Adrian Majuru

 

 

Romanians and Hungarians

Legislation, everyday life and stereotypes in interwar Transilvania

 

 

 

One of the subjects that have been more or less adequately analized during the past few years, has been the relationship between  the Romanians majority and “the others”, different ethnic, confessional, cultural communities. The present approach is a complete compendium of this extremely complex and delicate subject. I have chosen this subject, based on the similitudes between the debates and projects undertaken today, and the analogous ones from the interwar years. In fact, we deal with the same process, only nuanced by its historic context.

My approach tries to make a trifold radiography: of the legislation, of the daily life and of the collective imagination. This three historic aspects combine in the following process: legislation, permanently connected to similar international models (by which it was, in fact, inspired) has been in perpetual discord with the local everyday life, which was fed by the local collective imaginary. The latter would eventually manifest itself as a final reaction of a particular local traditional background facing the modernization process triggered by the documents issued by the legislative power.

In the present treatise, I shall deal with these three components of the relationship between majority and minority, during the interwar period. Because Transylvanian space is a most frequently discussed subject, I shall pay special attention to it. The evolution of the minority / majority relationship depended basically on the barometric changes of the legislative point of view. The Romanians’ position (as they had finally united into a single national political structure, in 1918) concerning the minoritary communities beared the mark of the contrast between the European legislative model and the local background. The local tradition remained heavily indebted to the confluence between the Orient and Central Europe. This background was especially determinant for the Old Kingdom, as its institutional, cultural, political, behavior models were to be exported to, and cultivated in the new historic provinces that were interwoven to form, in 1918, Great Romania.

In spite of all this, the new Constitution adopted in 1923 took into consideration the new ethnical realities of Great Romania. In the case of the Old Kingdom, there had been just one major problem concerning the minorities, that of identity, rather than of ethnicity, that is the Jewish problem. Conversely, in Great Romania, the union of  provinces with very diverse ethnic demographics created a new configuration of identity for the minority and, at the same time, gave a new dimension to the minority/majority relationship. The new provinces, Transylvania,  Banat, Crişana, Bucovina and Bessarabia had strong minoritary communities that developped extremely dynamic cultural and confessional identitary complexes. After 1920, modern Romania could hardly be compared to the country it had been before the war.

Thus, the 1923 Constitution introduced  reference points similar to European ones concerning the situation of the minorities to the Romanian legislation. The constitutional document of Great Romania created harmony, from a legislative point of view, between the minority and the majority points of view, within the Romanian modern state. The constitutional reference points, taken from European models, stipulated the necessity of bestowing on the minorities all the rights of a Romanian citizen – that is, all the rights defined in the epoch. Thus, the March 1923 document aimed at becoming an instrument by which the rights and liberties of the minorities would be applied within different political, social, economical, cultural and imaginary realities, in a generally hostile milieu. From this point of view, the document was considered a successful project. I shall render herein the reference points concerning the minorities’ problems, in the larger context of Great Romania, present in the constitution in March, 1923:

 

“Title II: On the Rights of Romanians

A.5. Romanians, regardless of their ethnicity, native tongue or religion, enjoy the freedom of consciousness, education, press, meetings, association, and all liberties and rights established by law. (…).

A.7. Differences of faith, confession, ethnicity or language do not represent, in Romania, an obstruction to acquiring civil or political rights, or to exerting them.

A.8. All Romanians, regardless of language or religion, are equal according to the law, and obliged to contribute, with no exception, to public taxes and tasks. They alone are allowable in public, civil, military functions. (…).

A.22. The State warrants freedom and protection to all cults, as long as their practice does not run counter to the public order, morals and the organized law of the State. (…). The Romanian Orthodox Church, representing the religion of the Romanian majority, is the dominant Church in the Romanian state; the Greek-Catholic church has priority over the other cults. (…).

A.24. Education is free, within the conditions established by the special laws, as long as it is not contrary to the legislation and the public order. (…).

A.25. The Constitution warrants everyone the liberty to communicate or to publish ideas and opinions, by voice, by writing, or by the press. (…).

A.28. Romanians, regardless of their ethnicity, their language or religion, have the right to gather peacefully, without weapons (…) to deal with all sorts of matters; for these, no preliminary authorization is necessary. (…)

A.29. Romanians, regardless of their ethnicity, their language or their religion, have the right to associate, according to the laws that stipulate the exercise of this right. (1)

 

15 years later, the new Constitution of King Carol II, although it preserved the individual and collective liberties mentioned by the previous Constitution, set before all these a series of obligations for all Romanians, regardless of their ethnicity. The March 1938 Constitution, that grounded King Carol II’ regime of personal authority, restrained the collective and individual liberties stipulated by the previous Constitutional document dating from 1923.

