week-long performances
in Brăila, Galați, Craiova and three days of shows in Roman, Bârlad, Bacău,
Focșani, Buzău, Ploiești. In Iași, no suitable venue was available and thus
the troupe returned to Bucharest.13 Wanting to prolong the tour, certain
artists decided to form smaller troupes (with members from Grigoriu’s
company) so as to continue performing in towns where Grigoriu’s group
hadn’t been. It is the case of the „Niculescu-Buzău – N. Leonard” troupe,
that performed in Vaslui, Râmnicu-Sărat, Mizil, Târgu-Jiu, Drăgășani,
Râmnicu-Vâlcea, Turnu-Măgurele.
Niculescu-Buzău recounts about the show in Turnu-Măgurele: “We
got there (…) on the 25th of February 1907. The whole venue had only 200
seats. We started our first show with “The Bird Hunter”. Full house. First act
goes by. During the break, people step out for a smoke (…). We change the
décor and announce the beginning of the second act. We ring once,
twice,
thrice, but nobody comes back in. What could it be? How strange! Nobody
returns to the venue. (…) Then what do they tell me? They tell me that the
peasants around Alexandria city had raided the town and left it devastated,
especially certain manors of near-by estates. The people had run back to their
homes. (…) We went to the hotel too. (…) We stayed in Turnu-Măgurele for
15 days without performing. In the meantime, the conservatives
had
surrendered the reigns of the government to the liberals (…).” The peasant
uprising happened while they were in Turnu-Măgurele.

13 N. Niculescu-Buzău, Suveniruri teatrale, 131.

130

----------------------- Page 132-----------------------

THE STORY OF A STORY: THE GRIGORIU THEATRE COMPANY

Many peasants were hit by the horsemen’s swords or spears, and

some were trampled by the horses. I was an eye-witness to
this
terrible carnage; I observed this barbaric response the
authorities
thought best to offer to those demanding their rights (…)14

Fig. 5: The cover of the Minerva calendar, from 1912, illustrated with
the
photographs of the artists Florica Cristoforeanu, Oscar Spireanu,
Elena Apăteanu and C. Grigoriu.

14 Ibidem, p. 132-133.

131

----------------------- Page 133-----------------------

OANA ILIE

C-tin Grigoriu returns to his pursuit of the management position at the

opera with a more detailed offer in March 1907.To receive this concession, he
promises to hire Romanian artists, the only exception in the case of foreign
staff additions being celebrities; he plans to offer job stability to performers
by signing contracts binding for 11 months a year, to perform opera, comical
opera and vaudeville, to self-finance production costs (décor, costumes etc.),
to have his own venue for rehearsals in Bucharest (The Lyrical Theatre)
where he will also perform a minimum of 40 times during the winter (thus
ceasing to bother the National Theatre performers with his
rehearsal
schedule, as he had done before). He proposed a troupe of minimum 40
Romanian artists, with the possibility of expanding this team through the
 15
creation of a ballet group.
For a concession of five years (the maximum period), Grigoriu’s offer
stipulated a performance season in Bucharest at the Lyrical Theatre between

th st
st
the 15 of January and the 1 of April, a summer schedule between the 1 of
May and the 1st of September and four months in the countryside (Iași,
Craiova etc.). He also took it upon himself to offer an annual prize
for a
Romanian dramatic piece and to hire the four top graduates of
the
Conservatory every year. 16As a possible repertoire, he had nominated the
plays Zaza, Hoffman’s Stories, Orpheus in Hell, A Thousand and One Nights, A
Dream of a Waltz, The Student-Beggar (a novelty) and as artists, for the opera
he proposed: Băjenaru (tenor), Alexiu (bass),
Petrovicescu (baritone),
Ghimpețeanu (baritone) and the ladies Natalia Otta, Herescu, Mary Dan, El.
Leonard; for vaudeville: Anna Grand, B. Movilă, Aur. Maximilian, Teodoru,
V. Maximilian, Carussy, Ciucurette, Leonard, Al. Gheorghiu, Al. Ștefănescu.
In addition to them, there was also a choir of 30 people, the
vaudeville
orchestra, made up of 24 people, the opera orchestra– 30-35 people; the ballet
consisted of a foreign master, 2 main ballet dancers (also foreign) and 12-16

17
Romanian pupils.
When this offer was defined, the Romanian Lyrical Company had 70
employees, most of which were graduates of the
Bucharest or Iași
Conservatory; they performed vaudevilles, operas and comical operas in
Romanian, having a repertoire of 40 plays. In addition, Grigoriu’s troupe did
not survive on the state’s subventions, even if it had received certain sums
from the ministry.

15 SANIC, a fund of the Ministry of Arts, dossier 147/ 1906, f. 140

16 SANIC, a fund of the Ministry of Cults and Public Instruction, dossier 2250/
1907, f. 3
17 Ibidem.

132

----------------------- Page 134-----------------------

THE STORY OF A STORY: THE GRIGORIU THEATRE COMPANY

In the cultural scenery of 1907, a proposition even more

outrageous
than Grigoriu’s insinuates itself, asking for the reinstatement of
the
Romanian Opera within Bucharest National Theatre (BNT). Among the
people who signed this document, dated May 15th 1907, there is also
conductor George Stephănescu (the founder of the BNT opera troupe). The
motivation behind this endeavour is important to our study because it sheds
light on the beginnings of Romanian opera and vaudeville. The first attempts
to found a national Opera go back to 1873; a first season of
performances
took place in 1885, with the famous Adelina Patti invited to star in Traviata,
but their success was short lived because of rather subjective reasons: the
star was sometimes “welcomed” and other times “shunned” from BNT. In
addition, the inflation of shows (that were low-quality because of insufficient
rehearsals, a problem prominent among Romanian artists), the great number
of artists brought in from abroad (whose fees directly influenced the
high
cost of shows) and the placement of Romanian artists in supporting roles
caused the demise of this type of performances and the disappearance of
Romanian Opera.18
In an attempt to meet the public’s opera and vaudeville needs, artists
reverted to managed troupes through which they could request
state
subventions according to the theatre law under the pretext that Romanians
performed in them. Because this solution was unsatisfactory, a large segment
of artists solicited the reinstatement of the opera, motivating their gesture by
invoking their need for stability and for the creation of a job market for the
graduates of the Conservatory (seven classes in Iași and one in
Bucharest
every study cycle).
This movement remains unheard during the epoch; the ministry chose
to focus on the managed troupes, which seemed much more profitable at the
time. Grigoriu’s offer was not unique. The atmosphere was that of “bidding”,
with several people sending in workbooks recording their responsibilities in
exchange for the ministry’s subvention.
Thus, in exchange for the subvention, Spirescu and Feder pledged to
hire a troupe of Romanian artists to perform 3-4 plays in Romanian (for
example, The Rustic Cavalry, Rigoletto), to invite lady Olympia Mărculescu
from the Grand Opera of Paris to perform with them, to bring over a
complete troupe for dramatic opera made up of first rank Italian artists and
to hire the choirs and orchestras of the ministry. Because they had no venue

18 Ibidem, f. 5-7

133

----------------------- Page 135-----------------------

OANA ILIE

at their disposal, they proposed a rent of 200 lei/night for the 1907-
08’
performance season and separate payment for illumination expenses, heating
and maintenance; later on, the rent would be calculated proportionally to their
subvention. They solicited the concurrence of BNT, which was supposed to

19
offer them a venue and access to costumes and music sheets.
Franassovici (who had been manager during the 1906-07’ season) had
an offer which encapsulated a rent of 4000 lei/ month for lighting, heating,
miscellaneous services, costumes, décor, props, a troupe with “most superior
elements” (which included famous foreign artists such as Luisa Tatrazzini,
Hariclea Darclée, Edoardo Garbin, Mattia Battistini, Arturo Franceschini)
and three shows a week between the 15th of October and the 15th of
November. He pledged that the ballet (excluding the soloists) and choir

20
would consist only of Romanians.
The fourth offer belongs to colonel D. Gheorghe and contains similar
elements: annual performance season between the 20th of October and the
20th of November with three shows a week (Monday, Wednesday, and
Friday), a repertoire of masterpieces, preponderantly Romanian personnel.
He was also lacking a venue and costumes, but proposed that the costs of
décor and costumes be covered by the Opera, despite the props remaining
property of BNT. Furthermore, in exchange for an annual growth of the
five year subvention, he promised to stage Eduard Caudella’s Petru Rareș
again and to showcase a new Romanian opera annually beginning with
1909, provided that there was “a Romanian composer such as Enescu or
Stephănescu to write it”21 . A report was later on attached to this
offer
announcing that the famous manager Jean Feder had been chosen as head
of the administration (he had organized some of the most accomplished

22
performances of the past years) .
All of the above-mentioned offers were analyzed at the ministry
by
Ștefan Sihleanu, who wrote in his report that of all propositions, “the most
acceptable one belongs to Mr. Grigoriu, with certain modifications, because
the troupe employs many Romanian artists, the vast majority of whom have
graduated the Conservatory. It has a choir and a ballet. Unlike other groups,
this one is cohesive due to many years of collaborative work. Because
this
troupe has seniority, its members do not squander their time and efforts to
look for other sources of income. He won important points by pledging to

19 SANIC, a fund of the Ministry of Cults and Public Instruction, dossier 2250/
1907, f. 10
20 Ibidem, f.14
21 Ibid, f.15
22 Ibid, f.16

134

----------------------- Page 136-----------------------

THE STORY OF A STORY: THE GRIGORIU THEATRE COMPANY

perform around the country, thus contributing to the diffusion of

artistic
inclinations.” It mattered just as much that he had taken it upon himself to
hire Romanian artists, graduates of the Conservatory, but the most important
aspect was the fact that he had access to the Lyrical Theatre.23
After receiving this report, the Ministry announced the Grigorescu
Company that it had received a three year concession according to their
conditions, but with the following modifications: out of 40 performances, a
minimum of 25 needed to be comical opera shows; the tickets for shows
featuring foreign artists could not exceed a 50% addition to normal BNT fees;
there should be one performance free of charge at one of the three national
theatres in order to support the provisional fund for said theatres’ dramatic
artists; a number of representations would be held in Iași and Craiova; in the
case of extraordinary performances at the BNT, they would have to pay 250

24
lei/evening rent.
On the 6th of September 1907, C-tin Grigoriu answers the official notice,
stating that “I partially accept the conditions proffered” and annexes a
contract proposition based on his offer, integrating the changes requested by
the ministry. The differences between his version and that of the ministry are
minor; Grigoriu stipulates in the contract that he will pay 200lei/
evening
rent (not the requested 250), that he will negotiate the price of tickets with the
ministry when it comes to celebrity performances, noting that they must take
into account the artist’s honorary fee, and that the BNT should not be
allowed to rent the venue while they perform (even if at the Lyrical Theatre),

25
so as not to create unwanted competition.
During C-tin Grigoriu’s epistolary exchange with the ministry, the
troupe (consisting of Ioan Băjenaru, N. Leonard, V. Maximilian, N. Ciucurette,
N. Soreanu, G. Carussy, Grigore Petrovicescu, Al. Gheorghiu,
Marietta
Ionaşcu, Margareta Dan, Ana Grand, Elena Leonard,
Elena Mavrodi)
continues to perform the shows The Ghost of Dâmboviţa River, Artist’s Strings
(Edmund Eysler), The Merry Widow (Lehar), Races-barbecues, The King of
Hunters (Lehar) featuring N.P. Ciucurette, The Happy Heirs featuring N.
Soreanu, The Vagabonds, Sweet Girlie, The Opera’s Ball (V. Leon, Walberg), The
Bat (Johann Strauss the son) featuring N. Leonard, Elena Leonard, Margareta
Dan, V. Maximilian, Marietta Ionaşcu, and Nini at Oteteleşanu terrace.26

23 SANIC, a fund of the Ministry of Cults and Public Instruction, dossier 2250/
1907, f.29-30
24 Ibid, f.28
25 Ibid, f.33
26 Ioan Massoff, Teatrul Românesc (vol. IV), (Bucarest: Editura Minerva, 1972)

135

----------------------- Page 137-----------------------

OANA ILIE

Fig. 6: The artists Elena Leonard and Florica Florescu

 In the summer of 1907, Maximilian, Leonard and Vasile Soreanu go
to Vienna to study Viennese opera. They return at the beginning of fall and
join the Company’s tour in Ia și alongside Marieta Ionașcu, Florica Florescu,
Margareta Dan, Elena Mavrodi, Ana Grand, Ion Băjenaru, Ciucurette,
Carussy, Gheorghiu, Petrovicescu. The first performance took place at Sidoli
Circus on the 20th of September. Thereafter, the tour was extended
(there
were no openings at the Lyrical Theatre) and shows were also held in Bârlad,
Focșani, Bacău, Roman, Botoșani and Craiova.
A new name made its way in Grigoriu’s troupe: Florica Florescu. She
left an impression on C-tin Grigoriu while performing at the Craiova
Theatre. When speaking about her meeting with Grigoriu, the artist said: “It
wasn’t just the pay that seduced me. He dictated dignified conditions
and
described perspectives to me; he showed me a theatrical soul of a kind I had
never seen before. To me, he was an embodiment of the ideal dramatist and
that sensation never left me while we worked together. As a director,
Grigoriu was admirable. I’m convinced that if he would be alive today,

136

----------------------- Page 138-----------------------

THE STORY OF A STORY: THE GRIGORIU THEATRE COMPANY

vaudeville would be alive in our country. He always encouraged young

elements and gave them opportunities to prove their worth, but what’s most
important is that he was keen on discovering them. This is what vaudeville
desperately needs: youth.”27
Once they returned to Bucharest, the Company’s artists opened the
first winter performance season at the end of January 1908 with A Thousand
and One Nights (Johann Strauss), The Charm of a Waltz, The Sold Bride
(Smetana), Hoffman’s Stories (Offenbach), Don Pasquale (Donizetti), Cio-cio-san
(Puccini), Hansel and Gretel (Humperfing) and Werther (Massenet). For these
shows, Natalia Otto, Mihail Nasta, Liviu Macedonescu, Andrei Niculescu

28
st
and Gr. Alexiu were hired. The normal season was opened on the 31
of
May with The Charm of a Waltz and continued with Artist’s Strings, The Gypsy
King, The Little Princess, The Merry Widow, Lumpatius Vagabondus, Parisian Life,
Him and Her, Voyage to Africa, The Bat, The King of Hunters etc.
The humoristic magazine Furnica wrote about the troupe’s success:
“because we predict an avalanche of music lovers come to say good bye to
the artists that enchanted them all summer, Mr. Grigoriu ought to
install
some hammocks in the trees, otherwise the audience won’t fit, no matter
how vast Oteteleșanu park. A performance such as this one ought to take
place in the Bărăgan fields, but there’s still a chance that even there people
would complain that it’s too crowded.”29
During the next season, with the same troupe as in 1908 (Velimir
Maximilian, Nicolae Leonard, Nae Ciucurette, Gogu Carussy, Grigore
Petrovicescu, Const. Stănescu-Cerna, Nicolae Soreanu, Marietta Ionaşcu,
Anna Grand, Virginia Miciora, Elena Teodorescu-Leonard, Elena Apăteanu),
shows such as Hussars during Maneuvers, The Merry Widow, The Dollar
Princess, Night in Vienna, Artists’ Strings, The Bat, The Charm of a Waltz and
After the Divorce were staged. Because the Lyrical Theatre was now owned by
Leon Popescu, the season of 1909-1910 took place at the Modern Theatre.
That same year, to avoid another 1906 moment, when the company’s
biggest stars chose to perform separately from the troupe, C-tin Grigoriu
asked Leonard, Ciucurette and Maximilian to become partners in
the
company’s administration. Another turning point would present itself in

27 Nicuşor Constantinescu, „Cu Florica Florescu despre ea și despre alții”, Rampa,

year XIII,
no. 3226, 22 October 1928
28 Velimir Maximilian, Evocări, (Bucarest: Editura Meridiane, 1962), 124
29 Furnica, year IV, 11th of September 1908

137

----------------------- Page 139-----------------------

OANA ILIE

1912. Leonard wanted to be featured in operas and threatened Grigoriu with

his resignation if he wouldn’t comply with his requests. The only one
supporting him was Velimir Maximilian, while the other artists were openly
against the idea, considering the whole ordeal too risky. “Poor Grigoriu had
been caught between two stools. He was always putting things off. Even if
he was Leonard’s godfather for his first marriage, he still couldn’t tell him
that his voice wasn’t suited for opera.”30 A streak of unexpected luck came...
straight from Leonard, who, dealing with vocal indisposition, gave up his
aspirations for opera.
Sadly, the story was coming to an end. In 1913, after the commencement
of the second Balkan War, Grigoriu decided to disband the troupe because
the conflict with Bulgaria was seen as a state of emergency in which contracts
became meaningless. Left leaderless, the group chose Velimir Maximilian as
its new manager. His “directorship” was off to a rocky start because in 1914,
a short while after the death of the troupe’s founder, Florica Florescu, Nae
Ciucurette and Carussy definitively left the company to act at Blanduzia
Garden alongside Anna Grand, Marioara Cinski and Stănescu-Cerna in
Carussy’s newly created group.
Even if Maximilian adapted quickly, replacing those who had resigned
with Anny Aurian, Natalia Macri, Zizi Roșianu and George Timică and
working on the shows that were most popular during the epoch, he did not
manage to rent out Oteteleșanu garden anymore (their place had been taken
by Grigore Gabrilescu’s troupe). In its attempted survival, the
group
organized a tour in Constanța (during which Carussy had returned). The
losses vastly overweighed the winnings. Without taking into account the
financial point of view, at the end of their contract with the
Constanța
Casino, many artists asked to be let go and refused to go back to Bucharest.
With plenty of stand-ins and no orchestra (which had remained in Constanța
to play), the group went to Brăila. They then performed in Galați, Bârlad and
Focșani. The troupe was becoming smaller as the days went by (recruitments
had also begun and many of the artists were called upon to defend
their
country). The audience was becoming smaller too.
The remaining members returned to Bucharest to prepare the following
season’s performances. In August 1916, after the German troops had occupied
the capital, shows in summer gardens were banned. They begin again one
year later, but the genre had already started to slowly fade into
obscurity.

30 Velimir Maximilian, Evocări, 171.

138

----------------------- Page 140-----------------------

THE STORY OF A STORY: THE GRIGORIU THEATRE COMPANY

During the First World War, the Grigoriu Company did not seek shelter in
retreats, bur chose instead to lift the spirits of occupied Bucharest. Many of
their shows were removed from the advertisements by German censorship.
The troupe itself had become a ghost of its former glory, with Maximilian and
Leonard the only remaining members from the original formation.

Fig. 7: The Square in front of the National Theatre with the Oteteleșanu
Terrace
in the background, on the right, 1915.

At the end of the war, a new type of theatre, which had

become
extremely significant when it came to raising the morale of the troops and
the wounded, started gaining more and more admirers. This was variety
theatre, in which Constantin Tănase excelled. The shift in the preferences of
the masses naturally led to the disappearance of the Grigoriu Company,
whose activity is said to have ended in 1923, when Velimir Maximilian
joined the Bulandra Company. Last man standing, Leonard attempts to
resuscitate the genre by founding his own company.

139

----------------------- Page 141-----------------------

OANA ILIE

By comparing the lists of artists belonging to the troupe, one

can
notice a permanent fluctuation in members, even if the nucleus-group was
maintained for a long period of time. Thus, one of the founding members,
tenor N. Niculescu-Buzău, started his own troupe as early as the summer of
1907 (alongside Cazimir Belcot, G. Achile, Mişu Fotino, Olga Culitza, Mişu
Ştefănescu, C. B. Penel, Al. Demetrescu-Dan, Avram Nicolau, Pepi Moor,
Jenny Ioanid, Alexandrina Alexandrescu, Betina Săvulescu and others),
performing at Ambassadors Garden and
in cross-country tours.31
Furthermore, at the end of every season, the artists were free to perform in
other troupes or to go on tours.

Fig. 8: The artists N. Leonard and Fig. 9: The

artists V. Maximilian and
Florica Christoforeanu
N.P. Ciucurette

31 Cervatiuc Ștefan, Istoria teatrului la Botoșani. 1848-1944, vol. II

(1900-1924), Editura
Quadrat, Botoșani, 2010, 73

140

----------------------- Page 142-----------------------

THE STORY OF A STORY: THE GRIGORIU THEATRE COMPANY

Because the reputed journalist and theatre specialist Ioan Massoff, born
in the year of Grigoriu Company’s debut, chose to rely on
statistics
(members, repertoire), giving less importance to the characters of theatre
history about which he wrote during the inter-war period, we shall try
to
trace a portrait of the troupe’s members using memorial pieces, the press and
the literature of the time.
Who actually was Constantin Grigoriu? There is very few information
archived about him. He is mentioned in a file from 1924, in a centralization
sheet of Romanian artists titled “Synoptic Representation of Drama, Comedy,
Tragedy and Musical Artists that Have Graced the Romanian Stages from 1819
to present”; in the entry corresponding to his name one can read
“1877”,
“Bucharest”, “light tenor and director”. The dating is done in the
column
generically titled “Epoch”, from which we can deduce when his debut took
place.

Fig. 10: The artists Maximilian and Fig. 11:

The artists V. Micioara and
Florica Florescu
N. Leonard
141

----------------------- Page 143-----------------------

OANA ILIE

Born in Iași on the 11th of May 1866, Grigoriu was “discovered”

by
Gavril Muzicescu, who included him in the choir at 9 years of
age.
Passionate about music, he studied opera at the Iași Conservatory (1884-
1886) and transferred to the one in Bucharest in 1887. After graduation, he
was hired as a tenor by the Bucharest National Theatre. He also performed
with private vaudeville troupes alongside actors Ion Brezeanu, Petre Liciu,
Lucreția Brezeanu (in Nicu Poenaru’s group) and in Grigore Gabrielescu’s
troupe. He was a soloist in G. Stephănescu’s lyrical company.
He was also a talented writer, responsible for two extremely successful
pieces of the epoch: “The Fairy of the Carpathians” and “Don’ Vagmistru”.
He wrote for many publications of his time and taught at the Pompilian
Institute. His activity was not restricted to Bucharest, but also encompassed
the countryside, Iași, Craiova and Chișinău, “across the border”.
In a history of Romanian ballet, Grigoriu is named as a founding figure
due to the ballet group within his company. His even bigger merit was
attempting to create a ballet school and associating with Oscar Schmidt
in
order to see it through. The choreography school was opened in 1908,
but
there was not much interest among young ladies. As proof, a surviving
postcard sent to Grigoriu on the 29th of October 1908 by Oscar Schmidt
informs him that the girls do not enroll for classes because they don’t see the
point of them as long as there is no job security. A proposed solution was
hiring the young trainees at the Lyrical Theatre.32
1908 was a year rich in significant events in the history of
C-tin
Grigoriu and the Romanian Lyrical Company. This was also the year in
which their first international tour took place, with leading figures V.
Miciora, N. Leonard, Elena Leonard and V. Maximilian performing two very
well-received shows in Chișinău.33
Constantin Grigoriu was also a grand talent scout, with people such as
Nicolae Leonard, Velimir Maximilian, Ciucurette, Carussy and Florica
Florescu unbreakably bound to the name of the Girgoriu Company. He also
contributed to the formation of a generation of vaudeville singers such
as
Florica Cristoforeanu, Elena Drăgulinescu-Stinghe and Virginia Miciora, who
became some of the greatest Romanian lyrical artists.

32 see “Baletul în România, considerații istorice (1)” pe

http://baletromania.ro/baletul-in-romania-
consideratii-istorice
33 Traian Ichim, “Evoluția fenomenului operistic în Basarabia la începutul
secolului al XX-lea”, in
Intertext, 1-2/ 2016, 289.

142
----------------------- Page 144-----------------------

THE STORY OF A STORY: THE GRIGORIU THEATRE COMPANY

When Grigoriu left the troupe’s directorship in 1913, this revealed to the
remaining members that aside from his uncontested talent, he had been an
extraordinary leader and the only element to keep them together for so many
years. Later on, Velimir Maximilian would confess that during those moments
it was hard for them to accept that “vaudeville was Grigoriu himself”.
This is the story of the Grigoriu Company, although we must
admit
that the story of a story cannot come to an end without some lines dedicated
to the artists that were part of this outstanding group. Sadly, the
only
information available about most of them is but their name, listed in the cast
list of a show at the beginning of the past century.

References

BACIU, George.”Nicolae Leonard”, Confluențe literare, I (2011).

CERVATIUC, Ștefan. Istoria Teatrului La Botoșani. 1848-1944, Vol.
II (1900-1924).
Botoșani: Editura Quadrat, 2010.
CONSTANTINESCU, Nicușor. “Cu Florica Florescu despre ea și despre alții.” Rampa,
no.
3226 (1928).
DUȚĂ, Monica. Concerte de muzică ilustrate în presa zălăuană interbelică. Caiete
Silvane,
http://www.caietesilvane.ro/articole/2108).
FLOREA, Anca. Opera Română. Primul deceniu. Începuturi. Radio România
Cultural
(25 aprilie 2016),

http://main.radioromaniacultural.ro/pages/view/48338/slug:opera_romana_primul_
deceniu_inceputuri.html.
ICHIM, Traian. “Evoluția Fenomenului Operistic În Basarabia la începutul secolului
al
XX-Lea.” Intertext, no. 1–2 (2016).
MASSOFF, Ioan. Între viață și teatru. București: Editura Minerva, 1983.
MAXIMILIAN, Velimir. Evocări. București: Editura Meridiane, 1962.
MAXIMILIAN, V. “Ani, din cei cincizeci și cinci… Primii mei dascăli în teatru”.
Teatrul,
an I, (august 1956).
MOLEA, Vera. Teatrele din grădinile de vară ale Bucureștilor de altădată.
București: Editura
Biblioteca Bucureștilor, 2011.
-“Constantin Grigoriu Și Începuturile Operei
Române.” Historia, n.d.
https://www.historia.ro/sectiune/general/articol/constantin-grigoriu-si-
inceputurile-
operetei-romanesti.
NICOLESCU, Valeriu. Petcu, Gheorghe. Buzău – Râmnicu Sărat: Oameni de ieri, oameni
de
 azi. Buzău: Alpha MDN, 1999, 477-479.

143

----------------------- Page 145-----------------------

OANA ILIE

NICULESCU-BASU, George. Amintirile unui artist de operă. București: Editura

Muzicală,
1958.
NICULESCU-BUZĂU, N. Suveniruri teatrale. București: E.S.P.L.A., 1956.
PESTREA-SUCIU, Steluța. “Numele mari ale Brașovului. Mișu Fotino”. Monitorul
Expres,
www.monitorulexpres.ro
Familia. Oradea-Mare, an XXXVI, nr. 45 (5/18 noiembrie 1900).
(http://ziarulprahova.ro/2008/11/elena-dragulinescu-stinghe-ii)
“Debutul actoricesc puțin obișnuit al lui Nae Ciucurette”, Realitatea
ilustrată, nr.
678, p. 9.

OANA ILIE is a scientific researcher with a PhD in history. She is

currently the
Head of the Department of Medieval, Modern and Contemporary History of the
The
National History Museum of Romania from Bucharest. She is also editor-in-
chief of
the National Museum magazine. She is the author of several
books: Propaganda
politică. Tipologii și arii de manifestare. (1945-1958) [Political
Propaganda.
Typologies and manifestation areas. (1945-1958)], Târgoviște, Editura
Cetatea
de Scaun, 2014; Maria. Regina… [Mary. The Queen…], București, Muzeul
Național
de Istorie a României, 2013; Cealaltă față a comuniștilor [The Other Face
of the
Communists] (in collaboration with Cornel Constantin Ilie),
București, Oscar Print,
2013 etc.

144

----------------------- Page 146-----------------------

STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA, LXIII, 1, 2018, p. 145 - 162

(Recommended Citation)
DOI:10.24193/subbdrama.2018.1.07

Aesthetic Perspectives in Romanian Theatre

at the End of the First World War

1
 ION CAZABAN

Abstract: The years 1919-1921 were years of nostalgia and imperative claims
for the Romanian stage, years of useful comparisons with the achievements
of the theatrical movements from other countries, of explorations in search
for the best solutions, of enthusiastic impetuses and efforts to reach
lucidity.
This paper looks at the main issues and aesthetic ideas that were manifest
during the controversies provoked by the premieres of several
important
theatrical productions within the above mentioned length of time.
It also
looks at the initiatives of certain cultural associations and at the
discussions
concerning the modern expressiveness of theatre and the creative role of the
theatre director. Special consideration is given to the
program and
achievements of the National Theatre from Bucharest during the
short
period when it was led by the writer Victor Eftimiu. 2

Key words: Romanian theatre, interwar, Bucharest, Victor Eftimiu, aesthetic

ideas

Before the expressionistic enactments of Karl Heinz Martin,

the
experiments attempted by Marioara Voiculescu at Sidoli Circus, Armand
Pascal and B. Fundoianu at “Insula,” Ion Marin Sadoveanu and the “Poesis”
group at the Athenaeum or Șt. I. Nenițescu at the “Teatrul Liber,”
before
Sandu Eliad’s avant-garde demonstrations for “new art,” were the years
1919-1921… These scenic events – which were the turning point of our
theatrical life – cannot find their complete significance in the absence of this
prelude: a summary of both the values of tradition and the innovative
aspirations suppressed or delayed by the war. Since nothing is ever
borne

1 Ion Cazaban: jeancazaban@gmail.com

2 Translated in English by Diana Melnic

----------------------- Page 147-----------------------

ION CAZABAN

out of nothing, 1919-1921 are years of nostalgias and imperative demands, of

useful comparisons and pursuits of necessary solutions, of enthusiastic
impetuses and struggles for lucidity. They are years when, in the turmoil of
its ambitions, the theatre lives with intensity its artistic and
ideological
contradictions. It experiences sharply its practical shortcomings, and yet
it
manifests in multiple preparatory explorations.

Fig. 1: Front page of the Journal Teatrul de Mâine,

Year 1, no 14, 1 March 1919

At the time, much was written about the theatre “of tomorrow,” which
could not be accomplished immediately, for it could no longer be a mere
replay of what was before, but rather a continuation of it. As such, it had to be
thought-out in relation to the social realities imposed after the global conflict,
as well as to our cultural necessities and creative possibilities. A
magazine
actually titled Teatrul de mâine3 (1918-1920) appeared, as its editors declared,

3 “Teatrul de mâine” [“The Theatre of Tomorrow”], Teatrul de mâine I, no. 12,

(January 15, 1919).

146

----------------------- Page 148-----------------------

AESTHETIC PERSPECTIVES IN ROMANIAN THEATRE AT THE END OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

with its “eyes” looking up to the theatre “of tomorrow,” in the hope of at least
creating an auspicious environment for the latter, if not witnessing its
very
becoming. But the theatre “of tomorrow” was nothing more than
one
generated by the present, by atrocious times, and by the
exasperated
sensibility and the violent tendencies of a humanity that had seen
decisive,
tragic experiences4 . Although the magazine would discredit itself – through its
superficial journalistic style, rushed and precarious research, the intrusion of
personal interests upon the artistic ideal, and its declared ethical principles –
it
would assert itself, at the time, through the conversation it initiated regarding
what the theatre of tomorrow ought to have been. A
“sentimentalist”
performance with its “old themes” could no longer impress anyone, except
perhaps some “backward” viewer. Following the bloody clash of the war, the
theatre of tomorrow would be that of social problems, and would aspire to a
simpler, more direct expression, without much artifice. The text – rhetorical
and imperious – was almost a manifesto, probably the first in our theatrical
movement at the time5 . Faced with humanity tried with deep pain, but
determined to cover the traces of the war, the theatre had to shake
off any
glittering embellishment or artifice, which oftentimes seemed hollow and
which would have then come across as indifferent frivolity. Ion Minulescu
also spoke in favour of a familiar, accessible theatre, wherein quotidian
life
could be recognized without any intellectual effort. Although he began from
several incorrect or, at the very least, confusingly formulated, considerations,
and though he amalgamated and rejected, in block, pathological cases, social
issues, moral conflicts, “in futurum” pleas, university lectures and a
grave,
pretentious “quod erat demonstratum” from among the preoccupations
characteristic for theatre, Minulescu chose as a fundamental criterion the
emotional complexity of everyday life, from which theatre should never
depart6. Having spread to other periodicals as well, the discussion commonly
emphasized this criterion of livelihood: seizing any modifications, as well as
the new imperatives of the post-war period, which were not yet properly
understood and for which art – in general – was not only a reflection, but also
a possibility for manifestation and further study. As such, Victor
Eftimiu
wondered whether they should settle things as they were before or confer
upon them a new foundation. For him, the changing preferences of the
4 From the anonymous introduction to Teatrul de Mâine, no. 1, (March 15, 1918).
5 Alexandru Bălăceanu, “Teatrul de mâine,” Teatrul de mâine, no. 1, (March 15,
1918).
6 See “Patetism și dramatism” [“Pathos and Dramatism”] and “Evoluția tehnicei
dramatice”
[“Evolution of the Dramatic Technique”], Revista critică, no. 16, (January 25,
1919), and no.
17, (February 1, 1919).

147

----------------------- Page 149-----------------------

ION CAZABAN

audience were conclusive, while the first to crash in their wake were
the
theatre “technicians,” the connoisseurs of recipes for success, which were the
first to go out of fashion. Above former abilities and performance – of which
Victor Eftimiu mentions the masterful exposition, the
main scene,
conventional situations, gradation, and the unforeseeable end of an act – was
placed the “tenderness of inspiration,” the unmediated contact of artistic talent
and life, unbound by rules (be they even Aristotelic) and not falsified
by
verified procedures. To conclude, exigencies were maximal, as usual, though
not without specifications of personal taste, as Eftimiu argued that the author
of tomorrow should display humanity, sincerity, simplicity, picturesque, but
especially the ability to keep their audience from dozing off
during a
performance. However, the advice he outlined immediately following this,
that the author should be varied, capricious, and mix laughter with weeping,
as Shakespeare had done, somewhat limited the importance of the issue7. In a
collection of notes on dramatic psychology, Al. Al. Busuioceanu considered
theatre to be both life (through the profoundly experienced identification
of
the viewer, as a real human being, and the character on stage) and imitation of
life (in that life itself was seen as nothing more than a performance exterior to
each person’s soul), in an acknowledged and accepted contradiction8. With an
inclination for a dialectic view of life, wherein the evolution of forms
is the
evolution of the soul, from which everything derived and through which
everything could be understood, he viewed the changes that took place in
theatre as a transition from pathos to drama, from subjectivism to objectivism,
or as an increasingly exact contiguity with the material reality of life, wherein
the impersonal manner of natural determinism reigned. He nevertheless
underlined the necessity to emphasize the essential and the merit
of
suggestion in order to avoid a naturalist interpretation9 .
From various points of view and with various purposes, the
rapport
between theatre and life was always taken into consideration. Thus, Eugen
Lovinescu explained the noteworthy changes before a new staging of Înșir-te
mărgărite – at a time when the modern and ironic spirit of the fairy tale was
of interest – as results of a natural metamorphosis. As times were changing,
so were the people compelled to change, and since evolution implied the
negation of the past, the re-negation of the people became a sign of maturity.
7 st
Eugen Lovinescu, “Victor Eftimiu”, in Critiques, 1 edition, vol. VII
(Bucharest: Editura
Ancora, Alcalay şi Calafateanu, 1922), 121-122.
8 Eugen Lovinescu, “Teatrul și natura” [Theatre and Nature], in Critiques, 3rd
edition, vol. III
(Bucharest: Ancora S. Benvenisti, 1928), 192.
9 Tudor Vianu, “Ibsen contra Ibsen,” in Revista critică, no. 21, (March 1, 1919).

