Introduction
Petre Matei, Raluca Bianca Roman and Ion Duminica
The movement for Roma civic emancipation in interwar Romania can be described as one of the most active Roma/Gypsy movements in Central, South-Eastern and Eastern Europe, in terms of the number of Roma organisations that were set up, the number of Roma-led publications that would be published and in terms of the number of Roma leaders and activists that would emerge within the midst of the movement. The goals and aims of the Roma movement in Romania were connected with the broader social and historical context of the country in the aftermath of the First World War, wherein the overarching goal was the shaping of a unified Romanian identity, in a context of a newly multi-ethnic country.
Most importantly, the historical context of interwar Romania was, much like that of other countries in the region, connected to attempts at creating a common Romanian identity. Following the First World War, the Kingdom of Romania incorporated several important regions, including Transylvania, Bukovina, Bessarabia, and parts of Banat, Crișana, and Maramureș, which almost doubled the territory and population of the country. In this context, the desire to create a homogeneous Romanian state was countered by the everyday realities of the time, a country which now comprised numerous multi-ethnic and multicultural communities (for more on this general context, please see works by Livezeanu, 1995; Bucur, 2002; Korkut, 2006; Radu & Schmitt, 2017; Bejan, 2019). The end of the First World War also brought with it the agrarian and electoral reforms, which offered land and right to vote to Romanian citizens.
The changes brought about by the war also opened new opportunities for Roma, even if this meant, oftentimes, the loss of traditions and their integration in the general mass of the Romanian population. This is evident from the Romanian census of 1930, which recorded a significantly lower number of Roma than the previous estimates at the end of the 19th century: 262,501 people of Roma ethnicity, representing 1.5% of the country’s population; 84.5% of them living in the rural areas (Achim, 1998, pp. 145–147). The new democratic context set up after 1918 offered ethnic minorities in Romania the opportunity to be active in organisations and associations with an economic, cultural, political character, set up on ethnic basis. This contributed to a modernisation of the Roma organisations, visible also in the attempts to organise socially, culturally, and politically.
For example, the signing of King Ferdinand I of Romania, on the November 14, 1918, of a Decree-law concerning electoral reform put an end to the censitary voting system and introduced instead the universal vote for male citizens over the age of 21. In other words, adult Roma men (over the age of 21) entered in the possession of an electoral capital and many different political fractions would become interested in it (for more on this, see Matei, 2010, pp. 159–160). The emergence of Roma leaders can thus also be explained by the fact that they were encouraged to enter discussion with Romanian political leaders. Furthermore, as discussed elsewhere (Matei, 2010), knowing that they now had the capacity to influence a significant number of votes, Roma leaders quickly learned to behave accordingly.
As such, the support of the Roma community served a political benefit, and was sought after also by authorities, who believed that the Roma movement could potentially contribute to the solving of broader societal problems. This was also connected to a broader need to gain the political support of Roma to counteract the other ethnic minority groups. In this context, new possibilities of collaborating with different political parties emerged, as well as collaboration with the police or the Romanian Orthodox Church. In turn, modern Roma leaders expressed loyalty towards Romanians, Church and King. They proved willing to help in the process of Romaniasation of the Hungarianised Roma, the enabling of the Romanian authorities’ control over nomadic Gypsies, the conversion of the non-Orthodox Roma to Orthodoxy; the attraction of Roma voters on the part of Romanians in the multiethnic areas, etc. Thus, in order to understand the specifics of these manifestations of Roma civic emancipation, one must take account of the context of the era, wherein a collaboration with Romanian authorities existed and, within which, the latter were willing to help, at least to some extent and at least under certain conditions (Matei, 2010).
Unsurprisingly, the Roma elite adopted a discourse which did not contradict Romanian authorities, or even the Romanian public opinion, but shaped itself according to them. As discussed elsewhere (Ibid, 2010, pp. 159–161), a process of modernising the forms of Roma organisation would unfold. For example, new, modern forms of organisations were set up which would co-exist with traditional ones (i.e., characterising specifically the nomadic Roma). Gradually, the former would not only spread their influence across the country but express an aim to represent all Roma in Romania. Furthermore, these new forms of Roma organisation would move beyond looking after the interests of specific categories of Roma. For example, even the unifying efforts of lăutari (or Roma musicians), while taking place across the country, targeted only the interests of a specific professional category, and did not represent the interests of the entire Roma community (Ibid.).
The crucial moment for the birth of the Roma civic emancipation movement of all Roma in Romania would be April 1933 when, at the initiative of one of the prominent leaders among Roma – Calinic I. Popp Şerboianu – Asociatia Generală a Țiganilor din Romania (The General Association of Gypsies in Romania, or AGȚR) was founded (Ibid., p. 160). The latter, alongside Uniunea Generală a Romilor din Romania (The General Union of Roma in Romania, or UGRR), led by Gheorghe A. Lăzurică and, later, Asociația Uniunea Generală a Romilor din România (The Association General Union of Roma in Romania, or AUGRR), led by Gheorghe Niculescu, are the best-known Roma organisations from interwar Romania, with AUGRR also proving to be the most influential in the long run. Noteworthy here is that AUGRR derived from UGRR, after Lăzurică was forced to resign in May 1934. Unlike UGRR, however, AUGRR (led by Niculescu), would gain legal entity status in November 1934 (for more on this, see Niculescu’s portrait, in this chapter). As will be evident from the portraits presented in this chapter, these organisations were connected and often fed off each other and the dynamics of the Roma movement itself could be also visible from the struggle for legitimacy which would develop among Roma leaders at the time and, most importantly, between the leaders of the different organisations.
As discussed elsewhere (Roman, 2021b, p. 95; see also Matei, 2012), it is noteworthy that the first Roma organisation was the Neorustic Brotherhood (in Romanian, Înfrățirea Neorustică), which was set up in 1926, in Făgăraș, and led by Lazăr Naftanailă, but its influence remained limited geographically to the region of Transylvania. Likewise, other regional organisations would also be set up across the country, with different degrees of influence. For instance, an Oltenia circle of AGȚR would be formed in 1933, led by Marin Simion. Also important in connection to the Oltenia circle of AGȚR was the role of a Romanian Roma academic, C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor, who intended to set up a Roma House/Museum and a Roma Library. The regional dynamics were also made visible in some of the regional Roma newspapers which would eventually be published: for example, in Neamul Țigănesc – published in Făgăraș (whose editor was Lazăr Naftanailă) and in Foaia Poporului Romesc – published in Rupea.
It is worth noting that the Roma community in interwar Romania, especially when compared to other minorities in the country at the time (such as the German, Hungarian, or the Jewish minority) presented itself as a heterogeneous group, lacking a linguistic, religious, national cohesion. This also meant that potential members were difficult to organise, being part of diverse Roma groups, some no longer speaking the language of their parents, and others no longer assuming their Roma origin. From the point of view of organising dispersed communities and creating a shared sense of Roma belonging, this created inevitable challenges for Roma leaders of the time.
It was in this context that new Roma leaders emerged, including those mentioned above, whose visions for the future of the Roma community proved complex and sometimes conflicting. Their ideas and goals would be disseminated in various forms: from the organisation of small and large group gatherings and publications in mainstream media to the establishment of Roma organisations’ own newspapers. In fact, the activity of Roma leaders and Roma organisations during the interwar period is evident in the existence of six Roma led newspapers, which would become the main means of disseminating the aims and goals of the civic emancipation movement in the country: Glasul Romilor (The Voice of the Roma), Timpul (The Time), Țara Noastră (Our Country) – Special Edition for Roma in Romania, O Rom (The Roma), Neamul Țigănesc (The Gypsy Nation) and Foaia poporului romesc (Paper of the Roma people). At the same time, this movement was driven by key individuals, who would become pivotal in the shaping of the movement in the country, all fighting for the representation of the Roma community in Romania.
All these dynamics and shifts will be explored throughout the portraits presented in this chapter. However, what can undoubtedly be seen, even from a necessarily brief look at the historical, social and political contexts which shaped the Roma civic emancipation movement in interwar Romania, is that this process was both complex and connected to the broader historical context at the time. At the same time, some key elements are worth mentioning, such as the struggle for legitimacy among Roma leaders, the tensions between the centre (i.e., Bucharest) and the country’s key regions (primarily Transylvania and Oltenia), the best means of mobilising and attracting the Roma individuals to join the Roma movement and the need to collaborate with different state authorities. As such, the Roma portraits selected for the purpose of this chapter help contour these broader dynamics, relationships and shifts in the Roma civic emancipation movement itself.
Therefore, in the individual potraits authored by Petre Matei and Raluca Bianca Roman, this chapter will outline, based on available archival and media materials (including, but not limited to, the Roma periodicals mentioned above), some of the key protagonists of the Roma movement in the country during the interwar period: specifically, Lazăr Naftanailă, Calinic I. Popp Șerboianu, Gheorghe A. Lăzurică, Gheorghe Niculescu and Constantin Nicolăescu-Plopșor. These portraits are by no means exhaustive. In fact, as will be evident throughout this chapter, other individuals have also played a role in the Roma civic emancipation movement in Romania. For instance, Apostol Matei’s name often comes up in the work of Roma organisations in Romania, including as the first Vice-President of the General Union of Roma in Romania, when G. A. Lăzurică was still its president. Marin I. Simion, on the other hand, was the leader of the Oltenia section of the Roma movement, and a self-titled “voievod” of Roma in Oltenia, while Aurel Th. Manolescu-Dolj was the editor of the Roma newspaper Timpul, published in Craiova. Nevertheless, in the absence of extended information on most of these individuals, the selection of the portraits presented in this chapter helps us contour the key dynamics, movements, alliances and conflicts occurring within the Roma civic emancipation movement of the interwar period, while nevertheless leaving the space open for further analysis and research to be conducted on the matter in the future.
Alongside this, in a section authored by Ion Duminica, the role of women within the Roma civic emancipation movement in Romania will be explored through the fragmentary portraits (based on available materials from the interwar Romanian press) of two Roma women: Florica Constantinescu and Marta Lăzurică. While little is known about the role of Roma women in the shaping of the Roma movement in the country, snippets of their presence and influence within different organisations can be found both in the articles written within Roma periodicals of the time and in archival materials pertaining to the establishment of Roma organisations; and the role of women within them. Through the available material, therefore, fragmentary portraits of the work and role of Roma women within the Roma emancipation movement can be introduced, with further research undoubtedly necessary in the future.
Lazăr Naftanailă
Petre Matei
Lazăr Naftanailă (August 13, 1893–1968 ?) was the person who established, in 1926, the first ‘modern’ Roma organisation in Romania. Unlike older forms of Roma organisations (especially self-help societies, spatially limited to a locality or to certain socio-professional categories), his Înfrățirea Neorustică (Neorustic Brotherhood) had well-defined statutes, benefited from the status of legal entity and, in addition, had an ethnic agenda. The association focused on cultural and civic demands and aimed to contribute to the improvement of the lives of the Roma, regardless of their group origin or socio-professional category. In addition to this, their manner of acting differed from that of earlier associations, and, over the years, they organised a series of cultural and artistic events in numerous towns in Southern Transylvania. Moreover, between 1934 and 1935, the association even published three issues of the newspaper Neamul Țigănesc (The Gypsy Nation), before AUGRR, the largest Roma organisation based in Bucharest, managed to publish its own Roma newspaper.
All this is even more impressive if we take into account the fact that Lazăr Naftanailă was neither a rich Roma businessman, nor an intellectual from a large city with numerous connections, but, rather, a simple person from Calbor, a small commune in Southern Transylvania. Later, with the emergence of the central movement in Bucharest, in 1933, Naftanailă collaborated with those organisations, but ended up being used and replaced with more flexible and docile local leaders.
Lazăr Naftanailă was born in Calbor on August 13, 1893. His father, a certain Georgie Năftănăilă, worked as a blacksmith and was originally from the commune of Ileni (located about 15 km from Calbor) where he still resided in 1878. By 1880, he had already settled in Calbor, where he lived at No. 256. Officially married to Ana Naftanailă (born Gula), he had, between 1880 and 1893, six children, the last one, Lazăr Naftanailă, being born on August 13, 1893.
Lazăr Naftanailă most likely only attended elementary school in Calbor. After the war, he benefited from the agrarian reform, and received land. His wealth consisted of a two-room house, a barn, a garden, a vineyard and a few cattle. In addition, he increased his income by working as a cobbler.
As for his family life, on October 25, 1920, at the age of 27, Naftanailă married Maria Luca Ciurar. Ciurar was, originally, from the commune of Cincu Mic. With Naftanailă being Orthodox, the ceremony took place in the Orthodox church in Calbor. He later remarried Ana (born Micu) with whom he had three sons: Pompiliu (born in 1926), Titus (1932) and Horia (1934). In 1947, Lazăr Naftanailă divorced Ana and married a woman by the name of Sofia with whom he was married until 1968 when he passed away (Cârstea, 2017, pp. 7–10).
Although it hosted the first modern Roma organisation in Romania, the commune of Calbor had only a small number of Roma (5–6 families, mostly blacksmiths) (Cârstea, 2017, pp. 6, 14). The rest of the population, up to 672 inhabitants, according to the 1930 census, was composed of ethnic Romanians, mostly Orthodox, with a minority of Greek Catholic Romanians (Pâra, 2011, p. 59).
In Calbor there were several forms of association that could serve Naftanailă as a model for organising Gypsies. These varied from the informal to the more modern ones (with statutes legalised in court and having legal entity, or recognition). The first category included the four zecii (neighbourhoods or self-help societies), each with an approximately equal number of families. These forms of organisation allowed for certain communal activities to be carried out on their territory (such as the maintenance of roads and fountains etc.), provided mutual aid, especially at funerals, but nevertheless proved flexible, facilitating, in the early twentieth century, also the collection of taxes for the local church. These self-help societies were run by vornici and had their own flags. However, they did not have written statutes, were not legalised in court, and their origin in Calbor remains uncertain (inspired either by the nearby Saxon Nachbarschaften or by the many Calborans who had worked in the USA and returned home to Calbor) (Ibid., 2011, pp. 85, 225–227).
More ‘modern’ (namely, with statutes which were legalised in court) were the cultural or religious societies in the commune. The first, founded in 1914, was The Society of Young Orthodox Romanians in the Parish of Calbor (set up for moral and religious improvement, such as church attendance, avoidance of alcohol, swearing and card games etc.) followed, in 1918, by the Fund for Poor Schoolchildren and Apprentices and, in 1924, by the Society for Lecture and Songs in Calbor (encouraging literacy among its members, the establishment of a choir, of a popular library etc.). In addition to these, in 1934, in Calbor, there were a few other societies such as Reuniunea femeilor ortodoxe (Orthodox Women’s Reunion), Casa Culturală (Cultural House) and Oastea Domnului (the Lord’s Army) (Ibid., 2011, pp. 112–116).
This was the local context in which Lazăr Naftanailă established his association, the Neorustic Brotherhood, recognised as a legal entity by the Făgăraș Court on May 1, 1926. However, Naftanailă was not the only one organising the Roma in the period. Close to Calbor there existed various other Roma self-help societies. In the town of Făgăraș, for example, there was a funeral society (with president, cashier, and committee) and so there was a similar society in Șercaia established in 1924 (Chelcea, 1944, p. 170).
Unlike those earlier informal, spatially limited associations, with rather narrow agenda and limited to the self-help of their members (funeral aid societies), the Neorustic Brotherhood was the first modern ethnic organisation of Roma in Romania. It thus transcended the focus placed on the self-help of its members and achieved to improve the lives of the Roma, in general (i.e. regardless of their category or group, whether they were Boyash, nomadic or sedentary Roma etc.).
In addition to promoting the religious and moral education of its members, the association paid close attention to cultural and civic demands (“to promote the development of the religious, cultural and civic life of its members and to curb the vice of drunkenness”) (Pâra, 2011, p. 116). Accordingly, the association was not striking in the number of its members (which were few and mostly related to one another, and recruited especially from the blacksmiths in Calbor), but in the fact that, being the first association to assume a Gypsy ethnic identity, its manifestations were unique.
Once the association was created, its flag was baptised in a meeting with several priests in attendance and, over the years, various cultural and artistic events were organised not only in Calbor but in numerous other localities in Southern Transylvania. They were not far away from Calbor. For example, less than 10 km away were the localities of Boholț, Băile Rodbav, Cincșor, Făgăraș; between 10–20 km were Cincu, Viștea, Olteț, Merghindeal; and between 20 and 40 km were Bruiu, Șercaia, Hălmeag, Jibert, Rupea. Alba Iulia (located approximately 140 km from Calbor) was the furthest locality from Calbor where the Neorustic Brotherhood organised events (Neamul Țigănesc, 1934b, p. 2). Those events took place in the form of conferences, speeches, exhortations to the Roma, theatrical performances. Depending on weather conditions and the number of participants, the organisers could rent halls in different localities. The Calbor associates acted as improvised actors. For example, at the event organised in Rupea, one of the actors was Volga Ioan, a horseshoe blacksmith who lived at number 43, in Calbor, and the enthusiastic audience demanded the replay (Neamul Țigănesc, 1934b, p. 2). Such gatherings impressed also with the fact that they made use of a language everybody (including the Romanian audience and notable individuals invited to assist) could understand and sympathise with (conferences, but also patriotic plays).
In September 1934, Naftanailă wrote in retrospect that:
With my society I started to gather the Roma and through parties, balls, theaters, conferences to contribute to their culture and education. We have helped to eliminate alcoholism and other bad habits such as lack of literacy, illegitimate marriages and others. […] My association organised shows in Făgăraş, Cincul, Cohalm, Jibert, Şercaia, Viştea, Olteţ, Boholţ, Cincşor, Bruiu, Merghindeal, Hălmeag, Băile Rodbav. It was played the theatrical piece The Scouts, an episode from the battles of Mărășești. […] We will continue to arrange such productions with theatrical plays, recitations and choirs in the future so that we can rise together to the level of other nations. (Neamul Țigănesc, 1934d, p. 2).
The ideas which animated Naftanailă are clear from the appeal he addressed to “all the Gypsies from Transylvania”, published in February 1934 in the first issue of the newspaper Neamul Țigănesc. In order to receive help, they first had to help themselves, which involved developing a sense of unity and pride in their shared ethnic identity:
Who is to protect our rights to life if we do not complain! Who is to help us if we don’t help one another! […] The first step we must take in society, if we want to impose respect and esteem, is not to be ashamed that we are Gypsies! […] Our pride transforms our mindset and that of the world around us. (Neamul Țigănesc, 1934a, p. 1).
Pride had to replace shame, it was argued, which was said to be obtainable in several ways: practising well-rated professions, increased care for health and hygiene, the sedentarisation of nomads, who were also to attend school and church and do military service. He made similar recommendations to the Boyash who, in addition, were urged to:
[…] have a council house in each village, where those who can read and write should read, and others should listen. They have to keep in touch with our society, sending us letters about their sorrows and problems. (Ibid., 1934a, p. 1).
As for the sedentary Gypsies, he urged them not to forget the poor and needy and to make efforts so that their children attend:
[…] higher schools, so that we can prove that the Gypsy nation is trustworthy and that its best sons are not at all inferior to the sons of other nations. […] Famous doctors, lawyers, officers, engineers, teachers and artists, who honor their profession, came from such families. (Ibid.).
In the spring of 1933, AGȚR was established in Bucharest as the first association that aimed to represent all Gypsies in the country. At that time, AGȚR was led by Calinic I. Popp Șerboianu and had G. A. Lăzurică as its General Secretary. Naftanailă was one of the first Gypsies adhering to the newly established AGȚR (already in May 1933) (Cuvântul, 1933a, p. 4).
Later, in the fall of 1933, when G. A. Lăzurică left AGȚR and founded his UGRR, Naftanailă preferred, for a while, to remain loyal to Șerboianu. On October 15, 1933, Naftanailă was in Bucharest, where he participated in a meeting organised by Șerboianu, and spoke as the “president of the Gypsies in Făgăraş” (Dimineața, 1933b, p. 5.).
However, shortly thereafter, he seems to have changed sides, adhering to Lăzurică’s movement. In the documents submitted by Lăzurică to the court in November 1933 for UGRR to be recognised as a legal personality, several leaders were named both in Bucharest and in the countryside as leaders of branches, including Lazăr Naftanailă. According to the UGRR statutes, those presidents of branches were also members of the central committee of the UGRR (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 38, pp. 117–125).
Immediately after the establishment of the central organisations in Bucharest (1933–spring 1934), Naftanailă had a certain advantage over them. Although they claimed to represent all the Roma in the country, those organisations were, in fact, based almost exclusively on Bucharest. Most events organised by AGȚR and UGRR took place in Bucharest or in the immediate vicinity of the capital city.
Therefore, those central organisations (especially AGȚR and UGRR) wanted to extend their influence and activity outside Bucharest. To achieve that, they needed first to identify Roma associates in the province and Lazăr Naftanailă seemed perfect. He had already proved that he could organise the Roma, establishing the first organisation in the country with legal personality and organising events those in Bucharest could only announce. In addition, in February 1934, he already published the first issue of Neamul Țigănesc (nine months before the publication, in November 1934, of the first issue of Glasul Romilor, the first Roma newspaper ever published by an organisation in Bucharest).
All these allowed Naftanailă much room for maneuver, as he could negotiate a better position within the emerging central organisations. On March 2, 1934, an agreement was signed between Lazăr Naftanailă and UGRR, led by G. A. Lăzurică. Basically, in exchange for his affiliation to the UGRR, Naftanailă was recognised as the president of the Roma in Transylvania. In this capacity, he could continue his work to organise the Transylvanian Roma, proposing presidents for County branches which then UGRR was to ratify. The minutes agreed between the UGRR central committee and Naftanailă was signed by the latter as ‘President of Soc[iety] Înfrățirea Neorustică and of the Roma Organisation in Transylvanian Counties’ (Neamul Țigănesc, 1934e, p. 3).
Afterwards, his position began to erode. The central organisations started to extend their influence also in Transylvania, first by Lăzurică (starting with the spring of 1934) and then by Gh. Niculescu (since the autumn of 1934). Hence, they no longer required Naftanailă’s help, who was, by then, seen merely as the leader of a small, peripheral organisation, without the influence he claimed to have among the Transylvanian Roma. In this context, other Roma from Transylvania were seen to be better positioned to become partners of the central organisations: local officials such as C. Brașoveanu, the architect Andrei Zima, wealthier merchants, etc. In addition, unlike Naftanailă, those new potential leaders could not claim that they had organised the Roma in the past and, therefore, neither could they claim higher positions within the central organisations. From a central perspective, one could better negotiate with them than with Naftanailă.
However, in the summer of 1934, Naftanailă did not seem to have become aware of this. On the contrary, against the background of the disputes between G. A. Lăzurică and Gh. Niculescu, Naftanailă thought that he identified a new favourable moment to claim even more than just the the title of leader of the Transylvanian organisations. More precisely, he demanded to be recognised as Vice-President of a central organisation. The occasion deemed appropriate to request this was the great assembly of the Roma in Sibiu on September 9, 1934. This was to be attended also by the leadership of AUGRR, from Bucharest, with Gh. Niculescu (Neamul Țigănesc, 1934c, p.1). However, what occurred in Sibiu was one of the largest Roma gatherings in interwar Romania, with about 3,000 participants, including various Roma leaders (such as the AUGRR leadership, Roma leaders from different counties and regions such as Sibiu, Brașov, Târnava Mare, Făgăraș, Dolj, Prahova, etc.). In essence, given the magnitude of the event, Naftanailă’s claim to have established the first Roma organisation in Romania was not necessarily a winning argument. Being one of the many leaders who gave more or less similar speeches in Sibiu (with topics such as the emancipation of the Roma people, equal rights, loyalty to the dynasty, etc.), Naftanailă just got lost in the crowds (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 57, pp. 155–156). A few weeks later, Lăzurică, Gh. Niculescu’s competitor, declared Naftanailă a traitor (as did the other leaders present in Sibiu, in the company of Gh. Niculescu) (Ibid., doc. 65, pp. 164–168). But he was wrong. In fact, Naftanailă did not become a supporter of Gh. Niculescu and, in the autumn of 1934, he even refused to answer the letters sent to him by the latter (Glasul Romilor, 1934e, p. 3).
From this point on, Naftanailă’s position would continue to weaken both in relation to the central leadership of AUGRR and to the regional leadership in Transylvania. In fact, other Transylvanian Roma leaders were also dissatisfied with the AUGRR leadership but, instead of ignoring it, as Naftanailă did, they chose to act and negotiate. On February 2, 1935, several leaders of the Transylvanian Roma met in Sibiu and decided to act together against the AUGRR leadership, which was accused of neglecting the interests of the Transylvanian Roma. In need of allies, they showed Naftanailă a certain deference, and Andrei Zima, a Roma leader from Blaj, recognised Naftanailă as the first Vice-President, authorising him to act for the further organisation of the Roma.
We do not know how Naftanailă reacted to this offer but based on his ego and initial expectations, he probably perceived it as an insult. What is certain is that, in mid-March 1935, the other Transylvanian leaders went to Bucharest where they negotiated with the AUGRR leadership. As a result, both parts recognised their positions: the AUGRR leadership was no longer disputed, while the local leaders received a certain representation in the AUGRR central committee, a position Naftanailă once also wanted for himself.
A few weeks later, Gh. Niculescu wrote to Naftanailă that he had appointed Andrei Zima from Blaj as the president of the Transylvanian Roma, A. Zurilă from Sibiu as the organising president, and C. Brașoveanu as the Vice-President of Transylvanian Roma. The position assigned to Naftanailă was only that of leader of the Roma in Făgăraș (Neamul Țigănesc, 1935a, p. 2). Compared to what had been offered to him earlier, his new position was clearly inferior.
It was getting worse, however. Now there were competitors even for that position, or so it would appear from the April 1935 issue of the newspaper Neamul Țigănesc. In short, Naftanailă accused Zurilă, the newly appointed organising president of Transylvania, of fuelling the ambitions of a certain Dodos, a musician from Făgăraș, to replace Naftanailă as leader of the Roma in the County of Făgăraș. More precisely, Naftanailă feared that the AUGRR wanted to use the congress they were to hold in Făgăraș, until then Naftanailă’s undisputed fief, as a pretext to replace him. Consequently, he asked his followers to support him further:
Roma brothers! After fierce battles for 9 years for our awakening, I see today how invited and uninvited persons seek to mislead you so that they become the leaders of this County. Of course, today, after I personally organised and reawakened all the Roma from the County of Făgăraş, […] the last-minute profiteers come to take the lead of our movement. […] At their congress in Făgăraş, don’t forget to shout to hear me speak or you will be ashamed. Propagate from person to person, from village to village, to defend our rights. (Neamul Țigănesc, 1935d, p. 4).
Another argument invoked by Naftanailă to convince the Roma of his merits was that, until 1935, he had established several local branches in the County (Făgăraș, Gherdeal, Cincu, Șoarș, Grid, Cobor, Bruiu, Șercaia, Șinca Veche, Ticușu Vechi, Perșani, Șomartin, Bărcut). (Neamul Țigănesc, 1935b, p. 2). Later, Naftanailă tried to organise other rallies meant to prove that the Roma from Făgăraș were behind him and did not support his rivals. For example, in June 1935, a meeting of the Neorustic Brotherhood society took place in the town of Făgăraș, attended by approximately 1,000 people. The speakers demanded the exemption of musicians from taxes, land, rights for nomads and, very importantly, Naftanailă was proclaimed as the leader of all Roma in the entire County of Făgăraș (Curentul, 1935, p. 8). However, the police report prepared on this occasion was aware of the local disputes between Roma, as it stated that the association represented only a part of the Roma in Făgăraș (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 86, p. 195). A year later, on June 29, 1936, Naftanailă tried to hold a new meeting in Făgăraș, but without similar success (Cuvântul Făgărașului, 1936, p. 1). Most likely, AUGRR had, in the meantime, managed to double the leading position of the Făgăraș Roma by imposing the more malleable musician Iuliu Dodos.
Despite this, Naftanailă’s activity over a long period of time, prior to the emergence of AUGRR, ensured him a certain visibility both in the local press and public opinion, which continued to see him as the real representative of the Roma in the Făgăraș County. This attracted the attention of local politicians, interested in Roma votes. This became visible in 1937, when several elections took place. In June 1937, the Făgăraș press reported that Ilie Floașiu, a Romanian MP from Sibiu and the president of the PNC (National Christian Party, or Partidul Național Creștin) organisations in Transylvania, was negotiating with Naftanailă (Gazeta Făgăraşului, 1937a, p. 5; 1937b, p. 2). PNC was not the only party at local level interested in the Roma votes. Several other parties competed to obtain their support. In parallel, in the summer of 1937, G. A. Lăzurică and Calinic I. Popp Șerboianu tried to bring together some local leaders from the country. One of them was Naftanailă, who was repeatedly declared as one of their oldest and best friends and collaborators (Țara Noastră, 1937b, p. 4; 1937k, p. 6).
