Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T19:47:08.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ambivalence of Authenticity, or How the Moldovan Language Was Made

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Charles King
Charles King*
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Bolshevik revolution represented a remarkable opportunity for many academics and professionals. The demands of governing a region as vast as the new Soviet state necessitated official patronage of the sciences, and the party and government provided sources of support for disciplines that had been underfunded, underdeveloped, or completely nonexistent before 1917. After the revolution, cartographers, linguists, geographers, ethnographers, social hygienists, and others found themselves the beneficiaries of a regime eager to learn about the lands that it had suddenly inherited and to spread the news of revolution to the backward peoples of the former empire. As much recent scholarship has shown, far from being the mere conduits for policies devised at the center, these specialists were professionals of variable talent and training with interests, projects, and agendas of their own. Government policy toward the nationalities, and perhaps toward scientific research in general, emerged not simply as a result of Moscow's diktat, but as a complex interplay among the center's patronage and attendant demands, the professional interests and programs of the specialists dispatched by the center, and the local interests of their colleagues and subjects in the outlying reaches of the Soviet state.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , Spring 1999 , pp. 117 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Solomon, Susan Gross, “The Soviet-German Syphilis Expedition to Buriat Mongolia, 1928: Scientific Research on National Minorities,” Slavic Review 52, no. 2 (Summer 1993): 204–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Slezkine, Yuri, “From Savages to Citizens: The Cultural Revolution in the Soviet Far North, 1928–1938,” Slavic Review 51, no. 1 (Spring 1992): 52–76 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Slezkine, Yuri, “The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism,” Slavic Review 53, no. 2 (Summer 1994): 414–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smith, Michael, “The Eurasian Imperative in Early Soviet Language Planning: Russian Linguists at the Service of the Nationalities?,” in Solomon, Susan Gross, ed., Beyond Sovietology: Essays in Politics and History (Armonk, N.Y, 1993), 159–91.Google Scholar

2. See King, Charles, “Moldovan Identity and the Politics of Pan-Romanianism,” Slavic Review 53, no. 2 (Summer 1994): 345–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crowther, William, “The Politics of Democratization in Postcommunist Moldova,” in Dawisha, Karen and Parrott, Bruce, eds., Democratic Changes and Authoritarian Reactions in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova (Cambridge, Eng., 1997), 282–CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gallagher, Tom, Romania after Ceausescu: The Politics of Intolerance (Edinburgh, 1995), 185–90.Google Scholar

3. For western treatments of Soviet Moldova, see Bruchis, Michael, One Step Back, Two Steps Forward: On the Language Policy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the National Republics (Moldavian: A Look Back, a Survey, and Perspectives, 1924–1980) (Boulder, Colo., 1982)Google Scholar; and Dima, Nicholas, From Moldavia to Moldova: The Soviet-Romanian Territorial Dispute (Boulder, Colo., 1991)Google Scholar. On identity debates within the historiographical literature, see van Meurs, Wim P., The Bessarabian Question in Communist Historiography (Boulder, Colo., 1994)Google Scholar. The most important treatment written by both Moldovan and Romanian authors is Scurtu, Loan, et al., Istoria Basarabiei, 2d ed. (Bucharest, 1998).Google Scholar

4. The only western study of cultural policy in the MASSR is Heitmann, Klaus, “Rumänische Sprache und Literatur in Bessarabien und Transnistrien (die sogenannte moldauische Sprache und Literatur),” Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 81 (1965): 102–56Google Scholar. Heitmann's treatment, however, was based almost entirely on the highly inaccurate work of N. P. Smochină, “Republica Moldovenească a Sovietelor,” Moldova nouă 1, no. 1 (1935): 3–55, and 1, nos. 2 -3 (1935): 131–237; and Smochină, N. P., Republica Moldovenească a Sovietelor (Bucharest, 1938).Google Scholar

6. The creation of a single Romanian state ushered in a period of intense nationbuilding, a struggle to create a unified Romanian nation from peoples and territories that had spent the past century or more under Hungarian, Austrian, Russian, Bulgarian, or Turkish rule. On the difficulties of nation-building between the wars, including in Bessarabia, see the magnificently rich account by Livezeanu, Irina, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania: Regionalism, Nation Building, and Ethnic Struggle (Ithaca, 1995).Google Scholar

7. The MASSR was formed on 12 October 1924, on the east bank of the Dnestr River. Although ostensibly a form of self-determination for ethnic Moldovans, the MASSR's 1926 population of 572, 114 was nearly 49 percent Ukrainian and only 30.1 percent Moldovan. The remainder was composed of Russians (9 percent), Jews (8 percent), Germans (2 percent), Bulgarians (1 percent), and other nationalities. Some 85, 000 Moldovans remained outside the MASSR in other parts of Ukraine. Vsesoiuznaia perepis’ naseleniia 1926 goda (Moscow, 1929), 13: 39; Moldova: Materialilestatistice (Balta, 1928), 304.

