MODERNITY, MEMORY AND IDENTITY IN

SOUTH-EAST EUROPE

Intellectuals and Fascism

in Interwar Romania
The Criterion Association

Cristina A. Bejan
Modernity, Memory and Identity in South-East
Europe

Series Editor
Catharina Raudvere
Department of Cross-Cultural and Regional Studies
University of Copenhagen
Copenhagen, Denmark
This series explores the relationship between the modern history and pres-
ent of South-East Europe and the long imperial past of the region. This
approach aspires to offer a more nuanced understanding of the concepts
of modernity and change in this region, from the nineteenth century to
the present day. Titles focus on changes in identity, self-representation and
cultural expressions in light of the huge pressures triggered by the interac-
tion between external influences and local and regional practices. The
books cover three significant chronological units: the decline of empires
and their immediate aftermath, authoritarian governance during the twen-
tieth century, and recent uses of history in changing societies in South-­
East Europe today.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15829
 Cristina A. Bejan

Intellectuals and
Fascism in Interwar
Romania
The Criterion Association
Cristina A. Bejan
Duke University
Durham, NC, USA

ISSN 2523-7985     ISSN 2523-7993 (electronic)

Modernity, Memory and Identity in South-East Europe
ISBN 978-3-030-20164-7    ISBN 978-3-030-20165-4 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20165-4

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2019
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to
the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Italics are used if it is a foreign word or phrase, or within a quotation
if the author originally employed italics.
All translations throughout the book from Romanian and French
are my own, unless otherwise stated, or are cited from a previously
translated text.
Dedicated to my grandparents,
my parents and Veronica
 Foreword: An Archeology of
Radical Passions

Intellectuals can be proponents or opponents of totalitarian movements

and regimes. This story of the seductive appeals of radical ideologies to
prominent spiritual figures of the twentieth century is a catalogue of illu-
sions, passions, enthusiasms, and bitter disappointments. The search for a
completely new order of things, or rather a convulsive disorder, was ram-
pant in the 1930s.
The story of the attraction exerted by political myths on a number of
brilliant intellectuals in interwar Romania bears upon all these topics. It is
a fascinating narrative about Faustian bargains, charismatic adorations and
absolute hopelessness. Cristina A. Bejan’s book is superbly researched and
proposes a new perspective on Romania’s (and Eastern Europe’s) interwar
major political and cultural tensions. She invites us into an exercise in the
archeology of ideas, an in-depth exploration of the genesis, tribulations,
inner conflicts, main achievements, as well as the final disillusionment and
disintegration of the Criterion group. This was a constellation of brilliantly
creative philosophers, sociologists, writers and artists, all convinced that
they had a mission to regenerate Romanian culture by iconoclastically
positioning themselves in opposition to their predecessors. They hated any
form of parochialism, dreamed of turning Bucharest into a vibrant
European cultural capital.
This illuminating book enlarges and deepens the existing literature of
the Generation of 1927. I wrote myself on Romania’s mystical revolution-
aries (Mircea Eliade, Emil Cioran, Mihail Polihroniade, Constantin Noica,
to name only the most famous). This work further highlights the immensely
deleterious effects played by the fascination experienced by the members

ix
x  FOREWORD: AN ARCHEOLOGY OF RADICAL PASSIONS

of the ‘Generation’ with the nebulously organicist, primordialist and anti-­

democratic ideas professed by philosopher Nae Ionescu. I regard the book
as a valuable contribution to a significantly rich body of literature that
includes writings by Zigu Ornea, Marta Petreu, Leon Volovici, Irina
Livezeanu, the late Matei Calinescu, Constantin Iordachi, Valentin
Săndulescu, Marius Turda, Radu Ioanid, Philip Vanhaelemeersch and the
late Ilinca Zarifopol Johnston.
The circle of friends analyzed by Cristina A. Bejan were young, unhappy
with the mediocrity of the Romania status quo, exhilarated by exoticism
(Eliade’s fascination with India) and ready to embrace fast forms of expe-
riencing the Absolute. The group was comparable with similar associations
of friends in other Central European countries, for example, the Skamander
group explored by Marci Shore in her book Caviar and Ashes. Although
the Criterion movement/group/association lasted only two years,
between 1932 and 1934, its impact on Romanian culture was utterly pow-
erful and enduring. One can even say that the ‘Păltiniş group’ formed
around former Criterion member Constantin Noica in the 1970s and
1980s, resurrected the original grandiose aspirations to cultural universal-
ism and spiritual regeneration.
The author does a wonderful job in documenting the crucial role
played by art historian and philosopher Petru Comarnescu in the
Criterionist activities. He was indeed a maverick among his peers: a great
admirer of the United States, holding a PhD from the University of
Southern California, he was one of the few leading members of Criterion
who refused to yield to any form of political sectarianism. Comarnescu
was in fact opposed to any radicalism or fundamentalism. He rejected the
increasingly magnetizing political religions of the far left and far right. In
more than one respect, he is the main hero of this story accompanied by
the other dramatis personae: Mircea Eliade, Mihail Sebastian, Emil (later
E.M.) Cioran, Eugen Ionescu (Eugène Ionesco), Mircea Vulcănescu,
Constantin Noica, Marietta Sadova and, of course, philosopher Nae
Ionescu’s Mephisto-like fateful charm. When so many veered to one form
of radicalism or another, Comarnescu remained constantly creative and
politically democratic.
Cristina A. Bejan succeeds in demonstrating the interplay between spir-
itual and sentimental values in the development and decline of Criterion.
She examines the predominantly male universe and the ambivalent status
of women (Sorana Ţopa, Floria Capsali, Marietta Sadova). The association
was deliberately iconoclastic, refused automatic labels and was proud of its
   FOREWORD: AN ARCHEOLOGY OF RADICAL PASSIONS  xi

contempt for any dogma. I found particularly illuminating the chapter

dealing with the complexities of sexual identities in interwar Romania,
including the implications of alleged or real homosexual relations.
Moreover, I regard as seminal the discussion of the Criterionists’ exalta-
tion of experience, a version of what the Germans called Erlebnis, and the
post-WWII French existentialism.
This book cannot be more timely. As I write this foreword, the world is
plagued with the return of what I call fantasies of salvation. The mass mur-
derer in the two New Zealand mosques claimed to be inspired by undi-
gested Balkan narratives of anti-Ottoman resistance. Cristina A.  Bejan’s
study adds significantly to the understanding of the interwar Romanian
political culture and the long-term significance of polemics regarding
national identity, inclusion, exclusion, anti-Semitism, religiosity and so on.
Some of Criterion’s luminaries moved further to the extreme right, Mircea
Eliade converted to Guardism and wrote unabashedly in favor of fascism
(German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese). Later, after the war, he decided to
stay in the West, where he became a celebrated historian of religions.
Eliade maintained an embarrassed silence regarding his early fascist past
(but so did for years Mihail Sebastian who remained faithful to Nae
Ionescu in spite of the notorious anti-Semitic preface to his novel For Two
Thousand Years).
Criterion was not a nationwide movement, but rather an elitist
Bucharest circle, an urban phenomenon trying to reconcile a certain wor-
shipping of tradition (Romanianness) with an acutely intense modernist
sensibility. In fact, one can use in this case Jeffrey Herf’s concept of reac-
tionary modernism. The lectures hosted by Criterion placed the circle
beyond Left and Right: to the exasperation of the Orthodox fundamental-
ists, there were discussions about Freud and psychoanalytical revolution.
The Iron Guard and the authorities disapproved (to put it mildly) having
a prominent communist, Lucreţiu Pătrăsç anu, lecture about Lenin (at that
moment the Communist Party of Romania was banned). Comarnescu
himself was essentially a man of the rationalistic, humanist, anti-­totalitarian
left. The group, however, seemed more inclined toward political mysti-
cism and philosophical irrationalism. Disgusted with what they perceived
as the senility, the sclerosis of the Romanian political system, these intel-
lectuals were in fact advocating the rise of a juventocracy. In this respect,
they shared the yearnings of Italian fascism. They abhorred the status quo,
despised the philistinism of the older generations and execrated bourgeois
values. For the Criterionists, indulging in mere reflection, in philosophical
xii  FOREWORD: AN ARCHEOLOGY OF RADICAL PASSIONS

speculation, was not enough. They wanted to be involved in and practice

vita activa. They wrote about adventure and some of them were ready to
engage in political adventures. Polihroniade and Tell were executed for
their Guardist activities.
We have here a superb investigation of an intellectual nucleus interested
in combining, almost mystically, vita contemplativa and vita activa. They
were revolutionaries of the spirit. Some came to regret their early arduous
fever. After WWII, some chose the path of exile. Other stayed in Romania
and suffered political persecution. The spiritus rector of the whole adven-
ture, art historian Petru Comarnescu, became, according to recent archi-
val revelations, an informer for the Securitate. Another one, Constantin
Noica, was a permanent target for secret police investigations. Nothing
was simple with the Criterion Association, which was engaged in an excru-
ciating search for existential authenticity. This book wonderfully reveals
these agonizing complexities.

Washington, DC Vladimir Tismaneanu

March 18, 2019
 Preface

In 1932, one year before Hitler became Chancellor of Germany and the
same time as Stalin’s Ukrainian Famine, a group of progressive, young and
curious intellectuals began meeting in Bucharest calling themselves the
Criterion Association. Their social media was feuilletons: short articles in
a myriad of publications including the eponymous Criterion journal. They
also published literary criticism, novels, non-fiction, poetry and theatrical
plays. They were all worldly, had studied abroad from the United States to
France and India and wanted to pool their intellectual energies to build
the new ‘Greater Romania,’ which had become significantly larger
after WWI.
Criterion’s members were great friends and a close-knit group. Yet, in
the course of sharing ideas and experiences, political allegiances began to
divide. The Legionary Movement, was one of Romania’s extreme right
movements and the most well-known. It made Bucharest its headquarters
in 1932–1933 and briefly came to power in 1940. In the 1930s, the con-
stitutional monarchy was disintegrating and the Criterionists represented
every future path: communist, democratic and fascist. The association col-
lapsed in part due to the rise of fascism within its ranks. Criterion’s failure
exposes just how quickly extremism can emerge from noble efforts aimed
to mobilize for a better future.
The association provides a compact and complete modernist story of
Western educated minds having a love affair with the autocratic East and
non-Western political forms. During this brief and brilliant cultural
moment, the stage in Romania was set for prosperity, diversity and, yes,
democracy. It shows how easy it can be for intellectuals to endorse the

xiii
xiv  PREFACE

extreme, to fall for the dictatorial path and have the hubris to demand oth-
ers fall in line.
The unwanted outcomes of extremist ideology, terrorism and authori-
tarianism need no explanation in the twenty-first century: just think of
Russia, China, North Korea, Turkey, Africa (e.g. Boko Haram, Ansar
Dine, al-Shabaab), the Middle East (e.g. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria,
the Taliban, Al-Qaeda), South Asia (e.g. Sri Lanka’s Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam, the authoritarian crackdown of Rajapaksa and the 2019
church terrorist attacks), Latin America (e.g. Venezuela, Nicaragua,
Cuba), New Zealand and the rise of the extreme right in India, Ukraine,
Germany, Hungary, Poland, Brazil and the United States. Indeed, Maria
Bucur argues that this political trend in the United States is reminiscent of
Romanian fascism.1 Moreover, in the United States, there is always the
threat of mass shootings, some with racial, LGBTQ and anti-Semitic targets.
A famous example of an intellectual supporting extremism is Nobel
Prize-winning author Gabriel García Márquez and his support for Castro’s
and Chavez’s terror. Of course, we cannot address the global instability of
the twenty-first century without including Islamic extremism. Jeffrey Herf
argues that ‘radical Islam constitutes the third variant of totalitarian ideol-
ogy politics in modern history.’2 This is the third wave after Nazism and
Soviet communism. Islamic extremism is like its predecessor Nazism
because of the use of modernizing technology (for Islam, the internet)
and the fact that it is largely motivated by anti-Semitism. A similarity
between Islamic extremism and Romanian fascism is the importance of
religion, in Romania’s case Orthodox Christianity.
The hate expressed by the extreme right, the rise of anti-Semitism, the
enduring power of authoritarianism and the constant threat of terrorist
attacks demonstrate that we are at risk of violent extremism today. The
Nazi symbols and the racist invectives hark back to an era when hatred
triumphed: the fascist movements of interwar Europe, led by Nazi
Germany. Then, hate turned violent; WWII and the Holocaust ensued
and Europe was partitioned. The question for today is how could citizens
succumb to such hatred and endorse such a program of extremism and

1
 Maria Bucur, ‘Remembering Romanian Fascism; Worrying about America,’ Public
Seminar, September 3, 2017.
2
 Jeffrey Herf, ‘The Totalitarian Present,’ The American Interest, September 1, 2009.
  PREFACE  xv

violence? For Herf, we are in ‘an era of totalitarian politics’ and, he con-
cludes, ‘Ideas, even bad ones, can be powerful indeed.’3
For Madeleine Albright, fascism could not be more of a pressing ques-
tion. In her recent book Fascism: A Warning she looks at lessons of the
past to advise our fight against fascism today. With her Georgetown stu-
dents, she discusses the dimensions of fascism: nationalist, authoritarian,
anti-democratic. Her students suggest that fascism is often linked to par-
ticular ethnic or social groups and that fear of fascism’s reach can extend
to all levels of society. She suggests that fascism can be viewed as a means
for seizing and holding power rather than as a political ideology. In this
book, I disagree with her assessment and very much consider fascism as
extremist ideology. For Albright and her students, fascist leaders are char-
ismatic, as evidenced by Mussolini, Hitler and Romania’s Codreanu.
Fascists control information and rely on the support of the crowd.
Ultimately fascism is an extreme form of authoritarian rule.4 I support
these points.
This question of extremism is for all of us, not only for right-wing pro-
testers and plotters of terrorist attacks across the globe. This book addresses
this question by telling the story of interwar Romania and the Legionary
Movement. At the start of the war, Romania was an ally of Nazi Germany.
During the Holocaust she was a participant in and perpetrator of crimes
against humanity. Prior to the success of fascism, Romania was a liberal
constitutional monarchy and had the beginnings of a promising free soci-
ety. What may shock the reader is that in Romania leading intellectuals
also supported fascism. This, by the way, was not unique. It happened in
other countries, including France, Germany, Ireland and Italy.
This book reveals the seductiveness of fascism through the life of the
progressive modernist cultural society, the Criterion Association. From
1932 to 1934 this society was a beacon of ideas, from liberal democratic
to communist and fascist. This book is a biography of both Criterion as a
whole and its key members, and it covers the association’s ultimate demise
due to the recruitment of fascists within its membership.
In addition to the descent into fascism of many Romanian intellectuals,
I show how leading intellectuals were recruited and how some resisted, by
focusing on individuals and their political and cultural activity. Criterion
was a highly select group, which included Emil Cioran, Petru Comarnescu,

3
 Ibid.
4
 Madeleine Albright, Fascism: A Warning, 8–12.
xvi  PREFACE

Mircea Eliade, Eugène Ionesco, Constantin Noica, Marietta Sadova and

Mihail Sebastian. The evolution of this group dovetailed with the rise of
fascism in Romania.
Criterion was initially a democratic concept inspired by Comarnescu’s
time in the United States. The organization was arranged democratically
and the structure of the symposia (with a pro and a con speaker) guaran-
teed that both sides of a topic were addressed. The head of Criterion, its
founder and director, cultural critic and theater translator Comarnescu
was an ardent democrat and later communist.
Its collective character was critically important to Criterion. The group
constituted a friendship circle and the association operated cooperatively.
As Criterion began disintegrating, their friendship group and Criterion fell
apart in favor of an alternate collective: the Legionary Movement. Cioran,
Eliade, Noica and Sadova became fascists; Comarnescu, Ionesco and
Sebastian, who was Jewish, did not. This was a painful period for all. The
collective appears again in two instances that represent political extremism
in this book: Ionesco’s warning to his generation against the threat of
Rhinocerization (conversion to extremism) and collective political think-
ing, and Sebastian’s lament that Nae Ionescu encourages his students to
join the political collective and reject individualism. Sebastian’s De două
mii de ani [For Two Thousand Years] (1934), a novel which was trans-
lated into English in 2016, documents his experiences of being Jewish
during the rise of fascism in 1930s Bucharest and reveals Nae Ionescu’s
anti-Semitism in its Preface. As a novel it is also in the form of literature
distinctive to the time: experiential literature.
In particular, this book exposes the famous historian of religions,
Mircea Eliade, for his fascist sympathies and activities. His role is a contro-
versial subject in both Romania and internationally. In the United States,
there has been discussion of removing his chair at the University of
Chicago because of his political past. Notably, Eliade never apologized for
his youthful mistake, whereas Cioran did express regret during his later
years in Paris.
Many Criterionists succumbed to the treason and betrayal that Julien
Benda famously criticized in his 1927 study The Treason of the Intellectuals.
The intellectuals, les clercs, strayed from their true unique vocation of
thought and, instead, let political passions become part of their mission.
With this betrayal, Benda predicts the national particularisms that would
become the story of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. He wrote,
  PREFACE  xvii

‘I shall point out another characteristic of patriotism in the modern

“clerk”: xenophobia.’5 How Benda’s critique played out in the Criterion
Association is explored in my book.
The book is about fascism, but it is also about much more. Fascism was
one aspect of the cultural flourishing during the interwar period. It is also
about friendship, culture, being an intellectual, art, gender and identity
and religion. Above all, it is about the heights of what Romania could
achieve and the depths to which it sank. I explore all this through portraits
of key intellectuals in Romania and the untold story of the Criterion
Association.
How much of this history is forgotten? Some scholars have succumbed
to the temptation of omission. Furthermore, the near hero worship of
Eliade in post-1989 Romania creates a tendency to whitewash his political
past. In many ways, it is an uncomfortable history, but one we need to
understand today more than ever, because there is the temptation to for-
get and repeat it. In telling the story of Criterion, I make the effort not to
demonize or pass judgment. Like Marci Shore who wrote of similar circle
of intellectuals in Warsaw, ‘I have tried to understand what it meant to live
[extremism] as a European, an East European, a Jewish intellectual in the
20th C.’6 I present a fair examination of their cultural association and the
key figures’ relationships with extremism and with each other.
The significance of the Criterion Association needs to be considered
from its pivotal place in twentieth-century European history. I view the
twentieth-century dictatorships (fascist and then communist) in Romania
as a totalitarian unity. Before and after them, Romania was, and now again
is, a functioning democracy. The restrictions imposed by one dictatorship
were only increased by the next. Of the five dictatorships, three were fas-
cist (King Carol II, the Legionary Movement’s Horia Sima and Marshall
Antonescu) and two communist (Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej and Nicolae
Ceauşescu). Nationalism was the core feature of every dictatorial regime
in Romania.
The collapse of the Criterion Association was the first cultural indicator
of the dictatorial wave poised to sweep Romania. Strong-arm national
politics silenced the creative and dissident voices within Bucharest’s young

5
 Julien Benda, The Treason of the Intellectuals, 35.
6
 Marci Shore, Caviar and Ashes: A Warsaw Generation’s Life and Death in Marxism,
1918–1968, 6.
xviii  Preface

elite. And Comarnescu’s public shame for his rumored homosexuality was
the final note on the demise of this ambitious cultural circle. Though
Criterion’s success was short-lived, the association had a lasting impact on
the Criterionists in Romania and abroad. Eliade, Cioran and Ionesco, in
exile, became world famous.

Durham, NC Cristina A. Bejan

 Acknowledgments

This study would not have been possible without the generous support of
the Rhodes Trust, the Fulbright Association, the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars and the Romanian Cultural Institute.
This book was also made possible (in part) by funds granted to the author
through a Yetta and Jacob Gelman Fellowship at the Jack, Joseph and
Morton Mandel Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies of the United
States Holocaust Memorial Museum  (USHMM). The statements made
and views expressed, however, are solely the responsibility of the author. I
am also grateful to the Emerging Scholars Program at the Mandel Center
for Advanced Holocaust Studies for its support in the preparation of the
manuscript and of the book proposal.
I was fortunate to work with some of the greatest minds in the field
and I am most indebted to my DPhil supervisors Regius Professor Robert
Evans at Oxford and Ion Raţiu Professor Dennis Deletant of Georgetown
University, as well as my mentor Professor Marius Turda of Oxford
Brookes University. In Oxford I also wish to thank Roger Griffin, Jane
Garnett, Sir Colin Lucas and Chaplain Harriet Harris. At Central European
University, I give my thanks to Constantin Iordachi and Balacz Tzereni for
early guidance in my research.
In the United States, I especially thank Vladimir Tismaneanu, the
external examiner for my DPhil and author of this book’s foreword, for his
constant guidance and support since 2006. I give my utmost thanks to
Radu Ioanid for his insight and help in every moment I have needed it.
Also at USHMM, I would like to personally thank Steve Feldman, Jürgen
Matthäus, Geoffrey Megargee and the late Joseph Robert White. I am

xix
xx  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

grateful to Paula Ganga for reading an early version of the book and pro-
viding helpful feedback.
I am also forever indebted to Professor  Malachi Hacohen of Duke
University for his support, encouragement and constant help over the years.
At WWC I thank Christian Ostermann and Blair Ruble who supported
my research. Mac Linscott Ricketts has assisted me in numerous ways
including lending me materials and answering my endless questions about
Eliade. I give my sincerest gratitude to Keith Hitchins of the University of
Illinois Urbana-­Champaign, who knew Petru Comarnescu personally and
told me where to find his personal archive. In Romania I wish to thank
Liviu Antonesei, Bogdan Antoniu, Lazslo Alexandru, Sorin Antohi, Sorin
Alexandrescu, Adrian Cioflâncă, Florin Constantiniu, Dorin Dobrincu,
Mihai Dinu Gheorghiu, Marius Lazar, Lucian Nastasă, Bogdan Neagota,
Andrei Oişteanu, Eugenia Oprescu, Marta Petreu, Alexandru-Florin Platon,
Victor Rizescu, Anca Şincan, Michael Shafir, Gabriel Stănescu, Romina
Surugiu, Florin Ţurcanu, Cornel Ungureanu, Leon Volovici, Alexandru
Zub, Barbara Nelson, Mihai Moroiu and Corina Daniela. I especially thank
Valentin Săndulescu, Camelia Crăciun and Cristian Vasile for answering
my endless questions. In the United Kingdom, I thank Roland Clark and
Smaranda Schiopu for their help.
An exhibition about Mircea Eliade displayed in the National Museum
of Romanian Literature in the fall of 2008 was divided up into the loca-
tions from the trajectory of his life: Bucharest, Rome, Calcutta, London,
Lisbon, Paris and finally Chicago. This made me think of my own personal
trajectory since my investigation of this story began. My book has seen me
from North Carolina to Chicago to Oxford to London to Colombo to
Bucharest to Port Vila to Washington DC back to North Carolina  and
now to Denver, Colorado. This journey has been an absolute joy and
would certainly not have been possible without the friendship and love I
received along the way. In this respect I wish to especially thank my family
(mom Mary, sister Teresa, brother William, dad Adrian, cousin Alina), my
friends across the world and Jess, Maria and Hal Mekeel.
My Romanian grandparents, Marioara Ene and Anghel Bejan, were
students in interwar Bucharest, where they met at a military ball at Cercul
Militar. Both were the first in their families to attend university. This book
is dedicated to them, and to my American grandparents, Teresa Andersen
and William F. Riordan. It is also dedicated to my parents and my mătuşa
Veronica Ene in Galaţi, all of whose photographs and stories made me
curious about Romanian history in the first place.
 Contents

1 Introduction  1

2 Nae Ionescu, the Young Generation, ‘The Spiritual

Itinerary’ and Education Abroad, 1927–1932  25

3 The Criterion Association of Arts, Literature and

Philosophy: Beginnings and Birth in Bucharest, 1932  59

4 The Criterion Association’s Activity of 1932: ‘Idols’

Symposia, Politics, Culture 85

5 Criterion Activity of 1933–1935: Politics, Exhibition,

Symposia, Music and the Publication133

6 The Dissolution of the Criterion Association, 1934–1935:

The Credinţa Scandal, Male Friendship, Sexuality and
Freedom of the Press177

7 Rhinocerization: Political Activity and Allegiances of the

Young Generation, 1935–1941211

xxi
xxii  Contents

8 The Fate of the Young Generation and the Legacy of

Criterion253

9 Conclusion277

Bibliography 281

Index305
 Cast of Characters

Petru Comarnescu (1905–1970) the father (Secretary General) of Criterion; lit-

erature and art critic, philosopher and theater translator; ardent democrat; studied
at the University of Southern California for his PhD in aesthetics; his public shame
for his homosexuality led to the breakup of Criterion with the Credinţa scandal;
collaborator with the communist regime and informer for the Securitate.

Nae Ionescu (1890–1940) professor at the University of Bucharest; philosopher

and journalist; preached the philosophy of experience and extreme right politics;
editor of Cuvântul; mentor to the Young Generation; sympathized with the Iron
Guard; arrested twice for his politics.

Mircea Eliade (1907–1986) historian of religions; novelist and journalist; the

leader of the Young Generation; studied abroad in India; wrote the first Western
book on yoga; member of Criterion; married to Nina Mareş; disciple of Nae
Ionescu; sympathized with the Iron Guard; imprisoned once for his politics;
escaped Romania during WWII as a diplomat and eventually settled in the United
States where he became a professor of the history of religions at the University of
Chicago.

Mihail Sebastian (1907–1945) novelist and playwright; Jewish; democrat; mem-

ber of Criterion; disciple of Nae Ionescu; wrote De doua mii de ani for which Nae
Ionescu wrote the infamous anti-Semitic preface; felt more and more isolated from
his friends during the 1930s and 1940s; after surviving the Romanian Holocaust
died in 1945 when hit by a truck as he was crossing the street.

xxiii
xxiv  Cast of Characters

Eugène Ionesco (1909–1994) Romanian-French playwright and essayist; father

of the Theatre of the Absurd; ardent democrat; married to Rodica Ionesco; had
partial Jewish heritage; fled Romania during WWII to France, where he lived the
rest of his life in Marseilles then Paris; member of Criterion.

Emil (E.M.) Cioran (1933–1995) nihilist philosopher; studied at the University

of Berlin in 1933 and wrote pro-Nazi articles published in Vremea; member of
Criterion; held pro-totalitarian views; famous for his extremist Schimbarea la faţă
a României (1936); left Romania during WWII and settled in France, where he
became a well-known philosopher.

Constantin Noica (1909–1987) philosopher; best friend of Petru Comarnescu in

their youth; member of Criterion; became a member of the Iron Guard in 1938;
stayed in Romania and divorced his English wife Wendy in 1947 (she returned to
Britain with their children in 1955); persecuted under communism; victim in the
Noica-Pillat trial; creator of dissidence through culture with his Păltiniş School,
where he trained young philosophers such as Gabriel Liiceanu and Andrei Pleşu.

Marietta Sadova (1897–1981) actress and theater director; vehement anti-­Semite

and supporter of the Iron Guard; member of Criterion; first married to Ion Marin
Sadoveanu then married Haig Acterian; used the National Theatre for pro-Guard-
ist demonstrations during the Legionary Rebellion in 1941; under communism
she was arrested for subversive activity and implicated in the Noica-Pillat trial; after
she was released from prison she became a professor at the National University of
Theatre Arts and Cinematography.

Haig Acterian (1903–1943) Armenian-Romanian theater director and poet; sec-

ond husband of Marietta Sadova; older brother to lawyer, journalist and writer
Arşavir Acterian and theater director Jeni Acterian; studied theater practice and
cinema in Berlin and Rome; member of Criterion; first a communist he became an
ardent fascist and supporter of the Iron Guard; after Antonescu crushed the
Legionary Rebellion, Haig Acterian was arrested and imprisoned; due to the inter-
vention of Sadova and King Mihai he was sent to the Kuban on the Eastern Front
where he was killed.

Mihail Polihroniade (1906–1939) lawyer and political activist; with Comarnescu,

Ionel Jianu and Noica he published Acţiune şi Reacţiune from 1929 to 1930;
member of Criterion; initially a communist, he became vehement fascist and sup-
porter of the Legionary Movement; his wife Mary was English; published Axa in
1933; was arrested and killed in 1939 following the assassination of Prime Minister
Armand Călinescu.
   Cast of Characters  xxv

Mircea Vulcănescu (1904–1952) economist and philosopher; member of

Criterion and secretary for the Philosophy section; one of the main forces behind
the Criterion publication; a target in the Credinţa scandal; he served as the under-
secretary of state in the Ministry of Finance during the Antonescu government;
tried for war crimes after WWII; he was interned in Aiud prison where he died.

Alexandru Christian Tell (d.1939) lawyer and writer; member of Criterion and
secretary for the Social Sciences section; spearheaded the Criterion publication; a
target in the Credinţa scandal.

Floria Capsali (1900–1982) ballet dancer and choreographer; in 1926 married

the sculptor Mac Constantinescu; one of the founders of Criterion (Administrator
General); she ran her own dance studio and offered it to Criterion to hold their
meetings; her jealousy of Gabriel Negry’s performance led to the Credinţa
scandal.

Gabriel Negry—a dancer who discovered classical dance in Floria Capsali’s studio
in 1929 and collaborated with Capsali in 1933; danced the infamous dance at the
National Opera House in Bucharest in 1934 that Capsali accused of promoting
homosexuality and pederasty, which led to the Credinţa scandal.

Sandu Tudor (1896–1962) conservative journalist, poet, theologian and

Orthodox monk; contributor to Gândirea; listed as a potential speaker at Criterion
conferences and collaborator with key members of the Young Generation (the
publication Azi); director of the Credinţa newspaper, an Orthodox left-leaning
slanderous publication; originally was on good terms with Petru Comarnescu
before the scandal and they reached a public peace shortly thereafter; helped to
create the mystical ‘Burning Pyre’ religious movement and took orders in 1948;
arrested twice by the communist regime; died due to torture in Aiud prison.

Zaharia Stancu (1902–1974) leftist writer, novelist, poet and philosopher; listed
as a potential speaker at Criterion conferences and collaborator with key members
of the Young Generation (the publication Azi); editor of Credinţa; imprisoned for
his anti-fascist views during WWII in Târgu Jiu prison; celebrated author under
communism; became director of the National Theatre; named a member of the
Romanian Academy and the director of the Writer’s Union of Romania.

Corneliu Zelea Codreanu (1899–1938) the founder and leader of the fascist and
anti-Semitic Legionary Movement (Iron Guard); originally from Bucovina; stud-
ied law in Iasi; founded the National Christian Defense League in 1923 with
Alexandru C. Cuza; split with Cuza; in 1927 created the Legion of the Archangel
Michael; moved headquarters to Bucharest in 1932–1933; the royal dictatorship
xxvi  Cast of Characters

of King Carol II repressed all Guardist activity; imprisoned and executed with the
Nicadori and Decemviri death squads in 1938.

King Carol II (1893–1953) son of King Ferdinand I and Queen Marie of

Romania; known as the ‘Playboy King’; came to power in 1930; had a controver-
sial relationship with his mistress Magda Lupescu who was Jewish; surrounded by
a camarilla of trusted advisors including at one point Nae Ionescu; initially sympa-
thetic to the Iron Guard, he did his best to silence them and created his own royal
dictatorship in 1938; coerced to abdicate in 1940 and he and Lupescu fled to
Mexico, eventually settling in Portugal.
 Abbreviations

BAR Ach 17/2001 APPC Biblioteca Academiei Române (BAR) Ach 17/2001
Arhiva personală lui Petru Comarnescu (APPC)
[The Library of the Romanian Academy, Personal
Archive of Petru Comarnescu] Sala de Manuscrise
[Manuscripts Room] Bucharest
AMNLR Arhiva Muzeul National al Literaturii Române, [The
Archive of the National Museum of Romanian
Literature] Bucharest
ACSNAS Consiliul Naţional Pentru Studierea Arhivelor
Securităti̧ i [The National Council for the Study of
the Securitate Archive] Bucharest
ACSNAS MS Marietta Sadova Securitate dossier
ACNSAS HA Haig Acterian Securitate dossier
ACNSAS CN Constantin Noica Securitate dossier
USHMM Archive at the Center for Advanced Holocaust
Studies, United States Holocaust Memorial
Museum, Washington DC
PCJ Petru Comarnescu. Jurnal. 1931–1937. Iaşi:
Institutul European, 1994
MEAI Mircea Eliade. Autobiography Vol I: 1907–1937
Journey East, Journey West. Translated by Mac
Linscott Ricketts. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1981
MSJ Mihail Sebastian, Journal 1935–1944. Translated by
Patrick Camiller. London: Pimlico, 2003

xxvii
 List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 A trip to the mountains in 1932, including (standing left to

right) Mihail Sebastian, Floria Capsali, Mary Polihroniade,
Mihail Polihroniade, Marietta Sadova and, seated left to right,
Mircea Eliade and Haig Acterian. Courtesy of the National
Museum of Romanian Literature, reference number 26625 3
Fig. 1.2 A 1935 map of Greater Romania. Courtesy of the Library of
the Romanian Academy, reference number H.3397 18
Fig. 2.1 Mircea Eliade in Calcutta, India in May 1930. Courtesy of the
Library of the Romanian Academy, reference number 241219 49
Fig. 2.2 Petru Comarnescu (right) at his University of Southern
California graduation in 1931. Courtesy of the Library of the
Romanian Academy, reference number 241195 52
Fig. 3.1 Dinner with Criterionists (left to right) Mihail Sebastian, Mihail
Polihroniade, Mary Polihroniade, Marietta Sadova, Mircea
Eliade and Haig Acterian. Courtesy of the National Museum of
Romanian Literature, reference number 5582 62
Fig. 5.1 The publication cover with photos of (left to right) Mircea
Vulcănescu, Mircea Eliade, Petru Comarnescu, Constantin
Noica and (center) the King Carol I Royal Foundation. Source:
Criterion. Courtesy of the Central University Library of
Bucharest151
Fig. 7.1 1935 portrait of Marietta Sadova. Courtesy of the Library of
the Romanian Academy, reference number 170414 229
Fig. 8.1 Cioran, Ionesco and Eliade at Place du Furstenberg in Paris,
1977 (left to right). Courtesy of the National Museum of
Romanian Literature, reference number 16512 258

xxix
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

André Gide was an inspiration for many young minds in interwar Romania
and their efforts in this dynamic time amply show how these intellectuals
followed Gide’s advice: ‘There are admirable qualities in every being.
Convince yourself of your force and your youth. Keep repeating to your-
self: “It all depends on me.”’1 Through their own exceptional talents, with
the zeal and energy of their youth, generaţia tânără [the Young
Generation]2 embarked on a path to realize their ambition to create new
forms of culture in their country. Ideology and scandal eclipsed the great
intellectual experiment that was the Criterion Association of interwar
Bucharest. That creative ambition was aborted because these individuals
were agents in their own failure. In some cases they genuinely
self-destructed.

1
 André Gide, Les nouvelles nourritures, 141.
2
 The question of semantics regarding what to call this impressive group of young intel-
lectuals has been ongoing. First it had been the ‘Young Generation,’ as they called them-
selves, or the ‘New Generation.’ George Călinescu refers to them as the ‘New Generation.’
Dan C. Mihăilescu, Matei Călinescu and Marta Petreu refer to them as ‘Generation 1927,’
derived from the year that Mircea Eliade wrote the manifesto for the group. Occasionally the
‘1930s Generation’ is used. More recently the ‘Criterion Generation’ has come into fashion.
See Chap. 3 for the discussion of the necessary distinction between the Young Generation
and the Criterion Association.

© The Author(s) 2019 1

C. A. Bejan, Intellectuals and Fascism in Interwar Romania,
Modernity, Memory and Identity in South-East Europe,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20165-4_1
2  C. A. BEJAN

The Young Generation and the Criterion

Association
A photo taken in 1932 shows a group of friends on holiday in the Bucegi
Mountains. These young Romanian intellectuals included Mihail
Sebastian, Floria Capsali, Mary Polihroniade, Mihail Polihroniade,
Marietta Sadova, Mircea Eliade and Haig Acterian. The group was very
diverse (Romanian, Jewish, Armenian, Greek, British). Andrei Oişteanu
remarks how typical such an assortment of friends was in interwar Romania,
especially from Bucharest, ‘a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-­
confessional city.’3 Ethnically and religiously varied, these old lyceum and
university friends already had different experiences from all over the world
to share with one another, from California to France to India. They also
had diverging political opinions, but in the early 1930s they shared friend-
ship and the desire to advance and improve Romanian cultural life
(Fig. 1.1).
Mihail Sebastian records an archetypal scene from the Bucharest liter-
ary world in his book Cum am devenit huligan (How I Became a
Hooligan,  1935). A French critic and friend of Gide and Proust, Léon
Pierre-Quint, visits Bucharest in 1933 and meets with a young group of
intellectuals within which communists and supporters of A.C. Cuza (a far-­
right politician) are fraternizing jovially. Pierre-Quint expresses his confu-
sion as to the two extremes getting along so well. Sebastian writes,

I remember the candid response of the two extremist friends very well. ‘You
see, we are just friends and this doesn’t commit us to anything.’4

In a footnote, Sebastian clarifies that the figures represented in this scene

were actually Mihail Polihroniade, on the far right, and Belu Silber, sup-
porting the far left.
Matei Călinescu claims this kind of friendship was possible because
Romania was a country forgotten by the West, a country with a provincial

3
 Andrei Oişteanu, ‘Mihail Sebastian şi Mircea Eliade: cronica unei prietenii accidentate,’
Revista 22, December 4–10, 2007, 10–11. Oişteanu cites a similar photo in this article
4
 Mihail Sebastian, Cum am devenit huligan, 14. Matei Călinescu also cites this incident in,
‘The 1927 Generation in Romania: Friendships and Ideological Choices (Mihail Sebastian,
Mircea Eliade, Nae Ionescu, Eugène Ionesco, E.M.  Cioran),’ East European Politics and
Societies, Vol. 15, No. 3 (2002) 650.
 1 INTRODUCTION  3

Fig. 1.1  A trip to the mountains in 1932, including (standing left to right)
Mihail Sebastian, Floria Capsali, Mary Polihroniade, Mihail Polihroniade, Marietta
Sadova and, seated left to right, Mircea Eliade and Haig Acterian. Courtesy of the
National Museum of Romanian Literature, reference number 26625

culture and an extremely small elite.5 If individuals wanted to be involved

with the cultural and intellectual currents of the time, they had to ­compromise
their ideological allegiances. The elite may have been small, but that fact

 Călinescu, ‘The 1927 Generation in Romania: Friendships and Ideological Choices,’ 651.
5
4  C. A. BEJAN

does not necessarily imply that they had to swallow their convictions in
order to be involved in the cultural scene of interwar Bucharest. For a while
they successfully balanced their social, cultural and intellectual activities and
political convictions. This generation did not take the struggle between
friendship and ideology lightly, and once individuals chose ideology over
friendship, catastrophe occurred.
Tangible evidence of such catastrophe was the collapse of the Criterion
Association of Arts, Literature and Philosophy (more commonly known as
simply ‘Criterion’ or the ‘Criterion Association’), the name of the cultural
circle, series of conferences and exhibitions, and publication, which these
young Romanian intellectuals participated in years 1932–1935. Founded
by philosopher turned art critic, Petru Comarnescu, Criterion included
the members of the previously mentioned friendship group, composed of
Bucharest’s most prominent young intellectuals of the late 1920s and
early 1930s, representing Romania’s distinguished Young Generation.
Naturally a number of factors led to the dissolution of Criterion, but a
fundamental one was the solidification of extremist political ideological
stances. The appeal of fascism to many of these young intellectuals eclipsed
the value of the liberalism within which they lived. The Legionary Movement
(also known as the Legion, or the Iron Guard [which was technically the
paramilitary branch], members were called Legionnaires or Legionaries)
founded by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu in 1927 captured the imaginations of
many, and more moderate voices were tuned out. After a series of contro-
versial conferences and the assassination of Prime Minister Ion Duca on
December 30, 1933, conflicting ideologies became violent. This, among
other things, contributed to the dissolution of Criterion by the spring of 1935.
Despite its ultimate failure, the brief success of Criterion in the mid-­
1930s was a unique moment in Romania’s tumultuous interwar period.
The cultural circle also has a significant place within the broader struggle
for democratic liberalism in Romania, from the liberal and nationalist
Wallachian Revolution of 1848 to the installation of communism in 1948.
The free exercise of public discussion of a variety of salient cultural and
political topics featured discussants from every point of the political spec-
trum. The topics explored in the Criterion sessions were as diverse as the
participants. From Gandhi and Charlie Chaplin to Mussolini and Lenin,
provocative contemporary figures were vigorously investigated. In the
social sphere of Criterion, the phenomenon Sebastian depicts in Cum am
devenit huligan occurred countless times over. Despite political disagree-
ments, friendship, cultural and intellectual activity flourished in the capital
city of this constitutional democracy for as long as it could.
 1 INTRODUCTION  5

In such a vibrant and exciting environment, key members of Criterion

were enormously productive in the early 1930s. Like their idol Gide, most
of the Young Generation kept diaries and wrote in the literary style specific
to and representative of the time: confessional, autobiographical and expe-
riential literature.6 Novelists, critics and philosophers, these men also
wrote feuilletons [foileton] for periodical publications and newspapers on
a regular basis, such as Criterion (the corresponding publication to the
cultural group), Cuvântul (The Word,  the best known publication),
Gândirea  (The Thought), Viaţa Românească (Romanian Life), Revista
Fundaţiilor Regale, Axa, Credinţa (The Belief), Revista Buna-Vestire,
Vremea, Facla, Universul Literar, Rampa and Părerile Libere, among oth-
ers. These publications represented all shades of the political spectrum:
left, right and social democrat.
Even after this youthful success, many from this distinguished, talented
group went on to become very accomplished in their respective fields, and
in some cases, world-famous. Abroad they became Eugène Ionesco, the
absurdist playwright; Mircea Eliade, the professor of history of religions at
University of Chicago, and E.M. Cioran, the French philosopher of nihil-
ism. In Romania the philosopher Constantin Noica became the founder of
the ‘Păltiniş School’ and promoter of dissidence through culture in the
late communist period. Petru Comarnescu however led a life of relative
obscurity as an art critic in Bucharest. In unfortunate cases their individual
contributions did not continue after World War II (WWII) due to prema-
ture death or the purges of communism.

The Question and Approaches to an Answer

Since 1989
The memory of the Young Generation has been resurrected in post-­
communist Romania and their youthful involvement in Bucharest’s cul-
tural scene admired and remembered with much fondness and nostalgia.
However, discussion of the fascist leanings of leading twentieth-century
Romanian intellectuals raises concern, skepticism and even anger on the
part of the contemporary Romanian intelligentsia. Various attempts have
been made to investigate this topic and find an answer to the follow-
ing question:

6
 See Eugen Lovinescu, Memorii II 1916–1931, 1–7; and Doina Uricariu ‘Postfaţa.’ Jeni
Acterian, Jurnalul unei fiinţe greu de mulţumit, 522.
6  C. A. BEJAN

Why did many of the members of the brilliant 1927 Generation in Romania
… feel attracted particularly after 1933, to the extreme nationalism of the
Iron Guard, and why did so many of them become active sympathizers or
members of that mystical-terrorist organization?7

Norman Manea kicked off the debate in the post-communist world

with his presentation of Eliade’s legionary past in his 1991 The New
Republic essay, ‘Happy Guilt.’ The discovery and publication of Mihail
Sebastian’s diary in 1996 shocked the Romanian public by exposing the
horrors a successful, prominent Jewish intellectual experienced due to the
rise in popularity of fascism in interwar Romania. Following the publica-
tion of Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine’s book Cioran, Eliade, Ionesco L’oubli
du fascisme (2002) a heated debate broke out in the Romanian press.
Accusations of Laignel-Lavastine’s bias, embellishment, plagiarism and
insensitivity abounded.8 Călinescu claims that by approaching the general
question, you can only get indirect answers. Thus he attempts to yield
some direct answers about the Young Generation through an evaluation
of their friendships.9
Florin Ţurcanu approaches the question by focusing on Eliade in his
Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier de l’histoire (2003). Through extensive archival
research, Ţurcanu demonstrates that Eliade was an active and vocal supporter
and sympathizer of the Legionary Movement. Marta Petreu devotes a most
comprehensive and helpful study to Cioran’s flirtation with fascism and his
Schimbarea la faţă a României (The Transfiguration of Romania) in her
book An Infamous Past: E.M. Cioran and the Rise of Fascism in Romania.10
More recently Petreu published the controversial Diavolul şi ucenicul său:
Nae Ionescu—Mihail Sebastian (The Devil and His Apprentice,  2009), in
which she argues that Sebastian, in his capacity as journalist for Nae Ionescu’s
newspaper Cuvântul, was an accomplice to his mentor’s anti-Semitism in the

7
 Călinescu, ‘The 1927 Generation in Romania: Friendships and Ideological Choices,’
650.
8
 Laignel-Lavastine’s work is largely discredited due to a series of five articles published by
Marta Petreu in Revista 22 accusing her of plagiarism and lack of scholarship. See Marta
Petreu, ‘Laignel-Lavastine: metoda “franceză,”’ (1)–(V) Revista 22, July 1–29, 2002.
9
 Călinescu, ‘The 1927 Generation in Romania: Friendships and Ideological Choices,’
650.
10
 The original Romanian title is Un trecut deocheat sau ‘Schimbarea la faţă a României.’
‘Infamous’ is a questionable translation of deocheat: ‘ill-fated,’ ‘accursed,’ or ‘unlucky’ would
be a more appropriate translation.
 1 INTRODUCTION  7

early 1930s. Bryan Rennie and Philip Ó Ceallaigh have debated the question
of Eliade’s anti-Semitism in the Los Angeles Review of Books.11 Most recently
Camelia Crăciun examines Jewish writers who wrote in Romanian, including
Mihail Sebastian, in her book Scriitori evrei de limbă română: de la rebeli
marginali la critici canonici (Jewish Writers of the Romanian Language:
From Marginal Rebels to Canonical Critics).
The tendency in the post-1989 era has been to condemn and dismiss the
political behavior of some of these key intellectuals, which with hindsight,
seems abhorrent and contemptible. The contemporary inability Romania
has to grapple with this difficult legacy lies in the rewritten history of the
communist period. Unlike Italy and Western Germany, due to the histori-
cal revisionism of communism, Romania never had the chance to confront
this difficult past. This era was forgotten and members of the Young
Generation were written out of the history books from 1948 onward. The
disciples of Eliade and Noica were more concerned to preserve their men-
tors’ noble contributions to the Romanian intellectual tradition, rather
than dig up the questionable actions of their youth. When one such disci-
ple, Ioan Petru Culianu, did begin to investigate Eliade’s past ties to the
Legionary Movement, he may have paid for it with his life in 1991.12
These suspicions and sensitivities remain in Romania and the Romanian
diaspora from Canada to Israel today, thus it is of the utmost importance
to adopt a more objective, less politically invested, approach to this con-
troversial subject matter. As Sorin Alexandrescu wrote, ‘I can try to under-
stand the criminal, but I don’t have to accept the crime.’13 I intend to
produce a more holistic analysis of the Young Generation and to fill in a
gap in the literature. In order to do justice to the historical and cultural
context in which these figures lived, I have chosen to focus my book on
the Criterion Association.
The existing literature devoted to the Criterion Association in English
is nearly non-existent. Philip Vanhaelemeersch addresses it briefly in his A
Generation Without Beliefs. In Romanian the first substantive analysis is an
article by Liviu Antonesei.14 Monica Grosu covers the Young Generation
and Criterion in her monograph Petru Comarnescu: un neliniştit în secolul
11
 Philip Ó Ceallaigh and Bryan Rennie. ‘Mircea Eliade and Antisemitism: An Exchange.’
Los Angeles Review of Books, September 13, 2018.
12
 Ted Anton, Eros, Magic and the Murder of Professor Culianu.
13
 Sorin Alexandrescu, Paradoxul Român, 19.
14
 Liviu Antonesei. ‘Un model de acţiune culturală: Grupul “Criterion.”’ Alexandru Zub,
ed. Cultură şi Societate, 367–396. Bucharest: Ştiint ̦ifică şi Enciclopedica, 1991, 367–396.
8  C. A. BEJAN

său (Petru Comarnescu: A Restless Man in His Century, 2008). In her

thorough monograph Grosu overlooks the presence of Marietta Sadova in
Criterion and does not provide sufficient discussion of Comarnescu’s sex-
uality. Constantin Mihai wrote two articles and a recent book about the
association, Europenism şi dileme identitare în România interbelică: gru-
parea Criterion (Europeanism and the Dilemma of Identity in Interwar
Romania: The Criterion Group,  2013). My book, the first devoted to
Criterion in English, presents a more in-depth, comprehensive and per-
sonal analysis of the association, by focusing on the personalities involved,
their friendships, creation of culture and political activity.
I disagree with Mihai’s thesis that Criterion was a manifestation of
Europeanism and the association was reaching for the lost bond with
European spirituality. In fact Criterion was a global enterprise. The
Criterionists were fascinated by Spengler and Romania was yearning to be
a major culture instead of minor. In their conferences, they investigated
international personalities such as Gandhi, Krishnamurti, Greta Garbo and
Charlie Chaplin. In my book I intend to answer the following question:
why did some members of the same intellectual family choose a spiritual
and political path of terror while others chose a strictly academic or artistic
path to cultural greatness? With a thorough investigation of the success
and failure of the short-lived cultural group, the Criterion Association
(1932–1935), combined with an in-depth study of its members, confer-
ences, publication and surrounding events, I hope to reach a new under-
standing about the Young Generation at a time when most cemented their
ideological viewpoints and began political activity.

Intellectuals and Extremist Ideology

The diversity and talent of the Young Generation may have been an excep-
tional occurrence, but the phenomenon of intellectuals getting involved
politically is not exclusive to this particular community of intellectuals or
to Romania in general. Over the course of the twentieth century in
Europe, the role and responsibility of intellectuals in society has been a
subject of great debate. Whether intellectuals should have a say in politics
still remains a contentious issue. Paul Johnson warns us to be wary of any
advice given by intellectuals. He writes, ‘Beware of intellectuals!’ because
they themselves can promote ideas that are dangerous and destructive to

Expanded version of ‘Le moment Criterion. Un modelle d’action culturelle,’ Culture and
Society, ed. Alexandru Zub. Iaşi: Editura Academiei R.S.R., 1985, 189–206.
 1 INTRODUCTION  9

humankind.15 Jeremy Jennings and Anthony Kemp-Welch deem Johnson’s

argument faulty, yet representative of a wider anti-intellectualism in con-
temporary Britain. Rather they promote the compelling, ideal and attrac-
tive portrait of the intellectual given by Julien Benda and Edward Said.16
Benda provided the classic definition of the intellectual: ‘the guardian
and possessor of independent judgment owing loyalty to truth alone.’17
Coincidentally Benda’s seminal text La trahison des clercs was first pub-
lished in 1927, the same year the Young Generation got its name:
Generation ’27. In his preface to the Romanian translation of La trahison
des clercs, Andrei Pippidi suggests that Julien Benda’s theory of intellectu-
als has application beyond France and to the Young Generation of inter-
war Romania.18 Benda himself, quite critical of fascism in France, was an
influence on the Criterionists, who were most familiar with the text that
made him both infamous and famous in 1927. He had a particular impact
on Noica, who wrote two critical articles of him in Ultima Oră, entitled
‘How Julien Benda lied!’ and ‘The accused Julien Benda.’19 Later the
young philosopher audited the French sage’s lectures in Paris at which
time Noica declared his legionary support. Perhaps it is not ironic that
Comarnescu referenced Benda when condemning his friend’s political
conversion, calling him a clerc trădător [intellectual traitor].20 Vulcănescu
mentioned Benda’s thought in his article ‘Spirituality’ for the Criterion
publication.
However, Bernard-Henri Lévy’s 1987 book Éloge des Intellectuels laments
that intellectuals are no longer the serious thinkers they once were on moral
and political issues. Levy accuses French intellectuals of having lost their
historic role and worries that they are no longer taken seriously in society.
Both positive and negative definitions allow for the intellectual to regard
himself as having a cultural and even political responsibility to the society or
nation in which he lives. He may feel entitled to spread the correct moral

15
 Paul Johnson, Intellectuals, 342.
16
 Jeremy Jennings and Anthony Kemp-Welch, eds. Intellectuals in Politics: From the
Dreyfus Affair to Salman Rushdie, 5. Also see Stefan Collini, Absent Minds: Intellectuals in
Britain.
17
 Ibid., 1–2.
18
  Andrei Pippidi. ‘Benda singuraticul.’ Julien Benda, Trădarea căr turarilor, trans.
Gabriela Cretia, 5–30.
19
 Ibid., 22–23.
20
  AMNLR, Petru Comarnescu, Correspondence, Letters to Constantin Noica.
25.219/1–8; ff. 7–8. December 23, 1938.
10  C. A. BEJAN

and political message to the people. Thus intellectuals are self-­appointed

messengers of ‘truth.’ But what if their message of ‘truth’ promotes immo-
rality? And what if the search for ‘truth’ is not genuine? Opportunism and
moral cowardice are two important factors to consider when condemning
fascist intellectuals.
In the interwar period across Europe examples abound of prominent
intellectuals supporting their nation’s fascist faction. Heidegger’s support
of the Nazi regime in Germany is perhaps the most obvious example of
this phenomenon. Other German academic philosophers who flirted with
fascism include Ernst Kriek, Hans Heyse and Alfred Baeumler, and other
German cases include Carl Schmitt and Gottfried Benn. In the Republic
of Ireland, the poet William Butler Yeats despised liberalism and had links
to the Blue Shirt nationalists. Bulgarian philosopher Yanko Yanev, inspired
by Nietzsche and Spengler, saw the future of Bulgaria and the rest of
Southeastern Europe in the revival of the traditional European world that
was taking place in Nazi Germany.21 In Italy, Julius Evola, an intellectual
inspiration to Eliade, and Filippo Marinetti, founder of the Italian Futurist
movement, were strong supporters of Mussolini’s fascism.
There were multiple extremist and absolutist currents among the intel-
lectuals in interwar France. The principal thinker behind Action Française
was monarchist and Catholic advocate, Charles Maurras. Following 1934
his group strongly backed fascism. The consortium known as ‘the non-­
conformists of the 1930s’ included intellectuals from the publication
Esprit, the group ‘The New Order’ and ‘The Young Right.’22 They all
supported spiritual revolution and experimented with both fascist and
communist trends. Inherent in such a discourse was a strong anti-­American
sentiment and with Stalin’s announcement of his Five Year Plan, there was
a fear that American industrialization would take over the Soviet Union
and this despiritualization threatened the rest of Europe.23 Two Americans
who became prominent intellectuals in interwar Europe also exhibited
fascist tendencies and anti-Semitism: the poets T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound.
Canadian-born painter and author Wyndham Lewis (with whom Pound
collaborated on the modernist literary journal, Blast) is yet another example.
21
 Keith Hitchins. ‘Modernity and Angst between the World Wars: Emil Cioran and Yanko
Yanev.’ Alexandru Zub and Adrian Cioflâncă, eds. Cultură politică şi politici culturale în
România modernă. Iaşi: Editura Universităt ̦ii ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza,’ 2005, 151–165.
22
 See Jean-Louis Loubet del Bayle, Les non-conformistes des années 30; and Paul Mazgaj,
Imagining Fascism: The Cultural Politics of the French Young Right 1930–1945.
23
 Mazgaj, Imagining Fascism, 81–82.
 1 INTRODUCTION  11

Comparable to Criterion, cultural circles abroad at the start of the

twentieth century include: Surrealism and Dada in Switzerland and France,
Futurism in Italy, Bauhaus in Germany, the New Culture Movement
around Peking University in China and the Bloomsbury Group in the
United Kingdom. Bloomsbury was similar to Criterion in that it was a
modernist circle of friends who mostly met as university students. It was
also a group for art and literature and its members had complicated friend-
ships (many sexual) with each other. Male friendship and homosexuality
were features of both groups. A group in Romania that is comparable to
Criterion in terms of the importance of friendship and generation is the
Sibiu Literary Circle. Created during WWII in Sibiu after the University
of Cluj moved there due to  the Hungarian occupation of northern
Transylvania, the circle was formed around Lucian Blaga and the liberal,
modernist ideas of Eugen Lovinescu.
In her book Caviar and Ashes, Marci Shore presents a biography of a
similar literary generation in Poland, operating in a cultural scene based in
the Warsaw café, Ziemianska, who began as avant-gardists and became
convinced Marxists. Shore states that her book is about the ‘complexity of
human identity and the extraordinary complexity of human relationships’
and I believe that description also applies to the story I tell of Criterion.24
Both stories, Criterion and Marci Shore’s Warsaw circle, explore ideolo-
gies (fascism and communism) of Modernity. They were concerned with
making a place in History, and their efforts revealed their ‘idealism and
disillusionment.’25

Modernism and Fascism: The Romanian Case

To some, this phenomenon of intellectuals supporting fascism may seem
paradoxical, or rather there is a contention that such a close relationship
between fascism and high culture could only have been an anomaly. The
combination of some of Romania’s most brilliant, lucid and creative minds
and a violent political ideology can seem incongruous. According to
renowned scholar of fascism Roger Griffin’s interpretation of modernism,
Eliade would definitely fit the mold of the intellectual modernist. Griffin
likens modernism to Carl Gustav Jung’s quest to ‘find the source of tran-
scendent purpose and spirituality that seemed to have been draining from

 Shore, Caviar and Ashes, 373.

24

 Ibid., 9.
25
12  C. A. BEJAN

the world under the conditions of modern life ever since the nineteenth
century.’26 Eliade and his generation wished to fill the void they saw in
Romania in the wake of both the horror and success of WWI.
The definition of generic fascism has been extremely contested outside
the Marxist tradition, but in the last 30 years one approach has established
a broad consensus, namely to see fascism as a revolutionary form of ultra-
nationalism, or what Griffin calls ‘palingenetic ultranationalism.’ This
approach is particularly useful in the present context because it is based on
the testimony of militant activists and theoretical protagonists of radical
solutions to the material problems of the nation. The wider spiritual prob-
lems of ‘modern civilization’ are based not on international socialism or
liberalism but on forms of nationalism that can embrace technocratic,
political, social, biological, historical, cultural or religious elements. The
Criterion Association’s concern with the crisis of the democratic Romania
and Western civilization as a whole predisposed some to be attracted by
the palingenetic solutions offered by the Iron Guard. The Legionary
Movement emphasized national resurrection, spiritual rebirth and the cre-
ation of a new man, all of which are interpreted by Griffin as symptoms of
modernism’s quest to find new sources of meaning, agency and transcen-
dence in a culturally bankrupt and decadent age.27
The Young Generation offered Romania a political and spiritual rebirth
through culture at a time of acute social malaise and despair. Through the
Criterion Association and their own independent efforts in publishing and
the arts, members of the Young Generation were a brilliant modernizing
force to be reckoned with. Their revolutionary zeal in the intellectual and
cultural arena was so terrifying to members of the political status quo
(both liberal politicians and King Carol II) that their freedom of speech
had to be restricted.
The Criterionists believed in the power of their youth and those inclined
toward the extreme right promoted philosophical irrationalism and politi-
cal mysticism. Their move to support the Iron Guard is an example of
Jeffrey Herf’s ‘reactionary modernism.’ Those who succumbed were
nationalists who embraced technological modernization while rejecting
26
 Roger Griffin. ‘Faith in an Age of Isms.’ The Times Higher Education Supplement, July
27, 2007, 16. For more on modernism see Roger Griffin, Modernism and Fascism: The Sense
of Beginning under Mussolini and Hitler, Malcolm Bradbury and James McFarlane,
‘Introduction.’ Modernism 1890–1930, and Christopher Wilk. ‘Introduction: What was
Modernism?’ Christopher Wilk, ed. Modernism 1914–1939. Designing a New World.
27
 Please see Roger Griffin, The Nature of Fascism.
 1 INTRODUCTION  13

the Enlightenment and liberal democracy.28 The Criterionists’ rejection of

the Enlightenment went hand in hand with a celebration of ‘Romanianness.’
By addressing the dearth of existing literature on the Young Generation
within the cultural-historical context of the interwar period, this book
sheds new light on the personal, creative and political activities of these
influential intellectuals, making them less perplexing, less mysterious and,
yes, less paradoxical.

Inherited Intellectual Traditions

Different from their predecessors such as the 1848 Generation, which
brought liberal, democratic forms and influences from the West, the
Young Generation was on a quest for something new that could bring
transcendent meaning to their post-WWI world. They wished to remove
societal ills resulting from the earlier adoption of imported inauthentic
Western forms, which had not suited the authentic Eastern Romanian
substance.29
Keith Hitchins divides the debate about national Romanian culture
begun in the nineteenth century and continued into the twentieth between
the Traditionalists and Europeanists.30 The Traditionalists, also known as
autochthonists or indigenists, advocated mystical Christian Orthodoxy
(the Church of Romania) and the Europeanists, also known as modernists
or Westernizers, preferred rationalist Enlightenment values. By the 1930s
this split was highly politicized and is often used by Romanian scholars to
analyze the polarization of intellectual and artistic ‘camps.’31 More recently
Sorin Alexandrescu presented a nuanced schema, dividing interwar
Romanian intellectuals up into ‘ideal types’ in the sense of Max Weber:
Liberals, Agrarians, Traditionalists, Anti-Modern and Extreme Right/

28
 Jeffrey Herf, Reactionary Modernism, 1–2.
29
 See Titu Maiorescu’s theory of ‘forms without content’ discussed in Vlad Georgescu,
The Romanians: A History, 183.
30
 Keith Hitchins, Romania 1866–1947, 292–334.
31
 Katherine Verdery adds an additional category, ‘pro-Orientals’ whilst Irina Livezeanu
emphasizes the spiritual nature of the postwar generation. See Katherine Verdery, National
Ideology under Socialism: Identity and Cultural Politics in Ceauşescu’s Romania, 46–47. Irina
Livezeanu, ‘Generational Politics and the Philosophy of Culture: Lucian Blaga between
Tradition and Modernism,’ Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. 33 (2002): 210.
14  C. A. BEJAN

Left.32 This interpretation is in strict opposition to Norman Manea who

upholds the marked difference in both the ideology behind and the imple-
mentation of the distinct totalitarian systems: fascism and communism.33
Practically speaking, some members of the Young Generation did alternate
support between communism and fascism during the interwar period and
after WWII.
The Young Generation is the sixth generation known in the social his-
tory of modern Romania. In Criterion Vulcănescu outlines the genera-
tions that came before it: generaţia premergătorilor (the generation that
rose after the revolution of Tudor Vladimirescu, e.g. Gheorghe Lazăr);
generaţia paşoptistă (the generation of the 1848 revolution, the first to
study in France, created modern Romania: Ion Brătianu, Golescu,
Kogălniceanu, Rosetti, Avram Iancu), generaţia junimistă (Maiorescu,
Creangă, Eminescu; there were two moments: one cultural in Iaşi, another
political in Bucharest), generaţia socială (‘The Old Generation,’ reacting
against the aristocratic and asocial Junimist movement: the sămănătorism
(sowerism) of N. Iorga and A.C. Cuza, and the poporanism of Stere) and
generaţia de foc (‘The Sacrificed Generation,’ with Nae Ionescu, Lucian
Blaga, Nichifor Crainic, Ion Marin Sadoveanu, Mihai Ralea as examples).34
The Criterion Association has its place in a long-standing tradition of
cultural circles in modern Romania. A significant literary review that suc-
cessfully bridged the modernism/traditionalism divide at the start was
Gândirea (1921–1944). Fashioning itself against more leftist Eugen
Lovinescu’s Sburătorul (1919–1927), and Mihai Ralea’s Viaţa românească
(1906–1940), Gândirea’s major contributors included Nichifor Crainic
(1889–1972, former priest, founder of Orthodoxism and proponent of
autochthonism) and Lucian Blaga (1895–1961, the celebrated poet of
Greater Romania and eminent philosopher). In the first decade of its con-
ception Gândirea included the work of extreme modernists such as artists
Marcel Iancu and Brancuşi. However, Crainic took over the paper in
1926 and by 1941 had turned it into the signature publication of postwar

32
 Sorin Alexandrescu, ‘Modernists and Antimodernists: Enemies or Friends?’ (Paper pre-
sented at Modernism and Antimodernism: Theories, Visions, Ideologies, Politics, International
Conference in Bucharest, September 19–21, 2008).
33
 Norman Manea, ‘Romania: Three Lines with Commentary,’ On Clowns: The Dictator
and the Artist, 4–5.
34
 Mircea Vulcănescu, ‘Generaţie,’ Criterion Year 1, Nos. 3–4, November 15–December 1,
1934.
 1 INTRODUCTION  15

traditionalism and ideological fascism.35 By this point, Blaga split with

Crainic and Gândirea in 1941 due to his disapproval of Crainic’s politi-
cal agenda.
Within Romania, this advocacy for a particular, national, spiritual
Romanian substance occurred while Vasile Pârvan and others introduced
Bergson’s élan vital from France and German Lebensphilosophie to
Bucharest in the 1920s. The Romanian interpretation of this was first
known as trăire [the act of living] and then experienţa [the philosophy of
experience].36 This philosophical current significantly shaped the discus-
sion within the Young Generation in the late 1920s and their discourse in
the Criterion Association in the early 1930s.

Criterion: A Model of Cultural Action

As an admirer of Noica, Liviu Antonesei’s study of Criterion is optimistic,
concentrating more on the group’s merits, rather than its shortcomings.
He calls the Criterion Association un model de acţiune culturală [a model
of cultural action]37 that strove to create a more umanitate integrală
[integrated humanity].38 In his detailed account of the generation’s cul-
tural activities, Antonesei is quick to defend the intellectuals against criti-
cism. In opposition to claims put forth by Dumitru Micu and Zigu Ornea
that this generation adopted certain philosophical trends (inherited from
Kierkegaard, Nietzsche among others) more out of fashion than sub-
stance, Antonesei staunchly disagrees and proceeds to demonstrate how
Criterion embarked on a genuine epistemological investigation.39 To
prove this, he emphasizes the generation’s intellectual expeditions in trăire
and experienţa. Many within Criterion practiced living according to this
philosophy of experience and endeavored to understand the philosophy
and how it fit into the whole of human knowledge.
For the Criterionists experienţa was more than just a spirituality, it was
a way of thinking that inspired them to action. Having been introduced to
trăire and experienţa by their professor Nae Ionescu, the young people

35
 Livezeanu, ‘Generational Politics and the Philosophy of Culture: Lucian Blaga between
Tradition and Modernism,’ 211.
36
 See Philip Vanhaelemeersch, A Generation Without Beliefs and the Idea of Experience in
Romania, the authoritative text in English on the philosophy of experienţa in Romania.
37
 Antonesei, ‘Un model de acţiune culturală: Grupul “Criterion,”’ 367.
38
 Ibid., 386.
39
 Ibid., 385.
16  C. A. BEJAN

took an interesting departure from their mentor on the subject of what

role intellectuals should play in society. For Ionescu, intellectuals were
merely măr turisitori [confessors], but for the Criterionists, intellectuals
were confessors but also creatori de fapte [creators of action].40 In a 1933
article published in Viaţa Românească Comarnescu lamented the pessi-
mism of his contemporaries across Europe (from Oxford and Cambridge
to Bucharest) and drew a picture of the ideal young intellectual with liter-
ary comparisons. He likened to Hamlet the intellectual who loses himself
through thought, while he who loses himself through action is Faust. For
Comarnescu, both paths led to tragedy and were incapable of confronting
the impending catastrophe sensed by many youths across Europe.
Comarnescu emphasized that one cannot feel good by solely thinking
(Hamlet) or solely acting (Faust). One must both think and act.41
Comarnescu also wrote in his journal that he considered the members
of Criterion to be just such figures of change, optimism and active creators
of culture. The Criterion man was ‘a necessary man, an active man.’42
Criterion men and women viewed themselves as just such creators of
action. As necessary and active people, they believed they could have a
positive impact on Romanian society through the activities of Criterion
and also as individuals.

Constitutional Monarchy: Faux or Authentic?

The interwar period (1918–1940) in Romania has been idealized and
romanticized by many Romanians ever since 1945. An experiment with a
parliamentary constitutional monarchy, a vast expansion in territory and a
vibrant cultural intellectual scene, contributed to the belief that Romania
had finally emerged from her obscure corner of Europe to join the ranks of
real history. However, to attribute such success to this small nation at this
point would be premature. Romania suffered many social, political and
economic ills including extreme poverty, difficulty with industrialization of
a mainly agrarian state, political corruption, anti-Semitism and the rise of

 Ibid., 387.
40

 Petru Comarnescu, ‘Răul Veacului Nostru: Hamlet 1933,’ Viaţa Românească. Year 25
41

No. 4, April 1933, 119–122.

42
 PCJ, 74.
 1 INTRODUCTION  17

fascism. As Irina Livezeanu argues in her Cultural Politics in Greater

Romania, Romania was also struggling with the rise of nationalism from
both the mainstream politicians and the extreme right.
Though technically a functioning democracy, many considered the
interwar Romanian government in Bucharest to be a sham, a constitu-
tional monarchy with only the trappings of parliamentarism. The fragility
and robustness of Romania’s interwar constitutional monarchy is a con-
tentious issue. R.J.W. Evans has argued for the weakness of the democra-
cies of the successor states.43 The monarchy itself was also in trouble. The
death of King Ferdinand (who ruled from 1914–1927) brought on a cri-
sis, as his successor, his son Carol was not granted the throne. By leaving
his wife, Princess Helena of Greece in 1925 for Elena ‘Magda’ Lupescu,
Carol had forfeited his kingship to his son, Mihai. But Carol claimed his
royal rights in 1930 and was notorious for the rest of the period as the
‘Playboy King’ for his illegal antics, his gambling, disregard for his people
and his affair with Lupescu, famous for her Jewish heritage, a factor that
did not endear her to many.

Greater Romania
Nicolae Iorga (1870–1941) was one of the intellectuals of the ‘Old
Generation’ who was considered to be responsible for the realization of
Greater Romania. Other members included the philosopher Constantin
Rădulescu-Motru (1868–1957) and the politician Iuliu Maniu
(1873–1953). On April 9, 1918, Sfatul Țării (the governing council of
Bessarabia) voted for union with the Kingdom of Romania. Later that year
the Romanian representatives of Bukovina voted for union with the
Kingdom of Romania confirmed with the Treaty of St. Germain. As con-
sequence of the Treaty of Trianon (1920) Romania was awarded
Transylvania. During the interwar period Bessarabia was under Romanian
control.44 The unification of these neighboring provinces with the princi-
palities Wallachia and Moldova expanded Romania’s territory from
137,000 square km to 294,000 square km, thus increasing the population
from 7 million to 15.5 million people (Fig. 1.2).
The unification of provinces Transylvania, Bessarabia and Bucovina, with
the Regat (Wallachia and Moldova) resulted in an increase in minorities

43
 R.J.W. Evans, ‘The Successor States,’ Twisted Paths: Europe 1914–1945, 210–235.
44
 Alberto Basciani, Dificila Unire: Basarabiaşi România Mare 1918–1940.
18  C. A. BEJAN

Fig. 1.2  A 1935 map of Greater Romania. Courtesy of the Library of the
Romanian Academy, reference number H.3397

(most significantly Hungarians and Jews, and Germans and Russians among
others) within Romania’s borders. Thirty percent of the country’s popula-
tion was not Romanian. Despite decades of pressure from Western powers,
Romania refused to grant legal equality and suffrage to Jews until 1923, and
then with much reluctance. Then the ‘Jewish problem’ plagued politicians
throughout the interwar period and WWII.  All political movements
exploited the sentiment of anti-Semitism prevalent in Romania since the
nineteenth century.
The name Romania’s greatest historian and eventual Prime Minister
Nicolae Iorga (serving briefly from 1931 to 1932, at the start of the
Criterion experiment) gave his newspaper, Neamul Românesc, signifies
the importance of language when considering anti-Semitism, the fear of
the non-Romanian ‘other’ and the suspicion of the democratic state appa-
ratus in Romania both before and after WWI. The discussion centered on
the concept of neam [people, nation], which differed substantially from
 1 INTRODUCTION  19

the stat [state] imposed on Romanians. Victor Neumann claims neam

‘acquired the value-ridden semantic significance of the German das Volk,
though it would never reflect the complexity of the latter.’45 Harmonizing
Romania’s neam and stat was the ongoing preoccupation for Romanian
intellectuals.
Debates in interwar public life focused on uncovering the meaning of
‘Romanianness,’ the true essence of the nation, the organic unity of high
culture, education, society and the state. Attempts at discovering the
authentic collective self and determining Romanians’ specificul naţional
[national specificity] were made by means of speculative thought combin-
ing many disciplines such as philosophy, theology, mysticism, poetry, psy-
chology, ethnography and scientific methodology. There was an extreme
rejection of the ‘rational’ in philosophical circles. The discussion of
‘Romanianness’ romanticized the peasant life as idyllic (also celebrated by
the national poet Eminescu) and emphasized the mystic power of
Romanian Orthodox Christianity. The philosopher Constantin Rădulescu-­
Motru attempted to uncover the essence of Romanian spirituality.46 Mircea
Vulcănescu followed in this tradition with his Dimensiunea românească a
existenţei [The Romanian Dimension of Existence]. As a philosopher
Lucian Blaga dismissed positivism and created the most systematic and
influential philosophy of style and culture to date in Romania, one in
which he preserved a place for mystery: the hills of the Romanian country-
side [spaţiul mioritic].
This romanticism of the village by the urban elite was certainly con-
nected to a still-existing stark contrast between village and city life. There
was a substantial disconnect between the countryside and the cosmopoli-
tan ‘Paris of the East.’ Romania was still an agrarian peasant state, and as
late as 1930, 79.9 percent of the population lived in villages and 20.1
percent lived in towns.47 The industrialization process was difficult.
Poverty was rampant as most villagers still lived in clay huts and did not
have access to medical care or education. In the interwar years, the health
care found in Romanian villages was the equivalent to villages in India.48

45
 Victor Neumann, Conceptuality Mystified: East-Central Europe Torn Between Ethnicism
and Recognition of Multiple Identities, 169.
46
 Constantin Rădulescu-Motru, Românismul: catehismul unei noi spiritualităti̧ .
47
 Nicholas M.  Nagy-Talavera, The Green Shirts and the Others: A History of Fascism in
Hungary and Romania, 51–52.
48
 Ibid., 53.
20  C. A. BEJAN

In a scholastic effort to bridge this gap, Dumitrie Gusti founded his

sociological school in Bucharest. The work of the Gusti School (Institutul
Social Român, 1925–1948) demonstrates that the intellectual elite had a
strong interest in non-elite culture and the preservation and celebration of
folklore and peasant traditions. This interaction of village and city culmi-
nated in numerous monographs and projects undertaken by Gusti and
also younger intellectuals, including Henri H. Stahl, Anton Golopenţia,
Mircea Vulcănescu, Traian Herseni, Lena Constante and Petru
Comarnescu. Gusti, Victor Ion Popa and Stahl created Bucharest’s Village
Museum in 1936.
With the creation of Greater Romania, the government wanted to cre-
ate a strong ethnic Romanian middle class, thus encouraging and drasti-
cally increasing enrollment in the universities. Many of the Young
Generation were the first of their families to seek higher education. The
most popular degrees with students were in law and philosophy49; few
pursued degrees in the sciences or engineering. Such choices created an
enormous imbalance in the job market and most liberal arts students faced
unemployment upon graduation. This fact alone was a significant con-
tributor to the high number of disaffected youth wandering the streets
looking for ‘purpose’ and finding that ‘purpose’ in extremist politics.
Anti-Semitism was an acute problem at the university level. Since the
government awarded full rights to Jews in 1923 (under the pressure of
Western powers), Jews enrolled in the universities in large numbers, where
they were mocked for their thick accents and better living conditions.
(Romanians from the countryside had to endure living in poor quality
dormitories, whereas urban Jews could live at home.) These perceived
inequalities exacerbated existing prejudices within the enlarged university
student body following WWI. Nationalist students called for the installa-
tion of a ‘Numerus Clausus.’

From Party Politics to Political Extremism

Throughout the 1920s, the two dominant political parties were the Liberal
Party of the middle class and what became the National Peasant Party
(PNŢ) which was also middle class as well as for agricultural laborers (led
by Iuliu Maniu, a merger of the moderate socialist middle class-led
Transylvania party and Mihalache’s Peasants’ Party). The left became a

49
 Ibid., 58.
 1 INTRODUCTION  21

difficult avenue for intellectuals to pursue after the Brătianu government

passed the Mârzescu Law in 1924, outlawing the Communist Party.50
Many perceived the communists to be a Soviet threat as recently gained
Bessarabia (which joined Romania following the Bolshevik Revolution)
was at risk to be taken by the USSR. There was also a confluence of com-
munism and Jewry, as many outspoken communists in Romania and
abroad were Jewish. The internationalism of communism accorded well
with the plight of minorities within Greater Romania and was a natural
alternative to the discriminatory nationalism of other political groups.
Although forced into clandestine operation, communism was still trendy
for many young people toward the end of the 1920s and early 1930s as
both Polihroniade and Haig Acterian were originally avowed communists
and Comarnescu attested that the majority of the wait-staff at the Corso
restaurant, where the Young Generation frequented, were communists.51
With the avenue of the extreme left officially closed off, the extreme
right flourished. Ioanid is careful to emphasize that the Iron Guard was
not the only fascist movement in interwar Romania.52 Preceded by the
LANC (the League of National Christian Defence) founded by Alexandru
C. Cuza, Corneliu Zelea Codreanu (1899–1938), started out supporting
his mentor Cuza, before breaking with him to form his own movement.
In 1927 Codreanu founded the ‘Legion of the Archangel Michael’ (often
referred to as the Legionary Movement or the Legion), a mystical
Romanian Orthodox nationalist anti-Semitic movement and terrorist
organization.
Codreanu formed the paramilitary branch of the Legion in 1930 and
named it the ‘Iron Guard.’ Codreanu, also known as ‘The Captain,’
defined the corrupt behavior of the politicians as Jewish acts and said that
all political parties were nothing but a gang of tyrants.53 With localized
‘nests’ all over the country, the Legion had strong support from the peas-
antry and began many public projects to help rebuild Romania. The
Legion promised to purify Romania by eliminating the ‘other’ elements
50
 See Vladimir Tismaneanu, Stalinism for All Seasons: A Political History of Romanian
Communism, Chapter 2, ‘A Messianic Sect: The Underground Romanian Communist Party,
1921–1944,’ 37–84.
51
 PCJ, 73.
52
 Radu Ioanid, ‘The Sacralized Politics of the Romanian Iron Guard,’ Totalitarian
Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 5, No. 3 (London: Winter 2004): 419.
53
 Nagy-Talavera, The Green Shirts and the Others, 370.
22  C. A. BEJAN

and returning Romania to her village roots and historic Dacian origins.
Codreanu encouraged violence as a necessary means to effect change, and
the Legion practiced this approach with numerous political assassinations.
If one committed a crime, the most honorable legionary response was
to willingly accept the punishment and, if necessary, welcome death. In
1933 Codreanu declared his support for Hitler.
Valentin Săndulescu claims that the recent innovative development of
fascism studies based on works by Griffin, Stanley Payne and George
L. Mosse, which focus on the revolutionary and positive program of fas-
cism rather than its role as a reactionary movement, can most adequately
and fruitfully be applied to the case of the Romanian Legionary Movement.
A core goal of fascism was regeneration (Griffin’s palingenetic myth as
previously mentioned). The Legion guaranteed to construct Omul Nou
[the New Man] and erect a New Order in Romania.54 Guardist ideology
was religious-mystical and the legacies of European anti-Semitism and
Orthodoxy were part of its appeal.55 Roland Clark expertly argues for an
interpretation of the Guard ‘from below,’ considering the personal signifi-
cance of fascism for the Legionnaires. Clark’s Holy Legionary Youth has
been criticized for not giving sufficient attention to Mircea Eliade and
legionary intellectuals.
Romanian historians emphasize the messianic nature of the Legion.
Both Vladimir Tismaneanu and Lucian Boia present the existence of the
Iron Guard in terms of ‘myth.’ Boia argues that Codreanu was perceived
by many to be the ‘saviour’ of Romania.56 Tismaneanu frames the appeal
of the movement in terms of a ‘fantasy of salvation.’57 Romania needed to
be saved from many evils: decadence, the corruption of politicians, harsh
conditions for the peasantry, economic problems and foreign occupation.
The large number of Jews and other minorities in Romania’s cities were
considered to be a threat of foreign control.
Although Codreanu greatly admired Hitler and Mussolini, ‘The Captain’
was adamant that the Romanian fascist movement was unique, due to its
Romanian Christian Orthodox core. However, the fixation on religious

54
 Valentin Săndulescu, ‘Fascism and its Quest for the “New Man:” the case of the
Romanian Legionary Movement,’ Studia Hebraica, No. 4. (2004): 349–361.
55
 For comprehensive works on the Iron Guard in English see Radu Ioanid’s The Sword of
the Archangel: Fascist Ideology in Romania and Roland Clark’s Holy Legionary Youth.
56
 Lucian Boia, History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness, 212.
57
 Vladimir Tismaneanu, Fantasies of Salvation: Democracy, Nationalism and Myth in Post-
Communist Europe, 49.
 1 INTRODUCTION  23

orthodoxy should not alone define the Iron Guard (thus casting it in a
traditionalist anti-modern light). The Legionary movement was rather a
‘modern revitalization movement based on charismatic politics, one which
extensively mythicized Romania’s past and its religion in a bid to create an
alternative future.’58 In addition to cultural modernism, social modernism
(modernization) was linked to the legionary cause. In fact, supporters of
the Iron Guard were actively involved in bio-political currents of the time,
promoting racial hygiene and eugenics.59 Additional significant similarities
between fascism in Romania, Germany and Italy included the leadership
cult, the importance of aesthetics and the triumph of the collective over
the individual. In Codreanu, the Romanians had a charismatic masculine
leader much like Hitler and Mussolini. The Iron Guard was also aestheti-
cally aware, instead of blue, black or brown shirts, they proudly wore
green, symbolizing a return to the earth and to nature. Codreanu eschewed
a uniform and dressed in the traditional national Romanian peas-
ant costume.

* * *

The creation of the Criterion Association occurred at the pinnacle of the

liberal modernity experienced by Greater Romania. This period in the
early 1930s was the last moment before everything collapsed and made
way for authoritarian (King Carol II and Antonescu) and totalitarian
(communist) regimes. Given its operation at this crucial moment in the
ideological transformation of many of its members and existing concur-
rent to a drastic shift in the public discourse concerning freedom of speech
and association, Criterion warrants a proper investigation and an in-depth
analysis and detailed inquiry. The undisputed influence of its reputed
membership alone would explain why it merits such an investigation in a
comprehensive study of the Romanian intellectual and cultural life of the
interwar period, and even of the entirety of the twentieth century. But
considering the cultural group’s ambitious program (and how that
reflected the intellectual concerns both in Romania and across Europe in
the early 1930s), the courage it took to pursue such a cultural project, its

58
 Griffin, Modernism and Fascism, 357.
59
 Maria Bucur, Eugenics and Modernization in Interwar Romania, and Marius Turda.
‘The Nation as Object: Race, Blood and Biopolitics in Interwar Romania,’ Slavic Review,
Vol. 66 No. 3 (Fall 2007): 413–441.
24  C. A. BEJAN

meteoric rise to popularity in Bucharest, its roaring success and its quite
unanticipated premature rupture, disgrace and failure, as well as key mem-
bers conversion to supporting the Iron Guard during and within the
Criterion space, such an inquiry into Criterion’s origins, activities, mem-
bership and dissolution is essential.
 CHAPTER 2

Nae Ionescu, the Young Generation, ‘The

Spiritual Itinerary’ and Education Abroad,
1927–1932

Nae Ionescu
Rebelling against the Old Generation (Iorga, Rădulescu-Motru, Maniu),
the Young Generation valued the opinion of the generation between Old
and Young: the Sacrificed Generation of Blaga, Crainic, Eugen Lovinescu
and Nae Ionescu. Blaga did advise and inspire many (Comarnescu, Eliade,
Noica) of the Young Generation through his work and correspondence.
Even though Lovinescu or Crainic were neither teachers nor direct men-
tors to the Young Generation, they had an undeniably powerful influence
through their own status as high-profile intellectuals as well as through the
activities of their respective cultural circles operating in the interwar
period, Sburătorul and Gândirea. But undeniably the most important
intellectual influence on the Young Generation was Nae Ionescu, who
introduced them to ideas ranging from sentiments of xenophobic nation-
alism (anti-Semitism) to the philosophical (experienţa) and the political
(fascism). Ionescu had contact with his disciples as their philosophy pro-
fessor, as an editor of the newspaper for which Eliade, Sebastian, Vulcănescu
and Cioran were regular writers (Cuvântul) and as their friend, confidant
and mentor.
Nicolae C. (Nae) Ionescu (1890–1940) was born in Brăila where he
carried out his primary and secondary school studies. He took his

© The Author(s) 2019 25

C. A. Bejan, Intellectuals and Fascism in Interwar Romania,
Modernity, Memory and Identity in South-East Europe,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20165-4_2
26  C. A. BEJAN

­ accalaureate exam at the ‘V.  Alecsandri’ lyceum in nearby Galaţi.1 He

b
passed his licenţă exams at the Faculty of Letters and Philosophy at the
University of Bucharest in October 1912 and left for doctoral studies in
Germany the following year. He began at the University of Göttingen but
transferred to the University of Munich in 1914. He returned to Romania
briefly in 1915, married Elena Margareta-Fotino and returned to Munich
with his wife.
With the onslaught of WWI, Romania entered the side of the Entente
in 1916 and was thus an enemy of Germany. Because he had been a reserve
officer in the Romanian army, Ionescu was detained in a camp with other
intellectuals. This imprisonment was important to his intellectual and spir-
itual development, as he frequently engaged in religious arguments with
other inmates. He was released at the end of 1917. His first son Radu was
born while he was in prison and the second son, Răzvan, after his libera-
tion. The family stayed in Germany until Ionescu successfully completed
his doctorate.2 Upon his return to Romania he taught math, philosophy
and German at the military lyceum at Dealu monastery, Codreanu’s
alma mater.
He began his Bucharest university career in October 1919 as an assis-
tant for ‘Catedra de Logica si Teoria Cunostinţei’ [the chair of logic and
epistemology] Professor Rădulescu-Motru. His inaugural lecture, entitled
‘The epistemological function of love,’ was his first public expression of his
ideas. From this point he taught courses in logic, the history of logic and
the philosophy of religion at the university. In 1925 Ionescu passed the
exam to become a permanent lecturer at the university, and in 1926 he
began his work for the newspaper Cuvântul, for which he became the
owner in 1928 with the departure of Pamfil Şeicaru (who left with some
of the Cuvântul staff and formed another publication Curentul). With the
takeover, Ionescu acquired a greater responsibility for the political orienta-
tion of the paper. He signed his articles ‘Nae Ionescu.’3
As a lecturer in logic and metaphysics at the Faculty of Philosophy,
Ionescu had a dynamic, provocative and unique style that endeared him to
his students. His teaching ran counter to the traditional and stiff approach
of older faculty members (such as Rădulescu-Motru and Tudor Vianu).

1
 Romina Surugiu, Dominante filosofice în publicistica lui Nae Ionescu de la Logos la
Cuvântul, 13.
2
 Ibid., 14–15.
3
 Ibid., 16.
 2  NAE IONESCU, THE YOUNG GENERATION, ‘THE SPIRITUAL ITINERARY’…  27

He was more concerned with debate and action than scholarship and doc-
umentation. Ricketts notes that:

[Ionescu] taught the passion for taking risks and the questioning of all val-
ues. Although he published almost nothing his Socratic method of teaching
made him the master of thinking of a whole generation of students.4

Using the Socratic method, Ionescu followed in the footsteps of Vasile

Pârvan and extolled his concept of trăire. ‘The professor’ introduced his
students to the ideas of Spengler, Aristotle, John Locke and Goethe,
among many others. He challenged them to look beyond Europe and
recent Western history and civilization, and beyond the classroom and the
halls of the university. Ionescu confronted his students with questions and
provoked them to live the questions themselves, in the face of the fear of
no answer, and discover where the pursuit of knowledge would take them.
The professor claimed he lived his own teachings and practiced what
he preached:

It’s not that I am smart, and the others stupid. Everyone is the same. Only
I, the passer-by, have walked on a street that others have not taken. I have
taken the road of good sense and said: to take things, to see them as they are
in reality and to not be scared of what we see.5

Ionescu was a charismatic speaker, with a captivating presence and

expressive gestures. His engaging unique approach is what drew both
Eliade and Vulcănescu to him after each first heard him lecture. In 1925,
his first year at university, attending Ionescu’s seminar in the history of
logic on the topic of ‘Faust and the problem of salvation,’ Eliade wrote,
‘When [Ionescu] glanced over the auditorium it seemed like lightning
flashed in the hall.’ Eliade noted that Ionescu did not speak to the full
lecture hall of students as other professors did. He was neither giving ‘a
lesson nor a lecture.’ He presented them with the facts, with a stream of
information and then awaited their comments, interpretations and
responses. He gave the impression that he spoke directly to each student.
Eliade wrote,

4
 MEAI, 330.
5
 Nae Ionescu. Curs de logica, 1927–1928, 190. Cited in Surugiu, Dominante filosofice în
publicistica lui Nae Ionescu de la Logos la Cuvântul, 13.
28  C. A. BEJAN

You had the impression that the whole lecture was just a part of a continuing
dialogue, that each of us was invited to participate in the discussion, to offer
his opinions at the end of the hour. You felt that what Nae Ionescu had to say
could not be found in any book. It was something new, freshly conceived and
organized right there in front of you. It was an original kind of thinking, and
if this sort of thought interested you, you knew that you could find it nowhere
but here, at its source. The man at the desk was speaking straight to you:
opening up problems, teaching you to solve them, and forcing you to think.6

Fifty minutes later, at the end of the lecture, Eliade wondered where the
time had flown. He was consumed by the questions Ionescu posed and
had barely taken any notes. He remembers that by Christmas, he was only
going to the university to attend Ionescu’s lectures. But despite this initial
impression, Eliade lacked the courage to form a more intimate friendship
with Ionescu until he worked for Cuvântul.7 They were to become quite
close friends and collaborators at the newspaper as well as in the academy.
Eliade edited the publication of Ionescu’s journalistic writings from 1927
to 1933 under the title Roza vânturilor (Rose of the Winds, 1937) and was
his assistant at the Faculty of Letters and Philosophy from 1934 to 1937.
Mircea Vulcănescu had a similar awed first impression. In his sixth or
seventh year of lyceum he had been attending the courses of Vasile Pârvan
at the University of Bucharest. At that point he had never heard of Nae
Ionescu and chanced upon one of his lectures as a result of Pârvan cancel-
ing his own lecture due to illness. Ionescu’s coherence of thinking
impressed Vulcănescu, who became a regular attendant to Ionescu’s
courses. Vulcănescu specified that what was particularly special and com-
pelling about Ionescu’s approach was his freshness and newness:

He never prepared his courses ahead of time at home. He did not write
them down. Sometimes he would come with a note written on a business
card, that he took out of his pocket. Other times he would come, sit on a
chair and be silent for some time, looking to organize his thoughts of what
he would say, and then, eventually begin.8

This approach meant that his thought was there in the auditorium, alive,
with the students. They watched a man propose a problem and grapple

6
 MEAI, 102.
7
 Ibid., 102–103.
8
 Mircea Vulcănescu, Nae Ionescu: Aşa cum l-am cunoscut, 27.
 2  NAE IONESCU, THE YOUNG GENERATION, ‘THE SPIRITUAL ITINERARY’…  29

with its many possible solutions. Vulcănescu noted that ‘after every lec-
ture, there remained an open question, sometimes from one course to
another, and even from one year to another.’9
Marta Petreu has argued that Ionescu’s lectures are mostly derivative
and that he was more of a plagiarist than an original thinker, demonstrat-
ing this with the overlap between his and Evelyn Underhill’s thoughts on
mysticism.10 Surugiu and Petreu emphasize the difficulty of reconstituting
the content of Ionescu’s lectures, given his practice of improvization,
rather than reading from a prepared manuscript.11 Though he was princi-
pally responsible for the Young Generation’s education at home, Ionescu
did encourage them to, as he did, go abroad. To Eliade, Ionescu was ‘a
professor who always encouraged us to go to the sources, not to be satis-
fied with “books about,” but to read, whenever possible, a text in the
original.’12 For this reason, Ionescu was extremely supportive of his disci-
ples studying abroad, to go directly to the sources. Due to this, he had a
very positive reaction to Eliade’s news of his scholarship to study in India.13
Though loved by his students, Nae Ionescu was a very troubled man,
suffering from crippling insecurities and cowardice. He needed desper-
ately to be liked and had difficulty forming meaningful relationships with
people, including casual acquaintances, friends, disciples and lovers.
Ionescu revealed his insecurity to Sebastian in 1936, when he confessed,

Look, I’m finished-a broken-down failure of a man. My life divides into two:
before 5 July 1933, and since 5 July 1933. Until that day I was a strong
person. Since then I’ve been nothing.14

Sebastian hypothesizes that his professor and editor was referring to the
day his love affair ended with Maruca Cantacuzino-Enescu (wife of
­composer George Enescu). Both before and after this divide, Ionescu had
a tendency for self-deprecation and for what Sebastian labeled boorishness.