Later, the news about Naftanailă and his association became rarer. In 1939, the sociologist Ion Chelcea had a discussion with him:
Talking to one of their regional leaders, Năftanăilă, you immediately notice their aspirations. He speaks in a radical way, or at least tries to. He would like to see a well-organised Roma nation. But the Boyash hardly respond to this call. The same goes for the nomads. At the moment (1939) they have assemblies, president and controller. Now they are, as they say, “organised”. Consolidation is expected, but, as I say, not everyone answers [positively] to the call. To the question that the Boyash don’t speak the Gypsy language and would not accept to be put in the same pot with the others, Naftăilă shrugs his shoulders. (Chelcea, 1944, p. 170).
In 1939, AUGRR claimed to have 8,002 members in the County of Făgăraș, organised in 9 sub-centres (Potra, 1939, p. 125). Even if we were to accept this number, not all of them had been organised by Naftanailă. Although more visible, his organisational efforts were doubled in the second half of the 1930s by other Roma leaders, such as Dodos or Grigoraș Nucu.
Naftanailă had an ambivalent attitude towards ethnonyms, preferring the terms ‘Neorustic’ and ‘Gypsy’ to ‘Roma’, the latter being perceived as inspired by the central organisations from Bucharest after 1933–1934. In fact, the newspaper of the association was called Neamul Țigănesc (The Gypsy Nation). The name ‘Neorustic’ meant ‘new peasant’ and was the echo of the late eighteenth-century Habsburg policy of assimilating the Gypsies. Although an exonyme, the term was used in Transylvania to designate the Gypsies and did not have the same negative connotation as ‘Gypsy’. Therefore, to a certain extent, it started to be used for self-designation, as evidenced in the case of Naftanailă’s association. However, as its use was geographically limited to Transylvania, the term was not intelligible in the rest of the country and central organisations, starting with 1933, preferred the term ‘Roma’ (Matei, 2012, p. 56–57).
Interestingly, the newspaper Neamul Țigănesc appeared in 1934–1935, relatively late, only 8–9 years after the establishment of the Neorustic Brotherhood. Most likely, Naftanailă needed it as means to promote himself and his organisation in the face of an increasingly strong competition for Roma leadership. In addition to general articles on the Roma movement and activities, the newspaper also reflected Naftanailă’s personal agenda. In fact, issues 2 and 3 appeared at a time when Naftanailă had to mobilise the support of the Făgăraș Roma. These are the September 8, 1934 issue (a day before the meeting in Sibiu, when the Neorustic Brotherhood wanted to address the issue of Naftanailă’s representation in the central committee) and the April 1935 issue (when Naftanailă asked the Roma to support him against his rival Dodos during the congress in Făgăraș).
Unlike other leaders from Bucharest coming to Transylvania (such as Lăzurică and, later, Gh. Niculescu) who tried to convert local Roma to the Orthodox Church, Naftanailă was aware that the Transylvanian Roma were divided between the two “Romanian” (be they Orthodox or Uniate) confessions. Therefore, although Orthodox, Naftanailă knew he depended on the support he could obtain from both denominations and tried to avoid any Orthodox proselytism that could have alienated the sympathies of the Uniates for his movement.
The Roma uprising movement started within the church because the Roma are, first of all, Christians and within the church they always found relief for their soul estranged by all. In Transylvania, Roma belong to the believers of both ancestral churches, Orthodox and Uniate, and the church leaders starting with His Holiness Patriarch Miron Cristea and his Holiness Metropolitan of the Uniate Church look on our uprising movement with joy and blessings. In the organising activities he carried out, Mr. Lazăr Naftanailă benefitted from the goodwill of all the priests who took part in the Roma meetings and blessed the beginnings of the work carried out by the communal organisations. (Neamul Țigănesc,1935c, p. 3).
The Neorustic Brotherhood continued to exist after the war but only on paper, and for a short period. In the autumn of 1944, the Făgăraș Gendarmerie Legion recorded, among other societies and associations in the county, also the Neorustic Brotherhood, with Lazăr Naftanailă as president and Silvestru Gula as Scretary. The association had 17 members. Thus far, no documents have been identified to see if and to what extent Naftanailă’s organisation continued to function after 1945. However, in late 1948-early 1949, the communist regime abolished even the central organisations in Bucharest, with the result that the Roma were no longer recognised as an ethnic minority until the end of the communist regime in 1989. Lazăr Naftanailă died in Făgăraș in 1968, aged 75, and was buried in Calbor Cemetery (Cârstea, 2017, pp. 18–20).
Calinic I. Popp Șerboianu
Petre Matei
An Orthodox theologian and prolific publicist, Calinic I. Popp Șerboianu (October 16, 1883–February 16, 1941) was also the initiator of the first national Gypsy movement in Romania. In the spring of 1933, he created the Asociația Generala a Țiganilor din România – AGȚR (General Association of Gypsies in Romania), the first organisation that aspired to represent all Gypsies in Romania, regardles of their subgroup, language or dialect, profession and religion. Thus, his Association went far beyond the previous socio-professional boundaries of previous Gypsy organisations (which usually limited themselves to representing only Gypsies from rather small geographical areas or members of a particular profession, such as musicians). Șerboianu was a surprisingly complex figure, quite difficult to frame: a graduate of Orthodox Theology, later a monk and even an archimandrite, he manifested himself vocally and critically within the Orthodox Church, thus sabotaging his promising theological career; he later secretly converted to Catholicism and was defrocked by the Orthodox Church. In the 1930s, he officiated religious services at the Crematorium in Bucharest, a practice condemned at the time not only by the Romanian Orthodox Church (through the synodal decisions of 1928 and 1933), but also by the Catholic Church. Intelligent and capable of speaking several foreign languages, he spent a few years abroad, including in France and the USA and authored numerous articles and books. Șerboianu was also interested in Gypsies, whose language he had learned since childhood, and about whom he had written a book in 1930 (Popp Șerboianu, 1930). Three years later, he tried to organise them, claiming that he was himself a Gypsy. Despite the fact that the AGȚR he created in the spring of 1933 was broken up only a few months later by ambitious dissidents, it represented a model for all the other Roma Associations and Unions which, in effect, would copy its program. Abandoned by most collaborators in the fall of 1933, accused of trying to convert Gypsies to Catholicism, Șerboianu managed to return to the forefront only in 1937, competing with other Roma organisations and publishing a weekly Roma edition of the nationalistic and antisemitic newspaper Țara Noastră.
Constantin I. Popescu-Șerboianu (his secular name) was born on October 16, 1883, in the commune of Șerboieni in Argeș County, only 5 kilometres away from the town of Costești (a reason the for later confusion concerning his birthplace). Also called Slobozia-Golești, the commune had, at the end of the 19th century, 826 inhabitants, two churches, and a school (Lahovari et al., 1902, p. 515). The alternative toponym Slobozia-Golești suggests an important Gypsy population originating from the former Gypsy slaves of the important Golescu boyar family. However, given the widespread phenomenon of underrepresentation of Gypsies, their actual number cannot be established. For example, according to the 1930 census, out of the 1309 inhabitants of the commune, only 4 declared themselves Gypsies, the rest declaring themselves Romanians (Manuilă, 1938, p. 24). It is very probable, however, that Șerboianu learned the Romani language in his own native commune from his Gypsy neighbours. Șerboianu’s family ethnic background was Romanian, not Roma – as sometimes claimed – and practising Orthodox, counting several generations of priests. In fact, Ioan Șerboianu, his father, served as a priest in their native commune (Monitorul Oficial, 1916, p. 10771).
The future initiator of the Gypsy movement attended the Faculty of Orthodox Theology in Bucharest, from which he graduated in 1909 with a bachelor’s thesis titled “Ten Sunday Sermons starting with the Sunday of the Publican and Pharisee to the Easter Sunday”, published in 1909 (Ștrempel, 1989, p. 1000).
Young, intelligent, and active, Șerboianu seemed to enjoy a successful career. Starting in November 16, 1909, he was appointed deacon of the Romanian Chapel in Paris and remained in this position until July 1910 when, following disagreements with his superior in Paris, he was recalled to Bucharest. This was not necessarily a demotion because he was placed in the daily service of the Church of the Holy Metropolitan (Pocitan, 1940, pp. 146–147) and advanced to the rank of Hierodeacon, a position in which he appeared in March 1911, officiating religious services, in the presence of senior Orthodox officials such as the Metropolitan-Primate.
The spring of 1911, however, was the turning point in his priestly career. The young hierodeacon got involved in a conflict at the top of the Romanian Orthodox Church between the Metropolitan-Primate Atanasie Mironescu, until then a protector of Șerboianu, and Safirin, the bishop of Roman. The conflict was provoked by the approval, in March 1909, of the law of the Superior Church Consistory, which allowed the state greater control over the church administration. Tensions arose at the top of the Church, with the Metropolitan-Primate supporting the law, and the bishop of Roman attacking and reproaching the Metropolitan-Primate, stating that the latter had supported the law in exchange for the position of Metropolitan-Primate (to which he had just been appointed, in February 1909). Subsequently, the Metropolitan-Primate was accused of plagiarism, immoral life, heresy etc. The conflict worsened, splitting clergy, the Faculty of Theology, students, political life, press, and public opinion. The Metropolitan’s opponents demanded that the Synod verify the accusations brought against him. On May 12, 1911, also Calinic Șerboianu rallied against the Metropolitan, submitting a petition to the Holy Synod requesting for a verification of those accusations (Adevărul, 1911, p. 3). Șerboianu suffered the first reprisals almost immediately. In the meeting of the Synod on May 16, presided over by the Metropolitan Primate himself, Șerboianu was criticised for false statements and for his behaviour in France. Consequently, the Synod voted to remove Șerboianu from office, and the Ministry of Cults was informed of this decision (Monitorul Oficial, 1911, p. 1561).
Finally, given the aggravation of the conflict, the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church decided, on May 20, 1911, to try both the Metropolitan and the Bishop. The trial lasted a month, with dozens of witnesses, changes of testimony, lawyers, press etc. On June 24, 1911, the Holy Synod acquitted the Metropolitan-Primate and, by unanimous vote, deposed his opponent from the dignity of bishop for rebellion. However, in order to restore peace within the Church, the government exerted pressure for the Metropolitan-Primate to resign (which took place on June 28, 1911) (Beu, 2011, pp. 259–269). Șerboianu’s involvement in this conflict against the Metropolitan-Primate exposed him, attracting the hostility of some important people of the Church. From that moment onwards, his career, until then ascending, began to suffer failures, and he obtained only temporary positions within the Church.
In 1913, he was delegated to Cadrilater (Southern Dobrudja), a territory taken over from Bulgaria during the last Balkan War, and in 1914, he tried to enroll in a doctorate at the Faculty of Theology in Bucharest, but his application was rejected. Between 1914 and 1918, he managed to work as a priest at the church of Sf. Ilie Kalinderu in Bucharest, but he was eventually removed from this position under the pressure of the influential Archimandrite Iuliu Scriban (Cernăianu, 1920, p. 378).
In December 1918, Calinic Șerboianu was mobilised in the Romanian army as a priest with the rank of lieutenant in the 1st Roșiori Brigade of the 1st Cavalry Division (Popescu, 1940, p. 140), located at that time in Bessarabia (until then a province of the Russian Empire, but between 1918 and 1940 part of Greater Romania). In November 1918, the 1st Cavalry Division entered Hotin County, whose russified population was hostile to the new regime. As the Romanian regime wanted to win the sympathy of the locals, among other things, the Division provided material support to the peasants, organised canteens, cultural events, courses for adults in communes, etc. Șerboianu proved helpful here. In January 1919, he already founded an adult school in Lipcani where the locals learned to write and speak the Romanian language, receiving notions about the history of Romania. Also in Lipcani, Șerboianu set up a Section of the Cultural League that contacted the Central in Bucharest (Schina, 1938, pp. 46–47). Șerboianu continued to serve in the Romanian army until 1920 (at the beginning of the year he was in Hungary, within the Romanian occupation troops) (Popp Șerboianu, 1930, p. 37).
Once demobilised, Șerboianu was again forced to resort to various expedients. For example, between 1920 and 1921, he taught French, Greek and Latin at the Seminary and High School of Curtea de Argeș. Between 1922 and 1925, his fate seemed again to improve as the Orthodox Church sent him to the USA to do Orthodox missionary work (probably to stop the conversion of the Romanian Orthodox diaspora to other denominations). Once back home, he again had difficulties in making ends meet. Between 1925 and 1927, he served as a priest in Beiu commune and was, for several months, missionary inspector of the Buzău Diocese and taught philosophy at the Ismail Seminary, then spent some time in several monasteries in Oltenia (Stănișoara and Cozia), and between 1927 and 1928, he was editor-in-chief of the newspaper Cultura Poporului (Culture of the People), where he wrote mostly religious articles.
Very important was the period between 1928 and 1931, when he made a series of trips abroad, to Italy and France. In fact, during this period, in Paris, he converted to Catholicism and published, in 1930, his book Les Tsiganes (The Gypsies) (Popp Șerboianu, 1930). The book was mentioned at the time in many international journals, but often only briefly, without being the subject of actual reviews. In Romania, the few mentions of the book were rather critical. For example, the famous historian Nicolae Iorga criticised Șerboianu for poor historical interpretation, misquotations, use of sources from languages he did not speak (Iorga, 1931, p. 142). The lack of method and rigour, the mixture of legends, folklore, vocabulary and grammar were also criticised (P., 1934, pp. 68–69; Pașca, 1934, pp. 411–13; Iorga, 1934, p. 287). Nothing in the book, however, hinted towards Șerboianu being a future organiser or concerned with the emancipation and rescue of the Gypsies.
Although Șerboianu claimed, in his book, to be a professor at the Uniate College (Greek Catholic) in Blaj, he did not, in fact, hold this position. Returning to Romania, Șerboianu hid his conversion to Catholicism and between 1931 and January 1933, he served as abbot at the Orthodox Monastery in Crasna, Gorj County. In December 1932, the newspaper Universul noted that Șerboianu, following the publication of his book on Gypsies, was proclaimed an honorary member of the Gypsy Lore Society in London (Universul, 1932, p. 5). Shortly afterwards, this news was approvingly reproduced by Biserica Ortodoxă Română (the official journal of the Orthodox Church), unaware of his Catholic conversion. However, independently of it, at the end of January 1933, Șerboianu was tried by a local ecclesiastical tribunal attached to the Bishopric of Râmnicu and Noul Severin (Glasul Romilor, 1937d, pp. 2–3). He lost his ecclesiastical rank as abbot and was excluded from the Diocese of Râmnicu and Noul Severin. The document did not mention the reason, but most likely it was his conversion to Catholicism (for which he was constantly and quite explicitly attacked since the fall of 1933) and not the homosexuality (as claimed in 1937 by Gh. Niculescu, a rival Roma leader, who was sentenced to suspended imprisonment for this slander).
Shortly thereafter, Șerboianu left Oltenia for Bucharest where, only three months later, he appeared as the initiator of the AGȚR, the first Gypsy association, designed to represent all Gypsies in Romania, regardless of subgroup, dialect or denomination. The reasons why Șerboianu assumed this role remain unclear. It is not at all certain that at the end of January 1933, when demoted by the ecclesiastical tribunal, he thought of organising the Gypsies. Most likely there was a conjuncture that led Șerboianu to this initiative in the coming months. We list several favorable factors: 1) the older interest in Gypsies, increased by the publication of his book and his recognition as a “scholar of the Gypsies”; 2) his conversion to Catholicism and the model offered by Social Catholicism in France; 3) the organisational precedents of the Gypsies, reflected in the press of the time; and obviously, 4) his demotion from the humble church position as abbot he had in a small, rural monastery, far away from Bucharest.
Although Șerboianu was a Romanian, he came from a locality with an important Gypsy presence and his interest in Gypsies was obvious as he learnt their language and wrote about them. Paradoxical, but despite his initial prejudices, the publication of the book contributed to a slow change in his attitude toward Gypsies. He started to be known and recognised as an authority on Gypsies. For a man like Șerboianu, otherwise deprived of the recognition of his merits, forced to resort to various expedients, that recognition must have meant a lot. The fact that the Gypsy Lore Society, described in December 1932 by Universul, Romania’s largest daily newspaper, as “the society of London scholars who studied Gypsies” had contacted him, and he had become a member of GLS must have fed his ego and increased his interest in Gypsies. In September 1933, a few months after Șerboianu’s started the AGȚR, a police report on Șerboianu estimated that GLS inspired him to organise the Gypsies (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 21, pp. 94–99). It is hard to believe that GLS encouraged these new forms of organising and modernising Gypsies, given that, at the time, some GLS members tended, on the contrary, to believe that these movements affected the true identity of Gypsies (tradition, nomadism etc). GLS only increased his general interest in Gypsies.
Șerboianu’s conversion to Catholicism and the fact that he had recently witnessed manifestations of social Catholicism in France, interested also in the integration of minorities, may have played a role in Șerboianu’s new approach to Gypsies too. Beyond those factors acting slowly, other elements acted directly and immediately.
These were the dismissal of Șerboianu from the position of abbot of a small Orthodox monastery and the fact that the organisational precedents of Gypsies which were reflected in international and Romanian press. While in Bucharest, Șerboianu was able to catch up with various news, including those regarding the Gypsies, such as the April 9, 1933 article in Adevărul literar și artistic where a certain G. A. Lăzurică wrote “Gypsy literature” (Adevărul literar și artistic, 1933a, pp. 5–6).
The idea of organising the Gypsies appeared, most likely, following Șerboianu meeting with G. A. Lăzurică, his future collaborator and rival. Lăzurică’s article from April 9, 1933, promised to contain “Gypsy literature”. As Șerboianu was interested in obtaining samples of Roma language and folklore (an older and constant preoccupation for Șerboianu), he contacted Lăzurică. In another article from May 1933, in which Lăzurică recounted the meeting, Șerboianu was not described as a Gypsy, but as a person interested in Gypsies. That discussion excedeed the folklore subject and lasted a few hours (see more on this, including segments of the review, in Lăzurică’s portrait in Adevărul literar și artistic, 1933b, p. 8).
This consequence-rich meeting took place immediately after April 9th, 1933. Very quickly, only a few days later, news appeared in the press about the establishment in Bucharest of a General Association of Gypsies led by Archimandrite Calinic I. Popp Șerboianu (as President) and the publicist George A. Lăzurică (as Vice-President). The newly established association wanted to organise a large gathering of all the Gypsies and to publish a newspaper written in the Gypsy language. They intended to organise in Bucharest Gypsy cultural events with music, dances, readings of Gypsy literature, conferences on the history, customs and life of Gypsies. Despite the ambitious program, most likely the ‘General’ Association included only a few people at the time. In fact, it still did not have a headquarters, the Gypsies being invited to send the adhesions to Lăzurică’s address (Universul, 1933a, p. 6).
In the following weeks there was a rapprochement with Junimea Muzicală (Musical Youth), a socio-professional association of the Gypsy musicians in Bucharest founded already in 1927. The committee was to receive the adhesions, to collect the registration fees and to draft the statutes of the association in order to request the recognition of the association as a legal person. As a sign of the gradual institutionalisation, the Association finally had a headquarters that was the same as that of Junimea Muzicală (147 Vultur Street), and the correspondence no longer had to be sent as before to Lăzurică’s private address.
During the summer of 1933, the Gypsy Association enjoyed a certain attention and even the goodwill of the press, which generally saw the emancipation of the Gypsies as necessary and welcome, likely to help improve their situation. However, it should be noted that, at the time, the press did not consider Șerboianu as an ethnic Gypsy either. Instead, he was seen as a cleric of the dominant church (imposing respect) whose efforts to organise the Gypsies deserved to be looked upon with encouragement:
Perhaps the slander against the unsettled nation would have continued for a long time, if people in love with the qualities of the Gypsy people had not started an interesting struggle to regenerate the Gypsies. Notable personalities from the music world joined it. Why should the word “Gypsy” be uttered with shame and mockery? […] But the flag of the revival was raised by a clergyman, by Archimandrite Calinic Popp Șerboianu. […] The movement that started in our country aims to raise those who do not hide their origin to the dignity of other citizens. It is a mistake that the name “Gypsy” is ridiculed or whispered. That the defects often exceed the qualities, the fault is largely due to their difficult means of subsistence. Forming an association that fights with enthusiasm for their moral upliftment, these born musicians will have a better fate. (Ilustrațiunea Română, 1933a, p. 14).
Instead of explicitly denying the ‘defects’ of the Gypsies, Șerboianu adopted the more pragmatic approach of dismantling them by putting them into a wider context. There were ‘defects’ but they were not immanent to the Gypsies, but explainable due to the deprivations and the hard life they led and continue to lead. These people must, therefore, be helped to have a better fate and Șerboianu seemed to be convinced that the best way to get there was to organise the Gypsies.
As can be seen, Șerboianu’s perspective changed considerably in the three years since his book. In 1933, Șerboianu assumed the role of mediating between the Gypsies and the majority (whose prejudices and stereotypes towards the Gypsies he was aware of as one who had shared them). As an example, on May 17, 1933, Șerboianu published an emotional article about the Gypsy children, dismantling the stereotypes of his readership. Invoking religious reasons as well, he encouraged the readers to offer help to the Gypsies and their children:
This is the Gypsy child from whom everybody’s eyes turn away with disgust; who grows up like a weed on deserted places and out of others’ rubbish; who does not know Jesus, neither His morals, nor the charity He commanded; who loves all and believes them to be his brethren, but who, like Joseph of the Bible, is cast into the grave and sold by his own brethren whom he has served for centuries in faith and does not question their love. Have pity on this nobody’s child and think about him […] Descend into the swamps and huts in which he lives, where tuberculosis along with other deadly diseases wreak frightening havoc and only then you will realise how many things we have to do for our children with another color for whom they are not guilty. They need advice; a comforting hand; a help; a father and a mother, who, though many still have them, do not know how to give them in due time the spiritual nourishment which all mankind is thirsty for. The church must come down to the huts; the school should value only the smartness; charity needs to be blind, as well as justice. Don’t be disgusted! Stick your lips to the foreheads of these little black ones and only then you will you have the right to call yourselves good Christians and Romanians. They are ours! They want to live with us; to overcome with us; to die with us! (Universul, 1933b, p. 9).
Șerboianu and his supporters started to organise, convening small meetings in the suburbs of Bucharest. The meetings took place especially on Sundays, were informal, did not require authorisations, and the small number of participants did not attract the attention of the press. However, it is very likely that these meetings contributed to the realisation of an AGȚR program which consisted of two components: 1) cultural (establishment of schools, museums, libraries, publications, cultural centers, scholarships for deserving students) and 2) social (free legal and medical assistance, colonisation of the nomadic Gypsies, elimination of crimes and begging, etc.).
Things changed from the end of August 1933, when the Gypsy gatherings from different suburbs of Bucharest began to have a much greater visibility. While before, the interest of the press was relatively low, everything changed with the spread of the sensational news that the first congress of Gypsies would soon take place in Bucharest with delegates from all over the country coming to elect a supreme leader (Tempo!, 1933a, p. 1). Moreover, on the occasion of the congress, some Romanian personalities would have finally revealed their Gypsy origins. Besides, more than 30,000 Gypsies, many of them intellectuals, officers, artists, etc were said to have already joined the movement. The news was finally sensational enough to draw the attention of the press and the public to the Gypsy movement. The press started to interview Archimandrite Șerboianu and to send reporters to document those gatherings. To give just one example:
Recently, this derided people were awakened to a human conscience as a consequence of the praiseworthy action of Archimandrite Calinic Popp Șerboianu, who set up a General Association of Gypsies in Romania, based in Vultur Street no. 147. The association will soon become a legal entity. […] Yesterday I saw the kind-hearted Archimandrite Calinic Popp Șerboianu, president of the General Association of Gypsies in Romania. I warmly congratulated him for the beautiful human action he undertakes and asked him for clarification on the purpose of the Association. (Tempo!, 1933a, p. 1).
We reproduce in extenso Șerboianu’s answer, because it contains the AGȚR program (which was to be copied by the other Roma associations and unions):
We set up the Association to show everyone that our Gypsy people do not deserve and no longer want to live their lives humiliated and despised, ignored by other people, the archimandrite tells us. Through our action we aim to achieve the following: The publication of a newspaper, the establishment of evening classes for adults, a Gypsy popular university, the establishment of libraries and school museums, kindergartens. Publication of books for enlightenment, in the field of health protection; for leading a good life, the history of the Gypsy people and others. Educational lectures, music, gathering our old songs and all kinds of fairy tales; dance schools for our dances etc., the establishment of scholarships in the country and abroad for deserving students, the establishment of all kinds of workshops for the trades suitable to the nature of our nation and bazaars throughout the country for the sale of various products, the establishment of traveling schools for nomadic Gypsies and their membership in the Association, the establishment of athenaeums, cinemas and cultural centers, helping poor students with books, clothes and food. Social assistance – Schools, the establishment of a legal assistance for the defense of all those involved in lawsuits. Free medical care for patients and their health checks at home. Free help for all religious needs. The establishment of a large community centre where every poor Gypsy, homeless or not from here, can sleep and eat until he finds a job, the establishment of popular canteens in all the poor neighbourhoods of the Capital and other cities of the country. Establishment of a Gypsy hospital; medical dispensaries for women who gave birth; nursing homes for the disabled; mutual aid societies in the event of death, marriage, damage and the commencement of trade or other occupations; offices for employment; folk baths, school camps, shelters for small children. Land allotment – The council of elders. Perseverance, in all legal ways at the City Hall and other authorities to give us land around the Capital and in every town and village in the country where to build standard houses for the homeless, payable in 20–30 years. The insistence on colonizing [settling down] all nomadic Gypsies, giving them the necessary land in different parts of the country, as the Association is taking full responsibility for their settling down and improvement, eradicating theft and begging. The Association will ensure that any work (agricultural or other) is no longer speculated and will itself make collective agreements according to the laws of the country, supervising compliance with the obligations of both parties, living conditions and hygiene, etc. The organisation in guilds of all categories of workers and their recognition as craftsmen, with the corresponding rights, at the General House of Social Insurance. Establishment of County courts and a Supreme Court to resolve issues related to weddings, divorce, funerals and all kinds of crimes that would dishonor our nation and will be tried by the Council of Elders, led by the respective vatafii and according to our tradition. The women are, by right, part of the Association and will be used in all cultural and social assistance works. Those able to read have the same rights as men and can admitted to the Council of Elders, according to the rules to be established. (Tempo! 1933a, p. 1).
This increasing visibility attracted the attention of the Police, but also of the Orthodox Church. The Police began to inquire about the association and its agenda. On September 1, 1933, a few days after the meetings held by Șerboianu in the poor suburbs of Bucharest, the Police drew up a report. Only 300–400 Gypsies had joined the Association, most of them from Bucharest and neighbouring counties, but the AGȚR leaders’ desire to advertise, coupled with the sensational need of the press, increased their number to 30,000 members. AGȚR was not yet formalised as the members paid only voluntary registration fees between 5–20 lei (until then, only about 2000 lei had been collected in total). The intention of the AGȚR at that time was to raise sufficient funds for the publication of the AGȚR statutes so that, on September 15, 1933, the members of the directory committee could go to the Tribunal to request the recognition of the AGȚR as a legal entity. Questioned by the Police, Șerboianu declared that it was difficult to make propaganda among Gypsies, as the sedentary were too poor, and the nomads, although rich, were reluctant to accept the idea of being organised (Nastasă &Varga, 2001, doc. 21, pp. 94–99). The report noted that, although he perfectly spoke the Gypsy language, Șerboianu himself was not a Gypsy, but only claimed this to gain the trust of the Gypsies and determine them to join the association. Another thing that attracted the attention of the Police was Șerboianu’s job as an archimandrite, his position within the Church. When asked, Șerboianu answered evasively that the title of archimandrite was an honourary one, without saying who granted it to him. The Police insisted and addressed the Chancellery of the Patriarchate, which, at that time, still did not seem to be aware of Șerboianu’s real situation (the earlier conversion to Catholicism and even the withdrawal of the title of archimandrite from February 1, 1933):
On whether Father Șerboianu is an archimandrite or not, requesting relations with the Chancellery of the Holy Patriarchy, we were told that he was not “consecrated” in this rank within the Archdiocese of Bucharest, but that he might have been consecrated by the Diocese of Argeş or of the New Severin. Archimandrite Șerboianu, being asked about this, answered evasively, that “the archimandrite” does not constitute a priestly degree requiring a new consecration, but is an honorary degree, without specifying who granted it to him. (Ibid., doc. 21, pp. 94–99).
