Liviu Zgârciu
The instauration of the communist regime in Romania meant a moment of crisis for the whole Romanian culture, and things were the same bad for historiography, both from the point of view of the historical discourse, which adopts new tones, developed by a party which wished its identity to be justified politically, but also from the perspective of the specialists who underwent denigration processes by induced psychic terror and even physical1. The new political realities from after 1948 had a negative impact on the Romanian historians, great part of them being caught in the malaxator generated by the events, which moulded many destinies2 fatidically. During the beginning period of the communist regime, the status of the historian was a precarious one, the fact that one was trained up and developed professionally in the interwar period which was denied vehemently by the new authorities, became a good reason for incrimination within the new context. To discover the defining lines of this status, I insisted in my study upon the historian Ioachim Crăciun, the promoter of the Romanian Bibliological School3. Trained-up and well-known beAmong the main specialized papers dedicated to the relation between the communist regime and the Romanian historiography in the totalitarian period we remember: Georgescu 1991; Kellog 1998; Ţugui 1999; Zub 2000; Mihalache 2003; Müller 2003. 2 Year 1948 is considered by the majority of the historians the year in which the communist regime was instituted officially, in Romania, after, on 30 December 1947, the same time with the dethronement of King Mihai, the popular republic was proclaimed. The first communist constitution was adopted on 13 April 1948, industrial, banking, insurance, mining and transport factories being nationalized, the education was restructured radically, a new law of cults was adopted (the Greek-Catholic Church was abolished), but especially was established the General Direction for the Security of the People, the Securitate as political militia. 3 Ioachim Crăciun (1898-1971) native from a small village from Transylvania, Dârlos, Sibiu County, is part from the first generations of Romanians who chose, after 1918, to attend university in Bucharest. Being remarked ever since the last year of high school in Blaj, by the outstanding Romanian historian Nicolae Iorga, he enrolls prompted by the historian, to the historical section of the Faculty of Letters from Bucharest, in 1920. After graduation he returns in Transylvania, in Cluj

fore 1948, Ioachim Crăciun was part from the category of the historians for whom the new realities from communist Romania forced, at least for the moment, the end of their professional career. After the act from 23 August 1944, considered the critical moment by the new authorities, Ioachim Crăciun shall continue his professional activity both with the History Institute, but especially within the university from Cluj, where the taught the course of General Historiography for a short period. Even more, in 1947, he was appointed dean at the University from Cluj4. While performing this function, he did his best to obtain the necessary support for the financing of the scientific publications, although sometimes he had to face the opposition of the Senate of the University from Cluj5. All these problems, normal in a Romanian historical school fully developed, were all of a sudden “annulled” in the moment when the ideological and political control of the communists was instituted. Starting with 1947, year in which were formulated for the first time by Mihail Roller6 in the pamphlet Probleme de istorie (Historical issues) the new
where he is hired both to the National History Institute, and also to the newly established King Ferdinand I University. Mostly preoccupied with bibliology, as auxiliary science of historiography, he succeeds in a short time to create a famous bibliological school in Cluj. In 1932 was founded within this university centre the first university conference of bibliology, which was transformed in a department in 1943, Ioachim Crăciun being appointed a university professor. Next to the bibliological preoccupations Ioachim Crăciun remarked also in the Romanian historiography through his writings in which he debated political history, manifesting a special attraction towards the personality of the Wallachian Voivod, Mihai Viteazul. Unfortunately there doesn’t exist at this moment a monograph dedicated exclusively to the historian from Cluj, but only a few articles and studies: Iancu 1983, 202-204; Edroiu 1994. 4 Cluj County Branch of National Archives of Romania (DJCAN), Cluj University Fund, dossier 412/1947-1948, f. 5. 5 Ibidem, f. 102. 6 Mihail Roller (1908-1958) Romanian historigrapher of Jewish origin became the same time with the institution of the communist regime in Romania the official ideologist, initiating the process of indoctrination and communist propaganda, by the Soviet-Romanian textbook of History of Romania, published in 1947.

Tyragetia, s.n., vol. III [XVIII], nr. 2, 2009, 265-272.