8. Babel, Antony, La Bessarabie: Étude historique, ethnographique et économique (Paris, 1926), 212M1Google Scholar; Tătărescu, Gh., Internatională a Ilia §i Basarabia (Bucharest, 1925), 30–34 Google Scholar. See also the extensive treatment by the Romanian secret police inspector general for Bessarabia, Husarescu, Z. I., Mi§carea subversivă in Basărabia (Chişinău, 1925).Google Scholar

9. For these arguments, see Nicolae Titulescu, “Two Neighbours of Russia and Their Policies: (I) Roumania and Bessarabia,” Nineteenth Century andAfterQb (June 1924): 791–803.

10. The extent of the Moldovan “ethnic space” was always rather confusing in Soviet parlance. The area of the medieval Principality of Moldova actually stretched from the Carpathian Mountains to the Dnestr River, a region that had historically included Bessarabia but not Transnistria. Soviet scholars and propagandists were divided over the degree to which the boundaries of Soviet Moldova should mirror those of the historic Moldova region.

11. Nicolae Movileanu and Boris Stratulat, “Cherez prizmu dokumentov,” Moldova imir, 1992, nos. 6–7: 30.

12. On this issue, see Obrazovanie Moldavskoi SSR i sozdanie Kommunisticheskoi Partii Moldavii: Sbornik dokumentw i materialov (Chişinău, 1984), 104–5; Dembo, V., Sovetskaia Moldaviia i bessarabskii vopros (Moscow, 1925), 38 Google Scholar; Dembo, V., Respublika bez stolytsi: Radians'ka Moldavshchyna—AMSRR (Khar'kov, 1930), 22 Google Scholar; and Kul'turne budivnytstvo na Moldavii (Balta, 1929), 13.

13. Repida, A., Obrazovanie Moldavskoi ASSR (Chiş;inău, 1974), 112 Google Scholar. See also the map in Bochacher, M. N., Moldaviia (Moscow, 1926), 58 Google Scholar. The “provisional” capital was moved to Tiraspol in 1929.

14. “Cuvîntaria lui t. Zatonski la plenumu Comobului PK(b)U,” Moldova socialistă, 24 May 1931, 1. See also Armstrong, Hamilton Fish, The New Balkans (New York, 1926), 153.Google Scholar

15. Bauer, Henning, Kappeler, Andreas, and Roth, Brigitte, eds., Die Nationalitäten des russischen Reiches in der Volkszählung von 1897 (Stuttgart, 1991), 1: 183.Google Scholar

16. Lukianets, O. S., Russkie issledovateli i moldavskaia etnograficheskaia nauka v XIXnachale XX v. (Chişinău, 1986), 93 Google Scholar. It is a myth, perpetuated in much Romanian historiography, that the Russian tsarist authorities attempted to create a separate Moldovan identity to keep Bessarabia separate from Romania. That identity already existed.

17. See Garskii, Viktor, Trudovaia Bessarabiia i sovetskaia vlast’ (Moscow, 1921).Google Scholar

18. Derzhavin, K. N., “Literaturnoe stroitel'stvo v sotsialisticheskoi Moldavii,” Trudy Instituta slavianovedeniia Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1932, no. 1: 239–96.cGoogle Scholar

19. The distinction between “corpus planning” and “status planning” (determining the appropriate use of different languages in government, education, and other spheres) is analogous to the distinction made in Soviet linguistics between “language construction” (iazykovoe stroitel'stvo) and “language policy” (iazykovaia politika). See Isaev, M. I., Sotsiolingvisticheskie problemy iazykov narodov SSSR (Moscow, 1982).Google Scholar

20. See, for example, Şaineanu, Lazar, Dictionar universal al limbei române, 5th ed. (Bucharest, 1925)Google Scholar; Aurel Candrea-Hecht, I. and Adamescu, Gh., Dictionarul encidopedic ilustrat “Cartea Românească” (Bucharest, 1931)Google Scholar.

21. “Protokol zasedaniia Moldavskogo Nauchnogo Komiteta ot 14/11–1930,” Arhiva Organizatiilor Social-Politice a Republicii Moldova, Chişinău (hereafter AOSPRM), f. 49, op. 2, d. 42, 1. 1.