148

----------------------- Page 150-----------------------

AESTHETIC PERSPECTIVES IN ROMANIAN THEATRE AT THE END OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

The eternal change was joined by an interior motive, namely, the necessity of
the soul to emulate the universal10.

Fig. 2: Front cover of Înșir-te Mărgărite by Victor Eftimiu and Bătrânul

by Hortensia Papadat Bengescu

The perspective was not limited, but dynamic, as the critic maintained
the miniature quality and the derisory of the theatre (as nature designed in
view of a purpose) by comparison to the larger, more complicated nature,
which was itself a performance11.
If Ibsen, Strindberg, Kaiser or the plays of Reinhardt, Fuchs, Erler, and
Meyerhold had been written about both before and during the war, new
perspectives now intervened in the manner in which a drama or the ideas of
foreign playwrights were commented. The issues they suggested were
discussed with a different degree of attention and a different poignancy when

10 Tudor Vianu, “Fatalitatea la Ibsen” [“Fate and Ibsen”], in Rampa, no. 418,
(February 16, 1919).
11 Alice Voinescu, “Henrik Ibsen,” in Ideea europeană, no. 26, ( December 14,
1919).

149

----------------------- Page 151-----------------------

ION CAZABAN

the theatre of tomorrow came into view. To stage Ibsen became a necessity,
while the premiere of the drama John Gabriel Borkmann (At the National
Theatre in Bucharest, in spring 1919) initiated numerous commentaries,
which brought forward new perspectives not only on the play itself, but also
on Theatre. The premiere would be the scenic event that would disintegrate
the balanced attitude supported by the group of Revista critică [The
Critic
Journal] : the apparent unity of opinion would break in contact with the new
theatre. While Busuioceanu desired to initiate a polemics, but gibed aimlessly,
Tudor Vianu opted to write an excellent study, Ibsen contra Ibsen [Ibsen against
Ibsen], wherein he would argue against old views regarding the didacticism
and egocentrism of the Nordic writer (whose interior was marked by the
clash of the social and the individual), demonstrate his profound humanity
(by drawing attention to the brotherhood of human beings found within), and
seize the interior dialectic of his dramas (between the enthusiasm of a lonely
and implacable power and human sociability, which pit Ibsen
against
Ibsen)12. Without stating it explicitly, Vianu was driving at a situation and a
human attitude which defined, for him, the significance of Ibsen during that
historic moment. For Busuioceanu, Ibsen was an example of the transition
towards objective drama, while B. Fundoianu found an occasion to reject the
critical, logical and clear representation of a world where one is not free, but
smothered by the subconscious, thereby opposing Maeterlinck’s shapeless
heroes or automatons to the heroes in Ibsen’s plays, who believed in free will,
and were therefore slightly ridiculous13. In a study that was published after
the premieres of John Gabriel Borkmann and The Wild Duck, Alice Voinescu
supported the relation between the hero’s necessary will and the
aesthetic
means of the drama, action. Thus, theatre achieved the impossible – the
human being in all its humanity. Voinescu defended his faith in a theatre that
commented upon the morality of a society through aesthetics and idealism,
while viewing naturalism as a dissolvent of humanity, because it
allegedly
created not an image of humanity, but rather a photographic copy of
unessential, transient moments of human beastliness14. With the staging of
Ibsen, theoretical challenges received important arguments and reference
points at the time, in our scenic practices; perspectives and objectives derived
from and were differentiated by the concrete artistic act.

12 Tudor Vianu, “Ibsen contra Ibsen,” Revista Critică, no. 21, (March 1, 1919).
13 B. Fundoianu, “Fatalitatea la Ibsen,” Rampa, no. 418, (February 16, 1919). It is
noteworthy
to mention that in Petre Sturdza’s interpretation of Borkmann, T. Vianu had the
revelation
of “humour,” thereby claiming that Sturdza’s performance was not properly
understood.
14 Alice Voinescu, “Henrik Ibsen,” Ideea Europeană, no. 26, (December 14, 1919).

150

----------------------- Page 152-----------------------

AESTHETIC PERSPECTIVES IN ROMANIAN THEATRE AT THE END OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

For those who continued the political, aesthetic ideals of the Contemporan
during the post-war years – for someone like Barbu Lăzăreanu or Iosif
Nădejde – theatre could not be more than creativity engaged in the struggle
for a socialist future, a type of art for which social tend and the call to action
were most important. At the time, some supported, in a
deliberately
exclusivist and exaggerated manner, that socialism had at its disposal, for the
agitation and cultivation of the masses, more effective means than
theatre,
such as syndicates, the press, the right to vote or the possibility of a strike.
The
theatre was characterized as a capitalist endeavour marked by the thirst
for
financial gain, economically and ideologically controlled by the dominant
class. If performances with an undeniable aesthetic value were sometimes

15
staged, the steep price of tickets made it impossible for poor people to attend
.
Following the example of the Soviet and German theatre, or assimilating the
ideas of French actor Firmin Gemier, the theatre “of tomorrow” would be a
theatre of the masses. Alongside the articles of journalists and critics
who
discussed the problems and the meaning of a militant theatre in firm,
ideological and practical terms, other publications tackled only administrative
issues of the theatre “of the people,” featuring a repertoire of
attractive
comedies and tragedies for the gradual familiarization of the wide public.
These prospects, as well as the new exigencies that intervened in our
theatre were fuelled and supported by information regarding the performances
of great foreign directors and the aesthetic toils of French, German,
and
Soviet theatre, information which was received with particular curiosity.
The desire to be up to date with the issues and accomplishments
of
European theatres, as well as to reduce the existing distance and the need for
knowledge and assimilation, are common preoccupations, debated in the
press at the time.
Director T. Simionescu Rîmniceanu considered that there was no time
for laments, regardless of how great the distance was between the art of our
performances and the theatrical wonders easily accomplished
by the
Russians, the French and the Germans. At last, the time of rectification and of
operative solutions was at hand, following that, through
a grand
reorganization, the values of modern theatre obtained in an isolated and
discontinuous manner, would become permanent. A first step would be the
acknowledgement of not only the coordinative role, but also the creative and
performative role of the director, who was a multivalent author of the show
and of whom originality, taste and competence were expected.

15 Ilie Păuşescu, “Muncitorimea şi teatrul,” Viaţa socialistă, no. 1, (November,

1920).

151

----------------------- Page 153-----------------------

ION CAZABAN

Fig. 3: Postal card with The National Theatre in Bucharest

at the end of the 19th century

What had been accomplished elsewhere was due to the conferring of an

artistic status to the director, without which it would be impossible to create
real theatre in the future16. The shortcomings of our situation were frequently
pointed out, while negligent, outdated performances were mercilessly
rejected, in a polemic tone17. In “Scrisorile către actorul X” (in Rampa, 1919) A.
Davilă spoke about the perfection of the ensemble and the unity of aesthetic
ideas, which he had noticed in the performances of Irving, Antoine, and
Reinhardt. Much was written of Gémier, Copeau, Craig, Lugné Poe, Fuchs,
Appia, Karl Heinz Martin, G. Pitoeff, and Reinhardt especially.

16 “Teatrul nostru,” Revista critică, no. 2, (October 12, 1918).

17 We read in Alex Călin’s review of Polyeuct (The National Theatre in
Bucharest) that
outdated and banal settings were used, along with old furs and columns. (Rampa,
no. 387,
 January 10, 1919); Of Oedip (at the same theatre) we read that a setting from
Offenbach’s La
Belle Hélène was used – a sacred forest grove where the trees were randomly
arranged; a
gorgeous palace of Oedip contrasting with carton shields; a juvenile temple of
Apollo; and
a scandalous performance with actors dressed in costumes from all eras, from The
Fountain
of Blanduzia and The Judge of Zalamea (Rampa, no. 607, (September 27, 1919).

152

----------------------- Page 154-----------------------

AESTHETIC PERSPECTIVES IN ROMANIAN THEATRE AT THE END OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

Publications included viewers’ testimonies (usually

translated),
interviews, expository texts and programs of the above mentioned actors18.
What seemed clear – aside from various preferences for different
theatre movements – was the necessity for an atmosphere of emulation and
creative efforts. Only under these circumstances, the actor-director was
possible, bringing forward their own representative artistic universe in
an
agitated spiritual environment. The cultural circles established in these years
had in mind the fertilization of art – not only theatre – and the stimulation of
ambitions and initiatives with the power of prestigious examples. During its
short existence (September-December 1920), “Studio” – with its plastic,
theatrical, musical and choreographic preoccupations – aspired to contribute
to the artistic education of the public through lectures, special courses and
performances. Within the theatre department (including P. Sturdza, V.D.
Bumbeşti, Lily Popovici), Copeau’s uncompromised repertoire, perseverant
work and professional ethics at Vieux Columbier were admired. Numerous
difficulties of all kinds prevented “Studio” from forming a theatre company
and presenting a valuable repertoire (Strindberg, Shaw,
Wedekind,
Hauptmann, Maeterlinck, of which they had settled on Intruder). Its activity –
under the leadership of I.D. Ştefănescu – would be limited to a series
of
conferences: Arta şi spiritual revoluţiei contimporane19 (Dem Theodorescu),
Maurice Maeterlinck (T. Vianu), François de Curel (I. M. Sadoveanu),
Teatrul
Nou20 (Scarlat Froda), H. Ibsen (A. Dominic), Paul Claudel (Cora Irineu)…
During the following year (October 1921) the more long-lasting group
“Poesis” was formed with the purpose of bringing new authors to the fore in
our country. However, the group’s founder, I.M. Sadoveanu, dedicated the
first conference to Mişcarea de la Vieux Colombier21 (afterwards, he would be
drawn to Reinhardt and Gémier, as was obvious in the group’s only
performance, Sister Beatrice by Maeterlinck, in 1923). The activity of
the

18 Among others, we mention the articles of B. Fundoianu on Copeau

(“Cuvinte despre
teatru” and “Un program de teatru,” in Rampa, no. 698, (January 15,
1920) and no. 713,
(February 5, 1920) of Victor D. Bumbeşti on Gémier and G. Pitoeff,
E.G. Craig’s articles
from the series “Arta punerii în scenă: Regizorul ideal,” as well as
the series “Ideile lui
 Georg Fuchs,” and “Ideile lui Adolf Appia.” (Rampa, 1921) Eman. Cerbu became a
well-
known commentator and supporter of German expressionist theatre,
and he also
published interviews with its representatives (Karl Heinz Martin, etc.).
19 The Art and Spirit of the Contemporary Revolution.
20 The New Theatre.
21 The Vieux Colombier Movement.

153

----------------------- Page 155-----------------------

ION CAZABAN

“Poesis” group was aimed at vulgarization: conferences were held on Shaw

(T. Vianu), Wedekind (Eugen Filotti), Strindberg (A. Dominic), G. Hauptmann,
Expresionismul în dramă22
23
(Ion Sîngiorgiu), Drama socială
contemporană
(Aureliu Weiss), with examples interpreted by Lily Popovici, Dida Solomon,
Marietta Sadova, and G. Ciprian. Following the lecture on Copeau, the
words of I.M. Sadoveanu were reinterpreted and he was accused of ironic
concessions, to which he replied that the group was not a branch of another
institution, but nevertheless took it upon themselves to record and explain
the main aesthetic formulas created by the great interpreters of theatre24 . The
latter could be both directors and playwrights, who – with the help of actors
and scenographers – created a unique, inextricable scenic universe. Such
a
scenic universe could reveal national grounds in the authenticity of ideas and
the directors’ vision, because it involved the moulding of foreign theatre onto
our own national spirit25, not through mimesis, but by acknowledging the
accomplishments of European theatre, knowing itself better and recognizing
its own necessities and possibilities.
Appointed director of the National Theatre in Bucharest at the end of
the war, C. Rădulescu-Motru viewed dramatic art as an expression of
emotions in space, which he had stated during a press conference where
T. Vianu also participated. He praised theatre by means of its scenic purpose,
and the performance of the actors for their spatial expressive means26 . As
creation in a space with specific rules and exigencies of expressivity, staging
was understood more and more as the process by means of which a dramatic
idea was visibly rendered for the viewer27 . T. Simionescu Rîmniceanu stated
as much by adding new lines to an article he had written before the
war,
lines which were significant for the aesthetic mutations taking place at
the
time. Although various derivatives of the word vision increasingly infiltrated
specialized discourse, this was not, of course, due to a sudden discovery of
the eye – the awareness of theatre being performed in space had always
existed with its well-determined aesthetics and practical difficulties –,
but
rather it was due to the issue being discussed in different theoretical
and
aesthetic terms, particularly owing to symbolism and, later, to expressionism.

22 Expressionism in theatre.
23 Contemporary social theatre.
24 I.M. Sadoveanu, “Răstălmăcire,” Revista vremii, no. 4, (December 11, 1921).
25 T. Simionescu Rîmniceanu, “Repertoriul,” Revista critică, no. 9, (November 30,
1918).
26 See the footnote signed by T.V., Literatorul, no. 16, (October 5, 1918).
27 T. Simionescu Rîmniceanu, “Stilizarea scenei,” Revista critică, no. 14, (January
4, 1919).

154

----------------------- Page 156-----------------------

AESTHETIC PERSPECTIVES IN ROMANIAN THEATRE AT THE END OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

A new importance was being conferred to the visual, which had a new
purpose, and which was viewed from a new aesthetic perspective, to the
mediated relations of the visual with the word and with the auditory
elements of the play. A distinction was made between “literary theatre,”
which focused on creating dramatic characters through words, and “theatre
proper,” (or, as it was initially referred to, theatrical theatre) which took as
its
main objective the creation of a sensation of art by visually satisfying
the
viewer. Storytelling and plot, the attitude, gestures, movements, and the
dance of the actors were used for this purpose. Not only in the latter case, but
also in literary theatre, the visual had to exist in the text in a latent form, and
was thereby a primordial condition for theatre28 .
If before the war one of the critiques against performances was that, in
the abundance of their scenic décor, they offered more to the eye than to the
soul, which was actually a defence of literary theatre, as well as a reaction
against the excess of naturalist décor and costumes, emphasis was now
placed on the possible correspondences between the plastic,
sensorial
concrete, and feelings or ideas, but also on the control of the
trajectory
between the viewer’s visual perception and their emotion.

Fig. 4: Claudia Millian and her husband, the poet Ion Minulescu

28 T. Simionescu Rîmniceanu, “Teatrul propriuzis,” Revista critică, no.6, November

9, 1918.

155

----------------------- Page 157-----------------------

ION CAZABAN

As before the war – when T. Simionescu Rîmniceanu directed only

briefly and without consequences – the latter remained an adept
of
stylization, a means of expression which overcame naturalism, could outline
a significant detail and enhance the suggestive nature of the
performance.
Stylization – seen as synthesis and suggestion – was initially applied within
the sphere of verisimilitude and was used in mimetic productions. It was
achieved through purification, through the conjoining and distancing of
elements strictly necessary in order to indicate the time and the place,
to
transmit a feeling or idea. In modern theatre, drama would be defined
by
Busuioceanu not only through the desire to achieve objectivity, but also
through the seizing of expressive possibilities specific to theatre: such as the
motion of a gesture, the suddenness of an image or the suggestion of a word
spoken in a particular décor and with a certain attitude29 .
Compared to T. Simionescu Rîmniceanu’s understanding of scenic
expressivity as an ensemble of characteristic, suggestive elements put forward
by the various arts that are joined in a complex performance, Claudia Millian
(who also signed as Dim. Şerban) problematized the criteria of a
theatrical
synthesis and transfiguration. As such, what T. Simionescu Rîmniceanu saw
as synecdoche and metonymy, Claudia Millian saw as metaphor and symbol.
The descriptions she often used in her articles were designed to communicate
a scenic vision, which she dearly appreciated, as in the staging of Maeterlinck’s
play Monna Vanna: “a tent in yellow and black stripes supported by poles
covered in cuirasses and war masks, a bed with wild furs, a candleholder
with four yellow candlesticks and a table with Prinzivalle’s helmet, behold
the tent which dawned over the blue visage of the Pisa river… Grand and
simple, this is the desired synthesis.” (my translation)30 The criteria seem to
be intrinsic to the performance, derived from the necessities of the vision and
of the composition, as she argued that what theatrical décor needed was
a
synthesis emerging from within one’s mind31 . Although the criteria proposed
by Claudia Millian obviously echoed theories and aesthetic aims of artists like
Craig or Appia, of French symbolist theatre, of Russian scenographers (Bakst)
or Dalcroze’s rhythm studies, they deserve to be taken into consideration for this
moment in the evolution of our theatre. Thus, harmony was the correspondence

29 Al. Al. Busuioceanu, “Patetism şi dramatism,” Revista critică, no. 16, (January
25, 1919).
30 Claudia Millian, “Săptămîna teatrală,” Viitorul, no. 3580, (January 21, 1920).
31 Claudia Millian, “Săptămîna teatrală,” Viitorul, no. 3746, (September 14, 1920).

156

----------------------- Page 158-----------------------

AESTHETIC PERSPECTIVES IN ROMANIAN THEATRE AT THE END OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

between the various visually represented elements of a play32, among which

the human being (the actor), with their plastic and dynamic qualities, played
a chief role as the generator and coordinator of all others, since it was from
the movement of their costume and its proportions that one could arrive at
the musical harmony which ought to have been suggested by the production33 .
Rhythm existed as a harmonic pulse on a stage whose expressivity could only
be dynamic, as movement impressed on character and spirit. The scenic
vitality was an elaborate one, as a consequence of pondered proportions and
emphases, of movement and of the interference between elements determined
by schemes established both by sensibility and intelligence. The visual of the
performance was always monitored and defended in Claudia Millian’s articles,
as well as imaginatively affirmed (by the poetess), with refined suggestions34 .

Fig. 5: Al. Davila and I.L. Caragiale, famous writers and

directors of the National Theatre in Bucharest (1910)

32 Claudia Millian, “Săptămîna teatrală,” Viitorul, no. 3586, (January 28, 1920).
33 Claudia Millian, “Săptămîna teatrală,” Viitorul, no. 3746, (September 14, 1920).
34 Such as when she describes the costume: “Clothing is evocative and may still be
eloquent
(…). I see drama played in velvet: velvet has the gloss of a stone
after a rain, seemingly
carrying tears in folds. Comedy breaks out in muslin, light as a breeze that
pushes the leaves
to aside in order to glimpse the buds. Lyricism covers itself in rustling silk,
like rumours of
love. Here, colours are feint like pastel, in comedy, live as watercolour, in
drama, pasty as oil
painting, in tragedy, sinister as drawing with charcoal.” (my
translation; “Săptămâna
teatrală,” Viitorul, no. 3758, (September 28, 1920); republished with
modifications with the
title “Ritmul şi armonia în teatru,” Rampa, no. 1215, (November 14, 1921).

157

----------------------- Page 159-----------------------

ION CAZABAN

The writer Victor Eftimiu led the National Theatre in Bucharest from
August 1920 to December 1921. During the usual inaugural press conference,
as well as during interviews recorded on different occasions, V. Eftimiu
expressed his determination to introduce new, original plays in the theatre’s
repertoire (by Ion Minulescu or Ștefan Petică), alongside those of the
great
world playwrights (from Shakespeare – who was thought to be the pedestal of
the company -, Molière, Beaumarchais, Schiller, Goethe, and Gogol to Ibsen,
Strindberg, and Gorki). He was also resolved to transform the existent manner
of interpretation, then characterized by the slow tempo of the actors’ speech,
long pauses between lines, lagging action, and interminable intermissions35 .

Fig. 6: The National Theatre in Bucharest before its destruction in 1944

Some expressed their reluctance regarding the possibility to accomplish

such a gigantic programme (B. Fundoianu), while others saluted him with
optimism (Alex. Kirițescu36). When it came to deeds, the new director would
look to put into practice his ideas about the theatre “of tomorrow: he preferred
to present for the first time the plays Bătrînul by H. Papadat-Bengescu
and
Sonata umbrelor by A. Dominic, he brought Camil Petrescu’s Suflete tari to the
attention of the theatre committee (staged after his departure), and he
was

35 Victor Eftimiu, “D. V. Eftimiu de vrobă cu cronicarii dramatici,”

Rampa, no. 859,
(September 5, 1920).
36 Alex. Kirițescu, “Victor Eftimiu deschide întîia sa stagiune,” Rampa, no. 858,
(September 4, 1920).

158

----------------------- Page 160-----------------------

AESTHETIC PERSPECTIVES IN ROMANIAN THEATRE AT THE END OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

tempted by the poetic essence of certain texts like Hofmannsthal’s

Electra,
Morselli’s Glauco, and I. Minulescu’s Pleacă berzele. Overall, considering
the
short duration of his directorship, V. Eftimiu kept his promises: the theatre’s
advertisements announce – in addition to the above-mentioned plays – plays
by V. Alecsandri, Caragiale, Delavrancea, Hasdeu, A. Davila, but also Ibsen,
Strindberg, and Björson… The “pedestal” of the company is,
indeed,
Shakespeare, with plays such as Hamlet, King Lear or As You Like It, as well as
preparations for Macbeth … As he had declared, Eftimiu did not neglect issues
of staging, and showed initiative in the support of young directors and
scenographers like Victor D. Bumbești and Traian Cornescu, in collaborations
with the Russian scenographer G. Pojedaeff and in an invitation for the
German expressionist director Karl Heinz Martin to work in our country. The
experience of foreign theatres was studied first-hand. Director V. Enescu was
sent to Berlin, where he was preoccupied especially with stage
technologies
(the Schwab illumination system – above the Fortuny cupola -, the
gliding
stage for rapid changes in décor)37 . There were many, including
Liviu
Rebreanu, who objected to Victor Eftimiu’s preoccupations with staging,
which were obvious in the pages of the journal Revista Teatrului
Național,
published in September 1921. Notes signed e., possibly by Eftimiu, appeared in
the latter in order to expound on the development of the director’s art, thanks
to Antoine, Gémier, Copeau, Craig, Stanislavski, and Reinhardt, without
omitting the contribution of our own theatre experts: A. Davila, Nottara, Paul
Gusty, and T. Simionescu Rîmniceanu.
The very manner in which Eftimiu attempted to respond to the issues
that tormented Romanian theatre at the time was criticized. His was a
directorship agitated by initiatives and events, featuring many premieres that
were eagerly expected, and that often constituted motives for controversy and
heated disputes. The premiere of the play Bătrînul by H. Papadat-Bengescu

37 Accomplishing the aesthetic requirements of a performance is understood as

dependent
on the stage architecture and technologies. A Davila described a stage with
depth, formed
of three floors that would replace one another through electric power,
which he had
projected approximately 12 years ago, in order to replace the deficient
fixed stage [“A
douăsprezecea scrisoare către actorul X,” Rampa, no. 439, (March
13, 1919)]. The
transformations in stage technology pursued by V. Eftimiu would speard:
the theatre
company Bulandra would also announce the extension in depth of the
stage; more
specifically, they would build a fixed, arched cupola, which extended itself
about halfway
down the sides and height of the stage; they would also forfeit the
circular sky due to
creases in the canvas which were unable to provide a complete
illusion; part of the
backstage and upper booths were destroyed as well [Rampa, no. 1106, (July 7,
1921)].
159

----------------------- Page 161-----------------------

ION CAZABAN

(March 1921) caused one such dispute, which would involve all theatre critics,
the most diverse competences, as well as the most amusing incompetence. It
constituted an occasion to discuss the very nature of theatre: was Bătrînul a
play? For Minulescu, it was not: it was a nuvella with beautiful dialogue, but

38
insufficiently theatrical, and deficient in technique .

Fig. 7: Cincinat Pavelescu, Victor Eftimiu and Eugen Lovinescu,

photo by Foto-Splendid, N. Buzdugan, Bucharest,
Horia Petra Petrescu collection

But for Eugen Lovinescu, it was a distinguished accomplishment,

which ought to have been appreciated for what it was, without being
subjected to rules and models. Alex. Cătălin accused it of falsity and claimed

38 Ion Minulescu, “Cronica dramatică,” Romania noua, no. 51, (March 7, 1921).

160

----------------------- Page 162-----------------------

AESTHETIC PERSPECTIVES IN ROMANIAN THEATRE AT THE END OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

that it lacked psychological motive, but the same Eugen Lovinescu, its most
ardent defender, considered it to be a creation with a deep interior
life.
Eman. Cerbu saw it as a work that affirmed the “rights of fantasy,” but not
entirely so, because it did not reach, as he would have liked, a
complete
renunciation of space and time39 . Lovinescu, on the other hand, appreciated
(not far from Busuioceanu’s objective drama) that Bătrînul defeated the
incantation of subjective inspiration40, so that even in the absence of
a
dramatic solution, there existed the solution of life, which itself was broken,
twisted and repeated indefinitely41 . Beyond the rightfulness of one opinion or
another, what succeeded in the debate was a sensibility more receptive
towards the phenomenon of the theatre. Neither Hafmannsthal’s Electra
(April 1921), nor Morselli’s Glauco (December 1921) were plays conceived by
technicians, but rather texts written by poets, which was confusing for some –
the sources of certain poetic performances (directed by V. D. Bumbești) that
insist upon the rhythm and plastics of interpretation in a surprising, unusual
scenography (by Pojedaeff, in the first case; by Traian Cornescu, in the
second). The uncertainty and mixture of styles, the imperfections and the
dissonances were those inherent to a lack of experience and a struggle
for
aesthetic renewal. But uncertainty also came from certain critics
who,
confronted with these plays, inadequately used criteria of naturalist or
traditionally psychological theatre, were misinformed or, worse, misinformed
regarding the trends and movements of modern art.
Through its purpose and what it brought to the stage, the directorship
of Victor Eftimiu meant an addition of creative experience, which resulted in
a necessary impetus for criticism: “The obligation of intellectuals – as many
as there may be in our country – is not to mock trends towards the new and
innovative. On the contrary, it is to support them. They are the only
missionaries of culture and they have this imperious obligation… to cultivate
themselves more carefully in the spirit of the times.”42 In the following years
of the avant-garde, with the help of B. Fundoianu and I. M. Sadoveanu, who
would evoke and underline the significance of the suggestive, moving
plastics of its accomplished poetic performances, the short directorship
described above would become a memorable, significant moment.

39 Eman. Cerbu, “Drepturile fanteziei,” Rampa, no. 1016, (March 16, 1921).
40 Eugen Lovinescu, “Bătrînul,” II, Sburătorul year 1, no. 51, (May 1, 1920).
41 Eugen Lovinescu, “Bătrînul,” II, Sburătorul year 2, no. 46, (March 26, 1921).
42 Eman. Cerbu, “Teatrul viitorului,” Rampa, no. 1265, (January 14, 1922).

161

----------------------- Page 163-----------------------

ION CAZABAN

References

BALACEANU, Alexandru. “Teatrul de mâine”. Teatrul de mâine, no. 1, March 15 (1918).

BUSUIOCEANU, Al.. “Patetism şi dramatism”. Revista critică, no. 16, January 25
(1919).
CERBU, Eman. “Teatrul viitorului”. Rampa, no. 1265, January 14 (1922).
- “Drepturile fanteziei.” Rampa, no. 1016, March 16 (1921).
EFTIMIU, Victor. “D. V. Eftimiu de vorbă cu cronicarii dramatici”. Rampa,
no. 859,
September 5 (1920).
FUNDOIANU, B., “Fatalitatea la Ibsen”. Rampa, no. 418, February 16 (1919).
- “Cuvinte despre teatru”. Rampa, no. 698, January 15 (1920).
- “Un program de teatru”. Rampa, no. 713, February 5, (1920).
KIRIȚESCU, Alex.. “Victor Eftimiu deschide întîia sa stagiune”. Rampa. no.
858,
September 4 (1920).
LOVINESCU, Eugen. “Bătrînul”. II, Sburătorul, no. 51 (year 1), May 1 (1920).
- “Bătrînul” II. Sburătorul, no. 46 (year 2), March 26 (1921).
MINULESCU, Ion. “Cronica dramatică”. Romania noua, no. 51, March 7 (1921).
MILLIAN, Claudia. “Săptămîna teatrală”. Viitorul, no. 3580, January 21 (1920).
- “Săptămîna teatrală”. Viitorul, no. 3746, September 14 (1920).
- “Săptămîna teatrală”. Viitorul, no. 3586, January 28 (1920).
- “Săptămîna teatrală”. Viitorul, no. 3746, September 14 (1920).
PAUSESCU, Ilie. “Muncitorimea şi teatrul”. Viaţa socialistă, no. 1, November
(1920).
SADOVEANU, I.M.. “Răstălmăcire”. Revista vremii, no. 4, December 11 (1921).
SIMIONESCU, RÎMNICEANU T.. “Repertoriul”. Revista critică, no. 9, November 30
(1918).
- “Stilizarea scenei”. Revista critică, no. 14, January 4 (1919).
- “Teatrul propriuzis”. Revista critică, no.6, November 9 (1918).
VIANU, Tudor. “Ibsen contra Ibsen”. Revista Critică, no. 21, March 1 (1919).
VOINESCU, Alice. “Henrik Ibsen”. Ideea Europeană, no. 26, December 14 (1919).

ION CAZABAN is a theatre critic and historian. He is the author of several

books,
among which: Caragiale și interpreții săi [Caragiale and His Performers],
București,
 Editura Meridiane, 1985; Dan Jitianu şi bucuria comunicării [Dan Jitianu and
the
Joy of Communication], București, Fundaţia Culturală „Camil Petrescu”,
2008; Dan
Nemţeanu şi viziunea sa scenografică [Dan Nemțeanu and His Scenographic
Vision], București, Fundaţia Culturală „Camil Petrescu”, Editura Cheiron,
2011; Scena
românească și expresionismul [The Romanian Stage and the Expressionism],
București, Editura Cheiron, 2012; Scenografia românească în secolul XX.
Decorul
[Romanian Scenography in the XXth Century. The Set], București,
Fundația
Culturală Camil Petrescu, supliment al Revistei Teatrul Azi, Editura
Cheiron, 2017.

162

----------------------- Page 164-----------------------

STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA, LXIII, 1, 2018, p. 163 - 176

(Recommended Citation)
DOI:10.24193/subbdrama.2018.1.08

Alexandru Davila – The Project as Work of Art.

The Father Complex

1
FLORIN FAIFER

Abstract: Taking as a central focus the complex figure of the

famous
Romanian playwright Alexandru Davila, this paper follows the line of his
life and career, from his aristocratic origins to his family
relations and
from his revolutionary activity as an intransigent theatre director to
the
plays and literature he wrote. A special accent is put on his
best text,
Vlaicu Vodă [Prince Vlaicu] a historical play, classical in its
construction
but very modern due to the psychological refinement manifested by the
protagonist, as well as from his doubly meaningful physiognomy –
he
was a voivode in times of dark adversity, but also, from an
archetypal
perspective, a tragic hero of certain historic immutabilities. Forced to
act
prudently under the threat of a catastrophic failure, Vlaicu capitalized,
in
a refined manner, the experience of the Romanian people itself,
which
had become accustomed, due to the hardships of history, to keep silent
 and endure in expectation of an occasion appropriate for action.

Keywords: Alexandru Davila, Vlaicu Vodă, the National

Theatre in
Bucharest, Romanian theatre

Alexandru Davila was born on February 12, 1862, in Gloești, county

Argeș. His father, General Carol Davila, had an uncertain origin, probably
Italian, if not French, and, according to a legend, was the son of Hungarian
pianist Frantz Liszt and a countess. His mother, Ana (born in Racoviță),
was one of the last voivodes. No wonder that some would later call Al.
Davila – The Lord.

1 Florin Faifer: Professor at the University of Iași, Paper translated from

Romanian by Vlad Melnic

----------------------- Page 165-----------------------

FLORIN FAIFER

For a short time (in 1882), he taught old French literature at

“Elena
Doamna,” a girls’ orphanage, where he would stage performances together
with his pupils. He would marry one of them, Hortensia Keminger, in 1885,
but the marriage would be dissolved three years later; the former lady Davila
would play a nefarious role in Odobescu’s tragically ended life. And, without
intention, she would make it so that a wave of accusations, suspicions,
and
slander would come down upon her first husband. It was presumed that she
had eased Davila’s fraudulent access to the unpublished manuscripts of
the
author of Doamna Chiajna. From this an entire scandal ensued.
Yet no one could contest that the Lord had theatre in his blood. It was
almost destined for him to become the head of the National Theatre (and, thus,
the general director of theatres). And his directorship made history in
the
development of our modern theatre. He was a reformer, convinced of the
necessity for several structural modifications. The severity of his
measures
would set off an entire chain of reactions. Also contributing to this
was his
manner of defiance with aristocratic arrogance, as well as his many outbursts,
which could have been explained due to his authoritarian, impulsive, and
irritable nature. As a strong hand, however, he would endure vilifying attacks
and campaigns, but also protests such as those that took place in the National
Theatre square, on March 13, 1906, when the “Frenchman” Davila was
requested to no longer allow performances in French on the
country’s
foremost stage. A moral author of the latter turbulences, if we may call him so,
was Nicolae Iorga.
Al. Davila, referred to as “the man of theatre” by Ion Lovinescu, one of
the actors, was proficient in everything. He could have been an electrician, a
technician, in charge of stage props, a painter, and even a tapestry worker. He
inaugurated the tradition to open each season with a Romanian play, he
balanced the repertoire by making room for vernacular texts, (??). He sought
to temper the vainglory of the main actor, “sacrificed” – as in the
case of
Antoine or Irving – for the unitary ensemble. With an unfailing flair,
he
supported a great number of young actors, including Lucia Sturdza Bulandra,
Marioara Voiculescu, Maria Giurgea, Tony Bulandra, Gh. Storin, and Ion
Manolescu. The latter would follow him when, after his first directorship
(February 1, 1905 – March 13, 1908), he would put together a
distinguished
theatre company called the Davila Company, officially inaugurated on August
1, 1909. Three years later, he rejoined the administration of the
National
Theatre (October 8, 1912 – January 4, 1914), demonstrating more tact and
a
spirit for collaboration, but also the same ambition to carry out his programme
of reforms. Finding himself under constant harassment once again, he would
definitively file his resignation.

164

----------------------- Page 166-----------------------

ALEXANDRU DAVILA – THE PROJECT AS WORK OF ART. THE FATHER COMPLEX

Fig. 1: The general poster of the Davila Theatre Company

He would unwind with genteel and sporting activities. But on April

5, 1915, his assassination was attempted by a servant of bad manners.
In
“Cronica,” Tudor Arghezi wrote an obituary2, which showed that the news
of his death had spread. Thanks to his robust physique, Davila survived the
attempt (he would die on October 19, 1919, in Bucharest), but he would be
confined to an armchair for the rest of his life, unable to write and speaking
with great difficulty.