9
 Ibid. For a list of his lecture topics until 1931, see Nae Ionescu, Opere II Cursuri de
Metafizică, 465.
10
 Marta Petreu, ‘Modelul şi oglinda: Evelyn Underhill – Nae Ionescu.’ Iordan Chimet, ed.
Momentul Adevărului, 337–382.
11
 Surugiu, Dominante filosfice în publicistica lui Nae Ionescu de la Logos la Cuvântul, 29;
Surugiu cites Nae Ionescu Prelegeri de filosofia religiei, Marta Petreu, ed., 6.
12
 MEAI, 148.
13
 Ibid.
14
 MSJ, 85, October 22, 1936.
30  C. A. BEJAN

He was prone to ‘tactless, ostentatious bragging.’15 And as was the case for
many of his disciples (including Sebastian), in addition to his colorful pub-
lic persona, Ionescu had a tumultuous personal life. He gave up his life as
family man and had numerous affairs with high-profile women, including
Cantacuzino-Enescu, Elena Popovici-Lupa and Cella Delavrancea.
The years 1930–1933 represent the moment when Ionescu began his
interest in political life, coinciding with the Iron Guard’s meteoric rise to
prominence.16 Initially, in 1930 Cuvântul he supported the restoration of
the power of the king and presented a theory of royal dictatorship. This
enabled Ionescu to become a political counselor of the monarchy and
secured him a place in the elite group of courtiers known as the ‘royal
camarilla,’ of which Crainic called Ionescu ‘the metaphysical spirit.’17 This
situation did not last long, and by the fall of 1933 relations between the
newspaper director and the king had cooled, and Ionescu expressed his
sympathy for the Iron Guard in Cuvântul.18 Following the assassination of
Prime Minister Duca, the royal authorities arrested Ionescu and forced the
closure of Cuvântul (suspended from 1933–1938).
In addition to power and the mystical allure of the Iron Guard, a gener-
ally accepted reason for Ionescu’s conversion to the extreme right was his
latent anti-Semitism. This is a difficult and contestable factor. Until 1933
he had in fact been a vocal philo-Semite in many forums. The fermenta-
tion and zeal of his anti-Semitism is undeniable following his arrest and
further activity with the Guard, coinciding, with writing the preface for
Sebastian’s De două mii de ani in 1934. Perhaps surprisingly, Ionescu had
a concern and respect for the history and the religion of the Jews. He
ventured into Hebraic studies in his investigations of religious philosophy,
and confronted questions concerning Judaism early in his journalistic
career, writing in Cuvântul in 1926 on ‘The crisis of Judaism,’ examining
the purpose of Judaism in the spiritual structure of Europe at the time and
contemplating its future.
In 1928 and 1929, Ionescu unleashed a campaign in Cuvântul in
defense of the rights of Jews, attracting the attention of the Minister of
Religions, Al. Lapedatu. He was against the forced conversion (‘baptism’)

15
 Ibid., 109.
16
 Surugiu, Dominante filosofice în publicistica lui Nae Ionescu de la Logos la Cuvântul, 17.
17
 Nichifor Crainic, Zile albe, zile negre, Memorii I, 251–252. Cited in Surugiu, Dominante
filosofice în publicistica lui Nae Ionescu de la Logos la Cuvântul, 17.
18
 Surugiu, Dominante filosofice în publicistica lui Nae Ionescu de la Logos la Cuvântul, 17.
 2  NAE IONESCU, THE YOUNG GENERATION, ‘THE SPIRITUAL ITINERARY’…  31

of Jews which was the religious solution proposed by Nicolae Iorga and
A.C. Cuza. Ionescu argued that such a move would result in a ‘spiritual
wreck’ and be a form of ‘sterilization.’ In the 1920s the professor gave
lectures on Hebraic subjects, such as a conference in 1927 on Spinoza and
in 1928 he was invited by the ‘Association of Jewish Women’ to the
Zionist headquarters, where he spoke about spirituality. He received
extremely high praise from the Jewish community for these lectures and
his advocacy in Cuvântul. One reviewer even suggested that they make
Ionescu an honorary citizen of the Jewish people.19
As much as Ionescu gave to the Young Generation, he did envy them
some things. One was the special social and intellectual atmosphere that
birthed the Criterion Association. Eliade describes Ionescu’s reaction to
the formation of the group as such:

When I spoke to Nae about our get-togethers and meals, he marveled and
expressed envy. In his youth, he said, there had not been such intimacy
among artists, journalists, and scholars. What interested him most was the
fact that our meetings included painters like Mac Constantinescu and Marcel
Iancu, sculptors such as Miliţa Pătraşcu, actresses like Lily Popovici, Sorana
Ţopa, Marietta Sadova, Marieta Rareş, and Marioara Voiculescu, as well as
writers, philosophers and musicians. ‘You’ll have to invent a new language,’
he said. ‘but since you have Mircea Vulcănescu with you, you’ll succeed!’20

This envy was not a vicious jealousy but rather the happiness of a parent
seeing his child have opportunities he never knew. Ionescu delighted in
the doors opening to his disciples with nostalgia at the youth he never had.
From Chicago in 1970, Eliade wrote that Ionescu’s style

signified a rupture in the face of traditional Romanian academia, and in a

certain measure even in the face of the European one. First of all, the act of
‘philosophizing’ in newspaper articles, that had only been done until then
by Unamuno and Ortega y Gasset. But especially the emancipation in the
face of academic jargon (‘I write as a grocer,’ proves that) and the ignoring
of the traditional rhetoric proved deadly, [this was] the ‘compromise’ that
Nae Ionescu made in the eyes of his colleagues.21

19
 Dora Mezdrea Nae Ionescu: Biografia, Vol. 3, 347–349.
20
 MEAI, 227–228.
21
 Eliade quoted on the back cover of the second edition of Roza Vânturilor from Chicago,
February 28, 1970 (originally published in the review Prodomos No. 10).
32  C. A. BEJAN

His biographer, Dora Mezdrea, argues that through his ‘paideic’ approach
and the influence he had on his disciples, Ionescu’s philosophical activity
enabled Romanian thought to be independent, self-sufficient and parthe-
nogenetic (rather than rely on fertilization from France). Prior to his
teachings, the intellectual elite was dependent on imported ideas that had
dominated the discourse from the nineteenth century.22 His way of learn-
ing and tackling problems (encouraging his contemporaries to be agents
of their own thought and discovery rather than receptors, collectors and
regurgitators of information) empowered his students and Romanian cul-
ture to stand on their own two feet.

The Young Generation

The majority of the philosophers, novelists, playwrights, poets, art critics
and theater directors on which this book focuses were born between 1905
and 1915. They were just young enough to have missed the experience of
WWI.  Being too young to fight, they were unable to contribute to the
creation of Greater Romania: the unification of all ethnic Romanians
under one national roof. In the interwar period the Old Generation was
respected and revered in Romania, while the Young Generation was still
proving itself. Their self-proclaimed leader was the man who coined its
name, Mircea Eliade (1907–1986). Eliade argued that since the dream of
Greater Romania had already been realized, their responsibility was to
realize Romania’s cultural destiny. They had a spiritual mission for the
nation, which Eliade outlined in his ‘Itinerariu Spiritual’ [The Spiritual
Itinerary].23
Most prominently, the Young Generation included art critic and phi-
losopher Petru ‘Titel’ Comarnescu (1905–1970), philosopher Emil
(E.M.) Cioran (1911–1995), philosopher Constantin ‘Dinu’ Noica
(1909–1987), novelist and playwright Mihail Sebastian (1907–1945),
Eugène Ionesco (1909–1994),24 economist and philosopher Mircea
Vulcănescu (1904–1952), lawyer and political activist Mihail ‘Mişu’
Polihroniade (1906–1939), actress Marietta Sadova (1897–1981), the-

22
 Dora Mezdrea, Nae Ionescu: Biografia, Vol. 4, 566.
23
 MEAI, 131.
24
 Eugen Ionescu is the Romanian spelling. In this book I choose to use the French spell-
ing Eugène Ionesco unless quoting another source that uses the Romanian spelling or refer-
ring to a book he wrote while in Romania.
 2  NAE IONESCU, THE YOUNG GENERATION, ‘THE SPIRITUAL ITINERARY’…  33

ater director and poet Haig Acterian (1903–1943) and his brother Arşavir
Acterian (1907–1997). Other figures I investigate in slightly less depth
throughout this book include Octav Şuluţiu (1909–1949), lawyer
Alexandru Christian Tell, Ion I.  Cantacuzino (1908–1975), Henri
H.  Stahl (1901–1991), Anton Golopenţia (1909–1951), Sandu Tudor
(1896–1962), Zaharia Stancu (1902–1974), dancer and choreographer
Floria Capsali (1900–1982), dancer Gabriel Negry, actress Sorana Ţopa
(1898–1986), literary critic Şerban Cioculescu (1902–1988), Belu Silber
(1901–1978), Paul Sterian (1904–1984), Ionel ‘Nelly’ Jianu
(1905–1993), journalist Richard ‘Ricci’ Hillard (1902–1977), poet Dan
Botta (1907–1958) and the Acterians’ sister Eugenia ‘Jeni’ Acterian
(1916–1958).25 Of course the above is by no means an exhaustive list of
the names that will be mentioned throughout the story, but by providing
a sense of the principal and supporting characters at play, I hope to set the
stage for what is about to unfold.
Vanhaelemeersch wrongly characterizes this postwar generation as the
‘Generation without Beliefs’ and the ‘Lost Generation.’26 He claims that
the young intellectuals had nothing to believe in because the dream of
Greater Romania had already been realized. In fact, this generation had
too much to believe in. Sorin Alexandrescu goes so far to claim that the
interwar Romanian intellectual scene was pluralist without realizing it.27
The Young Generation shared the idea that since the national project of
Greater Romania had come to fruition Romanians should focus on the
development of culture and the fulfillment of Romania’s national destiny.
They found their raison d’être in the spiritual and cultural revolution they
intended to provide for their country.
A distinctly Bucharest phenomenon, the Young Generation inherited
and absorbed the ongoing discourse of form versus substance (the concept
of literary critic, politician and founder of the Junimea Society Titu
Maiorescu), traditionalism versus modernism, anti-Semitism and cosmo-
politanism, and irrationalism and rationalism. They embodied this chaotic
clash and their impassioned debates illustrated the brilliant modernity
Greater Romania was experiencing. During the interwar period there was
among the intellectuals a spirit that the world was dead. The Young

25
 For more on Jeni Acterian, please see Cristina Bejan ‘The Criterion Association:
Friendship, Culture and Fascism in Interwar Bucharest,’ DPhil (PhD) dissertation, University
of Oxford, 2010, Bodleian Library.
26
 Vanhaelemeersch, A Generation Without Beliefs, 6.
27
 Sorin Alexandrescu, ‘Modernists and Antimodernists: Enemies or Friends?’
34  C. A. BEJAN

Generation opposed the decay and degradation of the Old (both the
Generation and its Liberal institutions) and proclaimed the need for a
spiritual Renaissance.
Eliade described the opportune moment and their collective responsi-
bility thus:

But this time, however, it was no longer a question of myself only. I felt a
responsibility for the entire ‘young generation,’ which I imagined called to
grand destinies: in the first place, I knew that we had the duty of expanding
considerably the Romanian cultural horizon and of opening windows
toward spiritual universes that until then had been inaccessible. If I had
published essays about Milarepa and Asvagosha, about Kierkegaard and
Orphism, I had done it on the one hand because such men and problems
had not interested the older generations, and on the other hand because I
wanted to oppose our cultural dependence on France, a dependence that I
regarded as proof of intellectual sloth. I demanded from the ‘provincial,’ as
I demanded from myself, a superhuman effort to learn and to do everything
that our forebears had not had the leisure to learn or to do. I am still con-
vinced that I was not wrong. Actually our generation had only about ten or
twelve years of ‘creative freedom.’ In 1938 the royal dictatorship was estab-
lished; then came the Second World War; and in 1945 the Russian occupa-
tion—and total silence.28

Although they may have presented a united front and shared a vision
for their country, the members of the Young Generation were themselves
quite diverse in terms of identity, personality, background, ethnicity, reli-
gion and perspective. They all demonstrate the plethora of interests within
the Young Generation as well as show the delicate unity of friendship
within this elite intellectual community. Some were originally from
Bucharest and others came from the provinces to the capital, where every-
thing was happening. Some were more artistically inclined, others more
scholarly and academic, some were more journalistic and others more
politically active, but they all were close friends and created culture in a
multitude of ways in Bucharest starting as students in the mid-1920s.
Many were already writing novels, poetry, scholarly work, journal articles
and collaborating with one another on reviews and newspapers. And
although many went to lyceum and studied law and philosophy at the
University of Bucharest together, they had many different experiences at

28
 MEAI, 136.
 2  NAE IONESCU, THE YOUNG GENERATION, ‘THE SPIRITUAL ITINERARY’…  35

home and abroad and were constantly learning from each other well into
the 1930s and beyond.
Eliade identified as an ‘authentic Bucharestian’ and a ‘universal man.’29
Born in Bucharest, Eliade was in the same class of the lyceum, Spiru Haret,
as Mihail Polihroniade and Haig Acterian, where the three were close
friends. With Polihroniade, Eliade would often walk the same streets home
and talk after school.30 Eliade went on to study at the Faculty of Philosophy
and Letters at the University of Bucharest from 1925–1928. Very inter-
ested in Italian thought, Eliade wrote his undergraduate dissertation on
Tommaso Campanella, and also had a passion for the writings of Giovanni
Papini and Evola. He pursued his primary research for his undergraduate
thesis abroad, in Rome for three months.31 His focus turned from Italy
eastward for his doctoral studies, which took him to India. In 1933 he
acquired a university post, which was revoked in 1938 due to his function
as Nae Ionescu’s assistant.
As a student Haig Acterian wrote his first poetry under the pen name
Mihail. Following school, Haig enrolled in the University of Bucharest
Faculty of Philosophy and the Conservatory of Dramatic Art, where he
studied with Lucia Sturdza Bulandra. He completed those courses in 1926
and began his ascent as a prominent theater director. The Armenian-­
Romanian Acterians were originally from Constanţa, where there histori-
cally was a large Armenian minority. All three siblings Haig, Arşavir and
Jeni were born there. The family relocated to Bucharest by the time Haig
attended Spiru Haret.
Actress and theater director Marietta Sadova was slightly older than the
members of the Young Generation and introduced to their circle through
her love affair and subsequent marriage to Haig. Born in Sibiu, Sadova
came to Bucharest to study at the Conservatory of Dramatic Arts and
pursue a theatrical career. She was first married to the poet, playwright and
novelist Ion Marin Sadoveanu, who served as inspector general then in
1933 as director general of Bucharest’s theater and opera.32 Sadova and
Haig carried on a clandestine love affair for a time until she obtained a

29
 Ibid., 257.
30
 Ibid., 149.
31
 Ibid., 122.
32
 In the communist period Sadoveanu worked as director of Bucharest’s National Theatre,
appointed in 1956.
36  C. A. BEJAN

divorce. By the time Criterion began, they had moved into an apartment
together on Elisabeta Boulevard and eventually married.
Although he became a licensed lawyer, Mihail Polihroniade was inter-
ested in politics from early on and wrote regular reports on foreign affairs
in the conservative newspaper Epoca. It was through Polihroniade that
Eliade met Petru Comarnescu and Ionel Jianu (lawyer, Jewish and founder
of the Forum Group) in early 1928. Jianu had just returned to Bucharest
from studying law in Paris and Comarnescu had already made a name for
himself in the capital as a literary and art critic, writing for the weekly
Lumea. Jianu and Eliade became friends quickly as they shared an interest
in religion and philosophy.33 Jianu shared his passion for art criticism with
Comarnescu, an interest they cultivated throughout their lives and later
collaborated on a study of the sculpture of Brâncuşi.
Born in Iaşi, in northern Moldavia, Comarnescu got a taste of the cul-
tural life he would cultivate in the capital. At a very young age he wrote for
reviews and was active in the cultural circle, Buciumul.34 He arrived in
Bucharest in 1919 and attended the Saint Sava College from 1919–1924.
In 1925 he enrolled in the Faculties of Law and Philosophy at the
University of Bucharest and graduated in 1929. As a university student,
Comarnescu wrote for Rampa, Politica, Ultimă Ora, Ţiparniţa literară,
Adevărul literar, Universul literar, Viaţa românească and Vremea.
Polihroniade, Jianu and Comarnescu created a quarterly journal
Acţiune şi Reacţiune that intended to address all problems concerning
young people in Romania and Western Europe that would ‘take into con-
sideration all the ideologies and currents, both cultural and political, that
had become established since the war.’35 Another publication that
Comarnescu was centrally involved in was Ultimă Ora. Octav Şuluţiu
contributed articles and one evening when he delivered his articles to
Comarnescu’s place, Şuluţiu presented a vivid picture of both Comarnescu
and his close friend from early on, Noica: ‘[Comarnescu] is the kind of
youth who will get fat, he is stupid, cultured and affected. C. Noica was
also there, a sympathetic young man, intelligent and quiet.’36

33
 Ibid., 149.
34
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. Mapa I Ms. 4 (a–d) handwritten journal, January–March
1924.
35
 MEAI, 150.
36
 Octav Şuluţiu, Jurnal, 69. February 11, 1929.
 2  NAE IONESCU, THE YOUNG GENERATION, ‘THE SPIRITUAL ITINERARY’…  37

Philosopher Constantin Noica was two years behind Eliade at Spiru

Haret, and at the lyceum at the same time as Arşavir Acterian. He then
attended the Faculty of Letters and Philosophy at the University of
Bucharest and graduated in 1931 with a thesis on Kant’s concept of the
noumenon, that is, the ‘thing-in-itself.’ Acterian graduated from the same
faculty and became a licensed lawyer, as well as a practicing journalist, edi-
tor and writer. He was an early friend of Octav Şuluţiu and Ionesco, who
had befriended each other as university colleagues in 1927.
A self-proclaimed Francophile, Eugène Ionesco had a double self-­
identity and, what he considered to be a terrible secret to hide. Born to a
French mother and Romanian father in Slatina, Romania, in 1909, Ionesco
spent his childhood in France, only to return to Romania in 1922 for his
education at the request of his father. His father had abandoned and
divorced his mother when Ionesco and his sister were very young and
remarried in Bucharest. This certainly influenced Ionesco’s dislike for
Romania and preference for France. After an idyllic childhood spent in
France with a mother he adored, Ionesco was forced to live in Bucharest
with a stepmother and father he despised. Matei Călinescu describes
Ionesco as ‘a reluctant Romanian’ and ‘a nostalgic Frenchman.’37 Another
reason Ionesco detested his father was the latter’s extremist political views
(at first a Guardist, he became a communist sympathizer after WWII). In
1929 Ionesco became a student of French at the University of Bucharest.
He reached the height of his literary activity in Romania in 1934 with the
publication of Nu (No) an unconventional volume of literary criticism. In
Bucharest he made a living teaching French at a Bucharest secondary
school, held a position at the Ministry of Education in the International
Relations Department, was the editor for the critical section of the Facla
and published in other papers, such as Universul Literar, Rampa and
Părerile Libere.
Mihail Sebastian was born with the name Iosif Hechter in Brăila near
the Danube Delta in southeastern Romania. An assimilated Jew, he stud-
ied Law and Philosophy at the University of Bucharest. Throughout the
1930s and early 1940s he was a known novelist, playwright and journalist.
He also worked as a lawyer and lyceum French teacher. A devoted disciple
of Nae Ionescu, working for him at Cuvântul, Sebastian viewed himself as

37
 Matei Călinescu, ‘Ionesco and Rhinoceros: Personal and Political Backgrounds,’ East
European Politics and Societies, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Fall 1995): 405.
38  C. A. BEJAN

both ‘Romanian’ and ‘a Jew.’ Studying abroad in France, Sebastian was

another open Francophile and a vocal advocate for the French spirit.
Emil Cioran was another reluctant Romanian. From the Transylvanian
village Răşinari, near Sibiu, his father was a Romanian Orthodox priest.
Cioran moved to Bucharest at age 17 to study philosophy at the university.
The melancholic insomniac left in 1933 on a scholarship to Berlin. He
wrote for various publications including Vremea and published his first
work of philosophy Pe culmile disperării (On the Heights of Despair) in
1934 for which he won two literary prizes (the prize for an unpublished
young author and the prize from the Young Romanian Writers Society).
The members of the Young Generation most interested in sociology
were Mircea Vulcănescu, Henri H. Stahl, Anton Golopenţia and Guardist
Traian Herseni. Vulcănescu studied law and philosophy at the university
where both Dimitrie Gusti (1880–1955) and Nae Ionescu became his
mentors. Vulcănescu became an economist, a philosopher and a theorist of
Romanianism. Stahl studied law, earned a PhD and began to work with
Gusti, with whom he became a close collaborator. Of Swiss and Alsatian
origin, Stahl was an avowed Austromarxist. Golopenţia graduated in law
and philosophy from the University of Bucharest and received his PhD in
Germany. Traian Herseni received his PhD in 1934 in Berlin.
A prominent Criterionist, Ion I. Cantacuzino was the son of the Prince
Ion Cantacuzino and the actress Maria Filotti. Though he became known
for his work in radio and film, Cantacuzino’s education was in medicine.
And though he started his studies in Bucharest, he graduated from the
Faculty of Sciences and Faculty of Medicine at the University of Paris.
Other notable members of the Young Generation were right-leaning
Alexandru Christian Tell and communist Belu Silber. Tell, a lawyer and
collaborator of Comarnescu at Revista Fundaţiilor Regale, was one of the
main defenders of the Criterion Association and an editor of the Criterion
publication.

The Spiritual Itinerary

The two programs for the Young Generation were ‘The Spiritual Itinerary’
written by Eliade in 1927 and ‘Manifestul Crinului Alb’ [The Manifesto
of the White Lily] by Petre Pandrea, Sorin Pavel and Ion Nistor in 1928.
With both manifestos, Petreu claims the Young Generation was ­announcing
itself as ‘apolitical, “parricidal” (E. Ionescu), autochthonous, anti-­French,
orthodox, opposed to the 1848 revolution, anti-canonical, i.e. anti-
 2  NAE IONESCU, THE YOUNG GENERATION, ‘THE SPIRITUAL ITINERARY’…  39

Junimist.’38 She emphasizes the importance of the members’ own experi-

ence, saying the generation ‘counted on the existentialist adventure, on
culture understood as spirituality.’ The generation itself was ‘founded
enthusiastically, in a frenzy and creating a frantic rhythm.’39 For the pur-
poses of my investigation, I focus on the first work as not only was Eliade
an active member of Criterion, the ideas explored therein were both the
first expression of the ambitions of the Young Generation, as well as the
foundation for the debates that took place in Criterion.
Eliade wrote ‘The Spiritual Itinerary’ in 12 installments (likely with the
Christian symbolic significance of the 12 apostles) printed in Cuvântul in
the fall of 1927.40 The passionate manifesto bears the mark of Nae Ionescu,
as inspiration on many levels. The first four articles were written in and
sent from Geneva, the fifth from Château de Vesignien in France and the
final seven do not list a location, implying that Eliade had returned to
Romania by that point. Somewhat ironically ‘The Spiritual Itinerary’ is
anything but a promotion of Western values, the milieu in which Eliade
started writing it.
In the itinerary, Eliade attempts to clarify his generation’s position on a
number of issues (culture, spirituality, art, literature, scholarship) and
asserts the primacy of their experience as individuals and Romanians and
claims their future path will move them closer toward a mystical Orthodox
Christianity. In his introductory piece, ‘Lines of Orientation,’ he describes
his project as ‘reflections’ and ‘monologues about our generation,’ to
serve as a ‘future map of the soul of the generation.’ He uses the war to
illustrate how his generation singularizes itself, dubbing it ‘a crisis with
catastrophic proportions’ and specifies that with respect to the Young
Generation he is talking about an elite. Eliade asserts that only the Young
Generation has the right to analyze itself, for no one else knows their
spirit, pains and hope. For them the religious crisis was much more power-
ful than it was for the previous generations, before the war. The confusion
committed by the previous generation, and Eliade carefully specifies that
this confusion was committed then in 1927 by his university professors,
would not be committed by the Young Generation. The younger intel-
38
 Marta Petreu, ‘The Generation Of ’27, Between The Holocaust and The Gulag,’
EURESIS: Cahiers Roumains d’Etudes Litteraires. Translated by Lucrina Ştefănescu and
Ioana Zirra. Nos. 3–4 (Fall–Winter 2007), 7.
39
 Ibid.
40
 These can be found in the original issues of Cuvântul and reprinted in Mircea Eliade.
Itinerariu spiritual: scrieri de tineret ̦e, 1927. Mircea Handoca, ed., 263–362.
40  C. A. BEJAN

lectuals would avoid it because they ‘knew a more complete life,’ they
passed through ‘experiences which led them to rationality, to art, to mysti-
cism.’ Eliade clarifies that the ‘spirit’ the Young Generation is concerned
with is not in the Hegelian sense, nor is it an ‘ideal’ of youthful sentimen-
talism.41 From the first article, Eliade cries out for his generation to be
taken seriously and states that not only are they different from the Old
Generation, they are more equipped to fill the cultural void they perceive
to be plaguing their newly enhanced country.
Two things Eliade is most critical of in the itinerary are superficial dilet-
tantism and the specialization of science. He devotes the second and third
articles to a critique of such superficiality and argues for a more authentic
dilettantism, a dilettantism that is more relevant to the contemporary
spirit. In the second article, ‘A Critique of Dilettantism,’ Eliade defines a
dilettante as someone with superficial knowledge, yet who is not an ency-
clopedia of knowledge. Eliade argues that a dilettante is not a lover of the
arts, but an authentic dilettantism implies having a cultural and artistic
sensibility. He states that a dilettante has the temperament of a Don Juan.
This leads him into a discussion of passion and Eliade’s own sympathy for
the irrational and for emotion is revealed when he says that ‘only hate and
love—thus passion—can be the seeds to finding the essential truths.’ He
asserts that ‘the only salvation, the only possibilities of transcending the
plan of this life—are love, hate and passion.’42
In his third article ‘Towards a New Dilettantism,’ Eliade clarifies his
notion of ‘authentic dilettantism’ and the kind of ‘dilettantism’ the Young
Generation feels close to. This new wave of dilettantism is authentic and
constructive. He classifies their common (both the Young Generation and
the new dilettantism) work as ‘the same ordeal of synthesis … comprehen-
sive and courageous.’ The authentic dilettante ‘sees,’ will never be a ‘pure
philosopher,’ but is much nearer to the philosophy of history and of culture.
Examples Eliade gives of this kind of dilettante are Montesquieu, Vico,
Gobineau, Marx, Chamberlain and Spengler. They always sympathized with
and understood history and ‘saw, above the material, the ­concepts: race,
class, culture, etc.’ This new dilettantism has the courage to synthesize infor-

41
 Mircea Eliade. ‘Linii de orientare,’ 263–267. Originally published in Cuvântul, Year 3,
No. 857, September 6, 1927, 1–2.
42
 Mircea Eliade, ‘Critica diletantismului,’ 267–272. Originally published in Cuvântul,
Year 3, No. 860, September 9, 1927, 1–2.
 2  NAE IONESCU, THE YOUNG GENERATION, ‘THE SPIRITUAL ITINERARY’…  41

mation and is no longer satisfied with the fragmented knowledge resulting

from scientific knowledge and pursuit. Eliade writes,

The insufficience of science for the consciousness of the elite accentuates the
tragedy of recent years … the imperative of the times is synthesis … we will
not go back to being, any would say ‘specialist savants.’43

Eliade explicitly calls upon his generation to be capable of synthesis, to see

the big picture, to use concepts, rather than become narrow-minded spe-
cialists with superficial knowledge as in the previous generation. In many
ways the members of the Young Generation were just such authentic dilet-
tantes, rather than specialist savants. Their advancements in scholarship
and love of the arts become some of many aspects they could synthesize in
broader discussions of ideas and the larger more general, universal, project
of cultural creation.
In the next (fourth) installment, ‘Between the chair of a university
department [catedra] and the laboratory,’ Eliade again denounces the spe-
cialization of science, which ‘perverts the equilibrium of consciousness,’
and is critical of the instructors at the University of Bucharest. Eliade him-
self gets even more specific by differentiating between the Romanian
savant and the man of science, as they are often confused. For Eliade the
savant is more connected to culture than the scientist. For the savant, a
frenzied passion is still essential. They have mentalities like maniacs and
those in love, with their obsession with a single, aspect, problem or inter-
pretation. Eliade argues that for the past 20 years, Romanian intellectuals
only believed in the primacy of science. They had believed that culture
derived from science. For them, the Young Generation, science could only
be an element of culture (not its only source) because ‘science does not
satisfy the communal consciousness.’ Eliade writes: ‘the specialist cannot
appreciate the distances in culture and can no longer distinguish between
specific landscapes.’ Basically the specialist scientist of the previous era is
not familiar with the diversity and extent of the Romanian cultural terrain.
According to Eliade, the Young Generation is obsessed with equilibrium
and synthesis.44

43
 Mircea Eliade. ‘Către un nou diletantism,’ 272–275. Originally published in Cuvântul,
Year 3, No. 862, September 11, 1927, 1–2.
44
 Mircea Eliade, ‘Între catedra şi laborator,’ 284–288. Originally published in Cuvântul,
Year 3, No. 867, September 16, 1927, 1–2.
42  C. A. BEJAN

Of course, ‘The Spiritual Itinerary’ would have to address the impor-

tance of experienţa to the Young Generation, and the necessity of experi-
ence to the creation of culture. Eliade did just that in the fifth article
entitled ‘The Experiences.’ He claims that his generation is ‘the richest in
experience.’ The initial experiences (of the war, of withdrawal, of occupa-
tion) formed the ‘fibre’ of their spirit. Eliade asserts that every new experi-
ence presents a new way of thinking, a new vision and new values, even
those experiences that seem absurd, risky or compromising. (For examples
of the latter, he mentions Futurism, Cubism, anti-Semitism and even alge-
bra and Christian Science.) Eliade argues that culture itself depends on
experience: ‘Even culture cannot communicate itself, could not exist
except in a society connected through an identity of experience.’ Just as
experiences and individuals are diverse, Eliade’s conception of his genera-
tion allows for internal differences: ‘even in a generation, consciousnesses
are not identical,’ and this consciousness itself ‘vibrates’ and ‘convulses’ in
experiences. But the generation is not supposed to cull their experiences,
but rather gain control and nurture their individual selves. Eliade writes:
‘The consciousness of the elite, that will not discipline the experiences, will
end always with the victory of an internal discipline, profoundly anchored
and animated.’45
In his sixth essay, aptly titled ‘Culture,’ Eliade initially presents a sum-
mary of his program as written so far. Having already identified cultures
with experiences, Eliade’s ensuing analysis of culture addresses the distinc-
tion between an individual and a people (an ethnic interpretation of a
uniform group of individuals). Eliade claims his assertion (about the pri-
macy of experience for culture) is true for both individuals and for peoples:
‘a culture is a living spiritual universe, sprung forth from experiences.’ Part
of the synthesis that happens in culture is of an ethnic character, thus
Eliade asserts that culture will always have an ethnic dimension and an
individual nuance. He explains how history proves that cultures have been
formed on an ethnic base and gives the Chinese, Indian, Greek and Latin
cultures as examples. For Eliade, ancient Greece was not a culture, but
rather a civilization, ‘a continuation of economic and material values,’ ref-
erencing Spengler in his argument. Eliade connects a culture to an organ-
ism, in that it has similar functions: such as ideals, beliefs and laws. He
likens giving oneself over to culture to giving oneself over to a spiritual

45
 Mircea Eliade, ‘Experienţele,’ 289–292. Originally published in Cuvântul, Year 3, No.
874, September 23, 1927, 1–2.
 2  NAE IONESCU, THE YOUNG GENERATION, ‘THE SPIRITUAL ITINERARY’…  43

belief. This causes him to conclude that lack of belief impedes the develop-
ment of cultures.
Eliade explains how diverse individuals over the course of many genera-
tions develop a coherent culture with the following statement: ‘A specific
intellectual work will develop, through a plurality of consciousnesses and
a continuity of generations, the same spiritual position. It will create an
organic cultural medium.’ Eliade blames Romania’s lack of a national (and
thus, an ethnic) culture on the fact that the Romanians did not know how
to develop spiritual positions, and this inability is due to the history of the
Romanian state. Foreign occupation and rule (Eliade mentions the
Byzantine Empire and the Phanariot system) and imported ideas left
Romanian culture with no ‘point of departure.’ This lack of unity is why
Romania only has a dubious civilization, which exalts foreign imported
elements, corrupts the political system and torments the elite. Eliade then
asks who can create the authentic Romanian culture the country desper-
ately needs and suggests the Young Generation.46
In his next piece, Eliade investigates what many would consider an
inherent aspect of any culture: literature. But Eliade’s views about litera-
ture are contrarian and curious when we consider how prolific he was as a
novelist. However, part of his goal with the itinerary was to define terms,
so his need to distinguish between literature, art and poetry is no surprise.
Eliade claims that for the Young Generation art and poetry are each ‘a
synthesis with specific spiritual elements, in a specific plan—having its own
structure and functions—that could be named a universe.’ Literature, on
the other hand, is ‘an impure, insufficient synthesis.’ While art is an actual
synthesis, a creation of culture, literature is merely an aspect of culture. Art
is ‘a spiritual plan to which consciousness only arrives through creation or
the contemplation of creation,’ while literature is a critique or exaltation
of recent experiences. Art is pure because it is synthesized as a single plan,
and literature is impure because it is a conglomeration of different things
resulting from diverse plans. This discussion about literature demonstrates
how Eliade is, in general when it comes to culture, concerned with
­totalities and not with specificities. He acknowledges that they can never
escape literature, it will always be there, but implies that now they have a
higher calling. Eliade concludes: ‘The primacy of literatures—as specific

46
 Mircea Eliade, ‘Cultură,’ 304–308. Originally published in Cuvântul, Year 3, No. 885,
October 4, 1927, 1–2.
44  C. A. BEJAN

personalities of Romanian culture have accepted and will still accept—is,

for us, a position naturally in the past.’47
At this point, Eliade turns his focus directly toward spirituality and reli-
gion for he believes that religious experience is an element of the unity of
culture. In the eighth piece, Eliade examines the subject of theosophy, a
belief system that holds that all religions are equally in pursuit of the same
truth. He undertakes the difficult task of clarifying the difference between
theosophy and the Theosophical Society, the organization formed around
the belief system of theosophy that was founded in 1875  in New  York
City. Eliade’s account is a biting and harsh criticism of the Society. Eliade
holds that theosophy itself is pure, a mystical attitude found in all times
and eras, and that true theosophism was perverted and compromised by
the Theosophical Society, that introduced the evolutionary spirit, positiv-
ism and biology, into the discourse. His reason for devoting an article of
the itinerary to theosophy becomes apparent in his conclusion: ‘This trend
of vague and hybrid mysticism that trespassed against the European spirit:
it furthered the distance between Christian consciousnesses of experi-
ences, it broke the axis of belief and prayer, it compromised old theosophy,
it threw away the introduction of the Asian spiritual methods, it con-
founded religion with science and philosophy.’ Yet despite these negatives,
Eliade acknowledges that ‘it aroused the interest of the greater public in
the Orient and metaphysics, and it strengthened, through reaction, the
unity and offensive front of the Catholic Church.’48 Eliade’s analysis dem-
onstrates his own early interest in the Eastern, non-Christian world. He
mentions Mahatma Gandhi’s own connection with the theosophical
movement, and of course his own reverence for Gandhi was strengthened
when Eliade was in India.
The next segment, on mysticism, naturally follows both Eliade’s discus-
sion of religion in the theosophy piece and his general denunciation of
science as an avenue toward truth and an authentic source of culture. To
start the discussion he claims that knowing is not the same thing as
­understanding. For mysticism you have to know it, not ‘understand’ it,
and it can only be known through experience. Eliade defines the mystical
experience as ‘a transcending of the consciousness into another plane.’ To

47
 Mircea Eliade, ‘Insuficienţa Literaturii,’ 308–312. Originally published in Cuvântul,
Year 3, No. 889, October 8, 1927, 1–2.
48
 Mircea Eliade, ‘Teozofie,’ 327–331. Originally published in Cuvântul, Year 3, No. 903,
October 22, 1927, 1–2.
 2  NAE IONESCU, THE YOUNG GENERATION, ‘THE SPIRITUAL ITINERARY’…  45

answer the question of how this is produced, Eliade asserts that religion
would claim God produces the mystical experience while psychology
would say it is the subconscious. Eliade claims this however is nothing new
to psychology because St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross knew
it long before, thus science did not discover the ‘cause’ of the mystical
experience. Eliade is concerned with determining his generation’s position
in the face of mysticism and concludes that it is not unique. ‘Some have
found it, others are still looking. In and of itself, mysticism is reduced to
looking for and finding God.’ Some have lied to themselves with ‘mystical
surrogates’ such as Tolstoyism and theosophy. The Young Generation had
not yet crystallized in a religious sense: ‘But we know that we have one [a
position on spirituality], that does not fit us, and that, soon, passing
through the time of experiences, we will need to stop and hold a position.’49
In the previous article, Eliade mentions that the Young Generation is
gravitating toward two religious positions. The subsequent articles sug-
gest those possible positions are Protestantism (investigated in the tenth
article) and Orthodoxy (in the eleventh).50 In his presentation of
Protestantism, Eliade addresses the question of ‘What will those young
people do, unknowing and indifferent in the face of the Church—but at
the same time, feeling the need of actualizing the religious experience?’51
Eliade concludes that anthroposophy is the only discipline that he can
recommend to those who have not yet found the Church.52 It is interest-
ing that Eliade proposes the ideology founded by a former member of the
Theosophical Society as his solution to those lost souls still in search of a
mystical experience. Eliade’s own orientation toward the East is revealed
here (and despite his strict strong advocacy for Orthodoxy, explained
­subsequently) in his promotion of anthroposophy and what he writes in
his post-script of the article: ‘In the retyping of this text developments and
discussions (the influence of Arab Sufism, the Basque origin of St. Ignatius,

49
 Mircea Eliade, ‘Misticismul,’ 342–346. Originally published in Cuvântul, Year 3, No.
911, October 30, 1927, 1–2.
50
 Mircea Eliade, ‘Între Luther şi Ignatiu de Loyola,’ 349–352. Originally published in
Cuvântul, Year 3, No. 915, November 3, 1927, 1–2. Mircea Eliade, ‘Ortodoxia,’ 357–360.
Originally published in Cuvântul, Year 3, No. 924, November 12, 1927, 1–2.
51
 Eliade, ‘Între Luther şi Ignatiu de Loyola,’ 349.
52
 Ibid., 352. Anthroposophy is a spiritual philosophy started by Rudolf Steiner, that
believes that the world can be intellectually and objectively understood. In 1907 Steiner split
with the Theosophical Society, as it was too focused on Indian philosophy (and around
Krishnamurti) and he wanted to integrate Christianity into his teachings.
46  C. A. BEJAN

the theism of anthroposophy, etc.)—had to be eliminated from this

feuilleton.’53
Eliade makes no secret of the direction in which he believes the Young
Generation will find their mystical experience: Christian Orthodoxy. Of
the superiority of Orthodoxy, he states, ‘Sunsets are born in Catholicism.
Sunrises arrive in Orthodoxy.’ Confidently, Eliade claims that there is no
need to have a discussion about ‘conversion,’ for the arrival at Orthodoxy
will simply, inevitably happen ‘just as trees bloom—when the soul will be
enriched enough, suffering enough.’ Eliade explains that Orthodoxy is,
for the Young Generation, the authentic Christianity. Being Christian, one
has access to life’s purpose: ‘Christianity illuminates for us a central axis in
the Universe and within ourselves.’ Eliade even points to Jesus Christ to
illustrate his point, claiming that ‘Christ proves transcendental reality and
the possibility of arriving at a religious experience. Man is no longer alone
with fate.’ Eliade clearly views the Christian believer as a superior man,
with such statements as ‘He who knows (loves) Christ—is a man with a
whole marrow in his spine.’54
He reserves other such sweeping compliments for the Christian man,
such as his assertion that the Christian is the only type of man who can
have a true personality, which Eliade defines as the dualism of body and
spirit, which  for him means ‘the equilibrium in an original synthesis of
those two tendencies [body and spirit].’ The Christian life means the secu-
rity of spiritual values and the permanence of these values: optimism,
belief, the right way and growth. But as much praise as he has for Orthodox
Christianity, Eliade asserts that still in 1927 not just anyone can become
Orthodox, as there are many causes that could impede encountering the
Christian Truth. Still Eliade maintains that the Young Generation will
arrive at being Orthodox, although he admits it does not matter when.
None of them will miss the experience to taste the metaphysical sense of
life. Eliade stresses that at that moment they have not yet arrived, but they
will, and they are not scared of failure because they know that a ‘right way’
exists for which they are destined. What is beautiful for them is the act of
searching, suffering as they search—for that which others are thankful to
be given by the priests. Eliade does not have any moral standard for his
conception of the Orthodox man, he claims he can be either an esthete or
a sinner, because the religious experience (defined here as ‘love of Christ’)

53
 Ibid.
54
 Eliade, ‘Ortodoxia,’ 357–358.
 2  NAE IONESCU, THE YOUNG GENERATION, ‘THE SPIRITUAL ITINERARY’…  47

remains the same. His conclusion is that whichever road one chooses, the
contemporary consciousness will arrive at Christian Orthodoxy eventually
and this search will lead them all to being authentic personalities.55
In the final (twelfth) article, Eliade attempts to summarize his overall
effort: to clarify the conclusions and discover the restlessness of this spirit
of the Young Generation, ‘the generation whose body and spirit are still a
mystery.’ Eliade concludes that his entire investigation reveals an impa-
tience: ‘Impatience to see in action the forces crystallized now in con-
sciousness.’ He ends the itinerary with a sort of call to arms, claiming
that he awaits

those heroes who, through renouncing everything, will prove themselves

more masculine than us all and will gather from the depths of their spiritual
life lessons that will be gifts and lights for us.56

His last statement reveals his reverence for leaders, a reverence that can be
found in his admiration for both Nae Ionescu and Codreanu, and also in
his own self-conception as a leader.
Eliade’s project in ‘The Spiritual Itinerary’ was to define what culture
is, whether or not Romania did or could have an original national and
ethnic culture, and how the Young Generation could approach producing
that culture. He argues that the previous generation put the cart before
the horse, by deriving culture from science and imported ideas. Eliade’s
attempt to set out the Romanian cultural project entails the renunciation
of specialization, and the dominance of scientific and rational inquiry. He
instead proposes the importance of experience, passion and non-scientific,
irrational, mystical, religious and alternate modes of knowledge that
would, in turn, produce a more authentic culture. He calls upon the
Young Generation to be authentic dilletantes and search for mystical expe-
rience. Of course, this cry for Orthodoxy and irrationality could lead to
the political extremism that ensued. Petreu claims that it is no coincidence
that Eliade required his generation in 1927 to live and create as if the
­present year were the last year of their lives. She summarizes their mission

 Ibid., 358–360.
55

 Eliade, ‘Final,’ 360. Originally published in Cuvântul, Year 3, No. 928, November 16,
56

1927, 1–2.
48  C. A. BEJAN

by saying that their obsession from the start was ‘to draw Romanian cul-
ture out of provincialism and make it exist universally.’57

Education Abroad
The intellectual elite of Romania was no stranger to seeking higher educa-
tion elsewhere. The Young Generation followed in this esteemed tradi-
tion, but their travels took them even further than Western Europe. For
this reason I will devote most of my attention to those who left the conti-
nent for their studies, Eliade and Comarnescu, taking them in complete
polar opposite directions: India and the United States; as well as provide a
brief exploration of one who stayed on the continent, Cioran in Germany.
Many other Criterionists pursued advanced study abroad in Europe.
Vulcănescu studied in Paris in 1925. Haig Acterian spent time in Berlin in
1930 and in Rome in 1933 to study theater directing and cinema. Ionesco
was in Paris from 1938 to 1940 completing his doctoral thesis. Noica trav-
eled to France and Germany later in the 1930s to pursue his research on
Kant, for a dissertation he was writing under the supervision of Nae Ionescu.
In 1930, while studying law in France, Sebastian initially struggled with
bouts of melancholia and developing his confidence using the French lan-
guage.58 Despite this, he was reluctant to return to Romania, writing to
Camil Baltazar on November 12, 1930,

I think of my return home with fear—and it is difficult for me to explain to

you why. (Perhaps the fact is that the life of my first youth is definitively end-
ing and I will [soon] work among serious people.)59

This quote captures the precise sentiment of the moment in the lives of
the Young Generation. Their education abroad, for each of them when

57
 Petreu, ‘Generation of ’27: Between the Holocaust and the Gulag,’ 7–8.
58
 For a vivid presentation and comprehensive analysis of Sebastian’s travels and impres-
sions during this time, see Diana Georgescu. ‘Excursions into National Specificity and
European Identity: Mihail Sebastian’s Travel Reportage.’ Under Eastern Eyes: A Comparative
Introduction to East European Travel Writing on Europe. Wendy Bracewell and Alex Drace-
Francis, eds., 293–324.
59
 AMNLR, Mihail Sebastian, Correspondence, Letters to Camil Baltazar. 101/III/10,
192/1–2, from Paris Wednesday November 12, 1930. Published in Hortensia Papadat-
Bengescu, et al. Scrisori către Camil Baltazar, 131.
 2  NAE IONESCU, THE YOUNG GENERATION, ‘THE SPIRITUAL ITINERARY’…  49

Fig. 2.1  Mircea Eliade

in Calcutta, India in May
1930. Courtesy of the
Library of the Romanian
Academy, reference
number 241219

and wherever it occurred, served as a transition period into adulthood.

They came back taking themselves seriously and poised to create and shape
the discourse of their time.
In 1929 Eliade was given a scholarship by the wealthy benefactor, the
Maharaja of Kasimbazar to fund doctoral studies on Indian philosophy
and Sanksrit in India, and left for education eastward.60 He studied under
the tutelage of famous Cambridge-educated historian of Indian philoso-
phy, Surendranath Dasgupta from 1929 to 1931. Not knowing any
English before he departed, Eliade managed to write the original version
of his PhD thesis in English, as well as learn Sanskrit and Bengali while in
India (Fig. 2.1).
Eliade first landed in Colombo, Ceylon [Sri Lanka] and traveled north
through the island before crossing to India from the Jaffna port. After a
journey up the east coast of India, Eliade settled in Calcutta, where he

 MEAI, 145–146.
60
50  C. A. BEJAN

absorbed an education, culture and perspective completely unknown to

Romanians. He first lived in a guesthouse surrounded by the expatriate
community and then was hosted by the Dasgupta family. Eliade immersed
himself in his academic work and educated himself about the ongoing
political turmoil in India. He shared his experiences through diary entries
he sent for publication in Cuvântul, as well as in novels he wrote based on
his life in India, such as Isabel şi apele diavolului (Isabel and the Waters of the
Devil)  and Maitreyi. After transcribing his work from English into
Romanian, Eliade earned his doctorate in 1933 from the Faculty of
Philosophy of the University of Bucharest. Three years later his dissertation
was published in French, entitled Yoga: Essai sur les origines de la mystique
Indienne, which is the first Western book to be published about yoga.
Eliade maintained that the West might learn from India’s approach
because it allows for mystery. He held that for Western philosophy, the
goal of knowledge is the fruitless search for the first and historical causes
of the human condition, the temporality of the human being. By evaluat-
ing what India thinks of the multiple ‘conditionings’ of man, and how it
has approached the problems of temporality and historicity, the West
might learn what solution India has found for the anxiety and despair that
inevitably follows consciousness of temporality.61 According to Eliade, one
of India’s greatest discoveries is the importance of absolute freedom: the
consciousness of ‘liberated’ man and perfect spontaneity. Unlike Western
philosophy, Indian philosophy is not concerned with the possession of
‘truth’ but rather with liberation: the conquest of absolute freedom. For
the Indian sage, liberation is the supreme end. This absolute freedom con-
stitutes a rebirth into a non-conditioned mode of being. Knowledge of
one’s self only results from revelation, from liberation. Otherwise the
cause and origin of the association between the spirit and earthly experi-
ence exceeds the present capacity for human understanding.
Eliade’s novel, Maitreyi (1933) is a fictionalized version of his affair
with Dasgupta’s daughter, Maitreyi, when Eliade was staying in the
Dasgupta house. Maitreyi was an instant success in Bucharest and cata-
pulted Eliade’s literary career. In the novel, Eliade describes his life in
India in detail, including his own (real and imagined) sexual exploits. Such
artistic daring did not go without harsh consequences. The tragedy
­resulting from the writing and publication of Maitreyi was that Eliade

61
 Mircea Eliade, Yoga: Immortality and Freedom, trans. Willard R. Trask, xvi. This text is
the expanded version of the research and analysis Eliade began in India in 1929.
 2  NAE IONESCU, THE YOUNG GENERATION, ‘THE SPIRITUAL ITINERARY’…  51

sacrificed any future study or experience in India. This was devastating for
the young Eliade, who harbored hopes of returning. Dasgupta was dis-
graced by the deception and betrayal of his student (to claim to have car-
ried on an affair with the professor’s young daughter, while profiting from
the professor’s hospitality and tutelage, living in their house) and ended all
ties with Eliade. Maitreyi denied the affair but later wrote her own version
of the story in a memoir, claiming feelings did exist between them but
they shared no physical relationship.62
Shaped by his experience in India as well as the European culture of his
homeland, Eliade viewed himself as a human bridge between East and
West. He felt that the Romanian people (himself certainly included) could
‘fulfill a definite role in the coming dialogue between the two or three
worlds: the West, Asia and cultures of archaic folk type.’ He claimed to
have reached these conclusions in the spring and summer of 1931, while
still in India, and consequently, ‘a good part of [his] activity in Romania
between 1932–1940 found its point of departure in these intuitions and
observations.’ It was useless to repeat Western clichés but dangerous to
take a stand on traditionalism. Man should actually be aiming for ‘univer-
salism.’ According to Eliade there were common elements in Indian,
Balkan and Mediterranean folk cultures and therein existed the organic
universalism which was the result of a common history, which he called
the ‘history of peasant cultures’ and not an abstract concept in the least.63
Once back in Bucharest, Eliade recalled that it was particularly Vulcănescu
and Nae Ionescu who were curious and passionate to discuss Indian phi-
losophy with him.64
Also recently returned from abroad, Comarnescu insisted to Eliade that
they speak English to each other, as he was determined not to lose the
language. Comarnescu had received a scholarship from the Rockefeller
Foundation to pursue doctoral study in the United States and moved to
Los Angeles to study philosophy at the University of Southern California
in 1929. (The Rockefeller Foundation funded a lot of projects in interwar
Romania, including Institutul Social Român.) Comarnescu obtained a
PhD on May 31, 1931 for his dissertation entitled, ‘The Nature of Beauty
and its Relation to Goodness’ (Fig. 2.2).

62
 Maitreyi Devi, It Does Not Die.
63
 MEAI, 204.
64
 Ibid., 220.
52  C. A. BEJAN

Fig. 2.2  Petru Comarnescu (right) at his University of Southern California grad-
uation in 1931. Courtesy of the Library of the Romanian Academy, reference
number 241195

The Romanian attitude toward the United States was in marked con-

trast to the sentiment held by many intellectuals in Western Europe. In
France, Thierry Maulnier was particularly provocative in his anti-American
declarations, condemning the nation’s economic power, productionism,
consequent consumerism and Hollywood. Jean de Fabregue criticized the
country for her lack of an intelligentsia.65 Romania was the exception
because the new nation was indebted to the United States for the active
American role at Versailles (thus helping to realize the dream of ‘Greater
Romania’) and the fact that Romanian peasants could buy their own land
due to money earned as immigrant workers in the United States. In fact,
the 1933 ‘Telephone Tower’ (although standing only ten-stories high)
built on Bucharest’s Calea Victoriei was meant to resemble an American
skyscraper and certainly stood out in Bucharest’s ‘Paris of the East’ skyline.66
Queen Marie visited New  York, Washington D.C. and the Pacific
Northwest in 1926. Nicolae Iorga made a famous trip to the United States

65
 Masgaj Imagining Fascism, 82–83.
66
 Vanhaelemeersch, A Generation Without Beliefs, 284–285.
 2  NAE IONESCU, THE YOUNG GENERATION, ‘THE SPIRITUAL ITINERARY’…  53

in 1930. After Comarnescu returned from his studies in 1931, he pub-

lished two best-selling books about his experiences abroad. Comarnescu
could be considered the Romanian de Tocqueville because for many peo-
ple he remains the first Romanian who truly discovered the United States.67
His personal writings about the United States represented the first of its
kind ever in Romania, and the first in twentieth-century Europe.68
In America Comarnescu discovered a new approach to life that he
thought could be a potential solution to Romania’s ills: optimism. In this
nascent country, optimism pervaded all spheres of life: economic, aca-
demic, political and social. Comarnescu introduced the Romanian reader-
ship to the United States beyond Hollywood through his eyes as a foreign
student immersing himself in the field like an anthropologist or a sociolo-
gist of the Gusti School. In Homo Americanus each chapter was a portrait
through description and dialogue of different ‘representative types’ of
American. These types included the businessman, the American club
woman, the priest, the professor, the student, the sportsman, the modern
girl and the intellectual. One chapter was devoted to both the policeman
and the bandit. The final chapter was devoted to the black man, the Jew
and the immigrant. It is notable that Comarnescu observed the similarities
between these minority groups and their common struggle and reveals a
remarkable empathy toward and understanding of each in his descriptions.
The experience of a ‘college campus’ for the American student was
fundamentally different from the university life known to European stu-
dents. The campus environment created a collective life in addition to the
students’ rich individual lives. Comarnescu remarked that the American
style of learning was the student interacting with the various texts and
questions posed by professors. The American students’ essays were ‘full of
personal observations, sincere confessions and naïve aspirations.’
Comarnescu was impressed by the existence of an ‘honor code’ discourag-
ing cheating and also by how generations remained tied to their university
through a robust network of ‘alumni’ and the ongoing relationship the
student had with his ‘Alma Mater.’69 With an abundant array of extra-­
curricular activities (including competitive collegiate sports), Comarnescu

67
 Traian Filip ‘Cuvînt Inainte,’ Petru Comarnescu Chipurile şi Priveliştile Americii.
68
 Ibid., 19.
69
 Petru Comarnescu, Homo Americanus, 112–113. Vanhaelemeersch presents a compre-
hensive account of Comarnescu’s works on the United States in A Generation Without
Beliefs, 280–295.
54  C. A. BEJAN

marveled at how the individual student was also part of a vibrant commu-
nity. This vitality eliminated melancholia, so typical of Europe.
In his concluding chapter of Homo Americanus, ‘The American man of
today and tomorrow,’ Comarnescu likens the United States to youth itself.
He says that for the youth every road is open, everything is new, and pres-
ents translated quotes from the poetry of Walt Whitman and Carl Sandburg
to demonstrate this distinctly American spirit.70 While Homo Americanus
(1933) dealt with the American society, Comarnescu’s second book,
America văzută de un tânăr de azi (America As Seen By a Youth of Today,
1934), focused on the author himself. He reconstructed his journey over-
seas from Romania to America, and across the American continent. Also
the author’s youth, as mentioned even in the book’s title, was of crucial
importance to his project.
Comarnescu’s journey began in 1929 when he boarded the ship
‘Alésia,’ which brought him from Constant ̦a to ‘Constantinople,’ then
Athens (where he climbed the Acropolis), Naples, Algiers, Madeira,
Providence and finally to New York. He describes these stopovers as stages
in his escape from stale, old Europe into a new, untouched America.
New York City (‘the metropolis of power’) overwhelmed him. Comarnescu
claimed that in New York, nothing appears natural, and praised the city for
her skyscrapers, which he described as ‘impressive with their solidity, with
their geographical perfection and their good taste is not hindered by use-
less elements.’71 And Comarnescu observed that just as New  York had
skyscraper buildings, the city had skyscraper people. Next to the Americans
and lost in their architecture, Comarnescu felt he lost all sense of propor-
tion, and was a Gulliver in a country of giants.72 In a much more spacious
Washington D.C. (which he named ‘the unreal city’) Comarnescu was
extremely impressed when he toured the buildings of the US Capitol and
the Library of Congress and saw the White House and national monuments.
While in Chicago, Comarnescu claimed he lived in the atmosphere of a
detective novel in Al Capone’s city where the gangster is the hero and
without the police there would be utter chaos.73 He named Chicago ‘the
blackened heart’ of America, for it was the industrial capital with smoke-­
filled air and smut-covered buildings. Comarnescu praised the two univer-
sities in Chicago, the University of Chicago and Northwestern University,
70
 Ibid., 208.
71
 Petru Comarnescu. America văzută de un tânăr de azi, 83.
72
 Ibid., 84.
73
 Ibid., 164.
 2  NAE IONESCU, THE YOUNG GENERATION, ‘THE SPIRITUAL ITINERARY’…  55

for developing a large program in penology and social and juridic reform,
teaching their students to help the city youth with education and financial
incentives.74 From Chicago, he headed West by train through the Midwest
(‘of the urbanized farmers’) New Mexico, Arizona and finally to Los
Angeles. In California, Comarnescu found ‘the land of promise and disap-
pointment.’ Since California remained the same climate year-round, feel-
ing youthful was much easier than in a place like Romania. He claimed
that when the seasons change, one has the feeling of death in fall and
rebirth in spring. Comarnescu wrote, ‘In Los Angeles, I lived with a sense
of endless youth, never thinking of aging, death or nothingness.’75 When
he returned to Europe, he confronted the pessimism he had left.
Cioran embodied precisely that preoccupation with death and despair
Comarnescu was trying to combat. Already an expert on Nietzsche’s nihil-
ism (although more compelled by Georg Simmel) and fascinated by
Spengler, Cioran presented on Bergson in the first Criterion Idols series in
the fall of 1932. Shortly thereafter he left for Berlin to study German phi-
losophy from 1933–1935 with the help of a Humboldt scholarship, at that
time considered to be of the same prestige as a Rhodes scholarship to
Oxford.76 At the University of Berlin, Cioran studied with the philosopher
Ludwig Klages, who reminded Cioran of Nae Ionescu.77 Cioran was ini-
tially unimpressed with his experience and wrote to his friend, Ecaterina
Săndulescu, in January 1934, about his lazy student life there and how all
the students he met and spent time with, of an international variety, were
universally despicable.

I am totally bored when I notice the differences between peoples, the spe-
cific characteristics. I am forced to have daily meals with a group of foreign
students, beginning with a Japanese man and ending with an American. I
wouldn’t have the curiosity to travel the world. People are dull and uninter-
esting across the globe. So far my disappointment in Berlin is that I met only
normal and healthy people.78

74
 Ibid., 171.
75
 Ibid., 229–230.
76
 Ilinca Zarifopol-Johnston, Searching for Cioran, 82.
77
 Emil Cioran, ‘Prin Universitatea din Berlin,’ Vremea 6, No. 316, December 3, 1933, 9.
Cited in Marta Petreu, An Infamous Past, 9.
78
 AMNLR, Emil Cioran, Correspondence, Letters to Ecaterina Săndulescu. 134/III/4,
14.066/1–2 January 29, 1934.
56  C. A. BEJAN

Eventually someone did spark his interest and excite him: Hitler. Of all his
friends, Cioran was the first to advocate far right extremism for Romania.
In January 1933 he criticized the Young Generation for not wanting to be
involved in Romanian politics. After his time in Germany, he urged the
Romanian youth to join the political struggle.79
While in Berlin, Cioran witnessed the ascent of Nazism firsthand and
became impressed by the personality and program of the dictator. He
wrote a series of enthusiastic articles for Vremea applauding the political
situation in Germany. Cioran was in awe that all Germans thought they
lived in the greatest nation, while Romanians considered their country to
be ‘the lousiest country in the world.’80 He confessed that what compelled
him about Hitlerism was ‘the cult of the irrational, the exultation of pure
vitality, the virile expression of strength, without any critical spirit, restraint
or control.’81
Cioran’s most infamous Vremea piece was his apology for Hitler after
the Night of the Long Knives (June 30–July 2, 1934, Hitler’s purge of
Ernst Röhm and the Sturmabteilung). Cioran’s reaction to the mass-­
murder was: ‘Of all politicians today, Hitler is the one I like and admire
most.’82 A month later, in response to criticism of Hitler’s actions, Cioran
published an even more extreme apology on behalf of Hitler:

Humanitarianism is but self-delusion, and pacifism is sheer intellectual mas-

turbation … They say: you shall not take the life of another! Any human
being is valuable in itself, etc., etc. But then I ask: What did mankind have
to lose with the death of a few idiots?83

Cioran defined a human being as ‘an animal that grows ideals instead of
fur,’ and asserted that ‘not everyone deserves to be free.’ He justified
Hitler’s actions with the conclusion:

79
 Petreu, An Infamous Past, 9–10.
80
 Emil Cioran, ‘Aspecte germane,’ Vremea 6, No. 314, November 19, 1933, 9. Cited in
Petreu, An Infamous Past, 8–9.
81
 Emil Cioran, ‘Germania şi Franţa sau iluzia păcii,’ Vremea 6, No. 318, Christmas 1933.
Cited in Petreu, An Infamous Past, 9.
82
 Emil Cioran, ‘Impresii din Munchen. Hitler în conştiinţa germană,’ Vremea 7, No. 346,
July 15, 1934, 3. Cited in Petreu An Infamous Past, 11.
83
 Emil Cioran, ‘Scrisori din Germania. Revolta sătuilor,’ Vremea 7, No. 349, August 5,
1934, 2. Cited in Petreu, An Infamous Past, 11–12.
 2  NAE IONESCU, THE YOUNG GENERATION, ‘THE SPIRITUAL ITINERARY’…  57

For the triumph of the cause to which he has dedicated his entire life, a
dictator has the right to eliminate a few creatures who prevent the rise of a
movement … Before it could call itself a serious movement, national-­
socialism needed blood.84

Openly condoning the violence in Hitler’s Germany, Cioran wished such

an elimination of democracy and installation of dictatorship for Romania.
He began to formulate ideas he would later develop in his Schimbarea la
faţă a României and one of his initial suggestions was to set up a concen-
tration camp for Romanian politicians.85
Yet despite his discovery of what fascist elements he believed could help
his own country’s political and spiritual predicament, in 1935 Cioran con-
fessed to Săndulescu that he dreaded his imminent return to Romania and
was filled with thoughts of death.86

* * *

Influenced and inspired by Nae Ionescu’s unique approach to education

and answering Eliade’s call to arms in ‘The Spiritual Itinerary,’ the Young
Generation was poised to realize their collective responsibility and make
their own cultural contribution to Romania. After observing Gandhi’s
activities and the unstoppable force of Indian nationalism (to be discussed
in Chap. 4), Eliade returned to Bucharest in 1932 to advocate mystical
political extremism and Eastern spirituality. During his time in southern
California, Comarnescu became convinced that Romanians should adopt
a more optimistic stance toward both life and their struggling democracy.
And it was in Berlin, during most of Criterion’s activity, that Cioran
became infatuated with Hitler and began to formulate his own program
for a modern and fascist Romania. With the creation of the Criterion
Association, the Young Generation embarked on a serious professional
effort to share their ideas and experiences with each other and the
Romanian public.

84
 Ibid.
85
 Emil Cioran, ‘Despre o altă Românie,’ Vremea 8, No. 376, February 17, 1935, 3. Cited
in Petreu, An Infamous Past, 13.
86
 AMNLR, Emil Cioran, Correspondence, Letters to Ecaterina Săndulescu. 134/III/5,
14.067/1–3, July 11, 1935.
 CHAPTER 3

The Criterion Association of Arts, Literature

and Philosophy: Beginnings and Birth
in Bucharest, 1932

Eliade called the Criterion Association:

The most original and significant manifestation of the ‘young generation.’

(I believe that we could still consider ourselves young: the average age of the
responsible nucleus of the group was at that time twenty-eight.)1

Criterion was a cultural group that held conferences, symposia, artistic

events and exhibitions in Bucharest from 1932 to 1934. The Criterion
Association was not the only such cultural group in Bucharest at the time
but attracted the most attention.2 In fact such independent conferences,
these live manifestations of ideas had a very important role in the interwar
intellectual scene. There was a sentiment that theory alone was not
enough, such as speaking at the university. A degree of civic action was
required. There was a widespread commitment to the idea that ‘culture’
must leave the halls of the university into the streets.
Although its membership comprised many of the most promising
minds of the Young Generation, the Criterion Association was not limited
to the Young Generation and therefore these two groups are not

1
 MEAI, 228.
2
 Mac Linscott Ricketts, Mircea Eliade: The Romanian Roots, Vol. 1, 551.

© The Author(s) 2019 59

C. A. Bejan, Intellectuals and Fascism in Interwar Romania,
Modernity, Memory and Identity in South-East Europe,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20165-4_3
60  C. A. BEJAN

i­nterchangeable, as they so often mistakenly are taken to be.3 The Young

Generation and the definition of its identity and spiritual mission long
preceded the formation of the Criterion Association. The association was
a fruition of the Young Generation’s cultural ambition. For clarity’s sake,
I choose not to equate the terms the Young Generation and the Criterion
Association, and rather treat them as two distinct phenomena.
The members of the Young Generation are also sometimes referred to
as ‘Criterionists.’ Such a label works for individual members of the Young
Generation, if they were in fact members of Criterion. Membership of the
Criterion Association was not automatic and, to add to the confusion,
even members of the Young Generation and Criterion used the terms
interchangeably. An excellent example is Ionesco in his famous letter to
Tudor Vianu in 1945, in which he refers to the intellectual approach
adopted by Criterion as ‘Criterionism,’ members as ‘Criterionist’ and even
his whole friendship and peer group as the ‘Criterion Generation.’4 In
such cases, the terminology is used to refer to the core group of friends
and intellectuals, with which my book is concerned. I do use the word
‘Criterionist’ to refer to specific personalities, where appropriate.
The most prominent members of the Young Generation were involved
in the Forum lecture series that preceded Criterion’s establishment.
Whereas the Forum was a group of 20 friends, the Criterion Association
was a network of approximately 100 writers, artists, dancers, composers,
actors and journalists.5 Many distinguished members of the ‘Old
Generation’ (such as Constantin Rădulescu-Motru and Dimitrie Gusti)
and members of the ‘Sacrificed Generation’ (e.g. Alice Voinescu) took
part in Criterion’s activities, as well as independent artists who did not
identify with any generation in particular: such as painters Max Hermann
Maxy (1895–1971), Victor Brauner (1903–1966) and even the dancer
Gabriel Negry.

3
 Constantin Mihai makes this common mistake in Europenism şi dileme identitare în
România interbelică: gruparea Criterion.
4
 Letter from Eugène Ionesco to Tudor Vianu, September 19, 1945, Paris from Eugen
Ionescu, Scrisori către Tudor Vianu, Vol. 2 (1936–1949), 274–275.
5
 Ionel Jianu, ‘In Exclusivitate: Amintiri despre Criterion,’ Criterion Seria Nouă, Year 1
No. 2, 1990, 1.
 3  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION OF ARTS, LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY…  61

Beginnings
In order to understand the growth of Criterion, we must first investigate
the atmosphere in Bucharest. What started out as a small, elite group of
young friends mushroomed into an all-encompassing, ambitious and
comprehensive cultural program with lectures, music, drama, dance and
visual arts. It is generally considered that the Forum Group developed and
evolved into the Criterion Association. In fact the explanation for the ori-
gins of Criterion is much more complicated and nuanced. This assump-
tion of the Forum’s importance has validity if we consider the following
factors: (1) the main members of the Forum Group became Criterionists,
(2) the Forum immediately preceded the formation of Criterion, (3)
Criterion’s first symposia were held in the Royal Foundation where the
Forum Group had their lectures and (4) the first topic of the Criterion
series was an idea adopted from a future Forum series that never took
place: ‘Personalities of our time.’6
The first two points are of course obvious and uncontestable. The third
point is not specific to the Forum Group, as many other conference series
were taking place in the Royal Foundation at that time. The ‘Carol I’
Royal Foundation [Fundaţia Regele ‘Carol I’] itself was a hotbed of both
student and young intellectual activity, and a clear choice for such confer-
ences. However, the Royal Foundation was not the only choice, as
Comarnescu first considered having the Criterion conferences at Dalles
Foundation [Fundaţia Dalles],7 where later the second round of Criterion
activities (with a more artistic, less politically salient bent) would take
place. As for the centrality of the Royal Foundation in the minds of the
Young Generation, Vulcănescu wrote, ‘There, at the Royal Foundation,
we would go in the mornings, when we did not have courses, to read.
Occasionally in the reserved student rooms, which were warmed up with
gas, in which we would read very well on the large and isolated benches
and desks.’8 In terms of the fourth factor, the subject matter of the Forum
series that never took place actually indicates a clear disconnect between

6
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XVIII Varia 16, #18–19.
7
 PCJ, 49–51, Fundat i̧ a Dalles was a popular cultural center for conferences, exhibitions
and lectures, established in 1932 by Elena Dalles in central Bucharest.
8
 Mircea Vulcănescu, ‘Fundaţia,’ ‘Tânăra Generaţie,’ Marin Diaconu, ed., 211. The Royal
Foundation [Fundaţia Regală] was the amphitheater for the ‘Carol I’ University Royal
Foundation, across from the Royal Palace, where the majority of the Criterion symposia were
held.
62  C. A. BEJAN

Criterion and the Forum and a motive for an argument that ensued
between Jianu and Comarnescu. The Forum, clearly a precedent, was not
the only inspiration for Criterion. What follows is an attempt to explore
other influences.
The social atmosphere surrounding the various symposia and meetings all
over the city was conducive to artistic exchange and intellectual discussion.
Though whether the friendship group encompassed by the Criterion
Association was indeed so united at the time is itself entirely contestable.
These figures were both antagonistic toward and supportive of each other.
While encouraging and inspiring one another, there was also a prevailing
spirit of competition. Many developed a relationship that I describe as:
friend/enemy. Long before the issue of friendship became so complicated for
political, religious and ideological reasons, members of this elite friendship
group were vetting each other for quite different reasons: mainly the strength
and dimensions of their intellect. Here I will discuss positive atmosphere,
negative atmosphere and how friendship was implicated in each of them.
The positive side of the social atmosphere is what the Criterion epoch
is famous for and demonstrates the collective nature of the associa-
tion  (Fig. 3.1). Drinking, dancing, eating and discussing the pressing

Fig. 3.1  Dinner with Criterionists (left to right) Mihail Sebastian, Mihail
Polihroniade, Mary Polihroniade, Marietta Sadova, Mircea Eliade and Haig
Acterian. Courtesy of the National Museum of Romanian Literature, reference
number 5582
 3  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION OF ARTS, LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY…  63

problems of the day till the wee hours of the morning at friends’ houses,
in friends’ gardens, in the cafés Capşa or Corso, in the Caru cu Bere beer
hall and restaurants Gambrinus, Terminus, Lido and promenading up
and down Calea Victoriei or through the lanes of Cişmigiu park.
Comarnescu captures a particularly splendid example of such a social epi-
sode in his diary. After he presented his talk on ‘Americanism and
Europeanism in Culture’ (as part of the series put on by the Friends of
the United States Society) at the Royal Foundation on Friday, February
12, 1932, to a room and balcony full, he received a unanimous positive
reception. Unlike his Forum talk, this time he spoke with ‘verve, joking.’
Afterwards he went to the Gambrinus restaurant with Eliade, Sebastian,
Vulcănescu and his wife, Jianu and his wife and others. Following that
some went to a location named Lopez. Comarnescu writes,

There we hesitated to remain, but we stayed like ‘enfants terribles’9: a soci-

ety à la Paul Morand in discussions; a group of children escaped from paren-
tal control, in action. Dynamized by the conference, disposed to success, full
of vanity I danced, boxed with Vulcănescu with overshoes on my hands;
Demayo on the back of Vulcănescu as if he were his coat … Eliade, barrage.
Magic …. After we went singing exaggerated songs waking up all the houses
on Rechinoaia and after that towards Letta and Vera,—we ended the night
trite, brutal … on … Brezoianu … I had not laughed like that for, maybe,
two years.10

Despite the guilt that Comarnescu felt in the following days (for getting
so drunk and needing to spend the next day being unproductive and
recovering), the enjoyment experienced on that evening aptly displays the
camaraderie within the group.
Giza Tătărescu (the daughter of Nina Eliade from a previous marriage)
captures the equivalent atmosphere of the nascent Criterion moment,
which she observed as a young child: ‘Everyone met often in the house of
Mac Constantinescu and Floria Capsali (…) They spent the Sundays in an
atmosphere full of discussion, witticism, music and even dance.’11 By May
1932, the friends spent Sunday afternoons at Floria and Mac’s and in the

9
 This is clearly a reference to Jean Cocteau’s 1929 novel Les enfants terribles.
10
 PCJ, 32.
11
 Giza Tătărescu, ‘Amintiri despre Mircea.’ Vatra 6–7, 105.
64  C. A. BEJAN

evenings went together to have dinner at a tavern in the neighborhood.

Eliade describes the scene as such:

They had an old house in the Crucea-de-Piatră neighborhood, with a gar-

den as large as an orchard. In a section of the garden Mac had made a vol-
leyball court. A number of people came regularly, arriving early enough to
play volleyball: the Polihroniades, the Vulcănescus, and the Sterians, along
with Dan Botta, Petru Comarnescu, Mihail Sebastian, Haig Acterian, and
Marietta Sadova. Every Sunday new faces would appear: Marioara Voiculescu
and her son the magistrate, Lily Popovici, Harry Brauer, Sylvia Capsali,
Gabriel and Adrian Negreanu, and many others. Another frequent atten-
dant was Nina Mareş …. And because we came from related, though differ-
ent, worlds—the theater, graphic arts, dance, journalism, literature,
philosophy—we got along very well together.12

The hostess of these get-togethers, Floria Capsali was a dancer, collab-

orative artist, professor and choreographer of dance who loved being the
center of action and attention. Capsali’s student Ioan Tugearu claimed she
could be called the ‘Lady of Romanian Dance, in capital letters,’ a ‘woman
of culture,’ and that she had ‘an overwhelming personality.’13 Following
education at the Conservatory for Drama in Bucharest, she moved to Paris
for nine years where she studied with the dancers Enrico Cecchetti and
Nicolas Legat and took classes in art history at the Sorbonne.
Upon Capsali’s return to Romania, she married the sculptor Mac
Constantinescu in 1926 and collaborated with him artistically on many
projects. Her private dance studio was one of several in 1930s Bucharest
but in hers ‘a special atmosphere reigned.’14 Greatly inspired by Romanian
rural folk culture and other forms of exotic dance (particularly Indian
dance), she traveled with a team from Dimitrie Gusti’s monographic
school of sociology all over Romania collecting folklore in 1927 and was
involved with his research team for an extended period. Another student,
Oleg Danovski, recalled in his memoirs the unique energy present at ‘Casa
Capsali’: ‘imbued with warmth and equanimity, artistic [excellence]; the
general climate was one of ideas, quests and sanctuary answers.’ Complete

 MEAI, 227–228.
12

 Silvia Ciurescu ‘Interview with Ioan Tugearu about Floria Capsali.’ Plural Magazine,
13

Nos. 15–16 (2002).

14
 Oleg Danovski, ‘Vivat Profesores!—Through the Looking Glass of Time.’ Plural
Magazine, Nos. 15–16 (2002). An excerpt from his memoirs.
 3  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION OF ARTS, LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY…  65

with an impressive library, the house was ‘charged with dialogues, ideas,
new social acquaintances.’15
The negative side to what is easily romanticized is often lost or never
discussed, especially as those who write memoirs, are the figures lionized
and remembered. There certainly was an atmosphere of camaraderie and
debate but this was not always happy, positive, invigorating, dynamic nor
fun. In fact, Comarnescu often notes when he met with ‘friends’ and it
was boring and a waste of his time. For example, Comarnescu writes, ‘I
was at Capşa where I did not find V. Arion, but rather Şerban Cioculescu,
Eugen Ionescu, Fantaneru, Sebastian. [They] bored me with their very
pretentious, yet futile preoccupations.’16 Then later in his journal, he
reveals how he was getting sick of such socializing. At Polihroniade’s with
Eliade, Letta Stark (Jianu’s sister) and Vera Anderson (Letta’s close friend),
they had ‘banal discussions.’ Comarnescu laments, ‘We don’t have any-
thing more to say. We see each other too often.’17 This happened on
February 21, 1932.
A friend/enemy for Comarnescu from the beginning was Polihroniade.
They had numerous conflicts before, during and after Criterion, yet
remained always ‘friends.’ Never agreeing on anything, he often found
Polihroniade to be hostile toward him. Comarnescu eventually concluded
that he simply disagreed with Polihroniade on a very fundamental level:

I refused to participate in the reunion at Polihroniade’s. Curious, after they

always gossip and speak ill about me, saying that I am an amateur revolu-
tionary, an amateur general etc. … He has the need to pester me, to undo
me with his intellectual sadism. He was sad, rejected that I did not go to his
place. More and more it seems to me that I have nothing in common with
him, rather the opposite, we are exact opposite, in ideas and in
sensibilities.18

Apart from his organic dislike of Polihroniade (both ideas and personal-
ity) that grew over time, Comarnescu vetted his other friends based on
their intelligence. His initial friendship with Noica demonstrates this
mutual admiration of intellect, and his friendship with Eliade reflects the
same fascination:

15
 Ibid.
16
 PCJ, 26. Sunday, January 31, 1932.
17
 Ibid., 34.
18
 Ibid., 48.
66  C. A. BEJAN

I love Eliade more and more. I am sorry that I can’t tell him many favorable
things [regarding] only my differences and reservations towards him and
especially towards Nae. … I think he also needs to have understanding,
though he seems to me to be a great man.19

But in Sebastian, Comarnescu initially spots something he distrusts, ‘a

shifty man, about whom I do not know what to believe.’20 But not too
much later, after spending more time with Sebastian, Comarnescu com-
ments on an evening spent at Gambrinus after a conference put on by
Societatea de politică externă (The Foreign Policy Society, initiated by
Polihroniade). He writes, ‘Walked home to the last house with Marcel
Avramescu and M.  Sebastian. Sebastian’s confessions. Discussed Nae.
Went to bed at 4½.’21
The case of Ionesco is more complicated as he was consciously an out-
sider of Criterion, although he did nostalgically remember it later.
Comarnescu’s vetting of Ionesco’s friendship is documented in entries
from February 1 and 2, 1932. Ionesco had hurried after Comarnescu on
the street: ‘E.I. rushed, inhibited, eager for success from any angle.
Although I was probably just like that, now I detest that mode of being. I
don’t think this boy could have character.’22 Then the next day Ionesco
visited Comarnescu offering him his first volume of poetry, Elegii pentru
fiinţe mici (Elegies for Small Beings,  1931).23 Eventually Ionesco and
Comarnescu would consider themselves close friends.
Acknowledged by all (his contemporaries and historians) to be the
father of Criterion, Comarnescu was an enigmatic figure. One element of
his personal story that I believe to be fundamental to his drive and initia-
tive behind Criterion was his feelings of inadequacy and despair following
his return from America, facing the realities of professional life back in his
homeland. A trained philosopher, an avid reader, journalist, art apprecia-
tor and critic, Comarnescu found it difficult adjusting to day-to-day life in
a law office (referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ in his diary) and longed for an
intellectual challenge and to be valued and understood for his own intel-
lectual contributions. The fact that he formed his own friendships based
on intellect can both be considered snobby (in fact ‘snobbism’ was a topic
Comarnescu and others wrote on and discussed), elitist (which the
19
 Ibid., 18.
20
 Ibid., 30.
21
 Ibid., 44.
22
 Ibid., 27.
23
 Ibid., 28.
 3  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION OF ARTS, LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY…  67

Criterionists were eventually accused of being), and perfectly understand-

able given his own personal cultural ambitions.
As I will discuss in the upcoming section on the Forum, Comarnescu
was not very impressed with the Forum lectures themselves, or with the
group as a whole. After Şerban Cioculescu’s Forum lecture, Comarnescu
confesses his own frustrations with himself and his place within this friend-
ship circle of intellectuals. Cioculescu cited Comarnescu in his talk and
Comarnescu writes that he was flattered.

But I do not need flattery, rather understanding. I also need love, and hate
which would either bring me down or lift me up. My mediocrity and the petty
dissolution of my existence is driving me crazy. I am nervous, ungrateful,
without ambition. Everything is indifferent to me.24

Comarnescu needed a higher purpose. He felt that in the environment of

lawyers, he was going ‘stupid’ and that he was not used where he could be,
in a cultural and intellectual capacity.25
Comarnescu had a natural leadership ability that was rewarded prior to
Criterion. Very involved in the activities of Gruparea Universitară pentru
Naţiunile Unite [The University Group for the United Nations], he was
nominated and elected ‘Secretary’ of that group.26 In October 1932,
when Criterion’s first season was under way, Comarnescu embraced his
role as organizer in a discussion of his passion for and the omnipresent
theme of youth:

Refusing to get older, I remain truly sooner and closer to childhood than to
death but not as a good-for-nothing but as a man of life, always changing,
always in transformation. My activism, my spirit as an animator and orga-
nizer explains that.27

It can be hypothesized that his willingness to organize, animate and lead

had a direct correlation to success and cultural impact. As Criterion started
to leave its indelible mark on the cultural scene of Bucharest, Comarnescu
proudly carried out the role that would be the defining characteristic of his
own cultural legacy.

24
 Ibid., 25.
25
 Ibid., 26.
26
 Ibid., 39, 48.
27
 Ibid., 63.
68  C. A. BEJAN

There was an array of organizations that held events in the same spirit
as Criterion, in which members of the Young Generation also participated.
‘Poesis’ was a series organized and led by Ion Marin Sadoveanu and
Alexandru Badauta from 1926 to 1930, held in the Royal Foundation
with Sadova, Lily Popovici and others reciting and interpreting theatrical
scenes.28 Other groups included: ‘The University Group for the United
Nations,’ ‘Friends of the United States Society’ (founded in 1923), ‘The
Circle of the Romanian Annals’ [Cercul Analelor Române, or ‘Anale’ for
short] or the Forum Group in the winter and spring of 1932 and a series
in the beginning of 1934, symposia organized by the literary journal
Convorbiri Literare.29 Comarnescu spoke at many such conferences and
kept a log of his public appearances such as ‘Romanian Characteristics in
Culture’ presented by ‘The University Group for the United Nations.’30
Other societies with regular meetings and events included Idei europeane,
the Philosophical Society, the Sociological Society, the Patronage Society,
and Societatea de politică externă which  organized a weekly conference
series entitled ‘The problems of European politics.’31 On January 26,
1932, Comarnescu wrote in his journal, ‘In the evenings I go out too
much. There are too many conferences.’32
On March 19, 1932, at the Royal Foundation, Cercul Analelor Române
presented a symposium entitled ‘The Utilization of the American Spirit.’
The architect G.M. Cantacuzino presided over the debate and the follow-
ing intellectuals (both Forum speakers and Criterionists) participated:
Eliade on ‘Asia versus America,’ Vulcănescu on ‘Europe versus America,’
Sebastian on ‘France versus America,’ Paul Sterian on ‘Romania versus
America’ and Comarnescu on ‘America versus itself.’ Comarnescu wrote
glowingly of this event in his journal and deemed it ‘a great success.’33

28
 Arşavir Acterian, ‘Cîte ceva despre Asociaţia Criterion,’ Criterion Serie Nouă, Year 1,
No. 1, March 1990, 1.
29
 Mircea Vulcănescu, De la Nae Ionescu la Criterion, 404.
30
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 12.
31
 ‘Societatea de politică externă,’ Adevărul, November 13, 1932. See PCJ, 23.
32
 PCJ, 24.
33
 Ibid., 45.
 3  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION OF ARTS, LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY…  69

On a note on Criterion stationery in his personal archive, Comarnescu

writes next to his notation of this ‘Anale’-sponsored event (in a list of
conferences at which he has spoken) ‘our first symposium?’34 The Forum
already had its first symposium on January 14, 1932 at the Royal
Foundation entitled ‘Centre de Interes Mondial’ [The Center of World
Interest] (for which Comarnescu spoke). It can be hypothesized that
Comarnescu considered the ‘Anale’ event to be more like a Criterion sym-
posium in terms of the set-up of the evening, while each Forum event had
only one speaker. This ‘Anale’ event had several speakers all representing
distinctly different points of view, in this case, covering the globe with
their perspectives.
A cycle of conferences (operating concurrently to that of the Forum
Group in the winter of 1932) put on by the Friends of the United States
Society mirrored the structure of the Forum Group and culminated with
a discussion quite similar to those put on by the Criterion Association.
The shape and structure of this series was as follows. Held for two months,
proposed to be every Saturday evening (but ended up being held on
Friday evenings) from January 16, until March 5, 1932, at 9 pm in the
Royal Foundation, the cycle of conferences was entitled ‘Americanism and
Europeanism.’ The speakers and topics included, in chronological order:
M.  Manoilescu on ‘The Economic Aspects of Europe and America,’
A.  Corteanu on ‘The Press of these two worlds,’ Prof. N.  Petrescu on
‘Social life in Europe and America,’ Ion Gheorghe Duca (the future prime
minister) on ‘The Debut of Youth in America and Europe’ (29 January),
Comarnescu on ‘Americanism and Europeanism in Culture’ (12 February),
Prof. Dr. Gr. Popa on ‘The Scientific Spirit in Europe and America’ and
Prof. Virgil Bărbat on ‘America and the World of the Other World.’ This
conference series closed with a symposium in early March in the form of
discuţia controversată [a controversial discussion, a discussion featuring
different, opposite points of view] featuring Vulcănescu, Sebastian and
Comarnescu concerning the topic ‘The Utilization of American Values.’35
This distinction between conference (a lecture typically featuring one
speaker) and symposium (a platform devoted to the sharing and discussion
of differing viewpoints) is illustrated very well by this particular series. And
this formula was adapted for Criterion.

 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 12.

34

 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XVIII Varia 16, f. 51.