II. Materiale şi cercetări

directions of the historical discourse, illustrated immediately by publishing the textbook of History of Romania, may be noticed a phenomenon of adaptation to the new circumstances as far as historiography is concerned (Roller 1947). The mass of the historians begins to divide, some adhering immediately to the regime’s requirements, others remaining in expectation, and a small part are even opposing. Attempting to adapt to the new political realities, Ioachim Crăciun enrolls ever since June 1945 in the Social Democratic Party, and after the fusion of the socialists with the communists he becomes a member of the Romanian Workers’ Party7. The new regime, interested in incorporating also a number of intellectuals, initiated different actions of verification in the scientific environments, to identify persons liable to such trust. Because of that, the authorities made both a professional evaluation but especially political of all the professors from the King Ferdinand University from Cluj, in 1947. Among these was also Ioachim Crăciun, who being enrolled in the right wing of the Social Democratic Party, was not in the area of political interest of the communists (Müller 2003, 290). 1948 marked decisively the evolution of the historical science in Romania, by the dissapearance of all core institutions. Thus, while in June the Romanian Academy is abrogated, being established the Academy of the People’s Republic of Romania, in July, the Institutes of National History from Bucharest and Cluj suffered the same fate, instead of them being set up the History Institute of the Popular Republic of Romania, with a branch also in Cluj (Mândruţ 1998, 565-580). As well, all specialized magazines are replaced with the magazine of the new institute Studii (Studies). The following seven years in the Romanian historiography are marked by the promotion of Mihai Roller as a member of the Presidium of the Academy of the People’s Republic of Romania and chief editor of the main history magazine, Studii (Studies). It is the moment when to the interwar historiography began to
7 In an informative note from 1954 was stated that his enrolling in the Social Democratic Party was facilitated by the historian Ioan Moga and Minister of Education, Ştefan Voitec, creating this way „a favourable situation”; as a consequnce he was subsequently elected in the political bureau of the Social Democratic Party from Cluj. The National Council for the Study of the Securitate Archives (abbreviation A.C.N.S.A.S. will be used in the continuation of the study), Informative fund, dossier 3883, f. 16-17.

be attributed a series of errors, which had to be remedied, because the party was trying to propose to the Romanians a new biography, which these, obedient had to appropriate without hesitations. It was reached a position in which old historiography was denounced, following which auxiliary sciences of history, such as bibliography are in an evident decline. Under these circumstances the realizations of Ioachim Crăciun in the field of bibliography were annulled. The bad influences of these attitudes and measures are realistically rendered today: “the great issues of historiography from the communist period – affirms Andi Mihalache – result from the absence of some auxiliary sciences proper to the domain, from the lack of interest to order information and access to it, to elaborate some propitious methods of reading the sources, not rarely subjected to deliberate falsifications” (Mihalache 2003, 12). In general, period between 1948-1955 is one in which the party identified with the repressive authorities. Consolidation of the new regime was realized especially through its own coercive institutions, among which the Securitate had the main part. In the field of historiography, the appearance of the Securitate marks a new stage, in which the process of identification and purgation of the historians trained-up and affirmed in the “bourgeois-landowner” regime was intensified. Having at disposal such an evil instrument, the authorities proceed to a so called rehabilitation of the Romanian historical science. Thus, historians are pursued, terrorised, and the undesirable ones couldn’t not teach or activate in the core institutions, and were even imprisoned. Still, by comparison with what has happened in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, extreme measures were limited, not happening massive arrests in this perimeter in Romania of the 50s. Imprisonment of great historians had a pedagogical, advertising character. In the view of the new leaders, real historical writing should have been made according to Marxism, and the only model and inspiration source was offered by the Soviet science. Historians had to accept Marxism-Leninism as the only capable of assuring the scientific knowledge of the past. Because of that, to raise the ideological level, there are organized ever since 1949 courses of Marxism-Leninism for all scientific collaborators


L. Zgârciu, The status of the historiographer in the first stage of the communist regime from Romania (1948-1965)

of all institutes belonging to the Academy of the People’s Republic of Romania. To maintain himself, Ioachim Crăciun tries “to correspond” to the new requirements, by attending both the “meetings of the Marxist-Leninist Circle”8 where he “attempts to assimilate the Marxist-Leninist ideology”9, activating in ARLUS10 (Romanian Association for Strengthening the Relations with Soviet Union) and even translating to himself from Russian the specialty bibliography necessary to the historiography course that he taught. All these actions won’t save him, his political background and the fact that he was married with the niece of Alexandru Vaida Voievod were key points in his dossier11. Following the verifications, accused that in 1948 he would have opposed in his quality as member of the Social Democratic Party to the fusion between socialists and communists, he is removed from the Romanian Workers’ Party in December 194912. This was the main reason why in 1954 he was in evidence of the Securitate’s organs as “Social-Democratic suspect of right wing orientation”13. The consequences were natural for those times, between 1951 and 1952 he was removed both from the University and the Institute, where in 1949 he was head of a staff of 12 persons, charged with the study of Hungarian bibliography of the XIXth century14. Though, he maintains himself in the field, being employed by agreement, with the help of Constantin Daicoviciu15, at the History Institute from Cluj, where he continues his preoccupations with issues of bibliography, but for a short period of time he won’t publish anything16. This thing may
A.C.N.S.A.S., Informative fund, dossier 3883, f. 5. Ibidem, f. 6. 10 Romanian Association for Strengthening the Relations with Soviet Union (ARLUS) was founded on 20 October 1944 by a group of Romanian intellectuals and gradually became an instrument of Romania’s Sovietization. 11 Alexandru Vaida Voievod (1872-1950) important Romanian political figure involved directly in the events that led to the act from Alba Iulia, from 1st December 1918. After the instauration of the communist regime in Romania he was arrested and imposed house arrest in Sibiu, where he also died. 12 A.C.N.S.A.S., Informative fund, dossier 3883, f. 5. 13 Ibidem f. 2. 14 Ibidem f. 6. 15 Constantin Daicoviciu (1898-1973) was a leading Romanian historian and archaeologist, professor, rector of Babeş-Bolyai University from Cluj Napoca. 16 Involved in the Romanian political life from the years of the dictatorial regime of Carol II, Daicoviciu saved his career by adhering to the new realities from after 23 August 1944. See this issue debated to: Mărgineanu 1991.
8 9

be explained also by the fact that one of the best methods of uninvolvment towards the official discourse was the gathering as thorough as possible, over more years, of some sources, their long ordering, but which was not followed by any editorial concrete form. Ioachim Crăciun and the other researchers from Cluj who activated in the History Institute are accused of these practices in 1953, in a unsigned article, that appeared in the semi-official newspaper of the regime Scânteia (the Spark) and resumed in Studii (Studies) (About the activity of the Institute 1953, 31-36). Also here was criticized the activity of the Institute which: „appears rather poor compared to the conditions created for reaserchers from the field of history. This is mirrored also in the fact that in the Studii şi cercetări ştiinţifice (Studies and scientific researches) magazine (the organ of the branch from Cluj of the Academy of the People’s Republic of Romania), during the period between 1951 and 1952 did not appear any history study”, but especially the attitude of the institution’s director, Constantin Daivoviciu. He was put on his guard subtilely that the Party didn’t forget his past: „From 1945 onwards professor Daicoviciu hasn’t published anymore any synthesis work from which to may observe to what extent the author revised his previous positions in the field of scientific research”. In the view of the article’s signer or signers, the support that Daicoviciu had given to his fellow colleagues, among who also to Ioachim Crăciun, purged at that date by the communists from the university education, was considered as being the main cause of the disastrous situation in which was found the Institute from Cluj: “The great privations and deficiencies in the scientific activity of the Institute are closely related to its internal life, by the leading methods that were utilized, the approached cadres’ policy. In this respect must be stated that, in the absence of a good cadres’ policy, there entered the Institute and maintained a series of cosmopolite bourgeois-nationalist elements who promoted obstinately antiscientific conceptions, idealistic and lacking the wish to make something positive on the field of scientific activity” (About the activity of the Institute 1953, 37). Attacks of this type were also registered in the immediate period, among the most virulent contesters of the collective from Cluj, being Ladislau Banyai, one of the official historiographers of 267

