Title: “Whose Property Are My Letters?” Inside Monica Lovinescu and Virgil Ierunca’S Archive

Title: “Whose Property Are My Letters?” Inside Monica Lovinescu and Virgil Ierunca’s Archive

Author: Astrid Cambose

How to cite this article: Cambose, Astrid. 2019. “’Whose Property Are My Letters?’ Inside Monica Lovinescu and Virgil Ierunca’s Archive.” Martor 24: 85-96.

Published by: Editura MARTOR (MARTOR Publishing House), Muzeul Național al Ţăranului Român (National Museum of the Romanian Peasant)

URL: http://martor.muzeultaranuluiroman.ro/archive/martor-24-2019/

Martor (The Museum of the Romanian Peasant Anthropology Journal) is a peer-reviewed academic journal established in 1996, with a focus on cultural and visual anthropology, ethnology, museum studies and the dialogue among these disciplines. Martor Journal is published by the Museum of the Romanian Peasant. Interdisciplinary and international in scope, it provides a rich content at the highest academic and editorial standards for academic and non-academic readership. Any use aside from these purposes and without mentioning the source of the article(s) is prohibited and will be considered an infringement of copyright.

Martor (Revue d’Anthropologie du Musée du Paysan Roumain) est un journal académique en système peer-review fondé en 1996, qui se concentre sur l’anthropologie visuelle et culturelle, l’ethnologie, la muséologie et sur le dialogue entre ces disciplines. La revue Martor est publiée par le Musée du Paysan Roumain. Son aspiration est de généraliser l’accès vers un riche contenu au plus haut niveau du point de vue académique et éditorial pour des objectifs scientifiques, éducatifs et informationnels. Toute utilisation au-delà de ces buts et sans mentionner la source des articles est interdite et sera considérée une violation des droits de l’auteur.

Martor is indexed by:

CEEOL, EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Anthropological Index Online (AIO), MLA International Bibliography.

This issue of Martor has been published with the financial support of the National Cultural Fund Administration (AFCN Romania). “Whose Property Are My Letters?” Inside Monica Lovinescu and Virgil Ierunca’s Archive

Astrid Cambose A. Philippide Romanian Philology Research Institute, Romania [email protected]

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS

Public use of objects belonging to private memory is what concerned me while Politics of memory, archives, heritage, writing this article. Under discussion will be the collection of letters received letters and diaries, Monica Lovinescu, by Romanian couple Lovinescu–Ierunca during their more than sixty-year Ecaterina Bălăcioiu-Lovinescu. exile in France (1946-2008) from hundreds of fellow intellectuals confined to Romania by the communist regime. The documents belonged to the couple until their death. “Whose property are my letters?” is a question that may now—once the recipients are dead—be raised by any of their surviving correspondents. (The recipient becomes the rightful owner of all the letters he or she receives; but what if the recipient dies without any legal heirs? Who is entitled to the final and legal decision about the fate of those letters?) The politics of memory—issues most germane to public policy—will therefore be the main focus of the first part of my paper. Next, I shall address the special situation of the letters Monica Lovinescu received from her mother, Ecaterina Bălăcioiu-Lovinescu, a fonds which I managed as follows: recovery, selection, translation into Romanian (given the fact that most of them were written in French in order to evade political censorship), publication by Humanitas Publishing House, followed by the transfer of the physical collection to the Humanitas Aqua Forte Foundation. Editing that private correspondence was an occasion for me to fully experience what Arlette Farge (1989) has called “the allure of the archives.” I shall present this experience in detail in the second part of my study.

Everything is a memory case.” f under pressure from the intellectual “ — Alon Confino fashion of the day, and especially due “L’acquis de la nouvelle histoire se révèle à to the impact of what has been consid- travers la pluralité des regards, l’ouverture Iered “un certain terrorisme politico-intel- du champs d’observation, la variété des pistes lectuel” (Le Goff 1988: 327), history as an de recherches qui mènent à l’histoire contem- ideological (usually Marxist) interpretation poraine. Quittant le régistre de la mémoire, of the past has clearly dominated the twen- le passé devient de plus en plus vite objet tieth century, towards its end the scientific d’histoire.” world slowly began to awake from the fasci- — Sonia Combe nation of these all-too-coherent patterns of “Je qualifie l’histoire d’étude scientifiquement understanding and started to ask itself how menée, non de science.” much credit should be given to the smooth, — Lucien Febvre) linear and logical explanations of social

85 Astrid Cambose

Memorabilia: portrait (photography) of Ecaterina B\l\cioiu- Lovinescu in the 1950s and snowdrop letter, 1947.