The 1938 document offered Romania a basis of organization for the corporatist state where the collective interests prevailed over the individual ones, which were incorporated within those of the community and were supported as far as they corresponded to the communitarian interests. Here are some illustrative reference points excerpted from the Constitution of King Carol II.

 

“Title II. On the Romanians’ Duties:

A.4. All Romanians, regardless of their ethnicity and their religious faith, are obliged to consider the country as the highest aim in their lives, to sacrifice themselves in defending its integrity, independence and dignity; to contribute to its moral rising and its economic advancement; to faithfully fulfill the communitarian tasks imposed by law, to contribute, freely, in fulfilling the public tasks, without which the state cannot survive.

A.5. All Romanian citizens, regardless of their ethnicity and their religious faith, are equal according to the law and are obligated to respect and comply with the law. No one can consider oneself free from civil and military, public or private duties on the grounds of one’s religious faith or any other kind of faith. (…)

A.7. No Romanian is allowed to advocate, by speech or writing, changing the form of the State government, the distribution of private estates, the exemption from taxes, or the class struggle.

A.8. Priests of any rite or faith are forbidden to set their spiritual authority at the service of any political authority, either in the places destined to the cult, or outside them (…). Any political action on religious grounds or pretexts is forbidden. (…)

A.10. Romanians enjoy the freedom of consciousness, of work, of education, of the press, of congregation, association, and all the liberties deriving from these rights, in the conditions settled by law. (…)

A.19. The relationship between the State and various cults comprises the subject of special laws.” (2)

 

Armand Călinescu formulated an interesting definition of the regime of monarchical authority, and the first unique party in the Romanian modern history – The National Renaissance Front, established by royal decree on December 16, 1938:

 

“(…) What does the Front aim at achieving? It aims at re-establishing the rights of the State, its natural parts. (…). Elevating the idea of state, re-establishing it within its natural rights, means not only rebuilding its authority and prestige, but even more it means recognizing certain ideals that the State has the mission to re-formulate (…). The new State has to be a living center, an active (factor) surpassing the passivity of bygone times. (…). According to the Front, the individual should be subordinated to the State. Personal interests are not taken into consideration if they do not coincide with those of the collectivity, and do not aid them. (…).

Promoting the general interests of the collectivity – this is the N.R.F. main mission. (…) Being mainly a spiritual movement, it undertakes to give life a sense of moral value. (…) An important sector within the N.R.F. is held by the elites. These are designated by serious and objective criteria.” (3)

 

By belonging to the N.R.F., the minorities were to acquire – according to the official version – an optimal ground of cultural and identitary development. (4) Here is, for instance, a fragment that sustains the idea:

“(…) the Romanians have never been an exclusivist people. It has always been an honor for them to allow the free development of anyone, and to compete themselves, by their virtues and natural powers, in winning the place they deserve. Therefore, in the spirit of this tradition, the actual regime has undertaken to show its benevolence to the foreign elements, as long as they are sincerely integrated in the life of the State. At the same time, I consider it unnecessary to insist upon an elementary fact that, concerning these minorities, the only problems that arise are cultural and economical. There are not, and cannot be any territorial problems, in this respect. And I have the right to assert that these categories of citizens have never been treated as well by others as they have been by us.” (5)

 

The official politics of the corporatist state tended to make a homogenous society, reducing it to a monolithic collective mechanism that, in its turn, was meant to reduce the asperities of the relations between the majority and the minority.

Carol’s goal was to build a State policy and the project was to be fulfilled by propaganda and through some collective organizations of a corporatist type, such as the above-mentioned N.R.F.; the youth organization like “Straja Ţării” (The Guard of the Country), “Arcaşii şi Arcăşitele” (the Archers and the Archers Women) a.s.o. (6)

According to its theoreticians, the National Renaissance Front had to represent the collective interests of the Romanian nation, and reduce the asperities between Romanians and “the others”:

 

“(…) This corpus comprises the people as a whole, and promotes only communitarian needs in an atmosphere of national union. (…). Any claim, of a single individual, to speak for the people, is absurd. Any attempt at agitation, made by any person, represents an act of guilt. (…) Finally, it includes all ethnical minorities, integrated in the life of our State, where they can satisfy all their spiritual and material needs. (…). The N.R.F. is the means by which the Nation can express its thinking, and it is the reservoir out of which, by a rigorous selection of the elites, the leading elements of the country will be recruited.” (7)

The regime of King Carol II even founded a General Commissariat of the National Minorities, boasting of its unprecedented tolerance and its openness, concerning the minorities’ situation. (8)

The propagandistic praising of the King and his regime on the part of the leaders of ethnical communities completed the official relationship between the new regime and the minorities. (9)

Here are two of the “royal slogans” disseminated during the 30’s by the official propaganda:

 

“(…) Tolerance. We are a profoundly tolerant people. There are, in our society, like in other countries, anti-Semitic tensions, but the public spirit has never followed them and the government has refused them.” (June 11, 1930) or:

“I consider the minorities as Romanians, and as an integrated part of Romania. If they will be loyal citizens, they will be able to rely on Me.” (June 11, 1930). (10)

 

It becomes clear, from the text, that this was a monarchic attitude towards the minorities, rather than a public one; “they will be able to rely on Me, in respecting and legitimating their rights, only if they will be loyal citizens.”

On the other hand, other royal slogans opposed, by definition, the above-mentioned assertions:

 

“(…) Ethnicity:

The Romanians’ superiority over others is this, precisely: we are not formed of three offsprings, starting from the same root, but of a single body that can never be divided.” (January 24, 1934); or:

“Romaniansm:

By “Romanianism,” I intend to underline the latent virtues of this people in order to present it as one of the strongest nations in the world. This work is the credo of my life.” (June 8, 1936) (11)

 

From a constitutional and legislative point of view, the relationship between majority and minority in the Romanian modern state was similar to that existing everywhere in Europe. But it was indebted to the myth of “Great Romania” crystallized after 1848 and stressed after 1878. This has inserted in the Romanian imaginary – mainly in the Old Kingdom (1881-1918) – a monolithical image, transposed in the model of the centralized, national, unitary state. Its political realization in 1918 would strongly influence the relationship between the majority and the minority, especially in Transylvania, Banat and Bessarabia. (12)

Starting in 1919, the Romanian political universe diversified; the minorities founded  active political parties, such as those of the Hungarians, the Germans and the Jews. Of course, the political parties in the Kingdom – both old and new – had a more or less rigid attitude concerning the minorities’ problems. For instance, one of the most popular political parties during the 1919-1929 period, the People’s league, later the People’s Party (founded in December 1918, in Jassy, by the General Alexandru Averescu) expressed its position concerning the minorities very cuttingly.

The position of this party did not differ much from those of other interwar parties. Although between 1919-1930 it had an equidistant position, after 1930 the People’s Party would introduce the concept of “numerus clausus”, deploring the extremely reduced number of Romanians in the main towns of Ardeal and in some social structures in Transylvania. (13)

 

***

 

To better understand the Romanian realities, let us examine a complex document concerning the minorities’ problems in the interwar society. Thus, we shall also reach the everyday life. It is a report “concerning the rights of the religious minorities” in Romania writen by the “American Committee of the Rights of Religious Minorities”. (14)

The report impartially showed the great difference between the modern legislation at a European level and its weak representation in real life. In fact, the ethnic and religious minorities in Romania were facing serious problems, from the proliferation of antisemitic attacks, to the deficiencies of the educational system, that were depriving the minorities of the rights stipulated by the constitution. (15)

The Committee reported the persistence of intimidation campaigns, the intolerance, the incomplete application of the law of Romanian citizenship, the ‘black coats’ organization who opposed the impartial application of the constitutional stipulations, the untidiness concerning the recognition of confessional liberties, as, for instance, the case of the Baptist church in Transylvania.

As an argument, I shall choose to discuss the case of two unpublished documents concerning the situation of the Baptist and other minority confessions in Romania. Doctor Edgar Mullins, President of the “Southern Baptist Theological Seminary” Institute in Louisville (Louisiana), asserted that the Baptist’ situation was “worse then that of the Jews or the Unitarians. About their treatment, the non-conformists asserted that the Baptists prefer the Soviet Russia, ten times more than Romania. In Russia, Baptist missionaries can wander everywhere, distributing Bibles, and converting everyone willing to listen to them. The Soviet Government knows that the Baptist churches cannot be organized according to political aims.”

In turn, Doctor Frederick Griffin asserted, in a sermon delivered in the first Unitarian Church in Philadelphia, that “it is undeniable that the Lutheran Church suffers, like all the similar institutions, from the difficult financial situation in the Romanian state of today. The cause of the financial crisis of this church is not the State, which allots considerable sums to this church, much greater than those allotted by the Hungarian State. (…) The financial crisis of the Lutheran church of the Saxons in Transylvania is due to the fact that its authorities allow themselves a luxury no other church in Romania can afford. (…) The Bishopric does not content itself with the salaries received from the state, but offers its workers bonuses 2-3 times greater than the above-mentioned wages. The same thing happens with the priests. (…). These are, essentially, the causes of the financial crisis of the Lutheran Church of the Transylvanian Saxons, crisis of which, as we have said, the Romanian government cannot be made responsible”.

Beyond these impartial assertions, the author does not forget to mention “the oppressed populations in Tran-sylvania, whose country was taken by force, whose estates are confiscated, whose members are fleeced by the Romanian government and people, of their religious services and their rights established by the treatises”. (16)

All these were everyday realities that were strikingly different from the stipulations of the constitutional document promulgated in 1923. In this respect, the report of the American committee is illustrative in its details:

 

“(…) The Hungarian minorities in Romania enjoy the most complete protective measures, in concordance with the rights that were given them by the minorities’ treatise. (…). The Committee considers that there is a great difference between the Constitution of the country – liberal in many regards – and its application by office workers, a striking difference visible mostly in the border districts. (…). The attempt at “Romanianizing” the minorities by force and at destroying their confessional schools, (…) will cause Romania to lose the confidence of those nationalities that, in other conditions, might have been its friends. (…). The Committee draws attention to the way the Romanian authorities apply the law of citizenship. Undoubtedly, the fundamental right of citizenship is not offered to thousands and thousands of inhabitants justified at receiving it.

The minorities are thus refused, in an arbitrary way, that element of protection that each country owes to its population, and this despite all the solemn guarantees offered to the minorities. During the visit, the Committee has noticed the existence of horrid campaigns of intimidation and brutality against the Jewish citizens of the state, coming from a mixture of intolerance, arrogance and ignorant hatred. (…). According to us, some governmental office workers have made a great mistake in not allowing several thousands of people belonging to the minority groups, to maintain their ethnicity, and by regarding as Romanian those who use another native language (…). We draw the attention of the Government upon the situation of the Hungarian church of Lutheran rite, and we insistently require that it be granted a satisfactory legal situation. (…) Finally, the Committee has noticed the fact that in the adjoined territories there is a considerable contingent of educated citizens who could serve the state most profitably. At present, many of these citizens are in a desperate state because of what seems to be a calculated and determined effort of the majority to remove them from their official functions”. (17)

 

The preliminary report of the American Committee for the Religious Minorities’ Rights was completed with the data contained in de speech held by Mr. Lanthorp Howland, one of the Presidents of the Committee. According to the latter, “the Romanians’ intention to form a national middle class was feeding the anti-Semitic attacks. To underline the application of some laws on a different organic base, Lathorp Howland gave example of the case of the town of Cluj where, in 1917, the population was mainly Hungarian, and the University had been turned into a Romanian university. He also cited that of the Ukrainian minority which was situated, according to the interwar Romanian imaginary, in a dangerous synonymy with the Russians who, in their turn, were equal to Bolsheviks – the main enemy of the Romanian modern state.

Lathorp’s approach is completely placed under the idea of the disagreement between legislation and everyday life reality. His reference to the changes that had occurred in the Ardeal region after 1918 are very categorically against the administrative system of the Romanian government.

 

“(…) The Romanians wish to form a national middle class is, no doubt, worth encouraging. The middle class is formed, in Romania, by Jews. Thus, the problem consists in hindering the Jews’ access in schools, so that Romanians have all the opportunities. (…). The Ukrainians have been the most terrorized of all minorities. Every Russian is a Bolshevik, to the Romanian authorities. Of religious minorities, the Baptists suffer more than any other sect, because they are the only ones who, like the Adventists, have crossed the Carpathians (to make proselytism). (…) The buildings are requisitioned in haste and turned into Romanian schools. The exams are held with Romanian teachers, and the children are asked all sorts of unfair questions, so they can be rejected”. (18)

 

Some objections were formulated when John Howland Lathorp delivered this lecture. A certain A. I. Popescu invoked the principle – still frequently in use today – according to which the misunderstanding of the Romanian case is due to the remote position of our country, compared to the European decision centers. Thus, the myth of the Romanian outskirts within the European space led, inevitably, to the ignorance of the Romanian realities. The author asserted that, in order to understand “the minorities’ situation in our country,” several things had to be made clear, among which one was essential: “Today’s minorities were yesterday oppressors of today’s majority. Subconsciously – I am not saying consciously,– they claim not their treatment as minorities, but their dominant situation from before the war.”

We deal with a kind of approach that does not completely deny the opponents’ assertions, but tries to de-construct their image considered distorted because of their misunderstanding the real situation. His arguments are somewhere at the border between a current propagandistic approach and the real problems:

 

“Mr. A. I. Popescu has objected that the lecturer did not really consider the truly liberal opinion in Romania. (…) Romania,  a remote and unknown country, has been attacked “in toto” for every repressable fact due to a section of the country alone, a section that, unfortunately, has its counterpart in every country (…). To understand the situation of the minorities in our country, several things should be considered, without which a rightful perspective cannot be maintained in judging the situation. There is, first of all, a matter of psychology. (…) You know very well that the Hungarian State instituted, once, the oppression, the “dis-nationalization” and the conversion to other religions of the Romanian majority. (…) We have proportionally shared these properties, in regards to the ethnic minority, so that neither the minorities’ churches, nor the minorities’ schools are as preponderent as they were before the war. (…) It would be ridiculous for you to believe that we – the majority native people of this country – could tolerate such an unfair distribution of goods in favour of some minority languages or cults. (…) I wonder how come your heart did not soften at all, before the war, at the situation of the majority, like you now pity  the “oppressed” minority? Why don’t you send identical commissions of inquiry in Hungaria, Yougoslavia a.s.o.? (…) We do not want to have in the 20th century the religious fights that we avoided in the Middle Ages. (…) If you will understand and respect our point of view, we are ready to discuss with you, point by point, everything that you have estimated as an “injustice”, in your report. And I assure you that we, too, understand those who understand us”. (19)

The minorities’ problem was at the heart of many analyses that sought fair solutions. One such analysis was elaborated in 1930 by the publisher Aurel Ciato, and presented by radio at Lugoj, Timişoara and Cluj, some Transylvanian towns. Aurel Ciato’s project mainly had in view the conflict between Romanians and Hungarians”. (20)

The author insisted on the fact that there had never been conflicts between Romanians and Germans, invoking Daniel Roth’s words from 1848. The latter had underlined the fact that both collectivities had been confronted with “the source of misfortunes” coming from the part of the Hungarians.

Aurel Ciato’s programme in five points was meant to solve the divergencies between Romanians and Hungarians, although it was clearly built to strengthen the Romanian element, mainly in Transylvania. The five clauses contain the following problems.

All those orders that have given priviledges to one nationality or another, unjustly, illegally or to the detriment of the Romanian interests will be annulled;

The Romanians in these territories will be integrally re-entitled to their own rights and, with that end in view, the propor-tionally corrective factor shall be used, according to which – by their number and within the state general interests – the sons of different nationalities will be appointed to public offices and the state benefits will be shared in the same proportions;

At the same time, the Romanian state will have to make up for what was committed or reglected in the past concerning the Romanians, from a cultural and economic point of view. (…);

Another duty of the state will be to help all Romanians who, forced by circumstances, (…) became estranged (…) from their nationality;

The state will take care to further the most suitable means to cultivate the Romanian language”. (21)

Towards the end, the author stresses the common possibilities of the majority and the minority to solve the breaks between them, in order “to satisfy all expectations and, at the same time, to give due content to the Romanian state.” The fundamental problem of the modern, unitary Romanian state was none other than “the re-establishment of the Romanian nation, according to the new conditions and social structure offered by these conditions.”

Aurel Ciato wished Great Romania to solve, as efficiently as possible, the Hungarian problem based upon the “dissensions between Romanians and Hungarians”’ so that it could become “the coorder of a new type of state in central Europe.” How was this ideal to be reached? The author developed a detailed programme according to which the minorities’ rights had to become concordant with “the real conditions of life in Romania and its population.” (22)

The programme in five points made the following references to the minorities’ problems:

We shall rigourously observe that the fair interests and the rightful feeling of the population should not be harmed in any way. (…) The innovations to come should be a progression, an advantage, an amplification and a simplification, compared to the past.

We shall have in view that the general feelings (…) of our statesmen should not be guided by the invention of regionalism, but by the sincere and firm intention to introduce an ideal government that would consolidate the voluntary joining of the solitary parts to the whole in which they are called to take part.

Further on, we shall follow the principle  of easing the minorities’ participation in the life of the state, giving them the possibility to acquire public functions and employing them as an active personnel of the Romanian State (…).

The nationalities will then be attracted by our various preocupations, having thus involved all their interests in the future and the prosperity of our country.

We shall even allow the co-habiting nationalities that were colonized here to play a civilizing part, consenting to their historic mission and, consequently involving them in loyally fulfilling their mission, fair-minded and patriotically – and their great economical and industrial entreprizes will be protected by the state.”

Regarding the use of native languages in the interwar Romanian everyday structures, Aurel Ciato offered the following solution:

“(…) The use of the minorities’ languages in our country will be ensured individually for each citizen, within the limits, in all functions and services where the need will occur. There would be two main sections in this respect:

Measures will be taken that each official worker has the possibility to learn, as quickly and accurately as possible, the official language of the state;

Each official worker will be obliged to know perfectly, besides the state language, the language of the majority population in his region.” (23)

The problem of the minorities –  analysed variably in the interwar Romania – was, in fact,  a European problem. From this point of view, Iuliu Maniu tried an approach concerning the matter in his article “Are minorities still an obstacle to the peace of Europe?”

Iuliu Maniu stressed the improvement of the Transylvanian minorities’ general situation and, finally, he expounded an interesting theory. According to him, “if Ancient Hungary would be restored tomorrow, within its former frontiers, it would not last one single day if universal suffrage would be established and its population would be given the right to vote as they chose.”

According to Iuliu Maniu, his government had respected the two fundamental directions of the minority communities’ liberties. These two directions were:

“Full national freedom for all peoples who live on our territory. Each people should get schooling, independent administration, and the possibility to judge in its own language the persons of its own race;

Full equality and autonomy for all religious groups in the State.” (24)

On the other hand, the Ardealul daily news-paper  underlined in the article entitled “The Hungarian minority in Transylvania” the generally positive status enjoyed by the Hungarian minority in Transylvania. Thus, “all the institutions the Hungarians had had in Transylvania, before the union, had not only remained intact, (…) but also acquired a new impetus (…)” and confessional freedom is a reality.