II. Materiale şi cercetări

the regime (Zub 2000, 73). The explanation for this attitude may be deduced from the content of the informative note from 1954, in which agent “Lucreţiu” related to the Securitate’s organs that historian Ştefan Pascu17 would have hold a discussion with Ioachim Crăciun, in which he stated that “Banyai is nervous lately, because it restarted in Oradea the process of the teachers from Bolyai, who wanted the autonomy of whole Transylvania”18. After 1955, things seem to return to a relative normality, the same time with the beginning of Rolle’s decline, victim of the process triggered by Dej, a process of renewal and ethnicization of the cadres leading the Romanian Workers’ Party. The first signs of the decline were perceived ever since the autumn of 1955, when that who was the mentor and ideological censor of the new historiography was not included in the official delegation that followed to represent Romania at the Xth World Congress of Historians, which took place on 4-11 September in Rome. With this occasion there came back as present interest the old preoccupations of selecting, classifying, description and annotation the historical writings made in Romania, of course only for the period after the institution of the communist regime. Thus, Petre Constantinescu-Iaşi19 will hold in Rome a dissertation entitled L’apport des historiens roumains a l’historiographie universelle depuis le 23 aôut 1944, which was in fact an inventory of the historiographic activity after 1945 (ConstantinescuIaşi 1955). According to the practices of time, this report had been adopted by Constantinescu-Iaşi in the virtue of the functions that he held, although it had been drawn-up by other historians (Zub 2000, 133). Also, the first scientific session of bibliology took place in Bucharest, during 1516 December 1955, to which Ioan Crăciun at that time in disgrace, wasn’t invited (The first session 1956). For the university centre from Cluj year 1956 was of great importance, because important changes took place in the leadership of the institution, which were generated, it seems, by the events
Ştefan Pascu (1914-1998) Romanian historian, Permanent Member of the Romanian Academy. 18 A.C.N.S.A.S., Informative fund, dossier 3883, f. 15. 19 Petre Constantinescu-Iaşi (1892-1977) historian and Romanian communist militant, Permanent Member of the Romanian Academy, at the beginning of the 30s he was a university professor in Chişinău.

from Hungary. The appointment of Constantin Daicoviciu as rector of the Victor Babeş University, made possible the rehabilitation of some important historians from Transylvania, hired again both at the university or institute with the direct support of the new director. Among these was also Ioachim Crăciun, who made his comeback in that year in the publishing world with a study whose theme makes you think of what happened over the western border of Romania (Crăciun 1956, 199-212), was supported by Daicoviciu, to return to the university from Cluj. Thus, the new rector interced with Miron Constantinescu, the Minister of Education, for the acknowledgement of a delegation on the basis of which Crăciun might have held courses of history’s auxiliary sciences (Müller 2003, 303). From this moment on Ioachim Crăciun, like other rehabilitated fellow colleagues resume the editorial activity, but are closely supervised in continuation by the Securitate’s organs. For example, Ioachim Crăciun involved in the realization of the annual bibliography of Romanian historiography from after 1944, making with this occasion a team composed from former students from the Bibliology course (Ştefan Pascu, I. Domşa) or graduates from the Faculty of History from Cluj (Gh. Hristodol, Marcel Ştirban, Gh. Iancu). Also in those years are finalised by the collaboration to the treatise of Romania’s History (IInd and IIIrd volumes), the preoccupations and researches of the professor from Cluj concerning the Romanian medieval manuscripts, printings and libraries, the historian synthesizing now historical information that he studied for four decades. At the same time the Securitate’s organs that supervised him strictly, paid great attention to the relations that Ioachim Crăciun had with the historians from Cluj20. Informers, not only participated in the discussions of Ioachim Crăciun and his colleagues, but a part of them worked in the Institute, perceptible fact from the tasks assigned by the Securitate officers to the informers: “…as being with him all the time where he works in the same institute, to find out which his connections are (…) other manifestations of his


A.C.N.S.A.S., Informative fund, dossier 3883, f.10, 12, 14, 21, 23.


L. Zgârciu, The status of the historiographer in the first stage of the communist regime from Romania (1948-1965)

and from whom receives eventually other news or rumors”21. Year 1955 marked as we have stated above a freer period from the history of the Romanian communism, but this affirmation is valid if we report to the massive releases of the political prisoners, or to the communist leaders’ initiation of external politics of distancing from Moscow. But to a great extent things didn’t change, it was the same totalitarian regime, which looked to adapt its strategy in accordance with the new realities. This time also the Securitate remained the main instrument, but from this moment on violence and brutality began to give up in front of more refined measures, all having the same purpose, total control over population. In all this period the Securitate organs have intense measures of recruiting a number as possible as big of informants. There were had in mind those released from the communist prisons and camps, but also those who didn’t “enjoy” till then such privileges. Any person that might have been blackmailed in any way became a potential informant of the Securitate, and unfortunately many Romanian historians were in this situation22. It is also the case of Ioachim Crăciun, who is recruited in 1956, the Securitate forcing him to accept by menancing that he will lose his job again23. For the historian from Cluj years 19511956 were the most difficult from his life, a period that he would recall terrified later, because then: “I starved, earning less than the minimum of a modest existence”24. It is easily to assume that confronted with such an alternative, one had to possess a superhuman resistance to refuse. Accepting the status of the Securitate informant is not to be blamed, in such conditions, more imIbidem, f. 27. The fact that the communist regime was one that focused especially on beaurocracy, any decision or action had to be approved previously by a impressive series of decision factors, made that today the reconstitution of the period had in view in this study, to be somehow favoured by the existence of a precious archivistic fund. Just because of that, documents created by the Securitate are a documentary source of first importance for any historian that pays attention to those times. Although the Securitate archive was accessible to specialists only after Law no 187/1999 regarding the access to the own file and the deconspiration of the Securitate as a secret police was enacted. In Romania, the institution that received a part from the Securitate archive is the National Council for the Study of the Securitate Archives (C.N.S.A.S.), which functions from 2000. 23 A.C.N.S.A.S., Informative fund, dossier R 178437, f. 2-8. 24 Ibidem, f. 83.
21 22

portant is the way by which one understands to perform his „duty” towards the regime from that time. Happily, Ioachim Crăciun was intelligent enough to give informative notes, that only containted generalities25. The recruit of Ioachim Crăciun was part from a ampler operation of the Securitate which was ran in the spring of 1956, and through which was searched to join informatively as many of the leaders of the Social Democratic Party released from the communist prisons, following the general amnesty from 1955. The fact that the historian was in close relationships with these was the main reason why the Securitate organs turned their attention to him. The characterization of his activity as informer made by the Securitate, but also the proper informative notes issued by him, lead until this moment, to the conclusion that Ioachim Crăciun issued information of general character, thus avoiding to harm persons that he was obliged to denounce. Even the Securitate was often dissatisfied with the content of these notes, their author being accused that “often is looking to show that the elements from the actions in which he is engaged are old and are not interested anymore in the political life, that the bourgeoisie being coward by its nature won’t commit itself to actions against revolution. He is stubborn and presents an attitude of reservation in relation with us”26. Interesting is the fact that at the same time he himself was supervised by other informants, who fulfiled their “duty” with a lot of passion, making such evil denunciations, that were questionable even for the authorities. For example, in 1955 the Securitate liutenant responsible for his supervision manifests an attitude of suspicion towards the account of one of the informants, who accused the bibliologist from Cluj, that in a discussion with the historian Pompiliu Teodor, referring to the release from prison of Silviu Dragomir and Ioan Lupaş, would have said the following; „only now are realising them after they had spent more than 5 years inprisoned? Does Groza think that he will escape from what expects him?/ here he made a gesture of a man being hanged”27.

Ibidem, f. 9-10, 18-23. Ibidem, f. 18. 27 A.C.N.S.A.S., Informative fund, dossier 3883, f. 24.
25 26


II. Materiale şi cercetări

Ioachim Crăciun had also problems concerning his activity carried out until 1947 next to Bibliography of Historical Sciences, collaboration regarded now with suspicion, if we consider that the anti-westernism theme was an important motif of Zhdanovist28 discourse, standard for the ideologists of the communist regime29. In this way he was suspected also for an assumed affiliation to the Romanian-American Association established by more intellectuals in Sibiu, in 194530. Although in the same period was found in Sibiu, Ioachim Crăciun didn’t have any connection with the association, reason why he wasn’t indicted in the law suit against the members of the organization, accused of espionage in favour of the Americans. Also, the list of the persons that participated in the setting-up gathering does not include his name31. In his turn, Nicolae Mărgineanu, one of the founders of the association, doesn’t refer to the person of the former professor from Cluj in his autobiographic paper (Mărgineanu 1991). From 1963, not being “registered with manifestations”, his evidence patern was changed, from active to passive, becoming from that moment of minor interest32, for the Securitate. His denunciations continue, but this time they are determined by professional rivalries and even personal grudge. Accusations of insuficient ideological preparation are replaced now with those of bad proffesional training in the field of bibliography. The same time with the death of Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej in 1965, there was registered an attitude of official disinterest for the historical science and its organization way, fact that allowed historiography to develop and diversify as never met until then (Georgescu 1991, 58-66). Connections with Occident are resumed, by participation in congresses and preliminaries, by helding
28 Andrei Zhdanov (1896-1948), Soviet politician, considered the theoretician of the Soviet cultural politics after in 1934 he fixed the norms of “socialist realism”. In 1947 he represented the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at the conference of the communist parties from Szklarska Poreba (Poland), where was finalized the new Stalinist political orientation, known as the Zhdanov Doctrine, which had at its basis the principle according which world was divided into two antagonistic camps, communist and capitalist. 29 A.C.N.S.A.S., Informative fund, dossier 3883, f.6 30 Ibidem, f. 11, 28, 29. 31 A.C.N.S.A.S., Informative fund, dossier 513, f. 57. 32 A.C.N.S.A.S., Informative fund, dossier 3883, f. 43.