1) “Coherence cannot history. Although no pervasive frame of ref- authenticity, Michel Foucault (1966, 1971) be the major test of validity for a cultural erence is to be found within the humanities, has placed discontinuity in a new scientific description. [...] too much coherence1 appears to be rather light. Indeed, of what relevance can be the The force of our in terpretations cannot the sign of a self-satisfied artificial inquiry, closed, complete and self-sufficient patterns rest, as they are now so often made to lacking depth, honesty and truth. Human of knowledge when some newer events do, on the tightness deeds are an endless puzzle, which his- show up and want to take their place within with which they hold together, or the torical consciousness cannot take reliable the whole? How shall they find a place, if our assurance with which control of. Here we must recall Raymond explanations are already complete and there they are argued. Nothing has done more, Aron’s words about uncertainty, which is no room left? If a particular science must I think, to discredit cultural analysis than does not mean scientific failure, but on the be conceived by strict comparison to sys- the construction of contrary mimics a kind of ambiguity very tematic sciences, then maybe history should impeccable depictions of formal order in much connected to the essence of our hu- no longer covet its place on the list. whose actual existence man consciousness and to the interval that A new objectivity emerged, aimed at “un nobody can quite believe” (Geertz 1973: separates knowledge from life itself (Aron savoir faillible, imparfait, discutable, jamais 17-18). 1997: 135), or those of Lucien Febvre chosen parfaitement innocent, mais que sa norme for the motto of these pages. de vérité et ses conditions profession- Holistic hermeneutics have thus been nelles d’élaboration et d’exercice permettent 2) “The notion of slowly set aside, together with the ideal of d’appeler scientifique” (Le Goff 1988: 350). ‘memoryʼ has taken its place now as a having one single history, based on a unique Within the “immediate history” / “la nou- leading term, perhaps the leading term, truth and on a mechanical chronology, velle histoire,” a remarkable turn has already in cultural history” one and the same for everybody. All of the taken place under the influence of the so- (Confino 1997: 1386). contesting ideas have consequently gained called memory revolution.2 The scholar’s aim ground. Considering the increasing need for seems to be not so much to diagnose the re-

86 “Whose Property Are My Letters?” Inside Monica Lovinescu and Virgil Ierunca’s Archive alities he/she is discussing, but to converse less open access, but the amount of informa- with them; a kind of extended anthropolog- tion required by historians is mainly found ical field study is more alluring nowadays, in public archives.) The funny thing is that seemingly in search of difficulties, contro- when, driven by our particular scientific versial issues and multiple reasoning (see needs, we access a certain archive, we usu- the famous principle “Pas de problèmes, ally expect to find more than what we were 3) “Ce que la notion pas d’histoire,” Febvre 2009: 25). A change initially looking for. And if we are lucky, we dʼéchelle comporte of scale3—from “big” history to the every- really do! But what is it that makes many of de propre dans lʼemploi quʼen day life of individuals—has led historians us feel this way? font les historiens, cʼest lʼabsence de to notice things that never interested them Once he enters the vast domain of a commensurabilité before. New topics correspond to the new public archive, the researcher is at the ar- des dimensions. En changeant de perspective on how and for what purpose chivist’s disposal—a situation that Arlette lʼéchelle, on ne history should be practised. Moreover, the Farge suggestively rendered in her study on voit pas les mêmes choses en plus grand view of history as a social practice gradually the allure of archives. Many of us have felt ou en plus petit, […] on voit des choses makes its way into the scientific world. the impact of archivists’ generally narrow différentes” (Ricœur Various policies respond sooner or later concept regarding the property regime5 of 2000: 270). to all social practices. If memory, considered the documents they own. They are also re- to embrace all “the ways in which people sponsible for the physical condition of the construct a sense of the past” (Confino 1997: pieces they are entrusted with. But do they 4) “By sanctifying 1386) draws public attention today, one can really own those documents? Comprehend- the political while underplaying the expect an official mainstream memory to be ing how archives work within the general social, and by (as it has always been) consequently forged administration of the social and cultural life sacrificing the cultural 4 to the political, we by political rulers. In response, popular col- of a given society entails investigating the transform memory into a «natural» corollary of lective or individual memory, recorded in politics of memory imposed by the state. De- political development informal archives—namely oral or written pending on the degree of transparency (and and interests” (Confino narratives of life stories, ordinary people’s democracy), the time lapse between the reg- 1997: 1394). letters and diaries, private memorials and istration of a certain event in an archive and celebrations, rumours, blurbs and fame it- the moment when its declassification for self, etc.—add to the general knowledge public access is permitted may vary from 5) “Tout fonctionnaire a le sentiment que of history, sometimes opposing the main- instant access to thirty years in the USA, ses papiers font corps stream and dismissing false explanations. fifty or more in Europe, and up to sixty or avec lui” (Combe The phenomenon was characterized by John one hundred years for state secrets or docu- 2001: 111). Bodnar (1994) as “vernacular versus official ments touching the secrets of private life. memory.” Sonia Combe deplored this interval, which

The politics of memory is a notion that she refers to as a ripening time or “temps de 6) “La communauté was coined in the 1990s, in reference to the lattence”: “Ce temps du passage de l’archive des archivistes est en proie à une crise conflicting accounts of Nazi crimes in the du registre de la mémoire à celui de l’histoire de conscience qui la Allies’ official history, in German official qui consacre sa libre communication en fait conduit à sʼinterroger à la fois sur sa mission history and in the narratives of different eth- un objet froid, car dépourvu d’incidence sur au service du publique et sur la fonction, qui nic groups that carry collective memories of le présent, [et] une archive morte” (Combe lui a été implicitement the Second World War. The notion has been 2001: 88, italics mine). In 1996, the French dévolue, de gardienne 6 des secrets de lʼÉtat” revisited from many perspectives: “One of archivists organized a conference on pri- (Combe 2001: XVII). the questions that arises when reflecting on vate life and state secrets, examining the le- key moments of the past concerns the role of gal practices meant to protect those secrets, the archive in disseminating political mem- in light of a new question: In whose service oryscapes” (Cohen 2018: 17). Policy makers are the archives when it comes to the pos- build the official archives according to politi- sible proofs of repression? Are they in ser- cal interests. (Of course, there have always vice of the (oppressive) state, or in service been private archives as well, with more or of the citizens who righteously ask for clas-