35
70  C. A. BEJAN

The Forum Group

Indeed the group comprising the Forum consolidated the core members
of the Criterion Association. However, moving from one to the other was
neither a smooth nor an easy path. And although Forum was the preced-
ing association to Criterion, the two are not interchangeable. Founded by
Jianu, the nuclear members of the Forum Group were also Eliade,
Vulcănescu, Polihroniade, Sebastian, Noica and Comarnescu.36 In his
newspaper article lauding the Forum Group, Polihroniade described the
road the Young Generation had taken from their 1927 ideals to the 1932
era. He argued that four years before, there was a homogenization of ide-
ology and opinion, the acceptance of the same value system, but now their
opinions vastly differed. This was why the group chose ‘Forum’ as a name,
to give each member the opportunity to freely express his point of view
about a subject, without being restricted by the others. Polihroniade
writes, ‘The importance of this group is that it constitutes a united front
of young men with different ideologies, which is a phenomenon manifest-
ing for the first time in Romania.’ The second meaning of the Forum
group was that through this series of public conferences, they succeeded
in ‘training the youth of the university, which until then lay low in a dream-­
state.’37 While the group only had 20 members (from among the most
unrecognized and unacknowledged of the Young Generation), ‘owing to
friendship’ its ‘intention [was] to slowly group around this nucleus all the
valuable elements of our intellectual youth.’38
The cycle of conferences of the Forum Group took place on Tuesdays
at 9 pm and Thursdays at 6 pm (although not every week) from January
14 to March 3, 1932, at the Royal Foundation with the title ‘The
Explanation of Our Times.’ Entrance cost 20 and 10 lei, depending on the
seating. Sebastian’s article in Cuvântul marking the cycle’s end captures
the nature of the ambitious series: ‘Yesterday afternoon at the Royal
Foundation, a cycle of eleven conferences closed which were only a little
presumptious but with many good intentions.’39 A brief investigation into

36
 Ricketts, Mircea Eliade: The Romanian Roots, Vol. 1, 554, and BAR Ach. 17/2001
APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 3.
37
 Mihail Polihroniade, ‘Forum,’ Calendarul, February 22, 1932, in BAR Ach. 17/2001
APPC. XXXI imprimate 1, f. 109.
38
 Ibid.
39
 Mihail Sebastian, ‘Forum,’ Cuvântul, March 5, 1932. Also in BAR Ach. 17/2001
APPC. XXXI imprimate 1, f. 110.
 3  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION OF ARTS, LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY…  71

the themes explored by the Forum series, the personalities involved and
the group’s ultimate disintegration, will serve as an excellent platform
from which to launch into a fuller investigation of Criterion. I choose to
devote a lot of attention to Comarnescu’s interpretation of events, as he
was the father of Criterion: by concentrating on his point of view, we dis-
cover that the link between the Forum and Criterion was not so obvious,
automatic and clear as has always previously been assumed.
Comarnescu presented the first lecture entitled ‘The Centre of World
Interest,’ on 14 January. Leading up to the lecture, he worked hard on his
presentation, the posters and invitations for the Forum Group.40 He had
presented his views on the topic before and received mixed (but overall
positive) feedback from a large number of his friends and intellectual
acquaintances in Capşa. Comarnescu notes,

Therefore, in general everyone was favorable, but for different motives. The
persuasion of the relativity of human opinions wins again. I feel, however,
special, a stranger among the ‘experientialists.’ My idealism seems innocent
in Romania. No one believes in Geneva as the future center of world
interest.41

Comarnescu, with his belief in the League of Nations, his American opti-
mism and ‘Moldavian sentimentalism,’42 certainly appeared foolish and
unrealistic to his friends who were on the brink of gravitating toward more
extreme politics, and a more nationalist and revolutionary approach.
There were a variety of criticisms of the talk, no two audience-members
agreed with each other.43 It seemed a solid beginning for the Forum series.
The January 19 lecture given by the engineer Sergiu Condrea on ‘The
Car,’ Comarnescu described as ‘dead and banal, but scientifically
accurate.’44 The issue of the automobile was a pressing one in the interwar
period, and not just in the United States, where the Ford assembly line

40
 PCJ, 16–19.
41
 Ibid., 17.
42
 On the evening of January 20, 1932, at Ionel Jianu’s house, Comarnescu, Jianu, Eliade
and others were involved in a wild discussion surrounding the conflicts from the ‘Forum.’
Comarnescu writes, ‘Eliade attacked me for my Moldavian sentimentalism. I believe I
responded, Fine. I asked to continue our friendship as formality, that it wasn’t sentimental-
ism, but rather closer to skepticism for a man as idealistic as I am.’ PCJ, 22.
43
 Ibid., 20–21.
44
 Ibid., 22.
72  C. A. BEJAN

mass-produced the predecessor to the commercial car. At that point the

streets of Bucharest were full of a mixed assortment of people (city folk
promenading, peasants selling their fruits and flowers, newspaper stands
filled to the brim with press), trams and trolley-cars, the very occasional
black automobile and of course, horse-drawn carriages. Comarnescu
observed this ‘wave’ of the future himself during his time in the United
States, was very interested in this topic, and wrote an article for Azi news-
paper entitled ‘An essay about automobilism.’45
The next Forum lecture took place on Thursday, January 21, with Ion
Cantacuzino speaking on ‘Sport,’ which Comarnescu reported as the
‘ideas were easy, but directly explained.’46 The concept of ‘sport’ was also
a hot topic of the time, Comarnescu devoted a chapter to the American
‘sportsman’ in Homo Americanus. Sport was a new, modern aspect of life
that many in the Young Generation attempted to integrate into their own
lives. The days he succeeded in doing calisthenic exercise Comarnescu
recorded in his journal. In his pre-America Bucharest life, he noted in his
diary when he did some boxing.47 Popular sports included volleyball,
which the group of friends frequently played at Floria and Mac’s house.
On January 26, Haig Acterian presented on ‘The Theater Performance,’
which Comarnescu considered mediocre. The conference itself earned
2020 lei.48 He notes that the newspaper Rampa deemed it scandalous.
But Comarnescu considered the images and the expressions unsuccess-
ful.49 Şerban Cioculescu spoke about ‘The Essay and Literature,’ on
January 28, during lunchtime, earning 1600 lei. Comarnescu noted,
‘With the exception of [my conference], the evening conferences earned
more money than those that took place during the daytime.’50 According
to Comarnescu, Cioculescu was very spiritual but not very systematic, nor
precise, nor scientific. He presented some essential ideas in the ‘French
spirit.’ Cioculescu flattered Comarnescu in his talk, by citing him as ‘the
one who rehabilitated American generosity and Soviet rigor.’51
Aurel (Relu) D. Broşteanu’s February 2 presentation entitled ‘Towards
a New Humanism in Art’ Comarnescu deemed too academic and ­moralistic,

45
 Ibid., 33.
46
 Ibid., 22.
47
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. Ms. 5a, f. 20.
48
 PCJ, 25.
49
 Ibid., 24.
50
 Ibid., 25.
51
 Ibid., 24.
 3  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION OF ARTS, LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY…  73

but rich in information and value.52 Then on February 4, Sebastian gave a

talk entitled ‘Between the Individual and the Collective,’ arguing that
essentially the two notions were incompatible. According to Comarnescu,
Sebastian was a skilled speaker but was superficial in form and the content
was weak. He presented as if he were imitating Nae Ionescu’s style.53
On February 9, Mircea Grigorescu gave a Forum lecture on ‘The
Community and the Press,’ which Comarnescu described as detestable
and full of things commonly said.54 The relationship between the com-
munity and the press was salient and contested at the time. Many editors
of publications assumed personal responsibility for the salvation of their
readership. Comarnescu gave a more positive report of the lecture given
by Jianu, ‘The Crisis of the Soul,’ on February 11. Comarnescu noted that
Jianu’s talk was ‘full of prestige and stateliness, interesting for the public
but for [Comarnescu] superficial and already known.’55
Of all the Forum presenters to that date, Comarnescu was much more
complimentary of Vulcănescu, whom he described as ‘a force of culture.’
Envying this force, it impressed upon Comarnescu the idea of ‘heroism.’56
Vulcănescu’s February 18 lecture was entitled ‘Towards a New Economic
Medievalism.’ The penultimate lecture in the Forum series provoked
Comarnescu to the exact opposite extreme. On Thursday, February 25,
Polihroniade spoke on the topic ‘Between Communism and Reaction.’
Polihroniade gave a conference that ‘revolted [Comarnescu] at first; dis-
heartened [him] after.’57 Comarnescu wrote, ‘I regret that I was agitated
during the conference, speaking with my neighbors. I am not a good
friend, but his ideas revolt me.’58
Later at the Gambrinus ale-house Comarnescu gave a heated criticism
of Polihroniade’s lecture. He received biting criticism from both Eliade
and Polihroniade, both hurtful, causing him to suffer and reconsider his
activity with the Forum group. At one point Eliade said, ‘See, when
Comarnescu speaks seriously, nobody realizes it.’59 Polihroniade ­interpreted

52
 Ibid., 28.
53
 Ibid., 29.
54
 Ibid., 31. Mircea Grigorescu and Comarnescu were high school classmates.
55
 PCJ, 31.
56
 Ibid., 34.
57
 Ibid., 35.
58
 Ibid., 36.
59
 Ibid.
74  C. A. BEJAN

this as a blow to Comarnescu. This incident was indicative of a larger one:

Comarnescu didn’t know what to believe regarding Eliade’s attitudes
toward him and was uncomfortable with Polihroniade’s constant animos-
ity. The next day at the Tribunal, Polihroniade attacked Comarnescu for
not being a good friend.60
There was another conflict leading up to the final conference in the
Forum series. This involved the new literary publication Azi, which was
just gearing up for its first edition. Its collaborators included Comarnescu,
Zaharia Stancu, Eliade and Sebastian, among others. Comarnescu hoped
for the first issue to be done in early March 1932 and put in a request for
it to be announced at the Thursday March 3 Forum conference given by
Eliade.61 Both Polihroniade (‘out of lack of generosity and the spirit of a
clique’) and Haig Acterian opposed this request, but Eliade did not in
principle oppose the idea of announcing future public events.62
Eliade gave the final lecture in the Forum series entitled ‘Between the
Orient and Occident.’ This conference earned the most out of the entire
Forum cycle, making 2620 lei. The review of Eliade’s lecture in Calendarul
summed up his approach: ‘Europeans have the liberty of personal instinct,
for the Asiatic, the instincts are suppressed, in a natural mode, through the
intermediary of a transcendental collective.’63 Ricketts brings to our atten-
tion that Eliade began developing these ideas four years earlier, for a proj-
ect entitled ‘Modern European Superstitions’ that was never published.64
Comarnescu considered it to be full of consistent ideas, very scientific, in
fact the most scientific of, and the largest contribution to the Forum, how-
ever it was not the fullest or the clearest.65
Comarnescu was not allowed to announce Azi after all. After Eliade’s
conference Comarnescu tried to talk with both Eliade and Sebastian about
the Forum’s failure to announce the first publication of the paper Azi.
Sebastian was rushing to get ready for a trip home to Brăila, and Eliade
was busy. Comarnescu promptly left with the other intellectuals involved
in Azi and discussed Polihroniade’s and the others’ initial refusal and why

60
 Ibid.
61
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XVIII Varia 16, ff. 18–19. Title of the note: ‘Activities that
I wanted to announce at the last meeting of Forum but I was rejected.’
62
 PCJ, 37.
63
 ‘Conferinţa: Între Orient şi Occident,’ Calendarul, March 6, 1932. Cited in Ricketts,
Mircea Eliade: The Romanian Roots, Vol. 1, 554.
64
 Ibid.
65
 PCJ, 38.
 3  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION OF ARTS, LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY…  75

they still hesitated to make such announcements.66 Following that discus-

sion, Comarnescu went to talk with Sandu Tudor regarding the publica-
tion Floarea de Foc. This demonstrates Comarnescu’s early close association
professionally and socially with both Zaharia Stancu (editor of Azi) and
Sandu Tudor, the two men who would attempt to ruin him later with the
Credinţa scandal.
The intricacies of these friendships are crucial when exploring the
nuances of the cultural developments of interwar Romanian intellectual
life. The collapse of Forum and then Criterion are two clear examples.
Now I turn to Jianu’s role in this friendship group. Jianu and his wife
Magda often socialized with Comarnescu, Eliade, Polihroniade and so on,
independent of the Forum’s activities. A telling entry can be found in
Comarnescu’s journal from February 21, 1932, in which, discussing with
Letta Stark and Vera Anderson, he reveals the fact that they (along with
Polihroniade and Eliade and others) neglect Jianu, that ‘little by little
Mişu is excluding Jianu from us.’67 Comarnescu judges Eliade to be ‘a
“whore” in friendship, in the sense that he comports himself with indiffer-
ence, preferring who will prefer him, that Eliade doesn’t know how to be
a good friend because he is too ego-centric.’68 Comarnescu promises Letta
and Vera he will encourage Jianu.69
The Forum’s activities were meant to continue. On April 9, 1932,
Comarnescu met with Jianu to discuss coordinating the group’s efforts
into a corresponding publication.70 The Forum Group announced a new
series of 12 conferences to take place in the fall (starting in October) of
1932 under the heading ‘Trends’ with a complete list of topics and speak-
ers in the middle of June. The conferences were concerned with orienta-
tions in politics, the economy, the novel, cinema, theater, painting, visual
arts, science, philosophy and religion. Eliade was meant to speak on James
Joyce. This series never took place and the last announcement appeared on
September 10, with a slightly amended program. The disappearance of
Forum coincided with the appearance of Criterion. Though separate enti-
ties, Criterion hijacked, borrowed or took many ideas from Forum’s plans

66
 Ibid.
67
 Ibid., 34.
68
 Ibid., 34.
69
 This episode illustrates the fickleness of friendship then. Jianu was the last to walk Eliade
to the train station on his way to India in 1928, but by 1932 was marginalized by Eliade and
Polihroniade.
70
 Ibid., 45.
76  C. A. BEJAN

for the future. The initial Forum series topic for fall 1932 was ‘Personalities
of our time,’ a subject Criterion adopted for their ‘Idols’ series. Then the
revised Forum fall program, the ‘Trends’ series, was a theme used for
Criterion’s 1933 cycle of symposia.71
While the initial plans for Criterion were underway, the end of Forum
was caused by a fight between friends. Jianu and Paul Sterian were fighting
over the summer, due to some negative reviews of an exhibition of the
artwork by Margareta Sterian, Paul’s wife.72 Paul Sterian retaliated by curs-
ing at Jianu in a busy street, and this provoked Jianu to challenge Sterian
to a duel.73 Sterian refused and pursued a passionate polemic in the press
regarding the legitimacy of this duel. Jianu’s wife became ill and was hos-
pitalized in September and Jianu spent most of that month by her side. He
returned to public life, at the end of the month, only to discover that the
Forum had dissolved and Criterion had seemingly replaced it. He accused
Sterian of being the instigator. As a direct result, Jianu cut immediate ties
with those friends and did not speak to Eliade or the others until the next
year. Jianu’s name does not appear as either a participant in the symposia
or the group program of Criterion for 1932.74
But it cannot be the case that Jianu was altogether unaware of Criterion’s
nascent existence in the summer of 1932. The same day Comarnescu
wrote of a Criterion meeting, he met up with Jianu, who was ‘fighting
with the crazy and funny Paul Sterian,’ and who was also angry with
Comarnescu.75 Shortly thereafter Comarnescu tried to see Jianu again,
who was still angry with him, ‘although unfairly,’ and concluded that he
won’t enter Jianu’s house until he asks Comarnescu’s forgiveness.76 Why
Jianu was also upset with Comarnescu, he does not reveal. However, we
can hypothesize that Jianu was upset with Criterion’s early activity that he
might have viewed as a threat. But nonetheless this entry illustrates that
Jianu cannot claim to be completely removed from public life so as to have

71
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 13.
72
 The marriage between Paul and Margareta Sterian actually dissolved, due to a mutual
desire to paint. Paul enjoyed painting but gave it up because in the words of Margareta ‘We
copied each other unintentially.’ After he quit, Paul rented a room and painted in secret. Her
discovery of this led to the breakup of their marriage. See MEAI, 226.
73
 Duels were common among the literary and political elite of turn-of-the-century and
interwar Romania. Challenges to a duel were central to the Credinţa scandal. See Chap. 6.
74
 Ricketts, Mircea Eliade: The Romanian Roots, Vol. 1, 555.
75
 PCJ, 49.
76
 Ibid., 50.
 3  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION OF ARTS, LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY…  77

been unaware of Criterion’s birth and beginnings. Criterion (initial mem-

bers included Comarnescu, Floria Capsali, Eliade, Vulcănescu, Cioran,
Noica, Tell, Ion Cantacuzino and Stahl, among others)77 was careful to
not replace Forum, and at a meeting on June 17, 1932, membership of
the two associations was not considered mutually exclusive.78 Comarnescu
had every intention to invite Jianu to join the Philosophy Section.79 Jianu
later confessed that he refused to join the Association until they also
accepted Sadova and Nina Rareş as members.80
This melodramatic shift from the Forum Group to Criterion is curious,
when we consider Jianu’s reminiscences 60  years later, when he speaks
glowingly and nostalgically of the association, and does identify as a mem-
ber of Criterion.81 Jianu was much more positive after these friendships
were repaired and Criterion had gained a renowned reputation.

The Birth of the Criterion Association

As seen, the idea for Criterion was being generated in the winter of 1932
amidst a flurry of activity with the Forum Group, other conferences and
the atmosphere of friendship and camaraderie, discussing ideas and social-
izing at cafés, bars, restaurants and each other’s homes and collaborating
on various journalistic endeavors. Among Comarnescu’s personal papers,
I found a handwritten note that appears to be the nascent Criterion concept:

To do a rival [series] (Cercul Analelor Române, the scope (objective) of the

symposium, a journal); to be syndicated so we will not be exploited, reading
club meetings (socials) with readings by young poets.82

This note aligns with Comarnescu’s account of the beginning of

Criterion in his journal. Writing on ‘another day in April 1932’ Comarnescu
records how his friends would like to form a syndicated association, a trade
union, for intellectuals:

 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 29.

77

 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC.  XVIII Varia 16, ff. 11–13. The minutes of the planning
78

meeting for June 17, 1932.

79
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XVIII Varia 16, f. 25.
80
 Ionel Jianu, Ionel Jianu şi Opera lui, 151.
81
 Jianu, ‘In Exclusivitate: Amintiri despre Criterion,’ 1.
82
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20 f. 2. No date, a list of conferences given by
Comarnescu since his return from America, probably from the end of 1932.
78  C. A. BEJAN

Colleagues and friends would like to set up an intellectual trade union. We

are still losing much time with discussions about different organizations of
this kind. Many discussions, and [they are] sterile: Vulcănescu, Sterian, Dan
Botta, Mac Constantinescu, Margareta Sterian, Floria Capsali. Vulcănescu,
absurd, Sterian subjective and arbitrary. We discussed for two hours what title
to give the union—what will be even sooner an association of philosophy, art,
literature—Daphne, The Argonauts, Criterion, etc. I see how to establish a
spirit of an exclusive clique. At these occasions, I am the most democratic, (in
the sense that I would like to be in collaboration with all the forces coming
from the younger generations). I want a large selection, freedom, generosity
and solidarity.83

Comarnescu provides a much more specific interpretation of events than

Eliade does in his memoirs. Eliade’s romanticized version relies much
more on the social atmosphere of the time but still credits Comarnescu
with Criterion’s birth:

But although we all showed enthusiasm for it, the project might not have
been carried out for several months—perhaps not even till fall—had not
Petru Comarnescu taken it upon himself to rent the auditorium at the King
Carol I Foundation, and to concern himself with the compilation of the
programs and the printing and distribution of advertisements. He asked us
each for 1000 lei in order to pay the deposit on the auditorium … Without
realizing it, the Criterion group had come into being … And certainly no
one could have imagined the tremendous response our undertaking was to
receive. We hoped to attract an audience large enough to cover our expenses.
We never suspected that we would be forced to repeat certain symposia as
many as two or three times!84

For a taste of the Criterion moment, consider the delightfully elegant

note dated simply ‘Sunday at lunchtime’ from Vulcănescu addressed to
‘Mr. Titel Comarnescu, Philosopher, Animator, Lawyer, and the most
often Secretary General’:

Dear Titel Comarnescu,

We are at Floria’s, where a part of “Criterion” has been playing volleyball
since this morning. If you want, you should also come; if not, then be good
and go next door to Mama and call the number 3-36/06 on the telephone,

83
 PCJ, 46–47. This entry is from a day between April 9 and April 22, 1932.
84
 MEAI, 228–229.
 3  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION OF ARTS, LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY…  79

the house of the sculptor Mac Constantinescu, and tell me you are coming.
It’s not far. With love. Eliade is here as well.
Mircea Vulcănescu85

In previous discussions of Criterion, little to no attention has been

given to the operation of the association. The Criterion Association was a
sophisticated system both in terms of logistical and financial organization.
Comarnescu’s personal archive is full of receipts from paying to advertise
lectures in newspapers, to renting the space in which they held the series,
to hiring transport (a receipt paying for Rădulescu-Motru’s car ride to and
from Ploieşti) and renting equipment for the events. Comarnescu kept a
detailed log of all such accounts, as well as track of who had paid their
membership fees. The elaborate organization of Criterion is important to
acknowledge as it indicates that the cultural group was most certainly not
haphazardly thrown together but rather was carefully planned out, down
to the very last detail. Even membership was very deliberate as Comarnescu
wrote numerous lists of names, crossed some names off and added new
ones. This meticulous treatment of its operation is an important factor to
remember when we consider just how suddenly and spontaneously the
association was ordered to cease activity and how immersed in scandal
some of its members became. It did not collapse for any fault on the side
of production, which was very much intact, robust and extremely account-
able. In addition to organizational concerns Comarnescu carefully kept
newspaper clippings concerning Criterion (advertisements, reviews, etc.).
Leading up to the first official meeting of Criterion on July 1, 1932,
there were informal meetings. Such a meeting took place on April 21,
1932, among the initiators of Criterion in which they determined the
scope of the association. There was a discussion of the organization’s
structure, functions, the financial side, a membership list and the appoint-
ment of Comarnescu as Secretary General and Floria Capsali as
Administrator General.86 The next time Comarnescu mentions Criterion
in his journal is the next month in the entry for May 25, 1932: ‘Thursday
evening at Criterion, our new association of arts, literature and

85
 AMNLR, Petru Comarnescu, Correspondence, Letter from Mircea Vulcănescu,
25.182/1–2.
86
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XVIII Varia 16, ff. 47–49.
80  C. A. BEJAN

philosophy.’87 The next reference to Criterion in Comarnescu’s diary is:

‘Tuesday, 31 May, I prepared a seminar of the philosophy section of
Criterion, at which Vulcănescu, Al. Vianu, Codin Mironescu, C.  Floru,
Mircea Grigorescu, R. Hillard and others will participate.’88
Membership dues were 50 lei per month.89 Criterion was divided up
into different branches of membership, representing the different special-
izations of its members. As of July 10, 1932, these included: Visual Arts
[Plastică], Theater, Literature, Music, Criticism, Philosophy, Social
Science [Socială] and Economics.90 People were invited to accept mem-
bership in the specific sections. Each had a certain degree of autonomy
and its own secretary. For example, Vulcănescu was the secretary for the
Philosophy section and Tell the secretary for the Social Science section.91
Criterion was a collective with each member contributing his/her exper-
tise. Initial membership for some sections was as follows, but each section
grew over time, as more candidates were evaluated and invited.92 In the
Criticism section, Ion Cantacuzino, Şerban Cioculescu, I.M. Sadoveanu
and G. Călinescu were among the members. Members of the Philosophy
section included Comarnescu, Mircea Vulcănescu, Mrs. Vulcănescu,
Eliade, Blaga, Cioran, Noica, Traian Herseni, Alice Voinescu,
M.  Avramescu and Golopenţia. For the Social Science section, Tell,
R. Hillard, Alexandru Vianu, M. Polihroniade, M. Ralea and H.H. Stahl,
were among the members.93 Candidates for the more artistic sections,
who were eventually accepted included Haig Acterian, Sadova, Emil
Botta and Ion Victor Voijen for Theater,94 Letta Stark and Vera Andersen
for Architecture,95 for Literature Cicerone Theodorescu was invited, for
Sculpture, Nina Arboro and Olga Greceanu were invited to join,96 and

87
 PCJ, 49.
88
 Ibid., 50.
89
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 23.
90
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XVIII Varia 16 ff. 35–36.
91
 Ibid., XV Varia 20 f. 29.
92
 In an attempt to streamline the discussion, in the lists of members, I include only the
names relevant to the discussion and analysis. There were many more members, of lesser
cultural note and historical longevity. To include their names here would be excessive and
confusing.
93
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20 f. 29.
94
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XVIII Varia 16, no number, ½ sheet between f. 23 and f. 24.
95
 Ibid., f. 24.
96
 Ibid., f. 27 and f. 28.
 3  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION OF ARTS, LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY…  81

for Criticism Ionesco, Şuluţiu, Felix Aderca, Arşavir Acterian and

Alexandru Sahia were invited for membership.97
When Arşavir Acterian was invited to join, he was shocked and unsure
as to why he was chosen, doubting his own intellectual abilities. On
November 25, 1932, Arşavir wrote,

It has happened that I have been selected for Criterion. I wonder why?
Kindness? I am, of course, flattered. I try to imagine what happened at
Criterion, during my selection. What was thought about me, who hadn’t
heard of my name, my existence.98

For Acterian, as it was for many, membership in Criterion was perceived to

be a compliment and an invitation to effect social change. However, being
selected as a member of the Criterion Association was not necessarily per-
ceived to be an honor. There were frustrations, even early on, and the
resignations of Mrs. Mille, G. Gussi and Dina Cocea are good examples.
They actually left for professional reasons, perceiving Criterion to not be
as serious as they had initially assumed. They gave their resignation to
Comarnescu citing their reason as ‘Maxy, Sterian and H.  Daniel [were]
impossible [in meetings], they [would come] there and only make trivial
objections and jokes.’99
Membership was carefully considered and in addition to excellence, a
prevailing concern for the association was preserving diversity of opinion
and approach. This aim is precisely expressed in a note about the require-
ments for membership to the Philosophy section,

The scope of this association being aesthetic and philosophical manifesta-

tions, I find that trends of regionalism formed by some members of the
Association can only be a disadvantage to the universal and essentialist spirit
which of course subsists in the natural manifestations towards which we
endeavor. Without forgetting that we are Romanian, I believe that
Romaniazation is not the objective of this association, but rather aesthetic
spiritualization, to put it on a scientific foundation and make it more noble.
And in this sense we come back upon admitted things, like for instance the
heterogeneity of the beliefs of our members.100

97
 Ibid., 16 f. 26.
98
 Arşavir Acterian, Jurnal 1929–1945/1958–1990, 119.
99
 PCJ, 52.
100
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XVIII Varia 16, ff. 45–46.
82  C. A. BEJAN

So the care to represent all points of view on a universal, all-encompassing

platform was ensured by Criterion’s conception and diverse membership,
a variety that played out in the structure of their events. In this sense they
were echoing the philosophy behind the Forum Group, as articulated by
Polihroniade, by ensuring a united front of different perspectives, experi-
ences and approaches.101
It is also helpful to consider the early ideas explored in Criterion meet-
ings, to appreciate the wide-ranging program of the association’s ambi-
tion. On notes, Comarnescu jotted down some ideas of possible conference
topics. This is a brief list of themes that are relevant to both Criterion’s
eventual activity and also the modernist current of the times throughout
Europe and traditionalism in Romania: Nudism, ‘Gandhian,’ the
Romanian specific, women in the modern world, Homosexuality, Modern
Art, the Problem of Europe, Absolutism versus Relativism and Youth.102 A
revealing notation can be found on another of Comarnescu’s notes. In
another list of ideas and important themes (this time, including ‘new
points of view about the natural physical world’ [the Eddington Years]),
he includes Pansexualism in the modern world (he crosses this out as an
idea after writing it), Psychoanalysis, Neoclassicism as a lifestyle and in art,
the moralization of politics, idealism in politics, pacifism, Leninism,
Trotskyism, Stalinism, Neo-Thomism, economics diverging from the
national plan, nonviolent coercion (M.  Eliade), Gide (M.  Sebastian),
Orthodoxism and finally ‘technically what makes things internationalized
[moving towards, resulting in] a formula of internationalism.’103
Comarnescu indicated that the diverse topics explored by Criterion should
themselves lead to such a formula of internationalism.
The working of the group was democratic and they chose the topics
and people involved in their events in these meetings, through open dis-
cussion and a voting system. The minutes of the plenary meeting of
Criterion from June 17 indicate that plans for the 1932 fall program were
being made and how extensive the association’s program was intended to
be. The plan was to have a series of ten conferences with illustrations, pro-
jections and artistic applications to be entitled ‘Presentations of Current
Romanian Culture.’ The second group of manifestations would be the
symposia (with ‘contradictory discussions’) about ‘Idols’ (‘personalities of

101
 Mihail Polihroniade, ‘Forum,’ Calendarul, February 22, 1932.
102
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 1.
103
 Ibid., f. 2.
 3  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION OF ARTS, LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY…  83

the times’), Romanian and foreign. At that point they also intended to
have events specific to the sections, as well as a regular series of public
discussions and also a cycle about professions. At this plenary session,
there was also discussion about membership activity. With respect to the
problem of those who were still members of Forum, they arrived at the
solution that these two artistic associations would work completely inde-
pendently and without any obligation for members of Criterion to modify
their activity. This meeting confirmed and assured the constitutive princi-
ples of Criterion’s freedom of action outside of existing associations.104
A week later there was another meeting where they discussed adminis-
trative matters and the association’s activities to date. The program of the
meeting went as follows. First, an administrative portion included the pre-
sentation of the minutes of the previous meeting, read by the Secretary
General. Second, he gave a report of the activity of the sections and coor-
dination efforts of their secretaries from the previous Thursday evening
meeting. There was also a discussion and vote (toward ratification) con-
cerning the decisions taken by the sections, questions and discussion about
the two cycles of manifestations, and the problem of the statute of the
association. The third portion was comprised of proposals, interpretations
and voting. Topics included the proposal of new members and for all old
and new members of Criterion to be invited to the future plenary meeting.105
Official meetings were held at Floria Capsali’s dance studio on Str.
Brezoianu, between Cişmigiu Park and the Royal Palace in central
Bucharest, less than a ten-minute walk away from the Royal Foundation.
This location would become their de facto office and headquarters and
served as the address on the Criterion letterhead. An invitation for mem-
bership (which is also a good description of the initial philosophy behind
the association) read as follows:

Dear Sir,
The association of arts, philosophy and literature ‘Criterion’ in their plan-
ning meeting on 1 July selected you as a member and asks you to commu-
nicate by writing to their office at Str. Brezoianu nr. 51 (the Floria Capsali
studio) if you understand and will participate in their activities, which will
begin in the autumn with a series of public and private manifestations, of

104
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC.  XVIII Varia 16, #11–13. Verbal process from planning
meeting on June 17, 1932.
105
 Ibid., #10. Order of the Day for meeting on June 24, 1932.
84  C. A. BEJAN

conferences, concerts, symposia, artistic shows, painting exhibitions, sculp-

ture, and design, editions of books and journals, etc.
For information about the scope and constitutive criteria of this associa-
tion which endeavors, to a certain extent, to organize events with young
intellectuals and Romanian artists but at the same time to put our public on
the path towards an authentic spirituality in every cultural domain,—you
may find the secretary general of this association, as well as its members,
who will be meeting Friday evenings at 9.30 at Floria Capsali’s studio.
Together with the secretary general you may organize events in which
you would like to participate.
Please accept our special consideration with assurance.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL
Petru Comarnescu (signature)106

To give an example of what was discussed in an early specific section

meeting, I will consider the case of the sections Visual Arts and Architecture.
An invitation for a meeting to take place on Saturday, July 16, at 9.30 pm
at Mr. Schonberg’s house on Blvd. Ferdinand #24 states that the follow-
ing topics would be discussed (1) what constituted the section of architec-
ture (2) how the sections will work, (3) choosing two conferences that will
be presented in the series ‘Current Romanian Culture’ that will be orga-
nized by the Association in the fall, (4) professional questions, exhibitions,
international exchange of exhibitions and so on.107 On July 19, Comarnescu
commented on how things with Criterion were going much better and
Maxy offered to present his art in the fall.108
After laying the groundwork for Criterion’s autumn activities,
Comarnescu left by train on July 23, 1932, for Geneva where he spent the
summer participating in the summer course for the International University
Groups for the League of Nations. The miracle of Criterion was about to
come into full fruition upon Comarnescu’s return to Bucharest.

106
 AMNLR, Petru Comarnescu, Correspondence, Invitation to Criterion meeting, 10/
III/447, 20, 790.
107
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XVIII Varia 16, ff. 31–32.
108
 PCJ, 53.
 CHAPTER 4

The Criterion Association’s Activity of 1932:

‘Idols’ Symposia, Politics, Culture

The name that was chosen for the organization itself, ‘Criterion,’ reveals
the cultural model’s principal purpose.1 In English ‘criterion’ refers to a
standard on which a judgment is made or a characterizing mark.2 However,
if we consider the French meaning of the equivalent, we arrive at a much
richer explanation. The French critère means ‘test’ or ‘criticism.’ The
Greek root is krinien, which means to form a critical judgment.3 This is
precisely what the Criterion Association intended to do in the Romanian
interwar cultural space: test out by objectively presenting and critically
analyzing an array of new ideas in politics, economics, music, art, culture,
philosophy, architecture, literature and more, from within and outside
Romania. The following is a list, a timeline of Criterion’s events. Some
dates were hard to verify, as cross-referencing from Comarnescu’s personal
archive, press, diary accounts and secondary sources, often yielded

1
 ‘Criterion’ itself is not a word in Romanian. The Romanian is criteriu. Clearly the associa-
tion chose the English version, with a cosmopolitan pretense, symbolically showing the asso-
ciation’s intention to reach beyond the Romanian language and traditionalist paradigm, in its
effort to engage in global ideas but also in its effort to launch this project of ‘major culture’
proportions.
2
 I have found no mention of a specific English influence for choosing the name, but the
Criterionists must have been aware of the literary review T.S.  Eliot edited, The Criterion
(1922–1939).
3
 Mihai Europenism şi dileme identitare în România interbelică: gruparea Criterion, 131.

© The Author(s) 2019 85

C. A. Bejan, Intellectuals and Fascism in Interwar Romania,
Modernity, Memory and Identity in South-East Europe,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20165-4_4
86  C. A. BEJAN

­ ifferent dates.4 This period was also the beginning of political conversion
d
of Criterionists to the right. When and how the conversion began is placed
in its proper context and time within the Criterion group and space.

Criterion’s Cultural Crusade

The Criterion Association had more than just a cultural function and intel-
lectual purpose. Through their alternative approach to educating the
Bucharest public (particularly students), the Criterionists harbored an
ambitious hope that their findings might ignite some meaningful social,
political, economic and cultural change. Though founded, organized and
operated by Romanian citizens, Criterion was not strictly a ‘Romanian’
manifestation. This cosmopolitanism present within the group (in addi-
tion to the international ideas they explored) provided one reason they
were suspected of advocating a political agenda subversive to the Romanian
state. In an early planning note, Comarnescu wrote that their target
groups were the members and attendees of the Forum conferences,
Salonul Independenţilor,5 Communists and ‘Young People.’ It is notable
that they wished to attract communists from the start. The Criterion cre-
ation of culture was geared toward the educated, the elite, but not limited
to it. Their appeal across socio-economic lines will be addressed shortly.
For the lack of clarity of their mission and apparent abandonment of
authentically Romanian values and cultural products, Nichifor Crainic
accused them of ‘confused cosmopolitanism.’6
Thematically the nascent Criterion Association was greatly influenced
by ideas discussed during the precedent Forum group. A brief presenta-
tion of some initial ideas for topics proposed during the Forum (during
these early brainstorming sessions) demonstrates the pressing nature of
some overarching questions plaguing the minds of the Criterionists.
Gleaning from some early notes in Comarnescu’s personal archive, the
principal concern for the members of Criterion was exploring the

4
 Many of the dates were taken from BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 12, which
is a very useful list of conferences Comarnescu participated in himself since returning from
America. Useful lists from secondary sources include Mihai Europenism şi dileme identitare
în România interbelică: gruparea Criterion, 81–86 and Mezdrea Nae Ionescu. Biografia
Vol. 3, 390. All further references to Mezdrea in this chapter are from this volume and page.
5
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20 ‘Comunic le Criterion.’ f. 27 #3. A meeting
club, most likely the Romanian equivalent of the Parisien ‘Salon des Indépendants.’
6
 Nichifor Crainic, ‘Fort ̦a trecutului,’ Calendarul, November 2, 1932.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  87

i­ntellectual and cultural currents of the day: the most pressing and influ-
ential topics and figures from within and outside Romania. They were all
preoccupied with the general themes: modernity, the modern man, revo-
lution, new approaches to life, modernization, democracy and alternate
modes of government, the individual versus the community, spirituality,
ethics and morality. We can learn a lot from their early plans and inten-
tions, glean what they intended to accomplish, what their intellectual con-
cerns were and determine their direction of inquiry.
Preliminary plans for Forum’s next series included figures that did not
make the final cut of Criterion’s 1932 Idols cycle. Their consideration is
important, as it further illustrates the diversity of personalities considered,
as well as the nature of the topics being explored. A proposed list of
‘Personalities of our time’ included Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Woodrow
Wilson, Gordon Craig, Maritain, Briand, Cocteau, Bernard Shaw, Joyce,
Fritz von Unruh, Alfred Döblin, Thomas Mann, Rainer Maria Rilke and
Max Scheler. This cycle of personalities of the time was meant to take place
within a program entitled ‘The Idealism of Our Time.’ An alternate list
has the program including Bertrand Russell, Henry Ford and Rabindranath
Tagore. On another list, the Chinese revolutionary Sun Yat-sen’s name
appears.7 Titulescu, Pirandello and Lindbergh,8 as well as Nicolae Iorga
and Tudor Arghezi, were also considered to be prominent personalities
of the day.9
In another provisional plan for the Forum series ‘Ideas of our Time,’
proposed lecture topics were ‘A Global Government’; ‘Neoclassicism in
Art’; ‘a New Ethic’; ‘a New Religious Way’; ‘Humanitarianism’; ‘The
Democratic Idea (Aristocracy of the Masses)’; ‘Non-violent Coercion’;
‘Birth-Control’ and ‘The Anonymous and the Collective (the Idea of the
Unrecognized Hero).’ This plan illustrates that the Young Generation was
not just concerned with the extreme alternatives (e.g. communism, fas-
cism) but also with critically analyzing democracy itself. The non-violent
coercion was inspired by the movement for Indian emancipation and inde-
pendence and demonstrates a search for an alternative way of political
change (as opposed to violence, that they in Europe in the aftermath of
the Great War were all too familiar with).  The topic of ‘Birth-Control’

7
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20. f. 5–7.
8
 Ibid., f. 26.
9
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XVIII Varia 16 ff. 10–13 ‘Proces Verbal al şedint ̦ei plenare
din 17 iunie 1932 Asociati̦ ei Criterion.’
88  C. A. BEJAN

demonstrates the advances of science, an increasingly more liberal approach

to sex, and the emancipation of women. Such scientific advancements also
paved the way for eugenic experiments and the possibility of scientifically
controlling the future of the human race.
In a note on the back of an invitation from the ‘Friends of the United
States Society’ for a conference given by I.G. Duca on Friday, January 29,
1932, about ‘The Debut of the Youth in America and Europe,’ Comarnescu
wrote: ‘To live before the great revolution means a social function, The
Institution and the Individual.’10 Four concepts were up for investigation:
(1) The true individual; (2) Family; (3) Morality and (4) the Scientific
Process.11 In a subsequent note in which he describes Nae Ionescu as ‘an
affected fake,’ Comarnescu wrote the following ideas: ‘The car destroys
the idea of property,’ ‘The War dissolved the family’ and ‘The American
city does not encourage the individual to live.’12 Relating to revolution
and the varying approaches to the individual and collective utilized by dif-
ferent countries, Comarnescu outlined the difference between Russia and
France. Under the heading ‘The Individual has died,’ he suggests that the
Russian revolution was collectivist, while the French individualist. Within
the Russian revolution, Trotsky advocated for  the individual and Stalin
represented the triumph of the collective. As for France, ‘Freeing it from
History, France makes politics of the individual.’13
The preoccupation with the liberty of the individual being sacrificed at
the hands of the interventionist state is captured in Octav Şuluţiu’s diary,
the month before Criterion’s public activity began,

The state is an abstract monster, one that no one can fight against. So tied
up is this network of laws and regulations, that you get the conviction that
it is made in order to impede the liberty of the individual, to deliver him
handcuffed to the hands of the state.14

Revolution was a major preoccupation for the Criterionists and there was
the sense that it was on the horizon in Romania. Eliade described the era
as ‘pre-revolutionary’15 and Polihroniade referred to the wave of ­nationalist

10
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 5.
11
 Ibid.
12
 Ibid., f. 6.
13
 Ibid., f. 7.
14
 Şuluţiu, Jurnal, 238. September 21, 1932.
15
 Mircea Eliade, ‘Epoca pre-revolut ̦ionară,’ Cuvântul, October 4, 1933.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  89

movements as if the Young Generation was ‘living before the big

revolution.’16 They were reacting to and observing what arose in the wake
of WWI, which according to Comarnescu dissolved individualism.17 He
noted that heroism had also perished due to modernity.18
From the beginning of its activity, Criterion had a monumental sig-
nificance for its members and the educated public of Bucharest. In a
promotional feuilleton written for Cuvântul, Eliade articulated why the
association was such an achievement for the Young Generation. The sig-
nificance lay in their act of coordinating their efforts, of collaborating and
sharing their expertise for the development and genesis of Romanian cul-
ture. Previously the members of the Young Generation had been preoc-
cupied with independent contributions. According to Eliade, ‘The great
temptation of every young person is to want to create something.’ No
matter how brilliant and important, the results of such independent and
uncoordinated efforts were ‘sporadic, isolated and discontinuous.’19 This
union and working together within and through the Criterion Association
proves the desire of the Young Generation to ‘pool their efforts’ in
the ‘creation of a culture.’20 Eliade considers this fact alone an impor-
tant achievement, regardless of what sort of public response Criterion
might receive.
Criterion did receive dynamic reactions and successfully reached out to
and attracted audiences from all levels of society, though it was initially
geared toward a university audience. The public response to Criterion was
much greater than anyone could have anticipated and some symposia had
to be repeated multiple times. A Facla reviewer praised what the cultural
society had initiated: the fact that important contemporary issues had
been raised and were being discussed in symposia and also that all sectors
of society were represented in the audiences. This mix of social classes
meant that ‘simple workers’ were sitting alongside university professors.21
The reviewer wrote, ‘What dozens of cultural societies and government
institutes have not done, after devouring millions of lei in subventions, has

16
 Mihail Polihroniade, ‘Generaţia tânără şi ritmul mondial,’ Azi, 1, 1933. Cited in Florin
Ţ urcanu, Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier de l’histoire, 186.
17
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 9, reverse.
18
 Ibid., f. 8.
19
 Mircea Eliade, ‘Tinerii la lucru,’ Cuvântul, October 14, 1932. Quoted in Ricketts,
Mircea Eliade: The Romanian Roots, Vol. 1, 555.
20
 Ricketts. Mircea Eliade: The Romanian Roots, Vol. 1, 555.
21
 Ibid., 559.
90  C. A. BEJAN

been accomplished by a group not especially predisposed to philosophical

speculation and academic discussion.’22
This positive response to Criterion exhibited itself in the fact that the
words ‘Criterion’ and ‘symposium’ themselves took on popular curren-
cy.23 Criterion member Dan Botta was particularly concerned with the
effect the symposia had on the public and the association’s responsibility
toward its audience. He was most vocal not during the symposia, but after
when the Criterionists would retire to Café Corso and continue the debate
begun at the Royal Foundation until late. According to Eliade,

For him [Botta], this meant above all the duty to lift the public, not up to
our level, but beyond, to our ideals. Dan believed that Criterion could
effect, in the minds of the more intelligent members of the audience, an
operation of Platonic anamnesis. In attending our symposia, where many
points of view were presented and debated, the public actually was witness-
ing a new type of Socratic dialogue. The goal we were pursuing was not only
to inform people; above all, we were seeking to ‘awaken’ the audience, to
confront them with ideas, and ultimately to modify their mode of being in
the world.24

What Eliade referred to as the ‘Criterion spirit’ of dialogue transpired in

both the symposia and social sphere. The debates begun at the Royal
Foundation continued on to the second floor corner of Corso till long
after midnight.25
Criterion was deliberately structured to be a home for dynamic demo-
cratic timely debate. The format for a Criterion symposium comprised 5–6
discussants (members of the Criterion Association) representing both
sides of the debate, presided over and moderated by a more senior author-
ity figure, ‘a distinguished personality.’ Comarnescu explained the deci-
sion to invite an older, established speaker as follows: ‘So that it is not said
that we, the youth, wish to break with the Old Generation, we have taken
the effort to have every symposium presided over by a personality of the
Old Generation.’26 These included Rădulescu-Motru, Simion Mehedint ̦i,

22
 Sandu Eliad, ‘O experienţă,’ Facla, October 30, 1932. Quoted in Ricketts, Mircea
Eliade: The Romanian Roots, Vol. 1, 559.
23
 PCJ, 79.
24
 MEAI, 237.
25
 Ibid., 236.
26
 PCJ, 73.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  91

Gusti, Tudor Vianu, Mihai Ralea and Ion Petrovici.27 The audience had
the chance to ask questions of the speakers following the presentations
and debate. Eliade articulated the Criterion approach was to be ‘objec-
tive’: audiatur et  altera pars.28 Arşavir Acterian described the Criterion
approach as employing the two Latin formulas: concordia discors and dis-
cordia concors. The Criterionists oscillated ‘between contradictory visions,
with the desire to illuminate a spiritual cosmos through the integration of
the contradictions between them.’29 Their goal was that through dialogue,
they would inspire discovery.
Criterion successfully organized two cycles of public events for the fall
of 1932: a series of symposia on the topic of ‘Contemporary Idols’ and a
cycle of presentations on the topic of ‘Contemporary Romanian Culture.’
Operating concurrently, both were responsible for Criterion gaining a
respected reputation and a recognizable name. In a preliminary plan
drawn up for the first series, ‘Idols,’ the list of people to participate
included Haig Acterian, Dan Botta, A. Broşteanu, I. Brucăr, A. Calistrat,
I. Cantacuzino, şerban Cioculescu, Comarnescu, Dr. Dimolescu, Eliade,
C. Enescu, C. Floru, Mircea Grigorescu, R. Hillard, Apriliana Medianu,
C.  Mironescu, Polihroniade, Sadova, Sebastian, Stahl, Zaharia Stancu,
Sabba Ștef ănescu Sr., Paul Sterian, Tell, Sandu Tudor, Sorana Ţopa, Al.
Vianu, P. Viforeanu and Vulcănescu.30
A series initially considered by Criterion addressed ‘profession.’
Professions to be explored in these sessions were (with the corresponding
speakers in parentheses): Lawyer (Istrate Miceru, Hillard, Manolescu);
Magistrate Judge (Andrei Rădulescu, Tell); The Politician (Dr. Lupp,
Polihroniade, Hillard); The Novelist (Cezar Petrescu, Ionel Sadoveanu);
the Man of Science (F.  Marinescu); the Poet (Arghezi, Botta); The
Director (Sorez, Sose, Acterian); the Musician; the Diplomat (Titulescu);
the Philosopher (Rădulescu-Motru, Petrovici, Noica).31 And finally, in
addition, there were plans to hold ‘popular discussions’ on the following
topics (1) ‘Constitutionalism or Dictatorship?’ (2) ‘The Orient or
Occident?’ and (3) ‘The Party or Corporations?’32

27
 Acterian, ‘Cîte ceva despre Asociaţia Criterion,’ 1.
28
 MEAI, 235.
29
 Acterian, ‘Cîte ceva despre Asociaţia Criterion,’ 1.
30
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20 f. 63.
31
 Ibid., f. 26 ‘Vocat ̦ia.’
32
 Ibid., reverse.
92  C. A. BEJAN

In contrast with  the organized, constructive debate arranged at the

symposia, the less formal meetings at Corso or Capşa and the Criterionists’
homes became unregulated, unrestrained free-for-alls. Arşavir Acterian
captures such an episode in his diary when many retired to Eliade’s, fol-
lowing a meeting of the philosophy circle at Corso, led by Rădulescu-­
Motru. The discussion that followed was full of ‘fury’ and ‘hatred,’ ‘an
exchange of crude, brutal sincerity’ mainly involving Sorana Ţopa,
Comarnescu and Cioran, but eventually encompassing the whole group
(Brucar, Vulcănescu, Noica, Ionesco, Costica Fântâneru), only ending at
four in the morning.33 Such volatile disagreements reveal the fine line
between friend and enemy, as well as collaborator and competitor.
With the preoccupation with Romania being a minor culture, the
Young Generation viewed the Criterion Association as an effort to over-
come their inferiority complex. Eliade wrote,

We said that, in a major culture, all currents of thought can be presented.

We felt strong enough not to be afraid of confrontations with ideologies and
systems contrary to our own beliefs. Likewise, we felt that we could not get
beyond cultural provincialism except by annulling the inferiority complexes
and infantile defense mechanisms inherent in any minor culture.34

The Criterionists clearly viewed themselves in relation to and on par with

their cultural counterparts abroad. Take for example when Octav Şuluţiu
was admitted for membership, an event he notes in his diary on July 2,
1933. Şuluţiu describes the proceedings as such,

Petru Comarnescu did the honors, presenting Paul Zarifopol … our

Voltaire(!) … Dan Botta …. as our little Valéry! … and bestowing [member-
ship to] Sebastian and me … as the representatives from France.35

In fact, whether or not Romania was in general a mere colony of French

culture was a topic of much debate in the interwar Romanian space. A
survey was sent out by the newspaper Vremea to the greatest minds repre-
sentative of all generations and every political and religious bent (including
Crainic, Blaga, Eugen Lovinescu, Polihroniade and Haig Acterian, among

33
 Acterian, Jurnal 1929–1945/1958–1990, 123–124.
34
 MEAI, 235.
35
 Şuluţiu, Jurnal, 255–256. September 21, 1932.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  93

many others), asking precisely this question ‘Are we or are we not a colony
of French Culture?’36
The decision to present and discuss ‘Idols’ of the day, a diverse group
(considering both professional and political orientation, language and
geography) of influential individuals, is remarkable and also notable that
not a single ‘Idol’ came from Romania (Lenin, Freud, Chaplin, Bergson,
Gide, Mussolini, Krishnamurthi, Gandhi, Greta Garbo, Valéry, Proust).
This list also represented all sides of the political spectrum. In an initial list,
Nicolae Iorga (the most representative of a Renaissance and cosmopolitan
man) and the poet Tudor Arghezi were included, but their names did not
make it to the final program.37 In an environment where individual versus
collective action and importance was a subject of heated debate, it is note-
worthy that the Criterionists were specifically investigating these figures as
both individuals (considering their personal biographies and personalities)
as well as their collective impact and importance for their own nations and
in History.
The Criterionists shared a sense of impatience to push the envelope and
realize their cultural mission. In a prophetic passage from Ş uluţiu’s diary,
the critic claims, ‘Our Generation suffers from rushing. It wants to do
everything fast and well. And that is the source of many troubles. We don’t
know how to wait.’38 This sense of urgency, to experiment with new ideas,
to expose the Romanian public to new influences, to grapple with the lat-
est trends in modernism (literary) and  modernization (in science, the
economy and politics), this need for action and for results shared by the
young agents of culture is captured in the memories of Eliade:

Having come to believe in the creative possibilities of the Romanian

genius—as the majority of us did, although for different reasons—we no
longer feared ‘evil influences’ or ‘subversive ideas.’ On the other hand, we
considered ourselves adults; we were unwilling to have people shout at us,
‘don’t play with fire!’—because we knew very well that we were not playing.39

Such creation of cultural products became inherently political, no matter

how noble and what Criterion’s nonpartisan and objective intentions

36
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XVIII Varia 16, ff. 31–32.
37
 Ibid., 10–13 ‘Proces Verbal al şedinţei plenare din 17 junie 1932 Asociaţiei Criterion.’
38
 Şuluţiu, Jurnal, 239.
39
 MEAI, 235.
94  C. A. BEJAN

were. The ‘Idols’ symposia initially provoked near-violent altercations,

fierce criticism from students of the extreme right and intervention by the
government.

‘Idols’ Symposia (First Five)

Vladimir Lenin (Russia, 1870–1924)40

The first event in the ‘Idols’ series took place on Thursday, October 13,
1932, on the subject of Lenin with distinguished philosopher Professor
Rădulescu-Motru presiding. Eliade recalls that Criterion invited Belu
Silber and Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu (a well-known communist, elected to the
Central Committee at the 5th Party Congress in 1931) to present an argu-
ment for the Marxist-Leninist thesis, while Vulcănescu and Polihroniade
prepared the antithetical argument: criticizing communism in favor of
democracy and nationalism.41 The original line-up for the event differed
quite significantly from Eliade’s clear delineation between pro and anti-­
Marxist positions. The most notable point of this difference is that neither
Pătrăşcanu nor Belu Silber were initially on the program. (They were not
advertised as such.) When this changed is unclear. Perhaps they did not
confirm their attendance until the last minute, but such a query, at this
point, is mere speculation. Regardless it was their participation (particu-
larly that of Pătrăşcanu) that ignited such fury on the part of the
government.
As outlined in the initial plan (in chronological order) Vulcănescu was
to present on the ‘Leninist Thesis’; Petre Viforeanu on the ‘Bourgeois
Thesis’; Stahl on the ‘Social-Democratic Thesis’; Constantin Enescu on
the ‘Peasant Thesis’ and Polihroniade on the ‘Political Tactics Thesis.’42
Rădulescu-Motru presided over the discussion. In his notes for his portion
of the presentation, Vulcănescu outlined his talk. Therein he clarified that
he not only would expound on the Leninist thesis but also speak about the
life of Lenin. Vulcănescu outlined three ways to view Lenin in the face of
history: ‘Lenin the Hero,’ ‘Lenin the Representative Man’ and ‘Lenin the

40
 For the Criterion series, the topics were announced by the Idol’s last name only, I include
the first name, country of origin and life-time in an effort to show how diverse the chosen
subjects were.
41
 MEAI, 234–235.
42
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 61.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  95

Monster.’ Vulcănescu wished to consider three faces of Lenin: the myth

cultivated by the proletariat; the bourgeoisie’s view of him as an apocalyp-
tic monster of morality and the peasantry’s picture of Lenin as an oppres-
sive landowner forcing them into serfdom. Vulcănescu insisted that they
must first investigate the man and the doctrine that stood at his base.43
Vulcănescu’s presentation on Lenin illustrates the Criterion approach:
an investigation of these figures’ creative lives and intellectual contribu-
tions (theory); as individuals (their personal biography); the impact
they had on the world (all communities, e.g. the myth of Lenin) and
how these figures stood in the face of History (with a capital H). At the
time Lenin’s political message was particularly dangerous in Romania,
which shared a border with the Soviet Union. Influenced by the phi-
losophy of revolutionary violence of Georges Sorel, Lenin was a voice of
revolution and a symbol of destruction. Vulcănescu investigated the
source of Lenin’s revolutionary zeal in his psychology, considering him
as a madman:

Others, still, speculating the contradiction between his doctrinal fanaticism

and his tactical-opportunistic doctrine, between his courage in action and
his courage in writing and in discussion, the hereditary syphilis and attacks
of paralysis, they gave the ‘revolutionary genius’ a medical diagnosis:
schizophrenia.44

Eliade was very impressed with the calm and intent approach of
Pătrăşcanu who was not bothered by the interruptions from the crowd
and waited for them to quiet down before speaking again.

In contrast, the students interrupted Polihroniade with applause every time

he spoke of the necessity of a nationalistic revolution. And when he referred
to the expression of Lenin’s that the bourgeois state is a cadaver that will
topple at a single blow, he was applauded as much by the nationalistic stu-
dents as by the groups of Communist sympathizers who had been drawn to
the Foundation by the scheduled appearance of Pătrăşcanu.45

43
 Vulcănescu, De la Nae Ionescu la Criterion, 410. At this time Mircea Vulcănescu was
serving as the Assistant of Ethics for Professor Gusti; for the text of ‘Idolul’ Lenin see
272–295.
44
 Ibid., 276.
45
 MEAI, 235.
96  C. A. BEJAN

The Royal Foundation was located directly opposite the Royal Palace.
Any altercations, assemblies of people or perceived political ­demonstrations
taking place outside or within the Royal Foundation certainly could not
go unnoticed by the police. Prior to the initial symposium on Lenin, a
large number of communists and youths gathered outside the Foundation
and the police were called in. Comarnescu explained to them that it was
better to let the symposium take place than to cancel it, for surely the latter
would provoke a demonstration, protests and riots. The police consented,
allowed the symposium to be held, and Comarnescu remarked that the
room in the Royal Foundation was fuller than he had ever seen it before,
including the communist waiters from Corso.46 Comarnescu later received
a warning from the Inspector General of the police, that clearly indicated
the government viewed Criterion as a dangerous communist menace.47
Eliade hypothesized that it was Criterion’s ‘audacity’ to invite Pătrăşcanu
to speak at the symposium that caused the government’s security forces to
misconstrue Criterion’s operation as ‘crypto-communist,’ for in fact
Criterion’s only communist member was Belu Silber.48
Such a large crowd came that the symposium needed to be repeated the
following Tuesday, October 18. The repeated symposium was also full but
did not overflow to the balcony. Comarnescu noted it as uniquely success-
ful in the series.49 This time Constantin Enescu was replaced by Mircea
Grigorescu, who spoke on ‘Lenin in the world of propaganda,’ in the
program. In addition to being repeated the following week, the sympo-
sium appeared on December 15, 1932, chaired by Simion Mehendint ̦i.
This time the discussants included Stahl, Polihroniade, Richard Hillard,
Constantin Enescu, Petre Viforeanu, Alexandru Vianu, Paul Sterian
and Eliade.50

Sigmund Freud (Austria, 1856–1939)

The second symposium in the series on the subject of ‘Freud’ was pre-
sented on Thursday, October 20, 1932, at the Royal Foundation. According
to Eliade, this time the room was also overflowing with audience and

46
 PCJ, 73.
47
 Ibid., 77.
48
 MEAI, 235.
49
 PCJ, 73.
50
 Acterian, ‘Cîte ceva despre Asociaţia Criterion,’ 1.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  97

Comarnescu had to announce that it would also be repeated in a few days

time in order to begin. (After repeating it twice they then ­presented it in
numerous provincial cities.)51 Comarnescu had a different interpretation of
the rocky beginning of this symposium. Apparently, unbeknownst to the
leaders of Criterion, the symposium had actually been banned in ‘a strange
way.’52 When the crowds arrived at the Foundation that evening, police-
men told them that the symposium had been postponed. Comarnescu and
some of his colleagues immediately went to the office of the undersecretary
of the Interior, Armand Călinescu, and protested to the director of the
cabinet. The director told them that there was not a ban on the sympo-
sium, he was in the office, by chance and so was the writer and newspaper-
man Ion Vinea, who came to their help. Due to Comarnescu and team’s
insistence, he called the police and at 9.30 they were able to begin the
symposium. At this point (as the event was scheduled to begin at 9 and
much of the crowd had been deterred by the police) only a few latecomers
and the Criterionists remained. Comarnescu learned later that the banning
measure was taken by Călinescu, following the scheme of Pamfil Şeicaru,
who was probably set up by Romulus Dianu, the editor of his newspaper,
Curentul.53
This symposium was chaired by Ion Petrovici and the speakers included
Eliade, Vulcănescu, Paul Sterian,54 Professor Parhon, Professor Doctor
Radovici, Doctor Popescu Sibiu, Calistrat Hogaş, Ion I.  Cantacuzino,
H.H.  Stahl and Alexandru Mironescu.55 This symposium enabled the
Criterionists to investigate the cutting edge of Western medicine (note the
number of speakers who were medical doctors) and the founder of psy-
choanalysis. Freud redefined the way that humanity looks at itself and its
sexuality. Eliade provided the most information on the Freud symposium.
Although no text of his talk survives, Eliade recounted the substance of his
presentation in his autobiography:

I had agreed to speak about Freud because I thought I could decipher in his
work a final phase in the desacralization of the Old Testament monotheism
and propheticism. Freud’s certainty that he had found a unique and univer-
sal meaning for psychomental life and human creativity, that he had forged

51
 MEAI, 233.
52
 PCJ, 77.
53
 Ibid.
54
 MEAI, 232.
55
 Acterian, ‘Cîte ceva despre Asociaţia Criterion,’ 1.
98  C. A. BEJAN

the magic key that would unlock all enigmas from dreams and actes manqués
to the origin of religion, morals, and civilization—this certainty, I said,
betrayed the monotheistic fervor of the Hebraic genius. In the same way,
the passion expended by Freud in promoting, imposing, and defending psy-
choanalysis from any ‘heresy’ is reminiscent of the intolerance and frenzy of
Old Testament prophets. In a certain sense, Freud believed that his discov-
eries were destined to transform mankind, to ‘save’ it. Psychoanalysis satis-
fied the thirst for the absolute, characteristic of the Judaic genius, the belief
that there is a single royal road to the Spirit, and it betrays the specifically
Hebraic revulsion against pluralism, polytheism, and idolatry.56

Eliade never liked Freud, which he made clear in his writings of

1932–1933. Ţ urcanu suggests this is due to not knowing Freud’s work
very well.57 Eliade did not consider Freud to be an example of the ‘Hebraic
genius’ but rather ‘a grave example of Judaic spirituality, meaning the
transfer from a unique value and the secularization of the Absolute.’58
Psychoanalysis is therefore, above all, a product of ascendant modernity.
Freud is to the twentieth century what Hegel was to the nineteenth cen-
tury.59 Eliade found a much more compelling and authentic approach to
the Absolute in his studies in yoga and Indian philosophy. Eliade opposed
the Freudian interpretation of the subconscious in his doctoral thesis. As
opposed to psychoanalysis, ‘yoga believes that the subconscious may be
controlled through the aesthetic discipline, through the culture of virtue,
through a morality and that man may choose his own destiny.’60
A central element to the understanding of both yoga and psychoanalysis
is sexuality. In India, yoga is a form of ‘experimental mysticism,’ being the
best of ‘personal, concrete and irrational experience.’61 The accumulation
of the abilities in yoga is traditionally associated with the practice of aes-
theticism, notably sexual aestheticism, for which the patron God is Shiva.
This practice is geared toward uncovering, unleashing, reaching a certain
spontaneity, a boundless freedom. Rather than being a fundamental and
necessary part of pursuing the path toward the Absolute, Eliade found in

56
 MEAI, 233.
57
 Ţ urcanu, Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier de l’histoire, 203.
58
 Mircea Eliade. Océanographie, 143, n. 1. Quoted in Ţ urcanu, Mircea Eliade: Le prison-
nier de l’histoire, 203.
59
 Ibid., 232–233. Quoted in Ţurcanu, Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier de l’histoire, 203.
60
 Mircea Eliade, Yoga. Essai sur les origins de la mystique indienne, 74. Quoted in Ţ urcanu,
Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier de l’histoire, 204.
61
 Ibid., 13, n. 2. Quoted in Ţ urcanu, Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier de l’histoire, 133.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  99

Freudian psychoanalysis an unfortunate suspension and ­demonization of

sexuality, inherent in historic and contemporary European religious
approaches:

Most peoples and civilizations do not see in sex what the Europeans see—a
source of sensual pleasure and a moral problem—but only its fundamental
principal function: procreation. This is why they are integrated naturally
amongst the big roots of life, next to thirst and hunger, and they imply, in
reality and allegorically, that everywhere there is a question of life, of vital
energy, of creation of regeneration.62

For Eliade, sexuality was always associated with the idea of generation
where this renaissance of man has a new spiritual life. He urged Europeans
to not let ‘sex in religion scandalize us’ nor be a ‘taboo’ issue.63
As for how Eliade fared in his talk in the symposium, he recalled that
he received loud applause, like the other participants. Apparently Cioran
was so impressed that he attended the symposium again when it was
repeated.64

Charlie Chaplin (Great Britain and ‘Hollywood,’ 1889–1977)

The third symposium took place on October 27, 1932, with the following
speakers: Cantacuzino, Comarnescu, Sebastian, Paul Sterian, Ion Călugăru,
chaired by Ion Marin Sadoveanu.65 An iconic figure and pioneer of the
cinema as an art form, Charlie Chaplin defined the beginning of Hollywood
as the star of countless silent movies, and more socially relevant, talkie pic-
tures. In addition to being avid readers and appreciators of art, all members
of the Young Generation were enjoying the fruits of the modern cinema as
movie halls became just as ubiquitous as live theaters in Bucharest.
Newspapers of the time were full of adverts for and reviews of movies, and
personal diaries checkered with notes of films seen, in addition to lists of
books read, concerts attended and theater productions enjoyed. Elisabeta

62
 Mircea Eliade. Océanographie, 115. Quoted in Ţ urcanu, Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier de
l’histoire, 115.
63
 Ibid.
64
 Ţ urcanu, Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier de l’histoire, 233.
65
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20; f. 36.
100  C. A. BEJAN

Boulevard, known as the ‘Romanian Hollywood’ was lined with cinemas

and people would often enter a cinema hall after having just exited another.66
Just like the other Idols, the Criterionists wished to consider Charlie
Chaplin in his multiple dimensions from many perspectives, as more than
just a movie star. This will be revealed by the ensuing analysis of
Comarnescu’s presentation on ‘The Ethic of Chaplin’ and Sebastian’s
spontaneous and moving account of Chaplin, as a Jew. But principally, as
an individual, Chaplin had a personal philosophy very much akin to the
members of the Young Generation. As for the link between optimism and
youth (bearing a stark resemblance to the naïveté of Criterion), Chaplin
wrote much later in his autobiography:

However, a most formidable element in optimism is youth, for it instinc-

tively feels that adversity is pro tem and that a continual run of ill luck is just
as implausible as the straight and narrow path of righteousness. Both even-
tually must deviate.67

Chaplin’s later words are prophetic when we consider the optimism of the
Young Generation and the ill luck later experienced by the Criterion
Association. Chaplin, the man himself, was extremely self-aware and
embraced his own individuality and treasured his personal experiences,
another aspect that reveals his similar life philosophy to the Young
Generation. Consider the quote:

Like everyone else I am what I am: an individual, unique and different, with
a lineal history of ancestral promptings and urgings, a history of dreams,
desires and of special experiences, of all of which I am the sum total.68

Comarnescu’s portion of the symposium was devoted to revealing what

they (intellectuals and the bourgeois elite of Criterion) could learn from
this ‘man on the street’ (ordinary person) [om de pe stradă] and the char-
acters he depicted in his films.69 This talk proves yet again the degree to
which Comarnescu was preoccupied with the necessity of finding a bal-
ance between thought and action. Comarnescu was moved by Chaplin’s
humanism, his humor, his passion and his stunning example of how to live

66
 Ioana Pârvulescu, Intoarcere în Bucharestul interbelic, 132.
67
 Charles Chaplin, My Autobiography, 99.
68
 Ibid., 271.
69
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 18–22 (1–5).
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  101

authentically. Comarnescu constructed Chaplin’s ethic (here understood

as a mode of living, system of morality) in contrast to those who write
books of philosophy and novels. ‘His ethic is lived, not thought.’70 This
ethic was a balance of spirit and action and intricately bound up with
‘English humor,’ which Comarnescu described as ‘interior,’ self-aware and
self-depricating, that ‘man can laugh at himself, not at reality.’ Comarnescu
concluded that Chaplin’s ethic results from:

this sorrowful and active humor: to make good while laughing in the face of
obstacles, contradictions, destinies, to laugh, to smile but also to do some-
thing, what you can do to make [the situation] better.71

He cites the two films: The Kid and Gold Rush as examples.
Comarnescu also referred to Chaplin as ‘the man of all time’ [om de
totdeauna] for whom a central factor in his ethic was ‘heart.’ What the
audience interpreted as exterior comedy for Chaplin was in fact his interior
humor.72 Comarnescu claimed that ‘Chaplin humanized the rascal’ [cana-
lia] creating ‘a type of man who was simple but also authentic who is
always being put in the complicated life situations of the day.’73 He then
described Chaplin’s ethic as ‘the knowledge of tragedy and ridiculousness
that is always resolved through action, through deeds.’74
Comarnescu concluded by challenging the audience using the image of
‘the man on the street’ and his heart, to move them to introspection,
action, the courage to look tragedy in the face, acknowledge their own
authenticity and laugh at themselves. Comarnescu asked his listeners what
did they, ‘intellectuals with their minds full of formulas,’ ‘dissatisfied bour-
geois’ and the ‘civilized man who is at the same time a barbarian,’ truly
know of him [Comarnescu] ‘his ideals and heart that he will never lose on
the street, while his audience lose themselves in their comfort and
indolence.’75
The reaction that Comarnescu received paled by far in comparison to
that endured by Sebastian. When he took the podium, one of the many
Cuzists (supporters of LANC) in the audience shouted, ‘A Jew speaking

70
 Ibid., f. 18.
71
 Ibid., f. 20.
72
 Ibid.
73
 Ibid., f. 21.
74
 Ibid.
75
 Ibid., f. 22.
102  C. A. BEJAN

about another Jew!’ (The far-right students accused anyone they did not
like of being a communist or Jewish, or both: Judeo-Bolshevik. Chaplin
was in fact not Jewish, though there was a rumor that he was.) Shocked,
Sebastian made an instantaneous decision to speak on behalf of their
shared Jewishness, rather than deliver his prepared speech.76 In his spon-
taneity, he ripped up the papers containing his notes for his talk
and began,

‘I had planned to speak about a certain aspect of Chaplin’s acting,’ he said,

‘but someone out there has called attention to our Jewishness. So I shall
speak as a Jew about the Jew, Charlie Chaplin.’77

The audience reacted with overwhelming applause. Eliade called the

20-minute lecture ‘one of the most moving and intelligent’ he had ever
heard and explained that Sebastian presented a picture of Chaplin only
someone from Eastern Europe could comprehend. He likened the loneli-
ness of man in Chaplin’s films to the loneliness of the ghetto. When
Sebastian finished, he received a partial standing ovation and resounding
applause.78
Eliade interpreted this as a victory for Criterion, as if they had success-
fully delivered their enlightened message to the Bucharest studentship.
He recalls, ‘We had won a battle, and we knew it. In the office that con-
nected with the speaker’s box, there was exultation. For joy, Nina Mareş
began to dance and hug us one after another.’79 Whereas Comarnescu’s
targeted audience in his speech were fellow intellectuals, whom he wished
to enlighten with his interpretation of Chaplin’s ‘man on the street’
approach, Sebastian spoke in direct response to a personal attack coming
from young activist (and potentially violent and dangerous) students. This
juxtaposition illustrates differing approaches and how Criterion really did
reach out to a diverse range of people. The fact that his speech was so
moving as to elicit a positive response from the Cuzists is incredible, given
the prevalence of anti-Semitism and the outright hostility toward any
threats to the extreme right, both religious and political. Comarnescu
recalled that the entire evening was checkered by audience interruptions

76
 MEAI, 232.
77
 Ibid., 234.
78
 Ibid.
79
 Ibid.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  103

accusing Chaplin of being a Jew,80 derogatorily calling Chaplin ‘Charlot’

and that even Ion Călugăr u’s talk was disrupted by anti-Semitic out-
bursts.81 Călugăr u was also Jewish.
Eliade and others naïvely and prematurely interpreted this to be a vic-
tory for Criterion. It may have been a momentary triumph, but what it
resulted from precisely proves why Criterion could not sustain itself. The
systematic program of presenting numerous viewpoints with a view to
have a democratic discussion collapsed in the face of the chaos of the
Cuzist student audience and Sebastian had to rely on his intelligence,
dynamism and courage to deliver an oratory salvaging the evening. It was
a victory in that Sebastian’s ode to being Jewish silenced the anti-Semitic
attacks of the Cuzists, but this silencing was only extremely temporary.

Benito Mussolini (Italy, 1883–1945)

The initial Criterion symposium held on the subject of Mussolini was on
November 3, 1932 (it was later to take place again on December 4  in
Ploieşti).82 The Criterionists viewed Mussolini as a man grappling with the
revolutionary questions they too were concerned with, a man of letters (a
qualified school teacher, journalist who had read many of the same phi-
losophers they too admired), a charismatic leader and a savvy politician.
The choice of Mussolini also illustrates that natural kinship of the extrem-
ist views of the era. The anti-communism of Mussolini, considered in the
same series as the Leninist doctrine (both admirers of Sorel and compelled
by his argument of violent revolution), illustrates the intellectual affinity of
the two: the far left and far right. This fascination confirms and demon-
strates the growing disillusionment with democracy and the Criterionists’
investigation (an honest intellectual investigation) of alternate potential
political routes and possible, feasible, successful paths taken by great
European nations.
Presided over by Mihail Manolescu, the line-up and sub-topics for the
evening at the Royal Foundation were as follows: Polihroniade spoke on
‘From the Man to the Idol’; Stahl on ‘From the Idol to the Man’;
Alexandru-Christian Tell on ‘The Creator’; C. Enescu on ‘The Destroyer’;

80
 PCJ, 77.
81
 Ibid., 78.
82
 Mezdrea writes that Mussolini took place on November 10.
104  C. A. BEJAN

and R.  Hillard on ‘The Anti-Democrat.’83 Vulcănescu wrote a compre-

hensive summary of the evening, outlining both the pro and contra
approaches presented on that night.84 The following, drawn from his sum-
mary, demonstrates Criterion’s effort to present thoughtful critical analy-
sis, and also gives a good sense of the structure of a Criterion symposium.
Polihroniade explained the political state of Italy following WWI as an
anarchy resulting from a combination of disappointment following the
nation’s military victory, a socialist movement and the inherent weak-
nesses of the democratic system. It was in this atmosphere that it was ‘a
triple reaction of the former fighters of defeatism and youth against social-
ism and anarchy in the name of order and nationalism.’85 Polihroniade
gave a brief history of the consolidation of fascist power: after extinguish-
ing the communist violence on the street and the conquering of the syn-
dicalist movement, fascism destroyed the Masonic organizations, and
achieved power of the state. This all culminated in 1926. Polihroniade
concluded that Mussolini had success on both the internal and external
fronts. Within Italy, he established order and equilibrium; and exterior to
Italy he resolved the Roman question and reconstituted the equilibrium of
Europe in favor of Italy. Additional accolades included Mussolini’s eco-
nomic successes (e.g. stabilizing the lira) and his development of public
projects (e.g. public transportation).86
H.H. Stahl presented a sociological analysis of the situation in Italy,
from which fascism emerged as a desperate attempt of the bourgeoisie to
cope with the dissolution of the bourgeois state. He gave a scathing indict-
ment of Mussolini’s government and the method of strong-armed poli-
tics. Stahl emphasized the importance and impact of Mussolini’s fascism
on the Italian state in the economic sphere. In social life, in general, eco-
nomic realities were more pressing and relevant than political intentions.
A major concern for Stahl was the decline in birthrate in Italian cities and
the fascist government’s inability to resolve this problem. Mussolini’s
regime inherited a poverty-stricken country, overpopulated and existing in
a mixed agrarian-capitalist economic system. Mussolini’s failure to tackle
these economic issues (to fight against the economic crises and bring the
budget to equilibrium) was alone proof of his political system’s ­impotence.

83
 Vulcănescu, De la Nae Ionescu la Criterion, 410–411.
84
 Ibid., 296–299, 410.
85
 Ibid., 296.
86
 Ibid.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  105

Stahl concluded with a most probing and salient question: ‘If things stand
otherwise, on what could we justify—ethically—the rape of liberty, the
only good thing that constitutes us as human beings?’87
In his portion of the evening, Tell gave an analysis of the fascist doctrine
as the solution to a general problem: the crisis of organization of the con-
temporary state. Rather than look at Mussolini’s fascism in response to
particular Italian woes (as did Stahl when he considered fascism from the
vantage point of the Italian economy), Tell considered the political move-
ment with a much wider lens and theoretical approach. He began by stat-
ing that the Mussolinian idea of ‘the state’ eliminated the democratic
opposition between individual and the state and affirmed the individual’s
submission to the state, literally ‘falling under’ the state.88 This thesis
unfolded in four principal ideas: the national idea (evident in Italian
nationalism); the idea of the strong state (fascist dictatorship); the idea of
the corporate state (organizing the state not through opinions but through
business guilds) and the idea of economic discipline (organizing the rap-
port between different factories and productions). Tell concluded that for
Mussolini the most important thing was a strong state (in opposition to a
weak democratic state), and that his ‘nationalism, corporatism and eco-
nomic discipline [were] only mid-points along the way to realizing the
strengthening of the state.’89
Presenting himself as a ‘disappointed fascist,’ C. Enescu was critical of
Mussolini’s doctrine.90 Also like Stahl, Enescu emphasized the importance
of social considerations (not only the political angle) and argued that when
considered from this angle fascism was, in reality, not ‘a new form of social
organization, but rather a changing of the bourgeois regime that is passing
through a phase of liberalism to a phase of monopolism.’91 Enescu identi-
fied two important ideas that fell under the umbrella of Mussolini’s fas-
cism, which for Enescu operated independently. These were corporatism
and dictatorship. He likened this dichotomy to one found under the head-
ing of ‘nationalism’ under which two understandings could be discerned:
(1) imperialism (formal and aggressive) and (2) the defense of national
values. Enescu argued that corporatism and dictatorship were not m ­ utually

87
 Ibid., 297.
88
 Ibid.
89
 Ibid.
90
 Ibid., 298.
91
 Ibid.
106  C. A. BEJAN

exclusive. If corporatism was the essential idea, and this was ­compatible
with a liberal democratic regime, from whence was dictatorship justified?
And if corporatism was not the essential idea, but rather authority and the
power of the state were, on what exactly could they justify the state? Stahl
concluded that with regard to fascism the essential fact was the dictator-
ship of the party, installed by force. The single effective success of
Mussolini’s politics was that he managed to stay in power.92
The final speaker, Richard Hillard, made the distinction between fas-
cism as Italian fascism and fascism as a universal political phenomenon.
With regard to Italian fascism, Hillard was careful to place Mussolini in the
distinguished tradition of great Italian politicians. He identified Mussolini
as the fulcrum in Italian history responsible for leading the movement
toward modern Italy. Hillard claimed that imperialism, corporatism and
dictatorship all have their roots in the oldest traditions of Italian life, and
identified these roots to be Romanism, the medieval tradition and
Renaissance Machiavellianism. Following this assertion that Mussolini was
the natural culmination of Italian political history, Hillard turned to a con-
sideration of the man himself, calling him ‘a providential political man
who activated a country, and put in front of him the clear objectives of
tomorrow.’93 He praised Mussolini as a leader for his ‘clear vision’ and
‘courage.’94 After lauding Mussolini, Hillard turned to fascism, considered
generally as being a universal political phenomenon. In this context,
Hillard described fascism as ‘nothing but a form of reaction against
democracy.’95 He echoed again the opposition between the state and the
individual. He contrasted the corporate government with the government
of opinions and parties; as well as the directed economy as opposed to the
free market system. Mihail Manolescu brought the debate to a close and
summarized the essential ideas of fascism and the role of Mussolini before
opening up the floor to discussion.

André Gide (France, 1869–1951)

André Gide was an obvious Idols choice due to his popularity among the
Young Generation. However, he was an extremely controversial figure of

92
 Ibid.
93
 Ibid.
94
 Ibid., 298.
95
 Ibid.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  107

the era, particularly in Romania, given his (then) support of the Soviet
Union and his defense of homosexuality.96 Holding a symposium on Gide
would certainly contribute to the government’s suspicious attitude toward
Criterion. The Criterionists were well aware of the risk and feared inci-
dents would arise.97
Given these risks, why was it so important for Criterion to choose Gide
as one of their ‘Idols’ and to follow through with the symposium? In an
unpublished text written between 1925 and 1928  in Paris, Vulcănescu
argued that Gide still influenced the most intelligent and most sensitive of
the postwar generation (Vulcănescu’s generation) and that his influence
lived on beyond his impact on his own prewar generation. He wrote this
in response to Massis’ argument that Gide’s influence was limited strictly
to the author’s own generation.98 Gide also addresses Massis’ criticism of
him in his journal.99 Octav Şuluţiu demonstrated to what degree Gide
spoke to him personally in his own journal in an entry written on September
8, 1932, just before the start to the ‘Idols’ Criterion cycle.

I am reading in Nouvelle Revue Française from August 1932, André Gide:

Pages de journal. It is incredible what Gide is saying there. It is a tragedy,
and yet, at the same time, a true tragedy. If I would discover that I am one
of those people, there would be nothing left for me but to kill myself.
Because I cannot conceive of living if I don’t have something personally
original, honest within myself.100

Gide began his career as part of the symbolist movement, and between
the wars became part of the anti-colonialist movement, the more he spent
time in North Africa. His principal preoccupation was the discovery of self
(a theme explored in his autobiographical and fictional writings), the

96
 Gide’s defense of homosexuality was revealed in his publication of Corydon (1925),
which he considered to be his most important work. Gide became a communist sympathizer
in the early 1930s but retracted his support for communism following a state-sponsored visit
to the USSR in 1936. Eliade remembers this incorrectly, claiming that Gide had visited the
USSR before the 1932 Criterion symposium. ‘Just as we feared, the symposium on Gide
gave rise to incidents. André Gide had visited Soviet Russia a short while before and was
considered a Communist.’ MEAI, 233.
97
 MEAI, 233–234.
98
 Vulcănescu, De la Nae Ionescu la Criterion, 233 ‘Asupra influent ̦ei actuale a lui Gide’;
Notes on this. 401–402.
99
 André Gide, Pages de Journal (1929–1932), 189.
100
 Şuluţiu, Jurnal, 237.
108  C. A. BEJAN

r­econciliation of one’s true self (authentic self) with one’s values (moral
­system and constraints imposed by society) through his continuous effort
to achieve intellectual honesty.101 This was an approach greatly admired
and respected by the Criterionists, who attempted to emulate it. The
Criterion Association is an excellent example of an individual and group
effort to achieve intellectual honesty.
Gide’s sympathy for communism began in the early 1930s, when his con-
cerns in his writing turned more from the literary to the political events of the
period: the Spanish revolution, the Vatican’s fight against fascism, the finan-
cial crisis in the Weimar Republic and elsewhere, and ‘above all the extraor-
dinary effort of Russia’ … all of this distracted him from literature.102 His
initial admiration for the political philosophy of socialism was (unsurpris-
ingly) purely intellectual, and he saw no contradiction with his own individu-
alism. Gide was hopeful for the success of the vision of the Soviet Union, and
in that effort visited the country on a state-sponsored trip in 1936. It was on
this trip that his idealistic purely intellectual understanding of the socialist
project was destroyed by the widespread poverty, government censorship
and terror he witnessed. But clearly this occurred after the Criterion confer-
ence, whereas at that time he was writing prolifically in support of communism.
The other controversial aspect of Gide was his investigation of sexuali-
ty’s connection to identity and his admitted experimentation and prefer-
ence for homosexuality. Due to this apology for homosexuality, Arşavir
Acterian wrote Gide had a ‘large notoriety’ in literary life of the time.103
The Young Generation also had a curiosity about  homosexuality and a
penchant for pushing the boundaries (both literary and actual) of the sex-
ual. In an early note in Comarnescu’s personal archive, outlining possible
themes for Criterion conferences ‘homosexuality’ is listed as a potential
discussion topic, under a symposium entitled ‘Sense of the soul.’104 This
interest in sexuality was also evidenced by holding a symposium on Freud,
the second in the Criterion ‘Idols’ series.
The Criterion symposium on Gide’ (the fifth in the series) took place
on November 10, presided over by Mihail Ralea, including speakers
Şerban Cioculescu and Emil Gulian, among others.105 The scheduled

101
 See Michael Lucey, Gide’s Bent: Sexuality, Politics and Writing, 3.
102
 Gide, Pages de Journal (1929–1932), 114–115.
103
 Acterian. ‘Cîte ceva despre Asociaţia Criterion,’ 7.
104
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 1.
105
 PCJ, 77–78. There is a discrepancy here, Comarnescu says it was on November 3, and
forgot to mention the Mussolini symposium altogether. As a result of cross-referencing,
Mussolini must have been on November 3 and Gide on November 10.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  109

speakers and topics covered reveal Gide’s various dimensions Criterion

wished to examine. These included (still with Professor Mihail Ralea pre-
siding) Şerban Cioculescu (‘Gide and the Young Generations’), Pompiliu
Constantinescu (‘Gide the Critic’), Emil Gulian (‘The Act of Creation’),
Alexandru Vianu (‘The Moralist’), Vulcănescu (‘The Master of the
Interior Life’), Sebastian (‘The Corruptor’) and Ion Cantacuzino (‘The
Overfulfilled Idol’).106 The sub-topics and themes proposed for the Gide
symposium illustrate the variety of aspects the Criterionists thought per-
tinent, from his literary prowess (‘Gide as Critic’), his role as the voice
to their generation and their counterparts across Europe, in France and
elsewhere (‘Gide and the Young Generations’), his relationship to moral-
ity (given his strict religious upbringing), to his interior life and to the
extremist views (both political and sexual) that made him the ‘corruptor’
of society.
The nationalist, fascist and ‘chauvinistic’ press viciously attacked
Criterion particularly for the symposia on Chaplin and Gide.107
Comarnescu recalls that either the day before or the day of the Gide
symposia, Nichifor Crainic’s newspaper Calendarul urged and incited
anti-Gide sentiment and instigated the debate accusing Gide of being
a Jew.108 The evening of the symposium, the hall was filled to the brim
with audience. Arşavir Acterian attested to only standing room remain-
ing.109 Eliade recalled that ‘the hall was charged with electricity.’110 When
the symposium had already begun, the Criterionists learned that a large
crowd of about 100111 ‘nationalist’ (specified by Comarnescu to be Cuzist
and Legionnaire) students112 had gathered and was rallying outside the
Foundation, singing and making a lot of noise.113 When Comarnescu
learned of this, he and Ion Cantacuzino went to close and secure all
entrances to the Foundation. After a while a large number of young

106
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XXXI Imprimate 1, f. 103.
107
 PCJ, 77.
108
 Ibid., 78. The derogatory term jidan was used. Gide was not in fact Jewish and in his
own writing is not guilt-free of anti-Semitism, but his left-leaning politics no doubt contrib-
uted to this rumor.
109
 Acterian, ‘Cîte ceva despre Asociaţia Criterion,’ 1.
110
 MEAI, 233–234.
111
 Ibid., 233.
112
 PCJ, 78.
113
 MEAI, 233.
110  C. A. BEJAN

­ eople requested to be let into the conference hall, and Comarnescu and
p
Ion Cantacuzino went outside to reason with them. The students claimed
they had not come to protest but only wished to ensure no apology for
communism was made.114 Comarnescu and Cantacuzino explained that
the hall was full and there was no room for them,115 and this discussion
went on for over an hour.116
Comarnescu blamed what then transpired on the weakness and also
political leanings of Cantacuzino who gave them permission to enter the
hall after being guaranteed by the students’ leadership that they would
keep order and quiet. As soon as the doors were opened, the horde burst
into the hall, immediately producing disorder, starting a panic and inter-
rupting the speaker at that moment (either Şerban Cioculescu or Emil
Gulian, Comarnescu could not remember exactly which). Comarnescu
told one of them (one of the students he had seen outside) that they
were not keeping their word. One of these ‘hooligans’ (as he refers to
him in his journal) hit Comarnescu (who at this point was up next to the
podium in the front next to Ralea, in the place where he would normally
speak at the table, or assist speakers). Comarnescu jumped at him and
others jumped up to separate them. In the midst of the scuffle (which
included chaos and blows being exchanged), Ralea attempted to regain
order, but did not succeed.117 He abruptly closed the session ‘with a few
ironic, sarcastic remarks that were lost in the tumult.’118 The symposium
was stopped in its tracks, and thus marked the end of Criterion’s initial
experiment with enlightening the studentship of Bucharest and engag-
ing with salient political topics. From that point on, the only people
coming to Criterion symposia were the courageous ones,119 in much
smaller numbers than the crowds that had descended on the Royal
Foundation for the first five symposia. Arşavir Acterian in fact remem-
bers that after this incident, ‘The Criterion Association’s days were near
the end.’120

114
 Ibid., 234.
115
 PCJ, 78.
116
 MEAI, 234.
117
 PCJ, 78.
118
 MEAI, 234.
119
 PCJ, 78.
120
 Acterian, ‘Cîte ceva despre Asociaţia Criterion,’ 7.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  111

Politics, the Press and Criterion’s Self-Definition

On the eve of the Gide symposium, Nichifor Crainic attacked Criterion,
suggesting that the correct path taken by the young intellectual genera-
tion should not be that of ‘cosmopolitanism’ but rather nationalist politi-
cal engagement. He wrote:

Our youth is regrouping itself in intellectual associations for debate in the

public about the ideas of Lenin, the ineptitudes of Krishnamurti and the
skirts of Greta Garbo. A dilettantism deprived of all criticism and a confused
cosmopolitanism.121

Crainic claimed that this distraction from the genuine path of their gen-
eration bore a psychology ‘perfectly prepared for welcoming the interna-
tionalist communist utopia of tomorrow.’122 Clearly he feared Lenin, as
potentially introducing internationalist communist ideas into the
Romanian space.
Given the location of the Royal Foundation, the controversial nature of
topics chosen for the ‘Idols’ series, and the initial unanticipated over-
whelming success, police intervention became necessary, government sus-
picion inevitable and criticism by the press, a matter of course. The
presence of police became necessary to control the chaos of the crowds, as
a half-hour ahead of the early symposia the hall of the Royal Foundation
would be completely full. Eliade credited Criterion’s success with disturb-
ing the Minister of the Interior, Armand Călinescu, and suggested that the
criticism they received in the press was due to ‘all sorts of envy and
jealousy.’123
Following the conference on Gide, Criterion’s activity at the Royal
Foundation was suspended.124 The association was accused of distributing
subversive propaganda and told that they would have to find another
room to convene in.125 This first suspension was only temporary, and two
weeks later they were successfully back in the Royal Foundation with the

121
 Crainic, ‘Forţa trecutului.’
122
 Ibid.
123
 MEAI, 233.
124
 ‘De la Criterion,’ Adevărul, November 13, 1932 ‘short note suspending activity of
Criterion in the Royal Foundation but insist they will continue in another room.’ BAR Ach.
17/2001 APPC. XXXI Imprimate 1, f. 82.
125
 ‘Asociaţa Criterion şi manifestaţiile studenteşti’ Cuvântul, November 14, 1932. Also
found in BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XXXI Imprimate 1 f. 98.
112  C. A. BEJAN

sixth symposium on Valéry, conspicuously not on the typical Thursday,

but instead held on a Saturday.126
Not all the press saw the risk of the Gide event as Criterion being a
communist menace. The aggression at the Foundation was also described
as ‘Swastika versus Swastika.’127 In the wake of the mayhem at the Gide
conference, concern for the education of the young university minds of
Bucharest was pressing. Paul Sterian defended Criterion’s relationship
with students in Cuvântul.128 Prof. G. Tasca wrote an open letter to the
director of the Royal Foundation in which he claimed, ‘I don’t believe
that our enlightened students could fall into the same sin of intolerance.’129
His letter was meant as a defense of Criterion, arguing that their activity
should be able to continue. He could not believe that Bucharest students
were capable of such intolerance. But his words also illustrate the unfold-
ing danger in holding such conferences, given their potential to ignite the
flame of intolerance in the young student population, and the risk of that
flame becoming a fire of violence.
Early on Criterion acquired the derogatory nickname ‘Cretinion.’
Octav Şuluţiu credited Ion Barbu with the term’s invention.130 Eliade
responded to this mudslinging in Cuvântul in an article bearing the name,
‘Cretinion,’131 recognizing that ‘a number of people think it is a joke to
change the name Criterion into Cretinion.’ With a combination of irony
and idealism, he referred to himself and his fellow Criterionists as cretins
themselves, idiots and stupid people. In doing so, he looked the naysayers
in the eye, using their own language, and illustrated the good will and
genuine hope behind the Criterion mission, as well as their continued
optimism in the face of growing adversity. Eliade claimed, ‘Only a group
of cretins would believe that freedom and spiritual generosity could last
long in a public space.’ He also wrote,

126
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XXXI Imprimate 1 f. 2. ‘Paul Valéry şi Poezia Pură, pro-
gram pentru al şaselea symposion al asociaţiei Criterion ţinut la Fundaţia Carol I în seara de
sâmbătă 26. XI. 1932.’
127
 ‘Svastică împotriva svastică’ Adevărul, November 13, 1932.
128
 Paul Sterian, ‘Studenţii şi “Criterion,”’ Cuvântul, November 12, 1932. BAR Ach.
17/2001 APPC. XXXI Imprimate 1 f. 81.
129
 Prof. G. Tasca, ‘Student ̦imea luminată  – să nu cadă în păcatul intoleranţei,’ Adevărul,
November 12, 1932. BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XXXI Imprimate 1 f. 97.
130
 Şuluţiu, Jurnal, 24. October 29, 1932.
131
 Mircea Eliade, ‘Cretinion,’ Cuvântul, November 25, 1932. Also found in BAR Ach.
17/2001 APPC. XXXI Imprimate 1, f. 104.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  113

These stupid people believed that they could change something in this
country, only that they could give a good example. These cretins believed in
culture, in art, in thought—when they could only believe half in politics.
These naïve people had an ideal … They believed they could work and they
needed to work. They believed.132

Eliade’s words illustrate that Criterion had a strictly intellectual and cul-
tural agenda and from the beginning did not wish to be implicated or
involved in the political sphere. His sarcasm is also of note, for he uses the
words ‘naïve’ and ‘ideal’ with the earnest confident attitude that Criterion
would succeed.
The Cretin motif continued in a scathing article by Nicolae Roşu in
Viaţa Literară, which started a polemic between him and Ion
I. Cantacuzino. In the initial attack, Roşu wrote ‘Cretinion expresses the
intellectual climate of a generation—of the degeneration of today, very
well.’133 It is in this article that Roşu asked what relevance André Gide and
Paul Valéry have for today. As for the alleged communist agenda of
Criterion, Roşu argued that ‘communism in a bourgeois state cannot be
considered critically in a free discussion, it is only possible to adopt an
attitude against it.’134
In a follow-up article, Roşu outright accused Criterion of communist
leanings and asserts that the association was destined to evolve into a posi-
tion to the left of the political spectrum.135 Roşu determined communism
to be ‘a political phenomenon, exclusivist, which tends to the collapse of
civilization and European culture.’136 He argued that Criterion would
inevitably adopt a socialist position because up to that point they had not
explored nor adopted a single idea held by the national government, while
they were allowed to operate under its protective wing.137 Roşu connected
the emergence of Criterion with the ban on communism, surmising,
‘When, Criterion, with or without courage, officially joins those whom

132
 Ibid.
133
 Nicolae Roşu, ‘Să ni se răspundă,’ Viaţa Literară, December 20, 1932. Found in BAR
Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XXXI Imprimate 1 f. 95.
134
 Ibid.
135
 Nicolae Roşu. ‘Dextrofobie: sau oscilaţie de oportunitate?’ Viaţa Literară, January
1–30, 1933. BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XXXI Imprimate 1, f. 96.
136
 Ibid.
137
 Ibid.
114  C. A. BEJAN

they tolerated [the communists], or simply integrate smoothly into a left

wing democracy or socialism, then, we will take a stand.’138
In response to Roşu’s attack, Criterionist Ion I. Cantacuzino initially
asked the question of Roşu, ‘What is useful with a fight against
communism?’139 He then accused Roşu of arguing from a fascist perspec-
tive, forgetting that the Romanian state was not yet in fact a fascist one.140
Cantacuzino claimed that they (Criterion) affirmed and proved this (that
the Romanian state is not yet fascist) through their activity: ‘they inte-
grated and sustained one of the highest values of an autochthonous state:
its culture.’141 Cantacuzino then challenged Roşu, that if he wanted to
fight against them (the Criterionists), he would have to do so in the name
of fascism, and if he pursued that path, he would have to have courage,
and admit (confess!) that he (Roşu) would in fact be the one fighting the
form of the contemporary Romanian state and its culture.142 As the
polemic grew, both Sebastian (writing for Cuvântul) and Polihroniade
(writing for Azi) got involved defending Criterion.143
As evidenced by the above polemic, these accusations of Criterion pro-
moting a communist agenda and desiring to corrupt the studentship of
Bucharest carried on well into 1933. In response to the criticism and polit-
ical crackdown, the association itself had to clarify and clearly define its
purpose, mission and role in the Romanian intellectual and political space.
To this end, they put together the following statement:

We hold:
The Association of Arts, Letters and Philosophy ‘Criterion,’ with respect
to the accusation that in their symposia they are making subversive propa-
ganda, and this impedes the unfolding of their program, protest with their
last breath against these accusations.
‘Criterion’ is an association of intellectuals grouped on a terrain exclu-
sively cultural and without a political character.

138
 Ibid.
139
 Ion I. Cantacuzino, ‘Pe marginea unui articol “dextrofil,”’ România Literară, January 14,
1933. BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XXXI Imprimate 1 f. 102 and f. 100; quote here on f. 102.
140
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XXXI Imprimate 1 f. 100.
141
 Ibid.
142
 Ibid.
143
 Nicolae Roşu. ‘Polemizăm …’ Viaţa Literară, February 28, 1933. BAR Ach. 17/2001
APPC. f. 101. Roşu retorted to all three: Cantacuzino, Sebastian and Polihroniade in this
article.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  115

The contradictory discussion of ‘Idols’ at a given time, does not imply

the adhesion of the association to those ideas, but rather their obligation to
present objective and complete the critical information for its [Criterion’s]
public.
Showing the Romanian studentship what the true character of the
unfolding activities is, the Criterion Association hopes the youth can arrive
at an understanding of the clean cultural sphere outside of any fanaticism.
The youth’s essential function is culture and they are the people who are
looked after by Criterion, and for whom these manifestations are intended.
Therefore, ‘Criterion’ will not call the intervention of the authorities,
whose burden it is to keep order in the state, and in time nourishes the hope
that those who possess the honor of the student leadership will not remain
deaf in the face of those who constitute the actual substance of [Criterion’s]
manifestations.144

The ensuing incidents between Arşavir Acterian and Polihroniade over

the course of the subsequent symposia illustrate how political conversion
was happening in the Criterion space and it was not on the programmatic
level that the government suspected, but rather on the personal, social
level, within the friendship group between the Criterionists themselves. By
the time Criterion began its public activity, Polihroniade (himself greatly
influenced by Sorel and Maurras) and the actor Ion Victor Vojen had offi-
cially joined the Iron Guard. Their first mission was to recruit amidst the
intellectuals of the Young Generation. This was facilitated by the sympathy
for the extreme right held by many members of Criterion. Ţurcanu notes
that Ionesco and Arşavir Acterian resisted. Acterian actually refused a
meeting with Codreanu that Polihroniade proposed.145 The distribution
of legionary propaganda in Polihroniade’s immediate circle was a central
part of his responsibilities to the Iron Guard. The nascent Criterion
moment coincided with his desire for his generation to adhere to the
‘world rhythm’ of ‘the nationalist revolutions.’146 In addition to individual
conversions Polihroniade embarked on this effort through the grander
scale of founding a fortnightly newspaper whose sole purpose was to
attract intellectuals to the Iron Guard.

144
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XVIII Varia 16, f. 23.
145
 Ţ urcanu, Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier de l’histoire, 186.
146
 Mihail Polihroniade, ‘Generaţia tânără şi ritmul mondial,’ Azi. 1, 1933. Cited in
Ţ urcanu, Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier de l’histoire, 186.
116  C. A. BEJAN

In October 1932 Polihroniade and Vojen founded Axa, collaborating

with other members of Criterion. Initially the newspaper positioned itself
to represent the ‘Young Generation’ but quickly veered to the right. It is
no coincidence that this turning point came in December 1932, with the
interruption of Criterion’s public activity. Within the Iron Guard itself,
starting from 1933, the name Axa referred to the ‘nest’ of ‘legionary
intellectuals.’147 As for Criterionists involved, Ionesco ceased his activity
with the paper once Axa had made clear its political allegiance.148 Noica
maintained an ambiguous collaboration, focusing more on spiritualizing
the ‘ethnic collectivism’ than the ‘political militancy.’149
Comarnescu expressed his frustration to Arşavir Acterian about these
nationalist ‘bashi-bazouks [undisciplined bandits] who are looking for
trouble in this country wanting dictatorship.’150 And he wrote in his diary,

One can sense already in the heart of the association that there will be a clear
rupture and I wonder if it can survive, when the social and political conflicts
become more powerful and exclusivist every day. We separate ourselves from
the hooligans, the intolerants, the obscurantists, even if these people will be
joined by some of the men of true value, who prefer darkness, hatred, besti-
ality and fascist dictatorship.151

‘Idols’ Symposia Continued

Comarnescu recalls that the remaining symposia in November and
December particularly on Krishnamurti, Greta Garbo, Gandhi and Paul
Valéry had a much calmer discussion and less politically controversial
nature than those at the start of the cycle.152 This recollection is curious
when we consider that Ricketts claimed that these lectures in fact never
took place.153 A feasible explanation for this discrepancy is that the typical
large-scale public manifestations could no longer occur, so the symposia
did continue at the Royal Foundation as much quieter affairs, composed

147
 Ţ urcanu, Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier de l’histoire, 187.
148
 Eugen Ionescu, Război cu toată lumea, Vol. 2, 70. Cited in Ţ urcanu, Mircea Eliade: Le
prisonnier de l’histoire, 187.
149
 Ţ urcanu, Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier de l’histoire, 187.
150
 Acterian, Jurnal 1929–1945/1958–1990, 112. November 18, 1932.
151
 PCJ, 80. Dated ‘towards the end of the year 1932.’
152
 Ibid., 79.
153
 Ricketts, Mircea Eliade: The Romanian Root, Vol. 1, 555.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  117

mainly of Criterion members and thus had far less publicity and exposure.
In addition to the remaining ‘Idols’ Valéry, Bergson, Krishnamurthi,
Garbo and Gandhi, the program was expanded to include Proust, Spengler
and Picasso.

Paul Valéry (France, 1871–1945)

The political and cultural symbol of the French nation, poet, philosopher,
essayist and aphorist, Valéry, was highly valued by a great many Romanian
intellectuals. A correspondent of other Idols Gide and Bergson, Valéry
also wrote a daily journal in the style practiced by Gide and the Young
Generation. Similar to the Criterionists, he was a man of many hats and
interests. Despite his literary contributions, he also had an earnest interest
and lifelong fascination with science, being an early proponent of con-
structivism. In addition to his own intellectual pursuits (both self-initiated
and commissioned), he was active as a public speaker representing France
(as a cultural correspondent) at the League Nations and other important
international political forums.
The interest in Valéry in both the public sphere and personal musings
of the Young Generation began before the Criterion conference dedicated
to him. He was investigated in a previous conference held by ‘Anale’
(January 20, 1930), at which Ion Pillat spoke on the topic ‘Valéry, Rilke
and pure poetry.’154 While at the summer school in Geneva before the
1932 fall series of Criterion, Comarnescu wrote in his journal at length
about Valéry.155 Comarnescu was concerned with being able to frame his
own aesthetic philosophical system in Valéry’s terms: the method of ‘nar-
cissism and rationalism.’156
The Criterion symposium on Valéry took place on November 26,
1932.157 A preliminary list of speakers included (with Tudor Vianu presid-
ing), Dan Botta speaking on ‘Valéry’s poetry,’ Anton Holban on ‘Valéry
and literary technique,’ Alexandru Vianu (the younger brother of Tudor),
Ion Cantacuzino ‘A conference on pure poetry,’ Comarnescu on ‘Valéry

154
 PCJ, 26.
155
 Ibid., 59.
156
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20 f. 16.
157
 According to Mezdrea it took place on 15 December.
118  C. A. BEJAN

and knowledge,’ Şerban Cioculescu ‘Valéry and nationalism,’ and

Paul Sterian.158
According to Arşavir Acterian, Comarnescu delivered his presentation
pretty well.159 In his talk he attempted to answer the question: ‘What is
Paul Valéry’s attitude concerning knowledge and how does he validate the
two kinds of knowing: imagination and thought?’160 Before he tackled the
issue of Valéry’s approach, Comarnescu outlined the differences between
the two modes of knowledge. In terms of imagination, he suggested that
the artist distinguishes himself from the ordinary man through the fact
that his (the artist’s) imagination is richer, more variant, more alive. This
mode of knowledge, the aesthetic mode, the imagination, operates
through perception, dreams or art. Comarnescu proposed that Narcissus
symbolizes imagination and ‘hidden in this imagination, is the experience
of the charm and the limiting of the aesthetic life of man.’ In fact it is the
tragic destiny of Narcissus that shows what man would be if he lived with-
out reason, unable to foresee his own acts and not being able to foresee his
own deeds and the general sense of the truth.
As for thought, Comarnescu argued that it is ‘through the act of judge-
ment, that the contemporary spirit understood the fact that it cannot
arrive at perfect knowledge.’ Comarnescu considered Valéry not just as a
poet, but also as a thinker, a visionary and a mathematician, therefore he
had access to both modes of knowledge. (Whereas typically poets are more
moved by imagination and scientists, more by thought.) He argued that
Valéry’s approach was both classical and modern. He was a classicist in
that he did not search for truth in the obscure sense, but rather wanted
logical lucidity, looking for what was more typical and persistent in the
appearances present in the world. For Comarnescu, Valéry was modern
‘because he realized the character of constructive mathematics of reason.’
He concluded that ‘gnawed by the serpent of doubt, [Valéry] loved the
light, truth revealed in moments of objective vigil,’ and invoked the
dichotomy outlined by Nietzsche when he concluded that this approach
to knowledge is through Apollo and not through Dionysus.161

158
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20 f. 47. ‘Paul Valéry.’
159
 Acterian, Jurnal 1929–1945/1958–1990, 121.
160
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XVIII Varia 16 ff. 20–22.
161
 Ibid.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  119

Arşavir Acterian recalled that a lot of known personalities were present

at the Valéry symposium.162 His analysis of the performances of the other
speakers was as follows: Holban, Cantacuzino, Cioculescu were tiring;
Sterian was lively but unsustained; Botta was a classical romantic, majestic
and impressive, but boring in language. In contrast, Vianu was unexpect-
edly good, impetuous, clear and full of communicative energy. Acterian’s
overall impression of the evening was that it was ‘monotonous’ and only
saved ‘at the end through a reflux of manliness: Dan Botta and Vianu.’163
What happened afterwards is very telling about the place of personal
politics within the Criterion space. Rather than transpire due to the prob-
ing questions in the debates or the intellectual analysis of the speakers, the
political conversion of Criterion members happened socially, around the
Criterion symposia. An excellent example followed the Valéry symposium
when Polihroniade invited Arşavir Acterian to Corso. This evening Arşavir
recalled that he wavered, accepted, then refused. Arşavir eventually did go
and noted that Eliade and Noica were at Corso with Polihroniade.164
The Valéry symposium was repeated in Ploieşti on December 18, 1932
and Comarnescu spoke again on ‘Valéry and Knowledge.’165

Henri Bergson (France, 1859–1941)

In a sense, the father of elan vital (German Lebensphilosophie, Romanian
trăire and experienţa) requires little introduction. The French philoso-
pher’s influence on the Young Generation was paramount, evident in their
academic work, feuilletons, personal lives and creative literature.
The Criterion symposium on Bergson took place on November 29,
1932, chaired by Rădulescu-Motru.166 The topics spoken on include (in
the order of their intended delivery) ‘The Man and his Philosophy’ by
Comarnescu; ‘Intuition’ (Bergson the Intuitionist) by Nicolae Bagdasar;
‘The Beginning’ by Constantin Floru; ‘Psychology’ by Al. Popescu;
‘Rationalism and Bergson’ by Şerban Cioculescu; ‘Bergson and Arts’ by

162
 Acterian, Jurnal 1929–1945/1958–1990, 121.
163
 Ibid.
164
 Ibid.
165
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 12.
166
 Ibid., f. 39. According to Mezdrea it took place on November 17.
120  C. A. BEJAN

Dan Botta; ‘Bergson and the Philosophy of Life’ by Cioran; ‘Metaphysics,

Ethics and Religion’ by I.I. Brucar.167
Arşavir Acterian recalled that known people and friends were present
in the audience and that these conferenciers ‘wanted to be liked by the
public’ but appeared ill at ease.168 They didn’t feel in their place. The
public came to the conference to amuse themselves and admire one
another while the Criterionists presented themselves didactically, preten-
tiously and removed from their audience. Arşavir understood that for the
Criterionists:

To have fun meant you had to have annoyed fun, devaluing the superficiality
of the listeners, just as Cioran did, who was … saying interesting things, as
Floru did (who spoke on the topic ‘About Becoming’). The other speakers
were boring, not even ridiculous.169

Acterian’s observations illustrate to what degree Criterion could be out of

touch with its public and not connecting, nor instigating any genuine
discussion or debate.
After this conference more conversion was attempted on a private, indi-
vidual friend level when Polihroniade invited Arşavir Acterian to a legion-
ary reunion that would also be attended by Codreanu. Acterian evaded
the invitation. In the same journal entry, he mused:

A man of the right? Of the left? Labels that say nothing to me. Any kind of
politics. It is so easy to fall, to forget and to ignore the complexity and sin-
cerity, to chop away at divergent tendencies and to activate, attaching your-
self to the right or the left. I have decided that I am not a man of action.
Instead, and in addition, I am apolitical. I call myself, with self-deprecation,
a man of nothing. You find me to be one. MP [Polihroniade]. Sahia [com-
munist], is also trying to corrupt me, they both are, from different direc-
tions, and I wonder why I refuse to enroll?170

167
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 41. A timed breakdown also indicates that
Aurel Vlaicu might speak for 15 minutes; and f. 40: in another note, indicates that M. Djuvara
was meant to preside and C. Floru and C. Noica were reserve speakers.
168
 Acterian, Jurnal 1929–1945/1958–1990, 123.
169
 Ibid.
170
 Ibid., 122–123. November 29, 1932.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  121

Jiddu Krishnamurti (India, 1895–1986)

Promoting individualism and eschewing any and all particular religious
doctrines, Krishnamurti was a trendy philosophical and spiritual figure,
popular public speaker who traveled an international circuit. As an adoles-
cent in India, the leaders of the Theosophical Society, Annie Besant and
C.W.  Leadbeater, identified him as the Messiah, adopted, educated and
groomed him to become the cosmopolitan leader of their new religion.
However, in 1929 at the annual ‘Star Camp’ in Ommen, the Netherlands,
at age 34, Krishnamurti denounced this privileged status and role com-
pletely by dissolving the ‘Order of the Stars,’ and breaking away from the
Theosophical Society. He spurned all organized religion and any follower-­
worshipper relationship. After this moment he proceeded to give talks all
over the world, holding dialogues, publishing his thought, in an effort to
prove that the path to Truth evades all systems of human construction.
The most discussion in first-person accounts of the time can be found
in Eliade’s autobiography, when he recounted his relationship with the
actress and fellow Criterionist, Sorana Ţ opa, during the Criterion years,
and her ‘spiritualistic, Krishnamurtian monologues.’171 Ţ opa had met
Krishnamurti in the summer of 1932 in Ommen and returned to Romania
fascinated by and convinced of the superiority of his personal philosophy.
Pronouncing Life ‘with a capital letter,’ according to Eliade, Ţ opa believed
that Krishnamurti alone understood it.

She spoke of nothing else: the miracle of ‘Life’ and the crimes we commit
daily, every one of us, against ourselves and ‘Life’ by refusing to live simply,
spontaneously—sterilizing ourselves with clichés, formulas, and systems.172

Her pretentious jargon and dramatic delivery exhausted him. Eliade felt
that he constantly had to be his best, his sharpest, around her, ‘spontane-
ous.’ For her, Love was a constant ‘burning at white heat.’173
The following summer (of 1933) Ţ opa again went to Ommen to hear
Krishnamurti speak and failed to convince Eliade to accompany her. His
explanation to her, as to why Krishnamurti did not interest him, reveals that
the Young Generation could look critically at all products coming out of
the East, while at the same time carry on a genuine intellectual ­investigation

171
 MEAI, 231.
172
 Ibid., 230.
173
 Ibid., 237.
122  C. A. BEJAN

combined with earnest curiosity. Indeed, there was a romanticism and a

mythic fascination with India. Although Eliade admired him for his break
with the Theosophical Society, Eliade approached Krishnamurti’s writings
and lectures with a combination of skepticism and realism, and a staunch
unwillingness to get swept up in any wave of à la mode (ultimately empty)
mystical absolutism. Acknowledging that Krishnamurti was an intelligent
and honest man, who helped many people, Eliade said simply, ‘I realized
I had nothing to learn from him.’174
For the symposium, scheduled to take place on November 24,
1932,175 the speakers were as follows: Alice Voinescu, Sandu Tudor,
Eliade, Sorana Ţ opa, Zaharia Stancu and Paul Sterian.176 This group of
speakers differed quite drastically from other symposia, including the
older philosopher and theater professor, Alice Voinescu. Given the previ-
ous discussion of Sorana Ţ opa and Eliade, their involvement serves as no
surprise. However, to include Sandu Tudor and Zaharia Stancu on the
list is certainly notable, given that these initial collaborators with
Criterion in two years time became bent on the association’s destruc-
tion. Perhaps this subsequent campaign of libel can be linked to early
feelings of being slighted and rejected by Forum and Criterion (if the
Krishnamurti conference did not indeed receive a public appearance).
But for now this is only conjecture.

Greta Garbo (Sweden and ‘Hollywood,’ 1905–1990)

Screen legend Garbo, originally from Sweden, was one of the few actresses
who successfully made the transition from silent film to the ‘talkies.’ This
transition to sound occurred in the United States from 1926 to 1931. The
importance of the cinema and Hollywood to Bucharest was addressed
briefly in the Charlie Chaplin discussion. Whereas Chaplin was a male
comedian, Garbo was a captivatingly beautiful screen siren, adept at all
genres, and remembered for her arresting screen presence. The choice to
investigate her, a female cinematic beauty, alongside Chaplin illustrates to
what degree the Criterionists were also concerned with popular culture
and cinema as a developing art form. Garbo was also a rumored bisexual
and started her first lesbian affair in 1931 with Mercedes de Acosta,

174
 Ibid., 253.
175
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 63.
176
 Ibid., f. 36, and f. 39.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  123

although it is doubtful the Criterionists could have been aware of this in

1932. Still, Garbo was an unconventional figure in her own right and a
risky choice, and notable in that she was the only woman on the ‘Idols’ list
(both preliminary and final versions).
Given Sadova’s own cinematographic aspirations and Haig Acterian’s
interest in film as a director, the source of the interest in Greta Garbo is
clear. The conference was scheduled to take place on December 1.177 The
provisional list of speakers for the symposium included: Sadova, Haig
Acterian, M. Grigorescu, Apriliana Medianu, M. Voiculescu and Dragoş
Orvi.178 An alternate list suggests the speakers were: Dr. Protopescu,
M.  Sadova, R.  Boureanu, M.  Vulcănescu, I.  Cantacuzino, H.  Acterian,
M. Grigorescu and Apriliana Medianu.179

Marcel Proust (France, 1871–1922)

An added symposium on Proust took place in Bucharest on December 3,
1932. It appears that the conference was repeated four days later in
Ploieşti, on December 7. Comarnescu presented on ‘Proust’s snobbism.’180
Another investigated topic was ‘Proustian impressionism’ as a ‘literary
technique.’181 Known for his epic masterpiece, À la recherche du temps
perdu, Marcel Proust was a French modernist writer of autobiographical
fiction, an open homosexual and the son of a wealthy Jewish aristocratic
mother. However, none of these objectionable qualities provoked unrest,
and in fact Proust appears to be an additional topic sanctioned by the
authorities (suggesting that Proust and Spengler replaced Krishnamurti
and Garbo as Idols, following the Gide controversy).
Based on notes in Comarnescu’s personal archive, it appears that
Criterion attempted to solve their problem with the Ministry of the
Interior by in fact involving Armand Călinescu himself. On a to-do list,
Comarnescu wrote Armand Călinescu’s name next to ‘Bergson, Valéry,
Gandhi, Spengler and Proust.’182 Similarly on the back of a note breaking
down the Valéry speakers, Comarnescu wrote various older members of
authority they needed to speak with: ‘[Golopenţia needed to approach]
177
 Ibid., f. 63.
178
 Ibid.
179
 Ibid., f. 39.
180
 Ibid., f. 12.
181
 Ibid., ff. 11–12.
182
 Ibid., f. 46.
124  C. A. BEJAN

Gusti, Aurel Ion Popescu, Ioan M.  Enescu and Armand Călinescu.’183
Clearly their solution in the aftermath of the trouble was to involve him
rather than appear to be subversive; they reached out to the authorities
and even (apparently) amended their agenda and clarified their purpose.
Although why Proust and Spengler would be less objectionable than
Krishnamurti and Garbo still warrants investigation.

Oswald Spengler (Germany, 1880–1936)

The additional conference on Spengler was scheduled for the Royal
Foundation on December 7, 1932. The influence of the philosopher of
history Oswald Spengler on the Young Generation was major and his
work was imparted to them first through the lectures of Nae Ionescu.
Spengler was concerned with ‘cultures’ and an organic view of history that
rejected the notion that Western Civilization at the start of the twentieth
century was the grand culmination of human achievement. Given
Spengler’s controversial conclusions in his own time, their influence was
felt across Europe, as an organic active view of history seemed a legitimate
foundation on which fascist-leaning intellectuals could build their argu-
ment against the Enlightenment and rationality, and the decadence and
corruption of democracy and capitalism.
It is from Spengler that the Young Generation got the vernacular of
‘cultures’ and ‘peoples’ and spoke of these communities as organic and
particular. Spengler presented—what was at the time—a revolutionary
view of history as his seminal text, Decline of the West (1918–1922) was
published at the end of WWI. His main argument was that his contempo-
raries’ Western-centric approach to history neglected to account for the
importance of other histories, other eras, other cultures and parts of the
world. Spengler warned his reader that he should be careful starting with
his own religious, political and social convictions. For the ‘Age of Reason’
humanity had its own criteria with which to judge the relative success of
other eras of history: the greatest enlightenment, economic progress,
national freedom, the scientific conquest of nature and  world peace.
Spengler criticized ‘Age of Reason’-Man for concluding that other histori-
cal cultures were ignorant of the ‘true path’ in that they failed to follow it;
when that, the fact was that simply their will and purposes were not the
same as our own ‘Western’ values.184

 Ibid., f. 47.
183

 Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West: Vol. I. Form and Actuality, 20.
184
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  125

It was in fact a much shorter work (though published the following

year 1933), The Hour of Decision: Germany and the World Historical
Revolution, that would have the largest impact on the Young Generation
in the subsequent years of the 1930s. Spengler believed, ‘Every living
nation must rise to greatness or go under.’185 For Spengler, being a man of
action was not enough, the agent of History also had to be an ‘historical
expert.’ His analysis is compelling, if we consider Comarnescu’s dichot-
omy between man of thought and man of action, and the scope of the
Criterion project, in the Spenglerian sense: ‘to understand the facts of his
[the historical expert’s] time and through them to envisage, interpret, and
delineate the future.’186 Spengler believed, ‘An epoch conscious of itself as
the present is impossible of comprehension without creative, anticipating,
warning, leading criticism.’187 Criterion was trying to provide just such a
leading criticism.
As for the conflict between the individual and the collective, Spengler
questioned what path ultimately leads to greatness. ‘The individual’s life is
of importance to none besides himself: the point is whether he wishes to
escape from history or give his life for it.’188 And Spengler was openly criti-
cal of parliamentary democracy:

What we recognize as ‘order’ today, and express in ‘Liberal’ constitutions, is

nothing but anarchy become a habit. We call it democracy, parliamentarism,
national self-government, but in fact it is the mere non-existence of a con-
scious responsible authority, a government—that is a true State.189

Mahatma Gandhi (India, 1869–1948)

A conference on Gandhi followed naturally from the investigation in the
Spengler symposium. Spengler advocated the importance of other parts of
the world, civilizations and cataclysmic events, and Gandhi (not the only
representative of a non-Western place, e.g. Krishnamurti) was an individ-
ual who abandoned all personal individual consideration in the name of
the emancipation of the Indian people and universal rights. His approach

185
 Oswald Spengler, The Hour of Decision: Germany and the World Historical Revolution,
ix.
186
 Ibid., x.
187
 Spengler, The Decline of the West: Vol. I. Form and Actuality, 20.
188
 Ibid., 21.
189
 Ibid., 34.
126  C. A. BEJAN

stood in stark contrast to the violent revolution advocated by Lenin and

Mussolini and explored earlier in the Criterion ‘Idols’ series. The sympo-
sium on Gandhi took place on December 10, the program was as follows:
H.H. Stahl introduced the evening; Enescu spoke on ‘Gandhi the man’;
Polihroniade on ‘Tactics’; Viforeanu ‘European’; Hillard ‘English’ and
Eliade ‘India.’190
There is no doubt that Gandhi was chosen as a topic because Eliade had
just returned from India (less than a year before the symposium), where
he had witnessed first-hand the Indian struggle for independence from the
British Empire. Eliade believed that with Gandhi, the geopolitical map of
the world would change entirely. This was a major reason he was so ada-
mant to understand Indian spirituality and Asian culture in his own scho-
lastic pursuits:

I knew that Indian independence was imminent, and that very shortly the
whole of Asia would reenter history. On the other hand, in the not-so dis-
tant future a number of archaic peoples would take their places on the stage
of world politics.191

Having witnessed imperialism and domination in India by the British Raj,

and Gandhi’s efforts to liberate his people, Eliade became very impressed
by revolutionary political action.
The Indian national poet Rabindranath Tagore gave Gandhi the hon-
orary title ‘mahatma’ [great soul] but disagreed with Gandhi’s approach
of satyagraha [nonviolent resistance].192 The Indian National Congress
adopted satyagraha as their policy of opposition to British rule, in early
1930 and appointed Gandhi as the leader. At that point Gandhi became a
messianic figure for millions of Indians.193 The first act in the campaign of
civil disobedience began on March 12, 1930, with the ‘Salt March’ across
the country to Dandi, led by Gandhi, who was arrested at the end, on May
5. This campaign led Indians across the country to acts of civil disobedi-
ence against the salt laws and consequently 60,000–80,000 Indians were

190
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 47. According to Mezdrea it took place on
December 8.
191
 MEAI, 204.
192
 Tagore heavily influenced the Criterionists and was initially considered as an idol to
present in the first Criterion series. Eliade discussed his poetry during his Forum lecture, and
Maitreyi Devi studied with the renowned poet.
193
 Ţ urcanu, Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier de l’histoire, 153.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  127

jailed. Eliade was greatly moved and affected by what he observed and
wrote dramatically of these episodes and the rumors he heard throughout
Calcutta of the ‘civil revolution.’ His dismay with the Muslim population
in Bengal grew to hostility due to their violence toward the Hindus and
their refusal to join the effort of civil disobedience.194
Eliade had the opportunity to see Gandhi in 1928 and wrote about this
experience for Cuvântul. He recounted how on March 25, 1928, he
attended the trial of Gandhi (represented by his lawyer San Gupta) for
inciting the burning of imported English clothes in a park, 20 days prior.
Eliade described how the scene was packed with the press, Englishmen
and women and Gandhi’s supporters [‘swarajists’]. Pandit Nehru was also
there, who Eliade described as ‘a kind of brown tiger.’ Gandhi appeared in
his white robe, wearing sandals with a bare head. His face was tortured
and wrinkled, his eyes small. He looked old and exhausted. His supporters
would whisper to each other and applaud. Gandhi’s reserved and silent
presence left quite an impression on the young Eliade:

It was a strange emotion, backward, which covered me. His eyes at that
moment looked so far ahead, so that if you didn’t know, it would seem as if
he were blind. His eyes were like a mummified cadaver, fixed, metallic.195

The debates themselves, during the trial, were uninteresting according to

Eliade. Leaving the courtroom, Gandhi was assaulted by journalists. He
refused to grant anyone an interview. Eliade closes his article by remarking
about Gandhi’s symbolic punishment: ‘Mahatma Gandhi was sentenced
to pay one rupee.’196 Gandhi’s exhaustive and restless journey, quiet
resolve and dedication made him, in Eliade’s mind, a remarkable force of
a leader. Through his life in Calcutta, the young foreign student was able
to see that the movement Gandhi had created was more than one man’s
dream, and rather in fact the desperate cry of an oppressed people in search
of honor, dignity and autonomy.

194
 Ibid.
195
 Mircea Eliade, ‘Gandhi, după Ramazan şi Holi.’ Cuvântul, Year 5, No. 1337, January
11, 1929, 1–2. Reprinted in Mircea Eliade India—Biblioteca maharajahului—şantier,
233–237. Eliade wrote the article in Calcutta on March 28, 1928, and the article was pub-
lished the next year, the month following the Calcutta Congress, at which Gandhi called for
independence or they would embark on a new campaign of non-cooperation.
196
 Ibid.
128  C. A. BEJAN

Eliade was in fact supportive of Indian independence before the repres-

sion.197 Philosophically compelled by swaraj [self-rule], Eliade explains its
focus on the individual and its universal meaning in an unpublished pas-
sage of his journal:

Swaraj is a vedantine idea, which supposes an independence won through

your own resources, not ‘good-government’ but through ‘self-government.’
For an Indian, the liberation, independence, swaraj (mukti in the meta-
physical and the moral) cannot be granted by anyone, not a relative, or by a
stranger. It is a personal question, conditioned through a karmic equation
from the individual or the race […] I doubt Mahatma is consciously the
profound character of the Indian people in his campaign. He is most inter-
ested in its universal, human, Christian aspect.198

For Eliade the meaning of swaraj is not political, but rather metaphysical,
spiritual and aesthetic. He wrote: ‘Politics in India is not politics. Our fight
for independence, for swaraj, is the necessary conclusion of our
metaphysics.’199 He interpreted Indian nationalism to be ‘the vast repro-
duction of a new collective of “mystical” and “aesthetic” experiences:
“The right of liberty is not a political right but a metaphysical reality.”’200
Affirming Indian nationalism, Eliade concluded that the mediator of this
liberty was Gandhi himself: ‘We arrive at liberty as Mahatma says, through
purification, through the individual renouncing through non-violence,
through the agony.’201
His early interpretation of swaraj is very telling, when we consider his
own later fall into the support of the messianism and radicalism of the Iron
Guard. Eliade’s own romanticism of the success of the mystical and aban-
donment of the political is evident from early on. Eliade wrote of the
opposing forces (the white British race and the Indian civilization they
barbarically dominated, Eliade was clear that it was not just an issue of
nationalism but one of racism as well):

197
 Ţ urcanu, Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier de l’histoire, 154.
198
 Mircea Eliade, Erotica mistică în Bengal, 176. Cited in Ţ urcanu, Mircea Eliade: Le
prisonnier de l’histoire, 155.
199
 Mircea Eliade, L’Inde, 241. Cited in Ţ urcanu, Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier de l’histoire,
155.
200
 Mircea Eliade, ‘Gandhi ante mortem,’ Cuvântul, September 19, 1932. Cited in
Ţ urcanu, Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier de l’histoire, 155.
201
 Mircea Eliade, Le Journal des Indes, 134. Cited in Ţ urcanu, Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier
de l’histoire, 155.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  129

From this tension a new world is born. What is extraordinary, this madness,
this folly of India—exiting disarmed in front of the European shellfire and
tanks. And they triumph, just as I wish with all my heart, a new stage is
opening (will open) in history.202

I agree with Ţ urcanu that a connection is clearly perceptible from his con-
clusions in India to his later Guardist convictions, for it was in India that
Eliade acquired the belief that ‘all revolution is spiritual.’203

Pablo Picasso (Spain, 1881–1973)

Modernist painter, sculptor and a founder of Cubism, Pablo Picasso’s
work was greatly admired in Bucharest. An added symposium was held
about him on Wednesday, November 30, at which apparently Aurel
Broşteanu spoke on ‘The presentation of abstract fine arts.’204 There was a
profound interest in Cubism within Criterion, as Max Hermann Maxy was
a member of the association and his work was later exhibited in the
Criterion Fine Arts Exhibition in February 1933. Something Maxy and
Picasso shared was a later support of communism. Other visual artists
active in Criterion included Victor Brauner and Marcel Iancu. Maxy,
Brauner and Iancu were pioneers of the avant-garde in Romanian paint-
ing, and all three were Jewish.

Themes
As for the figures chosen for the contemporary ‘Idols’ series, they demon-
strate the Criterionists looking both East and West for new paradigms to
introduce into the Romanian space. The list not only includes figures from
Western European ‘major’ cultures but also representatives from India,
the United States (Hollywood) and Russia. The discussion was not meant
to just be political but also spiritual, philosophical and artistic. The selec-
tion of idols demonstrates that the Criterionists intentionally chose
­representatives of all possible extremes of the overarching themes and
questions of the day. These general themes all point to a kind of modernity
they wished for Romania: the State versus the Nation; the Collective

202
 Ibid.
203
 Ţ urcanu, Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier de l’histoire, 156.
204
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 45.
130  C. A. BEJAN

v­ ersus the Individual; Modernization; Modernism; Reason (Rationality)

versus Emotion (Experience); Machine versus Spirituality; Revolution and
History. As for the historic ‘form versus substance’ debate in the Romanian
intellectual tradition, they looked for situations abroad of imperialism ver-
sus native authenticity and investigated anti-colonialism in the symposia
on Gide and Gandhi. The Criterionists explored both violent (Lenin,
Mussolini) and non-violent (Gandhi) measures to enact revolution. And
finally they did not avoid the controversial topics of communism, Judaism
and homosexuality.

‘Contemporary Romanian Culture’ Series

The more artistic cycle of events entitled ‘Contemporary Romanian
Culture’ was, according to Comarnescu, not so political nor politicized.205
Topics explored were Poetry, The Novel, Theater, Criticism and Essay,
Journalism, Graphic Arts, Music and Dance, Architecture, Philosophy,
Ideological Currents, Romanian Music and Dance. On October 15, the
first event in this series was ‘Poetry’ by Paul Sterian. The artistic examples
(lectures and recitations) for this were given by Sorana Ţ opa, Sadova,
D. Al. Pop-Martian and Haig Acterian.206
At the conference on October 22, given by Sebastian and Vulcănescu
on the topic of ‘The Romanian Novel Today,’ Sadova, Lily Popovici and
Apriliana Medianu performed artistic readings of sample texts.207 Eliade
used this particular symposium to give an example of ‘The Criterion Spirit’
of spontaneous debate.

In the symposium about the contemporary Romanian novel, Mihail

Sebastian executed Cezar Petrescu con molto brio, and he was extremely hard
on Ionel Teodoreanu, the most popular novelist of the day—reserving all his
plaudits for Hortensia Papadat-Bengescu, Camil Petrescu, and Matei
Caragiale. But Vulcănescu showed in what sense Cezar Petrescu’s novels are
integrated into a Romanian literary tradition and are significant even if they
are not artistically valuable.208

The novel was popularized during the interwar period and experienced a
boom in production. Of course, Eliade’s Maitreyi and Sebastian’s De două
mii de ani are great examples.

205
 PCJ, 79.
206
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 61.
207
 Acterian, ‘Cîte ceva despre Asociaţia Criterion,’ 7.
208
 MEAI, 236.
 4  THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION’S ACTIVITY OF 1932: ‘IDOLS’ SYMPOSIA…  131

The conference on theater was given by Haig Acterian, entitled ‘The

Theater of Tomorrow’ on October 29. In a letter addressed to the
Secretary General of the Romanian Academy, the Theater section of the
association requested the conference to be held from 10 in the morning
lasting until 1 in the afternoon, on Tuesday, December 6, in Sala Dalles.
The program illustrates to what degree each conference was a group effort
and collaboration for both the spoken portion of the evening (the lecture)
and the theatrical improvisation that followed. The text for the conference
was to be written by Eliade and Paul Sterian. The framework (set design,
direction, organization) was prepared by Ion Marin Sadoveanu and the
dramatic interpretation and performance given by the women Sorana
Ţ opa, Lili Popovici, Sadova, Marietta Rareş, Floria Capsali and Dida
Solomon Calimachi, and the men, Sandu Eliad, Mihail Popescu, Gabriel
Negry and Emil Botta.209
The rest of the cultural series proceeded as follows: ‘Romanian
Philosophy’ (I. Brucar) on November 3; ‘Criticism and The Essay’ (Al.
Vianu) on November 5; ‘Romanian Journalism’ (M.  Grigorescu) on
November 24210; ‘Architecture’ (Oscar Walter Cisek) on November 26211;
‘Romanian Fine Arts’ (Comarnescu) on December 8212; ‘Romanian
Ideological Currents’ (Ion Cantacuzino) on December 15213 and ‘Music
and Dance’ (Constantin Brăiloiu) on December 17. For the final event
Floria Capsali contributed musical and dance examples.214 Another
Criterion conference that took place at the end of 1932 was dedicated to
America vis-à-vis the European West and the Far East, in which Sebastian
was engaged in polemics with Comarnescu.215

* * *

209
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XVIII Varia 16, f. 62, Letter dated November 1, 1932.
210
 According to Mezdrea, R. Dianu spoke and the conference took place on November 12.
211
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 25. Cisek was slated to present. According
to Mezdrea, H. Schoenberg spoke.
212
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XVIII Varia 16, f. 137 and f. 133. In the original plan, Stefan
Nenit ̦escu was meant to speak. According to Mezdrea, the event took place November 19.
213
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XVIII Varia 16. f. 133. According to Mezdrea event took
place December 10.
214
 Unless otherwise stated, the list for ‘the rest of the cultural series’ comes from: BAR
Ach. 17/2001 APPC.  XVIII Varia 16, f. 63, July 13, 1932, proposal to the Dalles
Foundation, and BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC.  XVIII Varia 16, ff. 10–13 ‘Proces Verbal al
sedinţei plenare din 17 junie 1932 Asociaţiei Criterion.’
215
 Mihai, Europenism şi dileme identitare în România interbelică: gruparea Criterion, 83.
132  C. A. BEJAN

These two series comprised Criterion’s public activity of 1932. The first
year of Criterion demonstrates that the Criterionists were both naïve and
optimistic in a number of regards. The conception and birth of the asso-
ciation came in the wake of a diversity of cosmopolitan experiences and
education abroad. The Criterionists overestimated how ready the
Romanian public and political administration were to receive their mes-
sage, and debate and engage with ideas on the level that its members were.
Overconfident, they felt poised to achieve their initial aims, to create their
own vision of modernity, to effect positive change in Romanian society
through this alternative form of education and ‘model of cultural action.’
But there were too many factors working against them: jealousy and envy
from other intellectuals (e.g. Nichifor Crainic), threats from the authori-
ties (e.g. King Carol II, Armand Călinescu), the saliency and controversial
nature of the themes and topics they addressed, the rift between
Criterionists and their audience, the start of internal frictions due to politi-
cal and personal differences and the very real recruitment of Guardists
taking place within the elite Criterion circle itself. At this stage, the exter-
nal threat of government crackdown loomed largest. Based on this chal-
lenging beginning, it was an uphill battle for Criterion starting in 1933.
 CHAPTER 5

Criterion Activity of 1933–1935: Politics,

Exhibition, Symposia, Music
and the Publication

Despite the upheavals that occurred in the fall of 1932, Comarnescu

meticulously planned for a full upcoming season of Criterion’s activities.
Embarking on the 1933 program, as far as Comarnescu was concerned, he
and Criterion had settled their differences with the government. It was
only after an explanation to Mihalache that Criterion was able to carry on
with its activity.

Some members of the association went to the Minister of the Interior, Ion
Mihalache, and explained to him that we are a scientific platform, a free
platform of the Criterion Association where we confront current ideas and
doctrines … We assured him that we are not communists, not fascists, but
intellectuals in the confrontation with ideas. It is through discussing them in
contradiction that we seek to enlighten ourselves.1

Comarnescu thanked Ion Cantacuzino, Constantin Enescu, Petre

Vifereanu, Polihroniade, Eliade, Vulcănescu, Stahl and Paul Sterian who
spoke and went with the students supporting Criterion to the authorities
to request and guarantee that Criterion could still hold symposia at the
Royal Foundation. Comarnescu credited their efforts for:

1
 PCJ, 80. Entry entitled ‘Towards the end of 1932.’

© The Author(s) 2019 133

C. A. Bejan, Intellectuals and Fascism in Interwar Romania,
Modernity, Memory and Identity in South-East Europe,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20165-4_5
134  C. A. BEJAN

not letting this institution become a victim of misunderstanding, envy and

bad beliefs, against which Criterion had to and still has to fight if it wants to
continue its works of public education for which it was started.2

Comarnescu had also enlisted the continued support of distinguished

older intellectuals who were keen to help them. In a letter written to Blaga
(then stationed in Vienna) Comarnescu sent him a program of the ‘Idols’
series, telling Blaga of Criterion’s successful symposia on Freud and Lenin,
noting specifically that Petrovici and Rădulescu-Motru had presided. He
finished with, ‘We await for you to come and hold conferences, to give us
suggestions.’3
The plans were to carry on as usual following Christmas 1932.
Criterion’s outreach to the provinces was maintained through symposia
and other events held at the amphitheater of the ‘Petru and Pavel’ lyceum
in Ploieşti and at the lyceum in Buftea, just outside Bucharest.4 On January
21, 1933, Floria Capsali was scheduled to give a workshop on ‘Music and
Dance from Brăila.’5 They also planned to hold two organ concerts
(including works by Pachelbel and Marchand) following the December 14
concert given by Victor Bieckerich playing Bach, at which Queen Marie
was in the audience.6
Other preoccupations for Criterion following Christmas were the issue
of new membership, the internal activity of the sections and setting up a
committee for the Criterion publication.7 A cycle of conferences in coop-
eration with the university’s philosophy students was held from January
19 until April 6, 1933, including Criterionists Vulcănescu, Golopenţia and
Stahl.8 A large fine arts exhibition of Criterionists’ work was held during
February 5–28, 1933, at Sala Dalles displaying the artwork of Marcel
Iancu, Corneliu Michailescu, M.H.  Maxy, Henry Daniel, Margareta
Sterian, Corneliu Bebis, Micaela Eleutheriade, Cornelia Baic, Gheorghe

2
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC, XVIII Varia 16 f. 29.
3
 AMNLR, Petru Comarnescu, Correspondence, Letters to Lucian Blaga 10/IV/197,
20.796, no date.
4
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XVI Varia 1 ‘Chitanţe, Facturi, Bonuri legate de activitatea
Asociaţiei “Criterion”, 1932–1933’ ff. 15–37; BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XXXI Imprimate
1, f. 122.
5
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20 f. 43.
6
 Ibid., f. 59; BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XXXI Imprimate 1 ff. 62–63.
7
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20 f. 43.
8
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XXXI Imprimate 1 f. 121.
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  135

Ionescu Sin, Henri Catargi, Yor Petre Iorgulescu and sculptress Miliţa
Pătraşcu.9 Ornea’s list of the same event includes the artists: Lucia
Bălăcescu, C.  Babie Daniel, Mac Constantinescu, Corneliu Mitrachescu
and P. Iorgulescu.10
As for symposia on political, economic and social topics, initially
Criterion planned to continue in the vein of their ‘Idols’ series.
Comarnescu wrote,

After Christmas, we will probably have, outside of our Bieckerich concerts,

a cycle of symposia, being in continuation of ‘Idols and Personalities’ such
as Ford, Papini, Spengler, Husserl, Cocteau, Derain, Hitler, Thomas Mann,
Fritz von Unruh … or maybe the illustrious deceased with whom the spirit
of the times has a lot in common, such as Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, etc. and
a cycle probably named Trends.11

Eventually they abandoned the plan to carry on with personalities and

instead chose to concentrate on ideas in the next series.

Trends
The ‘cycle of public contradictory discussions’ entitled Tendinţe (Trends)
was meant to be held over the course of three months at the Royal
Foundation. The series’ schedule was printed in the February 5, 1933,
issue of Cuvântul. The first symposium ‘Spiritual Directions of the New
Generation’ was scheduled to take place on February 8 and the last, ‘The
Romanian State’ on April 12.12 It was presided over by Nae Ionescu, cov-
ering the following topics with the corresponding speakers: ‘Authenticity’
(Eliade); ‘Agony’ (Petru Manoliu); ‘Orthodoxy’ (Paul Sterian);
‘Neoclassicism’ (Comarnescu) and ‘The History of Resignation’ (Noica).
Other planned conferences with corresponding speakers included the

9
 Ibid., f. 131.
10
 Zigu Ornea, The Romanian Extreme Right. The Nineteen Thirties, 138.
11
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC., XV Varia 20, f. 60.
12
 Cuvântul, Year 9 No. 2796, February 5, 1933, 2. Cited in Vanhaelemeersch. A
Generation Without Beliefs, 33–34. Constantin Mihai presents different dates with the first
conference being held on January 25 and the last on April 5. For a list of conferences see
Manuscriptum, nr. 1–2(102–103)/1996, Year XXVII, Mircea Vulcănescu Special Issue,
231–234 cited in Mihai, Europenism şi dileme identitare în România interbelică: gruparea
Criterion, 84–86.
136  C. A. BEJAN

following. On February 1, the conference entitled ‘Political Directions of

the New Generation’ was scheduled and planned to be presided over by
Simion Mehendint i̧ . The topics to be discussed included Integral
Nationalism (Octavian Neamtu̧ ); Anti-Semitism (Dr. N.  Trifu);
Corporatism (Toma Vlădescu); The Reaction (Alexander Christian Tell);
Dictatorship (Polihroniade); Autochthonism (Henri H.  Stahl);
Individualist Democracy (Richard Hillard); Social-Democracy (Mircea
Grigorescu); Peasantism/Peasant Life (Constantin Enescu) and Integral
Socialism (Petre Pandea).
The third conference ‘Immediate Economic Directions: Monetary
Solutions’ was scheduled for February 8 and was to be presided over by
G.  Taşcă. The following topics were to be investigated: Stabilization
(Mircea Durma); Restabilization (Constantin Pandele) and Double
Circulation (Corneliu Rudescu). On February 15, the conference on
‘Literary Topics’ was scheduled, presided over by Eugen Lovinescu, and
was on Sincerity (Ionel Jianu); Subjectivism (Eliade); Objectivism
(Sebastian), Literary Technique (Șerban Cioculescu) and Literature of the
Proletariate (Petre Pandrea). The February 22 conference was on philoso-
phy entitled ‘Trends in Philosophy: Metaphysics or Positive Science.’
Presided over by Constantin Rădulescu-Motru, the following topics were
to be addressed: Scientist Positivism (Al. Popescu); Criticism (Noica);
Empirio-criticism (I.  Brucăr); Pragmatism (Cioran); Phenomenology
(Constantin Floru); Neoidealism (Comarnescu); Neorealism (Vulcănescu);
Metaphysics, an irreducible attitude (Eliade) and Theology (Paul Sterian).
The sixth conference was meant to take place on March 1, entitled
‘Trends in External Politics.’ It was to be presided over by I.G. Duca and
featured the following topics: Imperialism (Eugen Titeanu); General
Disarmament (Comarnescu); Military Peace and the System of Alliances
(Polihroniade); Pacts and Security (Sebastian Șerbescu); Obligatory
Arbitration and the International Army (M. Antonescu) and Society of the
Nations and the Global Federation (R. Hillard). On March 8, 1933, the
conference on ‘Cultural Topics’ was planned, to be presided over by Tudor
Vianu covering the following topics: Individualist Culture (Cioran);
Culture of Class (Petre Pandrea); Cultural Nationalism (Al. Dima);
Humanism (Comarnescu); Universalism (Eliade); Transcendentalism
(Dan Botta) and Theological Culture (Paul Sterian).
The next conference was entitled ‘Current Trends in Physics: the
Problem of Matter’ and scheduled for March 15. It was to be presided over
by G. Ț it ̦eica and planned to investigate the following topics: Statistical
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  137

Mechanics [Schrödiger] (Octav Onicescu); Symbolic Mechanics [Dirac]

(Sabba Ștef ănescu); Wave Mechanics [De Broglie] (Sergiu Condrea) and
Indeterminate Mechanics [Heisenberg]. The ninth conference, ‘Trends in
Contemporary Art’ was scheduled for March 22 and further details were to
be determined. This was followed by the conference entitled ‘General
Economic Directions’ meant to take place on March 30 and to be presided
over by Virgil Madgearu. The topics to be addressed included: Liberal
Individualism (G.  Strat); Neoliberalism (Constantin Pandele); The
Coopartive Movement (Mircea Pienescu); Syndicalism (G.  Vlădescu-
Răcoasa); Corporatism (Grigore Manoilescu) and State Socialism,
Communism (Mircea Grigorescu). The final conference scheduled for
April 5 was entitled ‘Trends in Domestic Politics: the Romanian State’ and
was to be presided over by Nae Ionescu covering the following topics: The
Deficiencies of the Current State (Polihroniade); The Explanation of the
Current State (Henri H.  Stahl); The Bourgeois State (Petre Viforeanu);
The Proletarian State (Petre Pandrea); The Corporate State (Toma
Vlădescu); The Peasant State (Constantin Enescu) and The National State
(Octavian Neant ̦u).13
‘Following a state of emergency’ (the Grivița riots) the authorities
forced Criterion to cancel the February 8 (their first) symposium.14 It
was later held on March 6 but prohibited from being open to the public,
so Criterion had to hold it as a private gathering.15 This took place at the
Corso restaurant and Comarnescu described it as a ‘Criterion closed-­
circle,’ presumably the name given to such public symposia once they
had been relegated to the private sphere.16 At this event Comarnescu
spoke on ‘Neoclassicism’ and addressed the subject of Hamlet. His arti-

13
 Mihai, Europenism şi dileme identitare în România interbelică: gruparea Criterion,
84–86.
14
 Ornea, The Romanian Extreme Right, 138: ‘I have found a note in the Journal Dreapta
which announced that, following state of emergency the February 8, 1933 symposium on
Spiritual Orientation of the New Generation had been cancelled.’ Note that Ornea has the
same date for this conference as Vanhaelemeersch, not Mihai.
15
 Cuvântul, Year 9 No. 2824, March 5, 1933, 2. Cited in Vanhaelemeersch, A Generation
Without Beliefs, 34.
16
 There are two dates for this: Comarnescu claims it occurred on March 5 in BAR Ach.
17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20 f. 13 ‘5.III. Cerc restrins Criterion (Corso)’: Neo-classicism
(Hamlet 1933) in ‘symposimul despre active spirituale al tin. Generat ̦ie’; Vanhaelemeersch
claims it occurred on March 6 in A Generation Without Beliefs, 34, citing Cuvântul, Year 9
No. 2824, March 5, 1933, 2. I defer to Comarnescu’s account.
138  C. A. BEJAN

cle ‘Răul Veacului Nostru: Hamlet 1933’ (‘The Ills of our Century:
Hamlet 1933) about the topic appeared in Viaţa românească the fol-
lowing month.
The instability both outside and within Criterion grew.
Comarnescu observed,

Our generation is separating itself into two polar opposite directions and a
bitter struggle. I don’t want to become politically active, and will remain in
my intellectual position, devoting myself to culture. Whether or not I will
succeed remains to be seen.17

Throughout 1933 the lack of unity within the association became more
apparent as political differences and personal life issues (friendship factors,
various social, career and personal obligations) interfered. By the end of
the year Comarnescu lamented, ‘Of my friends, I no longer see anyone.’18
He was referring to his friends and fellow Criterionists who only a year
before were at each other’s homes or cafés, dining, drinking and strolling
through Cişmigiu Park on a daily basis.

The Griviţa Apocalypse

The true threat of anyone questioning the ‘status quo’ became apparent as
the peak of the Criterion moment itself coincided with the anarchy and
‘dramatic events of February 1933 and the apocalyptic atmosphere they
cast over Bucharest.’19 Though the Criterionists themselves could not
have predicted what would occur, the devastation that transpired demon-
strated that the government had cause to be cautious and suspicious of
them or anyone else for communist activity. Later the Romanian
Communist Party (RCP) propaganda machine claimed the Griviţa riot
was one of the first anti-fascist actions in Europe.20
Toward the end of January 1933, communists helped incite protests
amongst the workers of the Romanian Rail Service (Căile Ferate Române,
CFR, whose workshops were located on Griviţa Road [Calea Griviţei]) in
Bucharest, and employees of the Ploieşti oil refineries in Prahova Valley.
The catalyst for the strikes was the economic crisis of 1929–1933. The
17
 PCJ, 81, January 1933.
18
 PCJ, 101. Sunday, December 3, 1933.
19
 Vanhaelemeersch, A Generation Without Beliefs, 33.
20
 Vladimir Tismaneanu, Stalinism for All Seasons, 78.
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  139

government reduced wages by 10 to 12.5 percent on January 17, 1933,

when Alexandru Vaida-Voevod, Minister of Industry and Commerce,
implemented ‘the so-called third sacrificial curve.’21 This led to demon-
strations in major industrial areas throughout the country.
The CFR workers at Griviţa went on strike on February 2, demanding
a 40 percent wage increase, and that the management suspend firing
employees and rehire those who had been laid off. The CFR workers
called off their strike on February 1, due to pressure from the authorities,
who guaranteed to repay their salaries. As a result of the workers’ easy
acquiescence to the government, avowed communists closed down their
workplaces and demanded they establish a ‘committee’ (soviet) that would
liaise directly with CFR’s management.22 The government perceived this
as a direct political threat with potential links to the Soviet Union and
took decisive action. Martial law was installed on February 3 and the gov-
ernment proclaimed a state of emergency, arresting approximately 1600
strikers.23
Martial law had been abolished in 1928. Parliament voted almost unan-
imously on the night of February 3 for martial law that forbade all clan-
destine groups and introduced censorship on books. The day that
Monitorul Oficial published the royal decree declaring martial law was the
same day that Criterion published the schedule for their symposia series
starting with ‘Spiritual Directions of the New Generation.’24 Shortly fol-
lowing Criterion’s rescheduled conference bearing that name, Congress
passed ‘The Law for the Preservation of Public Peace and Order.’25 The
Criterionists were dealing with a situation increasingly less accepting of
free speech and the exploration of radical ideas. Criterion’s public activity
at the Royal Foundation was suspended altogether on February 10, 1933,
as a result of the communist riots and rail worker strikes on Griviţa Road.26
21
 Ibid., 81–82.
22
 Vanhaelemeersch, A Generation Without Beliefs, 31.
23
 Tismaneanu, Stalinism for All Seasons, 82.
24
 Vanhaelemeersch, A Generation Without Beliefs, 32–33.
25
 Ibid., 34. This was an expanded version of ‘Law Mârzescu’ initially adopted by the Liberal
government in 1924. Critics in the press and within the National Peasant Party majority
pointed out the irony of the situation. Vanhaelemeersch writes: ‘Ironically enough, the
National Peasant Party, which owed its success in the 1920s to its being a broad front against
the “anti-democratic” Liberal Party, now needed the Liberal measures for its own survival.’
26
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XXXI Imprimate 1 f. 76: ‘O descindere a parchetului mili-
tar—conferinţe interzise. Nu rupeţi afişele,’ Cuvântul, February 10, 1933, and f. 78:
‘Criterion îşi suspendă activitatea,’ Cuvântul, February 10, 1933.
140  C. A. BEJAN

The location for the Criterion symposia had to be moved. The final lec-
tures were given at the lecture room of the Commercial Academy.27
In retaliation for the February 2 arrests and also in response to the
installation of martial law the Griviţa workshops went on strike on
February 15. Pamphlets were distributed all over Bucharest calling for a
general strike on February 18.28 Chaos ensued and private citizens were
taking advantage of the disorder by looting and setting fire to buildings.29
On February 16, the authorities decided to occupy the Griviţa workshops.
Army troops attacked and three workers were killed and 16 seriously
wounded.30 Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej was among the CFR employees
who organized the strike. He was arrested and sentenced to 12  years
forced labor.31
Following the events at Griviţa and the government’s response, Eliade
suspected that his book Întoarcerea din Rai (Return from Paradise) would
be censored.

With an anxious heart, I deposited several copies of the novel at the office of
the Censor. I remembered many passages that might result in the book’s
being banned: above all, the description of the strike at the Griviţa Shops,
and allusions to the brutalities of the military police and army officers.32

As Eliade feared, Întoarcerea din Rai was vetoed by the censors on

February 4, 1934, and only three weeks later released for publication.33
However, what happened at Griviţa did not entirely paralyze nor stunt
Criterion’s activity. Criterionists still approached politicians for support.
Polihroniade had tried to win sympathy from politicians of the right,

27
 ‘Criterion îşi suspendă activitatea,’ Cuvântul, February 10, 1933. BAR Ach. 17/2001
APPC. XXXI Imprimate 1 f. 78.
28
 ‘O nouă mişcare la CFR,’ Lupta, Year 12 No. 3390, February 16, 1933, 4. Cited in
Vanhaelemeersch 33.
29
 Vanhaelemeersch, A Generation Without Beliefs, 33.
30
 Tismaneanu, Stalinism for All Seasons, 82.
31
 In 1944 Dej escaped and became the General Secretary of the Romanian Communist
Party after the installation of the communist regime in 1948. Dej ruled until his death in
1965, when Nicolae Ceauşescu became Romania’s second communist dictator. See Dennis
Deletant, Communist terror in Romania: Gheorghiu-Dej and the police state, 1948–1965 and
Ceauşescu and the Securitate: Coercion and Dissent in Romania, 1965–1989.
32
 MEAI, 280.
33
 Vanhaelemeersch, A Generation Without Beliefs, 271.
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  141

including Argetoianu.34 The association organized a full political and cul-

tural program for the autumn. In September 1933 Comarnescu described
‘giving Criterion a crazy development,’ and that with the new efforts he
had the chance to exercise his versatility and collaborate with everybody,
‘to be useful and develop something authentic.’35

Major Moments of Music

The Criterion committee itself did not function so efficiently just before
its fall 1933 season. Comarnescu recalled with horror how a meeting of
theirs was complete anarchy and impossible to have a serious discussion.36
Criterion pulled off the two series that fall, due to the hard work of
Comarnescu. The more cultural series (weekly, featuring both a confer-
ence component and a corresponding musical performance) took place in
the hall of the Dalles Foundation, entitled, ‘The Cycle of Major Moments
of Music.’ Concurrently, during October, Comarnescu organized some
conferences under the title ‘Hot,’ which were very successful but also pro-
voked severe criticism. Criterionists R. Hillard, Al. Tell and Al. Vianu all
harshly criticized Comarnescu.37 A dance series entitled, ‘The History and
Aesthetic of Dance in Four Conferences with Examples,’ featuring Floria
Capsali and Gabriel Negry, was also scheduled for the Criterion autumn
program. The lecture titles for the conferences and speakers were as fol-
lows: ‘Indian and Exotic Dance’ (Eliade); ‘Ancient Dance’ (Comarnescu);
‘Romantic Dance’ (Alice Voinescu) and ‘Contemporary Dance (Cubist,
etc.)’ (St. Nenit ̦escu).38
The first event in the music series took place on September 30 (and was
presented again on October 22) when Comarnescu spoke on the topic of
‘Jazz, an expression of our time.’ Following his speech, Elly Roman and
Barbu Catargi Ghinda gave a concert of musical examples.39 Roman con-
ducted a 16-person small orchestra, performing works by Gershwin,
Grofe, Youmans, Duke Ellington and Henderson as well as the famous

34
 PCJ, 81.
35
 Ibid.
36
 Ibid., 91. September 5, 1933.
37
 Ibid., 96. October 29, 1933.
38
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XVIII Varia 16, f. 30.
39
 PCJ, 96.
142  C. A. BEJAN

numbers ‘Rhapsody in Blue’ and ‘Louisiana Suite.’40 Eliade recalled that

the selection represented the best jazz music at the time in the capital.41
The next Criterion event in the music series took place on October 7
on the topic of ‘Expressionism and Neoclassicism,’ at which Paul Sterian
spoke.42 The evening about ‘French Impressionism’ took place on October
14 and the program included ‘Preludes’ by Debussy and Ravel (inter-
preted by Filionescu), a lesser-known sonata for violin and piano by Fauré
and a sonata for the harp, flute and viola by Debussy.43 The following
events in the series were ‘Romanticism’ (October 21); ‘The Olympians’
(referring to Mozart and Beethoven; October 28); ‘Magic and Origins of
Music’ (November 11); and ‘Romanian Music: Popular and Cult’ also
called ‘The Romanian Specific’ (November 18).44 It would seem that dur-
ing the conference on ‘Romanian Music,’ I.D. Petrescu (who earned his
PhD in Theology in Paris) spoke on ‘The Byzantine Gregorian Chant.’
Among the performances given, Miss M. Cocorăscu played the last part of
a piano suite by Enescu.45 The remaining speakers of the series (apart from
those already mentioned) included G. Breazul, D. Cuclin, Par. Petrescu
and Dan Botta.
Eliade gave an in-depth account of his contribution to the series in his
memoirs. He spoke on what he described as ‘Asian and primitive music’
taking part in the ‘Magic and origins of music’ evening. His involvement
illustrates the degree to which the Criterionists themselves were responsi-
ble for the content of their events (including those with a more cultural
and artistic bent). Eliade was given the responsibility to find as many rep-
resentative recordings and printed materials as possible. He had brought a
few with him from India: ‘I possessed only a few essays of Bengalese folk
and religious music, plus a very few examples of Balinese melodies.’46

40
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XXXI Imprimate 1, f. 106.
41
 MEAI, 277. Eliade incorrectly remembers the dates and claims Comarnescu closed the
series, when he in fact opened it.
42
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XXXI Imprimate 1, f. 14.
43
 Radu Georgescu, ‘Cronica Muzicală,’ Revista Fundatiilor Regale, Year I No. 1, 1934,
220–222.
44
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XXXI Imprimate 1, ff. 47–53.
45
 It would appear that this had two şedinţe [sessions], though I have been able to recover
only the second date and also find the exact date of when Byzantine chant was examined.
Radu Georgescu covers it in his Revista Fundaţiilor Regale review, lauding M. Cocorascu’s
execution.
46
 MEAI, 278.
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  143

Musicians offered to adapt the music to the instruments they had access to
in Bucharest and

to improvise a chorus that would attempt to reproduce both equatorial

African rhythms and melancholic Indonesian monotones. The performance
enjoyed an extraordinary success. I spoke for ten or fifteen minutes on
Indian music, and then withdrew … in the auditorium of the Dalles
Foundation, perhaps for the first time in Romania, arias from Travancore
and Puri resounded. I reappeared and attempted to evoke the mythologies
and religious spirit of certain archaic peoples; ritual songs, Melanesian
chanting, and the syncopated shouting of some Australian tribe.47

This series was quite successful and was enthusiastically received by the
public. The audience grew larger with each performance.48 To the evening
on ‘French impressionism,’ Comarnescu invited a woman he was flirting
with (before he got to know Gina  Manolescu-Strunga), Lucie Alioth-­
Karadja, whom he ‘admired for her intellect.’49 The same evening the
Marquis d’ Ormesson, the Minister of France, his wife and Gusti (who was
Minister of Education at the time) were in attendance due to Comarnescu’s
personal invitation.50 Criterion received very positive reviews and coverage
for this series. In his review of the evening on ‘Expressionism and a New
Musical Classicism,’ in Cronica Musicală Botta described Comarnescu as
working with ‘a frenzy and facility much more than that of an American.’51
As for the music explored that evening, Botta wrote that Stravinsky’s career
was in parallel with that of Picasso’s in painting, in that both were symbols
of creation concordant with the spirit of their times.52 Radu Georgescu
gave the series an extremely complimentary review in the first issue of
Revista Fundaţiilor Regale saying that ‘the conferences and performances
constituted more than a success: a victory of teaching which the Music sec-
tion of the association will certainly use.’53 Georgescu deemed the evening

47
 Ibid.
48
 Ibid.
49
 PCJ, 97.
50
 Ibid.
51
 Dan Botta, ‘Cronica Muzicală: Expresionism şi nou clasicism musical,’ Calendarul,
October 14, 1933. Found in BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XXXI Imprimate 1, f. 107.
52
 Ibid.
53
 Radu Georgescu, ‘Cronica Muzicală,’ Revista Fundatiilor Regale, Year I No. 1, 1934,
221.
144  C. A. BEJAN

of ‘French Impressionism’ particularly noteworthy describing it as ‘a bal-

anced program, representative of the moment.’54

Autumn Symposia
Criterion’s political series of autumn 1933 apparently took place at the
Royal Foundation. By this point Comarnescu had procured a job as ‘the
central secretary of the section for conferences at the Royal Foundation.’55
The first symposium ‘Solutions to the Economic Crisis’ was presided over
by Professor G. Tasca, and those who spoke included M. Vulcănescu, the
engineer St. Beldie and engineer Mavrocordat.56 Another symposium was
on the topic of ‘War’ and was presided over by Grigore Gafencu. The
speaker line-up and corresponding topic were as follows: Ion Victor Vojen
spoke on ‘Germany and the European Balance’; Petre Viforeanu on
‘France and the Peace of Europe’; M. Polihroniade on ‘Japan, China and
the Pacific’; Constantin Enescu on ‘The Neo-Imperialism of Europe.’57
The symposium entitled ‘The Meaning of Life in Contemporary Literature’
(October 26, 1933) included five speakers. Two works presented were
Louis-Ferdinand Céline’s Voyage au bout de la nuit and Malraux’s La con-
dition humaine.58 Comarnescu was the last speaker and delivered a lecture
about Erich Kaestner’s book Fabian, and claimed the event was a success.59
Vulcănescu spoke on Jean Cocteau at the November 11 symposium on
‘Neoclassicism.’60 Comarnescu spoke at the final three symposia he men-
tions. At the symposium on ‘Classicism’ Eugene O’Neill was investigat-
ed.61 On November 30, a symposium entitled ‘Civilization’ was held,
addressing the global cultural crisis. The final one, entitled ‘Race,’ was
held on December 7, and the topics and speakers included ‘The Biological

54
 Ibid.
55
 PCJ, 93. October 30, 1933.
56
 Ornea, The Romanian Extreme Right, 137.
57
 Ibid. Ornea claimed he was unable to reconstitute the rest of the symposia, what follows
is my own attempt but surely there are still some details missing needing to be filled in by
future scholars.
58
 Vanhaelemeersch, A Generation Without Beliefs, 276.
59
 PCJ, 96.
60
 Mircea Vulcănescu, Dimensiunea românească a existenţei, Vol. 2, Chipuri spiritual, 254.
Cited in Matei. Europenism şi dileme identitare în România interbelică: gruparea Criterion,
106.
61
 It is very possible that the ‘Neoclassicism’ and ‘Classicism’ conferences were the same
conference as the date I found for ‘Classicism’ is also November 11.
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  145

Conception of Race’ (C.  Georgescu); ‘The Spiritual Structure of Race’

(Paul Kostin Deleanu); and ‘Race, Culture, Morality’ (Comarnescu).62
Comarnescu noted that Gina and Mrs. Pincas assisted with this
symposium.63
The topics chosen for the 1933 symposia aptly demonstrate the over-
whelming sense felt by the Criterionists that Romania, Europe and even
the world were in a state of crisis; that war was imminent and that this
threshold on which they stood was a bridge to a new modernity and
potentially a new civilization. There was a concern to maintain the balance
of nations and peace in both Europe and beyond (reaching as far as the
Pacific). A central element in this discussion was the issue of race, to which
Criterion devoted an entire symposium. At a time of rapid advancement in
the scientific field of eugenics, public debate about birth control (abortion
was illegal) and the harsh discrimination against the minorities within
Greater Romania’s borders, race was not only a pressing topic in Germany
but was a hot topic of discussion in interwar Romania.
Eugenics in interwar Romania was not only a question of race but a mat-
ter of the advancement of science and improving the quality of life for all
mankind.64 In a 1931 article published in Gusti’s quarterly review and
translated into Romanian by Comarnescu, the English eugenicist
F.C.S. Schiller explains that the debate in eugenics at that time divided into
two branches: negative and positive. Negative eugenics aimed at eliminat-
ing the degenerate ‘weeds’ that were bringing society down, while positive
eugenics looked to improving human life. His article is a call to arms to
meet what he perceives to be the challenge of progress and advancement:

If we want improvement, progress, the creation of superior types of human-

ity, the realization of ideals, we must look to positive eugenics, which sets
itself to inquire by what means the human race be rendered intrinsically
better, higher, stronger, healthier, more capable, so that human life might
become happier and more worth living.65

62
 ‘De la Criterion’ Credinţa, Year I No. 4, December 6, 1933, 2. Advertising Criterion’s
symposium on ‘Race.’
63
 PCJ, 100.
64
 See Marius Turda, Modernism and Eugenics.
65
 F.S.C.  Schiller, ‘Eugenics as a Moral Idea: The Beginning of Progressive Reform.’
Arhiva pentru ştiință şi reformă socială, Year 4 No. 4 1931. Translated by Petru Comarnescu
for Cronica on 636. Quote from 489.
146  C. A. BEJAN

With respect to race, despite the extreme racism toward minorities in

Romania, many of the Criterionists themselves had a liberal and enlight-
ened approach. Of course, they themselves were of mixed ethnic back-
grounds, but it was Comarnescu (who claimed to be totally Romanian)
who exhibited the most tolerant and progressive attitude of all.
Comarnescu’s own thoughts on the minority issue reveal to what degree
the village and the city were still very separate entities in interwar Romania,
as well as how out of touch ordinary Romanians were with the concerns
(and daily lives, even) of the minorities living within their borders.
In August 1933, just before Criterion’s fall events began, Gusti asked
Comarnescu to accompany a group of English ethnographers and geogra-
phers to the local community of Borsec (a town in north-eastern
Transylvania, in Harghita County of eastern Transylvania, famous for the
surrounding natural beauty and mineral water). He had previously led a
similar trip for Gusti, of American tourists coming to explore Romanian
village life. After these experiences, Comarnescu considered that he had
the potential to become a ‘cultural diplomat.’ In Borsec Comarnescu had
many interesting conversations with the local people (who were mostly
Hungarian) and observed, ‘I found some interesting types and some
revolting situations. We do not know how to behave with the minorities.’66
Following a particularly nasty incident on the last day of the trip,
Comarnescu noted that he felt ashamed of his fellow Romanians. He wrote,

I became a communist again. Wanting to end once and for all this inequality
and chauvinistic discrimination, that ends with the police and professional
politics [politicianismul], with this hateful and horrid militarism. The abuse
towards the local people is not only executed by the colonels, but also by the
policemen. The corporals and the majors are sometimes harsher than the
higher officers. We need more civic education, more instruction, and espe-
cially [more] humane kindness. The civilized in the city believe that they are
the most suitable to lead, not the peasants and the pseudo-civilized.
Golopenţia, with whom I am now a true friend, sees things as in Plato’s
republic, with hierarchies that no longer work today.67

Comarnescu not only expressed his progressive views in the Romanian

context. Something that both impressed and appalled him during his time
in America was the contradiction between legal and practical equality of

 PCJ, 83.
66

 Ibid., 84.
67
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  147

the people including Jews and women (on the one hand) and the persist-
ing inherent racism toward African-Americans even in New York City (on
the other).

Tensions of Fall 1933

By the end of 1933 things were not going so well for the Criterion
Association. Comarnescu lamented the association losing money.68 In
October Sebastian felt the need to assert again the genuine apolitical
nature of the association: ‘The function of this group of writers and think-
ers was only a function of the intellectual order, not one of agitation.’69
There were also substantial changes on the personal level, Comarnescu’s
relationship with Gina Manolescu-Strunga had started and escalated
quickly to become serious.70 Zaharia Stancu was also already exhibiting his
zeal of attacking public figures in the press, with his polemic against Gusti.71
Following the events at Grivit ̦a, despite more government crackdown
and surveillance, Criterion did manage to rally and carry on with a vibrant
program of activity, a more mild showing in spring 1933 but a full-scale
effort in the autumn. However, by the end of that year Criterion’s public
activity was officially over. The second year of Criterion’s activity was a
year of political upheaval in Romania involving authoritarian measures
from the King and parliament in response to extremist threats. It was the
year that the tables turned. Early in 1933, in February the threat came
from the Left. By the end of it, the major menace came from the Right. In
1932–1933 Codreanu based his operation in Bucharest (from Iaşi) in an
effort to be a national movement. A significant portion of this effort
involved attracting intellectuals to support the Iron Guard.
Ţurcanu concludes that Polihroniade’s effort to recruit Eliade to the
Guardist publication Axa must have failed because his name does not
appear as a collaborator on the review. Although he may not have collabo-
rated with Axa ideologically and officially, Eliade’s name did appear a year
later alongside Nichifor Crainic, N.  Crevedia, Ion Dimitrescu, Ovidiu
Papadima, Dragoş Protopopescu and Nicolae Roşu’s in a series on ‘A Few
68
 PCJ, 100.
69
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC., XXXI Imprimate 1, 91) ‘Criterion,’ October 22, 1933, by
Mihail Sebastian, most likely in Cuvântul.
70
 PCJ, 102. January 2, 1934. ‘My relationship with Gina has intensified.’
71
 Ibid., 92. ‘Zaharia Stancu’s attack on Gusti disgusts me horribly.’ Mentioned again on
97.
148  C. A. BEJAN

Opinions about the Development of the Iron Guard.’ Eliade’s piece was
critical of the measures the Legionnaires were taking, noteworthy for he
published it in Axa, at a time when it was considered the official legionary
mouthpiece for the intelligentsia and also that Polihroniade agreed to
publish it. This reveals that on December 25, 1933, Eliade was not lured
by the initial recruitment to the Iron Guard.

The development of the Iron Guard is a political fact … but the way they
have realized that development, the barbarism exercised in such an exasper-
ated and stupid fashion—on the youth who do not have another way than
[the Guard] …—I abhor it. I don’t know if this is politics or not. I only
know that it is something barbaric and inhumane.72

Violence was a central tenet of the Iron Guard and the government
retaliated accordingly. King Carol II requested National Liberal politician
Ion G. Duca serve as Prime Minister in November 1933, in preparation
for the upcoming December elections. In this position, Duca was vigilant
in his efforts to suppress Codreanu’s growing movement. One of these
measures was officially outlawing the political arm of the Legion. Accusing
them of being an outpost of the Nazi Party in the fall of 1933, the Liberal
government arrested many Legionnaires just before the elections and the
authorities killed many. In retaliation, the legionary ‘Nicadori’ death
squad fatally shot the Prime Minister on the platform at the Sinaia train
station on December 29. The three guilty Guardists were immediately
arrested and were sentenced to hard labor for life. Codreanu went into
hiding. The assassination of Prime Minister Ion G. Duca by Iron Guardists
was a cataclysmic event that had direct consequences for Criterion,
Criterionists, those close to their circle and the stability of the Romanian
constitutional monarchy.
Eliade described the month of December for his group as one of ten-
sions. Nae Ionescu became outspokenly critical of the measures taken by
King Carol II and his government (which he deemed illegal and unneces-
sary) in their effort to curb the power and influence of the Iron Guard.73
In Cuvântul Ionescu wrote a number of articles criticizing the Duca gov-
ernment. He thought there were greater dangers in dissolving the Legion

72
 Mircea Eliade, ‘Dizolvarea Gărzii de Fier,’ Axa, December 25, 1933, 1. Found at
USHMM.
73
 MEAI, 280.
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  149

than letting Codreanu’s movement thrive. Ionescu argued that if the

movement were merely artificial (‘without roots in the life of the Romanian
population’) then such a government ban was entirely unnecessary; if on
the other hand it was an authentic movement, it would be impossible for
the government to ‘annihilate it by means of a ministerial decision.’74
Ionescu had met Codreanu earlier that autumn. Eliade recalled a later
meeting between the two at Casa Verde (the Green House, one of the
legionary headquarters in Bucharest).75 Ionescu was impressed that
Codreanu had made something (a house) and when Codreanu replied
that Ionescu had himself made things, Ionescu disagreed:

No, all I’ve ‘made’ up till now are two sons. It’s not much, but it’s some-
thing. For the rest, I’ve made nothing; in politics I’m only a gardener: I’ve
watered the trees, flowers and vegetables. But I haven’t made the fruits. I’ve
just helped them to grow—protected them from the cockleburs.76

As a result of his gardening, Nae Ionescu and Cuvântul (the garden,

theoretically) were hit hard in the aftermath of Duca’s assassination.
Ionescu was arrested, in addition to other Legionnaires (including
Criterionists Polihroniade and Tell) and unaffiliated Guardist sympathiz-
ers. Held at the Cotroceni barracks, Ionescu was interrogated by a mili-
tary prosecutor and released in March 1934. Cuvântul was suspended.77
Activity and circulation of the paper was not resumed until 1938 and
even then it only survived briefly. The right-leaning Gândirea was also
temporarily suspended.

Criterion
While its activity was dwindling as an association for symposia, lectures,
events and exhibitions, some members of Criterion created the publica-
tion. Criterion: revista de arte, litere şi filosofie (October 1934–February
1935) was the last effort of this cultural circle to keep its presence alive
74
 Ibid.
75
 Casa Verde was under construction in 1933–1934 and inaugurated in 1936. The initial
headquarters was at Gutenberg 3, the house of Cantacuzino-Graniceru, a rich supporter of
the Iron Guard.
76
 MEAI, 280.
77
 Ibid.
150  C. A. BEJAN

against too many odds. On October 15, 1934, Tell set up the journal
Criterion. The editorial staff included Comarnescu, I. Cantacuzino, Stahl,
Eliade, Tell and Vulcănescu, and they planned for a bimonthly release.
Seven issues appeared; two of which were double-issues.78 Ornea claims
the publication itself bore no connection to the pre-existing cultural and
intellectual association. He clearly arrives at this conclusion from the dis-
claimer in the first issue printed above the publication’s correspondence
address, conspicuously not Floria Capsali’s studio, but rather Tell’s per-
sonal address on Calea Victoriei:

The Criterion publication does not represent the association of arts, litera-
ture and philosophy of the same name. The title of this publication is a result
of the fact that its editors, all members of the Criterion Association, have an
understanding to continue the ideas on the basis of which they worked
inside the association. The responsibility of this publication is exclusively
shared by Ion Cantacuzino, Petru Comarnescu, Mircea Eliade, Constantin
Noica, Henri H.  Stahl, Alexandru Cristian Tell and Mircea Vulcănescu,
who run it.79

The cover of the publication demonstrates a clear connection between

the association and the publication. Photos of key Criterionists such as
Vulcănescu, Eliade, Comarnescu and Noica are featured with the heart of
the cover being the Royal Foundation, the home of Criterion’s confer-
ences and the association’s most notable activity (Fig. 5.1). From this it
is evident that Ornea’s conclusion is not entirely accurate. Though it did
not represent the entire association (membership, activities and ideas),
the publication did bear a very strong connection to the cultural associa-
tion from which it drew its name. All its editors and writers were
Criterionists. They were not the exact same entity as the association, cer-
tainly, but strictly speaking the publication articulated the difference
between the two and their exact relationship in its own pages. The publi-
cation emphasized that many ideas explored therein were in fact a con-
tinuation of the respective debates begun in the Criterion symposia. This
is explicitly stated in the introductory note before the articles ‘Experience’
and ‘Spirituality.’

 Ornea, The Romanian Extreme Right, 139.

78

 The lower right corner of page 5 of Criterion, Year I No. 1, October 15, 1934.
79
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  151

Fig. 5.1  The publication cover with photos of (left to right) Mircea Vulcănescu,
Mircea Eliade, Petru Comarnescu, Constantin Noica and (center) the King Carol
I Royal Foundation. Source: Criterion. Courtesy of the Central University Library
of Bucharest

In a more succinct form, the present dictionary therefore proposes to itself

continue the activity of elucidating ideas begun in the symposia of the
Criterion Association.80

80
 ‘Notă introductivă pentru rubrică “O Ideie,”’ unsigned. Before Mircea Vulcănescu
‘Spiritualitate,’ Criterion, Year I No. I, October 15, 1934, 3. And Petru Comarnescu
‘Experienţa,’ Criterion Year I No. 2, November 1, 1934, 3.
152  C. A. BEJAN

Vulcănescu further clarified the relationship between the two in the

second issue of the publication, explaining that although they were sepa-
rate entities, they had the same values and were fighting the same
fight. He wrote,

The connection between the Criterion Association and the publication is

more than sharing a title, but this title expresses the same ideal of selection
of values, which some members of the association tried to realize there [in
the association], and which they now continue to try to realize here [in the
publication].81

Vulcănescu described the Criterion association as a ‘tribunal’ and a ‘com-

munal manifestation of the Young Generation’ rather than a ‘doctrine’ or
a ‘trend.’ This tribunal was a place for young people to express and listen
to ideas of all stripes and respect differences of opinion and this respect for
different opinions was the ‘single condition the association asked for.’82
In this piece, Vulcănescu repeatedly refers to the Criterion Association
as the ‘former association.’ This implies that by the appearance of the pub-
lication in October 1934 and the dance performance of Gabriel Negry of
the same month, the association was already considered by key members
as being something of the past. Vulcănescu blamed the intervention of
politics for causing the public activity of the Criterion association to cease,
claiming that ‘what was possible in 1932 is no longer possible in 1934.’
According to Vulcănescu ‘the end of the Criterion Association’ was when
‘people refused to talk to each other.’ Due to condescension and lack of
respect for each other’s opinions, intellectual collaboration became impos-
sible. But although the association was at an end, this was not the end of
the activity of people who persisted in believing in the primacy of the spiri-
tual.83 Clearly here Vulcănescu is referring to the editors of the publication.
Vulcănescu’s words are notable also for they reveal a self-awareness that
the political had interceded in their friendship group and hindered the
association’s activity. He explained the transition from the focus on the
association to that of the publication. He wrote, ‘Some members of the

81
 M.V. ‘…Ş i cîteva puncte de vedere,’ Criterion, Year I No. 2, November 1, 1934, 6.
Reprinted under the  title ‘Grupul Criterion,’ in Mircea Vulcănescu, ‘Tânăra Generaţie,’
Marin Diaconu, ed., 189–191.
82
 Ibid.
83
 Ibid.
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  153

former association thought to transform the tribunal into a publication.’

The publication did not represent the entirety of the Young Generation,
or a result of a communal effort, but rather represented the personal opin-
ions and views of its editors. Vulcănescu explicitly stated,

The Criterion Publication therefore is not a publication of a group with a

communal ideology, but rather of a group remaining in their old positions,
which believes that for the illumination of all problems, the principal instru-
ment is discussion, reflexive thought, a conscious confrontation of facts and
pretenses. The Criterion publication therefore represents nothing more
than a method. Not one of the collaborators speaks in the name of the
group, but each one in his own name. If it took the name of the former
association and wears the clothes of the former ‘Idei europeane’, they did
so, as an homage, for the two directions in which they would like to
continue.84

Ornea’s primary criticism of the publication is that due to its limited

run (seven issues) the Criterion journal itself ‘can hardly be marked as an
event.’85 He admits that the topics explored in its pages and contributing
signatories were of course interesting, but ultimately the publication was
merely ‘the last throb of a splendid group.’86 Naturally I agree with Ornea
that the Criterion publication was just such a ‘last throb’ of core members
of both Criterion and the Young Generation, but I contest the ease with
which he dismisses the journal’s appearance. The themes investigated,
questions asked, fields covered, personalities involved and intellectual
bravery it took to pursue such a publication during a time of increasing
censorship represents a noble cultural achievement and a genuine intel-
lectual investigation.
The Criterion publication was the natural culmination of many ques-
tions members of the Young Generation had been asking since ‘The
Spiritual Itinerary.’ Relevant themes investigated include: experienţa, spiri-
tuality, generation, the New Man, the active role of the intellectual,
nationalism, the Romanian village, internationalism and cosmopolitanism.
What appears in its pages should be taken seriously, examined critically and
considered in the wider cultural, political and personal contexts in which
it appeared. And in addition to all the above listed merits, two widely con-

84
 Ibid.
85
 Ornea, The Romanian Extreme Right, 139.
86
 Ibid.
154  C. A. BEJAN

tested literary works of the period are examined in Criterion’s pages:

Sebastian’s De două mii de ani and Ionesco’s Nu. What I can and will
present here will be an overview of the material covered in the publication
and demonstrate the core themes and subjects the Criterionists were con-
cerned with at the end of 1934.

The Content of Criterion

The content explored in Criterion was just as diverse as that investigated
by the association. Multiple disciplines were represented such as philoso-
phy, literature, sociology, politics (national and international) and art.
Even a brief consideration of the format (using rubrics unique to Criterion)
provides a sense of the wide array of subject matter covered in an issue: ‘a
problem,’ ‘a book,’ ‘a man,’ ‘three positions,’ ‘an essay,’ ‘an idea,’ ‘a work
of art’ and always ending with ‘and some points of view.’ The publication
team itself illustrated the diversity of points of view and fields of interest
present. From centrist left-leaning Comarnescu to right-leaning Tell and
Eliade to sociologists Stahl and Golopenţia and literary critic Ion
Cantacuzino, the publication itself was a product of the philosophy behind
the Criterion Association. The members certainly did not agree with each
other but respected everyone’s right to disagree. And in speaking in each
of their names independently Criterion kept a promise that few journals of
the day did: each article was signed by its author, never using a pseudonym.

Philosophy, Intellectuals and ‘Problématique’

The Criterion publication directly addressed and comprehensively pre-
sented problems concerning the Young Generation. Under the rubric ‘An
Idea’, the quintessential concepts ‘Experienţa,’ ‘Spirituality’ and
‘Generation’ were investigated. In the three articles, Comarnescu and
Vulcănescu endeavored to define the terms, explain their respective histo-
ries and implications specific to and relevance for the Young Generation.
Vanhaelemeersch claims that by the time Criterion came out, experienţa
was a dead concept, which had long gone out of fashion.87 Comarnescu
provides a detailed and informative study of the concept and its applicabil-
ity to Romania and individual members of the Young Generation.88

 Vanhaelemeersch, A Generation Without Beliefs, 278.

87

 Petru Comarnescu, ‘Experienta̧ ,’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 2, November 1, 1934, 3–4.

88
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  155

As for the implications of experienţa in the political sphere, Comarnescu

explains that democracy is associated with a critical naturalist experience
that is proven to be rationalist and individualist. Nationalists are closer to
vitalist collectivist experience. And completely opposed to any kind of
experientialism were Marxists, and the two representative Romanians
Comarnescu offers are authors of ‘Manifesto of the White Lily,’ Petre
Pandrea and Sorin Pavel. Comarnescu concludes, ‘Generally, with some
exceptions, all of the youth of today agrees with the special attention given
to the concept of experienţa.’89
In Vulcănescu’s presentation of ‘Spirituality’ he approaches it in just as
systematic a fashion as Comarnescu. ‘Spirituality’ for Vulcănescu is
wrapped up with the notion of experienţa and authenticity of living. For
Vulcănescu ‘spirituality’ means exactly ‘the state of the spirit’ and to live
every moment of life with value and meaning. He presents three principal
realms in which it is used: (1) interior life; (2) culture and (3) confessional
life. For the second understanding, Vulcănescu presents the following per-
sonalities as ‘contemporary sources’—it is notable that many of these fig-
ures were examined in the Idols series: Benda, Berdiaeff, Dilthey, Freyer,
Gandhi, Gide, Hartmann, Kautsky, Keyserling, Klages, Lenin, de Man,
Maritain, Masaryk, Massis, Maurras, Mussolini, Ortega y Gasset, Rathenau,
Scheler, Spengler, Tagore, Valéry and Unamuno. Vulcănescu credits Vasile
Pârvan and Nae Ionescu and their courses at the university with the impe-
tus for the Romanian cultural preoccupation with spirituality following
WWI and explains the resistance encountered by members of the Old and
Sacrificed Generations.90
As Comarnescu did for experienţa, Vulcănescu concludes with an out-
line of where various intellectuals of the Young Generation fall on the
spectrum of support for and belief in the idea of ‘spirituality.’ The four
possible political ideological manifestations of the idea Vulcănescu con-
siders to be: (1) Marxism (which puts the emphasis on class, e.g. Petre
Pandrea and M. Ralea), (2) Integral Nationalism (which puts the empha-
sis on the neam, e.g. Golopenţia and Polihroniade), (3) Neoclassic
humanism (puts the emphasis on man in general, e.g. Comarnescu,
Sebastian and Noica) and (4) Spiritualism (which puts the accent on the
absolute, e.g. Lucian Blaga and Stelian Mateescu). Vulcănescu then pres-
ents another category, which is possibly most applicable to writers of the

 Ibid., 4.
89

 Mircea Vulcănescu, ‘Spiritualitate,’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 1, October 15, 1934, 3–4.
90
156  C. A. BEJAN

day, agreeing with Eliade, oscillating in their search for a new revolution-
ary spirituality (both interior and cultural) and ‘at the same time opposed
to the dogmatism of orthodoxy, the historical materialism of Marxism,
the particularistic doctrine of nationalism and the round and definite
character of neoclassicism.’ Vulcănescu claims that the characteristics of
their agony are lucidity, negation and the tragedy of doubt that wants to
realize a ‘new man’ who has not appeared yet. In this category he includes
Cioran, I. Dobridor, Ionesco, Mihail Ilovici and Petru Manoliu.91
Just as there was an interrelation between experienţa and ‘spirituality,’
there is an overlap between Vulcănescu’s piece on spirituality and his ensu-
ing mammoth article on ‘Generation.’92 In this investigation, his main
concern is, predictably, the identity and purpose of the Young Generation.
He starts the article stating that ‘during the past ten years no word has had
more value in Romanian journalism than generation.’93 He outlines seven
principal meanings of ‘generation’: the biological sense, the sociological
sense, the statistical sense, the historical sense, the psychological sense, the
cultural and political sense and the economic sense. In his explanation of
the cultural and political sense, Vulcănescu writes, ‘in any epoch a domi-
nant spiritual structure exists in a society’ and that each generation has a
plan of ‘unity of a dominant interest,’ a unity due to being concerned with
the same problems and ideas of the time.94
Vulcănescu explains that the Young Generation has passed through two
crucial moments in Romanian history: the spiritual moment and the non-­
spiritual [nespiritual] moment. The spiritual moment (1925–1929) was
the moment when the Young Generation discovered itself and naïvely
enthusiastically believed they had the power to shape the destiny of
Romania. The non-spiritual moment (1929–1932) is when this dream
collapsed, spirituality fell and the Young Generation found itself useless
and in disharmony with society. Between the two moments there was the
realization of real divergences inside the generation and the economic cri-
sis (1929–1932). Proof of the first moment was ‘The Spiritual Itinerary’
and ‘The Manifesto of the White Lily’. For literary proof of the non-­

91
 Ibid.
92
 Ibid.
93
 Mircea Vulcănescu, ‘Generat ̧ie,’ Criterion Year 1 Nos. 3–4, November 15–December 1,
1934.
94
 Ibid.
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  157

spiritual moment, Vulcănescu offers Eliade’s Întoarcerea din Rai, Ionesco’s

Nu and Cioran’s Pe culmile disperării. For Vulcănescu, the Young
Generation had the unique privilege to live through the moment of rup-
ture. He asserts that going back to before this ‘burning of the bridges’
would be impossible.95
Vulcănescu explains that the Young Generation can be characterized by
its thirst for experience, for adventure; by its authenticity, its spirituality
and its dramatic tension (this tragedy, this crisis ‘constitutes the crucial
point of lived experience shared by the Young Generation’). The trends of
the Young Generation fall into two categories: spiritual and political.
Vulcănescu determines that in the spiritual domain, the Young Generation
can be divided into four groups: Orthodox mysticism, Neoclassicist
humanism, Agony and Negativism. For politics, he provides three options
the youth have gravitated toward: (1) Integral Nationalism; (2) Marxist
Communism and (3) the Centre, participating in the government’s politi-
cal parties. Vulcănescu clearly articulates that the antagonisms, which
halted the Criterion association’s activity, not only had a political dimen-
sion but a spiritual one as well.
Vulcănescu claims the Young Generation has a threefold mission in this
historic moment in Romanian society: (a) to assure the unity of the
Romanian people; (b) to express in universal ways this Romanian spirit,
and (c) to prepare for the difficult times ahead. Vulcănescu claims that for
some, this generation has (in addition) a universal mission: to prepare for
the dawn of the new man (‘to integrate in the universal rhythm of human
creation and to contribute to the preparation for the man of tomorrow’).96
He concludes by addressing an accusation the Young Generation had
often heard: that the Young Generation was ambitious, presumptuous,
that they liked to talk about themselves, to talk themselves up, when in
fact they had not done or accomplished anything. Vulcănescu affirms that
this accusation is illegitimate and that when the Young Generation is rep-
resented in all the domains of creation, their impact will be felt. At that
point, in 1934, they had not yet reached their maturity. (These are
­prophetic words when we consider the future output and legacy of mem-
bers of the generation.) But Vulcănescu does not need to rely on the
future for redemption for his generation. He writes,

 Ibid.
95

 Ibid.
96
158  C. A. BEJAN

And even if the definitive work [of the Young Generation] has not been real-
ized yet, they have realized something much more. For the first time in the
history of Romanian culture, they created a medium for diffusing ideas, a
reciprocal interest in the endeavors of others.97

Elsewhere in the publication, philosophical issues are further explored,

but all through the lens of their relevance to the Young Generation in
Romania at that moment. A page in the first issue under the heading
‘Three Positions’ presents three different interpretations of the Young
Generation’s interpretation of ‘the man of tomorrow.’ Noica, in ‘The
Death of the Man of Tomorrow’ sarcastically and pessimistically concludes
that they are making a mockery of this life.98 They are working for the man
of tomorrow not to be thirsty or hungry, not to want for anything, prepar-
ing the ground for a better society in the future. But the man of tomorrow
will never be satisfied and this effort will never end. Noica mocks techno-
logical advancement and the improvements of modernity by implying that
electric light and the radio do not make the man of tomorrow feel better.
Noica dramatically concludes, ‘What if [the man of tomorrow] never man-
ages to think? Our planet one day hits another one? What if man’s spirit
dies? If this man will die geologically or astronomically, instead of his
dying at least spiritually.’99
Tell is also skeptical about the fight for the man of tomorrow. He claims
that people are neither living for the man of tomorrow, nor for the man of
today. Due to feeling empty and alone, the man of today needs a purpose.
Fighting for the man of tomorrow brings him peace and constitutes his
happiness. ‘Compromise is no longer satisfactory, the organic necessity of
certainty transforms itself into the thirst for the absolute.’100 Tell identifies
this behavior with people aligning with extremist doctrines:

The man who creates an ideal of happiness from equilibrium cannot find
peace except in definite extremist positions. Reason is replaced by instinct.
And instinct does not tolerate restrictions. Look at the people today who

97
 Ibid.
98
 Constantin Noica, ‘Moartea omului de mâine,’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 1, October 15,
1934, 5.
99
 Ibid.
100
 Alexandru-Christian Tell, ‘Viat ̧a omului de mâine,’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 1, October
15, 1934, 35.
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  159

transform their lives without justification, popular beliefs are formed on a

mystical foundation. See this exaltation and frenzy in which the people of
my time live.101

Tell concludes by proclaiming that his contemporaries are making a

grave mistake.102
But Eliade turns the discussion into an entirely different direction,
arguing that what ultimately matters for the life and culture of a country
is neither ‘today’ nor ‘tomorrow’ but rather ‘the day after tomorrow’
[poimâine]. In this piece Eliade critically evaluates the role of the intel-
lectual in Romanian society (a theme in his Criterion writings, that will be
further addressed), and presents Nae Ionescu’s interpretation and influ-
ence, while arguing for his own interpretation of how the intellectual can
shape the world of the day after tomorrow. ‘Poimâine’ is a cry for action
and an article with hints of extremism.
Eliade argues that the life and culture of a country cannot be measured
by today or tomorrow, but rather by the decades and ages that pass. He
asserts that what matters for ‘people today’ is the fear of tomorrow, ‘this
second day after something happens.’103 If the man of today is preparing
for revolution tomorrow, then what ultimately matters for him is what
happens after the revolution.

Worse than the ‘revolution’ is the hour when the revolution consumes itself
and history begins to create new forms. More important than a victory is the
first day of lucidity after the victory. And these hours and days belong to the
people so falsely named ‘intellectuals,’ who are left to understand what are
abstract, schematic, without contact with the realities of life and [who are]
incapable of ‘actions.’