2 Tudor Arghezi, “Alexandru Davila,” Cronica, I, no. 6, 1915.

165

----------------------- Page 167-----------------------

FLORIN FAIFER

Fig. 2: Compania Davila, with Lucia Sturdza at Al. Davila-s right, 1909
 It was an irony of fate that only during these years of
suffering he
found more time for literature. He dictated articles, verse, sketches,
and
memoirs, published in Rampa, Scena, and Gândirea; part of these collaborations
would be republished in his “recollections,” Din torsul zilelor (in three
volumes). The peculiarity of this controversial and long-contested writer,
however, came from the fact that, having authored a masterpiece of our
historic theatre, the rest of his literary production, with minor exceptions,
seemed to belong to an amateur. Sometimes a poet, in Vlaicu Vodă and
maybe even in Sutașul Troian, was no more than an agile technician of the
verse. Part of his poetry is suitable for recitals – during social
affairs,
gatherings or on stage. Certain stanzas of the drama Vlaicu Vodă feature a
melodious trait that echoes the lyricism of Vlaicu’s tirades:

Duh al neamului ce știe dulcea vorbă de dor, ce sună

Din pojghiță de mesteacăn doina, cântec bătrânesc,
Ce pricepe și ce simte ce e datina străbună,
Pavăza și călăuza sufletului românesc.”3

3 ”Spirit of the people who knows the sweet sound of longing, rung/
From within birch
bark by the ballad, old song,/ Who understands and feels the ancient tradition,/
Guardian
and guide to the Romanian soul”.

166

----------------------- Page 168-----------------------

ALEXANDRU DAVILA – THE PROJECT AS WORK OF ART. THE FATHER COMPLEX

His individuality was much better outlined as the man of

theatre.
According to him, theatre, as a manifestation of the beautiful, ought to have
initiated an ascension of the spirit – as a response, of course, to
the
exaggerations of naturalism. Furthermore, the theatre ought to have been the
mirror of Nature and of the human soul (Romanul și drama), reflecting
not
reality as such, but the illusion of reality (Sufletul curat). Obeying the dogma
of the three unities, Davila accepted innovation, but only within certain long-
established structures. His fundamental principles are the coherent logic of
the conflict, as well as conciseness and clarity, as these were
illustrated in
classic tragedy.
Merging the performance review with theoretical discussions, Al. Davila
was an honest chronicler of drama (who saw sincerity as the integrity
of
criticism). He was indulgent only apparently, and desired not to be blinded
either by grudges or prejudice. He liked Caragiale (the comedies, not Năpasta),
but he was reluctant towards Hasdeu (Răzvan și Vidra) and Delavrancea (Apus
de soare).
 Fig. 3: Al. Davila in The song of the Swan

167

----------------------- Page 169-----------------------

FLORIN FAIFER

In what concerned acting, he insisted upon “dramatic intuition,” as well

as upon diction, which ought to have seemed natural, not boring
or
exaggerated (Regisorul). In disagreement with Diderot’s paradox, he viewed
the actor as an “animated puppet,” which may seem similar to Gordon Craig’s
“actor-marionette,” but which different from the latter by emphasizing the
importance of the puppet’s “soul.” (Păpușa însuflețită) The “puppet,” which is
to say, the actor, was understood as more than a human being. Indeed, the
latter represented all of humanity, a microcosm (Sufletul curat). He believed
that the actor should embody precisely the character envisioned by the author,
with special attention to the spiritual (“Adrisantul necunoscut”).
Constantly discussing the truthfulness of acting, Davila implicitly
supported the primacy of the text. The director, understood as the author’s
“spokesperson,” was invited to become an ardent defender of the work of
art, having no right to modify neither text, nor meaning. Otherwise, the critic
believed that the performance would become a jumble, especially if the décor
was being replaced with drapes and other such things (Regisorul). As such,
we may safely conclude that Al. Davila, with all his freedom of spirit, was in
fact conservative.
Throughout his literary creation, nothing announces or later confirms a
play such as Vlaicu Vodă, the moment of grace of an outstandingly capricious
inspiration. Almost all of his dramatic texts are nothing more than
light
improvisations, destined for social performances: Only a “catchphrase” here
and there sends to Vlaicu Vodă or to Sultașul Troian: “Domnul […] una-i cu
domnia.”4 Similarly, the following call to wisdom:

Căci nu face o lăscaie

Lupte, bătălii, războaie,
Ca să-nfaptuiești un drept.
Ca să treci peste hotare,
Dând popoare la popoare
Și să faci o țară mare,
5
Fii mintos, fii înțelept.”

Or an enumeration of words reminiscent of those encased in voivode

Vlaicu’s tirades: “Doruri, vise, năzuințe.”6

4 ”The lord […] is one with his dominion”.

5 ”For combats, battles, wars/ Are worth a trifle/ In bringing justice./ To cross
the borders,/
 To join people with people/ And unite a kingdom,/ Be smart, be wise.”
6 ”Longings, dreams, hopes.”

168

----------------------- Page 170-----------------------

ALEXANDRU DAVILA – THE PROJECT AS WORK OF ART. THE FATHER COMPLEX

Only the tragedy Sutașul Troian, of which Davila wrote a single

act
(Rampa, 1911), is worthy of the author of Vlaicu Vodă. The former was, in fact,
a continuation of the before-planned trilogy Mirciada (or, in its intial version,
Român Grue), which should have included Vlaicu Vodă, Dan Vodă, and Mircea
cel Bătrân. The former two were never written. This fixation with the position
of a virtual playwright is curious! One might say, literarily speaking,
that
marked by a father complex, Davila wanted to demonstrate that he was a
playwright by any means necessary. His projects for comedies and dramas,
translations that remained only manuscripts, they all seem to indicate a
bizarre case of sterility or perhaps a rapid exhaustion of his creative potential.
The centurion Troian, a character designed in dimensions which aspired
to be monumental, was a relentless defender of the idea of lordship: “Domnul
trece, domnia rămâne.”7 The classic dilemma – which also interferes in Vlaicu
Vodă – between duty and feelings is resolved through the agonizing victory of
duty, with all its interior struggle. The catchphrase of the old soldier is set in
stone: “țara, datina și sfânta lege.”8 The ancestral custom… “Sfânta cruce, țara
mumă, datina și Domnul lor.9” The line suggests, through ideation and
resonance, the play which will make the topic of our discussion below.
In one of his poems, Pe un album neînceput, Al. Davila looked upon his
own destiny with lucidity: “Vezi că ursitele așa m-au făcut;/ Tăgăduit să fiu,
sau neștiut.”10 Contested he was indeed, beyond measure! Denigrations,
violent assaults, trials… Tudor Arghezi and Al. Macedonski denied even that
he was a writer. Ilarie Chendi refused to offer him any positive
appraisal
during the premiere of the play Vlaicu Vodă (February 12, 1902). Through
various insinuations, but also using some arguments that seemed to make
sense, others still (N. Ținc, Caion, Petre Locusteanu) attempted to accuse him
that he had plagiarized one of Odobescu’s manuscripts. This was, as Arghezi
put it, a “ritualistic murder.” And strangely, Davila defended himself inaptly.
Vlaicu Vodă was a classical construction in a romantic décor.
The
modernity of the play resulted from the psychological refinement manifested by
the protagonist, as well as from his doubly meaningful physiognomy – he was a
voivode in times of dark adversity, but also, from an archetypal perspective, a
tragic hero of certain historic immutabilities. Forced to act prudently under the
threat of a catastrophic failure, Vlaicu capitalized, in a refined manner, the

7 ”The lord passes, the lordship remains”.

8 ”The country, tradition, and the holy law”.
9 ”The holy cross, the mother country, tradition and their Lord”.
10 ”See that the fates made me so:/ Denied to be, or otherwise unknown”.
169

----------------------- Page 171-----------------------

FLORIN FAIFER

experience of the people itself, which had become accustomed, due to the
hardships of history, to keep silent and endure in expectation of an occasion
appropriate for action.

Fig. 4: The poster of the first performance of Vlaicu Vodă, at

the
National Theatre in Bucharest, 1902

170

----------------------- Page 172-----------------------

ALEXANDRU DAVILA – THE PROJECT AS WORK OF ART. THE FATHER COMPLEX

Placed at a vague time (around the 1370s), the action takes

place at
Curtea de Argeș, the capital city of Țara Românească. Following victorious
battles against the king of Hungary, Louis I, which were thwarted by Lady
Clara, Vlaicu’s stepmother, the latter found himself forced to
retreat;
moreover, he left behind his sister and brother-in-law as hostages, which
greatly restricted his ability to act.
At this point, the voivode adopted, with the great cunning of a skilful
player, a tactics by means of which he could contradict those around
him,
who had begun to suspect him of treason. Wearing a mask of devoutness
and false humility, he assumed the ingrate role of an impotent lord (“domn
fără domnie și voivod fără norod”11) who was fearful and half-hearted,
as

well as easy to manipulate by the fierce Lady Clara. Thus, he was able
to
hatch a plan that he would put into practice with infinite precaution.
To
defeat the surrounding adversity, he would require not only an iron fist in a
velvet glove12, but also great talent for acting. The Wallach leader
was,

indeed, a refined actor, virtuous in the art of simulation and duality,

obedient when necessary, a cajoler with a hidden tint of irony, able to control
his every gesture and word, to pause for effect, and knowing when to
be
quiet and when to emphasize his own eloquence with a warm voice. As
such, Vlaicu could only be the creation of a man of theatre, which Davila was
and Odobescu was not13. No one considered this fact during the “lawsuit”
brought up against the former.
The unity of time, which calibrates the rhythms of the drama,
was
conferred by the three obsessive days that Vlaicu always invoked. This was
the interval wherein, freed from captivity, the hostages looked to return to
the country safely. The apparent obedience of the lord deceived, with some
measure, the vigilance of Lady Clara, but not entirely so, as the woman
(falling in the same typology as Lady Chiajna, from Odobescu’s eponymous
novella, Răzvan’s wife Vidra, from Hasdeu’s “dramatic poem,” or Ringala
from Victor Eftimiu’s eponymous play) did not lack instinct:

11 Lord without lordship and voivode without a people.

12 According to G. Călinescu, Vlaicu was the embodiment of
Prince Machiavelli on
Romanian soil. See Istoria literaturii de la origini până în prezent, second
edition, edited and
prefaced by Al. Piru (București: Editura Minerva, 1982) 579.
13 This was also a text with much to offer for actors: C. I. Nottara,
Aristide Demetriade,
Zaharia Bârsan, G. Vraca, G. Calboreanu, G. Popovici.

171

----------------------- Page 173-----------------------

FLORIN FAIFER

Eu, ce port și pentru tine mândra stemă basarabă

- Grea povară, pentru care biata-ți frunte e prea slabă
Eu, ce sunt spre mântuirea ta ș-a-ntregului norod,
Eu de viță palatină, eu, soție de voievod,
Eu, pavăza domniei, sufletul ce duce țara,
Eu, puterea, eu, stăpâna, în sfârșit, eu, doamna Clara,
Am ajuns de râsul lumii, ș-al boierilor, ș-al tău,
Înfruntată, dosădită, o batcojură, eu! eu!14

Fig. 5: Two great actors who interpreted Vlaicu Vodă’s part:

Aristide Demetriad and Zaharia Bârsan

14 ”I, who wear for you the proud emblem of Bessarabia/ - The arduous burden, for
which
your head is much too weak/I, who shall redeem you and the people,/I who am of
palatian
strain, I, wife of the lord,/ I, the guardian of the lordship, the soul who
bears the nation,/ I,
strength itself, I, the lady, finally, I, Mrs. Clara,/ Have become
the laughing stock of the
world, and of the boyars, and of you,/ Chided, persecuted, a mockery, me! Me!”
172

----------------------- Page 174-----------------------

ALEXANDRU DAVILA – THE PROJECT AS WORK OF ART. THE FATHER COMPLEX

Hungarian of birth and a Catholic fanatic, the stepmother was an

exponential character, illustrating in her furious arrogance the expansionist
tendencies of the Hungarian Empire. Such tendencies made use of the
forceful argument of military power, but also of the strategies of Hungarian
Catholic propaganda, with its temptations of the west, where light and
science were to be found. But was light not indeed coming from the West?...
The political insinuation of Catholicism naturally provoked the response
of people who observed the Orthodox faith. Custom in Vlaicu Vodă, was
therefore understood as the spiritual grounds for the existence of a
people
(“Ține datina străbuna ca credința-n Dumnezeu”15). Lady Clara ignored it with
gruffness, and considered it to be a bondage of progress, which might have set
one thinking, if she had truly cared about such progress16. After all, how could
the profound soul of a people, its dreams, aspirations and longings, be taken
from it?... With a fervor pushed to grandiloquence, governor Mircea revolted:

Nu se sfărâmă veacurile ce-au trecut!

Și cu veacurile acelea datina ni s-a făcut.
Doamnă, datina străbună e mai mult decât o lege.
Domnul ce-și cunoaște țara, din chiar traiul ei culege
Obiceiuri de tot felul, trebuințe de-orice soi,
Năzuințe, doruri, vise, ure, patime, nevoi
El le cerne, le frământă, le topește, le strecoară,
Și le toarnă, ca-ntr-o matcă, în cuvânu-i către țară.
Din aceste vorbe-nalte ale domnilor români,
Timp de veacuri, neamul țese datina de la bătrâni./
Pruncul de la sân o soarbe-n fiecare strop de lapte;
Leagănul, în care doarme, i-o șoptește-n blânde șoapte;
I-o mai spune vechiu basmu de bunică povestit;
Doina lung i-o cântă-n frunză când e vârsta de iubit;

15 ”Hold on to the ancient tradition as you do to your faith in God”.

16 “Ce e datina? O lege! Zi-i o lege strămoșească/ Bună în vremuri, dar ce poate să
nu se mai
potrivească/ Celor ce cu propășirea s-au născut la vremea lor./ Datina
e o cătușă pusă
propășirii la picior./ Voi, în granițele voastre, de cu veacuri îngrădiți,/ Că
schimbatu-s-a
la față lumea, nici nu bănuiți/ Și-n voi înșivă privind-o, v-ați închipuit,
firește/ Că de stă
pe loc românul, nimenea nu propășește.” (”What is tradition? A law!
Call it an ancient
law/ Erstwhile good, but which might fit no longer/ For those borne out of
progress./
Tradition is a manacle on progress./ You, barred through the centuries
within your
borders,/ Have no idea the world has changed/ And as you watch it,
you of course
imagine/ If the Romanian sits still, then no one else progresses.”) And yet
another line to
be considered: “Dar eu vreau, din adormirea-I, țara voastră să v-o-ndrept.”
(”But I will,
from its slumber, your country to set straight.”)

173

----------------------- Page 175-----------------------

FLORIN FAIFER

Arcul, ghioaga din perete pururi i-o aduc aminte;

O citește-n pomenirea de pe lespezi de morminte.
Și sub pajera cu cruce, dezmierdându-și visul său,
Sufletul i-o face una cu credința-n Dumnezeu.17

Grandiloquence, however, did not chase away the lyricism of the

fragment.
From a space closed in by somber horizons and stalked by adversary,
avaricious forces, Vlaicu could not help his own situation but by
forming
useful alliances meant to strengthen the freedom of the country
and
shielding the cross, the people and the land from aggressive factors. One of
the alliances he planned was the marriage of Anca, his sister, with the
Serbian poet Simon Stareț. However, Anca was loved by the young Mircea
Basarab, who would go down in history as Mircea cel Bătrân. His character,
in the play, was surprising. Cynical and lacking any scruples, he was driven
by an ambition that abolished his sense of morality: “Cuget, inima și râvnă,
vreau putere, vreau mărire!/ Da, oricum, prin orice mijloc, prin trădări, prin
răzvrătire/ Vreau domnia, da orunde; vreau coroana, pe-a oricui.”18 With a

criminal impulse, he attempted to stab Vlaicu, but his dagger would instead
pierce the chest of Român Grue, the devout servant of the lord. Unexpectedly
and contradicting the logic of the play, the voivode absolves the
reckless
man, sufficiently punished by the pangs of consciousness and destined to
have a distinguished life as an heir of Basarab. Mircea, therefore,
would
become his arm and protector.
The final monologue of Vlaicu Vodă mentions the struggles and pains
of a persecuted country, and represents an unrestrained outburst of long-
suppressed feelings:

17 ”The ages past shall never shatter!/ Of these ages too, tradition was born./ My
lady, the
ancient tradition is more than a law,/ The lord who knows his country gathers
from its
very life/ Customs of all kinds, uses of all sorts,/ Hopes, longings,
dreams, hatred,
passions, needs/ He separates them, mulls them over, melts them, and
decants them,/
Then pours them, like a mould, in his word to his country./ From these noble
speeches of
Romanian lords,/ For centuries, the people weave tradition from the elders./ The
infant
sucks it from the bosom in every drop of milk;/ The cradle where he
sleeps tells it in
gentle whispers;/ The old tale by his grandmother tells it too;/ The ballad
sings it to him
during the time of love;/ The bow, the mace upon the wall remind him of it;/ He
reads it
on the epitaphs of graves,/ Under the cross and emblem, caressed by
his dream,/ The
soul makes it one with his faith in the Maker.”
18 ”Thought, heart and desire, I crave for power, and for greatness!/
Yes, in any way, by any
means, betrayal, a revolt/ I crave the lordship, yes, wherever; I crave the
crown, from anyone.”

174

----------------------- Page 176-----------------------

ALEXANDRU DAVILA – THE PROJECT AS WORK OF ART. THE FATHER COMPLEX

Chinuri? Tu vorbești de chinuri? Chin, a inimii bătaie?

Chin? O clipă de nădejde, o-mboldire, o văpaie
Ce se-aprinde cu-o privire, ce cu-o lacrimă s-a stins
Și din care numai rodul fără vlagă iese-nvins
Chinuri! Dar deșteaptă-ți mintea, dar te uită-n neagra zare!
De ești om, fă-ți ochii roată peste țară și hotare.
Chinuri! Dar privește sânul bietei noastre moșii.
Numără, de poți, pe dânsul urmele de vrăjmășii,
Prin palaturi, prin colibe, jos, la șesuri, sus, la munte!
Despicate de cu veacuri, rănile-i sunt încă crunte;
Sabie și foc, din vale, din deal, sabie și foc!
Ani de groază și de sânge mulți… de liniște, deloc!
Veșnic lupta pentru lege, veșnic lupta pentru nume
Mor flăcăii înainte de moșnegi și chiar de mume!
Roșul focului pe ceruri, roșul sângelui pe-ogor,
Dacă mor de fier sau pară, chiar ei nu o știu, dar mor;
Și murind, sărută sânul țării mume, căci îi doare
Plânsul ei bătrân pe-obrajii înc-a unui fiu ce moare![…]
Iată chinurile noastre, și cu ele, doruri, vise,
Pe moșia strămoșească-n lung și lat, cu sânge scrise !
Iată chinurile mele, ale unui domn român,
Basarab, de sine vrednic și de numele-i bătrân […].19

Not to be found in the text of the premiere (or in its first edition, from
1902), the previous 16-syllable lines (of Hugolian influence) were composed
for the second edition, a piece of evidence that had its weight in the
unfortunate “affair” of questioned authorship.

19 ”Anguish? You speak of anguish? Anguish, the beating of the heart?/ Anguish? A
moment
of conviction, an impulse, or a flame/ Sparked merely by a gaze, extinguished
with a tear/
And wherefrom only barren fruit emerges/ Anguish! But awaken your mind, gaze in
the
dark horizon!/ If man you are, look round the country and the borders./ Anguish!
But stare
into the bosom of our poor domain,/ Upon it, if you can, count the tracks of our
enemies,/
Through castles, and through huts, down in the plains, high in the
mountains!/ Open
through the ages, its wounds are ruthless still;/ Fire and sword, from the
valleys to the hills,
fire and sword!/ Many bloody years of terror… of content, none at all!/ Eternal
is the fight
for law, eternal, the struggle for one’s fame/ The young men die before the
elders, before
their mothers too!/ The red of fire in the skies, the red of blood on fields,/
Whether dead by
iron or by fire they do not know, but dead they are;/ And dying, they kiss the
bosom of the
motherland, for they are pained/ By her ancient tears on yet another dying son!
[…]/ This
is our anguish, and with it, our longings, dreams/ Are all written in blood
across the ancient
land!/ Behold my anguish, the grief of a Romanian lord.”

175

----------------------- Page 177-----------------------

FLORIN FAIFER

An enigmatic, but transparently symbolic presence, Român Grue,

represented the unwavering support of lordship, which is always sacrificed
and which embodies the ancestral ties between the crown and the people.
Through this hero, a persuasive triumph of discretion, riddled with meaningful
silence, Al. Davila attempted to enhance through “muteness” the suggestive
possibilities of an otherwise discursive theatre. This came as a conversion from
rhetoric to its absolute negation – the purely gestural expression assimilated to
the system of allegorical signs characteristic of drama.

References

BADESCU, Marin Manu. editor. Alexandru Davila si teatrul. Bucuresti: Editura

Unitext,
1996.
CIOPRAGA, Constantin. Literatura romana intre 1900 si 1918. Iasi: Editura
Junimea,
1970, 603-11.
DAVILA, Alexandru. Vlaicu Vodă și alte scrieri despre teatru. Edited by D. D.
Panaitescu
and Marian Popa. București: Editura Albatros, 1975.
DUMITRESCU, Suzana-Carmen, editor. Alexandru Davila interpretat de….
Bucuresti:
Editura Eminescu, 1982.
LOVINESCU, Eugen. Scrieri. Volume VI. Edited by Eugen Simion. Bucuresti: Editura
Minerva, 1975, 85-6, 108-10, 301-4.
MICU, Dumitru. Inceput de secol: 1900-1916: Curente si scriitori.
Bucuresti: Editura
Minerva, 1970, pp. 532-9.
POPA, Marian. Forma ca deformare. Bucuresti: Editura Eminescu, 1975, 69-83.
VASILIU, Mihai. Al. Davila. Bucuresti: Editura Academiei, 1965.
ZACIU, Mircea. Bivuac. Cluj: Editura Dacia, 1974, 98-107.
 FLORIN FAIFER is a Professor and historian of Romanian literature and
theatre. He is
the author of many books, among which: Incursiuni în istoria
literaturii dramatice
româneşti – Regăsiri [Incursions in the History of Romanian Dramatic
Literature -
Recoveries], Iaşi, Editura Universitas XXI, 2008; Incursiuni în
istoria teatrului
universal (de la origini până în Renaştere). Theatrum mundi [Incursions in
the
History of World Theatre (from the origins to the Renaissance).
Theatrum
mundi], Iaşi, Editura Timpul, 2010; Incursiuni în istoria criticii
dramatice româneşti.
Zodia balanţei [Incursions in the History of Romanian Theatre
Criticism. The
Libra Zodiac Sign], Iaşi, Editura Timpul, 2010.

176

----------------------- Page 178-----------------------

STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA, LXIII, 1, 2018, p. 177 - 192

(Recommended Citation)
DOI:10.24193/subbdrama.2018.1.09

Marietta Anca. A Portrait of a Lady

1
LUCIAN SINIGAGLIA

Fig. 1: Marietta Anca.

Abstract: Marietta Anca was not the only artist to catch the eye of a
number of
personalities who wrote about theater. Alice Voinescu, Camil Petrescu,
Mihail
Sebastian, N. Carandino, Lucia Demetrius, Ioan Massoff, Petre
Comarnescu
have left testimonies about the artists who were at the heart of
Bucharest’s
theatrical life. Their opinions, read with maximum possible objectivity,
make
up the portrait of an artist with a vigorous personality, over whom a veil
had
settled, seemingly inexplicably, since the last years of her career. She
was in
demand and she excelled in historical evocation tragedy and in the
modern
psychological analysis drama.

Keywords: Marietta Anca, artistic career, parts in performances, Romanian

theatre, directors, theatrical columnists.

1 Lucian Sinigaglia: Institute of Art History ″G. Oprescu ″, Bucharest, Romania;

E-mail: lucian.sinigaglia@insse.ro.

----------------------- Page 179-----------------------

 LUCIAN SINIGAGLIA

Some biographical references, a list of roles, chronicle

excerpts,
memories of the contemporaries - these are the elements a theater historian
has at hand to portray an artist. The challenge is to create a picture in which
the objective aspects alternate with the author's subjective opinions, in
a
credible proportion, as in a painting where a realistic representation is
discretely complemented by impressionistic nuances (and why not with
some expressionistic ones).
Marietta Anca was not the only artist to catch the eye of a number of
personalities who wrote about the theater. Alice Voinescu, Camil Petrescu,
Mihail Sebastian, N. Carandino, Lucia Demetrius, Mircea Ștefănescu, Ioan
Massoff, Petre Comarnescu have left testimonies about the artists who were
at the heart of Bucharest's theatrical life. Their opinions, read with maximum
possible objectivity, make up the portrait of an artist with a vigorous
personality, over whom a veil has settled, seemingly inexplicably, since the
last years of her career.
It is absolutely necessary to insert a minimum of
biographical
markings, generously offered by Lucian Anca2,3, the nephew of the artist, as
preface of our incursion. Marietta Anca was born on January 11th, 1911,
in
Copalnic Mănăștur, in Maramureș. She was the daughter of Marieta Iernea,
whose evolutions in theater performances supported by high school students
in Oradea were admired by Iosif Vulcan, and Iuliu Anca, who had studied
medicine in Vienna. Marietta Anca also had two brothers: judge Cornel Anca
and conductor Leontin Anca (the latter being the father of Lucian Anca,
conductor also, who gathered with great effort details about the family
history from which he comes).
The family of the future artist moved to Oradea, where doctor
Anca
was appointed director of the hospital. The high school student Marietta
Anca had distinguished herself by her talent in reciting lyrics, treading in her
mother’s steps. Her talent led to her selection in the "Western Romanian
Association" Theater team in the locality. This institution was created in 1928
with the purpose of supporting "theater performances in Romanian in
Transylvania and Banat"4, in accordance with the principles promoted in the

2 Lucian Anca, ″O scurtă istorie a familiei Anca din Copalnic Mănăștur [A Short
History of
the Anca Family from Copalnic Mănăștur].″ Vatra Chioreană, (September 2006): 24-
30.
3 Lucian Anca, ″Străbătând veșnicia: Marietta Anca [Through Eternity:
Marietta Anca],″
Biblioteca Septentrionalis, no. 2 (41), (2013): 27-31.
4 According to the official letter published in Teatrul românesc
la Oradea. Perspectivă
monografică [Romanian Theater at Oradea. Monographic Perspective] (Oradea:
Editura
Revistei Familia, 2001), 59.

178
----------------------- Page 180-----------------------

MARIETTA ANCA. A PORTRAIT OF A LADY

social-political context built after the Great Union of 1918. On the

stage of
this theater, Marietta Anca played Crina in Patima roșie (The Red Passion) by
M. Sorbul and Ileana Cosânzeana in Înșir’te mărgărite de V. Eftimiu.
On a tour in Oradea, the famous actor and professor Ion
Manolescu
noted the young performer’s qualities and advised her to pursue acting
studies in Bucharest. As a student in the class of Professor Ion
Manolescu
from the Drama Art Conservatory, Marietta Anca starred in student
productions Andromaca by Jean Racine, as Hermione, and Fluture de noapte
(The Moth) by Henry Bataille. Her classmate Lucia Demetrius, the future
playwright, described the young artist’s features, painting an eloquent
portrait of her: ″Professor Manolescu rightfully appreciated my colleague
Marietta Anca, a young woman of breathtaking beauty, full of heat, of force,
with an emotion that could be communicated. Marietta Anca was statuary.
She was wearing a royal head on a tall neck. Under a cloth of
shoulder-
length black hair, licked, combed in the middle, she had a high noble
forehead, gray-blue eyes, thick eyebrows, a small, slightly arched nose, a full
mouth, ivory skin. She was a good colleague, a good friend, a generous
person. (...) Marietta Anca was studying her roles with perseverance and
passion, during the rehearsals she had no time for friends, she had no other
concern than the enhancement of her role″5 .
After graduation, Marietta Anca was employed in 1931 at the National
Theatre of Bucharest. From the first season she spent there, out of the thirty
seasons she would, she had been cast in prime roles. Olivia in Noaptea regilor
(Twelfth Night) by Shakespeare, directed by Paul Gusty, together with
Cleo
Pan-Cernățeanu, Tantzi Cutava-Barozzi, Aurel
Athanasescu, Romald
Bulfinsky, Alexandru Critico, Grigore Mărculescu; Lady Milford in Intrigă și
iubire (Intrigue and Love) by Schiller, directed by Soare Z. Soare, with Agepsina
Macri-Eftimiu, A. Pop-Marțian (the actress’s first husband), Romald Bulfinsky,
George Calboreanu; Isabela in Judecătorul din Zalameea (The Mayor of Zalamea)
by Calderon de la Barca, having the same director, with Elvira Godeanu,
Nicolae Bălțățeanu, and, again, Romald Bulfinsky as partners. Furthermore, in
this first season, she played the first role in a play written by the
famous
historian Nicolae Iorga, the actress investing all her artistic forces for a
difficult
author, almost incomprehensible to a large audience. This was in O ultimă rază
(A Last Ray of Sunshine), being the partner of Ion Manolescu, her first artistic
mentor. Another Romanian author, Adrian Verea, had Marietta Anca (as
Chimera) and Ion Manolescu (in the title part) as protagonists in Apolonius din
Tyane (Apolonius from Tyane), the director being Paul Gusty.

5 Lucia Demetrius, Memorii [Memoirs] (Bucharest: Editura Albatros, 2005), 74-75.

179
----------------------- Page 181-----------------------

LUCIAN SINIGAGLIA

We note Camil Petrescu’s opinion expressed after a performance with

Noaptea regilor (Twelfth Night): ″Marietta Anca is the connection between the
best National Theater today and tomorrow. The responsibility of
the
directors of our first scene, when they have in their care such a
theater
element, rich in attributes: beauty, grace, culture, and temperament (it
seems), is total. If they do not get anything out of such as an
exceptional
debut, they deserve any reproach″6.
There were developments more or less well received by critics, in
the
parts such as Manon Lescaut in the homonymous dramatization after Prévost,
Florica in Ion after Rebreanu, for the first time with Aura Buzescu,
together
with whom she will reunite in outstanding performances, Getta in Fântâna
Blanduziei (The Blanduzia Fountain) by Alecsandri, in which Marietta Anca was
the partner for Maria Filotti, Constantin Nottara, Ion Manolescu and
Aurel
Athanasescu (in alternation in the role of Horațiu), Alexandru Critico
and
George Demetru (in alternation in the role of Gallus), Ion Finteșteanu, Romald
Bulfinsky. A great success for Marietta Anca was the interpretation of Lady
Anne in Shakespeare’s Richard III, the director being Soare Z. Soare,
about
which Camil Petrescu wrote: ″Marietta Anca, disturbingly beautiful, vibrant,
has been a bit too much influenced by the theatricality of her «superiors» in the
play″7. The «superiors» were Maria Filotti, Agepsina Macri-Eftimiu, Ana Luca,
Ion Manolescu or G. Ciprian in alternation in the title role, Constantin Nottara,
Aurel Athanasescu, A. Pop-Marțian, Nicolae Brancomir, Nicolae Bălțățeanu.
Then followed a first presence outside the National Theater. In 1934, in
the last season of Theater Maria Ventura, Marietta Anca was involved in
Crimă și pedeapsă (Crime and Punishment) after Dostoyevsky. She sustained the
part of Sonia Marmeladova, together with George Vraca, G. Timică, V.
Valentineanu, Marietta Deculescu, Eugenia Popovici, Silvia Dumitrescu.
Another presence on the stage of a private theater was in a performance with
În amurg (At Sunset) by G. Hauptmann at Bulandra-Maximilian-Storin
Company (1936), directed by Victor Ion Popa.
Various acting roles followed in the actress’s career at the
National
Theater: Prothoe in Penthesilea by H. von Kleist (1935), in which
Marioara
Voiculescu had the title role; Elisa in Avarul (The Miser) by Molière
(1936),
together with Ion Finteșteanu, Elvira Godeanu, Sonia Cluceru, A. Pop-
Marțian; Carmina in Despot Vodă (The Voivode Despot) by Alecsandri (1937), as
a first approach to the role, as member in a team with A. Pop-Marțian,
G.
Ciprian, Aurel Athanasescu.

6 Camil Petrescu, ″Cronica teatrală [The Theatrical Chronicle].″ Argus, (October

18th, 1931).
7 Idem, (14th February 1934).
180

----------------------- Page 182-----------------------

MARIETTA ANCA. A PORTRAIT OF A LADY

In 1937 two major moments marked her artistic career. Hermione in

Shakespeare’s The Winterʹs Tale and Ioana Boiu in Camil Petrescu’s Suflete tari
(Hard Souls). These roles were representative of the two directions in which the
artist was wanted and in which she excelled: the historical evocation drama
(even if Shakespeare's play is more an allegory) and the modern psychological
analysis drama. N. Carandino, perhaps the best theater critic of the time, noted
about Marietta Anca’s performance in The Winter’s Tale: ″The female cast
enjoyed the input of Mrs. Marietta Anca. The woman unjustly suspected by
her husband and disappearing under the burden of supposed sin, to return to
life under the magic of fairy tale, found an ideal performer in the actress who

8
played, without exaggerating, the role of blasted virtue″. Under the
artistic
directon of Ion Șahighian, the actress’s partners were Nicolae Bălțățeanu,
Marietta Sadova, Nicolae Brancomir, Lilly Carandino, Alexandru Critico.
Re-evaluating his drama Suflete tari in a new version, Camil
Petrescu
explained why he chose Marietta Anca in the female leading role of the
production he directed: ″From the earliest rehearsals I realized that the great
artist, as I once suspected her to be, was a reality, but so was the
sinter of
wrong instructions... she confessed to me, shyly, that a director had once told
her that she has a forehead that is… ugly and that she must cover it
with
loops... And Marietta Anca has the most expressive and brightest forehead
that can be imagined. When I succeeded in gaining her trust, I had the feeling
that she would make a great creation in the role she was entrusted with. So
much modesty in work, so much obstinacy in trying, so much devotion to
nuance in art, I had rarely been given the chance to meet. … at the
last
rehearsal, I understood that I had in front of me one of the greatest artists that
the Romanian theater gave us. A nervous intensity like I had not witnessed
since Tina Barbu… The dramatism of accents, Marietta Anca's astonishing
insightful cry, in the scene of accelerated despair of the third act, could not be
rendered by anyone else – by no means - in the Romanian theater today. It's a
sound that goes beyond the ranges, even the extraordinary ones. For half an
hour, in the second act, on the stage (thanks to her) there is a nervous fluid
that, without being consumed, like fire, goes off into an endless crisscross of
nuances. Ironic, authoritarian, restless, with bursts on a hieratic background,
she stunnes due to her unmatched finesse… The countless curtain raises …
did not have anything to do with the text (because it had been
performed
before, without such striking success), but with the main performer… Liviu

8 N. Carandino, Cronica teatrală [The Theatrical Chronicle]″ Reporter, (October

3th, 1937).
181

----------------------- Page 183-----------------------

LUCIAN SINIGAGLIA

Rebreanu, Mircea Eliade, professor Alexandru Rosetti, Mihail Sebastian, Petru

Comarnescu, whom I saw on the evening of the premiere, were entirely
under the spell of this performer, and expressed their perplexity at not having
seen who she was before that″9 . Also on stage were Ion Manolescu and
Constantin Mitru in the other leading parts.