The constitutional liberties and rights were represented both in teaching, as in what concerned the Hungarian language publications. Last but not least, the Hungarian minority – not the only one in Transylvania – actively participated in the democratic exercise, with a disciplined electorate, while the Romanian population and a large portion of the Hungarians in Transylvania did not have this right before the war. We present, further on, some reference points issued by this journal:

“(…) Unlike the Hungarian state that has not sustained any Romanian school in Transylvania, the Romanian state has not only authorized the Hungarian schools to function, supported by churches, (…) but has also founded, on its account, primary and secondary schools of Hungarian language. In 1930, in Transylvania, there were 1362 primary schools and 57 Hungarian secondary schools, of which 483 primary schools and 5 secondary schools were financed by the state for 1,353,000 Hungarians (…). In 1918, there were hardly, in Transylvania, 4-5 Hungarian daily newspapers; in 1928, their number was 46. In 1928, 577 Hungarian periodicals were published. In 1913, were published 77 different Hungarian books ; in 1926, 400. (…). By the agrarian reform, 45,628 Hungarian peasants were provided with the assistance they needed for their existence, a necessity the Hungarian state had never thought of.

(…) In 1910, the Hungarian Parliament had 286 members, but only 5 Romanian deputies, who represented 3 million Romanians. After the union, 1,351,000 Hungarians were  represented, in the Romanian legislative structures, by 14 deputies and 12 senators, in 1926, and in 1928, by 16 deputies and 6 senators. (…).” (25)

In the interwar Romanian imagination, the feeling of being under seige the Romanian population had had before the war, amplified. The perpetuation of this feeling, in spite of the projects and debates on the theme of the minorities’ problems, has determined the diversification and the exacerbation of the process of Romanianizing the historic provinces, often compared to a process of historic recuperation. (26)

On the other hand, the Romanians in the historic provinces – mainly those in Transylvania – were going through a crisis of identity determined mostly by the irreversible fenomenon of implementing the institutional models of the Old Kingdom in the whole spectre of the daily life in Ardeal, which were more evolved from a cultural, social and economic point of view.

The way of thinking of the Romanians in Ardeal has remained, though, strongly rooted in the world before the war for a long time. The dissolution of the Diligent Counsel, in April 1920, has caused discontentment in Transylvania among the minority as well as among the Romanians who lived with the real feeling of their high position in the Ardeal province, compared to the Old Kingdom.

The image of the foreigner in the traditional Romanian culture can also be seen, with its “cliches”, in the public, private, official and confidential attitudes of Romanians confronted with “the other”. Although Romanians have always co-habited with foreigners and have been connected to many nations, it seems that none of these has ever complied with their expectancies, as “there is no nation Romanians would have come in contact with, that they would not have derided. For every foreigner they had to deal with, Romanians have discovered a negative attribute in comparison with themselves so that “there is no nation they could think of as just, good, honest.” Among the attributes Romanians have bestowed on “the others” in time, we find out that, “the Germans are uggly as hell”, the French enjoy the same “flattering” qualification, the Jews are stingy, the Greeks are scabby goats, the Germans are stupid, the Bulgarians are “with leek”, and we would never end if we tried to list everything uttered against foreigners.” (27)

The Szeckler painter Barabas Miklos mentions the fact that the Bucharestans called the Germans “drunkards”, and they even call one another “German drunkards”, while disputing. (28) The reticence, the skepticism, even the opposition against foreigners, against “the other”, can also be noticed in the conflict between formal and fundamental, or between “Europeanization” and traditionalism, between the new and the old. The confrontation continues, and is extremely complex, even today. (29)

Somehow, the fury of Emil Cioran and his “furious generation” is explainable; it was fed by the sentiment of an acute lack of support and understanding. A new image of the relationship between minority and majority was, thus, born, in the confrontation between those who struggled, who had ideals, clearly defined aims, on one hand, and the others, the apathetic, the indifferent ones. 30)

Great Romania was a complex world that made great efforts to define itself in order to achieve fulfillment. The minorities’ problem was one of the essential points in this process.

The present approach has tried to open up a perspective based upon the cleavage between the modernization process undergone by the Romanian society – a process in full development during the interwar period – and the Romanian social corpus that was hostile to the full achievement of such a process. This confrontation between the new and the old can also be noticed in the analyses and the orientations regarding the solution of the minorities’ problem. Frequently, the above-mentioned confrontation was corroborated with the identity problem generated by the violent replacement of the old world with a totally different one after the war.

 

 

NOTES:

1. “The New Constitution voted by the Constituant National Assembly, in the assemblies of March 26, 27, 1923”, Scrisul Românesc, Craiova, 1923, pp. 1-11.

2. The National History Archives, Bucharest, The Royal House Fund, King Carol II, Personals, dossier no. 33, 1938

3. “The law for the foundation of the political corpus of the NRF, from December 16, 1938, and its functioning regulations, January 5, 1939”. The Juridic library, directed by Mr. I. Lugoşianu, editura Ziarului Universul, 1939, Preface by Armand Călinescu, pp. 9-11.

4. “(…) We called, and received in the RNF numerous ethnical co-habitating minorities. This should not be a surprising fact, but it is also meant to illustrate the political conception and the typical spirit of the Romanians.” (ibidem, p. 7)

5. Armand Călinescu, “România Renaşterii”, discourse held in the Deputies’ Assembly, on June 28, 1938.

6. “The law for the foundation of the political corpus of the NRF, December 16, 1938, and its functioning regulations, January 5, 1939”, p. 6.

7. Armand Călinescu, “Noul Regim…”, pp. 127-128.

8. The official position of the regime of personal authority of King Carol II regarding the minorities was often published in epoch journals. I reproduce below a sample:

“The legislative dispositions taken by the Romanian government to regulate the situation of ethnic minorities within the new Romanian state are bound to give full satisfaction both to the minority elements, as to the majority population. Indeed, by the norms prepared and carried out by the government, the minorities are warranted  the rights they could aspire at, in their double quality of sons of the nations with a solid cultural and religious distinct individuality, and of loyal citizens of the state. (…) The creation of the General Commisariat of the Minorities, depending on the Presidency of the Counsel, is stipulated by the Constitution of February. The Commissariat for Minorities will have in charge – besides the past attributions of the director of minorities in the ministry of Cults, – some special attributes: to supervise the application of the legal dispositions concerning the minorities; to inform the competent authorities, in case of need; to ensure the correct and fair appliance of the above-mentioned legislative and administrative dispositions; finally, to study the diverse problems concerning the life of the state minorities, suggesting the suitable solutions to the competent forums. (…) Romanian minority citizens are free to use their native language in matters of religion, press, personal and commercial relationship, as well as in their authorized reunions and  meetings, according to the law, and according to the basic legislation approved by the competent forum. Minority citizens have the right to create, possess and survey, on their account, charity, religious or social institutions, as well as schools and any other educational institutions, with the right to use their own native language and perform their cults undisturbed. (…) There will be ensured proper facilities so that they can use their native languages within the local law instances, and in localities where a great part of the population is formed by minority citizens. (…) Regarding public education in localities inhabited mostly by minority citizens, the Romanian government give children of these minorities the possibility to be instructed in their own language, within the state primary schools. (…)”, (România, August 11, 1938, year I, no. 71, p. 7, “The Minorities’ Rights in Romania”)

9. I present below some fragments relevant in this respect:

“Blessed be the Lord as, (…), under the wise protection of your Majesty, we can achieve the work of love of Christ, to the benefit of the country and the praise of the Lord.” (Vasarhely, Reformed Bishop, “Royal Generosity for the Minoritary Cults”, România, June 8, 1940, year III, no.728, p. 9)

“(…) Blessed country, happy people, whose destinies are lead with so much fatherly love, with so deep wisdom and knowledge (…)”, (Alfred Alessandrescu, ibidem, p. 15)

10. Dan Smântânescu, Royal Slogans, Bucharest, 1940.

11. Ibidem.

12. “(…) The minority population of Transylvania saw with suspicion the “cultural offensive” of the central government, mainly the nationalization of the Hungarian and German schools. The Hungarians who could not accept the transition from their status of dominant nation to that of a subordinate one, would not resign themselves with the actual existence of a Romanian state on a territory that had belonged to Hungary for such a long time. In 1919, they still hoped in a diplomatic agreement that would annulate the Romanian national revolution. While waiting, they had withdrawn in enclaves of cultural autonomy.” Irina Livezeanu, Culture and Nationalism in Great Romania, 1918-1930, Humanitas, Bucharest, 1998, chapter “The Minorities on the Defensive”, pp. 212-214.

13. See Îndreptarea, year XX, no. 1, January 3, 1938, “The People’s Party and the Minorities’ Problem”.

14. The American Committee on the Rights of Religious Minorities, preliminary report concerning the religious minority rights. Report signed by: Dr. Henry A. Atkinson, general secretary of the Church union for peace, and secretary of the Reverend RA. Mc Gowan Commission, of the Social Action Department of the National Catholic Conference, Reverend John Howland Lathorp, priest of the Unitarian Church in Brooklyn, (…), Reverend Dr. Graham C. Hunter (…) and Jules Jezequel, representative in Paris of the Churches’ Union for Peace. The National Archives in Bucharest, the Fund of the Ministry of National Propaganda, dossier 18, 1927-1928.

15. “(…) The minority teachers wanted to have their own teachers’ organizations. The reformed teachers from the Baia Mare diocese, and the Roman-Catholic ones in Oradea had asked permission to establish their own associations, but were turned down, although the Romanian teachers had had their own associations, during the Hungarian administration. (…)

The Romanian government went up to closing the confessional schools that were called “counter-schools”, institutions that, according to the Romanians, had been established by the Reformed Church only to oppose the new Romanian government, and to employ the Hungarian teachers who had refused to make their oaths to the Romanian administration, being, thus, dismissed.” (Irina Livezeanu, op. cit., p. 213-219).

16. Dr. Edgar Mullins, President of the “Southern Baptist Theological Seminary” Institute in Louisville, and Dr. Frederick R. Griffin-preach, Conference delivered at the “First Unitary Church in Philadelphia; apud the Record newspaper, the National History Archives in Bucharest, the  Fund of the National Propaganda, dossier no. 5

17. Ibidem.

18. Notes taken at the Conference of Mr. John Howland Lathorp, held at the Neighborhood Club, 104 Clark Street, Brooklyn Heights, on December 14, 1927; the Fund of the Ministry of the National Propaganda, dossier no 18, 1927-1928.

19. Ibidem.

20. The National Archives in Bucharest, the Fund of the Ministry of National Propaganda, dossier 125, 1928-1941, The Minoritary Problem. With a preface explaining the dispute between Hungarians and Romanians, conference held in Lugoj, Timişoara and Cluj, by Aurel Ciato, publicist, Cluj, 1930.

21. Ibidem.

22. “(…) We shall unconditionally have in view our minorities, and we shall follow the example of America, that has managed to create that blend of immigrants of various nations into a single nation, changing the civilization accumulated there into a special American culture, allowing, at the same time, all nationalities to preserve their distinct mother language.” (Ibidem, p. 54)

23. Ibidem, pp. 56-63.

24. The article of His Excellency Mr. Iuliu Maniu, Prime Minister of Romania, the National Archives of Bucharest, The Fund of the Ministry of National Propaganda, dossier no. 8.

25. The National History Archives in Bucharest, the Vasile Stoica Fund, dossier 168, sequence from Ardealul, “The Hungarian Minority in Transylvania”.

26. “(…) The Transylvanian purists saw the meanness, the lack of discipline and the mizery of bureaucracy, as a burden of the Balcanic Romania, refusing settle down to it (…) it can be felt, yet, that the political leaders of the Ardeal region restlessly waited for the moment when the kingdom would catch up with the more civilized Transylvania. (…) Accustomed with its own political life, different than the one of the rest of Romania, by virtue of its intelectual culture, of its habits and its economical interests, the Ardeal region waited for a special treatment from the part of the Old Kingdom. (…) The dissatisfaction was led by the continous state of siege-intensified, by the arrests, the numerous expulsions, and by the closing of many schools where the personnel had refused to make their oath to the state. Finally, the living had become more and more expensive, as a consequense of the onerouse affairs concluded by the merchants coming to Transylvania from Bucharest.” (Irina Livezeanu, op. cit., p. 163, 194)

27. Andrei Oişteanu, “The Image of the Foreigner in the Traditional Romanian Culture”, “22”, no. 23, p. 12.

28. Andrei Verres, “Painter Barabas and the Romanians”, the Romanian Academy, Memoirs of the Literary Section, series III, vol. IV, MEM 8, Cultura Naţională, Bucharest, 1930, p. 381.

29. Adrian Marino, For Europe. The Integration of Romania. Cultural and Idelogical Aspects, Polirom, Yassy, 1995.

30. The theme is extremely vast from a bibliographical point of view. In sustaining it, I have selected two fragments from a diary and an interwar novel:

“(…) These people know not to behave themselves, to respect one another or their superiors (…). When I return from abroad, I am impressed by the beggars in the streets, the gipsies, the Gipsy quarters, by the lack of urbanity from the part of the inhabitants. (…). I am irritated with the poverty of those who live in towns, of the many, of the peasants, by the lack of hygiene, of civilization, despite all the qualities of our people.” Petru Comarnescu, Diary, 1931-1937, The European Institute, Yassy, 1994, p. 61.

“(…) hygiene, sweet air, courage – this is what I need, this is what we, the young ones, need. (…) other towns, other generations, other men – that is what we need. If we could pull down the whole Bucharest, and if I only could build instead a city of the sun, a young city, white, virily, pure! A town without procurers, without old people – mostly without old people. Where are the old, there are rancour, venom, bitterness, cowardice, immorality. Only the children and the old are vicious, only they can practice the incest, for instance. (…). Health, courage, virility – instead of vice and cowardice!” Mircea Eliade, The Return From Heavens, Rum Irina, Bucharest, 1992, p. 171.