Eliade makes a distinction between ‘practical people’ (repeaters of

action, robots) and ‘the authentic intellectual’ (creators of action). The
authentic intellectual experiences life directly, and lives actions with an
immediacy unknown to the ‘practical people.’ Within daily life the
­authentic intellectual understands the play of subterranean forces, which
prepare the history of ‘the day after tomorrow’ and knows how to inter-
vene in it.104
101
 Ibid.
102
 Ibid.
103
 Mircea Eliade, ‘Poimâine,’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 1, October 15, 1934, 5.
104
 Ibid.
160  C. A. BEJAN

Eliade urges the intellectual to take an interest in and act to change

these political forces shaping the future of their country. Of course, he
does not mean this in the sense of participating in the democratic system
of political parties. His argument is addressing the subterranean level,
indeed stoking the fire, which will overturn the current system of govern-
ment (deemed inadequate) and provide the theories and forms, which will
be of use in the post-revolutionary space. His argument fits into his overall
theory of history and the intellectual’s place in it and in society:

Today is without a doubt history—but it is history that consumes itself …

what happens today are only actions whose kinetic nucleus was created a
long time ago.
But tomorrow? Why do certain intellectuals hesitate to collaborate in
body and mind with these political forces, which are on the road to realiza-
tion? Why do they not integrate themselves in the messianism, the popular
and national trends which shake the true forms of life of a country, seeing
other purposes and other hierarchies? This however is not only a history that
consumes itself, it also is a history that makes itself … But even the day after
tomorrow is a consumption, all a realization of what the creators of action
have sown—with thought, with writing, with speaking or only with their
presence many years in advance. It is without a doubt a new life.105

It is notable here that Eliade would use the term ‘new life’ for the title of
his autobiographical novel he wrote during the WWII years, Viaţa Nouă,
meant to be third in a trilogy after Întoarcerea din Rai and Huliganii.
Eliade then examines the case of Nae Ionescu, just such an intellectual
who is from a political point of view one step ahead of shaping history. He
states that Ionescu was experimenting with the Romanian peasant state at
a time when the whole world was convinced of the fertility and possible
success of the liberal state. Then Ionescu saw and experimented with the
nationalist state (in a revolutionary way) when the whole world believed in
the peasant state. Eliade demonstrates how Ionescu is just such an intel-
lectual who creates action. His university lectures on logic and metaphys-
ics in 1923–1924 about ‘the concert’ and ‘love as an instrument of
knowledge’ did not appear revolutionary or ‘un-philosophical’ at the time,
but today (1934) these ideas are appearing as material in feuilletons in
journals in the provinces. Eliade argues that intellectuals such as Ionescu
create action, make history and therefore are in direct contact not only

 Eliade, ‘Poimâine.’
105
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  161

with the typical daily happenings (ahistorical moments) but also see and
experiment, try, and experience revelatory happenings, to choke them
back as well as to promote them.106
However, Ionescu himself does not interpret the vision that intellectu-
als have as one of creation but rather of confession: ‘We [the intellectuals]
do nothing, [rather] we say what should be done [by others].’ The act of
seeing and confessing, ‘an act of promotion’ earns a historical value of
creation. Some intellectuals are just creators of values, which are never
successfully integrated, whose theories are never applied or used. Eliade
claims, ‘It is not just a question of riff-raff, not of cerebral people, not of
erudite people, not of journalists—but of clear-visionaries, creators of val-
ues and actions.’107 And he concludes that it is no wonder or surprise if
intellectuals remain always ahead, in front of the rest of the population. In
contrast to the practical people (robots) who live controlled by external
stimuli, these intellectuals (creators of thought and action) create history
and the future simply by existing: ‘They create because they are.’ Eliade
ends the article with a Spenglerian reference, claiming that the practical
people of today and tomorrow do not move well in an unformulated
world, ‘in whose power they will stand in the hour of decision after the
victory.’108 It seems Eliade is arguing for the crucial importance of the
existence of his version of intellectuals, who will not only lay the ground-
work for the day after tomorrow, but who will be there to guide the robots
in the chaos following the revolution.
Eliade’s sharp advocacy of a specific interpretation of intellectual (the
intellectual concerned and active in Romanian politics and society) contin-
ues in an article entitled ‘Why are intellectuals cowards?’109 He deplores
apolitical intellectuals (intellectuals entirely detached from the political life
of Romania and the future of their country) and claims that they only seek
contact with a social and political moment out of fear and cowardice. He
describes this behavior in terms of the recent rise and success of the Iron

106
 This is precisely why it is regrettable and also incomplete that in his comprehensive
investigation of the philosophy of experience, Vanhaelemeersch failed to address the political
implications of experienţa. The philosophy also, as demonstrated by this article by Eliade,
encompassed the meaning and sense to ‘experiment’ with political theories, ideas and forms
that could be integrated in and activated in history.
107
 Eliade, ‘Poimâine.’
108
 Ibid.
109
 Mircea Eliade, ‘De ce sunt intelectualii laşi?’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 2, November 1,
1934, 2.
162  C. A. BEJAN

Guard and gives a specific example of a novelist he met the evening of the
Grivit ̦a insurrection. As for the Guard, Eliade asserts that intellectuals
began to support it

not because they supported the Guardist program, but rather because they
were scared of being subjects of suspicion and persecution after the eventual
Guardist victory.110

Just learning of the tumultuous events, the novelist Eliade met on the
evening of the Grivit ̦a riots, immediately opened his latest novel to show
Eliade that he himself (the novelist) had promoted the social and anti-­
bourgeois revolution occurring. Eliade argues that the novelist in fact
knew nothing and merely rushed to make a connection between his work
and the events around him out of fear. Such intellectuals are after the fact,
too late, not on the frontier of History.
The intellectuals who have the courage to engage with the political
realities of the moment and critically evaluate and promote (through
thought and action) what would be better for the future (the day after
tomorrow) of Romania are in fact the people who will make Romania
endure through all eternity.

The forces that move through eternity, the forces that sustain the history of
a country and nourish the nation’s mission, have nothing to do with politics,
economics or social life, but rather are exalted and carried only by those
intellectuals of a country, of the avant-garde which alone, on the frontiers of
time, fights against nothingness.111

The cowardly apolitical intellectuals reject their responsibility to shape a

nation’s destiny and ensure the nourishing of culture and the possible
achievement of greatness. Eliade argues that the ideas of an intellectual or
group of intellectuals are the roots that precede and are necessary for the
growth of any political movement. The cowardly intellectual joins the
movement after the fact, seeking to find a parallel in his own work. The
courageous intellectual created the movement in the first place. Eliade
clearly believes that it is the courageous intellectual alone who is capable
of guaranteeing Romania a place in History and a continued presence in
eternity (rather than falling to nothingness).

 Ibid.
110

 Ibid.
111
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  163

In an article highly critical of the Romanian state, Eliade asks his readers
to consider if the great intellectuals of history, such as Klages, Prinzhorn,
Heidegger or Häberlein, had lived in Romania. Eliade argues that they
would have been considered crazy people, and would not even be able to
achieve a university position and their philosophical works would be dis-
missed as ‘vague lyricism.’112 Other figures that would not be taken seri-
ously in the Romanian context and would be satirized in the press would
be Masaryk, Unamuno, Hamsun, Maritain and Aldous Huxley. He gives
the example of Rădulescu-Motru, the esteemed and accomplished intel-
lectual of their day, and maintains he could never become a minister of the
Romanian state. Eliade blames this on the corruption and inadequacy of
Romanian politicians:

Anyone who wants to lift himself up in this country, needs to be dirty from
head to toe. The mentality of Romanian politics cannot accept pure
whole people.113

Eliade concludes that it is with this human material that Romania is sup-
posed to make ‘a New Man.’ But he urges his readers not to despair,
claiming, ‘It is that much more passionately our mission, with the number
of Romanians who are the smartest. And they are terribly smart and ter-
ribly independent.’114 Clearly Eliade is including himself in this number,
not only joining the ranks of the great minds that would be considered
‘crazy’ in Romanian society but also those responsible for creating the
‘New Man’ of Romania’s future. Just because the intellectual, as Eliade
understands him, is discounted and powerless in the context of the
Romanian liberal state does not mean they should abandon their mission.
As becomes clear, they just need to find an alternative way to make their
voices heard.
In the front-page article in the first issue of Criterion, Comarnescu lays
out what he believes to be ‘the discord between the truth of the spirit and
the phenomena of the present.’ He argues that the thinking samaritan,
when facing the irrationality of contemporary life, must rely on his own
thought. Comarnescu concludes that,

112
 Mircea Eliade, ‘Să ne inchipium că…,’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 5, December 15, 1934, 2.
113
 Ibid.
114
 Ibid.
164  C. A. BEJAN

only criteria and ideas which could save the world at some point in time and
could give it a superior sense, are something real and which [will have an
impact] on the consciousnesses of those who will come in decades and
centuries.115

In his piece, ‘The Situation of Romanian Intellectuals,’ Golopenţia

responds to the discussion started by Comarnescu and urges his fellow
Romanian intellectuals not to give up in the face of these discordant times
full of tension, drama and doubt.116 Golopenţia states that Comarnescu
responds to conflict faced by the well-meaning intellectual [voitor de bine],
which is cloaked in the formula of ‘thought or action’ and ‘interior thought
or collective action.’ Comarnescu objected that acts do not accord with
concepts. Golopenţia acknowledges that the intellectual in their time
across Europe faces difficult problems. In fact, ‘the situation of the intel-
lectual is a general problem inherent in the American-European culture of
the present.’117 Then Golopenţia asks if the conflict as viewed by
Comarnescu is a problem for the Romanian intellectual.
After examining the cases of Italy, Germany and Russia, Golopenţia
looks at how the problem manifests itself in Romania. Following WWI,
there were slow efforts of ‘civilization’ and major currents of intense active
homogenization (in fact, Romanianization) across the country: ‘The
Romanian intellectuals of today can dream of a culture for all Romanians.’
Golopenţia concludes: ‘The situation of us intellectuals does not become
“tragic and futile” unless we allow ourselves to be overcome by foreign
complications.’118
A word that reappears in the discussion is the ‘problématique’
[problematica]119 confronting intellectuals of a certain generation at a
­specific moment in history. Noica devotes an article to this exact concept
under the rubric of ‘an idea.’120 He contrasts the dogma of the nineteenth
century to the question of the twentieth century: the acknowledgment

115
 Petru Comarnescu, ‘Dezacordul dintre adevărurile spiritului şi fenomenele prezentu-
lui,’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 1, October 15, 1934, 1.
116
 Anton Golopenţia, ‘Situaţia intelectualilor români,’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 3–4,
November 15–December 1, 1934, 1–2.
117
 Ibid.
118
 Ibid.
119
 In Romanian: problematica. In English: a ‘research question,’ with the belief that of
applying rigorous analysis in order to arrive at an answer to the question.
120
 Constantin Noica, ‘Problematica,’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 5, December 15, 1934, 3.
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  165

that there is not just one truth about a certain thing. Discussion has
replaced blind belief, and thus the problématique of a question means the
‘assembling of the mysteries which comprise it.’ Here Noica says that
Romanian culture should be thankful that they have in their midst a man
who thinks of the idea of mystery, the philosopher Lucian Blaga. Noica
then defines ‘men of problématique’ as ‘uneasy men with uncertainties.’
Although he claims that the problématique of the man of today is more
justified to be dramatic than of a man from another time, Noica, as ever,
is skeptical. He doubts that the men of today can successfully lift them-
selves to confront the ideas of the time. He proclaims, ‘We are not men of
problématique, because we do not understand enough yet.’121
Noica employs the concept of problématique again in relation to the
philosophy of Blaga in an article in Revista Fundaţiilor Regale, to which
Vulcănescu responds in Criterion. Noica maintains that Blaga cannot be
compared to other contemporary philosophers of the time, that he has his
own ‘free and unique’ problématique. In three books published in the early
1930s: The Dogmatic Aeon (1931); Luciferian Knowledge (1933) and
Transcendental Censorship (1934) Blaga develops a system of knowledge
that accounts for the existence of mystery. In fact, in his last book, he
examines the relationship between knowledge and mystery from the point
of view of mystery itself ‘discovering the existence of a profound and
anonymous ontological initiative.’122 However, in contrast to Noica’s
interpretation, Vulcănescu presents that of I. Brucăr as first published in
the holiday edition of Gândirea. Brucăr attempts to integrate Blaga into
the contemporary philosophical problématique and interprets the latter’s
philosophy of mystery as a continuation in the positivist continental
tradition.
This need to preserve a place for mystery coincided with the desire to
preserve spirituality, a clear victim of modernization and other advances.
In his article ‘The Rehabilitation of Spirituality’ Eliade contrasts spiritual-
ity and freedom with materialistic determinism and examines the question
of what it takes to make the ‘New Man’ [Omul Nou].123 He also argues
that spirituality makes history, and again asserts the importance of

121
 Ibid.
122
 Mircea Vulcănescu, ‘In jurul filosfului Blaga,’Criterion, Year 1 No. 5, December 15,
1934, 4.
123
 Mircea Eliade, ‘Reabilitarea Spiritualităt i̧ i,’ Criterion, Year 2 Nos. 6–7, January–
February 1935, 1.
166  C. A. BEJAN

experienţa. The article itself is in response to an article of the same title

written by the philosopher (and member of the Old Generation)
Constantin Rădulescu-Motru in Revista Fundaţiilor Regale. Eliade credits
Rădulescu-Motru with making a distinction between that which is con-
crete and grounded in reality versus abstract schemes and mediocre
thoughts. He advocates what he identifies as ‘the autonomy of the spiri-
tual.’ Reality does not just apply to that which is in the physical and organic
world: there is also a spiritual reality. There are two understandings of the
‘New Man’ and they are considerably different from each other: the ‘New
Man’ searched for and experienced by the contemporary spirituality versus
the ‘New Man’ of Marxist societies. Eliade illustrates the integration of
experienţa into this discussion with the following passage:

A good part of the intellectuals of this time refuse Marxism not because they
would be distanced from reality and history, lost in abstractions—but also
because they are thirsty for reality, for the concrete. The epoch we live in
now is characterized by a tendency towards the concrete, in all the orders of
existence and of reflection. What is named ‘experience,’ ‘authenticity,’ and
‘adventure’—are not only the attempts at a direct knowledge of reality; a
reality of the spirit until now, but [also attempts to] follow a natural ten-
dency towards the knowledge of objective reality.124

Eliade maintains that it is freedom and the right of creation that are the
spiritual axis of any nation.

A people [neam] grows and survives not only through what it creates. But
also an organic creation is not possible unless through liberty and through
the autonomous consciousness of the act of the spirit.125

The ‘New Man’ according to the contemporary spirituality is realized

through a decisive experience. Eliade gives the example of converting to
Christianity as just such an experience. The experience is from within and
cannot be imposed from the outside. And in such experiences only
­freedom and creation play a role, and these experiences need to be ‘deep’
and ‘real.’126

124
 Ibid.
125
 Ibid.
126
 Ibid.
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  167

More advocacy of the philosophy of experience is evident in Dan Botta’s

article on the ‘Power of the word.’ Botta applies Bergson’s élan vital to
how people name ideas and abstractions. Bergson believed, according to
Botta, that the discontinuation and homogeneity of the world and the
notions of geometric space and time are illusions and abstractions created
by words. For Bergson, words stand between the material and the spirit,
between the world and ideas. The philosophy of élan vital is manifested in
the creation of the words and once they are created, they earn an absolute
value indifferent to the conditions they were created in. The word itself
has a ‘bipolar spirit’ by participating simultaneously in the realm of ideas
and the world of substance. Botta describes poetry as magic and argues
that the power of words is still wild.127
Comarnescu elaborates more on the dangers of abstract ideas (a risk
alluded to by Eliade and his critical approach to the lack of concrete reality
in Marxism; and a notion introduced by Botta above in his exploration of
the power of words) in his article ‘The Tyranny of Rigid Formulas.’128
Comarnescu warns of getting swept up in the big ideas and formulas of
the time and again emphasizes the discord between the forms and the
concrete reality. He is especially cautious to his readers for he believes that
in Romania the majority of people have still not reached the point of being
‘authentic intellectuals.’ He acknowledges that they live in an epoch in
which opposing forces and beliefs, solutions and ideals coexist and collide
with an intensity rarely seen before. Comarnescu maintains that one of the
biggest mistakes of their time is the speculation that occurs based solely on
trusting big labels and formulas rather than focusing on experience.129

Nationalism and Sociology
Many Criterionists deemed the road of integral nationalism to be the most
‘concrete’ avenue for the political future of Romania. Correspondingly
there are a number of articles in support of Romanian nationalism and
looking toward national heroes. The discussion of Lucian Blaga’s philoso-

127
 Dan Botta, ‘Puterea Cuvântului,’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 5, December 15, 1934, 1.
128
 Petru Comarnescu, ‘Tirania formulelor—capcane,’ Criterion Year 2 Nos. 6–7, January–
February 1935, 5.
129
 Ibid.
168  C. A. BEJAN

phy has already been mentioned; another figure lauded in Criterion’s

pages is the historian Gheorghe Popovici (1863–1905).130 From Bucovina,
Popovici wrote studies for Convorbiri Literare and was a member of the
Romanian Academy.131 Stahl claims that there had never been a man of
their contemporary culture, who had the gifts of Popovici, which is why
he had such a posthumous cult following.
This brief investigation into nationalism leads us to a discussion of the
articles of a sociological nature published in Criterion. The presentations
of nationalism and sociology in Criterion address the following central
debates of the Romanian interwar era: the delicate issue of minority popu-
lations within the borders of Greater Romania; the continued divide
between the village and city; forms of Western modernization versus the
authentic Romanian substance; and what it means to be Romanian.
Stahl investigates what constitutes a ‘national culture’ in his article, ‘An
occasion for doubt—at a crossroads of paths: towards a rural, provin-
cial and a “national” style.’132 Stahl presents a conflict of two cultures that
interwar Romania was undergoing in her struggle to determine her own
national culture. These two sources align with the distinction between
East and West, and village and city. What Stahl calls the action of ‘cultur-
alization’ resembles bringing Western forms to the Romanian substance.
This is what causes every city intellectual indifferent of political orientation
to, as Stahl says, ‘dress like the politician Mihalache.’ In the village, the
organic culture is maintained and kept by the old people and tradition.
But Stahl observes that there used to be more harmony between these two
opposing cultural forces: there was a time when a part of the Romanian
urban elite, though speaking French, would wear traditional peasant dress
to balls. But he maintains this no longer happens due to a strong trend of
snobbism. Stahl laments this loss and wonders what the national style will
become in the future, what the national costume might be.
Stahl continues to advocate the need to understand the reality of
Romanian village life in his article ‘The Village.’133 He holds that the vil-

130
 Henri H. Stahl, ‘Gheorghe Popovici,’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 1, October 15, 1934, 4.
131
 Ibid.
132
 Henri H. Stahl, ‘Prilej de îndoială,’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 2, November 1, 1934, 1.
133
 Henri H. Stahl, ‘Satul,’ Criterion, Year 2 Nos. 6–7, January–February 1935, 3–4.
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  169

lage is the characteristic form of life for the Romanian people. Stahl argues
that urban Romanians can have direct and critical knowledge of village life
and that the study of village life helps Romanians better understand the
Romanian consciousness. The sociological study of village life can bridge
the gap between village and city, an endeavor that will unify the Romanian
consciousness. Stahl proclaims this to be a problem to be tackled by the
Young Generation:

Which is why the village [peasant] problem seems to me one of the prob-
lems that is unique for the young generation, [it is] a problem of cross-­
roads: I want those my age to focus their full attention on it, and I want [our
generation] to demonstrate its full working power on this issue.134

Ion I.  Cantacuzino laments that 16  years after Versailles there is still
such a lack of nationalist elements in Romanian poetry. He was reacting to
a conference held by Octavian Goga at the Royal Foundation on December
1, 1934, celebrating the Great Union with the presentation of poems
written supposedly inspired by the event. Cantacuzino concludes that the
sole consolation is to maintain the belief that a new national ideal is still on
the road to crystallization. The latent forces of the people have not yet
reached an equilibrium in order to manifest themselves in the lyrical con-
crete state of nationalistic poetry.135
The question of language is a major concern for Octav Şuluţiu when
discussing the grave minority problem in Romania’s provinces.136 His
solution is simple: everyone within Romania’s borders should speak
Romanian and ethnic Romanians in Hungarian dominated areas should
refuse to speak Hungarian. Şuluţiu calls these Romanians who speak
Hungarian cowards. He argues that Article 19 of the Trianon Treaty,
which guarantees minorities the right to manifest their culture, is misinter-
preted when Hungarians demand primary schools in their language.
Şuluţiu maintains that school is not a manifestation of culture, but rather
one of citizenship, and that every Romanian citizen should speak the
Romanian language perfectly.

134
 Ibid., 4.
135
 Ion I. Cantacuzino, ‘Ceva despre lirica naţionalistă,’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 5, December
15, 1934, 2.
136
 Octav Şuluţiu, ‘Limba românească în Ardeal,’ Criterion, Year 2 Nos. 6–7, January–
February 1935, 2 and 4.
170  C. A. BEJAN

Romanian Literature
Ion I. Cantacuzino gives Sebastian’s De două mii de ani a very positive
review but harshly criticizes Nae Ionescu for his preface. Cantacuzino
accuses Ionescu of failing to view the book as a work of literature and that
his preface was responsible for the widespread misunderstanding in the
public of the content and worth of the 300-page novel. Ionescu imposed
his own complexes on the novel, and Cantacuzino urges readers to read it
without the preface. In the novel itself, Cantacuzino sees an earnest inves-
tigation of the problem of living and the difficulties of the human condi-
tion. A large part of that is the importance of the theme of family. The
narrator, himself a self-reflective individual, struggles with wanting to inte-
grate into the Jewish collective. He confronts the struggle commonly
experienced by the youth of the day: that between individuality and collec-
tive. The narrator, being ‘a Jewish hero,’ embodies both the collective race
and the concept of the Cartesian individual. Cantacuzino does not see the
protagonist’s struggle as one against anti-Semitism but rather as a man
persecuted due to ignorance. ‘It is the suffering of a man misunderstood,
a man persecuted.’137 Later in that issue of Criterion, lip service is given to
Ionescu’s preface under the rubric ‘and some points of view’ by reprinting
Petru Manoliu’s review of the preface in Credinţa. Manoliu wrote that
this debate is the first of its kind in Romania, as until that moment no one
had discussed the problem of theology in the context of Romanian con-
temporary and modern culture, and that correspondingly the Orthodox
Church does not have a literature dealing with and addressing
this problem.138
Eugène Ionesco’s first substantial work also appeared in 1934. In
January of that year his unconventional collection of essays of literary criti-
cism, Nu, came out. Comarnescu noted this occasion in his journal.139
Part of the book’s exposure was due to the enthusiasm and efforts of
Vulcănescu who lauded the work in Familia and voted for its publication,
as a member of the seven-person committee for the premiering of

137
 Ion I. Cantacuzino, ‘De două mii de ani,’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 1, October 15, 1934, 2.
138
 Reprint of quote from ‘Tintar’ from Petru Manoliu’s review of Nae Ionescu’s preface to
Sebastian’s De două mii de ani published in Credinţa, September 28, 1934 in ‘Tintar’ sec-
tion; found in M.V. [Mircea Vulcănescu] ‘…Şi cîteva puncte de vedere,’ Criterion, Year 1
No. 1, October 15, 1934, 6.
139
 PCJ, 107.
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  171

­ npublished young writers.140 The book included studies on poets Tudor

u
Arghezi and Ion Barbu, as well as journal entries by Ionesco, in addition
to other essays.141 In his review of the book in Criterion, Cantacuzino,
being a literary critic himself, is not as complimentary of Ionescu as he was
with his review of Sebastian. His principal criticism is that the extremely
pessimistic Ionesco falls into the trap of ego-centrism and fails to entirely
subordinate himself to the discipline of literary criticism. However, he
concludes that Ionesco’s work does have worth in that it is representative
of a member of the Young Generation grappling with the problems of the
time, in the style indicative of the time: confessional literature.142

Internationalism, Foreign Literature, Art

and ‘and Some Points of View’
Despite the nationalist overtones present in many of the Criterion articles
mentioned so far, the journal certainly had an interest in internationalism,
cosmopolitanism and events abroad. And this coverage was more than
merely mentioning alternative political systems (e.g. Italy, Germany or
Russia) or discussing preceding philosophical debates in history (from the
Ancient Greeks to Kant). The first category in which such an internation-
alist presence is found is literary: in a pair of articles under the heading:
‘The Two Italian Commentaries.’ The second place is in the variety of
artworks chosen to replicate (include visual copies of) and analyzed by the
Criterionists. And the third place where international references abound is
under the rubric ‘Some points of view,’ to be presented subsequently.
The first Italian commentary addresses the playwright, novelist and
short story writer, Luigi Pirandello (1867–1936) winning the Nobel Prize
for Literature in 1934.143 Acknowledging that the Nobel Prize was given
to a writer representative of the specific trends of the epoch, Ion
I. Cantacuzino briefly considers the other esteemed writers he considers to

140
 Mircea Vulcănescu, ‘Pentru Eugène Ionesco,’ Familia, Year 2 Nos. 5–6, September–
October 1934, 94–101. Republished in Mircea Vulcănescu, Dimensiunea românească a
existenţei, Vol. 2, Chipuri spirituale, 148–154.
141
 Eugen Ionescu, Nu. The first part of the book includes studies on Tudor Arghezi, Ion
Barbu and Camil Petrescu. The second part is more introspective, entitled ‘A False Critical
Itinerary’ [Fals Itinerar Critic].
142
 Ion I. Cantacuzino, ‘Nu,’ Criterion, Year I No. 2, November 1, 1934, 2.
143
 Ion I.  Cantacuzino, ‘Premiul Nobel: Luigi Pirandello,’ Criterion, Year 1 Nos. 3–4,
November 15–December 1, 1934, 7.
172  C. A. BEJAN

also be representative: Francis Jammes, Paul Valéry, Miguel de Unamuno,

Theodor Dreiser and Gabriele D’Annunzio. Cantacuzino concludes that
the author of the play Six Characters in Search of an Author did have the
right to win and his work was in fact representative of the times due to the
way in which his mastery captures the authenticity of man’s existence:

Pirandello places in the center of modern literature one of the most worri-
some accents regarding the authenticity of human life. He therefore belongs
among those who guide literature toward a greater consideration of the
limits and values of human existence, bringing down literature from the
realm of gratuity and giving it a strong character of expressiveness of the
most dramatic problems of living.144

Cantacuzino fails to elaborate on another way that Pirandello was repre-

sentative of the times: the author’s collaboration with Mussolini.
In the second article entitled ‘Two Italian Books,’ Eliade reviews two
books promoting fascism and Italian nationalism.145 The first, Legione
Decima (The Tenth Legion) by Alfredo Panzini, has a strictly political
approach. Eliade dismisses it as ‘simply mediocre literature and rhetorical
prose.’ The second book Taccuino di Arno Borghi (The Notebook of Arno
Borghi) by Ardengo Soffici has a spiritual significance. Soffici speaks of
‘Italianness’ and the ‘civil and European value of modern Rome.’ Eliade
applauds Soffici’s apparent satisfaction with being Italian, rather than
thirsting for change, describing him as ‘a citizen who loves his country and
is finished with fighting for civilization and for Mediterranean values.’
Soffici is a man who does not hear the call of politics. His refusal to sub-
ordinate himself to the political realm takes a symbolic value. In his con-
sciousness he knows he participates in the great Italian tradition and
European culture and civilization. This brings Eliade to a conclusion that
clearly has implications for the Romanian case:

Everywhere today tradition and victory are appropriated in favor of the

political regime. When in fact tradition and the New Man of the Future have
nothing to do with politics—but belong fully to that which is created or
they will create: they are craftsmen of the spirit.146

144
 Ibid.
145
 Mircea Eliade, ‘Două căr ţi italieneşti,’ Criterion, Year 1 Nos. 3–4, November 15–
December 1, 1934, 7.
146
 Ibid.
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  173

The art reproduced in Criterion represents a variety of media and diver-

sity of artists. There is an image on the front page of each issue. The first
issue exhibits ‘A Drawing’ of Aristotle.147 The second issue features ‘A
Mask’ most likely from the village Nerej with a commentary written by
Stahl.148 The third and fourth dual edition features ‘A Drawing’ by
Brâncuşi, with a review written by Comarnescu.149 In his commentary
Comarnescu proclaims that Brâncuşi and the composer Enescu are the
only Romanian artists recognized by universal art, whose origins can be
found in their homeland. Brâncuşi works are classics due to the successful
achievement of equilibrium between the ‘Romanian specific’ and possibil-
ity for universalism.
The fifth issue features ‘A Statue’ by Michelangelo, with a commentary
by Dan Botta. Botta claims that in the stone from which emerges the fig-
ure of a man Michelangelo inscribed something of an idea of destiny.
‘Michelangelo is the one who created for himself in suffering, in the feel-
ing of that unreachable destiny, a mysterious principle of happiness.’150
And finally for the dual sixth and seventh issue, Ion Cantacuzino com-
ments on ‘An Engraving’ by Francesco Jose de Goya y Lucientes. The
image is from Goya’s cycle entitled ‘Proverbios’ and is of an extended
family (or group of people huddled in blankets) sitting atop a massive tree
branch. Cantacuzino considers it representative of the master’s qualities.151
And finally, the extremely brief entries published under the rubric spe-
cific to Criterion ‘and some points of view’ at the end of each issue, dem-
onstrate the wide range of topics covered (both international and national)
and the indeed diverse points of view held by the Criterionists themselves.
As previously discussed, Vulcănescu presented his interpretation of the
relationship between the Criterion Association and Criterion here in these
pages, in the second issue.
What follows is a brief overview to demonstrate this diversity and give
the reader an overarching idea of the subjects addressed.152 The first issue
147
 Mircea Vulcănescu, ‘Un desen,’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 1, October 15, 1934, 4.
148
 Henri H. Stahl, ‘O mască,’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 2, November 1, 1934, 4.
149
 Petru Comarnescu, ‘Un desen [de Brâncuşi],’ Year I Nos. 3–4, November 15–
December 1, 1934, 2.
150
 Dan Botta, ‘O Statuie [de Michelangelo],’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 5, December 15,
1934, 2.
151
 Ion I.  Cantacuzino, ‘O gravură [de Goya],’ Criterion, Year 2 Nos. 6–7, January–
February 1935, 5.
152
 For the sake of space I do not cite each entry individually and encourage the reader to
consult the comprehensive index printed with the republication of Criterion in 1991, edited
by Marin Diaconu.
174  C. A. BEJAN

included: ‘The eighth international philosophy conference, held in

Prague,’ ‘Romanian books in an exhibition held at the international phi-
losophy conference in Prague’ (including a book by Blaga); ‘The annual
Industrial Exhibition’ in its third decade having been started in 1906; an
announcement that after one year the publication Gândirea would reap-
pear, after having been banned; a commentary on Dan Botta’s poetry,
particularly the poem ‘Carmion,’ likening his work to that of the pure
poetry of Valéry; and the economic inequality in the United States.
The ‘some points of view’ of the second issue includes an homage to
the recently deceased scientist, Ramon y Cajal; a discussion of the
Romanian contribution (exemplified by a recent study by Stahl and Traian
Herseni) to the upcoming XIIth Congress of the International Institute of
Sociology to be held in 1936; and a visit to Romania by the Swedish Ballet
composer and founder of the International Archive of Dance, Rolf de
Mare, who wished to organize a Romanian section in his archive and
museum in Paris (about de Mare, Comarnescu writes: ‘Here is a man who
does more for our country than a hundred foreign journalists and ten
diplomats’). Cantacuzino presents an argument as to why the new genre
of theater called ‘Happy Theatre’ that put on ‘stupid operettas’ and vaude-
ville acts was destroying the authenticity and realism of the Bucharest the-
ater scene. He calls ‘Happy Theatre’ a departure from true art and
considers the last refuge of true art to be the National Theatre. The sec-
tion also includes a commentary on a lecture series inaugurated by
Rădulescu-Motru at the Royal Foundation addressing the irrationalism
present in contemporary culture; an argument for French neo-spiritualism
presented by Ion Petrovici (the Romanian representative, who Comarnescu
describes as a Thomist, at the international philosophy conference in
Prague); a promotion by Eliade of Iorga’s recent book Oamenii cari au
fost; a piece on the historical and contemporary disconnect between exter-
nal politics and the state’s commercial interest; and an entry in which
Vulcănescu calls for a controlled Romanian national economic pro-
gram of unity.
The third and fourth combined issue includes an obituary for Gerhard
von Mutius, the philosopher and former German minister to Romania; an
explanation of why Iorga is no longer of interest to the youth (claiming
that before WWI his work was nationalist and after the war he wrote more
about world history); a review of a book by Em. Ciomac comprising his
series of conferences sponsored by the National Opera about ‘The Life
and Work of Richard Wagner’; a review of the infamous dance recital of
 5  CRITERION ACTIVITY OF 1933–1935: POLITICS, EXHIBITION, SYMPOSIA…  175

Gabriel Negry described as ‘an example of the mutual stimulation and col-
laboration between artists and ideologues’ (to be discussed in the next
chapter); a review by Eliade of a recent study entitled A doua operă  lui
Eminescu  (The second work of Eminescu)  by Alexandru Cioranescu; an
inquiry into the mode of protection of Romanian works citing the recent
law which appeared in Monitorul Oficial No. 161 on July 16, 1934,
requiring that 50  percent of employees in any governmental position
(administrators, technical staff, skilled or unskilled workers) had to be eth-
nically Romanian; a discussion of how Ploieş̧ti is becoming a suburb of
Bucharest; and a criticism of the monthly publication Meridian.
In the fifth issue, topics addressed include a eulogy for the literary tal-
ent Cincinat Pavelescu; a reminder of the important role Iuliu Maniu
played in the ‘Romanian Revolution of Transylvania’; a review of Iorga’s
recent work The History of Modern Romanian Literature; a brief analysis
of the problem of the Romanian bourgeoisie and the divide between the
village and the city (emphasizing that Romania is a country whose rural
population makes up 80  percent); a glowing review of Maria Holban’s
translation into French of a volume of popular Romanian folk songs enti-
tled Florilège de chansons populaires roumaines; and a response to negative
press by an anonymous writer in Viaţa românească (in the October–
November 1934 issue, suspected to be written by Mihai Ralea or
I. Dobridor) accusing Criterion of being ‘not useful, presumptuous, lack-
ing in good faith, lacking in originality, and seeking societal advancement
and promoting fascism.’ Vulcănescu’s response to this attack is that

the few people who value democracy will understand that without a decent
human medium for confronting ideas, there could not be talk of freedom of
opinion, but only the manifestation of forces.

The final series of ‘some points of view’ in the sixth and seventh dual
issue continues in the practice of presenting an eclectic mix of ideas and
subjects. This issue contains a piece about translating Romanian into other
languages and Eliade urges authors to first find a good publisher. Tell gives
a review of the new student paper The Student Word. Cantacuzino applauds
Rădulescu-Motru’s initiative for the publication of the first volume of The
Annals of Psychology from the Romanian Society for Psychological
Research; Eliade encourages readers to look at Romanian language publi-
cations coming out of Transylvania: Gând Românesc (Cluj); Familia
(Oradea) and Pagini Literare (Turda); a note that the cultural group
176  C. A. BEJAN

Poesis (which Comarnescu calls a group of ‘higher intellectualism’) will be

having a series of conferences on ‘books for children as seen by their elders’
with such topics and speakers as ‘Gulliver’ (Tudor Vianu), ‘Robinson
Crusoe’ (Ion Pillat), ‘Till Eulenspiegel’ (Ion San Giorgiu), ‘Cuore’ (Al.
Marcu) and ‘Books of fairy tales’ (Ion Marin Sadoveanu). Cantacuzino
reviews a new publication entitled Tânăra Generaţie and deems it
extremely weak and poorly written, and finally Vulcănescu again addresses
the attacks in Viaţa românească ending with the point that no articles in
Criterion are anonymous, unlike their attackers.

* * *

In 1933 and 1934 Criterion collided head-on with a political reality that
threatened its very existence. The Grivit ̦a riots, the rapid growth of the
Iron Guard and Prime Minister Duca’s assassination, combined with the
fermentation of individual political allegiances within the association itself,
eventually made it impossible for the group to carry on with its collective
mission. However, during this time Criterion did make a valiant effort to
carry on both its public and private activity. In the wake of this, the short-­
lived publication was born, in which key Criterionists attempted to criti-
cally engage with the problématique of their day in a direct manner. The
final issue of the publication cemented Criterion’s end. Comarnescu
described the New Year of 1935 as one of the worst months through
which he had ever lived.153

 PCJ, 135. Entry from 31 January 1935.

153
 CHAPTER 6

The Dissolution of the Criterion Association,

1934–1935: The Credinţa Scandal, Male
Friendship, Sexuality and Freedom
of the Press

Dissolution and Disillusion
Despite its initial success, Criterion dissolved quite abruptly in 1935.
The popular explanation for this (and one enforced by Ricketts,
Vanhaelemeersch, Jianu, Arşavir Acterian and Vulcănescu, among others)
is the solidification of divergent political and spiritual ideological stances
among the Criterionists. The Criterion experiment was destroyed by the
collapse of Eliade’s ideal of the ‘primacy of the spiritual’ in favor of the
practical reality of the immediate: extreme political allegiances and activi-
ty.1 The Iron Guard posed a threat to Criterion from two angles: internal
and external. Within the Criterion space Polihroniade was actively recruit-
ing intellectuals to the cause. This created a political split that prevented
the likes of Polihroniade and Tell from discussing certain problems in
public with certain people.2 Thus Criterionist Guardist supporters refused
to participate in symposia with centrist or left-leaning Criterionists.3
Externally, King Carol fearing the extremist politics of Bucharest’s youth

1
 Ricketts, Mircea Eliade: The Romanian Roots. Vol. 1, 564. Eliade’s ideal of the ‘primacy
of the spiritual’ was an ordering of priorities that minimized the role of political beliefs and
activities.
2
 Ţurcanu, Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier de l’histoire, 187.
3
 Ornea, The Romanian Extreme Right, 138.

© The Author(s) 2019 177

C. A. Bejan, Intellectuals and Fascism in Interwar Romania,
Modernity, Memory and Identity in South-East Europe,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20165-4_6
178  C. A. BEJAN

and the shocking rise of popularity for the Guard in 1933 cracked down
on free association and freedom of speech.
In addition to political threats, there were other factors contributing to
Criterion’s dissolution. Another reason was that many Criterionists had
grown disenchanted with the association. This disillusion is nowhere bet-
ter expressed than in Eliade’s own words:

I confess I am tired of seeing everybody doing the same thing. You produce
‘spirituality,’ someone else does ‘authenticity’ someone brings about mysti-
cism and the other skepticism, one exasperates everybody around him with
India and the other one with America, five of them scream about agony and
other five about orthodoxy, a smart one writes the apology of barbarism and
a smarter one jumps in the pit after him—for the illusion of experiencing the
void. We reproduce old forms, sir, and we reproduce them up until we reach
nausea … I can’t tell you how thirsty I am for something else, something
completely different from what we are doing right now.4

Ionesco expressed a similar sentiment in a 1933 interview. The skeptic

harshly criticized both the Young Generation and Criterion. Ionesco said,
‘The young generation, precisely like all the young generations that have
preceded it, is conceited and narcissistic.’ As for Criterion, Ionesco
described the cultural manifestation as merely:

An association of jolly good fellows, congenial types, dandies, boozers; they

drink beer at the Corso with the air of college students who’ve run off from
school …. I believe [Criterion] is a society too ambitious for its powers. I
don’t deny there are several lively, humorous, clever men in it—but that’s all
they are.5

Criterion’s main problem, for Ionesco, was that it had ‘no genuine per-
sonalities, no individuals of real talent.’6 As much as Eliade and Ionesco
romanticized Criterion in their later years, at that moment they were no

4
 Mircea Eliade, ‘Momentul nespiritual,’ from the series ‘Scrisori către un provincial,’ pub-
lished in Cuvântul, June 3, 1933. Quote translated by Laura Pavel and previously published
in her article ‘Eliade and His Generation—Metaphysical Fervor and Tragic Destiny.’
Published in the series ‘Remembering Mircea Eliade,’ JSRI, No. 15 (Winter 2006): 5–19.
5
 Panaitescu, ‘Azi ne vorbeste: d. Eugen Ionescu.’ Facla, October 12, 1933, 2. Cited in
Ricketts, Mircea Eliade: The Romanian Roots, Vol. I, 563–564.
6
 Ibid.
 6  THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION, 1934–1935…  179

longer committed to the idea that the Criterion Association was able to
achieve the cultural mission of the Young Generation.

The Credinta̧ Scandal

There is potentially a much more powerful explanation as to why and how
Criterion collapsed that is difficult to find in the existing literature on
Criterion. This is the scandal involving a Criterion event featuring the
dancer Gabriel Negry, and the newspaper Credinţa’s accusation that key
Criterionists promoted homosexuality. Zigu Ornea, ever comprehensive
and thorough, explains the juxtaposition of the popular explanation and
the truth in his Anii Treizeci. Ornea writes,

Journalists or memorialists have accredited the idea that the association was
dissolved after a symposium hooted by Iron Guardists, following which all
the members joined the Iron Guard. The truth is quite different. The end of
Criterion was caused by a foul press scandal.7

Eliade also acknowledged the Credinţa scandal’s primary role in his mem-
oirs, crediting it with shattering ‘the unity of Criterion’ and maintained
that ‘the political tensions of 1935 to 1939 only served to deepen the
rift.’8 Although other factors had contributed to Criterion’s dissolution,
the Credinţa scandal was the final nail in the coffin of the legendary
association.
The effects of the Credinţa scandal were not only felt by the Criterionists
but also by the whole of Romanian society. This uncomfortable episode
criminalized the social stigma of homosexuality, by initiating the first act
of harsh sexual legislation that plagued Romania until 2005. Homosexuality
had in fact been an issue open to discussion and intellectual investigation
prior to the events of 1934–1936. ‘Idols’ symposia on Proust and Gide, as
well as Comarnescu’s early lists including homosexuality and sexuality as
potential themes to address in the Criterion space, illustrate this. The
Credinţa scandal also crossed political divides and illustrated the allure of
anti-liberalism while at the same time showing the delicate nature of the
freedom of speech. The staff of Credinţa accused anyone who disagreed

7
 Ornea, The Romanian Extreme Right, I slightly amended the above English translation,
138.
8
 MEAI, 285.
180  C. A. BEJAN

with the paper of being against the freedom of speech and thus against
democracy. Eliade speculated in his memoirs that the Ministry of the
Interior was encouraging Credinţa because it had a vested interest in clos-
ing down Criterion’s activities.9
Credinţa called itself ‘ziar independent de lupta politică şi spirituală’
[independent newspaper for the political and spiritual fight]. In truth it
was a moralistic, Orthodox and slanderous tabloid publication. The cen-
tral agents of the ongoing attack on Criterion, Sandu Tudor (the pseud-
onym for Alexandru Teodorescu) and Zaharia Stancu, had themselves
been Criterionists and collaborators with the key figures of the Young
Generation.10 Both were listed as speakers in the initial advertising for the
1932 ‘Idols’ series.11 Their names appeared in preliminary lists for the
program for the symposium on Krishnamurti, alongside Alice Voinescu,
Eliade, Paul Sterian and Sorana Ţopa.12 In fact an initial list outlining who
Criterion wanted to attract to its audience included Sandu Tudor’s name.13
Tudor had been an early friend of the group and collaborated with
Vulcănescu and Eliade on a publication Duh şi Slova that never came to
fruition.14 Criterionists (such as Comarnescu, Eliade, Sebastian, Ionesco,
Haig Acterian, Dan Botta and Sandu Tudor) also collaborated with Stancu
and Tudor on the publication Azi, making its debut in spring 1932, which
also planned to have a series of literary meetings.15 The failure to announce
Azi’s activities at the final Forum conference was an early hiccup that had
established a divide between the Azi crowd and the Forum Group.
Another potential divide was that Sandu Tudor had initially wanted
Credinţa to serve as the much-needed voice of the Young Generation and
approached Eliade with this idea when he started the newspaper in 1933.
Eliade was unenthusiastic and agreed to contribute to the paper only
under the pseudonym ‘Ion Plăeşu.’16 The next year Criterion appeared in
9
 Ibid., 284.
10
 Though united in their efforts to slander Criterion, these two men held diametrically
opposed political positions and consequently had divergent fates. Stancu, a leftist, was a cel-
ebrated author under communism, whilst Tudor, a conservative, perished in Aiud prison, the
same prison in which Vulcănescu died.
11
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. XV Varia 20, f. 63.
12
 Ibid., f. 36 and f. 39.
13
 Ibid., f. 27.
14
 MEAI, 149. Notably, Tudor adopted the name for a section of Credinţa.
15
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC.  XVIII Varia 16  ff. 18–19: ‘Activităti̧ pe care am vrut să
anunţă la Forum, în ultimă şedinţa.’
16
 MEAI, 282.
 6  THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION, 1934–1935…  181

which Eliade proudly showcased his own name. Criterion itself is a poten-
tial source of envy. If Sandu Tudor considered his paper Credinţa to be
the voice of the Young Generation, no doubt he resented the appearance
of Criterion in October 1934. But still Credinţa promoted Criterion’s
events and efforts right up until Negry’s dance performance.17 The news-
paper was also not hostile toward Comarnescu until then and advertised
his America văzută de un tânăr de azi in February 1934.18
At 9 pm on Friday, November 23, 1934, a very successful dance perfor-
mance took place at the National Opera House in Bucharest. Performed
by Gabriel Negry and his dance ensemble (Mimi Tutunaru-Chirculescu,
Silvia Enescu, Alexandrine von Silbernagel and V. Cornea) the program
included Debussy (Prélude à l’après-midi d’un faune), Stravinsky, Singalia,
Gaertner, Beethoven, Wagner, Milhaud and also two Romanian composi-
tions in the Byzantine style, the pieces named ‘The Mystery of the Lily’
and ‘Exorcism before Death.’ Credinţa in fact advertised the event on
both October 10, 193419 and the day of the performance.20 The printed
program of the show included texts by Criterionists Comarnescu, Tell and
Vulcănescu. Jealous, the famous ballet dancer and founding member of
Criterion, Floria Capsali, suggested to a group of reporters assembled dur-
ing intermission that Negry’s interpretation suggested homosexuality and
promoted pederasty. Soon Credinţa led by Sandu Tudor, the director, and
Zaharia Stancu, the editor, accused Negry, Comarnescu, Tell and
Vulcănescu of practicing homosexuality.
This accusation did not stop at one negative review of the dance perfor-
mance but rather carried on, spiraled out of control, and mushroomed
into a full-blown public scandal that lasted for six months. The results of
it were so humiliating and devastating that Comarnescu refused to lecture
in public ever again, Criterion’s program of live events ceased, and
Credinţa’s circulation soared. Becoming one of the most popular after-
noon gazettes, Credinţa’s circulation increased tenfold. The scandal was a
useful distraction for the government. The Minister of the Interior wished

17
 Credinţa, Year 1 No. 4, Decembrie 6, 1933, 4, advertised Criterion’s symposium on
‘Race.’ Credinţa printed a positive review of Vulcănescu’s article on ‘Generation’ in Criterion,
the month after the dance recital, on November 29, 1934 written by ‘Tintar.’
18
 Credinţa, Year 2 No. 61, February 17, 1934, little announcement by ‘Tintar.’
19
 Credinţa, October 10, 1934, 4.
20
 Credinţa, November 23, 1934, 4.
182  C. A. BEJAN

to halt the activity of Criterion, which he viewed as a ‘suspicious group of

intellectuals, whose growing popularity was making them even more
dangerous.’21 In the public sphere Comarnescu was disgraced. Eliade
claimed, ‘His limitless potential for being a cultural entertainer remained
from that time onward neutralized.’ Comarnescu’s private life was
destroyed as well. Gabriel Negry suffered a nervous breakdown, traveled
to Western Europe in 1936–1937, eventually returning to the Bucharest
choreography and dance circuit. Though Negry’s reputation might have
been rehabilitated eventually, the Credinţa scandal had disastrous conse-
quences, including the breaking of both old and new friendships.22
An essential cause of the scandal was the fact that Comarnescu married
the daughter of the liberal politician Ion Manolescu-Strunga. The politi-
cian held a number of government posts throughout the 1930s including
undersecretary of the Ministry of Agriculture (1933–1934), Minister of
Industry and Commerce (October 5, 1934–August 1, 1935) and Secretary
of State (November 17–December 28, 1937). His wife, Irina, was from
the Filotti family. They were a high-profile and aristocratic pair and their
daughter’s choice of husband was destined to receive public scrutiny.
Zaharia Stancu had carried on a press campaign against Manolescu-­
Strunga and Comarnescu had mocked him for doing so. Stancu retaliated
by accusing Comarnescu in Naţiunea Română of being a homosexual,
and a polemic between the two began. In June 1934 Stancu challenged
Comarnescu to a duel and he refused.23
It appears that neither Zaharia Stancu nor Sandu Tudor themselves
(nor any other of the Credinţa staff) saw the dance performance.24 The
first article in what became a torrential series attacking the Criterionists
came in the form of a letter written by two Credinţa staff, Victor Medrea
and Nicolae Roşu, to their editor Zaharia Stancu (addressing him as ‘Dear
Friend’) on Saturday, December 15, 1934, entitled ‘Through a Question
of Honor.’25 Stancu had requested they serve as his witnesses in a provoca-
tion to a duel he recently received from Comarnescu, in retaliation for his

21
 MEAI, 284.
22
 Ibid., 285.
23
 Ornea, The Romanian Extreme Right, 138.
24
 Zaharia Stancu, ‘Nu am fost la recitatul de dans al d-lui Gabriel Negry,’ Credinţa
November 30, 1934, 4.
25
 Victor Medrea and Nicolae Roşu, ‘Într’o chestie de onoare.’ Credinţa. December 15,
1934, 4. The article also references two articles from Naţionalul Nou: ‘Nu-l înjuraţi pe d.
Gabriel Negry’ (December 2, 1934) and ‘Tovărăşii literare şi artistice, năravuri şi moravuri’
(December 12, 1934) written by Zaharia Stancu.
 6  THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION, 1934–1935…  183

December 12 article, ‘Literary and Artistic Comrades, Vices and Customs’

in Naţionalul Nou.26
Medrea and Roşu claimed that Comarnescu challenged Stancu in an
abnormal fashion and that his witnesses, the two Criterionists Tell and
Hillard, approached Stancu in Corso, when it was full of customers. They
claimed that such demands should have been delivered privately at Stancu’s
home and not in public: that approach itself violated the generally accepted
appropriate ‘code of honor.’ Eventually they did meet on Wednesday (the
witnesses of both parties) at 7 pm at the Jockey Club to discuss the matter.
There Comarnescu’s witnesses expressed their offense at Stancu’s deroga-
tory article. In this discussion Medrea and Roşu reminded the Criterionists
that Comarnescu was incapable of prevailing in the necessary capacity (if
provoked to a duel) implying that he was a coward. They gave the example
of the way Comarnescu had behaved earlier, in the summer of 1934,
which reveals that the previous antagonism with Stancu predated the
Credinţa Scandal.
Credinţa republished the initial provocation by Stancu from June 17,
1934, in Naţional entitled ‘For Mr. Petru Comarnescu,’ in which Stancu
listed a number of incidents he believed exposed the true weak character
of Comarnescu and why he was challenging him to duel. These included:
(1) Comarnescu was hit at least twice in public without retaliating or
defending himself, (2) Comarnescu had intervened with his future in-laws
(‘respectable people of high status’) to arrange Stancu’s removal from
both his government position as well as to have him fired from this paper
(Naţional) and (3) Comarnescu arranged through collaborators at Azi
(for which Stancu was the director) to refuse Stancu’s manuscripts. Stancu
wrote that he knew that Comarnescu had arrived at a nice material situa-
tion and accused Comarnescu of using this position to climb the social
ladder. Thus ‘We invite you to appear, as a man, face to face, not from
behind as you are accustomed, and to sue us.’27
Following this reprint Medrea and Roşu acknowledged that immedi-
ately after the piece’s initial publication, rather than accept the challenge
to duel, Comarnescu begged Stancu’s forgiveness saying, ‘Forgive me,
leave me alone, do not pay any more attention to me, or what happens

26
 Ibid. Although Eliade claims it was Tell who challenged Sandu Tudor to a duel, MEAI,
284.
27
 Medrea and Roşu, ‘Într’o chestie de onoare.’
184  C. A. BEJAN

with my father-in-law and thus spoil my wedding!’28 They argued that

this, along with Comarnescu’s recent cowardly behavior, demonstrated
his incapacity to adhere to a ‘code of honor.’ Clearly Stancu’s newest
attacks were revenge on Comarnescu for his wrongs during the summer of
1934. Initially defending Criterion and Gabriel Negry’s honor,
Comarnescu unexpectedly found himself the main target of these slander-
ous accusations, even accused of being involved in a love affair with Negry.
In the same December 15 issue of Credinţa appeared an article docu-
menting Vulcănescu’s rage.29 Vulcănescu, upset by the unfounded humili-
ating accusations toward himself, Negry, Comarnescu and Tell, went to the
newspaper offices to slap Stancu, who was not there. Instead Sandu Tudor
responded to Vulcănescu’s request to have a word with the director. A fight
ensued. The police came and interrogated Vulcănescu and the Credinţa
staff until 2 am when finally Vulcănescu was evacuated from the building.
Credinţa was keen to clarify the facts that Vulcănescu came to their paper
in response to an article that appeared in another publication altogether
(Naţionalul Nou) and up until that point the Credinţa staff had not printed
an injurious word addressing the names of Criterionists (the paper referred
to them, at this point, as inverts, another word for homosexual). Following
this incident Credinţa launched a violent, relentless and underhanded cam-
paign against the Criterionists. This was the beginning of the sensational
onslaught, which Eliade described as ‘detestable, because it had been
launched by a few journalists and writers against other writers and actors,
in the full knowledge that the charges were unfounded.’30
Sandu Tudor started his personal assault in the December 16 issue of
Credinţa with an article entitled ‘The Criterion Generation,’31 following
this he became the main initiator against the Criterionists in Credinţa’s
pages. Tudor accused the Young Generation of being ‘a generation with-
out paternity and without masculinity … completely lacking in character.’
He accused this ‘elite’ of the capital of being made up of inverts and good-­
for-­nothings, of having ‘nothing good in their heart,’ ‘no generosity, no
mental equilibrium, no kindliness.’ For Tudor, this inverted behavior was

28
 Ibid.
29
 ‘Mircea Vulcănescu, filosoful boxeur sau moralist bătut…’ Credinţa, December 15,
1934, 6.
30
 MEAI, 284.
31
 Sandu Tudor, ‘Generaţie Criterion,’ Credinţa, December 16, 1934, 3. It is notable that
in his attack Tudor conflates the two labels: the Young Generation and the Criterion
Association.
 6  THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION, 1934–1935…  185

the equivalent of masturbation in that they were obsessed with themselves

and their own activities and ideas. Tudor asked the Criterionists,

Until today have you been to an event that you haven’t promised yourselves,
achieved yourselves, exploited yourselves? With what do you justify your-
selves? Through the fact that you assemble in the circle of corruption, of
illegal practices.

Here Tudor criticized them for carrying on activity despite being prohib-
ited from holding public manifestations by the state. He explicitly stated
the problem with Negry’s dance performance: ‘Your Criterion put on a
pedestal a dancing homosexual.’ Tudor concluded by stating that at least
there was still a youth in Romania: ‘the true generation of tomorrow’ who
could pursue the healthy moral path and threatened Criterion that they
did not have much more time and they would meet the newest generation
(implying they were no longer the Young Generation themselves).32
Victor Medrea, in his article ‘The Offensive of the Inverts’33 described
Comarnescu as ‘American by profession and pederast by vocation’ and
references the fact that he had been hit two times in public. Stancu’s con-
tribution to the same issue of Credinţa lowered the bar even further with
an article entitled ‘Honour between Buttocks’ [Onoarea dintre fese]34 in
which he described the Criterionists as ‘American essayists and apologists
for generosity and pacifism,’ demonstrating the anti-American sentiment
prevalent throughout most of Europe as well as the anti-pacifism tide,
going against Comarnescu’s activity and support of the League of Nations,
again implying that internationalism and cosmopolitanism were threaten-
ing to Romanian orthodoxy. In the same issue, an article chronicled an
aggression that transpired against Sandu Tudor in Corso.35 When he was
sitting at a table with (among others) Liviu Rebreanu, Şerban Cioculescu
and Camil Baltazar, Tell came up behind Tudor, asking to speak with him
and then struck him in the spine. Credinţa was clear to specify that Tell
had hit Tudor ‘from behind,’ proving that the Criterionists lacked the
courage to abide by the code of honor.36

32
 Ibid.
33
 Victor Medrea, ‘Ofensiva invertiţilor,’ Credinţa, December 16, 1934, 3.
34
 Zaharia Stancu, ‘Onoarea dintre fese,’ Credinţa, December 16, 1934, 4.
35
 ‘Încă unul din slechta invertiţilor sexual cari atacă o nouă agresiune, lamentabil eşuată,
împotriva d-lui Sandu Tudor,’ Credinţa, December 16, 1934, 7.
36
 Ibid.
186  C. A. BEJAN

In the New Year of 1935, Credinţa’s approach became even more

crude and explicit, and previous cultural contributors (prominent mem-
bers of the Young Generation and Criterionists themselves) such as Noica,
Ionesco and Eliade (writing under the pseudonym Ion Plăeşu) became
noticeably absent from the newspaper’s pages. Despite this, a very compli-
mentary series of articles about and by Nae Ionescu appeared in February
of 1935, most likely in response to the clashes between students and police
outside one of his conferences.37 Kicked off by an article entitled ‘The
Traffic of Male Meat from the Bucharest Elite’38 (whose title was adopted
for an ongoing series: ‘The Traffic of Male Meat’), the ensuing articles in
Credinţa employed scathing sarcasm and used diminutive and insulting
names to depict Negry and Comarnescu, often accompanied by photos
and drawings of each in effeminate emasculated poses. Names for Negry
included ‘Fesalina’ (a female diminutive invented from fes [buttock]),
‘Mireasa’ [bride] and the feminine ‘Gavrila’ and ‘Gabriela.’ Comarnescu
was dubbed ‘Titela’ (feminizing his nickname ‘Titel’) and ‘Hommo
Curlandus’ [sic] (poking fun at his own book Homo Americanus).39 This
is in reference to the Teutonic Knights of Courland, Credinţa mockingly
called the Criterion group ‘Cavalerii de Curlanda.’ A later article referred
to Comarnescu as ‘the chameleon from Los Angeles.’40
The Criterionists in question (Negry, Comarnescu, Vulcănescu and
Tell) were all collectively referred to as ‘curlandists,’ ‘knights’ [cavaleri,
also translated as bachelors or gallants], ‘inverts,’ the ‘mafia of the homo-
sexuals,’ and ‘the homosexuals of the Bucharest elite.’ The terms ‘para-
sites’ and ‘gypsies’ [ţigani] were also used.41 These ‘degenerates’ were
responsible for causing a ‘moral infection’ in Romanian society.42 Sandu

37
 Credinţa, Year 3, No. 359, February 17, 1935, 3–5, including ‘Un trezitor de conştiinte:
profesorul Nae Ionescu,’ by Sandu Tudor; ‘Faust şi cultura românească,’ a fragment from
Nae Ionescu’s lecture on metaphysics; ‘Prietenul tinerilor şi profesorul de tineret ̧e,’ by
Cicerone Theodorescu, and ‘Gânduri pentru profesorul Nae Ionescu,’ by Petru Manoliu.
38
 ‘Traficul de carne bărbatească din elita bucureşteană,’ Credinţa, January 9, 1935, 1.
39
 A photo of Negry with the title ‘Fesalina’ and a drawing of Comarnescu labeled ‘Hommo
Curlandus’ appear in Credinţa, January 10, 1935, 1.
40
 ‘De unde purcede,’ signed Credinţa. Credinţa, Year 3 No. 371, February 24, 1935, 3.
41
 ‘Desgust!’ signed Credinţa, Credinţa, Year 3, No. 370, February 23, 1935, 3; ‘Astăzi
începe procesul cavalerilor de Curlanda,’ Credinţa Year 3 No. 352, January 10, 1935, in the
‘Traficul de carne bărbatească’ series, 1, and continued on 4-a.
42
 X.Y.Z., ‘Senatus consultus şi mafia Petru Comarnitki,’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 364,
February 16, 1935, 5.
 6  THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION, 1934–1935…  187

Tudor referred to them as ‘lecherous snakes.’43 Credinţa did not just slan-
der these core individuals, the attacks expanded to cover the entire
Criterion Association itself deeming it ‘an institute of curlandist culture.’44
They were also called ‘the nest of male meat’ or ‘the nest of sexual inverts.’
The term ‘nest’ is particularly noteworthy because it was used also by the
Legionary Movement to describe their grassroots group political forma-
tions. For a polemic which started off debating a ‘question of honor,’ it is
remarkable that so many of the articles published in Credinţa were anony-
mous with no signatory or signed by ‘Credinţa,’ ‘Tintar’ or simply ‘X.Y.Z.’
Eliade claimed that the anonymous articles were written by either Stancu
or Petru Manoliu.45 According to Ornea, Petru Manoliu was the author of
‘Tintar.’46
In a three-part series entitled ‘About Sodomy,’47 Tudor endeavored to
enlighten the Bucharest public as to the meaning of the terms sodomy,
sexual inversion, pederasty and homosexuality in general. He urged the
government to enact a law criminalizing homosexual activity and claimed
that ‘their fight will not end until the evil has been liquidated.’48 Stancu
then compared homosexuality to prostitution, claiming that at least with
prostitution there was system of surveillance set up, whereas homosexuality
had been tolerated among Romanians for far too long.49 He explained that
authors and artists were more likely to be inverts, proclaimed that Criterion
was a name of disgrace, of shame, and that its members were guilty of ‘a
type of pretentious dilettantism.’ This ‘confused atmosphere of the adoles-
cent mentality’ made them put a homosexual in their ‘Idols’ series, André
Gide. Stancu concluded that Criterion arrived at this scandal because
although they originally were ‘a large organization to vulgarize and educate
the Romanian people’ they became ‘a closed and esoteric circle, that even
excluded women, who were not allowed to enter unless initiated.’50

43
 Sandu Tudor, ‘Şarpele depravării,’ Credinţa Year 3 No. 346, January 26, 1935.
44
 ‘Astăzi începe procesul cavalerilor de Curlanda,’ 4-a.
45
 MEAI, 284.
46
 Ornea, The Romanian Extreme Right, 139.
47
 Sandu Tudor, ‘Despre Sodomie 1 Prolog,’ Credinţa, Year 3, No. 352, January 9,
1935, 3.
48
 Sandu Tudor, ‘Despre Sodomie II Făta̧ ̆rnicia Cavalerilor’ Credinţa Year 3 No. 333,
January 10, 1935, 3.
49
 Ibid.
50
 Sandu Tudor, ‘Despre Sodomie III Istoric şi diagnostic criterionist,’ Credinţa, Year 3
No. 334, January 11, 1935, 3.
188  C. A. BEJAN

Credinţa reminded their readers of two prominent historical public fig-

ures who had gone to trial and were condemned: Socrates (for corrupting
the youth) and Oscar Wilde (for homosexuality).51 A later article men-
tioned Marcel Proust in an explanation of homosexuality.52 This same
piece asked the question: ‘Who is more guilty: homosexuals or normal
people who allow it and explain it?’53 Comarnescu and Freud were given
as examples of each type of person. Tudor argued that they could not
separate the intimate life from the public life.54 For the moral purity of the
future of the Romanian people, a righteous private life was demanded.
This demand, necessary for the future, also extended to the past. And
Comarnescu’s own legacy and heritage as a good Romanian came into
question, and consequently under fire.
An anonymous reader (signed ‘an old Moldavian boyer’) wrote into
Credinţa clarifying that Comarnescu’s ancestry was not Moldavian, aristo-
cratic or boyer, but in fact Polish.55 The name Comarnescu was a
Romanianized version of the name Komarnitzky.56 He based this assertion
on claiming to have found the name ‘Kiril Komarnitsky’ (1830–1895) in
old local records from Iaşi. Curiously, the Credinţa team also acknowl-
edged that the name would have changed in a similar way that Corneliu
Zelea Codreanu’s did: from Zelinski to ‘Zelea.’57 From that point Credinţa
referred to Comarnescu as Komarnitzky and inquired even further into his
origins. After extensive ‘research,’ Teodor Rascanu demonstrated that if
Comarnescu had indeed descended from Kiril Komarnitzky, it would have
had to be through the feminine line, as Komarnitzky only had one daugh-
ter. Then Rascanu challenged Comarnescu to present proof of his lineage.58

51
 ‘Astăzi începe procesul cavalerilor de Curlanda,’ 1.
52
 ‘Pentru lamurirea “nelămurit ̧ilor” în cazul Petru Comarnitki’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 344,
January 25, 1935, 5.
53
 Ibid.
54
 Sandu Tudor, ‘Viaţa intimă şi viaţa publică,’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 343, January 22,
1935, 2.
55
 ‘Cuibul de carne bărbatească: Petru Comarnescu,’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 337, January
15, 1935, 5.
56
 ‘Viaţa romantaţă a spătarului Petru Komarnitki,’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 343, January 22,
1935, 2. Appeared in the ‘Traficul de carne bărbatească’ series.
57
 Teodor Răşcanu, ‘Cine a fost Kiril Komarnitzky,’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 355, February 6,
1935, 3.
58
 Ibid.
 6  THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION, 1934–1935…  189

Suspicion of Comarnescu of not being truly Romanian was due to both

his cosmopolitan views and approach, his education and experience in
America, as well as the high level of society to which he had risen through his
marriage to Gina Manolescu-Strunga. The attempt to sabotage and destroy
Comarnescu even extended to his professional life. Credinţa wrote a plea to
the Minister of Arts and Ion Marin Sadoveanu (the former husband of
Sadova and who was serving as the director general of theaters and opera
since 1933). In this article they referred to him as ‘a young adventurer, an
American, and a pederast’ as well as a ‘brave imbecile,’ ‘the idiot’ and the
feminine ‘Comarneasca.’ They urged them ‘to immediately liquidate
Comarnescu, to take him out of public life.’59 The attacks on Comarnescu
went so far as to call for the death of his father in-law, Manolescu-Strunga.60
The Credinţa staff was eager to assure their readers that public opinion
was on their side, and they were convinced that the public scandal they
had created was ultimately a good thing, that would lead to the moral
purification of the Romanian people and a ‘more authentic culture and
civilization.’61 In their effort to have homosexuality criminalized in the
Penal Code, the writers for Credinţa were keen to define ‘crime’ and dem-
onstrate that the Criterionists were in fact guilty of crimes against
Romanian society, due to their moral degeneracy. They defined crime as
‘every act that results in the termination (elimination, negation) of the
human in any form.’ Giving murder by pistol and abortion as examples of
crimes, homosexuality also qualified as criminal because it was ‘(1) against
nature; (2) against society.’62 As punishment Credinţa suggested that the
Criterionists be put either in prison or a sanatorium.63 Repeatedly claiming
that public opinion aligned with Credinţa’s point of view, the newspaper
even printed letters of support (supposedly) from sympathetic readers.64
Credinţa repeatedly stated that the freedom of the press was the single
source of truth. The suspicion of the stability and legitimacy of democracy
was evident by Credinţa’s skepticism of politicians and the newspaper’s

59
 ‘In atentia d-lui ministru al Artelor şi a d-lui Ion Marin Sadoveanu,’ Credinţa, Year 3,
No. 340, January 29, 1935, 7 (under new heading ‘Presa despre Cavalerii de Curlanda’).
60
 ‘De Unde Percede,’ signed Credinţa, Credinţa, Year 3 No. 371, February 24, 1934, 3.
61
 Sandu Tudor, ‘Şarpele depravării,’ 3.
62
 ‘Mafia Homosexualilor: Arhim Şeriban; Petru Comarnescu, Alexandru Christian Tell şi
Mircea Vulcănescu,’ signed X.Y.Z., Credinţa, Year 3, No. 346, January 26, 1935, 5.
63
 Ibid.
64
 ‘Mârşava înscenare contra d-lui Sandu Tudor,’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 372, February 26,
1935, 1.
190  C. A. BEJAN

assertion that those in the government operated by their own set of rules.
The only thing that held politicians accountable was the free press, which
made Credinţa’s mission even more important. In an article entitled,
‘Politicians, bargain-makers and the free press,’ Stancu asserted, ‘No one
likes the truth.’65 Though their attacks might have been underhanded and
debased, and the newspaper may be considered somewhat of a tabloid
publication, Credinţa’s efforts do expose what the Criterionists intended
to achieve and how they failed. An article asking whether or not the mem-
bers of Criterion were the true representatives of the Young Generation,
suggested that the Young Generation needed to find new leadership, since
the elite of Criterion had drifted so far astray from the original aims and
ambitions of their generation.66 Here Credinţa republished an article from
Deşteptarea on January 24 that praised Credinţa’s efforts and that this
intellectual elite of Criterion did ‘not have the last word in Romanian
culture.’67
Despite the claims that the entirety of public opinion sided with
Credinţa, other press from the period was quite critical of the newspaper
and its desire for scandal. Newspapers that came out in support of the
Criterionists were Universul and Acţiunea Studenţească. An article enti-
tled ‘Against pornographic press’ did not even stoop low enough to name
the newspaper it was criticizing, nor those who wrote for it. This article
suggests a different more specific readership rapt with the scandalous
nature of the Credinţa series:

It has been told to me that the sales of this newspaper [Credinţa] have
grown considerably during the time of this scandalous campaign and that
the newspaper sellers have been accosted by elementary and lyceum students
… proving the state of moral decay to which the reading public has fallen.68

Universul dubbed Credinţa’s practice pornographic and also indecent.69

Acţiunea Studenţească, while at the same time supportive of implementing

65
 Zaharia Stancu, ‘Politicianii, invertiţii, samsarii şi presa liberă,’ Credinţa, Year 3, No.
371. February 24, 1935, 3.
66
 Al. Predescu, ‘Reprezentanţi de Generaţie?’ Credinţa, January 30, 1935, 7, in same
series ‘Presa despre “Cavalerii de Curlanda.”’
67
 Ibid.
68
 ‘Împotriva presei pornografice,’ Universul, Year 52 No. 44, February 14, 1935, 10.
69
 ‘Împotriva presei deşănţate şi pornografice,’ Universul, Year 52 No. 46, February 16,
1935.
 6  THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION, 1934–1935…  191

a ‘numerus clausus’70 and the ideas of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu,71

denounced the actions of Credinţa. A young writer named Badea
Slatioreanu claimed that the campaign was done ‘in the name of an inexpli-
cable messianism of national and moral degeneracy’ and that its ‘style, tone,
practice, [and] sensationalism’ were identical to the ‘trivialities of the slums
and ghettoes.’72 He pled with Tudor and his staff to stop. Vasile Daia, urg-
ing for moral salvation, reminded the student readers that ‘the newspaper
was an indirect educator’ of the citizen.73 In an article entitled ‘Enough!
Gentlemen, Sandu Tudor,’ Alexandru Olteanu claimed that Tudor’s senti-
ments and actions were abhorred ‘even among nationalists.’74 In a subse-
quent issue of Acţiunea Studenţească, Credinţa was called a ‘pornographic
dictionary and dirty venom.’ The paper asked who Tudor and company
had not criticized (giving the example of their assault on Nichifor Crainic
as well) and stated that it was unacceptable for the paper to use unknown
pseudonyms such as ‘Tintar.’75 But one thing that both press camps agreed
on (both pro- and anti-Credinţa) was that the Romanian youth was con-
fronting a moral crisis.
Having to suffer such character defamation, the aggrieved parties
sought justice. Tell, Comarnescu and Vulcănescu succeeded in recruiting
two senators to their side: Miclescu (also editor of Epoca) and Vasiliu. This
combined with the fact that the venomous words published in Credinţa
did not go unnoticed or unpunished by the authorities contributed to the
arrest of Sandu Tudor and two other editors on February 23, 1935. They
were told to be quiet and offered 200,000 lei to do so.76 Tudor was
released the next day. Related to the scandal, in March of 1935, at the
Ilfov court (the same court that tried the Credinţa case), publicist Ilariu
Dobridor was sentenced (in absentia) to one month in jail and a fine
for writing articles in the press with content harming Comarnescu’s

70
 ‘Numerus Clausus,’ Acţiunea Studenţească, Year 2 No. 2, February 10, 1935, 3.
71
 Actiunea Studentească, Year 2 No. 1, January 21, 1935, 1 and 4.
72
 Badea Slatioreanu, ‘Greşala Credinţei,’ Acţiunea Studenţească, Year 2 No. 2, February
10, 1935, 2 continued on 4.
73
 Vasile Daia, ‘Salvaţi morală! Domnilor,’ Acţiunea Studenţească, Year 2 No. 2, February
10, 1935, 2.
74
 Alexandru Olteanu. ‘Ajunge! Domnule, Sandu Tudor,’ Acţiunea Studenţească, Year 2
No. 2, February 10, 1935, 3.
75
 ‘Infamii,’ Acţiunea Studenţească, Year 2 No. 1, January 21, 1935, 2.
76
 ‘Şantajul ziarului “Credinţa,”’ Universul, Year 52 No. 53, February 23, 1935, 11.
192  C. A. BEJAN

r­ eputation.77 During the trial, Credinţa accused Comarnescu of manipu-

lating his political connections in an effort to help the Criterionists’ case.
In reporting this, Zaharia Stancu revealed his personal envy,

I am not the son of a general. I am not the son-in-law of a minister and a

banker … and the Minister of the Interior did not come to my wedding, not
even a police agent. I am not even at the mercy of a sociologist.78

The Credinţa trial went on for much longer, only to officially end in
June.79 Comarnescu, Vulcănescu and Tell won their case. Credinţa and
Sandu Tudor were both found guilty in the slander suit. Part of Credinţa’s
punishment was to publish the final court decision in its pages. But few
people heard of the decision because newspapers purposefully published
the news in obscure parts of their pages. Tudor appealed the suit, taking
the case to higher courts, eventually only being sentenced to a symbolic
charge of 1 leu. By this time the scandal had been forgotten.80 The final
anti-Criterionist Credinţa article appeared on June 19, 1935.81
Devastatingly this scandal succeeded in terminating Criterion’s public
activities, but it also had debilitating consequences on the personal level.
Former work colleagues and friends discontinued their friendships. For
example, Petru Manoliu, author of the column ‘Tintar’ in Credinţa sided
with the newspaper. Tell was asked to leave the law association of which he
was a member. And not only did Comarnescu lose his courage to continue
lecturing, he eventually lost his marriage.
The legacy of Comarnescu’s sexuality remains a mystery and unfortu-
nately the Credinţa scandal tarred his reputation for the rest of his life. He
never remarried and the historical consensus is that Comarnescu was a
homosexual. I believe this conclusion warrants more investigation. Long
before he was engaged to be married, he frequented Cişmigiu Park to flirt
with the ladies. Comarnescu was one of the few Criterionists who survived
and flourished in the communist period in Romania. One could speculate
that the Credinţa scandal contributed to his willingness to collaborate

77
 Universul, No. 68, March 10, 1935, 2.
78
 Zaharia Stancu, ‘Cavalerii, justiţia şi puterile nevăzute,’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 340,
January 29, 1935.
79
 ‘Procesul “Credinţei” se judecă la tribunal,’ Universul Year 52 No. 150, June 3, 1935,
10.
80
 MEAI, 284.
81
 ‘Cunoscutul Cavaler…’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 462, June 19, 1935, 1.
 6  THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION, 1934–1935…  193

with the Securitate [Romanian Secret Police]. After his will to be a cultural

adventurer, an intellectual revolutionary, an Americano-phile, had been
demolished in one clean public sweep, perhaps Comarnescu no longer
wished to fight battles he knew he could never win. He is certainly an
enigmatic figure, unique among the Criterionists (indeed the father of
Criterion), and a better understanding of him is essential to writing the
history of the Criterion Association. It would be a shame if one of the
reasons he has been neglected in this rediscovery of the Young Generation
in the post-1989 period is the legacy of his alleged homosexuality. In this
respect Monica Grosu’s monograph is a great contribution.82

Male Friendship
What bound this close circle of friends together was a very special kind of
friendship. Initially this friendship transcended political disagreements,
romantic interest and difference in literary and philosophical style and
preference. Many of these individuals went to lyceum and university
together and spent a good portion of every day together whether in the
cafés Corso or Capşa or strolling the lanes of Cişmigiu or enjoying visits to
each other’s homes. Such closeness could take many forms: the relation-
ship of mentor and mentee; homoerotic friendship; homosexual ‘relation-
ship’ as we understand it today; simple platonic friendship and public
friendship for the sake of appearances. There were serious consequences
for maintaining the stability of these friendships.
Although women were heavily involved in the Criterion circle (Sadova,
Floria Capsali, etc.) they did not qualify for this special kind of friendship
shared by men. Masculinity was not only a central component of fascist
ideology, it was also a subject the Criterionists thought about extensively
themselves. The difference between the genders was one they felt was very
strong and tangible, and hinges on the quality they so highly valued: intel-
ligence. Octav Şuluţiu described this difference as such on October 20, 1934,

What a disaster it would be if women were intelligent! There would be no

respite for intelligent men. Because, if women were intelligent, they would
look for, surely, only intelligent men and these men would no longer have
time to occupy themselves with intelligence, with creation, but only
with women.83

 Monica Grosu, Petru Comarnescu: un neliniştit în secolul său.

82

 Şuluţiu, Jurnal, 260. October 20, 1934.

83
194  C. A. BEJAN

Homosexuality in History, in Theory, in Romania

A brief investigation into the history of homosexuality will aid us in our
attempt to understand how the Criterionists’ friendships could so easily be
misconstrued as homosexual. Homosexuality itself is a modern concept.
Foucault in his History of Sexuality specifies that the terms ‘homosexuality’
and ‘homosexual’ originate in the late nineteenth and early twentieth cen-
turies.84 He attributes this to modern society’s creation of a new class of
deviants, rather than being the invention of a new term to replace earlier
ones.85 Arthur Gilbert explains that traditionally there have been two
methods of writing the  history of homosexuality: biography and the
approach of studying the act of labeling people as homosexuals. He notes
that throughout history newspaper accounts occasionally would record a
homosexual scandal, especially if it involved someone of prominence.86
The criminalization of homosexuality involved a high degree of spectacle.
The trials of Oscar Wilde and the Credinţa scandal are both excellent
examples. In his investigation Klaus Theweleit laments ‘how fraught with
prejudice the problem of homosexuality remains, even among the
“enlightened.”’87
Jonathan Ned Katz makes a useful distinction between ‘a sphere of
spiritual feeling’ and ‘the universe of sensual desire.’88 In the days of
Criterion, they were debating Freud and sexuality was a pressing topic of
discussion and one explored in literature and philosophy. However, is it
not possible to imagine that their male friendship (that threatened the
likes of Stancu and Tudor so fiercely) was one only existing in the realm of
spiritual feeling? I believe it is, that this friendship they shared based on
intellect inhabited the spiritual sphere and did not necessarily expand into
a homoerotic sensual physical space.
Gilbert attributes homosexual activity to societal lack of contact
between the sexes.89 This applies in part to the Criterion group. The

84
 Quoted in Arthur N. Gilbert ‘Conceptions of Homosexuality and Sodomy in Western
History.’ Historical Perspectives on Homosexuality. Salvatore J. Licata and Robert Petersen,
eds., 61.
85
 Ibid., 61.
86
 Ibid., 58.
87
 Klaus Theweleit, Male Fantasies, Vol. 1, 56.
88
 Jonathan Ned Katz, Love Stories: Sex Between Men before Homosexuality, 8.
89
 Gilbert, ‘Conceptions of Homosexuality and Sodomy in Western History,’ 58.
 6  THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION, 1934–1935…  195

women who were part of their inner circle were either married or attached
in relationships to Criterionists. For example, Sorana Ţopa eventually fell
by the wayside when it was clear that Eliade had ended his love affair with
her.90 Marriage was a disruptive factor to close male friendships. Men
could view marriage to women as a betrayal and an act of distancing them-
selves from their close friends. And in turn, it was only after a woman was
safely married or engaged that friendship with her was possible. Before
Criterion male coupling was present in the sense that Cole describes (lik-
ening such a relationship to that shared between Vladimir and Estragon in
Beckett’s Waiting for Godot).91 Such examples include Noica and
Comarnescu; Sebastian and Eliade; Arşavir Acterian and Octav Şuluţiu.
The crucial moment of Criterion coincided with a wave of weddings of
Criterionists: the primacy of male friendship was replaced by the pairing off
with wives and settling down. Eliade fell in love with Nina Mareş in 1933
and they married in 1934.92 Comarnescu’s wedding was in the summer of
1934. Vulcănescu (wed in 1930), Polihroniade, Noica and Jianu were
already married by the time Criterion started activity. During Criterion
Sadova and Haig Acterian were in the process of emerging from secrecy
into the public eye as a couple. Ionesco married Rodica Burileanu in 1936.
The start of the persecution of homosexuals began in Germany during
the Criterion Association’s activity. In the fall of 1933 in the Third Reich,
homosexuals and pimps became a new category of prisoner deported to
Fuhlsbuettel concentration camp.93 In fact, the twentieth century’s most
extreme anti-homosexual repression occurred in the German Third Reich
from 1933 to 1945.94 The Credinţa campaign began six months after the
Night of the Long Knives (Röhm-putsch) from June 30 to July 2, 1934.
Ernst Röhm, SA co-founder and commander, was an open homosexual as
were many SA members. Hitler used homosexuality as an excuse for the

90
 MEAI, 265.
91
 Sarah Cole, Modernism, Male Friendship and the First World War, 1–5.
92
 Eliade wrote that Sebastian could only forgive them if the dynamic could remain the
same between him, Eliade and Nina, once his relationship with her had been made official.
MEAI, 243.
93
 Rüdiger Lautmann, ‘The Pink Triangle: The Persecution of Homosexual Males in
Concentration Camps in Nazi Germany,’ Historical Perspectives on Homosexuality, Salvatore
J. Licata and Robert Petersen, eds., 143.
94
 Ibid., 141.
196  C. A. BEJAN

purge. This need to cleanse moral corruption and deviancy is a strong

precedent to what Tudor and Stancu attempted to do with Criterion.
Although they did not have explicit fascist ambitions linked to the pro-
gram of the Iron Guard, the Credinţa authors were concerned with tradi-
tional orthodoxy and putting an end to the decadent state in which such
frivolity and indecency could take place. Despite the fact that preserving
the masculinity of fascism was also crucial in its Romanian incarnation,
homosexuals were never targeted by the Iron Guard, nor were they vic-
tims of the Holocaust in Romania.
When the Credinţa scandal was happening, there were no legal reper-
cussions the Criterionists would face for promoting pederasty or practic-
ing homosexuality. It was only in 1936 that the Romanian Penal Code
enacted a law (Article 431) entitled, ‘Crimes against good morals,’ which
penalized ‘acts of sexual inversion committed between men or between
women, if provoking public scandal.’95 Public scandal could include ‘acts
of imprudence and negligence in [not] taking measures necessary to
conceal these relations.’96 Whether the Credinţa Scandal itself was a
direct cause of the development and passing of this law is unclear, but
the timing was right because their request for legislation was certainly
answered. This illustrates the increasing moral consciousness of the soci-
ety and the turn toward traditionalism and religious orthodoxy. This,
combined with the additional legal crackdown on ‘liberal’ and ‘progres-
sive’ discourse and behavior (see the subsequent discussion of the accu-
sation of Bogza and Eliade of pornography), demonstrates that Romanian
society was getting increasingly more conservative, as the far right rose
in popularity and this went hand-in-hand with the end of freedom
of speech.
Comarnescu was not the only public intellectual in Romania at this
time rumored to be a practicing homosexual. The prominent diplomat
and politician Nicolae Titulescu (1882–1941) was the subject of ­numerous
slander campaigns in the press. Titulescu was one of the politicians most
hated by the entire Romanian extreme right. His political life and achieve-
ments were compelling for the Criterionists, and Titulescu’s name did

95
 Monica Macovei and Adrian Coman, ‘Implications of HIV/AIDS of Laws Affecting
Men who have Sex with Men in Romania.’ Research paper conducted for ACCEPT Bucharest
Acceptance Group.
96
 Ibid.
 6  THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION, 1934–1935…  197

appear on early lists of consideration for the ‘Idols’ series. His case, along-
side that of Comarnescu, illustrates a clear ideological distinction between
what was considered ‘morally’ acceptable for Romanians versus what was
morally contemptible. Titulescu and Comarnescu both were active in and
strong supporters of the League of Nations, champions of cosmopolitan-
ism and refused to support any extremist political variation in Romania.
Their internationalist perspective was deemed as failing to endorse the
values of the true Romanian nation (Christian orthodox, etc.).
Cosmopolitanism was aligned with moral deviancy, with weakness and
therefore with homosexuality. Traditionalist nationalism, on the other
hand, was associated with moral purity, with strength, traditional gender
roles and therefore with heterosexuality.

Comarnescu’s Ambiguous Sexuality

Why is it necessary to inquire deeper into the nature of Comarnescu’s
sexuality? The Credinţa Scandal hinged on the accusation of Criterionists
promoting pederasty and called the group ‘The Mafia of the Homosexuals.’
Although Vulcănescu, Tell and Negry were also accused, Comarnescu was
the main target. And given that this nasty press scandal was the main rea-
son for the dissolution of a cultural association that had resisted collapse
due to other grave factors (the disillusion of members, the solidification of
political allegiances of members, being banned from public activity by the
king, a socio-political context rapidly clamping down on free speech and
hostile toward foreign, progressive or ‘subversive’ ideas) and was still capa-
ble of putting together and organizing more cultural and artistic events (as
demonstrated by the dance performance by Gabriel Negry), the accusa-
tion must be investigated. A look at Comarnescu’s close relationships with
other men and women will also reveal the nature of friendship shared by
members of the Young Generation, before both politics and personal lives
(marriages and other commitments) intervened.97
In fact when Comarnescu first moved to Bucharest as a young student
in 1925, Sandu Tudor was one of his first friends and they did meet socially
until Comarnescu left for America in 1929.98 Upon his return Comarnescu

97
 Grosu does not devote sufficient attention to Comarnescu’s sexuality in Petru
Comarnescu: un neliniştit în secolul său.
98
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC.MAPA 1, Manuscript 5a. f. 35; Manuscript 6a. f. 43.
Manuscript 8.
198  C. A. BEJAN

dated and flirted with various women only to form a committed relation-
ship with Gina Manolescu-Strunga, whom he married in the summer of
1934. Their relationship was complicated to say the least. Gina was still in
love with writer and director of the journal Reporter, N.D. Cocea. The
public disgrace of her husband only served to deepen the existing rift
between the couple. The end of their union came in the fall of 1935.
Comarnescu filed for divorce after Gina became impregnated most
likely by Cocea (the exact paternity of the child was unclear) and she was
put in an asylum by her parents. Comarnescu noticed that the attacks in
the press stopped when his connection to the famous politician’s
family ended:

Now I am no longer the son-in-law of a minister and man with a political

perspective (as they see themselves [referring to the journalists]). I am no
longer dangerous and there is no point to attack me. There is a logic here
which also holds a light up over the events of the past.99

Though he never remarried, Comarnescu’s relationship with Gina is not

the only evidence of his heterosexual practices.
During his travels in Western Europe he recorded two sexual experi-
ences, one with an American woman, another with an Italian woman
which he reveals in the following passage recorded on September 6,
1937, in Milan:

I had huge success with an Italian girl, with a beautiful face, but young with
a splendid body who made love out of sympathy. Thus I’ve only succeeded
to make love for free with foreigners in Paris. An American, an Italian, but
not a Frenchwoman. I took her home at three in the morning, after we
danced passionately … Love for money is painful, then you don’t feel any-
thing. It was a moment of contentment, of real satisfaction.100

This passage is also telling for it reveals that Comarnescu had experienced
visiting prostitutes and found that to be an unfulfilling experience. A key
element of this unfulfillment was quite possibly Comarnescu’s necessity to
make a more genuine friendship or connection with the woman, in order
to enjoy the physical connection. Even if he could not achieve the degree

 PCJ, 154–155.
99

 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. Mapa II Ms. 3 ‘Jurnal,’ 1937, January 4–September 26,
100

1937, ff. 28–29. Published in PCJ, 181.

 6  THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION, 1934–1935…  199

of intellectual satisfaction that he could with a man, he needed the intel-

lectual stimulus. Comarnescu enjoyed flirting with and having conversa-
tions with intelligent women.101 But Comarnescu making the effort to
record this information (and not cross or cut it out) after the fact could
have been an effort to prove his heterosexuality, in the aftermath of the
mess made by Credinţa. It could quite possibly be an attempt to vindicate
his name: a concerted effort to go down in history as not being a homo-
sexual. The question as to why parts of the manuscript of his journal in his
personal archive are visibly cut out certainly warrants a much deeper inves-
tigation. At the moment it is mere speculation that such an effort of self-­
censorship might reveal something substantial about the true character of
Comarnescu’s personal life.
What is clear from ample diary notes in Comarnescu’s personal archive
is that the father of Criterion was madly and passionately in love with
Constantin ‘Dinu’ Noica, in 1929, before he left for the University of
Southern California. The authenticity and nature of their friendship is well
worth exploring: the substance of their intellectual and spiritual connec-
tion as well as the form that their physical intimacy could and did take. In
1929 Noica, Comarnescu, Jianu and Polihroniade founded the journal
Acţiune şi Reacţiune. Comarnescu described the dynamic between the
four of them as follows:

A solemn meeting of the four from Acţiune şi Reacţiune: serious discus-
sions. With Nelly, Mişu and Dinu … tense discussions. Conflict, Dinu [was]
the diplomat and mediator. A horrible scene.102

At this time Noica was also writing for Timpa. While Comarnescu’s friend-
ship with Noica was developing, at the same time his friendship with
Polihroniade was already difficult and unpleasant. Sorin Lavric emphasizes
the closeness, similarity and affinity shared between Polihroniade and
Noica, a result of how much they had in common: English wives (Mary
and Wendy) and nationalist right-leaning political sympathies.103 But if we
consider Comarnescu’s untapped perspective we get a more nuanced,

101
 Ibid., f. 30. September 6, 1937, in Cannes: ‘I flirted a lot with an Austrian lady, a
French woman, but nothing. I got to know, at the same time, an extremely intelligent
Estonian with whom I had a very instructive conversation.’ Published in PCJ, 182–183.
102
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. Arch. I.; MS. 9a) original red 1929 agenda, 9b) typed, cita-
tions from 9b) f. 32; June 16, 1929.
103
 Sorin Lavric, Noica şi Mişcarea Legionară, 63–66.
200  C. A. BEJAN

complicated story, and one that indicates that it was in fact Comarnescu
who was a much closer and more important friend to Noica.
A day after having hostile discussions with Polihroniade, Comarnescu
had a conversation with Bebe Noica (Dinu’s cousin, with whom
Comarnescu was also friends) about how Noica had just broken up with a
girlfriend due to ‘the problem of intellectual satisfaction.’104 A few days
later, sick in bed with the flu, Comarnescu read The Sexual Instinct by
Romanian doctor and psychoanalyst, Iosif Westfried, and noted that he
thought of Noica.105 This illustrates that at this early juncture Comarnescu
was already thinking critically about sexuality and related this investigation
to his feelings for Noica. In April of 1929 Comarnescu recorded how he
had had ‘vulgar’ discussions with Noica.106 Throughout the spring of
1929 the seriousness of their friendship deepened due to the increase in
time spent together and lengthy conversations about philosophy (espe-
cially that of Kant) and their friendship. Comarnescu described it as ‘a
great and unique friendship for me.’107 During these days of growing
friendship with Noica, both men still would flirt openly and publicly with
women, and Noica became engaged to Wendy Muston, his future wife.
As Comarnescu’s departure for America approached, their feelings
intensified. They had long, painful, careful discussions about their friend-
ship and what changes might occur.108 Noica confessed to Comarnescu, ‘I
feel that something will also happen to me through your leaving,’ and ‘I’ll
move in with you, Titel.’109 But at the same time, Comarnescu noted that
Noica ‘cannot make the declaration.’110 I presume he meant that Noica
was unable to make his own declaration of love for Comarnescu, who
described his friendship with Noica as ‘greater than true love’111 and ‘a
great love.’112 He credited Noica for teaching him Kant’s Critique of
Judgement and described what they shared as ‘a great and useful intellec-

104
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. Arch. I.; MS. 9b. f. 12, March 9, 1929.
105
 Ibid., f. 13. The book referenced is Iosif Westfried Instinctul sexual (1928) had a sub-
stantial preface written by Freud; Comarnescu notes he thought of Noica in particular whilst
reading pages 4–8.
106
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. Arch. I.; MS. 9b. f. 20. April 10, 1929.
107
 Ibid., f. 27. June 19, 1929.
108
 Ibid., f. 37. June 30, 1929.
109
 Ibid., f. 35. June 20, 1929.
110
 Ibid., f. 35. June 20, 1929.
111
 Ibid., f. 41.
112
 Ibid., f. 41. July 17, 1929.
 6  THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION, 1934–1935…  201

tual friendship’ and even referenced Kant’s concept of ‘the Sublime’ (pre-
sented in that critique) to describe the friendship.113 Comarnescu even
referred to Noica, Kant and himself as three friends. But in spite of this
great intellectual fellowship acknowledged and shared by both parties, it
appears that Comarnescu longed for more, for their connection to have
physical and sentimental fruition. This desire gained urgency as the date of
his departure grew nearer. He noted that the most ‘sentimental’ week he
spent with Noica lacked the ‘union of intellect and sentiment.’114
Comarnescu recorded their physical interactions and it is apparent that
he desired more and Noica refused. Comarnescu wrote,

Dinu, whom I cannot kiss, how I adore him, who understands me. Yesterday
evening he told me: ‘Why are we so happy?’ I told him maybe because he
would probably have to prevent me from leaving for America.115

Nearly two weeks later, Comarnescu went to Noica’s residence where they
had a difficult discussion that ended without a resolution. The philosophi-
cal portion of the discussion (concerning Schopenhauer) went very well,
so the intellectual portion of the pleasure was satiated. But the sentimental
side of Comarnescu remained frustrated. He wrote, ‘Dinu refused the
unity, the purity, admitting his childishness and his weakness. This left me
sad and broken.’116 Nine days later, during a walk in the mountains near
Braşov, Comarnescu and Noica had a discussion about ‘the grand act of
friendship’ [marele act de prietenie] and Comarnescu’s request that Noica
‘should carry out fully (completely) his sacrifice, without commenting or
making light of the fact.’117 Comarnescu’s efforts to experience the grand
act of friendship, this ‘purity’ and ‘unity’ of intellect and sentiment coin-
cided with the engagement of Noica to Wendy Muston, which he con-
fessed to Comarnescu three days after the failed discussion about the
‘grand act of friendship.’ Comarnescu was, understandably, very emo-
tional to hear this news.118
They went together to Coroana (most likely a restaurant). After confes-
sions about Noica’s hypothetical sincerity, Comarnescu kissed Noica on

113
 Ibid., f. 36.
114
 Ibid., f. 35. June 20, 1929.
115
 Ibid., f. 37. June 29, 1929.
116
 Ibid., f. 40. July 11, 1929.
117
 Ibid., f. 42. July 20, 1929.
118
 Ibid., July 23, 1929.
202  C. A. BEJAN

the head.119 It would seem that two days later Noica did deliver his decla-
ration of love to Comarnescu and that perhaps the ‘grand act of friend-
ship’ did occur. Comarnescu wrote, ‘Dinu’s declarations. Went to bed at
11. A scene about Wendy. Much intimacy and pure happiness.’120 They
appeared to spend a substantial amount of time together in the following
days, as Comarnescu eventually had to send him home to read Kant and
‘not waste time with me.’121 Yet in the aftermath of their intimacy the situ-
ation became difficult for the two friends. They began confessing to
Wendy concerning ‘the lack of conformity of the concept of intellectual
friendship.’122 This implies that perhaps they did confess their act to
Wendy. Comarnescu could not stop crying and continued to have many
difficult conversations with Noica, as they became more and more aware
of his departure.123 Back in Bucharest at Capşa, Comarnescu felt frozen
out of his friendship group and Noica asked him to not create inequality
between friends (presumably this inequality had been felt by others,
because Comarnescu considered Noica his closest friend). Comarnescu
responded, ‘No,’ and hugged Noica three to four times and left crying.
Shortly thereafter when on the boat en route to America, sailing through
the Adriatic Sea, he read L’-âme et la danse by Paul Valéry and contem-
plated the concept of friendship and particularly his with Noica.124
However, just because Comarnescu and Noica shared an intense spiri-
tual and even romantic (from Comarnescu’s perspective) connection and
even may have been involved intimately briefly at ages 23 and 20 in the
pre-Criterion era, this does not imply nor indicate that it was a homosexual
relationship. It merely illustrates the ambiguous nature of attraction, the
privileged friendship status shared between men and the naïve infatuation
of two youths navigating new and exciting terrain of social interaction: one
that prized intellectual ability as the highest virtue. Following Noica’s mar-
riage and Comarnescu’s doctoral studies in America, Comarnescu contin-
ued to care deeply for Noica and Noica continued to highly value their
friendship. They still spent time together. Following Comarnescu’s return
to Romania, on December 18, 1931, Noica spent the night at

119
 Ibid., f. 43. July 25, 1929.
120
 Ibid., July 27, 1929.
121
 Ibid., f. 44. July 29, 1929.
122
 Ibid., July 30, 1929.
123
 Ibid., f. 49. August 18, 1929.
124
 Ibid., f. 51. August 16, 1929.
 6  THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION, 1934–1935…  203

Comarnescu’s125; on December 23, Noica and Comarnescu took a stroll

through the city126 and on December 26, 1931, Noica went over to
Comarnescu’s to discuss his PhD thesis, which Comarnescu had just com-
pleted at the University of Southern California.127 A curious thing occurred
on December 27 of that year and brings into question both the true nature
of their relationship and Comarnescu’s self-censorship. In his diary,
Comarnescu wrote, ‘Dinu indirectly communicated to me rumours …’
with the following words visibly crossed out.128 Whether these rumors con-
cerned their friendship or something else, at this point is mere conjecture.
Comarnescu clearly viewed his friendship with Noica to be superior,
and the only other friend who matched that status was Eric Jackson, the
Oxford student he met at the League of Nations summer program in
Geneva in 1932.129 And Comarnescu was not the only one to recognize
Noica’s exceptional intellectual abilities. Şuluţiu wrote in 1932, ‘C. Noica
is the only man who intimidates me and makes an impression on me. He
has a sincerity and a sureness of intellect that is disconcerting.’130
In addition to intellect, Comarnescu always valued youth (Noica was
two years younger than the majority of the Young Generation, born July
12, 1909) and took a special interest in 23 year-old Ion Omescu in 1948
and attempted to make him Noica’s disciple.131 Perhaps this obsession
with youth and his carrying on close friendships with young men (based
on intellectual affinity and challenge) throughout his life contributed to
his reputation of being a homosexual, in addition of course to the
extremely public defamation of his character that occurred as a result of
the Credinţa scandal. During the communist years, Comarnescu lived
with the reputation of being a homosexual but was not threatened, per-
secuted or harassed by the government. This was due to his collabora-
tion with the Securitate132  and the simple fact that homosexuality was

125
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. I. Ms. 11 (a–c) ‘Jurnal’ 1931, f. 180. December 9, 1931.
126
 Ibid., f. 183. December 23, 1931.
127
 Ibid., f. 184. December 25, 1931.
128
 Ibid., f. 185. December 27, 1931.
129
 PCJ, 65–68.
130
 Şuluţiu, Jurnal, 238. September 8, 1932.
131
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC. MAPA II Ms 12 ‘Jurnal’ 1948, f. 13.
132
 For proof of Comarnescu’s collaboration with the Securitate see excerpts from his
CNSAS file published in Lucian Boia Dosarele Secrete ale Agentului Anton: Petru Comarnescu
în Arhivele Securităti̧ i.
204  C. A. BEJAN

only made officially illegal in 1969 (Article 200) a year before

Comarnescu’s death.133

Elitism and Envy
The Credinţa scandal reveals how members of the Young Generation and
the Criterionists were perceived by other intellectuals at the time. In Eliade’s
words: ‘All the envy and jealousy provoked by our unprecedented success
could now avenge itself.’134 In order for there to be such a willing audience
for the fictional accounts of sodomy among this group, we can assume that
many people were willing to think negatively of them and believe the worst
rumors spread. This makes sense when you consider that  the various
Credinţa attacks referred to the Criterionists as ‘an elite.’ For many in
Bucharest, Criterion presented itself as knowing better than they did, as pos-
sessing more knowledge and culture than others, as having the key to the
best cultural path for the future of Romania. Naturally some intellectuals
might have felt slighted, as they were not part of this intimate elite club.
Born in 1896, Sandu Tudor was ten years older than the leaders of the
Young Generation and this in part explains to what degree he was out of
touch with their concerns. Eliade referred to him as an ‘old man’ at that
time, in contrast to the Criterionists who were ‘young people.’135 Despite
the age difference initially Tudor was friends with them and even a mem-
ber of Criterion himself. When Comarnescu moved to Bucharest from
Iaşi, Tudor was one of his first friends and did frequent social gatherings
held at Comarnescu’s place of residence. In this social network, envy of
the intellect was linked to friendship envy, and Comarnescu made it clear
that he was only friends with people who were on his intellectual level. No
doubt Sandu Tudor took it as a personal insult that he had been excluded
from the in-group comprising the heart of Criterion. His own intellectual
inadequacy is apparent in his journalistic activities, given that Credinţa
itself became no better than a tabloid publication.

133
 Macovei and Coman: ‘The 1969 Penal Code imposed a complete ban on homosexual
activity, whether or not it might involve “public scandal.”’ According to Article 200, any
‘sexual relations between persons of the same sex’ were punishable by up to five years’ impris-
onment, even if they took place in private between consenting adults. From then on, same
sex relations took place in circumstances of secrecy, fear and mistrust.’ This law was revoked
in 2005, due to pressure from the European Union, which Romania joined in 2007.
134
 MEAI, 26.
135
 Ibid., 27.
 6  THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION, 1934–1935…  205

The friend/enemy dichotomy shared by Tudor and Comarnescu is evi-

denced even after the Credinţa scandal, when Sebastian noted how
shocked and appalled he was to find out that Comarnescu had made peace
with Stancu, only three months after the attacks in the press ended:

Comarnescu told me something, which, if I were feeling less skeptical at the

moment, would strike me as quite monstrous. He has made peace overtures
to Credinţa! He has had lunch with Stancu! I should say that he is unspeak-
able. But I shall content myself with observing once more how naïve I am.
I fell out with the Credinţa people over that business; I refused to shake
hands with Sandu Tudor.—All that to end up now with such a capitulation.
When will I stop getting carried away in my relations with other people? To
be disinterested and neutral, never indignant or approbatory: that is the best
of attitudes. I am old enough to have learned that at least.136

Disapproving of sexuality in general (homosexual or heterosexual prac-

tice) aligned with the traditionalism and morality of religious orthodoxy
that Sandu Tudor promoted. At one point in time he was also the leader
of the Christian Students’ Association. This liberal attitude (toward sex,
new ideas, new forms of art, new methods of discourse) threatened Tudor
and in turn he claimed that it threatened the mores of the Romanian
nation. Another clear source of envy was that of power: Comarnescu was
linked to the political elite through his relationship with Gina
Manolescu-Strunga.
Yet what instigated the accusation of pederasty in the first place was
Criterionist Floria Capsali’s jealousy and her remarks to the press that
night. There could be many sources of Capsali’s jealousy that would
explain why she would make such a debased accusation concerning a
Criterion event. Perhaps her comment was sparked by the absence of her
artistic contribution in any way to the program of that evening, and also
quite possibly the fact that her own student Gabriel Negry (trained in her
dance studio) was the star of the performance. Another potential source of
envy sparking the Credinţa incident could be gender-based. Capsali was
the only central member of Criterion (founding member, Comarnescu
was Secretary General and she was the Administrative General) who was
female, all the other Criterion women either were invited later or had sup-
porting roles as wives or girlfriends. This explanation would also add cre-

 MSJ, 21. September 7, 1935.

136
206  C. A. BEJAN

dence to the more general perception by the public of the Criterion

Association as an all-boys club. Another potential factor (although I find
this one less plausible) could be youth envy. Capsali was seven years older
than the Young Generation, and of course older than her pupil, Gabriel
Negry. Combining a number of these factors, it is possible to conclude
that Floria Capsali herself felt excluded from the inner circle of Criterionists:
due to diva, gender, friendship and age factors.
Though political motives themselves do not appear to be a source of
Capsali’s envy (she never aligned herself with the Iron Guard and had a
vibrant career under communism) and the exact type of cultural produc-
tion also should not have been a problem for her (with her education and
exposure to French, Russian, Romanian and a variety of other cultural
influences in her choreography), a couple of other potential sources remain
to be explored: the internal framework of Criterion and the division of
responsibility. When the cultural role of the association necessarily eclipsed
the more political and intellectual function (due to King Carol II outlaw-
ing them from holding any more public manifestations), Capsali could
have felt that her territory, her domain, was being invaded. Comarnescu
and Capsali were the two original heads of Criterion. Given the cultural
activity that took place in 1933 and into 1934, Capsali could have per-
ceived Comarnescu as coopting her place in not just Criterion but even
the greater Bucharest cultural space.
It is important to remember that Criterion’s conception occurred in
the vibrant social atmosphere of afternoons of volleyball, drinks and con-
versation at ‘Floria and Mac’s’ house. Her student Danovski described the
original Criterion hostess as having ‘a subtle imagination, doubled by
intellectual refinement.’137 The exact same woman and pillar of Romanian
culture in her own right, who helped conceive Criterion in its nascent
beginnings, instigated the association’s abortion.

The Limits of Free Speech and Censorship

The dissolution of Criterion demonstrates just what the limits of artistic
expression at the time were: a foul press scandal equating intellectual and
artistic bravery with moral corruption succeeded in destroying Bucharest’s
most experimental, democratic, intellectual and cultural society. The
Criterion Association succeeded in hosting a number of events, from the

 Danovski. ‘Vivat Profesores!—Through the Looking Glass of Time.’

137
 6  THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION, 1934–1935…  207

visual arts to live-reading performance to lectures, and the dance perfor-

mance of Gabriel Negry was the first event to spark such a venomous cruel
attack. When personal vendettas got involved, there was no efficient
machine to curb the malice and put an efficient halt to the injustice. In this
sense perhaps the artistic scene in interwar Bucharest was so free that the
participants were unsure themselves just what the limits were and had to
learn by trial and error.
Censorship was alive and well at this time and targets included aspects
threatening traditional Romanian orthodoxy and the security of the state.
The same day Sandu Tudor was arrested, a Hungarian man was sentenced
for writing irredentist poetry.138 Another article in Universul lamented the
arbitrary nature of the censorship imposed by the government: ‘It is sad—
extremely sad—that the same lines that have been typed today in a news-
paper could be censored, but tomorrow could still be used.’139 Another
prime target for the censors was literature that they deemed pornographic.

Sex, Pornography and Prostitution

in Interwar Romania

The Credinţa scandal sheds light on the situation in interwar Bucharest

concerning Romanian society’s attitude toward sex, pornography and
prostitution. The staff at Credinţa appointed themselves the moral saviors
of Bucharest to rescue everyone from the culture of sodomy being pro-
moted by this elite homosexual mafia of Criterion. However, the intellec-
tual circles of Bucharest were quite comfortable with heterosexual literary
topics. Most of Eliade’s fictional writing of the period was highly sexual, as
was his lifestyle. To read both Eliade and Sebastian’s journals, we get a
sense of how sexually liberated some members of the Young Generation
were: living an experiential, non-exclusive lifestyle; dating multiple people
at the same time, breaking hearts, and having their hearts broken. Yet,
despite this highly sexualized existence, being accused of pornography was
a very real problem that any young writer could face.
The most famous example of this is the surrealist and avant-garde poet
and journalist, Geo Bogza (1908–1993). A lifelong supporter of the polit-
ical left, he became a propagandist for the communist regime, though
later practiced Aesopic criticism of the excesses of the Ceauşescu regime.

138
 Universul, Year 52 No. 53, February 23, 1935, 11.
139
 ‘Libertatea presei,’ Universul, Year 52 No. 44, February 14, 1935.
208  C. A. BEJAN

He protested anti-intellectual actions but did not formulate any critique of

the communist regime. Bogza was in fact critical of Criterion calling them
guilty of ‘ridicule and opportunism.’140 His disapproval of the association
demonstrates that they were victims of criticism from both the left and the
right. Bogza was first arrested for pornography in 1930 for his ‘Sex Diary’
and was temporarily held at Văcăreşti prison. He was acquitted on
November 28, 1932, represented by Jianu. Bogza was then arrested twice
(in 1933 and 1937) for another poem called ‘Offensive Poem’ and had to
serve six days in prison. Iorga and Octavian Goga were particularly vocal
and enthusiastic that Bogza be punished. Eminent cultural figure and poet
Tudor Arghezi was also accused of pornography in this period.
In 1936 Eliade was accused of pornography for his books Domnişoara
Christina and Isabel şi apele diavolului (Isabel and the Waters of the Devil).
The character of Domnişoara [Miss] Christina was a highly eroticized fig-
ure and Eliade included some detailed scenes of the sexual life among
expatriates living in India in Isabel şi apele diavolului. In 1937 Constantin
Kirit ̧escu, Director General of the Ministry of Public Instruction, stripped
Eliade of his university position as Nae Ionescu’s assistant. Eliade then
sued the Ministry of Education to retrieve it and Rădulescu-Motru came
to Eliade’s defense. Eliade won the trial and regained his position. Thus
the intellectuals were walking a tightrope between the demand for highly
sexualized literature and creative expression and authorities acting arbi-
trarily as a moral police for the nation, as Romania became more authori-
tarian throughout the 1930s.
Many people of Bucharest were open and liberal about heterosexual sex
in general, many had multiple partners, and many visited prostitutes.
None of these practices were illegal. A prominent example is King Carol II
himself and his scandalous affair and subsequent relationship with Lupescu.
Fidelity was not strictly practiced nor imposed. The reason Geo Bogza’s
poem, ‘Offensive Poem’ was banned was not because it depicted adultery
between Bogza and a servant gypsy girl, but rather the sexually explicit
way in which he described the encounter. This liberal attitude toward het-
erosexual sex included prostitution. Floria and Mac’s house, where the
initial social gatherings of Criterion took place, was located in the ‘red
light district’ of Bucharest named ‘Crucea de Piatra.’ Even members of the
Young Generation themselves were open and accepting of visiting prosti-
tutes. In the previously discussed citation of Comarnescu’s experiences
140
 Mircea Popa, ‘Geo Bogza, insurgentul,’ Familia, Vol. 5, Nos. 11–12 (480–481),
November–December 2005.
 6  THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CRITERION ASSOCIATION, 1934–1935…  209

with women in 1937 Paris, he implied he knew how it felt to pay for sex.
Sebastian confessed to Camil Baltazar in a letter from 1930 that he was
suffering depression whilst on his legal studies in Paris. In a list of many
things attempted to alleviate his suffering, he included, ‘I read from
Montaigne, and I’ve been to the whores. I’ve stayed locked indoors and
I’ve walked through the streets.’141 Nothing seemed to ease his suffering.

* * *

Criterion ended abruptly and in disgrace. Accusations regarding elements

of the Criterionists’ personal lives occupied them more than their public
responsibility to create culture. They became consumed with vindicating
their names and honor, and consequently no longer had the time, energy,
resources or will power to fight the cultural battle that in 1932 they had
set out to win. It is in this way that Criterion aborted the very modernity
that enabled them to create culture in the first place. Criterionists them-
selves (first Floria Capsali, then Tudor and Stancu, and finally Comarnescu,
Vulcănescu and Tell) became agents in the association’s destruction. Also
other Criterionists were conspicuously absent from the fight, preferring
instead to focus on their own projects, efforts and battles, in a sense revert-
ing to the pre-Forum and pre-Criterion dynamic of making individual
cultural contributions. Criterion’s abortion was also a result of the central
members’ conception of their mission and their inability to genuinely con-
nect with the Romanian public. The Criterionists were guilty of thinking
that what was pressing, fascinating, challenging and interesting for them
should therefore be so for everyone else. They believed that their activity
would thereby incite an intellectual and cultural revolution in the
Romanian interwar space. And this arrogant attitude aided and abetted
the slanderous activity of Credinţa.
Yet the very youth Credinţa was trying to save seemed in support of
Criterion:

The occasion of [Criterion’s] closing was a student demonstration, which

the Prefecture Police tried to disperse—after letting it assume its full size—
by bringing to the Carol Foundation a company of military police.142

141
 AMNLR, Mihail Sebastian correspondence, Letters to Camil Baltazar. 101/III/10,
192/1+2 + envelope, Paris, November 12, 1930 ‘Am cetit din Montaigne şi m’am dus la
curve.’ Hortensia Papadat-Bengescu, et al. Scrisori către Camil Baltazar, 129.
142
 MEAI, 284–285.
 CHAPTER 7

Rhinocerization: Political Activity

and Allegiances of the Young Generation,
1935–1941

Ionesco’s play, Rhinoceros (1959) displays the slippery slope between indi-
viduals creating an ideology, which has no room for intellectual or critical
inquiry, and falling into that collective herd-like mentality and anti-­
intellectual space themselves.1 Rhinoceros was a reaction to and a depiction
of the events Ionesco experienced in 1930s Romania. Eliade, Cioran and
Vulcănescu are all represented in his drama, while Ionesco himself is rep-
resented by the ‘every man,’ the main character Bérenger. Men (and
women) who were so important to Ionesco’s literary success in Bucharest;
men who were all members of Criterion; men who were part of the same
community of writers, artists and thinkers; and men who were each other’s
very close friends, one by one defected to the herd of the Iron Guard. The
play is an excellent portrayal of Bérenger’s bewilderment as ‘rhinoceriza-
tion’ takes over everyone in his town, his closest friends and eventually his
girlfriend.
Ionesco documented the origins of his play in his journal of the period.
Therein he equated the legionary ‘New Man’ to a rhinoceros long before
he captured the concept in the play. Ionesco distinguished between two
Human Races: man and New Man and proclaimed, ‘I am not a New Man.
I am a man. Imagine one fine morning rhinoceroses will take power.’2

1
 Călinescu, ‘Ionesco and Rhinoceros: Personal and Political Backgrounds,’ 430. See
Eugène Ionesco, Rhinoceros and Other Plays.
2
 Eugène Ionesco, Present Past Past Present, 67.

© The Author(s) 2019 211

C. A. Bejan, Intellectuals and Fascism in Interwar Romania,
Modernity, Memory and Identity in South-East Europe,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20165-4_7
212  C. A. BEJAN

At that same time he equated the police, judges and the armies already
fighting WWII with rhinoceroses. He wrote, ‘It is somewhat of a sin not
to be a rhinoceros.’ He declared that even soldiers of just causes, holy
wars, justice and revolution were rhinoceroses: for all were bearers of col-
lective thinking and disciples of ideologies. According to Ionesco there
was a slogan for the ‘New Man,’ the rhinoceros: ‘Everything for the State,
Everything for the Nation, Everything for the Race.’ For the rhinoceros,
the state has become God; a necessary abstraction; ‘a justice-machine.’ For
Ionesco, the ‘State,’ ‘Nation’ and ‘Society’ were all dehumanizing abstrac-
tions. He concluded that for the ‘New Man,’ for the rhinoceros, ‘human-
ity does not exist.’3 By believing in the Society and the State, the New
Man gives up ‘men’ and ‘friends.’ Thus the New Man could live in the
impersonal, in the phantom collective of the State.
In his journal Sebastian also offers a glimpse of the animalism of man
who succumbs to such ideology. In 1935 reacting to anti-Semitic riots
organized by student members of LANC, the Iron Guard and the Vlad
Ţ epeş League, Sebastian wrote, ‘I saw some appalling things in the street.
Wild animals.’4 Thus both Sebastian and Ionesco viewed the rise in popu-
larity of fascism as a stampede of wild animals and a terrifying loss of
humanity. The metamorphosis of people into rhinoceroses symbolizes the
decline and death of humanism, and the victory of extremist ideology (fas-
cism, communism, totalitarianism). Although Ionesco himself did not
succumb, his play gives us a sense of how others did join the stampede of
rhinoceroses. Rhinoceros focuses on ‘the moment of conversion,’ and
demonstrates how few succeeded in avoiding the stampede of the Iron
Guard beast.
This chapter is about that moment for many Criterionists: the moment
of conversion. In part, it was the rise and success of these ideologies (both
fascism and communism) that killed Criterion. After a while, due to the
solidification of various political allegiances, Criterionists were no longer
able to talk to each other and share in a fruitful discussion and debate
purely on an abstract intellectual level. The herd-like mentality made the
free-forum of Criterion impossible. They aborted their own cosmopolitan
modern cultural circle by becoming so attached to ideas and a fascist pro-
gram, which eclipsed their long-standing friendships and the initial shared
desire and dream to create culture. Thus rather than be seen as a breeding

3
 Ibid., 77–78.
4
 MSJ, 11.
 7  RHINOCERIZATION: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND ALLEGIANCES…  213

ground for Guardists, Criterion should be seen as a healthy alternative

rejected and destroyed by them, and scapegoated later in the commu-
nist period.
Rhinocerization came on the heels of ‘hooliganism.’ This atmosphere,
in which the strength of the Iron Guard was growing, is depicted in
Eliade’s Întoarcerea din rai and the aptly titled Huliganii and also in
Sebastian’s De două mii de ani and Cum am devenit huligan. A ‘hooligan’
referred to young people of approximately Eliade and Sebastian’s age,
recently graduated from university, unemployed and roaming the streets
of Bucharest. Disenchanted with life and politics, lacking in purpose both
personal and national, these young people provided solid support for
extremists. According to Eliade, becoming a hooligan occurred in the

grand moment when all external bounds are smashed and broken, of the
denial of all values, of blind belief in your youthfulness, your strength, your
destiny, … a belief which, in your own eyes, justifies every crime and every
form of violence.5

There was a general sense of crisis as the hooligans roamed the streets
of Bucharest wreaking destruction and the intellectuals embarked on a
quest for absolute values. Though the Criterionists distanced themselves
from the hooligans, they romanticized their behavior. Not only was the
literature of hooliganism (in true experientialist form) inspired by real
events, it also served as a prophecy that fiction would become fact. Violence
increased as both the Iron Guard increased their efforts and the govern-
ment lashed out in retaliation, fearing for its own survival. Octav Şuluţiu
cried out in his journal entry from June 24, 1936:

The falling of darkness! A moral darkness! Soon we will no longer be able to

write freely here either. We will arrive in the tragic situation of Germany!
Soon we will have to be quiet, to live in the dark. And who will lead? An
imbecile or two swindlers! Codreanu, Stelian Popescu or Ilie Rădulescu.
The epoch of barbarism is nearing. It has begun in Bucharest with the sound
of the revolver and the spilling of blood so that the bludgeon whistles and
the blood comes out in jets.6

5
 Eliade quoted from ‘D. Mircea Eliade ne vorbeşte despre “Huliganii,”’ in Rampa, Year
18 No. 5372, December 7, 1935, 1. Cited in Vanhaelemeersch, A Generation Without
Beliefs, 270–271.
6
 Şuluţiu, Jurnal, 380. June 24, 1936.
214  C. A. BEJAN

The Political Backdrop

In response to a ban on paramilitary groups, in 1935 the Legion created
their political party ‘Totul Pentru Ţ ară’ [Everything for the Country].
Codreanu agreed to establishing a permanent death squad and on July 16,
1936, the ‘Decemviri’ death squad killed former Guardist, Mihai Stelescu
for betraying Codreanu. Ion Moţa (the legionary vice-president) and
Vasile Marin had gone to Spain and volunteered to fight on the side of
Franco in the Spanish Civil War. In February 1937 their fallen bodies were
paraded around Romania in arguably one of the most spectacular funeral
processions in Romanian history.7 They were buried in a mausoleum at
Casa Verde. The Guardist processions were so effective that many
Romanians joined the Iron Guard just in time for the elections.
For the 1937 elections ‘Totul Pentru Ţ ară’ and the PNŢ formed a
political alliance and thus an unlikely temporary partnership between
Corneliu Codreanu and Iuliu Maniu. Thus the Iron Guard gained the
most support in their history in an electoral victory in 1937 with 15.5 per-
cent of the vote, becoming the third largest party in Romania. Fearing this
growing popularity, King Carol II intervened and formed a government
led by the National Christian Party with Octavian Goga as Prime Minister
and A.C. Cuza as Minister of State. The government passed a number of
Semitic reforms and ruthless oppression began. Jewish businesses
anti-­
were closed, hundreds of thousands of Jews lost their citizenship and Jews
were dismissed from their professions.8 In February 1938 Carol dismissed
the Goga-Cuza government, dissolved all political parties and proclaimed
a royal dictatorship, calling it Frontul Renaşterii Naţionale [the Front of
National Rebirth]. All politicians, except for Maniu and Mihalache, con-
formed to the new system. By refusing to wear the new FRN uniforms, the
leaders of the PNŢ were denied admittance to the Senate.9
Carol then went forward with plans to destroy the Iron Guard through
mass arrests and executions. In April 1938 Codreanu, Nae Ionescu, Tell,
Polihroniade (by that point known as the Legion’s foreign policy expert
and called the Romanian Goebbels)10 and other Legionnaires were

7
 Valentin Săndulescu, ‘Sacralized Politics in Action: The 1937 Burial of Romanian
Legionary Leaders Ion Mot ̦a and Vasile Marin,’ Totalitarian Movements and Political
Religions, Vol. 8. No. 2 (June 2007): 259–269.
8
 Nagy-Talavera, The Green Shirts and the Others, 413.
9
 Ibid., 422.
10
 Ibid., 425.
 7  RHINOCERIZATION: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND ALLEGIANCES…  215

i­mprisoned. On July 14, 1938, Eliade was arrested and imprisoned at

Miercurea Ciuc and released a few months later. Despite Codreanu’s
orders to Horia Sima (who was hiding in Germany) to stop Guardist vio-
lence toward the establishment, the Guard ‘went on a vicious rampage,
coordinating it as if as a challenge, with Carol’s visit with Hitler.’ (The
King had a delicate balancing act between wooing Germany and quelling
the terrorist grassroots fascist upsurge in his own country, a balancing act
he clearly failed to maintain.) The violence extended to more than the
usual Jewish targets (synagogues and shops) and Guardists murdered
Professor F. Ştefănescu-­Goangă (the anti-Guardist rector of Cluj
University), Colonel Cristescu (a high official in Cernăut ̦i) and a relative
of Armand Călinescu.11
Five days later, the night of November 29/30, 1938, Codreanu and
the members of ‘Nicadori’ and ‘Decemviri’ were executed by royal decree
in retaliation for the attacks. It was reported that the men had been ‘shot
while trying to escape,’ which was far from the truth. In fact they were tied
up with ropes and loaded into a truck that stopped on a deserted road
where they were strangled to death then shot.12 Consequently Horia Sima
became the new leader of the Legion. On March 7, 1939, King Carol II
appointed Armand Călinescu Prime Minister, who confidently believed
that with the death of Codreanu, the Iron Guard was an old story. Yet ‘the
flame of resistance flickered on’ and the Iron Guard carried out isolated
terrorist attacks planned from nests across the country.13 On September
21, 1939, Călinescu was assassinated by another death squad ‘Răzbunători,’
avenging Codreanu’s death. They were immediately executed. The next
day the government ordered mass executions of imprisoned Legionnaires
throughout the country. Both Polihroniade and Tell were victims of this
purge. Once released from Miercurea Ciuc, Nae Ionescu’s health rapidly
deteriorated and he died on March 15, 1940.
The political situation changed in 1940 when Carol attempted to col-
laborate with the Iron Guard in order to gain Nazi favor. His efforts failed
and the Iron Guard staged demonstrations which forced Carol to abdi-
cate. Two days before the abdication, General Antonescu had been named
Prime Minister. Carol gave the throne to his young son, Michael.
Antonescu formed a tactical alliance with Horia Sima. In September 1940

11
 Ibid., 421.
12
 Ibid.
13
 Ibid., 423.
216  C. A. BEJAN

the country legally became the National Legionary State, with the Iron
Guard as the official party. The Legion set out on a campaign of pogroms
and were rumored to be plotting against Antonescu himself. In November
the same year Legionnaires assassinated Nicolae Iorga. Hitler refused to
back the Iron Guard and gave Antonescu permission to liquidate them in
1941, which he did. The National Legionary State lasted from September
14, 1940–February 14, 1941, when, due to the unsuccessful Legionary
Rebellion, General Antonescu took control of the government and formed
a military dictatorship.14 In June 1941 Romania entered WWII on the side
of Germany in order to regain Soviet-occupied Bessarabia on the Eastern
Front. The death toll of the Holocaust in Romania was considerable.
Between 280,000 and 380,000 Romanian and Ukrainian Jews, were mur-
dered or died in Romania and Romanian-occupied territory; 25,000
Roma were deported to Transnistria, where approximately 11,000
perished.15

Political Allegiances
Whether or not the Criterionists or Nae Ionescu could possibly have con-
ceived of the full-scale of tragedy and loss of life that would befall Europe
as a result of experimenting with and endorsing revolutionary, totalitarian,
anti-liberal, anti-democratic and absolutist ideas, is doubtful. It is impos-
sible to cover each member of the Young Generation in equal depth,
therefore I will focus on four Guardist sympathizers (Eliade, Cioran,
Noica and Sadova) and three figures who maintained their neutrality
(Comarnescu, Sebastian and Ionesco). To say that they were sympathetic
does not necessarily imply they enlisted in the Legion. Of the four sympa-
thizers investigated here, Noica and Sadova enlisted. Other sympathizers
include (of course) Nae Ionescu, Polihroniade, Tell, and Haig and Arşavir
Acterian. Each figure in their own right demonstrates the supreme com-
plexity of the situation and why it is so difficult to arrive at a coherent easy
catch-all answer as to why fascism appealed to the Young Generation.

14
 See Dennis Deletant, Hitler’s Forgotten Ally: Ion Antonescu and His Regime, Romania
1940–44, 52–69.
15
 Elie Wiesel (chairman) ‘Final Report of the International Commission on the Holocaust
in Romania.’ ‘Executive Summary,’ 2. See Radu Ioanid, The Holocaust in Romania and
Geoffrey P. Megargee, ed., The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos Vol. 3.
 7  RHINOCERIZATION: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND ALLEGIANCES…  217

Mircea Eliade
Spirituality and the supreme redemption of the nation

Eliade considered himself to be both an authentic ‘Bucharestian’ and a

‘universal man.’16 Despite this supposed universality, as someone born and
raised in Bucharest, Eliade was, politically speaking, in the words of
Sebastian, a ‘man of the right.’17 Whether Eliade was a self-proclaimed
‘Iron Guardist’ depends on which point in time one investigates. In 1933
Eliade was merely writing about ‘religious rebirth’ and ‘cosmic Christianity’
with no reference to the Legion.18 Eliade offered open support to the
Legion in 1937–1938. By then Eliade considered the mystical Christian
spirit and the cult of death and salvation promoted by the Legion as the
very essence of the true spirit that would revolutionize and redeem the
Romanian destiny.19 This spiritual revolution would produce a new man
and a new type of life in Europe.20
In 1937 he declared that all non-Guardists were traitors and that the
reason he joined the Iron Guard was that he always believed in the ‘pri-
macy of the spirit.’21 Eliade described the specific spiritual nature of
Romanian fascism in his now infamous and oft-cited 1937 article, ‘Why I
believe in the victory of the Legionary Movement.’

The Legionary movement has a spiritual and Christian meaning. If all the
contemporary revolutions set as their goal the conquest of power by a social
class or by a man, the legionary revolution aims, on the contrary, at the
supreme redemption of the nation, the reconciliation of the Romanian
nation with God, as ‘The Captain’ said.22

16
 MEAI, 257.
17
 MSJ, 78.
18
 Leon Volovici, Nationalist Ideology and Anti-Semitism, 83.
19
 Ibid.
20
 Ibid., 85.
21
 MSJ, 114. It is curious that Sebastian records this episode of conversion as such, because
Eliade never officially enlisted in the Guard, despite his active legionary support.
22
 Mircea Eliade, ‘De ce cred în biruinţa Mişcării Legionare?’ Buna Vestire, No. 244,
December 17, 1937. This translation is from Constantin Iordachi, ‘Charisma, Politics and
Violence: The Legion of the “Archangel Michael” in Inter-War Romania,’ Trondheim Studies
on East European Cultures and Societies (December 2004): 57–62. Eliade denied writing this
article. Volovici claims there are reasons to doubt this. See Volovici, Nationalist Ideology and
Anti-Semitism, 126.
218  C. A. BEJAN

This article was actually one in a series, Eliade was responding to a ques-
tion asked of many journalists. Eliade intended to cast off the inadequate
non-functional embarrassing democratic state apparatus with a revolution
(the legionary revolution being the most appropriate in the case of
Romania) for the sake of the absolute redemption of the Romanian nation.
This article was also published three days before the elections, which is
unsurprising as Eliade was deeply involved in the electoral campaign of
the Legion.23
The next year Julius Evola (who since Eliade’s undergraduate studies in
Rome had become his friend and correspondent) visited Bucharest. Eliade
arranged for Evola to meet Codreanu in Bucharest in March 1938 at Casa
Verde.24 Four months later Eliade was arrested due to legionary journalis-
tic activity and his assistantship to Nae Ionescu. Even after his incarcera-
tion, Eliade did not consider himself to be an Iron Guardist. In fact, after
his release from prison, Eliade called on the director of the Royal
Foundations, Alexandru Rosetti, to tell Rosetti that he remained a writer
and a man of science, rather than a man of politics. Sebastian recorded him
calmly saying, ‘I prefer a little Romania, with some of its provinces lost but
with its bourgeoisie and elite saved, rather than a proletarian Greater
Romania.’25 He also said, ‘I believe in the future of the Romanian people.
But the Romanian state should disappear.’26 As Eliade tragically feared,
the communist takeover did destroy precisely what he would have saved in
Romania: the intellectual and cultural elite of the Romanian people. And
this elimination in turn destroyed their ability to create culture in Romania
in the way that they had been so accustomed to and ultimately took
for granted.
A controversial legionary theatrical manifestation took the form of a
play written by Eliade, at that time working as a cultural attaché in London.
The play Iphigenia, based on the Greek myth in which Iphigenia is the
daughter of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra, premiered on February 12,
1941, at the National Theatre, due to the efforts of Haig  Acterian.
Somewhat curiously and confusingly the staging occurred after the
Legionary Rebellion and the imprisonment of Haig. Many viewed it as a
tribute to the Iron Guard.

23
 MSJ, 132. December 7, 1937, and Volovici, Nationalist Ideology and Anti-Semitism, 126.
24
 Horst Junginger, ed., The Study of Religion Under the Impact of Fascism, 40.
25
 MSJ, 87.
26
 Ibid., 243.
 7  RHINOCERIZATION: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND ALLEGIANCES…  219

Sebastian, before seeing the show, described it as a ‘kind of legionary

reunion.’27 Nina Eliade’s daughter Giza reported to Sebastian that the
show was a great success but professed worry that it might be banned.
Sebastian, convinced that despite the fall of the National Legionary State,
the Antonescu regime would let the performances continue, assured her
that it would not be banned. Despite the legionary allusions he recog-
nized when he read the text, Sebastian concluded it would be difficult to
ban a modern interpretation of a classical story, a Greek myth. He noted
that the play might otherwise be called ‘Iphigenia, or the Legionary
Sacrifice’ and concluded that ‘after five months of being at the helm [the
Iron Guard being in control of the government] and three days of revolt,
after so much killing, arson, and pillage, you can’t say it is not relevant.’28
However, Vanhaelemeersch argues that the play is not an example of
Guardist thought.29 It is indeed ambiguous whether Eliade intended it to
be a piece of legionary propaganda. Both Sebastian and Comarnescu
believed it to be such. Even if the play was not propaganda, it certainly was
an attempt to aestheticize the mystical movement. But if it was propa-
ganda, why did the authorities allow the show to go on? And the question
remains, why did Eliade dedicate the script to Sebastian and Haig Acterian
in the published version of 1951: two of his four friends who read the
script in advance. After Sebastian saw the play on March 6, 1941, he had
a less violently opposed opinion of the piece. Apparently, Giza assumed
success too soon. Sebastian observed that the show was ‘one of the
National’s worst flops’ and that it was ‘much more interesting’ than he
had remembered when he initially read the text one year previously.
Despite terrible acting (which he claimed to be a Romanian phenomenon)
the text was really beautiful and he only noticed occasional legionary
allusions.30

Emil Cioran
The anomaly of his generation and Romania’s ‘transfiguration’

Upon his return to Romania from Berlin, Cioran wrote to his friend
Ecaterina Săndulescu,

27
 Ibid., 322.
28
 Ibid., 323.
29
 Vanhaelemeersch, A Generation Without Beliefs, 15–16.
30
 MSJ, 328.
220  C. A. BEJAN

I would be insincere if I didn’t confess to you that I am passing through a

quasi-religious crisis. I can’t be a believer, but without religious preoccupa-
tions I would be lost. Only religion can respond to the cry of help! … Rilke
cannot, nor Baudelaire resolve anything. The poets are lost, but if they did
not exist I would be ashamed even of religion…31

In Berlin Cioran became impressed by Hitler, even more influenced by the

thinkings and writings of Spengler, and formulated a vision for Romania’s
future based on a crippling inferiority complex with respect to the great
nations of Europe.32 He wrote this new vision in his 1936 text Schimbarea
la faţă a României, a text he later denounced calling it the result of the
delirious passion of his youth. The volume Cioran approved for publishing
in 1990 omitted the strongly anti-Semitic chapter and parts of the final
chapter, including a vitriolic diatribe against Hungarians.
Cioran was indeed the anomaly of his generation in that although he
was seduced by Hitler and Codreanu, his vision for Romania’s future not
only included elements from the fascist right but also Marxist elements
such as  rapid industrialization, inspired by the situation in the Soviet
Union. He wove together facets of both extremes in his program. Despite
his personal shame of being Romanian, a core facet of Cioran’s plan for
Romania’s transfiguration was an attitude of intolerance directed toward
the non-Romanian minority groups living with the borders of Greater
Romania (principally the Jews and the Hungarians).
Unlike his contemporary nationalists, Cioran refused to glorify Romania
for any reason, thus rejecting nativism. He hated the Romanian village,
folklore, Orthodox religion and non-existent (as far as he was concerned)
history. Instead, unlike many of his Romanian intellectual counterparts, he
blamed the Romanians themselves for their problems, pointing to
Orthodoxy and backwardness as the source for this new, small, irrelevant
country’s inferiority complex.33 But Cioran believed that in order to suc-
ceed as an individual, you had to be part of a successful nation. For him
the individual was entirely subsumed by the community, in Romania’s
case, the ‘minor culture’ of which he was part. In order to drag Romania

31
 AMNLR, Emil Cioran, Correspondence, Letters to Ecaterina Săndulescu. 134/III/6,
14069/1–2 December 27, 1935.
32
 Petreu, An Infamous Past, 187.
33
 Hitchins, ‘Modernity and Angst between the World Wars: Emil Cioran and Yanko
Yanev,’ 7.
 7  RHINOCERIZATION: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND ALLEGIANCES…  221

out of her trench of irrelevance, Cioran advocated industrialization, mod-

ernization and urban development.
He wished to bring Romania up to par with Western Europe and the
Soviet Union both economically and politically. In order to do this, he saw
nothing wrong with popular dictatorship that eliminated individual free-
dom. He wrote, ‘Romania will have to find its own way somewhere
between Berlin and Moscow.’34 Cioran saw potential greatness in the Iron
Guard and wanted desperately for Codreanu to accept Schimbarea la faţă
a României. To Belu Silber, Cioran said, ‘The Legion wipes its arse with
this country.’35 And he was devastated when ‘The Captain’ did not give
the book a more positive response. Codreanu’s reluctance to embrace the
text as an expression of legionary ideology was certainly due to the leftist
and socialist elements of Cioran’s views.
And, yet, within this small culture, Cioran (like all of his Criterion
counterparts) perceived himself to be a rational, lucid mind. He writes,

To realize that you can only become successful once your nation becomes
successful, and to have no guarantee of that ever happening! Here lies the
key to all Romanian uncertainties. And this is the tragedy of the lucid indi-
vidual in a minor culture.36

Cioran does not suggest that lucid individuals can create a great nation,
rather he resigns himself to the fact that it will take much longer than his
lifetime for Romania to emerge from its blackhole in the corner of Europe.
Cioran wrote Schimbarea la faţă a României during the two-year hia-
tus between his time in Berlin and his departure for France, while teach-
ing at a lyceum in Braşov. Cioran’s recent biographer Ilinca
Zarifopol-­Johnston claims that at the heart of Schimbarea la faţă a
României ‘lies Cioran’s cry of despair and wounded pride.’ She interprets
the ‘plot’ of the text to be his ‘quixotic quest … for a reformed nation that
would suit his sense of himself.’37 Petreu claims there is nothing new or
outrageous about the anti-Semitism in Cioran’s text. Rather what is
unusual in his work is his mixture of admiration for and rejection of the
Jews. He never uses the derogatory word jidan [kike] often used in

 Petreu, An Infamous Past, 165.

34

 MSJ, 311. January 25, 1941. Also cited in Petreu, An Infamous Past, 177.
35

36
 Emil Cioran, ‘Între conştiinţa europeană şi cea nat ̦ională,’ Vremea, Year 10 No. 518,
December 25, 1937. Cited in Petreu, An Infamous Past, 187.
37
 Ilinca Zarifopol-Johnston, Searching for Cioran, 93.
222  C. A. BEJAN

interwar Romania and instead referred to them always as evrei [Jews]. The
Jews deserved to be envied for their ‘messianism and prophetic vision. It
allows them to project a constant and historic goal.’38 Petreu claims that
Cioran ‘hates the envy, the admiration, the fear they inspire in him.’39
However, the Jews were traitors to every nation because their trans-
national identity transcended national boundaries. Their internationalism
made them traitors to every national movement.40 Petreu also maintains
that for Cioran the Jews were still a superior people, when compared to
the inferior Romanian people.41
Yet, despite Petreu’s assertion, many of Cioran’s statements in the
omitted chapter seem quite anti-Semitic. He suggests that the concept of
universal humanity cannot bring them to mutual understanding with the
statement:

On the human level we cannot get close to them, seeing that a Jew is first a
Jew, and a man second. The phenomenon occurs in their conscience, just as
it does in ours.42

He called the Jewish problem ‘as complicated as that of the existence of

God.’ They were responsible for conflicts due to their vampirism and
aggressivity, and even at historic moments had been ‘traitors in a fatalistic
way.’43 Cioran also complained that Jews were the single people who did
not feel linked to the landscape, even Roma Gypsies were infinitely closer
to nature than the Jews. And finally, Cioran’s infamous line in which he
links the Jewish identity with the necessity of suicide:

In everything, the Jews are unique; they don’t have a match in the world,
[they are] under a curse for which only God is responsible. If I were a Jew I
would commit suicide right here.44

38
 Petreu, An Infamous Past, 124–125.
39
 Ibid., 134.
40
 Ibid., 128.
41
 Ibid., 124.
42
 Emil Cioran, Schimbarea la faţă a României. Edition reproduced from the 1936 Vremea
complete edition. Norcross, GA: Criterion Publishing, 2002, 110–111. This edition includes
the portions later omitted by Cioran for the Humanitas edition. The quotations cited here
are from the omitted chapter.
43
 Ibid., 111.
44
 Ibid., 112.
 7  RHINOCERIZATION: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND ALLEGIANCES…  223

Despite his reservations about Jews, Cioran thought much less highly of
Hungarians. For him, originally from Transylvania, the Hungarian people
were both oppressors (responsible for the humiliation and shame suffered by
the Romanian people) and a backward race. During their 1000-year rule the
Hungarians had failed to produce ‘anything original in culture or philosophy.’45
Cioran blamed the Romanian inability for economic reform in Transylvania
on the revisionism of the former Hungarian tyrants. Petreu notes that with
this conclusion Cioran was thinking similarly to Iuliu Maniu (whom he actu-
ally detested) who believed that the claims of national minorities would
become irrelevant with economic development as a universal equalizer.46
Cioran, for all his bombastic machismo and pessimistic nihilism, had
close friendships with women. Sorana Ţ opa confided first in him when
Eliade left her for Nina Mareş. Cioran had a long and fruitful friendship
with Jeni Acterian. Of Jeni’s reaction to Schimbarea and Cioran’s seduc-
tion by the Iron Guard, he wrote:

‘Making history’ was the most recurrent phrase, the code word. As to the
incredible statements you have discovered in Schimbarea … The idea of
making history put me in a sort of trance.47

However, unlike her brothers Haig and Arşavir, Sadova and a number of
her contemporaries, Jeni remained immune to the allure of the Iron
Guard. A clue as to why can be found in a journal confession. Her wisdom
beyond her years and in spite of her time, is revealed in her declaration that
she will ‘not speak unless it is strictly necessary. Because whatever your ideals
may be, good or bad, they will always be misinterpreted.’48 Her resistance
to the legionary spell is also documented by Cioran. He writes,

[Jeni] told me the foolishness as early as 1936. She thought it absurd and
ridiculous to keep talking about History—by then the holiest of Holies. She
was right but I was young, proud and utterly mad, sharing in the delirium
of so many others.49

45
 Petreu, An Infamous Past, 140.
46
 Ibid., 141.
47
 Emil Cioran quoted in Petreu, An Infamous Past, 244. Chapter 11 entitled ‘The
Wandering Sophist’ contains a manufactured confession (240–247) constructed by Petreu.
She explains her sources for the confession in footnote (46) for Chapter 11 on page 312.
48
 Jeni Acterian, Jurnalul unei fiinţe greu de mulţumit, 60.
49
 Emil Cioran quoted in Petreu, An Infamous Past, 244.
224  C. A. BEJAN

With Cioran, Jeni had a particularly close friendship, and she wondered if
she was in love with him.50 She felt that they were the same, that they
shared the same ‘structure.’51 This similar structure, built on an intellec-
tual affinity, evidently did not extend to the political sphere.
Another meaningful relationship he had with a woman was his ongoing
friendship with Mrs. Ecaterina Săndulescu, a teacher at the all-girls school
in Sibiu. His correspondence with her demonstrates his care for her.

I never realized that you were that wholly sad. I believed that you were sad
in inspiration, not in existence … I even believe that you are too much of a
poet, because you appreciate unique moments when sadness becomes
knowledge … Women are able to come closer to absolute perfection …
Without angel-like pre-sentiments (having the feeling that something will
happen) one cannot live anymore.52

Clearly Cioran was a man capable of sensitivity and understanding on the

individual level, even at the time of his ‘quasi-religious crisis’ when he
started writing Schimbarea la faţă a României, in 1935.

Constantin Noica
The conversion of Romania’s philosopher-king

Noica made the conscious decision to focus his efforts and talents in the
direction of philosophy and viewed these efforts as a specialist as his con-
tribution to Romania. Noica did not have the inclination nor ability to be
a Renaissance Man like other Criterionists (and even other men of
Romanian culture, e.g. Blaga or Iorga) and did everything within his
power to achieve the highest expertise in philosophy. He wrote to
Comarnescu in 1936:

I have still decided to remain a man of specialty, and believe that I do well
to proceed thus. Honestly believe me when I tell you that I see your, Eliade’s
and Vulcănescu’s (and less, my friend, Cantacuzino’s) ability to assimilate
and internalize everything. My only excuse is to remain devoted to a single

50
 Acterian, Jurnalul unei fiinţe greu de mulţumit, 184, December 16, 1937.
51
 Ibid., December 14, 1937.
52
 AMNLR, Emil Cioran, Correspondence, Letters to Ecaterina Săndulescu. 134/III/6,
14069/1–2 December 27, 1935.
 7  RHINOCERIZATION: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND ALLEGIANCES…  225

thing. It is true that any man, even the specialist, would do well to … deepen
the image of Tudor Vladimirescu and, in general, the country’s history.53

Noica openly admired and commended his friends for their contributions.
His privileged friendship with Comarnescu continued. In 1936 Noica told
him, ‘I find again a man of culture in you,’ and ‘I believe all arts have a lot
of reason to thank you.’54
Although he embarked on a personal program of dedicated study, it is
notable that Noica was willing to compromise his professional career as a
scholar in the name of his legionary conversion. This was a sacrifice that
Eliade was not willing to make. Following the execution of Codreanu in
1938, Eliade emphasized his academic ties and contributions, thus explic-
itly distancing himself from what was clearly becoming more and more of
a suicide mission. Noica’s reaction to Codreanu’s execution stands in stark
contrast. Knowing he would forsake a university post by doing so, Noica
joined the Legion.55
Shortly following his conversion, Noica and Wendy left for Paris and
then Berlin for Noica to pursue doctoral study. Noica’s political decision
to enlist in the Legionary Movement devastated Comarnescu, who urged
his friend that such a path led to illusion and idolatry and accused Noica
of being un clerc trădător [an intellectual traitor].56 On December 23,
1938, he wrote:

Personally, as your friend and as an intellectual, and as a modest colleague of

yours in the realms of philosophy and art, I think you are making a huge
mistake with your new attitude, especially because you are not a fighter and
not a politician … But that does not impede me from suffering … Maybe if
you had lived for a year in France, and had lived longer in a humanist, univer-
salist [environment] generous to scientific domains, it would be d ­ ifferent. I
could be mistaken, but I sincerely believe that’s what would have happened.57

53
 AMNLR, Constantin Noica (and occasionally Wendy Noica), Correspondence, Letters
to Petru Comarnescu. 242/III/1, 25201/1–44; 25201/28–33 f. 30, November 7, 1936,
Sinaia. Tudor Vladimirescu was a revolutionary hero for Romania and the leader of the
Wallachian uprising of 1821.
54
 Ibid., 25201/34–35, f. 43, December 1, 1936, Sinaia.
55
 MSJ, 192.
56
 See the discussion on Julien Benda in the Preface, Chapter 1 and Conclusion.
57
 AMNLR, Petru Comarnescu, Correspondence, Letters to Constantin Noica.
25.219/1–8; ff. 7–8. December 23, 1938.
226  C. A. BEJAN

Comarnescu wrote that he knew that Romania was missing a superior

culture and true intelligentsia but begged Noica to ‘think of Nae
Ionescu.’58 Noica’s friend asserted that the older philosophy professor left
reality: his ideas were ‘constructed in wind’ and he ‘lived in illusion.’59
Comarnescu ended his letter of desperate pleas with:

The Christianity and philosophy in you are lost the instant you fall into
idolatry. And I need to tell you honestly: you are an ideologue. I wish you a
peaceful holidays, inspiration and hard work in your philosophical medita-
tions. To Wendy, your good comrade-ess, I wish happiness, complete happi-
ness, through which she can see her husband realize himself in the sense of
his true vocation.60

Noica’s response to this plea of Comarnescu is curious. He was seem-

ingly unaware of the full extent of Comarnescu’s warnings and differenti-
ated himself from Ionescu and Eliade. Noica wrote, ‘I don’t know the
nature of Nae and Mircea’s conversion,’ but specified that the nature of
his own conversion had nothing to do with ‘the café lexicon of any kind of
idolatry and/or “terrorist” action’61 but rather was ‘the exact opposite of
both,’ a personal pursuit of ‘strong interior perfection.’62
Noica’s political fermentation coincided with the meltdown of his mar-
riage. Whilst in Paris, immersed in his studies and ignoring his personal
life, his wife Wendy cried out to Comarnescu, who was deeply concerned
for both of them. On January 18, 1939, Wendy wrote that Noica was
crazily occupied, working like a mule, going to conferences and courses,
and that they were not understanding each other anymore. Despite their
unhappiness in their relationship, they were happy that the Vulcănescus
were also in Paris at the same time. They went to the Romanian Orthodox
Church together and the theater. Wendy confessed how sad she was and
concluded the only thing she could do was accept the changes in Noica’s
behavior.63 Just days later, oblivious to his wife’s troubles and nostalgic for
his friendship with Comarnescu Noica wrote:

58
 Ibid.
59
 Ibid.
60
 Ibid.
61
 Referring to the vocabulary employed and topics discussed by the Young Generation at
cafés Capşa and Corso.
62
 AMNLR, Constantin Noica (and occasionally Wendy Noica) Correspondence, Letters
to Petru Comarnescu. 242/III/1, 25201/ff. 36–37. December 28, 1938, Paris.
63
 Ibid., 25201/4–5, January 18, 1939, Paris.
 7  RHINOCERIZATION: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND ALLEGIANCES…  227

I am wondering, susceptible as I am to do sometimes—if my new unrest has

caused me to lose your friendship, this chapter which is unique in my youth.64

Preoccupied with his work and thoughts on totalitarianism and the

impending political conflicts in Europe, and again indifferent to the suf-
fering of his spouse, Noica confessed to Comarnescu:

France is not that exclusivist, and not that democratic, nor that rationalist as
those who would swear by her, in the first instance the Jews … I’ve audited
some conferences on Mauriac, Maritain and Benda. Their position did not
surprise me … but their obsession with respect to totalitarianism and the
way in which they put problems so impersonally. I wonder who is more to
be condemned: the ideas that are carried out, imposed through the orders
of the totalitarian state, or the finished idea in the space of the community,
or of the free states … If you came to Paris, it would be a summer of happi-
ness for us, but it seems that this summer much more will change in Europe.65

His political observations and ruminations on friendship continued. Noica

wrote to Comarnescu, ‘You, on the other hand, confessed that you don’t
know who is a good man or who is a bad man, that everything is relative
… I can’t adopt the same ethic.’ And Noica used the recent developments
in Czechoslovakia (the Sudentenland being annexed by Germany and the
rest occupied or hived off as a puppet Slovak state) to illustrate where
friendship and politics intersect, recalling something Polihroniade had said
to them, ‘About the prediction of Mişu, the example of Czechoslovakia
comes precisely to their [the Guardists’] support, because the lucidity of
our friend said: to not be their [the Nazis] friend too late.’66
Aspiring to become like the great philosophers he studied and referred
to, perhaps Noica’s belief that ‘those who know better than the rest could
construct a better society for everyone’ could be attributed to a
­self-­conception of Plato’s philosopher-king. In addition to Plato, Aristotle
and Kant, Noica had a profound admiration for Romania’s own Blaga and
for Heidegger. Like many of the Young Generation he had a long-term
personal correspondence with Blaga. Noica made the effort to write to
Blaga from Heidegger’s city, Freiburg, where he was auditing the philoso-
pher’s courses alongside Cioran. Noica wrote to Comarnescu, ‘I regret

64
 Ibid., 25201/12–13, January 25, 1939, Paris.
65
 Ibid., 25201/6–7, February 10, 1939, Paris.
66
 Ibid., 25201/8–9, May 22, 1939, Paris.
228  C. A. BEJAN

that you are not here to discuss the Heidegger case with us.’67 Noica’s
study of Heidegger became a lifetime project and of central importance
during his later years at Păltiniş.

Marietta Sadova
Theater and Fascism, the Romanian Leni Riefenstahl

In her interrogation recorded in her ACNSAS file, Sadova cites her

involvement in Criterion as the moment of her ideological conversion to
the Iron Guard.68 Becoming a convinced and active Legionnaire Sadova
was more than just a supporter or sympathizer of Codreanu. By the early
1940s she was a full-flung, impassioned activist for the fascist cause.
Sadova’s case reveals the drama of the period in many facets: the state of
Romanian theater, the interpersonal drama amidst the Young Generation
and the theatricality and performative nature of the Iron Guard. Film and
stage actress, director and theater professor, Sadova devoted her life to
both theater and the Legionary Movement. According to Vera Molea,
‘[Sadova] was a woman divided between her theater work and her political
beliefs, victorious in the first and defeated in the second.’69
Married to Haig Acterian, sister-in-law to Jeni and Arşavir Acterian and
close friend to Eliade, Sebastian and others, Sadova provides us with the
opportunity to explore the relationships and friendships between men and
women in the interwar Bucharest cultural space. Prior to this point in the
book the focus has been given mainly to male friendship and interaction.
The case of Sadova gives us a window into the Criterion female experi-
ence. This investigation also exposes to what degree the National Theatre
was being used as a propaganda tool and how theater artists contributed
to or were affected by the cataclysmic political events surrounding them
before and during WWII (Fig. 7.1).
By the crucial moment in 1934–1935, Sadova’s political views were
fermenting, and solidifying in support of the Iron Guard. This however
did not prevent her from writing to Haig of her concern for Sebastian in
the wake of the publication of De două mii de ani and Ionescu’s infamous

67
 AMNLR, Constantin Noica, Correspondence, Post-cards to Petru Comarnescu,
242/0/2, 25202/1–14, f. 6, March 20, 1941, Freiburg.
68
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol. 2, f. 2.
69
 Vera Molea, Marietta Sadova sau Arta de a trăi prin teatru, 7.
 7  RHINOCERIZATION: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND ALLEGIANCES…  229

Fig. 7.1  1935 portrait

of Marietta Sadova.
Courtesy of the Library
of the Romanian
Academy, reference
number 170414

anti-Semitic preface. Evidently Sebastian confided in Sadova that he

intended to take his own life. Haig’s response from Rome offered hope:

I’ve thought a lot about what you tell me of Sebastian. I wrote him con-
gratulations. I wonder how the thought of suicide can spring from the soul.
I hope it’s a childishness that will pass. Whoever believes in God cannot
commit suicide.70

This quote reveals two main points. The first is that Sadova and Haig were
very close to Sebastian and concerned for the well-being of their dear
friend, regardless of whether they agreed with Ionescu’s approach in the
preface. The second is that Haig was a very religious man. His faith grew
even stronger during his time abroad. He claimed, ‘Rome gave me God.’71
This faith sustained and invigorated him. He constantly encouraged his

70
 AMNLR, Haig Acterian, Correspondence, Letters to Marietta Sadova, 229/IV/34
26585, December 23, 1934.
71
 Ibid., 229/IV/49 26600, Postmarked January 22, 1935.
230  C. A. BEJAN

wife to turn to God in moments of despair. And it was precisely his devout
faith that gave Haig such resolved hope and optimism for the future: writ-
ing in the same letter about Sebastian, ‘I am sure that as I write this God
is preparing good days for us,’72 and later ‘I have in my confidence the
certainty that in 1935 it will be better for us.’73 It is unsurprising that
Haig’s growth of faith coincided with his legionary conversion.
From 1934–1935 Haig Acterian studied filmmaking at the Cinecitta in
Rome with the financial support of Aristide Blank.74 In Haig’s impas-
sioned love letters from Rome he repeatedly asks how their dear friends
Sebastian and Eliade are doing and about their work. When Eliade received
his post at the university in 1934, Haig writes, ‘Tell Mircea that I con-
gratulate him on his victory at the University.’75 He asks Sadova to send
him books (such as Eliade’s Oceanografie) and publications, including
Criterion, for which he wrote an article on the English director Edward
Gordon Craig, which never made it into the journal.76 He also often asks
Sadova how her own theater work is going, including congratulating her
on the premiere of ‘Trica,’77 and comments on their theater community,
complaining of the internal politics of the theater, saying ‘there are too
many people around the National Theatre.’78
As for the political, Haig does not refrain from comment. His musings
reveal how an educated cosmopolitan intellectual dismisses the national-
ism abounding in petty politics (‘professional politics’) and how the mysti-
cal nationalism and apocalyptic ascent of the Iron Guard do not fall into
such a category.

This diplomatic world is pretty mediocre. Only politics is discussed and I

have had enough of this need for hate and lack of understanding between
people. Misunderstandings arising from stupidity, vanity and nationalism.
(Stendhal: ‘nationalism, this sentiment is against nature!’)79

72
 Ibid., 229/IV/34 26585, December 23, 1934.
73
 Ibid., 229/IV/48 26.599, December 21, 1935.
74
 Aristide Blank (1883–1960) was a Jewish banker, financier and theater patron who
funded many artistic and cultural ventures in interwar Bucharest.
75
 AMNLR, Haig Acterian, Correspondence, Letters to Marietta Sadova, 229/IV/32 26,
583, Postmarked November 15, 1934.
76
 Ibid., 229/IV/9 26.557, October 23, 1934.
77
 Ibid., 229/IV/51 26605, January 24, 1935.
78
 Ibid., 229/IV/52 26.606, January 29, 1935.
79
 Ibid., 229/IV/1936 26.587, December 21, 1934.
 7  RHINOCERIZATION: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND ALLEGIANCES…  231

His comments are curious, given the future of his political activity. They
reveal how his interpretation of the Guard transcended the banter and
misunderstandings of diplomacy. These words confirm an interpretation
of the Legionary Movement as just that, a ‘movement,’ rather than a polit-
ical organization. Faith-based and grassroots, the Iron Guard was not part
of the ‘diplomatic world’ Haig encountered disapprovingly in Rome. The
Iron Guard was following a natural course, rather than being against
nature as in Stendhal’s interpretation of nationalism.
In addition to the publication and subsequent fallout surrounding
Sebastian’s De două mii de ani, the crucial moment of 1934 included
Cioran’s philosophy studies in Berlin, the solidification of political alle-
giances and the final public manifestations of Criterion’s activity. In her
interrogation in her Securitate file, Sadova credits her involvement in
Criterion with her entrance into legionary ideology. Her words demon-
strate that conversion was happening socially, within the circle of Criterion
but not as a result of the cultural association’s program. She confesses,

[Starting the year] 1933–1934, when I was participating in the Criterion

Association in Bucharest, I entered into the circle of legionnaires and legion-
ary sympathizers, such as: Mihail Polihroniade; Mircea Vulcănescu; Petrişor
Viforeanu; Belgea; Mircea Eliade; Constantin Noica; Emil Cioran; Haig
Acterian and others. This circle exercised over me a national-chauvinist
influence and in a short time I accepted the legionary doctrine, I remained
definitively connected to the legionary ideology.80

Sadova enlisted in the Legionary Movement in 1934.81

Sadova and Haig’s first meeting with ‘The Captain’ occurred at the
house of Mihail and Mary Polihroniade on October 21, 1936, which they
described as a ‘colossal’ day.82 Sebastian recorded this episode in his diary
and remarked on the humor of it. Eliade had relayed the story to him.
Sadova brought a copy of Codreanu’s book, Pentru Legionari (For
Legionnaires), and asked him to sign it. When Codreanu asked her name,
she told him, expecting him to recognize that she was a famous actress.
When he did not, she clarified that she was with the National Theatre and
then he treated her just as if it were the ‘Day of the Book,’ following the
usual line of questions, was she ‘Miss’ or ‘Mrs’? Sebastian writes, ‘I think
80
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol. 2, f. 2 and reverse.
81
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol. 1, f. 94.
82
 MSJ, 85.
232  C. A. BEJAN

it was a bit of a blow for poor little Marietta.’ Sebastian observed that the
smile that Sadova gave Codreanu was the same she gave to Aristide Blank.
He concludes that this does not make her a hypocrite, but rather ‘a strange
mixture of harsh practicality and openhanded sincerity.’83 Then Haig pre-
sented Codreanu with his entire oeuvre of poetry and essays, signed with
a special dedication to ‘The Captain.’ In response to this incident, Sebastian
recalls that ‘in 1932 Haig was a communist.’ It can only be assumed that
a factor in Haig’s legionary conversion was his close relationship with
Sadova, who was the first of the two to declare her support for the Guard.
Sadova had a close and complicated personal and professional relation-
ship with Sebastian. In his journal, Sebastian presents us with a vivid por-
trait of Sadova as friend, venomous anti-Semite and calculating individual.
Following the deaths of Moţa and Marin in Spain, Sebastian notes on
January 15, 1937, that Sadova has ‘been having an attack of anti-­Semitism’
in which she shouted,

The yids are to blame … They take the bread from our mouths they exploit
and smother us. They should get out of here. This is our country not theirs.
Romania is for Romanians!84

The next year, when Eliade was imprisoned at Miercurea Ciuc, Sebastian
stopped by Sadova and Haig’s home, to see if they had news of their
friend. This time, on August 22, 1938, Sebastian described her as ‘unre-
strained’ and ‘choking with anti-Semitism.’ She ranted and raged ‘against
the potbellied Jews and their bloated, bejeweled women—though she did
make exception for about a hundred thousand “decent” Jews, probably
including myself since I have neither a potbelly nor a bloated wife.’85
Their complicated relationship also existed on a professional level,
working together in the theater. In 1936 Sebastian wrote Jocul de-a
vacanţa (The Vacation Game) for his unrequited love Leni Caler but even-
tually cast Sadova to ensure it would get performed. They had multiple
readings of the script in an effort to find sponsors, but the plan fell through.
Eventually the show was produced and performed at the Comedia Theatre,
premiering on September 14, 1938, starring Leni Caler, and was a roaring
success. The anti-Semitic legislation initially installed in 1937 went through

83
 Ibid.
84
 MSJ, 106.
85
 Ibid., 172.
 7  RHINOCERIZATION: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND ALLEGIANCES…  233

varying stages of severity and the fact that a play written by a Jewish writer
was performed indicates that this particular time was more permissive.
Unfortunately, that was not the case during the war, when Sebastian had
great difficulty getting his play Steaua fără nume (The Star Without a
Name) performed. It was eventually performed at the Comedia Theatre in
1944 due to Ştefan Enescu signing as the author of the play, using the
pseudonym ‘Ştefan Micu.’86
Though a friend and temporary artistic collaborator, Sebastian came to
see Sadova for what she truly was: a calculating and intolerant individual.
Hearing a story about Sadova from Harry Brauner on December 2, 1937,
‘[challenged] everything [Sebastian] knew about her.’87 While working on
a play with Lucia Demetrius, Sadova received 30,000 lei from the National
Theatre and 20,000 from the promoters and shared none of it with
Demetrius. Sadova also sent the play to Germany, under her name, exclud-
ing Demetrius claiming that if they submitted it with both their names,
the script would not be accepted because Demetrius was ‘Jewish.’
Sebastian, shocked at this story writes, ‘On this occasion, I learned that
Lucia D’s mother actually is Jewish. What good methods of investigation
our Marietta has! And what timely use she can make of them!’88
The first legionary meeting involving Criterionists took place at the
Polihroniade home the following year, 1937. In addition to Haig, Sadova
and Mary and Mihail Polihroniade, Nina and Mircea Eliade, Anton Hoitaş
and Codreanu participated. Sadova describes,

In this meeting we discussed a series of problems related to legionary activ-

ity, including dispossessing Jews of their assets and the propaganda for the
electoral campaign connected to PNŢ.89

Beginning with this initial session, a series of regular legionary meetings

started to take place at the Eliade, Polihroniade and Acterian homes. In
these meetings the following individuals participated (in addition to
those already mentioned): Vulcănescu, Tell, Ion Belgia, and the legionary
commanders, Emil Bulbuc, Anton Hoitaş, Horia Cosmovici and his
brother, Constantin Ionescu, and Petrişor Viforeanu.90 In this series of

86
 Ibid., 616. Sebastian’s final plays Ultimă oră and Insula premiered after his 1945 death.
87
 Ibid., 131.
88
 Ibid.
89
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol.2, f. 2 reverse.
90
 Ibid.
234  C. A. BEJAN

meetings, Sadova reports they discussed problems of the legionary doc-

trine, commented on the actions of King Carol II, and remembered the
arrested and executed Legionnaires. They also decided who would write
pro-legionary propaganda in the future, discussed the measures needed
to be taken against the Jews, slandered the activity of the Romanian
Communist Party and sometimes sang legionary songs.91
Passionately playing the role of activist, Sadova viewed herself as a
bridge between her elite cultural community (of theater and film) and the
Legionary Movement. Her activity was specifically geared toward attract-
ing people of influence in the theater and her intellectual circle to the
legionary cause.92 One cultural manifestation of her xenophobic national-
ism came in the form of her advocacy for exclusively Romanian language
performance. On December 16, 1936, Sebastian recalls an evening at the
house of Constantin Vişoianu, when ‘Marietta called for a legal ban on all
foreign films.’ Her outburst, Sebastian described as violent and emotional.
(‘She seemed about to burst into tears.’) She verbalized her rationale for
the ban, ‘We are in Romania, and they should speak Romanian.’ And
Sebastian tried to put an end to the discussion with irony, telling her,
‘Marietta, my dear, you are in the most disturbing phase of nationalism.’93
This ‘phase’ followed closely on the heels of her activity a few days
before, on Friday, December 11, 1936, when she recited poetry at a fes-
tival for the Iron Guard ‘under the spiritual patronage of the legionaries
fighting Marxism in Spain.’ The festival was an effort to raise money for
Casa Verde. Sebastian observes that ‘the poor girl can’t hope for any-
thing better [than the Iron Guard] under the present regime,’ a fact
that applied to many who sympathized. It is here, in this particular jour-
nal entry that Sebastian wonders if ‘there would be room for a Leni
Riefenstahl in a state run by Codreanu,’ and notes that, ‘Marietta has put
herself forward.’94
Following the assassination of Armand Călinescu on September 21,
1939, Sadova raised money for the Legionnaires arrested and for their
family members with the help of Nina Eliade, Mary Polihroniade and
Domnica Negruţi. In this activity she was supported by Petre Ţ uţea and

91
 Ibid.
92
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol. 1. f. 94.
93
 MSJ, 95.
94
 Ibid., 95–96.
 7  RHINOCERIZATION: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND ALLEGIANCES…  235

the Legionnaire Marioara Ionescu.95 Sadova’s use of the National Theatre

for legionary efforts included organizing a legionary wedding celebration
for Corina Constantinescu that took place on the premises of the National
Theatre. Liviu Rebreanu was the godfather of Constantinescu.96 During
the National Legionary State, Sadova confessed to have organized her
own ‘nest’ along with the following other women: Mary Polihroniade,
Clatilda Hoitaş, Marioara Ionescu, Nina Eliade, Maria Iordache and Bobi
Marin. They worked together to spread legionary propaganda, by distrib-
uting legionary aid. In this capacity they ‘went from house to house, cre-
ated a canteen and a legionary medical unit, organized a “Christmas Tree”
at the legionary lodgings at Casasovici as well as other legionary actions.’97
Coinciding with the National Legionary State, Haig Acterian became
the director of the National Theatre. Acterian served in that capacity until
the Legionary Rebellion. With Acterian at the head, Sadova was allowed
direct access into the operation of the theater ‘transforming it from a
place of culture into a headquarters of manifestations of legionary
ideology.’98 Thus began the persecution of Jews and ‘those of the left’
[celor de stînga]. Under the guidance of Sadova, a legionary ceremony
was introduced before rehearsals and performances. She also worked
assiduously to attract the young students from the Conservatory of
Dramatic Arts toward the Legion. During this period Sadova wrote a
manual about the speaking technique required to teach at the theater
conservatory and used examples from legionary and mystical ideology.99
In addition to Horia Sima and Vasile Iaşinschi,100 Sadova was in direct
contact with Radu Gyr who instructed her to attract new members to the
Legion from the artists at the National Theatre, which she succeeded in
doing in large numbers.101
The violence and events surrounding the Legionary Rebellion (January
21–23, 1941) were the result of the Iron Guard’s desire to take complete
control of the government. The Bucharest Pogrom, which ran concur-
rently with the Rebellion, was responsible for the murder of Bucharest
Jews, the destruction and pillage of Jewish property and homes and the

95
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol. 2, f. 2 reverse.
96
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol.1, f. 95.
97
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol.2, f. 3.
98
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol. 1, f. 95.
99
 Ibid.
100
 Ibid., f. 1.
101
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol. 2, f. 2.
236  C. A. BEJAN

burning of synagogues. Both Sadova and Haig were extremely involved in

the rebellion. Haig allowed pro-Guard speeches to be made with a mega-
phone from the National Theatre’s balcony.102 Sadova was seen wearing
the legionary uniform, a green shirt.103 Alongside Dimitriu Toma
(employed by the National Theatre) and Rady Gyr, Sadova conducted the
occupation of the theater by the Legionary Committee for Art.104 In the
same report Sadova is said to have ‘crossed the theater balcony with a
revolver.’105 In another report, George Miculescu (the director of the
office in the National Theatre) testified with a written statement that
though he did not hear it himself, other employees heard Sadova say dur-
ing the days of the rebellion, ‘If I had a revolver, I would shoot General
Antonescu.’106 This statement of course is in conflict with the previous
report, which placed her on the balcony with a revolver.107 In her personal
account of events, she states,

When the Legionary Rebellion was declared, I personally went to the

National Theatre, where many Legionnaires gathered, together with Radu
Gyr. I went on the balcony where Gyr was speaking to the crowd of
Legionnaires, instigating the rebellion.108

An incident with a colleague at the theater further reveals Sadova’s

capacity to carry on personal relationships with individuals of Jewish heri-
tage (such as Sebastian and Aristide Blank) and at the same time the
uncompromising lengths to which she was willing to go to achieve the
legionary aims. At the time of the Rebellion, Ion Tălianu (an artist at the
National Theatre) was gravely injured on the street by a band of
Legionnaires under the pretext that he was jidan. He went to the theater
and reported the incident to Sadova, whose response was simply:

102
 Ibid., 318.
103
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol. 1, f. 1.
104
 Ibid., f. 95.
105
 Ibid.
106
 Ibid., 133.
107
 This incongruity illustrates how the ACNSAS files, though rich with previously unseen
information, often have conflicting reports or misinformation.
108
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol.2, f. 3.
 7  RHINOCERIZATION: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND ALLEGIANCES…  237

What do you want, dear Tălianu, don’t you see that the communists are
looking for trouble in broad daylight? We have our measures. Do not get
angry if more mistakes are made.109

During the Rebellion, Haig was arrested and condemned to 12 years

in prison. Following the Rebellion, Sadova was also briefly arrested.110
From 1941 to 1943 Haig was imprisoned in Lugoj and wrote a mono-
graph about Molière, which was his last work. Jeni reacted with shock
and distress to the imprisonment of her brother, which she thought abso-
lutely absurd because Haig was certainly innocent. Childlike and naïve,
her eldest brother was only interested in the theater. Jeni believed he
would be released quickly because no accusation could stick.111 Also opti-
mistic for an early release of Haig, Sebastian reacted with empathy toward
and hope for the future of his friend. ‘Frankly I think it will be sorted out,
and there is no way Haig will be made a martyr. Nor would I want
him to be.’112
Sadova embarked on an effort to liberate her husband, collecting signa-
tures for a petition in support of Haig. Though, according to actress
Margareta Papagoga, there was little sympathy left for him at the National
Theatre. It was impossible to collect signatures.113 Sadova persevered. One
of her arguments was that all the other arrested conspirators in the rebel-
lion had been released.114 She requested Haig be released and work for the
government’s propaganda team.115 Through constant pleas to the
Antonescu government, she succeeded in gaining the support from the
young King Michael and Haig was released from prison. Instead of libera-
tion however, Haig was sent to the front line of battle on the Eastern
Front. This was most likely due to the fact that he himself requested to be
mobilized in the military rather than sit in a prison cell.116 Haig was

109
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol.1, f. 95.
110
 Molea, Maritta Sadova sau Arta de a trăi prin teatru, 7.
111
 Acterian, Jurnalul unei fiinţe greu de mulţumit, 329.
112
 MSJ, 318, February 4, 1941.
113
 Ibid.
114
 ACNSAS HA Fond I 21201 Dosar Nr. 54892 Vol.1. f. 74, dated August 18, 1943.
115
 Ibid., f. 74, f. 73.
116
 Ibid., ff. 41–42, f. 111, dated October 27, 1942.
238  C. A. BEJAN

declared missing during the battles in the Kuban, and died circa August 8,
1943, due to a Russian bombardment 8 kilometers west of Krymskaya.117
In the aftermath of the Rebellion and throughout WWII, Sadova never
gave up her efforts to find her husband (she ceaselessly searched for him
and demanded answers from the government) nor did she stray from her
legionary mission. Like Haig, she also endured imprisonment, though
slightly later and for a much shorter period. Immediately after the
Rebellion, for the months of February and March, Sadova continued to
meet with Mary Polihroniade, Domnica Negruţi, Maria Rareş, Marioara
Ionescu, Costina Constantinescu and Ion Isaia to discuss legionary issues.
According to Sadova, it was for this reason that she and Costina
Constantinescu were imprisoned in March 1941 and interned at Târgul
Jiu prison.118 Both were liberated on July 15, 1941, due to the interven-
tion of legionary leaders.119
Upon her release, Sadova was engaged in secret anti-Antonescu sup-
port for the Legion. She resumed her connections with Ion Isaia, Petre
Ţ uţea, Arşavir Acterian, Mary Polihroniade, Clatilda Hoitaş, George
Penciuiescu and George Demetrescu. They held regular meetings, orga-
nized aid and raised money for arrested Legionnaires and their family
members.120 Within the framework of the National Theatre, Sadova drew
up a ‘black list’ of actors who did not sympathize with the Legionnaires.
This included others who did not work at the National Theatre, such as
the director at that time of the C. Nottara Theatre, Chiril Economu.121

Petru Comarnescu
The extreme egalitarianism of the father of Criterion

Comarnescu remained a philosopher of history, logic, erudition and

aesthetics, never of the social and political stripe. Comarnescu was known
for his enthusiastic optimism, admiration for American values such as
equal rights for all and democracy, and desire to personally stay out of the
political arena. The word he used to describe his political leanings was
‘socialist,’ although in the 1930s he had no contact with communist

117
 Ibid., f. 70; Florin Faifer. ‘Mirare şi minune’ in Acterian, Jurnal 1929–1945/1958–1990, 18.
118
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol. 2, f. 3.
119
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol. 1, f. 95.
120
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol. 2, f. 3.
121
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol. 1, f. 96.
 7  RHINOCERIZATION: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND ALLEGIANCES…  239

f­actions. Comarnescu’s socialism can be interpreted to go hand in hand

with his internationalism and cosmopolitanism, his support of and advo-
cacy for global government and involvement in the student society for
the League of Nations. In 1932 he wrote, ‘Even now I rush to enlist in
the Socialists, because I am, in principle, a socialist.’122 His egalitarianism
for all peoples also explains his firm belief in the rights of the minorities
within Greater Romania’s borders and his distaste for racism and dis-
crimination. Golopenţia knew he would have an accepting ear in 1935,
after a visit to Transylvania where he enjoyed his time with Hungarians,
when he wrote to Comarnescu, ‘We need to understand our neigh-
bors better.’123
As demonstrated by his attempt to convince Noica not to enlist in the
Iron Guard, Comarnescu had a strong interest in being a good friend
throughout this period of rhinocerization. But contact did lapse between
Comarnescu (not nearly to the extremes it did for Sebastian or Ionesco)
and Criterionist Guardist sympathizers. His friendship with Cioran is a
case in point. Initially things between them were very warm. Writing from
Sibiu in 1933, Cioran told Comarnescu,

Inside of you exists a spirit so pure, your enthusiasm and naïveté are divine
gifts. You are the only man who embodies it … There is a kind of generosity
in you, which I’ve met in another form with Vulcănescu and Eliade.124

This admiration and near idealization cooled following Cioran’s time in

Germany, the publication of Schimbarea la faţă a României and his time
in Romania throughout the 1930s. From Vichy, France in 1941, Cioran
wrote to Comarnescu,

Just now in Romania, when I rediscovered you, it seemed not right that …
[there has been] a pause of some years in our friendship. I believe that …
[the lack of our friendship is] an emptiness of which I am not the only
one guilty.125

122
 PCJ, 41.
123
 AMNLR, Anton Golopenţia, Correspondence, Post-cards to Petru Comarnescu.
25.258/6, f. 6, August 5, 1935 Leipzig.
124
 AMNLR Emil Cioran, Correspondence, Letters to Petru Comarnescu, 134/IV/15,
25.142/1–11, ff. 1–2, April 21, 1933 Sibiu.
125
 Ibid., f. 8, Vichy, March 1, 1941.
240  C. A. BEJAN

Both staunch individualists, Comarnescu and Sebastian were never par-

ticularly close and treated each other more as acquaintances than friends.
Based on their journals they actually were not all that fond of one another.
Comarnescu thought that Sebastian was ambitious and calculating, and
even used the word ‘shark’ [rechin] to describe him.126 Clearly Comarnescu
was intimidated and scared of him. Sebastian, on the other hand, thought
that Comarnescu was spineless, as indicated by his previously noted reac-
tion to Comarnescu making public peace with the Credinţa group so
quickly.127 A friendship that never came to full fruition demonstrates that
political conviction does not necessarily imply the formation of friendship.

Mihail Sebastian
Romanian and Jew

Sebastian was one of many urbane assimilated Jews in Romania and did
not strongly identify with his Jewish roots. He changed his name early on
from the overtly Jewish ‘Iosif Hechter’ to the Romanianized ‘Mihail
Sebastian.’ However, most people knew of Sebastian’s Jewish origins. He
explicitly addressed them in De două mii de ani and for anyone who did
not comprehend the experientialist and autobiographical nature of the
story, Nae Ionescu ousted him in his notorious preface by asking, ‘Are
you, Iosef Hechter, a man from the Danube of Brăila? No. You are a Jew
from the Danube of Brăila.’128 Ionescu considered himself just such a man
from Brăila that Sebastian could never be, due to his Judaism.129 Ionescu
was also represented in the novel under the literary alias Ghiţă Blidaru.
Initially, Sebastian considered himself first and foremost a Romanian, and
his friends, most notably novelist and poet, Camil Petrescu and Sadova did
not refrain from uttering anti-Semitic remarks in his presence. Such friend-
ships were also illustrative of the common friend/enemy dynamic present
among the ranks of Criterion.
Such a dynamic is also present in the extremely complicated and much-­
disputed mentor–mentee relationship between Nae Ionescu and Sebastian.
At first the two were close but their relationship grew to enmity by the end

126
 PCJ, 24.
127
 MSJ, 21.
128
 Nae Ionescu, ‘Prefaţa,’ Mihail Sebastian, De două mii de ani, 10.
129
 Petreu, An Infamous Past, 126. Petreu asserts this distinction for Nae Ionescu between
human being and Jew.
 7  RHINOCERIZATION: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND ALLEGIANCES…  241

of the 1930s. Petreu controversially claims that while at Cuvântul

Sebastian was more than an employee for Ionescu. She labels him the
‘devil’s apprentice’ and argues that through his own journalistic writings
for the paper the young Sebastian in fact aided in advancing Ionescu’s far
right views.130
The most obvious conflict was between Sebastian’s Jewish heritage and
his mentor’s increasing anti-Semitism. Another thing that disturbed
Sebastian was the older philosopher and journalist’s complete rejection of
the individual in the name of the collective. In a 1935 description of his
mentor Sebastian wrote,

His whole heresy stems from a wild and terrifying abstraction: the collective.
It is colder, more insubstantial, more artificial than the abstraction of the
individual. He forgets he is speaking of human beings; that they have pas-
sions, and—whatever one many say—an instinct for freedom, an awareness
of their own individual existence.131

In Ionescu’s inaugural lecture in his ‘political logic’ course at the univer-

sity in 1935, he said that now was the hour of politics, not of books. At
that point the political generation was replacing the ‘bookish’ generation.
‘Politics means actions, life, reality, contact with resistance.’ Sebastian
described the introduction as ‘a little testament of the Iron Guard faith.’132
For Ionescu, joining the collective was an escape from being alone. The
older philosophy professor confessed to his former student, ‘You don’t
understand, my theory of collectives is an escape from solitude, a tragic
attempt to break out of loneliness.’133 Sebastian responded to this in his
journal by writing, ‘I do understand. But then let him stop speaking of the
absolute rights of the collective and insist on the absolute importance of
the individual.’134
By the later 1930s, with the installation of the Goga-Cuza government
by King Carol II in 1937, anti-Semitic legislation increased and Sebastian’s
life was directly affected. This was the first time jidan was used for ‘Jew’ in

130
 Marta Petreu, Diavolul şi ucenicul său: Nae Ionesco-Mihail Sebastian.
131
 MSJ, 9.
132
 Ibid., 28–29.
133
 Ibid., 41.
134
 Ibid.
242  C. A. BEJAN

the press.135 Jews were forbidden to be journalists,136 then Sebastian’s train

pass was revoked137 and then all Jewish names were deleted from the offi-
cial list of the Writers Association.138 Like almost half of Romanian Jewry,
Sebastian remained alive until 1944 only because the Romanian authori-
ties switched their tactics and changed their position on the ‘Jewish
problem.’139 As a result of the escalating anti-Semitic governmental legis-
lation, Sebastian rediscovered his Jewish identity. Joanne Roberts calls this
identity ‘a Jewishness of his own creation,’ one which he adopted ‘to show
solidarity with a people persecuted by the Romanian state.’140
In Sebastian’s journal, he records his recognition of his Jewish identity
in the late 1930s out of necessity, with both pride and reluctance. In 1936,
Sebastian wrote that he was tempted to ask Dragoş Protopopescu (a right-­
wing journalist sympathetic to the Iron Guard), ‘Are you an Iron Guardist
or aren’t you?’ but refrained because Protopopescu would have been enti-
tled to respond, ‘Are you a Jew or aren’t you?’ To this Sebastian con-
cluded that there should be more rigidity to his own life; he was too
‘supple,’ too ‘accommodating.’141 A man should be all or nothing, and
not shake hands with the enemy, another instance of the friend/enemy
dynamic. Sebastian felt that he had perhaps betrayed himself by sitting
next to Protopopescu in the front of the latter’s car. In 1938 Sebastian
wrote, ‘I suddenly remember Jesus was a Jew—which forces me to think
again about our terrible destiny.’142 That terrible destiny became all the
more real by 1940, when news of work deportations of Jews reached
Bucharest. Once again Sebastian revealed his raw humanity with his inter-
pretation of this devastating development:

Everything is bearable until you start feeling acted on not as a soldier, not as
a citizen, but as a Jew. Thousands, tens of thousands of Jews have been
called up to lug stones, and dig trenches in Bessarabia and Dobrogea. That
too is a form of slavery.143

135
 Ibid., 137.
136
 Ibid., 138.
137
 Ibid., 141.
138
 Ibid., 197.
139
 Radu Ioanid, ‘Introduction’ MSJ, ix.
140
 Joanne Roberts, ‘Romanian—Intellectual—Jew: Mihail Sebastian in Bucharest,
1935–1944,’ Central Europe, Vol. 4. No. 1 (May 2006): 42.
141
 MSJ, 56.
142
 Ibid., 156.
143
 Ibid., 266.
 7  RHINOCERIZATION: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND ALLEGIANCES…  243

Sebastian longed for the survival of himself and his family and desired to
write and find peace. Whilst his outward freedom was stripped away,
Sebastian cultivated his inner creativity. In this way his voice was
never silenced.
The institutionalized anti-Semitism carried into his creative life, as
being Jewish could prevent his work from being published and his plays
from being performed. Thus he considered writing a play and allowing
Nicuşor Constantinescu to put his name on it.144 Nevertheless, despite
these roadblocks, he carried on writing. He also took up teaching at a
Jewish lyceum to make ends meet. His intellectual curiosity and creative
drive never disappeared, despite the dehumanizing conditions in which he
was forced to live. Actually in this alienation art, culture, literature and
music were Sebastian’s only salvation. Over the course of his diary, he
taught himself English, read Shakespeare and translated Jane Austen’s
Pride and Prejudice into Romanian. He regularly listened to radio broad-
casts from Moscow, Paris, Vienna, Berlin and Bucharest. In 1939,
Sebastian wrote, ‘Music is my only drug.’145
Another feature of Sebastian’s identity was his admiration for French
culture and history and with that came a love for French democracy. In
1936, whilst reading Jules Renard’s diary, it occurred to Sebastian to write
a book in which he could explain through Renard his love of France. He
stated, ‘Renard’s radicalism has peasant roots. That reassures me about the
fate of French democracy. It will never die.’146 His diary reveals his hope
for French resistance, his devastation at French defeat and his anguish due
to the fact that his older brother Poldy was in France, fighting for the
Allies. In 1939, following the bombing of Warsaw, while writing a letter
to Poldy, Sebastian burst into tears.147 He wished for Poldy to survive the
war, so that the valiance and courage of his life could make up for the fail-
ure of Sebastian’s.148 In 1940 Sebastian wondered, ‘Will the French resist?
Somewhere deep inside me I still have hope and wait.’149 Then when he
learned of the French defeat, he wrote, ‘French surrender is like the death
of someone very close.’150 Yet unlike Ionesco, his Francophilia did not

144
 Ibid., 462.
145
 Ibid., 238.
146
 Ibid., 45.
147
 Ibid., 233.
148
 Ibid., 245.
149
 Ibid., 295.
150
 Ibid., 297.
244  C. A. BEJAN

eclipse his own Romanianness, demonstrated by his choice to stay in the

country and his wonder that he never considered leaving, as Ionesco did.
Sebastian noted, ‘Strange that I have never thought about running away.’151
A casualty of the growth in strength and popularity of the Iron Guard
was the friendship between Eliade and Sebastian. The latter recorded his
distress at the loss of Eliade’s friendship, whilst Eliade’s memoir exposed
some regret at never setting the record straight with Sebastian. These men
shared a special bond that went beyond writing for Cuvântul and being
disciples of Nae Ionescu. They also shared a deep friendship and admira-
tion for the same woman, Nina Mareş, whom Eliade then married in
1934. Mareş was first a dear friend of Sebastian. She worked as a secretary
and she typed up his indecipherable manuscripts. Through Sebastian
Eliade met Mareş and fell in love with her. Eliade’s family and friends con-
sidered it a scandal when they decided to marry, for Nina was an older
divorcée with a young daughter from her previous marriage. Sebastian was
the only one to approve, but only after he made them promise their friend-
ship would remain the same.152 He then vowed that Eliade could not have
made a better choice.153
Sebastian’s diary presents a devastating account of Eliade’s betrayal of
his friend in the late 1930s. Although he wrote of such bewilderment in
1936, Sebastian still vowed to keep Eliade as a friend,

I should like to eliminate any political reference from our discussions, but is
that possible? … I can feel the breach between us. Will I lose Mircea for no
more reason than that? Can I forget everything that is exceptional, his gen-
erosity, his vital strength, his humanity … Nevertheless I shall do everything
possible to keep him.154

Despite this steadfast optimism to retain the friendship, subsequent events

would prove to make that more and more difficult. From a ‘painful politi-
cal discussion with Mircea’155 to concluding that his friend was ‘neither a
charlatan nor a madman, he is just naïve,’156 Sebastian slowly came to the
realization that their friendship might be ending. With horror, Sebastian

151
 Ibid., 304.
152
 MEAI, 243.
153
 Ibid., 275.
154
 MSJ, 79.
155
 Ibid., 84.
156
 Ibid., 141.
 7  RHINOCERIZATION: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND ALLEGIANCES…  245

recorded passages from Eliade’s 1937 publication, ‘Why I believe in the

Victory of the Legionary Movement’ in his diary, including: ‘Can the
Romanian people end its days … wasted in poverty and syphilis, invaded
by Jews and torn apart by foreigners?’157 With the increase of anti-Semitic
legislation and Eliade’s Iron Guard advocacy, the two men saw each other
less and less. In 1938, after two months had passed since he had seen
Eliade, Sebastian wondered, ‘Should I let things unravel by themselves? …
Our friendship lasted for years.’158 And shortly thereafter he concluded,
‘I visited Mircea today, clearly all is over between us.’159
But with the arrests of prominent Iron Guardists in 1938, the situation
between Sebastian and Eliade changed slightly for the better. Following
news of the arrests, Sebastian worried about both Eliade and Nina. He
went to see Eliade and wished to tell them that the Goga-Cuza regime was
also dictatorship, which is what the Legionnaires wanted. Sebastian con-
cluded that ‘one day [he] will settle accounts without sentimentality,’160
that one day he would set the record straight. Days later, Nae Ionescu was
arrested and sent to Miercurea Ciuc,161 followed shortly thereafter by
Eliade’s deportation.162 Sebastian’s reaction to his friend’s situation was
sorrow. He felt it was a result of ‘half farce, half ambition.’163 For Sebastian
the situation was an absurd consequence of his friend’s unrealistic political
and cultural aspirations. The first time Sebastian saw Eliade after his release
from internment, Eliade embraced his Jewish friend, much to Sebastian’s
surprise. Sebastian wondered whether it was, ‘A reflex gesture? Old mem-
ories stronger than recent events?’164 Then both Eliade and Nina came
round to Sebastian’s flat, for the first time since Ciuc, and acted as if noth-
ing had happened.
But their friendship was not fully repaired, and in 1939 Sebastian
lamented that Eliade was more pro-German, anti-French and anti-Semitic
than ever. Comarnescu related to Sebastian a conversation he had
with Eliade:

157
 Ibid., 133.
158
 Ibid., 145.
159
 Ibid., 146.
160
 Ibid., 157.
161
 Ibid., 159.
162
 Ibid., 171.
163
 Ibid., 175.
164
 Ibid., 192.
246  C. A. BEJAN

‘The Poles’ resistance in Warsaw,’ says Mircea, ‘is a Jewish resistance. Only
yids are capable of the blackmail of putting women and children in the front
line, to take advantage of the Germans’ sense of scruple. The Germans have
no interest in the destruction of Romania. Only a pro-German government
can save us. A George Brătianu/Nae Ionescu government is the only solu-
tion. The Soviets are no longer a danger, both because they have abandoned
communism—and we shouldn’t forget that communism is not identical
with Marxism, nor necessarily Judaic—and because they (the Soviets) have
given up on Europe and turned their eyes exclusively to Asia. What is hap-
pening on the frontier with Bukovina is a scandal, because new waves of
Jews are flooding into the country. Rather than a Romania again invaded by
kikes, it would be better to have a German protectorate.’165

Sebastian was horrified, and wrote in response: ‘Just look at what he

thinks, your ex-friend Mircea Eliade.’166 Following the execution of their
mutual friend Polihroniade in 1939, Nina despaired that Eliade would
face a similar fate. Sebastian’s internal response was, ‘I think I am morally
more entitled to feel distressed than he is.’167
While his friendship with Eliade unraveled, a new friendship was born,
as Sebastian grew closer to Ionesco in the early 1940s. Indeed, they shared
a Jewish heritage. But they also bonded over their liberal values and their
mutual distaste for extremist politics. They both had a disgust for the ‘poi-
son fed to the multiples.’ Ionesco recorded how Sebastian said to him,
‘Look at all these people in the streets, they don’t have brains anymore,
what they have in their place is the mud of propaganda.’168 Although they
provided each other with some comfort, their friendship was brief due to
Ionesco’s success at obtaining the necessary papers to return to France in
1942. This left Sebastian a social pariah, as his friends abandoned him one
by one. He was forced to move in with his elderly mother and younger
brother, Benu, as Jewish property was increasingly appropriated by the
government. The wartime conditions were dire for Sebastian and his fam-
ily, and the polar opposite of his cosmopolitan interwar Bucharest life of
cafés, theaters and concert halls. Once a man at the hub of a vibrant social
circle, he became completely alienated and alone.

165
 Ibid., 238.
166
 Ibid., 238–239.
167
 Ibid., 242.
168
 Ionesco, Present Past Past Present, 141.
 7  RHINOCERIZATION: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND ALLEGIANCES…  247

Sebastian was never affiliated with a political party. As he stated in his

journal in 1939, ‘I can’t judge this drama politically, I am horrified as a
human being.’169 It is in fact Sebastian’s humanity that is most revealed in
all accounts from this period. If Eliade aspired to be a universal man with
the responsibility of developing ‘culture,’ Sebastian was a very normal man
who just wanted to find personal happiness. This is revealed in his journal
with his occasional existential musings on hope and despair, such as: ‘Am
I happy?’170; ‘Will I ever be able to do anything without some passion?’171;
and ‘The truth is—no matter how unhappy I am—I wish with all my heart
that I will live to see the collapse of Hitlerism.’172 The last comment, writ-
ten in 1940, was largely in response to something which Sebastian was
only just coming to identify with: his Jewish background. He worried that
he might not live to see the fall of Nazism, precisely because he might be
killed for being Jewish.

Eugène Ionesco
The ultimate individualist

Also a Francophile, Ionesco was, unlike Sebastian, a ‘reluctant

Romanian.’173 He also did not necessarily identify with the Young
Generation of which he was technically a member and was critical of
youth, in general: ‘I always detested the young, particularly when I was
young myself.’174 As for his clear mind capable of critical thinking, Ionesco
wrote: ‘I believe I have always been lucid … on the whole I see things
straight.’175 Ionesco claimed to be an individualist from an early age and
believed that he had never compromised his essence or ideals:

I believe I have been perfectly loyal to myself. I have not changed … I

learned to be alone very early, because I did not think what others thought.
My deepest nature prevented me. But solitude is a shield, which can defend
my liberty, which allows me to keep a cool head in spite of the fiery furnace

169
 Ibid., 242.
170
 Ibid., 63.
171
 Ibid., 121.
172
 Ibid., 282.
173
 Călinescu, ‘Ionesco and Rhinoceros: Personal and Political Backgrounds,’ 405.
174
 Eugène Ionesco, Fragments of a Journal, 76.
175
 Ibid., 103.
248  C. A. BEJAN

into which I am hurled by my rages, my repulsions, my terrors. I still com-

municate with others across the barrier, as far as is possible.176

In addition to his self-identification as an individual, pessimist and non-­

conformist, Ionesco did have a secret he wished to hide, which caused him
much anxiety in the interwar period and the wartime years. He confessed
this to Sebastian and grappled with it in his own writings. Ionesco had
Jewish blood on his mother’s side, but he only openly recognized this
much later in his life. He certainly did not self-identify as being Jewish in
the interwar period. But his pedigree did put him at extreme risk. With the
escalating anti-Semitic legislation, Ionesco grew desperate. When he and
his wife were finally able to leave Romania, he wrote, ‘A miracle has hap-
pened … I will be in France, in Lyon, Wednesday.’177
Before this good news, Ionesco confessed his deepest fears to Sebastian.
In January of 1941, he visited Sebastian in a panic, very anxious to leave
the country. At the end of that year, Ionesco exposed his Jewish ‘secret’
one night while drinking with Sebastian. The following quotation demon-
strates the different relationship each man had with his Jewish identity:
while Sebastian had reconciled himself with his own conception of
‘Jewishness,’ Ionesco was bereft and terrified. Sebastian wrote,

Eugène Ionesco, who doesn’t take long to get drunk, talks about his mother,
‘spills the beans’ with a sigh of relief, she was Jewish from Craiova—went on
to speak about [Romanian] Jews who were not known as such Paul Sterian,
Radu Gyr, Ignatescu, with a certain spite, as if he wanted to revenge himself
on them or lose himself in their great number. Poor Eugène Ionesco! What
fretting, what torment, what secrets for such a simple matter! I would say
how fond I was growing of him—but he was too drunk for me to start being
sentimental.178

Certainly, a significant contributor to Ionesco’s immunity from per-

sonal rhinocerization was his double self-identity as both French and
Romanian. But this cannot be the only reason, as Matei Călinescu seems
to suggest. He was a staunch individual from a very young age and his

176
 Ibid., 107.
177
 Ionesco, Present Past Past Present, 192.
178
 Ibid., 321.
 7  RHINOCERIZATION: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND ALLEGIANCES…  249

personality was that of a free-thinker ready to criticize anyone, including

himself. Ionesco was an admitted liberal-democrat and approached the
Iron Guard problem with open eyes and a critical mind. Ionesco accused
the new ideological movement of being ‘pseudo-spiritual’ and ‘pseudo-­
mystic.’179 The Iron Guard did advocate the formation of a ‘New Man’
that would recreate and purify the new Romanian nation. Ionesco’s
response to the idea of purification was that it may be man’s excuse to
rhinocerize but ultimately ‘purity is a hoax.’180

‘The Time When We Will No Longer Be Free to Do

What We Wish’
Due to rhinocerization, what Eliade named ‘the time when we will no
longer be free to do what we wish’ had arrived. He recalled,

I sensed that we were on the verge of entering upon the period that I had
foreseen and feared ever since my student years, the era that I named
inwardly ‘the time when we will no longer be free to do what we wish.’ It
was not a matter of an anarchic, antisocial liberty, but of the freedom to cre-
ate in accordance with our callings and potentialities. Fundamentally, it was
the freedom to ‘make culture’ the only thing that for the time being seemed
to be decisive for us Romanians.181

With the installation of the royal dictatorship, the crackdown on freedom

of speech, the liquidation of opposition (e.g. the mass arrests and execu-
tions of Iron Guardists in 1938) and the adoption of anti-Semitic legisla-
tion, the Romanian liberal democratic state no longer existed.
Romania entered WWII on the side of the Axis powers. Political cal-
culation and sheer luck enabled Eliade to go abroad as a cultural attaché
for the Legionary state. Vulcănescu and Noica had returned to Romania
by 1940 from their time in Paris and Berlin. Comarnescu remained seem-
ingly untouched by the war effort, working steadfastly as an editor for
Revista Fundaţiilor Regale, on the Romanian translation of his doctoral
thesis and his responsibilities in the theater community. Sebastian was sim-
ply trapped, as the circles he traveled in in Bucharest became ­increasingly

179
 Călinescu, ‘Ionesco and Rhinoceros: Personal and Political Backgrounds,’ 427–428.
180
 Ibid., 403.
181
 MEAI, 324.
250  C. A. BEJAN

smaller. And Ionesco barely managed to get out with his wife, Rodica, to
start a new life in France.
The ultimate breakdown of friendship occurred between Eliade and
Sebastian. With Eliade’s appointment as cultural attaché in London, he
escaped the terror of wartime Bucharest. Right before he left, when asked
how long he would be gone, Eliade responded, ‘Two or three years.’
Sebastian jumped in to correct, saying, ‘He’s leaving for ten years.’182
However, Eliade did return, very briefly in the summer of 1942. Sebastian
was aware that his old friend, Nina, was in Bucharest and felt very hurt
that she never made the effort to contact him. This plagued Eliade’s con-
science for the rest of his life. On May 29, 1945, Eliade learned of
Sebastian’s tragic untimely death. In his memoir, Eliade explained that,

Sebastian would never know the reasons why I avoided meeting him … I am
sure he would have understood if we had met again and resumed our old
friendship but destiny had decided otherwise.183

Even in his memoir, Eliade neglected to explain those reasons. Thus their
friendship ended on a sour note, the exact source of which is still unknown.
The origins of its demise lay in Eliade’s right-wing politics.
Sebastian provided an account of this same event in his diary: although
he only knew that Nina was in Bucharest of the summer of 1942. He
admitted that neither Nina nor himself tried to get in touch with the
other, writing on the May 27, ‘I don’t know what I could say to her.’184
When Sebastian discovered Nina’s presence, he also learned that Eliade’s
cultural attaché post would move him to Rome (a move that actually never
took place), which confirmed that Eliade was ‘more of a Legionary than
ever.’185 But Sebastian still felt resentment and envy due to Eliade’s success
and prosperity compared to his life of squalor, humiliation and failure:

While he lives the ‘new order’ to the fullest, I am stuck here with a wretched
prisoner’s existence … Nothing can excuse failure. Successes, even when
resulting from moral infamy, remain successes.186

182
 Mircea Eliade, Autobiography Volume II: 1937–1960 Exile’s Odyssey, 5.
183
 Ibid., 108.
184
 MSJ, 489–490.
185
 Ibid., 490.
186
 Ibid.
 7  RHINOCERIZATION: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND ALLEGIANCES…  251

According to Sebastian, Eliade sacrificed friendship, and with that his own
moral code, for the new order.
Eliade’s failure to seek out his dear friend in this clear time of need is
made even more devastating or confusing by his effort to see Comarnescu
at that exact same time. His correspondence to Comarnescu the following
year exudes a still existing and vibrant warmth of friendship. He ends the
letter with the affectionate phrase: ‘I hug you with much longing and
love.’187 Eliade also expresses sincere disappointment that they were not
able to meet this time in Bucharest. Eliade wrote to his friend from Lisbon
on August 15, 1943: ‘Last July and August when I was on holiday in
Bucharest, I couldn’t find you. They told me that you were sick, some-
where in the mountains.’188
Following this lament Eliade provides some observations of the geopo-
litical atmosphere of Europe, the future of History and affirms his stead-
fast belief in the Absolute. He also appears to be predicting a cataclysmic
change of paradigm resulting from the events and outcome of the war:

From Vladivostok to Lisbon they will be looking for other songs and will
consecrate other symbols different than those with which we have been
comfortable to decipher for those three to four thousand years of
European culture. I am happy for Cioran because he can be present (he
can witness) the apocalypse about which he was dreaming during his
nights of nervous anxiety … The time of our end is hidden until the pen-
ultimate moment of agony. We will not feel the intuition of finality. Of all
this catastrophe I have a single comforting thought: as we have seen
before in India. When we do not fall into illusions of history and culture,
and live close to the final essence. This realist vision (but all the diverse
optimisms that scour Europe are illusions) does not make friends. This is
the destiny of man. In history we do not have any exits except for work
and creation.189

Eliade’s ongoing concern for the philosophy of culture and preoccupation

with the Absolute led him to ignore one friend in a time of life-threatening
need, whilst reaching out to another. This does not serve as an explana-
tion, per se, but merely a suggestion of a justification. War had covered

187
 AMNLR, Mircea Eliade, Correspondence, Letters to Petru Comarnescu. 66/III/18,
25.155/1–15, f. 11, August 15, 1943, Lisbon.
188
 Ibid.
189
 Ibid.
252  C. A. BEJAN

Europe and parts of the rest of the globe, shattering accepted social norms
and moral codes, including the laws of friendship. Rhinocerization
trumped previous existing individual loyalties, and their recovery, for some
such as Sebastian, tragically happened too late. Those who could (includ-
ing Eliade, Cioran and Ionesco), exited history through their own work
and creations. Those who could not, fell victims to the history that the
Young Generation had, in a sense, a hand in shaping.
 CHAPTER 8

The Fate of the Young Generation

and the Legacy of Criterion

There is no better way to start this chapter than with the oft-cited letter
from Eugène Ionesco to Tudor Vianu, written in Paris in 1945. Here I
present a more complete excerpt, in my own translation:

The ‘Criterion’ Generation, the conceited ‘Young Generation’ that ten to

fifteen years ago disintegrated, perished. Not one of us is yet forty years
old—and we are finished. Others, just dead. Your generation was much
luckier. And much more solid than we were. We were some madmen, some
unlucky guys. From what I know, I cannot reproach myself for being a fas-
cist. But all the others can be reproached for this. Mihail Sebastian kept a
lucid mind and an authentic humanity. It is a shame he is no longer with us.
Cioran is here, in exile. He admits he made a mistake in his youth. It’s hard
for me to forgive him. Mircea Eliade has come these days: for him, all is lost,
since ‘communism has won.’ He is truly guilty. But him, and Cioran, and
that imbecile Noica, and the fat Vulcănescu, and all the others (Haig
Acterian, Mihail Polihroniade) are victims of that odious defunct Nae
Ionescu. If there had not been Nae Ionescu (and if he had not fought with
the king) we would have had today, a generation of valuable leaders, between
35–40 years old. Because of him, all became fascists. He created a stupid,
horrendous and reactionary Romania. The second most guilty person is
Eliade who at one point in time was considering adopting the position of
the left. Fifteen years ago Haig Acterian and Mihail Polihroniade were com-
munists. They died because of their stupidity and incapacities. Eliade himself
recruited some of ‘his generation colleagues’ and all of the intellectual

© The Author(s) 2019 253

C. A. Bejan, Intellectuals and Fascism in Interwar Romania,
Modernity, Memory and Identity in South-East Europe,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20165-4_8
254  C. A. BEJAN

youth. Nae Ionescu, Mircea Eliade were appalling to listen to. What would
have happened if these people had been good leaders! Next to them, Crainic
doesn’t matter. Because of Nae Ionescu, Haig Acterian and Polihroniade
died … And the other imbeciles are out of commission: the knave Paul
Sterian (is he still in Turkey?), the bloated Vulcănescu, the dry imbecile Ion
Cantacuzino, the conceited, the stupid, bombastic Dan Botta, the affected,
hypocrite Constantin Noica, the good-for-nothing Petru Manoliu. Some
dead from their idiocy, others fugitives in Europe, from happiness, mute—
the whole ‘Criterion’ generation is destroyed. The fatality follows every-
one—even those who did not fall to stupidity and insanity, and for those
who remained lucid. Absurd or mysterious accidents appeared, and through
them they were thrown beyond [life]: an injury claimed Alexandru Vianu, a
drunk driver claimed Sebastian. They are integrated in the common destiny,
they are secret soldiers. The only one who remains is Petru Comarnescu, but
he was only the impresario, the organizer of ‘Criterion,’ ‘the animator’; he
no longer has anyone to animate or organize.1

Exodus, Exile, Extermination and Collaboration

WWII Ends, a New Era of Totalitarianism Begins

In the European theater of WWII, Romania was the subject of multiple
Allied bombing raids. The first major campaign was in August 1943 when
the American ‘Operation Tidal Wave’ hit Ploieşti in an attempt to destroy
Romania’s oil refineries. The second such operation was the Allied
Bombardment on Bucharest and surrounding areas (the Danube, Craiova)
from April to August 1944. On August 23, 1944, King Michael led a suc-
cessful coup, removing Antonescu from power, switching Romania’s sup-
port to the Allies. This meant that power in Romania was suddenly divided
and the German Luftwaffe based at Otopeni (north of central Bucharest)
launched two consecutive nights of attacks on Bucharest. The bombings
of August 23/24 and 24/25, 1944, of Bucharest destroyed the National
Theatre on Calea Victoriei, as well as severely damaged the Athenaeum
concert hall and the Royal Palace. Romania ended WWII alongside the
Soviet Army, liberating Budapest and Prague.

1
 Letter from Eugène Ionesco to Tudor Vianu, September 19, 1945, Paris. From Eugen
Ionescu, Scrisori către Tudor Vianu, II (1936–1949), 274–275. A portion of the letter is also
cited in English in Ioanid, ‘Introduction,’ MSJ, xvi.
 8  THE FATE OF THE YOUNG GENERATION AND THE LEGACY OF CRITERION  255

On June 1, 1946, General Antonescu was executed at Jilava prison,

found guilty by the Bucharest Peoples’ Tribunal for crimes perpetrated
against the Romanian people for the benefits of Nazi Germany. He was
held responsible for ‘the disaster that befell the country’ and for war
crimes. The 1947 Treaty of Paris confirmed Romania’s sovereignty over
Transylvania but returned the portion of Bessarabia taken by the Soviets in
1941 to the USSR. Greater Romania also lost a part of southern Dobrogea
to Bulgaria. The Soviet presence in Bucharest following the war facilitated
the rise and popularity of the Communist Party. This presence was con-
doned and enforced with the decision at Yalta (February 1945) between
the heads of the Allied nations: Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, when
Romania, Bulgaria and the expanded USSR were designated to fall under
the USSR’s supervision and sphere of influence. With a gun virtually held
to his back, King Michael was forced to abdicate the throne in December
1947. The single-party Romanian People’s Republic was declared. In June
1948 all banks and businesses were nationalized and by the end of the year
Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej became the leader of communist Romania until
his death in 1965. His competitors for that position, Ana Pauker and
Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu, were purged, with the support and backing of Stalin.2
Pătrăşcanu was tried in April 1954, a year after Stalin’s death.

Abroad

Eliade, Cioran, Ionesco

Eliade first served as a cultural attaché in London, where he was suspected
of fascist activity, which forced him to relocate to Portugal. A diplomat in
Lisbon, Eliade revealed his contempt for the Allies in 1942 when he wrote,
‘The new Anglo-Soviet world will not accept men like me in their midst.’3
After his brief visit to Bucharest in 1943 he never returned to Romania.
His wife Nina died of cancer in November 1944. Eliade and Nina’s daugh-
ter Giza moved to Paris in 1945, sensing that Romania would fall under
communist influence. In Paris Eliade attempted an academic career but
faced many difficulties and financial hardship. He was denied a permanent
post teaching at the École des Hautes Etudes because the Romanian

2
 See Dennis Deletant, Communist Terror in Romania: Gheorghiu-Dej and the Police State,
1948–1965.
3
 Eliade, Jurnalul Portughez şi alte scrieri Vol. I. 137, September 23, 1942.
256  C. A. BEJAN

Minister, Simion Stoilov, reported to the French Minister of Instruction

that Eliade had been ‘the doctrinarian of the Iron Guard.’4 Left-leaning
Sorbonne students reacted negatively to his brief lectureship, in fact post-
ing graffiti of swastikas in the margins of the poster announcing his class.5
It was in Paris that Eliade met his second wife, another Romanian exile,
Christinel Costescu. In 1956 Eliade moved to the United States, having
earlier been invited by Joachim Wach to give a series of lectures at the
University of Chicago, where he eventually became a full professor. It was
from Chicago that Eliade cemented his reputation as the foremost expert
in the world on the history of religions.
Despite his postwar exile to France and then the United States, Eliade
did not resent being removed from his home country. He could still be
what he desired most: a man of ideas, a man aspiring to win the Nobel
Prize (which he never achieved). Yet he longed to be recognized in his
homeland and appreciated in his native language. This was especially
important because he wrote his fiction in Romanian and did not have a
receptive audience in the United States. Eliade and Noica’s friendship
flourished despite the distance. They were in correspondence about work-
ing to get Eliade’s fiction published again (for it was outlawed in commu-
nist Romania) as well as establishing an institute and library for Oriental
Studies.6 Noica was also reported to be working on a book about Eliade’s
life and work.7
Eliade saw his own fate transcend the unfortunate fate of his small
country of origin due to its post-WWII Sovietization. Eliade’s question-
able political follies of his youth did not come to the fore internationally
until late. Eliade’s autobiography is purposely vague about his legionary
activity and involvement. The past began to be uncovered due to probing
questions from Ioan Petru Culianu, a new young Romanian professor at
the University of Chicago, for whom Eliade was an idol and a mentor.
Relations between the two began to frost as a result. It was a topic unad-
dressed and unresolved until Eliade’s 1986 death.
After returning to Romania from Berlin and facing rejection of his
Schimbarea la faţă a României, Cioran left for Paris in 1937 with the sup-

4
 Mac Linscott Ricketts, ‘Eliade’s First 500 Days in Exile,’ INTER LITTERAS ET
TERRAS, Vol. 2. 162.
5
 Ibid., 161.
6
 ACNSAS CN Fond I 1515612, Dosar Nr. 205407 Vol. 2, f. 15.
7
 Ibid.
 8  THE FATE OF THE YOUNG GENERATION AND THE LEGACY OF CRITERION  257

port of a scholarship from the French Institute in Bucharest. A brief return to

Romania in 1940–1941 would be his final trip home. In Paris he established
himself as one of the preeminent nihilist continental philosophers of the twen-
tieth century, in the tradition of Nietzsche and Sartre. Throughout the rest
of his life he kept close friendships with both Eliade and Ionesco. When he
was acknowledged for his literary and philosophical prowess, Cioran rejected
French awards: the Prix Roger Nimier and the Grand Prix Paul-Morand.
Cioran died June 20, 1995, and is buried in Montparnasse Cemetery.
Unlike Eliade, Cioran did repent for his youthful political sympathies in
his later years and appeared to suffer immense guilt. He even went as far
to censor the offensive portions of Schimbarea la faţă a României. Yet,
again unlike Eliade, Cioran never wrote again in Romanian and had no
desire to return. Though the philosopher eventually developed an appre-
ciation for democracy, he never became a fan of tolerance. He gave tribute
to age for his conversion to liberalism, yet still maintained the fanaticism
of his youth:

I will not tell you about the torment I felt and how I managed to put all that
behind me, for it would take too long …. But no matter how devastating
that torment, it was by no means the only cause of my reformation. There
was another factor, more natural and more saddening: age, with its clear
symptoms—I was becoming increasingly tolerant … I was feeling the lure of
wisdom. Was I completely finished? Because that’s what you have to be
before you become a sincere democrat. To my immense happiness, I real-
ized I wasn’t there yet, that there was some lingering fanaticism in me, some
traces of my youth. I made no concession with regard to my new principles,
I was an intolerant liberal. I still am. The only value I believe in is freedom.8

Petreu brings up a salient point when considering what could make

Cioran, a philosopher, a self-investigative and reflective man, and a social-
ist in many ways, write articles praising Hitler or a book in which he cried
for the elimination of Jews and Hungarians from within Romania’s
­borders.9 Petreu suggests it has less to do with ideology, that Cioran was
persuaded by the actual doctrine of the National Socialists he met in
Berlin, but rather it was his personal disposition, his physiology, his ten-
dency to behave in a mad manner and fall into depression. Perhaps we can

8
 Cioran quoted in Petreu, An Infamous Past, 245–246.
9
 Petreu, An Infamous Past, 133.
258  C. A. BEJAN

attribute Cioran’s vitriolic outbursts to his ‘neurotic character,’ and a

‘Dionysian temperament.’10 Upon mature and elderly reflection, the
Parisian sage realized the harm of his passionate actions and repented. But
still, then, after decades, Cioran refused to write or speak in Romanian.
Even in old age, he could not reclaim the humiliating inferior culture,
which was the source of such youthful outrage. He lamented, ‘How stupid
we were! Regardless of the personal destiny of each and every one of us,
all in all we were a tragic generation.’ (Fig. 8.1)11
Ionesco left Romania briefly in 1938 with a fellowship for doctoral
studies in France but returned much to his regret. He succeeded in leaving
again during the Antonescu regime and settled in Paris. There he became
one of the fathers of the Theatre of the Absurd and was made a member
of the French Academy in 1970. Ionesco owed the spark at the beginning
of his theatrical career to his friend and fellow Romanian exile, Monica
Lovinescu (1923–2008, daughter of Eugen), who promoted his play The

Fig. 8.1  Cioran, Ionesco and Eliade at Place du Furstenberg in Paris, 1977 (left
to right). Courtesy of the National Museum of Romanian Literature, reference
number 16512

 Ibid., 185.
10

 Cioran quoted in Petreu, An Infamous Past, 244.

11
 8  THE FATE OF THE YOUNG GENERATION AND THE LEGACY OF CRITERION  259

Bald Soprano. (Lovinescu was arguably the most notable female member

of the Romanian diaspora, known for her role with Radio Free Europe.)
He died in 1994, and like his friend Cioran, is buried in Montparnasse
Cemetery. A staunch individualist (considering this to be a very important
part to his identity), Ionesco had a natural distaste for collective political
thinking. Throughout his life Ionesco openly hated the ‘fascist and com-
munist cosmos.’12 As for his resistance to ideology, he wrote in 1967,

One must look at things from a great height, one must not let oneself get
caught in the trap of ideologies … it is necessary to be above all that, to soar
above one’s time … ideologies are only waves that are destined to disappear.13

In his journals, Ionesco was concerned to make it clear that he was an

independent free-thinker and fiercely proud of being so. The following
statements illustrate how he conceived of his own free mind: ‘I have a
tendency, almost always, to be against my time, to be swimming against
the stream’14; and ‘I am less of a dupe than everybody else. I don’t let
myself be blindly taken in by clichés …. Blind people think they can see.’15
Ionesco’s extreme individuality is a likely explanation for his immunity to
the plague of the Iron Guard. This identity was a retrospective self-­
definition. Although its origins lay in journalistic musings of the early
1940s, Ionesco carefully constructed this appearance of himself for the
public in his autobiographical publications of the late 1960s. This image
was also clearly a good one for the promotion of his artistic reputation. He
identified himself as a man who was not blind, who would not join the
herd, who looked critically at the world around him. He considered him-
self to be an artist, which he defined as ‘The man who is conscious, the
man of ideas; “superior” to the average man.’16
By 1967, Ionesco had come to terms with his Jewish heritage and iden-
tity, and in his journals wrote favorably (and with a degree of pride) about
the Jews. While writing the other half of Present Past Past Present dur-
ing the Seven Day War in a climate of extreme anti-Israeli sentiment in
France (when he witnessed another instance of rhinocerization from the
left), he stated, ‘I believe in the Jews, I believe they exist.’17 He wrote of

12
 Ionesco, Present Past Past Present, 45.
13
 Ibid., 42–43.
14
 Ibid., 51.
15
 Ibid., 65.
16
 Ionesco, Fragments of a Journal, 72.
17
 Ionesco, Present Past Past Present, 38.
260  C. A. BEJAN

his ­admiration for the ‘Great Jews,’ Franz Kafka and Sigmund Freud in
his Fragments of a Journal. Ionesco recalled that Christ was a Jew (as did
Sebastian) when he wrote Kafka (like Christ) ‘took the guilt of the world
upon him.’ And Freud was a ‘great rabbi’ as well as ‘doctor of the soul.’
Following these two examples, Ionesco concluded, ‘The Jews invented love
…. That’s the reason why they have been accused of hatred.’18 Despite his
youthful terror at being Jewish, in late adulthood Ionesco was very open
about his respect for the Jewish people. Of course, the political climate
had changed significantly from 1940s Romania to 1960s France, which
enabled his eventual acceptance of his Jewish background and his support
of the state of Israel (which, of course, only came into being in 1948).

In Romania

Blaga, Crainic, Vulcănescu, Tudor, Stancu, Sebastian,

Comarnescu, Noica, Sadova
While some Criterionists did leave Romania, before the communist
regime, and established names for themselves abroad, others remained,
trapped, suffering and, since, forgotten by the West. These include
Sebastian, Comarnescu, Noica, Vulcănescu and Sadova. Of the preceding
Sacrificed Generation Blaga became an intellectual martyr under commu-
nism. Appointed as professor of cultural philosophy at University of Cluj
in 1939, he lost his university chair when he refused to support the com-
munists in 1948. He spent the rest of his life as a librarian at the University
of Cluj, forbidden to publish anything but translations. Crainic served as
Minister of Propaganda under Antonescu and was convicted of war crimes
in the 1945 People’s Tribunal.19 He was imprisoned under the communist
regime for 15 years in Văcăreşti and Aiud prisons. Upon his release he col-
laborated with the regime as an informant and worked as the editor of the
communist propaganda magazine Glasul Patriei (The Voice of the
Motherland) from 1962 to 1968.
While those who left Romania might have achieved international suc-
cess, their works were banned in their homeland. Those who stayed in
Romania had a variety of fates and their continued contributions to

18
 Ionesco, Fragments of a Journal, 93.
19
 Alexandru Climescu, ‘Law, Justice, and Holocaust Memory in Romania,’ Alexandru
Florian, ed., Holocaust Public Memory in Postcommunist Romania, 93.
 8  THE FATE OF THE YOUNG GENERATION AND THE LEGACY OF CRITERION  261

Romanian culture depended on their checkered pasts, their intellectual

ambitions and their proactive (or lack of) collaboration with the regime. A
central part of the installation of communism in Romania was a mass-­
purging of the intellectual and educated ‘elite.’ It was to be a workers’
country, so those who had received higher education were sent to prisons
and camps for ‘re-education,’ or simply marginalized.20
Particularly targeted were those who had any links to the Iron Guard,
or right-leaning politics in general, which included the Antonescu govern-
ment. In addition to Crainic, Vulcănescu was just such a  case. Having
worked as the undersecretary of state for the Minister of Finance under
Antonescu (from 1941–1944), Vulcănescu played an active role in the
government’s Romanianization program, anti-Semitic measures and
unconditional support of Nazi Germany.21 Arrested and tried under Law
312/1945, Vulcănescu was found guilty of ‘the country’s disaster,’ war
crimes and ‘his presence in the government and for his actions as a mem-
ber of a government that was hostile to the Allies.’22 He was sentenced to
eight years imprisonment in Aiud prison for war crimes. Vulcănescu per-
ished there in 1952.
The two minds behind Credinţa had opposite fates from one another.
Sandu Tudor helped to create the ‘Burning Pyre’ religious movement and
took orders in 1948. He was arrested twice by the communist regime and
died due to torture in Aiud prison in 1962. On the other hand Zaharia
Stancu was imprisoned for his anti-fascist views during WWII in Târgu Jiu
prison. He became a celebrated author under communism. He served as
the director of the National Theatre in 1946. Stancu became a member of
the Romanian Academy and president of the Writer’s Union of Romania
(1966–1974). He died in 1974.
Whether falling to being a victim of the new regime or turning to com-
promise, Sebastian avoided both fates. Though he miraculously survived
the war, he was instantly killed when a truck hit him as he rushed to cross
the street in central Bucharest on May 29, 1945. His legacy lived on in

20
 Well-known communist prisons for intellectuals were the Sighet, Gherla and Aiud pris-
ons and the Poarta Albă labour camp where prisoners constructed a canal between the
Danube and the Black Sea.
21
 For a comprehensive analysis of Vulcănescu’s wartime activity and legacy, please see
Alexandru Florian, ‘Mircea Vulcănescu, a Controversial Case,’ Alexandru Florian, ed.,
Holocaust Public Memory in Postcommunist Romania, 175–207.
22
 Ibid., 192. ‘The criminal investigation … began in April 1945. The trial lasted two years
(September 1946 to October 1948).’
262  C. A. BEJAN

communist Romania and his plays continued to be performed. Books

were written about him and his work, which stealthily avoided the political
nature of the interwar years and his relationship with Nae Ionescu. The
year immediately following his death, Ultima oră (Breaking News) was
performed by the company of the National Theatre. Alexandru Rosetti
and Aristide Blank sent an invitation out to the ‘friends of Mihail Sebastian,’
inviting them to a reception to thank the director and artists for making
Ultima oră a success. This reception was held on March 30, 1946.23
Another aspect of Sebastian’s legacy was that a lyceum was named after
him. Comarnescu was invited to a commemoration for Sebastian at that
school held on May 29, 1947.24
Immediately after the war, Comarnescu was still considered the ‘father
of Criterion’ and the hub of the Young Generation, as letters from Noica
and Ionesco suggest. In 1949 Noica wrote to Comarnescu regarding a
book about the Young Generation that Comarnescu always wanted to
write. Noica encouraged him to write it then, even though they were all
around 40 years old: ‘We are still that youth, are still, ready, at the begin-
ning of life.’25 Comarnescu never did write the biography of his generation.
From Paris in 1946, Ionesco missed Comarnescu and Criterion dearly.
Unlike Noica who considered the Criterionists still ‘young,’ Ionesco was
appalled that they had become 40 years old, yet still viewed Comarnescu
as the head of their generation and had a good deal of admiration and
affection for him:

I really miss you as the last ‘representative’ of my youth and of the ‘young
generation’ and of ‘Criterion’ in which I also took part. Of us, you alone still
live. I read you from time to time. You are, as you were, in so many places
at the same time … We all are dead … or absent: you are plural, young …
you are a platonist and radiant, you are with Kalokagathon, the party which
seems, eventually, that will conquer the darkness, the evil, the hate … It’s
been more than four years since I’ve seen you and I am appalled. I am
appalled that ‘the young generation’ has evolved to be around forty years of
age (and that seems to me to be an insult) but most do not evolve in any
kind of age, the unmoving as they are, at the bottom in the ‘underground’
of Hell … I can’t see Eliade and Cioran. They ‘no longer are Legionnaires’

23
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 PCPA, XXXIV Imprimate 1 f. 61.
24
 Ibid., f. 54.
25
 AMNLR, Constantin Noica, Correspondence, Letters to Petru Comarnescu,
25201/10–11, November 21, 1949.
 8  THE FATE OF THE YOUNG GENERATION AND THE LEGACY OF CRITERION  263

(as they say), they can’t break from the pledge that they took, once for
Eternity, and remain Legionnaires without feeling that it is because of that
the nation appears to me to be a hyena (and I alone, for them, appear the
true hyena: we are hyenas for each other)—and that, is more and more clear,
how much more hysteria there will be, and after. Only you are an optimist.
And maybe only you have a pure heart.26

Comarnescu and his work continued to be appreciated by other leaders

of the Young Generation. Petre Pandea, wrote Comarnescu on September
6, 1946, congratulating him on America văzută de un tânăr de azi, which
he had recently re-read. Extremely complimentary on ‘this work of his
youth,’ Pandea suggests it should be translated into some other European
language.27 In a letter from 1947 Ionesco described Comarnescu as ‘a
humanist internationalist,’28 a title that would also apply to the father of
Criterion’s communist future. The secret to Comarnescu’s survival during
the communist period can be found in his personal archive. Having failed
to leave for the United States, as he intended to do,29 the resolved liberal-
thinker was confronted with a choice following the war. He chose survival
and actively ensured his safe fate. The ‘survival technique’ was a method
practiced by many who compromised themselves during the communist
regime, regardless of political stripe. Comarnescu was the man who likened
himself to ‘a cat that always falls on its feet.’30 Falling back on the interna-
tionalism and socialist tendencies of his younger years, it was not hard for
him to mold himself into a supporter of the People’s Republic of Romania.
In 1947 Comarnescu was invited to events sponsored by the ‘Long-live
the Romanian-Soviet Friendship!’ Society, the Institute for Romano-­
Soviet Studies and ‘The National Committee for the Celebration of
Romanian-Soviet Friendship for the week of Romanian-Soviet Friendship
in honor of the 30th anniversary of the great Socialist October

26
 AMNLR, Eugène Ionesco, Correspondence, Letters to Petru Comarnescu, 290/II/8,
25121/1–16, ff. 6–9, January 7, 1946, Paris.
27
 AMNLR, Petre Pandea, Correspondence, Letters to Petru Comarnescu, 291/III/3,
25210, September 6, 1946, Poiana-Tapului.
28
 AMNLR, Eugène Ionesco, Correspondence, Letters to Petru Comarnescu, 290/II/8,
25121/1–16, ff. 12–14, July 2, 1947, Paris.
29
 AMNLR, Mircea Eliade, Correspondence, Letters to Petru Comarnescu, 66/III/18,
25.155/1–15, f. 1, October 15, 1946, Paris, ‘It is such a shame you didn’t succeed in leaving
for the States, where you would have been of great use.’ And ‘I regret enormously that you
didn’t leave for America.’
30
 PCJ, 13–14 [pisica elastică].
264  C. A. BEJAN

Revolution.’31 Comarnescu attended the gala on November 6, 1947, held

at the Athenaeum in honor of the ‘week of Romanian-Soviet Friendship.’
On the back of his program, he wrote the following names under the
heading ‘praesidium’: Maria Rosetti, Ana Pauker, M. Sadoveanu, Gh. Dej,
L.  Pătrăşcanu, Apostol and Vera Inber.32 The communists ousted King
Michael the following month.
Comarnescu’s magnum opus Kalokagathon failed to establish his repu-
tation as a Romanian philosopher.33 With the coming of communism and
no one left to animate and no free cultural forum to animate in, Comarnescu
did his best to work within the new communist system and became known
mainly as an art critic. He often wrote under the pseudonym ‘Anton
Coman.’ Comarnescu continued to utilize his abilities in English by exten-
sively translating English texts into Romanian (such as the dramatic works
of Eugene O’Neill and Bernard Shaw). Comarnescu dedicated mono-
graphs to the study of many great Romanian artists, including Constantin
Brâncuşi, Nicolae Grigorescu, Ştefan Luchian, Theodor Pallady and Ion
Ţuculescu.
Comarnescu was awarded the Medal of Honor at the 19th Congress of
the International Association of Art Criticism. He was able to travel
abroad, making trips to the Soviet Union and Western Europe. From July
8 to 19, 1966, Comarnescu went to Rome, Venice and Paris in the capac-
ity of the general commissioner for the Romanian Pavilion at the Venice
Biennale. In Paris he met with many Romanian artists and writers and
wrote at length about his conversations with Ionesco and Cioran for his
required report for the Securitate.34 Compared to his friends, he died an
early natural death in Bucharest on November 27, 1970.
Noica chose to stay in Romania. During the communist period he pos-
sessed both rebel and survival tendencies. In 1947 Noica and Wendy

31
 BAR Ach. 17/2001 APPC., XXXIV Imprimate 1, f. 28 (an invitation to an event in
honor of Pushkin, by society ‘Trăiasca prietenia romano-sovietică!’); f. 31, f. 35, f. 36, f. 39
(the full program for the week of the festivities, at the end, a reading of a telegram from
Stalin).
32
 Ibid., f. 35.
33
 Comarnescu’s PhD dissertation was translated into Romanian from English, expanded,
published in 1946 and re-titled Kalokagathon. It did not receive the popular reception for
which he had hoped, though it was praised by his close friends. Noica’s praise can be found
in AMNLR Constantin Noica, Correspondence, Letters to Petru Comarnescu,
25.201/26–27, June 18, 1946 Bucharest.
34
 Petru Comarnescu, ‘Retrospective: Petru Comarnescu despre diaspora românească la
1966,’ Bucovina literară, 1–2/2005. Nicolae Cârlan, ed., 38–40.
 8  THE FATE OF THE YOUNG GENERATION AND THE LEGACY OF CRITERION  265

divorced and she moved to Britain with their daughter and son in 1955.35
They settled in London and Wendy worked for the Romanian section of
the BBC.36 In 1949 Noica was subjected to forced domicile in Câmpulung-­
Muscel, where he met his second wife, Mariana, whose parents lived there.37
In 1960, as a result of the Noica-Pillat trial, Noica was sentenced to 25
years of hard labor (the maximum sentence given) at Jilava prison and all
of his possessions were confiscated. Noica was not the only intellectual
targeted at this time. Twenty-three renowned intellectuals were arrested
between December 1958 and January 1960, all accused of trying to desta-
bilize the government by promoting the reading of forbidden literature.
This group included Marietta Sadova, Dinu Pillat, Nicolae Steinhardt and
Arşavir Acterian. Noica was arrested on December 11, 1958, the first in
the group. The trial, the last of its kind (a Stalinist show-trial in commu-
nist Romania), lasted two weeks in February 1960. All accused were given
different sentences, for example Nicolae Steinhardt was sentenced to
12 years. All were released in 1964.38
Noica returned to Bucharest, where he worked as a reader at the
Romanian Academy until 1975 when he retired to a cabin in a Transylvanian
mountain village, Păltiniş, near Sibiu. In 1978, he traveled abroad to
France and England, due to the persistence of his children (Alexandra
Richardson and Răzvan Noica), who pleaded with Ceauşescu to see their
father again.39 In Paris, Noica saw Cioran and Ionesco. After the meeting,
Noica wrote Eliade that the two French-Romanians had become ‘emascu-
lated men,’ a message that Eliade then relayed to Ionesco and Cioran. In
retaliation, Ionesco wrote Noica an angry letter calling him a ‘domesti-
cated miss’ [o domnişoara domesticită].40
Unlike Noica, Cioran lamented that he never made peace with Romania:

Luckier than me, you [Constantin Noica] have made peace with your native
land; … no one was more skeptical of the superstitions of ‘democracy’ [than

35
 Gabriel Liiceanu, Păltiniş Diary: A Paideic Model in Humanist Culture, 211.
36
 ACNSAS CN Fond I 4664; Dosar Nr. 85321, f. 1.
37
 Liiceanu, Păltiniş Diary, 210.
38
 For the most comprehensive account of the Noica-Pillat trial, see Stelian Tănase.
Anatomia mistificării. Procesul Noica-Pillat.
39
 ACNSAS CN Fond I 1515612 Dosar Nr. 205407 Vol. 2, f. 116. Letter dated January
17, 1972.
40
 ACNSAS CN Fond I 1515612 Dosar Nr. 205407 Vol. 1, f. 28. ‘Nota’ from September 4,
1978.
266  C. A. BEJAN

you]. True, there was a time when I hated them just as much as you did, or
even more.41

The peace Noica did make exhibited a unique intellectual resistance to

communism toward the end of his life. His school at Păltiniş of the 1970s
and early 1980s exhibited again the importance of the mentor and mentee
relationship, and, in Romania, provided the only forum for intellectual
dissidence: the creation of culture through the free study of philosophy.
In his unofficial school for philosophy in Păltiniş, Noica educated
promising young minds. There, removed from the oppressive communist
regime that had expelled Plato, Kant, Heidegger and Noica from the
Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Bucharest in favor of an entirely
Marxist program, the Criterionist became a mentor for young men who
have since become distinguished, successful intellectuals in contemporary
post-communist Romania. These include Gabriel Liiceanu (philosopher
and director of Humanitas Publishing House), Andrei Pleşu (philosopher,
founder and rector of New Europe College, former Minister of Culture
and former Minister of Foreign Affairs), Mihai Şora (essayist and philoso-
pher) and Andrei Cornea (essayist, art historian, classicist and philosopher).
The Securitate monitored all the events related to Noica’s Păltiniş
School and the participants’ dissidence through culture. An operative
wrote that Noica was working on developing ‘a culture of achievement,’ a
youthful intellectual collective for action named ‘Platon’ including young
intellectuals ages 25–30.42 Noica solicited Liviu Antonesei to look for
qualified young people to form this ‘culture of achievement.’43 Later in
the file, the informer refers to Antonesei as ‘another from Iaşi, who
recently [completed] a study on the Criterion Association, which had
members such as Mircea Eliade, Emil Cioran and Eugène Ionesco.’44 This
particular file also includes a hostile review by a Securitate agent of Gabriel
Liiceanu’s Păltiniş Diary, first published in 1983.45 Liiceanu’s book is an
autobiographical account of a student’s conversations and studies of phi-
losophy with Noica at Păltiniş. Noica’s unofficial school at Păltiniş is

41
 Cioran quoted in Petreu, An Infamous Past, 245.
42
 ACNSAS CN Fond I 4664; Dosar Nr. 85321, ff. 73–85.
43
 Ibid., f. 73.
44
 Ibid., f. 102 (no. 2).
45
 Ibid., f. 161.
 8  THE FATE OF THE YOUNG GENERATION AND THE LEGACY OF CRITERION  267

c­ onsidered the next cultural circle of the Romanian intellectual elite, fol-
lowing Criterion.
Sadova and other legionary sympathizers were forced to leave the ranks
of the National Theatre following the change of government that came
with the royal coup of August 23, 1944. Due to the retaliatory Luftwaffe
aerial bombardment of Bucharest the following day, the National Theatre
itself was destroyed. Only the façade remained. This delayed Sadova’s
legionary activism briefly, though that fall, the actor Ion Victor Vojen was
seen frequenting Sadova’s residence, indicated by a report on November
6, 1944.46 In 1945, they once again organized a series of legionary meet-
ings at the home of the widows: Sadova and Mary Polihroniade. In addi-
tion to addressing all topics of discussion previously mentioned, they
started to discuss Legionnaires who had fled abroad and comment nega-
tively on the installation of the new government.47
Immediately after her displacement from the National Theatre, Sadova
worked in film and shortly thereafter became the Director of the C. Nottara
Theatre.48 Her continued legionary activity was greatly impeded by the
establishment of the communist regime in 1947 (whose initial victims
were intellectuals and fascists) though her group of friends still maintained
contact with one another.49
When Arşavir Acterian, Petre Ţuţea and George Penciulescu were
arrested in 1949, Sadova regularly gave them aid through their relatives,
until their release in 1953.50 She continued to provide Petre Ţuţea with
help until his second arrest in 1957. She was spotted often handing him
money in front of the Athenaeum.51 At the request of Ion Isaia, Sadova
helped the widowed or abandoned wife of the Legionnaire named Tase
from Ploieşti until 1956–1957, when Sadova lost contact with her.52
Sadova’s continued battle for the ideals of the Iron Guard combined
with her own need for survival within the new regime reveal a woman still
dedicated to an old cause and bound by old friendships, who utilized her
calculating nature and ruthless ambition in order to succeed within the
new landscape of communist Romania. No better example can be given of

46
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol. 1, f. 154.
47
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol. 2, f. 3.
48
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol. 1, f. 96.
49
 Ibid.
50
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol. 2, f. 3.
51
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol. 1, f. 2.
52
 Ibid., f. 3, reverse.
268  C. A. BEJAN

this than her involvement with the National Theatre troupe tour to Paris
in June 1956, and the accusation of treason that ensued upon her return
to Bucharest. The picture we get of Sadova through these events and
through Eliade’s reaction to them and his memories of the actress show
her to be a giving, loyal friend who compromised herself and ideals to
advance her artistic career. She pursued her personal ideals privately but
had a public persona towing the line of the communist regime. When
these were mixed up, she risked being permanently silenced. Similar to
Noica and Comarnescu, Sadova did what many of her generation did in
order to simply ‘survive.’
At a time of lesser restrictions (just before the 1956 uprising in Budapest
October 23–November 11, 1956), the Romanian government sent a del-
egation to Paris to perform two plays: O scrisoare pierdută (A Lost Letter) by
Caragiale and Ultimă ora by Sebastian.53 Both were comedies, the first
written by the greatest Romanian playwright of all time, and the second by
a relative unknown, who had in fact been persecuted by the Romanian
government when writing it. It is certainly significant that such a program
enabled Sadova to reunite with other close members of her friendship
group 11 years after Sebastian’s death. Before leaving, she discussed her
trip with Petre Ţuţea and the fact that many relevant legionary expatriates
would be in Paris. Ţuţea gave Marietta a letter to give to Eliade. Noica and
Marieta Rareş also spoke with Sadova before her departure, also with an
interest to make contact with the Romanian legionary diaspora in Paris.54
While abroad on the tour, she succeeded in meeting with Eliade and
Cioran, as well as Monica Lovinescu.55 She successfully delivered Ţuţea’s
letter to Eliade and had extensive discussions with Eliade and Cioran of a
‘nationalist’ and ‘enemy’ nature toward the People’s Republic of Romania
(RPR). With Eliade, Sadova discussed the situation of Legionnaires both
in and outside Romania. The names within Romania included Arşavir
Acterian, George Penciulescu and Clatilda Hoitaş. As for the legionary
diaspora, names Sadova mentioned were Alexandru Ionescu and Mariana
Ionescu.56 With regard to the deceased Mihail Polihroniade, Sadova

53
 For more on the 1956 tour see Vladimir Tismaneanu and Cristian Vasile, ‘Turneul
Teatrului Naţional la Paris din 1956: Secţia de Relaţii Externe, exilul şi raporturile culturale
româno-franceze,’ Studii şi Materiale de Istorie Contemporană, serie nouă, Vol. 8 (2009):
193–206.
54
 Ibid.
55
 Ibid., ff. 97–101.
56
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol. 2, f. 3 reverse.
 8  THE FATE OF THE YOUNG GENERATION AND THE LEGACY OF CRITERION  269

brought Eliade news from Polihroniade’s mother. This news concerned

Anton Hoitaş (spouse of Clatilda) who had fled Romania.57
Both Eliade and Cioran gave Sadova various writings to take back to
Romania and distribute among their intellectual circle. Eliade gave her
some copies of his book Noaptea de Sânziene (The Forbidden Forest), The
Myth of the Eternal Return and Images and Symbols. Cioran sent ten copies
of his La tentation d’exister. Upon her return, she distributed these writ-
ings to Noica, Petre Pandrea, Petre Ţuţea, Emil Botta, Maria Rareş, Radu
Cioculescu, George Surciu, Coca Casasovici, Tincu Bucur, Nicolae Balag
and others.58 The works were discussed in secret meetings organized by
Noica, who was seen by two of Sadova’s students from the Theatre
Institute visiting her apartment to acquire the materials in July 1957.59
Under the pretext of distributing anti-communist propaganda, Sadova
was arrested on October 15, 1959. A portion of the evidence against her
was her intention to introduce foreign ideas in the country through cer-
tain reading circles [cenacluri] in which they discussed the contents of the
writings. This action was labeled ‘legionary activity’ by the Communist
Secret Police.60 Her confession in her ACNSAS file, was taken before she
stood trial while she was imprisoned, on November 5, 1959, in Bucharest,
starting at 17.00 lasting until 22.15.61 Sadova was included in the Noica-­
Pillat trial for treason (specifically for distributing anti-communist propa-
ganda). Sadova was sentenced to eight years and confiscation of all her
assets. In August 1964, she was released from prison.62
When Eliade learned of Sadova and Noica’s imprisonments and ver-
dicts, he recalled his 1956 meeting with Sadova in Paris. Before seeing
her, he met with Mihail Şora, who gave him some answers as to why and
how Sadova had been able to leave the country and carry on her public
professional life in Romania since 1948, given her legionary past. Şora
told Eliade that Sadova was, in fact, a declared communist, writing for the
state newspaper Scânteia, and that she was detested by her colleagues.

57
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol. 1, f. 2.
58
 Ibid., f. 98.
59
 Ibid., f. 99.
60
 Ibid., f. 3.
61
 ACNSAS MS Fond I 209489 Vol. 2, ff. 2–3.
62
 According to Molea, Marietta Sadova sau Arta de a trăi prin teatru, 7, Sadova only
served three years in prison.
270  C. A. BEJAN

Eliade ‘knew what to understand from that.’63 Her acquiescence and col-
laboration with the regime enabled her to go to Paris in the first place, at
which point she was able to proceed with her own clandestine personal
political efforts. Eliade concludes, ‘She couldn’t have survived (the wife
of Haig Acterian!) if it hadn’t been a collaboration from the beginning.’64
This prompts Eliade to devote his next journal entry to remember-
ing Sadova:

I always think of Marietta Sadova. I remember her as I first met her, in the
University, when she was already in love with Haig, but not yet divorced
from Ion Marin Sadoveanu. Blonde, tall, and nothing like the ‘good girls’
we wanted then.65

Such a woman that did qualify as ‘good girl’ (girl of high society) was Leni
Caler, the longtime tortured love of Sebastian.66 At that time, writing
from Chicago, Eliade pledged to write more about Sadova in his memoirs,
which he did. He recalls:

Only after we became friends did I realize how much kindness, intelligence,
imagination and energy resided in that woman who … lived exclusively for
others … apart from her great passion for the theater, her life was nourished
by the pleasure she gave to other people.67

Even Eliade’s picture of his lifelong friend presents her as complicated:

conniving and compromising on the one hand; whilst devoted to her
friends and ideals on the other. This picture accords with Sebastian’s early
impression that Marietta was a ‘strange mixture of harsh practicality and
openhanded sincerity.’68
After her 1964 prison release, Marietta reentered public life and contin-
ued her distinguished career as an actress and theater director. Involved in
a very long list of productions, she performed in such shows as Shaw’s
Mrs. Warren’s Profession and Ibsen’s Ghosts; and directed Chekhov’s The

63
 Mircea Eliade, ‘Unpublished Journal.’ ff. 1208–1209. Manuscript on microfilm lent to
me by Mac Linscott Ricketts, who ordered it from the University of Chicago Library.
64
 Ibid.
65
 Ibid., 1211.
66
 MSJ, 14. Sebastian refers to Leni as ‘a good girl.’
67
 MEAI, 216–217.
68
 MSJ, 85.
 8  THE FATE OF THE YOUNG GENERATION AND THE LEGACY OF CRITERION  271

Seagull at the Bulandra Theatre in 1969. Marietta also succeeded in

becoming university professor at the National Institute for Theatre and
Cinematography where she taught until she passed away on July 17, 1981.
She never remarried, and never had children.

The Legacy of Criterion

The Criterion Association grew to symbolize the once-golden era of
Romania’s interwar democracy due to the fond memories its members
shared of the cultural circle, as well as the simple fact that all study of it and
related topics were forbidden during the communist regime. The
Criterionists remembered the society fondly in their letters and memoirs,
with a nostalgia for a better time and a bitter disdain for how difficult they
had been with their freedoms at the time, expressing their later awareness
that they had taken them for granted. With the fall of communism, there
was an outpour of publishing of previously forbidden literature by
Criterionists, which was soaked up by the virgin Romanian readership.
The Young Generation and their cultural creation, Criterion, quickly
mounted a pedestal of greatness.
Among the Criterionists there was a unanimous sentiment that Criterion
was something special for themselves, in history, for Romania and in the
world. Eliade wrote to Comarnescu that the association was a precursor to
the French cultural circle surrounding existentialism.69 In 1946 Eliade
noted in his diary that the Criterionists were on par with J.P. Sartre, Camus
and Simone de Beauvoir. He considered early 1930s central Bucharest to
be the equivalent to the Left Bank of Paris, in terms of the diverse range
of cultural output and the direct contact between intellectuals and the
public, especially the youth. The only difference was that Criterion lacked
a philosophical ‘system’ such as that provided by Sartre for the existential-
ists. But Eliade maintained that the Criterionists were in fact existentialists
without realizing it. If Criterion’s mode of expression had not been the
Romanian language (and instead a language representative of a ‘major’
culture), Eliade believed that it would be considered the most important
predecessor to French Existentialism.70

69
 AMNLR, Mircea Eliade, Correspondence. Letters to Petru Comarnescu. 66/III/18
25.155/1–15, f. 15, November 7, no year specified, Paris.
70
 Ricketts, Mircea Eliade: The Romanian Roots, Vol. 1, 551–552.
272  C. A. BEJAN

Writing to Comarnescu in 1940, Ionesco laments,

Dear Titel, I am overwhelmed by an immense longing for the admirable times

of Criterion, which we were cursing [at the time],—and to which we will
never return. I am just as I was at age 30. I haven’t done anything great and I
don’t believe that I could still do something now. After ten years, it’s too late.
I stroll through a Paris, more and more beautiful and more sad (is it agony?)—
but in the evening, frightening without light. How I would like to be in South
America, where they create for a new culture, in which they believe and where
‘Criterions’ and cultural appetites develop for possible achievements.71

Whilst escaping a dire fate in war-torn Romania, Ionesco found solace in

his memories of Criterion. Though angry at politics for destroying his
generation and friends, he delighted in what they created together. The
ever-pessimist found something to be happy about and rejoice in by writ-
ing to Comarnescu about Criterion in this moment of extreme uncer-
tainty and fear.
But the question still remains: was the Criterion Association a success
or a failure? Having only lasted two years (two and a half if you include the
publication), what tangible impact did this intellectual circle have on
interwar Romanian life? Many pressing topics and themes under discus-
sion, both leading up to Criterion and during its activity, found their pub-
lic expression and investigation in Criterion’s symposia, meetings,
exhibitions and publication. Also, many prominent members of the Young
Generation were integral to Criterion’s activity and their collaboration on
projects marked a distinct departure from the tradition of intellectuals
merely making cultural contributions individually. Criterion enabled them
to pool their efforts. The fact that the association posed such a threat to
King Carol II, other intellectuals and the moral purity of the Romanian
people (according to Credinţa, at least) demonstrates that their impact
was salient and potentially dangerous.
Another sign of Criterion’s success is the romanticized memory and
the brilliant legacy the association has in the Romanian consciousness.
Though the full extent of Criterion’s contribution to Romanian cul-
ture remains a controversial issue (Antonesei likened Criterion to the

71
 AMNLR, Eugène Ionesco, Correspondence, Letters to Petru Comarnescu. 290/II/8,
25121/1–16, f. 4, February 2, 1940, Paris. In 1940 the South American nations were neu-
tral in WWII. There was an abounding sense of potential and promise for the continent. In
1929 Argentina was one of the world’s ten wealthiest nations and in the 1930s, similar to
Bucharest, Buenos Aires was known as ‘the Paris of South America.’
 8  THE FATE OF THE YOUNG GENERATION AND THE LEGACY OF CRITERION  273

­nineteenth-century Junimea Literary Society, and for this was harshly

criticized by Ornea), the fact remains that all Criterionists and many oth-
ers from the period remembered Criterion fondly. Still its legacy is con-
fused in a sense, because the divide between Young Generation and the
Criterion Association is so often blurred and only the positive aspects of its
activity are discussed or written about. Many other groups were holding
lectures on various topics of the day. What distinguished the Criterionists
was their revolutionary approach to the structure of the symposia, as well
as their effort to be a more wide-ranging intellectual association of ‘litera-
ture, philosophy and art.’
But it is through Criterion’s failure that we can learn what was really at
stake for young intellectuals in interwar Bucharest on the political, per-
sonal, public, private, spiritual and moral levels. The brief period of its
activity coincided with a crucial moment in the Romanian political sphere
when King Carol II’s power started to wane and the Iron Guard began to
get a stronghold in Bucharest and slowly successfully recruited members
of the Young Generation. Its annihilation also demonstrated the limits of
free speech during this time, how the government sought to curb dissent,
what voices were silenced and what the targets of censorship really were.
The dissolution of Criterion illustrates precisely what the political stakes of
the time were.
Criterion was also a failure in that rather than create a ‘more integrated
humanity’ it only widened the gap between this elite intellectual circle and
the greater Romanian public. There was a concern that Criterion’s
approach to the crises of the times was misdirected and ultimately fruitless.
Though the Credinţa scandal itself might appear to have been fabricated
out of thin air by Tudor and Stancu, the drama that ensued was a product
of the times. From this ugly humiliating episode, we can see the impor-
tance of the interwar press, the prevalence of the reading of newspapers,
and the fact that the tabloids were more far-reaching than Criterion’s
activities. The Credinţa scandal itself can be interpreted to be a test of the
limits of freedom of expression. Perhaps Stancu and Tudor too were
intimidated by and fearful of the experienţa explored and erudition
employed by the Criterionists and needed to revert to traditional ortho-
dox morality and unabashed jealousy, self-righteous revenge, debased
mudslinging and slander. While the Criterionists were concerned with
global and national political, economic and social crises, the Credinţa
team insisted the nation focus on the moral crisis resulting from the
Criterionists’ behavior.
274  C. A. BEJAN

The Appeal of Fascism to the Young Generation

Despite their differences, the members of the Young Generation shared
much in common as part of the young Bucharest educated elite. With
vastly different identities and ‘callings,’ the members of the Young
Generation all expressed themselves in a way developed in and unique to
the Romanian interwar period: experiential writing. All enjoyed the luxury
of the freedom to create art and provided different perspectives on this
freedom being taken away. Friendships were destroyed and altered forever
due to the increasing appeal of the Iron Guard to many members of this
community of writers, academics and dramatists, who were all part of the
same intellectual and cultural family: the Criterion Association. Others
resisted the temptation of ideology, refused to sacrifice their own creativity
and rejected rhinocerization. But what separated the two? Why did some
intellectuals succumb to fascism while others resisted?
Specific reasons and motivations behind each individual case have been
explored throughout this book, including anti-liberalism, anti-Semitism
and anti-communism. Ionesco suggested a few general reasons his friends
succumbed to rhinocerization in a letter to an unidentifiable recipient,
written in French: nationalism, sadism, belief in rebirth and ‘moronic
pride.’72 His play Rhinoceros suggests another answer, according to Matei
Călinescu. It is because of the promise of power that people give up their
individuality and join the herd of rhinoceroses.73 According to Ionesco,
‘There has never been such a will to power than in our era.’74 The free man
does not need power. As Ionesco wrote, ‘Free men are not dominated and
do not dominate.’75 With such freedom, the individual man protects and
preserves his creativity.
If the promise of power is a potential ‘why,’ Ionesco also provides a
potential ‘how’ with the below quoted passage. In Rhinoceros the play-
wright emphasizes the role of rationalization. This notion perhaps lies
between reason and rationality. His characters rationalize their conversion
to being rhinoceroses, just as Cioran and Eliade rationalized their support
of the Iron Guard. This rationalization was not in the least rational but

72
 AMNLR, Eugène Ionesco, Correspondence, 290/II/8, 25121/1–16, f. 10. April 6,
1947, Paris, unknown recipient, letter written in French.
73
 Călinescu, ‘Ionesco and Rhinoceros: Personal and Political Backgrounds,’ 397.
74
 Ibid., 145.
75
 Ibid., 53.
 8  THE FATE OF THE YOUNG GENERATION AND THE LEGACY OF CRITERION  275

represents a case of men capable of reason (‘lucid individuals’ of extensive

and vast education and exposure, fluent in multiple languages, possessing
superior intellects with  diverse experiences both inside and outside
Romania) succumbing to the irrational and justifying consequently their
fascist actions. A way that this rationalization is possible is the distorted
use of language:

In fact, rhinoceroses have deliberately distorted, deliberately diverted the

meaning of words, which is the same for them, which they understand but
which they corrupted for propaganda purposes. It is not a new sort of
thought, not a new language, but a clever manipulation of terms so as to
create confusion in the minds of their adversaries, or to get those who are
undecided on their side.76

Cioran later stated that they were ‘existing in Madness. Living on the
fringes of Europe, despised or ignored by the whole world, [they] wanted
to make [themselves] known.’77 But these men and women were not
‘mad’ during the 1930s. Though Wolin would say they were seduced by
‘unreason,’78 the Criterionists always considered themselves individuals
capable of employing reason, and clearly of rationalizing their actions and
decisions. Though lucid, they had a distaste for the rational and for toler-
ating points of view that did not match theirs. This is a factor inherent in
the totalitarian mindset, and also a belief held by many intellectuals,
regardless of political bent: intellectual arrogance. A possible distinction
between Guardists and non-Guardists is the difference between masculin-
ity and sensitivity. Fascism was the masculine, strong, active decision. The
liberal approach was the defunct and weak alternative. Contrasting with
the active political advocacy of the Guardist sympathizers, the non-­
Guardist Criterionists were conspicuously absent from political life
and activity.
Ultimately Petreu puts the blame on the extremist intellectuals’ earnest
belief and well-meaning for Romania and all of mankind: ‘the fact that
they were all sincere and well-meaning with good intentions paved the
way to the Holocaust and the Gulag—and that is all.’79

76
 Ionesco, Present Past Past Present, 67–68.
77
 Cioran quoted in Petreu, An Infamous Past, 243.
78
 Richard Wolin, The Seduction of Unreason.
79
 Petreu, ‘Generation ’27 Between Holocaust and Gulag,’ 24.
276  C. A. BEJAN

The Contribution of Criterion

Criterion has the reputation for being the final free platform for the expres-
sion and exploration of contradictory ideas in operation during Romania’s
last breath of democracy. In the words of Jianu, the disintegration of
Criterion inaugurated ‘a violent, passionate, intolerant era that brought
on a series of terrible dictatorships.’80 Criterion was expressly non-­political,
although it explored and debated many pressing and controversial politi-
cal topics and figures of the era. In the words of Ricketts, ‘The prevailing
spirit of Criterion was a democratic one, but it was unable to maintain itself
against the nationalistic, anti-democratic tide then sweeping Europe.’81
But to conclude that Criterion’s activity was silenced by this external wave
is only partly true. Members of Criterion joined the Guardist tide as it swept
Bucharest and decided that Criterion was no longer worth their efforts in
1933. They (e.g. Polihroniade, Tell, Sadova) silenced themselves from within
the association with their conversion to the right. When the association could
no longer continue for this reason, the publication was born in 1934. Then
more Criterionists (e.g. Capsali, Tudor, Stancu, Comarnescu) ensured the
end of both the association and the publication through jealousy, character
assassination, personal attacks in the press, challenges to a duel and lawsuits
from 1934 to 1935. With boundless confidence in their intellect, good
intentions, pride and self-delusion, those Criterionists who remained (e.g.
Eliade, Cioran, Noica and Sadova) opted to bring their ideas onto the streets
in a different way: through the Iron Guard.
The Criterion legacy was forbidden under communism and as Romania
rediscovers this outstanding generation and their cultural circle, she can
see that as brilliant as the members were, their secrets are complicated, and
according to Cioran, ‘must be carefully understood.’82 To that end, a fuller
understanding of Criterion itself can be a contribution.
In the words of Comarnescu:

The story of Criterion is long and I can only write a little of it here …. If I
were to write a book about the merits and infamies of my generation, so
endowed intellectually and at the same time so uneven and contradictory,
the activity from the autumn of 1932 of the Criterion Association of Arts,
Literature and Philosophy would merit many chapters.83

80
 Jianu, ‘In Exclusivitate: Amintiri despre Criterion,’ 1.
81
 Mac Linscott Ricketts, Former Friends and Forgotten Facts, 145.
82
 Cioran quoted in Petreu, An Infamous Past, 247.
83
 PCJ, 77.
 CHAPTER 9

Conclusion

The Criterion Association was brilliant in its efforts to put Romania on the
world map. Though only existing for two years, Criterion had an ambi-
tious program. I have attempted to provide a sense of the scope of
Criterion’s efforts by writing the first prosopography of the organization
as well as shorter biographies of its key members.
Beginning with the state of Romania following WWI and an investiga-
tion of the Young Generation, I trace the intellectuals’ studies abroad and
the creation of Criterion. In particular I pay attention to Comarnescu, the
father of Criterion, as much of my research was derived from his papers in
his personal archive. By providing a description of the association’s and
the corresponding friendship circle’s activity, I delve deep into the opera-
tion of this unique association. I also address the key publications—The
Spiritual Itinerary and the self-titled Criterion.
With the rise of fascism in Romania, I demonstrate how political alle-
giances arose within the Criterion space and led to its demise and how
ultimately it would take an ugly press scandal led by Credinţa, in which
Comarnescu and others were accused of homosexuality, to officially kill
Criterion. I provide a look into the politics of key Criterionists: those who
supported the Iron Guard and those who did not. I present the first
English study on the fascist actress Marietta Sadova, and I finish the book
by following the fates of the Criterionists across the world and in commu-
nist Romania.

© The Author(s) 2019 277

C. A. Bejan, Intellectuals and Fascism in Interwar Romania,
Modernity, Memory and Identity in South-East Europe,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20165-4_9
278  C. A. BEJAN

The rise and fall of Criterion reminds us of Benda’s 1927 warning of

the danger posed by intellectuals. Consider the 50 years of darkness that
eclipsed half of Europe on the heels of many Criterionists’ betrayal. The
Criterion Association was the last cultural entity allowed to breathe freely
in Bucharest, to grow and push the boundaries from traditionalism to
modernism in a country on the cusp of establishing itself in Europe.
Interwar Romania was attempting democracy. She was dynamic and eco-
nomically booming. Criterion was the last cultural and artistic cry of free-
dom in the country.
The Criterionists were active agents in creating the veil of violent
extremism, restraints on free speech and the darkness that ruled Romania
for 40  years after the war. The mid-1930s onslaught of the totalitarian
wave in turn choked Romania’s artistic and intellectual elite, forcing them
to flee abroad or collaborate with the subsequent regimes. The wave saw
key Criterionists in fascist and communist prisons, including Eliade and
Nae Ionescu in 1937 under Carol II, and Noica and Sadova in the 1950s
and 1960s under communism.
When discussing the great minds of twentieth-century Romania, there
are those who feel these intellectuals were caught up in events beyond
their control and others who argue they bear responsibility. In my book I
have attempted an objective analysis of the seduction and rejection of fas-
cism by the Criterionists. According to Hannah Arendt there is a difficulty
in passing judgment on those engulfed in the ‘intellectual storms of the
20th Century.’ Tismaneanu agrees with her and writes, ‘What appear to us
today as crystal-clear choices were, especially during the interwar period,
maddeningly complex reactions to the crisis of liberalism and democracy.’1
The Criterionists were propagators of ideas, and those who embrace
them should be aware that those ideas could be dangerous and have deadly
consequences. As Paul Johnson wrote, ‘Beware of intellectuals!’2 The
story of Criterion is more relevant than ever when we consider the grow-
ing popularity of fascism globally, the spread of anti-Semitism, racial
clashes, the rise of Islamic extremism, the promotion of violence, the
destruction of cultural objects and places of historic memory, censorship,
ethnic discrimination and the use of religion to justify horrific crimes
against humanity.

1
 Vladimir Tismaneanu, ‘A Faustian Pact: Marta Petreu Diavolul şi ucenicul său Nae
Ionescu—Mihail Sebastian.’ TLS, January 1, 2010.
2
 Johnson, Intellectuals, 342.
 9 CONCLUSION  279

Norman Manea, who famously denounced Eliade’s politics in ‘Happy

Guilt,’ was asked upon his return to Romania whether he thought ‘Eliade’s
Legionnaire-inspired writings undermine his literary or scholarly works?’
He replied that he never made any public statements about them, that
‘neither literature nor scholarship can be judged by moral criteria.’ Do we
condemn the man and his contributions for youthful folly? Manea who
holds Eliade accountable for his political actions suggests that his oeuvre
be considered at face value and appreciated on its own. It is possible to
consider the cultural output of the man divorced from moral judgment.3
Whether in exile or at home, the Criterionists lived their lives singing
their individual songs and making a name for Romania. It is important to
remember the positive contributions of the Criterionists and the Criterion
Association itself. These intellectuals bequeathed to us a vast trove of
sophisticated literature, philosophy and scholarship. They were a demo-
cratically inspired and organized society at the height of Romania’s attempt
at liberal democracy. They publicly investigated topics as diverse as Lenin,
Mussolini, Gide, Charlie Chaplin and Gandhi. They were ambitious, pro-
lific and, for a time, dedicated to one another as close friends.
Believing in the strength of their youth, the Young Generation and the
Criterion Association attempted to revolutionize culture in their emerging
European nation. It was only when the Criterionists’ focus shifted to the
political and spiritual that the Legionary Movement eclipsed their friend-
ship circle and the modernist progressive cultural association they cared so
dearly to create and nurture in 1930s Bucharest. The rise of fascism aided
in the destruction of one of Romania’s most important intellectual and
cultural experiments.

3
 Norman Manea, The Hooligan’s Return: A Memoir, 352.
 Bibliography

1. Manuscript and Archival Sources

Archive at the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, United States
Holocaust Memorial Museum, USHMM, Washington, DC, USA

Inventory Nr. 2247; Ministerul de Interne—Diverse [the Romanian

Ministry of the Interior—Diverse] Years 1910–1956

Arhiva Consiliul Naţional Pentru Studierea Arhivelor Securităti̧ i,

ACNSAS [The National Council for the Study of the Securitate Archives]
Bucharest, Romania

Arşavir-Nazaret Acterian, R41665

Arşavir Acterian, I203607
Haig Acterian, I21201 2/1 Dosar Nr. 54892/1–2
Mircea Eliade, SiE 167/1 Dosar Nr. 6814 (1–3)
Constantin Noica, I4664; Dosar Nr. 85321 (1981–1987)
Constantin Noica, I15156/1–3 Dosar Nr. 205407/1–3
Marietta Sadova, I209489/1–4
Zaharia Stancu, I73549/1–2

Arhiva Muzeul Naţional al Literaturii Române, AMNLR [National

Museum of Romanian Literature] Bucharest, Romania

© The Author(s) 2019 281

C. A. Bejan, Intellectuals and Fascism in Interwar Romania,
Modernity, Memory and Identity in South-East Europe,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20165-4
282  BIBLIOGRAPHY

Correspondence of Haig Acterian, Emil Cioran, Petru Comarnescu,

Mircea Eliade, Eugen Ionescu, Constantin Noica and Mihail Sebastian

Arhivele Statului [State Archives] Bucharest, Romania

Sala de studiu fonduri personale şi familie [Room for the study of personal
and family files] File #1824: Acterian Family, Years 1904–1973

Biblioteca Academiei Române, BAR [Library of the Romanian Academy]

Sala de manuscrise, arhiva personală lui Petru Comarnescu [Manuscripts

Room, personal archive of Petru Comarnescu] Ach. 17/2001 APPC

The University of Chicago Library

Mircea Eliade Papers 1926–1998, unpublished journal

2. Printed Primary Sources1

Acterian, Arşavir. ‘Cîte ceva despre Asociat ̦ia Criterion.’ Criterion Seria Nouă, Year
1, Vol. 1, March 1990.
Acterian, Arşavir. Jurnal 1929–1945/1958–1990. Bucharest: Humanitas, 2008.
Acterian, Jeni. Jurnalul unei fiinţe greu de mulţumit. Bucharest: Humanitas, 2007.
(∗) ‘Asociaţa Criterion şi manifestaţiile studenteşti.’ Cuvântul, November 14, 1932,
(∗) ‘Astăzi începe procesul cavalerilor de Curlanda.’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 352,
January 10, 1935.
Benda, Julien. The Treason of the Intellectuals. Abingdon and New  York:
Routledge, 2017.
Blaga, Lucian. Zalmoxis: Obscure Pagan. Translated by Doris Plantus-Runey. Iaşi,
Oxford, Portland: The Center for Romanian Studies, 2001.
Botta, Dan. ‘Cronica Muzicală: Expresionism şi nou clasicism musical.’ Calendarul,
October 14, 1933.
Botta, Dan. ‘Puterea Cuvântului.’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 5, December 15, 1934, 1.
Botta, Dan. ‘O Statuie [de Michelangelo].’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 5,
December 15, 1934.
Cantacuzino, Ion I. and Petru Comarnescu, Mircea Eliade, Constantin Noica,
Henri H.  Stahl, Alexandru Cristian Tell, Mircea Vulcănescu, eds. Criterion:

1
 (∗) indicates anonymous articles, which are placed alphabetically according to first word.
  BIBLIOGRAPHY  283

Revista de arta, litere şi filosofie, Bucharest: Vremea, Year 1 No. 1 (October 15,
1934)–Year 2 Nos. 6–7 (January–February 1935) Reprinted in ‘the complete
collection in the anastatic edition,’ Edited by Marin Diaconu. Bucharest: Roza
Vînturilor, 1990.
Cantacuzino, Ion I. ‘Ceva despre lirica nat ̦ionalistă.’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 5,
December 15, 1934.
Cantacuzino, Ion I. ‘De două mii de ani.’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 1, October 15, 1934.
Cantacuzino, Ion I. ‘Nu.’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 2, November 1, 1934.
Cantacuzino, Ion I. ‘Pe marginea unui articol “dextrofil.”’ România Literară,
January 14, 1933.
Cantacuzino, Ion I. ‘Premiul Nobel: Luigi Pirandello.’ Criterion, Year 1 Nos. 3–4,
November 15–December 1, 1934.
Cantacuzino Ion I. ‘O gravură [de Goya]’ Criterion, Year 2 Nos. 6–7, January–
February 1935.
Chaplin, Charles. My Autobiography. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1964.
Cioran, Emil. ‘Aspecte germane.’ Vremea, Year 6 No. 314, November 19, 1933.
Cioran, Emil. ‘Despre o altă Românie.’ Vremea, Year 8 No. 376, February 17, 1935.
Cioran, Emil. ‘Germania şi Franţa sau iluzia păcii.’ Vremea, Year 6 No. 318,
Christmas 1933.
Cioran, Emil. ‘Impresii din Muenchen. Hitler în conştiinţa germana.’ Vremea,
Year 7 No. 346, July 15, 1934.
Cioran, Emil. ‘Între conştiinţa europeană şi cea nat ̦ională.’ Vremea, Year 10
No. 518, December 25, 1937.
Cioran, Emil. Le Neant roumain: un entretien/Neantul românescu: o convorbire.
Edited by Luca Piţu and Sorin Antohi. Bucharest: Polirom, 2009.
Cioran, Emil. Pe culmile disperării. Bucharest: Humanitas, 1990.
Cioran, Emil. Schimbarea la faţă a României. Bucharest: Humanitas, 2006.
Cioran, Emil. Schimbarea la faţă a României. Edition reproduced from the 1936
Vremea complete edition. Norcross, GA: Criterion Publishing, 2002.
Cioran, Emil. ‘Scrisori din Germania. Revolta satuilor.’ Vremea, Year 7 No. 349,
August 5, 1934.
Cioran, E.M. Oeuvres. Paris: Gallimard, 1995.
(∗) ‘Cuibul de carne bărbatească: Petru Comarnescu.’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 337,
January 15, 1935.
Ciurescu, Silvia. ‘Interview with Ioan Tugearu about Floria Capsali.’ Plural
Magazine, Nos. 15–16 (2002).
Cocteau, Jean. Les enfants terribles. Paris: Editions Bernard Grasset, 1929.
Codreanu, Corneliu Zelea. Pentru Legionari. Sibiu: Editura ‘Totul Pentru
Țară,’ 1936.
Comarnescu, Petru. America văzută de un tânăr de azi. Bucharest: Editura
Adeverul S.A., 1934.
284  BIBLIOGRAPHY

Comarnescu, Petru. Chipurile şi Priveliştile al Americii. Bucharest: Cugetarea –

Georgescu Delafras, 1940.
Comarnescu, Petru. ‘Coodonatele Creat ̦ieie lui Eugene O’Neill.’ Eugene O’Neill
Teatru Vol. I. Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatura Universală, 1968.
Comarnescu, Petru. ‘Un desen [de Brâncuşi].’ Year 1 Nos. 3–4, November 15–
December 1, 1934.
Comarnescu, Petru. ‘Dezacordul dintre adevărurile spiritului şi fenomenele
prezentului.’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 1, October 15, 1934.
Comarnescu, Petru. ‘Experienţa.’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 1, October 15, 1934.
Comarnescu, Petru. Homo Americanus. Colect ̦ia Criterion, Bucharest: Editura
Vremea, 1933.
Comarnescu, Petru. Jurnal. 1931–1937. Iaşi: Institutul European, 1994.
Comarnescu, Petru. Kalokagathon. Bucharest: Fundat ̦ia Regală pentru Literatură
şi Artă, 1946.
Comarnescu, Petru. ‘Răul Veacului Nostru: Hamlet 1933.’ Viaţa Românească,
Year 25 No. 4, April 1933.
Comarnescu, Petru. ‘Retrospective: Petru Comarnescu despre diaspora românească
la 1966.’ Bucovina literară, 1–2/2005. Edited by Nicolae Cârlan.
Comarnescu, Petru. ‘The Rumanian and Universal in Brâncuşi’s Work.’ Rumanian
Studies: An International Annual of the Humanities and Social Sciences Vol.
I. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970, 144–145.
Comarnescu, Petru. ‘Tirania formulelor – capcane.’ Criterion, Year 2 Nos. 6–7,
January–February 1935.
Crainic, Nichifor. ‘Forţa trecutului.’ Calendarul, November 2, 1932.
Crainic, Nichifor. Zile albe, zile negre, Memorii I. Bucharest: Casa Editoriala
“Gândirea,” 1991.
Credinţa. ‘De unde purcede.’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 371, February 24, 1935.
Credinţa. ‘Desgust!’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 370, February 23, 1935.
(∗) ‘Criterion işi suspendă activitatea.’ Cuvântul, February 10, 1933.
(∗) ‘Cunoscutul Cavaler….’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 462, June 19, 1935.
Daia, Vasile. ‘Salvaţi morală! Domnilor.’ Actiunea Studentească, Year 2 Nr. 2,
February 10, 1935.
Danielopol, D.G. Jurnal Londonez. Iaşi: Institutul European, 1995.
Danovski, Oleg. ‘Vivat Profesores! – Through the Looking Glass of Time.’ Plural
Magazine, Nos. 15–16 (2002).
(∗) ‘De la Criterion.’ Adevărul, November 13, 1932.
Delvrancea, Cella. Dintr-un secol de viață. Bucharest: Editura Eminescu, 1988.
(∗) ‘De la Criterion.’ Credinţa, Year 1 No. 4, December 6, 1933.
(∗)‘O descindere a parchetului militar  – conferinţe interzise. Nu rupeţi afişele.’
Cuvântul, February 10, 1933.
Devi, Maitreyi. It Does Not Die. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.
Eliad, Sandu. ‘O experient ̧ă.’ Facla, October 30, 1932.
  BIBLIOGRAPHY  285

Eliade, Mircea. Autobiography Vol. 1: 1907–1937 Journey East, Journey West.

Translated by Mac Linscott Ricketts. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1981.
Eliade, Mircea. Autobiography Vol. 2: 1937–1960 Exile’s Odyssey. Translated by
Mac Linscott Ricketts. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Către un nou diletantism.’ Cuvântul, Year 3 No. 862,
September 11, 1927.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘The Correspondence between Mircea Eliade and Ioan Petru
Culianu.’ Notes by Tereza Culianu-Petrescu and Dan Petrescu, Forward by
Matei Călinescu, Translated by Sorana Coreanu. Archaeus: Studies in History of
Religions. Issue 8 Nos. 1–4 (2004): 341–364.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Cretinion.’ Cuvântul, November 25, 1932.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Critica diletantismului.’ Cuvântul, Year 3 No. 860,
September 9, 1927.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Cultură.’ Cuvântul, Year 3 No. 885, October 4, 1927.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘De ce cred în biruinţa Mişcării Legionare?’ Buna Vestire. No. 244,
December 17, 1937. Reprinted in Texte ‘Legionare şi despre Românism.’ Cluj:
Dacia, 2001.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘De ce sunt intelectualii laşi?’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 2,
November 1, 1934.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Dizolvarea Gărzii de Fier.’ Axa, December 25, 1933.
Eliade, Mircea. Domnişoara Christina. Bucharest: Editura Fundatiei Culturale
Romane, 1991.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Două căr ţi italieneşti.’ Criterion, Year 1 Nos. 3–4, November
15–December 1, 1934.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Epoca pre-revolut ̦ionară.’ Cuvântul, October 4, 1933.
Eliade, Mircea. Erotica mistică în Bengal. Bucharest: Editura Jurnalul Literar, 1994.
Eliade, Mircea. Europa, Asia, America … Corespondent ̦a A-H. Edited by Mircea
Handoca. Bucharest: Humanitas, 1999.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Experienţele.’ Cuvântul, Year 3 No. 874, September 23, 1927.
Eliade, Mircea. The Fate of Romanian Culture. Translated by Bogdan Ştefănescu.
Bucharest: Editura Athena, 1995.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Final.’ Cuvântul, Year 3 No. 928, November 16, 1927.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Gandhi ante mortem.’ Cuvântul, September 19, 1932.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Gandhi, după Ramazan şi Holi.’ Cuvântul, Year 5 No. 1337,
January 11, 1929.
Eliade, Mircea. Huliganii. Bucharest: Humanitas, 2006.
Eliade, Mircea. L’Inde. Paris: L’Herne, 1988.
Eliade, Mircea. India  – Biblioteca maharajahului  – Şantier. Bucharest:
Humanitas, 2003.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Insuficienţa Literaturii.’ Cuvântul, Year 3 No. 889,
October 8, 1927.
286  BIBLIOGRAPHY

Eliade, Mircea. Întoarcerea din rai. Bucharest: Humanitas, 2003.

Eliade, Mircea. ‘Între catedră şi laborator.’ Cuvântul, Year 3 No. 867,
September 16, 1927.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Între Luther şi Ignatiu de Loyola.’ Cuvântul, Year 3 No. 915,
November 3, 1927.
Eliade, Mircea. Iphigenia: piesa în trei acte. Valle Hermoso: Cartea Pribegiei, 1951.
Eliade, Mircea. Isabel şi apele diavolului. Bucharest: Humanitas, 2003.
Eliade, Mircea. Itinerariu spiritual: Scrieri de Tineret ̦e, 1927. Edited by Mirea
Handoca. Bucharest: Humanitas, 2003.
Eliade, Mircea. Le Journal des Indes. Paris: L’Herne, 1992.
Eliade, Mircea. Jurnalul Portughez şi alte scrieri Vols. 1–2. Bucharest:
Humanitas, 2006.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Linii de orientare.’ Cuvântul, Year 3 No. 857, September 6, 1927.
Eliade, Mircea. Maitreyi. Translated by Catherine Spencer Bengal Nights. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press 1995.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Misticismul.’ Cuvântul, Year 3 No. 911, October 30, 1927.
Eliade, Mircea. The Myth of the Eternal Return: Or, Cosmos and History. New York:
Bollingen Foundation, 1954.
Eliade, Mircea. Océanographie, Paris: L’Herne, 1993.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Ortodoxia.’ Cuvântul, Year 3 No. 924, November 12, 1927.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Poimâine.’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 1, October 15, 1934.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Reabilitarea Spiritualităti̧ i.’ Criterion, Year 2 Nos. 6–7, January–
February 1935.
Eliade, Mircea. Romanul adolescentului miop. Mușătești: Editura Tana, 2008.
Eliade, Mircea. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. New  York:
Harcourt, Inc., 1959.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Să ne inchipium că….’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 5, December 15, 1934.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Scrisori către un provincial.’ Cuvântul, June 3, 1933.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Teozofie.’ Cuvântul, Year 3 No. 903, October 22, 1927.
Eliade, Mircea. Textele ‘Legionare’ şi despre ‘Românism’ Cluj-Napoca: Editura
Dacia, 2001.
Eliade, Mircea. ‘Tinerii la lucru.’ Cuvântul, October 14, 1932.
Eliade, Mircea. Viaţa Nouă. Edited by Mircea Handoca. Bucharest: Editura
Jurnalul literar, 1999.
Eliade, Mircea. Yoga. Essai sur les origins de la mystique indienne. Paris: Librairie
orientaliste Paul Geunthner, 1936.
Eliade, Mircea. Yoga: Immortality and Freedom. Translated by Willard R. Trask.
London: Arkana, 1989, c.1958.
Eliade, Mircea. Yoga, Nemurire şi Libertate. Bucharest: Humanitas, 2006.
Eminescu, Mihai. ‘Doina.’ Poezii//Poems. Bucharest: Teora, 2007.
Georgescu, Radu. ‘Cronica Musicală.’ Revista Fundat ̦iilor Regale, Year 1
No. 1, 1934.
  BIBLIOGRAPHY  287

Gide, André. Corydon. Paris: Gallimard, 2005.

