Ladislau Csendes, an esteemed multi-instrumentalist known for moving between violin, viola, and viola d'amore, blendshis performance career with interdisciplinary activities as a musicologist, historian of recent events, and educator (associate professor at the National University of Music Bucharest). Since 2000, he has also been a member of the National Council for the Study of the Securitate Archives, which he chaired from 2007 to 2009. Ladislau Csendes has researched and analyzed documents offering valuable information about George Enescu's years in exile.

Mr. Ladislau Csendes, this year marks seven decades since the passing of George Enescu, giving us the occasion to also reflect on the important aspects of his life in exile. Your remarkable work, involving the research and analysis of documents from the Securitate archives, as well as all the available information from other sources, to reconstruct the 1946-1955 period, culminated in the book "George Enescu, A Monitored Exile?" released in 2011 by Casa Radio Publishing. The book offers answersto some of the questions surrounding that period. For our listeners worldwide, could you please highlight the most significant aspects of this story, beginning with the circumstancessurrounding George Enescu's departure from Romania in the fall of 1946?

You mentioned the book published in 2011. Of course, things were different back then, withheated debates taking place. I remember, for instance, that Ioan Stanomir had a rather critical stance on George Enescu, and Professor Cioroianu wrote about his ties with ARLUS, the Romanian-Soviet Friendship Association.

In that context, my book aimed to clarify Enescu's place and role in a world that, perhaps much like today, had gone mad.

Starting from the moment Enescu boarded the ship Ardealul, setting sail for the United States to hold a series of concerts to support those in Romania affected by the great famine after World War II-that is indeed a solid starting point for understanding the period I tried to explore. Those were his final nine years, during which he remained active as both a performer and composer. I tried to shed some light on that chapter, relying especially on documents that seemed to have been largely overlooked.

Before 1989, there were musicologists who were regarded as Enescu specialists. Much like literary critics who focused on Mihai Eminescu's work and were referred to as Eminescu specialists, a similar phenomenon occurred in music.I expected these Enescu scholars would eventually study the Securitate file opened on George Enescu, filed under the codename "Enache" (the alias assigned to him during surveillance). But as no one seemed to take on this project, I eventually decided to compile the information that was available at the time into a volume myself.

I published 50 documents that were specifically under George Enescu's name. But, of course,he also appears in the files of others, so there is still a great deal of research to be done before we can claim to have a more accurate picture of reality.

It's worth noting that funds were raised to purchase 10,000 railcars of grain. So, all those benefit concerts Enescu gave to support Romania in the wake of the devastating 1946 drought were successful.

Yes, they certainly had a positive impact. Enescu always stood up for Romania and its musicians. He made considerable efforts to help those in need. He wasn't someone concerned with ideology.

Exactly. And this lack of commitment to any particular ideology earned Enescu enemies and foes from both sides. He left Romania for the last time in the autumn of 1946. He never returned.

Those final years were, undoubtedly, some of the most difficult for him on a personal level, especially as his health steadily declined. After his American tour, he settled in Paris, where he slowly faded from the spotlight.After World War II, people were more drawn to figures like Messiaen and newideas, while Enescu remained a musical conservative.These composers wrote for eternity, not for a fleeting historical moment.Generally, his Parisian days no longer had the brilliance he had once known, and homesickness weighed heavily on him.The fact that returning to Romania would have meant accepting an ideological alignment with the communist regime repulsed him. We know this from his correspondence and personal statements. He refused to be part of this charade, which was, in truth, the propaganda machine of the time.

Even though the authorities of the Romanian People's Republic made repeated efforts to win him over…

Absolutely! Perhaps the most aggressive move the regime made was sending Corneliu Bedițeanu…

...his assistant and, in a sense, his manager…

This was a man who eventually came to believe he could make decisions on Enescu's behalf. In fact, he essentially took control of Enescu's household, dictating what could and couldn't be done.We can consider him an instrument of the Securitate.And how did they try to lure Enescu back? Through his friends in Romania, or at least those the Maestrothought were his friends.Take Romeo Drăghici, for example. Enescu saw himas a trusted ally, unaware that Drăghici was part of the Securitate's network, carrying out their directives.This Romeo Drăghici, who later became the first director of the "George Enescu" Museum, ultimately played a double role.On one hand, it's true that he was close to Enescu and cared for him. But on the other, he also looked after his own interests.He built a comfortable life for himself while managing cultural assets of, in my view, immeasurable value.

Since he took some of Enescu's handwritten manuscripts.

Exactly. So, these individuals were already handling Enescu's legacy in the final years of his life. To speak more concretely about the Securitate, at the time, Vasile Vâlcu was head of Directorate I, which handled foreign intelligence.He was the one who ordered the creation of this network and also led the operation to try and bring George Enescuunder the influence of the communist regime.

We should also remember that George Enescu's life in Paris was far from easy, particularly in terms of his relationship with the Romanian diaspora. Many Romanian intellectuals, who were exiled or had emigrated to Paris, weren't happy that Enescu didn't take a clear stance on the actions of the communist regime. His neutrality ended up working against him, as we mentioned earlier, attracting criticism from both sides.

He stayed out of politics. That neutrality is best illustrated by the fact that he agreed to run as a representative for the Dorohoi district in the National Assembly of the time. Technically, he would have been a member of parliament. He never attended any sessions, of course, but he accepted.Why do you think he did that? Out of respect for King Michael.The communists, naturally,were completely against the monarchy, and by 1947, they had effectively removed this final obstacle that King Michael had managed to create to stand against the communist power.But this attitude wasn't new. Even before 1945, Enescu was not a communist. Yet he still spoke out for those arrested and sent to the Târgu Jiu internment camp, which under the Antonescu regime held not only dangerous communists or traitors, but anyone the regime felt wasn't obedient enough.

Following the advice of Grigore Gafencu, Romania's former foreign minister and a relative of Maruca, George Enescu maintained his position of neutrality-as you also pointed out-in his everyday life in Paris.The Romanian diaspora, the exiles, didn't look kindly on this neutrality. In addition, when Corneliu Bedițeanu entered the picture and they realized that Enescu had connections with Romania (conducting correspondence with the regime through Bedițeanu),they felt he had betrayed their cause. As a result, they reacted with strong criticism, which forced Enescu to publicly deny any sympathy for communism. He had absolutely nothing to do with the communists, even though,and we should mention this, Petru Groza invited him several times to return to Romania, promising him special conditions, care for his health, andopportunities for creative work, and saying how wonderful it would be to return to the places he loved so much.

But it was a deception that couldn't really be seen as a good-faith gesture, especially considering that, at the time, Maruca's granddaughter was imprisoned.

Indeed! What happened to George Enescu's relative is truly heartbreaking. He intervened on her behalf multiple times, even at the highest levels, but to no avail. The interests of the state were far more powerful than Enescu's pleas. She was eventually released and left the country, but by then, the Maestro had already passed away.

Would it be fair to say that, in the end, the entourage surrounding Enescu, comprising Romanians who reached him or exchanged letters with him, were, in one way or another, connected to the secret police?

It's clear that they were connected to the regime, or at least that's how I would put itbecause some of them were under close surveillance by the Securitate. They played into his longing for home and reassured him that returning would be a good idea. Choosing to stay in Paris was not an easy decision for George Enescu. Still, he made that difficult choice, which ultimately brought sorrow to his final years. Had he returned, he would have had to make serious compromises, becoming part of the propaganda machine of the time, and he certainly wouldn't have liked that. In the end, he stayed in Paris to preserve his artistic freedom despite difficult material circumstances and other hardships.

How did it come to pass that a man of suchprominence inhis time, a composer and performer-violinist, pianist, and conductor-highly respected internationally, lived the last part of his life lacking the necessary material resources for his livelihood?

What's interesting is that there were large sums of money circulating around him, and it's not true that no one tried to help him. For instance, Yehudi Menuhin made considerable efforts to secureimproved living conditions for George Enescu.

But out of modesty, George Enescu refused…

And let's be honest, Enescu wasn't the one who managed the money that came into the household. We've already mentioned Bedițeanu's involvement and Maruca's role in how they lived in Paris. In the end, it was also Maruca's decision to move him to a hotel, where he eventually passed away.

And so, in his final illness, George Enescu ended up living in a hotel owned by three Romanians. One of them, Florescu, took it upon himself to cover all the expenses, allowing Enescu to stay in an apartment with proper living conditions.

But here comes the divine intervention! Around that time, Florent Schmitt, one of Enescu's friends, visited him and awarded him a symbolic prize, nothing grand, but still deeply meaningful for someone who was suffering. Even the Queen of Belgium came to see him at that hotel. So, people knew who Enescu was, and they respected him. We shouldn't imagine that he was completely forgotten. Maybe he was alone in terms of family, but he certainly wasn't neglected.

The Queen of Belgium even paid for a nurse to care for Enescu and stay by his bedside in that hotel room. As soon as he passed away, the hotel informed his wife, Maruca Cantacuzino Enescu.

I believe he spent his final moments thinking about his future music, which unfortunately he took it with him.

Why did Maruca Enescu's negotiations to repatriate his remains, in accordance with his wishes, ultimately fail?

The family opposed it. Presently, George Enescu's grave in Père-Lachaise Cemetery requires repairing. It's unclear under whose name the grave is registered or how to carry out repairs. So, we're left with a rather confusing situation, still unresolved from a legal perspective. What is clear is that his family did not support the idea of repatriation, and they wrote to the authorities about this before and after 1989.

And when we talk about the family, we're referring to those negotiations initiated by Maruca Enescu, which never reached fruition. She passed away in 1968. Later, her daughter Alice Lupoaie picked up the negotiations, setting forth a number of conditions. Do you think those conditions were meant to complicate things deliberately or not?

It was intentional. They didn't want it.

It's important to point out that some of the demands she made to the Romanian communist state simply couldn't be fulfilled. She requested religious services, which, while understandable, were not acceptable under the regime, and even asked the state to cover travel costs for peoplefrom the Enescu family's circle, many of whom were living in the West.After the Revolution, discussions were held with Maria Ioana (Marioana) Cantacuzino, Maruca's granddaughter and daughter of Bâzu Cantacuzino, known as a writer under the name Oana Orlea. She also set certain conditions, particularly related to copyright over Enescu's music. She passed away in 2014.Since then, who is left to inherit Enescu's legacy? Who could still impose conditions? Who could stand in the way, if the Romanian state chose to reopen this process?

This is precisely the legal issue we were referring to earlier. We don't know the official stance of the French authorities or what discussions are taking place. We'll have to wait and see.

At this point, we don't know who, after Oana Orlea, might still be in a position to engage in these talks.

It's unclear whether there are any collateral heirs…

If there were goodwill, the Romanian state could begin the necessary steps to fulfill George Enescu's final wish, offering at least a symbolic form of restitution.

Absolutely! It would be a great step forward if Romanian diplomacy, and especially cultural diplomacy, could move swiftly on this matter.