Fig. 2: Scene from Șase personaje în căutarea unui autor (Six characters in
Search of an
Author) by L. Pirandello directed by Ion Sava, Bucharest National Theater, 1938.
Marietta Anca’s silhouette can be seen in the middle of the second plane.

In 1938, after two appearances in the dramas of Nicolae Iorga, Regina

Cristina (Queen Christina) and Moartea marelui Alexandru (The Death of Great
Alexander), both directed by Ion Șahighian, Marietta Anca was part of the team
that put on stage a performance entered in the history of Romanian theater. Ion
Sava, one of the most interesting theater creators, staged Șase personaje
în
căutarea unui autor (Six characters in Search of an Author) by L. Pirandello, with
a
prestigious cast made up of George Calboreanu, Marietta Anca, Ion Anastasiad,
Marietta Sadova, Eugenia Zaharia, Alexandru Critico, Alexandru Marius. ″A
theater production of European level″10, said N. Carandino. The playwright

9 Camil Petrescu, ″Marietta Anca″, Gazeta, (December, 1937).

10 N. Carandino, ″Cronica teatrală [The Theatrical Chronicle],″ România, (November
13th, 1938).

182

----------------------- Page 184-----------------------

MARIETTA ANCA. A PORTRAIT OF A LADY

and novelist Mihail Sebastian noted that ″the whole production was dominated
by Marietta Anca, whose resources of great tragedienne are surprisingly nuanced
with I do not know what kind of demonic humor, appropriate to the role″.11

Fig. 3: Scene from The Tidings Brought to Mary by P. Claudel,

 directed by Ion Sava, Bucharest National Theater, 1938.

The following year, Ion Sava cast Marietta Anca in the part of Mara in
P. Claudel’s The Tidings Brought to Mary. When she was not yet a
dramatic
columnist at Revista Fundațiilor Regale (The Royal Foundation Magazine), Alice
Voinescu noted on April 13th, 1939 in her Diary: ″A commendable show.
Atmospheric lighting… Beautiful moments of Aura Buzescu, excellent,
impressive Marietta Anca″12. In his monograph dedicated to the director,
Petru Comarnescu said that ″although it is related to Christian mysticism, the
play has many secular elements that have been revealed by Ion Sava,
contrasting the purity and naivety embodied by the young Violaine (Aura
Buzescu) with the somatic personality of her sister, Mara (Marietta Anca)″13.
The partners of the two great artists were Getta Kernbach and, despite the fact
that Alice Voinescu did not appreciate them, Gheorghe Storin and Emil Botta.

11 Mihail Sebastian, ″Cronica teatrală [The Theatrical Chronicle].″ Viața

românească, (December
1938): 130-136.
12 Alice Voinescu, Jurnal [Diary] (Iași: Editura Polirom, 2013), vol. II, 202.
13 Petru Comarnescu, Ion Sava (Bucharest: Editura Meridiane, 1966), 131.

183

----------------------- Page 185-----------------------

LUCIAN SINIGAGLIA

In 1940, director Vasile Enescu staged Magda by H. Sudermann. Before

the premiere, N. Carandino considered ″that in the feminine talent shortage
of today's Romanian stage there are some names that the audience, at
the
urge of the theater craftsmen, are looking forward to seeing on the
poster.
Among them, Marietta Anca-Sadoveanu14 shines thanks to the artistic fusion
of a royal beauty and the unmistakable gift of great interpretation″15. Nicolae
Iorga wrote some impressions about his favorite actress’s performance in the
role of Magda: ″I had the chance to see one of the most
beautiful
performances at the National Theater. This is owing to the great talent that
allowed us to see, in perfect shape, the terrible excitement of a human soul

16
longing for freedom″ .
Returning to the collaboration with director Ion Sava, Marietta
Sava
played in 1941 the part of Hero in Waves of the Sea and of Love by
Franz
Grillparzer, together with Al. Alexandrescu-Vrancea, Fifi Mihailovici, Nicolae
Brancomir. The playwright Mircea Ștefănescu noted about the actress’s
performance: ″The artist’s deep sensitivity is found in the balance of
expression, in the move, in the necessary restraint. Life has remained intense.
Emotion does not defeat style. Hero's pain, the revolt of the penultimate act, as
well as her total transfiguration when she understood the revelation of love,

17
were Marietta Anca's outbursts of the warm, well-oriented temperament″ .
In the same year the actress played Tofana in Patima roșie (The
Red
Passion) by M. Sorbul. She reprised this part in several seasons, with different
partners such as Anca Șahighian, Carmen Tăutu, Nicolae Bălțățeanu, Aurel
Munteanu, Emil Botta, Costache Antoniu, Nicolae Brancomir. Also in 1941,
Marietta Anca played the part of Mommina in Tonight We Improvise by L.
Pirandello, directed by Fernando de Cruciatti, an artist who came from
Italy, a country allied to Romania in the Second World War, as an
artistic
advisor. ″With the right accents, painting the shades with discretion″18, the
actress played together with Maria Botta, Natașa Alexandra, Cella Dima,
Nelly Sterian, A. Pop-Marțian, Emil Botta, Grigore Mărculescu. In the new

14 After being married to the actor A. Pop-Marțian, Marietta Anca was married to
the writer
Ion Marin Sadoveanu.
15 N. Carandino, ″Premiere (Marietta Anca-Sadoveanu) [Premieres (Marietta Anca-
Sadoveanu)].″
Azi, February 18th, 1939.
16 Apud Ioan Massoff, Teatrul românesc. Privire istorică [The Romanian
Theater. A Historical
View] (Bucharest: Editura Minerva, 1978), vol. VII, 420.
17 Apud Petru Comarnescu, Ion Sava, 171.
18 Ioan Massoff, Teatrul românesc, vol. VIII, 81.

184

----------------------- Page 186-----------------------

MARIETTA ANCA. A PORTRAIT OF A LADY

Municipal Theater I.L. Caragiale, during the 1941-1942 season, Marietta Anca
was invited to play in O. Wilde’s An Ideal Husband, having as partner
the
huge artist Tony Bulandra, succeeded by Alexandru Critico, also a fine artist.
Under the artistic direction of Ion Șahighian, Marietta Anca played the
role of Princess Eboli in Don Carlos by Fr. Schiller in 1942, then in
1945,
together with Aglae Metaxa, Nicolae Bălțățeanu, Alexandru Critico, A. Pop-
Marțian, Nicolae Brancomir. With constant focus on her play, Ioan Massoff
wrote that Marietta Anca played her part ″with a vibration transmitted even
in the smallest replies″19.
After the events of August 23rd, 1944, Marietta Anca was not part of the
large group of artists who had begun to chant with the new power,
increasingly under Soviet influence. The artist did not join the
Romanian-
Soviet Friendship Association, did not sign pompous declarations for peace
and, especially, did not rush to play in productions with an enforced
ideological substrate. She appeared in a group of coryphaei, with Aura
Buzescu, Agepsina Macri-Eftimiu, and Cleo Pan-Cernățeanu, in Sophocles’
Oedipus the King (1944), where the protagonists were Marioara Voiculescu
and Sorana Țopa (in alternation), George Vraca and Nicolae Brancomir (in
alternation too), Ion Manolescu. The next year, Marietta Anca played the title
part in Lorelay by S. Cocorăscu, a drama of overwhelming pessimism, and
reprised the role of Carmina in Despot Vodă (The Voivode
Despot) by
Alecsandri, with different partners, such as Alexandru Critico, Nicolae
Brancomir, Emil Botta.

Fig. 4 and 5: The portrait of Marietta Anca, made by Ion Sava, and the mask
designed after the portrait, worn by the actress in Macbeth by W. Shakespeare.

19 Idem, Teatrul românesc, vol. VIII, 126.

185

----------------------- Page 187-----------------------

LUCIAN SINIGAGLIA

The actress delivered two royal portraits in two opposite performances:

Lady Macbeth in Macbeth by Shakespeare (1946) and Maria de Neubourg in
Ruy Blas by V. Hugo (1947), at the National Theater, and the title
part in
Anna Karenina after Lev Tolstoi at Odeon Theater.
As the first interpreter of the leading female role in the much-discussed
Macbeth directed by Ion Sava, in which the actors wore masks, Marietta Anca
said before the premiere that ″the masks are exceptional, but my point of view is
that we are being sacrificed. The expression of the face and of the eyes has

20
been removed and everything is based on the modulations of our voices″ .
In Ruy Blas, conducted by Ion Șahighian and performed with classical artistic
means, Marietta Anca was integrated in a strong team, together with Alexandru
Critico, Nicolae Brancomir, Nicolae Bălțățeanu.
In 1946-1947, at the new Odeon Theater, Marietta Anca played a different
part in the title role in Anna Karenina after Lev Tolstoi, directed also by Ion
Șahighian. Between the two queens, the actress found all the resources to
present the Tolstoian heroine in the whirl of passion, of motherly love, of
abandonment. Her partners were Nicolae Bălțățeanu and Toma Dimitriu.
Back home, at the National Theater, Marietta Anca was cast by director Sică
Alexandrescu as Freda Caplan in Dangerous Corner by J.B. Priestley (1947),
together with Mihai Popescu, Vasile Lăzărescu, Ion Omescu. "Without
demonstrating an in-depth study of the character, Marietta Anca plays with
fervor, paying attention to the necessary tensions. We were particularly

21
interested in harmonious transitions from one state of mind to another."
In 1948, two performances in quite different styles included
Marietta
Anca. She played the Duchess of Marlborough in The Glass of Water by
E.
Scribe, then Vasilissa in The Lower Depths by M. Gorki. A representative of
the new wave of theatrical critics, Valentin Silvestru noted, after the Scribe
production: ″Marietta Anca has been very well cast in this role, which
requires such a smooth transition in a wide variety of states and situations″22 .
Among the actress’s partners were Lia Șahighian and Nina Diaconescu (in
alternation), Raluca Zamfirescu, Nicolae Brancomir, Victor Antonescu, Marcel
Anghelescu.

20 Marietta Ancaʹs statement from the group of opinions ″Un spectacol de proporţii
uriaşe pe
scena Teatrului Naţional″ [″A Huge Performance on the National
Theater Stage″],
Spectator, (February 20th, 1946).
21 Liana Maxy, ″La Teatrul Național: Viraj periculos de J.B. Priestley [At
National Theater:
Dangerous Corner by J.B. Priestley],″ Rampa, (December 25th, 1947).
22 Valentin Silvestru, ″La Teatrul Național - Studio: Paharul cu apă de E. Scribe
[At National
Theater - Studio: A Glass of Water E. Scribe]″, Rampa, (December 25th, 1947).

186

----------------------- Page 188-----------------------

MARIETTA ANCA. A PORTRAIT OF A LADY

Fig. 6: Marietta Anca and Nicolae Brancomir in E. Scribe’s The Glass of Water
directed by Nicolae Massim, Bucharest National Theater, 1948.

As Vasilissa, together with Silvia Fulda, Irina Răchițeanu,

Ion
Manolescu, Gheorghe Storin, Nicolae Bălțățeanu, Nicoale Făgădaru, Victor
Antonescu, Marietta Anca was integrated in a production appreciated as a
suite of appearances of famous actors, among which there was a real
artistic binder.
In 1950, Marietta Anca played in a Soviet drama Casa cu storurile trase
(The House With the Drawn Blinds) by the Tur brothers. Simion Alterescu, in
socialist realism jargon, commented: ″The interpretation of Erna Kurtius
given by Marietta Anca was just. The actress's critical position towards the
character has allowed an achievement that embraces the meaning of the
drama of Germany″23 .
In 1954, the actress was cast in the secondary part of the housekeeper
Gyarta in The Farm Dangaard by M. Andersen Nexø. Under the artistic
direction of Moni Ghelerter, whose productions were based on the subtlety
of the actors’ performances, the actress had the opportunity to show her
desire to integrate into a real team, despite the fact that the role did not seem
to serve her qualities. The protagonists were Aura Buzescu, Eliza Petrăchescu,
and the young and promising Emanoil Petruț.
23 Simion Alterescu, ″Cronica teatrală [The Theatrical Chronicle]″,
Contemporanul, (January
10th, 1951).

187

----------------------- Page 189-----------------------

LUCIAN SINIGAGLIA

Fig. 7: Marietta Anca in The Lower Fig. 8: Marietta Anca

as Regan in King Lear by
Depths by M. Gorki, directed by Shakespeare (above),
National Theater, 1955.
Fernando de Cruciatti, Bucharest
National Theater, 1948.

For eleven seasons, starting from 1955, theater lovers were able to hear
and see many giants of the Romanian stage in King Lear by Shakespeare.
During this whole time, except for a few performances in which Dina Cocea
played it, Marietta Anca was Regan, in an awesome companionship with
Gheorghe Storin (almost blind, making an astonishing creation in the title
part), Aura Buzescu, Irina Răchițeanu and Anca Șahighian (in alternation
as Goneril), Marietta Deculescu and Anca Șahighian (in alternation as
Cordelia), Ion Manolescu and Virgil Popovici (successively as Gloster),
Nicolae Bălțățeanu and Constantin Bărbulescu (successively as Edmund),
Emil Botta and Mihai Berechet (in alternation as Edgar), G. Ciprian and N.
Gr. Bălănescu (in alternation as The Count of Kent), Marcel Anghelescu
(The Jester).

188

----------------------- Page 190-----------------------

MARIETTA ANCA. A PORTRAIT OF A LADY

Fig. 9: Marietta Anca at rehearsals, with Fig. 10:

Marietta Anca at rehearsals
the director Sică Alexandrescu and
with Aura Buzescu
Mihai Berechet.
 The production went almost unnoticed by the theater critics, probably
because they did not want to record the lack of affinity between the director
and the Shakespearean tragedy.
In 1957, Marietta Anca refused to play the main role in Judecata focului
(The Fire’s Judgement) by Al. Adamovici. It seems that the actress's
attitude
was rooted in the obscure mix of religion in the play’s plot, given that she
was a fervent believer. Then followed the disciplinary sanctioning of the
actress. The sanction appeared in the press24, an unusual fact. The sanction
and its publication were probably the result of the measures taken after the
Hungarian revolution of 1956 and of the fact that the author was
actually
Alexandru Voitinovici, the president of the High Court of Justice at that time.
Between the small parts in Surorile Boga (The Boga Sisters) by
H.
Lovinescu, directed by Moni Ghelerter (1959), and Învierea (The Ressurection)
after Lev Tolstoi, directed by Vlad Mugur (1960), Marietta Anca played Anca
in Năpasta (The Scourge) by I.L. Caragiale, being cast by directors
Marietta

24 ″Gestul reprobabil al unei actrițe [The Reprehensible Attitude of an Actress]″

signed A.B.,
Contemporanul, (September 13th, 1957).

189

----------------------- Page 191-----------------------

LUCIAN SINIGAGLIA

Sadova and Miron Niculescu (who have been involved succesivelly in the
stage of performance25) in alternation with Irina Răchițeanu, together with
Emil Botta and Toma Dimitriu. Her acting was discussed by V. Mîndra; he
said that ″she subtly expressed her exceptional sensitivity. In this version of
the show, Anca appeared more feminine without neglecting the requirements
of the text.″26
In 1962, when putting on stage Macbeth by W. Shakespeare,
director
Mihai Berechet made a secondary cast, opposing Marietta Anca and
Constantin Bărbulescu to the couple made of Tanți Cocea and Emil Botta. The
performance was short-lived because of Emil Botta's sinuous artistic form
(although a second cast was available) and because of a sanction received by
the director (which led to a hostile attitude toward the performance)27 .
Distributed by director Miron Niculescu as Queen Elisabeth in
Mary
Stuart by Fr. Schiller (1964), Marietta Anca performed in alternation
with
Dina Cocea for a short time. She was retired next year, in a context that I find
unclear. It seems that the retirement was a result of the refusal to
play in
Judecata focului, this overlapping with the retirement of a group of
artists
distinguished with such titles as ″the people’s artist″ or ″emeritus artist″. We
need to clarify that Marietta Anca was not awarded any such title.
These
forced retirements will be the subject of future research.
Although cut short by events beyond the artistic sphere, Marietta
Anca’s career can be considered remarkable. The opinions of contemporaries,
whose intellectual quality has resisted the passage of time, certify an artistic
journey that must be taken into account in a history of the actor’s art in the
Romanian theater.

25 According to Vera Molea, Marietta Sadova sau Arta de a trăi prin teatru
[Marietta Sadova or
The Art of Living Through the Theater], (Bucharest: Editura Bibliotecii
Metropolitane, 2013),
163-164.
26 V. Mîndra, ″Cronica teatrală: Năpasta de I.L. Caragiale (II) [The Theatrical
Chronicle: The
Scourge by I.L. Caragiale (II)]″, Gazeta Literară, (December 3rd, 1959).
27 Mihai Berechet, 9 caiete albastre [9 blue block-notes], (Bucharest:
Editura Muzicală, 1983),
215-218.

190

----------------------- Page 192-----------------------

MARIETTA ANCA. A PORTRAIT OF A LADY

References

ALTERESCU, Simion. ″Cronica teatrală [The Theatrical Chronicle].″

Contemporanul,
(January 10th, 1951).

ANCA, Lucian. ″O scurtă istorie a familiei Anca din Copalnic Mănăștur [A

Short
History of Anca Family from Copalnic
Mănăștur].″ Vatra Chioreană,
(September 2006).
- ″Străbătând veșnicia: Marietta Anca [Through Eternity: Marietta
Anca].″
Biblioteca Septentrionalis, no. 2 (41), (2013).
BERECHET, Mihai. 9 caiete albastre [9 blue block-notes]. București:
Editura Muzicală,
1983.
CARANDINO, N. ″Cronica teatrală [The Theatrical Chronicle].″ Reporter, (October
3th,

1937).

th
- ″Cronica teatrală [The Theatrical Chronicle].″, România,
(November 13 ,
 1938).
- ″Premiere (Marietta Anca-Sadoveanu)
[Premieres (Marietta Anca-
Sadoveanu)].″ Azi, (February 18th, 1939).

COMARNESCU, Petru. Ion Sava. Bucharest: Editura Meridiane, 1966.

DEMETRIUS, Lucia. Memorii [Memoirs] Bucharest: Editura Albatros, 2005.
MASSOFF, Ioan. Teatrul românesc. Privire istorică [The Romanian Theater. A
Historical
View]. Bucharest: Editura Minerva, 1978, vol. VII.
- Teatrul românesc. Privire istorică [The Romanian Theater. A
Historical View].
Bucharest: Editura Minerva, 1981, vol. VIII.
MAXY, Liana. ″La Teatrul Național: Viraj periculos de J.B. Priestley [At
National
Theater: Dangerous Corner by J.B. Priestley].″ Rampa, (December 25th,
1947).

MÎNDRA, V. ″Cronica teatrală: Năpasta de I.L. Caragiale (II) [The

Theatrical
Chronicle: The Scourge de I.L. Caragiale (II)].″ Gazeta Literară,
(December 3rd,

1959).
PETRESCU, Camil. ″Cronica teatrală [The Theatrical Chronicle].″ Argus,
(October
18th, 1931).

- ″Marietta Anca″, Gazeta, (December 1937).

SEBASTIAN, Mihail. ″Cronica teatrală [The Theatrical Chronicle].″ Viața
românească,
December 1938.
SILVESTRU, Valentin. ″La Teatrul Național - Studio: Paharul cu apă de E. Scribe
[At
National Theater - Studio: A Glass of Water E. Scribe].″ Rampa,
(December
25th, 1947).

191

----------------------- Page 193-----------------------

LUCIAN SINIGAGLIA

VOINESCU, Alice. Jurnal [Diary]. Iași: Editura Polirom, 2013.

Teatrul românesc la Oradea. Perspectivă monografică [Romanian Theater at
Oradea.
Monographic Perspective]. Oradea: Editura Revistei Familia, 2001.
″Gestul reprobabil al unei actrițe [The Reprehensible Attitude of an
Actress].″ signed
A.B., Contemporanul, (September 13th, 1957).

″Un spectacol de proporţii uriaşe pe scena Teatrului Naţional [A Huge Performance

on
the National Theater Stage].″ Spectator, (February 20th, 1946).

LUCIAN SINIGAGLIA is a theater historian and scientific researcher

(Ph.D.) at the
Institute of Art History ″G. Oprescu ″, Bucharest, Romania. Author of
the Teather and
Film chapter in Knowing Romania - member of the European Union,
Bucharest:
Editura Economică, 2008 and of several articles about the Romanian
theater history
after August 1944.

192

----------------------- Page 194-----------------------

STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA, LXIII, 1, 2018, p. 193 - 204

(Recommended Citation)
DOI:10.24193/subbdrama.2018.1.10

Perpetuation or Decline?
The German Theatre in Sibiu at the Turning Point 1918

1
URSULA WITTSTOCK

Abstract: The present paper focuses on the German theatre in Sibiu at the
turning point of the year 1918. It first examins the context of
the theatre
within the Habsburg monarchy, its settings and the networking with other
German-speaking theatres. Then it presents Leo Bauer as the long-standing
director of the German theatre in Sibiu, switching to the overthrow of the
theatre and its chances of survival within the new boundaries
after the
proclamation of the union of Transylvania with Romania.

Keywords: Transylvania, German theatre, 19th century, Leo Bauer, theatrical

conventions, cultural transfer

The German Theatre in Sibiu: Historic Context and Practices

The "Radu Stanca" National Theatre in Sibiu, Romania (German:

Hermannstadt, Hungarian: Nagyszeben), which has a Romanian and a
German section, advertises since 2007 with the catchphrase „Founded in
1788“2 . Even if one does lack the knowledge of theatre history in
Sibiu,
some considerations should be made: Above all, from a theatre historical
perspective, the idea of a continuum would be rather disputable. It would at
the most point to an institutionalised theatre tradition of the city. One cannot
speak about a Romanian national theatre in Transylvania before 1918, as this
province was until the beginning of the 16th century under the Hungarian
Crown and became then a semi-independent state under the suzerainty of

1 Ursula Wittstock: Faculty of Letters, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca,

Romania.
E-mail: uwittstock@gmail.com
2 In original: „Fondat 1788“. See http://www.tnrs.ro. [accessed on 6.01.2018]

----------------------- Page 195-----------------------

URSULA WITTSTOCK

the Ottoman Empire. By the end of the 17th century, Transylvania became
part of the Habsburg monarchy and as of 1867 – with the Austro-Hungarian
Compromise (Ausgleich), the emergence of the dual monarchy – it stood
again under the Hungarian Crown (Transleithania). Only after the First
World War, in 1918, Transylvania proclaimed the union with Romania. Sibiu
was until 1790 the capital of the Grand Duchy of Transylvania and it
remained the cultural centre of the Transylvanian Saxons up to 1918, as
it
was predominantly influenced by German culture.
Therefore, it is not possible to comprise the history of the theatre in
Sibiu into one of a national theatre, due to the shifting of boundaries and
the historically determined prerequisites. Although, the town could look
back on a rather long tradition of German theatre, which went back to the
16th century, to the time of the Protestant school drama, but it would not
come to the founding of a national stage for the Transylvanian Saxons. The
city had a theatre, which was founded in 1788 and owned by the book
printer and editor Martin von Hochmeister the Elder (1740-1789). It was
built in one of the former fortification towers of the town wall and leased
out to different German-speaking touring companies. The theatre went
through various status changes since the middle of the 19th century: it was
first a private institution, then the town theatre, until it became a theatre for
the German minority.
The German theatre in Sibiu was part of a dynamic network of
German-speaking theatres in the Habsburg monarchy, whithin which
theatrical practices were exchanged, beyond the common perception of a
cultural correlation between centre and periphery, in which Vienna played
the role of the theatre metropolis. As Helga Mitterbauer puts it, the
dynamic network considers also bypasses and interstations through which
cultural elements are often transferred3 . With regard to theatre,
this
network was not mainly powered by the fact that theatre productions
circulated throughout Central Europe, but by the transfer of
theatre
practices like staging and acting.

3 See Helga Mitterbauer, ”Dynamik-Netzwerk-Macht. Kulturelle Transfers „am

besonderen
Beispiel“ der Wiener Moderne” [”Dynamics-Network-Power. Cultural Transfers
Illustrated
by the Viennese Modern Age”] in Ent-grenzte Räume. Kulturelle Transfers um 1900
und in der
Gegenwart [Expanded Spaces. Cultural Transfers around 1900 and Nowadays],
edited by Helga
Mitterbauer and Katharina Scherke (Wien: Passagen Verlag, 2005), 113.

194

----------------------- Page 196-----------------------

PERPETUATION OR DECLINE? THE GERMAN THEATRE IN SIBIU AT THE TURNING POINT 1918
 Fig. 1: Theatre in Sibiu (Hermannstadt)

The theatre of the 19th century was based on certain conventions of

performance, which Marion Linhardt describes using the term "performative
Stereotypen"4 [performative stereotypes] and doing so she is referring not
only to the stage space or the design, but to the actor himself. One of the
most important stereotype was the system of dramatic roles, which
strongly regulated the cast and led to a surge of new theatre plays. With the
beginning of the 19th century, German theaters introduced the French
model of organizing the company, in which each actor was casted according
to his acting skills. 5 Thus, roles were not individually but
standardised.
This will later come to a change through naturalism and the emerge of
Regietheater (the director´s theatre). Roles like chevalier, intrigeur, burlesque
were complemented by new ones, as the French comedy of manners and its

4 Marion Linhardt, ”Kunstwissenschaft vs. performative Stereotypen?”

[”Aesthetics versus
Performative Stereotypes?”] in Zeit/Sprünge zu Aspekte des
Performativen, Theatralen,
Pädagogischen, Medialen und Rhetorischen im 19. Jahrhundert
[Time/Lapses on Aspects of
Performativity, Theatre, Pedagogy and Rhetoric in the 19th Century] edited by
Nicole Haitzinger
and Claudia Jeschke (München: Epodium, 2007), 115.
5 See Hans Doerrey, Das Rollenfach im deutschen Theaterbetrieb des 19.
Jahrhunderts [The Role
System in German Theatre in the 19th Century] (Berlin: Gesellschaft für
Theatergeschichte,
1926), 12-13.

195

----------------------- Page 197-----------------------

URSULA WITTSTOCK

German imitations were included in the repertoire: bon viveur, salonnière.

These typecasts led to the expansion of personnel: from 17-20 actors in the
18th century to 25-30 actors in the 19th century.6 While bigger theatres
disestablished the system of dramatic roles, smaller ones in the provinces
would keep it out of economical reasons, as it facilitated the engagement of
actors.7
The theatre routine of the 19th century displayed the symptom of
mobility, which was in contrast to the coexistent sedentism of troups. Anja
Hentschel suggests that the reestablishment of theatres
induced an
increased mobility of individual actors and no longer of touring companies,
as it happened since the 18th century.8 A quick look into the Neuer Theater-
Almanach9 would confirm the temporary structure of stage ensembles of
many German-speaking theatres.
For the German theatre in Sibiu, Leo Bauer (1848-1939) is an example
of such a mobility. He was born in Vienna and was at first a
background
actor at the "Burgtheater", while attending the drama school of Valentin
Niklas10 (1806-1883). His school was rather a training stage, where Heinrich
Laube11 (1806-1884) discovered Leo Bauer and brought him to the "Wiener
Stadttheater" in 1874. Ineluctable, Bauer followed several engagements at
theatres across the monarchy as a character actor and director. In 1883
he
was at the "Theater in der Josefstadt" and one year later at the "Theater an
der Wien". He went then to Teschen (Cieszyn/Silesia), Sarajevo (Bosnia),
Pola (Croatia), Bielitz (Bielsko/Silesia), Sibiu and Brasov (Transylvania),
before settling at Sibiu in 1893 and taking over the theatre for the next 27
years. He made here his stage debut on the 7th of October 1890 as
King

6 Doerrey, Das Rollenfach, 30-31.

7 See Judith Eisermann, Josef Kainz – Zwischen Tradition und Moderne. [Josef Kainz
- Between
Tradition and Modernity] (München: Utz Verlag, 2010), 25-26.
8 See Anja Hentschel, Mobilitätsforschung und Theatergeschichte: Zur Mobilität von
Schauspielern
im 19. Jahrhundert. [Mobility Research and Theatre History: The Mobility of
Actors in the 19th
Century] in Aktuelle Tendenzen der Theatergeschichtsforschung. [Recent
Trends in Theatre
History] (Berlin: Gesellscahft für Theatergeschichte,1996), 55.
9 Neuer Theater-Almanach was a theatre yearbook published in Berlin, which listed
all German
theaters in Europe with their artistic and administrative staff, starting with
1880 until 1914.
10 Valentin Niklas was an actor and director at theatres in Vienna and
the province until
1859, when he became stage manager and director of supernumeraries at the
Burgtheater
in Vienna.
11 Heinrich Laube was a German dramatist and theatre director, first at the
Burgtheater and
then at the Stadttheater in Vienna.

196

----------------------- Page 198-----------------------

PERPETUATION OR DECLINE? THE GERMAN THEATRE IN SIBIU AT THE TURNING POINT 1918

Louis XI. in the one-act play Gringoire by Théodore de Banville (1823-1891), a

repertory piece from the "Burgtheater" in Vienna. The local press complimented
him as being a sensible and purposeful actor with a sonorous voice and great
skills, concluding that he is an excellent acquisition.12
Leo Bauer´s career until his long-term engagement in Transylvania is
regarded as exemplary for a mobility that differs from the specific, convergent
metropolis-province model. Despite the decisive role of Vienna, it points out to a
brisk activity at the peripheries, at those locations, which where interconnected.
As Philipp Ther has noticed it for the musical theatres in Central
Europe,
these contacts strengthend and got permanent. They formed multilateral
networks amidst intensive cultural transfer processes.13 To understand these
dynamics one has to look at the requirements of stage engagements and the
arrangement of the repertoire. A director would compile his ensemble before
the season started with the help of theatre agencies to begin rehearsals
on
time. The above mentioned role system would play a significant part in this
undertaking. The repertoire consisted of plays en vogue, then classical plays,
which formed the base stock. We can therefore conclude, that the repertoire of
German theatres in the Habsburg monarchy coincided, and, as the chronicler
summed it up, these theatres where both in the concentric perimeter of
Vienna as a theatrical metropolis, as well as part of a network of
many
further locations:

Für unsere Bühne ist ebenso wie für alle deutschen

Provinztheater
unserer Monarchie der Wiener Theatermarkt maßgebend: wir müssen
von dort unsere Darsteller beziehen, nicht nur weil Berlin zu weit ist,
sondern auch, weil der reichsdeutsche Schauspieler zumeist unserem
Geschmack weit weniger entspricht, als der österreichische. Somit ist
ein gewisser Kreislauf von selbst gegeben, der unsere Stadt mit Orten
wie Laibach, Klagenfurt, Olmütz, Troppau, Czernowitz uff. verbindet.14

12 Siebenbürgisch-Deutsches Tageblatt, XVII, 22.10.1890.

13 See Philipp Ther, In der Mitte der Gesellschaft. Operntheater in Zentraleuropa
1815-1914. [In the
Middle of Society. Musical Theatres in Central Europe 1815-1914] (Vienna:
Oldenburg, 2006), 414.
14 Siebenbürgisch-Deutsches Tageblatt, XL, 21.10.1913. "The theatre market in
Vienna is decisive
for us, as well for all German province theatres of our monarchy: we
have to get our
actors from there, not only because Berlin is too far away, but also because
the German
actor suits us less than the Austrian actor. It´s a natural circuit,
which ties our town to
places like Ljubljana, Klagenfurt, Olomuc, Opava, Chernivtsi."

197

----------------------- Page 199-----------------------

URSULA WITTSTOCK

Fig. 2: Siebenbürgisch-Deutsches Tageblatt, no 1.1874.

198

----------------------- Page 200-----------------------

PERPETUATION OR DECLINE? THE GERMAN THEATRE IN SIBIU AT THE TURNING POINT 1918

Fig. 3: Leo Bauer’s Ensemble, 1910

199

----------------------- Page 201-----------------------

URSULA WITTSTOCK

The circulation of actors predestined the above mentioned analogy of

the repertoires and, if some differences could be noticed, their outcome in a
comparative analysis would rather be of humble importance. Requiered local
features or selfconception would eventually shatter due to this correlations
between repertoire and theatre business. The actors would produce their role
range to theatre angencies and thus get their engagement. The autonomous
study of a role with less diffusivenes would not have brought the
desired
engagement or assumed reputation.

The Repertoire

Constantly published theatre reviews as well as the retrospect of

theatre seasons and contributions to events on the stage in Sibiu and on other
stages were purveyed by Ernst Jekelius the Elder (1862-1937), attorney,
senator and deputy mayor of Sibiu, who monitored the theatre activity of his
home town as a second profession since 1887. His reviews were one of the
most widely read sections of the daily paper "Siebenbürgisch-Deutsches
Tageblatt". Jekelius intended to write a theatre history based on his notes,
all he left is a sketch of an overview, which listed first the "noble inventory"
of the German theatre in Sibiu within a time span of 50 years (from 25th of
March 1874 to 16th of November 1923) 15 : Johann Wolfgang Goethe (Götz von

Berlichingen, Clavigo, Egmont, Faust, Iphigenie), Friedrich Schiller (The Bride of

Messina, Don Carlos, Demetrius, The Maid of Orleans, Intrigue and Love, Maria
Stuart, The Robbers, Turandot, Wallenstein, Wilhelm Tell), Gotthold Ephraim
Lessing (Emilia Galotti, Minna von Barnhelm, Nathan the Wise),
William
Shakespeare (Taming of a Shrew, Henric IV, Hamlet, Julius Caesar, The Merchant
of Venice, King Lear, Macbeth, Othello, Romeo and Julia, Richard III, A Midsommer
Night´s Dream, Much Ado About Nothing, Twelfth Night, A Winters Tale), Franz
Grillparzer (Die Ahnfrau [The Ancestress], The Jewess of Toledo, The Fortune and
Fall of King Ottokar, Des Meeres und der Liebe Wellen [Waves of Sea and Love],
Medea, Sappho), Christian Friedrich Hebbel (Gyges and his Ring, Judith
and
Holofernes, Maria Magdalena), Heinrich von Kleist (Katie of Heilbronn, The
Prince of Homburg, The Broken Jug).

15 Ernst Jekelius, ”Das deutsche Theater in Hermannstadt 1874-1924” [”The German

Theatre

in Sibiu 1874-1924”] in Siebenbürgisch-Deutsches Tageblatt. LI, 1.01.1924.

200

----------------------- Page 202-----------------------

PERPETUATION OR DECLINE? THE GERMAN THEATRE IN SIBIU AT THE TURNING POINT 1918

This list might seem misleading as it highlights a literary canon

of
classics. As we know now, theatre underwent a commercializing starting with
the second half of the 19th century, which involved the extension of the light
stage literature, automatically referred to as low-grade stage productions by
the historiography. Recently, theatrical research is pleading for an
enlarged
perspective upon theatre, in the sense of its commercializing, beside its
aesthetic factor.

Theatrical firms' fiscal practices derive not only from an aesthetic

outlook
but also from the interactions of consumers, producers, capital,
and
16
what was called in the nineteenth century political economy.
 Peter W. Marx describes this as a contract between the theatre and its
public, not only as participants in a cultural event, but as economical
partners, which are subjects to the law of demand and supply and to which

17
the dichotomy of high and low literature is inherent:

Though many attempts have been undertaken to overcome the simplistic

dichotomy of ´high´ versus ´low´ culture, the implicit binary of
this

18
opposition remains present and influences the concept of modern theatre.

Altogether, the theatre had in the above mentioned period

6792
stagings, out of which 2298 were operettas, while the rest was in large part
dedicated to comedy (burlesque, farce, folk play). Jekelius´ notes reveal that
the stage in Sibiu was also shared by Transylvanian Saxon associations and
by Romanian and Hungarian theatre companies, both professionals and
dilettantes.

The Turning Point 1918

Apart from those impacts and upheavals, for which certain persons
take the responsability, for instance a new theatre manager, or, apart
from
cultural milestones as the turn of the century at 1900, a continuum may be

16 Tracy C. Davis, The Economics of the British Stage, 1800-1914.

(Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000), cited in Peter W. Marx, ”Consuming
the Canon: Theatre,
Commodification, and Social Mobility in Late Nineteenth-Century German
Theatre”,
Theatre Research International 31, no2 (2006): 129.
17 Peter W. Marx, Consuming the Canon, 130.
18 Peter W. Marx, Consuming the Canon, 130.

201

----------------------- Page 203-----------------------

URSULA WITTSTOCK

affected by events rooted in current political affairs, as the outbreak

of the
First World War or the rearrangement of states after 1918. These turning
points put the theatre into new order patterns, where adaptation is called for.
The activity of the theater in Sibiu was affected by the war
since its
outbreak, even though the town became part of the theatre of war only in 1916,
with the offensive of the Romanian army in August 1916. The theatre didn´t
close down, as it became a matter of distraction for the remaining population,
by staging mostly comedy and operetta. War affected the repertoire also
in
political terms, as some authors couldn´t be staged in the Austrian-Hungarian
monarchy. French and English authors were now on the enemy side, except
Shakespeare, which was still scheduled in the repertoire. While theatres
in
Germany reverted to national-patriotic plays, the theatre in Sibiu didn´t
became the stage for a nationalistic spirit. The audiences great appetite for the
musical genre is reflected in the statistics of Leo Bauer´s mandate.
War and political reorder after the proclamation of the Union of
Transylvania with Romania in 1918 had an adverse effect on the German
theatre in Sibiu. With the downfall of the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy
came now a series of attempts to curtail or even dissolve institutions
of
minority, in this case of the German minority. New legislative decrees
impeded the theatre management to pick up its tradition, e.g. frontier
closure, refused admission for German and Austrian artists. These led to a
temporary closing of the theatre.
Starting with 1918, the German population in Transylvania came to
regard its almost lost theatre as a valuable means in the preservation of their
identity. The theatre reacted to it by trying to find new forms of survival. Due
to the precarious financial situation, some of the actors left Bauer´s ensemble.
At the same time the ensemble split into smaller touring companies, which
played in various Transylvanian towns, hoping for vital
earnings.
Simultaneously, a German theatre association was founded in Sibiu on the
23rd of April 1919 as a reaction to the predicaments caused by the war and
the new state strucutre. The German cultural journal wrote: „Wir leben
abgeschlossen von der großen Welt, ohne genügende Verbindung mit dem
befruchtenden Ausland. Kein Wunder, wenn das Theater den modernen
Ansprüchen nicht mehr genügen kann.“19 [„We live isolated from the big
world, without enough connection to the fertilising abroad. No wonder that
the theatre cannot meet the high demands of modern culture.“]

19 [H.T.S.], ”Theater und Theaterverein in Hermannstadt” Ostland.

Monatsschrift für die
Kultur der Ostdeutschen. I, 3rd issue, (August 1919): 160.

202

----------------------- Page 204-----------------------

PERPETUATION OR DECLINE? THE GERMAN THEATRE IN SIBIU AT THE TURNING POINT 1918

The association aimed to find new actors, literally out of their

own
ranks. Thus, they organized regular rehearsal evenings. They trusted Leo
Bauer´s long term experience to provide young talents. But their primary
objective was the valorisation of German literature, particularly the literature
of the Transylvanian Saxons. The focus on local cultural assets led to the fact,
that the first play staged by the association was the historical Drama
Die
Flandrer am Alt [The Flemish at the Olt] by Michael Albert (1836-1893).
The
play portrayed the settlement of the Saxons20 on the river Olt in Transylvania

in the year 1150. They had been invited by the Hungarian king to protect the
area from the invading Cumans and established here their homeland.
Although they played it six times to a full house, the critics rejected the
choice, arguing that the play was an example for immature indigenous stage
literature.21 These reaction states an orientation towards up-to-date
theatre
practice and less a withdrawal into provincialism.
In the spring of 1921, representatives of the German theatre association
in Sibiu called on Dr. Emil Isac (1886-1954), inspector general of the theatres
in Transylvania and Banat to present the plans of an arrangement of the
German theatre. They met the approval of Isac, the general public was then
informed that all aspirations will be brought together into a memorandum. It
should then be presented on the 27th and 28th of April 1921 in Bucharest at

the congress regarding the regulation of theatres in Romania. Head of

the
congress was the minister of culture, Octavian Goga (1881-1938). These
efforts combined with the responsiveness of the Romanian part brought the
hope, that the German theatre will have a future. Even if the theatre lost its
license in 1922, it will have been reestablished in the 1930s and then
definitive after the war in 1956.
As for Leo Bauer, he couldn’t cope with the new situation, in spite of or
perhaps because of his long term experience in a lost theatre business, also
refusing any support from the new structures. He represents the end of an
era of theatre history, which couldn’t be resurrected.

20 The term „Saxon” is a historical misinterpretation; it applies to German-

speaking population that
came from the area of what today is Flandres, Wallonia, Luxemburg.
21 Ibid., 161.

203

----------------------- Page 205-----------------------

URSULA WITTSTOCK

References

Neuer Theater-Almanach. Theatergeschichtliches Jahr- und Adressenbuch. Berlin: F.A.

Günther
1.1890 – 25.1914.
Siebenbürgisch-Deutsches Tageblatt. Hermannstadt/Sibiu 1893-1924.
[H.T.S.], ”Theater und Theaterverein in Hermannstadt”. Ostland. Monatsschrift für
die Kultur der Ostdeutschen I, 3rd issue, (August 1919).
DOERRY, Hans. Das Rollenfach im deutschen Theaterbetrieb des 19. Jahrhunderts.
Berlin:
Selbstverlag der Gesellschaft für Theatergeschichte, 1926.
EISERMANN, Judith. Josef Kainz – Zwischen Tradition und Moderne. München: Utz
Verlag,
2010.
HENTSCHEL, Anja. ”Mobilitätsforschung und Theatergeschichte: Zur Mobilität von
Schauspielern im 19. Jahrhundert”. in Aktuelle Tendenzen der
Theatergeschichts-
forschung . Berlin: Gesellschaft für Theatergeschichte, (1996), 55-72.
JEKELIUS, Ernst. ”Das deutsche Theater in Hermannstadt 1874-1924”. in
Siebenbürgisch-
Deutsches Tageblatt. LI, (1.01.1924).
LINHARDT, Marion. ”Kunstwissenschaft vs. performative Stereotypen?” in
Zeit/Sprünge.
 Zu Aspekten des Performativen, Theatralen, Pädagogischen, Medialen und
Rhetorischen
im 19. Jahrhundert, edited by Nicole Haitzinger and Claudia Jeschke.
München:
epodium, 2007, 107-122.
MARX, Peter W. ”Consuming the Canon: Theatre, Commodification, and Social
Mobility in Late Nineteenth-Century German Theatre”. in Theatre
Research
International 31, 2 (2006): 129-144.
MITTERBAUER, Helga. ”Dynamik-Netzwerk-Macht. Kulturelle Transfers „am besonderen
Beispiel“ der Wiener Moderne. in Ent-grenzte Räume. Kulturelle
Transfers
um 1900 und in der Gegenwart”. edited by Helga Mitterbauer and Katharina
Scherke. Wien: Passagen Verlag, 2005, 109-130.
THER, Philipp: In der Mitte der Gesellschaft. Operntheater in Zentraleuropa 1815-
1914.
Wien [et. al.]: Oldenburg, 2006.

URSULA WITTSTOCK is a Teaching Assistant at the Department of

German
Language and Literature of the Faculty of Lettres, Babeş-Bolyai
University, Cluj,
Romania. Her main research interests include the history of
German theatre in
Romania, theatre – press relations and cultural transfers.

204

----------------------- Page 206-----------------------

STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA, LXIII, 1, 2018, p. 205 - 216

(Recommended Citation)
DOI:10.24193/subbdrama.2018.1.11

The Image of History in Matei Vișniec’s Dramaturgy

1
CRISTIAN GROSU

Motto

At the age of 17, I believed in progress,

even in the utopia of
science (it seemed logical to me that humanity was
going to get it
better due to scientific and technological
discoveries). Later,
when I became a teacher and I was engaging
in an infernal
commute between Bucharest and Dorobantu-
Pătăreşti village,
all my illusions were shattered and I
understood that the
communist system was impossible to reform from
within. Now,
after 31 years of living in the West, it
seems to me that the
capitalist system cannot be reformed from within
either, and that
the unique consumer pattern adopted by the whole
planet leads
us to collective suicide. In addition, we have
also discovered that
people never learn from the mistakes of the past,
and that history
repeats itself with its most macabre episodes. A
new mediaeval
fragmentation of human societies is possible, a
return of religious
obscurantism is possible, a regression of
democracy is evident
on the planet, and a new age of dictators
(or dictatorships)
seems plausible to me. History is not an exact
science; it is the
approximate (often politically
instrumentalized) reading of
human adventure.

(Matei Vișniec)

Abstract: This paper aims at analyzing the dramaturgical tools in

Matei
Vișniec’s dramaturgy, which shed light upon the relation between
art and
history, between art under the cover of fiction and what takes place
outside
the walls of the theatre. These two are never completely split, they
intertwine
and they empower one another. A key point in Matei Vișniec’s
work is the
way in which history is presented like a mechanism dwelling
phenomena
always ready to repeat themselves, as for instance totalitarianism. The
content
of the paper is based on theoretical approaches, also on the
opinions of the

1 Cristian Grosu: Teaching assistant, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca.

eucristiangrosu@yahoo.com

----------------------- Page 207-----------------------

CRISTIAN GROSU

dramaturge in relation with his own creation and on practical

assumption
following a personal point of view of the actor
integrated within two
productions based on plays written by Matei Vișniec: The Spectator
Sentenced to
Death2
3
and Richard III Will Not Take Place or Scenes of the Life of
Meyerhold

Keywords: history, totalitarianism, theatre, Matei Vișniec, freedom,

absurd,
grotesque, terror.

There are three key questions that the present paper is based upon:
which are the mechanisms of history? Is there any possibility for an
oppressive historical fact (dictatorship, for instance) to repeat itself in new,
unrecognizable forms? Which is the relation between history and theatre,
as it is presented in contemporary dramaturgy? Starting from
these
interrogations, I approached a few texts by Matei Vișniec, in order to outline
the fact that we are caught in the trap of a historical machinery that
will
adapt its rules to no matter what changes and that, in very subversive ways,
history can revive atrocities which seemed buried and (maybe) forgotten
long time ago. From this perspective, brought in the field of art in general
and in theatre especially, it is natural to ask ourselves: in what way is history
supposed to influence and shape the form of certain theatrical manifestations
and, in reverse, how is art meant to challenge the course of history and even
change it? To these questions, Matei Vișniec answered:

Neither literature nor theatre ever overthrew a dictatorship or brought

about the fall of a monstrous regime. Still, literature and
theatre can
become spaces of cultural resistance, zones of relative freedom, forms of
direct or veiled social critique. Art and especially
theatre have an
influence upon history as they are able to change people, to make them
think and reflect, to get worried and indignant, sometimes to the extent

4
of revolting themselves.

2 Răzvan Mureșan director, Spectatorul condamnat la moarte by Matei

Vișniec, Teatrul
Național „Lucian Blaga“, Cluj-Napoca, premiered on 21 December 2013
3 Răzvan Mureșan director, Richard al III-lea se interzice! by Matei Vișniec,
Teatrul Național
„Lucian Blaga“, Cluj-Napoca, premiered on 18 September 2015
4 All the quotations from Matei Visniec (the motto of the paper included) in
relation with the
topics of the paper are excerpts from the interview that he gave me
especially for the
elaboration of the present paper.

206

----------------------- Page 208-----------------------

THE IMAGE OF HISTORY IN MATEI VIȘNIEC’S DRAMATURGY

 If we remain in the area of this connection between history (in
its
extreme forms manifested through totalitarian regimes) and art, is it obvious
to point out a connection that Matei Vișniec makes in his play Richard III Will
Not Take place Or Scenes from the Life of Meyerhold between
Vsevolod
Meyehold, Stalin and the Shakespearean character Richard III. It is well
known how Shakespeare deals with the issue of power: King Richard III, as
Shakespeare portrayed him, is the mirror of the systems that are imposing
themselves through crime, manipulation and oppression, just like in the case
of Stalin. The system is legitimating itself through an ideology that brings a
key figure, or a very carefully designed stereotype. Asa far as Stalin
is
concerned, this tool of manipulation and validation of his atrocities is
the
image of the “new man”. Getting back to Matei Vișniec’s dramaturgy, we are
confronted with the image of history as an origin of this sort of atrocities in
the scene of the birth of the new man in Richard III Will Not Take
place Or
Scenes from the Life of Meyerhold. As Laura Pavel pointed out:

One of the most grotesque scenes in the post-communist theatre

that
approaches political themes is, without a doubt, the birth of
the “new
man”, of the “marionette-child” in Matei Vișniec’s tragic farce Richard al
III-lea nu se mai face sau Scene din viața lui Meyerhold [Richard III is
Forbidden
or scenes from Meyerhold’s life]. Having turned into a grown-up
rather
suddenly, through what appears to be a genetically inherited ideological
perversion, the child turns, within the span of a few moments,
into a
monstrous censor of the Stalinist regime. Once he has
fitted the
Shakespearean Richard III crown upon his head, the “newly-
born
comrade” brings a simultaneously nightmarish and hilarious indictment
against his own father, the illustrious Russian director Meyerhold 5

As Mihai Lungeanu emphasized, the above mentioned scene is an

expression of the absurd, as the child, once born, becomes “the quintessence
of terror”.6
7
Also, the grotesque walks hand in hand with the absurd in the

5 Laura Pavel, Teatru și identitate. Interpretări pe scena interioară /

Theatre and identity.
Interpretations on the inner stage (Cluj-Napoca: Casa cărții de știință, 2012),
147-148.
6 Mihai Lungeanu, Personajul virtual sau Calea căte al V-lea punct cardinal la
Matei Vișniec (Cluj-
Napoca: Eikon, 2014), 120
7 Mihai Lungeanu, Personajul virtual, 120.

207

----------------------- Page 209-----------------------

CRISTIAN GROSU

scene where the head of “King Richard” is served on a plate by Stalin

himself. In fact this is a paradigm of the history as it is presented by Matei
Vișniec in the plays in which he refers to the atrocities of totalitarianism. An
important concept in the play Richard III Will Not Take place is the evil. We
were used to the image of the Shakesperean Richard as an expression of the
historical evil itself. On the contrary, the character Meyerhold created
by
Matei Vișniec turns Richard into another kind of character, which can be
easily perceived as a positive one, as he is, in contrast with Stalin, the evil
deprived of any ideological dimension.

Fig. 1: Scene from Richard al III-lea se interzice/ Richard III Will Not
Take place.
From left to right Cristian Grosu and Matei Rotaru.

RICHARD III: I am when I can get away from a life of crime, Comrade
Maestro Artiste. In the meantime, I’m still killing… I have killed the
two
princes, my nephews, I have killed my wife, Queen Anne, I have killed
my loyal friend Lord Buckingham… All those who could lay claim to
the crown and who could have stood in the way of my goal are dead.
Except Lord Richmond, who has fled to France to seek out help. But I
will crush him on the field of battle… Tell me, Maestro Artiste, why do
you want to make me into a sympathetic character?

208

----------------------- Page 210-----------------------

THE IMAGE OF HISTORY IN MATEI VIȘNIEC’S DRAMATURGY

MEYERHOLD: Because you represent evil without the trappings of

ideology. You are a dark force, but you represent honest evil. You kill
to
get power, but you do not kill in the name of some grand utopia. You
have no scruples, no hesitation to do wrong, but you do not ask your
accomplices or your victims to praise your crime. With you there is a
certain grandeur in the horror, because you are not a demagogue. You
fascinate and you terrify at the same time, but you do not set yourself
up as God. You fake friendship and love, but one cannot deny that you
do it with class. You throw a little brutality in with
deceit, but your
speech is subtle and surprising. You represent something humanity has
lost: evil, raw, sincere, and pure. Today, evil is cloaked in a thousand
promises of a better world. Today, it’s not enough for evil to crush the
crowd, it wants to be adored by them at the same time. The
evil of
today is not content to live in the palace and dominate the
world, it
wants to live inside the head of the people and control them
from
inside. The evil of today is the worst plague of our time.
The evil of
today is so tenacious and insidious it can leave its mark on a fetus in
the
womb.8

The fact that main character of the play is the Russian

director
Vsevolod Meyerhold has a very special relevance for the problematic of
history in relation with the art of theatre. Meyerhold, beyond being an
inventor in the field of his art9, he is the hero-artist, the one who
died for
what he mostly believed in, being executed by the Stalinist
regime.
Meyerhold had a very specific and authentic vision on how his art should be.
For him, psychological states are determined by specific
physiological

8 Matei Vișniec, Richard III Will Not Take Place Or Scenes from the
Life of Meyerhold, trans.
Jeremy Lawrence, in Matei Vișniec - How to Explain the History of
Communism to Mental
Patients and Other Plays, ed. Jozefina Komporaly (Chicago: Seagull Books, 2015),
233-234.
9 Vsevolod Meyerhold (1874 - 1940) marked the history of theater by imposing
biomechanics
as a training technique for performers. Meyerhold's choice of this technique was
a reaction
to the naturalist theater. What brings Meyerhold new is the
intervention by which he
changes the paradigm of production and reception of the theater performance and
which
consists in placing the emphasis on the physicality and plasticity of the
performer (on the
possibilities of the body, respectively on the form of what is represented) by
contrast with
traditional methods that focused on the supremacy of the text of the play, or on
present
psychological realism. He thus opposes his professor Constantin
Stanislavki, and he
finally departed from him at the end of a process of rejection of naturalism,
which began
approximately in 1903.

209
----------------------- Page 211-----------------------

CRISTIAN GROSU

processes. By physically correcting his condition, the actor reaches the point
where he experiences that type of excitation that is communicated to the
spectator and thus induces his willingness to feel and be part of the show.
This state is, for Meyerhold, the core of theatrical art.10
The meeting between him (as character created by Matei Vișniec) and
Richard III (on one hand, as the expression of the history portrayed by
Shakespeare, on the other hand as a character created by another character)
on the ground of the totalitarianism proliferated by Stalin speaks a lot about
the possibility of the history to return with different masks, but with similar
devastating effects.

Fig. 2: Scene from Richard al III-lea se interzice/ Richard III Will Not
Take Place.
From left to right Miron Maxim and Cristian Grosu.

Thinking about the possibility of history returning, of politics staging

new tragedies, I asked Matei Vișniec what he thinks about this, about
this
possible return of the ideological evil. He answered, highlighting the extreme
danger of nowadays directions in social behavior and politics: a deformed,
absurd déjà vu, endangering the freedom of thought and the democratic
values gained with so many historical sacrifices.

10 Edward Brown, Meyerhold – A Revolution in the Theatre (Surrey: Methuen Drama,

1998), 67.

210

----------------------- Page 212-----------------------

THE IMAGE OF HISTORY IN MATEI VIȘNIEC’S DRAMATURGY

Absolutely, and yet how! In Turkey, the secular state, inspired

by the
Western model, was gradually liquidated by the so-called moderate
Islamist party. In Egypt, at the time I am writing these lines, a law is
being
examined to ban atheism (in other words, no one will have the right
to
declare himself an atheist, you will have to choose a religion
otherwise
you would otherwise risk being declared as suffering from mental illness).
Imperial nostalgia is visible in Russia, China, and even in Iran. There
are
many areas of the world in which the grotesque and absurd
situations
described by me in some plays persist. Even Europe risks
to be
fragmented against the background of the migrants' crisis. Some western
democracies are gurgled by the power of money, like the American one.
Donald Trump reminds us of King Ubu, he is a planetary clown who has
been entrusted with the guard of the nuclear button. Italian
democracy
becomes a populocracy, in other words, a society in which
populism
triumphs through caricature – like characters. Berlusconi was an example,
but Beppe Grillo is even more commedia dell'arte at the
political level. A
great philosopher said that history repeats itself in the
following way:
what was a drama comes in the form of comedy (and sometimes
vice
versa). I think we are witnessing today the tragedy of the disintegration
of
the traditional democratic model. In Western Europe, the ease with which
radical Islam progresses is narcotic. Nothing is more opposite to
radical
Islam than Western freedom and democracy. And the "useful idiots"
of
radical Islam, that is to say, the left-wing intellectuals who
believe that
Muslim immigration is the expression of the new proletariat, are heavily
involved in the total extinction of the Western way of life.

If in Richard III Will Not Take place history is the playground

for
the ideological evil which give birth to monstrous exponents of
the
totalitarianism, like the image of the new-man, in The Spectator Sentenced to
Death, Matei Vișniec creates a parody against the “justice” exerted in
the
Stalinist totalitarian regime. Terms like guilt, innocence, evidence mingle
their meaning in an absurd context where everybody can be accused, found
guilty and killed. The spectator bears his guilt a priori, he is integrated in a
court where roles exchange, reality and fiction being separated by a very thin
and fragile border.

211

----------------------- Page 213-----------------------

CRISTIAN GROSU

The distanciation and the anti-catharsis that Vișniec now proposes to the
reader or spectator are no longer intended to awaken some sense attitude,
or
a revolutionary consciousness afflicted by surfeit; instead, like in the
The
 Spectator Sentenced to Death, The Prompter of Fear, Gufi’s Country, or
Decomposed
Theatre, they are meant to parody the utopian logic and mystifying
verbosity
that made possible the totalitarian concentration camp universe.11

At this point it is important for me to speak from the point of view of

an actor who was part of two performances based on plays by Matei Vișniec,
which, as it was specified, have at their core themes like history and art, or
the image of history in relation with paradigms of totalitarianism.

Fig. 3. Scene from The Spectator Sentenced to Death.

From left to right Patricia Brad, Miron Maxim Cristian Grosu and Ionuț Caras

The two shows directed by Răzvan Mureșan at the National Theatre in

Cluj-Napoca, The Spectator Sentenced to Death and Richard III Will Not
Take
Place Or Scenes from the Life of Meyerhold prove to be extremely meaningful for
the vision that Matei Vișniec himself has about historical traumas which do

11 Laura Pavel, Teatru și identitate [Theatre and identity], 150.

212

----------------------- Page 214-----------------------

THE IMAGE OF HISTORY IN MATEI VIȘNIEC’S DRAMATURGY

not cease to be represented and questioned in contemporary dramaturgy. In

both cases, the audience plays a very important role: the spectators are
extremely close to the performers, they are practically placed at the reach of
the actors’s hands.
Beyond the sensation of deep intimacy given by the claustrophobic
arrangement of the space (there seems to be no split between the acting space
and the spectators’ area), there is a clear feeling of having the same
life, of
taking part in the same history and not at all in a symbolic way, not
in an
abstract mode of relating to the reality referred to. The actors are clearly able
to see and feel every gaze of the spectators, every gesture, every
single
reaction they have at what it is staged and performed.
Similarly, the
spectators can see each drop of sweat of the actors, every twinkle of their eyes.
This proximity generates the feeling that we are caught together in the
same trap of history, in the claustrophobia of the ones that can find no escape
from a history which menaces to repeat itself , even if dressed in new clothes
and wearing a different make-up. Stalin’s grin, the new-man’s atrocity,
Richard’s fear, Meyerhold’s nightmare, the fake tools of a fake juridical
system, the set up history imposed in the name of a machinery that got to
work by itself are directly in the eyes of the audience who is no
longer
detached, but part of the same experience shared by the actors.
It is also a great feeling, mixed with a deep emotion to have the author
himself in the audience. This is why I asked Matei Visniec how he perceived
the two shows directed by the Răzvan Mureșan and I think that the answer
that has been gives validates both visions:

I do not really have enough words to answer this question. I

enjoyed
enormously the two shows, they touched me and made me happy. They
were two theatrical jewels, but what it is mostly important is the fact
that
the director (and the whole team together with him) plunged deeply into
the core of my theater. In the small studio of the National Theater in Cluj
Napoca I fully felt that it was worth dedicating my life to the theater.

Of course there are many other titles that should be taken into account
when we speak about history, politics and totalitarianism in Matei Vișniec’s
dramaturgy. There are issues that are fully relevant for the Romanian
society, for our post-revolutionary trauma. It is impossible, in this sense, not
to revisit the play How to Explain the History of Communism to Mental Patients,
in which the author refers at a large extent to ideology.

213

----------------------- Page 215-----------------------

CRISTIAN GROSU

If, with Richard III Will Not Take Place we face the visage of
the
ideological evil, in this case we are welcomed in the laboratory of the
ideologist. We discover that this industry of promises functions and it is set
in motion by an eternal promise that the heaven will descend on Earth. The
images of the dictators are just a succession of faces that flow on the same
water, masks o the same reality. No matter which kind of party or
nation
launches the ideological attack, it is all about the same mechanism that will
finally bring about crime, repression and a complete lack of freedom.
Anyway, we cannot escape the question that comes back again and again:
how is it possible that the history repeats itself in this way? Maybe
the
answer is given by Hanna Arendt when she speaks about terror. In Matei
Visniec’s plays we are confronted with traumas of regimes that were
built
upon terror. Nowadays, more subversive systems may appear, as they are
not openly using terror.

A fundamental difference between modem dictatorships and all other

tyrannies of the past is that terror is no longer used as a
means to
exterminate and frighten opponents, but as an instrument to rule
masses of people who are perfectly obedient. Terror as we know
it
 today strikes without any preliminary provocation, its victims are
innocent
even from the point of view of the persecutor. (…) On the one hand, the
Bolshevik system, unlike the Nazi, never admitted theoretically that it
could practice terror against innocent people, and though in view
of
certain practices this may look like hypocrisy, it makes quite a
difference.
Russian practice, on the other hand, is even more "advanced" than the
German in one respect: arbitrariness of terror is not even
limited by
racial differentiation, while the old class categories have long since
been
discarded, so that anybody in Russia may suddenly become a victim of
the police terror. We are not concerned here with the
ultimate
consequence of rule by terror-namely, that nobody, not even the executors,
can ever be free of fear; in our context we are dealing merely with the
arbitrariness by which victims are chosen, and for this it is decisive
that
they are objectively innocent, that they are chosen regardless of
what

12
they may or may not have done.

12 Hanna Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, (San Diego: Harcourt Brace &
Company, 1976), 6.

214

----------------------- Page 216-----------------------

THE IMAGE OF HISTORY IN MATEI VIȘNIEC’S DRAMATURGY

Matei Vișniec’s dramaturgy has, thus, the function to awaken us,

to
help us keep in mind how even ourselves can help the totalitarian machinery
go on working or even get better, if we forget and let ignorance creep in.
The image of history, through Vișniec’s lenses, has a lot to do with the
function of art. Even if art will not trigger a Revolution by itself
it has the
mission to prevent our reason from falling asleep, to be confronted to what
has been done wrong and paid with too high prices.
What is mostly notable in Matei Vișniec’s dramaturgy is that the
author never points an accusing finger at anyone, he never morally focused,
but creates characters made equally of pain, laughter, sorrow, absurdity or
painful reality. Just like life. In the end, the one who can provide us with an
open conclusion is the writer himself:

Whatever it is, there were millions of people who honestly

believed in
communism, but who ended up being manipulated and eventually
massacred. How is it possible that a utopia (which seemed so generous)
 to dominate a whole century, start with incredible impetus, inflame the
entire 20th century and end up with a hundred million dead and a the
huge historical gap? Today we are talking about a new utopia,
which
would be globalization. Unfortunately, globalization is a utopia that has
no ideology or philosophical basis. Let us not forget that the Communist
utopia began with a reflection that lasted almost a hundred years, and it
was only afterwards that it took place. And it came out!
Communism
was a utopia initially thought by thousands of people. Hundreds
and
hundreds of texts have been written about what should have been
the
great communist, social-democratic, socialist utopia ... But globalization
began without any kind of thought, without any basis of reflection, and
we are heading for something that is not clearly prefigured on
the
horizon. We navigate to the unknown in a context of terrible
violence,
terrible uncertainty, in a world full of monsters that can come
to light
every step. Who imagined, when communism collapsed, that the future
great danger of mankind would be integrism? No one. Integrism was a
joke, and yet, terrorism, integrism is beginning to show its grin.

215

----------------------- Page 217-----------------------

CRISTIAN GROSU

References

ARENDT, Hanna. The Origins of Totalitarianism. San Diego: Harcourt Brace

&
Company, 1976.
BROWN, Edward. Meyerhold – A Revolution in the Theatre. Surrey: Methuen Drama,
1998.
LUNGEANU, Mihai. Personajul virtual sau Calea căte al V-lea punct
cardinal la Matei
Vișniec. Cluj-Napoca: Eikon, 2014, 120.
PAVEL, Laura. Teatru și identitate. Interpretări pe scena interioară/ Theatre and
identity.
Interpretations on the inner stage. Cluj-Napoca: Casa cărții de știință,
2012.
VIȘNIEC, Matei Richard III Will Not Take Place Or Scenes from the Life
of Meyerhold,
trans. Jeremy Lawrence. In Matei Vișniec - How to Explain the
History of
Communism to Mental Patients and Other Plays, edited by Jozefina Komporaly,
191-243. Chicago: Seagull Books, 2015.

CRISTIAN GROSU is an actor at the National Theatre in Cluj-Napoca and

associate
 Teaching Assistant at the Faculty of Theatre and Television, preparing a
PHD Thesis
on the Art of Acting. He has over 70 roles in comedies, dramas and
musicals, participated
to a large number of festivals and workshops in Romania and abroad and he
also stage-
directed student performances at the Faculty of Theatre and Television,
Babeș-Bolyai
University in Cluj-Napoca.

216

----------------------- Page 218-----------------------

STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA, LXIII, 1, 2018, p. 217 - 226

(Recommended Citation)
DOI:10.24193/subbdrama.2018.1.12

Theatre for Young Audience. A Romanian Cultural Landscape

1
OLTIŢA CÎNTEC

Abstract: Offering an overview of the Romanian theatre for

children and
teenagers, the present paper is mapping the existing public or
private
institutions and theatre companies that function in Romania. The
main
points of interest presented and discussed are: the question of the
audience
(age, social milieu, the means this young audience comes or is brought to
the
theatre, the marketing strategies elaborated by the companies); the
theatre
men and women (stage directors, set designers, puppeteers and playwrights
or dramaturges) specialized in performances for youngsters, as well as the
tendency of well-known artists to try their hand in this specific
direction; the
important number of festivals and theatrical encounters that appeared after
the communist period and in the last years, revealing an increasing
interest
for this kind of theatre, coming from the professional artistic field as
well as
from the young and adult Romanian audience.

Keywords: theatre for teenagers, theatre for children, Romanian

theatre,
festivals for young audience

Seventeen state companies, according to the National Institute of

Statistic, dedicated to young audience all over the country plus a few private
companies (mainly in Bucharest) foster a solid institutional
structure
working for the next generations. In the years to come, will the new
generations go or not to see theatre performances – will this still be
a
spiritual need? This is one of the bets that this type of theatre is proposing.
The educational dimension is one of most importance when we speak about
theatre for youngsters. And it is well known that it helps them: first
– to
become future adults; second – to encourage them to discover the fabulous
world of imagery; third – to offer a few possible answers regarding the

1 Oltița Cîntec: theatre critic, artistic director of Luceafărul Theater in Iași.

oltitacintec@gmail.com

----------------------- Page 219-----------------------

OLTIŢA CÎNTEC

complicated part of this stage of life, because many times being a teenager is
not the simplest part of our lives, as I’m sure we all remember it; fourth – to
develop their curiosity. And the list still remains open.
Most of the Romanian state companies are named „theatre for children
and young people”, practically indicating the fact that this artists are creating
for a wide range of spectators. They have to offer an appealing repertory for
children from kindergarten to elementary school, middle school and high
school, providing a varied offer, if they really expect to have this demographic
segment interested in coming to the theatre. And they do, as the number of
spectators proves to be one of the most relevant items when it comes to success.
Concerning the repertory, for the youngest, the most attractive proposals are
still fairy tales: the Grimm Brothers or Charles Perrault’s stories, but also the
Romanian classics, the ones written by Ion Creangă, Ioan Slavici, Petre Ispirescu
etc. All adapted for theatre and staged by specialised directors. Amongst this
category some of the most popular figures are Cristian Pepino
(Bucharest),
Constantin Brehnescu (Iassy), Gavril Cadariu, Oana Leahu (Tg. Mureș), Radu
Dinulescu (Arad), Gavril Pinte (Bucharest). These shows are using different
ways of expression, from puppetry to acting, musical, dance, new media etc.
Still very popular, puppets (string puppets, glove puppets, Bibabo, Bunraku,
animated objects etc.) remain the children’s favourite theatrical
encounters.
There are also set designers specialized in performances for youngsters such
as Eustatiu Gregorian (Craiova), Eugenia Tărăeșcu-Jianu (Constanța), Daniela
Drăgulescu (Bucharest), Gavril Sireteanu (Tg Mureș), Sandu Marian (Cluj-
Napoca), etc. working with various companies. To these we can add a number
of well known set designers coming from the important Romanian Theatres for
adults such as Adrian Damian, Alina Herescu, Irina Moscu and others, who are
willing to try their hand in this other direction. Lately, some of the
top stage
directors are branching out and working for children and youth too: amongst
them Silviu Purcărete2 (Teatrul Țăndarică Bucharest), Alexandru Dabija (Gong
Theatre Sibiu), Radu Alexandru Nica (Luceafărul Theatre in Iași).
Regarding the importance of new writing and desire to
work on
contemporary plays, some of the theatres for young people are very open,
even if the audiences are usually more easily tempted by classics and not prone
to taking risks on something with a more modern topic. Even so, there is a
general interest to support the writers to develop, distribute and
promote
their work in theatrical circles. Some of these theatres are organizing special

2 For more informations see Oltița Cîntec, Silviu Purcărete. Privirea

care înfãțișează (București:
 Cheiron, 2011)

218

----------------------- Page 220-----------------------

THEATRE FOR YOUNG AUDIENCE. A ROMANIAN CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

contests (Bucharest Ion Creangă Theatre), workshops and guidance during the
composition of a new dramatic text (Bucharest ImPuls Festival) or assuming this
aesthetic mission and staging mostly contemporary drama (Sibiu Gong Theatre).

Fig. 1: Set design created by Carmen and Gheorghe Rasovszky, for the performance
Cinderella, stage direction Silviu Purcărete, Teatrul Țăndarică Bucharest,
1990.

We all know that, when it comes to children, it’s usually the parents
and the teachers who are deciding what they are going to see and it is very,
very important how, alongside the theatres, they are overseeing this. „Family
and childhood experiences of live performances not only induct young
people into theatre, but influence continuing attendance.”3
Theatre can provide quality theatrical experiences for young audiences,
building future engaged theatre-goers. That is the reason why Romanian
Children and Young People Theatres develop creative strategies to attract
a
large number of viewers. In a top of the most actives theatres we can
find
Luceafărul Theatre in Iași (76.400 spectators in 2017), Țăndărică Theatre
in
Bucharest, Colibri Theatre in Craiova, Gong Theatre in Sibiu, Gulliver Theatre

3 Michael Anderson, Josephine Fleming, “The TheaterSpace Project, Its

Partners and Its
Purposes”, Landscapes: the Arts, Aesthetics, and Education, no12: John
O'Toole, Ricci-Jane
Adams, Michael Anderson, Bruce Burton, Robyn Ewing editors, Young Audiences,
Theatre and
the Cultural Conversation (2014, Springer) 9.

219

----------------------- Page 221-----------------------

OLTIŢA CÎNTEC

in Galați, Puck Theatre in Cluj-Napoca. Each of these institutions do

also
organize International Theatre Festivals every year (The International Theatre
Festival for Young Audience in Iași, 10th edition in 2017, a festival labeled by
the European Theatre Association in Brussels as a „remarkable festival”4),
ImPuls Festival in Bucharest (13th edition in 2017), Puppets Occupy Street in
Craiova (3rd edition in 2017), Gong New Theatre Festival (3rd edition in 2017),
Gulliver Festival in Galați (25th edition in 2017), Puck International Festival in
Cluj-Napoca (16th edition in 2017). Financed by the Local or County Councils,
these companies have their own venues (usually one or two), a stable number
of actors, technicians, preparing 3 to 5 or 6 new productions per season. This
strong network also include programs and projects for the minorities living in
Romania, and some of these institutions have a special working departments
and teams: for example in Hungarian, at Ariel Theatre in Târgu Mureș
and
Puck Theatre in Cluj, and in German at Gong Theatre in Sibiu.
One of the longest running directors is Constantin Brehnescu. He has
worked for Luceafărul Theatre in Iași since 1953, and he is still active. One
of the latest productions he imagined was Playing Shakespeare, a collage
from Shakespeare’s most important plays mixed in a scenario imagined like
a theatre lesson, interacting with young audience. Another very important
artist is Cristian Pepino, who is constantly collaborating with Țăndărică
Theatre in Bucharest. He is also a teacher at the Bucharest National University
of Arts and one of his aesthetical targets is to imagine shows with puppets
for adults. Amongst his 120 creations, many of them realized together with
his wife, the regretted set designer Cristina Pepino, some of them such
as
Faust and A Midsummer Night Dream, are addressed to adults, and point out
the truth that Philippe Genty highlighted so well:

Theatre is an artificial space, an artificiality that is

interesting to play
with. In this context, inertness becomes extremely important
and
contributes to the revealing of life. Material and object stripped of
their
common use, the puppet or the mannequin facing the actors will
exacerbate the paradoxes of life and of the inanimate.5

4 The label was decided by an international jury lead by Sir Jonathan

Mills, ex-director of
Edinburgh International Theatre Festival.
5 Philippe Genty, Paysages intérieurs (Arles: Actes Sud, 2013), 131 (« Le
théâtre est un lieu
artificiel, une artificialité avec laquelle il est intéressant de jouer. Dans ce
contexte, l'inertie
prend toute son importance et participe à révéler la vie. La matière et l'objet
détournés de
leurs fonction première, le pantin ou le mannequin confrontés aux comédiens vont
exacerber
les paradoxes du vivant et de l'inanimé »).

220

----------------------- Page 222-----------------------

THEATRE FOR YOUNG AUDIENCE. A ROMANIAN CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

 Fig. 2: Scene from A Midsummer Night Dream, performance 16+, created
by Cristian Pepino, Țăndărică Theatre in Bucharest, 2017

When it comes to the tickets price, the fact that all these companies are
financed by the state is of a great importance. Theatre tickets are very affordable
related to the average income and cost of life. All tickets are subsidized so
anyone can come to watch a show.
The well-developed state companies network is completed by a few
private companies, all of them trying to impose their unique styles. AnimArt
Cluj-Napoca is led by Dana Bonțidean and it focuses on small puppet-shows for
children. Hopa-Trop is another interesting independent company for
children,
directed by Beatrice Iordan with Ana-Maria Cucuta, at the Bucharest Romanian
Peasant Museum Club, focusing on traditional stories or new plays. All
of
their shows are using shadows, some of them are nonverbal, all of them with
live music at specific Romanian ancient instruments. Beatrice Iordan together
with her husband, Florin Iordan, and her brother in law, Dinu Petrescu, are
also playing in the Trei parale group, singing old Romanian folk music.

Theatre for teenagers

Teenagers are not just a part of the general audience and theatres cannot
see them as such. Teenagers are a varied range of people facing many issues
on the path from childhood to young adults. Of course, it is not right
to
consider teenagers just a source of multiple existential problems like

221

----------------------- Page 223-----------------------

OLTIŢA CÎNTEC

friendship, communication with others, relationship with parents, discovering

sexuality etc. Younger audiences engage with theatre if they consider it
a
space that stimulates their imagination, emotions and intellect. Sharing
this
experience with others, this time not parents or teachers, but friends
with
similar preferences and expectations, is the foundation to build a critical, active
engagement with performing arts. When we talk about teenagers we have to
think of diverse forms, styles and genres of entertainment. In this strong national
state network that I have already mentioned, there are a few important stage
directors drawn to this kind of theatre: Bobi Pricop for instance, Horia Suru,
Alexandru Mazagreanu, Vlad Cristache and Ștefan Lupu are some of the
significant presences in this theatrical area of interest.
In general, the classic repertory is a safe category and it keeps its
central
place. This attracts the conservative part of audience. But the repertory must
evolve in new directions in order to attract new categories of spectators, and
artists must take significant steps toward attendance. Interaction between young
people and creators is a main way to approach new categories. Youngsters need
to feel welcome if not included in what they watch. That is why discussions
before creating a show or after presenting it are of great importance.
Of
course, there is no pattern, only a few general directions that every director or
company must develop in a personal way. Discussion sessions, pre and/or
post-show talks provided by the team emphasize the truth that practitioners
have to be very close to their audience. Romanian artists are responsive to the
needs and real expectations of teenagers and they try to do their best
to
increase their presence in the theatre halls.
Strategies to communicate more directly with young people were trialed
at the Educational Theatre Centre REPLIKA, in Bucharest. REPLIKA Centre
opened its doors in February 2015 and was” born from a need to create an
interlinking artistic platform, aiming at bringing together professional
artists,
communities and other groups with not enough representation”, as Mihaela
Michailov mentioned at my request for this paper. The Centre aims at theatrical
projects with social relevance, educational film projections, participating in art,
workshops, debates, conferences, post-show talks, meetings with professors
and theatrical scholars, educating the younger audiences. They believe in „an
emotionally involved theatre, in which artists and the audience educate each
other in the spirit of empathy and solidarity.” They choose and develop
themes previously less explored, such as school violence, children left behind
by parents gone to work abroad, children’s rights, competitiveness and the high
level of pressure forced on teenagers, animal rights, discrimination, Sex
Ed –
which are brought into the spotlight. And they are doing this in „educational

222

----------------------- Page 224-----------------------

THEATRE FOR YOUNG AUDIENCE. A ROMANIAN CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

shows focusing on directly engaging children and teenagers, as a form of

discovery and collective action, in order to transform communities and reform
the social classes”.

Fig. 1: Space and set design using the silent disco system, by Bobi Pricop in
the
performance The Green Cat, Luceafărul Theater in Iași

Seven artists are currently looking after the Educational Theatre Centre
REPLIKA – Radu Apostol – stage director, Mihaela Michailov – playwright,
Mihaela Rădescu – actress, Viorel Cojanu – actor, Silvana Negrutio – actress,
Gabi Albu – architect and Elena S. Găgeanu – video artist, all of them doing
everything that is needed for this theatre company that has already constructed „a
creative community formed by professional artists and groups without
sufficient representation.”, as Michailov pointed out. All the productions
are offered as a gift, given freely to all social categories, because „Art must not
be a luxury, but a necessity. Educational art is a common good.” In 2017,
REPLIKA Centre has worked on four productions financed as independent
projects by AFCN (National Cultural Found Administration) and ArCub
(Bucharest Art Center). Last year REPLIKA Centre made two co-productions
with The Small Theatre in Bucharest (Teatrul Mic): the performance Family with
no sugar and the educational program Text Book Theatre which sees dramatic
readings of books included in the Baccalaureate exam in high schools.

223

----------------------- Page 225-----------------------

OLTIŢA CÎNTEC

REPLIKA Centre is no doubt the most active independent company for

teenagers.
New directions are also provided by young and talented stage-directors
such as Bobi Pricop, who staged The Green Cat, by Elise Wilk6, at the Luceafărul
Theater in Iași, using the silent disco system for the first time in a Romanian
theatre show. In a special relationship with the young audience – in which
he sees himself, as he himself was not long ago the high school student who
would attend festivals in English with the touring company – Bobi Pricop’s
priority was to address in the best possible manner this special audience.
Conceived in a “chamber” format, the production brings actors and
spectators together in the same space – a club – that is reconstructed on stage,
“The Periphery” emphasizing through shapes and lines the mapped contours
of a town. The “texture” of the space is dense, it absorbs in its construction all
those who are inside, compressing text, music, image, lighting in 1300 square
feet space. The structure of the set-design underlines the link between a certain
place and a specific kind of behavior, melting together the world of games, of
imagination, and the world of the auditorium, the world of everyday life. This
space becomes a pod in which the spectators and the actors “travel” theatrically
through the lives of six teenagers who crash at great speed against reality. It is
the place that shapes their relationships, all breathe as one in the series of
tragic
events at the end of which you find out, in an almost Hamletian way, that the
essence of the world is that before you die, you must live! The urban tragedy
of Dani, Bianca, Boogie, Robert, Roxana and Flori is rendered in detail in an
interior space, an acting space that is simultaneously permeated by ingenuity,
bitterness, lyricism, craving for love, unhappiness, feelings that bring together
a transient community, abstracted from the greater world outside the walls of
the set.7 Or as Bobi Pricop describes it:

The Green Cat is a play that speaks about imaginary worlds,

about
adolescence, love and loneliness. The characters created by Elise
Wilk
almost never interact. They address the public directly, telling their own
version of the same event. The challenge we present to the young public is
to climb on the stage with the actors, in a club, at a silent
disco party,
where they will find the story of six teenagers and of an evening that will
change their lives.8

6 2015, the show brought Bobi Pricop his first nomination to the UNITER Award for
Best Director.
7 For more details, see Carte cu Pisica verde/Book with The Green Cat (Oltita
Cintec coord), Iasi:
Timpul, 2016
8 Ibid, 125

224

----------------------- Page 226-----------------------

THEATRE FOR YOUNG AUDIENCE. A ROMANIAN CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

In Romania there are some festivals designed especially for teenagers.

One of them is Teen Fest organized by Excelsior Theatre in Bucharest. This
company had the biggest budget in Romania in 2017: 24.600 Lei/ 5 million
Euros, money that came from the Bucharest Local County. Last year’s edition
had in the official program companies from Romania, Italy, France and Poland
and also workshops for teenagers (video editing, 3D modeling, participatory
theatre etc.).

Fig. 2: Front cover of the Book with the Green Cat

One must highlight the valuable role of those working directly

with
young people. An other example is Ideo Ideis, a national festival for young
audiences (from 2006). On the Festival website the initial statement is
mentioned: “We wanted and still want, a type of theatre and an education
very close to us all, that was ours.” Every year, in Alexandria, teenagers and
artists from all over Romania are sharing experiences, putting together projects,
attending workshops, meeting actors, playwrights, choreographers etc.
In 2017, at the FestIn pe Bulevard Theatre Festival, created by the
Nottara
Theatre in Bucharest, the International Association of Theatre Critics Romania
(IATC.Ro) organized a debate with the topic “Theatre for Teenagers, an
expanding niche”. We had a long and interesting range of opinions, starting
from the truth that this age is synonym with shyness, non-conformism, intense
emotions, and sometimes restless biological changes. How can theatre help

225

----------------------- Page 227-----------------------

OLTIŢA CÎNTEC

teenagers? A lot, and in an efficient manner if creators put themselves in the

adolescents’ shoes. Collaborative projects are the most important ones because
they are forged on a basis that matters to the youngsters. Theatre goers give
an emotional response to the work and this could be the starting point to a
more critical attendance.
 Concluding, I would say that teenagers have to be involved in
the
process of creation, to highly engage them in order to construct the foundations
of future attendance. It would be a huge error to transform theatre into another
class course! As Émile Lansman said, a show for teenagers has to „give the
chance to discover what a good quality creation can offer him hic et nunc:
pleasure, emotion, thinking by looking over himself and the world around

9
him.”

References

ANDERSON, Michael. FLEMING, Josephine. “The Theater Space Project, Its

Partners
and Its Purposes” in Landscapes: the Arts, Aesthetics, and Education,
no12: John
O'Toole, Ricci-Jane Adams, Michael Anderson, Bruce Burton, Robyn
Ewing
editors. Young Audiences, Theatre and the Cultural Conversation. Springer:
2014.
CÎNTEC, Oltița. Silviu Purcărete. Privirea care înfățișează. Bucharest: Cheiron
Publiching
House, 2011
CÎNTEC, Oltița (coord). Carte cu Pisica verde/Book with The Green Cat. Iași:
Timpul, 2016
GENTY, Philippe. Paysages intérieurs. Paris: Actes Sud, 2013
LANSMAN, Émile. ”Le théâtre pour ados, un théâtre à part… entière?”. in.
Théâtre
pour ados: paroles croisées. Émile Lansman et Aurelie Bureau (coord).
Manage:
Lansman Editeur, 2009

OLTIŢA CÎNTEC is a theater critic and scholar, author of many studies,

articles
and theatre performance reviews, artistic manager of Luceafărul Theater in
Iași and
President of the Romanian Section of AICT/IATC.Ro Group.

9 Émile Lansman, Le théâtre pour ados, un théâtre à part… entière?, dans Émile
Lansman et Aurelie
Bureau (coord), Théâtre pour ados: paroles croisées, (Manage: Lansman Editeur,
2009) 96. « lui
permettre de découvrir ce que la rencontre avec une œuvre «de qualité» pouvait
lui apporter
hic et nunc: du plaisir, de l'émotion, de la réflexion à travers un regard sur
lui-même et sur le
monde qui l'entourait. »

226

----------------------- Page 228-----------------------

STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA, LXIII, 1, 2018, p. 227 - 240

(Recommended Citation)
DOI:10.24193/subbdrama.2018.1.13

Romanian Theatre as Public Service.

A Critical Perspective of the Last Decades

1
MIRUNA RUNCAN

Abstract: This paper aims at synthetizing, from a critical

perspective, the
trajectory of the Romanian subsidy scheme of performance - mainly theatre
-
institutions, over the last century. Our basic argument is that, despite
all the
major political changes which took place after the First and the
Second
World War, despite the succession of dominant ideologies, the
subsidy
scheme has mainly remained the same, although the amounts
invested by
the authorities have varied from a time to another. The below
analysis
focuses on the relation between the political project, the state
apparatus
(both central, and local), the legislative
system, the economy, and
mentalities, in an attempt to prove the strange conservatism of
a unique
administrative model, as well as the lack of vision of the
various political
regimes with regard to the public service dimension of theatre art.

Keywords: National Theatre, Culture, Politics, Policies on culture

Long before the trend of European Cultural Capitals entered Romania

through the “Sibiu Customs”2, in the summer of 1994, we came into contact
with something which, back then, in the UK, was called City of Drama.
In
short, following some sort of public vote based on criteria like
coherence,
prestige, and municipal logic of the program, the Arts Council (a
different
type of Ministry of Culture) appointed a provincial capital or a smaller city
which, for twelve months, became the host of a cursive, mainly (British and

1 Miruna Runcan: Faculty of Theatre and Television, Babeş-Bolyai

University, Cluj-Napoca,
Romania. runcan.miruna@ubbcluj.ro Translated from Romanian by Camelia Oană.
2 In 2007, the very year Romania joined the European Union, the city
of Sibiu was a
European Capital of Culture, in partnership with Luxembourg.

----------------------- Page 229-----------------------

MIRUNA RUNCAN

international) theatre festival, to which music, dance, fine arts, ethnography,

or cinema were also associated. It was a continuous celebration; to fund this,
complex public-private partnerships were established, under a unique,
specialized management, including logistic
services only functional
throughout the unfolding of the event, but supported by an impressive
number of volunteers of all ages. Almost all performance spaces were
involved - in their capacity of hosts, tour partners, or associate producers -,
whether conventional or unconventional,
from traditional venues to
universities, high schools, museums, art galleries, malls, or mere cafe shops.
Thus, the “theatrical” interest shifted from London, outwards, in a conscious,
systematic, and programmatic movement. Or, more correctly, the City of
Drama was supposed to produce a cultural re-centring, given to both the
audiences and local production, through a rich, diverse, polychromous,
stimulating run of cultural production, from far and wide (they, of
course,
included tours outside the UK).
In a way, the example above could serve as a far-away, serene
starting point for a serious, non-circumstantial, unprejudiced discussion on
the relations between the cities in the province and the capital. I
would
paraphrase one of Albee’s lines in Zoo Story, which fits this procedure
perfectly: the healthiest way to get from one point on the map to another is
to take a long (reflection) detour.

Preliminaries: Edge and Centre

We think it is totally irrelevant to repeat truisms about the fact that,

from
time to time, the province - accidentally or in a concentrated manner - creates
more interesting, more courageous, or simply more famous performances than
the average productions of Bucharest. Such discussions (the national theatres
in Iași, Cernăuți, or Craiova produceing more consistent seasons than the
one in Bucharest) started at the beginning of the 20th century; each
time,
they appeared to be entirely justified, but, in the long run, they
proved
completely sterile.
And then, in this day and place, courageous towards what? Interesting
compared to whom? Momentarily, can we still refer to a unitary theatrical
canon, aesthetics, which makes such judgements partly viable or at least
legitimate - as private and independent companies expand unprecedentedly
and compete with subsidized theatres, often making surprising aesthetic
228

----------------------- Page 230-----------------------

ROMANIAN THEATRE AS PUBLIC SERVICE. A CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE LAST DECADES

proposals and overcoming huge production difficulties? Any remotely

pertinent critical opinion is based on a certain contextual horizon, a complex
inventory of functional aesthetics and, only then, some kind of an axiology...
I would therefore, via the above-mentioned detour, start from breaking
a hypocritical Romanian consensus on a principle of democratic normality,
i.e. a theatre production is a public service. I call this consensus hypocritical,
because no decision - including signing a management contract, the budgets,
requested or approved, of institutions funded from public money - is
honestly based on questioning (with a transformative purpose) the relation
between the offer of theatre products and its beneficiary, the spectator.
For over 150 years, subsidized performance institutions hiding under the
umbrella of “culture” have had the same functional definition: some people,
the artists, employed or paid based on an individual contract, produce a
show, which is part of a repertory built on the intersection of ever-changing
angles: the prestige of the playwright, of the lead actor, of the director, the
feasibility of production costs, the photofits - only confirmed through
the
director’s/manager’s pre-existing experience - of the few audience categories
which go to the city or neighbourhood theatre in a more or less
constant
manner. Each of the first elements (artists and manager) of the above-triangle
is a construct determined by the accidental context (which is, at the same time,
political). However, even though, for more than half a century, we have had
enough, both quantitative, and qualitative sociological tools to determine its
substance, the potential audience remains an imaginary construct. And,
sometimes, this is closer to reality, while, other times, it isn’t,
right? What
remains stable, even immobile, in this algorithm is not the prestige or
the
costs, but the absolute passivity that makes up the profile of the
audience,
regardless of their age category, their profession, their knowledge
interests,
and spectatorial practice, etc. (As far as I know, from time to time,
some
institutions still use questionnaires to measure the spectators’
satisfaction
regarding a certain performance, repertory, etc. Nevertheless, over the last 25
years, three or four theatres have conducted some more serious studies, but
their results were rather usable by the marketing departments).
In order to represent a real public service, the theatre institution should
aim for a very different translation of the concept, both vertically,
and
horizontally: in the field of culture, a public service means a
permanent
mapping - starting from an assumed set of functions
- of present
beneficiaries, of existing or possible relations between artists and spectators,
229

----------------------- Page 231-----------------------

MIRUNA RUNCAN

canvassing and stimulating both artists, and spectators of the future.

This
cannot fulfil its meaning unless we change the perspective: the primary
target is not the conservation of the apparatus but the development of new audience

3
categories, and thus the offering of a greater access to culture .

Luxury Items without Excise Duties?

The defect perception - and conception - underlying the

traditional
immobility of Romanian cultural policies (and, in this context, theatre is just a
mere space of maximum visibility) is the (hoary) conviction (signalling a
serious deficit in the development of national civic culture) that acts of culture
are luxury items exempt from surcharges. Simply put, the theatre, opera, or
museum ticket is a kind of a symbolic replacement for the receipt issued by a
perfume shop; it is less expensive because it includes no excise duties, but it
is, in fact, subsidized, to an overwhelming extent, by the state (i.e. by us all).
Cultural goods are no “necessities”, they have nothing to do with the “daily
basket”, people can live - and millions actually do so - without ever setting
foot in a performance hall, without ever listening to a concert, without
knowing anything about Turandot, or without entering an art, history, or
ethnographic museum. And a performance is still a luxury and a form of
entertainment, as long as the act of subsidizing it is - consistently - seen as a
type of “planned loss”, bringing no tangible benefit to the budget...
Or, to strictly stick to the issue of theatre, the nineteen-century
thinking
model - regarding the literacy of a small bourgeois audience and the
synchronisation with European institutions and events, but ONLY at a
symbolic level, through “subsidized entertainment” - is far from enough.
Not that “entertainment” itself is bad or shady. But, to begin with, because
the objectives which made this model legitimate, first of all those related to
increasing the level of “general knowledge” of the urban population, or to
ascertain national/ethnical unity and spirituality, etc., have lost their initial
meaning. From the viewpoint of such objectives, the canon of a “great

3 For further details on this subject, see Iulia Popovici, “Cum am ratat iarăși
reforma” [“How
We Missed The Reform Again”], in Observator cultural, no. 539, August
27 ( 2010); Iulia
Popovici, “Teatru fără bani de la stat?” [“Theatre Without State’s Money?”], in
Dilema veche,
September 5-11 (2013); Iulia Popovici, “Pentru cine facem teatru” [“For Whom Do
We Make
Theatre”], in Dilema veche, no. 528, March 27 - April 2 (2014); Iulia Popovici,
“Managementul
nostru cel de toate zilele” [“Our Daily Management”], in Observator
cultural, no. 805,
January 15 (2016).
230

----------------------- Page 232-----------------------

ROMANIAN THEATRE AS PUBLIC SERVICE. A CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE LAST DECADES

culture” (national and tending to universal) was, and remained, throughout

the entire past century, indestructible, while exposure to the “masterpiece”
was the strategic way (unique and indisputable) on the road to civilization,
progress, and Europeanism.
Since, unlike in the case of literature or fine arts, in performing arts,
this model was never contradicted by a counterculture, independent from
the state subsidised one, be it in the interwar or in the communist period4,
we have lost another twenty something years involuntarily, conserving the
damaging vision about luxury items exempt from surcharges. And the
distance between public institutions which have access to resources and the
so-dynamic independent space that developed after 2000, with no or with
minimum access to resources (through project bids organized by the
Administration of National Cultural Fund - AFCN, or by the local authorities),
has already created an apparently insuperable gap.
No, the acts of artistic expression, cultural products, and,
finally,
theatre performances, are no luxury, and, at least in European culture, they
only follow the rules of the free market to a negligible extent5 . And
their
social advantage is not strictly related to “spiritual enrichment”, as defined
in boilerplate, since the Enlightenment until today. Especially in the field of
performing arts, their social advantage stems from
their cohesive-
participatory function and, as a factor of the continuity with the past, from
their educational function, in the broad sense6.

4 Years ago, I spoke extensively about the fact that, starting from the 19th, and
especially in
the 20th century, both subsidized national theatres and private companies,
reproduced the
very same repertory model, with small and insignificant commercial differences;
during
the Communist rule, due to the centralization, the nationalization, and
the exponential
growth of subsidies throughout the country, the model was reproduced
and preserved
intact - differences only appeared after 2000, as the independent
sector developed in a
dynamic manner. In this sense, see Miruna Runcan, Modelul teatral românesc [The
Romanian
Theatre Model], (Bucharest: UNITEXT, 2001).
5 Ruth Towse (ed.), A Handboock for CulturaL Economics. Second
Edition, (Cheltham/
Northampton: Edward Elgar, 2011). See also “Vasile Ernu în dialog cu
Iulia Popovici”
[“Vasile Ernu in a dialogue with Iulia Popovici” ], in
Adevărul, October 25 (2017),
http://adevarul.ro/cultura/teatru/nimeni-n-a-descoperit-ultimii-500-ani-metoda-
teatrul-
 opera-muzica-simfonica-devina-profitabile-vasile-ernu-dialog-iulia-popovici-
1_59f0443b5ab6550cb877d320/index.html
6 We should highlight that, despite the successive changes in the legislation
regarding the
organization and functioning of performing arts institutions, and
regarding their
management system, no significant improvements were seen in defining and
implementing
the condition of public service, as we are attempting to define here.

231

----------------------- Page 233-----------------------

MIRUNA RUNCAN

Edge and Centre

That, sometimes, certain theatre performances produced outside

Bucharest are more coherent, stylistically more
uniform, and run
“smoothly” for a longer time than those from the capital, is rather
easily
explained from the viewpoint of the above-described unique perspective of
repertory institutions. First of all, actor teams have a greater availability for
concentrated, sympathetic, “campaign” effort demanded by prestigious
directors, who take great pleasure in working in places where the actual
rehearsal time is not limited to the (maximum) four, super rushed hours
per day, as offered by Bucharest theatres. By now, this has become
common practice.
Secondly, the same teams are, to a certain extent, much more motivated
to achieve critical success, to be selected by national and international
festivals, precisely because their theatre as such, as well as each cast member
wishes to gain higher visibility, which, in the capital, seems to be taken for
granted, through television stations, advertising, etc. In Bucharest, actors are
in a constant rush to earn some extra money, be it through the radio, soap
operas, adds, events organized outside the institution paying their salary, or
from teaching at related theatre schools. Although it hasn’t yet become
a
secondary activity, stage acting has little to do with the apostleship
still
preserved by actors outside the capital.
Finally, some - few - provincial festivals have a much stronger (though
not always explicit, or consciously built) connection with the city’s real heart
beats, with the possible functions of a multi-layered cultural policy,
than
similar offers in the capital, especially the National Theatre Festival (FNT).
For the underlying philosophy of FNT has very rarely exceeded its dominant
condition from the 1990s, i.e. the “show case”: “Here you are, this is what
was produced this year in Romania.” This is also the reason the Sibiu
International Theatre Festival, with its multi-tier profile and based on
a
completely different philosophy (that of an international performance
market, where Romanian and foreign shows can compete) has rightfully
been perceived as outshining the one in Bucharest. And it is not all due to its
cosmopolitanism.
 I do not think it is healthy for us to keep referring to Romanian theatre
using the terms of the false dialectics of edge-centre, since, on the one hand,
it is deeply untrue, and, on the other, it clearly lacks equity. I believe that, if

232

----------------------- Page 234-----------------------

ROMANIAN THEATRE AS PUBLIC SERVICE. A CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE LAST DECADES

finally perceived as a public service, Romanian theatre (as well as numerous

other strata of cultural expression) deserves a complete (long overdue)
makeover of its functions, procedures, and institutions, from a totally
different perspective, especially with regards to its targeted the
audiences
and funding systems. Clear initiatives, active consistency, dedicated projects,
participation, building new audiences - these are all pillars which
should
build diverse artistic communities, whether traditional or independent, from
Bucharest and not only, guiding and multiplying their messages, their
aesthetics, and their offer.
To this end, we need a syncretic restructuring of the legal
system
through which acts of culture are funded, in order to encourage both
the
rhythmical movement of urban centres producing high quality culture, as well
as a fast shift from subsidizing culture as a “planned loss”, to subsidizing an
efficient public service, regardless of whether its producer is a state
or an
independent figure. Does anybody know when we will no longer be poor?
Or when we will no longer be in a crisis? One thing is clear: theatre is still a
luxury, who knows for how much longer. Cheap, therefore dispensable.
By the way, do you know which is the best National Theatre in
Romania? The Hungarian State Theatre of Cluj. Do you know why? Because
it (still) has a referential ‘nation’ – a compact community identified
as a
potential audience. The quibble above, which I keep referring to every time I
find the opportunity, includes, at its core, an answer to the question in the
title. Of course, by far not the only possible answer.

What was, what is, and what could a “National Theatre” be?

Like many other things whose names hide vague concepts, according
to Romanian dictionaries, “Teatru Naţional” (National Theatre) is written
with capitals. This shows – what else than – a symbolic status stronger than
the mere and even 1/1 ratio between a signified and a signifier. In
other
words, as in the case of all vague concepts, the emotional-symbolic charge of
the form is much greater than the material charge of its underlying content.
In the modern (longer than a century and a half) life of Romanian culture,
this emotional imbalance is downright hyperbolic. This teensy country, first
made up through the lucky union of two mono-linguistic provinces, started
with not one, but two National Theatres, in Iaşi, and Bucharest respectively.
Then, overnight, in 1919, a third one was decreed in Cluj, during the siege;
233

----------------------- Page 235-----------------------

MIRUNA RUNCAN

immediately after 1920, three more, in Craiova, Cernăuţi, and Chişinău (to
be dissolved after more than a decade because of the economic crisis, only
to be re-established four years later, just as spontaneously). Timişoara,
which had suffered from the injustice of not having a subsidized theatre for
a long time, received its National Theatre status after World War 2, while,
through the symbolic nationalistic sowing “care” of Ceauşescu’s policy, the
former Székelys Theatre of Târgu-Mureş became, firstly bilingual, in the 60s,
and then, in its turn, National, in the 80s.
Don’t you find this phenomenon strange? Isn’t it shivering to
realise
that, in the collective subconsciousness, which dictates symbolic perceptions,
representations, and acts, the frustration regarding national unity proves
much stronger than the motivation of the public service, i.e. than the trivial,
natural need of a city, of a region, of a county, to have a theatre of its own?
From their first organization-activist stage, Communists perceived this vain
imbalance, born out of frustration, quite correctly, considering they set
up
and fed - despite the terrific shortages caused by the Soviet semi-occupation,
by paying war debts and the costs of reconstruction - almost forty
“State”
and five “National” (of course, also “State”) theatres.
The debate about the goal, the role, and the functions of a
National
Theatre (or about its mission, as we used to say) has been present in Romanian
culture, like some kind of a compulsive genetic disorder, starting from
mid-19th century and until now, its successive platoons including irrefutable
heroes, coryphaei, martyrs, as well as demagogues, parvenus, cravens, and
all kinds of riffraff, questionable politicians, and loud-mouthed trumps.
Sure, almost all educated people know that Ion Ghica and Vasile Alecsandri
were both not only famous writers and participants to tke 1848 revolution,
but also directors whose portrait still hangs in National Theatres; also,
everybody knows that Eminescu struggled in vain for a vivid repertory, or
that Ion Luca Caragiale, the father of modern playwriting, had
both
managerial ideas and talent in his theatrical management of the National in
Bucharest, which didn’t help him from being sabotaged and ultimately fired
through the direct contribution of the associates, all of them celebrities who
went down in history7.
What use is it to remember that the playwriter Alexandru Davila
and
leading actor Nottara were at loggerheads, with the former leaving and

7 Șerban Cioculescu, Viața lui I. L. Caragiale [The Life of I.L.

Caragiale], (București: Editura
pentru literatura, 1969).

234

----------------------- Page 236-----------------------

 ROMANIAN THEATRE AS PUBLIC SERVICE. A CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE LAST DECADES

independently establishing the most durable private company in the history of

Romania, Compania Davila, now the Bulandra Theatre8? Or that Liviu
Rebreanu set up the studio (that is not the Creangă Theatre); that,
during
difficult years, Camil Petrescu went above and beyond to renovate the
legendary building on Calea Victoriei St., but only managed to get himself cast
out after only ten months, just like Caragiale9; that peofessor Tudor Vianu was
the manager of a bombed building, just after the war, staging performances in
the hall of the St. Sava High School10; that Zaharia Stancu did both good and
bad things, while the new building was inaugurated by legendary actor-
manager Radu Beligan, with one of Aurel Baranga’s forgotten texts?
Nevertheless, far fewer people know that, to make peace, the manager
who replaced Davila wrote a sample text about the purpose of the National
Theatre. His name was Pompiliu Eliade and, like any self-respecting academic,
decided, at that point, that the goal of the National Theatre was to be a school
for the many who search ed for entertainment11. Well, in the end, the thing about
“theatre being a school” has made and continues to make history, as anyone
can include whatever crosses their mind in the “educational purpose”.
And even less people know that, in 1922, an ephemeral manager, the
lawyer and writer I. Valjean, with a highly subtle and open mind, went
fishing for talented directors (not necessarily a trend on Calea Victoriei St.,
nor in the provincial Nationals of the time), and set up the journal Teatrul, a
real jewel12. Moreover, few talk about the fact that, after a theoretical training
that lasted for more than ten years, in the political asylum that was Marshal
Antonescu’s cohabitation with the fascist Legionnaires, Haig
Acterian
became the manager of the Bucharest National Theatre, with a view to
achieving greatness, though he only managed to partially fulfil his plans, as,
after the Rebellion, he was sent to the front line and died13.

8 Mihai Vasiliu, Alexandru Davila, (București: Editura Meridiane, 1965).

9 Aurel Petrescu, Opera lui Camil Petrescu [The Works of Camil Petrescu],
(București: Editura
Didactică și Pedagogică, 1972).
10 Ioan Massoff, Teatrul Românesc [Romanian Theatre], vol VII,
(București: Editura Minerva,
1977).
11 Ileana Berlogea; George Muntean (eds.), Pagini din istoria gândirii teatrale
românești [Pages
From the History of Romanian Theatrical Thought], (București: Editura Meridiane,
1972), 104-
106.
12 Ioan Massoff, Teatrul Românesc [Romanian Theatre], vol VI, (București:
Editura Minerva,
1976).
13 Haig Acterian, Cealaltă parte a vieții noastre [The Other Side of
Our Life], (Iași: Institutul
european, 1991).