The Police were becoming suspicious. Șerboianu organised meetings and congresses, but he did not have a clear biography, had come to Bucharest only a few months earlier, had no stable address (as he lived in rent) and his professional situation was unclear. The police continued their investigation while the Central Committee of AGȚR continued its organising activities, and on October 2, 1933, they submitted to the court the statutes and documents, requesting the recognition of the AGȚR as a legal entity (Ibid., doc. 32, pp. 112–113). Most likely at the end of August 1933 the Romanian Orthodox Church in Bucharest learned that Șerboianu was no longer Orthodox due to the information provided by Lăzurică, one of Șerboianu’s former close collaborators. Then, the Church did its own internal checks.
After the split from Lăzurică (for more on this, see also Lăzurică’s portrait in this chapter) Șerboianu tried to undermine Lăzurică’s congress, organised with the financial aid of the Orthodox Church. Initially, he announced that there would be no Gypsy congress on October 8 or that the respective assembly was organised by dubious people. Shortly afterwards, however, realizing that Lăzurică’s assembly would still take place, Șerboianu changed his tactics and tried to divert it, by announcing his own large Gypsy assembly on the same day of October 8, 1933 (Cuvântul, 1933b, p. 6.). Unlike Lăzurică’s assembly, accused of political and religious machinations, Șerboianu’s would have paid attention only to the Gypsies’ needs: “We do not fight for politics or for the church, but for our needs, to drive away the darkness and injustice in which we have lived for centuries; beware of those who promise you all the goodness of the earth in order to deceive you and then will give you the sword and religion” (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 25, pp. 103–104).
Unfortunately for him, Șerboianu had failed to ask the police for a permit, and his meeting announced for October 8 was banned. Faced with the accomplished fact, Șerboianu announced the postponement of the meeting by a week, for October 15:
At the same time, [the Association of Gypsies in Romania], under the presidency of Archimandrite C. Pop-Șerboianu, convened a meeting in the Ionică Pandele Hall in Teiul Doamnei Street (Tei), to prove that the Gypsies remain loyal to the old association. Several hundred Gypsies had gathered in the street, but the assembly could not be held because the proper authorisation had not been obtained in advance. Father Pop-Şerboianu spoke in the street to the crowd and announced a new meeting for next Sunday, in the same place. (Dimineața, 1933a, p. 5).
That was a missed opportunity. The large number (hundreds) of Gypsies coming to Șerboianu’s gathering, was comparable, if not higher, with that of the Roma coming to Lăzurică’s gathering. Between the two rival associations there was still a certain balance which shortly thereafter was lost in favor of Lăzurică’s UGRR. The fact that, on the same day, Lăzurică’s supporters were able to freely meet showed an imbalance between the two movements. Gypsies/Roma were able to see which organisation was more viable, enjoying the legitimising support of authorities. In terms of visibility, Lăzurică stole the show and the press wrote exclusively about him and his assembly. Being the first, he satisfied the readers’ need for sensation. By comparison, Șerboianu was left in the shadows. Lăzurică continued the campaign to denigrate Șerboianu and for this he also made use of the older church rulings against Șerboianu. For example, on October 8, he told his partisans that “the Gypsies were misled by the priest Calinic Șerboianu and reads documents showing that the said priest was expelled from the Diocese of Râmnicu, where he was abbot at the Crasna monastery, and that he also lost the rank of archimandrite” (Cuvântul, 1933c, p.2).
After October 8, Lăzurică wanted to make sure that Șerboianu’s room for maneuver shrinks even more. In parallel with his public actions, Lăzurică addressed the authorities. Immediately after the congress, on October 9, 1933, Lăzurică addressed the Police, accusing Șerboianu of being an impostor. To support his position, Lăzurică invoked the Orthodox Church support for his own movement:
For this reason, the Holy Patriarch recognised me as the leader of the Roma and even intervened in an address to you, to authorise the congress I had organised for October 8, so you approved the holding of this congress and the assembly applauded you for your gesture. In my action to emancipate my fellow people, in the cultural, social and spiritual field, I am considered by the Patriarch of Romania and the Central Church Council as a missionary among the Roma people, protecting them from any conspiracy or subversive attempts by people hostile to our morals and the Orthodox Church. (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 29, pp. 108–109).
As for Șerboianu, he was declared an impostor, and his movement was delegitimised by the accusation that he initiated it only to pursue hidden goals such as the Catholicisation of Gypsies:
This priest is neither an archimandrite, as he claims, nor has he the moral quality to become the leader of the Roma, for the following reasons: I accuse him of being an enemy of our Orthodox Church by selling himself to the Catholic Church, to which he promised to attract the Gypsies to this religion in exchange for a subsidy and other material insurance. […] The diocese of Vâlcea demoted him from the rank of archimandrite on February 1, 1933, expelled him from the leadership of the Crasna Monastery and excluded him from the ranks of this diocese for serious deviations from morals and his teachings as an Orthodox priest. The Patriarch and the Central Church Council consider him an excommunicated, disturbing and dangerous element, having evidence of his subversive action and acts of immorality. (Ibid., doc. 29, pp. 108–109).
Interestingly, Lăzurică could make use of some internal documents of the Orthodox Church such as the ruling of February 1, 1933. Another proof of the cooperation between Lăzurică and the Church at the time can be seen in the fact that Lăzurică asked the prefect of the Capital Police to appeal to the Church for checking his accusations: “If you don’t believe my accusations, I am authorised to encourage you to address the Central Church Council of the Romanian Patriarchate […] to confirm my words” (Ibid.). Given all that, Lăzurică asked the Capital Police to forbid the assembly announced by Șerboianu for October 15, 1933:
This priest announces in the media that he will hold the assembly at any cost on October 15. […] For this reason, I respectfully ask you to not authorise the Sunday assembly, organised by Father Calinic Șerboianu [who] is trying to disturb and plot against our church and state. He can be asked to prove […] what his situation is, what he lives on, where he lives, where he serves and if he is currently an official servant of our church. He is not even a Gypsy! (Ibid.).
Such interventions are likely to have had the expected effect. Although Șerboianu had addressed the Police for the authorisation of the new assembly, he had not yet received it until October 14, a day before it was supposed to occur. Obviously, this could affect the organisation of the assembly. On October 14, Șerboianu addressed the Ministry of the Interior:
Please arrange for us to be given the authorisation for a meeting of the members of the General Association of Gypsies in Romania, to be held on Sunday, October 15. C.Y, 9 a.m., in the <Ionică Pandele> hall in 48 Teiul Doamnei Street (Tei), where we will discuss the purpose, statutes and program of the Association. I mention that on Sunday, October 8, C.Y. we wanted to hold a meeting there, but we were stopped by the police because we didn’t know we needed an authorisation. I also made a request to the Police, but we have been constantly postponed until today. We want people from the State Security to be sent to listen to everything that is being said. (Ibid., doc. 33, p. 113).
In fact, a favourable opinion had already been given within the Police of the Capital on 13 October 1933 on the grounds that such an assembly would be useful for the Gypsies to be clarified also regarding the aims of the AGȚR:
[…] the Gypsies are not yet fully clear on the purpose of the Association and are hesitant to join one of the two presidents, claiming these positions without a prior general meeting of the founding members and without finalizing the legal forms. Therefore, as some of the Gypsies will meet on Sunday, October 15, to clarify, we are of the opinion that it should be approved.. (Ibid., doc. 32, pp. 112–113).
However, the Police of the Capital gave the formal approval very late, only on October 14, when it was also communicated to Șerboianu. The late answer can probably be explained by Șerboianu’s very last minute intervention directly at the Ministry (Ibid., doc. 34, p. 114).
On October 15, 1933, Șerboianu could finally organise the respective assembly in which also Lazăr Naftanailă, the leader of the Gypsies from Făgăraș, participated. Șerboianu’s assembly did not enjoy the attention of the press as it used to happen before. The press recorded the event only briefly. While Lăzurică and his supporters claimed that the breakup of Șerboianu was due to his intention to convert the Gypsies to Catholicism and that Șerboianu was not a Gypsy, Șerboianu’s adherents claimed that Lăzurică, on the contrary, initiated the breakup to exploit the Roma for political purposes:
There are also some bad people, serving different politicians, who seek to deceive our nation; […] These wicked people shamelessly accuse our Association and the energetic priest who leads us of all kinds of insults and slanders. (Ibid., doc. 25, p. 103).
More precisely, Lăzurică was accused of trying to have the Gypsies become members of Octavian Goga’s National Agrarian Party, thus securing a deputy mandate and communal councilor positions in Bucharest for his main collaborators (Ibid., doc. 30, p. 110). On the accusations that Șerboianu was not a Gypsy, he started to publicly assume that he was in fact a Gypsy:
The good God wanted that at the time He found fit to send us a savior in the person of the Archimandrite priest Calinic I. Popp Șerboianu, of Gypsy origin, who understands the sufferings of his people, does not abandon them but wants to guide them on the road of civilisation, of pure aspirations that are protected from the poison of base politics so that the name [Gypsy] will be spoken with respect, and not with contempt”. (Ibid., doc. 25, p. 103–104).
Besides, Șerboianu’s partisans responded similarly, by accusing Lăzurică of not being a Gypsy (Cuvântul, 1933d, p. 2). In parallel, at the request of AGȚR to obtain the quality of legal person, the consulted authorities tended to be reserved. Thus, on November 5, 1933, a note from DGP appreciated that Șerboianu, the president of AGȚR:
[…] does not have a permanent residence and, from the information collected and reported to this Directorate, has nothing to do with the clergy, although he unfairly claims to be an archimandrite, he is not of Gypsy origin but only pretends to be in order to achieve the proposed goals; […] Although the aims of the association are quite beautiful and well-grounded, its initiator and leader Calinic I. Popp Șerboianu, having the situation shown above, and besides having the tendency to convert the Gypsies to the Uniate Church, we suggest a refusal of the required favorable opinion for this association to become a legal person. (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 36, pp. 116–117).
Within a month, Șerboianu lost the leadership of the Gypsy movement in favour of a more skillful G. A. Lăzurică. He was deserted by numerous collaborators, including Gh. Lache, the General Secretary of AGȚR, who followed Lăzurică. The same happened with the few leaders of the Gypsies in the province already active in AGȚR. For example, Lazăr Naftanailă from Făgăraș attended the meeting of October 15, 1933 as an ally of Șerboianu, but a few weeks later he too was among Lăzurică’s supporters. One should not overestimate the support offered to Șerboianu by the so-called Oltenia Circle of AGȚR (around Marin I. Simion and Aurel Manolescu-Dolj). This was superficial and lasted a short time (until the spring-summer of 1934, when they also formalised their transition to other central organisations).
Left by his supporters and without resources, Șerboianu had to reorient himself. The solution he found was the Crematorium in Bucharest. The cremationist movement in Romania had reported some success, despite opposition from the Romanian Orthodox Church. For example, the number of those cremated in Bucharest tended to increase: 1928 – 262, 1929 – 274, 1930 – 270, 1931 – 360, 1932 – 468, 1933 – 602, 1934 – 580, 1935 – 480, 1936 – 364, 1937 – 581 persons (Biserica Ortodoxă Română, 1933, p. 494; Rotar, 2014, p. 518) The Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church decided on June 15, 1928 to forbid any kind of religious service for those who were cremated and repeated this ban in September 1933 as it ruled that the Orthodox priests violating this ban would be barred from any priestly activity and be severely sanctioned within the Church (Biserica Ortodoxă Română, 1934, p. 561). Despite interdictions (or maybe exactly because of them) Șerboianu became a supporter of cremation, writing articles where he invoked biblical arguments in its support. Besides, in February 1935, for the first time in a Romanian crematorium, Șerboianu conducted a religious service for a person cremated (Tempo! 1935, p. 1). Others followed in the years to come. This shocked the Orthodox clergymen and many others. Articles were published asking for urgent measures to be taken against the priest who dared to disrespect the decision of the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church.
His involvement in the Gypsy movement went into standby. However, even if AGȚR no longer functioned effectively, the appeal launched by Șerboianu in August 1933 continued to serve as a model and inspiration. For example, in the summer of 1934, the Roma of Sibiu launched a call for the organisation, on September 9, 1934, in Sibiu of a large gathering of Roma. They copied most of Șerboianu’s appeal and, as a sign that they were not too concerned about the disputes of the Roma leaders in Bucharest, they mentioned all of them (Calinic I. Popp Șerboianu, G. A. Lăzurică and Gh. Niculescu) as presidents of UGRR (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 55, pp. 152–153 and doc. 73, pp. 177–178). On August 6, 1934, Lăzurică asked the Patriarchate to intervene so that the Police would investigate “those who signed and disseminated the attached manifesto, which includes as president of the Union the alleged Archimandrite Calinic I. Popp Șerboianu, because the Union denies having any knowledge of these signatures or any connection with this person.” (Ibid., doc. 54, p. 151–152).
In addition, Lăzurică, who was in conflict with the Niculescu brothers, also asked the Patriarchate to withdraw the missionary cards granted to them. As a result, on September 7, 1934, the Patriarchate conformed and asked the Police for explanations regarding the respective manifestos (Ibid., doc. 54, pp. 151–152). In reality, there was no rapprochement between the three associations: 1) AGȚR (Șerboianu), UGRR (Lăzurică) and AUGRR (Gh. Niculescu). Their leaders hated one another, but Lăzurică was disliked more, by both Șerboianu (who could not forgive his betrayal in the fall of 1933), and Gh. Niculescu (who, although he had forced Lăzurică in May 1934 to resign, continued to feel threatened by Lăzurică’s competition). Lăzurică tried to approach Șerboianu again, but was refused. In September 1934, eager to take revenge, Șerboianu sent a letter with compromising documents about Lăzurică to the Niculescu brothers. Lăzurică did not leave it unanswered and a few weeks later, in Rădăuți, launched manifestos in which he considered the other Roma leaders to be traitors (including brothers Niculescu and Calinic Șerboianu, the latter being described as “the infamous leader Calinic Șerboianu, former priest, now defrocked for deeds unworthy of a church servant”. (Ibid., doc. 65, pp. 164–168).
As for the Niculescu brothers, they attacked both Șerboianu and Lăzurică. For example, on March 3, 1935, at a meeting with the Roma in the city of Ploiești, Gh Niculescu said that Lăzurică was a swindler and was removed, “because in union with priest Șerboianu from the Patriarchate, now fired, he had written a letter to the Pope in Rome, that one million Roma are converting to Catholicism, even though they are baptised Orthodox”. (Ibid., doc. 78, p. 182).
On March 26, 1935, a year and a half after the application was submitted, AGȚR finally received the status of legal person (Țara Noastră, 1937a, p. 4). Once this status was obtained, Șerboianu was likely to believe he still had chances to reorganise the Roma. A few days later, on March 31, 1935, a meeting of the Roma took place in Caracal, at which one of the speakers read to those present a manifesto “received from Archimandrite Șerboianu showing the duty of each member to society”. (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 79, pp. 184). The recognition of AGȚR as a legal person in March 1935 was too little, too late as the other Roma associations were already firmly established. An April 1935 report by the Police, which reviewed the efforts to organise the Roma, considered that “Archimandrite Șerboianu, being abandoned by those who gave him their support up to a point, is no longer active and due to the influence of the Patriarchate – in favour of Lăzurică – he was excluded from this movement” (Ibid., doc. 80, p. 188). AGȚR did not matter anymore. Practically, during this period, Șerboianu’s main activity no longer concerned the Roma movement, but the cremationist one.
Later, starting with the summer of 1937, for a few months, Șerboianu once again managed to become active in the Roma movement, that time in alliance with Lăzurică, his older collaborator and rival. The common enemy was AUGRR, the stronger rival organisation led by the Niculescu brothers and supported by the PNL (the ruling party), and the Orthodox Church. As Șerboianu and Lăzurică did not have sufficient material resources to support their organisation, they had to identify partners willing to offer help. The context became favourable in 1937, a year with several rounds of elections. Lăzurică and Șerboianu allied with the opposition National-Christian Party (PNC), led by Octavian Goga and A. C. Cuza. Goga and Cuza provided Șerboianu and Lăzurică with the newspaper Țara Noastră (which appeared during the summer of 1937 in a special weekly edition for the Roma), promised places on the electoral lists and, obviously, expected in return the Roma votes.
During this period, Șerboianu published in the Roma edition of Țara Noastră numerous articles, covering various themes (mostly religious, but also political, medical, literary, Roma folklore collected from informants of various subgroups). He justified the collaboration with the PNC by the need to get some support because the previous collaborations with other parties had not led to anything, as they did not respect the promises made to the Roma. Like Lăzurică, Șerboianu borrowed the nationalist and anti-Semitic rhetoric from the PNC. They argued that the Roma are not a treacherous minority, like the others, but rather a group loyal to the Romanians:
For five years we have struggled to realise our program, appealing to all the competent forums and to all the representatives of the political parties, without being listened to. The political parties we addressed asked for our votes and promised us that they would help us achieve our goals only after the Roma would give them their votes […] But after they were given the votes, this [national liberal] party closed its doors to us […] We realised that without the support of a Romanian party, benevolent towards the social and civic purpose of the Roma in Romania, we cannot achieve the desires of our fellow human beings. We addressed the National-Christian Party, which you lead. And you convinced yourselves that the Roma in Romania value more than the minorities that hate this country, because the Roma are assimilated to the Romanian element, they are Christians, modest citizens, who, despite having certain defects – surpassed by the prevailing qualities – that can be removed in time through a patient education. […] We will not allow 125,000 Roma voters to be at the discretion of parties that buy votes with money and brandy, which deceive our fellows with empty promises. […] We will give deadly blows to our opponents and we will succeed in making the Roma worthy fighters who will shout: – Romania for the Romanians! (Țara Noastră, 1937h, p. 1).
In 1937, Șerboianu presented himself as the president of AGȚR (which had acquired legal personality in 1935) and obviously raised claims to the leadership of the Roma, accusing the rival leaders of AUGRR of using the Roma movement in order to get rich, swindling the Roma. The Niculescu brothers and their partisans replied in their newspaper Glasul Romilor from July 25, 1937, by accusing Șerboianu and Lăzurică of not being Roma and consequently of being interested only in exploiting them: “two ridiculous nullities who claim to be the mentors of the Roma people […] in conflict with honor and morals and who have nothing in common with the Roma people, whose sons they’re not” (Glasul Romilor, 1937b, p. 2). As for Șerboianu, he was attacked not so much for his intention to convert the Roma, but for his alleged homosexuality:
A squinted, red-bearded individual, who, protected by his monastic robe and appearances, indulges in the most degrading vice, messing with men, often with young boys, whom he seduces by perverting them to satisfy his sadistic desires. This male bitch gives himself the pompous title of: Archimandrite Calinic I. Popp-Șerboianu, abbot of the monastery, a title he no longer has since 1933, when he lost it precisely because of the sinfulness in which he indulged in the monastery. (Glasul Romilor, 1937d, pp. 2–4).
Șerboianu and Lăzurică decided to sue the Niculescu brothers for slander and addressed the prosecutor’s office. More precisely, Șerboianu wrote:
[…] they permitted themselves to publish false statements against me, concerning my private life, my professional activity and my personal honor, which, if true, would expose me to criminal or disciplinary prosecution, or to public contempt. […] In the same newspaper Glasul Romilor, they insult me that I am blind, poor, red-bearded, and even if they were true, I am not responsible for these defects”. (Țara Noastră, 1937i, p. 2).
Subsequently, in March 1938, the court sentenced the two Niculescu brothers to one month of correctional imprisonment with the suspension of their sentence (Cuvântul, 1938, p. 13). At that time, however, Șerboianu could not take advantage of his favourable decision because he was no longer active in the Roma movement.
Șerboianu provided most of the articles published on the religious page of the Roma edition of Țara Noastră. These were usually Sunday sermons each containing also a small fragment dedicated to the Roma. For example, in the sermon “Healing of a paralythic [at Bethesda]” from July 25, 1937, Șerboianu wrote:
My Roma brothers! […] If you have sinned until now, do not despair: God forgive all your sins, if you are sorry for what you have done hitherto; if you repent every day and if you decide to change your behavior and become a new man, as if you were born today. […] When you feel weakened by sin, hated by people, and forsaken by friends, pray unceasingly to God, and you will see how power from above descends to you; how you feel differently and how you take courage and love for the real life. Remember: if you are in great danger or forsaken by all people, pray only to God; ask for the help from our Lord Jesus and He will immediately descend into your soul; he will strengthen you and be your best friend. (Țara Noastră, 1937f, p. 4).
The sermons were accompanied by small Romani translations of the biblical passages inspiring that sermon. Except for the short passages addressed to the Roma, the respective sermons were very similar in style to the articles published by Șerboianu in 1927–1928, in Cultura Poporului. Most likely, many of them were recycled and adapted. Apart from such relatively neutral sermons, Șerboianu and Lăzurică also signed articles favourable to the Catholic Church and critical of the Romanian Orthodox Church. At first, they tried to save appearances, dodging Niculescu’s questions regarding political and religious sympathies. They answered clearly about their political sympathies:
We have found it appropriate today, when there is a struggle between Romanians and Christians against the Judeo-Communists, that the policy that we must do is Nationalist-Christian without becoming party members. So, we sympathise with the National-Christian Party.”
However, to the question “What is their faith: Orthodox or Catholic?” they answered evasively only with: “Our faith is truly Christian, more Christian than that of the pagan Niculești. (Ţara Noastră, 1937j, p. 5).
The effort required to publish the Roma edition of Țara Noastră was considerable, apparently exceeding the financial possibilities of both Șerboianu and Lăzurică. Already on July 25, 1937, they declared that the first two issues cost them 20,000 lei in just two weeks. They demanded support from Roma readers to subscribe to the newspaper, thus supporting its appearance (Țara Noastră, 1937g, p. 2).
In September 1937, the last issue of the Roma edition of Țara Noastră appeared. Thereafter, little is known about Șerboianu’s role within the Roma movement. Unlike Lăzurică who remained involved in the PNC electoral campaign in the fall and winter 1937/1938, organising meetings with the Roma from Vlașca and Craiova, launching new anti-Semitic tirades etc, nothing similar is recorded about Șerboianu. In February 1938, King Carol II of Romania dismissed the government led by Octavian Goga, and a restrictive Constitution was soon issued. The parties were disbanded, as were many politically affiliated organisations. Given the recent involvement in the PNC’s election campaign, Șerboianu’s organisation was affected by these bans (unlike the organisation of the Niculescu brothers, which continued to function). At the beginning of March 1938, the newspaper Timpul of the Roma from Craiova announced a collaboration with Lăzurică and Șerboianu, but this did not materialise either, as this newspaper also ceased to exist shortly after (Timpul, 1938b, p. 1). Șerboianu’s involvement with the Roma was discontinued. For the few years left until he passed away, Șerboianu continued to work at the Crematorium.
Șerboianu died in February 1941 (most probably February 16th, 1941), at the age of 58, and was buried on the 19th of February in the Bellu cemetery in Bucharest. His burial (and not his cremation, as he had preached until then) was perceived by some Orthodox clergymen as a blow to the cremation partisans:
It is good that at least on his deathbed he had some conscience, to be buried in a Christian manner. […]. Whether God will forgive him or not, only God knows, but we are glad that the members of the crematorium received a fatal blow, by having Calinic Șerboianu buried at the cemetery. […] The moral foundation was crushed for the partisans of the crematorium as their most important members refuse to be cremated after death” (Glasul Monahilor, 1941, p. 4).
In 1948, however, his remains were exhumed and cremated (Bezviconi, 1972, p. 80).
Șerboianu was rediscovered only after 1989. The fall of communism in Romania determined several changes that allowed his rediscovery: 1) the Roma were recognised as an ethnic minority and began to re-organise; 2) the state gave up the anticlerical attitude manifested by the communist regime; 3) The Orthodox Church was confronted with an increasing conversion of Roma (until then predominantly Orthodox) to neo-Protestant denominations. Therefore, various actors (Roma, Orthodox Church, cremationists) in need for precedents, began to refer to Șerboianu. In doing so, they tend, however, to reduce his complex personality to the elements that suit each specific agenda.
For example, in recent years the Cremation Society Amurgul (The Dawn) began to appreciate Șerboianu for his involvement during the 1930s in favor of cremation. Under the auspices of this association, some articles by Șerboianu in favour of cremation were recently republished, a Facebook page with Șerboianu’s name was created that keeps posting, among other things, excerpts from his articles. His involvement in the Roma movement is mentioned in passing, but his conversion to Catholicism is treated superficially, arguing that, in fact, he remained Orthodox. Given that, in recent years, there has been a growing interest in cremation, the tendency is to attribute to Șerboianu the intention to reduce the so-called venality of the Orthodox priests (accused of being interested in maintaining burial as opposed to cremation only to ensure various benefits due to the performance of religious services regarding the body and burial) (Adevărul, 2017).
The Romanian Orthodox Church has recently tried to get closer to the Roma Orthodox believers. The Romanian Orthodox Church’s efforts derive from its need to defend itself from recent attacks arguing that the Church had benefited from Gypsy slavery in the Middle Ages, as well as to diminish the impact of more recent conversions of Roma Orthodox believers to other (mostly neo-Protestant) denominations. As to the discourse of the Orthodox Church, Șerboianu appears mainly as an Orthodox priest, organiser of the Roma, one of the personalities of the Orthodox Church who were involved in improving the condition of the Roma. His conversion to Catholicism, cremationist beliefs and even his defrocking within the Orthodox Church are not usually mentioned.
The Roma movement does not and probably will not pay special attention to Șerboianu. There are several reasons for it: the current Roma identity discourse emphasises the Holocaust, not the interwar Roma movement, Șerboianu was not a Roma, but a Romanian, he preferred the ethnonym ‘Gypsy’ over ‘Roma’ and, in 1937, he wrote anti-Semitic articles.
Gheorghe A. Lăzurică
Raluca Bianca Roman
Gheorghe A. Lăzurică (1892 – ?), also known as Gheorghe A. Lăzăreanu-Lăzurică, George Lăzurică, Lăzărescu-Lăzurică or Lăzărică, was a key promoter of the Roma civic emancipation process in Romania during the interwar period. Alongside archimandrite Calinic I. Popp Șerboianu, he first became active in one of the earliest Roma organisations in the country, the General Association of Gypsies in Romania (Asociația Generală a Țiganilor din România – AGȚR), established in 1933. As both portraits highlight, the relationship between Lăzurică and Șerboianu would, in fact, contour many of Lăzurică’s views and actions, both in conjunction and in conflict with the latter. While an initial collaborator of Șerboianu, and active in the setting up of AGȚR, Lăzurică would soon break from the latter to set up the General Union of Roma in Romania (Uniunea Generală a Romilor din România – UGRR), only to rejoin him later in a renewed AGȚR. These shifts and moves across organisations, as well as the fluctuating alliances (political and otherwise) he would create during his activism career, emphasise the ways in which Lăzurică sought to promote his views concerning Roma civic emancipation by seeking partnership with different actors and institutions in the country, which he saw as aiding his cause. Lăzurică was also one of the key Roma activists in the country to plead for the changing of the name țigani (Gypsies) to that of Roma, both in official documents and everyday practice, as well as for the sedentarisation of nomadic Gypsies. Furthermore, especially during his work within the UGRR, he supported and advocated the conversion of Roma to Orthodoxism, becoming a missionary of the Orthodox Church. While little is known about his biographical data, his work during the interwar period, his publications in key Roma newspapers of the time (such as Timpul, Țara Noastră), as well as his articles published in mainstream Romanian newspapers (such as Adevărul literar și artistic), offer sufficient information to paint his overall portrait, illustrating his contribution to the overall Roma movement in the country during the 1930s.
Though exact information on his birth date and early life remains limited at this stage, G. A. Lăzurică is thought to have been born in 1892 (Williams, 2007, p. 23). He was a graduate of the Higher School of Commerce and, before his work in the field of Roma emancipation, he worked in the storage of wood, in partnership with his brother. While he was presented as coming from a family of lăutari (Gypsy musicians) in some mentions from the foreign press (Le Journal, 1936, p. 4), there is little to no information about this in other sources. Likewise, while some international press sources also seem to have presented him as a poet (Belfast Telegraph, 1936; Glas naroda, 1936, p. 3), it is unclear to what extent Lăzurică actually published any poetry. None of the poems published in Roma newspapers of the interwar period can, however, be attributed to Lăzurică. What is clear is that Lăzurică published sporadically, especially during the interwar period of time, which included not only Roma periodicals of the time but Romanian mainstream newspapers as well. From 1933 onwards, for instance, he wrote several reviews and articles in the Romanian national press, including Adevărul literar și artistic (Literary and Artistic Truth) (1933a, 1933b). One of the reviews published included, as we shall see later, Calinic I. Popp Șerboianu’s book Les Tsiganes (1930), which also describes the first meeting between the two activists of the interwar Roma movement. He was also a contributor to two Roma newspapers during the interwar period, Țara Noastră (Our country, Bucharest) and Timpul (The Time, Craiova) and his name appeared in several newspapers from outside Romania, including in one poem from Bessarabia, which appears to have been dedicated to him (Viața Basarabiei, 1935, p. 24). This points to the fact that Lăzurică’s name reached beyond the borders of the country, even if often as a curiosity or as a means of information dissemination about Roma in Romania.
