Abstract: Acest studiu se concentrează pe o anumită perioadă din istoria României, și anume ocuparea Bucureștiului de către armata germană în timpul Primului Război Mondial. Din acest scurt și intens capitol din istoria României, se află în analiză un subcapitol: activitatea lui Iuliu Scriban în această perioadă de timp și mai ales caracterul operei sale. Motivul interesului nostru pentru acest subiect are legătură cu afirmațiile făcute de multe personalități contemporane (I. G. Duca și Nicolae Iorga fiind cele mai importante) că Iuliu Scriban a trădat interesele naționale.
Keywords: Romania’s history, Bucharest under German occupation, relationship between Church and German High Command, controversy about Iulius Scriban’s activity, arguments defending Iulius Scriban
Summary: This study focuses on a particular period in Romania’s history, namely the occupation of Bucharest by the German army during the First World War. From This short and intense chapter in Romania’s history, a subchapter is under analysis: Iuliu Scriban’s activity in this period of time and especially the character of its work. The reason of our interest in this subject has to do with the allegations that have been made by many contemporary personalities (I.G. Duca and Nicolae Iorga being the most important) that Iuliu Scriban betrayed the national interests.
In the light of what we mentioned above, one can see that, despite numerous criticisms from contemporary personalities, the accusation of collaborating with the German occupying force does not have very strong arguments. The accusation is understandable given the context in which it was made. Back then, anti-German feelings were intense, and against those who betrayed the Romanian cause there were even higher. The pain caused by the military defeat against von Makensen’s offensive along with the humiliation of leaving the capital city to the German occupation caused many to seek scapegoats. Most likely this mindset has led many to accuse those who remained in Bucharest, judging them all the same.In the case of Iulius Scriban, despite all the accusations, he was found not guilty. But the fact that in 1926 he considers himself obliged to write a book to explain what happened shows that in the period after the German occupation, either his enemies made efforts so the public remembered his accusation and not that he was found not guilty, either that, due to misinformation, this had remained the general opinion about him.What we can clearly state about the controversy surrounding Iulius Scriban’s activity during the German occupation is that he was not pro-German. Although some significant data about him might fall into this category (he had studied in Germany at Baden-Baden, he had an affinity for German theology and culture, he spoke German, he had chosen to stay in Bucharest at that time) Iulius Scriban had belonged before the war to “Liga Culturală” (the Cultural League), an entity insistently fighting for Romania’s entry in the war alongside the Allies. A pro-German intense activity before Romania entered the war would have been a clear sign that Scriban was an agent of the Germans, but this activity never existed.The most important arguments that defend Iulius Scriban are the events that took place under German occupation. These events broadly suggest the relationship between the Church and the German High Command in general and between Iulius Scriban and the German occupation force in particular.
Pr. prof. dr. Adrian Duțuc – profesor la Seminarul Teologic Liceal Ortodox „Mitropolitul Dosoftei” din Suceava și doctor în Istorie al Facultății de Istorie și Geografie a Universității „Ștefan cel Mare” din Suceava; email: pr.dutuc@gmail.com
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