235

----------------------- Page 237-----------------------

 MIRUNA RUNCAN

Regarding the painful stake surrounding the National Theatres in

the
tumultuous debate fired by the new directing school in 1956-1957, this
is
hardly considered when the theatre model or, if you wish, canon, is discussed.
Back then, the youngsters’ united front denounced the improvisation, the
imprecise repertory, the lack of professionalism in training and guiding
actors, as well as (between the lines) the stubborn and gaudy sinecures
of
directors and playwrights who had become “people’s artists” overnight (such
as Sică Alexandrescu, recently awarded by the government with a tour to
Paris, after a lifetime of dubious affairs and shameful plagiarism).
So many bloody wars in the history of Romanian “National” theatre! ...
And for what? To be able to make good, interesting, high quality theatre for
the audience? Traditionalists will not miss the chance to answer that yes, the
stake was/is the audience, its configuration, its representation, and its
serving. It is very difficult for one to confirm such a thesis. Most of the times,
it was no longer about the audience, which has become a mere manoeuvre
element in polemic confrontations. I would even go as far as saying that one
of the few items over which enemies do not fight in polemics of substance,
over almost the last century, was the estimation regarding the audience,
which is always haemorrhagic and hard to understand. But no, these endless
fights come from the very fact that, in a rather self-
sufficient artistic
environment, there was and still is a terrific lack of competition. And, after
all, of efficiency. In our country, until not very long ago, theatre used to be
just “national”. Whether in Bucharest, Petroşani, Barlad, or any other place
with a theatre paid by public budgets. Even if the theatre was/is... smaller, it
is still seen as ‘National’. Sometimes, being a theatre become a
secondary
term of the expression...
And the reason for this is that, when it comes to theatre, our cultural
history is both placidly coherent, and limping. From the very beginning,
Romanian theatre developed, as stated in the preamble, because some artists,
writers, actors, musicians, later painters who became stage designers, or
mere high school graduates who became theatre managers, wanted to make
theatre. And they had the illusion that the others, the audience, the audiences,
couldn’t wait to watch them do so. This proved sometimes to be true, but
other times, just an illusion.
And the people in power, from poor Vodă Caragea, whose daughter
compelled him to set up a theatre for her, to present-day presidents, having
passed through a huge and inchoate bureaucratic apparatus, were always

236

----------------------- Page 238-----------------------

ROMANIAN THEATRE AS PUBLIC SERVICE. A CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE LAST DECADES

sure that, in any fussy county capital or city, the theatre was the undeniable
sign of civilization and the mark of power. This also proves, in our modern
history, sometimes true, but other times less so. Throughout this game,
which has, in time, developed its own dynamics and become a tradition,
the simplest, most fundamental question is never pronounced as a matter
of principle.
I am not referring to the question of “What does the audience
want?”
This is ruinous and demagogic, as well as unpopularizing hypocrisy. Any
elementary marketing course teaches (should one want to learn) that one
should make people want something they’ve never thought of wanting,
and enthusiastically buy things they clearly didn’t know they needed. This
fundamental question is: Why do we make theatre? But, as strange as it may
seem, the urgent, painful question, which takes us outside of the mechanics
of a tradition that consumed its motivations, is the one above. The lack of
interest in such simple interrogations shows that both politicians and theatre
people don’t actually care about the identity of the addressee, the person
sitting in front of the artists, who bought a ticket to see a performance. At
the same time, this question is about legitimacy, about the other, the spectator,
and about yourself, the artist; while, in this equation, the artistic product plays
the part of an agent of exchanging ideas and practicing a healthy dialogue.
What is a National Theatre? Before anything else, it is one of the tens of
theatres paid from public money, to offer thus a public service model. Then,
we should probably find out what the meaning of “nation” and of someone
who belongs to it, i.e. “national”, is, in the 19th century, in Bucharest, Cluj,
Iaşi,
Craiova, Timişoara, Tîrgu Mureş, Sibiu. We are now touching upon dramatic/
senzitive topics, where the political - and political theories, as well as history,
geography, anthropology, collective psychology, symbolic imagology, and
many others pull each other’s hair, starting a loud and uncontrollable
carnival. Couldn’t this state-funded institution formula find a more
precise
status and a load of functions to clearly set it apart from other
public
institutions, beyond the propaganda traditionally instilled to its name?
For now, though, in Romania, the National Theatre refers to a building,
a big one, bigger than others, possibly including several halls, which eats up
funds, energy, resources, staking the final product, which is... what? A good
performance? An extraordinary performance? A performance replacing
required-readings?
Nowadays, I don’t think it’s wise to start from what we already have.
And not because we don't have high quality products/works, when we do,

237

----------------------- Page 239-----------------------

MIRUNA RUNCAN

where we do, and as many as we do. It’s already very clear, to me at least,
that the ambition to feed industrial complexes like the National Theatres
with money, here and now, can only be justified if we fully exit this trap of
producing masterpieces. I believe the “purpose” of such theatres is not (just)
to create good performances, I think this is the implicit duty of any theatre,
be it state or private, independent or experimental, Romanian, Hungarian,
Jewish, or playing in Turkish, French, English or Swahili, in a yard or in the
basement of a block of flats.
A theatre called National should produce, here and now, national
culture - in the broad, not nationalistic sense - that is, with the
status of
model, in rich layers, using the performances, but not only. A National
Theatre - a tradition always craved, but never truly achieved in our country
- should be a nursery for domestic playwrighting, through broad talent
discovery and fostering programmes, capitalizing on this literature, as well
as for carrying out other collaborative creation systems, based on verbal
expression or not, in the literal sense. It should set out to discover
and
encourage diverse creations, helping those sitting in the audience to discover
themselves and ask questions. A theatre paid for with public money and
receiving National as a title, should be a space of cultural research through art,
but also of public debate by way of art. Not only theatre art, but also all arts
combined in and claimed from the performance. Over the last four-five
years, Târgu Mureș and Cluj showed the clearest signs of suiting the multi-
layer condition of such an institutional status, and I think this is a first sign
that things have started to move.
Most certainly, a National Theatre should constantly, and through
long-term programmes, aim at getting down into the world of people, and
rebuilding a healthy relation with schools and universities. (I’m not referring
to the sham of buying tickets by the kilo, hauling children by the bus, but to
stimulating theatre production in schools, high schools, and universities, to
hosting and even organizing festivals for pupils, and many other tens of
possible programmes to pull present-day youngsters from the mechanized
futility in which they are soaking). More than that, of course, a
National
Theatre should work like a turntable, through which the voice of the present
world talks to other, far-away voices of today and tomorrow. Such a theatre
should, with a radar-like attention and coherence, place Romanians in
relation to those outside the country, by means of the arts that fully represent
them - whether through precise events, such as tours, or by organizing cyclic
actions, like festivals.

238

----------------------- Page 240-----------------------

ROMANIAN THEATRE AS PUBLIC SERVICE. A CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE LAST DECADES

A National Theatre sits as far away as possible from a museum, even

when it hosts one or several museums under its roof, or when it carefully
and competently does curatorial work (which they should very well do). It
should be a strategic cultural institution, designed as such, but, at the same
time, using complex procedures to express the live aesthetics that have not
yet gone down into history.

References

ACTERIAN, Haig. Cealaltă parte a vieții noastre [The Other Side of Our
Life]. Iași:
Institutul european, 1991.
BERLOGEA, Ileana, and George Muntean (eds.). Pagini din istoria gândirii
teatrale
 românești [Pages From the History of Romanian Theatrical Thought].
București:
Editura Meridiane, 1972.
CIOCULESCU, Șerban. Viața lui I. L. Caragiale [The Life of I.L.
Caragiale]. București:
Editura pentru literatura, 1969.
MASSOFF, Ioan. Teatrul Românesc [Romanian Theatre]. Volume VI. București: Editura
Minerva, 1976.
- Teatrul Românesc [Romanian Theatre]. Volume VII.
București: Editura
Minerva, 1977.
PETRESCU, Aurel. Opera lui Camil Petrescu [The Works of Camil Petrescu].
București:
Editura Didactică și pedagogică, 1972.
POPOVICI, Iulia. “Cum am ratat iarăși reforma” [“How We Missed The
Reform
Again”]. In Observator cultural, no. 539, August 27 (2010).
- “Teatru fără bani de la stat?” [“Theatre Without State’s Money?”]. In
Dilema
veche, September 5-11 (2013).
- “Pentru cine facem teatru” [“For Whom Do We Make Theatre”]. In Dilema
veche, no. 528, March 27 - April 2 ( 2014).
- “Managementul nostru cel de toate zilele” [“Our Daily
Management”]. In
Observator cultural, no. 805, January 15 (2016).
RUNCAN, Miruna. Modelul teatral românesc [The Romanian Theatre Model] . Bucharest:
UNITEXT, 2001.
TOWSE, Ruth (ed.). A Handboock for CulturaL
Economics. Second Edition.
Cheltham/Northampton: Edward Elgar, 2011.
VASILIU, Mihai. Alexandru Davila . București: Editura Meridiane, 1965.

239

----------------------- Page 241-----------------------

MIRUNA RUNCAN

MIRUNA RUNCAN is a writer, a theatre critic and a Professor PhD of the

Theatre
and Television Faculty at "Babes Boyai" University Cluj, Romania.
Co-founder
(with C.C. Buricea-Mlinarcic) of Everyday Life Drama Research and
Creation
Laboratory (awarded with a three-year National Grant for Research
in 2009).
Author of The Romanian Theatre Model, Bucharest: Unitext Publisging
House,
2001; The Theatricalisation of Romanian Theatre. 1920-1960, Cluj: Eikon
Publishing
House, 2003; For a Semyothics of the Theatrical Performance, Cluj: Dacia
Publishing
House, 2005; The Sceptical’s Spectator’s Armchair, Bucharest:
Unitext Publishing
House, 2007; The Universe of Alexandru Dabija’s Performances, Limes
Publishing
House and Camil Petrescu Foundation, Bucharest 2010; Bunjee-Jumping.
Short
Stories, Cluj: Limes Publishing House, 2011; Enlove with
Acting: 12 Actor’s
Portraits, Bucharest: Limes Publishing House and Camil Petrescu
Foundation, 2011;
Signore Misterioso: an Anathomy of the Spectator, Bucharest:
Unitext, 2011;
Theatre Criticism. Whereto? Cluj University Press, 2015; Odeon 70
– An
Adventure in Theatre History, Bucharest, Oscar Print, 2016.

240

----------------------- Page 242-----------------------

INTERVIEW
----------------------- Page 243-----------------------

----------------------- Page 244-----------------------

STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA, LXIII, 1, 2018, p. 243 - 250

(Recommended Citation)

„ I only became a playwright when I started to direct“

Interview with Alina Nelega, dramatic author, professor and tutor of

the Playwriting MA at the University of Arts in Tîrgu-Mureș

1
ELISE WILK

Abstract: The present interview with Alina Nelega is

centred on the
contemporary Romanian dramaturgy.
Our discussion focuses on the
existing initiatives to encourage emerging playwrights, as well as on
topics
like the evolution of theatre in Romania after the fall of
communism, the
director-playwright relationship, the transition of the playwright
to the
status of dramatic author but also on the image of the
country in the
Romanian dramaturgy.

Keywords: playwriting, directing, dramatic author, Romanian dramaturgy

1. Playwright, PhD candidate, University of Arts in Tîrgu-Mureș, Romania.

elise.wilk@gmail.com

----------------------- Page 245-----------------------

ALINA NELEGA
 Alina Nelega (b. 1960) is one of Romania’s finest playwrights
and
authors. Among other distinctions, she has won the prestigious UNITER
award Best Play of the Year twice (in 2001 and in 2014). She holds
the
„European Author” accolade (Heidelberg 244Stueckemarkt, 2007), as well as
the Fibula de la Suseni (2015) insignia and diploma of excellence. Since 2008,
she has been an Honorary Fellow in Writing of the Iowa University,
and,
since 2009, a Full Professor at the University of Arts in Tîrgu-Mureș. She was
an Artistic Director of the National Theatre in Tîrgu-Mureș (2012 – 2017). Her
plays have been translated, published and performed in Romania and
internationally, in Europe (Budapest, Prague, Zurich, Warsaw, Paris, Rome,
etc.), and in the USA (New York Fringe Festival, Lark Play Development
Center, University of Connecticutt, hotINK festival, New York University,
New York Theatre Workshop). She has benefitted from international
residencies, such as The International Writing Program, Iowa (USA) and
writing programs of The Royal Court Theatre and The Bush Theatre (London).
She also runs playwriting workshops, teaches and directs new writing.
Prof. univ. dr. habil. Alina Nelega is also the tutor of the Playwriting
MA at the University of Arts in Tîrgu-Mureș, a course which 90% of today’s
most accomplished young playwrights have graduated from.

Elise Wilk: Some years ago, there were very few initiatives to
encourage
playwriting in Romania. Just some contests, but most of the awarded plays were
never produced. The situation has meanwhile changed. From year to year,
more
Romanian plays are being staged, both by state theatres and independent companies.
Some theatres started to organise contests for young directors, based on
new
Romanian plays (National Theatre of Craiova, Apollo 111 Bucharest), there
are
even contests for teenage writers (Excelsior Theatre Bucharest, Tineretului
Theatre
Piatra Neamț) and Reactor de creație și experiment, an independent
theatre
from Cluj, is providing a residency p rogram for emerging playwrights.
20 years ago, you were one of the initiators of Dramafest, the first
program
which focused on the production of new plays. The 2 editions of Dramafest were
followed by 5 editions of
DramAcum, a project that aimed at discovering new voices. And after this,
dramatic writing was included in the curricula of two universities: UAT
Tg.
Mureș and UNATC Bucharest.

244

----------------------- Page 246-----------------------

INTERVIEW WITH ALINA NELEGA

Still, there are not so many programs supporting young writers

in their
attempts to become dramatic authors, let alone residencies for writers. Considering
this, do you think it’s hard to become a playwright in Romania?

Alina Nelega: How can you become a playwright in Romania? Well,

there are two main things you need to do. The first one is to think
small:
work with actors of your generation, negotiate your play with directors
of
your generation, seek small spaces, independent companies, find support
from your community, find a reward in your own work, be patient and
explore the process! The second one is to think big. Get your plays translated,
send them to international competitions, join international
playwriting
networks, apply for grants, generate your own projects, become the executive
director of your thoughts and plans, never cease to fight for your rights and
royalties!

E.W.: At the end of 2017, Odeon Theatre hosted a meeting of Fabulamundi.

Playwriting Europe, a program that reunites 80 playwrights from all
across
Europe. During the meeting, the 10 selected playwrights from Romania
spoke
about their work with theatre representatives from eight countries. In
the end,
somebody told me he had noticed that all of us were complaining, in
our work,
about the situation in our country. Our plays speak about homophobia, intolerance
and racism being widely spread in Romania, about the failing of our educational
system, about poverty, labour migration, corruption and inter-ethnic
conflicts.
“You are writing about too many negative things”, he told me.
Do you think Romanian dramaturgy is showing a negative image of
the
country?

A.N.: Showing a positive or a negative image of Romania is not our

job, nor is it our responsibility, as playwrights. We write about what
we
see, like the child who sees that the emperor is naked. It is not his problem
to dress the emperor, but his utterance could help the ones who are in
charge do their jobs. One sure thing about theatre and writing is that you
cannot lie, you only get to embarrass yourself.
Whining, on the other hand, is something else. Blaming others, too.
Homophobia, rascism, intolerance, education problems
and poverty,
corruption and nationalism are not only Romanian problems. Romania is
not a champion of homophobia, nor is it number one across Europe in

245

----------------------- Page 247-----------------------

ALINA NELEGA
terms of nationalism. To see only bad and negative parts of reality is to be
extremely short-sighted. But when we imagine plays, as play-wrights, in
our search for story, plot and characters, the negative aspects are the only
productive ones. They feed our talent and creativity. What I mean is that,
although talking about negative aspects of reality and human nature is
perfectly legitimate, the perspective, the approach of the author is important.
I should say that, even if the reality you refer to is negative, the approach
needs to be positive – and what I mean does not refer to a moral thesis or to
agitprop techniques, but rather to an encompassing and deeply humane
perspective, which is to be found in all great plays, from Shakespeare’s
Romeo and Juliet, to Garcia’s Agamemnon. Don’t ever forget to play, when you
write a play. But you definitely know that, your plays are very
intelligent
and playful. Your Green Cat, for instance, deals with a negative reality, still it
is touching, playful and the approach is positive, full of empathy.

E.W: Some theatre critics are still talking about the “crisis of the
Romanian
dramaturgy”. Is this still a real problem? Is it because of the fact that in
Romania,
the playwright stood in the shadow for many years and there still is a supremacy of
the director?

A. N.: Crisis is good. It opens opportunities. You know the Chinese

too often quoted the paradoxical ideogram of
crisis: danger and
opportunity. If the critics are right, we should celebrate the crisis… but is
the supremacy of the director a reason for the crisis? Is there a real conflict
between the playwright and the director? I don’t think so, not any longer.
We live in a postdramatic and post-directorial age. If a text is strong
enough, it will find its way to the stage. And the person who directs is…
always the director – he or she can be the author, one of the actors
or
anyone who feels that he or she can organize the show and take over the
responsibilities of staging the play. My generation of directors
(Măniuțiu,
Dabija, Frunză) were not interested in new plays, they had other agendas,
therefore we, those who were writing and looking for directors to share the
energy and feeling of our plays, were extremely lost and disappointed. The
numerous generations of directors were yet to come. We had to make do
with our plays being published and translated, sometimes staged by
international directors who had no problem in
stepping back and
acknowledging the playwright as one of the authors of the performance. Of
course, we had to be lucky – opportunities were still very few.

246

----------------------- Page 248-----------------------

INTERVIEW WITH ALINA NELEGA

At that time, I had to stage my plays, which, incidentally, was

regarded as cheeky and inconsiderate towards the effigy of directorial
prowess. I am very happy that I had the courage to do that, because
I
 learned a lot. In fact, although I had been writing for more than a decade
and had won the Play of the Year in 2000, I only became a playwright when
I started to direct. But this is my way – others began by being directors and
writing afterwards, others do not feel comfortable at all with staging their
plays. There are many possibilities, but one needs to find her or his way,
there are no recipes, no universal solutions. Just exemplary destinies
or
inspiring insights that other playwrights can share with us.

E.W.: In Germany, there is a very important festival dedicated

to new
German dramaturgy, Mülheimer Theatertage. Every year, the jury is selecting
10 productions, taking into consideration all new German plays staged in the last
season and focusing only on the play and not on the production. At this festival,
I
found out that 600 new German plays are p roduced every year in Germany. This is
an astronomical amount. In Romania, I don’t think we have had 600 plays since
1990. Could it be possible in the future to have, let’s say, 50 new Romanian plays
every year?

A.N.: Ha-ha! I am not going to fall into your trap of negativity!

Some steps have been taken towards creating a context, a safe space
for the emerging playwrights. We have stopped blaming the communism
for manipulating playwrights and plays for propaganda, which apparently
had explained the lack of appetite of theatres and directors for the
new
plays, in the ‘90s. A new play does not need a big budget, so we
cannot
blame the lack of funds. We are still fighting the indifference of
theatres,
and the lack of expertise, the traditional literacy gap regarding playwriting.
I could, of course, name other obstacles that block the playwright: too few
and too obscure playwriting competitions, therefore small chances
to
become visible, the idea that writing as it is, is a hobby and not a
profession, the “genius” mythology, in a culture where people still play the
national lottery, believe in becoming rich overnight, and do not believe in
supporting long-term projects…
Ooops! I think I have fallen right into your trap!

247

----------------------- Page 249-----------------------

ALINA NELEGA

E.W.: What do you think is lacking in the Romanian dramaturgy?

A.N: More playwrights. A real association, a guild of playwrights

who live their lives on the stage, who have found ways to empower
themselves and have their voices heard.

E.W.: In the last years, a certain tendency has increased:

playwrights are
commissioned to write about a certain topic, for a certain theatre. A director
calls
you and says: “I really like your writing. But don’t you want to write something
new, for me? Look, I have this idea”. Or a theatre manager decides he wants a play
about migration, and he talks to a playwright. Sometimes, the text is
developed
together with the actors and the director. For me, commissioned works are a little
bit risky because it’s almost sure that there won’t be a second
production. That
means playwrights are encouraged to write „for single use only“. Aren‘t you afraid
of this?

A.N.: Not really, no. I have done this kind of writing myself, and it is
extremely rewarding. I have also encouraged other playwrights to do it,
but some find it difficult to be so flexible and not afraid of the
process.
After all, if you are the one and only author, you know you can count on
yourself, but if you are part of a team, and do not run it (the director mostly
does that), you have no control over the text that is born along with
the
performance, and it can escape you or take the wrong direction. The thing
is, I guess, you need to be in control somehow: you either have a
good
chemistry with the director and you both run the team, as partners, or you
just run it yourself, as an author. And that’s that. But you must
trust the
stage, even if you are scared to death – if you trust it and pay attention to it,
you can’t go wrong.

E.W.: You often speak about the transition of the playwright to the status
of
dramatic author, directing his own plays. For me, the danger is that such a work
becomes so personal that nobody else would stage the play again. I believe in the
traditional playwright, who is writing a play that will be directed by
somebody
else, giving new meanings to it. Do you think this kind of playwright
will
disappear?

248

----------------------- Page 250-----------------------

INTERVIEW WITH ALINA NELEGA

A.N.: No, not at all! You speak about a play as dramatic poetry, about
playwrights who can write and construct, at the same time, a literary object
for stage. These plays are very rare, very precious! Nevertheless,
theatre
has evolved from literary theatre to documentary theatre, devised and
performative techniques of dramaturgical impact.
Some great
performances are not based on drama, therefore we can speak of
postdramatic forms. Neither Kantor, nor Grotowski worked with respect
for the text; for them, great stage authors, fathers of performance and
promoters of anti-mimetic theatre, the show was the text. But you can’t
imagine Brecht without his plays, can you? All these forms of theatre have
coexisted, some in wonderfully hybrid versions. And today, we are living
all the possibilities, the stage is very open, you can experiment, explore, be
non-conventional or very traditional. It is for the first time in the history of
theatre that we have so many possibilities to work with multimedia,
conceptual tools, in alternative spaces or on a fully-equipped stage.
After
all, the stage, wherever you may find it, has one fundamental rule: there is
no right and wrong, there is only what functions and what doesn’t.

E.W.: Could you imagine living in another country and writing in another
language than Romanian?

A.N.: Oh, yes! I am a very imaginative person… but I’m afraid it’s too
late now. I need to rely on translations.

E.W.: Many of the Romanian films after 2000 are dealing with
the past.
Some years ago, people used to say: “I’m tired of seeing another film
about the
Revolution”. That’s not the case of theatre, where plays are more about the
present.
You are one of the playwrights who wrote about the past - life in communism, the
consequences of collaboration with the Securitate being themes you approached in
your plays. Do you think we need more plays about the past? Or should theatre
speak mostly about here and now?

A.N.: I am not very sure about what theatre should or should not do.
There are plenty of options, nobody forces you to watch a movie about the
Revolution, if you couldn’t care less. You needn’t watch Lars von Trier, no,
you can watch a film by Nora Ephron. The extraordinary thing today is
that you have an option, and I wish we were intelligent enough to preserve

249

----------------------- Page 251-----------------------

ALINA NELEGA

our options. Repertory theatres work one way, they care about tradition
and conventional forms of theatre, independent theatre doesn’t give a rat’s
arse about tradition and wants to provoke, induce reaction, it is hungry for
immediacy and feedback. Theatre has invaded visual art, performing is an
important part of poetry shows, you can take your pick and enjoy it!
The other half of your question – me writing about the past… a writer
feeds on memory, personal memory as well as collective one. One of the
consequences of playwrights being so young is that their memory expands
over a short period of time. It is so natural that we have lots of plays about
teenagers, when the playwrights are barely 21 or 22 years old! They cannot
(with few exceptions) write about communism, since they did not live it,
have no personal memories of it. And their interest lies somewhere else,
good for them! They should follow their instincts and write about what
tickles them!
But let me tell you a very short story: last summer, while running a
workshop in Cluj, I was asked by a 20 year-old playwright, why was
communism bad, since her parents and grandparents kept saying it was a
lot better than what they were living at the moment. Her question triggered
a huge indignation in me, a reflex anger. Not against her, but against our
ability to forget.
I did write about the past, indeed, and I shall never get tired to do so,
provided I can help not to repeat myself. Memory needs to be preserved
and shared, and our culture is not big on preserving our memory and
telling the truth about history, recent or not. If I can make a contribution to
that, I shall never stop writing about the past. There are lots of young and
very talented playwrights who speak loud and clear and about the present!

250

----------------------- Page 252-----------------------

PERFORMANCE AND BOOK REVIEWS

----------------------- Page 253-----------------------

----------------------- Page 254-----------------------

STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA, LXIII, 1, 2018, p. 253 - 262

(Recommended Citation)

“Us and Them” – A Transylvanian Story in Three Chapters

Performance review: 20/20, written and directed by Gianina

Cărbunariu, a production of Yorick Studio, Tîrgu-Mureş; Double
Bind, a performance by Alina Nelega and Kincses Réka, a
production of The National Theatre, Tîrgu-Mureș, and MaRó by
Székely Csaba, directed by Andi Gherghe, a production of Yorick
Studio, Tîrgu-Mureş

Motto: “And after all, we’re only ordinary

men…”
– Pink
Floyd, Us and Them –

On the 1st of December, 1918, Transylvania was no longer a Hungarian

territory. On this historic date, it became a part of Romania, a status
quo
which was going to be officialised in 1920, as validated by the
Versailles
Treaty. Thus, our Great Union Day happened a hundred years ago – a cause
for celebration in 2018, when most Romanian citizens are rejoicing the
Centenary openly, and few of them are hindered by whatever feelings this
year-long feast might cause in the hearts of our co-nationals, the members of
the quite substantial Hungarian ethnic minority. However, despite extreme,
nationalistic reactions having been registered over the years both amongst
Romanians and Hungarians in Transylvania, many of us are trying to live in
the community and understand its mechanics, aiming at peaceful cohabitation.
Theatre, the most social of the arts, is a tool which cannot be ignored
when one wants to deal with community-related issues. In the following
“chapters”, I will analyse three performances (created by highly-qualified,
awarded theatre professionals) each dealing with the relationship between
the Romanian majority and the Hungarian minority in Transylvania. The
reason why I chose to write about this specific problem in a journal whose
current issue is celebrating the Romanian Centenary is the fact that
there
are some countries in which the tradition states that if it is your birthday,
you are the one who is supposed to offer gifts to your friends and family.
Let’s imagine, for a moment, that we live in such a culture.

----------------------- Page 255-----------------------

ANDA CADARIU

Chapter I – 20/20
Yorick Studio, Tîrgu-Mureş – 20/20. Written and directed by Gianina
Cărbunariu. Visual artist: Maria Drăghici.
Translation and
dramaturgy: Boros Kinga. Cast: Virgil Aioanei, Bányai Kelemen
Barna, Berekméri Katalin, Carmen Florescu, Mădălina Ghiţescu,
Korpos András, Rolando Matsangos, Sebestyén Aba, Cristina
Toma, Tompa Klára. Opening date: the 14th of October, 2009.

20/20 is a documentary theatre performance, the title of which consists

of a term borrowed from ophtalmology – a measurement indicating
perfectly-accurate (hence, normal) vision. However, this title also refers
to
“Black March” in Tîrgu-Mureș/Marosvásárhely, as does the entire show. On
the 20th of March, 1990, not long after the fall of communism in
Romania,
Hungarians and Romanians clashed in an
interethnic conflict the
consequences of which were bloody and gruesome. This conflict is the main
topic of 20/20, a theatre performance which aims to investigate how people
saw the March events twenty years after they had happened.

Fig. 1. 20/20 poster (by Maria Drăghici)

254

----------------------- Page 256-----------------------

“US AND THEM” – A TRANSYLVANIAN STORY IN THREE CHAPTERS

The concept of the show is self-referential. Thus, 20/20 approaches the

documentation process itself – it tells the story of how several young theatre
artists from Bucharest have come to Tîrgu-Mureș to make a show about “Black
March” and to interview people for this precise purpose. They are met with
reluctance and refusal by many locals. But this is just one scene of
the
performance. Other scenes talk about the March events from the perspective of
two foreigners, about the difficulties a Romanian woman encounters when
trying to learn Hungarian, about borders, and, also, about what the relationships
between Romanian and Hungarian neighbours looked like in March, 1990.
This latter scene is, in my opinion, if a little biased, the central scene
of the
performance. Its characters are a couple of Transylvanian–Hungarians who
have guests from Budapest. Suddenly, their Romanian neighbours decide to
pay them a visit.
 Civilised conversation ensues, up to a point, and we find out that the
Romanian neighbours have come to Transylvania from other regions of
Romania (Oltenia, Moldova) to work at the Chemical Factory in Tîrgu-Mureș.
At this point, I felt misrepresented: I was born and raised in Tîrgu-Mureș, just
like my parents, and, due to cultural appropriation, I grew up listening
to
Hungarian rock bands such as Omega or Locomotiv GT and started using
Hungarian interjections like “Na!” and “Jaj!” in my early childhood. The
Romanians in this scene from 20/20 are not Transylvanian, they have peasant-
like traditions and tastes. The portrait of the born-and-raised-in-Tîrgu-Mureș
is absent. On the other hand, the visitors from Budapest are highly-aristocratic,
they sing and recite poems and value “high culture” – an aspect which was
ironically presented and accordingly laughed at by the audience.
Despite this small mishap of some Transylvanian-Romanians feeling
underrepresented, the show is, otherwise, extremely lively, well-directed and
professionally-acted. Theatre critic Philip Fisher writes: “20/20 is played out
in-the-round by performers sitting in a kind of sunken bear pit observed
from all sides by spectators. This voyeuristic staging is effective in the light of
the evening's subject matter, events in March 1990 in the city of Tirgu Mures
(sic!) (or Târgu Mureș) in Transylvania, during which clashes between the
two ethnic groups led to fighting and five deaths.
Ten actors, split equally both male/female and Romanian/Hungarian,
work with a verbatim text to illuminate the events, using virtually no costumes or
props in the bare space. (…) The problems are largely related in reportage rather
than action, although the strong feelings begin to emerge in a series of scenes

1
during which the mutual hatred and suffering becomes increasingly apparent.”

1 Philip Fisher, “20/20”, in British Theatre Guide,

http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/20-
20-platform-theatr-7665, accessed on the 18th of February, 2018;

255

----------------------- Page 257-----------------------

ANDA CADARIU

The relationship between Hungarians and Romanians in Transylvania is

a delicate subject matter. Gianina Cărbunariu and her team have touched upon
this (un)healed wound and I remember feeling grateful for their performance
and for the discussions with the audience that followed the premiere.

Fig. 2: Scene from 20/20 (photo by Maria Drăghici)

Simple, but not simplistic, tackling a difficult matter that

still lingers
upon Tîrgu-Mureș, 20/20 was a necessary performance. But have we really
healed? And, if so, are our wounds old enough for us to have regained the
perfect vision 20/20 refers to? Do we have the necessary distance to
see
things clearly, even now, after so many years have passed? The show itself
ends with a question, addressed to the audience: “What do you think?”.
Maybe the answer to this question could be given by another performance:

256

----------------------- Page 258-----------------------

“US AND THEM” – A TRANSYLVANIAN STORY IN THREE CHAPTERS

Chapter 2 – Double Bind

The National Theatre, Tîrgu-Mureș - Double Bind. A performance

by Alina Nelega and Kincses Réka. Cast: Monica Ristea, Berekméri
Katalin, Elena Purea, Pál Emőke, Laura Mihalache, Csíki Szabolcs,
Andrei Alexandru Chiran, Barabási Tivadar, Claudiu Banciu, Bartha
László Zsolt, Cristian Iorga. Music: Ada Milea. Translation: Kacsó
Judit-Andrea, Florentina Váry. Opening date: the 6th of December,
2014.

Just like 20/20, the title of Double Bind is a borrowed expression.

This
time, the artists have approached the area of psychology, where double bind
refers to a conflicting situation which cannot possibly generate a
positive
solution. Created by Kincses Réka and Alina Nelega, this theatre performance is
a devised-documentary show, focusing on Tîrgu-Mureș, the same city where
the “Black March” events took place, but it approaches the minority-majority
issue from a wider perspective.

Fig. 3. Double Bind poster(by Kincses Réka)

257

----------------------- Page 259-----------------------

ANDA CADARIU

A Hungarian reviewer of this performance states that “A megrázó

előadásban sokszor előkerül a konfliktusváros motívuma is, amelyet egyik
náció sem tud igazán magáénak érezni a vélt vagy valós sérelmek miatt.”2
A Romanian theatre critic talks about “un oraş în care cele două comunităţi
trăiesc alături, nu şi împreună.”3
Besides life in this split city, or maybe not “besides” but rather
mirroring
it, Double Bind documents a summer workshop that preceded the performance,
and in which actors from the Hungarian and Romanian companies of the
National Theatre in Tîrgu-Mureș took part. The workshop was the first stage of
the rehearsals - the participants told their personal stories, on which
the
performance is mostly based. Another similarity with 20/20: Double Bind is
self-referential, the actors play both themselves and several characters.
There
are many scenes which combine laughter with bittersweet mediation: a
Transylvanian-Hungarian abroad can’t explain her identity to two foreigners:
she’s Romanian, but she’s also Hungarian; the writer-directors of Double Bind
cannot agree on what a certain scene should look like in the show, because
they have different views on history and on nowadays reality; a Transylvanian-
Hungarian woman returns to Marosvásárhely after living abroad, only to
discover that it has become Tîrgu-Mureș - meaning that the streets have
changed their names from Hungarian to Romanian; a Romanian high school
student, born and raised in a nationalistic family, treats a Hungarian girl badly;
and, last, but not least, the central scene of the performance: a talk-
show
where the characters literally fight each other (Romanians against Hungarians).
I have mentioned that, having been born and raised in Tîrgu-Mureș, I
had felt underrepresented in 20/20. There were some spectators who felt the
same thing about Double Bind; they were the sons and daughters of mixed
families, i. e. one Romanian and one Hungarian parent – and the show did not
talk about them. However, Double Bind did not aim to deal with the situation in
Tîrgu-Mureș exhaustively, but rather, dynamically. And it is quite a dynamic
performance! The actors masterfully switch between the documented and
fictionalised scenes, between story, history and reality, while the script (the
Romanian parts of which were written by Alina Nelega, while the Hungarian
ones – by Kincses Réka) is beautifully-structured and thought-provoking.

2 “In this shocking theatre performance, the motive of the conflict-city appears
several times, a
city which none of the two ethnic groups feels it belongs to them, because of
real or imaginary
insults.” - Csaba Lukács, “A főtér átköltözött Marosvásárhelyről Targu-Muresbe”,
in Magyar
Nemzet, Budapest, December 18 (2017);
3 “… a city in which the two communities live alongside, but not together.” – Oana
Stoica,
“Vorbește-mi, n-o să te ascult”, in Dilema Veche, issue 685, April 6-12 (2017).

258

----------------------- Page 260-----------------------

“US AND THEM” – A TRANSYLVANIAN STORY IN THREE CHAPTERS

Fig. 4: Double Bind rehearsal (photo by Sebesi Sándor)

Double Bind ends, just like 20/20, with a question. Nevertheless, the
question
is rather different from the one in Gianina Cărbunariu’s production. “Can
anyone see me?” is the last line of the performance, and it is an invitation for
members of both communities to look at one another, to really see each other, to
live together, rather than apart.

Chapter 3 – MaRó

Yorick Studio Tîrgu-Mureş - MaRó by Székely Csaba. Directed by:

Andi Gherghe. Set Design: Adrian Ganea. Cast: Raisa Ané, Botond
Farkas Benedek, Csaba Ciugulitu, Piroska Fodor, Imelda Hajdu,
Ştefan Mura, István Nagy. Opening Date: the 11th of November, 2015.