87 Astrid Cambose

sified information presumably containing whenever naked reality menaced to come shards of evidence? In 1993, Shentalinsky, out. The archives of communism speak a a Russian poet, published a book in France language (see the Orwellian newspeak) of on the literary archives of the KGB, select- their own, conventional, artificial and en- ing different documents and commenting coded, by means of which they translate re- on them; the work was so generous in details ality into ideology. Nevertheless, historians that it was compared to a Baroque artefact, need to know and understand that idiom in but the most important thing the author did order to understand the core of twentieth- 7) See Lovinescu (2008). was to contextualize every document so as century life. to make it transparent with regard to the cir- Monica Lovinescu deplored the delay cumstances of its creation (for example, tes- imposed by Romanian laws before permit- timonials obtained under extreme pressure ting access to the archives of the former

8) A striking meant—as the author pointed out—almost regime—“to extend the ‘secret’ character of communist social the opposite of what the torturer made his such documents for yet another forty years practice, still alive in 7 Romania today, is to prisoner say or sign ). It was only the be- means to annihilate the past” (Lovinescu find someone to put the ginning of a huge interest in such archives 2008: 415). She added that historians must blame on for everything that goes overtly and documents. Seuil, one of the most im- have free access to all the registers; it is they wrong, in no matter what field of activity. portant publishing houses in Paris, dedi- who must choose, it is they who should The general rule is cated a new collection to them in the 1990s sieve the documents. For archives to re- that somebody has to be found guilty and (Archives du communisme), coordinated ally “confess,” the first historians who open punished, but never by Stéphane Courtois and Nicolas Werth, them should have been themselves—in real the real responsible or 9 offender! Nevertheless, who called the phenomenon “a true docu- life—among the witnesses to whatever the a scapegoat must exist. “No guilt” in such cases mentary revolution” (Courtois 2009: 401). documents refer to. Indeed, it takes a former is not an acceptable Indeed, the archives of former communist repression subject to recognize the hidden logic (see the sabotage verdict, largely used regimes contain billions of files, many of elements that smell of terror within an ideo- to explain some of the which had once been classified “top secret.” logically reshaped document—this is what most dramatic past or present failures). Secrecy was a social pathology in totalitar- David Rousset, survivor of the Buchenwald ian states. Everything had to be secret in concentration camp, meant in 1949, when order to concentrate all the power into the he asked his fellow prison mates to investi- hands of those who controlled information. gate the communist repression sites as trau- At the same time, everything that happened ma experts (Todorov 1999: 44). 9) “Nowadays [the] historian, still an eye- or was supposed to happen in society had to How about the private archives and their witness [to the events], be reported (of course, secretly reported) to property regime? What patrimonial laws should be the first to gain access to the the superiors; reporting replaced reality, as apply to them? Should private collections files in the archives, in words replaced (or hid) facts. What I mean be entitled to shelter valuable pieces that are order to write, on each and every page, the is that few of the things that were reported potentially relevant for the general history? subtext without which the historians of the really had taken place, and even if they had, A comparison could be made here between future risk not [being] reality was distorted in order to match ideo- the regime of art collections, on the one able to decipher what really happened to the logical prescriptions. If communism taught side, and history relics, artefacts and other people of the twentieth us anything, it was schizoid hypocrisy. Ev- findings on the other: as everybody knows, century” (Lovinescu 2008: 416). erybody learned to pretend being what they in Romania art is almost free to be traded were not and doing what they did not. Truth among private collectors, on condition was considered not only the worst policy, that it is legally sourced, whereas historical but in time it became almost unrecogniz- items belong mainly to the state and cannot able among the general lies. Mixing all of be traded. In other words, if somebody ac- these practices resulted in counterfeiting re- cidentally finds an antique object, he must ality on a social scale by attempting to avoid give it up to the state; but what if he finds any personal responsibility, and also in the a bundle of letters or a diary? Holocaust general practice of looking for scapegoats8 history benefited a lot from such acciden-