Gide, André. Incidences. Paris: Gallimard, 1924.
Gide, André. Les nouvelles nourritures. Paris: Gallimard, 1935.
Gide, André. Les nouvelles terrestres. Paris: Editions de la Nouvelle Revue
Francaise, 1918.
Gide, André. Pages de Journal (1929–1932). Paris: Gallimard, 1934.
Goebbels, Joseph. The Goebbels Diaries. Translated and edited Louis P. Lochner.
New York: Popular Library, 1948.
Golopentia, Anton. ‘Situaţia intelectualilor români.’ Criterion, Year 1 Nos. 3–4,
November 15–December 1, 1934.
Guénon, René. Crisis of the Modern World. Translated by Arthur Osborne.
London, Luzac & Co., 1942.
(∗) ‘Împotriva presei pornografice.’ Universul, Year 52 No. 44, February 14, 1935.
(∗) ‘Împotriva presei desantate şi pornografice.’ Universul, Year 52 No. 46,
February 16, 1935.
(∗) ‘În atent ̦ia d-lui ministru al Artelor şi a d-lui Ion Marin Sadoveanu.’ Credinţa,
Year 3 No. 340, January 29, 1935.
(∗) ‘Încă unul din slechta invertit ̦ilor sexual cari ataca o nouă agresiune, lamentabil
eşuată, împotriva d-lui Sandu Tudor.’ Credinţa, December 16, 1934.
(∗) ‘Infamii.’ Act ̦iunea Student ̦ească, Year 2 No. 1, January 21, 1935.
Ionesco, Eugène. Fragments of a Journal. New York: Grove Press, 1968.
Ionesco, Eugène. Notes and Counter Notes: Writings on the Theatre. Translated by
Donald Watson. New York: Grove Press, 1964.
Ionesco, Eugène. Present Past Past Present. Translated by Helen R.  Lane.
New York: De Capo Press, 1998.
Ionesco, Eugène. Rhinoceros and Other Plays. New York: Grove Press, 1960.
Ionescu, Eugen. Nu. Bucharest: Humanitas, 1991.
Ionescu, Eugen. Război cu toată lumea, Vol. 2. Bucharest: Humanitas, 1992.
Ionescu, Eugen. Scrisori către Tudor Vianu, Vol. 2 (1936–1949) Edited by Maria
Alexandrescu Vianu and Vlad Alexandrescu. Bucharest: Editura Minerva, 1994.
Ionescu, Nae. Curs de logica 1927–1928. Bucharest: Editura Eminescu, 1997.
Ionescu, Nae. Prelegeri de filosofia religiei, Edited by Marta Petreu. Cluj-Napoca:
Biblioteca Apostrof, 1994.
Ionescu, Nae. Marin Diaconu and Dora Mezdrea, eds. Opere I Cursuri de
metafizică, 1. Bucharest: Crater, 1999.
Ionescu, Nae. Marin Diaconu and Dora Mezdrea, eds. Opere II Cursuri de
metafizică, 2. Bucharest: Editura Roza Vânturilor, 2005.
Ionescu, Nae. Roza Vânturilor, Edited by Mircea Eliade. Bucharest: Editura
Cultura Nationala, 1937.
Ionescu, Nae. ‘Prefaţa.’ Michael Sebastian De două mii de ani. Bucharest:
Humanitas, 2006.
288  BIBLIOGRAPHY

Iorga, Nicolae. Byzantium after Byzantium. Iaşi: The Center for Romanian
Studies, 2000.
Jianu, Ionel. ‘In Exclusivitate: Amintiri despre Criterion.’ Criterion Seria Nouă,
Year 1 Vol. 2, 1990.
Jianu, Ionel. Ionel Jianu şi opera lui. Bucharest: Editura Roza Vînturilor, 1991.
Lawrence, T.E. Seven Pillars of Wisdom. New  York: Doubleday, Doran & Co.,
Inc., 1935.
Lenin, V.I. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. International Publishing
Company, 1969.
(∗) ‘Libertatea presei.’ Universul, Year 52 No. 44, February 14, 1935.
Lovinescu, Eugen. Aqua Forte. Bucharest: Editura Contemporana, 1941.
Lovinescu, Eugen. Confesiunile unui critic. Bucharest: Romanian Cultural
Institute, 2006.
Lovinescu, Eugen. Memorii II 1916–1931. Craiova: Editura Scrisul Românesc, 1931.
Manoliu, Petru. ‘Gânduri pentru profesorul Nae Ionescu.’ Credinţa, Year 3 No.
359, February 17, 1935.
Marin, Vasile. Crez de Generaţie. Bucharest: Tipografia Bucovina I.E. Toroutiu, 1937.
(∗) ‘Mârşava înscenare contra d-lui Sandu Tudor.’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 372,
February 26, 1935.
Medrea, Victor and Nicolae Roşu. ‘Într’o chestie de onoare.’ Credinţa,
December 15, 1934.
Medrea, Victor. ‘Ofensiva invertiţilor.’ Credinţa, December 16, 1934.
(∗) ‘Mircea Vulcănescu, filosoful boxeur sau moralist bătut….’ Credinţa,
December 15, 1934.
Negry, Gabriel. Memoria dansului: Breviar despre arta coregrafică. Bucharest:
Editura Muzicala, 1986.
Noica, Constantin. ‘Moartea omului de mâine.’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 1,
October 15, 1934.
Noica, Constantin. Moartea omului de mâine: Vol. 3. Bucharest: Humantias, 2004.
Noica, Constantin. Modelul cultural european. Bucharest: Humanitas, 1993.
Noica, Constantin. Pagini despre sufletul românesc. Bucharest: Humanitas, 2008.
Noica, Constantin. ‘Problematica.’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 5, December 15, 1934.
(∗)‘O nouă mişcare la CFR.’ Lupta, Year 12 No. 3390, February 16, 1933.
(∗) ‘Numerus Clausus.’ Act ̦iunea Student ̦ească, Year 2 No. 2, February 10, 1935.
Olteanu, Alexandru. ‘Ajunge! Domnule, Sandu Tudor.’ Act ̦iunea Student ̦ească,
Year 2 No. 2. February 10, 1935.
Panaitescu. ‘Azi ne vorbeste: d. Eugen Ionescu.’ Facla, October 12, 1933.
Pandrea, Petre. Atitudini şi Controverse. Bucharest: Editura Minerva, 1982.
(∗) ‘Pentru lămurirea “nelămuritilor” în cazul Petru Comarnitki.’ Credinţa, Year
3 No. 344, January 25, 1935.
Petrescu, Camil. Note zilnice. Bucharest: Gramar, 2003.
  BIBLIOGRAPHY  289

Papadat-Bengescu, Hortensia et  al. Scrisori către Camil Baltazar. Bucharest:

Editura pentru Literatura, 1965.
Polihroniade, Mihail. ‘Forum.’ Calendarul, February 22, 1932.
Polihroniade, Mihail. ‘Generaţia tânără şi ritmul mondial.’ Azi, 1, 1933.
Predescu, Al. ‘Reprezentanţi de Generaţie?’ Credinţa, January 30, 1935.
(∗) ‘Procesul “Credinţei” se judecă la tribunal.’ Universul, Year 52 No. 150,
June 3, 1935.
Rădulescu-Motru, Constantin. Românismul: Catehismul unei noi spiritualităt ̦i.
Bucharest: Editura Garamond, 1996.
Rascanu, Teodor. ‘Cine a fost Kiril Komarnitzky.’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 355,
February 6, 1935.
Roşu, Nicolae. ‘Dextrofobie: sau oscilaţie de oportunitate?’ Viaţa Literară,
January 1–30, 1933.
Roşu, Nicolae. ‘Polemizăm….’ Viaţa Literară, February 28, 1933.
Roşu, Nicolae. ‘Să ni se răspunda.’ Viaţa Literară, December 20, 1932.
Sadova, Marieta. Exerciţiile artei dramatice. Bucharest: Consiliul Culturii şi
Educat ̦iei Socialiste, 1981.
Sandu, Eliade. ‘O experienţă.’ Facla, October 30, 1932.
(∗) ‘Şantajul ziarului “Credinţa.”’ Universul, Year 52 No. 53, February 23, 1935.
Schiller, F.S.C. ‘Eugenics as a Moral Idea: The Beginning of Progressive Reform.’
Arhiva pentru ştiint ̦ă şi reformă socială, Yr. 4 Nr. 4, 1931.
Sebastian, Mihail. Accidentul. Bucharest: Editura Blassco, 2004.
Sebastian, Mihail. Cum am devenit huligan. Bucharest: Humanitas, 2006.
Sebastian, Mihail. De două mii de ani…. Bucharest: Humanitas, 2006.
Sebastian, Mihail. For Two Thousand Years. Translated by Philip Ó Ceallaigh.
London: Penguin, 2016.
Sebastian, Mihail. ‘Forum.’ Cuvântul, March 5, 1932.
Sebastian, Mihail. Itinerar spiritual francez. Bucharest: Hasefer, 2007.
Sebastian, Mihail. Journal 1935–1944. Translated by Patrick Camiller. Pimlico:
London, 2003.
Sebastian, Mihail. Opere Alese. Vol. 2 Proza Publicistica. Bucharest: Editura Pentru
Literatura, 1962.
Sebastian, Mihail. Teatru: Insula. Nopt ̦i fără lună. Potopul. Caracal: Hoffman, 2017.
Sebastian, Mihail. Ultima oră: o comedie în trei acte. Bucharest: Editura de Stat
pentru Literatură şi Artă, 1956.
Slatioreanu, Badea. ‘Greşala Credinţei.’ Act ̦iunea Student ̦ească, Year 2 No. 2,
February 10, 1935.
(∗) ‘Societatea de politică externă.’ Adevărul, November 13, 1932.
Sorel, Georges. Reflections on Violence. Translated by J.  Roth and T.E.  Hulme.
New York: Collier Books, 1961.
Spengler, Oswald. The Decline of the West: Vol. 1. Form and Actuality. Translated
by Charles Francis Atkinson. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1980.
290  BIBLIOGRAPHY

Spengler, Oswald. The Hour of Decision. Translated by C.F. Atkinson. Honolulu,

Hawaii: University Press of the Pacific, 2002 (reprinted from the 1933 edition).
Spengler, Oswald. The Decline of the West: Volume Two, Perspectives of World-­
History. Translated by Charles Francis Atkinson. London: George Allen &
Unwin Ltd., 1980.
Stahl, Henri H. Amintiri şi Gînduri din vechea şcoală a ‘monografiilor sociologice.’
Bucharest: Editura Minerva, 1981.
Stahl, Henri H. ‘Gheorghe Popovici.’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 1, October 15, 1934.
Stahl, Henri H. ‘O mască.’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 2, November 1, 1934.
Stahl, Henri H. ‘Prilej de îndoială.’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 2, November 1, 1934.
Stahl, Henri H. ‘Satul.’ Criterion, Year 2 Nos. 6–7, January–February 1935.
Stancu, Zaharia. Barefoot. Edited by Frank Kirk. New  York: Twayne
Publishers, 1971.
Stancu, Zaharia. ‘Cavalerii, justiţia şi puterile nevăzute.’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 340,
January 29, 1935.
Stancu, Zaharia. ‘Nu am fost la recitatul de dans al d-lui Gabriel Negry.’ Credinţa,
November 30, 1934.
Stancu, Zaharia. ‘Onoarea dintre fese.’ Credinţa, December 16, 1934.
Stancu, Zaharia. ‘Politicianii, invertiţii, samsarii şi presa liberă.’ Credinţa, Year 3
No. 371, February 24, 1935.
Stanescu, Gabriel and Liviu Antonesei, Virgil Mihaiu, Mircea Handoca, Toma
Roman, Dan Stanca, Radu R. Şerban, Doina Uricariu, eds. Criterion: Revista
de arte, litere şi filosofie ‘Serie Nouă’ Year 1 Nos. 1–4, 1990.
Steinhardt, Nicolae (Antisthius). In genul lui Cioran, Noica, Eliade…. Bucharest:
Humanitas, 1996.
Steinhardt, Nicolae. Jurnalul fericirii. Cluj-Napoca: Dacia, 2001.
Sterian, Paul. ‘Studenţii şi “Criterion.”’ Cuvântul, November 12, 1932.
Şuluţiu, Octav. ‘Limba românească în Ardeal.’ Criterion, Year 2 No. 6–7, January–
February 1935.
Şuluţiu, Octav. Jurnal. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia, 1975.
(∗) ‘Svastică împotriva svastică.’ Adevărul, November 13, 1932.
Tasca, Prof. G. ‘Student ̦imea luminată  – să nu cadă in păcatul intolerant ̦ei.’
Adevărul, November 12, 1932.
Tătărescu, Giza. ‘Amintiri despre Mircea.’ Vatra 6–7 Targu Mures, 2000.
Tell, Alexandru-Christian. ‘Viat ̦a omului de mâine.’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 1,
October 15, 1934.
Theodorescu, Cicerone. ‘Prietenul tinerilor şi profesorul de tineret ̦e.’ Credinţa,
Year 3 No. 359, February 17, 1935.
(∗) ‘Traficul de carne bărbatească din elita bucureşteană.’ Credinţa, January 9, 1935.
Tudor, Sandu. ‘Despre Sodomie 1 Prolog.’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 352,
January 9, 1935.
  BIBLIOGRAPHY  291

Tudor, Sandu. ‘Despre Sodomie II Făta̧ ̆rnicia Cavalerilor.’ Credinţa, Year 3

No. 333, January 10, 1935.
Tudor, Sandu. ‘Despre Sodomie III Istoric şi diagnostic criterionist.’ Credinţa,
Year 3 No. 334, January 11, 1935.
Tudor, Sandu. ‘Generaţie Criterion.’ Credinţa, December 16, 1934.
Tudor, Sandu. ‘Şarpele depravării.’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 346, January 26, 1935.
Tudor, Sandu. ‘Un trezitor de constiinte: profesorul Nae Ionescu.’ Credinţa, Year
3 No. 359, February 17, 1935.
Tudor, Sandu. ‘Viaţa intimă şi viaţa publică.’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 343,
January 22, 1935.
(∗) ‘Viata romant ̦ată a spătarului Petru Komarnitki.’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 343,
January 22, 1935, Year 3 No. 343.
Voinescu, Alice. Jurnal. Bucharest: Editura Albatros, 1997.
Voinescu, Alice. Scrisori către fiul şi fiica mea. Edited by Maria-Ana Murnu. Cluj-­
Napoca: Editura Dacia, 1994.
Vulcănescu, Mircea. De la Nae Ionescu la Criterion. Edited by Marin Diaconu.
Bucharest: Humantias, 2003.
Vulcănescu, Mircea. Dimensiunea românească a existenţei, Vol. 2, Chipuri spiri-
tual Editura Eminescu, Bucharest, 1995.
Vulcănescu, Mircea. ‘Generaţie.’ Criterion, Year 1 Nrs. 3–4, November 15–
December 1, 1934.
Vulcănescu, Mircea. ‘In jurul filosofului Blaga’Criterion, Year 1 No. 5.
December 15, 1934.
Vulcănescu, Mircea. Nae Ionescu: aşa cum l-am cunoscut. Bucharest:
Humanitas, 1992.
Vulcănescu, Mircea. ‘Pentru Eugen Ionescu.’ Familia, Year 2 No. 5–6, September–
October 1934.
Vulcănescu, Mircea. Războiul pentru intregirea neamului/Dimensiunea
românească a existenţei. Norcross, GA: Criterion Publishing, 2002.
Vulcănescu, Mircea. (M.V.) ‘…Şi cîteva puncte de vedere.’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 1.
October 15, 1934.
Vulcănescu, Mircea. (M.V.) ‘…Şi cîteva puncte de vedere.’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 2,
November 1, 1934.
Vulcănescu, Mircea. ‘Spiritualitate.’ Criterion, Year I No. I. October 15, 1934.
Vulcănescu, Mircea. ‘Tânăra Generaţie’ Edited by Marin Diaconu. Bucharest:
Compania, 2004.
Vulcănescu, Mircea. ‘Un desen.’ Criterion, Year 1 No. 1, October 15, 1934.
Westfried, Iosif. Instinctul sexual. Bucharest: Editura Cartea Româneasca, 1928.
X.Y.Z. ‘Mafia Homsexualilor: Arhim Şeriban; Petru Comarnescu, Alexandru
Christian Tell şi Mircea Vulcănescu.’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 346, January 26, 1935.
X.Y.Z. ‘Senatus consultus şi mafia Petru Comarnitki.’ Credinţa, Year 3 No. 364,
February 16, 1935.
292  BIBLIOGRAPHY

3. Printed Secondary Sources

Achim, Viorel. The Roma in Romanian History. Budapest and New York: Central
University Press, 2004.
Albright, Madeleine. Fascism: A Warning. New York: HarperCollins, 2018.
Alexandrescu, Sorin. Paradoxul Român. Bucharest: Univers, 1998.
Alexandrescu, Sorin. Mircea Eliade, dinspre Portugalia. Bucharest: Humanitas
2006.
Antohi, Sorin. ‘Commuting to Castalia: Noica’s “School,” Culture and Power in
Communist Romania.’ Gabriel Liiceanu, The Păltiniş Diary: A Paideic Model
in Humanist Culture. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2000,
vii–xxxii.
Anton, Ted. Eros, Magic and the Murder of Professor Culianu. Chicago:
Northwestern University Press, 1996.
Antonesei, Liviu. ‘Modernizing, the Reform of the Calendar and Symbolic
Concurrent Times.’ International Journal on Humanistic Ideology. No. 1
(2008).
Antonesei, Liviu. ‘Modernity and Modernization from an Intercultural
Perspective.’ International Journal on Humanistic Ideology. No. 2 (2008).
Antonesei, Liviu. ‘Un model de acţiune culturală: Grupul “Criterion.”’ Cultură şi
Societate. Edited by Alexandru Zub. Bucharest: Editura Ştiint ̦ifică şi
Enciclopedică, 1991, 367–396. Expanded version of ‘Le moment Criterion.
Un modelle d’action culturelle,’ Culture and Society, ed. Alexandru Zub. Iaşi:
Editura Academiei R.S.R., 1985, 189–206.
Arendt, Hannah. Rachel Varnhagen: The Life of a Jewess. Johns Hopkins University
Press, 2000.
Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harvest/HBJ Book,
1973.
Attwood, Lynne and Catriona Kelly. ‘Programmes for Identity: The ‘New Man’
and the ‘New Woman.’ Constructing Russian Culture in the Age of Revolution.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, 256–290.
Barna, Vlaicu. Între Capşa şi Corso. Bucharest: Editura Albatros, 2005.
Basciani, Alberto. Dificila Unire: Basarabia  şi România Mare 1918–1940.
Bucharest: Cartier, 2018.
Bărbulescu, Mihai, Dennis Deletant, Keith Hitchins, Şerban Papacostea, and
Pompiliu Teodor. Istoria României. Bucharest: Corint, 2002.
Bejan, Cristina. ‘The Paradox of the Young Generation in Interwar Romania.’
SLOVO, Interdisciplinary Journal of Russian, East-Central European and
Eurasian Affairs, Vol. 18.2 (Winter 2006): 115–128.
Bejan, Cristina. ‘Review of The Book of Life, Daily Meditations with Krishnamurti
(1995) by J. Krishnamurti.’ Books of the Year, January 24, 2015. http://book-
softheyear.tumblr.com/post/108993153771/the-book-of-life-daily-medita-
tions-with.
  BIBLIOGRAPHY  293

Bejan, Cristina. ‘Review of A Generation Without Beliefs by Philip Vanhaelmeersch.’

East Central Europe, No. 39 (2012): 1–3.
Benhabib, Seyla. The Reluctant Modernism of Hannah Arendt: New Edition.
New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2003.
Boia, Lucian. Dosarele Secrete ale Agentului Anton: Petru Comarnescu în Arhivele
Securităt ̦ii. Bucharest: Humanitas, 2014.
Boia, Lucian. History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness. Translated by James
Christian Brown. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2001.
Boia, Lucian. Romania. Translated by James Christian Brown. London: Reaktion
Books Ltd., 2001.
Bordaș, Liviu. ‘Altfel despre dioptriile lui Mircea Eliade’ (I)–(II) Observator
Cultural. Nos. 202–203 (February 2008).
Bradbury, Malcolm and James McFarlane, eds. Modernism 1890–1930.
Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1976.
Bucur, Maria. ‘Between the Mother of the Wounded and the Virgin of Jiu:
Romanian Women and the Gender of Heroism during the Great War.’ Journal
of Women’s History, Vol. 12 No. 2 (Summer 2000): 30–56.
Bucur, Maria. Eugenics and Modernization in Interwar Romania. Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press, 2002.
Bucur, Maria. ‘Remembering Romanian Fascism; Worrying About America.’
Public Seminar, September 3, 2017.
Bucur, Maria. ‘Treznea: Trauma, Nationalism and the Memory of World War II in
Romania.’ Rethinking History, Vol. 6 Issue 1 (2002): 35–55.
Călinescu, George. Istoria Literaturii Române. Bucharest: Editura Minerva, 1983.
Călinescu, Matei. ‘The 1927 Generation in Romania: Friendships and Ideological
Choices (Mihail Sebastian, Mircea Eliade, Nae Ionescu, Eugène Ionesco,
E.M.  Cioran).’ East European Politics and Societies, Vol. 15, No. 3 (2002):
649–677.
Călinescu, Matei. Five Faces of Modernity: Modernism, Avant-garde, Decadence,
Kitsch, Postmodernism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1987.
Călinescu, Matei. ‘Ionesco and Rhinoceros: Personal and Political Backgrounds.’
East European Politics and Societies, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Fall 1995): 393–432.
Carp, Gabriela, Lionel Scanteye, Ion Manea, and Silvia Cinca. Ionel Jianu şi
operalui. Bucharest: Roza Vinturilor, 1991.
Clark, Roland. Holy Legionary Youth. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2015.
Climescu, Alexandru. ‘Law, Justice, and Holocaust Memory in Romania,’ Florian,
Alexandru, ed. Holocaust Public Memory in Postcommunist Romania.
Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 2018.
Cole, Sarah. Modernism, Male Friendship and the First World War. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Collini, Stefan. Absent Minds: Intellectuals in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2006.
294  BIBLIOGRAPHY

Comarnescu, Petru. ‘The Rumanian and Universal in Brâncuşi’s Work.’ Rumanian

Studies: An International Annual of the Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 1
(1970): 127–145.
Constantiniu, Florin. O Istorie Sinceră a Poporului Român. Bucharest: Univers
Enciclopedic, 2002.
Cornea, Andrei. De Școala din Atena la Școala de la Păltiniş. Bucharest: Humanitas,
2004.
Cotoi, Călin. ‘Reactionary Modernism in Interwar Romania: Anton Golopent ̦ia
and the Geopolitization of Sociology.’ Nationalisms Today. Edited by Tomasz
Kamusella and Krzysztof Jaskulowski. Oxford: Peter Lang, 2009, 125–154.
Crăciun, Camelia. Scriitori evrei de limbă română: de la rebeli marginali la critici
canonici. Iaşi: Editura Universităt ̦ii “Alexandru Ioan Cuza,” 2018.
Deletant, Dennis. Ceauşescu and the Securitate: Coercion and Dissent in Romania,
1965–1989. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 1995.
Deletant, Dennis. Communist Terror in Romania: Gheorghiu-Dej and the Police
State, 1948–1965. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999.
Deletant, Dennis. Hitler’s Forgotten Ally: Ion Antonescu and His Regime, Romania
1940–44. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
Drace-Francis, Alex. The Making of Modern Romanian Culture: Literacy and the
Making of National Identity. London and New York: Tauris Academic Studies,
2006.
Drace-Francis, Alex. ‘Review of A Generation without Beliefs.’ Slavic Review, Vol.
67 No. 4 (Winter 2008): 998–999.
Drace-Francis, Alex. ‘Towards a Natural History of East European Travel Writing.’
Under Eastern Eyes: A Comparative Introduction to East European Travel
Writing on Europe. Edited by Wendy Bracewell and Alex Drace-Francis.
Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2008, 1–26.
Duda, Gabriela. Literatura Românească de Avangardă. Bucharest: Humanitas,
2004.
Evans, R.J.W. ‘The Successor States.’ Twisted Paths: Europe 1914–1945. Edited by
Robert Gerwarth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Fabritius, Aurora, Erwin Kessler and Adrian Solomon, eds. ‘Identity and Destiny:
Ideas and Ideology in Interwar Romania.’ Plural Magazine: Culture and
Civilization, Vol. 29 No. 1 (2007).
Faifer, Florin. ‘Mirare şi Minune.’ Arşavir Acterian. Jurnal. 1929–1945/1958–1990
Bucharest: Humanitas, 2008, 17–25.
Filip, Traian. ‘Cuvînt Inainte.’ Petru Comarnescu, Chipurile şi Priveliştile Americii.
Edited by Traian Filip. Bucharest: Editura Eminescu, 1974.
Florian, Alexandru, ed. Holocaust Public Memory in Postcommunist Romania.
Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 2018.
Florian, Alexandru. ‘Mircea Vulcănescu, a Controversial Case,’ Alexandru Florian,
ed., Holocaust Public Memory in Postcommunist Romania. Bloomington:
University of Indiana Press, 2018.
  BIBLIOGRAPHY  295

Geogescu, Diana. ‘Excursions into National Specificity and European Identity:

Mihail Sebastian’s Interwar Travel Reportage.’ Under Eastern Eyes: A
Comparative Introduction to East European Travel Writing on Europe. Edited
by Wendy Bracewell and Alex Drace-Francis. Budapest and New York: Central
European University Press, 2008, 293–324.
Georgescu, Vlad. The Romanians: A History. London: I.B.  Tauris & Co Ltd
Publishers, 1991.
Georgescu, Vlad. Political Ideas and the Enlightenment in the Romanian
Principalities 1750–1831. New  York: Boulder East European Quarterly,
Distributed by Columbia University Press, 1971.
Gilbert, Arthur N. ‘Conceptions of Homosexuality and Sodomy in Western
History.’ Historical Perspectives on Homosexuality. Edited by Salvatore J. Licata
and Robert Petersen. New York: Haworth Press, 1981, 57–69.
Gillespie, Michael A. ‘The Search for Immediacy and the Problem of the Political
in Existentialism and Phenomenology.’ The Blackwell Companion to
Phenomenology, Edited by Hubert Dreyfus and Mark Wrathall. Oxford:
Blackwell, 2006, 531–544.
Glendinning, Victoria. Leonard Woolf: A Biography. London and New York: Free
Press, 2006.
Glenny, Misha. The Balkans: Nationalism, War and the Great Powers, 1804–1999.
New York: Viking, 1999.
Gligor, Mihaela. ‘Amintiri despre Criterion.’ Origini: Romanian Roots, ‘Supliment
Criterion,’ Edited by Gabriel Stănescu. Vol. 8. Nos. 1–2–3 (2004): 3–4.
Glover, Jonathan. Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century. New
Haven: Yale Note Bene Press, 2001.
Griffin, Roger. ‘Faith in an Age of Isms.’ The Times Higher Education Supplement.
London: July 27, 2007.
Griffin, Roger, ed. International Fascism: Theories, Causes and the New Consensus.
London: Arnold, 1998.
Griffin, Roger. Modernism and Fascism: The Sense of Beginning under Mussolini
and Hitler. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Griffin, Roger. The Nature of Fascism. London and New York: Routledge, 1991.
Griffin, Roger. ‘Shattering Crystals: The Role of “Dream Time” in Extreme Right-­
Wing Political Violence.’ Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 15, No. 1
(Spring 2003): 57–94.
Grosu, Monica. Petru Comarnescu: un neliniştit în secolul său. Cluj-Napoca: Casa
Căr t ̦ii şi Știint ̦ă, 2008.
Grudzinska Gross, Irena. Czeslaw Milosz and Joseph Brodsky: Fellowship of Poets.
New Haven: Yale, 2009.
Habermas, Jürgen. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Translated by
Frederick G. Lawrence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.
Harris, Ruth. Dreyfus: Politics, Emotion, and the Scandal of the Century. New York:
Metropolitan Books, 2010.
296  BIBLIOGRAPHY

Haynes, Rebecca. ‘(Not) “Taking Fascist Values Seriously.”’ The Slavonic and East
European Review, Vol. 84 No. 4 (October 2006).
Haynes, Rebecca. Romanian Policy Towards Germany, 1936–40. London:
Macmillan, 2000.
Heinen, Armin. Die Legion ‘Erzengel Michael’ in Rumänien: soziale Bewegung und
politische Organisation: ein Beitrag zum Problem des internationalen Faschismus.
Munich: Oldenbourg, 1986.
Heinen, Armin. Rumänien, der Holocaust und die Logik der Gewalt. Munich:
Oldenbourg, 2007.
Herf, Jeffrey. Reactionary Modernism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1984.
Herf, Jeffrey. ‘The Totalitarian Present.’ The American Interest, September 1,
2009.
Herzog, Dagmar. Sex after Fascism: Memory and Morality in Twentieth-Century
Germany. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2005.
Hitchins, Keith. ‘“Gândirea:” Nationalism in Spiritual Guise.’ Social Change in
Romania, 1860–1940: A Debate on Development in a European Nation. Edited
by Kenneth Jowitt. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978, 140–173.
Hitchins, Keith. ‘Introduction’ Lucian Blaga. Zalmoxis: Obscure Pagan. Iaşi: The
Center for Romanian Studies, 2001.
Hitchins, Keith. ‘Modernity and Angst between the World Wars: Emil Cioran and
Yanko Yanev.’ Cultură politică şi politici culturale în România modernă. Edited
by Alexandru Zub and Adrian Cioflâncă. Iaşi: Editura Universităt ̦ii ‘Alexandru
Ioan Cuza,’ 2005, 151–165.
Hitchins, Keith. Romania 1866–1947. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Ioanid, Radu. The Holocaust in Romania: The Destruction of Jews and Gypsies
under the Antonescu Regime: 1940–1944. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2000.
Ioanid, Radu. ‘Introduction.’ Mihail Sebastian. Journal 1935–1944. Translated by
Patrick Camiller. London: Pimlico, 2003.
Ioanid, Radu. ‘Iorga and Fascism.’ Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 27,
No. 3 (July 1992): 467–492.
Ioanid, Radu. ‘The Sacralized Politics of the Romanian Iron Guard.’ Totalitarian
Movements and Political Religions. Vol. 5, No. 3 (London: Winter 2004):
419–453.
Ioanid, Radu. The Sword of the Archangel: Fascist Ideology in Romania. Translated
by Peter Heinegg. New York: East European Monograph, Boulder: Distributed
by Columbia University Press, 1990.
Ionesco, Marie-France. Portretul scriitorului în secol. Eugene Ionesco 1909–1994.
Bucharest: Humantias, 2003.
Ionescu, Stefan Cristian. Jewish Resistance to ‘Romanianization,’ 1940–44.
Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.
  BIBLIOGRAPHY  297

Iordachi, Constantin. ‘Charisma, Politics and Violence: The Legion of the

“Archangel Michael” in Inter-War Romania.’ Trondheim Studies on East
European Cultures and Societies (December 2004).
Jennings, Jeremy and Anthony Kemp-Welch, eds. Intellectuals in Politics: From the
Dreyfus Affair to Salman Rushie. London: Routledge, 1997.
Johnson, Paul, Intellectuals. London: Orion Books Ltd., 1988.
Junginger, Horst, ed. The Study of Religion Under the Impact of Fascism. Leiden:
Koninklijke Brill, 2008.
Katz, Jonathan Ned. Love Stories: Sex Between Men before Homosexuality. Chicago
and London: University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Kessler, Erwin. ‘Ideas and Ideology in Interwar Romania.’ Plural Magazine:
Culture and Civilization, Vol. 29 No. 1 (2007): 7–21.
Krimm, Bernard G. W.B. Yeats and the Emergence of the Irish Free State 1918–1939:
Living the Explosion. Troy, New  York: The Whitston Publishing Company,
1981.
Laignel-Lavastine, Alexandra. Cioran, Eliade, Ionesco: L’oubli du fascisme. Paris:
Presses Universitaires de France, 2002.
Laszlo, Alexandru. ‘Holy Fascist Youth.’ Studia Hebraica, Translated by Felicia
Waldman. Vol. 7 (2007): 414–432.
Lautmann, Rüdiger. ‘The Pink Triangle: The Persecution of Homosexual Males in
Concentration Camps in Nazi Germany.’ Historical Perspectives on Homosexuality
Edited by Salvatore J. Licata and Robert Petersen. New York: Haworth Press,
1981, 141–160.
Lavric, Sorin. Noica şi Mişcarea Legionară. Bucharest: Humanitas, 2007.
Lévy, Bernard-Henri. Éloge des Intellectuels. Paris: Grasset, 1987.
Liiceanu, Gabriel, Alexandru Dragomir, Dan C.  Mihăilescu, Andrei Cornea,
Andrei Pleşu, Ioana Pârvulescu, Sorin Vieru and Sorin Lavric. Despre Noica,
Noica Inedit. Bucharest: Humanitas, 2009.
Liiceanu, Gabriel. The Păltiniş Diary: A Paideic Model in Humanist Culture.
Budapest: Central European University Press, 2000.
Livezeanu, Irina. Cultural Politics in Greater Romania: Regionalism, Nation
Building and Ethnic Struggle: 1918–1930. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1995.
Livezeanu, Irina. ‘Generational Politics and the Philosophy of Culture: Lucian
Blaga between Tradition and Modernism.’ Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. 33
(2002): 207–237.
Loubet del Bayle, Jean-Louis. Les non-conformistes des années 30. Paris: Editions du
Seuil, 1969, September 2001.
Lucey, Michael. Gide’s Bent: Sexuality, Politics and Writing. Oxford University
Press, 1995.
298  BIBLIOGRAPHY

Macovei, Monica and Adrian Coman. ‘Implications of HIV/AIDS of Laws

Affecting Men who have Sex with Men in Romania.’ Bucharest: ACCEPT
Bucharest Acceptance Group. http://accept.ong.ro/msmeng.html.
Manea, Norman. ‘Felix Culpa.’ On Clowns: The Dictator and the Artist, New York:
Grove Press, 1992, 91–124.
Manea, Norman. ‘Happy Guilt’ The New Republic, August 1991.
Manea, Norman. ‘Romania: Three Lines with Commentary.’ On Clowns: The
Dictator and the Artist. New York: Grove Press, 3–32.
Manea, Norman. ‘Forward.’ Marta Petreu. An Infamous Past. E.M. Cioran and
the Rise of Fascism in Romania. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, Inc., 2005.
Manea, Norman. The Hooligan’s Return: A Memoir. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, 2004.
Mann, Michael. Fascists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Mazgaj, Paul. Imagining Fascism: The Cultural Politics of the French Young Right
1930–1945. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2007.
Megargee, Geoffrey P., ed., The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos Vol. 3.
Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 2018.
Mezdrea, Dora. Biobibliografie: Nae Ionescu. Brăila: Editura Istros, 2007.
Mezdrea, Dora, ed. Nae Ionescu şi discipolii săi în arhiva Securităt ̦ii: Nae Ionescu.
Vol. 1. Bucharest: Editura Mica Valahie, 2008.
Mezdrea, Dora, ed. Nae Ionescu şi discipolii săi în arhiva Securităt ̦ii: Mircea Eliade.
Vol. 2. Bucharest: Editura Mica Valahie, 2008.
Mezdrea, Dora. Nae Ionescu: Biografia Vol. 2. Editura Acvila, 2002.
Mezdrea, Dora. Nae Ionescu: Biografia Vol. 3. Brăila: Editura Istros, 2003.
Mezdrea, Dora. Nae Ionescu: Biografia Vol. 4. Brăila: Editura Istros, 2005.
Micu, Dimitru. ‘Gîndirea’ şi Gîndirismul. Bucharest: Editura Minerva, 1975.
Mihai, Constantin. Europenisme şi dileme identitare în România interbelică: gru-
parea Criterion. Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Nat ̦ional al Literaturii Române,
2013.
Mihai, Constantin. ‘Pentru o istorie intelectuală a “Criterionului.”’ Revista Rost
No. 30 (August 2005).
Mihai, Constantin. ‘Speficitatea Criterion-ului’ (1)–(2) Jurnalul Literar Seria
Nouă, Year 18, No. 21–24, November–December 2007, 1 and 22 – Year 19
Nos. 1–4, January–February 2008.
Mihaylova, Aneta. ‘Right-Wing Ideology and the Intellectuals in Romania during
the Second World War.’ New Europe College Regional Program Yearbook
2001–2002. Bucharest: New Europe College, 2003.
Mosse, George L., The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third
Reich. Kansas: Howard Fertig, 1999.
Mosse, George L. The Fascist Revolution: Towards a General Theory of Fascism.
Kansas: Howard Fertig, 2000.
  BIBLIOGRAPHY  299

Molea, Vera. Marietta Sadova sau Arta de a trăi prin teatru. Bucharest: Editura
Bibliotecii Metropolitane, 2013.
Muller, Florin. Metamorfoze ale politicului românesc 1938–1944. Bucharest:
Editura Universităt ̦ii din Bucureşti, 2006.
Nastasă, Lucian. Generaţie şi schimbare în istoriografia română. Cluj: Presa
Universitară Clujeană, 1999.
Nastasă, Lucian. Itinerarii spre lumea savanta: tineri din spat ̦iul românesc la studii
în străinătate. 1864–1944. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Limes, 2006.
Nastasă, Lucian. “Suveranii” Universitătilor Româneşti: Mecanisme de select ̦ie şi
promovare a elitei intelectuale. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Limes, 2007.
Nagy-Talavera, Nicholas M. The Green Shirts and the Others: A History of Fascism
in Hungary and Romania. Iaşi: The Center for Romanian Studies, 2001.
Nagy-Talavera, Nicholas M. Nicolae Iorga: A Biography. Iaşi: The Center for
Romanian Studies, 1998.
Neamt ̦u, Mihail. ‘Between the Gospel and the Nation: Dumitru Staniloae’s Ethno-
Theology.’ Studia Archaeus No. 10 (2006) Center for Religious Studies,
University of Bucharest, 7–44.
Nemoianu, Virgil. ‘Variable sociopolitical functions of aesthetic doctrine:
Lovinescu vs. Western Aestheticism.’ Social Change in Romania. Edited by
Kenneth Jowett. Berkeley: University of California, 1978, 174–207.
Neumann, Victor. Conceptuality Mystified: East-Central Europe torn between
Ethnicism and Recognition of Multiple Identities. Bucharest: Encyclopedia
Publishing House 2004.
O’Brien, Conor Cruise. ‘Passion and Cunning: An Essay on the Politics of
W.B.  Yeats.’ Passion and Cunning: Essays on Nationalism, Terrorism and
Revolution. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988.
Ó Ceallaigh, Philip and Bryan Rennie. ‘Mircea Eliade and Antisemitism: An
Exchange’ Los Angeles Review of Books, September 13, 2018.
Oişteanu, Andrei. ‘The Blind, Deaf and Dumb Jew Essay of Religious Imagology.’
Studia Archaeus No. 4 (2000), Centre d’Histoire des Religions, University of
Bucharest. fasc. 3, 91–107.
Oişteanu, Andrei. ‘Eliade’s Political Engagement, Between Maximalism and
Minimalism.’ Studia Hebraica, Issue 7 (2007): 407–448.
Oişteanu, Andrei. ‘Eugène Ionesco, între oroarea de a trăi şi oroarea de a muri.’
Revista 22, No. 45, November 3, 2009.
Oişteanu, Andrei. ‘Mircea Eliade Between Political Journalism and Scholarly
Work.’ Studia Archaeus, Studies in History of Religions. Translated by Felicia
Waldman, Issue 8 Nos. 1–4 (2004): 323–340.
Oişteanu, Andrei. ‘Mircea Eliade, from Opium to Cannabis to Amphetamines.’
Euresis: cahiers roumains d’études littéraires, Nos. 3–4 (2007): 169–181.
Oişteanu, Andrei. ‘Mihail Sebastian şi Mircea Eliade: cronica unei prietenii acci-
dentate.’ Revista 22, No. 49, December 4–10, 2007.
300  BIBLIOGRAPHY

Oişteanu, Andrei. ‘Scriitorii Romani şi Narcoticele: Experimentele doctorilor.’

Revista 22, No. 24, June 10–16, 2008.
Oldson, William O. The Historical and Nationalistic Thought of Nicolae Iorga.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1973.
Ornea, Zigu. Anii treizeci: Extrema dreaptă românească. Bucharest: The Romanian
Cultural Foundation, 1995.
Ornea, Zigu. Junimea şi Junimismul. Editura Eminescu, 1978.
Ornea, Zigu. The Romanian Extreme Right. The Nineteen Thirties. Translated by
Eugenia Maria Popescu. New  York: East European Monographs, Boulder,
Distributed by Columbia University Press, 1999.
Ornea, Zigu. Sămănătorismul. Bucharest: Editura Minerva, 1971.
Ornea, Zigu. Tradit ̦ionalism şi modernitate în deceniul al treilea. Bucharest:
Editura Eminescu, 1980.
Pakula, Hannah. The Last Romantic: A Biography of Queen Marie of Roumania.
New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985.
Pârvulescu, Ioana. Întoarcere în Bucureştiul interbelic. Bucharest: Humanitas,
2006.
Paxton, Robert O. The Anatomy of Fascism. New York: Allen Lane, 2004.
Pavel, Laura. ‘Eliade and His Generation  – Metaphysical Fervor and Tragic
Destiny.’ JSRI, No. 15 (Winter 2006): 5–19.
Payne, Stanley G. A History of Fascism: 1914–45. London: UCL Press, 1995.
Perrone-Moisés, Cláudia. ‘Forgiveness and Crimes Against Humanity: A Dialogue
between Hannah Arendt and Jacques Derrida.’ Translated by Irene Hirsch,
2006. http://www.hannaharendt.net/index.php/han/article/view/90/146.
Perry, Thomas Amherst. Passage to Romania: American Literature in Romania.
Iaşi, Oxford, Portland: The Center for Romanian Studies, 2001.
Petrescu, Dan. ‘Tentatio Orientis Interbelica.’ Cultură şi Societate: studii privi-
toare la trecutul românesc. Edited by Alexandru Zub. Bucharest: Editura
Ştiint ̦ifică, 1991, 397–442.
Petreu, Marta. Diavolul şi ucenicul său: Nae Ionescu – Mihail Sebastian. Bucharest:
Editura Polirom, 2009.
Petreu, Marta. ‘The Generation Of ’27, Between The Holocaust and The Gulag.’
Euresis: cahiers roumains d’études Littéraires. Translated by Lucrina Ştefănescu
and Ioana Zirra. Nos. 3–4 (Fall–Winter 2007), 7–25.
Petreu, Marta. ‘Generaţia ’27 între Holocaust şi Gulag’ (1)–(2) Revista 22, Nos.
676–677, February 18–24 and February 25–March 3, 2003.
Petreu, Marta. An Infamous Past. E.M. Cioran and the Rise of Fascism in Romania.
Translated by Bogdan Aldea. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, Inc., 2005.
Petreu, Marta. Ionescu în t ̦ara tatălui. Cluj-Napoca: Biblioteca Apostrof, 2001.
Petreu, Marta. ‘Laignel-Lavastine: metoda “franceză”’ (1)–(5) Revista 22, July
1–29, 2002.
  BIBLIOGRAPHY  301

Petreu, Marta. ‘Modelul şi oglinda: Evelyn Underhill – Nae Ionescu.’ Momentul
Adevărului. Edited by Iordan Chimet. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia, 1996,
337–382.
Petreu, Marta. Un trecut deocheat sau ‘Schimbarea la faţă a României.’ Bucharest:
Romanian Cultural, 2004.
Pippidi, Andrei. ‘Benda singuraticul.’ Julien Benda. Trădarea căr turarilor.
Translated by Gabriela Cret ̦ia. Bucharest: Humanitas, 1993, 5–30.
Poewe, Karla. New Religions and the Nazis. New York and London: Routledge,
2006.
Popa, Mircea. ‘Geo Bogza, insurgentul.’ Familia, Vol. 5, Nos. 11–12 (480–481),
November–December 2005.
Posada, Mihai. Opera publicistică a lui Mircea Eliade. Bucharest: Criterion
Publishing, 2006.
Regier, Willis G. ‘Cioran’s Nietzsche.’ French Forum, Vol. 30 No. 3 (Fall 2005):
75–90.
Rennie, Bryan S. Reconstructing Eliade: Making Sense of Religion. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press, 1996.
Ricketts, Mac Linscott. ‘Eliade’s First 500 Days in Exile.’ INTER LITTERAS
ET TERRAS, 2; Studii Interculturale/Cross-Cultural Studies/Etudes
Interculturelles: Mircea Eliade. Volume Coordinators. Sabina Fânaru and Gina
Măciucă. Edited by Ovidiu Morar. Suceava: Editura ‘Ştefan cel Mare’ University,
2007, 158–181.
Ricketts, Mac Linscott. ‘Eliade on diplomatic service in London.’ Religion, No. 38
(2008): 346–354.
Ricketts, Mac Linscott. ‘Mircea Eliade and The Terror of History. Anti-Historicism
and the History of Religions.’ International Journal on Humanistic Ideology,
No. 2 (2008): 15–36.
Ricketts, Mac Linscott. Mircea Eliade: The Romanian Roots, 1907–1945. Vols.
1–2. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.
Ricketts, Mac Linscott. Mircea Eliade: Former Friends and Forgotten Facts.
Norcross, GA: Criterion Publishing, 2003.
Roberts, Joanne. ‘Romanian – Intellectual – Jew: Mihail Sebastian in Bucharest,
1935–1944.’ Central Europe, Vol. 4. No. 1 (May 2006).
Romano, Carlin. ‘Drawn and Quartered: A Short History of E.M.  Cioran
(1911–95).’ The Chronicle, February 3, 2006.
Săndulescu, Valentin. ‘Fascism and its Quest for the “New Man:” The Case of the
Romanian Legionary Movement. Studia Hebraica, No. 4 (2004): 349–361.
Săndulescu, Valentin. ‘Sacralized Politics in Action: The 1937 Burial of Romanian
Legionary Leaders Ion Mot ̦a and Vasile Marin.’ Totalitarian Movements and
Political Religions, Vol. 8. No. 2 (June 2007): 259–269.
Săndulescu, Valentin. ‘Taming the Body: Preliminary Considerations Regarding
the Legionary Work Camps System (1933–1937).’ The Iorga Institute Historical
Yearbook, Vol. 5 (2008): 85–94.
302  BIBLIOGRAPHY

Schmitt, Oliver Jens. Corneliu Zelea Codreanu: Ascensiunea şi căderea

‘Căpitanului.’ Bucharest: Humanitas, 2017.
Shore, Marci. Caviar and Ashes: A Warsaw Generation’s Life and Death in
Marxism, 1918–1968. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006.
Simion, Eugen. Tânărul Eugen Ionescu. Bucharest: Fundat ̦ia Natională pentru
Ştiint ̦ă şi Artă, 2006.
Sluga, Hans. Heidegger’s Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.
Sontag, Susan. ‘Introduction.’ E.M.  Cioran The Temptation to Exist. London:
Quartet Books, 1987.
Stanley, Jason. How Fascism Works: The Politics of US and Them. New  York:
Random House, 2018.
Sternhell, Zeev. The Birth of Fascist Ideology: From Cultural Rebellion to Political
Revolution. Translated by David Maisel. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1994.
Surugiu, Romina. Dominante filosfice în publicistica lui Nae Ionescu de la Logos la
Cuvântul. Bucharest: Paideia, 2008.
Tănase, Stelian. Anatomia mistificării. Procesul Noica-Pillat. Bucharest:
Humanitas, 2009.
Theweleit, Klaus. Male Fantasies Vols. 1–2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1989.
Tismaneanu, Vladimir. Fantasies of Salvation: Democracy, Nationalism and Myth
in Post-Communist Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998.
Tismaneanu, Vladimir. ‘A Faustian Pact: Marta Petreu Diavolul şi ucenicul său
Nae Ionescu - Mihail Sebastian.’ TLS, January 1, 2010.
Tismaneanu, Vladimir. Stalinism for All Seasons: A Political History of Romanian
Communism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.
Tismaneanu, Vladimir. ‘Noica şi revolut ̦ia legionară.’ Evenimentul Zilei, February
20, 2008.
Tismaneanu, Vladimir and Cristian Vasile. ‘Turneul Teatrului Naţional la Paris din
1956: Secţia de Relaţii Externe, exilul şi raporturile culturale româno-franceze’
Studii şi Materiale de Istorie Contemporană, serie nouă, Vol. 8 (2009): 193–206.
Ţ urcanu, Florin. Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier de l’histoire. Paris: La Decouverte,
2003.
Turda, Marius. Modernism and Eugenics. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2010.
Turda, Marius. ‘The Nation as Object: Race, Blood and Biopolitics in Interwar
Romania.’ The Slavic Review, Vol. 66 No. 3 (Fall 2007): 413–441.
Uricariu, Doina. ‘Postfaţa.’ Jeni Acterian Jurnalul unei fiinţe greu de mulţumit.
Bucharest: Humanitas, 1991.
Vanhaelemeersch, Philip. A Generation ‘Without Beliefs’ and the Idea of Experience
in Romania (1927–1934). New  York: East European Monographs, Boulder
Colorado, distributed by Columbia University Press, 2006.
  BIBLIOGRAPHY  303

Verdery, Katherine. National Ideology under Socialism: Identity and Cultural

Politics in Ceauşescu’s Romania. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.
Voicu, George. ‘The Notion of “Judeo-Bolshevism” in Romanian Wartime Press.’
Studia Hebraica, Issue: 4/2004, 55–68.
Volovici, Leon. Nationalist Ideology and Anti-Semitism: The Case of Romanian
Intellectuals in the 1930s. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1991.
Weber, Eugen. ‘Romania’ The European Extreme Right: A Historical Profile.
Edited by Hans Rogger and Eugen Weber. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1965, 501–574.
Wiesel, Elie (chairman) ‘Final Report of the International Commission on the
Holocaust in Romania.’ ‘Executive Summary,’ www.ushmm.org/research/
center/presentations/features/details/2005-03-10/pdf/english/chap-
ter_13.pdf.
Wilk, Christopher, ed. Modernism 1914–1939. Designing a New World. London:
V&A Publications, 2006.
Witt, Mary Ann. The Search of Modern Tragedy: Aesthetic Fascism in Italy and
France. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001.
Wolin, Richard. The Seduction of Unreason. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton
University Press, 2004.
Zarifopol-Johnston, Ilinca. Searching for Cioran. Edited by Kenneth R. Johnston.
Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 2009.

4. Unpublished Sources
Alexandrescu, Sorin. ‘Modernists and Antimodernists: Enemies or Friends?’
(Paper presented on September 21, 2009 at Modernism and Antimodernism:
Theories, Visions, Ideologies, Politics, International Conference in Bucharest,
September 19–21, 2008.)
Bejan, Cristina. “The Criterion Association: Friendship, Culture and Fascism in
Interwar Bucharest” (DPhil diss., University of Oxford, 2010).
Clark, Roland. ‘Mothers, Wives and Fighters.’ (Paper presented at the Association
for the Studies of Nationalities World Convention, New York, April 2009.)
Craciun, Camelia. ‘Surviving Nationalism and the Politicization of an Intellectual
Debate: The case of the “1927 Generation”’s Political Discourse as reflected in
the post-1989 Romanian Historiography.’ (Paper presented at the Association
for the Studies of Nationalities European conference, Belgrade, September
2006.)
Griffin, Patrick Harry. ‘Fathers and Sons in Nineteenth-Century Romania: A
Study of Generational Thinking,’ PhD diss., University of Southern California,
1969.
Rizescu, Victor. ‘A Divide over the Oligarchy: Marxism in the Romanian Setting.’
(Paper presented at The Hour of Romania. International Conference at
University of Indiana Bloomington. March 22–24, 2007.)
 Index

A Acterian, Jeni, 223–224

‘Accused Julien Benda, The’ (article by
Noica), 9
Acosta, Mercedes de, 122
Acterian, Arşavir
Bergson symposium, 120
biographical sketch of, 33, 37
Criterion Association and, 81, 91
Gide symposium, 108, 110
imprisonment of, 267
Iron Guard and, 115
Valéry symposium, 118, 119
Acterian, Eugenia ‘Jeni,’ 33
Acterian, Haig
biographical sketch of, xxiv, 33, 35
Contemporary Romanian Culture
symposium, 131
death of, 237–238
education abroad of, 48, 230–231
Forum Group presentation, 72
imprisonment of, 237–238
marriage of, 228
National Theatre and, 235
photograph of, 2
Action Française, 10
Acţiune şi Reacţiune, 36
Acţiunea Student ̦ească, 190
À la recherche du temps perdu
(Proust), 123
Albright, Madeleine, xv
Alexandrescu, Sorin, 7, 13, 33
Alioth-Karadja, Lucie, 143
America văzută de un tânăr de azi
(Comarnescu), 54–55, 263
American industrialization, 10
‘Americanism and Europeanism’
conferences, 73
Anale, see Circle of the Romanian
Annals (Cercul Analelor Române)
Anderson, Vera, 75
Anii Treizeci (Ornea), 179
Anti-American sentiment, 10, 52
Anti-Semitism
after the realization of Greater
Romania, 18
of Carol, 214–216
Chaplin symposium, 102–103

© The Author(s) 2019 305

C. A. Bejan, Intellectuals and Fascism in Interwar Romania,
Modernity, Memory and Identity in South-East Europe,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20165-4
306  INDEX
Anti-Semitism (cont.)
of Cioran, 222–223
of Ionescu, 240–241
Ionescu and, 30
riots, 212
of Sadova, 233–236
at the university level, 20
Antonescu, General, 215–216,
254–255
Antonesei, Liviu, 7, 15, 266–267
Arendt, Hannah, 278
Arghezi, Tudor, 171, 208
Art, 43–44, 173
Automobiles, 71–72
Axa, 5, 116, 147–148
Azi, 72, 74–75
B Broşteanu, Aurel (Relu) D., 72–73, 129
Badauta, Alexandru, 68
Baeumler, Alfred, 10
Bagdasar, Nicolae, 119
Baic, Cornelia, 134
Bald Soprano, The (Ionesco), 258
Baltazar, Camil, 209
Bărbat, Virgil, 69
Barbu, Ion, 112, 171
Bauhaus, 11
Bebis, Corneliu, 134
Benda, Julien
influence of, 9
theory of intellectuals, 8–9
Treason of the Intellectuals, The
(Benda), xvi
Benn, Gottfried, 10
Bergson, Henri, 119–120
Besant, Annie, 121
Bessarabia, 21
Bieckerich, Victor, 134
Birth control, 145
Blaga, Lucian, 11, 14, 19, 25, 134,
227–228, 260
Blank, Aristide, 262
Bloomsbury Group, 11
Bogza, Geo, 207–209
Boia, Lucian, 22
Borsec, Transylvania, 146
Botta, Dan
Bergson symposium, 120
biographical sketch of, 33
on the Criterion Association, 90
on Michelangelo, 173
philosophy of, 167
review of ‘Cycle of Major Moments
of Music’ series, 143
Valéry symposium, 117
Brancuşi, 14
Brătianu, Ion, 14
Brauner, Harry, 233
Brauner, Victor, 60, 129
Bucharest Pogrom, 235
Bucur, Maria, xiv
Burileanu, Rodica, 195
‘Burning Pyre’ religious movement, 261
C
Căile Ferate Române (CFR), 138
Calendarul, 74, 109
Caler, Leni, 232, 270
Călinescu, Armand, 96–97, 111, 123,
214–215
Călinescu, Matei, 2, 6, 37, 248, 274
Călugăru, Ion, 99, 103
Camaraderie, 62–65, 193, 194
Campanella, Tommaso, 35
Campus environment, 53–54
Cantacuzino, G.M., 68
Cantacuzino, Ion I.
on art, 173
biographical sketch of, 33, 38
Forum Group presentation, 72
Gide symposium, 109–110

on literature, 170–171
on nationalism, 169
Roşu and, 113–114
Valéry symposium, 117
Cantacuzino, Ion. I., Freud
symposium, 97
Cantacuzino-Enescu, Maruca, 29–30
Capsali, Floria
biographical sketch of, xxv, 33
Contemporary Romanian Culture
symposium, 131
Credinţa scandal and, 181
Criterion Association and, 63–65
‘History and Aesthetic of Dance in
Four Conferences with
Examples’ series, 141
jealousy of, 205–206
‘Music and Dance from Brăila’
workshop, 134
photograph of, 2
Caragiale, 268
Carol II (king of Romania)
biographical sketch of, xxvi
free speech and, 177
Frontul Renaşterii Naţionale [the
Front of National Rebirth],
214–216
infidelity of, 208–209
rule of, 17, 148
Cars, 71–77
Catargi, Henri, 135
Caviar and Ashes (Shore), x, 11
Ceallaigh, Philip Ó, 7
Cecchetti, Enrico, 64
Censorship, 206
See also Free speech
Chaplin, Charlie, 99–103, 122
Chicago, IL, 54–55
Christianity, 46–47
Cinema, 99–100, 122
Cioculescu, Şerban
Bergson symposium, 119
 INDEX  307
biographical sketch of, 33
on Comarnescu, 67
Forum Group presentation,
72, 73
Gide symposium, 108
Valéry symposium, 118
Cioran, Emil (E.M.)
Bergson symposium, 120
biographical sketch of, xxiv, 32, 38
education abroad of, 54–55
friendship with Comarnescu, 239
legacy of, 5
liberalism of, 257
Nazism and, 55–57
personal disposition of, 257–258
photograph of, 257
political allegiances of, 219–224
Schimbarea la faţă a României,
56–57, 219–222
Schimbarea la faţă a României
[The Transfiguration of
Romania], 6
Circle of the Romanian Annals (Cercul
Analelor Române), 68, 117
‘Civilization’ symposium, 144
Clark, Roland, 22
‘Classicism’ symposium, 144
Cocea, N.D., 198
Codreanu, Corneliu Zelea
biographical sketch of, xxv
Credinţa scandal and, 191
death squads and, 214
execution of, 215, 225
founding of the Legionary
Movement, 4, 21–23
imprisonment of, 214–215
rule of, 147–149
Sadova and Haig’s meeting with,
231–232
Schimbarea la faţă a României
(Cioran) and, 221
Collective, 241
308  INDEX
Comarnescu, Petru ‘Titel’
America văzută de un tânăr
de azi, 263
‘Americanism and Europeanism’
conferences, 69
ancestry of, 188–189
Azi, 78–79
Bergson symposium, 119
biographical sketch of, x, xxiii, 32,
36, 197–199
Borsec trip, 146
Chaplin symposium, 100–101
Credinţa scandal and, 179–192, 197
on the Criterion Association, 276
Criterion Association and, 77–78
‘Cycle of Major Moments of Music’
series, 141–144
death of, 204, 264
education abroad of, 51–55
Forum Group and, 70–72
Freud symposium, 97
friendship with Cioran, 239
friendship with Noica, 199–203,
224–227
friendship with Sebastian, 240
Gide symposium, 109–110
‘History and Aesthetic of Dance in
Four Conferences with
Examples’ series, 141
Homo Americanus, 53–54
influence of Benda on, 9
Iron Guard and, 116
Kalokagathon, 264
leadership of, 67
legacy of, 5, 262–264
Lenin symposium, 96
marriage of, 182, 189, 195, 198
on the members of Criterion, 16
‘Nature of Beauty and its Relation
to Goodness, The,’ 51
needs of, 66–67
notes of, 88
optimism and, 53
photograph of, 159
political allegiances of, 238–240
Proust symposium, 123–124
public appearances of, 68
‘Răul Veacului Nostru: Hamlet
1933,’ 137–138
relationships with other members of
the Criterion Association, 65–66
role of, xvi
on the role of the intellectual,
163–164
Royal Foundation and, 133, 144
sexuality of, 192, 196–204
on the social atmosphere within the
Criterion Association, 62–63
‘Spiritual Directions of the New
Generation’ symposium,
137–138
Stancu and, 205
student work of, 20
‘Tyranny of Form-Traps’ article, 167
‘Utilization of the American Spirit’
symposium, 68, 69
Valéry symposium, 117, 118
Commercial Academy, 140
Communism and the Communist Party
Criterion Association and, 114
Gide’s sympathy for, 108
installation of, 4, 260–261
prohibition of, 20–21
Roşu and, 113
Condrea, Sergiu, 71–77
Conferences, 68–69
Constante, Lena, 20
Constantinescu, Costina, 238
Constantinescu, Mac, 63, 64
Constantinescu, Nicuşor, 243
Constitutional monarchy, 16–17
‘Contemporary Idols’ symposium,
91, 135
Contemporary Romanian Culture’
symposium, 91, 130–131
Convorbiri Literare, 168

Cornea, Andrei, 266
Corteanu, A., 69
Cosmopolitanism, 171–176
Costescu, Christinel, 256
Countryside, 19
Craig, Edward Gordon, 230
Crainic, Nichifor, 14, 86, 109, 111, 260
Credinţa, 5, 170, 179–192, 197, 273
Cristescu, Colonel, 215
Criterion (publication)
art reproduced in, 173
content of, 154–167, 173–176
cover photo, 159
creation of, 149–154
criticism of, 175
end of publication, 176
feuilletons in, 5
internationalism in, 171–176
literary criticism in, 170–171
presentations of nationalism in,
168–169
‘Rehabilitation of Spirituality’
article, 165–166
themes explored by, 153–154
‘Two Italian Books’ article, 172
‘Two Italian Commentaries’ article,
171–172
‘Tyranny of Form-Traps’ article, 167
‘Village’ article, 169
Vulcănescu’s contributions, 152–153
Young Generation and, 162–163
Criterion Association and the
Criterionists
activity of, 5, 59, 82, 134–135
artistic sections, 80
camaraderie within, 193, 194
‘Civilization’ symposium, 144
‘Classicism’ symposium, 144
communist agenda, 114
conflicts within, 65–66
‘Contemporary Idols’ symposium,
91, 135
‘Contemporary Romanian Culture’
symposium, 91, 130–131
 INDEX  309
contributions of, 276
Credinţa scandal and, 179–192
Cretin motif and, 112–113
criticism of, 109–116
Criticism section, 80
‘Cycle of Major Moments of Music’
series, 141–144
dissolution of, 4, 177–179, 209
Forum Group, 60
Griviţa riots, 137, 140–141
‘History and Aesthetic of Dance in
Four Conferences with
Examples’ series, 141
history of, xiii
influence of Benda on, 9
informal meetings of, 79–81, 92
instability of, 138, 147
Iron Guard and, 177–178
legacy of, 271–273
literature on, 7–8
‘Meaning of Life in Contemporary
Literature’ symposium, 144
membership of, 59–60, 62, 77,
80–84
Mihai’s thesis on, 8
mission of, 85–94
name of, 85–86
‘Neoclassicism’ symposium, 144
official meetings of, 83
operation of, 79
organization of, xvi, 4, 82–83
origins of, 23–24, 31, 61, 77–84
outreach to the provinces, 134
Philosophy section, 80
political series, 144–145
public response to, 89, 120,
143–144, 190
‘Race’ symposium, 144
resignations from, 81
self-identity of, 92
Social Science section, 80
‘Solutions to the Economic Crisis’
symposium, 144
success of, 4
310  INDEX
Criterion Association (cont.)
symposium format, 90–91
Tendint ̦e (Trends) series, 135–138
themes explored by, 129–130
views of, 16
‘War’ symposium, 144
women and, 193–195, 205
Young Generation and, 59–60, 89
Cronica Musicală, 143
Cubism, 129
Culianu, Ioan Petru, 7, 256
Culturalization, 168
Cultural Politics in Greater Romania
(Livezeanu), 17
‘Cultural Topics’ conference, 136
Culture, 42–43, 89, 91, 93–94, 130–131
Cum am devenit huligan (Sebastian),
2, 213
Curentul, 97
‘Current trends in Physics: the
Problem of Matter’ conference,
136–137
Cuvântul
Cioran’s contributions, 25
Eliade’s contributions, 50
Ionescu’s contributions,
148–149
publication of, 5
Sebastian’s contributions, 6, 70
Spiritual Itinerary, 39
suspension of, 149
Vulcănescu’s contributions, 25
Cuza, Alexandru C., 21, 31, 214
Cuzists, 101
‘Cycle of Major Moments of Music’
series, 141–144
Czechoslovakia, 239
D symposium, 130
Dada, 11
Daia, Vasile, 191
Dalles Foundation, 141
Daniel, Henry, 134
D’Annunzio, Gabriele, 172
Danovski, Oleg, 64
Dasgupta, Surendranath, 49
Death squads, 214
Decline of the West (Spengler), 124
De două mii de ani [For Two
Thousand Years] (Sebastian), xvi,
30, 170, 213, 240
Delavrancea, Cella, 30
Demetrius, Lucia, 233
Dianu, Romulus, 97
Diavolul şi ucenicul său: Nae Ionescu –
Mihail Sebastian (Petreu), 6
Dictatorships, in Romania, xvii
Dilettantism, 40–41
Dimensiunea românească a existenţei
(The Romanian Dimension of
Existence) (Vulcănescu), 19
Discovery of self, 107
Discuţia controversată, 69
Dobridor, Ilariu, 191
Domnişoara Christina (Eliade), 208
Dreiser, Theodor, 172
Duca, Ion Gheorghe, 4, 69, 88, 136, 148
E
Eastern philosophy, 50
Economu, Chiril, 238
Education abroad, 48–49, 57
1848 Generation, 13
Eleutheriade, Micaela, 134
Eliade, Mircea
accusation of pornography, 208
anti-Semitism of, 7
biographical sketch of, xxiii, 35
Chaplin symposium, 102–103
Contemporary Romanian Culture
on the Criterion Association, 59,
77–78, 89, 90, 92, 93, 178
on criticism, 112–113
  INDEX  311

‘Cycle of Major Moments of Music’ ‘Utilization of the American Spirit’

series, 142–143 symposium, 68
education abroad of, 49–51 Viaţa Nouă, 160
‘Few Opinions about the ‘Why I believe in the victory of the
Development of the Iron Legionary Movement’ article,
Guard, A’ series, 147–148 217–218
Forum Group and, 74 worship of, xvii
Forum Group presentation, 74–75 Eliade, Nina, 235
Freud symposium, 97–99 Eliot, T.S., 10
friendship with Noica, 256 Elisabeta Boulevard, 100
friendship with Sadova, 244, Elitism, 204
250–251, 268–270 Eloge des Intellectuels (Lévy), 9–10
friendship with Sebastian, 244–246 Eminescu, 14
Gandhi symposium, 126–129 Enescu, C., 105–106
Gide symposium, 109 Envy, 205–206
Guardism and, xi ‘Epistemological function of love, The’
imprisonment of, 218, 245 (lecture by Ionescu), 26
Întoarcerea din Rai (Return from Esprit, 10
Paradise), 140–141 Eugenics, 145
on Ionescu, 160–161 Europeanists, 13
Iphigenia, 218–219 Europenism şi dileme identitare în
on the Iron Guard, 161–162 România interbelică: gruparea
Krishnamurti and, 121–122 Criterion (Mihai), 8
legacy of, 5 Evans, R.J.W., 17
Lenin symposium, 95 Evola, Julius, 10, 35, 218
Maitreyi, 50 Existentialism, 271
marriage of, 195, 244 Experience (experienţa), xi, 15, 42, 155
modernism and, 11–12 Experiential literature, xvi
philosophy of, 52 Extremism, rise of, xiii–xiv
photograph of, 257
political allegiances of, 217–219
post-war exile of, 255–256 F
‘Rehabilitation of Spirituality’ Fabregue, Jean de, 52
article, 165–167 Facla, 5, 37
on the responsibility of the Young Fascism
Generation, 34 appeal of, 4, 274–275
on the role of the intellectual, 159–163 defined, 12
role of, xvi, 32 goals of, 22
Spiritual Itinerary, 38–48 historical context of, 278–279
as a student of Ionescu, 27 intellectuals and, 10
‘time when we will no longer be free intellectual support of, xv
to do what we wish,’ 249–252 in Italy, 103–106
‘Two Italian Books’ article, 172 modernism and, 11–13
312  INDEX
Fascism: A Warning (Albright), xv
Ferdinand (king of Romania), 17
Feuilletons, xiii, 89
‘Few Opinions about the Development
of the Iron Guard, A’ series,
147–148
Floarea de Foc, 75
Floru, Constantin, Bergson
symposium, 119
Foreign literature, 171–172
See also Literature
Forum Group, 60, 70–77
Foucault, Michel, 194
Fragments of a Journal (Ionesco), 260
France, 243–244
Free speech, 139, 189, 206
Freud, Sigmund, 96–99
Friends of the United States Society,
68, 69, 88
Friendship, 193, 194, 205
Frontul Renaşterii Naţionale
[the Front of National
Rebirth], 214
Fuhlsbuettel concentration camp, 195
Futurism, 11
G Gyr, Radu, 235
Gafencu, Grigore, 144
Gandhi, Mahatma, 125–129
Gândirea, 5, 14–15, 25, 149
Garbo, Greta, 122–123
García Márquez, Gabriel, xiv, 8
‘General Economic Directions’
conference, 136–137
Generaţia tânără [the Young
Generation], see Young
Generation
Generation ’27, 9
Generation Without Beliefs, A
(Vanhaelemeersch), 7
Generations in the social history of
modern Romania, 14, 156–158
Georgescu, Radu, 143–144
Gheorghiu-Dej, Gheorghe, 140, 255
Ghinda, Barbu Catargi, 141
Gide, André, 1, 106–110
Gilbert, Arthur, 194
Glasul Patriei (The Voice of the
Motherland), 260
Goga, Octavian, 169, 214
Golescu, 14
Golopenţia, Anton
biographical sketch of, 33
interests of, 38
on the role of the intellectual, 164
work of, 20
Goya y Lucientes, Francesco Jose de, 173
Greater Romania, xiii
See also Romania
Griffin, Roger, 11, 12, 22
Grigorescu, Mircea, 73, 96
Griviţa riots, 137–141
Grosu, Monica, 7, 193
Guardism, xi
Gulian, Emil, 108
Gusti School and Dumitrie Gusti,
20, 60, 91
H
‘Happy Guilt’ (essay by Manea), 6, 279
Hechter, Iosif, see Sebastian, Mihail
Heidegger, Martin, 10
Helena (princess of Greece), 17
Herf, Jeffrey
on extremism, xiv, xv
reactionary modernism of, xi, 12
Herseni, Traian
interests of, 38
work of, 20

Heyse, Hans, 10
Hillard, Richard ‘Ricci, 33, 106
Historical revisionism, 7
‘History and Aesthetic of Dance in
Four Conferences with Examples’
series, 141
History of Sexuality (Foucault), 194
History, Eliade’s theory of, 160
Hitchins, Keith, 13
Hitler, Adolf
Carol’s visit with, 215
Cioran’s interest in, 58
homosexuality and, 195
Hogaş, Calistrat, 97
Hoitaş, Clatilda, 235
Holban, Anton, 117
Hollywood, 99–100, 122
Holocaust in Romania, 215–216
Holy Legionary Youth (Clark), 22
Homo Americanus (Comarnescu), 72
Homosexuality
concept of, 194
Credinţa scandal and, 179–180
Garbo and, 122–123
Gide and, 108
male friendship and, 11
persecution of, 187, 195
in Romania, 196
Hooliganism, 213
Hour of Decision: Germany and the
World Historical Revolution, The
(Spengler), 125
‘How Julien Benda lied!’ (article by
Noica), 9
Huliganii (Eliade), 213
Hungarian people, 223
I Present Past Past Present, 259
Iancu, Avram, 14
Iancu, Marcel, 14, 129, 134
Iaşinschi, Vasile, 235
 INDEX  313
Idei europeane (European Ideas), 68
‘Idols’ symposium, organization of, 91
Imagination, 118
‘Immediate Economic Directions:
Monetary Solutions
conference, 144
Impatience, 47
Individuals, 241
Infamous Past, An: E.M. Cioran and
the Rise of Fascism in Romania
(Petreu), 6
Integral Nationalism, 155
Intellectuals
defined, 9
imprisonment of, 265
role and responsibility of, 8–9
role of, 159–167
Internationalism, 171–176
Întoarcerea din Rai [Return from
Paradise] (Eliade), 140–141, 213
Ionesco, Eugène
Bald Soprano, The, 259
biographical sketch of, xxiv, 32, 37
on Comarnescu, 262–263
on the Criterion Association,
178–179, 272
criticism of, 170–171
education abroad of, 48
Fragments of a Journal, 260
friendship with Sebastian, 246–248
Iron Guard and, 115
Jewish identity of, 248, 259–260
legacy of, 5
letter to Vianu, 60, 253–254
marriage of, 195
photograph of, 257
political allegiances of, 247–249
post-war exile of, 258–260
relationships with other members of
the Criterion Association, 66
Ionescu, Marioara, 235
314  INDEX

Ionescu, Nicolae C. (Nae) J

academic career of, 26–29 Jackson, Eric, 203
anti-Semitism of, xvi, 6, 30, 240–241 Jammes, Francis, 172
biographical sketch of, xxiii, 25–26, 37 Jealousy, 205–206
criticism of, 170 Jennings, Jeremy, 9
death of, 215 Jewish population, 17–18
Eliade on, 160–161 Jianu, Ionel ‘Nelly’
imprisonment of, 214–215, 245 biographical sketch of, 33, 36
insecurity of, 29–30 on the Criterion Association, 276
mentor-mentee relationship with Forum Group and, 70, 75–77
Sebastian, 240–241 Jocul de-a vacanţa (Sebastian), 232
politics and, 30–31, 148–149 Johnson, Paul, 8, 278
Spengler and, 124 Jung, Carl Gustav, 11
style of, 32 Junimea Society, 33
Tendint ̦e (Trends) series, 135–137
trăire and experienţa and, 15–16
‘Trends in Domestic Politics: the K
Romanian State’ conference, Kalokagathon (Comarnescu), 264
136–137 Katz, Jonathan Ned, 194
Young Generation and, 31 Kemp-Welch, Anthony, 9
Iordache, Maria, 235 Kirit ̦escu, Constantin, 208
Iorga, Nicolae, 17, 18, 31, 52, 216 Klages, Ludwig, 55
Iorgulescu, Yor Petre, 135 Kogălniceanu, 14
Iphigenia (Eliade), 230 Kriek, Ernst, 10
Iron Guard Krishnamurti, Jiddu, 121–122
aesthetics of, 22–23
anti-Semitism riots, 212
Axa, 116, 147–148 L
Carol II and, 226 Laignel-Lavastine, Alexandra, 6
Criterion Association and, 177–178 LANC (the League of National
Eliade and, 147–148, 161–167, Christian Defence), 21
217–219 Language, 169
formation of, 21 Lapedatu, Al., 30
Ionescu’s support of, 30–31 Lavric, Sorin, 199
National Legionary State and, 216 Lazăr, Gheorghe, 14
Polihroniade and, 115–116 Leadbeater, C.W., 121
See also Legionary Movement League of National Christian Defence
Isabel şi apele diavolului (Eliade), 208 (LANC), 101, 212
Italy, fascism in, 103–106 Legat, Nicolas, 64
Itinerariu Spiritual, see Spiritual Legion of the Archangel Michael, see
Itinerary, The [Itinerariu Legionary Movement
Spiritual] Legionary Movement
  INDEX  315

appeal of, 6 Manoliu, Petru, 170

criticism of, 147–149 Mareş, Nina, 102, 195, 244, 245
founding of, 4 Margareta-Fotino, Elena, 26
history of, xiii, xvi Marie (queen of Romania), 52, 134
modernism and, 12 Marin, Bobi, 235
nature of, 22 Marin, Vasile, 214
Noica’s enlistment in, 225 Marinetti, Filippo, 10
‘Totul Pentru Ţară’ [Everything for Martial law, 139–140
the Country] politcal party, 214 Marxism, 155
See also Iron Guard Mârzescu Law, 21
Legionary Rebellion, 235–237 Masculinity, 193
Legione Decima [The Tenth Legion] Massis, 107
(Panzini), 172 Maulnier, Thierry, 52
Lenin, Vladimir, 94–96 Maurras, Charles, 10
Lévy, Bernard, 9–10 Maxy, Max Hermann, 60, 129, 134
Lewis, Wyndham, 10 ‘Meaning of Life in Contemporary
Liberal Party, 20 Literature’ symposium,
Liiceanu, Gabriel, 266 144–147
Literary style, 5 Medrea, Victor, 182–183, 185
‘Literary Topics’ conference, 136 Mehedint ̦i, Simion, 90, 96, 136
Literature, 43–44, 170–172 Mezdrea, Dora, 32
Livezeanu, Irina, 17 Michael (king of Romania),
Los Angeles Review of Books, 7 254–255
Lost Generation, 33 Michailescu, Corneliu, 134
Lovinescu, Eugen, 11, 14, 25, 136 Michelangelo, 173
Lovinescu, Monica, 258 Micu, Dumitru, 15
Lumea, 36 Miculescu, George, 236
Lupescu, Elena ‘Magda,’ 17 Mihai, Constantin, 8
Mihalache, Ion, 133
Minority issue, 144–147
M Mircea Eliade: Le prisonnier de
Madgearu, Virgil, 136–137 l’histoire (Ţurcanu), 6
Maiorescu, Titu, 33 Mironescu, Alexandru, 97
Maitreyi (Eliade), 50 Modernism, fascism and, 11–13
Male friendship, 11, 193, 194 Moldova, 17
Manea, Norman, 6, 14, 279 Molea, Vera, 228
‘Manifestul Crinului Alb’ [The Monitorul Oficial, 139
Manifesto of the White Lily], 38 Mosse, George L., 22
Maniu, Iuliu, 20, 214 Moţa, Ion, 214
Manolescu, Mihail, 69, 103, 106 Mussolini, Benito, 103–106
Manolescu-Strunga, Gina, 147, 189, 198 Muston, Wendy, 200–202
Manolescu-Strunga, Ion, 182 Mysticism, 44
316  INDEX
N friendship with Eliade, 256
Narcissus, 118
Nationalism
forms of, 12
presentations in Criterion, 168–169
Vulcănescu on, 156
National Legionary State, 216
National Peasant Party (PNŢ), 20, 214
National Theatre, 235, 261, 262, 267
‘Nature of Beauty and its Relation to
Goodness, The’ (Comarnescu), 51
Nazism, 195
Neam [people, nation], 18
Neamul Românesc, 18
Negry, Gabriel
biographical sketch of, xxv, 33
Capsali and, 205
Credinţa scandal and, 179,
181–182, 186–187
Criterion Association and, 60
‘History and Aesthetic of Dance in
Four Conferences with
Examples’ series, 141
Nehru, Pandit, 127
Neoclassic humanism, 155
Neoclassicism’ symposium, 144
Neumann, Victor, 19
New Culture Movement, 11
The New Republic, 6
Newspapers, 5
New York, NY, 54–55
‘Nicadori’ death squad, 148
Nietzsche, Friedrich, 55
Night of the Long Knives, 195
Nihilism, 55
Nistor, Ion, 38
Noica, Bebe, 200
Noica, Constantin ‘Dinu’
biographical sketch of, xxiv, 32, 37
on Comarnescu, 36
education abroad of, 48
Forum Group and, 70
friendship with Comarnescu,
199–203, 224–227
imprisonment of, 265
influence of Benda on, 9
Iron Guard and, 116
legacy of, 5, 264–267
marriage of, 200–202, 227–228
Păltiniş group, x
Păltiniş School, 266–267
photograph of, 159
political allegiances of, 224–228
on the role of the intellectual, 164–165
Non-spiritual moment, 156–157
Nu (Ionesco), 37, 170–171
O
Oișteanu, Andrei, 2
Old Generation (generaţia socială),
14, 17, 90
Olteanu, Alexandru, 191
Omescu, Ion, 203
Optimism, 100
Ornea, Zigu, 15, 149–150,
153, 179
Orthodoxy, 45–47
O scrisoare pierdută (Caragiale), 268
P
Palingenetic ultranationalism, 12
Păltiniş group, x
Păltiniş School, 5, 266–267
Pandrea, Petre, 38, 263
Panzini, Alfredo, 172
Papagoga, Margareta, 237
Papini, Giovanni, 35
Părerile Libere, 5, 37
Pârvan, Vasile, 15, 27
Passion, 40
Pătrăşcanu, Lucreţiu, xi, 94, 255
Pătraşcu, Miliţa, 135
Patronage Society, 68
Pauker, Ana, 255
Pavel, Sorin, 38

Payne, Stanley, 22
Peasants’ Party, 20
Pe culmile disperării [On the Heights
of Despair] (Cioran), 38
Penciulescu, George, 267
People’s Republic of Romania
(RPR), 268
Petrescu, Camil, 240
Petrescu, N., 69
Petreu, Marta, 6–7, 29, 47, 221–222,
240–241, 275
Petrovici, Ion, 91, 97
Petru Comarnescu: un neliniştit în
secolul său [Petru Comarnescu: A
Restless Man in His Century]
(Grosu), 7
Philosophical Society, 68
Picasso, Pablo, 129
Pierre-Quint, Léon (fictional
character), 2
Pillat, Ion, 117
Pippidi, Andrei, 9
Pirandello, Luigi, 171–172
Pleşu, Andrei, 266
Ploieşti oil refineries, 138
Poesis, 68
Poetry, 43, 207
Polihroniade, Mary, 2, 235
photograph of, 2
Polihroniade, Mihail ‘Mişu’
biographical sketch of, xxiv, 32,
35, 36
execution of, 215
Forum Group and, 70
Forum Group presentation, 73–74
imprisonment of, 214–215
Iron Guard and, 115–116
Lenin symposium, 94–95
literary reference to, 2
Mussolini symposium, 104
photograph of, 2
relationships with other members of
the Criterion Association, 65
 INDEX  317
Societatea de politică externă
(Foreign Policy Society), 68
Political allegiances, 216
See also specific individuals
‘Political Directions of the New
Generation’ conference, 135–136
Political parties, 20–23
Politics, 241
Popa, Gr., 69
Popa, Victor Ion, 20
Popescu, Al., 125
Pop-Martian, D. Al., 130
Poporanism, 14
Popovici, Gheorghe, 167–168
Popovici, Lily, 68
Popovici-Lupa, Elena, 30
Pornography, 207
Pound, Ezra, 10
Practical people, 159
Present Past Past Present (Ionesco), 259
Press, 73, 109–110, 242
Professions, 91
Prostitution, 187, 198, 208
Protestantism, 45–46
Protopopescu, Dragoş, 242
Proust, Marcel, 123–124
Psychoanalysis, 98–99
Psychology, 45
R
Race, 144–147
‘Race’ symposium, 144
Rădulescu-Motru, Constantin
Bergson symposium, 119
Lenin symposium, 94
Old Generation (generaţia socială)
and, 17, 60, 90
spirituality and religion and, 19
‘Trends in Philosophy:
Metaphysics or Positive Science’
conference, 136
Ralea, Mihai, 91, 108
318  INDEX

Rampa, 5, 37, 72 ‘Romanianness,’ 19

Rareş, Nina, 77
Rationalization, 274–275
Reactionary modernism, xi, 12
Regeneration, 22
Renard, Jules, 243
Rennie, Bryan, 7
Reporter, 198
Revisionism, 7
Revista Buna-Vestire, 5
Revista Fundaţiilor Regale, 5, 143–144
Revolution, 88–89, 159–167
Rhinocerization, Ionesco’s warning
against, xvi
Rhinoceros (Ionesco)
historical context of, 214–216
message of, 274
origins of, 211–212
Ricketts, 74
Roberts, Joanne, 242
Röhm, Ernst, 195
Roman, Elly, 141
Romania
Borsec, 146
celebration of, 13
communism in, 260–261
constitutional monarchy of, 16–17
dictatorships in, xvii, 214–216
difficult past of, 7
education in, 20
elite in, 3
Griviţa riots, 137–141
history of, xv, 7
Holocaust in, 215–216
homosexuality in, 194, 196, 203–204
interwar period of, 168, 207
map of, 17
martial law, 139–140
political upheaval in, 147–148
population of, 17–18
realization of Greater Romania,
17–20
Treaty of Trianon, 17, 169
Romanian Academy, 168, 261
Romanian Communist Party
(RCP), 138
Romanian Orthodox Christianity,
19, 21, 22
Rosetti, Alexandru, 218, 262
Roşu, Nicolae, 113–114, 182–183
Royal Foundation
differences with Criterion
Association, 133
location of, 96, 111–112
symposia at, 61–62, 68, 144
Russian revolution, 88
S
Sacrificed Generation (generaţia de foc)
members of, 14
Young Generation and, 25, 60
Sadova, Marietta
biographical sketch of, xxiv, 32, 35–36
Contemporary Romanian Culture
symposium, 130
Criterion Association and, 8, 77
death of, 267–271
friendship with Eliade, 268–270
friendship with Sebastian, 232–234
imprisonment of, 237, 238, 269
legacy of, 267–271
marriage of, 228
photograph of, 2, 228
Poesis, 68
political allegiances of, 227–238
Sadoveanu, Ion Marin, 35, 68, 99, 189
Said, Edward, 9
Salonul Independenţilor, 86
Sămănătorism (sowerism), 14
Sandburg, Carl, 54
Săndulescu, Ecaterina, 55, 219, 224
Săndulescu, Valentin, 22

Savants, 41
Sburătorul, 14, 25
Scânteia, 269
Schiller, F.C.S., 145
Schmitt, Carl, 10
Scientific knowledge and
specialization, 41
Sebastian, Mihail
‘Americanism and Europeanism’
conferences, 69
on the animalism of man, 211–212
biographical sketch of, xxiii, 32, 37
Chaplin symposium, 101–102
Contemporary Romanian Culture
symposium, 130
on the Criterion Association, 147
Cum am devenit huligan, 2
death of, 261
De două mii de ani [For Two
Thousand Years], xvi, 170, 240
diary of, 6
education abroad of, 48
Forum Group and, 70
Forum Group presentation, 77
friendship with Comarnescu, 240
friendship with Eliade, 250–251
friendship with Ionesco, 246–248
friendship with Sadova, 232–234
Jewish identity of, 240, 247
Jocul de-a vacanţa, 232
legacy of, 261–262
mentor-mentee relationship with
Ionescu, 240–241
photograph of, 2
political allegiances of, 240–247
relationships with other members of
the Criterion Association, 65–66
Steaua fără nume, 233
as a student of Ionescu, 29–30
Ultimă Ora, 262, 268
‘Utilization of the American Spirit’
symposium, 68
Şeicaru, Pamfil, 26, 97
 INDEX  319
Sexual Instinct, The (Westfried), 200
Sexuality
of Comarnescu, 196–204
Credinţa scandal and, 179–180
Garbo and, 122–123
Gide and, 108
during the interwar period, 207
persecution of homosexuality, 187
understanding of, 98–99, 194
Sfatul Ț ării, 17
Shore, Marci, x, xvii
Sibiu, Popescu, 97
Sibiu Literary Circle, 11
Silber, Belu, 2, 33, 94, 221
Sima, Horia, 215, 235
Simmel, Georg, 57
Sin, Gheorghe Ionescu, 135
Six Characters in Search of an Author
(Pirandello), 171–172
Skamander group, x
Slatioreanu, Badea, 191
Socialism, 108, 238–239
Societatea de politică externă (Foreign
Policy Society), 68
Sociological Society, 68
Sociology, 168–169
Socrates, 188
Sodomy, 187
Soffici, Ardengo, 172
‘Solutions to the Economic Crisis’
symposium, 144
Șora, Mihail, 266, 269–270
Sorel, Georges, 95
Soviet Union, 21
Spengler, Oswald, 124–125
‘Spiritual Directions of the New
Generation’ symposium,
135–137, 139
Spiritual Itinerary, The [Itinerariu
Spiritual], 32, 39–40
‘Spirituality’ (article by Vulcănescu), 9
Spirituality and religion, 19, 44–47,
155–156
320  INDEX
Sports, 72
Stahl, Henri H.
biographical sketch of, 33
Freud symposium, 97
interests of, 38
Mussolini symposium, 104–105
on nationalism, 168–169
work of, 20
Stancu, Zaharia
attacks on the Criterion Association,
147, 180
biographical sketch of, xxv, 33
Comarnescu and, 75, 182–184, 205
imprisonment of, 261
Krishnamurti conference, 122
Stark, Letta, 75
Stat [state], 19
Steaua fără nume (Sebastian), 233
Ştefănescu-Goangă, F., 215
Steinhardt, Nicolae, 265
Stelescu, Mihai, 214
Sterian, Margareta, 76, 134
Sterian, Paul
biographical sketch of, 35
Contemporary Romanian Culture
symposium, 130
Criterion Association and, 112
‘Cycle of Major Moments of Music’
series, 142
Jianu and, 76–77
‘Utilization of the American Spirit’
symposium, 68
Valéry symposium, 118
Stoilov, Simion, 256
Strikes, 138–139
Şuluţiu, Octav
biographical sketch of, 33, 37
on the Criterion Association, 112
diary of, 88, 92, 93
on Gide, 107
on language, 169
on violence, 213
on women, 193
work of, 36
Surrealism, 11
Symposium formula, 69
Synthesis, 41
T
Taccuino di Arno Borghi [The
Notebook of Arno Borghi]
(Soffici), 172
Tălianu, Ion, 236
Taşcă, G., 112, 136, 144
Tătărescu, Giza, 63–64
Telephone Tower, 52
Tell, Alexandru Christian
biographical sketch of, xxv, 33, 38
Credinţa scandal and, 185
execution of, 215
and the fight for the man of
tomorrow, 158–159
imprisonment of, 214–215
Mussolini symposium, 105
Tendințe (Trends) series
‘Cultural Topics’ conference, 136
‘Current trends in Physics: the
Problem of Matter’ conference,
136–137
‘General Economic Directions’
conference, 136–137
‘Immediate Economic Directions:
Monetary Solutions’
conference, 136
‘Literary Topics’ conference, 136
‘Political Directions of the New
Generation’ conference,
135–136
‘Spiritual Directions of the New
Generation’ symposium,
135–137, 139
‘Trends in Contemporary Art’
conference, 137
  INDEX  321

‘Trends in Domestic Politics: the ‘Trends in External Politics’

Romanian State’ conference, conference, 136
136–137 ‘Trends in Philosophy: Metaphysics or
‘Trends in External Politics’ Positive Science’ conference, 136
conference, 136 Trianon Treaty, 17, 169
‘Trends in Philosophy: Metaphysics or Truth, intellectuals and, 10
Positive Science’ conference, 136 Tudor, Sandu (Alexandru
Teodorescu, Alexandru, see Tudor, Teodorescu), 33
Sandu (Alexandru Teodorescu) biographical sketch of, xxv, 204
Theatre, 234–237 Credinţa scandal and, 179–192
Theosophy and the Theosophical Floarea de Foc, 75
Society, 44, 121 imprisonment of, 261
Theweleit, Klaus, 194 Krishnamurti conference, 122
Third Reich, 195 Tugearu, Ioan, 64
Third sacrificial curve, 139 Ţ urcanu, Florin, xxv, 6, 98, 129, 147
‘Time when we will no longer be free Ţ uţea, Petre, 267, 268
to do what we wish,’ 249 ‘Two Italian Books’ article, 172
Timpa, 199 ‘Two Italian Commentaries’ article,
Tismăneanu, Vladimir, 22, 278 171–172
Țit ̦eica, G., 136–137
Titulescu, Nicolae, 196–197
Toma, Dimitriu, 236 U
Ţopa, Sorana Ultimă Ora (Sebastian), 9, 36, 262, 268
biographical sketch of, 33 Ultranationalism, 12
Contemporary Romanian Culture Unamuno, Miguel de, 172
symposium, 130 Underhill, Evelyn, 29
Criterion Association and, 92, 195 United States, 52
friendship with Cioran, 223 Universalism, 51
Krishnamurti and, 121–122 University Group for the United
‘Totul Pentru Ţară’ [Everything for Nations, 68
the Country] politcal party, 214 University of Chicago, xvi
Traditionalists, 13 Universul, 190
‘Traffic of Male Meat’ series, 186 Universul Literar, 5, 37, 207
Trăire, 15, 27 USSR, 21
Transylvania, 17, 20, 146 ‘Utilization of the American Spirit’
Treason of the Intellectuals, The [La symposium, 68
trahison des clercs] (Benda), xvi, 9
Treaty of Trianon, 17, 169
‘Trends in Contemporary Art’ V
conference, 137 Vaida-Voevod, Alexandru, 139
‘Trends in Domestic Politics: the Valéry, Paul, 117–119, 172
Romanian State’ conference, Vanhaelemeersch, Philip, 7, 33, 219
136–137 Vianu, Alexandru, 117
322  INDEX
Vianu, Tudor, 60, 91, 117, 136,
253–254
Viaţa Literară, 113
Viaţa Nouă (Eliade), 160
Viaţa Românească, 5, 138
Viforeanu, Petre, 94, 144
Village life, 19
Village Museum, 20
Vinea, Ion, 97
Violence, 213
Vlad Ţepeş League, 212
Voinescu, Alice, 60, 122
Vojen, Ion Victor, 115–116, 267–271
Vremea, 5, 56–57
Vulcănescu, Mircea
‘Americanism and Europeanism’
conferences, 69
biographical sketch of, xxv, 6, 32
Contemporary Romanian Culture
symposium, 130
Credinţa scandal and, 184
on the Criterion Association,
152–153
Dimensiunea românească a
existenţei [The Romanian
Dimension of Existence], 19
education abroad of, 48
Forum Group and, 70
Forum Group presentation, 73
Gide symposium, 107
imprisonment of, 261
influence of Benda on, 9
interests of, 38
Lenin symposium, 94–95
marriage of, 195
Mussolini symposium, 104
note to Comarnescu, 78–79
photograph of, 159
Royal Foundation and, 65
on the social history of modern
Romania, 14
spirituality and, 155–156
as a student of Ionescu, 28–29
student work of, 20
‘Utilization of the American Spirit’
symposium, 68
W
Wach, Joachim, 256
Wallachia, 17
Wallachian Revolution, 4
‘War’ symposium, 144
Washington, DC, 54
Western philosophy, 50
Westfried, Iosif, 200
Whitman, Walt, 54
‘Why I believe in the victory of the
Legionary Movement’ (Eliade),
229–230
Wilde, Oscar, 188
Wolin, 275
Women
Cioran and, 223–224
Comarnescu and, 198–199
Criterion Association and, x,
193–195, 205
World War I, 26
World War II (WWII), 254–255
Writers Association, 242
Writer’s Union of Romania, 261
Y
Yanev, Yanko, 10
Yeats, William Butler, 10
Yoga, 98–99
Yoga: Essai sur les origines de la
mystique Indienne (Eliade), 50
Young Generation
Chaplin and, 100
Criterion Association and,
59–60, 89
discourse of, 33–34

dismissal of, 7
education abroad of, 50, 59
fascist leanings of, 5, 274–275
Generation ’27 name, 9
historical context of, 14
homosexuality and, 108
influence of, 12
intentions of, 33
Ionescu and, 33
 INDEX  323
membership of, 34–35, 60
Sacrificed Generation
and, 25
Spiritual Itinerary, 41–42
Vulcănescu on, 162
Z
Zarifopol-Johnston, Ilinca, 221