Another bilingual performance. Another show about Romanians and

Hungarians living in Transylvania. Another production of Yorick Studio
Tîrgu-Mureș. MaRó completes my theatrical triad: if 20/20 left the traces
of
tragedy in my mind’s eye, while Double Bind was a tragicomedy, MaRó is
definitely a comedy. But it is a bittesweet, dark comedy. MaRó (the title of
which means “caustic” in Hungarian and “brown” in Romanian - but is also

259

----------------------- Page 261-----------------------

ANDA CADARIU

an abbreviation of the words “Hungarian” and “Romanian”) is a bilingual

show, just like the previous two. Written by Székely Csaba, who has found
the appropriate director in the person of Andi Gherghe, the performance is
wonderfully played by a team of professional actors.

Fig. 5: MaRó poster (by Hotgyai István)

MaRó has two so-called “curtains”, which are amusing in themselves –

animated movies the protagonists of which are caricatures of Hungarians at
the Gates of Heaven. The playwright structured his scenario in ten grotesque,
abusrdist scenes, meant to paint a picture of the same thorny
relationship
between Romanians and Hungarians in Transylvania. In MaRó, everyone is
(mis)represented – both Romanians and Hungarians, since it is almost cartoonish
in its unorthodox approach. The show builds on clichés, on stereotypes,
deconstructing them through laughter. For instance, in one of the scenes, the
father doesn’t approve of his daughter wanting to marry a Romanian, but
the idea suddenly seems palatable after realising that the other candidate for
her hand in marriage is a gypsy. The cruelty of the play’s humour is obvious
in the scene where a Hungarian employee of the City Hall is asked by the

260
----------------------- Page 262-----------------------

“US AND THEM” – A TRANSYLVANIAN STORY IN THREE CHAPTERS

mayor to perform the part of Avram Iancu, one of the nationalists’ heroes,
in a sketch. Another example of black humour is a scene where a Romanian
nationalist finds out her DNA is Hungarian up to an overwhelming proportion.

Fig. 6: Scene from MaRó (photo by Volker Vornehm)

I had never thought I could laugh at the serious matter of complicated

interethnic relationships. But MaRó succeeded in entertaining the audience
with therapeutic laughter. Although this was a more traditional play than
both 20/20 and Double Bind, which were closer to the performative aspect of
theatre, it is no less valuable than either.

Epilogue

The fact that theatre professionals talk about Romanians and Hungarians
in Transylvania is a good sign. It means there is room for dialogue, and that
the aftermath of the grim events pictured in 20/20, namely the parallel lives
the two communities live – as pointed out in Double Bind – can be
even
laughed at, as those who have attended MaRó can testify.

261

----------------------- Page 263-----------------------

ANDA CADARIU

All three performances originated in Tîrgu-Mureș, a city the population

of which is made of, approximately, fifty percent Hungarians and fifty percent
Romanians. We have lived together before and after the incorporation of
Transylvania in Romania, and Tîrgu-Mureș, with its Secession buildings and
its mixed cultural heritage is special today due to its interculturalism. One of
the proofs is represented by these three theatre shows, all of which are crossing
the t’s dotting the i’s of Transylvania’s multiethnic and intercultural dimension.

References

FISHER, Philip. “20/20”. In British Theatre Guide,

http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/20-20-platform-theatr-7665,
accessed
on the 18th of February, 2018.
LUKÁCS, Csaba. “A főtér átköltözött Marosvásárhelyről Targu-Muresbe”. In Magyar
Nemzet, Budapest, (December 18, 2017).
STOICA, Oana. “Vorbește-mi, n-o să te ascult”. Dilema Veche, issue 685,
(April 6-12,
2017).
 Anda
CADARIU
Lecturer, PhD, University of Arts Tîrgu-
Mureș.

262

----------------------- Page 264-----------------------

STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA, LXIII, 1, 2018, p. 263 - 268

(Recommended Citation)

Lucian Blaga as Visionary but Unfortunate Playwright

Book review: Doina Modola, Lucian Blaga și teatrul. Jocurile

dramei. Tulburarea apelor, Fapta, Daria, Înviere [Lucian Blaga and
the Theatre. Drama Games. Whirling Waters, The Deed, Daria,
Resurrection], Bucharest: Editura Anima, 2017; Lucian Blaga și
teatrul. Riscurile avangardei [Lucian Blaga and the Theatre. The
Risks of the Avant-garde], Bucharest: Editura Anima, 2003; Lucian
Blaga și teatrul. Insurgentul. Memorii. Publicistică. Eseuri [Lucian
Blaga and the Theatre. The Insurgent. Memoirs. Journalism. Essays],
Bucharest: Editura Anima, 1999

----------------------- Page 265-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

A qualified literary critic and theatrologist, rewarded in 2007 with the

award of the Romanian Theatrical Union for career achievements, Doina
Modola has a multi-volume publishing history: Dramaturgia românească între
1900-1918 [Romanian Dramaturgy between 1900 and 1918] (1983); Actori pe scena
lumii [Actors on the World Stage] (1990); Chipurile Traviatei. Reprezentația
lirică
[The Guises of La traviata. The Lyrical Representation] (2002);
Seducătorul și
umbrele: Gib I. Mihăescu. Dramaturgia prozatorilor [The Charmer and the Shadows:
Gib I. Mihăescu. the Dramaturgy of Prose Writers] (2003). The certain
thing,
however, is that her capital work, currently unfinished, is dedicated to the
theatre of Lucian Blaga (1895-1961), one of the most important Romanian
writers and philosophers, a creator whose presence has marked, inspired
and guided the author ever since her childhood, as revealed by
the
“dedications” that open two of the three volumes. The most recent of them,
Lucian Blaga și teatrul. Jocurile dramei. Tulburarea apelor, Fapta, Daria,
Înviere
[Lucian Blaga and the Theatre. Drama Games. Whirling Waters, The Deed, Daria,
Resurrection] (Bucharest: Editura Anima, 2017) is the third volume of an
expected cycle on the theatrical concept of Blaga, Blaga’s dramaturgy and its
reception from the beginning to the contemporary age, as well as on the
theatrical productions that this dramaturgy has generated. The volume was
preceded by Lucian Blaga și teatrul. Insurgentul. Memorii. Publicistică.
Eseuri
[Lucian Blaga and the Theatre. The Insurgent. Memoirs. Journalism. Essays] and
by Lucian Blaga și teatrul. Riscurile avangardei [Lucian Blaga and the Theatre. The
Risks of the Avant-garde] (Bucharest: Editura Anima, 1999 and 2003).
The plays Tulburarea apelor, Fapta and Înviere, which, together
with
Daria, are the subject matter of the book published by Doina Modola the last
year, were hidden away on her mother’s shelf of “forbidden items”. What
were these “forbidden items”? These were the books by Romanian (and
foreign) authors banned in communism, in the 1950s-1960s; owning them
was very dangerous during that age (this could have even led to the
incarceration of the “transgressive” reader). On the aforementioned shelf,
Blaga’s works had the good company of Mircea Eliade’s novels written in his
youth. In fact, the plays Tulburarea apelor, Fapta and Înviere are also the works
of a young man who foreshadowed, by some aspects of his
rebel,
“insurgent” spirit, as described by the author, the emergence of the radical
generation '27 of writers and philosophers asserted in inter-war Romania
(Emil Cioran, Mircea Eliade, Eugen Ionescu – later to become Eugène

264

----------------------- Page 266-----------------------

LUCIAN BLAGA AS VISIONARY BUT UNFORTUNATE PLAYWRIGHT

Ionesco -, Mihail Sebastian, Constantin Noica, Bucur Țincu, Miron Radu

Paraschivescu, Belu Zilber, etc.). Doina Modola’s triptych focuses on this
young, active, restless and very daring man rather than on the canonized and
“embalmed” writer who had been buried alive in all sorts of preconceptions
and clichés. “An «avant la lettre» Artaudian”, as described by the author in
the first volume, owing to the propensity for the elemental, the orgiastic, the
metaphysical, the archetypal, to the accent on the theatrical image,
Lucian
Blaga is also, in terms of humor, irony and grotesque, the link that connects
the universe of the prose writer and playwright Ion Luca Caragiale
(1852-
1912) and the one of Eugène Ionesco, she claims, following behind critic
Nicolae Steinhardt, in her most recent volume. (In fact, the two
directions
converge, Caragiale and Ionesco themselves having affinities with Artaud, as
shown, in the case of the former, by another Romanian critic, Ion
Vartic.)
Both descriptions are a challenge launched by Doina Modola in relation to a
specific (limited, still) tradition of interpretation of Blaga’s dramatic
texts.
While, as shown above, her exegetic work is not completed, a circle closes,
however, with Jocurile dramei, because this marks the end of the
extremely
thorough analysis of Blaga’s youth plays written by the writer in the
time
interval 1921-1925, which – notes the author – overlaps the period
during
which “the Romanian theatrical avant-garde had a meteoric enactment”,
represented by groups such as Teatrul Nou (1920), Studio (1921), Insula (1921),
Poesis (1922), Teatru sintetic (1925), and so on and so forth. This led
Doina
Modola to an unequivocal – and very accurate – diagnosis (in the first
volume of the series): “Organically linked with this theatrical avant-
garde
and found in its most advanced line, without Lucian Blaga being actually
included in a group, the five plays (Zamolxe, 1921, Tulburarea apelor, 1923, and
especially those written in 1925: Fapta, Înviere and Daria) stood for
its
innovating tendencies in the Romanian space, at its most symptomatic state,
while also being its most significant dramaturgic successes” (1999, 14).
Therefore, the three books signed by Doina Modola cover Blaga’s years of
training, of theatrical apprenticeship and of crystallization of
his own
“theatrical mission”, but also the stage of the first creative results
in the
dramaturgic sphere.

265

----------------------- Page 267-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

Blaga saw the first stage play when he was 7 years old, in 1909. The
“passion for reading” was triggered in him when he was 13 and he read a
fragment from the beginning of the dramatic poem Faust (which he would
translate many years later), Goethe remaining a major reference and model
for his entire literary and philosophical works, “his guardian spirit”, as noted
by Doina Modola in the first volume of the series. Therefore, she says, “one
of the first pivotal experiences in the development of Lucian Blaga” occurred
“symbolically, predictively, under the sign of theatre” (1999, 16). In
1916,
Blaga took the first trip to Vienna, where he would settle, soon thereafter, for
his studies. There, he got in contact with expressionism and with the avant-
garde artistic orientations, which prompted him to abandon classical and
realistic poetry and to adopt, systematically and knowingly (in the opinion of
Doina Modola), while seeking to synchronize the Romanian theatre with the
Western one, the “latest” tendencies “of modern art”, which he would apply,
by experimenting, to the dramaturgic plane: anti-mimesis, revisiting “the non-
Aristotelian mystery formulae” (the ancient mystery
in Zamolxe, the
Renaissance mystery in Tulburarea apelor, the medieval mystery pantomime

266
----------------------- Page 268-----------------------

LUCIAN BLAGA AS VISIONARY BUT UNFORTUNATE PLAYWRIGHT

in Înviere), the aesthetics of stylization, distancing, the grotesque, the irony,

the tragicomedy, and so on and so forth (1999, 24-25). Back home at the end
of the First World War, Blaga assisted the Great National Assembly of Alba
Iulia, on 1 December 1918, which voted the union of Transylvania, Banat,
Crișana, Sătmar and Maramureș with the Kingdom of Romania. On his
debut of 1919, with Poemele luminii [Poems of Light], followed
shortly
thereafter by the volume of aphorisms Pietre pentru templul meu [Stones for My
Temple], which had flaming success, Blaga (born in Lancrăm, near Sebeș and
Sibiu) was considered the most precious gift that Transylvania offered,
artistically speaking, to “the motherland”, after the long-awaited Union.
However, soon thereafter, the playwright started to be misunderstood by his
contemporaries. The strong influence of Freudian and, especially, of Jungian
psychoanalysis on the writer (and philosopher), which meant a new field, at
that age, for the Romanian sphere, generated great difficulties for the author,
notes Doina Modola, damaging “in particular the reception of Blaga’s plays,
prompting violent reactions of rejection from the
established critics,
hindering the texts’ staging not only at the time of their writing, but also a
long time later, because of the inculcation of persistent preconceptions”
(2017, 154). In the opinion of both the experienced (with several exceptions)
and the unexperienced audience, Blaga’s dramatic work had come to be
obscured by his poetic and philosophic work, an anomaly that continues to
be perpetuated even nowadays: “his trouble was not an ignorance of the
laws of the dramatic genre or the inadequacy of the styles used in drafting
the plays, but a theatrical-dramatic competence by which he exceeded clearly
his age and his commentators”, writes, to this end, Doina Modola in Lucian
Blaga și teatrul. Insurgentul... (1999, 27). And the author’s current
three
volumes on the subject matter prove it heavily. Certainly, a very important
input to the preservation and strengthening of the aforementioned anomaly
was also provided by communist censorship, by the intrusion of the political
in culture, to which the writer and his work fell victims after 1945.
This is
how we can explain (at least partially) that, of the Blaga’s four youth plays
discussed by the author in extenso in Lucian Blaga și teatrul. Jocurile
dramei...
only one – i.e. the psychoanalytical drama Daria – was put on stage during
the playwright’s life, a short time after its publication. The other were staged
only after the fall of communism, in the 1990s.

267

----------------------- Page 269-----------------------

ANCA HAŢIEGAN

In her books, Doina Modola engages in a very careful and detailed

close-reading of Blaga’s plays, while also including various openings that
relate to the field of comparative studies (she establishes sources, filiations,
potential influences, etc.) or of genetic criticism (she monitors the
changes
that occur from one version to the other of the commented works). She
provides very many pieces of information with regard to the Romanian and
European, Western theatrical context of the publication of Blaga’s plays, as
well as to the dramatic forms revised by him, according to his
extremely
ambitious plan (which, in fact, he did achieve!) to create “forma
matching
those present in Western Europe” and to also create “a theatrical-
dramatic
epic of wide scope, including key-moments of Romanian history and
culture” (2017, 12). Directing or play suggestions are not missing; they were
brought about by the staging or acting errors noted by the author. This
already rich picture is completed by a (commented) panorama of the critical
reception both of Blaga’s plays (so of the texts) and of the staging
of the
same, radio drama included. In the second volume of the triptych, Lucian
Blaga și teatrul. Riscurile avangardei, which focuses on the dramatic
poem
Zamolxe, the section dedicated to reception occupies nearly half of the book.
For pragmatic reasons, the author limited the space dedicated to reception in
the third volume, without abandoning it completely. (The gathered material
may, perhaps, compose another stand-alone volume). Given the prolificacy
of Lucian Blaga’s playwright activity – he also wrote the “founding tragedy”
Meșterul Manole [Manole the Craftsman] (1927), “the symbolist play” Cruciada
copiilor [The Children’s Crusade] (1930), the “historical fresco” Avram
Iancu
(1934), “the biblical parable” Arca lui Noe [Noah’s Ark] (1944) and the “play
upon masks” Anton Pann (1945) – Doina Modola’s ongoing project, by the
weight of the three volumes she has already published, turns out to be
straightforwardly titanic, but extremely necessary for the Romanian culture.
Its continuation is absolutely mandatory, like the retrieval of Blaga’s
play
writing in the theatrical field and its integration in the live circuit
of the
Romanian stages. (At the time of the writing of this review, the
National
Theatre of Cluj is staging Meșterul Manole, but this continues to be too little
for this world-class creator and thinker.)

Anca HAŢIEGAN
Assistant Professor in the
Theatre Department,
Faculty of
Theatre and Television,
Babeș-Bolyai
University of Cluj.

268

----------------------- Page 270-----------------------

STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA, LXIII, 1, 2018, p. 269 - 272

(Recommended Citation)
 Les âges du Théâtre National de Yassy

Book review: Ştefan Oprea, The Ages of the Stage, 2 vols, Junimea
Publishing House, 2016. At the celebration of the bicentenary of
the first theatrical performance in Romanian – in Iaşi, December
27, 1816, the theatre critic Ştefan Oprea presented the analysis of
the theatrical activities of the
National Theatre in Iasi
(performances, portraits of stage directors, actors, theatre
critics)
covering thus more almost 50 years of stage life in over 1000 pages.

Réunis et secondés par Gheorghe Asachi, un groupe de jeunes,

issus
des boyards roumains, joua le troisième jour du Noël 1816 le tout premier
spectacle en Roumain. C’était Mirtil şi Hloe [Myrtil et Chloë], pastorale d’après
Gessner et Florian, qui eut lieu dans les maisons de la famille Ghica. Ayant
un lien profond avec le courant de modernisation de la société roumaine au
début du XIXème siècle, l’initiative de créer un théâtre à caractère national

----------------------- Page 271-----------------------

CRENGUȚA MANEA

est associée à l’affirmation de l’identité nationale. « La

aniversară » (à
l’occasion de l’anniversaire) –comme le disait Eminescu, car la présence de
notre poète est inséparable de la vie théâtrale de la Cité, et on lui
doit à
toujours une juste révérence – donc au bicentenaire du premier spectacle en
Roumain, paraît Les Ages de la scène par Ştefan Oprea, ouvrage en 2
volumes, dans la Collection Colocvialia de l’Edition Junimea, dédié aux deux
siècles d’art théâtrale a Yassy.
Historien et critique du théâtre, professeur à la Faculté de Théâtre
de
l’Université des Arts „George Enescu” de Yassy, directeur des revues Cronica,
Cronica veche et Dacia literară, Ştefan Oprea a depuis toujours mis sa plume et
sa pensée au service du Théâtre National de Yassy. Le premier volume des
Âges de la scène rassemble des chroniques écrites à l’occasion des
premières
que le Théâtre National de Yasyy a eu pendant cinquante années (1966-2016)
et montrent un critique attentif et enthousiaste, qui reste pourtant un lucide
témoin. Le second volume rassemble des essais, des présentations de livres,
des portraits et interviews d’artistes qui y ont animé la scène roumaine.
Le parcours d’un millier de pages – impressionnante preuve
de
conséquence et incessante curiosité professionnelle – met en évidence un
instrumentaire théorique adéquat, utilisé par l’auteur pour créer
une
nouvelle fois le trajet de la pensée à l’acte scénique. La critique
telle que
Ştefan Oprea la conçoit, aborde l’analyse de l’acte théâtral en partant
du
texte, option due à sa formation dhomme
ʼ de lettres et au fait qu’il est lui-
même auteur de pièces de théâtre et docteur ès lettres. Les intentions
de la
mise en scène sont déchiffrées, et on suit la manière dont elles se définissent
sur scène, on apprécie leur réalisation dans l’ensemble du spectacle, par
l’intermédiaire de l’image et du rythme scéniques, par l’apport
de la
construction scénographique, par l’orchestration de la distribution.
L’œuvre d’artistes importants, appartenant aux générations différentes,
surpris en diverses étapes de leur carrière, sans par autant négliger
les
productions des réalisateurs un peu plus écartes de l’excellence (qui, maintes
fois, dans l’histoire du théâtre ou d’une troupe, s’avèrent inévitables)
est
mise en valeur par la pensée de Ştefan Oprea. Pour fournir quelques
exemples, la chronique visant le début de Cătălina Buzoianu, autant bien que
celles visant d’autres productions que le même metteur en scène a fait
au
Théâtre National de Yassy – Celestina, Iașii în carnaval/Yassy au carnaval, Istoria
ieroglifică/ Histoire hiéroglyphique, Poveste de iarnă/ Conte d’hiver . Ce
n’est pas
peu chose que d’imposer un artiste, dès ses premiers pas, dès ses premiers
essais scéniques, surtout quand le critique lui-même n’est encore qu’un

270

----------------------- Page 272-----------------------

LES AGES DU THEATRE NATIONAL DE YASSY

jeune chroniqueur théâtral (au début des années ʼ70), mais muni d’un sens
de l’observation et de l’expression bien exercé. L’ouvrage nous offre encore
bien d’exemples – Anca Ovanez Doroșenco, Cristian Hadji-Culea, Irina
Popescu Boieru, Ovidiu Lazăr ou d’autres personnalités que le lecteur est
invité à découvrir.
Dans la Chasse aux canards (1983) – spectacle important pour la scène de
Yassy, aussi bien que pour la compréhension d’Alexandre Vampilov en
Roumanie –, Ștefan Oprea remarque la « discrète poésie du quotidien » (ce
qui donne d’ailleurs le titre du matériel) comme sur-thème de la conception
du metteur en scène, Nicolae Scarlat. En 1981, à la fin d’une nouvelle
production de Chirița în provincie [Kiritza en province] signée par Alexandru
Dabija, un couplet revenait toujours à l’esprit: „C-așa e lumea, o comedie/Iar noi,
artiștii care-o jucăm/N-avem dorință alta mai vie/Decât aplauze să
merităm”
[„Ainsi est la vie, une comédie,/ Et nous, artistes qui la jouons/ Pour plus
haut désir n’avons / Que mériter d’être applaudis”]. Trente ans après, dans
sa chronique couvrant la première de Iașii în carnaval due au
même
Alexandru Dabija – production qui rouvre, en 2012, la Grande Salle du
Théâtre National de Yassy fraîchement restauré –, Ștefan Oprea souligne
l’usage du même couplet en début du spectacle en guise d’élément de
continuité. C’est un autre exemple de la perspective par laquelle le critique
de théâtre construit avec rigueur ses commentaires, tout en soulignant
l’élément symbolique et les directions des stratégies concernant le répertoire
du théâtre, la manière dans laquelle elles se concrétisent ou, par
contre, se
font attendre. À cet égard, plus qu’éloquent reste l’essai
Répertoire ou
programme? compris dans l’ouvrage.
Gens de théâtre – comédiens, metteurs en scène,
dramaturges,
chroniqueurs et écrivains – deviennent les héros du livre Les Âges de la scène;
dont les deux tomes s’adressent tant aux professionnels du théâtre, qu’aux
différents publics de théâtre. On y trouve des invitations à la lecture faites
aux spectateurs qui sont fidèles aux metteurs en scène contemporains
comme Felix Alexa, Radu Afrim ou à bien d’autres encore plus jeunes; ou à
ces spectateurs qui ont constamment admiré, dès leurs respective jeunesse
théâtrale, un autre artiste, Teofil Vâlcu, acteur auquel Ștefan Oprea est
lié
dune
ʼ grande amitié et à qui il a consacré un ample étude intitulée Măria-SA,
Actorul Teofil Vâlcu [Sa Majesté, le comédien Teofil Vâlcu]. Les admirateurs de
Mihaela Arsenescu Werner, Sergiu Tudose, Dionisie
Vitcu, Cornelia
Gheorghiu, Adina Popa, Violeta Popescu, Emil Coșeru, Doina Deleanu,
Despina Marcu y retrouvent leurs idoles. En surgissant des pages écrites,

271

----------------------- Page 273-----------------------

CRENGUȚA MANEA

s’animent, prennent contour et couleur les portraits faits aux gens

ci-
mentionnés, auxquels s’ajoutent les présences de Miluță Gheorghiu, Eliza
Petrăchescu, Mihai Codreanu, Sorana Țopa. Une place à part est réservée
dans le livre à la « génération dor ʼ », id est la génération des années
1920–
1970, avec un important essai sur un spectacle-évènement du
théâtre,
Spectacolul pensionarilor [Le Spectacle des sociétaires] (2012) qui avait
rassemblé
quelques anciens comédiens comme Margareta Baciu, Anny Braeschi, Ion
Lascăr, Costache Sava, Costache Cadeschi ou Mihai Grosu.
Les artistes appartiennent à Yassy, et chacun lui apporte un
plus, ils
sont adaptés à lesprit
ʼ de la ville, aux esprits positifs des lieux de maintenant
ou de jadis. L’intérêt de Ștefan Oprea porte aussi bien sur leur
destinée
professionnelle que sur leur trajectoire humaine, le chroniquer fournit
son
compte pour les gens présents et ceux à venir; Ion Aurel Maican, Ion Sava,
Sorana Coroamă Stanca, Crin Teodorescu ou Aureliu Manea – car peu sont
ceux qui se souviennent de Philoctète (1969), par exemple, quil
ʼ a mis en scène
au Théâtre National de Yassy. Le regard pénétrant du chroniquer redouble
celui de l’incessant lecteur des livres de ses confrères; ainsi, avec
leurs
œuvres, Sabina Bălănescu, Constantin Paiu, Florin Faifer, Călin Ciobotari et
bien d’autres encore deviennent à leur tour les héros de ces volumes.
L’élégance de l’écriture, la pertinence et lexactitude
ʼ des observations,
l’humour fin – rarement, très rarement parsemé d’accents sarcastiques – font
que les deux volumes donnent corps à un livre exemplaire pour la condition
de chroniqueur de théâtre en Roumanie à la fin du XXème et début du
XXIème siècles. Très utile est la nouvelle publication des chroniques-mêmes,
telles qu’elles ont paru dans les magazines de l’époque, bien que mentionner
ces publications aurait été souhaitable. Avec ces pages, lhistoire
ʼ du théâtre
roumain se trouve complétée car elles restent un témoignage précieux pour
ceux intéresses à la connaître.
„Comme la fumée est la gloire de la scène” affirme l’auteur. Mais par
ce parcours-même, il montre la nécessité dune
ʼ mémoire théâtrale
et
culturelle. Les centaines de pages dédiées aux créateurs qui peuplent la scène
du Théâtre National de Yassy – „la Maison dAlecsandri”,
ʼ comme il lui plait
d’appeler l’institution – consacre Ștefan Oprea comme un des constructeurs
inlassables de la ville culturelle de Yassy.

Crenguța MANEA
Theatre critic,
member of AICT Ro,
producer and editor
Radio Romania.

272

----------------------- Page 274-----------------------

STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA, LXIII, 1, 2018, p. 273 - 277

(Recommended Citation)

Liviu Ciulei – WANTED At Home and Abroad

Book review: Florica Ichim, Anca Mocanu (eds.), Liviu Ciulei acasă
și-n lume [Liviu Ciulei Home and Abroad], vol. I-III, Bucharest: Fundația
Culturală “Camil Petrescu”, Revista “Teatrul azi”, 2016

The release of the trilogy Liviu Ciulei acasă și-n lume was a
veritable
editorial and theatrical event in the Romanian cultural environment. The book
was put together by Florica Ichim and Anca Mocanu (Bucharest, Fundația
Culturală „Camil Petrescu”, Revista „Teatrul azi”). A multi-talented artist
and an encyclopaedic personality, Liviu Ciulei (1923-2011) was an actor,
architect, stage-designer, screenwriter, teacher and theatre theorist, but he
is best known for his work as a theatre and movie director. He was a pioneer
of theatre in Romania during the ‘70s and ‘80s, until he went into exile because
of the increasingly severe censorship of art during communism. Occasionally,
he would go back to Romania after the fall of Nicolae Ceaușescu’s regime
in 1989 and direct several plays at the “Bulandra” Theatre in Bucharest – in
which he had a special interest.

----------------------- Page 275-----------------------

ALEX TEODORESCU

In 2009, with the help of theatrologist Mihai Lupu, Liviu

Ciulei
published an exceptional bilingual album: Cu gândiri și cu imagini [With
Thoughts and Images] (Bucharest, Igloo). It was a richly illustrated “personal
retrospective” of his over 60-year long theatre career, which spanned
over
four continents. (Starting with 1967, but mostly after the second half of the
1970s, Ciulei staged many theatrical productions in Germany, France, Italy,
the U.S.A., Great Britain, Australia and Israel.) Moreover, the album focuses
more on his work as a stage designer, whilst the volumes put together
by
Florica Ichim and Anca Mocanu, published in the prestigious
Galeria
Teatrului Românesc series of the Teatrul Azi magazine, offer the reader a more
comprehensive picture of Liviu Ciulei’s personality and creative activities.
The three volumes have a very articulated structure, mapped out by
the following sections: “Articles and Communications by Liviu Ciulei”,
“Interviews with Liviu Ciulei”, “Stage Design”, “Architecture” – volume I;
“Management – «Lucia Sturdza Bulandra» Theatre”, “Confessions of the
Creator”, “Appendix. Artists Face to Face with the Censorship”, “Commented
Theatrography (1947-1972)” (containing vast commentaries regarding the
work of Liviu Ciulei, including his teachings) – volume II; “Management -
«Guthrie» Theatre, Minneapolis (U.S.A.)”, “One or More Days of Liviu
Ciulei’s Life”, “Interviews with Liviu Ciulei”, “He Counselled and Supported
Talents”, “Commented Theatrography (1973-2005)” – volume III.
Considering that there were many sources for the materials, inevitably
the information tends to be repetitive sometimes, but without it being
bothersome. In the end, this results in the multiplication of perspectives – a
sort of polyhedral reflection of one of the most iconic figures of Romanian
and – why not? – World theatre.
Asked many times about how he manages to peacefully combine in
his work so many different occupations (acting, directing, architecture, stage
design, etc.), Liviu Ciulei answers simply: “My job is the show!” In this way,
he asserts his respect for the complete theatre maker. Another exceptionally
emphasised principle underlying his work throughout his career is that a
theatre performance aims at putting a mirror in front of our contemporary society.
We stage “the classics” not because of our love for modernism in its
own,
says the director, but because we find in these texts elements which must be
underlined or diminished to correspond with today’s world. “Museum”
productions or those that lack a political/social outcome seem to be Ciulei’s
worst nightmare.

274
----------------------- Page 276-----------------------

LIVIU CIULEI – WANTED AT HOME AND ABROAD

Regarding stage-design, Ciulei aimed at creating a set which served

as a vector for the idea of theatre production, but which is not a
pictorial
representation of it. He was also the initiator of a revolution of
post-war
Romanian theatre stage design, by rejecting the naturalist sets promoted by
the powerful advocates of socialist realism. He marched for treating the
décor of the play in a theatrical manner: “Not crammed-up and minimalized
architecture on a small stage, not buildings copied in a pointless effort, made
from cardboard, but theatrical, poetical and dramatic images which are
made concrete in sets”. The article in which the previous quote is included
(Teatralizarea picturii de teatru [The Theatricalization of Painting in
Theatre], in
“Teatrul”, I, no. 2, June 1956), and the reply given promptly by the director
and writer Radu Stanca (“Reteatralizarea” teatrului [“The «Retheatricalization»
of Theatre”], in “Teatrul”, I, no. 4, September 1956) became manifestos of the
re-theatricalization movement in the 1970s and 1980s, which helped Romanian
theatre to re-connect with the similar movement of the inter-war period. (One of
the pioneers of this inter-war movement was the director and stage designer Ion
Sava, later a mentor of Liviu Ciulei). Glancing backwards, Ciulei characterised
this movement as a phase towards a theatre of the future, towards a new
classical theatre. The vision and means that he sought in his theatrical
productions were always realistic, so he said, but in the full meaning of the
word. In this way – underlined the director – fantasy was realistic, too, as it was
rooted in the real world. At Ciulei, realism simply meant ‘breathing theatre’.

275

----------------------- Page 277-----------------------

ALEX TEODORESCU

The director never thought that he had invented anything new. He

had a series of “role models”. Alongside Ion Sava, mentioned above, he
had the upmost admiration for Peter Brook and Bertolt Brecht. Of his
colleagues, he admired most Lucian Pintilie, David Esrig, Radu Penciulescu
and the younger Andrei Șerban.
Liviu Ciulei was the director of the “Bulandra” Theatre (between
1963 and 1972) which he rebuilt (both literally – through the architectural
reconfiguration of one of the halls – and figuratively) and transformed into
one of the most appreciated institutions of its kind in Romania and abroad.
His return after the long years in exile was not easy. When describing this
re-encounter, the director could not really hide his bitterness as to the state
of the institution when he staged Hamlet here after 1989. Partially equipped
workshops, lack of organisation, financial problems…
On the stage of “Bulandra” Theatre, Ciulei put some of his
most
memorable productions: As You Like It by William Shakespeare, Children of
the Sun by Maxim Gorky, The Three Penny Opera by Bertolt Brecht, Night
Lodging by Maxim Gorky, Leonce and Lena by Georg Büchner, A Streetcar
Named Desire by Tennessee Williams, Danton’s Death by Georg Büchner, Play
Strindberg by Friedrich Dürrenmatt, Elisabeth I by Paul Foster, The Tempest by
William Shakespeare and so on; but also his biggest fails, such as Macbeth,
which Ciulei, unforgiving of himself, described as his worst staging. A play
that cannot be overlooked is O scrisoare pierdută [A Lost Letter], which
premiered exactly 120 years after the birth of Ion Luca Caragiale, the author
of the comedy. Regarding the staging of the play, the director mentioned that
I.L. Caragiale is a Shakespeare of the Romanians. The same way that, each
year, Hamlet is staged many times in England, Romania should do with O
scrisoare pierdută, Caragiale’s best play. Theatres should collaborate, not
engage in pitiful rivalry – so says Ciulei on the same occasion.
The movie considered by Ciulei (and not only by him) his
biggest
accomplishment in the field, i.e. Pădurea spânzuraților [Forest of
Hanged],
adapted from the eponymous novel by Liviu Rebreanu (Prize for Directing
and Nomination for Palme d’Or at Cannes International Film Festival in
1965), dates back to the time when he was manager of “Bulandra” Theatre.
His work as a movie director and actor was by no means insignificant, but
political pressure and increasing censorship forced Ciulei to abandon movie-
making whilst in full power of creation. Therefore, he fully dedicated himself
to making theatre – seen as a refuge from the political interferences, which

276

----------------------- Page 278-----------------------

LIVIU CIULEI – WANTED AT HOME AND ABROAD

turned out to be just as frail. Unable to name the real cause of his retreat from
the world of filmmaking, he justified his decision then by mentioning
the
generally harsh working conditions and the problems which continuously
arise on the movie set, as well as his very busy schedule at the theatre.
Liviu Ciulei was dismissed from the position of manager of “Bulandra”
Theatre after the premiere of Gogol’s Inspector, directed by Lucian
Pintilie,
banned by the authorities after the third performance. This was perhaps one
of the darkest moments in the history of Romanian theatre, leading to
Pintilie’s (self)exile and later to Ciulei’s. In the second volume of the trilogy
edited by Florica Ichim and Anca Mocanu, a text describes the full atrocity of
the “trial” filed against the team of “Bulandra” Theatre because of the upper-
mentioned play: Cacealmaua (sau Ședința din 28.10.1972) [The Bluff (or
The
Assembly of the 28th of October 1972)], written by the stage designer
Dan
Jitianu. The Theatre’s artists could remember well the “assembly that turned
the «Bulandra» into a museum piece”, even after 1990.
After leaving the country, Liviu Ciulei left his mark on Western
theatre with plays directed all over the world, from West Germany to
the
U.S.A. Here he later settled and became director of “Guthrie” Theatre in
Minneapolis. Unsurprisingly, the establishment became one of the most valued
theatres in the U.S.A. under his management. Ciulei was also professor
at
several American universities, where he received the appreciation of colleagues
and students alike.
Ciulei died in the fall of 2011 in a hospital in Munich,
Germany.
Romania lost then an artist of incommensurable value, a true national symbol.
Andrei Șerban noted that, when he last saw him at his home where he
visited him with Radu Penciulescu, Ciulei, although not working anymore,
shared with his two friends his latest discovery regarding theatre, about the
centre of gravity of the characters. The books he left behind are full of such
findings, of the continuous search that tormented Ciulei, with regard to theatre.
They are authentic manuals of directing, acting, stage design and so on, which
should be read with the upmost care.

Alex TEODORESCU
Student in Theatre
Directing,
Faculty of Theatre and
Television
Babeș-Bolyai University
of Cluj.

277