22. Chior, P. I., Dispri orfografia lingii moldovineşti (Bîrzula, 1929), 11 Google Scholar. For similar views, see also “Protokol V-ogo ob “edinennogo Plenuma Moldavskogo Obkoma i Ob. KK KP/ b/U,” AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 516, 11.1–101. The description of Romanian as a “gallicized salon language” (ofrantsuzhennyi salonnyi iazyk) remained standard in Soviet Moldovan publications into the 1970s. See, for example, A. M. Lazarev, Moldavskaia sovetskaia gosudarstvennost’ i bessarabskii vopros (Chişinău, 1974), 275. Interestingly, some Romanian authors made precisely the same argument in criticizing their own government's policy in Bessarabia. See Al. David, “Scrisul românesc in Basarabia,” Viata Basarabiei (newspaper), 17 November 1932, 1; V. Prisacaru, “Sa ne cinstim limba!” Viaţa Basarabiei (newspaper), 23 September 1933, 1.

23. AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 2, d. 42, 11. 7, 9. The principalities of Wallachia and Moldova united in 1859 to form the precursor of modern Romania.

24. Pechenaia, L., Douî lageri—douî politişi: Dispri zîdiria naţionalo-culturnicî ‘n R.A.S.S.M. şi sistaria ‘n Basarabia ocupatî (Tiraspol, 1931).Google Scholar

25. Sergievskii, M. V., Moldavskie etiudy (Moscow, 1936), 11 Google Scholar.

26. Chior, Dispri, 3; AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 516, 1. 62.

27. Chior, Dispri, 15.

28. AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 516, 11. 51, 95–97.

29. G. Buciuşcanu, Gramatica limbii moldoveneşti (Balta, 1925)Google Scholar; Buciuşcanu, G., Slovar moldovo-rusesc (Balta, 1926)Google Scholar; Buciuşcanu, , Slovar ruso-moldovenesc (Balta, 1926)Google Scholar. The Buciuşcanu texts, in addition to containing numerous typographical errors, were criticized by the party leadership as being too “Romanian” in their orientation, even though they used the Cyrillic script. “Protokol zasedaniia Komissii po rassmotreniiu grammatiki moldavskogo iazyka ot 26 marta 1926 goda,” AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 776, 11. 2–3.

30. A fully functioning Moldovan Academy of Sciences was not inaugurated until August 1961. On the various stages from the MSC to the creation of the academy, see Tarasov, O. Iu., “Iz istorii organizatsii pervykh nauchnykh tsentrov v Sovetskoi Moldavii,” in XXV s'ezd KPSS i probkmy razvitiia nauki (Chisinau, 1977), 20–30 Google Scholar; Tarasov, O. Iu., Ocherki istorii organizatsii nauki v Sovetskoi Moldavii (1924–1961) (Chisinau, 1980)Google Scholar; Tsaranov, V I., “Razvitie istoricheskoi nauki v Moldavskoi SSR,” in Tsaranov, V I., ed., Istoricheskaia nauka Sovetskoi Moldavii: K 60-letiiu obrazovaniia Moldavskoi SSR i sozdaniia Kompartii respubliki (Chisinau, 1984), 5–22.Google Scholar

31. “Polozhenie o Moldavskom Nauchnom Komitete pri Narkomprose AMSSR,” AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 951, 1. 35.

32. Nicolae Movileanu, “Din istoria Transnistriei (1924–40) (II),” unpublished manuscript.

33. Tarasov, Ocherki, 22; “Spisok—MNK,” AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 1249, 1. 28; Shemiakov, D. E. and Isak, V. P., eds., Luptätori pentru fericiria poporului (Chiş-şinău, 1985), 145.Google Scholar

34. “Schimbărili în gramatica moldoviniascî, înăriti di Comitetu di §tiintî Moldovinesc dipi lîngî Comissariatu di Luninaria Obştiascî di RASSM în §adinta dila 26 iulii 1927,” AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 1019, 1. 16.

35. Madan, L. A., Gramatica moldovniascî (Tiraspol, 1929), xiii–xvi.Google Scholar

36. Ibid., xi.

37. For an excellent overview of linguistic theory and its relationship to nationalities policy, see Michael G. Smith, “Soviet Language Frontiers: The Structural Method in Early Language Reforms, 1917–1937” (Ph.D. diss., Georgetown University, 1991).

38. AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 2, d. 42, 11. 2–3.

39. Ibid., 1. 3.

40. Madan, Gramatica, xii.

41. AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 2, d. 42, 1. 2. For a similar situation regarding Uzbek identity, see Fierman, William, “Language Development in Soviet Uzbekistan,” in Kreindler, Isabelle T., ed., Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Soviet National Languages: Their Past, Present, and Future (Berlin, 1985), 205–33.Google Scholar

42. Madan, Gramatica, xii.

43. On the complex history of Romanian as a literary language, see Close, Elizabeth, The Development of Modern Rumanian: Linguistic Theory and Practice in Muntenia, 1821–1838 (New York, 1974).Google Scholar

44. See Martsell, Stepan, Rossiisko-rumynskaia grammatika (St. Petersburg, 1827)Google Scholar; Ginkulov, Ia., Nachertanie pravil valakho-moldavskoi grammatiki (St. Petersburg, 1840)Google Scholar; Ciachir, Mihail, Russko-moldavskii slovar’ (Chişinău, 1907)Google Scholar. The most important ethnographic study of Moldovan speech patterns before World War I was Weigand, Gustav, Die Dialekte der Bukowina und Bessarabiens (mit einem Titelbilde und Musikbeilagen) (Leipzig, 1904)Google Scholar, a bourgeois scholar often cited by the Soviets for his attempts to catalogue the differences between Moldovan speech forms and standard Romanian.

45. See the discussions of this practice in “Frati Moldoveni, învătati slova latină,” Viata Basarabiei (newspaper), 1 February 1925, 1.

46. Madan, Gramatica, xii.

47. Ibid., ix.

48. Pavel Chior, “Natsional'nyi vopros na Moldavii,” manuscript, AOSPRM, f. 49, op. l, d. 1352, 1.6.

49. Ibid., 11. 6–7.

50. P. Chior, “Pe drumul moldovenizării,” Plugarul roş, 8 December 1926, 2.

51. Chior, “Natsional'nyi vopros,” 1. 7.

52. Ibid., 1. 14.

53. See the lists of new words and protocols from various meetings of the Linguistics Section of the MSC in AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 1817, 1. 2; f. 49, op. 2, d. 44, 11. 1–22; d. 43, 11. 2–43.

54. AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 516, 1. 53.

55. Chior, Dispri, 13.

56. Ibid., 15.

57. Ibid., 12.

58. Ibid., 12.

59. Ibid., 12.

60. “Kratkaia dokladnaia zapiska po voprosu narodn [ogo] prosveshcheniia AMSSR,” AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 1531, 11. 29–42.

61. Ibid., 1. 31. See also AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 516, 11. 95–97.

62. AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 1817, 1. 3.

63. Kul'tura Moldavii za gody sovetskoi vlasti, vol. 1, pt. 2 (Chişinău, 1976), 236–39.

64. AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 1817, 1. 1.

65. “Stenogramm vystuplenii na plenume Moldavskogo Nauchnogo Komiteta [1933],” AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 2, d. 57, 1. 13. See also “Scoateri din protocolu plenumului larg a Comitetului Ştiintînic Moldovenesc dila 14–16 Octiabri arm 1929,” AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 2, d. 44, 1. 23; Tarasov, Ocherki, 23.

66. On the difficulties involved in bringing more ethnic Moldovans into the MASSR's institutions, see Charles King, “Ethnicity and Institutional Reform: The Dynamics of ‘Indigenization’ in the Moldovan ASSR,” Nationalities Papers 26, no. 1 (1998): 57–72.

67. AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 1890, 1. 51.

68. Ibid., 1. 59. Moldova literarî had previously appeared as an occasional supplement to Plugarul roş.

69. AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 516, 1. 53.

70. AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 734, 1. lob.

71. Examples from these series include: Bogopol'skii, Kh., Om prifaci RASSM în colectiv dilaolaltî (Tiraspol, 1929)Google Scholar; Dumitraşcu, S., A noastrî-ipozîtîia (Tiraspol, 1931)Google Scholar.

72. AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 1082, 1. 34.

73. Amintelnita brigadului culturnic-massnic (Tiraspol, 1932), 39–40.

74. AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 2475, 1. 168.

75. AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 1082, 1. 11.

76. AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 516, 1. 68.

77. M.-I., “Moldovenizatia îi lucrul bun, —dar limba de stricat nu trebue,” Plugarul roş, 14 July 1926, 2.

78. I. D. Cioban, “Cîte şeva despre limbă,” Moldova socialistă, 6 June 1938, 2

79. AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 516, 1. 66.

80. Chior, “Natsional'nyi vopros,” 11. 4–14.

81. Letter from editor, Bil'shovyk Ukrainy, to Staryi, 29 February 1928, AOSPRM, f. 49, op. l, d. 1352, 1.3.

82. See Mace, James E., Communism and the Dilemmas of National Liberation: National Communism in Soviet Ukraine, 1918–1933 (Cambridge, Mass., 1983)Google Scholar; and Liber, George O., Soviet Nationality Policy, Urban Growth, and Identity Change in the Ukrainian SSR, 1923–1934 (Cambridge, Eng., 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83. Stalin, I. V., “Tov. Kaganovichu i drugim chlenam PB TsK KP(b)U,” Sochineniia (Moscow, 1948), 8: 149–54.Google Scholar

84. Ibid., 153.

85. Skrypnyk, M[ykola], “Khvylovizm chy Shums'kizm?” Bil'shovyk Ukrainy 2 (1927): 27–36 Google Scholar, cited in Mace, Dilemmas, 111.

86. Chior, “Natsional'nyi vopros,” 1. 13.

87. Ibid., 1. 14.

88. Paul Wexler, “Belorussification, Russification, and Polonization: Trends in the Belorussian Language, 1890–1982,” in Kreindler, ed., Sociolinguistic Perspectives, 37–56; Wexler, Paul, Purism and Language: A Study in Modern Ukrainian and Belorussian Nationalism (1840–1967) (Bloomington, 1974).Google Scholar

89. Fierman, William, Language Planning and National Development: The Uzbek Experience (Berlin, 1991), 128–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

90. On the demise of the MSC, see King, Charles, “The Moldovan ASSR on the Eve of the War: Cultural Policy in 1930s Transnistria,” in Treptow, Kurt W., ed., Romania and World War II (Iasi, 1996), 9–36.Google Scholar

91. “Dokladnaia zapiska o natsional'nom-kul'turnom stroitel'stve AMSSR [1933],” AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 2225, 1. 19. From this point, Madan's fate is uncertain. He never seems to have become a party member, so there are no personal files on him in the Moldovan party archives. Some historians speculate that he managed to survive the first round of purges by leaving the MASSR before the mid-1930s.

92. Letter from Siderskii to Malenkov, 16 February 1937, AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 3754, 11. 1–3.

93. Romanova, E, “Comisar al revolutiei,” Comunistul Moldovei, 1988, no. 10: 30–35.Google Scholar

94. Letter from Garmel’ to Emlianov, n.d., AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 2507, 1. 25.

95. See the lists of books removed from MASSR libraries in AOSPRM, f. 49, op. 1, d. 3880, 11. 59–61; d. 3881, 1. 22; d. 3883, 1. 134. As late as summer 1994, many of these books were still included in the “special fund” of the Moldovan National Library. I had the privilege of helping to carry them up from the basement to be recatalogued that summer.

96. On the removal of “enemy words” from the press, see Lekhtman, B, “Klassovaia bor'ba na nauchnom fronte,” Krasnaia Bessarabiia, 1934, nos. 8–9: 29–30 Google Scholar; Golub, N. I., “Sarcinile curente ale clădirii nationale culturale în RASSM,” Octombrie, 1935, no. 1: 13–21 Google Scholar; Anghelescu, M. A., “Rezultatele activitătii Editurii de Stat a Moldovei în 1934,” Octombrie, 1935, no. 1: 42–44.Google Scholar

97. On these projects and their reversal, see Kreindler, ed., Sociolinguistic Perspectives; Weinreich, Uriel, “The Russification of Soviet Minority Languages,” Problems of Communism 2, no. 6 (1953): 46–57 Google Scholar; Glyn Lewis, E., Multilingualism in the Soviet Union: Aspects of Language Policy and Its Implementation (The Hague, 1972)Google Scholar; Mobin Shorish, M., “Planning by Decree: The Soviet Language Policy in Central Asia,” Language Problems and Language Planning 8, no. 1 (1984): 35–49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kirkwood, Michael, “Glasnost', ‘The National Question,’ and Soviet Language Policy,” Soviet Studies 43, no. 1 (1991): 61–81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Simon, Gerhard, Nationalism and Policy toward the Nationalities in the Soviet Union (Boulder, Colo., 1991)Google Scholar; Kirkwood, Michael, ed., Language Planning in the Soviet Union (London, 1989)Google Scholar; Austin, Paul M., “Soviet Karelian: The Language That Failed,” Slavic Review 51, no. 1 (Spring 1992): 16–35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an interesting comparative perspective, see Priestly, Tom, “Denial of Ethnic Identity: The Political Manipulation of Beliefs about Language in Slovene Minority Areas of Austria and Hungary,” Slavic Review 55, no. 2 (Summer 1996): 364–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

98. Weinstein, Brian, “Language Strategists: Redefining Political Frontiers on the Basis of Linguistic Choices,” World Politics 31, no. 3 (1979): 345–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar