Page 492 [492]
OCR
When Ytzig Met Shtrul: On Schmoozing and Jewish Conspiracy in Romanian Art on the other hand, that there are countless anecdotes involving Hungarian-Romanian conversations, while such Jewish-Romanian conversations are scarce. Ytzig and Shtrul’s popularity owes itself to some long-past realities. Although this ethnic twosome is no longer detectable, its dialogue still echoes. Our characters’ antics are now only a part of humorous urban folklore; more than a hundred years ago, they were part of the urban life. And right in between, progressively conveying real dialogue to comedic dialogue, stood the Jew-to-Jew conversation, as portrayed in visual arts. Let us retrace the evolution of these characters and their role in Romanian consciousness, starting with the social context of almost two centuries ago. A Jewish Dialogue Around the mid-nineteenth century, the Jewish population increased in the Romanian provinces, especially in Moldavia, which thus underwent a sudden demographic change.’ In the eyes of the growingly disgruntled locals, the massive presence of the Jews was augmented by a pronounced gregarious energy. The Jews lived together in ghettoes; they had their own corporations and religious congregations. Their religious and political rights were an important social coagulator, occasionally transcending the synagogue walls and the informal street gatherings, to form organized conferences. As a French journalist observed, “[The Romanian Jews] are preoccupied ... to ameliorate their collective situation and assemble at various times to debate, in congresses or [in those towns] where their main Israelite communities are represented, issues regarding their religious existence and, particularly, the recognition of their communities as legal persons” (De Gignoux 1907: 421). As a result of their “race solidarity”—a popular concept for the Romanian nationalists, understood not only as an aggregative (and dangerous) energy for the foreign nations but also as an inspiring esprit de corps for the Romanian Romania. Among other results, 13% of those interviewed declared that they have a bad or very bad opinion about the Hungarians, whereas only 6% admitted having the same opinions about Jews (6% was also the number of those who declared that they have bad or very bad opinions about Romanians themselves). Hungarians occupied the second place in the unpopularity list of the Romanians, although at a goodly distance behind the Gypsies (36%). The Jews were the ethnic group that was less judged, positively or negatively, showing that Romanians are no longer as familiar with Jews as they are with Hungarians, Germans, Gypsies, or themselves. Seventeen percent of those interviewed admitted they do not have any opinion of Jews or refused to answer (Sondaj 2010). Despite the survey, the anecdotes involving a Romanian and a Hungarian character, regularly, Ion (John) and Janos, are not generally xenophobic. The large number of such interethnic jokes is probably caused by the fact that Hungarians were and remained highly visible in the public conscience, rather than being actually disturbing. In fact, there are many jokes with Hungarian-Romanian interactions that ridicule the xenophobia of the Romanians, especially when the latter are represented by some local political figures, well known in the country for their national extremism. > In 1803, there were 30,000 Jews in Moldavia, in 1848, approximately 60,000. The 1859 census indicated 118,922 (Iancu 2006: 46). Many fled from Bessarabia after the Russian occupation of 1812 or were brought by Romanian authorities to colonize new towns. 489
