Early Resistance to Fascism in Eugène lonesco’s Interwar Romanian Journalism
When in 1932 the young editors of a minor Bucharest newspaper, Axa, joined the fascist Legionary Movement—also known as the Iron Guard—and used the paper to attract other young intellectuals to their ranks, the young Eugène Ionesco who was writing the paper’s literary column became increasingly isolated in his literary and political views. Looking at Ionesco’s articles in the first issues of Axa, we can see that the importance of the newspaper’s editorial shift to the Legionary Movement has been greatly overlooked, as has Ionesco’s resistance to fascism and his criticism of nationalism in literature. He left the paper as its contributors radicalized their positions, but this experience likely served as one of the earliest sources of the metamorphosis staged in his play Rhinoceros. Ionesco’s journalism both exemplifies the complexities of 1930s literature in Romania and those of reading Ionesco’s fiction and non-fiction.
The Romanian extreme right : the nineteen thirties
This fascinating study of the intellectual origins and ideological and political evolution of the extreme right of interwar Romania offers a sensitive explanation of the part played by the Iron Guard in the history of Romanianism-anti-Semitism with university-based ideologies in the late 1920s and the 1930s. The work is largely based on analyses of printed literary and political tracts as well as on the nature of propaganda and the evolution of the doctrines of the Guardist movement.
Notes on Autocephaly and Phyletism
Autocephaly independence and self-government is an attribute of the major Orthodox Churches. Theoretically it offers no scope for isolationism or exclusivism. John Meyendorff traces its origin to the arrangements whereby local communities of believers in the early church came into association with each other. The initiative was with the local church. Pluralism was maintained; it was necessary, however, for all local churches to remain part of the Universal Church. This contact and communion was facilitated by the bishops who were in this sense the servants of the local church rather than representatives of some central authority. 'The full integrity and catholicity of each local church required its communion with all the churches,' explains Meyendorff. 'The initial form of this communion was normally realized with neighboring churches in the framework of existing political structures. These canonical groupings were meant to serve unity, not create divisions.' 1 It was the local church community that was of fundamental importance; the bishops of local churches were equal in status and they met regularly in provincial synods under the authority of the bishop of the local provincial capital, or 'metropolitan' .2 'There were no canonical obstacles to the existence of this patriarchal pluralism. On the contrary, the ancient canons of Nicaea and subsequent councils ... sanctioned ecclesiastical regionalism in the framework of a universal unity of faith, secured by councils.'3 These fundamental principles of autocephaly remain valid today. 'The eucharistic assembly, presided by the bishop, is the fullest manifestation of the Church catholic, although it is always a local event. It gathers all the Orthodox Christians living in a given place.' One of the factors which determines its authenticity is 'unity with all the other Orthodox communities of the present.' 'If there is no concern for "horizontal" unity in truth with the entire Church universal, there is only congregationalism.'4 Autocephaly, then, affirms the integrity of each 'local' church community while asserting that each such community achieves its validation only within the Universal Church. Such continues to be the teaching of those with the profoundest insight into Orthodox ecclesiology. The Russian Orthodox priest Fr Aleksandr Men' was once