REMEMBRANCE IN TIME - Index of

180
Remembrance in Time
So, writers had either to accept or to learn to accept the conditions and the suggestions
of the board of the party and those made directly by Nicolae Ceausescu. To be published,
they had two options: they either wrote about subjects and modes that fit the party, and of
course, the censors, or they avoided or hiden the controversal and unfriended cases, if not,
they had „to fight”, to negociate, to bargain with the censors 4 , this happening in the best
case.
Some divided the writers in “reds” and “whites”, the first ones, „the reds”, where the
writers devoted to the system, and „the whites”, those that stand against it. It’s about an
“endurance in specific forms, literary forms, not factionalism” – said Nicolae Manolescu
– the factioneers didn’t come into question, some being under a ban, and some in exile 5 .
Beyond what it is said and sometimes written, we have to keep in mind what the
censorship institution says, what the censors write, what is their vision, what are their
convictions. I’ve chosen as a reference, The Proceeding compiled by The Training-
Control Directorship 6 , from November 30 1967, that analyses the country side’s
publications during the period November 1966-November 1967. From its first lines, we
find out that the number of political, social, scientifical, cultural and literary publications
that appeared in the country side was growing continuously, answering more and more to
the demand (s.n. -I.Z.) to „inform and guide” the mass of readers. There were also
mentioned, as positive elements, the augmenting of the thematic diversity, and a
qualitative improvement of the published materials, fact due mainly to the editorial
offices, that tried to answer to the readers’ growing requests, for the content and the
intellectual attitude.
However, is still mentioned that many materials (s.n.- I.Z.) included in the pages of the
named publications „continued to debate in a wrong way, even tendentiously” the argued
problems, their appearance being considered unfitting. Many of the materials were
„negative, calumnious”, because, trying to debate upon a „supposed enclosure” in the
normal development of our values, presented „a distorted image of our reality”,
transforming the particular into general. Others handled „in an inadequate way”
(understood different than the oficial line) the origins of the Romanian language and the
Romanian people, or moments of its history. There were also frequent the “unprincipled
controversial” articles, the tone used giving here and there, a shade of personal dispute,
the fact destroying the quietness and prestige of the magazines that appeared in. Anyway,
the articles refering to the international events, where seen as „getting to a manner of
reporting” that could strongly affect our country’s relations with other states 7 .
Briefly, The Training-Control Directorship considered that the materials that dealed
with censorship were many, so they were grouped in more categories: first were those
that “debated in a wrong way, sometimes tendentiously” the problems approached, than
were the “negative, calumnious” ones, that treated in a „wrong” manner historical issues
or international aspects. The materials that dealed this kind of problems, or some similar
ones, it is said further more in the proceeding, were „in their majority felt”, being
4 Liviu Nistor, „Cenzură şi ideologie sub comunism”, in vol. Cenzura în România (Ilie Rad
coordonator), Cluj-Napoca: Tribuna, 2012, p. 245.
5 Nicolae Manolescu, „Albii şi roşii”, in România literară, 1995, no. 29, p. 2.
6 Directorship in The Press and Print General Directorship, ruled by the director Ghircoiaş Victor
7 The National Archives of Romania-Bihor Subsidiary (from now on AN-SJ BH), the fund The
Press and Print General Directorship – Oradea Department (from now on DGPT-UO), folder
9/1967, file 1.