88 “Whose Property Are My Letters?” Inside Monica Lovinescu and Virgil Ierunca’s Archive tal findings—though private, the cultural analysed it in terms of positivist thinking— objects accidentally found have been put cannot designate the “general” memory, for to good scientific use and in fact they now there exists no such thing: collective mem- serve the general interest at least as much as ory is but group memory and it stretches as the private interest of their owner. The sad- far as the identity of each group.12 Therefore, dest situation occurs when the actual own- where social history is concerned, collective ers of such cultural objects (memorabilia) memories will compete and fight for su- either dispose of them (for instance, the first premacy. If merging them is the goal of the owner dies and his inheritors do not under- historian, they will prove difficult to merge. stand the value of the archive, therefore they Alon Confino has mentioned this apparently get rid of whatever they consider mere “use- paradoxical situation: “A similar problem of 10) Mémoire less papers”), or, on the contrary, they keep narrative emerges when we attempt to write instrumentalisée : “[…] des abus, au sens fort the archive only for themselves, denying the history of memory by separating its con- du terme, résultant anybody else (including the researchers) ac- struction from its contestation. But are these dʼune manipulation concertée de la cess to the documents. There must be many competing claims not an integral part of the mémoire et de lʼoubli par les détenteurs such silent archives all around us that we are construction of memory?” (1997: 1397- du pouvoir” (Ricœur not even aware of … Whatever materials we 1398). On the contrary, as Tzvetan Todorov 2000: 97). reach on this matter is just the tip of the ice- (1999) put it, the monopoly on memory is a berg; and what we successfully use is even psychotic characteristic of totalitarian states less. We will return to this topic below. (a familiar tune for Eastern Europeans). Given the possible and quite frequent To conclude: the very process of estab- abuses to which memory is subjected by of- lishing/producing the archives by choosing 11) “[...] l’importance 10 des mémoires ficial policies, the researcher should find a what to introduce in them and what to leave plurielles, portées par des communautés good spot to conduct his survey on the social aside, the decision about the new collections linguistiques et practices of the period he is interested in. It to be added, and the practice of permitting nationales différentes, mémoires souvent is no simple job. He must place himself in or restricting access to the information they antagonistes, mais what has been described as a symbolic clash: stock are among the hints that tell a lot about toujours en référence les unes par rapport “la région des conflits entre mémoire indivi- the state policies. Even so, the archive is nev- aux autres. [...] Voilà l’élément central de duelle, mémoire collective, mémoire histo- er entirely available in practice: researchers notre réflexion sur rique, en ce point où la mémoire vivante des must be picky because they cannot afford l’application de l’idée de lieu de mémoire à survivants affronte le regard distancié et cri- an endless study in order to reach their con- un niveau européen: tique de l’historien” (Ricœur 2000: 105-106). clusions; in this matter, they need the help embrasser la pluralité de mémoires qui He must find reliable witnesses, and to do of archivists as guides through the archive. renvoient à un même objet” (François and so he must take cognizance of commingled Public archives are nowadays labyrinths. Serrier 2018: 148). beliefs. If he encounters opposing or merely The situation is less difficult when a- re different opinions concerning the same so- searcher or a team is able to assemble their cial events, he is on the right track, because own archive and can make professional use the phenomenological existence of groups of it. Such cases usually refer to witness- 12) See Halbwachs shows off in such conflicting views.11 Vic- centered, private and mostly oral archives, (1925). tims, eyewitnesses, decision-makers, tortur- gradually submitted to transcription and in- ers and so on implicitly act as groups, even terpretation. A recent example would be The if they don’t assume a group identity; they Archives of Memory (Cojocaru et al. 2016, share the same memories, engraved in their 2017, 2018), a study conducted during the minds from a similar perspective, regardless past four years by Moldavian researchers of the psychological differences among the and historians on the social trauma inflicted group members. In different shades, their by the communist regime in the small Re- past is essentially one and the same within public of Moldova. The team gathers oral each group. Collective memory—a notion and written testimonies of survivors, papers coined by Maurice Halbwachs, who has concerning their deportation, readmission

89 Astrid Cambose

and relocation, other documents on the his- ish a subterranean collective memory— torical context, material evidence transmit- which is obviously a good defence mecha- ted within the families (such as old pictures), nism, but a costly one, too. Social wounds symbolic objects (memorabilia), proofs of remain horrendously open; the deafening changes in social habits, documents con- silence imposed by political rulers makes cerning the current relationship of former those wounds bleed continuously. I strongly repression subjects with the political deci- believe that ideological omertà is one of the sion-makers, etc. They also take into consid- worst possible wrongdoings when it comes eration the particular cases when memory is to the future of a country. Try as they might, self-suppressed by those who, having gone the rulers will finally be defeated by com- 13) “If we could 15 compare our past, as it through the ordeal of political repression moners. When the silence is finally broken, has really been, fixed and deportation, are still suffering and re- those who break it are not “perpetrators” in before us objectively, with the subjective fuse to speak about what happened to them. the realm of collective memory, but healers representation which Narration is considered in psychology to of the deep, unseen and devitalizing social we have in memory, we would find the be the fundamental mnemonic act (Janet wounds. By speaking out, by appealing to copy formed upon a particular system of 1928). People are generally prone to what remembrance and inclusion of former trau- projection; each of us Jacques Le Goff has termed “la conduite de ma in various hermeneutics, the past finally is able to find his way without trouble in this récit,” therefore, as the author notices, “les ceases to be present and is broken into vari- system, because he oublis, les silences de l’histoire sont révéla- ous (conflicting) representations. has himself created it” (Ribot 1887: 62). teurs de ces mécanismes de manipulation de Social trauma may be the main theme of la mémoire collective” (1988: 109), conclud- an archive. In such cases, the whole archive ing that: “La réflexion historique aujourd’hui could serve for the prosecutor as well as for s’attache également à l’absence des docu- the historian, because memory renders past ments, aux silences de l’histoire. […] Il faut events in such a light that moral judgement

14) “Le passé, en faire l’inventaire des archives du silence. Et is inherent to the study of the pieces of evi- réalité, ne reparaît pas faire l’histoire à partir des documents et des dence themselves. Many of them are narra- tel quel; tout semble indiquer quʼil ne se absences de documents” (1988: 302). As tives of eyewitnesses, descendants of victims conserve pas, mais long as entire communities pass over their or persons who experienced trauma and are quʼon le reconstruit en partant du présent” traumatic past in silence (usually because able to offer first-hand views of events. His- (Halbwachs 1925: x-xi). they are forced by the new establishment tory itself originates in the basic gestures of to remain silent about the former political memory transmission: “L’histoire a com- establishment or about the circumstances of mencé par être un récit, le récit de celui qui transition), what has been called “le travail peut dire j’ai vu, j’ai entendu dire. Cet aspect de mémoire” is not accomplished. As Mau- de l’histoire-récit, de l’histoire-témoignage,

15) “The past cannot rice Halbwachs or Théodule-Armand Ribot n’a jamais cessé d’exister dans le développe- be [indefinitely] have put it, our past is the present represen- ment de la science historique” (Le Goff 1988: suppressed” 13 14 (Tism\neanu 2006: 7). tation we create from the actual events. 20). But what credit can or should we give We use these representations as connectors to oral relations more or less supported by between the past and present of our lives. If documents? As Marc Bloch noticed, every remembrance is shaken, our identity is di- trace of the past is a mix of overt testimony rectly threatened. The same goes for societ- and hidden hints; in fact, “we should look ies. If remembrance is forbidden at a higher for memory where it is implied rather than scale and memories stop being transmit- said, blurred rather than clear, in the realm ted from one generation to the next, social of collective mentality” (Confino 1997: identity is gradually destroyed. Totalitarian 1395). Narratives of repression offer a lot of regimes forbid memory because they reject factual information, as well as a lot of sug- painful truths. But, regardless of their deci- gestive hints. Anything in them may be use- sion, historical truth remains the same and ful to the historian in building a scientific representations of trauma continue to nour- perspective, because it is the researcher who

90 “Whose Property Are My Letters?” Inside Monica Lovinescu and Virgil Ierunca’s Archive gives scientific relevance to an object of the who are in need of material support—was past by questioning it and thus transform- quite complicated. This was initially because ing it into a proper document (Ricœur 2000: of the delay of the Romanian part in pay- 216). That is exactly what has happened in ing the inheritance taxes, and later because the particular case which I mean to discuss of their explicit refusal to pay both taxes and in the following pages. The case has a sub- penalties. Thus, the house with no actual jective edge to it as well. owner was in danger of being broken into In 2010 I went to Paris on a personal and the profusion of documents gathered mission: to look for any important remains there by the couple during their more than of Monica Lovinescu and Virgil Ierunca’s half a century’s exile could have been lost archive that might have been left in the forever. Immediate action had to be taken. abandoned house of the late couple. Born in So I suggested going there in order to re- 1920 and 1923, respectively, Virgil Ierunca cover and bring back to the country all the and his wife, Monica Lovinescu, have been important documents. two leading figures of Romanian cultural I was not the first person to visit the ar- exile. While in the country, they studied chive left in the house. Other researchers, ei- literature, philosophy, and theatre art. Be- ther friends of the family or helping hands, fore 1947, the year he left Romania, Virgil had seen it during the last years of Monica Ierunca had been a cultural journalist, a Lovinescu’s and Virgil Ierunca’s lives, and rebel against all official currents, and a pro- immediately after their death. Some per- moter of existentialism. In 1946 he inaugu- sonal belongings, manuscripts, pictures and rated the difficult debate about the crisis of letters had already been recovered, along Romanian literature. From 1947 to 1990, in with most of the books, records and com- France, he added an even sharper edge to his pact discs. I knew that and hoped there journalism, which became very much politi- would not be too much left. But much to my cally involved; Paris made him grow into a astonishment, I found the house still full of real writer, whose essays, literary criticism, documents. The archive was engulfing every and poetry evolved around the theme of ex- spare inch of space, in the entrance hall, in ile and forbidden homeland. Monica Lovi- the basement, in the living room, in the at- nescu, after having tried herself as a theatre tic. Everything was full of papers. In official director and translator and founded some terms, Monica Lovinescu and her husband avant-garde companies, became an essay- Virgil Ierunca were the owners of a rich fam- ist, journalist, and art critic; she worked for ily fonds, valuable for many fields of study, Radio France (1951-1975) and for Radio from the history of Romanian literature to Free Europe (from 1962), within the RFE recent history, political studies, sociology, Romanian service, where both she and her cultural anthropology and so on. husband starred in well-known and very As this paper deals with the question of influential anti-communist broadcasts. The public use of private memory, I will bring couple chose not to leave the French exile af- into discussion a major part of that archive: ter Romania’s so-called Revolution of 1989, the collection of letters received by the late seemingly because of their disappointment Romanian couple Lovinescu–Ierunca dur- with the slow pace of political change to- ing their French exile (1946-2008) from wards democracy. They died in Paris, in hundreds of fellow intellectuals confined 2006 and 2008. back in Romania; some of those intellectuals I said “abandoned” house because at that are still alive today. The collection consists time the legal situation of the house—left by of thousands of documents, all unconven- the couple to the Romanian state, on condi- tional. They belonged to the aforementioned tion of transforming it into an accommoda- couple until their death. Whose property are tion for Romanian students on scholarships, my letters? is a question that may now be

91 Astrid Cambose

raised by any of their surviving correspon- case, it was the allure of the letters). I shall dents. Indeed, many of those who wrote to focus on this experience in the second part the couple are important contemporary per- of my study. sonalities of Romanian cultural life. Anyone There were plenty of documents in the is entitled to ask: “If I wrote some letters to house, waiting to be classified and recov- someone who died, and someone else has ered. I spent a few weeks inside the archive, recovered them (else they would have phys- sorting manuscripts and papers and trying ically disappeared), to whom do the letters to make sure that nothing of value escaped belong now?” The sender no longer pos- unnoticed. There were many valuable piec- sesses a letter once he mails it; the recipient es, and I had to go to Paris for a second time becomes the rightful owner of all the letters in order to get all of them. The first thing I he receives. But what if the recipient dies brought back to Romania was the massive without any legal heirs? Who is entitled to collection of letters received by Monica Lovi- decide the fate of those letters? To whom do nescu from her mother, Ecaterina Bălăcioiu- they legally belong? Contemporaneity may Lovinescu, during the eleven years of their seem an intellectual bliss due to our free and forced separation that ended in 1960 with quick access to all kinds of information, but the latter’s death in prison. There were about on the other hand, it may seriously hinder 2,500 letters, all kept in perfect chronologi- the researcher of memory, who is by defini- cal order. The recovery was followed—to tion prone to listen to each document as my considerable surprise—by the request an individual messenger, and yet bound to to publish them, a proposal I received from follow some (often bushy and obscure) le- Humanitas Publishing House. We agreed on 16) B\l\cioiu-Lovinescu 16 (2012 and 2016). gal, deontological and ethical paths, while a selective edition, with complementary struggling to handle his research topic. apparatus and index; as most of the letters What one would think reasonable and con- were written in French to thwart the attempt venient from an ethical point of view may of communist censorship to break the secret be subject to an unexpected reversal when of their private correspondence, translation dealt with from the official perspective im- into Romanian was needed; thus, the edi- posed by the law. The politics of memory— tion benefited from an inspired and accu- issues most germane to public policy—have rate translation by Gabriela Creția, who also been the main focus of the first part of contributed some of the notes. my paper. How did the collection look? I must con- From the already mentioned archive, I fess that when I accepted to create an edi- shall address the special situation of the let- tion, I had only a vague notion as to what it ters Monica Lovinescu received from her contained. Scanning the letters allowed only mother, Ecaterina Bălăcioiu-Lovinescu, a reasonable expectation that they would re- which I managed as follows: recovery, se- veal interesting details. lection, translation into Romanian (given There were about two hundred long let- the fact that most of them were written in ters, written on bluish paper with blue ink, French in order to evade political censor- in a minute handwriting resembling a lace ship), publication by Humanitas Publishing made of strings of words; every such letter House—since the legal trustee of the entire contained a few days’ reporting, detailed archive is Gabriel Liiceanu, the owner of over four to six pages. There were also thou- Humanitas—followed by the transfer of the sands of postcards, also entirely covered in physical collection to the Humanitas Aqua handwriting, so full of characters that one Forte Foundation. Editing that private cor- couldn’t have found place to add a pinhead respondence was an occasion for me to fully on them. Most of the long letters had been experience the feeling that Arlette Farge has secretly sneaked out of the country by vari- called “the allure of the archives” (in my ous means during the first and most fero-

92 “Whose Property Are My Letters?” Inside Monica Lovinescu and Virgil Ierunca’s Archive cious years of Romanian communism (in Bălăcioiu-Lovinescu to her daughter are first the 1950s); later on they were sent by official degree memorates, as they would appear in means, but nevertheless with much concern the schema of stages in fictionalization that about their arrival at their destination. The Ileana Benga and Bogdan Neagota have pro- small letters (disguised as postcards) had posed (Benga 2005: 79). First degree memo- been sent more regularly, and they had a pe- rates are self-referential narratives in which culiar composition: apparently everything the narrator is also the main character and they contained was plain and uninteresting certifies the truth of everything he describes. family matters, unappealing to the eyes of Of course, second degree memorates (rela- the Romanian secret police, the Securitate, tions certified by friends or acquaintances) but in reality they were written in an en- are also delivered in the letters, and even crypted manner which permitted the sender third degree ones (general facts, as part of the a lot of freedom as to the truths she meant social knowledge) appear, but the focus is on to express. TheSecuritate let the letters pass the first person narratives. Corroborating (after copying them) only because they were these elements of composition with the fact building a case against Ecaterina Bălăcioiu- that the letters were secret, even dangerous, Lovinescu. When she was eventually arrest- and with the intimate relationship of the ed, in 1958, those letters—whose content two correspondents who knew a lot about was severely distorted by some uneducated each other, the authenticity of the content is Securitate employees who pretended trans- guaranteed. Ecaterina Bălăcoiu-Lovinescu lating them into Romanian—became evi- and her daughter Monica Lovinescu have dence in a court trial. On that thin basis, the conceived their letters as a kind of diary that sender was politically sentenced to eighteen each one kept for the benefit of the other; years of hard prison. their minute notation of small day-to-day 17) “[…] our letters The loving daughter had kept her moth- facts was an impressive battle of memory were such a frantic expression of the fear er’s letters for decades without ever be- against time and distance, even more im- that we would never ing able to touch them17 after their sender pressive when there was not much to say, see each other again, that even today, died. From this point of view, they may be aside from what had already been said many after forty years, I dare not read them” considered subjective memorabilia. We de- times before: that life in the People’s Repub- (Lovinescu 2008: 264), fine subjective memorabilia as personal (or lic of Romania (communist Romania) was translation A.C. family) belongings of somebody who vol- miserable, full of drudgery and pain, in spite untarily treasures them in remembrance of which Ecaterina preserved her hope to of important persons, events or contexts be someday permitted to go to France and of their life. They represent our most valu- see her beloved daughter again. The letters able patrimony. We all have such memora- spoke most of all about maternal love. What bilia; they support the effective bringing of gave a tragic turn to the whole correspon- past into present and thus sustain our self- dence is the “reality test”: after a few years of memory. Dramatic contexts can turn simple surveillance, Ecaterina Bălăcioiu-Lovinescu souvenirs into subjective memorabilia—the was finally arrested in 1958 and the fol- main difference between the two catego- lowing year she was sentenced to eighteen ries of objects being the emotional response years’ imprisonment for “high treason” (she triggered by their presence and, of course, was already seventy-two years old and ill). their intrinsic resistance to being forgotten. Knowing that she could be used (as indeed The letters under discussion could not have she was!) as an emotional blackmail tool by been mere souvenirs; but their importance the communist authorities that were offend- was further enhanced by the tragic circum- ed by Monica Lovinescu’s anti-communist stances of the family’s rupture. From the activity at Radio France and in the cultural point of view of their content, most of the magazines of the exile, Ecaterina refused narratives in the letters sent by Ecaterina the sparse medical treatment she could have

93 Astrid Cambose

been offered in the prison hospital and thus their evolution through successive changes she chose an early death (which occurred in of mind is disclosed in these letters. The 1960, less than two years after the moment whole society suffered a major upheaval in she was arrested). All the way, she had had the ‘50s, and that is exactly the period that accurate premonitions of her trial and death these letters refer to. One can also see in in prison. Knowing the way she died, when- them Ecaterina Bălăcioiu-Lovinescu’s own ever I ran into one of those premonitions struggle to adapt her behaviour to official during my reading of the letters, I was over- hypocrisy: she learned to suffer in silence whelmed by the accuracy of her foresight; and to pretend social conformity, but not all I wondered how she could have sharpened the way (apart from writing her daughter, her inner attention to the point where her she revealed her true feelings to some of her 18) “Better convict a hundred innocents future became so clear years before it really friends and acquaintances, some of whom than let one bandit happened. The only answer I could come up betrayed her trust and later served as pros- escape!” was a famous motto of the communist with was that she had a kind of mystic con- ecution witnesses during her trial). From “justice” system, nection to her daughter, one that separated this point of view, such documents add to mainly in the 1950s. her from some of the tricky aspects of or- the body of existing evidence against the of- dinary life (the so-called appearances that ficial fake history of those years. generally draw our attention) and made her Less than one-third of the written mate- aware of things beyond herself. rial of the letters was selected for the book. It was a time when political trials were When I made the selection, I tried to include

19) See B\l\cioiu- conducted as brutally as possible in order all of the relevant details regarding Ecaterina Lovinescu (2016, vol. II, to make an example of each victim and sup- Bălăcioiu-Lovinescu as a person, as an intel- Afterword). press any future resistance on the part of oth- lectual, as a member of the persecuted for- er society members. Merciless convictions mer social elite, as a mother, and as a woman were frequent. Former social elites were the subject to the deepest political experiment main prey. Ecaterina Bălăcioiu-Lovinescu of the twentieth century. I looked mainly for fell into the category of those who had to be the history in her memory. But I also looked 20) Eugen Lovinescu, 18 ex-husband of Ecaterina destroyed at any rate and she knew that all for the anthropology and for the literature B\l\cioiu-Lovinescu only too well, unlike her daughter Monica, that her letters have to offer. She was a gift- and father of Monica 19 Lovinescu, had founded who desperately hoped to buy her mother ed writer, one whose only work comprises in 1919 a literary from the state. these letters. I tried to follow Monica Lovi- society called Sbur\torul, later to Why are these letters important for the nescu’s wish and contextualize the events become an influential literary magazine and a general public? What qualified them for be- and characters in extended footnotes, so as famous literary circle. ing saved from physical and cultural disap- to help future readers understand to what Sbur\torul disappeared in 1948, after being led pearance? Are they mere traces of the past, or to whom the author was referring. What for the last four years or are they more like documents? (Whoever I myself learned while working on the edi- after Eugen Lovinescuʼs death by his daughter, asks these questions should also reverse the tion was to read between the lines: I would and after 1947 by his former wife, Ecaterina terms: What good comes from the disap- never have imagined to what extent writing B\l\cioiu-Lovinescu. pearance of any traces?) The letters I am between the lines could be taken, if I would talking about are relevant to us because they not have had to struggle with Ecaterina offer a reliable narrative concerning impor- Bălăcioiu-Lovinescu’s successful attempts to tant protagonists. Romanian social, politi- tell her daughter not only some of the truths cal, economic and cultural life of the 1950s in her oppressed life, but the whole truth, and and ‘60s is there in stark outline. Some in- to do it without seeming to. From this point fluential figures in early Romanian commu- of view, her letters are a masterpiece. She nist society also used to be preeminent per- invented codes and secret signals, she hid sonalities in the former political regimes; as real persons beneath nicknames, references Ecaterina Bălăcioiu-Lovinescu knew them and allusions were carefully chosen so as to from the times of Sburătorul literary circle,20 be deciphered only by her daughter, she de-

94 “Whose Property Are My Letters?” Inside Monica Lovinescu and Virgil Ierunca’s Archive vised new uses for old words and so on. And complexity of an archive comprising more she continuously changed the codes, partly than fifty years of recent memory. as a defence strategy and partly because she Nowadays, memories and related mate- herself probably couldn’t remember all of rials are among the most appealing sources them. Her letters are a labyrinth, and read- for the historians who want to draw a new, ing them was a fascinating trip. more accurate sketch of the recent past. The rest of the letters I mentioned at the They are the kind of evidence that success- beginning of this article are yet to be pub- fully fights social amnesia. When history lished, each in due time, taking into account fails or betrays people, memory takes the the peculiarities of each sender’s situation. torch. As a matter of fact, such documents In fact, they are being kept as a compact are by far more convincing for us than sci- (private) fonds, from which different pieces entific reasoning on the same matters could will be separated only in order to be pub- ever claim to be. Some things are meant to lished by researcher-editors as myself, with be lived and transmitted directly from per- the full agreement of the fonds’ owner. This son to person, from soul to soul. They will might slow public access to the information continue to speak to us because we all have hidden within the documents, but it seems a feeling for authenticity and know that life to be the only way to deal with the ethical, comes packed in small details which only deontological and legal issues raised by the literature or memorials can properly convey.

95 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aron, Raymond. 1997. Introducere în filosofia istoriei. Eseu Febvre, Lucien. 2009. Vivre l’histoire. Paris: Laffont. despre limitele obiectivității istorice [Introduction to the Phi- losophy of History: An Essay on the Limits of Historical Ob- François, Étienne, and Thomas Serrier. 2018. “Europa, notre jectivity]. Bucharest: Humanitas. histoire. Étienne François, Thomas Serrier : un échange avec Pierre Nora.” Le Débat. 198 (1): 146-161. Bălăcioiu-Lovinescu, Ecaterina. 2012, 2016. Scrisori către Monica (1947–1951), vol. I, Scrisori către Monica (1951– Foucault, Michel. 1966. Les Mots et les Choses. Une archéolo- 1958), vol. II [Letters to Monica (1947–1951), vol. I, Letters gie des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard. to Monica (1951–1958), vol. II]. Bucharest: Humanitas. Foucault, Michel. 1971. L’ordre du discours. Paris: Gallimard. Benga, Ileana. 2005. Tradiția folclorică și transmiterea ei orală Geertz, Clifford. 1973.The Interpretation of Cultures. Selec- [Folk Tradition and Oral Transmission]. Cluj-Napoca: Ecco. tive Essays. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers. Bodnar, John. 1994. Remaking America: Public Memory, Halbwachs, Maurice. 1925. Cadres sociaux de la mémoire. Pa- Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century. ris: Librairie Félix Alcan. Princeton University Press. Janet, Pierre. 1928. L’évolution de la mémoire et la notion du Cohen, Phil. 2018. 1968 and the politics of memory temps. Paris: Chahine. [available at: https://www.lwbooks.co.uk/sites/default /files/s70_01cohen.pdf ]. Le Goff, Jacques. 1988.Histoire et Mémoire. Paris: Gallimard. Cojocaru, Ludmila, Lidia Pădureac, and Elena Postică, eds. Lovinescu, Monica. 2008. “Arhivele și adevărul” [The Ar- 2016, 2017, 2018. Arhivele Memoriei. Recuperarea și valori- chives and the Truth]. In Etica neuitării [The ethics of non- ficarea istorică a memoriei victimelor regimului totalitar-co- oblivion], ed. Vladimir Tismăneanu, 410-413. Bucharest: munist din Republica Socialistă Sovietică Moldovenească. Humanitas. Memorii, documente, studii de caz [The Archives of Memory. Ricoeur, Paul. 2000. La mémoire, l’histoire, l’oubli. Paris: Recovery and historical use of the memories of former vic- Éditions du Seuil. tims of the communist regime in the Soviet Socialist Repub- lic of Moldavia. Memories, documents, case studies], 3 vol., 7 Ricœur, Paul. 2001. Memoria, istoria, uitarea [Memory, Hi- tomes. Chișinău: Tipografia Balacron. story, Oblivion]. Timișoara: Amarcord. Combe, Sonia. 2001. Archives interdites. L’histoire confisquée. Ribot, Théodule-Armand. 1887.Diseases of Memory. An Es- Paris: La Découverte. say in the Positive Psychology. New York: D. Appleton and Company. Confino, Alon. 1997. “Collective Memory and Cultural His- tory: Problems of Method.” The American Historical Review. Șentalinski, Vitali. 1993. La parole ressuscitée. Dans les ar- 102 (5): 1386-1403. chives littéraires du K.G.B. Paris: Robert Lafont. Courtois, Stéphane. 2009. Communisme et totalitarisme. Pa- Tismăneanu, Vladimir. 2006. Democrație și memorie [De- ris: Perrin. mocracy and Memory]. Bucharest: Curtea Veche. Farge, Arlette. 1989. Le goût de l’archive. Paris: Éditions du Todorov, Tzvetan. 1999. Abuzurile memoriei [The Abuses of Seuil. Memory]. Timișoara: Amarcord.