In terms of his work for the process of Roma civic emancipation in the country, most notably, G. A. Lăzurică cooperated with Șerboianu towards the establishment of AGȚR, in April 1933, of which he was a General Secretary. The relationship Lăzurică would forge with Șerboianu is especially relevant here in highlighting some key aspects of Lăzurică’s work and career as part of the Roma civic emancipation movement, and an emphasis is placed on the shifts between the two. In fact, the moves from collaboration to conflict, to reconciliation, also reflect the overall tensional context within which relationships between leaders of the Roma movement during interwar Romania were played out and how visions for the future of the Roma community were presented. It is unsurprising thus that, for instance, the programme of the UGRR would mirror almost exactly that initially laid out by AGȚR, of which Lăzurică had been a part of (in collaboration with Șerboianu).
An interesting aspect to explore, in this context, is Lăzurică’s first contact and collaboration with Șerboianu, one which would jumpstart the founding of the AGȚR, with Popp Șerboianu as President and Lăzurică as s Secretary, as well as the gradual erosion of their relationship. Information on this matter is sparse, but snippets of Lăzurică and Șerboianu’s first meeting can be found, for instance, in a review of Șerboianu’s book, published in the Adevărul literar și artistic, in 1933. Given its significance both to the shaping of the movement itself and the content which points to the different views concerning the Roma population in the country, below is a translation of key segments from the aforementioned article:
My letter and the short story signed by me and published in the “Adevarul Literar” of April 9th C[urrent] Y[ear], captured the attention of the archimandrite Calinic I. Pop Șerboianu, who honoured me with a visit. I did not know this honourable church personality. But I remembered his name as the author of a valuable work written in French, entitled “Les Tziganes. Histoire – Ethnograghique – Liguistique – Grammaire – Dictionnaire”, published by Payot Publishing House in Paris.
As a Gypsy, I read this work about which the foreign press unanimously spoke apologetically. Apart from the newspaper “Dimineaţa”, which in the issue of December 11, 1929, expressed interest in the work of Archimandrite Calinic Șerboianu, the Romanian press did not pay any attention to it. […]
His Holiness, Archimandrite Calinic I. Popp Șerboianu, a sympathiser of Gypsies, with a perfect knowledge of the Gypsy language, history and customs, believed that by approaching me he would get new sources of Gypsy riddles, poems and songs. I confess that I could not help him too much, because our Gypsy minority assimilated so much into the native population that it is about to lose its language and customs. I have even reproached him for writing in his book “Les Tziganes” that only 300,000 Gypsies live in Romania, while in reality they count up to 800,000. And the author, blushing, answered:
– I did not want to show that Romania has the most Gypsies in Europe […]
As a Gypsy, I am grateful to his holiness Archimandrite Calinic Șerboianu for his interest in the Gypsies of Europe and for the occasion he gave me to discuss with him for two hours in High Gypsy language.
It is a pity that the publishing houses to which he addressed did not agree to publish the “Les Tziganes” in Romanian, for I am sure the volumes would sell and enrich the Romanian literature with a very interesting work.
G. A. Lăzurică. (Adevărul literar și artistic, 1933b, p. 8).
This review was published just after the first meeting between the two leaders of the Roma movement and, potentially, prior to the official setting up of AGȚR. While there had been some organisational activities in mid-April 1933, immediately after the first meeting, nothing had yet been formal or official. The review reveals several elements concerning the relationship that would develop between these two key figures in the Roma emancipation movement in Romania. Firstly, Lăzurică points out to the limited interest the Romanian press had in the book published by Șerboianu. This is undoubtedly true, as one of the few reviews of the book was also a critical one (Iorga, 1934, pp. 68–69). Another point in the review also concerns the usage of the term ‘Gypsies’ instead of ‘Roma’. As mentioned above, Lăzurică would eventually plea for the usage of the latter as opposed to the former when referring to the Roma community in Romania and published several articles connecting his argument to alleged historical reasons (Timpul, 1937a, p. 1). Yet, at this point, it seems Lăzurică had not yet fully formed his view on this matter (or expressed it in this manner). Moreover, he had also published another article in the same newspaper, Adevărul literar şi artistic (1933a, pp. 5–6), titled When the Watchmen Guarded, where he openly declared himself a ‘Gypsy’ and stated:
I’m not ashamed to say that I am a Gypsy, much like so many great musicians and industrialists from Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Italy, who are of the same race as me.” (Ibid., p. 5).
Furthermore, in the article above, Lăzurică appears grateful to Șerboianu for his interest expressed in ‘the Gypsies’. In other words, at this stage, in April 1933, G. A. Lăzurică did not yet have any problems with Șerboianu not being a ‘Gypsy’ or using the term ‘Gypsies’ in his work. In fact, on May 3, 1933, a provisional committee of the future General Association of the Gypsies in Romania was set up, having Șerboianu as president and G. A. Lăzurică as Secretary.
It was only a few months later, in September-October 1933, that Lăzurică began attacking Șerboianu for being a non-Roma, and gradually adopted the term ‘Roma’ in the publications he would put out. In September 1933, Lăzurică also started his own General Union of Roma in Romania with the support of the Romanian Orthodox Church and began attacking Șerboianu as being a traitor of the Orthodox church.
What is also relevant here is that, seemingly, during this first meeting between G. A. Lăzurică and Calinic I. Popp Șerboianu, some snippets of a possible future conflict could nevertheless be detected. This could be seen, for instance, in the different views regarding the number of Roma present in Romania. In the Les Tsiganes, Șerboianu included a total amount of 300,000 Gypsies which were said to be living in Romania while Lăzurică reproached him, arguing that the number was much higher, estimated by him to be at around 800,000. In reply, Șerboianu admitted that he did not want to “advertise Romania” as the country in Europe that was most populated by Gypsies. Whether this slight disagreement was part of the conflict that would emerge, or just a small contrasting viewpoint, is not certain. However, what we do know is that the relationship between the two would soon shift from one of collaboration to one of active opposition. Once again, these dynamics are important as they also reflect the nature of the relationship between the different leaders of the Roma movement in the country during the interwar period, as well as reflecting the shifting political context of the time and the shifting loyalties embedded within it.
The actual initial break up between the two leaders of the Roma movement is also unclear, as the explanations given vary to different degrees: from Lăzurică rejecting the term ‘Gypsies’ as derogatory, to Lăzurică calling Șerboianu a non-Roma, to Lăzurică calling Șerboianu a traitor of the Orthodox faith and attempting to convert Roma to Catholicism. The first reason is quite unlikely given that, as mentioned above, Lăzurică himself had used exclusively ‘Gypsy’ prior to that moment, he argued to be proud of being a ‘Gypsy’, talked about ‘Gypsies’ in his writings until the founding of the UGRR (for further details see Matei, 2012, pp. 57–62). The second reasoning was the argument that Șerboianu was not a Gypsy. However, this was very unlikely to be the case as his ethnicity did not seem to be an issue at the start of the relationship between the two. In fact, Lăzurică was clearly aware of Șerboianu’s non-Roma background when the AGȚR was first formed, as can easily be noted also in the review published above. Moreover, Șerboianu’s non-Roma background did not prevent Șerboianu from acting as a president with Lăzurică as Secretary in the organisation they had formed and did not seem to pose any problems for Lăzurică at the time. In other words, Șerboianu’s non-Roma background did not seem to be an imposition or any form of impediment at the beginning of their partnership and it is highly unlikely for this to have later become the actual reason for their split. The third argument was that Popp Șerboianu, who had previously been an Orthodox archimandrite, was suspected of having converted to the Greek-Catholic Church. This is interesting to note both in terms of Lăzurică’s subsequent affiliations and actions and in terms of the importance (both symbolical and political) of the Orthodox Church within the country. The accusations thus arose that Șerboianu had formed AGȚR in order to convert Orthodox Gypsies (the majority of them were Orthodox by birth, much as the case of majority Romanians) to Catholicism. This latter reason might be the most likely one, as the previous ones seem to contradict Lăzurică’s earlier positions.
In fact, as it became clearer later, Lăzurică would be supported in his endeavours of establishing a new Roma organisation, the General Union of Roma in Romania, by the Orthodox Church, who wanted to prevent the conversion of Gypsies to Greek Catholicism, while also promoting a form of missionary work among Roma belonging to different faiths. In this way, the Orthodox Church hoped not only to stop an eventual conversion of Roma to Catholicism but actively promote conversion of Roma to Orthodoxism (for further details see Matei, 2010, pp. 159–173). During the summer of 1933, Lăzurică’s role within AGȚR seems to have diminished drastically as he was no longer mentioned among its leaders neither by press nor the police reports (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 21, pp. 94–96). Lăzurică would soon part with this association and set up the General Union of Roma in Romania (UGRR), of which he would become the general president. Lăzurică also took the title of ‘Voivode of Roma in Romania’ (i.e., leader of all Roma in Romania), through which he wanted to highlight his overall control and represention over Roma in the country. According to archival materials, during this time, G. A. Lăzurică lived in Bucharest city (Sârbească street, number 8), where he rented a single room, which would also become the main headquarters of the General Union of the Roma in Romania (Ibid., doc 29, p. 109).
The relationship between Lăzurică and Șerboianu most likely broke down because Lăzurică realised that Șerboianu was no longer an Orthodox archimandrite and, therefore, could not aid in his aims to attract both financial and other forms of support from what was arguably one of the strongest institutions in the country: the Orthodox Church. Once again, this is important to note given the context of the time and the ways in which the support of key institutions was instrumental for Lăzurică in order to achive his aims and goals within the Roma civic emancipation movement. Arguments such as ‘Roma’ versus ‘Gypsy’, or the non-Roma origin of Șerboianu were very likely to have been mere justifications used later by Lăzurică to weaken Șerboianu’s position or reputation and not, in effect, the actual cause of severance.
Lăzurică, in turn, would approach the Orthodox Church which he warned that the former archimandrite intended to use the organisation to convert the Gypsies (mostly Orthodox) to Catholicism. Lăzurică also seems to have had a good intuition because the Orthodox Church reacted quickly, appealing to Lăzurică as an Orthodox alternative. For instance, already on September 1, 1933, Lăzurică had a discussion with the members of the Central Church Council, where he asked for support to hold the UGRR congress: printing manifestos and statutes, etc. (Țara Noastră, 1937l, pp. 3–4). A few weeks later, at the end of September 1933, Lăzurică became again visible when the press recorded the appearance of a General Union of Roma in Romania, a rival of AGȚR, which also organised meetings and committees in different districts of Bucharest and announced their own congress in Câmpul Moșilor, on October 8, 1933 (Tempo!, 1933b, p. 3)
As mentioned above, most of the UGRR program copied that of AGȚR (the only notable differences being the emphasis on ‘Roma’ instead of ‘Gypsy’ and the renewed attachment to the Orthodox Church, doubled by sustained attacks on Șerboianu). On the occasion of such gatherings, the Roma were advised “to expel from their midst any emissary of the priest Șerboianu, who is neither a Gypsy nor an archimandrite” (Tempo!, 1933c, p. 2). It is thus that the relationship between the two was not only central to the establishment of the first Roma organisation in the country but also instrumental in the shaping of Lăzurică’s later actions and work within the UGRR.
Furthermore, in a very short period of time, the movement organised by Lăzurică proved a formidable competitor as he managed to get better resources and support than AGȚR. The Patriarchy helped Lăzurică morally, but also materially, by printing 5,000 manifestos announcing the Roma congress of October 8, 1933, and covering the rent of the hall. In addition, the Church intervened with the authorities to ensure that they would give the green light to Lăzurică’s demonstrations while obstructing Șerboianu’s actions. For example, on October 5, 1933, the Patriarchate recognised Lăzurică as president of the UGRR and recommended that the Police allow the Roma congress convened by Lăzurică.
As mentioned above, with the move from AGȚR to UGRR, the shift in Lăzurică’s views concerning the usage of the term ‘Roma’ instead of ‘Gypsies’ also appear to have come centre stage. Lăzurică’s views concerning the issue of labelling can also be seen as a pretext in his criticism of Șerboianu, as, from what can be seen above, Lăzurică had also used the term ‘Gypsy’ before and Șerboianu had also used the term ‘Roma’ in his appeal from August 27, 1933. Below is a reproduction of key segments from this overview of the UGRR and the preparations for a general congress, which reveal the aims and goals of the UGRR as well as the general lines by which the Roma movement led by Lăzurică (as well as, later, by Niculescu) would be shaped:
Roma brothers,
We are addressing you not with the name “Gypsies,” because this is a false and mocking name, but with our true name of “Roma,” meaning people, lovers of freedom, dances and music – a gift that God has given you. This should have been known by the priest who calls himself “archimandrite” and “president” of the General Association of Gypsies in Romania, titles obtained without right and by usurpation, for which he was expelled from the association and the church services, being accused of Catholicism and enemy of our Orthodox religion. It’s about CALINIC ȘERBOIANU.
Roma brothers,
We are almost a million souls scattered all over the country, in villages and towns, fulfilling completely all civic duties, that is, we pay taxes, we do the military service, we have well-defined trades, we are assimilated in the Romanian element, we speak the same language and preserve the same Christian-Orthodox religion. We are the keepers of the Romanian songs, dances, ballads and customs, as hardworking and passionate chroniclers and collectors.
We are patriots and faithful to the dynasty, we are not traitors of country, we do not desert our duty, we do not pact with the enemies of the country, and we do not let ourselves be influenced by extremist currents that are harmful to the Romanian state. […]
We do not intend to build a new political party, because, unfortunately, there are enough already and they multiply like mushrooms after the rain.
We want, however, to be united so that we would be able to ask the ruling organs for our righteous and legal desiderata, without great sacrifices and without harming our country, by understanding to take part in tribulations, as well as in joy, together with our Romanian fellow citizens. […]
That is why we urge you to participate in THE FIRST LARGE CONGRESS OF ROMA, which will take place irrevocably in ILEANA HALL in Câmpul Moşilor, in BUCHAREST, on October 8, current year, at 10 a.m.
Come to this Congress in the greatest possible number and with the courage of a person who has nothing to impute, as citizens eager for a new life, facing the brink of difficult times. […]
Our congress still has a purpose. It gives you the opportunity to unite in one voice, in one heartbeat, to manifest ourselves for the Country, King and Patriarch; to welcome the Romanian press and all those good men who have encouraged and helped us in our struggle.
God bless us in this fight and punish the traitors of our cause.
We ask that all communications and membership applications be sent to the address below:
The General Union of Roma in Romania, headquartered in Bucharest, 8, Sârbească Street.
President, G. A. Lăzărescu-Lăzurică.
Secretary, Florica Constantinescu. (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc 27, pp. 106–107).
The above letter succintly introduces not only the main line of criticism Lăzurică had brought towards his previous ally but, quite clearly, the general aims of the UGRR in presenting Roma as faithful Orthodox Christians, loyal to King and Country and full citizens of the national state. In fact, all of these characteristics would become part of the central motto within the Roma movement in the country. More specifically, the emphasis on being a loyal citizen (tax-paying ones, who had sacrificed themselves in the military service of the country and “assimilated” to the Romanian element) is relevant as these are the lines that would shape the overall Roma movement in the country. Likewise, the argument of not being a political (or minority) party was also crucial in the work of Roma intellectuals of the time, including that of Lăzurică, and would be reproduced by the subsequent president of the UGRR, Gheorghe Niculescu.
The congress mentioned above is also notable as it was advertised in several Romanian newspapers (Tempo!, 1933a, p. 1; 1933b, p. 3; 1933c, p. 2; Universul, 1933c, p. 2), as well as abroad, as being one of its kind among Roma/Gypsies in the world. In reality, this congress was smaller in nature than initially presented and organised with the aid of the Romanian Orthodox Church. The Congress of Romanian Roma (national Congress) took place on October 8, 1933, in Bucharest (Ileana Hall), convened and chaired by G. A. Lăzurică (Nastasă & Varga, doc 28, p.107), The October congress also adopted the Union’s program, aimed both at the social awakening of Roma in Romania and at the improvement of their overall social status with a focus on “cultural, social and spiritual aims”. Among the cultural aims were those of organising cultural events and artistic conferences. Among the spiritual aims, the focus was placed on the strengthening of the Orthodox identity among Roma compared to other faiths in the country (especially Greek Catholic and Catholic), with the goal of baptising children in the Orthodox faith, the encouragement of nomads to marry legally, etc. However, the most detailed ones were those in the realm of the ‘social’, wherein a series of measures were proposed, many of which copied those initially laid out in the program of AGȚR (Ibid., doc. 21, pp. 96–99). This is, again, unsurprising, especially given Lăzurică’s previous association with Șerboianu.
In short, the focus would be placed on collaboration with Romanian authorities to establish institutions for the Roma, including a kindergarten, cultural house, school, library, maternity hospital, refuge centre for those newly arrives in the capital city, which would all be free of charge. In addition to this, it claimed to seek registering all Roma musicians as artisans, obtain permission for nomadic Gypsies to settle, obtain travel grants for Roma to attend international Roma meetings and conferences, etc. These all point to the means by which the program aimed to strengthen the Roma identity of its community while, at the same time, building on the nation-state institutions it mirrored, and collaborating with national authorities in this respect (Klímová-Alexander, 2005a, p. 170).
In what concerns the international aspect of the program and the potential for international collaboration, especially the focus placed on attending international congresses, it is worth noting that in November 1933, some authors and press materials point to the alleged organisation of a second international congress with delegates from several countries, including Poland, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia. However, such a congress never actually took place. In effect, the press coverage of the alleged “international” congress contributed to the construction of a myth of international collaboration when, in reality, the focus on the latter was not a priority for either the Union or other Roma organisations of the time (Ibid., p. 172).
However, despite succeeding in organising the first Roma congress of its type, in October 1933, and the efforts supported by the Orthodox church to convert and baptise Roma, Lăzurică was overthrown from the leadership of the UGRR a few months later, on May 30, by Gheorghe Niculescu, a flower salesman, who would go on to establish a new organisation, the AUGRR (The Association General Union of Roma in Romania). While their names are almost identical (the latter having the addition of the term ‘Association’ to its title) they are entirely distinct entities, with the AUGRR gaining legal recognition. The reasons for Lăzurică’s overthrow are still unclear. Among other things, one of the pretexes concerned Lăzurică’s Roma ethnicity. However, much as was the case of Șerboianu and Plopșor, the issue of ethnicity was a mere pretext, as the actual reasons for the overthrow were most likely the ambitions of individual leaders. Furthermore, though he allegedly resigned from his function (Nastasă & Varga, 2001 doc. 46, pp. 131–133; Williams, 2007, p. 23), this resignation was forced by the Niculescu brothers, who would become the leaders of the newly founded AUGRR.
Throughout his period working with UGRR, Lăzurică’s relationship with the Orthodox church is also worth noting. As mentioned above, the latter appears to have helped Lăzurică not only in organising the Congress (by providing financial support) but also in solidifying his position as a representative of Roma in the country. At the same time, the Orthodox church seems to have used Lăzurică as a means of reaching Roma communities across the country, with the purpose of converting non-Orthodox Roma to Orthodoxism. Lăzurică even gained a so-called ‘missionary card’ from the Orthodox church, which he used in his trips in Transylvania, in October 1934, and also helped in the process of baptism of Roma in that area. (Achim, 2004, p. 156; Matei, 2010, pp. 165–166, 169).
Following the departure from UGRR, Lăzurică remained active as a Roma leader in various forms. He continued to organise smaller scale meetings and rallies throughout 1934–1935 and began a quest for researching the Indian ancestry of Roma, which he would eventually publicise in the newspapers Timpul and Țara Noastră.
Furthermore, in 1935, after his departure from UGRR, there are several mentions of his name in the international press. Some of them point out, for instance, that he came in contact with Roma leaders from abroad (more specifically, England and US) for the purpose of organising an expedition to India, in order to trace back the origins of the Roma (Le Journal, 1934, p. 4; Slovenski narod, 1934, p. 5). News of this alleged planned expedition were spread across several international newspapers, in which Lăzurică’s name also appeared. One such article appeared in the newspaper Slovenski narod (Slovenian People), titled “But would the Gypsies get their Palestine?”. In it, the intended expedition was presented alongside the discussion of the so-called ‘zgripți’ as the ancestors of the Roma. Below is a translation of the above-mentioned article:
No one has yet been able to pinpoint the exact origin of the Gypsy race. The most widespread is the notion that gypsies originated in India. Only some Gypsies have managed to assimilate in such a way that they do not differ from other people neither in appearance nor in way of life. Most of the gypsies, however, are wandering all their lives around the world. Many countries, especially in Europe, are keenly interested in the Gypsy problem. Various attempts have already been made to prepare the gypsies to settle permanently. In particular, Romania made every effort to tie its Gypsies to the land, but all in vain. Gypsies consistently reject the efforts of civilised countries, they do not want to hear anything about permanently settling among civilised people.
Recently, various organisations seeking to improve the lives of Gypsies in England, Poland, Italy and America decided to send an expert commission to India, where, between the Indus and Ganges rivers, is the original homeland of the Gypsies. The delegation includes the American Frank Felow, the Romanian [sic] Jacob Kurky, the Gypsy Lăzurică and one Englishman and one Pole, who have not yet been named. The commission first goes to the province of Zgriptzi, where the cradle of the gypsy race is supposed to be. There [the Commission] meets the scholar prof. Valdi Kanjo, who speaks Sanskrit. Kanja is in the service of the city of Calcutta, but he was on holiday.
With his help, they hope to find in either Buddhist temples or Brahmanical monasteries sources that would explain the life of the ancient nomads of the said province. All that is known for the time being is that the gypsies emigrated to Europe and Egypt when they were expelled by the Mongol princes Tamerlan and Genghis Khan. The commission also visits the province of Malabor, where residents still speak a Gypsy-like language. The data collected by this commission will serve as the basis for extensive work in which the issue of Gypsies will be addressed from all sides. Not only the origin of the gypsies, but also their language, and history will be presented to us in a completely different light. Gypsy Lăzurică lives permanently in Bucharest as a leader of Gypsy bands. He recently told reporters: “You will see that the Gypsies will also find their Palestine. (Slovenski narod, 1934, p. 5).
It is worth highlighting that the above article contains several unfounded or unverified claims, which could not be found in the Romanian sources but are nevertheless interesting as they reflect the depiction of the Romanian Roma leader outside the country. One, and perhaps the crucial one, is the idea of finding the origin of Roma/Gypsies, through the combined efforts of an international expedition. This somewhat seems to emphasise Lăzurică’s interest for a potential international collaboration, which was not necessarily a common feature of the overall Roma movement in Romania. However, no such expedition took place and Romanian sources do not seem to point out to any such collaboration having taken place. The source of the information thus is unclear, but it reveals the ways in which news content was being reproduced from one publication to another, without clear verification. The second one, according to these sources, concerns the myth of Egyptian ancestry, which attributes to Lăzurică a claim that “the Gypsies as a people existed during the time when the pharaohs ruled over Egypt” (Glas Naroda, 1936, p. 3). However, in the articles Lăzurică actually published in the Romanian Roma press, which can be seen below, Lăzurică’s emphasis on an Egyptian ancestry are more nuanced, where he places his emphasis primarily on India, and where he connects his emphasis on the history of the Roma with the focus placed on changing the terminology used to refer to those he previously named ‘Gypsies’. The third one concerns the issue of ‘motherland’ or the idea of finding one’s own Palestine which, in effect, brings with it the concept of establishing one’s own nation state, an aspect which could also not be found in the articles Lăzurică authored or published in the Romanian Roma press. Nevertheless, such information seems to have been spread and reproduced in several foreign press articles, including one article published in the newspaper of Slovenes in America, Glas Naroda:
The Romanian Gypsy leader and poet Lăzurică is devoted to the idea of uniting his compatriots into a nation. The core of this nation is said to be the 500,000 to 700,000 Gypsies living today in Romania, the country with the lArgeșt number of this nomadic people in the world. Although Romanian Gypsies still live their free live today, there is a big change in their leadership. The old chiefs no longer stand at the head of their individual kin, but intellectuals. One of these gypsy intellectuals is George Lăzurică. He is said to be a well-known poet and journalist, and he intends to publish a Gypsy newspaper under the name “Neamul Romilor”, which is going to be published this autumn. This paper is supposed to be the voice of all the Gypsies in the world and will urge them to be aware of their tribe again. According to Lăzurică, the Gypsies as a people existed during the time when the pharaohs ruled over Egypt. (Glas naroda, 1936, p. 3).
Once again, the article above contains several factual inaccuracies, specifically concerning claims attributed to Lăzurică himself which are difficult to verify when comparing this to his actual writings and his activities (for instance, among other things, he is mentioned as a poet). Furthermore, in some international articles there is also mention of Lăzurică’s intent of publishing a newspaper titled Neamul Romilor (The Gypsy People), potentially mirroring or countering the newspaper Glasul Romilor which was successfully published by the AUGRR under the leadership of Gheorghe Niculescu. For instance, one issue of the Belfast Telegraph, from May 18, 1936, stated:
The first gipsy newspaper in the world would be published in Bukarest (Roumania), this summer.
George A. Lazurica, the Romany author and poet, will be its editor. The paper will be called “Neamul Romilor” (Romany People) and will be written in the gipsy language.
A strong race consciousness has lately become manifest among the 250,000 gipsies living in Roumania. Hardly a month elapses without some Romany Congress taking place in one part of the country or another. “Gipsies of the world unite” is the slogan of these assemblies, in which barefooted, swarthy delegates vehemently protest against motor-car importers, “who ruin the horse trade,” or against jazz bands and wireless “which take away the bread from the mouths of gipsy musicians.”
The picturesque, wandering, merry-go-lucky gipsy is gradually being replaced by a more politically minded and intellectual type. (Belfast Telegraph, 1936, no page number).
As can be seen from the above, international newspaper items such as these seem to comprise a mixture of information (sometimes factually unverified) and mystification concerning the Roma civic emancipation movement in the country, which also led to exaggeration and sensationalism, an aspect which is not unique to the Romanian case (see, for instance, Poland). Even the number of Roma/Gypsies living in the countries sometimes appeared as conflicting (500,000 to 700,000 Gypsies in one source, and 250,000 in another). At the same time, these items were imbued with almost nostalgic romanticised views and disparate representations of the shifting times, with arguments of the “picturesque, wandering, merry-go-lucky gipsy” as being gradually replaced in the process of modernisation by a new emerging Roma elite, one which is seen as being more politically minded and intellectually oriented. In reality, the Roma movement itself during this time seemed to have moved little beyond the leaders of the movement, including Lăzurică. Furthermore, the newspaper Neamul Romilor mentioned in several international press articles (quoted above) never fully materialised (as far as we know) and there is no evidence of its actual existence. Likewise, apart from some sporadic articles concerning Roma folklore, none of the Roma newspapers in Romania were published fully in Romani language, contrasting the alleged intention of publishing Neamul Romilor “in the gipsy language”. This may have been the case because the audience of the newspapers seemed to have been both majority Romanian and Roma citizens and because it would potentially have contradicted Roma leaders’ statements that Roma did not want to participate in so-called minority politics. Nevertheless, the very mention of the intention to establish the newspaper Neamul Romilor is important in showcasing the main outlets through which Roma leaders’ ideas and intentions were being disseminated in the country. In fact, as will be detailed below, Lăzurică would soon re-join forces with Șerboianu and begin publishing sporadically in two new Roma newspapers: Timpul and Țara Noastră.
It is thus worth emphasising that, while interesting, the details presented throughout the international press of the time, which coincided with Lăzurică’s departure from UGRR, during which little information can be found in the Romanian press, often seemed to offer incomplete or incorrect information. For instance, no such expedition to India as the one related above seems to have taken place and the actual extent to which Lăzurică collaborated with international organisations remains unknown. Nevertheless, the recycled information appeared in several international news outlets, relfecting the ways in which Lăzurică’s name (perhaps more than those of other leaders) seems to have been known outside the borders of the country, even if the news items presented mentioning him were more in the lines of a curiosity concerning international affairs (i.e. these articles often appeared in columns such as “news from abroad”). At the same time, albeit in different forms, Lăzurică’s theories and suppositions, as well as his interest in the history of the Roma, would later be reflected in his own publications, most notably after his reconciliation with Șerboianu.
In this specific regard, perhaps the culmination of his historical theories concerning the origin of the Roma can be found in an article published in 1938, in the newspaper Timpul, and titled Ce trebuie să știe Romii (What Should the Roma Know). It is here where most of his ideas would find its space and readership, and it is here where they are most clearly reflected. Given the importance of this article in showcasing Lăzurică’s overall approach, below are some of the key segments from it:
[…] Two thousand years before Christ, some so-called Indo-Germanic (Aryan) peoples living in the Northern part of the Himalayas (the highest mountains on the face of the Earth) and next to the Oxus River Basin in Asia, have crossed those mountains and invaded today’s India, coming across other peoples, scattering them, destroying them, or mingling with them. Among those Indo-German invading peoples who spoke a similar language, so they were related, there were also the wandering people, Zgripții, the true ancestors of today’s Roma. […]
The Zgripți did not want to live a sedentary life, nor to listen to the power and laws of the brahmans and the kings of India, nor to receive their religion. The Zgripți lived a nomadic life, walking in the land between the Indus and the Ganges from place to place, raising goat flocks, horses, hunting through the forests and fishing through rivers and lakes. From the goats they used milk, flesh and hair from which women worked tents and clothing for the body. Horses were used for horseback riding and horse racing. From hunted wild animals they used their fur to serve as warm clothing and bedding. Fruits and fish they found in abundance. The Zgripți did not need anything. They spent their spare time singing, dancing and training for fighting and riding. That is why they despised the Indian kings and brahmani. […]
WHY WE CALL OURSELVES ROMA AND NOT ȚIGANI? […]
They remembered that in their Sanskrit Indian language, you call people as: Romi. The word “Rom” has a wider meaning: a superior man, a lover of freedom, of songs and dances. The Rom word also derives from the Sanskrit name of “Ramajana”, meaning the “conquering man”, a hero in the Sanskrit mother literature, and there is even a heroic epic called Ramajana. From the word “athingan”, by derivation, other European peoples have also adapted the name they give to us. […]
CONCLUSIONS
We, the Roma, are of the Aryan race (Indo-German). We have lived freely in previous times, possessing a rich and wide land. We had brave leaders under whom we had victorious wars with countless peoples. We did not come to Europe with a treacherous thought, as invaders, but forced by circumstance, by a tragic destiny. In the countries where we have settled, we have become assimilated with the ethnic (native) element. We do not betray the country, do not make pacts with its enemies, do not dig at its foundation. We believe we are of use to the state, through our sheer number, through our craft and our musical talent.
[…] To our pride, the Roma in Romania are the first ones to have raised the flag of reawakening of their people, following the movement that was started by the one who writes these lines, the only one who has researched the old writings of Herodotus, the father of all historians, until today, researching the documents of the monasteries, the documents from the Romanian Academy and the State Archives, to know the history and origin of the Roma people. We, the Roma, speak the Sanskrit language, one of the oldest and richest languages, from which the Slavic languages, German, Latin and Greek also come, as evidenced by the philologists and gypsylorists: Panini, Hasdeu, Pittard, Yatson, Gaster and Tesleff. We number 950,000 souls in Romania. In the entire world there are 16,000,000 Roma. From our nation came bishops, ministers, professors, lawyers, engineers, journalists and generals […] Come Roma, let us rise from darkness, to illuminate ourselves through a cultural, social and moral action. Follow my plea, support me in the fight that I started for you. (Timpul, 1938a, p. 2).
The article above, published in 1938, is important as it reveals some of Lăzurică’s crystallised views concerning both the origin of the Roma and his justification for the usage of the term ‘Roma’ instead of ‘Gypsies’ (or țigani). It is unclear when or how his views concerning the zgripți were formed and solidified. Yet, despite its clear mystification, the relevance of Lăzurică’s theory lies both in the ways in which he had tried to create an origin story that would present Roma as a people with a long standing and prestigious history, as fighters and conquerors, rather than as subjects. Furthermore, Lăzurică used this theory as a means of arguing for the shift in the terminological usage referring to his community, which had started in 1933, after his initial split from Șerboianu and his work within the UGRR. At this stage, in 1938, he had already solidified his position for the shift of the term ‘Gypsies’ to ‘Roma’ and the discussion of history was also a means of highlighting his argument.
As an example of this, he compared the ways in which Romanians highlighted their connection to Dacians and the Romans in pinpointing the necessity of understanding and using one term over another:
We cannot accept being called anything other than Roma, because only we can know our true name. Romanians have never accepted being called ‘Vlachs’, ‘Wallachians’, ‘Deliormans’, ‘Bogdanals’, ‘Basarabs’. They have always said they are Romanians, descendants of the Dacians and the Romans. The Germans do not accept being called ‘Nemți’ or ‘Teutons’. The French no longer admit to being called ‘Gauls’. Hungarians do not admit to being called ‘Huns’ or ‘Mongols’. The English do not admit to being called ‘Saxons’ or ‘Normans’. Nor do the Turks admit to being called ‘Osmantâi’ or ‘Saracini’. How then can we accept a false, insulting name? (Timpul, 1938a, p. 2).
As for his alliance with Șerboianu, while the exact context for the reconciliation remains unclear, what is known is that around the summer of 1937, Lăzurică and Șerboianu would rejoin forces. As Șerboianu’s portrait also reveals, the relationship between the two leaders of the Roma movement in Romania had undoubtedly been turbulent. At the same time, it would seem that the reconciliation may also have been brought up by their new common rival, represented this time by the AUGRR, led by Gheorghe Niculescu. The latter was undoubtedly the stronger and more influential one, being supported (financially and symbolically) not only by the Romanian Orthodox Church, as mentioned above, but also by the ruling party in the country at the time, the National Liberal Party (PNL). Thus, it was in 1937, an electoral year, that Lăzurică saw new opportunity and strength in collaborating with Șerboianu, wherein both became affiliated and supported by the opposition party, the National Christian Party (PNC), led by Octavian Goga and A. C. Cuza. In the same summer of 1937, the two political leaders also provided space for disseminating Lăzurică’s ideas, within a special weekly edition of the newspaper Țara Noastră. These incentives were not, however, without their own demands, as Octavian Goga and A. C. Cuza would rely on the two leaders for their own support in gaining Roma votes for PNC.
It is in this context that one must understand the subsequent arguments borrowed by Lăzurică and Șerboianu in their articles published in the newspaper Țara Noastră and, more specifically, the highly nationalistic and often anti-Semitic rhetoric of their narrative. It is also thus that, alongside presenting Roma as loyal citizens of the state, as Christians and as entirely willful subjects to Crown and country, Roma were presented as not being a minority, a position which often contrasted with those of other minority groups in the country, such as the Jews, the Hungarians and the Bulgarians.
Due to financial restraints, and despite the support from Goga and Cuza, the newspaper Țara Noastră would only be published in five issues throughout the summer of 1937, with the last issue being released in September of the same year. Nevertheless, Lăzurică continued to be involved within the electoral campaign of the National Christian Party throughout the 1937/1938 season and carried on his work on behalf of the party, primarily by organising meetings encouraging Roma to vote for PNC, oftentimes connected and embedded with nationalistic and anti-Semitic content.
His activity after this point remains unclear and information about Lăzurică’s fate in the post Second World War context is unknown. Nevertheless, Lăzurică had undoubtedly played a key role within the shaping of the Roma civic emancipation movement in interwar Romania, both in terms of organising the Roma community itself and in terms of the political pragmatism he seemed to display in order to achieve his aims. He appeared to have been sensitive to the changing and fluctuating political climate of the time as well as to the important role played by the Romanian Orthodox Church in gaining legitimacy of representation as a Roma leader. It is thus that we must understand both his initial breakup with Șerboianu, and his later reconcilliation, as well as his seemingly shifting political views. Throughout his time within the UGRR, he was also closely supported and connected to the Romanian Orthodox Church, acting as a mediator and as a central person in the conversion of non-Orthodox Roma to Orthodoxism. At the same time, with the split from UGRR (or, rather, his forced exit), he displayed critical views both of the Orthodox Church and the National Liberal Party, which were key supporters of the new AUGRR, led by Gheorghe Niculescu. His subsequent reconciliation with Șerboianu, as well as his new political affiliation with the National Christian Party, his seemingly anti-semitic and nationalistic rhetoric, can thus be understood also as manifestations of the particular fluctuating position he had in relation to the overall Roma movement in the country, as well as his intention to solidify his legitimacy as a leader of the Roma community in Romania. Finally, while there remains only sporadic information about his family, his wife, Marta Lăzurică, would also occupy a role (albeit minor) in the Roma civic emancipation movement in the country, supporting her husband in many of his own activities. Her fragmentary portrait (also presented in this chapter) reveals some snipptets of the Lăzurică family biography and the involvement of other members of the Lăzurică family in his political moves.
G. A. Lăzurică’s importance as a key figure within the Roma civic emancipation movement in Romania during the interwar period can also be seen in the fact that his name and work appeared (even if sporadically) in several international newspapers. While the information presented in those news items is contestable in terms of context and factuality, they are nevertheless useful source material in pointing out the cross-border reach of some of the names within the Roma emancipation movement in the country, as well as the ways in which the latter was being represented within the international press. Through all this, G. A. Lăzurică constitutes a key figure within the Roma civic emancipation movement in Romania, and his name remains intrinsically connected to the shaping of Roma activism in the country.
Gheorghe Niculescu
Petre Matei
Gheorghe Niculescu (? – ?) was the president of the most important Roma association in Romania in the first half of the 20th century. A successful businessman, he founded Asociația Uniunea Generală a Romilor din România – AUGRR (Association General Union of Roma in Romania) in 1934, which published its own newspaper Glasul Romilor between 1934–1941. Compared to other Roma leaders, his involvement in the Roma movement (1933–1948) was by far the longest. During this period, Gh. Niculescu witnessed several changes of the political regime, each with its own challenges: 1) democracy (1933–1937); 2) royal dictatorship (1938–1940); 3) fascist and military dictatorship during WWII including here the Roma deportations to Transnistria, and 4) the communist regime, beginning with 1945.
Interestingly, little is known about him and his whereabouts, when and where he was born, what he did before embarking on the Roma movement in the fall of 1933 or what happened to him after his organisation was forbidden by the communist authorities. According to G. A. Lăzurică, one of Niculescu’s collaborators, and a later rival of his, he was born into a humble family of Roma smiths from the rural commune of Șerban Vodă close to Bucharest, and worked as an itinerant farrier under the name of Gheorghe R. Niculae. Later, both Gheorghe and his brother, Niculae R. Niculae, also an important figure in the interwar Roma movement, changed their names into Gheorghe and Niculae Niculescu (Ţara Noastră, 1937m, p. 5). Gheorghe Niculescu became a successful merchant in the lucrative flower business. He had a flowershop La doi trandafiri (The Two Roses) situated in a good area of Bucharest (Piața Sf. Anton Nr. 10) and traded flowers both in retail and wholesale. Although illiterate, his business success was impressive and long-standing, which proves pragmatism and the capacity of surrounding himself with collaborators, qualities which would prove useful later.
Compared to other Roma leaders (Șerboianu and Lăzurică) he became involved in the Roma movement relatively late, in November 1933, as a committee member of UGRR led by G. A. Lăzurică, where he was accompanied by his brother, Niculae Niculescu. More precisely, on November 16, 1933, on the occasion of the registration of the UGRR statute at the Ilfov Tribunal, the two Niculescu brothers had already important positions within UGRR: Gh. Niculescu was one of the Vice-Presidents, while his brother, Niculae Niculescu, was General Cashier (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 38, p. 118). With the exception of Lăzurică, most of the members of the central committee were recruited from among Roma entrepreneurs and traders, businessmen, etc. Although later, out of the desire to minimise the role of the Niculescu brothers, Lăzurică declared that he had met the latter only in the spring of 1934, documents from mid-November prove an earlier involvement. Moreover, Lăzurică had met the Niculescu brothers long before and worked for them for about one year (writing their commercial correspondance). Their relationship was, therefore, more complex (Ţara Noastră, 1937j, p. 5). Their co-operation can be probably explained by the need for material support felt by Lăzurică in the Roma organisation endeavour.
In the beginning, the Niculescu brothers kept a low profile. They did not appear in the press during the electoral campaign of December 1933 or during the electoral rallies organised by Lăzurică in favour of the National Liberal Party (PNL). And yet, the two began to stand out, playing an increasingly important role in the UGRR steering committee that made decisions on important issues. For example, on March 2, 1934, Lazăr Naftanailă from Calbor-Făgăraș, the president of the Înfrățirea Neorustică (Neorustic Brotherhood) society, signed an act of affiliation with the UGRR, which in exchange recognised him as the ‘President of the Roma in the Transylvanian Counties’. The signatories from UGRR were only a few members of the central committee, namely: President Lăzurică, First Vice-President Apostol Matei, Vice-President Gh. Niculescu and his brother, Niculae Niculescu who, in addition to being the general cashier, was also the General Secretary (replacing Nicolae Gh. Lache who had held this position in mid-November 1933). (Neamul Țigănesc, 1934e, p. 3). In addition, the two Niculescu brothers insisted that Lăzuriză (already recognised by the Orthodox Church as a missionary) obtain missionary cards for them as well (which he managed to do at the beginning of 1934). Very few members of the UGRR leadership benefited from these documents issued by the Orthodox Church.
Shortly thereafter, the relations between Lăzurică and Niculescu deteriorated to the point of rupture with the latter taking over the leadership of UGRR. As can also be seen from the portrait of Lăzurică, in this chapter, the reasons invoked by the two differ. Lăzurică claimed that the Niculescu brothers could not stand being subordinated to him, especially since they were richer, and once they obtained their missionary cards and gained more influence, started to undermine him. All culminated with death threats against Lăzurică who was forced to resign from his position of president of UGRR at the end of May 1934 (Țara Noastră, 1937l, p. 3–4).
The Niculescu brothers, on the other hand, claimed that Lăzurică had abused his presidency to get rich by selling positions as branch presidents. This allegedly outraged the Roma in the province who came to Bucharest to complain about it, contacted the Niculescu brothers (whose house informally hosted the UGRR headquarters) and obtained the resignation from Lăzurică (Glasul Romilor, 1937d, p. 2).
Most likely, both parties were right to some extent: the Niculescu brothers wanted the power and were looking for a pretext to replace Lăzurică, while the latter did sell some management positions in the new branches. Lăzurică might have resorted to it as he hardly had other incomes (he himself was poor, there were yet few members paying the membership fee and the financial help of the Ortohodox Church proved insufficient). Actually, the fact that the two Niculescu brothers along with other Roma entrepreneurs were appointed to lead the UGRR may be explained by the same considerations: the financial potency needed for the functioning of the UGRR. On the other hand, even later, in 1937, Lăzurică had to condition the branch presidents’ positions on certain financial contributions invoked to support the movement (Țara Noastră, 1937e, p. 2).
It is, therefore, quite likely that he did the same in 1934, causing dissatisfaction and constituting an ideal pretext for his replacement. That it was merely a pretext is proven by the fact that the Niculescu brothers seem to have prepared Lăzurică’s resignation in advance, as they left nothing to chance. Lăzurică was forced to write in the resignation text that he was not a Roma. According to the UGRR statute, only Roma were entitled to become members (also leaders) of the Union (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 38, p. 120). By forcing Lăzurică to admit that, Niculescu managed to bypass the UGRR statute without having to convene other general meetings, etc.
Having Lăzurică’s resignation, Niculescu immediately announced in the press that he was the new leader of UGRR. As for Lăzurică, the first thing he did was to get a forensic certificate for being assaulted, sued his aggressors and published in the press that he had reversed his resignation, claiming that the Niculescu brothers together with their supporters were expelled from UGRR (Ibid., doc. 48, p. 134; Adevărul literar și artistic, 1934, p. 3). In addition, following his interventions, he asked the Orthodox Church to withdraw the missionary cards granted a few months earlier.
A fierce fight began between the Niculescu brothers and Lăzurică, each trying to convince the Roma that they represented the legitimate leadership of UGRR and therefore of the Roma. Lăzurică went on the field again, organised meetings and UGRR branches in different counties and regions of the country, published articles, had the press write extensively about him and his actions.
Nothing like this happened in the case of the Niculescu brothers. They adopted a different strategy altogether which, although not spectacular in the first phase (summer of 1934), was proven more effective. First of all, Gh. Niculescu was very careful that his Roma Union become a legal entity, an aspect neglected by Lăzurică whose steps in this direction had repeatedly resulted in failures. Therefore, a new UGRR committee was set up with Gh. Niculescu as president and Niculae Niculescu as First Vice-President and General Secretary, which, on August 11, 1934, submitted to the Ilfov Tribunal the constitutive act and the statutes of UGRR, requesting the recognition of the organisation as a legal person. On September 20 and 28, 1934, the Ministry of Labour and then of the Interior gave their approvals, and on November 30, 1934, the Niculescu brothers’ association obtained the status of legal entity. They could keep the older name of Uniunea Generală a Romilor din România but had to add the more proper term ‘Association’ in front of it. Legally, ‘Union’ had a very strict meaning (group of associations) while “association” meant a group of persons.
In the end, Niculescu kept the brand of UGRR at a minimal cost. Neither Șerboianu nor Lăzurică had succeeded in this, the latter being repeatedly refused as some of the members of the UGRR committee had criminal records (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 40, p. 126–127). In fact, in the fall of 1934, the Police found that Lăzurică continued to falsely claim that the UGRR which was led by him had the quality of a legal person (Ibid., doc. 63, p. 162). At the same time, Niculescu made efforts to bring together various Roma leaders and organisations. In the summer of 1934, Marin I. Simion, the organiser of the Roma movement in Oltenia, sided with Gh. Niculescu and published (in September-October 1934) two issues of the newspaper O Rom that openly supported Gh. Niculescu.
At the end of the summer of 1934, Lăzurică had already exhausted his scarce resources (by leaving Bucharest for the organisation of the Roma in the country, he had lost his job). During this time, with little effort and intact resources, Niculescu had managed to attract leaders and branches. Moreover, he had already received the first approvals for obtaining the status of legal entity. This was very important. Once Niculescu’s association achieved this status, Lăzurică’s claims to lead UGRR proved unfounded. Lăzurică’s organisation did not exist formally and legally. In conclusion, as noted by Gh. Niculescu and his supporters, they offered the only viable solution: “we ask the Roma not to listen to and waste their time with other pseudo societies, whose purpose is limited only to some people’s ambitions, without a coordination of our common interests that must unite the Roma under the same flag” (O Rom, 1934c, p. 3).
This meant that the branches already established by Lăzurică could be convinced to switch to AUGRR. Basically, Niculescu took advantage of Lăzurică’s ideas and work, taking over not only his organisation, program and branches, but also some ideas or even the name of the newspaper Glasul Romilor, announced by Lăzurică long before. (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 24, p. 101).
In addition, starting with the autumn of 1934, it was Niculescu’s turn to participate in the great gatherings of the Roma from different locations (September 9, 1934, Sibiu; September 23, Sighișoara; October 9, Ploiești, etc.), some of which were impressive, with thousands of participants, and enjoyed the attention of the public and the press. These were not necessarily organised by Niculescu’s AUGRR, but rather by local Roma organisations still autonomous or even independent of AUGRR. The participation of the AUGRR leadership in such events shows that, unlike Șerboianu and Lăzurică (who did not participate), the Niculescu brothers had managed to get closer to these local organisations. In addition, these large assemblies validated them as leaders at the national level, both in front of Roma and Romanian authorities (be they secular or religious, as in Ploiești, where Patriarch Miron Cristea also participated). Practically, even if Lăzurică continued to organise Roma gatherings in the fall of 1934 (Hunedoara, Rădăuți, Bucharest, etc.), compared to those assumed by Gh. Niculescu, Lăzurică’s events were becoming less important (i.e. fewer participants, mainly in Bucharest or in the immediate vicinity of the Capital, as Lăzurică could no longer afford long-distance travels).
The AUGRR program did not differ from those announced by Șerboianu and Lăzurică in 1933 and 1934. It was taken over in full. For example, in the first issue of Glasul Romilor, the article Our Program mentioned, among other things, the establishment of kindergartens for Roma children in all urban localities, evening courses for the illiterate; the elimination of vagrancy and begging by finding work for Roma; setting up Roma consumer cooperatives and canteens, dispensaries, social assistance and employment offices; aid for AUGRR members, libraries, etc. (Glasul Romilor, 1934c, p. 1).
Although only few of these were achieved, unlike the other central organisations led by Șerboianu and Lăzurică, Niculescu’s AUGRR did manage to function over a relatively long period (1934–1941), and had a relatively coherent organisational structure, with numerous branches in Romania. We know that in the late 1930s, AUGRR had managed to enter into partnerships with some medical clinics in Bucharest so that its members could benefit from medical consultations. These medical services were nevertheless most likely accessible only to the Roma in Bucharest. Similarly, at the AUGRR headquarters there was a library open to its members. Beyond Bucharest, it is possible that the success of AUGRR was mainly due to the self-help system promoted (part of the sums of money raised from membership fees having to return to the members as help for burial, birth etc). In addition, every year starting with 1935, on January 24 (the Romanian Union Day), AUGRR threw its charity ball meant to obtain funds that were to be used to assist its poor members. This aid (usually food, clothing, and firewood) was usually given on Christian holidays (Christmas and especially Easter) (Universul, 1935b, p. 21). Moreover, at the AUGRR headquarters there was an office that took over the petitions from the branches and addressed different local and central authorities in order to find solutions (Glasul Romilor, 1934d, p. 2).
By the end of 1934, Gheorghe Niculescu had cumulated several advantages against his competitors: considerable financial resources, his own newspaper and an Association recognised as a legal entity. Besides, he participated in several large Roma gatherings, including in Ploiesti, which legitimised him and allowed for the rapprochement with the Orthodox Church. As a result, Niculescu felt strong enough to move to a new phase in the AUGRR consolidation. He started to systematically incorporate already existing organisations (including Șerboianu and Lăzurică’s branches or even older organisations) by making use of persuasion (presenting the advantages deriving from affiliation to AUGRR), as well as of discouragement (through threats and interventions to the authorities to ban the manifestations of rival organisations).
Illustrative of this approach is the October 1934 gesture of Gh. Niculescu to ask the Police to ban the assembly organised by Lăzurică in Bucharest. Nonetheless, that intervention backfired as the Ministry requested the prohibition of any manifestation organised by both associations, including AUGRR (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 64, p. 163) (which was to be officially recognised as a legal person only at the end of November 1934). Once that legal status was granted, Niculescu continued with such interventions against Nicolae Gh. Lache, Apostol Matei, Aurel Manolescu-Dolj, Anton Zorilă, etc, arguing that his AUGRR was the only organisation entitled to represent the Roma.
The consolidation of AUGRR implied the formalisation of relations with the Roma in the province, conditional on a stricter control over local organisations. Therefore, already in January 1935, Niculescu began to appoint leaders of local and County branches (Universul 1935a, p. 5). The tone used by the AUGRR leadership was authoritative, the appointments came from top to bottom and did not necessarily take into account the experience and involvement of Roma leaders in the Roma movement, but the loyalty shown to the AUGRR leadership. In some places, there was a doubling of Roma organisations in counties and localities. Leaders who were suspected of not accepting the AUGRR leadership risked seeing themselves confronted with some local competitors implanted and supported by a central organisation that, unlike the others before, benefited from the recently granted legal status and used it aggressively.
In principle, where organisations were strong, or older than AUGRR, there was some opposition. In order to illustrate the personality and the authoritarian way in which Gh. Niculescu imposed himself, we describe three types of interactions with: 1) Ioan Vasilescu from Prahova County; 2) Lazăr Naftanailă from Făgăraș County; 3) Transylvanian leaders such as Constantin Brașoveanu, Anton Zorilă, Andrei Zima, Nicolae Velțeanu, etc.
The first example is that of Ioan Vasilescu from Prahova, active in the Roma movement since 1933, and leader of an energetic organisation. It is unclear why AUGRR decided to impose another leader in the person of Stelian Barbu as president of the Prahova branch, but Vasilescu was probably suspected of not being docile enough to the AUGRR leadership. However, it was not easy for Stelian Barbu to impose himself, which is why he needed to be supported by AUGRR. On March 3, 1935, a meeting with about 200 Roma took place in Ploiești, which was attended also by Gh. Niculescu and other members of the central committee. In the end, they managed to impose Barbu through pressure and promises. More precisely, Gh. Niculescu told the Roma gathered in the assembly:
[…] that the Ploieşti branch, starting from today, will be led by Mr. Stelian Barbu, who will take care of the fate of the poor Roma and will set up a kindergarten in that neighbourhood, for education. An asylum for the elderly will also be set up, an intervention will be made at the town hall so that in the future the Roma will be employed and be given help for the Easter holidays, so that the Roma will no longer be starving and begging on the street. As the Roma Association is a recognised legal entity, they must obey Mr. Stelian Barbu. He also said that he no longer paid attention to the former voivode Lăzurică, because he was a swindler. […]
He also promised them for the next fall 100 wagons of firewood with 3,000 lei each. Mr. Stelian Barbu from Ploieşti thanked the committee from Bucharest and the voivode Gh. Niculescu for the love they showed by coming to Ploieşti. He thanked those present for the honor and confidence they had to elect him as a president, committing himself to fight for their cause. (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 78, pp. 182–183).
Later, Stelian Barbu managed to gradually gain more and more influence and, although Vasilescu continued to have supporters, their number decreased, and the local authorities began to perceive Vasilescu’s organisation as “dissident” compared to the already stronger local branch of AUGRR led by Barbu.
A second example is that of Lazăr Naftanailă, leader of the Roma in Făgăraș, founder and president of the Neorustic Brotherhood, legal person since 1926, active organiser of Roma cultural-artistic events in several localities in Southern Transylvania (for more on him, see his own portrait in this chapter). In March 1934, he had been recognised by Lăzurică as the president of the Transylvanian Roma. Subsequently, as the process of organising the Transylvanian Roma intensified, with numerous assemblies and thousands of participants (organised by other Roma leaders), Naftanailă’s position started to be disputed by various local, regional or central competitors. Hostile to the AUGRR leadership, Naftanailă ended up being competed locally, in Făgăraș, by a certain Dodos, supported by the AUGRR leadership (see also Naftanailă’s portrait). There were two congresses organised in Făgăraș by competing factions in June 1935, at an interval of only a few days (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 86, p. 195). As in other cases, there was a doubling of the Roma leadership, reflecting local rivalries, and Naftanailă’s influence on the Făgărașeni Roma diminished.
The third example is that of the Transylvanian Roma leaders: Brașoveanu, Zima, Zorilă, Velțeanu, etc. They also had a long history in the Roma movement as they were responsible for organising the great assembly in Sibiu on September 9, 1934. Besides, Velțeanu had been involved in the Roma assemblies in 1919 (Matei, 2013, pp. 453, 466, 468). In early February 1935, shortly after AUGRR’s appointment of branch leaders, including those in Transylvania, these leaders met and decided to act together against the actions of the centre in Bucharest which was accused of not taking into account the local interests (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 77, p. 181). Therefore, they went together to Bucharest where, in mid-March 1935, they negotiated with AUGRR. Gh. Niculescu managed to neutralise them by offering some apparently important positions (branch leaders, presidents of Transylvania, representative of Transylvania in the central committee of AUGRR). The positions were shared to please everyone and when needed, they were doubled. For example, Motti Costea, who was recognised as the “active president” (președinte activ) of Târnava Mare County, shared the attributions with Nicolae Velțeanu, also recognised as ‘Organising President” (președinte organizator) of the same County. In exchange for this arrangement, the Transylvanian leaders recognised Gh. Niculescu as the leader of the Roma (who avoided thus the risk of a dissent). Gradually, the positions of these Transylvanian leaders proved to lack real power, as they were marginalised. In addition, Niculescu encouraged dissent and selected those who proved to be more loyal. Motti Costea gradually became the favorite of AUGRR, becoming appointed representative or president of the Transylvanian Roma, virtually invalidating the appointments of Zima, Brașoveanu, Velțeanu or Zorilă.
There was an interesting evolution of how the centre (Șerboianu’s AGȚR, Lăzurică’s UGRR, or Gh. Niculescu’s AUGRR) acted to organise the Roma in the province. Material resources played a very important role but neither Șerboianu nor Lăzurică had sufficient funds to leave Bucharest and effectively organise Roma in the country. Șerboianu’s AGȚR existed for too short a time to be successful (the Oltenian Branch was only nominally affiliated to Șerboianu’s movement). As for Lăzurică, who also lacked financial means, he tried to compensate by resorting to the Romanian Orthodox Church for help. This could be moral (priests’s support from localities with Roma communities, which is why he requested and received the issuance of missionary cards), but also material. As the financial support offered by the Church was insufficient, Lăzurică resorted to the sale of management positions in the newly created branches. The process was likely to compromise him, at least in the eyes of some Roma, weakening his position and ultimately leading to his resignation. In short, both Șerboianu and Lăzurică depended on others for organising the Roma beyond the boundaries of Bucharest.
Having a good financial situation, Gh. Niculescu had no such problems. As we can see from the above, he managed to attract the support of some leaders in the territory and weakened the base of others by creating local competitors subordinated to AUGRR. A new phase with a more pronounced organisation from top to bottom followed, where delegates were sent to organise the Roma rather than depending on local leaders.
These delegates coming from the centre, or even from the provinces they were to organise, were seen as being more reliable. This approach offered the advantage of creating alternatives, reducing the local leaders’ room for maneuver. By far, the most active was a certain Grigore Nucu, responsible for Banat and Transylvania. Capable of speaking to Roma in Romanes, Romanian, but also in Hungarian, he proved to be very efficient, managing to create dozens of centers and sub-centers in many localities, affiliating them with AUGRR. His actions were visible not only in Glasul Romilor, but also in the central and local non-Roma press, in the police reports, as well as in the studies auhored by Aurel Boia and Ion Chelcea. Through him, Gh. Niculescu could expand AUGRR in Transylvania despite lacking the support of Transylvanian leaders such as Brașoveanu, Zima, Zorilă, Velțeanu, Naftanailă, etc.
AUGRR’s campaigns intensified at the end of the 1930s, culminating during the Carlist regime (1938–1940), when AUGRR announced that it had 450,000 registered members. Although this number is highly exaggerated, AUGRR was nevertheless the only Roma Union that managed to attract a large number of Roma, far more than AGȚR and UGRR.
As it grew stronger, AUGRR began to enjoy more attention from various authorities, be they the Orthodox Church, the Police, local authorities or politicians searching for votes. The premises for various collaborations appeared, which AUGRR also took advantage of. In general, AUGRR tried to find strong protectors whom it named honorary presidents and generally found them either in the person of the Patriarch, in various ministers of the PNL government, but also in senior police and gendarmerie officers etc. In some cases, the Roma were told who to vote for (the politicians from the ruling party), at other times, Gh. Niculescu did services to the law enforcement agencies etc.
The relation with the Orthodox Church proved very important for the AUGRR. In the beginning, Lăzurică had ascendancy over Niculescu. The Church had worked with Lăzurică, not with Niculescu who had received missionary cards only at the insistence of Lăzurică. In fact, in the summer of 1934, after his forced resignation, Lăzurică asked the Orthodox Church to withdraw the missionary cards from the Niculescu brothers, which the Church did (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 54, pp. 151–152). What saved Gh. Niculescu was the fact that, in the meantime, he had contributed to a collective baptism of Roma in Ploiești, on October 14, 1934, an event that had also enjoyed the presence of the Patriarch. When asked to hand over the missionary cards, it was therefore easy for him to demonstrate both organisational efficiency and loyalty to the Church. In addition, Niculescu was able to make use of some more compromising documents against Lăzurică (among which the complaint of a doctor from Satu Mare from which it appeared that Lăzurică was selling the positions of branch presidents and, very importantly, Șerboianu’s letter denouncing Lăzurică’s duplicitous attitude towards the Orthodox Church).
These documents must have impressed because starting with the fall of 1934, the Church focused exclusively on Gh. Niculescu’s AUGRR. Over the years, the Union organised, together with the Church, numerous collective ceremonies (baptism, marriages) in Ploiești, Giurgiu, Bărbulești, Tinca etc, but also conversions (especially of Muslim Roma). These events enjoyed the presence not only of the AUGRR leadership, but also of the Church and of local politicians, attracting the support of the authorities (Matei, 2010, pp. 169–171). For example, in October 1934, the City Hall of Ploiești offered AUGRR two acres of land in order to help sedentarise the nomadic Roma baptised on October 14, 1934 (Glasul Romilor, 1934a, p. 1; 1934b, p. 3).
The year 1937 was particularly difficult for Gh. Niculescu and AUGRR as there were several rounds of elections. This contributed to the emergence of dissidents within AUGRR, which was amplified by the collaboration between Șerboianu and Lăzurică with the National Christian Party (PNC). Given the importance of the 1937 elections, all those who were credited with the potential to mobilise votes, including the Roma, were approached by various political parties with various promises. As AUGRR claimed to be apolitical, some local Roma leaders felt deprived of their freedom to negotiate and get involved with certain parties which made them relevant offers. As a result, some Roma leaders ignored Niculescu and entered negotiations with those political parties (such as Lazăr Naftanailă from Făgăraș with PNC, Aurel Manolescu from Dolj with PNȚ and later with PNC, and Anton Zorilă from Sibiu with PNȚ). Gh. Niculescu’s reaction was to intervene with the authorities, claiming that only AUGRR was entitled to represent the Roma and demanding a ban on the actions of these local leaders. Another action he took was to sue them (Glasul Romilor, 1937a, p. 3).
In July 1937, in this already tumultuous context, the movement initiated by Șerboianu and Lăzurică appeared. They became formidable competitors for Niculescu as both had experience as Roma organisers. Besides, as allies of the National Christian Party (PNC), they could count on some material funds and on the trampoline represented by the newspaper Țara Noastră which, every Sunday, published a special edition for Roma. In addition, they tried to capitalise on the dissatisfaction accumulated in the meantime with the Niculescu brothers’ discretionary way of leading AUGRR and the Roma community. Șerboianu and Lăzurică claimed that, at the beginning of July 1937, the leaders of the county branches, displeased with Niculescu’s leadership, had allegedly met in Bucharest to dismiss Niculescu and the other members of the AUGRR central committee.
The news was nothing but an invention to cause confusion among AUGRR members in the territory (Țara Noastră, 1937c, p. 4). It was not very different from what Niculescu had done in May-June 1934 when he replaced Lăzurică. Șerboianu and Lăzurică also appealed to Gh. Niculescu’s collaborators to abandon him, promising them that they would keep their leadership positions in the new organisation. (Țara Noastră, 1937d, p. 4). To these actions, Niculescu responded in several ways: he addressed the PNC leaders in an open letter asking them to withdraw the support offered to his rivals (Glasul Romilor, 1937c, p. 1), AUGRR denied the allegations that the Niculescu brothers had been fired, and organised Roma rallies in Bucharest in order to demonstrate the support Niculescu continued to enjoy. In addition, documents and letters were published in an attempt to compromise Lăzurică and Șerboianu accused of taking advantage of the Roma, although they were not Roma. More precisely, Lăzurică wanted to to get rich and had political ambitions, while Șerboianu was accused of homosexuality, for which reason he had allegedly been demoted from the rank of archimandrite. (Glasul Romilor, 1937d, pp. 2–4). Șerboianu and Lăzurică sued the Niculescu brothers for slander (Lumea Românească, 1937a, p. 5), a gesture the latter immediately replicated (Țara Noastră, 1937i, p. 2).
As the elections approached, the Roma leaders started organising events to demonstrate to Roma and political parties that they were the true representatives of the Roma. After a series of events in Vlașca County, Lăzurică intended to organise for November 8, 1937, in Craiova, a larger gathering of Roma in support of the PNC. In reply, on November 4, 1937, Niculescu addressed the Minister of Interior, requesting “to order the prohibition of this congress and to give orders to the prefect of Dolj County to have the mayors inform the Roma in their communes that there was no congress whatsoever” (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 126, pp. 238–239). Following these interventions by AUGRR, the prefect of Dolj County banned the congress on November 8, “for the reason that the statute of the organisation prohibits affiliation to political parties” (Ibid., doc. 127, p. 240).
Despite its own statements and statute, AUGRR was not politically neutral, but supported the ruling party, then PNL. It had done so both in 1935–1936, on the occasion of various intermediate elections, and it did even more so in 1937. In order to prove that he enjoyed a greater support than that of Șerboianu and Lăzurică, Gh. Niculescu addressed, on October 28, 1937, the prime minister Gh. Tătărescu (from PNL) asking for support for the organisation of a general congress of the Roma which was supposed to take place at the end of November, in Bucharest. Given the good relationship between PNL and AUGRR, the government initially agreed to this congress (reduced fees for train tickets and some financial aid). However, because of the unfavourable political evolution (Tătărescu government’s deposition on November 14 and reinvestment only on November 17), the Police disapproved of this event on November 16, 1937, and invoked the unclear political situation and the conflict between the Roma organisations which was referred to the Ilfov Prosecutor’s Office (Ibid., doc. 128, p. 241).
The AUGRR leadership was willing to collaborate further with PNL to which it offered the Roma votes. A few days before elections, news appeared in the press that AUGRR had decided to support PNL. On December 20, 1937, the newspapers announced, for example, that the Roma in Sibiu would receive financial “aid” to vote for the PNL lists, with hundreds of Roma storming the Sibiu County prefecture (Lumea Românească, 1937b, p. 5). Other branches of AUGRR also followed the line dictated by the center to vote PNL (Conștiința Națională, 1937, p. 2).
Gh. Niculescu and his AUGRR went through a tense period between December 1937 and February 1938, when PNC formed the government. It was the same party that had concluded an electoral agreement with Niculescu’s rivals. Hence, Șerboianu and Lăzurică gained a new impetus, and some of Niculescu’s former supporters sided with Lăzurică and Șerboianu. For example, on February 2, 1938, a Roma assembly chaired by Lăzurică could be held in Craiova. It was the same place where at the beginning of November, during the PNL government, a similar gathering had been forbidden due to the local AUGRR branch. Now, the very same branch abandoned Niculescu (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 131, pp. 242–244).
Fortunately for Gh. Niculescu, the PNC government lasted less than two months, and the support received by Șerboianu and Lăzurică disappeared. Moreover, the new authoritarian regime abolished the political parties, and, with them, the associations affiliated or seen as close to these parties. Șerboianu and Lăzurică’s organisation was in this situation. Unlike them, AUGRR could claim that it was apolitical (according to its statute) (Glasul Romilor, 1938a, p. 4). Besides, although AUGRR had also been politically involved, it had done so in favour of the PNL (and many of the former PNL leaders had turned into leaders of the new Carlist regime). Since the spring of 1938, Șerboianu and Lăzurică posed no threat to Niculescu. Being rid of competitors, AUGRR developed a lot in the next two years. Its Glasul Romilor appeared twice a year (on Easter and the Day of the Royal Restoration, a sign of political opportunism, the AUGRR leaders showing their devotion to the King and the Dynasty). Moreover, when the King founded the National Renaissance Front (Romania’s single party), Gh. Niculescu together with the AUGRR leadership became members of this Front, asking the Roma to do the same, probably in the hope that the authorities would be more sensitive to the wishes of the Roma (Glasul Romilor, 1939, pp. 3–4).
AUGRR continued its activity and made numerous interventions with the authorities to find solutions to the problems reported by its branches: manuals for Roma children, suspension of forced relocations, approval of cultural events, land allotment, firewood, reduced taxes for musicians (Glasul Romilor, 1940, p. 4), in addition to the older benefits such as legal and medical assistance for members in Bucharest. The charity balls and the actions to help the needy members continued. AUGRR even financed a group of twelve Roma dancers, recruited from its members, who were sent to Paris where they gave performances (Glasul Romilor, 1938b, p. 4).
Following the territorial losses in the summer of 1940, King Carol II was forced to abdicate in early September 1940. He was succeeded by his son, King Mihai, but the effective power was exercised by a coalition between the legionaries and General Ion Antonescu (September 1940–23 January 1941), followed by the military dictatorship of Antonescu (January 1941 – August 1944). During the legionary regime, the attitude towards the Roma became considerably radicalised, as the legionary press started to publish harsh articles against the Roma, where racial and eugenicist arguments were invoked.
The last issue of the newspaper Glasul Romilor appeared in April 1941, a few months after the suppression of the legionary rebellion and the elimination of the legionaries from the government. Gh. Niculescu responded with an article in which he tried to dismantle the recent accusations that Roma would represent a racial problem for Romanians. According to him, the possible laggings were not due to the genetic baggage, but to the ignorance of the real problems of the Roma. If action had been taken in time, that problem would have been long gone. In addition, the Roma were faithful to the Romanians:
They do not present, we believe, any danger to the security and sovereignty of the Romanian people. Whenever needed by the country, they were always side by side with the Romanian brothers and they did not desert when they had to defend their homeland, showing bravery in the battles that the Romanian people waged against those trying to conquer our homeland. The Roma were not deserters, traitors, or spies, and where they were put to work, they worked without a murmur. […] That they are lagging behind is not their fault. Should anyone had taken a closer look at these troubled people in the past, we can assure you that their fate would have changed a lot. (Glasul Romilor, 1941, p. 3).
After April 1941, there are few documents about the Roma movement during the war, as AUGRR suspended its activity. However, in September 1942, in the context of the deportation of sedentary Roma from Bucharest, Gheorghe Niculescu intervened with the authorities to stop the deportations. His interventions had no effect and the Roma deportations continued.
At the beginning of 1945, AUGRR resumed its activity under the leadership of Gh. Niculescu. Apart from a few objectives corresponding to the postwar period (such as material and moral help for the Roma victims of deportations and land allotment within the newly discussed agrarian reform), AUGRR’s program was similar to that of the 1930s (Achim, 2010, p. 454).
The central leadership of AUGRR did not enjoy the trust of the new communist authorities. As a merchant, Gh. Niculescu was seen as a ‘bourgeois’ and in the 1930s, AUGRR had pursued PNL’s policy. Gh. Niculescu reoriented himself, but not fast and convincing enough. Until 1937, AUGRR had supported the liberal government led by Gh. Tătărescu. After the war, the former prime minister broke away from PNL and founded the PNL – Tătărescu, which collaborated with the communists. One of Tătărescu’s collaborators was a certain Petru Bejan who held the position of Minister of Industry and Commerce in the communist government. Bejan had been an older collaborator of the AUGRR in the late 1930s. By virtue of these relations, Gh. Niculescu addressed Petru Bejan on August 7, 1946, proposing a collaboration on the occasion of the parliamentary elections of November 19, 1946: Roma votes for having some Roma candidates on the PNL – Tătărescu lists. The communist authorities were dissatisfied and put pressure on AUGRR to give up this initiative (Achim, 2010, p. 454).
Basically, the political initiatives of the AUGRR leadership were discouraged by the communist authorities which, however, addressed the Roma directly. For example, in the same context of the November 1946 elections, the Bloc of Democratic Parties (the communist-led electoral alliance) addressed the Roma through special manifestos, using the formula ‘Roma Brothers and Roma Sisters!’. Authorities avoided central leadership, but occasionally collaborated with some local Roma organisations. Subsequently, in the summer of 1947, the AUGRR leadership reoriented itself and began to cooperate intensely with the communist authorities, while many members of the committee became members of the communist or communist-led parties. Gh. Niculescu did the same, becoming a member of the National People’s Party (Partidul Național Popular), an ally of the communists.
In the spring of 1948, on the occasion of the elections, the AUGRR Central Committee urged the Roma to vote for the Communist-led Popular Democracy Front, Roma leaders held electoral rallies in support of the communists, and Gh. Niculescu launched a manifesto calling on the Roma where he presented himself as “comrade” Niculescu (DANIC, fond DGP, dos. 87/1943, f. 356–357).
In June 1948, several members disapproved by the authorities for their bourgeois origin were removed from the central committee. Gh. Niculescu continued to remain the president of AUGRR, but was seconded by a certain Petre Rădiță, a medical assistant, who became the new General Secretary of AUGRR (Achim, 2010, p. 456). In October 1948, a report by the Police on AUGRR, led by Gh. Niculescu and Petre Rădiță, appreciated it for being democratic and fighting for the inclusion of all Roma in trade unions and “democratic” parties (Ibid., f. 370).
Despite this collaboration between 1947–1948, the authorities decided on January 25, 1949, to abolish the AUGRR. Surprised, the Roma leaders tried to find a solution and created a new organisation, the People’s Union of Roma in Romania. Considered a bourgeois element and therefore compromised, Gh. Niculescu was excluded from the leadership of the new Union. The chairman of this initiative committee was Petre Rădiță, seconded by other Roma who had become members of the communist party and other communist-led parties. Despite the efforts of the new committee, the Union was not recognised by the communist regime, which resulted in the Roma being refused the status of an ethnic minority until 1989 (Achim, 2010, p. 457–460).
No details are known about the subsequent fate of Gh. Niculescu. After the fall of communism and the recognition of the Roma as an ethnic minority since 1989, a process of recovering some symbols began, including the interwar Roma movement. However, to date, it plays a minor role compared to the attention paid to slavery and deportation.
Constantin S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor
Raluca Bianca Roman
Constantin S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor (April 20, 1900 – May 30, 1968) was a well-known Romanian Roma historian, ethnologist, archaeologist, folklorist, anthropologist, who was crucial to the shaping of the Roma movement in Romania, primarily the Oltenia group of Roma activists in the country. Nicolăescu-Plopșor was an active and productive member of the Oltenia group of the Roma emancipation movement in interwar Romania, writing in the two regional Roma newspapers of the time (O Rom and Timpul), as well as producing two key manuscripts of Roma folklore – Gypsy Songs and Gypsy Fairy Tales (Nicolăescu-Plopșor, 1934ab). However, his role in the Roma emancipation movement was not limited to his literary productivity. In fact, his intentions and ideas of creating a Roma Museum, a Roma University and a Roma Library, though never materialised fully, were evocative aspects of the desire for creating a Roma national legacy, in the context of the Roma movement in the country during the interwar period, and illustrative of the drive to social emancipation among the Roma intellectuals in the country. These also illustrate the ways in which the Roma movement in the country can be seen as being intrinsically tied to the shapes that national revival movements often take, wherein, as evoked by Miroslav Hroch (1985), a first phase comprises the attempts of a small group of Roma intellectuals to raise a sense national consciousness and national belonging among members of their communities, mainly by a focus placed on the history, folklore, and culture of the Roma. Through this, Plopșor’s work towards achieving these goals are crucial in understanding the shape of the movement in the country. Furthermore, through his contributions to Roma folklore, Plopșor has left a marked legacy in the development of Roma literature in the country.
Interestingly, beyond the Roma topic, Plopșor has also made a significant impact on the history of Oltenia, being a vastly productive writer and scholar. Between 1946 and 1953 he was the director of the Museum of Oltenia, which he helped develop. Based on his long-standing scholarly work, in 1963, he received the title of ‘Corresponding Member’ from the Romanian Academy of Sciences, a highly prestigious position within the Romanian academic hierarchy. His multi-faceted work in history, folklore, ethnology, and archaeology has been vastly influential in the shaping of Romanian history, as well as in the work produced by the Oltenia circle of Roma intellectuals during the interwar period.
Coming from a mixed family (his father Roma/Gypsy and his mother Romanian), his background was not only complex but also relevant in the shaping of his career and life trajectory. This portrait will therefore highlight the main scholarly achievements made by C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor, which emphasise his overarching approach and the impact he has had on the shape of the Roma emancipation movement in the country, as well as on the broader fields of Romanian archaeology, history, and scholarship. His trajectory is both characteristic of regional scholars in Romania, who had reached the peak of their career within their discipline (in this case, archaeology) and an extraordinary one for a man coming from a Roma background. His work on issues of Roma folklore is both evocative of his interest in his community folklore and his general academic curiosity. While the focus will primarily be on the works connected to the shaping of the Roma emancipation movement in the country, introducing his broader impact on the Romanian academic world, as well as his background, are important in order to understand and contextualise his contribution to the Roma movement in Romania, as well as the overarching influence that some Roma scholars have had in the broader academic field in the country.
Constantin S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor was born in the village of Plopșor, the commune of Sălcuța, Dolj County, on April 20, 1900. Not much is known about his Roma background and there are not sufficient academic sources to speculate in this direction. Even Dragomira Stanca, Constantin S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor’s daughter, in her memoir, seems to bypass any mention of Plopșor’s background. Nevertheless, both in academic texts (Achim, 1998, p. 152) and in mainstream newspaper articles retelling the family history, he is often mentioned as having a mixed-Roma background (Gazeta de Sud, 2014; Jurnalul.ro, 2009; Observatorul, 2012). Furthermore, it is important to point out that, thus far, most of the materials available on Plopșor concern his broader academic trajectory and little is discussed about either his work on Roma folklore, Roma emancipation or his Roma background. This may underline the fact that his work on Roma and his contribution to the Roma movement in the country was largely overlooked by the mainstream academic community, in favour of his work in the field of archaeology.
In terms of his background, and the gradual shaping of his academic life and academic achievements, the few materials that are available seem to retell the ‘story’ of the Plopșor family, but with no historical sources (see Gazeta de Sud, 2014). Nevertheless, it is useful to underline that which some of these publications seem to emphasise. According to them, Plopșor was born into a mixed family (his mother was Romanian, his father Roma/Gypsy). His family background from his mother’s side is the one that is best known, primarily through the ways in which both his family (namely, his daughter) and the available materials seem to underline a historical connection he is said to have had to key figures in Oltenian history (more on this below). Little else, however, is known (or written) about the Roma background of Plopșor. This could be due to several reasons, including the family’s potential preference not to talk about it. Given that mixed marriages were the exception rather than the rule, the mother’s marriage into a Gypsy family may have sparked controversy and a preference to keep that as silent as possible. It is perhaps also in this context that Plopșor’s background is often emphasised in retellings of his life in an almost romanticised way as connected to the shaping of Oltenian history more broadly.
As an example of these forms of romanticisation, two online publications looking at Plopșor’s general work (Observatorul, 2012) and the ‘story’ of the Plopșor family tells (Gazeta de Sud, 2014), highlight that his mother was the granddaughter of Dincă Schileru, a legendary figure within Oltenian history and, allegedly, the first Oltenian peasant to be part of the Romanian Parliament in one of the two ad-Hoc divans (legislative and consultative assemblies of Wallachia and Moldova, and vassals of the Ottoman Empire) in 1857, in Bucharest, which later led to the unification of Wallachia and Moldova in 1859, under the rule of Alexandru Ioan Cuza. The result of this unification was, in fact, the beginning of the formation of modern-day Romania. While this connection is likely to have been exaggerated and romanticised, it also helps in underlining how oral and life histories also bring in elements which aim to emphasise the importance of the person’s background, often in connecting it to large figures (legendary or not) in the history of the region or country in question (in this case, a connection to the shaping of Oltenian history). Unfortunately, at the time of writing, no archival sources were found concerning this matter and the articles mentioned above also seem to have been written without historical references.
Nevertheless, these stories are interesting in themselves as they fit with the tendency for mystification of a person’s historical background in the retelling of history, wherein particular key individuals of crucial importance are said to be part of a person’s genealogy. Furthermore, what is underlined in these narrations is that Plopșor’s great-grandfather was particularly influential in shaping the intellectual and educational life of his own village, where he built the family mansion and helped build the local church and school. This, again, would undeniably showcase the ways in which the person’s backstory influenced their life and work. While these connections were hard to verify with archival source materials, the schools and mansions which bear the Plopșor name are still standing and Plopșor’s own influence in the area is indeed reflected also in the name of the local high school, which presently bear his name (Observatorul, 2012).
These notes concerning Plopșor’s family background, albeit incomplete and fragmentary, are nevertheless important as Nicolăescu-Plopșor’s background differed significantly from most Roma/Gypsy children at the time, having received schooling from an early age. Beyond the focus placed on a connection with legendary figures in the history of the region, what is clear, from historical sources, is that Plopșor finished both primary and secondary schools in Oltenia, the city of Craiova, where he developed a love for history. He went on to continue his university studies in Bucharest, at the Faculty of History, University of Bucharest, where he became a disciple of the Romanian historian Vasile Pârvan (Jurnalul.ro, 2009). After finishing his university studies, Plopșor returned to Oltenia, where he worked as a history teacher in the village of Plenița. Among other things, during his time as a history teacher he published a monograph of the village (Jurnalul.ro, 2009; Observatorul, 2012; Stanca, 2013).
Prior to his involvement within the Roma movement in Romania during the interwar period, his main focus and area of activity was archaeology, primarily focusing on his native region of Oltenia. In 1922, he thus became an honorary director of the Museum of Oltenia (i.e. associated director), and the head of the Archaeology and Folklore Section of the Museum. During the following years, and throughout his career, he would become a key researcher of the history of the region, with his work remaining influential to this day.
However, alongside his interest in archaeology was his interest in folklore (something typical for many local history scholars), which would influence also his visions concerning the establishment of a Roma library, later in his career. These activities were interconnected, as many of the poems, songs, fairy tales and stories he collected were gathered during his archaeological digs. As many of his friends I have talked to recollect, Plopșor had the habit of conducting extensive interviews and conversations with people in the villages where his archaeological work was conducted, which ultimately led to him gathering a vast amount of folkloristic material alongside his other work (Toma Rădulescu, personal communication, July 10, 2019). He was particularly interested in so-called elder songs (cântece bătrânești), poems, fables and other folklore materials, which he collected dilligently and collated in his various notes and diaries.
Throughout the interwar period (and beyond), Plopșor collected folklore, all from the region of Oltenia. In fact, Plopșor wrote and edited several special issues on the history of Oltenia. As such, he set up, edited and contributed to regional folklore volumes (such as Suflet oltenesc, Oltenia), published a regional-themed book collection, under the name of Pământ și suflet oltenesc (Oltenian Land and Spirit) and edited a cultural magazine, Gând și slovă oltenească (Oltenian Tthinking and Writing), famous within the field, especially during the interwar period. He also edited and published in the religious collection, Măglăvit. Foae oficială a Comitetului Așezământului Evanghelic dela Măglavit. (Măglavit, 1935).
Connected to his interest in collecting, preserving and publishing Romanian folklore, Plopșor dedicated a vast amount of time to collecting, publishing and preserving Romanian Roma/Gypsy folklore in its great variety. In fact, the two activities were not separated from each other, as the Roma folklore pieces he collected were gathered much in the same way in which he had done with the Romanian folklore: oftentimes during his work on archaeological sites and through conversations and interviews with the local communities. As far as is known, the Roma Songs and the Roma Fairy Tales published by Plopșor in various outlets had all been collected from Ursari Gypsies in Gaubaucea-Dolj (a County in Southern Romania, Oltenia) (Nicolăescu-Plopșor, 1934a, p. 30, 1934b, p. 32), an area where most of his other work had also been conducted. Ursari Gypsies in Oltenia were the predominant Roma group in the region at the time (and even today). Again, these collecting activities were always concomitant with his archaeological work and his collection of Romanian folklore materials more broadly, which once again highlights the ways in which Nicolăescu-Plopșor saw Roma folklore as part of Romanian folklore more broadly (or, better put, as the two being intertwined and intrinsically connected with each other). His far-reaching academic interest was also characteristic of the ways in which regional scholarship was being developed (i.e. looking at broad issues that connect to the history of the region, including materials pertaining to minority, in this case Roma, groups). Once again, Plopșor’s academic trajectory, albeit quite typical for a local historian, appears to be unique in terms of the other Roma activists during the interwar period. He was an accomplished academic, interested in broader issues facing his region’s history, culture and folklore (including, but not exclusively, Roma-focused).
It was also during the early 1930s, however, that Plopșor also became more clearly connected to the broader Roma movement in the country, which was aimed – both at the emancipation of the Roma community in the country and at the shaping of Roma literature, folklore, and history as crucial for the future of the Roma in Romania. While it is unclear if his earlier folklore collecting work was connected to the Roma movement developing across the country or whether it was based on his personal interest (and personal history) in the preservation of Roma folklore, the important thing to note is that in the 1930s Plopșor became most clearly involved with the social and political agendas of the Oltenia branch of the Roma civic emancipation movement in the country, often referred to as the Oltenian ‘circle’ of the Roma movement (Timpul 1934a, p. 4). He did so by allying himself with several other Oltenian intellectuals, Aurel Manolescu-Dolj (a journalist), N. St. Ionescu (a lawyer), Marin I. Simion (a poet), all from the city of Craiova. Together, they set up the first Roma organisation in Oltenia, called the regional circle of the Association General of the Gypsies in Oltenia (Achim, 1998, pp. 156–157).
Initially, as its title also suggests, this organisation was collaborating and connected to the central organisation run by Calinic I. Popp Șerboianu, and also called the General Association of Gypsies in Romania (the Oltenia branch) (Timpul 1934a, p. 4). Additionally, they collaborated with local and regional traditional Gypsy leaders, such as bulibașa. Together, during the interwar period these Oltenian Roma intellectuals contributed to the publication of two regional Roma newspapers: Timpul (The Time, from Romanian language) and O Rom (The Roma, from Romani language). While Timpul had not originally been a Roma-newspaper, but one focused on regional news and issues, its editor, Aurel Th. Manolescu-Dolj, gradually shifted the focus of the publication to a more clearly Gypsy/Roma focused one. For example, in the newspaper Timpul, published in Craiova by Aurel Th. Manolescu-Dolj, the subtitle of the newspaper gradually changes from, originally, ‘Independent Weekly Newspaper’ to ‘The Newspaper of Gypsies in Romania’ (starting from Issue no 24–25, 21 January 1934), to ‘The Official Paper of Roma in Romania’ (starting from issue no 41, 29 July 1934). This shift in title/subtitle quite evidently shows the gradual raising awareness (and, of course, interest) of Aurel Th. Manolescu-Dolj of his Roma background while at the same time highlighting the gradual development of the Roma movement in Oltenia, to which Nicolăescu-Plopșor would also become connected.
C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor also published articles in the newspaper O Rom and his work was mentioned by the other Roma intellectuals in Craiova. One of the most important in this respect, and most clearly showcasing Plopșor’s vision of the Roma emancipation movement, is an article evocatively titled “Roma house, school and church” (O Rom, 1934b, p. 1). The article is, in effect, a clear summary of the ways in which Plopșor saw and approached the cultural movement among the Roma, with a focus on setting up the O Rom Library. Given the importance of this article in showcasing Plopșor’s position, below is a reproduction of the text in its entirety.
The cultural movement of the Roma, with all the ironies that come its way, catches ground every day, becoming more and more an undeniable reality. Indeed, who would have believed until now that the Roma would be able to join an association that presently has representatives all across the country, has its own library and a newspaper.
Worthy of all praise, several other focuses must be added to this movement, namely:
1. THE ROMA HOUSE.
The Roma should set up their own house, a museum in which everything that is worthy of preservation about the duty and life of the Roma in Romania should be collected and preserved.
In the library of this Roma House, all the documents relating to their past should be collected, such as the sale of Romani slaves, the laws made by the princes of the country for them, as well as all historical, literary and philological studies printed in the country and in abroad. In the ethnographic section, all matters regarding the Roma’s living, the costumes and the work and products made from the hands of the Roma craftsmen: blacksmiths, bear-tamers, horse dealers, basket-makers, etc., will be collected and exhibited, so as to be seen by visitors. In this house, one should necessarily have a great musical archive. All Gypsy songs should be recorded with the phonograph and submitted for study. Not to mention the folklore archive where all the songs, fairy tales, beliefs and superstitions of the Roma will be collected. On the basis of these materials, a large, illustrated encyclopaedia of the Roma will be made, in which everyone can find everything concerning the interesting and impressive Roma issue, which should be known from all points of view: anthropological, ethnographic, folkloristic and philological.
2. THE ROMA CHURCH, not to be seen as a joke. The Roma can and must necessarily have their own church in which their priests may serve and preach in their own language
3. THE SCHOOL OF ROMA.
What could be easier than setting up a Roma school in which Roma teachers can teach textbooks written again in their own language.
The house, the church and the Roma school cannot wait postponement. They must be done as soon as possible. Roma solidarity and willingness to sacrifice themselves are a guarantee that soon the work will be done. In order not to have one moment’s delay, all Roma in the country who value the cultural uplifting of their people are asked to send everything they think might be of interest concerning this matter to the undersigned. For the time being, we will receive anything that can contribute to the founding of these three Roma cultural settlements, such as: costumes, photographs, books, song collections and collections of fairy tales, as well as advice and guidance about the foundations of the house, the church and the school. In the future issues of the newspaper, we will print the answers and the received items, and we will revisit in large each issue.
Dr. C. S. Nicolaescu-Plopșor.
Editor of the O Rom Library. (O Rom, 1934b, p. 1).
There are several elements within this article which are worthy of noting, which connect to all three focuses mentioned directly by Plopșor:
1) The Roma House. This would have, in effect, be an interwar form of a Roma ‘Institute’, comprising a Roma Library, and ethnographic collection and anything related to the history of the Roma in the country. Undoubtedly, this initiative also reflects a clear manifestation for national revival and civic emancipation with the focus on the folklore, history and culture of their community in order to establish a sense of national belonging and national consciousness among their fellow members. The establishment of a Roma House would have also meant the existence of a tangible museum, where actual artefacts connected to Roma culture and traditions (i.e., folk-art) would have been preserved and displayed. Museums, especially national museums, have been pathways of strengthening and building national identity and, particularly in the 19th century and at the start of the 20th century, connected to the shaping of the symbols of the nations, wherein key characteristics of the ‘nation’ were preserved and displayed. The establishment of a Roma House (or Roma Museum), in this case, would undoubtedly follow the general model of the establishment of national museums in Eastern Europe, which were shaped on an understanding of folk tradition as an expression of the ‘national spirit’ (Volkgeist) (Marushiakova & Popov, 2016d, p. 173). The establishment of a Roma House, therefore, fits in with the overall practice of establishing national museums across the regions, where all elements displaying or showcasing the ‘ethnic’ spirit would be preserved. In fact, this intention was made quite clear in Plopșor’s statement above: “a museum in which everything that is worthy of preservation about the duty and life of the Roma in Romania should be collected and preserved” (O Rom, 1934b, p. 1).
Again, undoubtedly, this would have been a great achievement during that period and reflected the visions of Plopșor and the Oltenia circle in this direction. As will be discussed later on, no such Roma House would eventually be founded, but the intentions evoke the path on which the Roma intellectuals in Oltenia during the interwar period saw the Roma emancipation movement embarking on. That said, one part of these intentions did eventually manifest in practice: namely, the establishment of the O Rom Library, and the publication of two bilingual books in Romani and Romanian languages (Nicolăescu-Plopșor, 1934a, 1934b). These developments will be discussed in more detail below.
2) The Roma Church. Especially in connection with the issue of church services in Romani language, which Plopșor often advocated on a grassroots level, the article states: “The Roma can and must necessarily have their own church in which their priests may serve and preach in their own language.” (O Rom, 1934b, p. 1) This, in effect, also emphasised Plopșor’s view of the necessity to establish cultural institutions for the Roma, which would operate and function in Romani language. Again, this reflects the elements which he saw as needed in the national revival process among the Roma in the country. Given the central importance occupied by the Orthodox Church within Romania (as well as within other countries in the region) and its connection to the expression of national belonging, the proposal for Roma to have their own church, with services in Romani language, was particularly important in revealing the emphasis placed on mother tongue services to be provided within national institutions, and as manifestations of the Roma nation as being equal to all other nations. According to one of his close friends, Plopșor even presided over church services in Romani language in his local Orthodox church in the village of Plenița (Toma Rădulescu, personal communication, July 10, 2019). If this was the case, he not only advocated this within the various manifestos for the Roma movement, but implemented it in everyday practice. In any case, the emphasis placed on the establishment of the Roma Church, much like that of a Roma House and a Roma School, illustrates the emphasis placed by Plopșor, and the Craiova circle (at the very least) on the means of creating and fostering the sense of national consciousness among the Roma, while also manifesting it as a form of Roma nation building, and emphasising their perception of Roma as a nation equal to all others.
3) The Roma School. This third focus point also connects to the previous one, as it also underlines the issue of mother tongue, this time in the sphere of education and schooling of Roma children. Here, it would seem that Plopșor was advocating for a separate school within which Roma teachers would teach Roma students in Romani language, using their own textbooks. This is particularly interesting and on first glance in contradiction to another focus of the Roma emancipation movement, especially in Bucharest, which underlined the importance of “assimilation” and sedentarisation, as means of emphasising the national identity (i.e. Romanian identity) of Roma in the country. Connectedly, they often aimed to present Roma not as a minority, but as equal members of the Romanian society. The plea for the establishment of a Roma School, as well as a Roma church, could be understood as forms and manifestations of Roma nation building. However, in this case, it also underlines the complexity of the arguments embedded within the Roma emancipation movement in interwar Romania, wherein ideas of Roma national revival (and the development of community belonging consciousness) was combined with the ideas of Romanian national belonging (i.e. as members of the Romanian nation). This clearly illustrates that Roma activists and scholars, including Plopșor himself, acknowledged and emphasised that Roma were, at one and the same time, both members of their respective communities, and integral members of the majority societies they inhabited. The article above thus eloquently summarises and introduces all of these points.
The fact that Nicolăescu-Plopșor was invited to write in the newspaper O Rom, even if for a short time, showcases the important position he held among other Roma intellectuals in the region. As a Roma scholar, he was often praised for his education and held as an example of Roma reaching high levels of Romanian academic spheres. The situation, however, soon changed in terms of allegiances, with several of the Roma intellectuals in Oltenia each declaring themselves as leaders of the Roma in Oltenia, more specifically as the Roma ‘Voievod’ (Achiim, 1998, pp. 156–157). It was also around that time that Nicolăescu-Plopșor seems to have distanced himself from the latter group, though the process of this dissociation remains unclear.
While this dissociation was never addressed directly by Plopșor himself, we have several hints in this direction reflected in different issues of the newspaper Timpul. The content of the newspaper, for example, broadly moves away from praising the historian and archeologist for his efforts in supporting the Roma cause and publicising his works, including the O Rom Library and the two connected publications, Ghilea Romane (Gypsy Songs) and Paramisea Romane (Gypsy Fairy Tales) (Nicolăescu-Plopșor, 1934a, 1934b). This can be seen, for instance, in the issues 38–39 of the newspaper, where not only are the efforts of Nicolăescu-Plopșor to collect Roma folklore lauded but his connection to the O Rom Library are emphasised (Timpul, 1934a, p. 4; 1934b, p.2, 4).
For instance, in an article from June 10th 1934, issue 38–39, titled From A.G.A.Ț. [i.e. AGȚR – author note] in Craiova, and which discusses the O Rom Library initiatives, it states: “The effort for this library was made entirely by our well-known C. S. Nicolaescu-Plopșor, the only literate from Oltenia who knows our Gypsy language and writing perfectly.” (Timpul 1934a, p. 4).
Furthermore, on August 12, 1934, in issue number 42–43, in an article titled O Rom (Țiganul) [The Rom (The Gypsy)], the endeavour to establish the O Rom Library is discussed more in depth and Plopșor is mentioned in high esteem.
In order to promote the taste for literature among the Roma masses, we have shared our idea to the person who has lifted the flag of “Roma emancipation”, Mr. Marin I. Simion, “Voievod of Roma in Oltenia”, the person who swore sacrifice until death in order to uplift Roma to the level of human times.
Without waiting, the “Voievod of Roma in Oltenia” has immediately enabled the editing of the O Rom Library.
Immediately the editor of the library was also found, in the person of the well-known professor and literary man, Mr. Dr. C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor, the General Secretary of the Dolj “Georgist” organisation – the only one from the Romanian society writers who would be able to edit it in an admirable fashion.
Mr. Plopșor is considered a unique person, who perfectly knows the language, writing and all humanly customs of the Roma.
The moral success of this library has lived up to its expectations. Great honour to Mr. Dr. C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor, who has since then received an honorific title, passed from mouth to mouth, as: “Vătaf of Roma”.
From that moment onwards, his person has been written in the history of the Roma, because he is the first writer of modern Romania who has gained great success in the field of literature! His new writing has opened up to a great extent, the minds of the Roma, enabling them to open up, in the future, their taste for reading. (Timpul, 1934b, p. 2).
What is noticeable in the above is the fact that Plopșor is not introduced by the writers as a Roma/Gypsy, but as an educated man who knows the Gypsy language. In fact, from what we know, Plopșor never presented himself as a Roma/Gypsy. He is praised on several occasions as being one of “the first writer of modern Romania” and “the only one from the Romanian society writers” who would be able to edit the O Rom Library, as well as one of the first to be able to open up the taste for literature among the Roma. From this, and from a later crucial article, one can assume that the writers believed Ploșor to be a Romanian scholar who was interested in the Roma cause, and that he potentially introduced himself as a Romanian scholar to the Craiova circle. What was important was that a well-known intellectual from the region was interested and devoted to the Roma cause and had mapped out key strategies in the process of Roma nation building which would fit with the aims and goals of the broader Oltenia circle of Roma intellectuals.
However, not long after the above article was published, a shift could be noticed in the relationship between Plopșor and the leaders of the Oltenia circle of the General Association of Gypsies in Romania and, more specifically, the editor of the newspaper Timpul, Aurel Th. Manolescu-Dolj. This can be seen most clearly in an article from 1935, where the focus moves away from praise to criticism, calling Plopșor a “crook” and a “Gypsy”, the latter used as an insult. This change in attitude and relationship can be quite obviously seen in an article titled Who is C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor? – The General Secretary of the Organ of the National Lliberal Party in Dolj – An Ordinary Crook of the Political Llife and an Ordinary Thief of the Literature Which He Published (Timpul, 1935, p. 1). While the title itself evokes the shift, its content provides interesting elements which underline it. Below are key segments from it:
The Gypsy C. S. Nicolăescu, known as Plopșor, who under the mask of his hideous beard hides a cheek soured by the sweat that comes from the pores of his darkened skin, of Roma, whose origin he denies, being circled by the press who has begun to unmask his actions as a political crook, for fear that he will lose his “bone” – pardon me, his ost of “General Secretary”, has begun to share ”open letters”, published in the columns of a local paper of little importance. […]
The arșiolog, collector of dead horse shoes, thinks that, through the letter published in “Jurnalul” and ending in an epigrame will be able to continue to uphold his post as “Secretary” in the “Georgist” organisation in Dolj, given that from the one in Gorj he was excluded. […]
We are surprised that this man Nicolăescu, known as Plopșor still benefits from the hospitality of “Jurnalul”! How come the leadership of this newspaper did not observe that the works of this Mr. Costica are not read, even by the most intimate friends of the author?
Doesn’t everyone know that when we appealed to the “intelligence” of this “ursar” from Plopșor, to edit a library “O rom”- we were forced to cancel its publication because of how badly edited it was – motive for which almost all Roma revolted against?!
In vain does this “Rasputin” try to appear innocent in front of the public opinion.
Pressed by the door, this businessman of all political parties, is presently attacking Mr. Dr. M. Albu, the director of the “Mihai Bravu” sanatorium and Vice-President of the “Georgist” organisation in Dolj, who, for supporting a healthy idea, has launched a great weekly newspaper as never before seen in Oltenia and about which the “arșiolog” says that he has never heard.
The renegade from Plopsor, whom all the journals in town are unmasking as a Gypsy by origin holds, to our suprise the title of “General Secretary” of the “Georgist” organisation in Dolj, seeks to, through his attacks, which move away from the line set by Mr. George Bratianu – and thus compromising Mr. Gh. Cantacuzino, the head of the Dolj organisation, this sublime pillar of the “georgist” politics- blame Mr. Dr. Albu and classify him as a member of the “semitic” race.
This political crook makes up this untruths, thinking that they will find an echo in the public opinion. […]
This is why, while the “arșiolog” Plopsor (who, we believe, actually comes from serbian lands) seeks to throw lies at our beloved onorific President, it is Plopsor himself who is being cleaned of all the honours we have “maybe” given him in the past. (Timpul, 1935, p. 1).
As one can clearly see from the segments presented above, the article is a clear rebuke and criticism of Plopșor, with whom the newspaper had previously been affiliated, from whom they clearly detach themselves and to who they now mockingly refer to as ”arșiolog” (a mock derivativ from the Romanian term for archeologist). The article contains several themes which are of interest given the dynamics of the Roma movement during the interwar period, as well as the specifics of the Oltenian circle, including the volatile relationship between Roma leaders at the time, shifting political affiliations and shifting loyalties.
Perhaps the most important one for the emergence of the conflict is the fact that, it would seem, Plopsor had written an article in a local newspaper, where he called into question the background and actions Mr. Dr. Albu. The latter was not only the Vice-President of the PNL Brătianu in Dolj but was also the Honorific President of the Roma organisation in Dolj. The “Georgist” organisation in Dolf, mentioned several times throughout the newspaper, of which Plopșor was also a General Secretary, officially named the PNL Brătianu, was a right wing political party in Romania, formed from splitting from the national liberal one. Its founder was Gheorghe I. Brătianu, also mentioned in the article, a Romanian historian and politician. Plopșor actually stood as a candidate for the party in the 1934 elections for the Dolj County Council (Achim, 1998, p. 158). While previously supporting Plopșor’s candidacy, the editors of Timpul also appear to accuse Plopșor in the article above of using the newspaper as a means of gaining public attention as part of his candidacy. All of these aspects are illustrated quite clearly in the segments above, while at the same time, emphasising the almost sudden split of Plopșor from the broader Craiova circle of Roma activists, and the dynamics occurring on the ground in terms of political aspirations, affiliations and shifting relationships between Roma leaders in the region (but not only).
While, at this time, the article published by Plopșor could not be located, some key points can be drawn from the attack against Plopșor published in Timpul. According to it, Plopșor allegedly made a reference to Mr. Dr. Albu as being of ‘Semitic’ race, which was seen by the editors of Timpul as an offence and a possible danger to the nationalistic position taken by members of the Craiova circle. This connected to the emphasis placed in Timpul, throughout, of Roma being full Romanian citizens, clearly distinguished from minorities in the country, of which they were not. Referring to the Jewish background of the Dr. would also have jeopardised the position taken by the PNL Brătianu at the time, which was nationalistic and focused on the rebuke of national minority demands.
This clearly shows the complicated nature of collaboration between main figures in Oltenia at the time, which was partially grounded in shifting political affiliations, as well as personal ambitions, animosities, jealousies and rivalry. In this way, the article above reflects the problematic issue of legitimacy of representation and the struggle for representative legitimacy manifested among Roma activists at the time. What is also interesting to note is that, apart from the mentioned newspaper article from Jurnalul, both according to the materials presently available, and to those who knew Plopșor directly, Plopșor never fully engaged in this strife and his dissociation was left as a silent matter (at least, publicly). The conflict or tension is even absent in the memoir of his daughter, Stanca Dragomira, whose book does not shy away from addressing the issues of politics and political struggles of her father (Stanca, 2013). There is, in fact, no mention of any of the other Roma leaders from Craiova in it. The reason for this absence is also unclear but it perhaps connects to Plopșor’s vast and diverse academic interests, and his broader academic pursuits, which would arguably have meant that he had little to gain from engaging in forms of rivalry and conflict within the Roma movement itself.
This may also be connected to the fact that, similarly to the lack of mention elsewhere, Dragomira Stanca does not seem to mention Plopșor’s Roma/Gypsy background in any form. In fact, some of Plopșor’s friends also seem to bypass this aspect of Plopșor’s life history (Toma Rădulescu, personal communication, July 10, 2019). And the few newspaper articles that do mention it, only do so in a passing manner (Observatorul, 2012). Whether this was a case of trying to hide this part of Plopșor’s history or background, as the Timpul article also seems to suggest, is unclear but this was certainly not an uncommon phenomenon among other educated Roma/Gypsies at the time (or their children), a fact which was also mentioned in some of the articles published in Roma journals during the interwar period. However, these remain on the level of assumptions, as the information on this matter remains rather sparse.
With that being said, while the relationship between Plopșor and other Roma intellectuals in Oltenia may have been fluctuating, his actual interest in Roma history, folklore and literature was not. In fact, Plopșor carried on with his incentive to collect Roma-based materials throughout his career, even when his work no longer had a specific Roma-focus (such as in the post-interwar context). In other words, his collection of folklore would comprise both Roma-themes and non-Roma themes, throughout his career. Furthermore, while he did not create or lead a Roma organisation at the time and his focus was academically driven, he was nevertheless an important part of the broader movement during the interwar period. On the one hand, he was among those who pleaded for the the replacement of the Romanian word țigan with that of Roma. On the other hand, he emphasised the need to establish Roma own organisations and institutions, evocative of the spirit of national revival and the construction of Roma community identity by means of folklore collecting, education and focus on the promotion of the Romani language, thus illustrating how Roma intellectuals of the time contributed to the national revival of their community.
Likewise, as mentioned and hinted in the articles presented above, connected to his interest in folklore collection more broadly, and Roma folklore collection more specifically, C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor also aimed edit the O Rom Library, based in the city of Craiova. Once again, this connects to the needed elements for creating a sense of national consciousness among the Roma in the country, and clearly illustrates the first phase in the national revivalist and civic emancipatory movements discussed by Hroch (1985).
The initiative to establish a Roma library was, at the same time, connected to further other incentives of the key Roma organisations during the interwar period in Romania, which also point to the same process. While the idea was to publish a series of books connected to the topic, only two have been located so far: Ghilea romane / Cântece țigănești and Paramisea romane / Povești țigănești, both edited by Plopșor (Nicolăescu-Plopșor, 1934a, 1934b). They were both published in Craiova, in 1934, under the subtitle Carte pentru limba și învățătura țigănească scoasă de ‘Asociatia Tiganilor din Oltenia’ (Book for the Gypsy Language and Teaching, Issued by the ‘Association of Gypsies in Oltenia’). The subtitle of the book, Book for the Gypsy Language and Teaching, illustrates the ways in which the issue of education and mother tongue were key parts of the civic emancipation process in the country, as well as crucial in highlighting the issue of national belonging among the Roma. At the same time, it connected to the emphasis placed on the education of Roma in the country in the national spirit, wherein literacy was seen as pathway to social inclusion. Both the songs and the fairy tales had been collected, according to the inscriptions on the books, from Ursari Gypsies in Gaubaucea-Dolj (a County in Southern Romania, in Oltenia), and written down by Plopșor himself (Timpul, 1934a, p. 2; Nicolăescu-Plopșor, 1934a, p. 32; 1934b, p. 30).
In addition to this, it is worth mentioning that several of the songs and fairy tales featured in the two books also featured in Oltenian folklore publications. Again, C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor is a key figure here. He has thus published several poems/songs/folklore pieces in regional ethnology/history journals (such as Suflet oltenesc and Oltenia). These publications contain both poems and songs which Plopșor would later include in the two books from the O Rom Library, and broader pieces from Romanian folklore, often from the region of Oltenia (Nicolăescu-Plopșor, 1923; 1927). These materials are useful and necessary as they point to the broader impact and influence of Plopșor has had not only in the Roma movement in Romania during the interwar period but in the shaping of Romanian folklore more broadly, as well as the ways in which he saw these activities as interconnected.
Finally, the National Archives of Romania, the Dolj County archival section in the city of Craiova, contain a fond titled C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor, which comprise a vast number of materials pertaining his historical and archaeological work. Within it, however, only some materials point to his Roma-focused work, more clearly to his interest in songs, poems and fairy tales. One example of this is an unpublished poem, unauthored but potentially transcribed or even authored by Plopșor himself, discovered in the archive and which is written in Romani language (DJAN Dolj, fond C. S. N. Plopșor, dos. 146/48). There was no translation of the material in the archival document, but the text itself (the translation of which was provided by Viktor Shapoval) highlights the perception Plopșor seems to have presented about role of Stalin in the social emancipation of Roma/Gypsies. Among other things, the poem states:
Beyond the poem itself, it is unclear if the lack of materials on Roma folklore within the collection is due to the organisation of the archival material or the fact that Plopșor may have kept his Roma materials separate. The latter is, I believe, unlikely, as the document file contains also a rejection letter, dated June 5, 1952, from a Romanian newspaper Viața Românească, (Romanian Life), based in Bucharest, of a manuscript for the poem mentioned above, clearly connected to his Roma work. The letter reads:
Dear comrade,
Our poetry collective has read and discussed your poem: “Let us sing Roma, let us sing”. Although interesting, we believe that it has not yet been able to fully capture concrete aspects from the life of the Roma, from their transformation process once they gain equal citizenship rights, or when they become members of farming collectives. A series of poems in this sense would interest us very much.
With comrade salutations,
For the poem section … [illegible signature]. (DJAN Dolj, fond C. S. N. Plopșor, dos. 95/21).
Interestingly, on the back of the rejection letter, which was received in 1952, the following statement appears, written in green ink, in Romanian. I reproduce a translation of that statement here: “What could be more representative of the novel in the life of the Gypsies than their quest for freedom and rights and that Stalin is the one who gave it to them?” (Ibid.). There is no signature under that statement, but we can assume with some confidence that it belongs to Plopșor and that it quite evidently disagrees with the reasons given for the poem’s rejection by the editors of Viața Românească. Given that the rejection letter was received in 1952, it is likely that the text was written much earlier than that, and the text sent for publication at a later date, when the praising of Stalin became possible.
While the O Rom Library seems to have never fully materialised beyond the two published books, mentioned above, there had been calls spread in the two regional newspapers, asking readers to send materials related to the culture of the Roma. One of this can be seen in the article published above, where Plopșor also introduces the intentions to establish a Roma House which, in effect, would take the form of a Roma Museum. It is uncertain if or how many of such materials had in fact been sent to the O Rom Library or to Plopșor himself.
One further note should also be made here. There are some hints and evidence about a potential third book/pamphlet/brochure (its content is actually unknown) with a Roma-theme, beyond Ghilea romane (Gypsy Songs) and Paramisea romane (Gypsy Fairy Tales) (Nicolăescu-Plopșor 1934a, 1934b). This evidence was found in the catalogue of the Library of the Romanian Academy, where a file with the title of an item under C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor can be located. The file seems to point to the existence of additional materials concerning Ploșor’s work in collecting Roma/Gypsy folklore, as the title of the material is listed as Snoave De-ale Țiganilor culese de … (Sayings of the Gypsies, Collected by …). The brochure/book (it is unclear what it was) is stated in the catalogue to have 31 pages. However, when attempting to request the item, we were told by the archivists that the material had gone missing from the library in 1956. While the catalogue card was still in place at the time of our research in the library (summer of 2019), the item itself had been lost. None of the archivists could tell us why or how the material had gone missing, only that it had in fact been missing since 1956 (i.e., nearly seven decades). Nor were we able to locate the item in any of the other archives and libraries consulted, either in Bucharest, Craiova, or Cluj-Napoca (another regional centre for many materials connected to the Roma movement during this period of time). We are thus uncertain both of how the item disappeared and its actual content. What can be assumed, however, is that the material might contain additional or connected Roma folklore materials in the shape of so-called snoave, mainly anecdotes or sayings, stated to belong to Gypsies. These could be the same as found in other published materials from Plopșor, or new ones. If there are additional copies of the book/broachure, which could be found in the future, that would mean an addition to the (thus far known) material which comprised the overall O Rom Library collection.
Furthermore, from discussions with surviving friends of Nicolăescu-Plopșor, as well as discussions with the current director of the Museum of Craiova, Florin Ridiche, Plopșor was certainly devoted to creating a larger ethnographic collection connected to Roma/Gypsies (Toma Rădulescu, personal communication, July 10, 2019; Florin Ridiche, personal communication, July 8, 2018). Once again, these intentions illustrate Plopșor’s work towards the process of Roma nation-building, as an educated intellectual aiming to awaken members of his community to a shared sense of national belonging (Hroch, 1985).
At the time of writing, these never became an actual section of the Museum of Craiova, and most of his work there remained in the field of archaeology, history, and ethnology of the region. However, Toma Rădulescu, the former Head of the History-Archaeology Section of the Museum of Oltenia, and a close acquaintance of Plopșor, recounts of the many boxes of letters and papers that the latter had collected in his private residence in Plenița, which contain materials that combine his interest in general Romanian history to his interest in Roma folklore more specifically (Toma Rădulescu, personal communication, July 13, 2019). Moreover, according to Toma Rădulescu, a series of letters (with unknown content) seem to have gone missing. These are materials which are still worth exploring, as they may reveal more about the collecting work of Nicolăescu-Plopșor, as well as his continuing interest in Roma folklore and Roma history.
After the start of the Second World War, however, the situation in the country changed and Plopșor’s attention had moved in other directions after being appointed as Director of the Museum of Oltenia, in 1946. He held this position until 1952. Furthermore, in 1963, he was made a corresponding member of the Romanian Academy, a highly distinguished position within the Romanian Academy, conferred on him based on his lifelong work in the field of archaeology. From 1966 until his death (1968), Plopșor was a professor and head of the History department at the University of Craiova (Observatorul, 2012).
It seems that, in his position as Director of the Museum, he chose not to continue his work (or not as visibly as before) in the field of Roma folklore by (perhaps) even adding to the Museum collections a Roma-themed section. The reasons for this, while unstated, can be assumed to lie in the fact that he wanted to establish himself as an academic scholar of the region (rather than a specialist of Roma folklore) and, especially in the aftermath of the Second World War, the focus on minority folklore may not have been promoted by the new communist regime, which may have underlined Romanian folklore as a unified one. These, however, are merely assumptions which may need further research and exploration. Suffice to say that Plopșor would go on to become a leading historian and archaeologist of the area, publishing vastly on the topic and becoming a respected scholar within the region. And, while his interest in Roma may have been maintained throughout this time, there remain few other materials in the Plopșor fund at the National State Archive in Craiova concerning the work he had done as part of the O Rom Library or, even, his broader Roma folklore and poem collecting. His most prominent and influential work, and the one he is often known for within the broader academic literature in the country remained in the field of archaeology (primarily the archaeology of Oltenia), a field in which he became one of the most known scholars in Romania.
Plopșor passed away in 1968, at the age of 68. He is buried in Plenița, which was also his home during the last years of his life.
Throughout his life, Constantin S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor was a prolific author and scholar, writing far beyond the so-called ‘Roma-theme’. In fact, he is most well known in the country for his contributions to the archaeology and history of Oltenia, rather than for his work devoted to the Roma civic emancipation movement. For example, a street bears his name in the city of Craiova (Obervatorul, 2012) and a Social Research Institute is named after him – C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor Institute of Social-Humanistic Studies (Institute for Research in Social Studies and Humanities) – set up by the University of Craiova and the Romanian Academy, which published its yearbook – Institutul de Cercetari Socio-Umane ‘C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor’ al Academiei Române (‘C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor’ Institute for Research in Social Studies and Humanities Yearbook). The latter institute also published a special issue of its annual publication in his honour (Anuarul Institutului de Cercetări Socio-Umane ‘C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor’, 2000). Within this special issue the ‘Roma’ section constitutes but a short chapter (of only 3 pages!), pointing at once to his multi-faceted work and to the all-encompassing sphere of his broader scholarship (Pătrașcu, 2000, pp. 145–147) as well as to, perhaps, the lesser interest this particular theme may have sparked in the structure of that book.
It would seem that, apart from scholars interested in Roma issues, and despite Plopșor’s commitment to the shaping of the Roma movement in the country during the interwar period, as well as his continued efforts in the collection of Roma folklore, his work on Roma remains but a footnote in his overall body of work, at least within the broader presentation of his work within mainstream history. Despite of this, Plopșor had a marked impact on the process of Roma civic emancipation during the interwar period in Romania, and his visions on establishing a Roma House/Museum, a Roma Library, a Roma Church, and a Roma School, need not be understated. At the same time, Plopșor’s illustrious career as a historian, folklorist, ethnologist, archaeologist and his all-encompassing writings on these subjects nevertheless showcase the vast contribution that at least one author from the Roma movement during the interwar period has had to the broader disciplinary fields in Romania. Once again, this highlights the ways in which Plopșor was not just a Roma literature author but actively engaged in shaping the academic field of the country.
Roma Activist Women
Ion Duminica
An integral part of the Roma civic emancipation movement in Romania was the underlining role of Roma women. This important aspect was raised already by the first association claiming to represent all the Roma in the country, The General Association of Gypsies in Romania (AGȚR). The association manifesto titled Appeal to All Gypsies in Romania (Scurtu, 1993, pp. 180–182; Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 21, pp. 96–99; Marushiakova & Popov, 2021b, pp. 332–337), written by Calinic I. Popp Șerboianu, was distributed in 1933 in Bucharest and Craiova, and called for “a new life for the one million Romanian Gypsies who live on the territory of Romania” (Timpul, 1933, p. 2). Among the central points of this first national program aimed at the improvement of the social situation of all Roma in Romania, there are two points, 5 and 12, concerning Roma women issues.
Point 5 envisaged support for active Roma mothers in the educational process of their children of pre-school age through establishing childcare institutions: “the establishment of kindergartens so that the children do not roam the roads when their parents are at work (Ibid.). The place of women in the movement for Roma civic emancipation was not limited to their care. On the contrary, they (or, more precisely, some of them) received the opportunity not only to participate actively but also to take leadership positions in this movement. Point 12 provided a more general provision of equal rights for literate Roma women through favouring the means of solidarity involvement in the organisational activities of AGȚR. In contrast to the customary practice which excluded women from the Council of Elders and denied them from an active role in public negotiations, the new norm envisaged:
The women are legally part of the Association and will be used in all cultural and social assistance work. The literate ones have the same rights as the men, and they can be admitted to the Elders Council, according to the norms that will be established. (Ibid.).
Following this, not only the General Association of Gypsies in Romania, led by Calinic I. Popp Șerboianu, but also other Roma organisations took into account Roma women’s issues. The General Union of Roma in Romania, headed by Gheorghe A. Lazărescu-Lăzurică, included in Statute and Regulations of its Constitutive Act, in the chapter Regulations, article 7 setting up a ‘Women’s Section’, which will act within the Union’s program (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc. 38, pp. 117–125. Marushiakova & Popov, 2021b, pp. 365). Just before the historical Congress of Roma in Romania, in the disseminated Call for Participation (signed by the Gheorghe A. Lazărescu-Lăzurică as president and Florica Constantinescu as Secretary), the General Union of Roma in Romania stressed on the active participation of Roma women:
Let there be no intellectual woman in the Roma nation that does not come so that they give an impetus to their brothers, their parents and their spouses to come too, in the great emancipation struggle that begins now. (Nastasă & Varga, 2001, doc 27, pp. 106–107; Marushiakova & Popov, 2021b, pp. 343).
The purpose of this study is to scrutinise this attempt at empowering Roma women on the example of two female Roma activists. This will be done by looking at several historical sources, thus far unexplored and published in different interwar Romanian publications. Unfortunately, due to the lack of sufficient data, the presentation of these two Roma women’s portraits only allows us to offer a fragmentary presentation of their life and work. The two portraits explored in the subsequent sections are those of Florica Constantinescu and Marta Lăzurică, both of whom were involved in the organisational activities of the Roma civic emancipation movement in Romania.
Florica Constantinescu
Alongside prominent leaders of the Roma civic emancipation movement in interwar Romania, such as Calinic I. Popp Șerboianu and Gheorghe A. Lazărescu-Lăzurică, Florica Constantinescu became the first embodiment of civic involvement of the Roma woman. She became the president of the women section (of the General Union of the Roma in Romania) and pleaded for a more decent way of living for Roma women and children.
Her biographic portrait is, at this stage, only in a fragmentary state, with potential for new discoveries and the valorisation of further archival sources in the future. Her exact biographical data are also, unfortunately, unknown. Presently, only some press articles are available, which offer some information concerning her activities. From the press, for example, we are able to learn abour her abilities and initially optimistic aspirations.
From what it would appear, the women take an active part in the modern Roma movement in Romania. The leaders of the Roma movement in Romania, both Father Șerboianu and Mr. Lăzurică – accepted that they have equal rights to those of men. Those with knowledge of reading and writing will be, in the future, admitted in the Council of the Elders, presided by their respective vătafi, a council which, according to Gypsy customs, is a type of regional tribunal which judges Gypsies and takes decisions which often are of importance to them.
One of the modern champions of “Roma” in Romania is Miss Florica Constantinescu, a student who speaks “Romani”, meaning a perfect Gypsy language. She makes propaganda and calls for the awakening, especially among “Romnia”, meaning Gypsy women. Her intention is to set up a kindergarden for children. I saw her in the middle of some ragged looking Gypsy children, whose hands she brought together as if in prayer and who she was trying to teach Lord’s Prayer.
– […] I believe it is absolutely necessary that kindergardens be set up, no matter how modest, which could be shelters for children of working mothers who go to work […] – [tells Miss Constantinescu]. (Realitatea Ilustrată, 1933, p. 23).
Florica Constantinescu, with the support of other activist Roma women and Roma leaders, realised one of the objectives of the General Association of the Gypsies in Romania, part of its social aim: the opening, in October 1933, of the first Kindergarden for Roma children in Romania, named Patriarhul Miron Cristea after the first Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church. The Kindergarden was located in Bucharest, Teiul Doamnei Street, nr. 24. Details on this Roma kindergaten can be found in an article describing the problems the Roma were confronted with:
The worried parents of little “Roma”, who fill our mahalas, have reached the conclusion that they cannot indefinitely leave their offsprings to bathe in the mud of the streets, with vagabond dogs and loose pigs, all day long – until they come back in the evening from their work places, through their huts and tents. On the initiative of a more educated one among them, Gypsies held a counsel and made a collection of which fund would be destined to the establishment of a kindergarten exclusively for “Roma children”, in a place on Teiul Doamnei street. We faced with great joy the difficult journey to this far away place in Bucharest, only to see up close the first steps they make towards civilisation, these descendants of the pharaos and of noble Hindus from the banks of the Ganges. Here we found a classroom with twenty dark skinned girls, who learn: religion, hygiene, games, songs, and some even manage to read. After they come out in the courtyard, the children, in their freedom, once again become Gypsy children: yell, fight, swear at each other. Then, after the order received from their professor lady, they form a circle, take each other’s hands, submissive, moving around and singing, as beautifully and as sweetly as any other child in the world. (Ilustrațiunea Română, 1933c, pp. 4–5).
The need to educate a new generation of Roma, with a “moral, spiritual and material uplifting of our Gypsy woman” (Ilustrațiunea Română, 1933b, p. 9), resilience to the new challenges of the society devastated by the Great Economic Crisis of 1929–1933, was the central desiderata connected with the Roma civic emancipation movement in interwar Romania. The state of social-economic declassing of Roma in interwar Romania was the main impediment in affirming their Roma ethnicity; because of this, Roma leaders initiated the first actions connected to the aim of “diminishing the illiteracy of Roma children” (Ibid.) This is reflected in another mainstream article, where the role of Florica Constantinescu is underlined:
The leaders of the Gypsy movement in Romania are people determined to follow a strong fight for the reawakenning of Gypsies and their organisation in a large and powerful association, so that united together they gain an improvement of the moral and material conditions of this category of citizens. Among them has risen also Miss Florica Constantinescu, the President of the Women Section. Roma women were organised in a separate Section, according to centres and subsentres, as part of a programme which seeks the moral, spiritual and material uplifting of our Gypsy woman.
– We will try to do a work of education, cultural and social assistance, first on a small scale, then, with the help of willing people, on a big scale. We have already begun, although modestly, but clearly in order to achieve the aims which we set up. Here is, for example, the “first kindergarden for Gypsy children”, which we have inaugurated recently and which is the start of that realisation. We will not leave our Gypsy children on the streets, pray to dirt, diseases and bad behaviours – says Miss Constantinescu. (Ibid.)
Unfortunately, this kindergarten was short-lived as the Roma organisers ran out of material resources. Except for a few articles praising this experiment, Romanian mainstream media tended to focus primarily on distressing images of Roma women and children:
Under the ravine, cut like a huge saw, several hundred picturesque households have sprung up, among which the more or less temporary settlements of the famous gypsies of the neighbourhood are mixed. Here is the “Groapa Floreasca” [Flourish Pit], known by the reputation of the inhabitants, fierce drunk and quick to hand, which we recommend to painters and social assistance. We are surrounded by a noisy army of children on all sides: dirty, weak and emaciated. This little world is everywhere: on fences, piles of garbage and on the street; she shakes happily in the cross misery in which she lives. One of them, with a frightening dirt, with a beginning of clothes that were white, which does not completely cover his body, eats watermelon, laughing happily. Next to him, a Gypsy girl with gorgeous eyes, diamond teeth, and a cheeky cheek, holds a smaller brother in her arms: a gypsy boy who was dripping like corn silk. On the edge of the lake, women knead the clay for houses. The men sit comfortably on the stone and look at them. They do not do anything. They eat, get drunk and pour on the children, mercilessly. The burden is borne by the women, who, by who knows what miracles of budgetary balance, maintain the big drone and a lot of children. “Groapa Floreasca”, the pit of deep suffering, remains for the happy who find what they eat every day, a remote and picturesque place, with Gypsies and dirty children. Here, however, above the picturesque place and the vividness of the colours, there is a deep human misery. (Ilustrațiunea Română, 1935, p. 7).
In the end, Florica Constantinescu’s aspirations were largely limited by the turbulent internal conflicts between Roma leaders, who had entered the struggle for “absolute power”. Florica Constantinescu, together with other Roma activist women, chose to be part of the General Union of Roma in Romania, led by Gheorghe A. Lazărescu-Lăzurică:
Sunday [October 8, 1933], the first Congress of Gypsies in Romania took place – a congress which was announced also through a manifest signed by Mr. G. A. Lăzurică, a publicist, the President of the General Union of Roma in Romania. The congress takes place in the “Ileana” Hall, on “Câmpul Moșilor” street, in Bucharest. Intellectual Gypsy women will be represented by the Committee of the Cultural Centre “Preot Constantin Dron”, led by Miss Florica Constantinescu and Miss Ketty Petrescu, who also lead the Kindergarden for Gypsy children “Patriarhul Miron Cristea”. (Tempo!, 1933d, p. 2).
The news reports, focusing primarily on presenting information connected with the first Congress of Roma in Romania (which was, among other things, a novel historical event in the contemporary history of Roma), also partially mention Roma activist women, who were elected in different functions within the leadership of the General Union of Roma in Romania. Most prominent among them was Florica Constantinescu. She is described as: a “student who makes heartfelt propaganda for the awakening of Roma women” (within the General Association of Gypsies in Romania) and who became the “active president of the Women Section within the General Union of Roma in Romania”:
Roma in Romania, gathered today, October 8, 1933, at the first Congress organised by the “General Union of Roma in Romania” under the active presidency of Mr. Gheorghe A. Lazărescu-Lăzurică, to listen to the presentation of the speeches and take into account the legal means by which the desires in the fight for reawakening and equality can take place, and of equal citizen treatment from behalf of the competent forums– confirms the Central executive committee, elected today for 5 years: Grigoraș Dinicu, honorary president; G. A. Lăzărescu-Lăzurică, active president; G. D. Bașno and T. Marinescu, vicepresidents; P. Ciuciuan, referent; I. Gh. Ioanițescu, General Secretary; P. Marinescu, I. Dumitrescu and Iordan Dinu, censori; Mrs. Margareta Nicolau, honorary president of the Women Section; Miss Florica Constantinescu, active president of the Women Section; Elena Negulescu, vicepresident of the Women Section; Ketty Petrescu, General Secretary of the Women Section, etc. We will continue to plead the competent forums to donate to the General Union of Roma in Romania a land on which they can build a large centre, in which a dispensary could be set up, a contentious service, a popular atheneum, a temporary shelter for Roma coming from the provinces, a children’s kindergarten, a hall for gathering and the lawful practice of the profession of lăutar. (Universul, 1933c, p. 2)
At this stage of research, no further information about the life circumstances of Florica Constantinescu are available. Despite of this, even from the limited available data, her name remains in the history of Roma as the first Roma woman to be elected in a leadership role within the Roma civic emancipation movement in interwar Romania, having her own agenda and vision on how to improve the conditions of the Roma in the country, and to reach civic equality.
Marta Lăzurică
Another active woman about whom some fragmentary information is available is Marta Lăzurică. There is almost no available data about her life course, either. We know only that she was, according to her own words, a “Czechoslovak Roma, who speaks five languages, a stenographer and a typist, working as a clerk” (see below). For this reason, we can only present her ‘indirect’ support of the Roma civic emancipation movement in interwar Romania as revealed in her own words and in the fragmentary information conveyed within the Romanian press.
In her own words, Marta Lăzurică, being the wife of Gheorghe A. Lazărescu-Lăzurică, “seconded him with hard work and dedication in all his activity as a fighter for the uplifting of Roma” (Timpul, 1938c, p. 2). At the same time, she was always close to the needs of the Roma community:
[…] visited the nomad camps, offering advice, help, a kind word; had an open door for all wives of lăutari (musicians), brickworkers, tinsmiths, bear-tamers, blacksmiths and nomads, without humiliating them with a single gesture of contempt. (Ibid.).
Marta Lăzurică represented an ideal portrait of the Roma woman in interwar Romania: “a faithful woman; a good housewife; a devoted woman; a woman employed in the field of work (as a functionary)” – who, alongside domestic work, had to support her life partner (husband): “encouraging him in any need that came his way, so that he did not give up and abandon his duty” (Ibid.). Alongside her image of a devoted wife, in her role as the General Secretary of the Women Section within the Association General Union of Roma in Romania (whose president was Gheorghe A. Lazărescu-Lăzurică) (Timpul, 1937b, p. 2) Marta Lăzurică has left a legacy of “civic-domestic” involvement of Roma women, so that the latter can “offer complete faith in their husbands and sons and, together, show solidarity, discipline and devotion for a new and decisive fight of the Roma people” (Timpul, 1938c, p. 2).
The sources explored for this purpose also includes the appeal “To Roma women”, written by Marta Lăzurică:
My dearest sisters, it is the wife of Lăzurică writing to you, his life companion, in struggles and troubles, who has followed him with diligence and dedication in all his activity as fighter for the uplifting of our Roma. I am also a Czechoslovak Roma, who speaks five languages, a stenographer and a typist, working as a clerk to help my husband materially. Besides my job, I also do the household work, without having a maid at my door, just as it is asked of a wise and clever wife. I know that you, my Roma sisters, also work alongside your men, taking part in their tribulations and their joys, striving to make their burden easier. You are the ones who, through a good word, through an affectionate caress, encourage your men to face the bitterness of life. I know all your struggles, for I have been in the humblest of Roma homes, I have visited the tents of the nomads, giving advice, some help, a warm word of kindness. I kept the door open to all Roma wives of Lăutari (musicians), Zidari (brickworkers), Spoitori (tinsmiths), Ursari (bear-tamers), Fierari (blacksmiths) and nomads, without making any distinction between them, without humiliating them with a single gesture of contempt. There was no child in my house who would leave without a penny or without a fruit or a toy, admiring their cheerfulness, their gift of singing and playing, that gesture of gratitude they give for a small gift offered.
My only wish for you is that – even when living in poverty – you have loving, hard-working, honest, procuring husbands, deprived of vices, as my husband is, to whom I give the utmost trust and I follow him in his actions. I sold my dowry, carpets and paintings-my wealth-to help him not give up. When he was disgusted, tired, depressed, that the Roma did not want to understand and support him in his struggle, I was the one who encouraged him and pushed him by saying – Do not desert from your duty! We will eat beans and potatoes, we will wear the same clothing for two years, we will suffer the worst misery, but you must persevere! God will help us!
And, at night, I would worship the icon of Our Lady Mary, lighting the candle, whispering, “Holy Mother, do not desert us, do not forsake the Roma People, the most humiliated and unprotected of all!”
Pay attention to how my husband has begun working and engages in a new and decisive struggle for our people.
I make an appeal to you, my Roma sisters, to urge your husbands, your sons and your daughters to support my husband, to prove that the Roma are not a people who lack solidarity, discipline and devotion. I will always come within your midst, whenever and wherever you are, to meet you, to listen to you and to embrace you. In my role as Secretary of the Women Section, next to the Central Committee in Bucharest, I will be the one who will resolve your letters, your complaints, responding without delay.
With sisterly love and joyful wishes! (Timpul, 1938c, p. 2).
The appeal made by Marta Lăzurică strenghtens the involvement of Roma women in a new phase of the fight for equality in the Roma civic emancipation movement in Romania, through the solidary support of the social-political activities of their husbands, the Roma leaders. At the same time, this text of social guidance reveals some statements which reproduce, tangentially, the traditions which were dully followed and respected by members of the Roma community, namely:
-
The unilateral everyday care of Roma women concerning domestic work (without the involvement of other women/servants);
-
The inherent support of their husband in what concerns material matters (the occasional involvement in activities which would gain some money; the selling of jewellery, parts of the dowry or other items of value) and spiritual matters (contributing to alleviating the sadness in the house against all means: the woman is the soul of the house, with whose help the Roma man can overcome any obstacles);
-
The lack of shyness and disgust when it came to making home visits and the help offered to poor Roma families (i.e. Roma leaders should not dishonour the poverty of their kin and it was expected that they help those who found themselves in dire poverty);
-
Roma women could only welcome in their homes other Roma women (on the other hand, Roma men could go in the homes of their kin only in the presence of the head of the family, who, customarily, was a man).
At the same time, in her Appeal, she underlined the need for unity of all Roma, regardless of group belonging, pointing to keeping the door open without making any difference. Any Roma child, who would come to visit, needed to be honoured by the owners of the house with a small present (i.e. it was considered shameful to allow a Roma child leave empty-handed from the house they had just visited).
In her text, she organically drafted a model of the “ideal Roma woman”. However, despite the launch of her appeal, connected to and emphasising the indispensable role of Roma women in diverse social-political activities, Roma women’s image in the interwar Romanian society was nevertheless shaped by other types of news reports, meant primarily to accentuate the lower social status of members of Roma communities (including Roma women), and to degrade them:
The Prefecture of the Capital police took notice to the existence of a “begging school” which operates in Bucharest, at the periphery of the Plumbuita neighbourhood, on the Mrs. Ghica –Tei street? “The teachers” are a couple of individuals who practice this profession sui-generis. They have at their disposal a little cart, carried by a donkey, in which they put three Gypsied: one pretends to be blind in one eye, the other to be missing a hand and the third playing from a broken harmonica, songs of dispair. For a few days, this procession roams the villages surrounding Bucharest and beg for the pity of their inhabitants.
From here comes also the flooding of the capital with the massive group of minor women, who pretend to be salespeople of “nothings”: corn on the cob, flowers, and other seasonal items – an army of prostitutes, carriers of germs and all kinds of microbes, contributing to the decimation of the miserable individuals, of the poor souls, who have the fatality of coming in contact with them. (Revista Generală Ilustrată, 1932, p. 2).
Such a stereotypical presentation, full of malicious fantasy did not disappear after the interwar period and, despite the efforts of women activists such as the Florica Constantinescu and Marta Lăzurică, whose portraits have been presented above, is persistent until present day.
* * *
In general, the interwar period determined the historic birth of a new type of emancipated Roma woman, fighting for her rights and conscious of her new role in society. Regretably, this new social mission was largely ignored both in the modern Romanian society and in the traditional sphere of the Roma community too. At the same time, the interwar Romanian press abundantly presented images and articles of gentle Romanian women, sensitive, pure, delicate, who had the fate of being “beautiful”, who had a “figure”, consumers of pleasures, preoccupied with fashion, interior decoration, art, gastronomie, the mastering of good manners, etc. (Parfentie, 2018, pp. 132–138). In an unfair social contrast, the same press highlights the exotic image of Roma women: “handsome”, “child bearing”, “witches”, “tricksters”, “saleswomen of nothings”, “beggars”, “rugged”, “prostitutes”, “unwashed”, amusing “illiterates” (Realitatea Ilustrată, 1935a, pp. 11–13).
This study has fragmentarily contoured two social portraits of Roma activist women, Florica Constantinescu and Marta Lăzurică, who were involved in the Roma civic emancipation movement in interwar Romania. Regretably, other personalities of Roma ethnicity from interwar Romania remain unexplored, and this is especially the case when it comes to Roma women (“those who can read and write”): such as Elena Negulescu, the vicepresident of the Women Section or Ketty Petrescu, the General Secretary of the Women Section from within the General Union of Roma in Romania. What is left is to continue to research and explore other (presently unknown) portraits of Roma women who had assumed a new role in the social life of the time and dedicated themselves, together with other Roma leaders, to the shaping of a new archetype of emancipated Roma, and who were: “educated, hard working, honest, faithful, opened to the community, socially involved, solidary with the members of their family, proud of their people and their assumed ethnic identity – dignified citizens, well behaved and loyal to the state”. (O Rom, 1934a, p. 2).
Conclusion
Petre Matei and Raluca Bianca Roman
The portraits presented in this chapter help us offer an overall picture of the shapes and dynamics of the Roma civic emancipation movement in Romania during the interwar period, while also pinpointing to some general trends in the civic Roma emancipation movement occurring during the same period in other countries of Central, South-Eastern and Eastern Europe, and which vastly depended on the broader social, political and historical context of the region. All the individuals whose portraits have been presented throughout this chapter illustrate not only the ways in which a new Roma elite emerged during the shaping of a Roma movement in the country but, just as crucially, how these individuals acted and moulded their actions according to the social-political context of the Roma community in their country and the region.
As discussed in the introduction, Romania in the post-First World War context can be described as a country aiming to recreate its very identity, as the incorporation of new territories re-constituted Romania as a vastly multi-cultural and multi-ethnic nation. Minorities, in this context, faced diverse policies of integration, assimilation and incorporation in the overall Romanian nation. The Roma, and especially the Roma elite emerging during the post-war context, faced a particularly difficult choice in terms of the shape of the movement that would eventually emerge. The portraits of some of the key activists and actors within the Roma movement in the country help us reveal not only the role of individuals within the movement itself but, just as importantly, the ways in which the latter were embedded within a broader process of social mobilisation as it could take place within the interwar context.
The interwar Roma movement in Romania was, at the same time, one of the most productive in the region, with multiple organisations being set up (the most important ones being AGȚR, UGRR and AUGRR, the latter of which gained legal status in November 1934), the publication of six Roma-led newspapers, the organisation of meetings and congresses all across the country (some of them uniquely novel at the time, such as the congress from October 8, 1933) and the emergence of a politically-minded Roma intellectual elite. The newspapers were connected to the diverse organisations set up (for instance, the link between Glasul Romilor and AUGRR and that of Țara Noastră and AGȚR), regional dynamics and particularities also played a central role in the different issues and topics that would emerge. Connected to the latter, the case of the Transylvanian and Oltenian Roma organisations and leaders reveal some of these dynamics, as the portraits of Lazăr Naftanailă and Constantin Nicolăescu-Plopșor (and, especially, the Oltenia charter of AGȚR) evoke.
The choice of the portraits presented in this chapter, while not offering an exhaustive overview of all the key players in the Roma civic emancipation movement in Romania (names such as those of Apostol Matei, Marin I. Simion and Aurel Th. Manolescu-Dolj are also worth a mention), was not by no means arbitrary. Most importantly, the source materials available for the ones presented here are the most detailed, while for others, only sporadic information was available at the time of writing. Nevertheless, the portraits explored above help reveal the tensions embedded within the Roma movement itself and the fight for representational legitimacy within the context of the era (see Șerboianu, Lăzurică and Niculescu), the regional tendencies and particularities (see Lazăr Naftanailă) as well as the desire to contribute to the national revival of the Roma, through a focus placed on literature, folklore and the creation of Roma-led and Roma-focused institutions (see C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor), in the lines of national revival movements occurring elsewhere. This also connects to the ways in which twentieth century Europe (and especially the region under discussion throughout this book) can be understood as the timeframe of national revivalisms, connected to the formation of new nation-states and nation-building processes (Hroch, 1985, pp. 25–30; Hobsbawm, 1990, pp. 11–12).
The work and role of those embedded within the Roma movement in interwar Romania can thus also be understood within this broader framework, wherein a small group of Roma intellectual elite emerged with the aim to bring out and shape a sense of national consciousness and national belonging among the diverse groups and members of their communities, oftentimes placing an emphasis on the history, culture, folklore, and language of the community. At the same time, their actions were embedded within the overall social and political climate of the country, wherein the support of key state institutions (including the Orthodox Church) and political allies (such as the ruling and opposition parties) was needed to achieve their aim. It is thus that the actions and goals of some of the leaders in the Roma movement, seemingly nationalistic and anti-Semitic in nature (see Lăzurică and Șerboianu), need to be seen within the context of the time, in which the Roma movement itself could not have survived or thrived without the support of important political actors (such as the National Christian Party) or state institutions, with their own incentives and goals.
Finally, while not much information is available about particular individuals, the role of women within the Roma civic emancipation movement was also noted, with some Roma organisations having also dedicated a Women Section within their structure (see UGRR, for instance), and directly aimed to address issues of concern for Roma women and children. Within it, two Roma women’s names stood out, Florica Constantinescu and Marta Lăzurică. While the available data is limited and mainly concerns articles published within mainstream and Roma newspapers in Romania during the interwar period, the fragmentary portraits of these two Roma women provide glimpses into the role of Roma women within the Roma movement, as well as the ways in which the Roma civic emancipation movement in interwar Romania had opened up the discussion about the shaping of the Roma women’s role in the social wellbeing of their community and in the future of the Roma population in the country. Through all of this, the portraits explored throughout this chapter offer a more or less comprehensive picture of the Roma civic emancipation movement in the country, the role of particular individuals within it, and the ways in which the movement itself connects to the shaping of revivalist movements in the region and, especially, to the shaping of Roma movements across other countries of Central, South-Eastern and Eastern Europe during the interwar period of time.