conferences and courses abroad. Of this relative tolerance tried to take advantage also Ioachim Crăciun both for resuming old collaborations with different specialized international institutions, suddenly interupted after 1945, but also to reintegrate himself within the historical editorial circuit. Unfortunately time wasn’t patient with him, Ioachim Crăciun died in 1971, leaving behind an impressive scientific activity placed in the service of history’s auxiliary sciences, such bibliography. Unfortunately, the natural evolution of his bibliographic preoccupations initiated in the interwar period suffered a heavy blow after 1945, when history was completly subjected to politics. Even if the new realities perturbed and even interupted for a moment his preoccupations, he tried to adapt, and in the conditions in which he was obliged to sign a contract with the Securitate, he made an attempt to perserve human dignity. Supervised by the Securitate which was interested in his connections with the historians from Cluj, Ioachim Crăciun searched for a way to detach from these problems. That is why he had a distant relation with some of his colleagues and collaborators, thus avoiding to get involved in dialogues on political themes. The Securitate organs saw in this attitude, “a certain technique of isolation for not being involved in political debates”33. Truly, Ioachim Crăciun was, after the instituting of the communist regime, in a difficult situation of the historians obliged to appeal to different strategies to may survive. Writing the obituary of the famous bibliologist, historian Pompiliu Teodor noted: “Ioachim Crăciun, professor and bibliographer died on 2 June 1971. Leading personality of the superior Romanian school, historian of culture, is known in the country and abroad because of his prodigious scientific creation. (...) Ioachim Crăciun, the professor respected and loved by generations of students, was one from the many and chosen, who maybe renounced their own projects to make known those of the others” (Teodor 1971, 433).


Ibidem, f. 17.


L. Zgârciu, The status of the historiographer in the first stage of the communist regime from Romania (1948-1965)

Crăciun 1956: I. Crăciun, Răzvrătirea saşilor din Braşov în 1688. Studii şi Materiale de Istorie Medie I, 1956, 199212. Crăciun 1965: I. Crăciun, Câteva amintiri şi precizări despre începuturile Bibliologiei la Cluj. Studia Bibliologica II, 1966, 31-147. Constantinescu-Iaşi 1955: P. Constantinescu-Iaşi, Realizările istoriografiei române între anii 1945-1955 (Bucureşti 1955). Despre activitatea Institutului 1953: Despre activitatea Institutului de Istorie din Cluj al Academiei R.P.R. Studii. Revistă de istorie şi filozofie VI, 2, 1953, 31-39. Edroiu 1994: N. Edroiu, Ioachim Crăciun (1898-1971) şi Bibliologia românească. Bibliotheca Bibliologica I, ClujNapoca, 1994. Georgescu 1991: Vl. Georgescu, Politică şi istorie. Cazul comuniştilor români (1944-1977) (Bucureşti 1991). Iancu 1983: Gh. Iancu, Cum l-am cunoscut pe Ioachim Crăciun. Biblioteca şi Învăţământul VII, 1983, 202-204. Kellog 1998: Fr. Kellog, O istorie a istoriografiei româneşti (Iaşi 1998). Mărgineanu 1991: N. Mărgineanu, Amfiteatre şi închisori. Mărturii asupra unui veac zbuciumat (Cluj-Napoca 1991). Mihalache 2003: A. Mihalache, Istorie şi practici discursive în România „democrat-populară” (Bucureşti 2003). Müller 2003: Fl. Müller, Politică şi istoriografie în România. 1948-1964 (Bucureşti 2003). Prima sesiune 1956: Prima sesiune ştiinţifică de bibliologie şi documentare – Bucureşti 15-16 decembrie 1953 – Comunicări şi discuţii (Bucureşti 1956). Roller 1947: M. Roller, Probleme de istorie (Bucureşti 1947). Teodor 1971: P. Teodor, Ioachim Crăciun 1899-1971. Revista Bibliotecilor 7, 1971, 433. Ţugui 1999: P. Ţugui, Istoria şi limba română în vremea lui Gheorghiu-Dej (Bucureşti 1999). Zub 2000: Al. Zub, Orizont închis. Istoriografia română sub dictatură (Iaşi 2000).

Statutul istoricului în prima etapă a regimului comunist din România (1948/1965). Studiu de caz: Ioachim Crăciun
Rezumat Pentru istoriografia românească instaurarea regimului comunist a însemnat un adevărat dezastru. A avut de suferit discursul istoric, fiind din acel moment aservit partidului comunist, care căuta toate modalităţile să se legitimeze istoric, dar cel mai mult a avut de suferit specialistul. Faptul că s-a format şi desăvârşit profesional în perioada interbelică, renegată cu vehemenţă de noile autorităţi, devenea în noul context un motiv puternic de acuzare. După 1948, considerat anul în care regimul comunist s-a instaurat oficial în România, istoricii români au fost supuşi unui proces denigrator de teroare psihică şi chiar fizică, parte din ei fiind închişi, măsuri care au dus la declinul istoriografiei româneşti. Vidul care s-a format a fost umplut cu istorici agreaţi de regim, recrutaţi din diferite medii, dar mai ales din rândul activiştilor de partid. Din fericire, din anul 1955 situaţia a început să se amelioreze, datorită unor personalităţi precum Constantin Daicoviciu, care au reuşit treptat să convingă autorităţile comuniste să accepte reabilitarea şi reintegrarea generaţiei istoricilor interbelici. Pentru a surprinde statutul istoricului în perioada anilor 1948-1965, considerată de specialişti primă etapă a comunismului românesc, am ales ca subiect al studiului nostru pe istoricul clujean Ioachim Crăciun. Format şi afirmat ca istoric înainte de 1948, Ioachim Crăciun s-a confruntat, asemenea istoricilor din generaţia lui, cu problemele şi nenorocirile care au marcat statutul istoricului în România acelor timpuri.

Le statut de l’historien dans la première étape du régime communiste de Roumanie (1948-1965). Etude de cas: Ioachim Crăciun
Résumé Pour l’historiographie roumaine, l’instauration du régime communiste a signifié un véritable désastre. Le discours historique en a souffert, en étant à ce moment-là asservi au partide communiste, qui cherchait tous les moyens pour se légitimer du point de vue historique, mais le plus en a souffert le spécialiste. Le fait qu’il s’est formé et il s’est perfectionné dans la période d’entre les deux guerres mondiales, une période réniée véhémentement par les nouvelles autorités, cela a devenu, dans le nouveau contexte, une forte raison d’accusation. Après 1948, l’année dans laquelle le régime communiste a été instauré officiellement en Roumanie, les istoriens roumains ont été soumis à un processus dénigrateur de terreur psychique et surtout physique, une partie d’eux en étant enfermés –


II. Materiale şi cercetări

des mésures qui ont mené au déclin de l’historiographie roumaine. Le vide qui s’est formé a été rempli par des istoriens agrées par le régime, récrutés des differents environements, mais surtout du rang des activistes du parti. Heureusement, dès l’année 1955, la situation a commencé à s’améliorer, grâce à quelques personalités comme Constantin Daicoviciu, des personnes qui ont réussi graduellement de convaincre les autorités communistes à accepter la réabilitation et la réintégration de la génération des historiens d’entre les deux guerres mondiales. Pour surprendre le statut de l’historien dans la période des années 1948-1965, considérée par les spécialistes la première étape du communisme roumain, j’ai choisi comme sujet de mon étude l’historien de Cluj Ioachim Crăciun. Formé et affirmé comme historien avant 1948, Ioachim Crăciun s’est confronté, de la même manière que les historiens de sa période, avec les problèmes et les malheurs qui avaient marqué le statut de l’historien de Roumanie pendant ce temps-là.

Liviu Zgârciu, Muzeul Naţional al Unirii Alba Iulia, str. Mihai Viteazul 12-14, 510010-Alba Iulia, Romania, e-mail: